Well, this is going to be my last blog post ...sob. I have to admit when I started this blog, I was definitely a little apprehensive. But, I can say with pride, that I am a blogging-convert and have loved the experience writing for GEOG3057. Through this blog I feel that I have thoroughly disected the world of fracking and it has allowed me to come up with some informed opinions on the matter!
The widespread mood of the general UK public regarding fracking is 'not in my back garden'. Do people want the economic benefits? yes. Do people want the creation of jobs? yes. But many people, myself included, would be horrified to find fracking occurring in their local area.
I think that in order to improve the public's confidence in hydraulic fracturing more information needs to be readily available about the life-cycle of hydraulic fracturing. A common misconception is that once drilling is in operation, it will never stop... and this is simply not the case. The lifetime of a typical well is only 4 years, making it by no means a permanent fixture.
The key factor is what happens after drilling has ceased. The immediate focus should be the restoration of the landscape, habitats and waterways to their pre-fracking condition. If this were the case then hydraulic fracturing could be managed in a way that mitigates environmental damage. Although I do concede that there would be localised short-term disruption.
The situation has not been helped by the constant bombardment of claim and counter-claim, from both anti-fracking campaigners and pro-frackers alike. Its no wonder that the public are confused! This problem, I believe stems from the lack of scientific literature on the subject. This is probably not so surprising, seen as this is a relatively new technology that has expanded exponentially over the past decade. But with fracking now at the forefront of everyone's attention- and everyone's news papers- it is fast becoming a fundamental branch of geological, environmental and engineering science.
My personal opinion is that it is too late for feeble attempts of protestation against fracking...the wheels are already in motion for fracking to become the biggest thing to happen to the UK since the discovery of oil and gas deposits in the North Sea. All that we scientists can hope to do is to try and mitigate any damaging effects of fracking to the environment. The Government has the responsibility of ensuring that all drilling operations adhere to the strictest codes of conduct and always operate to the code of best practice.
Maybe all fracking needs to do is sack its PR?!?
Monday, 13 January 2014
Sunday, 12 January 2014
Fracking and Carbon Sequestration: a Beautiful Future Together???
Anthropogenic combustion of fossil fuels has led to an excess of atmospheric carbon dioxide... in order to counteract this, and maintain the delicate equilibrium, the technique of Carbon Capture Sequestration - or CCS - has been developed. CO2 is captured at power plants and transported as a supercritical fluid through pipelines to offshore/onshore geo-sequestration sites. These are commonly depleted oil and gas fields or saline aquifers, acting as a porous reservoir rock; the site is then capped by an impermeable cap-rock that prevents the migration of the CO2... and Bob's your Uncle- 1000's tonnes of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere and stored underground.
Image showing the geological storage options for CO2; number 5 applies to us frackers.
Image URL: http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/BCOG/images/CCScartoon.jpg
For more information visit the CCSA site: http://www.ccsassociation.org/
The even better news is the techniques of hydraulic fracturing and carbon capture sequestration could be combined in future exploits. This works through fracturing of the shale by pumping supercritcal CO2 into the shale formation, instead of using the standard fracking fluid- a water, propant and chemical additive mixture. Furthermore, the shale has a higher affinity for carbon dioxide than it does for methane; this means that the shale will preferentially take up CO2 and release CH4. This seems like a win-win situation: more methane can be extracted and a greenhouse gas is stored in its place.
New research published by Tsuyoshi Ishida (http://geo.kumst.kyoto-u.ac.jp/lab/member/Ishida_t/English.htm) from the Department of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Kyoto University, entitled 'Acoustic Emission Monitoring of Hydraulic Fracturing Laboratory Experimentwith Supercritical and Liquid CO2,' further highlights the advantages of combining the techniques. Ishida's team found that using carbon dioxide in its supercritical form leads to the production of a 3-dimensional fracture network that greatly increases shale-gas extraction (this is opposed to a typical 2-dimensional fracture network seen in shale fractured with water. It is though this difference is caused by the low viscosity of supercritical CO2, which has 1/10 the viscosity of water. The report is unfortunately unavailable online, but can be viewed through the Wiley Library at (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052788/abstract;jsessionid=FC83C33F80EA526FEC11FE0553B6A4D2.f01t03)
A report conducted by the US Department of Energy, in 2006, entitled 'Geologic Storage Options and Capacities for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership' is available at the following link: (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/06/carbon-seq/Tech%20Session%20147.pdf). In this report, shale formations which have been hydraulically fractured were found to be the second most effective way of storing CO2.; fractured shale beds were designated to be able to hold 45 gigatonnes. In first place were the saline aquifers with a slightly embarrassingly high 470 gigatonnes.
However, when it comes to fracking, nothing is ever that plain cut! In a new research paper by T.R Elliot and M.A Celia,of Princeton University entitled 'Potential Restrictions for CO2 Sequestration Sites Due to Shale and Tight Gas Production' (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2040015), it is revealed that fracking may actually have detrimental effects for the geo-sequestration of carbon dioxide. This report concluded that there is commonly a large overlap between sites used for fracking and optimal CCS sites. This is because, under normal circumstances, a shale bed overlying a porous reservoir rock will act an impermeable cap rock, preventing migration of a carbon dioxide plume. However, if the cap- rock has been fractured,it could provide pathways for CO2 to leak back into the atmosphere. The studies shocking conclusion was that up to 80% of the potential on-shore CCS sites in the USA could become redundant due to hydraulic fracturing operations.
If the technologies surrounding CCS can be refined to restrict the migration of carbon dioxide through fractured shale beds, this may have massive implications for fracking all over the globe. Not only will the yield of shale-gas increase but there could be a net storage of CO2. Furthermore, if carbon dioxide were to be used in place of water, this may alleviate the issues associated with the exploitation of local water resources and it would remove the need for the use of harmful chemical additives from frackwater. To me, this seems like the perfect PR for the government to use in a bid to increase public support for fracking.... so watch this space and get ready to hear a lot about CCS!!
Image showing the geological storage options for CO2; number 5 applies to us frackers.
Image URL: http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/BCOG/images/CCScartoon.jpg
For more information visit the CCSA site: http://www.ccsassociation.org/
The even better news is the techniques of hydraulic fracturing and carbon capture sequestration could be combined in future exploits. This works through fracturing of the shale by pumping supercritcal CO2 into the shale formation, instead of using the standard fracking fluid- a water, propant and chemical additive mixture. Furthermore, the shale has a higher affinity for carbon dioxide than it does for methane; this means that the shale will preferentially take up CO2 and release CH4. This seems like a win-win situation: more methane can be extracted and a greenhouse gas is stored in its place.
New research published by Tsuyoshi Ishida (http://geo.kumst.kyoto-u.ac.jp/lab/member/Ishida_t/English.htm) from the Department of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Kyoto University, entitled 'Acoustic Emission Monitoring of Hydraulic Fracturing Laboratory Experimentwith Supercritical and Liquid CO2,' further highlights the advantages of combining the techniques. Ishida's team found that using carbon dioxide in its supercritical form leads to the production of a 3-dimensional fracture network that greatly increases shale-gas extraction (this is opposed to a typical 2-dimensional fracture network seen in shale fractured with water. It is though this difference is caused by the low viscosity of supercritical CO2, which has 1/10 the viscosity of water. The report is unfortunately unavailable online, but can be viewed through the Wiley Library at (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052788/abstract;jsessionid=FC83C33F80EA526FEC11FE0553B6A4D2.f01t03)
A report conducted by the US Department of Energy, in 2006, entitled 'Geologic Storage Options and Capacities for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership' is available at the following link: (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/06/carbon-seq/Tech%20Session%20147.pdf). In this report, shale formations which have been hydraulically fractured were found to be the second most effective way of storing CO2.; fractured shale beds were designated to be able to hold 45 gigatonnes. In first place were the saline aquifers with a slightly embarrassingly high 470 gigatonnes.
However, when it comes to fracking, nothing is ever that plain cut! In a new research paper by T.R Elliot and M.A Celia,of Princeton University entitled 'Potential Restrictions for CO2 Sequestration Sites Due to Shale and Tight Gas Production' (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2040015), it is revealed that fracking may actually have detrimental effects for the geo-sequestration of carbon dioxide. This report concluded that there is commonly a large overlap between sites used for fracking and optimal CCS sites. This is because, under normal circumstances, a shale bed overlying a porous reservoir rock will act an impermeable cap rock, preventing migration of a carbon dioxide plume. However, if the cap- rock has been fractured,it could provide pathways for CO2 to leak back into the atmosphere. The studies shocking conclusion was that up to 80% of the potential on-shore CCS sites in the USA could become redundant due to hydraulic fracturing operations.
If the technologies surrounding CCS can be refined to restrict the migration of carbon dioxide through fractured shale beds, this may have massive implications for fracking all over the globe. Not only will the yield of shale-gas increase but there could be a net storage of CO2. Furthermore, if carbon dioxide were to be used in place of water, this may alleviate the issues associated with the exploitation of local water resources and it would remove the need for the use of harmful chemical additives from frackwater. To me, this seems like the perfect PR for the government to use in a bid to increase public support for fracking.... so watch this space and get ready to hear a lot about CCS!!
Fracking in the UK: is there a North/South Divide?
I was born and raised in Yorkshire and the majority of my family live just over the Pennines in Lancashire. Like many other people from the North East, I was shocked to hear our home described as 'desolate' by Lord Howell, Tory Peer and former Conservative Energy adviser to William Hague. Below is the clip itself, so you can draw your own opinions. I think this raises important issues about the future of fracking in the North of England under a Conservative Government, and further highlights the ever growing divide between the North and South.
"Would the minister accept that it could be a mistake to think of and discuss fracking in terms of the whole of the United Kingdom in one go? I mean there obviously are, in beautiful natural areas, worries about not just the drilling and the fracking, which I think are exaggerated, but about the trucks, and the delivery, and the roads, and the disturbance." But there are large and uninhabited and desolate areas. Certainly in part of the north-east where there's plenty of room for fracking, well away from anybody's residence where we could conduct without any kind of threat to the rural environment."
Obviously, following these comments- which sparked a media furore and inspired gasps of shock in the House of Commons- there was the obligatory back-pedalling in true Conservative style. In which, Lord Howell bribed the public with promises of tax breaks and 1% of profits, if gas is recovered, for communities in the vicinity of fracking operations.
Eric Ollerenshaw, Conserative MP for Fleetwood and Lancaster, added fuel to the fire by stating:
"It does look as if the rest of the country wants to use Lancashire as its energy base.. but long term what is going to be the benefit to the area where this is going to happen?" Ollerenshaw continued by commenting on the unacceptability of a situation in which "the North gets the dirty end and the south sucks up all the energy."
In the murky world of politics I'm not sure how much trust can be placed on the comments of Tory MP's. In order to get some actual scientific information, I've come to a government commissioned report for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), entitled: The Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources of Britains Onshore Basins- Shale Gas, is available here: (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/66172/uk-onshore-shalegas.pdf).
Below is a map of the potential sites for shale-gas exploration in the UK. At first glance this may seem like a pretty even distribution in the UK; but as is explained in the above report, it's not just about where the shale is, it is also about the accessibility of the shale gas. The accessibility of shale gas is largely dependant on risk-assessment. (Sorry about the poor resolution of the image, follow the link to see the image in all its glory.
Image URL:
http://millicentmedia.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/sg_fig_4_hydrocarbon_provinces_2010.jpg?w=223&h=300
As is discussed in the report, the best shale gas prospects are those which have already been explored for conventional hydrocarbons. Furthermore, the yield of shale-gas is greatly increased when there is an inclusion of quartz or calcite in the formation; this increases the chances of fracture propagation as these minerals make the shale more brittle. The prime target areas are:
- Upper Bowland Shale of Pennine Basin. For the full report on the Bowland Shale, follow this link: (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226874/BGS_DECC_BowlandShaleGasReport_MAIN_REPORT.pdf)
- Kimmeridge Clay of Weald Basin
- Lias of the Weald Basin
- Potentially the deeper Dinatian shales of Pennine basin
- Potentially the Oil-Shale group of the Midland Valley, Scotland
Unlike the US, which have intra-cratonic basins forming in geologically stable regions, the UK shale basins have undergone intense deformation and faulting in the geological past, due to past close-proximities to plate boundaries. The result is shale plays that are highly deformed, offset by faults and can contain igneous intrusions. Dr Nick Riley, the Leader for Unconventional Gas at the BGS had this to say:
“There’s a lot of single depositional tectonics going on, so not only do you have over-printing of faults between the
late-Carboniferous and post-Carboniferous periods, you've got active
faulting during the Carboniferous period and that is controlling a lot
of the quality of the shale, the thickness of the shale. Plus at certain
times of the Carboniferous period the sea level goes up and down as
polar ice caps waxed and waned, which changes the organic nature of the
shale.”
However, the shale deposits have a much greater thickness than those in the US and thus have the potential to contain much larger reserves of shale gas. On the other side of the coin, the thickness and depth of shale deposits could cause problems during extraction and could also lead to viable shale-gas deposits being more widely dispersed within the shale unit. One certainty is that shale-gas exploration is by no means simple, and there will be large variability in both the quantity and quality of shale gas at both intra- and inter- site levels.
Below is a table that shows the thickness and depth of shale plays in the UK, taken from 'Shale Gas Extraction in the UK- a review of Hydraulic Fracturing', published in the Royal Society of Engineering:
So, although fracking exploration has been announced to be taking place in every county except from Devon, there does seem to be a concentration of hydraulic fracturing in the North and Middle of England. This will be predominantly felt in Lancashire, where Caudrilla Resources are expecting to conduct extensive fracking and enter full-blown production by the end of 2014. Cuadrilla aim to develop around 1,500 wells over a 50 square mile area between the North of Blackpool and Preston. It is important to state that Cuadrilla is not the only company investing in the hydraulic fracturing industry; in 2014 expect to hear more from energy companies ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, IGas Eneregy, Dart Energy and Eden Energy.
Saturday, 11 January 2014
Fracking: Does the Carbon Budget Balance?
If you have been following fracking in the news and through on-line media, you will have noticed that there is great disparity and confusion surrounding the potential impacts of shale-gas on carbon emissions. There are polar opinions on the subject...and what makes it more complicated is that its not only the combustion of the shale gas, its also the fugitive emissions of methane- which has a net greenhouse effect 25 times greater than carbon dioxide. Phew..But don't worry, I've tried to clear up some of the confusion!
In the opening pages McKay states that the carbon footprint of shale gas, from both extraction and usage, is estimated to be in the range of 200-253g of carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour of chemical energy. This makes shale gas comparable to that of Conventional Gas which is 199-207g CO2e /kWh and less than the UK's imported Liquefied Natural Gas, which lies in the range of 233-270g CO2e/kWh and typically comes from Qatar. This means that fracking should have no detrimental impact on the UK's current legally binding climate targets.
Furthermore, McKay also highlights that shale gas has a significantly lower carbon footprint than Coal, when used for electricity generation; this is what is often described as the 'transition from dirty Coal to clean Gas' in the media. The figures (relating to electricity generation) speak for themselves: Shale-Gas has a range of 423-535g CO2e/kWh, almost half of the amount allocated to coal (837-1130g CO2e/kWh).Check out the report for some easy -to -read graphs that show this clearly. Below is a summary graph, taken from an article in the Guardian, available at : (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/09/fracking-shale-gas-ed-davey-climate-change/print).
Image URL: (http://static.guim.co.uk/sysimages/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/9/1378736805327/GHG_EMISSIONS_WEB.png)
Regarding the issue of fugitive emissions during extraction, McKay describes that with the correct management and monitoring, this can be largely mitigated and kept at low levels. This assumption is based only upon engineering calculations and, unbelievably, there has been no published study of that has measured fugitive emissions. However, as McKay points out, currently there is little knowledge of the greenhouse emissions that are associated with shale-gas exploration, pre-production, production, processing and post-production; at some point these figures must be incorporated into the carbon budget.
In a speech at The Royal Society, Ed Davey, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, is quoted as saying:
"Gas, as the cleanest fossil fuel, is part of the answer to climate
change, as a bridge in our transition to a green future, especially in
our move away from coal, with the right safeguards in place the
net effect on national emission from UK shale gas production will be
relatively small when compared to the use of other sources of gas."
But even with the dodgy-sounding title of 'a slightly higher carbon-footprint than conventional gas,' fracking is still contributing to a high-carbon future for the UK. Does it really make sense to exploit another innately limited fossil fuel resource? Should the focus be shifted onto low-carbon renewable energy projects? Will fracking even be a viable option if the UK enters in an international agreement on a UN climate deal, scheduled to take place in Paris, 2015?
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)
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)
Thursday, 2 January 2014
2014: Fracking Set to Reach New Heights in the UK
Well bloggers, a happy new year to you all! It is set to be a very happy new year for pro-frackers as Michael Fallon - the minister of state for Energy- announces that fracking is officially set to hit the UK; this follows the 14 month moratorium on fracking after 2 minor earthquakes occurred at the Caudrilla Resources fracking operation in Lancashire.
Figures published by the British Geological Survey (www.bgs.ac.uk/) reveal that in the north of England alone, approximately 40 trillion cubic meters of shale gas is trapped in deep geological formations. Indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change) have stated that 100,000 square kilometres of land are available for fracking operations and could lead to the production of up to 2,880 wells. The DECC have stated that if only 10% of UK shale gas reserves are tapped, the nation could be fully powered for the next 50 years. There are other benefits of fracking, including the creation of up to 32,000 jobs and a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases as the transition is made from 'dirty coal' to cleaner natural gas. This is evident in the US, where carbon emissions have dropped to the lowest levels witnessed for nearly 2 decades as they have come to rely on natural gas.
Watch this video of Conservative MP, Daniel Byles discussing the future of fracking in the UK.
The advantages of fracking are no more evident than in the USA- which has taken the title of the largest producer of natural gas in the world- largely due to the fracking boom. The exponential increase in fracking has yielded huge profits and seen falling gas prices for US residents, who pay on average 1/3 of the price for gas than UK residents. The Office of Budget Responsibility (budgetresponsibility.org.uk) recently announced that the average UK fuel bill is a staggering £1,353 and is also set to rise by £100 per annum... perhaps UK based fracking could finally herald some good news for bill-payers. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/19/uk-fracking-shale-gas)
Fracking has also led to further economic advantages in the US, including the creation of 2,100,000 jobs and increased industrial production due to the availability of cheaper fuel. So could the UK have similar success? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25420552)
But what about the plethora of environmental concerns that has so far plagued the advancement of fracking operations in the UK?? Including: induced seismic activity, reduced species diversity and depletion of water resources, amongst many others (these potential environmental concerns have been widely explored during my previous blog posts- so visit my other posts for more information).
Well, simply put, it has been widely accepted that the threat of such environmental concerns is outweighed by the potential economic benefits. Many environmental concerns are being played down, even the Royal Academy of Engineering (www.raeng.org.uk/) has 'concluded that the health, safety and environmental risks associated with the fracking technique can be effectively managed.'
However, just one more point: Michael Fallon declined to answer if he would be happy for fracking to place in his home town...hmmmmm, very interesting!
Figures published by the British Geological Survey (www.bgs.ac.uk/) reveal that in the north of England alone, approximately 40 trillion cubic meters of shale gas is trapped in deep geological formations. Indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change) have stated that 100,000 square kilometres of land are available for fracking operations and could lead to the production of up to 2,880 wells. The DECC have stated that if only 10% of UK shale gas reserves are tapped, the nation could be fully powered for the next 50 years. There are other benefits of fracking, including the creation of up to 32,000 jobs and a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases as the transition is made from 'dirty coal' to cleaner natural gas. This is evident in the US, where carbon emissions have dropped to the lowest levels witnessed for nearly 2 decades as they have come to rely on natural gas.
Watch this video of Conservative MP, Daniel Byles discussing the future of fracking in the UK.
The advantages of fracking are no more evident than in the USA- which has taken the title of the largest producer of natural gas in the world- largely due to the fracking boom. The exponential increase in fracking has yielded huge profits and seen falling gas prices for US residents, who pay on average 1/3 of the price for gas than UK residents. The Office of Budget Responsibility (budgetresponsibility.org.uk) recently announced that the average UK fuel bill is a staggering £1,353 and is also set to rise by £100 per annum... perhaps UK based fracking could finally herald some good news for bill-payers. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/19/uk-fracking-shale-gas)
Fracking has also led to further economic advantages in the US, including the creation of 2,100,000 jobs and increased industrial production due to the availability of cheaper fuel. So could the UK have similar success? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25420552)
But what about the plethora of environmental concerns that has so far plagued the advancement of fracking operations in the UK?? Including: induced seismic activity, reduced species diversity and depletion of water resources, amongst many others (these potential environmental concerns have been widely explored during my previous blog posts- so visit my other posts for more information).
Well, simply put, it has been widely accepted that the threat of such environmental concerns is outweighed by the potential economic benefits. Many environmental concerns are being played down, even the Royal Academy of Engineering (www.raeng.org.uk/) has 'concluded that the health, safety and environmental risks associated with the fracking technique can be effectively managed.'
However, just one more point: Michael Fallon declined to answer if he would be happy for fracking to place in his home town...hmmmmm, very interesting!
Saturday, 14 December 2013
Does the Future Look Bleak for Fracking in the U.S?
Whilst writing this blog, I have explored many of the environmental concerns that have been raised surrounding the fracking debate... and there are a whole range of potential threats that come inevitably with each and every stage in the fracking process. These threats range from groundwater contamination to declining species diversity. However, those countries involved in the fracking boom, have made the decision that the economic benefits outweigh the potential threats to the environment.
However, a new report by David Hughes entitled 'DRILL BABY DRILL, Can Unconventional Fuels Usher in a New Era of Energy Abundance' and published in the Post Carbon Institute, questions the unblinking trust in the sustainability of shale-gas production. (http://shalebubble.org/drill-baby-drill/)
In this report Hughes explains the difference between The Rate of Energy Supply and The Net Energy Yield. The rate of energy supply corresponds to the rate at which the resource can be produced. Although there are huge in-situ volumes of shale gas, that rate of extraction is limited by geochemical geological and geographical factors. The net energy yield refers to the difference between the energy input required to extract the shale gas and the energy value of the final product; this is often called 'the energy returned on energy invested' or EROEI. Fracking, like other unconventional energy resources, has a lower EROEI that conventional energy resources and as Hughes states, this equates to higher production costs, lower production rates and more environmental damage in the process!
Hughes, whose credentials include 32 years working with the Geological Survey of Canada, explains that over-optimistic estimations of natural gas resources could result in an economic crash with disastrous consequences, comparable to the 2008 real estate collapse. Hughes analysed 63,000 wells in production in the USA and has voiced concerns over the following issues:
(unfortunately the axis units are unavailable but the graphs can be viewed in full at the link for the report).
- The exponential boom in shale gas production since 2000 has plateaued at 2011. The x-axis shows year from 2000 to 2012. The y- axis shows gas production in billion cubic feet per day from 0 to 25. The legend shows 10 major shale-gas production sites in the USA.
The general trend shows the exponential increase in hydraulic fracturing, that began in the early 2000's and led to 40% of the USA's gas production coming from shale fracturing. However, since 2011 there has been a plateau in shale gas production; more the 4/5 of the shale-gas is produced from 4 major shale-gas reserves (Haynesville, Barnett, Marcellus and Fayetteville), which are already in decline.
2. The volume of shale gas production decreases year by year for every well. The x- axis shows months of production from 1 to 46. The y-axis shows gas production in million cubic feet per day from 0 to 8000.
Shale gas wells unanimously have very high rates of yearly decline in gas production; the result is that huge amounts of capital must be invested continuously to keep production in process. Hughes estimates this value to be $42 billion per year to drill 7000 wells. The economic viability of this must be questioned when the value of shale gas produced in the year 2012 was only a measly $32.5 billion. Essential the EROEI becomes too low- too much capital is required to keep up fracking operations.
3. Future predictions for shale gas production show an overwhelming downward trend. The x-axis shows year from 2005 to 2025. The y-axis shows shale gas production in thousand barrels per day from 0 to 2025. The legend shows shale gas fields in the USA: Eagleford, Bakken and all other plays.
Several of the best shale reserves in the USA are already in decline and yearly productivity is set to decrease... this has led to morbid predictions for the future of fracking. Even though huge volumes of shale gas resources can be found in the USA, as time goes on, it will become increasingly more difficult, expensive and risk-intensive to extract these resources. The confusion over the numbers is evident in both printed and on-line media. Even President Obama made reference to a '100 year supply of natural gas' in his State of the Union speech this year (http://www.cnbc.com/id/47279959/The_Math_Behind_the_100Year_NaturalGas_Supply_Debate), clearly someone didn't get the memo on the difference between The Rate of Energy Supply and The Net Energy Yield.
So, what can we conclude from this? Are the days of fracking are numbered? Well, yes. It is a fossil fuel after all and is ultimately a finite resource. The problem ultimately resides in the fact that the global market has its foundation firmly based on fossil fuels, maybe the time has come to focus capital investment on renewable energy resources that don't contribute to climate change or pose a threat to the environment.... well we can dream at least!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)