 |
| Caroline Lucas. Source: Give Me Strength |
The term ‘fracking’ has a tendency to evoke strong feelings
in many and the speakers at the APPCCG event were no different. As explained by
the panel’s chair (Caroline Lucas the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion) the high
level of enthusiasm for the exploration of shale gas across party lines in
Westminster has led to concern. This concern is amongst not only those that
question the safety of the technique itself but those who consider
unconventional gas exploration/production to be counter intuitive to the UK’s
attempts to reach its emission targets. Support for an early day moratorium on
fracking (introduced by Caroline Lucas) has so far received support from a mere
25 MPs.
Fracking is a method used to release and extract
unconventional gas. It involves injecting wells at high pressure with water, proppants,
tracers and chemical additives to fracture the formation in which the gas is
trapped. The technique is the subject of much controversy and it should be
understood that the panel was structured in such a way that the speakers
focussed on concerns surrounding fracking and consequently none were proponents
of the technique.
 |
| Image of fracking taken from Occupy Denver |
The environmental concerns that accompany drilling and
fracking for unconventional gas were impressed upon the panel with Dr Mariann
Lloyd Smith (Of the National Toxics Network in Australia) emphasising that due
to the ‘nature of the beast’ a safe industry was an idealists dream. The best
that could be hoped for was a regulatory system that ensured a safer industry developed. Such
feeling is echoed in the UNEP global environmental alert of 2012 which stated
that not all fracking safety/environmental concerns could be removed through
regulation. Some examples of the prominent concerns are the contents of not
only fracking fluids but also drilling fluids. The chemical content of these
fluids were described as a mixture of chemicals some of which have failed to be
assessed in terms of their use in the fracking process. Even with the level of
these chemicals composing a very low percentage of the fluids themselves, the
level of chemicals (in kg) that remain in the ground can reach high levels.
(For further details and figures from the Australian experience see http://www.ntn.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/NTN-Toxics-in-UG-Activities-Briefing.pdf).
In addition to such chemicals the naturally occurring contaminants that can be
released during the process are a cause for concern particularly as exposure
pathways mean that such materials have the potential to cause damage to land,
people and livestock.
It was not just health and environmental risks that were
raised as prominent issues. The social costs of fracking and unconventional gas
extraction were a key concern for many of the speakers. Eve McNamara (from the
Ribble Estuary Against Fracking) emphasised that the community in West
Lancashire have received no input from regulators and the authorities leaving
them in a position where their only information resource is the actual company
exploring for shale gas in the area, Cuadrilla. The lack of communication and
consultation has meant that the only engagement the community has had with
regulators has arisen from the proactive behaviour of REAF itself. The issue
has sadly led to division in the community particularly in relation to the
leasing of agricultural land where neighbouring farmers oppose the exploration
for gas.
The protection of the public interest is not just a concern
for the communities affected by fracking. Tony Bosworth (Friends of the Earth) emphasised
that the upcoming planning guidance and Environment Agency guidance as well as
the regulations on fracking need to be based on the precautionary principle and
full public consultation with a full EIA conducted for every application. So
far, the provision of information, consultation and explanation of how the
public interest is being protected is considered by FOE to be a failure.
 |
| John Broderick, Tyndall Centre |
The question of whether the exploration and production of unconventional
gas should be pursued in the UK is not only a question of environmental safety.
Its implications for climate change and the UK’s emission targets are
significant. Dr John Broderick (from the Tyndall Centre) emphasised that in
seeking to reach our targets it is the cumulative emissions over a period of
time that cause the degree of climate change we will experience. It would seem
that our probability of avoiding a greater than 2oC rise in
temperature is already history. As such the use of unconventional gas as a
‘transition’ would mean that the continued consumption of fossil fuels would require
a drastically higher annual reduction in emissions in the
future to compensate, leaving little room for any future emissions from fossil
fuels. Whilst the US experience has arguable shown that US coal emissions have
decreased since the production of US shale gas, the US’s coal production has
remained constant simply resulting in the export of coal. Unless shale gas can
prove to be a true substitute leaving the coal in the ground, the argument for
shale as a replacement loses its force.
Overall, Dr Broderick’s central point was that we need to focus on
leaving more fossil fuel in the ground if we are to meet emission targets and
as such shale gas is incompatible with this aim. It is clear that he is not
alone in this consideration with FOE clearly taking the stance that fracking
and unconventional gas are simply a risk we should not take.
So what does the future hold for fracking? Will communities
receive greater information and support? Will a safer industry be enough to quell concerns and will our desire
for domestic gas trump our desire to reach our emission targets?
This blog post is by Joanne Hawkins.
A PhD Researcher looking at the challenge of hydraulic fracturing: energy
resilience, the environment and effective regulation at the University of Bristol Law School.
 |
| Joanne Hawkins, University of Bristol |