Meet the Frackers - Part 2

After my introduction to fracking last week I am going to look at both sides of the fracking debate in a little bit more detail. Fracking is the process where fluid is pumped into rock at high pressure which causes the rock to fracture. This creates more space within the rock and allows oil and gas to percolate through the formation therefore it can be pumped to the surface and extracted.

Figure: United States Environment Protection Agency

Arguments supporting Fracking

• Domestic production of energy means some countries may be able to become self-sufficient in energy production and even export it.
• It generates industry, employment and allows the country to control its energy prices, hopefully in favour of the consumer!
• For the UK, there is huge potential for fracking. A recent report by the Department of Energy and Climate Change estimated potential reserves of approximately 1466bcm (DECC 2013 Fracking Report). To put this into context, annual gas consumption for the UK is 77bcm. Therefore giving us 20 years of energy, give or take a few!  
• Breakthroughs in technology may help to reduce the environmental impacts caused by heavy water usage and infrastructure in extraction.
• Chemicals used can be nontoxic and methane has a shorter half-life than CO2 so will remain in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder, Nature 2011).
•   There is huge potential as an energy source globally as well! This could help us bridge the gap between renewable energy sources. 

Figure (Forbes 2012)

The Anti Fracking Campaign

•   It not a ‘clean’ energy source and produces fossil fuels which may contribute to global warming. It is slightly lower in carbon emissions than coal and oil (Tyndall Centre 2011). 
• Minor earthquakes can be produced, up to this date they have ranged from 1-3.8 magnitude (Davis et at 2013). See previous Part 1 for more detail.
• Heavy water usage which impacts the environment and costs a lot of energy to be transported to the site. Depending on the site, a well can use up to 20 million litres of water. (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder, Nature 2011)
• Many of the chemicals used in fracking are toxic or carcinogenic. There could be leakage of these from the wells due to bad practise or inherent problems with the technique. A study of 68 wells in Pennslyvania showed a dramatic increase in methane levels (and 75% of lakes very over contaminated levels) with proximity to the extraction site (Environmental Health Perspective 2011)
•  It is a very new technology to be adopted on such a large scale. Research on the impacts of fracking is minimal and has only appeared in two peer reviewed journals.
• ‘Old fashioned’ approach. Fracking is still utilising fossil fuels and therefore could distract energy companies and governments from focusing on long term solutions.

Which Side of the Fence? 

There are a lot of points on either side and essentially seems to come down to the huge potential for cheap energy vs the unknown and potentially catastrophic impacts of fracking. One of the most striking things I found doing this post is the gaps in our understanding of fracking and of course this is something campaign groups such as Frack Off have focused on. Despite this, I think that the potential for energy supply and positive improvements in technology mean that fracking will be and should be a key player in the energy market.