IN ITS first acts of desperation, the new government of Prime Minister Liz Truss has decided to announce that the moratorium on fracking has been lifted.
Fracking, hydraulic fracturing (HF), is the technique used widely in the US and Canada to extract shale gas. It involves drilling deep into the earth, pumping in large volumes of water under pressure and driving the gas to the surface.
It causes earthquakes and can pollute groundwater after the pumping water is run off. In Canada in particular HF stands accused of environmental damage.
US gas is sold to Europe at inflated prices, as a premium for Washington over its war on Russia and blackmail over anti-Russia sanctions.
In Britain, it was rejected by the residents of the Fylde, at the Cuadrilla Resources fracking site near Plumpton, after an earthquake measuring 2.9 on the Richter scale was triggered by the pumping in 2019. That was what precipitated the moratorium.
Nick Moore, who lives in Peel Road close to the Preston New Road site, said test drilling caused cracks in the walls in his house and to his drive, adding that Cuadrilla had admitted responsibility and repaired the damage, as well as awarding him £1,500 in compensation.
Council leaders in the Cotswolds and Forest of Dean have said they are ‘alarmed’ and want to make it clear fracking is not welcome there.
Into this general opposition, the new Tory government has thrown caution on fossil fuels to the wind. It is proposing opening a coal mine in Whitehaven and renewing exploration for land-based shale gas sites, trashing its stated ‘green’ goals and enraging campaigners.
Yesterday’s announcement in Parliament made by the Business and Energy Secretary(BEIS), Jacob Rees-Mogg was accompanied by a press statement justifying it:
Rees-Mogg said: ‘In light of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and weaponisation of energy, strengthening our energy security is an absolute priority, and – as the prime minister said – we are going to ensure the UK is a net energy exporter by 2040.
‘To get there we will need to explore all avenues available to us – through solar, wind, oil and gas production – so it’s right that we’ve lifted the pause to realise any potential sources of domestic gas.
‘The new licensing round is expected to lead to over 100 new licences, as previously announced by the prime pinister, forming part of the government’s plans to accelerate domestic energy supply. Under the new licensing round, which follows the outcome of the Climate Compatibility Checkpoint, the NSTA is expected to make a number of new “blocks” of the UK Continental Shelf available, for applicants to bid for licences.
‘The government is today formally lifting the pause on shale gas extraction and will consider future applications for Hydraulic Fracturing Consent with the domestic and global need for gas in mind and where there is local support.
‘There have only been 3 test wells which have been hydraulically fractured in the UK to date. It is clear that we need more sites drilled in order to gather better data and improve the evidence base and we are aware that some developers are keen to assist with this process.’
That is the position of the Tory party leadership, flying in the face of many of its own members who do not want their country homes defiled by drilling towers and earthquakes.
Labour’s Ed Miliband trashed Rees-Mogg’s announcement in Parliament, pointing out that any promises that shale gas would bring the cost of gas down were false because it is sold on an international market, and enjoying sky-rocketing prices for energy companies.
In March, Rees-Mogg’s predecessor Kwasi Kwarteng said it would ‘take up to a decade to extract sufficient volumes’ of gas at a ‘high cost for communities and our precious countryside’. That was then, this is now. Kwarteng is now Chancellor.
Kwarteng it was who commissioned the British Geological Survey (BGS) to answer six questions about the prospects for UK fracking:
1. Have there been new developments in the science of fracturing?
2. lf there are new techniques, would they be suitable for use in fracturing in the UK, with its specific geology and high population density?
3. Given the new developments in these technologies, how does the seismicity caused by fracturing compare to other forms of underground energy production, such as geothermal and coal mining, or surface activities such as construction?
4. Has the modelling of geologies such as shale improved in the period since the pause was implemented in 2019? If so, do these improvements mean we could be confident about the modelling of seismic events and their predictability?
5. Are there other sites, outside of Lancashire, which might be at a substantially lower risk of seismic activity?
6. Noting our specific geology and population density, how does seismicity from fracturing in the UK compare to other countries e.g., the US?
The questions are fair enough (leaving out the contamination of ground water).
The answers are published in full on the BEIS website, but the BGS also publish an executive summary of their main findings. Their principal conclusion, leaving aside the social disruption and economic concerns, is that there is not enough research that applies in the UK. (Just as Rees-Mogg concedes in saying ‘there have only been 3 test wells’.)
‘The main conclusions of our report in relation to each of the questions in the terms of reference are as follows:
‘Forecasting the occurrence of large earthquakes and their expected magnitude remains a scientific challenge for the geoscience community. This is the case for both tectonic and induced earthquakes. (Questions 1 and 2)
‘Methods to estimate the maximum magnitudes of induced earthquakes … do not currently account for the possibility of events that occur after operations have stopped or earthquakes on faults that extend outside the stimulated volume, whose magnitude is not controlled by operational parameters alone. (Questions 1 and 2)
‘Enhanced seismicity monitoring and measurement based on machine learning (ML) has been shown to reveal previously undetected earthquakes and hidden faults, essential for both more reliable earthquake forecasts and characterisation of fault reactivation potential. This can compensate for both limited numbers of seismic stations and faults that remain unmapped even by 3D exploration seismic data. (Questions 1 and 2)
‘Further work is needed to develop these models and incorporate them in risk assessments. (Questions 1 and 2)
‘Traffic light systems remain a useful tool for the mitigation of risks from induced seismicity. … This research recommends that there should be sufficient space between the amber and red-light thresholds to ensure that operators have an opportunity to modify operations to mitigate risks. (Questions 1 and 2)
‘However, it is not possible to identify all faults that could host earthquakes with magnitudes of up to 3 prior to operations, even with the best available data. (Questions 4 and 5)
‘The limited number of HF operations in the UK means that it is difficult to make a valid comparison of the rates of occurrence of induced seismicity with elsewhere. (Question 6)’
So the science lacks enough data to be useful.
Meanwhile, there are some embarrassing facts from the US revealed in the content of the BGS report.
‘Over the last decade, the number of observations of induced earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing (HF) operations around the world has increased as the shale gas industry has developed.
‘Data from the USA and Canada suggest that on average, around 1% of HF wells can be linked to earthquakes with magnitudes of 3 or greater, which are generally large enough to be felt by people. However, in some areas of the USA and Canada the percentage of wells associated with induced earthquakes is much higher (>30%).
‘Another recent review by Atkinson et al., (2020) concluded that hydraulic fracturing can trigger earthquakes large enough to cause potentially damaging ground motions and that the hazard from earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing might greatly exceed the natural earthquake hazard in regions of low to moderate seismicity.’
Truss and Rees-Mogg will be undeterred: it is high time to remove them from office with a general strike and go forward to workers’ government that can develop an energy policy free from profiteering pirates.
