Can fracking replace North Sea oil in UK?

The recent news that strong protests in Lancashire against fracking has pushed the council to ban the drilling was welcomed by jubilant protestors. Lancashire county council has rejected a planning application by shale gas explorer Cuadrilla to frack in the county, resulting in a major blow to what would have been the UK’s biggest round of fracking so far.

One cannot be surprised at the strong reaction by residents living in the area as hundreds of campaigners gathered outside the county hall in Preston, where the verdict was announced. More than 50,000 people signed a petition calling for the fracking applications to be rejected, and it is not surprising that the share price of iGas, the UK’s biggest shale company, dropped sharply after the council’s announcement.

Councillors said the grounds for refusing the application for a monitoring array at Preston New Road was that it ran contrary to planning policy EP11, in the respect that “the cumulative effect of the proposal would lead to the industrialisation of the countryside and adversely affect the landscape character”.

Councillors were aware that a rejection is likely to be appealed by Cuadrilla, which is the only company to have fracked in the UK to date. In a statement, the company said it was “surprised and disappointed” at the decision, and it remained committed to extracting shale gas in Lancashire.

Centrica, a company which has a 25% stake in Cuadrilla, said it was extremely disappointed by the decision. Its spokesperson said “it has taken a significant amount of investment to get us where we are today so we will be working closely with our partners at Cuadrilla before making any decisions on our next steps.”

Protestors cheered and reacted with delight when the verdict was announced. But the government was surprised at the outright rejection by the council. There is an application by Cuadrilla to drill four wells at a site at Preston New Road, being the first exploratory fracking activity for shale gas.

Nine of the councillors on the 14-strong development control committee voted in favour of a motion to reject the application on grounds of visual impact and unacceptable noise, and also rejected a related application for a permit to monitor seismic activity. Daisy Sands, Greenpeace UK energy and climate campaigner, said “this decision is a Waterloo for the fracking industry and a triumph for local democracy.”

Undoubtedly the protest found the full support of the Green Party, which described the decision as a fantastic victory and welcomed the decision lauding the power of the local community to ban fracking.

Residents fear that hydraulic fracturing, which creates tiny cracks or fractures in the underground structure, intended to release natural gas from the rock to travel back up the well, could result in gas ending up to leak through these fractures into groundwater souces.

Cynics say that even if fracking would generate new jobs, job leakage is probable, as this may result in job losses in other industries, for example, agriculture and tourism. Protestors were told that the carrot of new jobs is substantially exaggerated by the shale oil prospectors and they fear the long-term damage to the environment would lead to exacerbating the effect on climate change.

But evidence from the USA proves otherwise as commercial shale fracking operations have been established for 30 years, and studies show that the risk of gas entering groundwater from the fractures in the rock is extremely low.

The experts argue that the thickness and properties of rock surrounding the fractures limit how far the fractures can reach and therefore limit the chances of leaks of gas into the groundwater table.

Opponents of fracking are vociferous in their protests, saying that it could unleash health and environmental disasters while failing to deliver the promised economic boom that is much needed in the British economy. To their defence they quote a number of US and British scientists and medics who researched the process of fracking and these warn of potentially lasting damage to tourism and agriculture while bringing only short-term jobs and doing little to cut long-term energy costs.

In a concerted approach by protesters against the industry they quote from a report issued by Scientists for Global Responsibility and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health which unanimously concluded by saying “confidence” in fracking “is undermined by a series of disingenuous claims made by both the government and industry”.

Naturally, as the lobby against use of fossil fuel takes prominence they argue that any successful fracking operation will lock the UK into a dependence on hydrocarbons and the equally volatile and expensive international gas market. They completely discount any economic advantages arising from making Britain a net exporter of fossil fuels given that the North Sea wells are nearing depletion stage or need relatively higher investment to drill new fields.

Stopping fracking attempts at this critical stage is making investors think twice in locking more capital in a nascent industry which, according to preliminary studies, can potentially produce enough gas for it to make a difference to the UK’s indigenous supplies but critics retort that this means a lot of wells – many more than are typical for conventional gas reservoirs.

The resistance to encourage drilling deep into the ground is compounded by the long-term integrity of boreholes and the cement needed to seal the boreholes and prevent leaks. Are the regulators up to speed to monitor the industry? For the technically-minded one has first to do extensive testing on different sites to check for aquifer characterisation and testing of potential urban, industrial and agricultural pollution.

Quoting from studies on the subject of fracking, one expects the licensed operator to own extensive laboratory facilities for the determination of water, gas and rock chemistry, isotopes, rock mineralogy, rock hydraulic properties/petro physics and geotechnical properties.

Further expertise in 3D geology modelling together with abilities in field survey, data collection and innovative sampling techniques are prerequisites for a full drilling permission to be awarded.

As everything is relative to the size of the industry in UK, one notes the remarks of Prof. Richard Davies, director of the Durham Energy Institute, whose opinion is that many wells are needed for fracking to make a difference to the indigenous gas supplies on a commercial scale.

It is encouraging to note that in the USA, which is a pioneer in successful fracking operations, the risks of contamination of ground water are low. Of the thousands of shale gas wells drilled in the USA, only a handful have reported problems with leakage and all were successfully sealed by subsequent work. Critics in Britain respond that one leaking well is one too many.

But the government is backing the industry and Prime Minister David Cameron has said the Conservatives are “going all out for shale”, and the energy and climate secretary, Amber Rudd, promised that she would “deliver shale”.

Even the energy minister said the decision by Lancashire council was disappointing. “However, shale gas has huge potential in the UK, and is an opportunity to develop a new, home-grown energy source that would displace foreign imports and create tens of thousands of jobs. I’m confident that potential will be realised – and the government will back it.”

In conclusion can fracking, if successfully licensed in the next decade, change the fortune of Britain to become a net exporter of shale oil or gas, resulting in the creation of new jobs and gradually reduce reliance on imports from the Middle East and Russia. Only after successful drilling and extensive seismic testing of thousands of wells can this become a reality. Perhaps news of a rich vein of shale oil or gas reserves may be a contributing factor in the next referendum promised next year in the minds of citizens – to decide whether to vote to stay or exit the EU.