Bishop Hill Royal Society to investigate fracking
May 24, 2012 Energy: gas Royal Society I'm rather late to this story, but it seems that the Royal Society is to prepare a report on shale gas and fracking:
The Royal Society is carrying out a short review jointly with the Royal Academy of Engineering of the major risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (also known as ’fracking’); including, geological risks, such as seismicity, and environmental risks, such as groundwater contamination.
The extraction of shale gas in the UK has been the subject of recent debate, with many concerned over potential risks associated with the process. This review will review the scientific and engineering evidence to provide a clear indication of where any potential risks are well understood; where there is general agreement but continuing debate; and where more significant uncertainties remain. It will also consider how these risks can be managed.
The review will not be an exhaustive analysis of all the issues associated with shale gas, nor does it promise to make any judgements on the appropriateness or otherwise of shale gas extraction being undertaken. The hope is that this review will be a valuable contribution from the scientific and engineering community to a wider debate on the future of shale gas extraction in the UK that should also encompass societal and economic issues.
The review is to be headed by Professor Robert Mair of the Royal Academy of Engineering.
In unrelated news, here is an article Professor Mair wrote in 2011 about the ways we must mend our ways to deal with climate change.
There's also this letter he wrote to the Guardian a few weeks ago. In it he says this:
[Apart from seismic impacts] There are other important engineering and scientific issues, such as the potential for groundwater contamination, that we are now in the process of evaluating. There are also economic and social considerations.
I wonder if our national academy is about to hold forth on the "economic and social considerations" of fracking. That would make for a good blog post.
Reader Comments (86)
J4R
I think you need to think 800 years into the past (Connolley [boo!, hiss!] of Wikipaedia skewing fame would assert more/earlier) rather than 200.
At least in the 19C, they used coal!
Dark Ages, anyone?
The Energy and Climate Change Committee of the House of Commons published a Fifth Report on Shale Gas on 10 May 2011.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/795/79502.htm
In their conclusions they wrote: "We conclude that IN PLANNING TO DECARBONISE THE ENERGY SECTOR the Department of Energy and Climate Change should generally be cautious in its approach to natural gas (and hence unconventional gases such as shale gas). Although gas emissions are less than coal they are higher than many lower carbon technologies."
On 30 April 2012 Dr Patsy Richards published another report on 'Shale gas and fracking' for the House of Commons. The pdf can be viewed from here:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06073
Some extracts:
"The ECC Committee found no evidence that fracking poses a direct risk to underground water aquifers provided the drilling well is constructed properly.
"In its response to the ECC Committee, the Government said that “Adverse effects on water resources as a result of possible expansion of the shale gas industry in the UK are not expected".
"Natural or mining-induced earthquakes in the UK are not uncommon with around 150 earthquakes recorded on average each year.
"The BGS (British Geological Survey) said in January 2012 that the risks to groundwater and of earthquakes have been exaggerated, with the minor earthquakes caused by fracking “Comparable in size to the frequent minor quakes caused by coal mining. What's more, they originate much deeper in the crust so have all but dissipated by the time they reach the surface”.
"The Government said in January 2012 that it has “no plans to introduce a moratorium on shale gas activities in the UK".
"As with conventional oil and gas activity, if there does prove to be commercially producible quantities of UK shale gas, the Government would support industry in tapping in such resources, so long as such exploitation proves to be technically and economically viable, and can be carried out with full regard to the protection of the environment."
What are the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering going to review that hasn't already been exhaustively reviewed? It simply gives politicians an excuse to avoid making decisions by pretending to await the review of the reviews of the reviews.
I think that somebody should point out to these idjits/fools/chimps that if they impose a ban on "fracking" then - they can say seriously bye-bye to a significant amount of proven in place oil recovery into the bargain.
This whole business exposes towering ignorance on the part of the so-called experts that our public servants are soliciting advice from - or... erm... did they solicit advice from the Royal Society? or are the Royal Society jumping the gun because they've been fatally compromised by eco-ideologues who've zero actual knowledge of the matters to hand?
If we agree to “think globally”, it becomes evident that riveting attention on GROWTH could be a grave mistake because we are denying how economic and population growth in the communities in which we live cannot continue as it has until now. Each village’s resources are being dissipated, each town’s environment degraded and every city’s fitness as place for our children to inhabit is being threatened. To proclaim something like, ’the meat of any community plan for the future is, of course, growth’ fails to acknowledge that many villages, towns and cities are already ‘built out’, and also ‘filled in’ with people. If the quality of life we enjoy now is to be maintained for the children, then limits on economic and population growth will have to be set. By so doing, we choose to “act locally” and sustainably.
More economic and population growth are no longer sustainable in many too many places on the surface of Earth because biological constraints and physical limitations are immutably imposed upon ever increasing human consumption, production and population activities of people in many communities where most of us reside. Inasmuch as the Earth is finite with frangible environs, there comes a point at which GROWTH is unsustainable. There is much work to done locally. But that effort cannot reasonably begin without sensibly limiting economic and population growth.
To quote another source, “We face a wide-open opportunity to break with the old ways of doing the town’s business…..” That is a true statement. But the necessary “break with the old ways” of continous economic and population growth is not what is occurring. There is a call for a break with the old ways, but the required changes in behavior are not what is being proposed as we plan for the future. What is being proposed and continues to occur is more of the same, old business-as-usual overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities, the very activities that appear to be growing unsustainbly. More business-as-usual could soon become patently unsustainable, both locally and globally. A finite planet with the size, composition and environs of the Earth and a community with the boundaries, limited resources and wondrous climate of villages, towns and cities where we live may not be able to sustain much longer the economic and population growth that is occurring on our watch. Perhaps necessary changes away from UNSUSTAINABLE GROWTH and toward sustainable lifestyles and right-sized corporate enterprises are in the offing.
Think globally while there is still time and act locally before it is too late for human action to make any difference in the clear and presently dangerous course of unfolding human-induced ecological events, both in our planetary home and in our villages, towns and cities.
Somewhere a Pole is laughing.
While it is sad to see the great and the good in Great Britain pretending to suspend economic and energy reality a few cold winters and associated brown outs may take the wind out of bird choppers and set the stage for a politics of abundance.
Public support for the greenie agenda is dropping fast and a smart politician of the right or the left will, eventually, realize there are votes in the slogan "frack, baby, frack" and none at all in electricity rationing.
May 24, 2012 at 7:36 PM | Steven Earl Salmony
We don't get sustainable (what ever the hell that means) by going back to the dark ages but by bringing everyone up to the same std. Once Africa is as rich as we in the West are there will be no need for migration to a 'Better life' plus population growth will stop as it follows the same pattern in all developed countries, in fact the major problem will be sustaining a balanced population, China is currently experiencing aging populations on the eastern coast where all the development has taken place helped by the one child policy.
Steven (if that's your real name)
Mass copy pasting verbose & grandiose near-identical diatribes across the blogosphere doesn't represent debate.
People with IQ's in more than double figures (possibly not your green buddies though) can spot this sort of garbage a mile away - and Google is our friend.
It's the most mindless and boring form of trolling - so I think you should make a real effort to wean yourself off the habit.
Save it for the echo chamber in your twee little middle class, eviro-orgasmic campus town.
http://2020buzz.wordpress.com/
Yes, I love the idea that water flows upwards.
May 24, 2012 at 7:36 PM | Steven Earl Salmony
doubt that you'll be back to engage - that would truly be a novelty.
But if you do... fact free, emotive, cliche ridden preachy diatribes aren't helpful at all.
You really need to get out more - walking or on a wooden bicycle of course.
and what Foxgoose said with bells on.
Any chance that the Royal Society and its engineering counterpart will compare the risks shale gas production with those of other reliable methods of producing energy such as coal mining and the extraction of oil and natural gas?
In 1913 no fewer than 439 miners were killed at the Senghenydd colliery near Caerphilly in south Wales. Major disasters like that obviously received considerable attention in the press but most most fatalities in mines attracted no more than a paragraph or two in a local newspaper. That is because fatal accidents were so common and if only one person was killed it would be a pretty minor story even for a local newspaper. Although everyone knows that mining is a dangerous occupation, I doubt if many people have any idea how great the death toll was in Britain.
Today hardly anything remains of the British coal industry but there are still miners dying to supply the energy needed to produce the things we buy. How often do we think about the coal miners in China?
Production of oil and natural gas is far safer than coal mining but is not without health risks, as the article in the Observer in the link below shows.
Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell
"The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades." Observer, 30 May 2010.
Perhaps the world would be better off without conventional deep coal mining. We could still make some use of coal by means of open cast mining and by underground gasification. However, there are probably not many people, other than green extremists, who think we should give up producing petroleum and gas from conventional wells - at least not unless better technologies for production of energy (e.g. nuclear fusion) prove to be feasible.
The pros and cons of shale gas production should be compared with those of natural gas, taking into account not just economic and environmental considerations but also the issue of energy security. However, I fear that the greatest risk association with the Royal Society investigation is the risk that the people involved will be chosen from among those who believe that an increase in CO2 levels will have catastrophic effects on a global scale. Therefore they will be prepared to accept devastating harm to the economies of every country in the world so all prosperous countries will go the way of Greece.
+1 to Buffy Minton's comment.
I remember the zeitgeist of my own childhood in the 60s and 70s. Optimism + enthusiasm + energy + confidence.
We watched the moon landings in awe - gathered round a black & white TV in the primary school.
We need to target the carbon dioxide spewing sausage dog and the massive carbon dioxide infrastructure that goes to support sausage dogs - trucks full of dog chow spewing 'black carbon' up and down the motorways of Britain. The dog should be part of the 80% of CO2 emissions that disappear before 2050.
We frack or the dog gets it!
/sarc
Has the Royal Society finished its research into lemmings?
Perhaps I should have provided a link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/17/greg-barkers-sausage-dog_n_1523611.html
I hope that Prof Mair is aware of the engineering adage that 'a camel is a horse designed by a committee'.
Hello, energy related material translator (ermt?!)
Take a look at the following and all your worries will be allayed:
http://exploreshale.org/
Yes, I know this is in the US, but open your eyes and look at the depths involved.
Quote;
Here is a concise, balanced view of fracking from a surprising source:
http://www.balcombevillage.co.uk/FrackingDocuments/The%20Fracking%20Report.pdf
Unquote
What gem of a document - now I understand.
Can we get the BBC to read it ?
The cost, the cost, the cost. All this fracing and at what cost, and at what production volumes and rates?
The report should - but may not - speak to the density of drilling and frac-ing. That will be of interest. Also the depth, length, need for remedial (re)fracs later. With this information we should be able to back-estimate the probable cost of a project, the probable outcome of the project, and thereby the minimum price for natural gas that the British public will be forced to pay: upfront cost plus 100%?
Look for the evidence that the recovered gas won't be cheap. It will be buried, but it will be there.
More economic and population growth are no longer sustainable in many too many places on the surface of Earth because biological constraints and physical limitations
Mankind exceeded our physical limitations as soon as we harnessed fire.
We have done it multiple times since then, notably with the wheel, plough and internal combustion engine.
There are, in the long run, no physical limitations on how many people live on the earth.
We also exceeded our biological constraints when we learned to domesticate animals.
We did it again with farming, breeding better strains and fertiliser.
There are not as many biological limitations as the Malthusians make out.
heads on spikes !
shove a red hot pippet up u know whom's fancy behind!
ok I'll get my coat now
At least you are getting an investigation, however biased. Christchurch City Council in NZ declared a fracking free zone in the city, and is making recommendations for the regions to follow suit.
I don't recall any scientific or engineering assessment taking place
"I wonder if our national academy is about to hold forth on the "economic and social considerations" of fracking. That would make for a good blog post."
Can somebody please tell me where I might find your national academy holding forth on the "economic and social considerations" of wind farms and other "renewables" that have turned into a blight on the environment?
This cannot be the most qualified Engineer. When do we begin to hear from the enineering section of the Royal Society, or has the rot gone too far.
metro
The U.S. economy is benefiting from the self-crippling energy policies of the UK, Germany and Australia, to name three. Low U.S. energy prices are prompting companies to expand or build facilities which use energy (what facility does not use energy?) in the U.S. rather than elsewhere in the world. (Royal Society, am I going too fast for you?)
Fortunately for the U.S. economy, the oil and gas industry had been fracking wells for 5 decades and simply expanded into the shale area. It was only when oil and gas production had rapidly increased that enviornmental activists objected. The activists simply hate cheap, plentiful fossil fuels.
Everyone knows about plentiful gas from fracking driving down its price, but oil production from fracking has jumped, as well:
http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/image.png
@Andy,
I can understand some hesitation in Christchurch about fracking.
But why this ?
Why doesn't Christchurch Council just stick to its own knitting ? Have they nothing important to do ? R-R-R-Rebuilding the c-c-city anyone ?
Yes, I love the idea that water flows upwards.
May 24, 2012 at 8:41 PM | philip foster>>>>>
This IS the brave new world of post modern science don't y'know!
I just found out that, if you frack, you are increasing the reservoir pressure, whereas decreasing reservoir pressure can increase yields in some instances.
I can promise that it will.
The likeliest outcome of all this is that UK will end up dependent on expensive imports of other people's cheaply-produced shale gas, i.e. the worst of both worlds.
Buffy Minton is correct,
I also grew up in post war England but little did I realize whilst studying Animal Farm for English Lit O-level that some in the class were either so dumb or so machivelian, or maybe both, as to consider it an instruction manual for society.
Have just read the editorial in the Spectator heavily criticising the Government's stand on fracking and the complete absence of any suggestion that shale gas might contribute more to our energy security. The final three sentences say,
'But to ignore shale, as the government seems intent on doing, would be an act of near-criminal negligence. There has always been a tension between green ideology and the basic scientific facts of energy supply. If nothing else, David Cameron's government has made it clear which side it is on.'
Good for the Speccie. This is the second or third time the editorial has had a dig at the ridiculous energy policies of this Government. I just wish they'd bloody LISTEN!!!
I find this interesting, similar debates on fracking are going on in Australia, they all discuss hydraulic fracing. The alternative is LPG fracking which never gets a mention.
Suggest an internet search on LPG fracking will give some interesting results for your readers.
Clive
May 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM | Clive
Yes, just googled LPG fracking. One North American company, Gasfrac, seems to have developed it with at least one Italian company supplying parts.
Certainly looks like a possible way forward.
Why has nobody ever talked about it?
The Americans have done an excellent thing putting pressure this way on the Royal Society, isn't it?
Are the risks of shale gas exploration big enough for us to continue spinning our windmills? Hah.
They should change the name to the Royal Society of Lysenko
Considering the RS take on CAGW I do not hold out much hope that the truth will be told about fracking which has not caused problems in the US, much against media hyped reports.