Abigail Jordan

Fracking: a solution or curse?The world, and the UK especially, faces an energy conundrum: an unabated demand for energy, coupled with dwindling supplies of current fuel resources, exacerbated by issues of climate change and energy security.  The UK is heavily reliant on fossil fuels which account for 85% of energy usage1. Whilst there are sustained, large-scale investments in North Sea reserves, such as Total’s Laggan Tormore project, which will produce 6% of the UK’s gas output2, the finite nature of these reserves means that the search for the fuel of the future must continue.  The USA has championed hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for shale gas as their solution. The UK government has now followed suit, offering tax incentives to encourage companies to invest in the process.

Why is a ‘solution’ needed? Simply put, the world’s population is consuming much higher levels of finite fuels than the Earth is producing and, thus, energy reserves are rapidly running out. It is estimated that oil reserves, which account for a third of the total fuel consumption, will be depleted by mid 2060s 3, and that recoverable reserves of natural gas will follow in the 2070s4. The UK has become a net importer of gas, a situation which makes the country vulnerable to both fluctuating prices and geo-political situations. There is a pressing need to find a fuel that can sustain the UK into the future, and the options appear to be: revive the use of coal, increase conventional oil/gas imports, increase the amount generated by nuclear, adopt renewable energies, or turn to fracking.

So what is fracking and how does it work?Like conventional gas, shale gas is comprised of a mix of different length hydrocarbons, but principally methane (CH4). The difference is that it is extracted from the shale layer rather than from the sandstone layer. To extract the gas, it is necessary to drill down to the shale layer then rotate the drill by 90° and continue horizontally, thereby increasing the efficiency of a well, as multiple ‘target zones’ are obtained from one drilling pad. After the wells have been drilled and cased to prevent water contamination, the end is plugged and a perforating gun is used to form small cracks in the shale formation. The fracking fluid can then be forced down at a very high pressure of around 100 bar5 to open up the cracks. The exact composition of the fluid remains confidential, but it is principally water mixed with: quartz sand to keep the

1

World & UK Fuel Consumption by TypeData: BP Statistical Review 2015 & Department of Energy and Climate Change

Abigail Jordan

fractures open; hydrochloric acid to clear cement debris left from the drilling and break down limestone; corrosion inhibitors; and friction reducing agents6. The shale gas flows up through the pipes with the waste fluid and is collected at the top. This process can be repeated by moving the plug inwards to form fractures in different places. Hydraulic fracturing is by no means a recent technological breakthrough. From 1862, a similar process, ‘fluid tamping’, was employed to increase oil production by up to 1200% in some wells7. Fracking, as we know it today, was first used in the late 1940s in early experiments but these attempts were unsuccessful, and not pursued as conventional oil and gas reserves were plentiful and relatively cheap to extract. The breakthrough came in the 1990s when it was combined with horizontal drilling. The technique is far more expensive than conventional drilling, mainly due to the shale being further below ground. Whilst a company only needs a gas price of between $2/mcf (thousand cubic feet) and $4/mcf8 to produce conventional natural gas commercially, producing shale gas has a minimum production cost alone of around $5.76/mcf9.

Fracking in ContextAccepting that investment is required to increase our energy reserves, how does fracking compare as a potential fuel solution? In my opinion, the efficacy of different energy sources should be assessed across five key categories: energy output, environmental impact, social impact, self-sufficiency and cost-efficiency.

Energy OutputDue to the vast demand for energy, perhapsthe principal consideration is the energy output of the fuel. An approximate energy output can be calculated using enthalpy changes, accepting that this value will vary in reality due to other factors, including the conditions and the strength of the inter-molecular bonds. The combustion of both shale and conventional gas is shown in Equation 1.1, as they are both principally methane. The bond enthalpies show that the combustion of shale gas has an energy output of approximately 808 KJmol-1.

The energy output of coal varies with its levels of impurities; as an approximation I have modelled coal as pure carbon, which averages around 394 KJmol-1. This is less than half that produced by gas, so it is necessary to burn more coal, for the same output, which consequently has a greater impact

2

Equation 1.1 CH4 (g) + 2O2 (g) 2H2O (l) + CO2 (g)

Abigail Jordan

on the environment. The energy output from renewable energies is understandably lower and varies greatly. An average wind farm, of 75 turbines, produces around 2.4x109 KJ a day. Comparatively, the average gas powered station would expect to produce around 2.5x1013 KJ in a day, over 10,000x more than the wind farm. A nuclear power station could produce 4.3x1010 KJ a day, if it was in constant use, which in actuality does not tend to happen. This is also lower than the output from a shale gas power station. These models demonstrate how shale gas would be more efficient in energy production than coal, nuclear and renewable energies and could easily keep up to the demands of our daily living in the UK.

Environmental ImpactThe impact of fuels on the environment has been the subject of contentious debate for decades. The recent UN Paris Climate Change Agreement obliges its signatories to keep their emissions to below 2°C, the agreed safety threshold; in order to be viable in the longer-term, fuel sources should not breach these limits. As a hydrocarbon fuel source, a reliance on shale gas would result in the UK breaching this protocol; however, environmental concerns go beyond this and include air pollution, water contamination and earthquakes. So far, the effects of fracking are not well understood, but numerous air contaminants are released from the drilling, construction and operation of the site and the disposal of waste, namely: ground level ozone, benzene and nitrogen oxides 10, as well as the largely unavoidable methane leaks (c.4% of the methane produced by the Weld Country gas wells is escaping11). The severity of this problem is because the warming effect of methane is 21 times greater than that of carbon dioxide12. Fracking can lead to water contamination from the disposal of waste water and casing leaks. There have been toxic chemicals found in US rivers in close proximity to fracking sites. Chemicals can leak out of the casings inserted into the wells, and into aquifers, from which drinking water is often extracted. Earthquakes can be caused when the waste water is injected into disposal wells underground, although this is yet to be directly linked to fracking.

However, the majority of these problems are avoidable. EU regulations should prevent water contamination from waste water and leaks can be avoided, as long as the casings are thick enough and regularly monitored. The environmental consequences of fracking will be largely relative to how effectively the government regulates and monitors the industry. What remains an issue is that fracking does not solve the issue of de-carbonising our fuels: it is unavoidable that the production and use of shale gas will have a profound impact on global warming, due to the large amounts of carbon dioxide released from combustion, and the inevitable methane leaks in extraction and transportation.

Social Impact Ernst and Young estimate that at fracking’s potential peak in the UK 64,500 new jobs would be created. But, despite

3

Fracking Timeline:

Abigail Jordan

having sufficient resources of shale gas, the high population density in the UK is an issue in finding suitable drilling sites. To put this into perspective, Karnes, USA, has a population density of 8 people/km2, whereas the lowest density in the UK has 25/km2 13. Public opposition exists (of the members of the public that feel they understand fracking, 63% opposed it14) but these concerns could be addressed as the process becomes more established. On balance, fracking would provide many social and economic benefits which would outweigh the issue of current unpopularity.

Self-sufficiencyA UK fuel provision would reduce our reliance on imports, provide energy security, and relieve geo-political concerns. The Department of Energy calculated that Central England has approximately 1,329 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of shale gas, with energy consultants Wood Mackenzie estimating that 50tcf is easily recoverable, enough to fuel 17 years of the UK’s energy requirements, or reduce the gas import dependency from 80% to 60%15. Fracking has the potential to change the import/export balance of a country; by 2035 the US is forecast to become a net exporter of gas, whereas the EU will be importing over 80%15.

Yet, despite this potential, the UK fracking industry is in its infancy. On the timeline (page 3), the UK is only between the first two stages. The slow development is attributed to the moratorium briefly imposed on the fracking industry after seismic activity was detected during fracturing in 2011. Consequently, despite sufficient resource to initiate fracking, the under-developed nature of the UK industry is preventing a US-style boom. Timescales are important, when a fuel solution is considered as an opportunity to buy development time for a renewable future.

CostEstablishing a commercially viable fracking well involves many initial costs and processes. Preliminary exploration wells require a significant upfront investment, despite the success of a well not being guaranteed (US shale wells cost around $17million each15). Existing conventional wells can extract gas for very low costs and, consequently, fracking cannot currently compete with these. However, due to the dwindling supply of conventional gas, investors are no longer as keen to fund new-build gas, providing fracking with a window of opportunity. Once the shale gas has been extracted the cost to convert this into power would be low, as the UK already has an established gas infrastructure network and, thus, shale gas becomes more competitive against other non-gas options. So, if the initial costs to fracking can be overcome, which is the aim of the government’s tax incentives, shale gas could become a cost-effective source of fuel.

4

Abigail Jordan

Energy Output

Environmental

Impact

Social Impact Self-sufficiency

Economically

Viable ≈ ≈

Fracking offers a solution on many levels and yet the environmental concerns are so significant that other options must be considered.

Do other energy sources offer a less compromised solution?

RenewablesGiven the need to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, there is pressure for renewable energy sources to be a central pillar of any strategy, however it is questionable whether these sources are currently able to meet the UK’s energy requirements. The amount of electricity generated by renewable sources is increasing but, with Government subsidies due to be withdrawn, and no solution yet in sight for an effective method for storing renewable energy, this growth may stall.

Ultimately the UK “has sufficient resource to get to 100% [renewable] on current usage”16, and their long term future is more secure than other options, as they are not limited by supply. Furthermore, due to climate change, the way we use and obtain energy is changing in renewables’ favour. 2014 was the warmest year on record, energy usage in the domestic market is dropping, and the weather is becoming more extreme17, thus supporting renewable power generation. Public support of renewables has been fluctuating around 75-82%14

and, as the only option with no negative environmental or safety implications, a renewable energy powered country could, and should, be the long-term solution.

CoalReadily available, cheap, reliable and overlooked, subject to carbon capture technology, coal could be considered a conduit to a longer term solution. Declining production has echoed coal’s dwindling popularity, due mainly to its high sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides and carbon dioxide emissions. Coal is composed principally of carbon, water, hydrogen and oxygen laced with small amounts of sulphur. It is the traces of sulphur which amplify the environmental issues. High temperatures cause the sulphur to be oxidised twice, forming sulphur trioxide (SO3) which forms sulphuric acid when dissolved in rain. Notwithstanding the development of carbon capture technologies, environmental concerns, and the inefficiency of producing coal in the UK makes coal unviable as a future fuel.

Nuclear In nuclear reactors reactor fuel uses two uranium isotopes: 235U and 238U, 18 and ordinary water as the moderator. The plants work much like that of coal, oil and gas, as the nuclear fission is used to heat water which turns turbines to

5

Abigail Jordan

generate power. The unstable U-235 nuclei break up, and release neutrons, which propagate the reaction by colliding with other uranium atoms, which then also split, producing daughter nuclei, neutrons, and vast quantities of heat as shown in equation 2.1. The key issue surrounding nuclear power is whether the benefits of it being a proven, low-carbon fuel outweigh the risks and dangers that come with the use of radioactive materials. Despite the amount of global electricity generated by nuclear sources dropping from 17% to 11% in the last twenty years19, there are currently 70 nuclear reactors under construction20, and it is becoming particularly favourable with countries who have been heavily reliant on coal. Wood Mackenzie noted that nuclear provides “a very real opportunity to provide energy diversity…[and reduce]… dependence on Russian gas”. However, nuclear projects are costly: EDF Energy estimates that its new Hinkley Point nuclear plant will cost c.£17 billion. Cost and safety issues are compounded by public opposition (only 33% of the public support it14), lack of a permanent storage solution for radioactive waste and finite uranium supply. Increase Gas ImportsDespite the geo-political risks, continuing to import ever increasing amounts of gas is the easiest short term option. In May 2015 Centrica, Britain’s largest energy supplier, signed a new contract with Russia’s Gazprom, agreeing that they will be supplied with 29.1 billion cubic metres (bcm) until 202121, a dramatic increase from the 2.4 bcm three-year contract implemented in 201222. Justifying this unpopular move, Centrica’s Chairman stated “Whatever we might want…it’s unrealistic to think that Russian gas is going to be replaced in the near-term”. Conventional gas is a proven and efficient fuel, which makes less of an impact on the environment than coal. Consequently, although less radical than other solutions, importing more gas is the most practical short term option.

Fracking: paradoxically both a solution and a curseAt face value, fracking offers a viable solution to the energy crisis as it fulfils many critical requirements, providing reliable and high energy output, positive social impact, increased self-sufficiency and, with the right investment, could become cost-effective. Moreover, if it helps to ease the transition away from coal, it would reduce the UK’s dependency on the least environmentally-friendly fuel. This transition period would also give the renewable industry time to develop the large batteries for energy storage needed to make renewables a viable option. And yet, establishing a fracking industry would shift the focus away from what should be our ultimate goal: a future fuelled renewably. This is the fracking paradox, it is simultaneously both a ‘solution’ to energy security, and a ‘curse’ to our ultimate global warming targets. As economist Paul Stevens of Chatham House, summarises, “If gas replaces coal that’s great. But if it starts to push out renewables, it’s no good”.

References & Additional Sources:

1. Energy UK- Powering the UK: http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-industry/powering-the-uk.html

6

Abigail Jordan

2. S. Williams (8 Feb. 2016), Wall Street Journal- “Total Starts North Sea Gas Project Despite Low Oil Prices”

3. BP Statistical Review: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics.htmlInternational

4. Energy Agency- Natural Gas: https://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/naturalgas/5. V. Köster (5 Feb. 2013), Chemistry Views- “What is Shale Gas? How Does Fracking Work?”:

http://www.chemistryviews.org/details/education/1316813/what_is_shale_gas_how_does_fracking_work.html

6. Frac Focus, Chemical Disclosure Registry: https://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used

7. J. Manfreda (13 Apr. 2015), OilPrice.com- “The Real History Of Fracking”: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil

8. M. Philips (17 Apr. 2012), Bloomberg Business- “Is Natural Gas Too Cheap to Drill?”:http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-04-17/is-natural-gas-too-cheap-to-drill

9. R. Weijermars- “Economic appraisal of shale gas plays in Continental Europe”, Applied Energy 106 (2013)

10. J. Hoffman, Montana State University- “Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking”

11. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)12. C. Brahic (14 Feb. 2015), New Scientist- “Should the UK Frack for Gas”13. Global Insight- “Is the US shale revolution replicable?” (14 Oct. 2014), Morgan Stanley14. DECC Public Attitudes Tracker- Wave 14 (Aug. 2015)15. Morgan Stanley- “Global Insight: Is the US shale revolution replicable?”16. J. Davenport, CEO Good Energy17. BBC Radio 4, The Bottom Line- “Renewable Energy”18. Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/How-Nuclear-Reactors-Work19. BBC News (27.02.15)- “Nuclear Power: Energy for the future or relic of the past?”:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-3091904520. Dr J. Cobb, Senior Communication Manager, World Nuclear Association21. C. Adams, Energy Editor (13 May 2015), Financial Times- “Centrica extends gas deals with

Gazprom and Statoil”22. Centrica (13 May 2015): https://www.centrica.com/news/centrica-extends-gas-supply-

contracts Email correspondence with Denise Cockrem, Chief Financial Officer, Good Energy Group British Geological Survey- “How much shale gas do we have?”:

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/howMuch.html Global Research- “EU Energy Crisis: Russia Cuts Off Gas Supplies through Ukraine To Six

European Countries”:http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/tyler-durden

C. Nunez (25 March 2015), National Geographic- “Water Use for Fracking Has Skyrocketed, USGS Data Show”:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/03/150325-water-use-for-fracking-over-time/

7