There is a crisis unfolding less than 30 miles from where I work: the unrolling of the fracking industry in Kirby Misperton, North Yorkshire amidst strong public opposition, with daily protest and a strong police presence. Other parts of England are targeted for similar developments and, with campaigning on the rise, the situation is evolving rapidly. Up-to-date, exhaustive and independent reporting can be found at DrillorDrop.com [1].
 |
| Third Energy’s KM8 well at Kirby Misperton, 14 October 2017. Photo: Kirby Misperton Protection Camp |
A discussion of fracking is not out of place in this blog since it is a technology that raises ethical questions on at least two counts. One is the dangers it poses to the environment and public health, which is considered in this post. The second is its rolling out against the wishes of the local communities and thus the challenges it poses to democracy, which is addressed in the next post.
So what is 'fracking'? The term is a short-hand for 'hydraulic fracturing' and refers to a non-conventional method used to extract natural gas trapped deep underground in layers of shale rock - hence the term 'shale gas'. It consists in drilling vertically until the layer of shale is reached (a couple of kilometres deep), then horizontally for over a kilometre, possibly at various depths and in several directions in order to access a larger surface area of rock. The process of 'fracking' per se then begins: water mixed with sand and chemicals is pumped into the borehole at high pressures to fracture the rock and release the gas. The sand keeps the fractures open to let the gas flow more freely. The figure below illustrates the process and highlights the extent of its water consumption as witnessed in the US [2].
 |
| Illustration of a fracking well (not to scale) Information courtesy of Earthworksaction, design by Hannah Otto, March 2013 |
In order to be viable, the process requires numerous wells to be drilled, up to 8 per square mile in the US where the technology has been extensively used (see e.g. [3]). This would lead to extensive industrialisation of the countryside. The map below identifies the areas of Yorkshire and Lancashire that are licensed for oil and gas exploration at the time of writing [4].
 |
| Petroleum Exploration and Development Licenses in Central and Northern England |
Arguably, the process is far from safe. There are increasingly documented damaging effects for human health and for the environment, including a contribution to man-made climate change (see for example the reports by Medact on health impacts [5], and by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) and the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health (CIEH) [6]). In addition, the extensive industrialisation required for the process to be economically viable will harm businesses that rely on unpolluted countryside, such as tourism, outdoor pursuits, and what will affect us all: farming.
My focus here is on the environment and to begin with, it is worth considering the ethical guidelines set out by UK engineering professional bodies. The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has rules of conduct stating that: "members shall take all reasonable steps to avoid waste of natural resources, damage to the environment, and damage or destruction of man-made products" [7, rule 10]. The Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Council published a Joint Statement of Ethical Principles [8], with a section entitled 'Respect for life, law, the environment and public good' stating in particular that engineering professionals should:
First, it is a fact that we need air to breathe and water to drink. I believe it is worth reminding ourselves that we can survive but a few minutes without air and a few days without water. I insist: clean air and clean water are not luxuries, they are necessities. We cannot live without them, nor can we take them for granted. Indeed, air pollution is an issue that the current government is at pain to address and is increasingly criticised over [9 - 10].
Now both air and water are threatened by the fracking process.
Air pollution can arise via methane leakage, but also due to the burning of petrol and diesel on site to work the pumps and through vastly increased HGV traffic. Reports from shale gas areas of the USA are worrying at best (see e.g. [11]).
Water pollution can happen through leaking of the fracking fluid and of the released materials into the water table. Proponents of fracking argue that these risks can be managed effectively so that no contaminated waters enter the aquifer through which they will travel up and down the well, or via newly created fractures. Indeed the 2012 Government commissioned report by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering concludes that
In addition, even if we accept for argument's sake the unlikely event that water contamination is kept to a minimum, this does not alter the fact that the amount of water required to frack is staggering. The report by SGR [6] states that
Secondly, exploiting shale gas is still about extracting fossil fuels. A study by the Committee on Climate Change highlights that by going ahead with shale gas on a large-scale, the UK is at risk of missing its carbon emission targets if three strict tests aren't implemented, including keeping production and consumption of gas within carbon budgets [17]. The government believes these conditions can be met [18], however, there is doubt as to whether regulations can be enforced in practice (see e.g. [14-16]). Furthermore, a more recent report argues that carrying on extracting gas is not a viable option [19]. In addition, the report by SGR quoted earlier warns that in the absence of a world-wide cap, fracking-related greenhouse gas emissions globally are most likely to be in addition to, not instead of, alternatives such as coal [6, p.9]. Research carried out in collaboration with scientists from York University gives an example of the impact that fracking in the USA had on atmospheric hydrocarbon concentrations ([20], see also [21]). The most likely outcome of fracking in the UK is that it will contribute to boosting home and global greenhouse gas emissions to unaffordable levels. This will put communities on the frontline of climate change as well as future generations in serious danger of harm.
In spite of all the risks highlighted (and the list is not exhaustive), the UK Conservative Government still supports fracking and argues that natural gas is needed as a bridge fuel before fully turning towards more renewable sources of energy. However, the fact is that we could turn towards renewables now. In a 'Northern Energy Strategy', a report released last October, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) stated
So is fracking ethical? My answer is no, certainly not from my personal point of view, and also not, in my opinion, from a professional ethics point of view. The risks to the environment and public health are beyond acceptable; the waste of increasingly precious resources is too high; and what is more, there are viable alternative technologies. In the case of fracking, the Precautionary Principle should hold, as advocated in an open letter to the British Medical Journal in support of the Medact report [5]
What I would like to emphasize here is that purely technical considerations do not resolve the issue: there is not one way forward, there is no perfect risk-free technology, there are alternatives. Ultimately, it is a question of choice: to dig for more gas, despite the risk, despite the added pollution, despite the sacrifice of communities for the sake of a few decades of supply, or do we decide now to protect the air, the water, and the countryside for our and future generations by investing in the safer, cleaner, and fairer alternatives that are already available?
This begs a follow-up question: who makes that choice?
I argued in my previous post that all should have a part in the technological discussion, however in the case of shale gas, there has been no debate to speak of. The Conservative Party and the Conservative British Government are responsible for pushing the fracking agenda amidst increasing public and political opposition (but see [23]). My next post will address the question of choice and democracy in more detail.
References:
My focus here is on the environment and to begin with, it is worth considering the ethical guidelines set out by UK engineering professional bodies. The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has rules of conduct stating that: "members shall take all reasonable steps to avoid waste of natural resources, damage to the environment, and damage or destruction of man-made products" [7, rule 10]. The Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Council published a Joint Statement of Ethical Principles [8], with a section entitled 'Respect for life, law, the environment and public good' stating in particular that engineering professionals should:
There is leeway as how to these guidelines are interpreted. For example, what is meant by 'reasonable' in the IET's rules? Or could 'minimising adverse effects' go as far as banning a dangerous technology? I would argue that it does, and that in the case of fracking the answer is clear-cut. As laid out in more detail below, this technology poses such high risks to the environment and results in such high levels of waste of natural resources, that going ahead with it is both unethical and irresponsible.
- protect and, wherever possible, improve the quality of built and natural environments
- maximise the public good and minimise both actual and potential adverse effects for their own and succeeding generations
- take due account of the limited availability of natural resources
First, it is a fact that we need air to breathe and water to drink. I believe it is worth reminding ourselves that we can survive but a few minutes without air and a few days without water. I insist: clean air and clean water are not luxuries, they are necessities. We cannot live without them, nor can we take them for granted. Indeed, air pollution is an issue that the current government is at pain to address and is increasingly criticised over [9 - 10].
Now both air and water are threatened by the fracking process.
Air pollution can arise via methane leakage, but also due to the burning of petrol and diesel on site to work the pumps and through vastly increased HGV traffic. Reports from shale gas areas of the USA are worrying at best (see e.g. [11]).
Water pollution can happen through leaking of the fracking fluid and of the released materials into the water table. Proponents of fracking argue that these risks can be managed effectively so that no contaminated waters enter the aquifer through which they will travel up and down the well, or via newly created fractures. Indeed the 2012 Government commissioned report by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering concludes that
The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation [12, p.4]The debate of whether this is the case is still rife in engineering circles as evidenced by an article in the Engineer [13]. Replying to a comment, the journalist writes
to say that it is impossible for the frack process to affect the water table is, quite frankly, ludicrous. In a perfect world, where pipes don't leak and all energy companies act in good faith, fracking could perhaps be carried out safely. However [...] we do not live in a perfect world.Regulations cannot ensure 100% safety and indeed the companies with licenses to explore for shale gas do not always behave in the most ethical fashion - see for example this article on lobbying by chemical company Ineos [14]; or this article about environmental permit breaches by energy company Cuadrilla [15]; or this article about Third Energy's failure to properly monitor their Kirby Misperton site [16]. These reports do not inspire confidence.
In addition, even if we accept for argument's sake the unlikely event that water contamination is kept to a minimum, this does not alter the fact that the amount of water required to frack is staggering. The report by SGR [6] states that
In the USA, operations on a six-well pad require 54 to 174 million litres of water and 1000 to 3500 tonnes of chemical for a first frack. Wells are generally fracked several times over their lifetimes, each stage requiring additional water. [6, p.6]According to the same report, the flow back fluid (up to 80%) is classed as radioactive waste needing special treatment unlikely to be available on site, therefore putting additional pressures on waste-water treatment infrastructures. One can legitimately conclude that this is not a wise use of such an increasingly precious, essential resource.
Secondly, exploiting shale gas is still about extracting fossil fuels. A study by the Committee on Climate Change highlights that by going ahead with shale gas on a large-scale, the UK is at risk of missing its carbon emission targets if three strict tests aren't implemented, including keeping production and consumption of gas within carbon budgets [17]. The government believes these conditions can be met [18], however, there is doubt as to whether regulations can be enforced in practice (see e.g. [14-16]). Furthermore, a more recent report argues that carrying on extracting gas is not a viable option [19]. In addition, the report by SGR quoted earlier warns that in the absence of a world-wide cap, fracking-related greenhouse gas emissions globally are most likely to be in addition to, not instead of, alternatives such as coal [6, p.9]. Research carried out in collaboration with scientists from York University gives an example of the impact that fracking in the USA had on atmospheric hydrocarbon concentrations ([20], see also [21]). The most likely outcome of fracking in the UK is that it will contribute to boosting home and global greenhouse gas emissions to unaffordable levels. This will put communities on the frontline of climate change as well as future generations in serious danger of harm.
In spite of all the risks highlighted (and the list is not exhaustive), the UK Conservative Government still supports fracking and argues that natural gas is needed as a bridge fuel before fully turning towards more renewable sources of energy. However, the fact is that we could turn towards renewables now. In a 'Northern Energy Strategy', a report released last October, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) stated
Our vision for the north of England is that by 2050, we will be the leading low carbon energy region in the UK, with an energy economy worth £15 billion per annum and 100 000 green jobs providing affordable, clean energy for people and businesses across the North. [22, p.6]Fracking is only mentioned to say that
It has been suggested that shale gas would present a significant opportunity to ensure security of supply and drive economic regional growth. But shale gas has garnered significant opposition from local communities and may be too environmentally risky to proceed with. [22, p.41]Thus, it can be done without.
So is fracking ethical? My answer is no, certainly not from my personal point of view, and also not, in my opinion, from a professional ethics point of view. The risks to the environment and public health are beyond acceptable; the waste of increasingly precious resources is too high; and what is more, there are viable alternative technologies. In the case of fracking, the Precautionary Principle should hold, as advocated in an open letter to the British Medical Journal in support of the Medact report [5]
The arguments against fracking on public health and ecological grounds are overwhelming. There are clear grounds for adopting the precautionary principle and prohibiting fracking.
Sometimes we have to accept that not all technologies are worth rolling out and it is not because fracking can be done that it should be.
What I would like to emphasize here is that purely technical considerations do not resolve the issue: there is not one way forward, there is no perfect risk-free technology, there are alternatives. Ultimately, it is a question of choice: to dig for more gas, despite the risk, despite the added pollution, despite the sacrifice of communities for the sake of a few decades of supply, or do we decide now to protect the air, the water, and the countryside for our and future generations by investing in the safer, cleaner, and fairer alternatives that are already available?
This begs a follow-up question: who makes that choice?
I argued in my previous post that all should have a part in the technological discussion, however in the case of shale gas, there has been no debate to speak of. The Conservative Party and the Conservative British Government are responsible for pushing the fracking agenda amidst increasing public and political opposition (but see [23]). My next post will address the question of choice and democracy in more detail.
_______________________
References:
[1] R. Hayhurst, et al., Drill or Drop? Independent journalism on fracking, onshore oil and gas and the reactions to it. Available: https://drillordrop.com/
[2] Earthworks, Hydraulic fracturing 101, www.earthworksaction.org. [Online]. Available: https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#.Wfc5-q2cZBw [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[3] Radix. “Wells, wells and more fracking wells”. 9 May 2013. [Blog Entry]. Frack Off, Extreme Energy Action Network. Available: http://frack-off.org.uk/wells-wells-and-more-fracking-wells/ [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[4] Frack Free United, Fracking maps and info, www.frackfreeunited.co.uk. [Online]. Available: https://www.frackfreeunited.co.uk/frack-maps/ [Map screenshot from Oct. 27th 2017]
[5] D. McKoy & P. Saunders, “Health & Fracking, The impacts and opportunity costs,” MEDACT, 2015. Available: https://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/medact_fracking-report_WEB4.pdf , updates are available at: https://www.medact.org/project/fracking/ , a response by health professional in the form of an open letter to the British Medical Journal is available here: http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr
[6] G. Harrisson, et al., “Shale gas and fracking: examining the evidence”, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH), July 2014. Available: http://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/sgr.org.uk/files/SGR-CIEH-Shale-gas-bfg.pdf , updates available at: http://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/shale-gas-and-fracking-main-outputs
[7] The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), Rules of Conduct, www.theiet.org. [Online]. Available: http://www.theiet.org/about/governance/rules-conduct/index.cfm
[8] The Engineering Council, Statement of Ethical Principles, www.engc.org.uk. [Online]. Available: https://www.engc.org.uk/standards-guidance/guidance/statement-of-ethical-principles/
[9] M. Taylor, “Government set to face fresh legal challenge over air pollution crisis”, The Guardian, 18th October 2017. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/government-set-to-face-fresh-legal-challenge-over-air-pollution-crisis? [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[10] D. Carrington & M. Taylor, "UK government sued for third time over deadly air pollution", The Guardian, 7th November 2017. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/07/uk-government-sued-for-third-time-over-deadly-air-pollution
[11] G.W. Shade, “How has the US fracking boom affected air pollution in shale areas?”, The Conversation, 31st October 2017. Available: https://theconversation.com/how-has-the-us-fracking-boom-affected-air-pollution-in-shale-areas-66190 [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[12] M. Bickle, et al., “Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing”, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, June 2012. Available: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/2012-06-28-shale-gas.pdf
[13] A. Wade, “Fracking all over the world”, The Engineer, 6th October 2017. Available: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/fracking-scotland-ban/ [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[14] B. Chapman, “Chemicals giant Ineos ‘exploiting Brexit to relax climate change laws’, documents suggest”, The Independent, 3rd April 2017. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-ineos-climate-change-laws-lobbying-exploiting-uk-eu-withdrawal-foi-documents-a7665136.html [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[15] M. Jones & R. Scott, “This environmental permit breach this year by Cuadrilla at Lancs fracking site”, Spinwatch, 21st October 2017. Available: http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5982-third-environmental-permit-breach-this-year-by-cuadrilla-at-lancs-fracking-site [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[16] R. Hayhurst, “ ‘Third Energy failed to carry out proper monitoring at Yorkshire fracking site’ – new report”, Drill or Drop, 31st October 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/10/31/third-energy-failed-to-carry-out-proper-monitoring-at-yorkshire-fracking-site-new-report/ [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[17] Lord Deben, et al., “The compatibility of UK onshore petroleum with meeting the UK’s carbon energy target”, The Committee on Climate Change, March 2016. Available: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CCC-Compatibility-of-onshore-petroleum-with-meeting-UK-carbon-budgets.pdf
[18] United Kingdom. Department of Energy and Climate Change, Government Response to the Committee on Climate Change Report. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change; July 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535208/CCC_Response_new_template_FINAL.pdf
[19] R. Hayhurst, “No role for gas in climate crisis”, Drill or Drop, 7th November 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/11/07/no-role-for-gas-in-climate-crisis-new-report/ [last accessed Nov. 7th 2017]
[20] The University of York News & Events. “Study suggests fracking is responsible for a reversal in atmospheric hydrocarbon trends”. 14 June 2016. [News item] The University of York. Available: https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2016/research/fracking-usa-ethane/ [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[21] B. Maggil, US ‘likely culprit’ of global spike in methane emissions over last decade, The Guardian, 17th February 2016. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/17/us-likely-culprit-of-global-spike-in-methane-emissions-over-last-decade [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]
[22] D.Baxter & E.Cox, “A Northern Energy Strategy”, Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), October 2017. Available: https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-10/ippr-north-a-northern-energy-strategy-a4-digital-04.pdf
[23] R. Hayhurst, “Shale gas will bring wholesale industrialisation and change the countryside for decades, Tory MP tells debate”, Drill or Drop, 22nd November 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/11/22/shale-gas-will-bring-wholesale-industrialisation-and-change-the-countryside-for-decades-tory-mp-tells-debate/ [last accessed Nov. 23rd 2017]. This reference was added after publication of the blog post.
No comments:
Post a Comment