Protesters in the town of Keynswick in East Anglia held a demonstration today against a controversial new process called 'fracking'. The process of fracking, which extracts natural gas from the earth, is very much in the news at the moment as there are proposals for fracking plants at many sites across Britain, including one only five kilometres from Keynswick's town centre. 'They've banned this process in other parts of Europe,' said angry councillor, Robert Pewsey. 'Why should we put up with it here in Keynswick?'
The process of fracking involves extracting natural gas from shale rocks beneath the earth. In order to increase the flow of gas to the surface, the rocks need to be broken apart, or fractured. In the past, engineers used to set off small explosions underground. However, in the 1940s they discovered a better method was to use pressurised water, and this is what oil and gas companies have been doing ever since. But, if they've been doing it since the 1940s, what is the problem? And why are the people of Keynswick so angry?
Well, since the 1990s, companies have been using more water and at a much higher pressure. They have also been adding dangerous chemicals to the water to aid the fracking process. There are now a number of concerns about the whole process. The first concern is that the chemicals in the water will contaminate the supply of drinking water. The second concern is that the water that does return to the surface contains not only some radioactivity, but also large quantities of brine, in other words salt water. And finally there is a belief that the fracking process has been responsible for earthquakes and tremors in the area.
In Pennsylvania, where the American fracking operation is absolutely huge, experience shows that there is no evidence for these worries. The fracking takes place far too deep to affect drinking water, and there has been no contamination. Disposing of the brine was a problem at first, but companies have solved that issue by re-using the brine in further fracking. The level of radioactivity is extremely low; chemical spills are rare and can be cleaned up, though with a little difficulty. This just leaves the problem of earthquakes and tremors.
In the UK there has been considerable alarm in Blackpool and the north-west of England where fracking operations have mainly taken place and where earth tremors have been recently recorded. However, researchers from the University of Durham are confident that any movement of the earth is rarely caused by fracking. According to Professor Richard Davies, fracking releases a tiny amount of energy 'roughly equivalent to, or even less than someone jumping off a ladder onto the floor.'
Perhaps the real problem of fracking and the ready availability of shale gas is that it is just too good, too clean and too available. It will distract us from developing renewable energy. Burning shale gas puts out half as much CO2 into the atmosphere as coal does. Globally, the use of coal is on the increase: from 25–30% in the last five years. However, the USA now has its lowest CO2 emissions since 1992 and fracking produces 25% of its natural gas. It is attractive, but is it the solution to the energy crisis? Or should we continue to research and develop renewable energy sources?
Dieter Helm, an Oxford environmental economist, argues that shale gas is vital 'bridging' technology. It will help us move across from the age of coal and other fossil fuels to the age of renewable energy sources. But he understands that the real world may be a different place – a world where some British politicians are happy to turn to shale gas, while wanting to abandon wind power.
Maybe we shouldn't be relying too much on shale gas. It is an attractive product, but, like coal, oil and gas, it is still a fossil fuel; it still produces CO2. As Jenny Banks of the World Wildlife Fund says: 'We already burn too many fossils fuels, it won't make enough of a difference.' She, and the people of Keynswick, might just have a point.
No comments:
Post a Comment