The controversy over the technology of Fracking which the government intends to make one of the main sources of energy in the UK, continues, and with it protestors and claims of police intimidation of peaceful protestors. Not to mention heavy handedness in breaking up the peaceful demonstrations.
The latest high profile campaign took place in the West Sussex village of Balcombe earlier this month, when demonstrators took on the main fracking contract company Cuadrilla in an attempt to delay the exploratory drilling not far from their village.
Emotions ran high when the police were used, as always in such situations, to ensure the Government’s plans to make the UK the best place in Europe for the fracking companies, amidst their claims that Shale Gas will make the UK energy sufficient once more and ensure lower domestic fuel bills.
History paints a different picture of the outcome of government claims of cheaper energy. Nevertheless, David Cameron has not been stopped by mere facts as he enters the propaganda war in the media; in an attempt to assure the public of his truths with regard to Shale Gas, the fracking process and the environment damage it may or may not cause.
But just what is the process of fracking all about, and does Cameron actually know what is involved or is he even interested?
Shale gas is a natural gas consisting of methane, one of the worst greenhouse gases responsible for climate change.
It is called ‘Shale’ because it is trapped in impermeable shale rock deep underground, which does not allow the gas to escape by natural means. As a result the only way to get it out from the within the shale rock is to fracture the rock and force the gas out.
The process used to do this uses large quantities of highly pressurised water, sand, and a range of chemicals which are pumped in (hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking'). Tens or hundreds as many wells are needed to produce as much gas as in a conventional gas field.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph last weekend, David Cameron said that ‘Safe’ fracking will cut energy bills and create wealth without ruining precious countryside or damaging the environment.
Clearly, Dave doesn't know anything about the process used!
There is no such a thing as ‘safe’ fracking as experiences in the USA have adequately demonstrated.
By its very nature the process uses mini-earthquakes in order to fracture the rocks miles beneath the surface, by fracturing it with high pressure water and chemicals; thereby releasing the shale gas.
Experience throughout areas of the USA where the process was developed, plus the earthquake set off in Lanchashire just outside Blackpool by mere drilling down to the shale rock, indicates that there is no such thing at all as ‘safe’ fracking.
But it is clear that David Cameron thinks the risks are worth it, as long of course as drilling doesn't take place in Downing Street or his constituency that is!
In his Daily Telegraph article Cameron writes that the UK can’t afford to miss out on Shale Gas:
“If we don’t back this technology, we will miss a massive opportunity to help families with their bills and make our country more competitive. Without it, we could lose ground in the tough global race.”
He writes that there are a lot of ‘myths’ about fracking and the damage it does to the countryside, whish he says is not true:
“I would never sanction something that might ruin our landscapes and scenery. Shale gas pads are relatively small – about the size of a cricket pitch. But more than that, similar types of drilling have been taking place for decades in this country without any real protest.”
The problem with that argument of course is that tens or hundreds as many Shale Gas wells are required in any one area in order to produce as much gas as in a conventional gas field.
Of course Cameron uses the opportunity in his article to blame the previous Labour government for our energy troubles:
“First, fracking has real potential to drive energy bills down. Labour’s mismanagement of the economy means that many people are struggling with the cost of living today.”
He goes further regarding lower energy bills:
“It’s simple – gas and electric bills can go down when our home-grown energy supply goes up. We’re not turning our back on low carbon energy, but these sources aren’t enough. We need a mix. Latest estimates suggest that there’s about 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas lying underneath Britain at the moment – and that study only covers 11 counties. To put that in context, even if we extract just a tenth of that figure, that is still the equivalent of 51 years’ gas supply.”
But this argument is not born out by facts, and as usual Cameron ignores the facts in order to promote his political ends. Further he ignores the fact that the UK geology is vastly different from that of the USA were most of the fracking to date has been done, and we have a far denser population within a smaller land mass.
Responding to the comments made by David Cameron in his party political broadcast on behalf of fracking in the Daily Telegraph; Greenpeace Energy Campaigner Leila Deen said:
"The Prime Minister's claim that UK shale gas will reduce energy prices doesn't stack. Experts from Ofgem to Deutsche Bank to drilling company Cuadrilla itself agree UK shale will not bring down bills, because unlike the US, the UK is part of a huge European gas market. The government must come clean about where it’s getting its advice from, and the role shale gas lobbyists are playing in it.
If this is David Cameron’s attempt to reassure his party and voters, he’ll have to up his game. We’ve seen that foisting fracking on communities – South or North – doesn’t work, and his comments are likely to further stir rebellion in the Home Counties, not quell it."
Further facts from the Campaign Against Climate Change show just how damaging to the environment the process of fracking can be.
In an article entitled Fracking Facts: Ten Things You Need To Know About Shale Gas, which David Cameron clearly has not read, the evidence from independent scientific sources shows that the issue of damage to the environment depends upon gas leakage levels during the fracking process.
“There is a big question mark over whether shale gas exploitation is actually any better for the climate than coal burning. It all depends on how much gas leaks out during the process, since methane is a shorter lived but much more powerful greenhouse gas compared to CO2.
It is suggested that there will be climate benefits if leakage is less than 3.2%. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates overall leakage to be 2.4%."
However, other modelling calculated that leakage needs to be kept below 2%.
NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] researchers in Colorado have now confirmed previous measurements that 4% of methane has been leaking out. They also reported preliminary results from a field study in Utah suggesting 9% was escaping into the atmosphere. This is not conclusive, but should be highly worrying for anyone wanting to rely on shale gas to reduce emissions.”
But of course the industry is keeping most of their gas leakage data secret while downplaying the issue.
David Cameron is not slow at peddling his own myths with regard to the extent of the Shale Gas that could be recovered in the UK.
The same Campaign Against Climate Change article points out:
“Gas reserves that are economically, practically and politically extractable will be a small fraction of the resources in the ground. No one knows how much of the estimated 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas under Lancashire can be got out, or how much that will cost.
Last year, the US Energy Information Administration estimated the UK recovery rate at 4%. In discussions about how many years' worth of gas there might be, it is rarely pointed out that renewables have no such limit.”
As for Cameron’s claims that there will be no local environmental prices to pay, this clearly comes from someone living on planet propaganda.
The fact is that in the USA local environmental impacts have been significant.
Apart from just the impacts of vehicle movements, landscape, noise and water consumption; there is contamination with methane and the chemicals used to fracture the rocks holding the Shale Gas along with air pollution leading to reported health problems experienced by people living in nearby communities to the fracking sites.
These are just some of the main issues this country’s rural communities are about to have to face if Cameron & Co have their way.
But fracking is not the only form of unconventional gas exploitation we are facing: Coal bed methane (extracting gas from coal seams) is advancing in the UK.
According to the Frack-Off website:
".... this has been associated with, if anything, greater local problems with water pollution and leaking methane, since large quantities of water are pumped out of the coal seam (water that has been marinading in coal for thousands of years), and the coal seams are closer to the surface."
They add:
"So far these companies have encountered close to zero resistance to their plans, partially due to clever public relations work but mainly to the fact that everyone who cares has been focused on Shale Gas.
However in places where the impacts are already clear, particularly in Australia and Canada, there has been significant resistance to CBM with several successful blockades of CBM related developments.
If similar levels of resistance do not soon appear in the British Isles it seems likely that we are looking at a huge expansion of CBM in the coming years with all the attendant consequences."
Sources: Greenpeace / Campaign Against Climate Change / Daily Telegraph / Think Progress / Unionsafety / FrackOff
