IS FRACKING THE WAY FORWARD?
By Sathujan Manmatharajah
Following the much called for temporary ban on fracking operations taking place in the UK at the start of November 2019, now is a better time than ever to evaluate the benefits and costs of this process. In order to achieve this, we must consider regions in which fracking has proved to be successful and assessing whether this can be possible on a large scale.
Hydraulic Fracking involves drilling between two and three kilometres into the ground where shale rock is present. This type of rock is formed when layers of mud slowly compress on organic matter over millions of years, reaching high temperatures of 100°C to form gas. Once the ground has been drilled to the required depth, fracking can be used to access all the gases at that depth horizontally, thus only one well needs to be dug for a specific site. This makes the process cost effective. Then a mixture of 90% water, 9.5% sand and 0.5% other chemicals is pumped at a high pressure into this rock, creating fissures (cracks) in the porous rock which then release the shale gases such as methane, which have been trapped inside these bubbles. The sand and other chemicals ensure that these fissures do not close, allowing the maximum volume of gas to be collected.
The North American region has seen a lot of benefits due to this process. In a time where fossil fuel resources are dwindling, the use of hydraulic fracking allows us to explore previously unreachable sources of fuel, thus providing some answers to the question of how we will manage to cope with our rising population and fuel consumption. In fact, it has given the US and Canada gas insurance for the next 100 years. Fracking has also led to economic benefits for the region. In the US, gas bills dropped by $13 billion dollars a year between 2007 and 2013, to a point where the price of natural gas in 2013 was 43% less than what it would have been had fracking not been so widespread. When compared to the extraction of other fossil fuels such as coal, it also releases 50% less CO₂. Fracking has clearly proved to be instrumental here, showcasing the potential for growth and for sustaining a population efficiently.
However, the inevitable cause for the controversy surrounding the practice is due to its effects on the environment, many of which remain largely uncertain due to how new the process is. Even though fracking produces half the CO₂ emission as coal extraction, about 4% of extracted methane from fracking escapes into the atmosphere. Methane is about 25 times more harmful to the atmosphere than CO₂, having a greater ability to trap infrared radiation. This means that it is still leading to air pollution and the enhanced greenhouse effect. On top of this, the process requires a lot of water, and questions have been raised as to whether so many resources should be used on a practice which is still experimental in some areas such as the UK. The technique also has presented a risk of increasing the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes, caused by the injection of fluids at high pressure into underground rocks and faults. In August of this year, a fracking site in Lancashire operated by ‘Cuadrilla Resources’ experienced a 2.9 magnitude earthquake, which lead to operations there being halted. By law, fracking must be halted for 18 hours after an earthquake of magnitude 0.5 or higher on the Richter scale. This risk can be detrimental to the livelihoods of those in nearby communities and disrupt the wildlife in the area. Another risk is that some of the chemicals in the mixture that is passed into the rock can be carcinogenic, thus posing a risk to the health of locals and to the plant and animal life if it escapes. The process also still extracts fossil fuels. With such an urgent need for a shift towards renewable and eco-friendly energy, for some, fracking only provides a temporary response.
In the UK, initial estimates in 2013 suggested that the Bowland Shale Formation held enough natural gas to support the UK for 50 years. This increased certainty, along with the potential reduction in gas prices and an increase in jobs made the venture into the use of this technique promising, supported by the evidence of what had happened in the US. However, in 2019, a study conducted by the University of Nottingham and BGS claimed that there was less than ten years’ worth of gas available. This, along with an increase in earthquake frequency in August of 2019 and growing opposition from locals and environmental activists, led to a moratorium being placed on the 1st of November 2019 (which is the second suspension of operations following one in 2011), with the Secretary of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Andrea Leadsom, stating that the government will, “Follow the science,” and will keep the moratorium in place, “Unless and until we can be absolutely certain,” that Fracking is safe.
Whilst its economic benefits are visible, its use in the UK is inefficient and even unnecessary, thus hydraulic fracking is unlikely to be able to provide the long-term answer to the question of how we will sustain our society.
Sources:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-fracking
https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2015/03/23/the-economic-benefits-of-fracking/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50267454
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/what-is-fracking.php