Shale gas in the EU: is fracking the future?
by Justin Stares
Over the sandwich lunch before the Brussels seminar gets underway, an executive from Italian energy firm Edison talks of an American documentary called GasLand. The film investigates the side-effects of hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking', a revolutionary technique for extracting shale gas from deep underground.
According to GasLand filmmaker Josh Fox, the water supply in some areas of the United States has been so polluted by fracking gases that if you put a match under the tap in your kitchen you can create an impressive explosion. Nasty health problems – including brain lesions – have been noted among those who drink contaminated water, according to the film. The industry counters that these claims are false and that its practices are benign. Hosted by public relations firm Edelman, the seminar that follows includes only a passing mention of health and the environmental concerns. Love it or hate it, shale gas is making slow but steady progress towards acceptance by the European Union. Despite moratoriums and a lack of reliable data, Europe is coming to the conclusion that fracking is the future.
The EU is by no means as gung-ho as the US, where shale gas has made the country self-sufficient to the extent that liquefied natural gas import terminals are being re-engineered to export hydrocarbons to an energy-hungry world. In the European Parliament, more than 200 members voted for a complete fracking moratorium last month. In at least four member states – France, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Czech Republic – it is currently banned.
But despite widespread opposition, almost 400 MEPs rejected the moratorium call. The European Commission now has shale gas on its work programme for next year. Even the Council of Ministers, the institution representing reticent member states, is said to be prepared to do a deal. "Some governments were obliged to adopt a moratorium" by public opinion, says Francis McGowan, a lecturer in politics from Britain's Sussex University. This does not necessarily mean in all cases that they were opposed to shale gas itself, he told seminar attendees. Eastern European states are reported to be prepared to lift moratoria if there is an EU-wide deal.
The European Commission was "treading very carefully", McGowan said. Those who have studied public statements by environment commissioner Janez Potočnik expect the commission to "clarify existing rules" – code for light-touch legislation. Unlike the US, where a lack of regulation has helped fuel the shale gas boom, the fledgling EU shale gas industry is already facing a wall of Brussels bureaucracy. The "regulatory burden" is in place, and goes by the name of the water framework directive, the waste water directive and chemicals laws known collectively as Reach. Existing EU legislation was "very extensive", said McGowan. The US on the other hand is "more relaxed" about health, safety and the environment.
Before the shale gas industry can get a real toehold on this side of the Atlantic, many questions will need answering. For some in the Brussels executive, home-grown gas will help reduce Europe's dependence on imported energy. But member states such as Poland believe Brussels should keep its nose out of what is essentially a national strategic choice. At what level of government should regulation be drawn up?
Has enough research been done? Can industrial data be used as a basis for deciding policy without impinging on commercial confidentiality? If shale gas is viable, what will its effect be on other energy markets? Will investment in fracking displace investment in more environmentally friendly energy sources, such as wind power? How much will it cost to bring European shale gas to market? Industrial interest will depend to a certain extent on the price of carbon, says McGowan. The extent to which shale gas can contribute to the battle against climate change will depend on whether it is discovered in large enough quantities in countries that are currently dependent on coal, such as China.
An environmental activist in the audience points out that for every non-governmental organisation lobbying against fracking there are 10 times as many industry lobbyists pushing for the EU green light. Environmentalists in Brussels are outgunned, it would seem, which probably means that it is only a matter of time before shale gas enters the European energy mix.
As European member states consider the implications of environmentally risky shale gas development, the proposed EU-Canada trade agreement could give energy companies new powers to challenge fracking bans through the back door – claims Pia Eberhardt
I can only consider that I think gas is best used up as it may leak away. Coal and oil are best left in the ground and to achieve this, I can only suggest that the government buys the old mines and oil reserves - except that gas can be produced by the odd oil reserve.
W G Treharne - Llanelli
Your statement above that "a drill is used to bore into the ground to about 50 -100m below the water table" is just plain wrong. Check the facts. Although the depth of the shale layer around the world varies, it is typically around between 5,000 and 15,000 feet below the surface.
The aquifer (water table) on the other hand is usually relatively close to the surface. Hence the zero chance of contaminating the aquifer through the fracking process - the only way it could happen is for the well casing to fail at the aquifer layer.
So there is an agreed need to properly regulate the drilling procedures to ensure this never happens. By the way, the Gasland film you refer to has been discredited in this respect - the 'gas from the water taps' episodes were happening in certain parts of the US before any fracking took place there. It's a known local natural phenomenon.
P.Rose - Lyndhurst, UK
The article is biased. Memorandum is only in France (probably nuclear energy lobby) and Romania (probably gas lobby). Other countries have little resources or no interest in the case, with exception to Poland, which indeed has potential reserves that could turn it from 90 per cent dependance from Russian gas to a producing and even exporting country. Such lobbying like 'Gasland' and fake or naive 'enviromentalists' are aiming to ban this turn for Poland on European level
Mark Lucas - Hannover
For all those who seem to not care about the major risk to the water supply. Before choosing to expose yourself to the many toxic outputs of fracking, consider this.
Fracking could be another boom and bust. The Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) for fracked shale gas is dramatically lower than for conventional supplies. In the US, shale gas production costs a multiple of the current selling price.
The Exxon CEO says low US natgas prices are not sustainable. Contrary to BP's prediction that shale gas exploration would make North America "energy independent by 2030", US gas production has already hit a production ceiling and is actually declining in major areas.
"Like the recent credit bubble, the boom and bust in gas were driven in large part by tens of billions of dollars in creative financing engineered by investment banks like Goldman Sachs, Barclays and Jefferies & Company." (New York Times, After the Boom in Natural Gas, 20 October 2012)
Anonymous
In many european countries, being able to excavate shale gas would make them more independent. I've read about polish hopes, now there are lot of researchers to find shale gas fields.
Jack
The process is massively flawed in a number of ways. The water table that the bore has to pass through is likely to become contaminated by the toxic chemicals pumped down the bore under pressure.
The aquifers are meant to be protected by cement pipes and lining of the bore, but as fracking can cause tremors and earthquakes when the fissures are triggered the lining can easily become compromised.
Huge volumes of clean water are trucked to the site to be combined with sand and a mixture of toxic chemicals. Once the fissures are created the gas leaches into the water. The contaminated water is then pumped out of the well and must be treated.
The water is in most cases untreatable and it is then trucked away to other dump sites and it is pumped into those mines. That water is never to be used again. It is taken out of the aquifers or from water sources above ground like lakes. The clean water is taken and contaminated water stored.
There is also a matter of gases being released from the operations. Methane gas is far more harmful to the atmosphere than almost any other gas. Maybe you have heard of cow farts - methane.
The common belief in the industry is that 3 per cent of the mined gas will escape into the atmosphere. There are studies that show it is likely as high as 7 or 8 per cent.
It will create jobs, sure, there will be pipelines - LNG storage, shipping terminals etc. But the cost of LNG is down to a average yearly price of less then 3$, down from double that price 5-10 years ago That has to do with the large number of wells drilled all over the place..
Methane, benzene, and other related chemicals from the fracking process have been proven to be associated with high risk of brain cancers, lymphoma and a range of other health problems. There have already been countless deaths related to the chemicals being released into the environment.
The companies claim there is no proof but there is proof these chemicals cause cancer and health issues, and the companies use those chemicals in their wells. Then nearby aquifers become contaminated, animals and people get sick and die, yet the companies claim there is no proof it was they that caused it. They will take the money they sucked out from under people's land. And they will let those people die. Gasland is not a hoax. It is real.
GeoEngineer77 - Groningen, Netherlands
Injecting chemicals in vast quantities into the earth is a bad idea all around no matter the purpose. Spill these same chemicals onto the surface of the earth and emergency response teams will descend on the scene to clean it up and remove the contaminated soil as well. How can anyone in their right mind condone this kind of activity for any cause?
Frank Pravda - Saratoga, NY, U.S.A.
