Fracking.
To frack or not to frack, that is the question. Seriously, this is a huge issue and one that can have a massive influence on people’s lives. If you want to answer the question though the first point to think about is, what fracking or hydraulic fracturing means? These processes are designed to tap into underground deposits of gas and oil. An initial shaft is drilled vertically down to a depth of approximately a mile and then at a right angle parallel to the surface for a further two miles. The initial shaft is insulated by concrete and further insulation is positioned around the parallel shaft. A mixture of water, sand and corrosive chemicals are then hydraulically forced into the surrounding shale. This causes extensive cracking in the shale, after sucking out the mixture, the particles of sand will then keep open the profuse number of cracks in the shale. The highly toxic mixture is discarded and the process of distributing the methane gas can take place.
Is fracking a good idea? Well to answer this one might look at the USA. One million wells have been drilled. As evidence of previous fracking, economically there is an argument against the process. This could well be substantiated by the fact that all the aforementioned fracking wells are losing money. A fracking well has a limited time of maximum production and then drastically declines. So constantly more wells need to be drilled. The timescale for optimum production is about two years and then declining returns over an approximate five years.
If energy companies are losing money why doesn't the bubble burst? There are probably two reasons, bonds that give cash now for a future promise of higher repayment and a diversity into other sources for income.
The next major point is that the geography and population of the USA and the UK is significantly different. In the UK there are more structural faults in the shale that could allow contamination to occur because of the shallow water reserves. If a disaster occurred it would affect substantially more people in the UK, than compared with that of the USA, as there is greater density of population.
Can the government be relied on to make an impartial informed decision? In many cases councils appear to hand out drilling licences indiscriminately. Energy fracking companies in many instances seem to have an increasing opportunity to act beyond that of conventional law and when found not observing procedures simply apply in retrospect for something that they have in actual fact already done.
The very nature of fracking demands a substantial number of wells, that means even a low risk becomes greater over time and as there is no proper control and enforcement of procedures the likelihood of an unplanned event surely does increase. This is an outcome that has happened in the USA. An example existed whereby methane gas escaped from the well and found its way into the water system. The most likely and probable cause for it would have been from the fracking but it was officially blamed on a malfunction of the insulation system. The problem is a proper independent checking and policing system even now is not operating or likely to be active in the future.
In the UK the first fracking well drilled through a natural fault resulting in an earthquake. The facts are that future safety of specific areas submitted to fracking can not be fully assessed and this is because there are regions that have different geographical structures to many other countries and if they contain natural fault lines, then this could well make such a technique detrimental to the environment.
There are many countries opposed to fracking. Just to mention a few amongst which are France, Germany, Denmark and Ireland. Interestingly out of the countries comprised in the UK only England has shown an enthusiasm for widely propagating fracking and this is except for London whose Mayor is fighting its introduction.
In my opinion fracking is a highly inefficient way of obtaining natural gas and that inefficiency is the Achilles’ heel of the industry. Even putting aside any arguments about the potential dangers that it may have, as a technique fracking has proven not to be economically secure.
Apart from wind, solar or hydropower, there are other ways of obtaining renewable energy that will after, the initial cost of building, become far cheaper and more sustainable than fracking. Evaporation is a perpetual energy source of nature and already viable machines built to harness this potential are a reality. This type of positive environmentally sound energy production may change the fracking industry and make it a relic of the past.
Is fracking a good idea? Well to answer this one might look at the USA. One million wells have been drilled. As evidence of previous fracking, economically there is an argument against the process. This could well be substantiated by the fact that all the aforementioned fracking wells are losing money. A fracking well has a limited time of maximum production and then drastically declines. So constantly more wells need to be drilled. The timescale for optimum production is about two years and then declining returns over an approximate five years.
If energy companies are losing money why doesn't the bubble burst? There are probably two reasons, bonds that give cash now for a future promise of higher repayment and a diversity into other sources for income.
The next major point is that the geography and population of the USA and the UK is significantly different. In the UK there are more structural faults in the shale that could allow contamination to occur because of the shallow water reserves. If a disaster occurred it would affect substantially more people in the UK, than compared with that of the USA, as there is greater density of population.
Can the government be relied on to make an impartial informed decision? In many cases councils appear to hand out drilling licences indiscriminately. Energy fracking companies in many instances seem to have an increasing opportunity to act beyond that of conventional law and when found not observing procedures simply apply in retrospect for something that they have in actual fact already done.
The very nature of fracking demands a substantial number of wells, that means even a low risk becomes greater over time and as there is no proper control and enforcement of procedures the likelihood of an unplanned event surely does increase. This is an outcome that has happened in the USA. An example existed whereby methane gas escaped from the well and found its way into the water system. The most likely and probable cause for it would have been from the fracking but it was officially blamed on a malfunction of the insulation system. The problem is a proper independent checking and policing system even now is not operating or likely to be active in the future.
In the UK the first fracking well drilled through a natural fault resulting in an earthquake. The facts are that future safety of specific areas submitted to fracking can not be fully assessed and this is because there are regions that have different geographical structures to many other countries and if they contain natural fault lines, then this could well make such a technique detrimental to the environment.
There are many countries opposed to fracking. Just to mention a few amongst which are France, Germany, Denmark and Ireland. Interestingly out of the countries comprised in the UK only England has shown an enthusiasm for widely propagating fracking and this is except for London whose Mayor is fighting its introduction.
In my opinion fracking is a highly inefficient way of obtaining natural gas and that inefficiency is the Achilles’ heel of the industry. Even putting aside any arguments about the potential dangers that it may have, as a technique fracking has proven not to be economically secure.
Apart from wind, solar or hydropower, there are other ways of obtaining renewable energy that will after, the initial cost of building, become far cheaper and more sustainable than fracking. Evaporation is a perpetual energy source of nature and already viable machines built to harness this potential are a reality. This type of positive environmentally sound energy production may change the fracking industry and make it a relic of the past.
No comments have been added yet.
