Fracking: is the UK right to go ahead? | Leo Hickman | Environment ...

I've spotted some details within the various statements and documents released by Decc that are likely to further fuel the debate over fracking in the UK. For example, here are a few snippets from Davey's statement that caught my eye:

So far as Cuadrilla?s current exploration programme in Lancashire is concerned, the remedial action level for the traffic light system (that is, the ?red light?) will be set at magnitude 0.5 (far below a perceptible surface event, but larger than the expected level generated by the fracturing of the rock). I consider that this is an appropriately precautionary approach. We received representations in our consultation that this is too cautious.

Given that Cuadrilla caused a 2.3 magnitude tremor during its previous wave of test drilling (and it lobbied for a 1.7 limit), how will this new 0.5 "red light" affect its forthcoming exploration?

Other concerns which have been expressed are not to do with the current phase of exploration work but with the implications of a possible future move to production operations, if the exploration is successful. It is by no means certain that any such operations will ever be proposed, but if they were, a different set of considerations would arise...

This is a big reminder by Davey that he has only granted the resumption of exploration, not production. A big difference. In other words, there are still many hurdles to clear before the UK sees fracking on the scale currently seen in the US.

So far as the use of chemicals is concerned, the environment agencies take a risk-based approach to the regulation of the use of chemicals in shale gas fracking activities. The hazard potential of all substances proposed to be injected into the ground will be assessed and the use of substances hazardous to groundwater will not be permitted. The identity of all substances proposed for injection, and the agency?s conclusions on their hazard potential, will be publicly available.

In the US, the secrecy by some companies about the chemicals they use during fracking has caused considerable disquiet and distrust. It is noteworthy, therefore, that the UK government will insist such information is made public.

Concern has also been expressed about the quantities of water used in fracking, or the disposal of waste water from the process. The water used may of course be obtained from licensed suppliers, but if directly abstracted by the operators, requires a licence from the environment agency. Licences will only be given where the agency is satisfied that a sustainable supply is obtainable.

Equally, disposal of waste water is subject to scrutiny by the agencies and will require a permit. The waste water from the operations in Lancashire has been found to contain low levels of radioactivity. A case-specific radiological assessment is required in support of any application for a permit for the disposal of radioactive waste. The agency will critically review any such assessment, and will only issue a permit if satisfied.

Expect the issue of water contamination to be a key battleground for environmentalists and local communities keen to stop fracking.

DECC has come to the conclusion that Cuadrilla?s response to the occurrence of the tremors demonstrated some weaknesses in its management of environmental risks. This conclusion has been discussed with the company, and they have in consequence reinforced their overall management structure, including by assigning to one board member specific responsibility for health and safety measures, and by reinforcing technical skills within the operational team. The effectiveness of these changes, and the resulting revised structure, is at present being reviewed for Cuadrilla by external consultants.

Davey is clearly indicating that Cuadrilla has been placed on the naughty step and will be watched very closely indeed by regulators. One further slip up by Cuadrilla could be disastrous for the prospects of fracking in the UK.

I intend to commission a study into the possible impacts of shale gas extraction on greenhouse gas emissions. This will consider the available evidence on the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas exploitation, and the need for further research. I have invited Professor David Mackay, my Department?s Chief Scientific Adviser and Dr Tim Stone, the Expert Chair of the Office of Nuclear Development to undertake this work.

Arguably, this is the key environmental question hanging over fracking. This study should have, perhaps, been commissioned before the green-light was given by Davey, but, nonetheless, plenty of attention and scrutiny will be give to the Mackay and Stone report when it is published.

We are also taking steps to prepare the way for any future production phase, though this is likely to be some years away. We have commissioned more detailed work on the shale gas resources of Great Britain from the British Geological Survey (BGS) and this will be published early next year. I emphasise that this will provide only an estimate of the resource, the gas in the ground, and not the reserves, the amount of gas which can in practice be produced economically from that resource. Until more exploration work has been done, a significant number of wells fracked and production patterns established over time, it will not be possible to make any meaningful estimate of likely economically recoverable resources of shale gas in the United Kingdom.

Again, another key part of Davey's statement. There is currently lots of noise being generated, particularly by shale gas enthusiasts, about the "game-changing" amounts of it under the ground waiting to be exploited. But it is little more than optimistic guesswork, at present. Until Decc publishes the BGS report in, as I've been told, January, treat any firm statements about the quantity and quality of "gas in place" and "recoverable reserves" (there's a huge difference between the two) with extreme caution. And even then, the BGS is telling me that its report will still be an estimate based, in part, on Cuadrilla's "gas content" figures from its 2-3 test rigs. The BGS admits it needs data from dozens, if not hundreds, of wells to make a more accurate estimate.

Finally, I haven't had a chance to fully go through this Q&A on fracking (pdf) posted by Decc, but I did spot this on pg 31:

Why would the UK exploit shale gas when it is clearly not aligned to managing global warming?
Shale gas production would in the first place replace declining offshore gas production and reduce reliance on external supplies. Beyond that point, use of gas could displace use of coal in generation, with a positive effect on GHG reduction (provided fugitive emissions are subject to proper controls as outlined above).

Investment in shale gas must be at the expense of investment in renewables?
It is too early to say whether shale gas will be able to contribute significantly to our sources of gas supplies for the future. But the recently published gas generation strategy confirms that the government sees a significant role for gas into the future; while continuing development of renewable supply will be essential to meeting our targets for renewables and wider climate change goals.

I don't know about you, but I find these answers far too vague to be reassuring.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/dec/13/fracking-shale-gas-uk-davey

johan santana viktor bout ncaa hockey role models ferdinand porsche gregg williams theraflu