UK shale-gas report lacks scientific evidence

Manchester, UK – Researchers at the Tyndall Centre at the University of Manchester claim to have demonstrated how the extraction of shale gas risks seriously contaminating ground and surface waters – without providing any scientific evidence to back their claim.

Working on behalf of the Co-operative, the researchers investigated the environmental and climate change impacts of shale gas – a new fossil fuel resource already developed in the US and being considered for imminent extraction and use in the UK.

Despite massive expansion of the US shale gas industry over recent years, there is little reliable data on groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing (’fracking’) – drilling a well 1.5-6km below the surface and pumping a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into the shale at pressures up to 100MPa.

The Co-op-backed report pointed out that the US Environmental Protection Agency was due to report the findings of a $2m study on the issue later this year. It also noted that there had been moves to tighten regulations by New York State, as well as anecdotal evidence of harmful chemical reaching water supplies.

Calling for a moratorium on shale gas development, the study said: “Information on health and environmental aspects is of variable quality and only now is there any systematic effort being undertaken to better understand these issues.”

However, rather than present any evidence on the health risks associated with shale gas extraction, most of the researchers’ case against shale gas focused on climate-change arguments.

Prof Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall Centre and the University of Manchester, commented: “Any new fossil fuel resource will only lead to additional carbon emissions. In the case of shale gas there is also a significant risk its use will delay the introduction of renewable energy alternatives.”

One of the companies mentioned in the report, IGas Energy is developing coal bed methane (CBM) resources, and also has some shale gas acreage in its licence areas – but has no immediate plans to develop this at present.

CBM, it emphasies, is extracted by a completely different process to shale gas and doesn’t involve the same complicated fracturing techniques and mix of chemicals as shale gas extraction.

“Shale - like CBM and indeed all other forms gas production - is subject to the UK regulatory regime which is one of the strictest in the world, and certainly is more rigorous than that in the US,” said an IGas spokesman.

The risks from all gas production have to be identified and mitigated to the satisfaction of the HSE and, where appropriate, various environmental agencies and local planning permission, IGas also stated.

“Shale gas does not emit much more carbon in its production and use than conventional gas and could potentially make a significant contribution to the UK’s energy resources and increase its security of supply,” said the spokesman.The regulatory regime is in place to make sure that environmental concerns are addressed.”

Likewise, a Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman said: ‘We support the industry’s endeavours in pursuing such energy sources, provided that tapping of such resources proves to be economically, commercially and environmentally viable.

‘All onshore oil and gas projects, including shale gas exploration and development, are subject to a series of checks, including local planning permission before they are able to move ahead with drilling activities.’