Saturday, 11 January 2014

Balancing the Negatives and Positives

By now I've learnt that if there's one thing can be unanimously agreed upon in the woolly world of fracking, its that nothing can be agreed upon! From methane contamination to water-resource exploitation to the economic implications, every subject in the ever expanding fracking debate is subject to intense controversy. This includes, rightly and often wrongly, intense media coverage that can often include a peppering of bias from both anti-fracking campaigners and energy companies alike. The contention surrounding many of the issues in the fracking debate is continued into the scientific community as well, with many studies showing different conclusions and results that have provided the platform for the widespread and ever expanding fracking boom. In the same breath many scientific papers have condemned fracking, due to the potential environmental implications, with a particular nod to biodiversity threats.

With reference to my previous post on the newly confirmed future of fracking in the UK, it is now more apparent than ever that shale gas is likely to become a major player in global economies. The UK, and many other countries - e.g. Australia, China, Argentina- are following in the footsteps of the USA. Many people would say 'and why not?!?' With news of energy bills for US  citizens slashed by a third and increased economic upturn, it appears as if everyone is winning. Furthermore, as it currently, stands the environmental cost of fracking to the US seems to be largely contained to isolated portions of the country and is often associated with human error and failures in operational management.  But still, the potential for environmental damage has caused significant  concerns for other countries, including France and Germany, have opted out of the 'in vogue' unconventional energy resource.

The great disparities between national opinion on hydraulic fracturing is clearly displayed in this excerpt taken from the coalition contract under the New (2017) German Government under Chancellor Angela Merkel says it all:

'According to available studies on its environmental relevance, the fracking technology in unconventional natural gas production - particularly in shale gas production - is a technology with enormous potential risks. The effects on humans, nature and the environment are scientifically not yet sufficiently clarified. Drinking water and health have absolute priority for us.

We reject the use of environmentally toxic substances in the application of fracking technology for exploration and extraction of unconventional natural gas deposits. A request for approval can only be decided upon when the necessary data basis for evaluation exists and is clarified beyond doubt that any adverse change in water quality can be ruled out (precautionary principle of the Water Resources Act). The disposal of flowback from fracking operations with the use environmentally toxic chemicals in injection wells is currently not justifiable due to lack of knowledge of the risks involved.'

Whether we like it  or not, fracking is here in the UK for the foreseeable future. And whether greedy politicians want to hear it or not, unless there is rigorous management of fracking operations there could be large scale negative and damaging environmental impacts. The risks associated with fracking, including methane groundwater contamination, come primarily from poor borehole maintenance, this is obvious in the case of the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania, USA (http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/991/art%253A10.1007%252Fs13202-013-0083-9.pdf?auth66=1389643114_d49a8af15ff03fc1f81f7ad7b2798461&ext=.pdf). There is a clear necessity for improvements in the management and monitoring of hydraulic fracturing operations. The ideal monitoring methodology requires inexpensive, continuous and passive technologies that will ensure borehole integrity. This will include technologies at the forefront geoengineering, including 4D Vertical Seismic Profiling and Cross Well Imaging, allowing critical and appropriate site-specific monitoring (http://www.fondriest.com/news/a-glance-at-the-monitoring-tech-beneath-hydraulic-fracturing-operations.htm)

If the standards set in place by David Cameron's Conservative Government can be fulfilled, there are still impacts on a local scale to be considered, including increased traffic, habitat fragmentation and localised freshwater pollution. After Michael Fallon, MP and Minister of State for Energy was quoted as saying this: 'We are going to see how thick their rectory walls are, whether they like the flaring at the end of the drive!’ about countryside dwellers neighbouring fracking sites... who is going to want fracking in their back garden???? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23565258)

The final precautionary message which I will try to preach, is that in the race for 'energy efficiency' the UK and the most of the world have forgotten about the quest for renewable, clean energy resources...after all shale gas, although having a smaller carbon-footprint than coal, is still a non-renewable, fossil fuel that will exacerbate global warming. This is further enhanced by the effects of fugitive emissions, whereby methane leaks into the atmosphere. (http://www.ciwem.org.uk/policy-and-international/policy-position-statements/hydraulic-fracturing-%28fracking%29-of-shale-in-the-uk.aspx)

No comments:

Post a Comment