Fracking for Shale Gas Proposed in the NE Somerset Coalfield

A proposal to fracture coal reserves near Keynsham has revived concerns about fracking—a risky technology. Fears about earthquakes and contaminated water have been raised by those questioning the sense of the technology. A detailed report by the Royal Academy of Engineers agrees that fracking can cause earthquakes, albeit normally small ones. The report claims they are smaller even than those caused by coal mining operations, based on the assumption that the voids left where the coal seams were cause earthquakes when they collapse, but the voids caused by fracking are small.

The point of coal mining, though is not to fracture the surrounding rocks but to keep them intact to avoid rock falls. The whole point of fracking is to fracture the rock causing cracks for the gas to escape. Consequently much larger volumes of rock are left weakened and compromised, and at some stage, as the gas leaks out, they could settle into a more stable state, there being already plenty of old coal mining seams abandoned in the coalfield. That would be likely to be a significant earthquake. Moreover, the epicenter of them will be shallow, not deep as it is for most naturally occurring earthquakes, so the energy released at the surface capable of causing damage will be proportionally greater.

The report notes that the contamination of water in Pavillion, Wyoming, caused by fracking was because of improper practices. Water wells in areas where fracking may be possible often have a high level of methane seeping naturally from the shale rock. Deliberately cracking the rock will obviously release much more methane—that is its point—so even more will end up in well and tap water. And what guarantees that good practices will always be followed when the aim is to make fast bucks? The academy recommends careful regulation and monitoring to minimize risks but who will enforce any legal rules in the insane era of “the bonfires of the regulations”.

Equally, the report did not find water wells contaminated by chemicals used in the process where shale gas fracking was being carried out. That may be so in the studies done so far, but the venture is new, the chemicals might leach out too slowly to have yet been detectable, or might leach into water reservoirs far below rather than into the surface water table. Deep water pollution is a hazard to people generations ahead, and, as such deep water takes millennia to replenish, they may be rendered useless for all practical purposes generations in the future. Moreover, the pressure and temperature below ground can cause reactions that might change the chemicals into something innocuous or something far worse!

Reuters reports that the UK has 60 years of onshore reserves and 300 years offshore—a huge 1,000 trillion cubic feet. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by far. That portion of it that is captured will be burnt to produce carbon dioxide polluting the air and causing global temperature to rise. Imagine what 1000 trillion cubic feet of burnt methane will do for the air. But fracking is inefficient, allowing much of the methane to escape through fractures that do not lead into the capturing system, the unburnt methane will be more harmful per unit than the carbon dioxide.

This primitive procedure is being sold as a way of creating jobs in North East Somerset, and reducing heating bills, but will utterly negate the control of carbon emissions into the air. Taking the costs of climate damage into account must mean this whole procedure is just a profit making scam. It will cost far more than anything it saves, but it will be our children who bear the ultimate cost

Shale Gas Fracking Solves No UK Energy Problems But Leaves us with Many

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) says the advent in Europe of a shale gas boom—hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, extracting natural gas from shale using chemicals and water—is not a game changer for energy policy in the UK. Though it has been approved as safe, reports keep emerging with a different message.

Dozens of cases of illness, death and reproductive issues in cows, horses, goats, llamas, chickens, dogs, cats, fish and other wildlife, and humans could be the result of exposure to the gases or the chemicals used in the process, Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine, and veterinarian, Michelle Bamberger, have found. They interviewed animal owners in six states—Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas—and cited 24 cases where animals seem to have been affected by the gas drilling.

The authors note that the “most striking finding” of their study was how difficult it was to get solid information on the link between hydrofracking and health effects. Consequently, it is not possible to make a direct link between death and illness due to incomplete testing, proprietary secrecy from gas drilling companies regarding the chemicals used in hydrofracking, and non-disclosure agreements that seal testimony and evidence when lawsuits are settled. Oswald said:

We have a number of case studies—they don’t tell us about the prevalence of problems associated with hydraulic fracturing, but they do tell us how things can happen.

The case studies include:

• In Louisiana, 17 cows died within an hour of direct exposure to hydraulic fracturing fluid. A necropsy report listed respiratory failure with circulatory collapse as the most likely cause of death.
• A farmer separated his herd of cows into two groups: 60 were in a pasture with a creek where hydrofracking wastewater was allegedly dumped; 36 were in separate fields without creek access. Of the 60 cows exposed to the creek water, 21 died and 16 failed to produce calves the following spring. None of the 36 cows in separated fields had health problems, though one cow failed to breed in the spring.
• Another farmer reported that 140 of his cows were exposed to hydrofracking fluid when wastewater impoundment was allegedly slit, and the fluid drained into a pasture and a pond. “These farmers saw workers slitting the liner to decrease the amount of liquid in the impoundment in order to refill it”, said Bamberger. “We have heard it now on several occasions”. Of the 140 cows, about 70 died, and there were high incidences of stillborn and stunted calves.

To provide better assessments of health impacts, the researchers recommend:

• prohibiting nondisclosure agreements when public health is at stake
• increasing food safety testing and research, as the study documented that animals exposed to chemicals were not tested prior to slaughter, and little is known about the effects of hydrofracking chemicals on meat and dairy products
• improving the monitoring of routes of exposure, including in water, soil and air
• most importantly, fully testing the air, water, soil and animals prior to drilling and at regular intervals after drilling is completed, and disclosing fully the chemicals used when hydrofracking.

Bamberger concluded:

Without knowledge of all the chemicals being used, you can’t test before drilling. And if we don’t have predrilling tests then if you find a chemical postdrilling, how can you prove that it came from hydrofracking.

The CCC in its annual report to Parliament examines the notion of a second dash for gas by some who are optimistic that Europe will benefit from the same sort of cheap shale gas boom as that experienced in the USA. The first dash for gas in the 1990s reduced the UK’s emissions as power generation switched from dirtier coal. It thinks a cheaper option than a new “dash for gas” is a fourfold increased investment in clean energy to avoid breaking laws on renewables and climate change, though that would still raise the annual energy bill of a typical household by £100 by 2020. It says the government is giving mixed messages on gas, and should explicitly rule out a new dash for gas.

The report confirms that greenhouse gases fell in the UK by 7 percent in 2011, but says most of this was down to the warm winter, rising fuel costs and falling incomes. Only 0.8 percent of the CO₂ cut was due to policies from government.

It says investment in wind power has been running at only a third of the annual amount that will be needed by the end of the decade. Plans for new nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage projects have also both slipped. There has been an improvement in insulating roofs and cavity walls but little progress on solid walls and low carbon heating. Emissions from new cars have continued to fall but there has been scant progress with vans.

The committee draws on International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts to project that gas costs up to 2020 will remain around 80p per therm, which will make it unaffordable for electricity when the price for carbon is added. However, its projections are challenged by some who believe the global glut of gas will eventually lead to much lower prices if the historic link between oil and gas prices is broken.

The CCC says it has modelled a future with gas at 40p per therm which still shows gas confers no advantage over nuclear power. That is because the government’s controversial carbon floor price will increase from £30 per CO₂ tonne in 2020 to £70 in 2030, forcing up the cost of generating with fossil fuels. Shale gas is a fossil fuel which emits CO2, though it would be hard to know it through its hard sell as a “clean” fuel. Nuclear is also being plugged as a clean option, in the sense that it emits no CO₂, but the residue of radioactive waste with a lifetime of thousands of years is just polluting the earth for distant generations.

Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF UK, said:

For the fourth year running, the Committee on Climate Change has made clear that a dramatic step change in ambition is needed. Too many key policies—such as the Green Deal, the Green Investment Bank and now the Energy Bill—are hobbled by lack of ambition and poor implementation.

He added that the government risked letting the Climate Change Act wither by neglect.