Fracking is the name and the drive to meet our growing thirst for energy is the game.
But the prospect of thousands of drilling sites across the UK, including in our part of Yorkshire, is dividing the nation.
In one corner are those who say that pumping pressurised water and chemicals into underground shale deposits will solve our energy needs for the next quarter of a century; and in the other are the environmentalists who think it will contaminate water supplies and further despoil the planet.
The Government estimates that there are 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas under Britain but it’s fair to say that much of it may be difficult to access. Having said that around 1,000 fracking sites could be in operation by 2020.
Protestors say that drilling for gas will cause devastation to communities, which will also feel the impact of heavy vehicles passing through them as they carry sand, water, chemicals and drilling gear. And because fracking is heavily dependent on water, it will produce large quantities of chemical effluent.
Dr Robert Allan, a senior lecturer in the School of Applied Sciences at the University of Huddersfield, agrees that this could be a major problem, particularly in the South of England.
He said: “In the North the vast majority of our water comes from the surface but in the South they have a lot of their water from aquifers (underground porous water-bearing rocks), but that’s not to say that in the North we aren’t going to get potential water contamination.
“The release of chemicals is a problem because they are being used in such close juxtaposition with communities.”
Dr Allan believes the solution to the country’s energy shortages is not to pursue yet another source of fossil fuel.
“We are a carbon economy and ultimately need to move away from that dependence,” he said. “All shale gas is going to do is perpetuate this for another 20 to 25 years – and then we’ll have the same problem.
“My view is that the vast majority of people in society don’t think about where their energy comes from. We need a cultural change – materialism is consuming energy.”
“While fracking could play a part in our energy provision it would have to have stringent planning regulations – and the Tory party is generally anti-regulation. You do have to worry about the Government’s commitment to this, given the way they relaxed the planning rules to get the housing market moving.”
Would renewable sources be able to provide a viable alternative to fracking?
Dr Allan says that renewables need to be part of the story. “You can’t just rely on one thing. But there are resources that can be tapped – for example, we have a fantastic wave resource in this country because we are an island.”
Kirklees Green Party councillor Andrew Cooper agrees: “Green technologies are used in other parts of Europe – Scandinavia and Germany, for instance – and they are miles ahead of us. We have a strange attitude towards energy in this country.
“The arguments in favour of fracking are that it will bring energy prices down but there isn’t a lot of evidence that it will here. It did in America but there they were converting to gas while we are looking to replace one form of gas with another.”
Clr Cooper believes water usage and pollution are the main issues with fracking – although there are also fears it can cause minor earthquakes, as it did during the first exploratory drilling by Cuadrilla in Lancashire.
And he feels that instead of putting up to £80b into a new high speed rail link “which would shave minutes off the journey between Leeds and London” the Government should be investing in a large-scale energy efficiency programme.
“We need more insulation initiatives, investment in renewables, solar panels and wind technology,” he explained. “Politicians are not keeping pace with the science and public opinion. The public wants investment in green technologies and renewables.”
However, Clr Cooper accepts that harnessing wind power has become almost as controversial as fracking.
“It has split opinion, but I think there has been a knee jerk reaction from politicians who are opposing every siting,” he said. “My view is that you can do wind turbines well if they are properly located and they are part of the energy story.
“The Government has got wind wrong. Right at the beginning money should have been given to communities to recognise they had a turbine and attitudes today might have been very different.” Ironically, the Government is to offer £100,000 to communities for each exploratory fracking well to compensate them for surface disruption.
Clr Cooper is also critical of the fact the Government ended the subsidy on solar panels. “Kirklees was just about to put it into thousands of its homes and the policy was ended. Solar panels can halve electricity bills. I have them in my own home,” he said.
Chayley Collis, from the Valley Wind co-operative which plans to install three wind turbines in the Colne Valley, also feels that wind power is misunderstood and lacks backing from the Government.
“There are many myths surrounding wind farms,” said Chayley. “Gas is subsidised more than wind power so going for wind power is going to be cheaper.
“Also, people keep saying ‘what happens when there’s no wind?’ But that’s why siting it so important.
“The one thing we have plenty of around here is wind.”
Generating energy with wind turbines is also said to be inefficient and costly. But Valley Wind, as well as the campaigning organisation Greenpeace and the Green Party, say this is another myth.
In fact the Committee on Climate Change has calculated that household energy bills will be about �600 higher per year in the coming decades if the UK relies increasingly on gas and only �100 higher than today’s average dual fuel bill of about £1,300, if the country concentrates on renewables, such as wind power.
The siting of wind turbines is often an issue as communities don’t like their visual impact. “Some people find them inspiring and hopeful,” said Chayley, “but opinion is divided. We are carrying out our project as sensitively as possible.”
Plans for the Colne Valley turbines, which will supply the energy needs of 4,800 homes in Slaithwaite and Marsden, will be going on public display in September. (Slaithwaite Civic Hall on Friday, September 27, 2pm to 8pm, and 28, from 9am until 4pm).
Chayley added: “A survey (by market research company ICM) asked people if they would rather have wind power or fracking near their house and 67% said they would have a wind farm because there are all sorts of environmental problems with fracking and wind power is completely clean.”
Jeff Rice, from Huddersfield Greenpeace, agrees: “Fracking can potentially lead to problems of minor earthquakes and pollution of local water supplies, but the biggest issue is climate change.
“The UK is ideally placed for wind power. In a nutshell; a modern large turbine, like the new ones near Penistone, will provide electricity for around 1,000 homes per year from that year’s average wind speed. They pay back the energy that goes into making them in about six months. They are not noisy – go and visit one!”
So what is fracking?
Dr Robert Allan, a senior lecturer in chemistry at the University of Huddersfield, explains:
“West Yorkshire has a long history of mining. Fracking is just another version of that in many respects.
“Fracking involves drilling down through the layers of sedimentary rock to shale that contains gas, which we can use.
“Shale is dense in structure so doesn’t release the gas particularly easily. That’s why they have to inject, under pressure, a mix of water, sand and chemicals. These are lubricants to ease the passage of gas from the fractured rock.
“Where there have been coal stores there is likely to be potential for fracking.”
Fracking can use many chemicals but the most important – and the one most easily recognised – is hydrochloric acid, which helps to dissolve minerals and initiate cracks in the rock.
Shalebed methane is another gas that can be extracted through a similar process to fracking.
In 2000 shale gas comprised only 1% of US natural gas production; by 2010 it was over 20% and the US government's Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2035, 46% of the country’s natural gas supply will come from shale gas.
There is a debate over whether the extraction by fracking contributes more to global warming than the use of conventional natural gas.
The US has reduced its carbon emissions following the growth of fracking for gas but environmentalists say this is because shale gas is replacing the use of coal.
A number of European countries – Bulgaria, France, Germany, and Ireland – have banned all fracking operations. The Czech government is seriously considering a ban.
The impact on wildlife is as yet unknown in the UK but the RSPB fears that it will take place in areas that are important for migratory birds, and land clearance will damage ecosystems.
In the south of England, where some areas are short of water, fracking could lead to water shortages, as millions of litres are needed for each operation.
Colne Valley MP Jason McCartney, inset, says public concern over fracking and energy shortages has opened up an important debate.
“It’s very interesting. If we want to run our computers and gadgets, charge our phones and heat our houses then the energy has to come from somewhere,” he said.
“I’m all for cheap energy that doesn’t damage the environment but it’s not a black and white issue.
“Fracking is an aggressive word, but if you think about it there’s nothing new.
“In the 1800s there were huge concerns about earthquakes and poisoning of the water table from coal mining.
“Shale gas is a potential new energy source that could reduce our reliance on imported gas from Eastern Europe and help lower household energy bills, which would be a good thing.
“But people have a lot of legitimate concerns because it is a fairly new process.”
Although fracking could take place on the fringes of the Huddersfield area, on sites formerly mined, Mr McCartney says many of his constituents are more worried about the impact of wind turbines.
“It is the single biggest issue in my inbox,” he said.
“People have turned against them. But if they don’t want them then we have to ask where people do want to get their energy from. From nuclear power stations, bio-mass stations, shale gas?
Or is greater efficiency and reducing our consumption the way forward?
“I’m a great believer in asking objectors to put forward alternatives.”
At this moment he says he’s not too worried about fracking. “It’s early days yet and it might not even turn out to be economically viable.
And it’s not going to happen ‘willy-nilly’, the UK has a strong regulatory system with controls and requirements. And the Government is introducing a package of community benefits.
It will be up to communities to decide whether they want to engage with these explorations.
“The solution to the energy problem is to look at several different sources of energy,” he said.
“I don’t think there’s anybody who is for getting all our energy from shale gas, we are just exploring to see whether it is viable or not.”
