Shale gas:

energy solution or

fracking hell?

Friends of the Earth makes life better for people by inspiring solutions to environmental problems. We are:

the UK’s most influential national environmental campaigning organisation

the world’s most extensive environmental network, with around 2 million supporters

across five continents and more than 76 national organisations worldwide

a unique network of campaigning local groups, working in more than 220 communities

throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland

dependent on individuals for over 90 per cent of our income To join or make a donation call us on 0800 581 051

Friends of the Earth, 26-28 Underwood Street. London N1 7JQ Tel: 020 7490 1555 Fax: 020 7490 0881 Web: www.foe.co.uk Friends of the Earth Limited company number 1012357, Trust company number 1533942, registered charity number 281681

March 2012

Briefing

Shale gas is being promoted as a safe, clean energy source that can help the UK in the transition to

a low carbon economy and is underpinning a likely new ‘dash for gas’. But there are serious

environmental and human health concerns around shale gas drilling including threats to

groundwater quality, triggering earth tremors, concerns about how much water is needed and,

above all, the potential impact on climate change emissions.

Should we embrace shale gas as a vital part of the UK’s energy future, or is it a high-carbon dead-

end street with serious local environmental risks?

2

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

“Because of shale gas, the air in Beijing will be cleaned up as the air in London was cleaned up sixty

years ago. Because of shale gas, clean air will no longer be a luxury that only rich countries can

afford. Because of shale gas, wealth and health will be distributed more equitably over the face of

our planet”.

(Freeman Dyson, foreword to ‘The Shale Gas Shock’1)

“Fracking is a nightmare! Toxic and radioactive water pollution. Tap water you can set on fire.

Earthquakes. Runaway climate change. To produce expensive gas that will soon run out. So why are

we doing it?” (from ‘Frack Off website

2)

Introduction

In recent years, shale gas production in the United States has grown enormously, changing the US

from being potentially a net importer of gas, to being the world’s largest gas producer.

Geological surveys and initial findings from the one company that has drilled test wells show that the

UK could have significant shale gas reserves potentially providing, in the view of its proponents, a

secure supply of natural gas. Reserves have also been found elsewhere in Europe and could be even

greater. With claims of lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal, shale gas is being touted as a

possible transition fuel as we move to a low carbon economy, and as a source of energy security,

reducing reliance on imported gas.

But many serious questions have been raised, such as:

will burning shale gas jeopardise our climate targets?

does shale gas extraction risk contaminating drinking water supplies?

does shale gas drilling trigger earth tremors?

will investment in shale gas take money away from renewable energy?

Is there substance behind these concerns, or is shale gas the fuel of the future?

How much gas do we use in the UK and where does it come from?

Natural gas from conventional sources currently plays a key role in the UK’s energy system. Roughly

one-third of the gas used in the UK is for electricity generation – this accounts for 46% of electricity

generation. Another third is for domestic use such as heating and cooking, and the remaining one-

third of gas demand is from industry, energy industry, public buildings and commerce3.

Gas use in the UK has risen steadily since the 1970s, when production of North Sea gas started. The

‘dash for gas’ in the 1990s saw the use of gas for electricity generation rise from virtually zero in

1990 to 35% in 2000.

UK gas production virtually halved between 2000 and 2010, and imports rose significantly, so that

the UK is now a net importer of gas4. More than half of the gas imported comes via a pipeline from

Norway, but a growing share – over a third of imports in 2010 – is in the form of LNG imported by

tankers, mainly from Qatar5.

3

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

The use of gas is a very significant contributor to UK carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for just

over 45% of total emissions in 20106.

What is shale gas?

Shale gas is a form of ‘unconventional gas’ which is extracted from shale rock formations, usually

located at depths of 1000 – 4000 metres. It is chemically effectively the same as natural gas, being

mainly methane. ‘Unconventional’ refers to how the gas is extracted.

Other forms of unconventional gas include coal-bed methane (which is extracted from intact coal

seams), coal gasification (converting coal to a high-energy gas mixture) and methane hydrate (a type

of ice containing methane found in deep oceans and in permafrost).

How is shale gas extracted?

Similarly to conventional gas, extraction is via

a well. As is shown in the graphic7, the well is

drilled vertically to above the shale, then the

drill is steered until it is horizontal and drilling

continues. This is because the reservoirs are

wider than they are tall, so horizontal drilling

accesses more of the reserve. To allow the

gas to flow, fractures have to be created in

the rock. This is done by hydraulic fracturing

(fracking). The concrete casing of the well is

cracked with small explosive charges and fluid

(approx 99% water and sand, 1% chemicals) is

injected down the well and into the shale gas

rocks at high pressure. The sand props open

the new fractures allowing the gas to flow

into the well and be collected at the surface.

Graphic 1 – the shale gas extraction process

UK resources and reserves – how much shale gas is there?

The British Geological Survey estimates UK reserves at 150 billion cubic metres (bcm) – about 1½

years of UK gas consumption or 10 years of current LNG imports8. The US Department of Energy

(DOE) has estimated UK technically recoverable reserves as 560 bcm – about 5½ years of UK gas

consumption or 56 years of current LNG imports9. This uncertainty reflects a lack of detailed

geological knowledge and difficulties with making predictions10.

These figures are for onshore reserves only – estimates of UK offshore shale gas reserves (in the

North Sea) could be 5 to 10 times higher than onshore reserves11.

However Cuadrilla Resources, which has drilled test wells in the Bowland Shale Lancashire (see

below), estimate that the area where they have the drilling licence contains 5,660 bcm. This is

theoretically enough to supply Britain’s annual gas needs for 56 years. However Cuadrilla’s claim has

been questioned by US experts and the British Geological Survey has estimated the resource at 4.7

4

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

trillion cubic feet – just over 2% of Cuadrilla’s estimate - and only 10-20% of the gas may be

recoverable12. Island Gas also says it has found ‘very significant’ shale gas resources in Cheshire13.

Estimates of shale gas resources are extremely volatile: the US Energy Information Administration recently reduced its estimate of reserves in the Marcellus Shale (the largest US shale field) by 65%.

EU and global resources

According to the US DOE, there are substantial shale gas reserves in Poland and France. The DOE say

that Poland’s reserves represent over 300 years of current gas consumption14 but these figures have

recently been questioned15.

The US DOE report estimated that shale gas could increase global technically recoverable gas

resources by 40%16. IEA say unconventional gas reserves are equivalent to 123 years of current

production17. Countries with significant potential reserves include China, South Africa, Argentina and

Australia.

The US experience

Exploitation of shale gas reserves such as the

Marcellus Shale (in the Appalachian Basin in

the North-East United States) and the Barnett

Shale (in the Fort Worth Basin in Texas) mean

that production of shale gas in the United

States has grown twelve-fold since 2000. The

US has moved from having to consider

importing gas to being the world’s leading gas

producer.

Map 1 - US shale gas fields18

What is happening in the UK?

In contrast to the US, shale gas exploration in the UK is at a very early stage. The only test drilling

that has taken place to date is in Lancashire, where Cuadrilla Resources has drilled several wells.

Fracking was suspended earlier this year due to concerns about the drilling triggering minor

earthquakes at one of the sites – see below for further detail. Cuadrilla is applying to extend

planning permission and has said it could drill over 800 wells in the area by 202819.

Planning applications for drilling have been granted in Kent and East Yorkshire (though Rathlin

Energy says it will not use fracking in East Yorkshire). Vale of Glamorgan Council last year refused an

application from Coastal Oil & Gas for shale gas test drilling at Llandow20 but the company has

appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the decision. Applications for drilling have been made

or interest expressed in several other locations, including the Mendips21 and near Falkirk22.

There is also interest in Northern Ireland in the Larne Basin, in North Antrim and in Fermanagh near

the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland23.

5

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

However there are many other areas where companies have already been granted Petroleum

Exploration and Development Licences, which cover drilling for shale gas (see Map 2 below) and still

further areas being considered for licensing (see map 3 below).

Gas industry experts generally think it unlikely that there will be significant shale gas production in

the UK or elsewhere in Europe until at least the end of the decade, due to a series of constraints

including lack of detailed geological knowledge, cost and operational and regulatory challenges24.

Growing concerns about the environmental and human health impacts of shale gas drilling are

another serious obstacle.

Map 2 –UK areas currently licensed for shale gas exploration25

Licensed areas are shown in yellow

Map 3 – UK areas being considered for shale gas licensing26

Areas being considered are shaded in pink

Costs

The commercial viability of shale gas will be mainly determined by costs. Extraction costs have fallen

in the US in recent years and this has made shale gas more competitive. However costs are likely to

be higher in Europe than in the US for a range of reasons, including the need to meet more exacting

regulations, the difficulties of drilling in more densely-populated areas and the lack of an established

supply chain and service industry, as exists in the US. Deutsche Bank experts have concluded “we do

not expect the impact of shale-gas production on EU gas prices to be anywhere near as great as has

been the case with US shale-gas production” 27.

This was echoed by recently-published research by the leading energy consultancy Pöyry for OFGEM.

Pöyry developed three scenarios for the development of shale gas in Europe: ‘Boom’, ‘Balanced’ and

‘Restrained’. They found that only the ‘Boom’ scenario has a significant effect on gas prices in the

UK. Under this scenario there is strong political and local support in many countries, the geology is

good and technological advances continue and are transferable to Europe. However Pöyry thought

6

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

that the ‘Boom’ scenario was unlikely28. Friends of the Earth believes that it is wise to assume that

high gas prices are here to stay29.

Environmental and human health concerns

Shale gas extraction poses many actual and potential environmental concerns, including:

impact on climate change

groundwater pollution

air pollution

demand for water

links to earth tremors

Climate change

Shale gas drilling poses three problems related to climate change:

Comparative emissions compared to conventional gas and other fossil fuels

The impact on overall emissions of using up shale gas reserves

The impact on investment in renewable energy

Comparative emissions

There is a lot of debate about the relative climate emissions of shale gas: are emissions the same as

conventional gas or much higher, roughly equivalent to coal?

Burning shale gas produces the same emissions as conventional gas - additional emissions are due to

how the gas is extracted. The main sources of additional emissions are how much gas is vented

(released to the atmosphere in controlled manner) or flared (burnt off at the site) and how much

escapes unintentionally (known as ‘fugitive emissions’). Drilling and transporting water and

chemicals to and from the site will also contribute.

Levels of fugitive emissions are critically important as methane, the main constituent of natural gas,

contributes to climate change at a level 25 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year

timeframe (and over shorter timeframes methane’s impact is greater still).

Different studies have produced apparently widely different results:

Scientists at Cornell University concluded that ‘compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at

least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is

comparable when compared over 100 years’30.

Scientists at the US National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) found unconventional gas

produces 54% lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal over a 100-year timeframe, and almost

50% lower over a 20 year period31.

Further analysis of these two studies, looking at the assumptions made, has concluded that

predicted emissions are not significantly different to the Cornell study32. Monitoring of emissions

from a natural gas field near Denver has revealed that about 4% of the gas is lost to the atmosphere,

suggesting a climate impact similar to that found by Cornell 33.

7

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

However, as can be seen below, the climate change impact of shale gas is significant even when

fugitive methane emissions are not considered.

Impact on overall emissions

Burning shale gas could put meeting the UK’s climate targets at risk. Recent modelling carried out by

internationally-respected climate experts at the Tyndall Centre has found that burning just 20% of

the gas that Cuadrilla claims to have found in its licence area in Lancashire (20% of 5,660 bcm =

1,132 bcm) would generate 14.5% of the UK’s total carbon emissions budget to 2050, assuming that

we want to stay within the carbon budget necessary to meet our legally-binding obligations under

the Climate Change Act 200834.

This counts only the carbon dioxide produced by burning the shale gas – no allowance is made for

fugitive methane emissions (see above). Tyndall note that Cuadrilla’s licence area represents only 5%

of the Bowland Shale, considered to be the most promising shale gas formation in the UK. And, as

this figure is taken as representing the UK as a whole, it could be an underestimate.

This also assumes that Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) technology is not used. There is currently no

large-scale gas power station with CCS either under construction or even being tested anywhere in

the world. Relying on an as yet unproven technology would be an enormous risk.

Tyndall also calculate the potential impact of shale gas use on a global scale. They use the most

recent US Energy Information Administration estimate of global shale gas of 187,535 bcm, and

assume that 30% of this is recoverable, with half of this is recovered by 2050. This would generate

CO2 equivalent to over 28% of a global emissions budget designed to give a better than 50:50

chance of avoiding warming of more than 2 degrees centigrade, and would increase atmospheric

carbon dioxide concentrations by 16 parts per million. Again, no allowance is made for fugitive

methane emissions, and again it is assumed that CCS is not used.

In an energy-hungry world, and with no meaningful cap on global carbon emissions, it is likely that

shale gas will be used as well as, rather than instead of coal, increasing overall emissions.

Impact on renewable energy investment

Investment in shale gas could also have a negative impact on investment in renewable energy. As

energy expert Professor Paul Stevens of Chatham House has said: “in a world where there is the

serious possibility of cheap, relatively clean gas, who will commit large sums of money to expensive

pieces of equipment to lower carbon emissions?”35

Tyndall has calculated that drilling shale gas wells and building gas-fired power stations to produce

8GW of electricity from shale gas would cost the same as the cost building offshore wind turbines

producing 17% more electricity or onshore wind turbines producing up to twice as much electricity.

If CCS technology were fitted to the gas-fired power stations, the amount of electricity that could be

generated from spending the same amount on wind turbines increases still further36.

8

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

Groundwater pollution

Shale gas extraction poses serious risks of contamination of groundwater, by either the fracking fluid

or by methane. This can happen either through cracks in the well, or via natural fissures in the rock

or fractures created by the fracking process.

The shale gas industry has always denied that its

operations could contaminate water supplies but some

specialists (see box) believe that there are real

problems37.

There is considerable evidence of problems with

methane - the film Gaslands shows people living close

to shale gas wells near Dimock, Pennsylvania setting

light to their tap water.

A recent US Environmental Protection Agency investigation into potential contamination of water

supplies in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming, which has hundreds of gas wells, found that the water

samples contained methane gas that matched that occurring at the depths being drilled. The gas did

not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says occurs naturally in water, an indication

that the contamination was related to drilling38.

Graphic 2 – potential pollution pathways39

Contamination with fracking fluid is potentially more harmful to human health because of the nature

of the chemicals used. Exact information on the composition of fracking fluids is hard to obtain

because US Federal law excludes fracking from regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency40,

although disclosure is required by some US states and some companies are posting the composition

of the fracking fluid they are using online41. However research has found that:

25% of the chemicals used in fracking could cause cancer

37% could disrupt the endocrine system

40-50% could affect the nervous, immune and cardiovascular system

more than 75% could affect the skin, eyes and respiratory system42

Cuadrilla has published the contents of the fracking fluid used in its operations in Lancashire on its

website. This contains polyacrylamide, which might not have been authorised for use in fracking

“Hydraulic fracturing will contaminate New York's aquifers. If you were looking for a way to poison the drinking water supply, here in the north-east you couldn't find a more chillingly effective and thorough method of doing so than with hydraulic fracturing."

Paul Hetzler, former groundwater contamination technician at New York State Department for Environmental Conservation

9

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

under the EU’s REACH legislation regulating the use of chemicals. Also we do not know what

chemicals will be used in other wells drilled in the UK.

The US EPA study in Pavillion, Wyoming found levels of benzene in the town’s aquifers at 50 times

the level considered safe for humans in the USA. It also found many other chemicals, including 2-

Butoxyethanol (widely used as a solvent in fracking), acetone, toluene and naphthalene. The EPA

recommends that people use alternate sources of water for drinking and cooking, and ensure good

ventilation when showering.

Much of the fracking fluid (15-80%) returns to the surface via the well in wastewater. As well as the

fracking chemicals, it has been reported that in the US, this wastewater can contain high levels of

radioactivity: a study by the New York Times of 240 wells in Pennsylvania and West Virginia found

“at least 116 wells with levels that were hundreds of times the EPA’s drinking water standard, and at

least 15 wells with levels thousands of times the standard” 43

Concerns about the impact of shale gas fracking on drinking water led the US Environmental

Protection Agency to launch a major study of the environmental and human health impacts of shale

gas. This study is due to report in 201444.

The shale gas industry says that chemicals are a very small percentage of the liquid pumped

underground, but given the enormous quantities of water used, this still represents a huge quantity

of chemicals. Fracking a shale gas well takes 4 million gallons (approximately 15 million litres) of

water; if you assume take a conservative estimate that the chemicals are just 0.5% of the water

used, then this means that each fracking operation involves 20,000 gallons (about 75,000 litres) of

chemicals. If there are six wells per drilling pad (a typical number) and each well is fracked twice,

then the total volume of chemicals used is almost a quarter of a million gallons. That equates to an

Olympic swimming pool of chemicals for every three drilling pads.

There have been concerns about the ability of treatment plants in the US to deal with this waste

water but, in the UK, the Environment Agency has told the House of Commons Energy & Climate

Change Select Committee that the issue is satisfactorily addressed by current regulations45.

Friends of the Earth believes that there are concerns about the current regulatory system which

need addressing. These include:

The requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment – currently only activities on sites

covering an area of one hectare or more have to be screened to see whether an EIA is needed.

Cuadrilla has got round this by having sites covering an area of 0.99 hectares.

The ability of the Environment Agency and other regulatory bodies to cope with the potential

expansion of shale gas drilling. The Environment Agency says its systems are adequate, based on

dealing with one drilling site. But will it be able to deal with potentially dozens of wells or more?

Air pollution

There is evidence of higher levels of air pollution near gas wells in the US, and of associated health

problems. In Texas, levels of benzene near shale gas wells have been found to be more than five

times permitted levels46. Emissions from shale gas wells can also cause photochemical smog: levels

of ozone in Sublette County in rural Wyoming where there is a high concentration of gas wells have

10

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

been recorded as higher than in Los Angeles47. And there is also evidence of health impacts: “a Texas

hospital serving six counties near drilling sites reported asthma rates three times higher than the

state average; one quarter of young children in the community had asthma” 48.

Demand for water

By its very nature, shale gas extraction needs a lot of water. The volume of water needed is not

significant at a national level: one report has found that “development of shale reserves at levels

sufficient to deliver gas at a level equivalent to 10% of UK gas consumption would increase industrial

water abstraction across England and Wales by up to 0.6%”49.

However there could be local and regional problems. For example, the Cuadrilla drilling near

Blackpool is within the River Wyre catchment - the Environment Agency’s Catchment Abstraction

Management Strategy for the Wyre identifies that all zones are classified as either ‘over licensed’,

‘over abstracted’ or ‘no water available’50.

The Environment Agency, which is responsible for water resources in the UK, has said that it would

not license unsustainable abstraction51.

Earth tremors

Cuadrilla’s shale gas drilling in Lancashire hit the headlines last year when test-fracking was halted

following low-level earth tremors in the area where drilling and fracking was taking place.

Subsequent investigations concluded that fracking was the probable cause of the earth tremors.

Cuadrilla claims that this was the result of specific local circumstances and is unlikely to happen

again. It says it has put in place early warning measures to monitor seismic activity52.

The shale gas industry says that tremors such as those in Lancashire were far too weak to cause any

damage to buildings or harm to people. However a maybe even greater risk is to the integrity of the

well-casings, typically made of steel and cemented in place, designed to reduce or eliminate the

possibility of leaking methane or flowback water. Tony Grayling, Head of Climate Change at the

Environment Agency, has acknowledged that this could be a problem. Referring to the earth tremors

caused by Cuadrilla’s activities, he said: "we need to understand what is the maximum damage that

might be done in such circumstances to a well and the integrity of the casing, whether it would

increase the risk of a leak. If there is ground water in the vicinity, that could be a problem.” 53

However this is not the first time that shale gas drilling and fracking has been linked with earth

tremors. Several US states have experienced seismic activity in areas where this has not previously

happened following shale gas drilling and fracking. Although a clear causal link has not been proved

in all cases, a close correlation between fracking and earth tremors can be seen54.

Opposition to shale gas – moratoriums on further development

Concerns about the environmental and human health impacts of shale gas drilling and fracking have

led to strong local opposition in many countries, and there are moratoriums in many places.

11

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

North America:

New York – no permits for new shale gas

wells have been issued since 2008,

pending a review of environmental

impacts by the state’s Department of

Environmental Conservation. New

regulations are expected in 2012 or

201355.

New Jersey – a one-year moratorium on

shale gas exploration was instituted in

August 2011, pending investigation of environmental impacts.

Quebec –a de facto moratorium is in place pending further environmental investigations.

Ohio – following an earthquake near Youngstown on 31st December 2011, the state of Ohio has

delayed or stopped operations at five of the state’s 177 wells used for the disposal of

wastewater from fracking. The wastewater is injected at high pressure and geologists think the

practice may have triggered a previously unknown seismic fault56.

Many US municipalities have banned fracking in their area, including Detroit and Pittsburgh.

Europe

France – following a powerful grassroots campaign, a law was passed in France in July 2011

banning fracking. As a result, the holders of 61 of the 64 licences awarded for shale gas

exploration committed to not using fracking; in the three areas where the licence-holder would

not make such a commitment, the licence was revoked.

Bulgaria – concerns about environmental impacts led the Bulgarian government to ban fracking

in January 2012 and to withdraw a licence granted to oil company Chevron57.

Netherlands – the Dutch government has put shale gas drilling on hold for a year while further

investigation is carried out into the environmental risks.

Northern Ireland - the Northern Ireland Assembly recently voted for a moratorium on shale gas

exploration, but it is not binding on the Northern Ireland Government.58.

North Rhine Westphalia – the state government imposed a moratorium on new shale gas drilling

in March 2011.

Fribourg – in April 2011, the Swiss canton of Fribourg suspended all licences to explore for shale

gas for an indefinite period. According to reports ‘the Fribourg authorities said their decision was

reached because the canton prefers to focus on renewable energies rather than pursue the

extraction of fossil fuels’ 59.

Austria – oil and gas company OMV has put its plans to drill for shale gas in Lower Austria on

hold pending a comprehensive environmental study by the Federal Environmental Agency60.

Rest of the world

New South Wales – New South Wales imposed a temporary moratorium on the use of fracking

to extract gas from coal seams in May 2011, and has since extended it to April 2012. The

Australian Senate has called for a moratorium on all future coal seam gas projects in the Great

Artesian Basin in Queensland and NSW because of water contamination fears61.

South Africa – the South African government imposed a temporary moratorium on shale gas

exploration in April 2011 and extended it for a further 6 months in August 2011.

12

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

The UK Government’s view

The Government supports shale gas drilling. In its

official response to a recent House of Commons

Select Committee inquiry, it said “we will continue to

encourage industry to invest in exploration and

development, but recognise that the full potential for

commercial shale gas production in the UK remains to

be proven”62. However former Energy Secretary Chris

Huhne was ambivalent about the prospects63 and his

views have recently been echoed by his successor Ed

Davey64.

However Mr Davey’s announcement65 that gas power stations consented in the next few years will

not have to cut their carbon dioxide emissions before 2045 effectively launches a new ‘dash for gas’,

in part underpinned by the prospect of shale gas.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex has written that “the concerns expressed about shale

gas extraction are often well founded and understandable. For the public to have confidence, those

concerns need to be addressed” 66. In Labour’s view, these concerns relate solely to the potential

local environmental impacts of shale gas extraction, and do not include climate change. Mr Greatrex

sets down key conditions which it says must be met before fracking can start again. This represents a

retreat by Labour from the position of his predecessor Huw Irranca-Davies, who had called for a

moratorium.

Friends of the Earth’s view

Friends of the Earth believes that there are serious concerns about the environmental impact of the

extraction of shale gas. Key among these are greenhouse gas emissions, potential contamination of

groundwater, the triggering of earthquakes and water demand.

For these reasons we believe that there should be a moratorium on further shale gas extraction and

exploration. This will also allow further consideration of the environmental and human health

impacts of shale gas extraction and use in the UK, and of the impact on meeting climate change

targets.

A Parliamentary Early Day Motion calling for a moratorium has been signed by 48 MPs at the time of

writing67. Calls for a moratorium are also supported by WWF, Greenpeace, the Co-Op and the Green

Party.

Our energy future

The UK has abundant resources of renewable energy, from wind, wave, tidal, solar and geothermal

power. Friends of the Earth believes that the Government must focus on developing these

resources, alongside a major energy-efficiency programme to cut energy waste. As well as cutting

emissions this will also create new green businesses and jobs. A second ‘dash for gas’, supported by

the promise of supposedly clean and safe shale gas, would seriously affect the chances of the UK

meeting its climate change targets, and could cause other local environmental problems.

“We don’t yet know the full extent of shale gas here; how economically or environmentally viable it will be to extract, or by when. At best, it is years away. Unconventional gas has not yet lit a single room nor cooked a single roast dinner in the UK. Shale gas may be significant … but we do not yet know enough to bet the farm on it” Chris Huhne

13

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

Friends of the Earth believes the ‘Big 6’ energy companies, which supply 99% of households with gas

and electricity, are keeping us hooked on fossil fuels. The ‘Final Demand’ campaign68 is calling for the

Government:

to stand up to the Big 6 and launch an independent public inquiry into the Big 6’s power over

consumers and influence over politicians

not to axe support for clean British energy produced by communities, councils, businesses and

householders

What can you do?

Contact your MP expressing your concern about shale gas and fracking, and ask them to support

calls for a moratorium.

For more information

Visit http://www.foe.co.uk/fracking or contact Tony Bosworth, Climate & Energy Campaigner

tony.bosworth@foe.co.uk

1 Global Warming Policy Foundation ‘The Shale Gas Shock’ http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Shale-Gas_4_May_11.pdf 2 http://frack-off.org.uk/

3 DUKES 2011 paras 4.9 - 4.11 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/dukes/2306-dukes-2011-chapter-4-natural-gas.pdf 4 DECC UK Energy in Brief 2011 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/energy-in-brief/2286-uk-energy-in-brief-2011.pdf 5 http://decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/source/gas/et4_4.xls 6 Note: 2010 data is provisional. Data taken from DECC ‘Provisional 2010 results for UK greenhouse gas emissions’ http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_stats/gg_emissions/uk_emissions/2010_prov/2010_prov.aspx 7 Taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14352989 8 House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Select Committee ‘Shale Gas’ Box 1 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/795/795.pdf 9 House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Select Committee op cit para 19 10 The estimates are partly based on comparisons with and extrapolations from the US, and it is not clear how whether the shale gas plays (fields) these extrapolations are based on are typical. 11 House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Select Committee op cit para 45 12 http://www.evaluateenergy.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=104519 13 http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article299878.ece 14 VTB Capital ‘Shale Gas in Europe – A Slow Burn’ 15 http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/03/19/polands-shale-gas-divided-by-5/ 16 House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Select Committee op cit para 19 17 House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Select Committee op cit para 33 18 Map from http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm 19 See http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Full_Report_Economic_Impact_of_Shale_Gas_14_Sept.pdf para 8.6 20 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-15371033 21 UK Methane and Eden Energy are interested in exploratory drilling – see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-13748284 22 See http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shale-gas-plan-condemned-1.1104198 23 See http://frackingfreeireland.org/politics-related-info/northern-ireland/ 24 See for instance Paul Stevens ‘The Shale Gas Revolution: Hype and Reality’ http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/109468 p17 25 See http://og.decc.gov.uk/assets/og/data-maps/maps/landfields-lics.pdf 26 See https://og.decc.gov.uk/assets/og/bo/onshore-paper/uk-onshore-shalegas.pdf figure 2 27 Deutsche Bank ‘European Gas: A First Look at European Shale Gas Prospects’ http://www.longfinance.org/images/reports/pdf/db_shale_2011.pdf 28 Pöyry The Impact of Unconventional Gas on Europe http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/About%20us/PwringEnergyDeb/Documents1/033_PublicReport_UnconventionalGasOfgemLogo_v4_1.pdf para 8.1.1 29 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/gas_price_briefing.pdf 30 Howarth et al Methane and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations http://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf

14

Shale gas: energy solution or fracking hell?

31 See for example http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2011/05/20/rebutting-the-howarth-shale-gas-study/ 32 http://www.postcarbon.org/report/390308-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from 33 http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-field-1.9982 34 Broderick. J., et al section 3.3.1 35 Paul Stevens op cit page vii 36 Broderick et al pp71 & 72 37 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/05/fracking-new-york-poison-claim 38 See http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/EF35BD26A80D6CE3852579600065C94E and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45246260/ns/us_news-environment/ 39 Broderick et al figure 4.1 40 This is known as the Halliburton loophole, after the company who were one of the early users of fracking. The loophole was negotiated by then US Vice President Dick Cheney, a former chief executive of Halliburton. 41 See http://fracfocus.org/ 42 Colborn et al ‘Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective’ http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/files/Oct2011HERA10-48forweb3-3-11.pdf and refered to in Food & Water Watch ‘The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking’ http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/the-case-for-a-ban-on-gas-fracking/ 43 Food & Water Watch ‘The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking’ http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/the-case-for-a-ban-on-gas-fracking/ p10 44 See http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm 45 House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Select Committee op cit para 131 46 Food & Water Watch ‘The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking’ http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/the-case-for-a-ban-on-gas-fracking/ p7 47 Food & Water Watch op cit p8 48 Food & Water Watch op cit p8 49 Tyndall Centre ‘Shale gas: a provisional assessment of climate change and environmental impacts’ http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/tyndall-coop_shale_gas_report_final.pdf section 4.3 50 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research op cit p69 51 House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Committee op cit para 124 52 http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Seismic-Report-Executive-Summary-02-11-11.pdf 53 http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/naturalresources/article3310081.ece 54 See for example http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/08/26/how-fracking-causes-earthquakes-but-not-the-one-in-virginia/ 55 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57351228/ny-gas-drilling-opponents-aim-for-local-bans/ 56 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-03/ohio-halts-wells-after-quake-won-t-stop-natural-gas-drilling.html 57 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57360919/bulgaria-bans-shale-gas-fracking/ 58 See http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/northern-ireland-places-fracking-moratorium 59 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Shale_gas_could_remain_out_of_reach_in_the_ground.html?cid=30281888 60 http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/omv-austrian-shale-gas-project 61 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/us-issues-warning-that-gas-extraction-method-fracking-may-pollute-groundwater/story-fnaxx2sv-1226218018427 62 House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Select Committee ‘Shale Gas – Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2010-2012’ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/1449/1449.pdf p4 63 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/ch_speech_ruk/ch_speech_ruk.aspx 64 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/edd_telegraph/edd_telegraph.aspx 65 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn12_025/pn12_025.aspx 66 http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/48052/tom_greatrex_the_public_need_to_have_confidence_about_shale_gas_extraction.html 67 http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/2292 68 http://www.foe.co.uk/what_we_do/final_demand2_32882.html