20120422_C4

Source: Channel 4 News

URL: http://www.channel4.com/news/q-a-is-fracking-the-answer-to-our-energy-needs

Date: 22/04/2012

Event: The future of fracking and shale gas in the UK

Attribution: Channel 4 News

People:

• Tom Clarke: Channel 4 Science Editor
• Matt Frei: Channel 4 Washington Correspondent
  • Chris Green: Report author and seismologist
  • Dr Robert Gross: Energy policy specialist, Centre for Energy Policy, Imperial College
  • Ciaran Jenkins: Channel 4 reporter
  • Tony Juniper: Environmental campaigner
  • Mark Miller: Chief Executive, Cuadrilla Resources
  • Phillip Mitchell: Anti-fracking campaigner
  • Richard Moorman: Head of Tamboran Resources
  • Simon Moore: Environment & Energy Research Fellow, Policy Exchange
• Jon Snow: Presenter, Channel 4 News

Matt Frei: Fracking - the drilling operation that involves pumping water and chemicals into shale rock to fracture it and release gas. One of the risks - it can trigger minor earthquakes. And yet a government-commissioned panel of experts now says it should continue, but only with careful monitoring. In a moment, our science editor explains how fracking has revolutionised the U.S. energy market. First, Cieran Jenkins reports from Blackpool, where fracking has already caused the earth to shake.

Ciaran Jenkins: A few miles inland from the Blackpool Tower, you may just find an answer to Britain's energy problem. Beneath a patchwork of fields, potentially trillions of cubic feet of shale gas. The challenge is getting it out without causing an earthquake. Exactly what happened on this site in Weeton near Blackpool last year. An American company Cuadrilla were testing a gas-extraction technique called fracking. Two tremors followed, 1.5 and 2.3 on the Richter scale. So what's to stop it happening again?

Mark Miller: All the studies show, from around the world, that really this can be done safe. The technology is there. When you hear about a story that goes wrong somewhere in North America or whatever, it's usually somebody that didn't follow all the procedures. But we can only focus on what we do here, and we take great steps to go above and beyond the industry best practice.

Ciaran Jenkins: But they've been doing nothing here for a year. Fracking's been halted until the government's convinced it's safe. It involves drilling a well, thousands of feet underground, then pumping in water, sand and chemicals to fracture the rock and release gas that travels back up the pipe. Experts reporting to the government say more earthquakes are likely. And yet, with a few extra precautions, they say fracking can resume.

Chris Green: We genuinely want to go after shale gas to secure our energy future, as one of the tools in that toolbox. Then we're going to have to accept that there may be some impacts, but we can't afford for that to be risky.

Ciaran Jenkins: But fracking isn't new to Lancashire. It's meant gas has been flowing up this well for 20 years. This is what a well head looks like. There's just one on this site, at the moment, and a lot of local people probably don't even know this is here. But the plans are to build up to 800 more of these, and to go deeper and further underground than ever before.

[Excerpts from Gasland]

Man: Our water was good, before they started drilling. When they got done, it was bad.

Woman: Obviously we have a problem here.

Ciaran Jenkins: In America, though, where fracking is far more established, there have been serious safety concerns. Claims gas seeps into the water supplies, with dramatic effect.

[Excerpt from Gasland - man holds a light to a kitchen tap, causing flames to gush out.]

Man: Woah, jeez!

Ciaran Jenkins: And there are fears of contamination here, too.

Phillip Mitchell: It could be released, for example, into drinking water. Now we haven't fully understood the implications of having a site a mile away, and the science is still coming out, from America, for example, where physicians are very concerned and are calling for a halt.

Ciaran Jenkins: But it's the government that'll decide whether or not fracking has a future. One that would transform this part of Lancashire, above and below the ground. Ciaran Jenkins, Channel 4 News, Weeton.

Jon Snow: Well, our science editor Tom Clarke has been looking at how the energy market in the United States is being transformed, as we speak, following the introduction of fracking, and what that could mean for Britain.

Tom Clarke: Fracking was once an expensive and marginal way of getting gas out of the ground. But as conventional reserves run out, it's led to a world-changing shift in energy production. And it's America which has been at the forefront of this new dash for gas released by fracking. In just five years, it's gone from a significant importer of gas to being almost self-sufficient.

[Screen shows "90% gas produced in the United States: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies/Policy Exchange/EIA"].

These vast areas show the unconventional reserves in the U.S., gas trapped in rocks and shales that fracking can release. In 1990 less than 10% of America's gas was coming from these sources.

[Screen shows "Hard to reach gas: 1990: 10% of supply: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies/Policy Exchange/EIA"].

By 2010, more than half was from that hard-to-reach gas.

[Screen shows "Hard to reach gas: 2010: 55% of supply: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies/Policy Exchange/EIA"].

And the U.S. government estimates that by 2035, 70% or more will come from fracking.

[Screen shows "2035: 70%+ from fracking: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies/Policy Exchange/EIA"].

Simon Moore: A big impact on the American gas market - prices there have plummeted over the last half-decade or so, primarily as a result of hydraulic fracturing. And shale gas - that's heard a revival of some heavy industry - chemicals, and the like.

Tom Clarke: Given the success of fracking in the U.S., soon we could be fracking all over the world. There are huge reserves in South America, Australia, China. Close to home - Poland. All of which are beginning to exploit their reserves. Britain has shale gas reserves of 5 trillion cubic feet, equivalent to a year and a half of our total consumption.

[Screen shows "5.3 trillion cubic feet"].

But there could be ten times that, under the North Sea. But fracking gas from the outskirts of Blackpool ain't the same as the prairies of the U.S.

Robert Gross: In the U.S. context, there's lots of - effectively - empty spaces. Population density is a tenth of the British situation. And in that context, I think it's going to be very much more difficult to exploit shale economically. It doesn't mean we won't be able to get some, but we shouldn't expect it to be anything like the game-changer that we've seen in the U.S.

Tom Clarke: It's not just crowded here. The UK also has legally-binding targets on greenhouse gases. Those should favour renewable energy sources like wind power over the carbon-intensive shale gas. So even if the Department and Energy lifts their moratorium on shale gas, ultimately it's businesses that will decide whether fracking in Britain is cost-effective or not.

Jon Snow: So it's slashed gas prices in the United States. Surely we won't be far behind it with welcoming it with open arms. With me now is the environmentalist Tony Juniper and in Calgary, Canada, Richard Moorman, head of Tamboran Resources, a fracking company with sites in Australia and Botswana but, more importantly, a licence to operate in Northern Ireland. Let's just check first, Mr Moorman, when you hope to bring gas up out of the shale and into production in Northern Ireland?

Richard Moorman: Good afternoon. I think the earliest we can reasonably expect to be bringing gas to surface in Northern Ireland will be in late 2013 or early 2014. The company first has to first conduct a series of environmental impact assessments to ensure that the product can be done safely, with minimal impact to the local communities, and then secondly to allow for public consultation.

Jon Snow: But this report today kind of gives you the go-ahead, doesn't it, in a kind of global sense?

Richard Moorman: Well, I think we have to be careful what the report does say. It's encouraging that the report says that seismic effects can be prevented and controlled through effective regulation and the effective use of advanced technologies. This is not a freebie, the company has to do what it has to do. However, it really only covers a part of what we have to do when we consider shale projects. Shale projects have a significant impact, compared to conventional projects - we drill more wells in a given area. And so the onus falls again on the operator to make sure that they reduce or completely minimise that impact. This report's encouraging, but it's only the start.

Jon Snow: Here's a very well-behaved company, by the sound of it, Tony Juniper, and surely the problem for any environmentalist is if gas prices plummet, as a result of bringing this stuff up, it's not going to be stopped, is it?

Tony Juniper: I think we need to be cautious about comparing the situation here with the United States. And there's various reports out there, including one from Deutsche Bank, which tells us that we shouldn't expect gas prices to plummet as they have over there, for all sorts of reasons, including, as you mentioned just now, this is a very crowded country, the environmental issues will be much more pronounced, and therefore expensive to get the gas out of the ground. The thing that really worries me, however, is not so much the seismic impact, geologically, it's the seismic impact of this stuff on the global climatic situation. And the idea of us opening up a whole new family of fossil fuel resources, at a time when we need to be cutting our emissions very aggressively, I think is something that is the biggest concern of all here.

Jon Snow: That's a big challenge, isn't it, Mr Moorman? Because the truth of the matter is: this is another dirty energy.

Richard Moorman: Well, hydrocarbon fuels are what they are. The reality is: the United Kingdom burns a tremendous amount of hydrocarbon fuels, and so shale gas is a means to get the country less dependent on the imports. One thing people don't consider is that those imports come from a great distance. Liquefied natural gas cargoes - they come from Qatar, for example - burn over 10% of their product just to power the vessels to get to the United Kingdom. So a tremendous amount of emissions are lost in importing, as well. However, the gas itself has been shown to -

Jon Snow: Well, let me just pause you on that, let me just -

Richard Moorman: - be cleaner than coal in the majority of studies.

Jon Snow: Let me just pause you on that, because that is a rather important point. I mean, if in fact you are cutting global emissions by reducing the amount of burn to get the wretched stuff, that is a plus, isn't it?

Tony Juniper: Well, this is not like conventional gas - it's got other emissions linked to it, which -

Jon Snow: His point is that it's transport -

Tony Juniper: That's one factor. But then again, and count against that, the energy needed to get the stuff out of the ground, plus also the fugitive emissions of methane that come from this process, which are higher than conventional gas production. And those methane emissions are 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide. And if you start adding up all those impacts, then this doesn't look so clean. I think if the British government is going to progress with this kind of industry, we need to have a very clear policy laid out that's going to tell us how we're going to do that at the same time as decarbonising our electricity sector, which is basically what the government is being told by its official advisers.

Jon Snow: One of the things, Richard Moorman, that this report doesn't talk about is ground water. And you say you're going to be taking serious, sort of, environmental tests, and the rest of it. But can you really be sure that you won't be polluting ground water deep down that comes up and, er, really does pollute what people are consuming?

Richard Moorman: Well, it's a fair question, and it's a concern for people who are new to the process. The reality is there are a couple of things that have to be done, can be done and are readily checked. First of all, the well bores have to be constructed thoroughly. This is easily checked with modern tools and easily managed by regulatory authorities that are keen to show they're serious to protect the public. So that's the first step, is to make sure ground water cannot be contaminated directly by drilling the well. Secondly, to your very point about deep fluids, this comes back to the practises, again, of how do you handle fluids that return to surface? In Tamboran's case, we have a 4-piece containment system - a tank, a cement layer, an impenetrable membrane and a dyke system around the entire lease. However, I can't speak that way for every operator. Nonetheless, I think if the government regulates such things, that it will prevent any problems.

Jon Snow: Richard Moorman of Tamboran Resources, thank you very much, and I'm sorry that his picture was a little fuzzy but his words were very clear. Thank you very much indeed, and Tony Juniper, thank you also for coming in.