“Shale Gas A Pretty Safe Activity” Say Geologists
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change have already told us that :-
1) The UK is sitting on huge reserves of shale gas, estimates of which keep going up in leaps and bounds every year.
2) Shale Gas will “Deliver power at lower emissions per unit of electricity generated than is possible from coal fired generation”
3) “A strong case could be made for the domestic extraction of shale gas from an energy security basis”
We also know that natural gas prices in the USA are much lower than in Europe because of the competition from shale gas, and prices there are no higher than they were a decade ago.
Natural gas prices at the Henry Hub in US Dollars per MBtu for the 2000-2010 decade.
But what about environmental concerns? Well, Professor Mike Stephenson, head of energy science at the British Geological Survey,who have just issued a report on shale gas, says :-
Most geologists think this is a pretty safe activity. We think the risk is pretty low and we have the scientific tools to tell if there is a problem.
With regard to pollution of water supplies, he goes on to say:-
The distance between groundwater supplies around 40-50 metres below the surface and the deep sources of gas in the shale a mile or two underground, made it unlikely methane would leak into water as a result of fracking.
There is no evidence in peer-reviewed literature of pollution of water by methane as a result of fracking.
What about earthquakes though? Peter Styles, Professor of Applied and Environmental Geophysics at Keele University, tells us :-
Fracking is unlikely to start earthquakes stronger than magnitude 3.3 on the Richter scale, a level that typically causes no damage to property, and most will be around magnitude 2.
Professor Styles says he has examined seismic data from 30 years of coal mining in England and concluded that, because the rock formations are similar, any earthquakes caused by fracking will of a “similar or lesser magnitude” to those caused by coal mining, adding “If there are going to be others, they will be about this magnitude and because they’re of that magnitude they’re very unlikely to cause damage.”
Even the Department of Energy and Climate Change sees no reason to stop shale gas for environmental reasons. In their recent report on shale gas, they say:-
Shale gas production in the US has become controversial because of reports of environmental problems, particularly contamination of drinking water. However, the evidence seems to show that where the problems are genuinely attributable to shale gas operations, the problem is with poor well design and construction, rather than anything distinctive to shale gas. In the UK, well design and construction is addressed by the Health and Safety Executive through specific regulatory controls, which among other things require verification of the well design by an independent third party.
In the light of the robust controls in place, outlined above, to protect the environment and ensure safe operation, DECC see no need for any moratorium on shale gas. This is also the view of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee which held an inquiry into shale gas earlier this year and took evidence from Government, regulators, the British Geological Survey, the oil and gas industry and environmental groups. The committee concluded that hydraulic fracturing itself does not pose a direct risk to water aquifers, provided that the well-casing is intact. Rather, that any risks that do arise are related to the integrity of the well, and are no different to issues encountered when exploring for hydrocarbons in conventional geological formations
What is absolutely clear is that many other countries, who are lucky enough to have similar reserves, will not hesitate to develop them. The UK, already committed to hopelessly inefficient renewable energy, will become even more uncompetitive. How many more jobs will be lost before common sense prevails?
And all the Tyndall Centre can say is that they do not want to “risk jeopardising the UK’s international reputation on climate change”.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Developing any form of fuel independence goes against the agenda and will be fought. Cheap fuel such as Natural Gas must be restricted because it can be used for both electricity and as a vehicle fuel. There are even appliances that operate on natural gas, in the 50s my parents had a natural gas fridge.
As part of the UK Climate Change Act, households will have to convert their central heating from gas to “low carbon electric” by 2030. In other words, chuck out our central heating boilers and replace them with electric. Now I don’t remember being told that.
Fracking has been used in Lower Saxony, Germany, for at least 35 years. What’s new is only the horicontal drilling. Fracking is a totally run-of-the-mill, established technology. Of course the Greens now raise a stink. One wonders why – who pays them in this case, or gives them their marching orders. By keeping shale gas from the European market, wind energy would still have a chance. Shale gas would wreck the competitiveness of wind for good.
Wind energy is favoured by the aristocratic families of Germany as Wind Energy requires their land, giving them rent. The Green and Brown movements of Germany had their strings pulled by the aristocrats for ages now. (Not necessarily the Green Party but WWF and Greenpeace Germany definitely, and BUND and NABU) So it’s probably them again who call the shots.
The BGS _think_ there is low risk, they _think_ its safe, and they have the tools to tell us after a problem has occured. Then they say _unlikely_ that methane will get into aquifers??? And no evidence? This is ALL opinion, no facts based on THEIR studies??? See Duke Edu in the states – their study clearly showed that the nearer you life to fracking the higher the methane in your water – coincidence? I think not. In Germany benzine leached through frack waste pipes into the community. And in the UK the HSE say they cant afford to monitor every operation and the EA say monitoring isnt their remit. So, who do we trust – the companies? Who are these third parties? Its pretty clear to me the UK does not have a regulatory framework that can ensure the companies do not cut corners. Even the best drillers have well casing or cement issues – in region of 5% of wells drilled leak.
According to Mike Stephenson of the BGS
There is no evidence in peer-reviewed literature of pollution of water by methane as a result of fracking.
The BGS have projects funded by multiple oil and gas companies, hardly an independent ‘opinion’ is it? In the states many farm owners are being supplied with drinking water by gas companies but they never admit liability.
The British Geological Survey (BGS), a part of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), is the nation’s principal supplier of objective, impartial and up-to-date geological expertise and information for decision making for governmental, commercial and individual users.
The BGS carries out research in strategically important areas including energy and natural resources, vulnerability to environmental change and hazards, and earth system science, often in collaboration with the national and international scientific academic community.
I don’t think they would recognise your description of them.
“The UK, already committed to hopelessly inefficient renewable energy” – funny that, my domestic supplier wwww.goodenergy.co.uk have 1000’s of customers [and growing] and partners and invest in new projects. Thier sources are from 100% renewables and they source so much capacity that they can afford to sell it on to other [fossil] companies.
“How many more jobs will be lost before common sense prevails?”
Well, there certainly arent too many job in shale – small teams of drillers takes a few months then move on to next pad. Fracking is very labour un-intensive. In production its virtually unmanned. If we had investment in producing our own renewable kit [tidal esp] we could provide maintenance jobs for years.
Its also curious how most of the people extolling the virtues of shale live nowhere near frack sites.
High energy costs will drive industry abroad and the jobs with them.
“Rather, that any risks that do arise are related to the integrity of the well, and are no different to issues encountered when exploring for hydrocarbons in conventional geological formations”
In drilling, various compounds are expressed at the surface. You dont want them in the human environment but thats not the only source of concern. Starting with the trucks through the village, the diesal generators, the continual noise, then condensate venting, leaking valves unchecked at compressor stations – the list goes on. And fracking is going to be a lot closer to were people live. We are already seeing communities being displaced in the states and once broken gone forever. Its a dirty and invasive process and you will have a different opinion when its in your back yard.