Gas fracking: the next threat to the planet
Unconventional gas extraction should not be part of our energy future.
By Tess Riley Published 10 August 2011
Unconventional gas extraction should not be part of our energy future.
A weekend of news dominated by a volatile global financial system and erupting Tottenham riots did not stop two individuals with some banners, a good head for heights and an important point to make from hitting the headlines.
Early on Saturday morning, environmental justice protesters climbed over 150 metres up Blackpool Tower to drop banners reading "Fracking is coming to the UK -- We can stop it".
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a way of extracting otherwise inaccessible shale gas. A toxic mixture of chemicals, including known carcinogens, is combined with sand and millions of gallons of water before being blasted at very high pressure into rock in order to pulverise it and release the gas. Amongst other things, fracking fluid leaches radioactive elements and chemicals such as arsenic out of the rock.
You would be right in assuming, therefore, that fracking fluid disposal requires incredible care. However, numerous spills in the US have already been reported and France has banned the unconventional gas extraction practice, despite reportedly harbouring some of the most potentially productive natural gas fields in the world. As if toxic leaks weren't enough, geologists have found a correlation between earthquakes and fracking.
If the "science bit" left the mind boggling, this rather entertaining video featuring the fracking song My Water's On Fire Tonight might help you get to grips with what the frack is going on:
The banner drop this weekend launched the Frack Off campaign, with Blackpool Tower only a few kilometres away from the first UK fracking test well. Despite their arrest upon descent, both protesters were in no doubt over the necessity of the actions they took to highlight the dangers of hydraulic fracturing.
One of the climbers, Nathan Roberts, said:
There are so many things wrong with this unconventional method of gas extraction that it's hard to know where to start. It has been linked with poisoned water supplies, earthquakes, leaking gas and even radioactive contamination - and that's before you even get to the effect it will have on the climate. It's unbelievable that they think they can get away with it. We can't let this happen.
The government has made it clear that gas is an energy source it wishes to encourage. Last month, the government's latest energy white paper, Electricity Market Reform (EMR), was widely criticised by both environmental campaigners and those concerned about fuel poverty after the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, made it clear that gas is going to play a key role in the government's ongoing energy strategy: "we are sending a clear signal that we do want new gas", said Huhne on the day the EMR was released.
Earlier this year, it was reported that results of preliminary attempts to extract UK shale gas using fracking methods by US private equity-backed firm Cuadrilla Resources would be kept under wraps over the next four years. The government granted the company that time in order to investigate potential gas sites and protect Cuadrilla's "commercial opportunity".
Kevin Anderson insists a much more in depth assessment of the health and environmental consequences of fracking is necessary before any proposed plans are rolled out. In his report, the professor of energy and climate change at Manchester University's Tyndall Centre makes it clear that beyond any direct impacts, investment in fracking would have serious implications for the UK's energy future more widely:
In an energy hungry world 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.
Sami Jones, the second Blackpool Tower climber, reiterated how important it is that sustainable energy investment is prioritised in order to ensure reliable and ecologically viable energy in the longer-term:
We hear a lot about energy shortages. We need to be investing in researching sustainable energy sources rather than finding tiny pockets of non-renewable gas and destroying our planet in order to get to them.The UK fracking industry is in its infancy. We must act now if we are to stop it in its tracks. It's bad for Lancashire, it's bad for the UK and it's bad for the planet.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


12 comments
"France has banned the unconventional gas extraction practice"
They prefer a forest of Nuclear plants instead.
Here in the US we have enough Natural Gas for 400 years. That's more than enough time to find a solution for the 500 years of coal that we have.
/John, best gaming laptops, home remedies for dry scalp, potty training a toddler, dejtingsidor.org
"France has banned the unconventional gas extraction practice"
They prefer a forest of Nuclear plants instead.
Here in the US we have enough Natural Gas for 400 years. That's more than enough time to find a solution for the 500 years of coal that we have.
/John, best gaming laptops, home remedies for dry scalp, potty training a toddler, dejtingsidor.org
"Panel Seeks Stiffer Rules for Drilling of Gas Wells" - article in the New York Times yesterday about fracking: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/us/11natgas.html?hp
"France has banned the unconventional gas extraction practice"
They prefer a forest of Nuclear plants instead.
Here in the US we have enough Natural Gas for 400 years. That's more than enough time to find a solution for the 500 years of coal that we have.
Simply it is crazy to persue any fossil fuel, particularly new ways of getting at them! They are a finite resource and are having catastrophic effects, locally and globally. The money and rousources going into Fracking, Tar Sands and other unconventional and conventional fossil fuels would be infinitely better spent on renewables, building a sustainable infrastrucutre with redistributed resources and wealth
@Wayno, maybe fracking in your state hasnt yet caused you many problems personally (which state is that by the way?), but it certainly has elsewhere, and may be lower emmissions than coal but it is far more carbon intensive and destructive than renewables. It seems to me that not much prospers from fracking except the profits of the big companies involved
Good on the climbers. If we don't ban this 'fracking' then we've lost the plot. Endangering the WATER SUPPLY to extract more and more fossil fuels?? It's idiotic. We need people to get behind clean energy like offshore wind not this nonsense..
Fracking is not unconventional, it has been around for decades and has been used around the world to assist in the extraction of oil and gas. What is unconventional is the use of fracking in relative shallow areas (shale hosts) and it should be studied in detail. Use of proprietary chemicals and compounds in the fracking needs to be looked at much closer to study the impact they may have on the environment. All fossil fuels contain minute amounts of toxins such as arsenic and radon gas; it is an unescapable fact.
A more ideal energy policy for the world is needed but it won't happen over night so alternative sources of fuel need to be found that are cleaner and no fossil fuel is cleaner than gas. Where I live in Nevada there are huge geothermal resources that could be tapped but despite one arm of the governments desire to allow companies to develop the resources another arm boosted by individuals such as Jakabob stand in the way (we call them NIMBYs - Not In My Back Yard). they cry about alternatives but don't like solar because it consumes too much land, wind power kills birds and bats, tidal interferes with their favorite sailing areas, geothermal affects their favorite hot springs pool for bathing. All fossil fuels and nuclear are too dangerous. What are we to do? Obviously Jakabob believes wealth redustribution is one solution so I assume he must be busily cueing up for handouts from the store owners in the Tottenham area!
Natural gas produces something like 1/2 of the CO2 per unit of electricity as coal does. There is absolutely no doubt that coal will continue to be used by much of the world to produce electricity unless there are alternatives which are as cheap. You may not like this fact but it does not change it. If we do not use more natural gas to produce electricity then we will use more coal. If you believe that the greatest threat to humanity is global warming then you should be in favour of more sources of natural gas.
Not sure how people in the US would be commenting so quickly on a UK website unless they've got google alerts for 'fracking'. Industry apologists? Computer-generated trolls? Declare your interests, dudes!
Fracking is for losers anyway.
There is a lot of wrong information here. These two people are evidently unstable and don't realize a lot of what they are saying. Natural gas is an excellent fuel that has very nominal emissions when burned. Also, I live in a state in the US with hundreds of Fracked formations and we have had no significant negative issues as a result. Our area is prospering, our natural gas prices are low, and our power plant emissions from burning coal are much lower because our plants have a coal/natural gas switching option and they have switched to gas. Thank you natural gas industry.