Balanced debate needed for UK shale gas

The potential and benefits of shale gas to the UK’s economy, energy security and mitigation of climate change is being put at risk by a collective failure of politicians, the energy sector and opponents of ‘fracking’ to present a balanced and long-term vision of UK energy policy.

Current estimates suggest there may be 1,300 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of shale gas present in the north of England alone¹, which compares to total UK annual gas consumption of around three tcf.²

Further estimates indicate shale gas could heat the equivalent of 20 million homes and provide around a third of all of the UK’s gas consumption within the next decade or so. In economic terms, shale gas could attract investment of £33bn and create over 64,000 jobs.³

However, hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ has attracted concerns from communities and environmental groups who are worried that thousands of wells could lead to water contamination, earthquakes and local disruption.

The president of the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), Geoff Maitland – who is taking part in a panel debate called the The Future of Shale Gas in the UK ⁴ this week – is calling for all stakeholders to engage in a balanced and factual debate, which considers all the issues – short- and long-term.

Professor Maitland said: “The shale gas debate in the UK has been presented very poorly with a series of piecemeal arguments providing headlines and often little substance and fact.

“There are many valid concerns and a huge amount of potential to be gained from exploiting shale gas. However, from government the argument often sways from security of supply, to household bills, to compensation, and back again.

“On the other side of the argument, nimbyism and unsubstantiated fears endeavour to close down the potential of shale gas despite the advantages it can bring to the whole country.”

Professor Maitland continued: “For government, in particular, it’s important that they present a clear roadmap of what shale gas means to the country’s future, and how they are going to address legitimate concerns.

“The roadmap needs to include major issues like the climate change benefits and how substitution of gas for coal will contribute to meeting the UK’s carbon mitigation targets – which is often forgotten about in the debate. The implications for power stations must be considered with an assessment of the likely investment needed to adapt and build new ones with carbon capture capability.

“Energy providers and investors need to become more transparent and build confidence with consumers, especially after OFGEM’s decision to refer the industry to the Competition and Markets authority (CMA) last month. Together, with government, they need to set realistic forecasts on prices and manage consumer expectations on household bills.

“Communities and lobby groups also need to consider all the arguments. It is clear that stable prices and security of supply cannot be guaranteed under the current model. Locally, there may be short-term disruption, but there’s the potential for a huge dividend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with gas.

“And it is also up to engineers to communicate how good engineering design and practice, combined with sound regulation, will address major concerns about contaminating drinking water aquifers and avoiding earth tremors.”  

Geoff Maitland is a professor of energy engineering at Imperial College London and a Fellow of IChemE, Royal Society of Chemistry, Energy Institute and the Royal Academy of Engineering.