Shale Gas: Yes or No?

A few days ago, a Commons committee recommended that the UK should go ahead with something called 'Shale Gas' in Britain. I doubt many Brits have even heard of it, much less know what it's all about. By contrast, I would imagine an awful lot of Americans know all too well what it is.

This blog will attempt to explain what shale gas is, why it's considered so important, and why I think the commons committee got it wrong.


What is Shale Gas?
Shale gas is simply natural gas that is found in a common-place rock known as shale. The reason people make the distinction is the method of extraction: It is very different, and it is that difference that makes it controversial.

Ordinary natural gas is quite easy to extract: Once you've found the stuff, you just drill down to it, and it comes out of the rock under it's own pressure. The reason it can do that is because the rock it's in is permeable (e.g. There are tiny, inter-connected spaces between the grains that make up the rock) which allows the gas to escape easily.

By contrast, shale gas is trapped because shale is relatively impermeable: The grains it's made up of are so small (Think mud and silt sized), there's almost no inter-connected space.

This was frustrating to oil and gas companies. They knew this was locking up vast quantities of natural gas because it had long been known that shale was often rich in natural gas, and the rock is found all over the planet.

However, as oil extraction technology continued to improve, somebody realised that two of it's techniques could be combined to get at shale gas: Horizontal drilling; and hydraulic fracturing (or 'fracking' as it's more commonly known).

Horizontal drilling is a way of boring along the line of the shale bed. Fracking is a method of injecting fluids into the resulting borehole under such high pressure that it causes widespread fracturing in the shale. This allows the trapped gas to escape.


Why Is Shale Gas So Important?
Natural gas prices are rising steadily because of high demand. There could be such huge reserves of shale gas that it could actually push prices down as more and more of it comes on line. The U.S is doing just that.

Some countries may get a measure of energy security and independence if their reserves are big enough. The U.S. is already seeing these sort of benefits. Before shale gas they were looking at importing almost all their gas. Now it looks like they could produce around 20% of their needs by 2020.

With the prospect of so much natural gas about in the near future, it could be used to move away from higher carbon fuels like coal. The U.S. administration is already considering this as a less controversial way (To Republicans) of cutting emissions.

Cheaper fuel bills; More energy security; and the chance to cut carbon emissions. What's not to like?

Where's The Catch?
The fluid used for fracking is a cocktail of chemicals. The recipe can vary, but many of the ingredients are toxic to humans, some are even carcinogens. Most of the fluid is actually retrieved from the borehole after fracking, but enough can be left behind to contaminate the water table and maybe pose a health risk to the local population. In the States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is looking very closely at the potential effects of fracking, but we'll have to wait until late 2012 for preliminary feedback.

US government and natural gas industry figures show that shale gas extraction leaks more methane than conventional gas. Methane is known to be around 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Research has found that, because of all this, shale gas is actually worse than coal in terms of carbon emissions. And that's assuming that best practises are used. The EPA wants the industry to report methane emissions, but a number of companies have sued the EPA to prevent reporting. Make of that what you will.

The bottom-line is that, if the gas companies aren't using best practise, then shale gas could be a lot worse than coal. So much for using it as a way of transitioning away from coal.

Shale Gas: Yes or No?
It's against this sort of background then, that the Commons Committee has decided to give it's blessing to shale gas extraction in the UK. Whilst the EPA are unlikely to have even a preliminary report on the effects of fracking before the end of 2012 (after 2 years of work), this committee has managed to come to a decision in less than 4 months of questioning experts. They argue that all we need is strong regulation....

Does that mean that the U.S. has weak regulation then? How arrogant. Remember that the methane leakage happens despite best practise. As for contamination of water tables, that is highly complex, which is why, I suspect the EPA will take so long to report. The threat posed by fracking is not black and white, yes or no. It depends on the local geology. Much of which is hidden from view, hundreds of feet down. It is ridiculous to give blanket approval for something varies from site to site. Even more ridiculous to assume you can regulate what happens many metres below the surface.

So, yes, I do think the committee have got it wrong. I think they should have called for a halt on shale gas exploitation until they've seen the results of some serious scientific research (like the EPA's). This is not an issue for knee-jerk, lets-go-for-the-money, decisions which I believe these politicians have given us
Summary Finding From Commons Committee
More on the problems with shale gas.
More on shale gas.
More on fracking.