Andrew Wade, senior reporter
This week saw the Scottish government implement a total ban on hydraulic fracturing – or fracking – instigating a bunfight of Bake Off proportions in The Engineer’s comments section.
One critic of the decision suggested England should stop supplying electricity to its northerly neighbour (he would do well to take a look at energy flows around the UK and Scotland’s progress towards 100 per cent renewables). Others accused the Scots of Nimbyism, suggesting the 60,000 respondents to the public consultation – who were virtually unanimous in their opposition to fracking – simply didn’t want the process taking place on their doorstep.
Considering the potential environmental and health impacts associated with fracking, the cries of Nimbyism seem a little unfair. It’s a term that’s long been associated with onshore wind, with many decrying the turbines as eyesores on the landscape, and others even claiming adverse health effects caused by living in proximity to wind farms. The latter has been largely chalked up to the nocebo effect (think placebo in reverse), whereby negative physiological symptoms can be brought on by psychological means. As for turbines being eyesores, that’s one for the philosophers. I have no issue with them aesthetically and take a degree of pleasure from knowing they help keep the lights on. Others have entirely different opinions, and are quite entitled to them.
Fracking, however, is a different kettle of fish. While the evidence so far is not conclusive, there are widespread concerns in the US that fracking has led to contamination of groundwater. In December, the Environmental Protection Agency published its long-awaited report on fracking, concluding that “hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources in the United States under some circumstances.”
The EPA tempered its findings by declaring there were gaps and uncertainties in the data, and that “it was not possible to fully characterise the severity of impacts”. Nonetheless, this represented the largest ever investigation into the effects of fracking in the US, and confirmed – to some degree – the anecdotal evidence of the past decade suggesting fracking can contaminate drinking water.
Now, objecting to wind turbines because they spoil your view of the surrounding dales is one thing. Objecting to fracking due its association with the contamination of drinking water is quite another. Supporters of fracking claim that it can be done safely and that the cases in the US where contamination has occurred are the result of bad practice and rogue operators. While this may well be true, I imagine it’s scant consolation for those who can no longer drink from their taps. And it would not exactly fill me with confidence if the trucks were rolling in to frack in my backyard. Rogue operators in the energy sector are not entirely unheard of. Corners sometimes get cut in pursuit of profit.
At the very least, the people of Scotland have the right to be cautious. The shale gas located there isn’t going anywhere, and at any rate is estimated to be relatively limited in comparison with reserves south of the border, which are due to be explored in the very near future.
Aside from the immediate threat to local environments and the consequential health effects, there are of course other reasons to be skeptical of fracking. Even if the extraction process was somehow proven to be entirely safe, its fruits are anything but. Fracking releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas significantly more harmful to climate change than carbon dioxide over the short term. A Harvard study from last year showed that US methane emissions increased by more than 30 per cent over the 2002–2014 period, a rise attributed by many to the expansion of the shale gas industry.
While some – including the UK government – see fracking as key to the UK’s future energy security, efforts would be better spent investing in renewables to deliver an entirely green future. The combined solar, wind, hydro and tidal resources of this country are staggering. Managed correctly, and integrated with pumped hydro storage (which The Engineer will be looking at in an upcoming issue) and battery resources, the UK can build an energy system that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels. It won’t be as easy as pumping high-pressure water and chemicals into the ground, but it’s a much more exciting engineering challenge. And the payoff will be immense. Let the bunfight commence.
Guys, I really do have to step in here and object to a degree – the EPA ruling was changed to include the process of well drilling as a ‘fracking process’ – this is the only part of the well lifecycle that could affect the water table, as would any conventional well – the frac process itself (which is independent to drilling completely) happens so far below the surface that it’s impossible to affect the water table. Some people also seem to be getting confused betwen to what the water table and an aquifer — more reading needed! Also, the picture accompanying the comment “Fracking has scarred the landscape in some parts of the US” is NOT a frac pad or series of frac pads – as I understand, this picture has been used by frac opponents ad nauseam and debunked many times. I’d expect more from a publication aimed at the engineering community.
If fracking doesn’t go wrong perhaps you can explain why in USA and Australia there are many examples of gas escaping (thro taps!!) + the process in turn devalues houses, property and land!! C
Carol, in the movie “Gasland” they shoot flaming water coming out of the tap. This had been going on for years and was due to natural methane in the water table. It was a gross misrepresentation.
If, by some strange means, gas can escape from the rock that is being fractured deep underground and overlain by impermeable strata, why is it not also escaping from conventional gas wells?
Agree Neil
Its adequate, quality cementing of the casing sleeve around the well bore that passes through the aquifers that protects the water supply. Not fraccing itself which takes place inside the deeper compressed shale where there is no water.
Frac now, take out all the shale gas/shale oil. Contribute massively to the energy independence of Great Britain (or should I say England?), In the meantime develop the renewables such that they can be used efficiently without the need for ridiculous subsidies (they are not yet ready), then fill in the frac drill holes post energy extraction and build the optimised renewables fields on the exploited fracced land. Gosh that sounds like a sensible strategic energy plan for the near and longer term future of these islands.
No.. Think North Sea gas.. ask yr family who benefitted? Also if water gets contaminated it cannot be reversed. Do your research.. business + Local Authorities are the beneficiaries! Or are they doing it just so that yr bills are low? I don’t think so….
Perhaps people should be invited to put their money where heir mouth is.
Each household should be asked where they want their (low carbon) energy to come from in a few years time.
If they vote for Solar energy, they would be charged 32p.Kwh
If they vote for wood chips, their bill would go up by 50%
If they vote for Off shore wind, their bill would go up by 25%
If they vote for land based windmills, their bill would go down by small margin.
If they vote for fracked Methane, their bill would go down by more.
If they don’t vote, that would be taken as no objection to ant fuel and they would be given a average price.
Agreed, but if they don’t vote they get disconnected!
Ian,
What happened last time we had a referendum. Joe public dumped us out of the EU (right or wrong). Yes, and many who woke up next day having made a protest vote, couldn’t believe what had happended, just because hundreds of thousands of numpties just like themselves had done exactly the same.
With north sea oil diminishing, its economic madness for us in Scotland to ban fracking. I would put this scare mongering on the same level as the GM protests of a few years ago, which I think – correct me if I’m wrong, has been successfully debunked too.
The madness not to develop nuclear more power also seems to be unrealistic, and with the closure of coal fired stations here, I’d love to learn more about the source of base load energy supply here. Believe it or not, north of the border, we do get lovely still weather and wind is obviously not base load reliability we need. Maybe The Engineer may like to report on these subjects too.
I’m with Neil. Really disappointed a reality based publication has been infiltrated by the FoE. The photo is an absolute lie
Another cherry pick was the methane “study”. Science, just like climate science for example, is the preponderance of data. So Andrew chose one study over a much larger study from NOAA, that found the exact opposite.
I mean scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association are literally rocket scientists. But why quote them when you can find a narrow academic study that says the opposite
Andrew should be more at home working for Friends of the Earth. They’re always hiring!
fracking, short-term, somewhat risky, £1 tr-worth – but over how long?
Tidal lagoons initially (Swansea-North Devon) including caissons, sliding gates, barrage-generation, accessible wind-power, shipping access, protecting Gloucestershire, protecting Bridgwater, protecting London’s Thames Valley, YES, LONDON! – more worth MUCH MORE over very much longer..
So, still not sure about fracking, seems the lighter than water oil and gas mix COULD rise thru fissures created..
What about having a go at managing demand down by solar-warming the earth under buildings, increasing natural ventilation, ULTRA-INSULATION? Why not The Engineer publishing some simple details on use of polystyrene below-ground vertical external insulation as we did over 30 years ago (up as far as planters). Above that – a screw-gun and multi-foils with non-rot vertical timber cladding.
Extraction cannot take place without the well drilling, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to include it in the overall ‘fracking process’.
As shale gas, water and chemicals are piped back through the water table, to say that it is impossible for the frack process to affect the water table is, quite frankly, ludicrous. In a perfect world, where pipes don’t leak and all energy companies act in good faith, fracking could perhaps be carried out safely. However, I think we can probably both agree that we do not live in a perfect world.
The carbon needs to stay in the ground. When the price of fuel goes up, less will be used. We still light roads with nobody on them at night, and buy simple resistive lightbulbs. And we buy huge 2 ton 4 wheel drive cars we don’t need. Fuel is still too cheap.
How strange it is to see the critics of fossil fuels use them every day. Let them demonstrate their principled and scientifically unfounded objection to fossil fuels by refusing to accept anything involving fossil fuel use.
No more daily deliveries from anywhere, no more electricity unless you have your own solar cells thus no electricity at night. No more gas central heating or flights to holiday destinations. No more plastics or any sort other than organic based, no more fertiliser or cement. No more roads or railways no more reliable shipping other than nuclear powered vessels (mostly armed naval ships). No more Facebook or internet no more Coronation St or East Enders (there are some positives).
Let the critics demonstrate they are serious in wanting to ban all fossil fuels by refusing to use any fossil fuels. I give them two days before they adopt a slightly more sensible attitude.
You seem to be confusing fossil fuels with hydrocarbon fuels. Fossil fuels can be replaced by their ‘green’ biofuel alternative. Without taking action, all the fossil fuel reserves will be used up because it is a limited resource.
I won’t mention the effects of increased CO2 levels and it’s effect on the environment.
Martin, have you asked the low wage families and the poor in our society, if they think energy is too cheap…/?
Its extraordinary why we should be having a fuss about fracking now, considering its a decades old technology that has been extensively used since the mid 40’s.
Having said that, perhaps Scotland can show us all the way with renewables, they certainly have the wind and the tides – maybe not the sun, can you generate from rain?
Yes – it is called hydro-electricity …..
While the NOAA study attributed the majority of methane increases to microbial sources, it by no means exonerated fracking.
NOAA research scientist and study co-author Lori Bruhwiler: “Our study shows that leaks from oil and gas activities around the world are responsible for a lot more methane than we thought.”
Also, I see you failed to address the EPA study.
I think you’ll find that the good people at the NOAA are oceanic and atmospheric scientists, as the name suggests. You are perhaps confusing them with NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Just because another country can make a failure of a process we already undertake safely why should we be too concerned ? please follow this link and research it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/10233955/The-town-where-a-form-of-fracking-is-already-happening.html
Point of Note – Wytch Farm is not actually ‘Fracked’ as such it uses water injection. Oil being lighter than water is displaced by the injection of water into the strata. This is used substantially in offshore scenarios too, where wells are close to end of life to extend production. or where well pressure is too low to bring the hydrocarbon to the surface.
It’s quite costly as separators have to be used to separate the recovered parts of the production however the water can be re-used and re-injected. eventually however all that is recieved is water, obviously as the oil is depleted.
Our domestically produced gas should allow us to modulate our gas powered electricity around a higher potential amount of renewables to make it all work seamlessly, switching is more efficient than storage.
Unfortunately our domestically produce natural gas is running out and hence we import from elsewhere including the Russian Federation!
From the bottom of the Telegraph article: Update: Since this article was first posted it has been amended to make clear that the technology used at Wytch Farm is a form of fracking called “water injection”, also known as “water flooding”. This is not the same as “hydraulic fracking”. We are happy to make this clear.
That was a silly article & any even sillier response.
Hydraulic fracturing is not an ongoing thing. Wytch Farm was hydraulically fracced in the 1970s/ 1980s, not recently. There is water flooding nowadays, but that is not fraccing nor even a “form of fraccing”.
Having worked directly in drilling operations for 10 years I would be extremely uncomfortable with any drilling operations going on in the central belt [of Scotland]. Oil companies, drilling contractors, and service companies are experts in box ticking. The mantra of safety is a cover-your-arse operation where if the correct procedures have been followed then your work is done.
It would be nice if procedures could be written that cover every eventuality but that is simply not possible. I’ve seen a well drilled into a reservoir with an ROV completely entangled in the BOP pod lines. There’s nothing specifically forbidding that set of circumstances so if you can get a good pressure test it’s safe enough.
Also, where people say there’s no chance of contamination, I’m not sure how that can be the guaranteed. If you fracture a cap rock then the gas oil and water will migrate to the surface unless there is another cap rock somewhere above. With fracking, as far as I can tell, if you fracture the shale and there is no cap rock then there is nothing to stop the deposits and drilling fluid chemicals from migrating to the surface.
Plenty of things that are supposed to be impossible have happened after drilling. It was supposed to be impossible for reservoir depletion to cause the seabed level to start dropping so people were very surprised when the Ekofisk platform started sinking.
My last question is, what’s the rush? The gas has been there millions of years so what’s the problem with waiting another 10 years to let the English try it out to see if it’s safe.
Yes – the Scots have hydroelectric generation as well!
Having mountains is a big help with hydro.
No electricity at night with solar PV’s? Andrew, please publish some more articles about energy storage, smart-grid and energy-mobility systems, oh ans different types of solar energy, besides PV, as some people do not get it, yet, on how renewable, clean energy works.
Let me provide some help in advance:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/how-energy-storage-works#.WdfwdzBrzIU
Has anyone looked at the Australian experience? One state, Queensland, is extensively fracked, using presumably state of the art (Best practice, they claim) processes, and the results are uniformly disastrous, primarily disruption of the aquifer, contamination of ground water (and air) and lowering of the water table.
Even restricting fracking wells to 2km from residences doesn’t address the health problems.
That is why it is banned in both New South Wales and Victoria – we can see the damage that was done in Queensland. And it will be there for ever. The environment effects, which will last long after the gas is extracted, are reason alone to ban this practise.
it is particularly interesting for those of us NOT involved in/aware/knowledgeable/skilled in these ‘arts’ to read the reasoned (and let us be fair, some un-reasoned) points made by those who obviously are. I value greatly the comments of Engineers who clearly know well what they are talking about: even if their interpretation(s) may be different. My only concern is that there appears an approach of the ‘take my view: and if you don’t, I’ll stuff it down your throat’ that is confrontational, irrational, adversarial, and aggressive. What a pity that passions can run so high that we forget our professional status. If we do?
Re: Ron Brunswicks Comments. Isn’t it better to benefit from someone elses mistakes than to make your own with untold environment consequencies. Wouldn’t it be good for this debate, for the editor to look up what happened in Australia with official investigation finding, to be posted at a later date?
As a relative expert, I work in the oil and gas industry although not directly with fracking but in well design and control. Here’s some useful points.
All wells (conventional or fracked) have several layers of casing and tubing between the produced hydrocarbons and the surrounding rock structures.
No oil or gas company (producer) wants the Hydrocarbons to leak beyond the well, if for no other reason than the loss of revenue.
Oil and Gas equipment and wells are designed to strict standards as with any other industry (API 17 series, and ISO 13628 among others).
Before getting anywhere near the hydrocarbon reserve the well is secure and cased with steel tubing which is cemented in place (this part is where possibility of aquifer contamination may take place).
Prior to any production taking place wells are pressure tested to ensure containment of the system. (Forget the aquifer, we don’t want a ‘wild well’ leaking to surface or subsurface (loss of revenue again and obvious HSSE risk)).
Many readers will find the following links particularly useful. Obviously in a fractured well ‘fracking’ the completion includes the injection of high pressure fluid with equivalent to micro beads embedded. The fluid hydraulically fractures the strata to create pathways to the completion string and the micro beads hold the fractures open in a permanent manner.
http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=333&c_id=23
http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=326&c_id=23
http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=317&c_id=23
http://www.rigzone.com/training/howitworks.asp
Not much common sense going around is there. It matters little what the casing is like as it is not a straw moving around in a liquid to suck up the last drops. The ground has to be injected with a hydraulic mass . Loss of revenue from this system is not a key issue as there is no boundary layer around the fracking area and no one knows how far the hydraulic fluid will actually penetrate with absolute certainty. You will get loss of fluids and gasses and hence revenue anyhow, due to the nature of the operation.
There are many products with exacting tolerances done to HSSE standards, however just because the equipment has these standards does not mean the application of that equipment will not have bad consequences.
This is the type of muddy thinking that goes into reasons for fracking.
Let’s start from the perspective of true engineers and look for worst case scenarios, not from “it will be alright we don’t need to think”.
Show me the data.
All points which have been debunked many, many times. Stop getting your information from Josh Fox and the likes and go and see a Frac pad for yourself.
There are some interesting facts coming out – though some do not are not well substantiated. My comment about NIMBYism was relating to the importation of gas produced by fracking; it was not meant to be pejorative – as many times having something in your backyard is wrong.
I liked the idea of having articles on energy storage – and particularly thermal energy storage – large and small (seasonal or diurnal, domestic or industrial).
In case you wanted more data about the “wonderful” benefits of fracking, here is another study proving nobody should want it, in their backyard, somebody else’s backyard or the global backyard.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/25/pollutants-from-fracking-could-pose-health-risk-to-children-warn-researchers
In what regards the infallibility of O&G extraction systems, there is no such thing, and there is nothing corporate finance can do about it (per the statement above that technology is designed and made failure-proof, since management wants to protect its financial performance). Same for all human artifacts. From minor to major, there are leaks all the time in the O&G industry. See data on pipeline incidents, for example:
https://hip.phmsa.dot.gov/analyticsSOAP/saw.dll?Portalpages