Английская Википедия:Fracking in the United Kingdom

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Версия от 05:55, 9 марта 2024; EducationBot (обсуждение | вклад) (Новая страница: «{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}} {{Short description|none}} {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2016}} {{Use British English|date=March 2012}} {{Hydraulic fracturing}} '''Fracking in the United Kingdom''' started in the late 1970s with fracturing of the conventional oil and gas fields near the North Sea. It was used in about 200 British onshore oil a...»)
(разн.) ← Предыдущая версия | Текущая версия (разн.) | Следующая версия → (разн.)
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Use dmy dates Шаблон:Use British English Шаблон:Hydraulic fracturing

Fracking in the United Kingdom started in the late 1970s with fracturing of the conventional oil and gas fields near the North Sea. It was used in about 200 British onshore oil and gas wells from the early 1980s.[1] The technique attracted attention after licences use were awarded for onshore shale gas exploration in 2008.[2][3] The topic received considerable public debate on environmental grounds,[4] with a 2019 high court ruling ultimately banning the process.[5] The two remaining high-volume fracturing wells were supposed to be plugged and decommissioned in 2022.[6]

Although fracking is often used synonymously to refer to shale gas and other unconventional oil and gas sources, it is not always correct to associate it with unconventional gas.[7]

Шаблон:For

History

Файл:Oil well in Lincolnshire - geograph.org.uk - 1139065.jpg
Oil well in Lincolnshire. Around 200 onshore wells such as this have been hydraulically fractured.

The first experimental use of hydraulic fracturing in the world was in 1947, and the first commercially successful applications of hydraulic fracturing were in 1949 in the United States.[8] There has been significant fracking in the US, where it has allowed electricity to be produced using gas rather than coal, halving the associated Шаблон:CO2 emissions.[9]

Offshore

In the United Kingdom, the first hydraulic fracturing of an oil well was carried out shortly after discovery of the West Sole field in the North Sea in 1965. After the industry started to use intermediate and high-strength proppants in the late 1970s, hydraulic fracturing became a common technique in the North Sea oil and gas wells. The first hydraulic fracturing from ship was conducted in the British Southern North Sea in 1980, with massive or high volume hydraulic fracturing used from 1984 onwards.[10]

Onshore

An estimated 200 conventional onshore wells have been subject to low volume hydraulic fracturing; around 10% of all onshore wells in the United Kingdom,[1] including Wytch Farm, which is the largest onshore conventional oil field in western Europe.[11] From 1977 until 1994, a hot dry rock geothermal energy experiment was conducted in the Carnmenellis granite of Cornwall. During that experiment, three geothermal wells with depth of Шаблон:Convert were hydraulically fractured "to research the hydraulic stimulation of fracture networks at temperatures below Шаблон:Convert".[12]

The surge of public interest in high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the UK can be traced to 2008, when Cuadrilla Resources was granted a petroleum exploration and development licence in the 13th onshore licensing round for unconventional shale gas exploration along the coast of Lancashire.[13][3] The company's first and only high-volume hydraulic fracturing job[14]Шаблон:Rp was performed in March 2011, near Blackpool, Lancashire.[15][16] Cuadrilla halted operations in May 2011 at their Lancashire drilling site due to seismic activity damaging the casing in the production zone.[17] On 2 November 2019, the UK government imposed a moratorium on fracking in England.[18] Scotland[19] and Wales[20] have moratoria in place against hydraulic fracturing.

In late May 2011, the first UK exploration for shale gas using high-volume hydraulic fracturing was suspended at Preese Hall at Weeton in Lancashire after the process triggered two minor earthquakes.[21] The larger of the earthquakes caused minor deformation of the wellbore[22] and was strong enough to be felt.[23] The report of 2012 by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering concluded that earthquake risk was minimal, and recommended the process be given nationwide clearance, although it highlighted certain concerns[1] which led to changes in regulations.[24]

In January 2014, the European Commission issued a set of recommendations on the minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons from shale formations using high-volume hydraulic fracturing.[25]

A 2016 government report on the UK shale gas sector was finally made available in 2019 after a three year legal battle to make it public, but with three-quarters of its pages blacked out. The unredacted paragraphs said that the government was “undertaking crucial work on communications to increase public acceptability of shale.”[26] In March 2019, the High Court found the UK government's policy was unlawful and failed to consider the climate impact of shale gas extraction.[5]

In November 2019 the government announced "an indefinite suspension" to fracking, after a report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) said it was not possible to predict the probability or size of tremors caused by the practice. Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said that the suspension might be temporary - imposed "until and unless" extraction is proved safe.[27] As of February 2022, the two Cuadrilla wells in Lancashire, which had been out of operation since the ban, were supposed to finally be plugged and decommissioned.[6] By mid March and 4 weeks into the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine the CEO of Cuadrilla asked the government to keep the wells open for energy security.[28]

Process

Hydraulic fracturing is a well-stimulation technique in which rock is fractured by a hydraulically pressurized fluid. This process is also known as 'fracking'. Hydraulic fracturing requires a borehole to be drilled to target depth in the reservoir. For oil and gas production, hydraulically fractured wells can be horizontal or vertical, while the reservoir can be conventional or unconventional. After the well has been drilled, lined, and geophysically logged, the rock can be hydraulically fractured.[29]

Method

Шаблон:Main There are six stages in hydraulic fracturing: Perforation; Isolation: Stimulation; Flushing; Multi-stage perforation, and; Flowback.[29]

Perforation

In shale plays, the cased well is perforated using "shaped charges (explosives)", which are detonated at selected locations in the production zone. In addition to making perforations in the casing, these detonations also create "finger-like fractures" "up to 2.5 cm in diameter" that "extend up to 60 cm into the formation".[29] In the United Kingdom, geothermal wells normally use barefoot completions, rather than "perforated and cemented completions" within a cased production zone.[30]

Isolation

Each perforated section is isolated using a packer (seal)[29]

Stimulation

For both low and high volume hydraulic fracturing stimulation of a hydrocarbon well, a high-pressure fluid (usually water) containing chemical additives and a proppant is injected into a wellbore to create an extensive system of small cracks in the deep-rock formations. These cracks provide the pathway for: natural gas, (including shale gas, tight gas and coalbed methane); petroleum, (including shale or tight oil); to flow more freely. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, the small grains of hydraulic fracturing proppant[31] hold the fractures open when the pressure is released.[29]

When a hydrocarbon well is hydraulically fractured, this is done through a production packer (seal), through the drill pipe or tubing. Fluids are circulated down the tubing, to below the point where the packer is sealed against the production casing. Pressure is then applied to only that part of the casing below the packer.[32] The rest of the well casing will not experience any increase in pressure due to the sealing of the packer. The surface casings do not experience the great pressures experienced at the production zone. This means the stresses on a surface casing are no greater than on a normal oil or gas well. Smaller diameter pipes can sustain much larger pressures than large diameter pipes.Шаблон:Citation needed

In HDR geothermal hydraulic fracturing stimulation, proppants are not added to hydraulic fracturing fluid, as the rough-surfaced shear fractures stay open through self-propping.[12]

Multi-stage perforation

In horizontally drilled sections, it is common to perform as many as 30 separate fracture stages, to evenly divide the production zone. In multi-stage fracturing, segments of a horizontal well, starting at the end furthest from the well head, are split into isolated segments and fractured separately.

Flowback fluid

Flowback fluid contains high levels of salt and is contaminated with organic "solids, heavy metals, fracking chemicals and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) of varying concentration and low levels of radioactive materials".[33] The Environment Agency strategy for management of NORM-contaminated flowback fluid, after treatment, includes its preferred re-use by re-injection during hydraulic fracturing[34] and its disposal, with caveats, via water treatment sites.[35]

Flowback fluid can be treated and reused in later hydraulic fracturing operations,[34] to reduce the volume of freshwater required and to mitigate issues arising from off-site disposal of flowback fluid.[36] Flowback fluid injection in deep disposal wells, which has been linked to significant increase in earthquake rate,[37] is not currently permitted in the UK by the Environment Agency.[34]

Research by Engelder et alia in 2012, indicated that any water injected into a shale formation that does not flow back to the surface, known as "residual treatment water", would be permanently absorbed, (sequestered) into the shale.[38]

In January 2014, "applications for permits to frack" were withdrawn by Cuadrilla after arrangements for treatment and disposal of NORM-contaminated flowback fluid were considered inadequate by the Environment Agency.[39] Technologies are developing methods of removing salt and radioactive materials, allowing safe disposal of flowback fluid under Environment Agency licence.[40] Research in the US also indicates new methods such as "microbial capacitive desalination cells" may become available.[41]

Fracture fluids

Шаблон:Main Chemical additives, typically around 1 per cent of the total fluid volume, are added to water to reduce water viscosity and modify fluid properties.[42] The fracturing fluid used at the No 1 well, at Preese Hall in Weeton, Lancashire,was "99.95% water and sand".[43] The chemical additives (0.05 per cent) were:

  • Polyacrylamide emulsion in hydrocarbon oil (0.043 per cent), which reduces the viscosity of the water to allow faster pumping. It is classed as a "non-hazardous pollutant"[44]
  • Sodium salt, for tracing fracturing fluid (0.000005 per cent)[45]

Proppants may comprise up to 10 per cent of hydraulic fracturing fluid volume.[42] The proppants used at Preese Hall 1 were silica sand:

  • Congleton Sand (0.473 per cent)
  • Chelford Sand (1.550 per cent)[46]

Additional chemical additives that were permitted at Preese Hall 1, but not used, were highly dilute hydrochloric acid and glutaraldehyde, which is used as a biocide in very small quantities, to sterilise the water.[47] Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation is another replacement available for water sterilisation.Шаблон:Citation needed Although some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids such as hydrochloric acid may be classified as toxic, corrosive or irritant,[48] they are non-toxic at lower concentrations.Шаблон:Citation needed

Waterless fracturing fluid systems

Other fracturing fluid systems[49] such as gels, foams and compressed gases, including nitrogen,[50] carbon dioxide and air, can be injected in place of water. Waterless fracturing fluids that use propane-based LPG[51] have the potential to reduce wastewater toxicity.[1]Шаблон:Rp There is sometimes a need to hydraulically fracture coalbed methane and theseШаблон:Clarify methods can be used.[52]

Fracture monitoring

Шаблон:Main The hydraulic fracturing process creates a large number of microseismic events, which require monitoring.[29] A 2012 research paper from ReFINE concludes that the maximum recorded fracture height in US shale plays is 588 metres.[53]

Microseismic monitoring

Microseismic monitoring techniques, using very sensitive microphones and tilt meters can monitor the growth of fractures in the target formation in real time. This can be done using a surface array, or, if there is a nearby offset well, using downhole microphones. This means that the engineers can modify the pump rate based upon the growth of the fractures, and stop pumping if there is evidence of vertical migration into faults. This technology is available from many big oilfield service companies.[54]

Areas of use

Шаблон:Main Only high volume hydraulic fracturing[55] combined with horizontal drilling is likely to enable commercial extraction of unconventional hydrocarbon resources, such as shale gas and light tight oil, in the United Kingdom.[1][56][57] The areas where hydraulic fracturing are expected to be used are the Upper Bowland Shale of the Pennine Basin in Lancashire and Yorkshire,[57] and the Jurassic oil-bearing shales of the Weald Basin in Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent.[58]

The national parks with geologies of possible interest are the North York Moors (shales), the Peak District (shales and coals), the South Downs (shale oil) and to the south of the Yorkshire Dales (shales and coals).[59]

The Eden Project in Cornwall is in the process of drilling and hydraulically fracturing two geothermal wells for utilisation of geothermal energy as a source for a geothermal power station.[60]

Regulation

Шаблон:See also Several government agencies, departments and one government company are involved in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom: the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA),[61][62] the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), the local council planning authority including the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA), the Health and Safety Executive and one of four Environment Agencies[63]Шаблон:Rp These environmental agencies are: the Environment Agency for England; National Resources for Wales;[64] the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)[65] for Scotland, and; the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA)[66] for Northern Ireland.

Regulation of hydraulic fracturing

Before onshore hydraulic fracturing can begin, an operator will have obtained a landward licence, known as a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL), from the OGA.[67]

A series of steps are then taken to obtain permissions from the landowner and council planning authorities.[68] The operator then requests a permit from the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA), who together with the local planning authority, determine if an environmental impact assessment (EIA), funded by the operator, is required.[63]

Up to six permits, constituting the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) 2010,[69] two permits "under the Water Resources Act 1991" and one permit "under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015" are obtained from the appropriate environmental agency, to ensure that onshore hydraulic fracturing operators fulfil strict environmental regulations.[63]Шаблон:Rp

The role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is to focus on the design and integrity of the well,[70] using an independent expert known as the 'well examiner'.[71] The EA and HSE together will "inspect the next series of hydraulic fracturing operations in England and Wales."[72]

A hydraulic fracture plan (HFP) is required for both conventional hydraulic fracture well stimulation and unconventional high volume hydraulic well stimulation. The HFP is agreed with OGA in consultation with the EA and HSE.[73] Hydraulic fracturing consent (HFC) is granted following an application to BEIS, to be reviewed by the Secretary of State,[74] and; comply with requirements to mitigate any seismic risks.[73]

In October 2022, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reinstated England's fracking ban moratorium after it was briefly lifted by his predecessor Liz Truss.[75]

Permitted chemicals

The UK's four environment agencies do not permit chemical additives for hydraulic fracturing fluids that are classed as hazardous to groundwater, as defined by Schedule 22 of Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (EPR 2010),[76] Schedule 5 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012,[77] and the EU Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC).[78] The environmental regulator will assess every chemical before it is added to the hydraulic fracturing fluid.[68] The nature of each chemical, but not the concentration, must be made available to the public.[24]

The Joint Agencies Groundwater Directive Advisory Group (JAGDAG) maintains a list of substances that have been assessed as being hazardous substances or non-hazardous pollutants for the groundwater directive. Input of hazardous substances "on the basis of their toxicity, persistence and capacity to bio-accumulate" is not permitted into potable or unpotable groundwater.[79] Substances which are not hazardous are potentially non-hazardous pollutants.[80]

At the Balcombe site, the Environment Agency permitted one requested chemical oxirane, while not permitting the use of antimony trioxide, which "would be hazardous if it came into contact with groundwater".[81]

Criticism

In March 2014, a group of conservation charities including the RSPB and the National Trust released a report containing a 10-point plan for increased regulation, highlighting their concerns about hydraulic fracturing with respect to groundwater pollution, public water supply, wastewater management and treatment both generally and within ecologically sensitive areas including National Parks.[82] UKOOG, the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, pointed to "a number of critical inaccuracies" and stated that: "many of the recommendations are already in place in the UK or are in the process of being put in place" and welcomed future dialogue with conservation agencies.[83]

In July 2014, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) published a report about hydraulic fracturing that was broadly negative. It referred to major shortcomings in regulatory oversight regarding local environmental and public health risks, the potential for undermining efforts to tackle climate change, and the possibility that the process might cause water shortages.[84] The report received a negative review from an academic based upon the lead author being a Green Party candidate, and hydraulic fracturing protester, and the alleged selective nature of someШаблон:Clarify of the data used.[85]

In March 2015, the shale company funded Task Force on Shale Gas criticised "current regulation" as "complex and relatively unapproachable", and responsible for the public's lack of confidence. The Task Force on Shale Gas recommended that the regulatory requirement for an operator-funded independent well examiner[86] to be passed to a single, new government regulator, who would also "independently monitor fracking sites". UKOOG, the industry's trade and advocacy group, said: "public confidence in the industry is vital". The government responded: "Both the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency have full authority and responsibility to monitor all shale sites - independent of the industry,"[87]

In June 2015, the UK regulations for hydraulic fracturing were criticised by the chemicals policy charity, CHEM Trust,[88] stating they were not sufficiently protective, and raising concerns about the reductions in funding for the regulators of fracking, like the Environment Agency.[89] UKOOG, responded to the CHEM Trust analysis, criticised the timing of the report: "The timing of this report is clearly designed to influence local councillors" and stated that "The report includes a number of recommendations that are already part of industry common practice or regulation in the UK."[90] and CHEM Trust[91] responded.[92]

Legislation

Community and public engagement

Community and public engagement is a legal requirement[93] of the EU Directive 2003/35/EC.[94]

In June 2013, the industry body UKOOG issued their Shale Community Engagement Charter.[95] The shale gas industry has agreed to two types of community benefit for communities hosting shale gas development, including: a one-off payment of £100,000 per site, after hydraulic fracturing had taken place, and; a 1% share of production revenues; yearly operator commitment publications.[68]

In 2014, the government announced its intent to create of a Shale Wealth Fund.[96] The fund was originally intended to be controlled by "community trusts or councils". A consultation period solicited views from stakeholders, "individuals, organisations, such as charities; businesses; local authorities, and; community groups"; ran between August and October 2016.[97]

In March 2016, Stephenson Halliday for the Planning Advisory Service noted that the UKOOG local community benefits scheme "fails all three of the tests" in Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.[98] In 2016, the chemical company INEOS committed to a "share 6% of revenues. 4% of this would go to homeowners and landowners in the immediate vicinity of a well, and a further 2% to the wider community." In terms of total revenue, Ineos have estimated that "a typical 10 km by 10 km development area would generate £375m for the community over its lifespan".[99]

Infrastructure Act 2015 Sections 43 and 50

The Infrastructure Act 2015 legislated onshore access for onshore and offshore extraction of shale/tight oil, shale gas[100] and deep geothermal energy.[101] Section 50 of the act defined the hydraulic fracturing of "shale strata", also known as "high-volume hydraulic fracturing" as "more than 1000m3 of fluid per stage, and; more than 10,000m3 in total" and attached conditions that mean no hydraulic fracturing can take place at a depth shallower than 1000m in unprotected areas.

In order for the Secretary of State to give consent to hydraulic fracturing, legislation includes a range of conditions that operators must comply with, such as: "environmental impacts of development", including soil and air monitoring; 12 months of groundwater methane level monitoring prior to "associated" (high-volume) hydraulic fracturing; no associated hydraulic fracturing "within protected groundwater source areas";[102]

Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2016

"The Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2016" prohibited "hydraulic fracturing in protected areas" - i.e. National Parks of England and Wales, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, and UNESCO World Heritage sites - at depths of less than 1200m.[103]

Environmental impact

Шаблон:See also The environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing in conventional and unconventional wells: ground water contamination, surface water contamination, releases to air, water resource depletion, traffic, land take, noise, visual impact and seismicity.

Environmental impact assessments cover a wide range of concerns, including habitat damage, effect on wildlife, traffic, noise, lighting, and air pollution. This reference shows one example.[104] These are presented in less detail in a ' Non Technical Summary'.[105]

According to Professor Mair of the Royal Society, the causation of earthquakes with any significant impact or fractures reaching and contaminating drinking water, were very low risk" if adequate regulations are in place.[1]

A report from AMEC[106] in December 2013 covers many of the environmental issues that would arise were the shale gas industry to become highly developed.

The British Geological Survey are involved with environmental monitoring.[107]

In October 2014, EASAC stated that: "Overall, in Europe more than 1000 horizontal wells and several thousand hydraulic fracturing jobs have been executed in recent decades. None of these operations are known to have resulted in safety or environmental problems".[108]

In October 2016, Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure Ltd (AFWI) compared the environmental impacts and risks of unconventional high volume hydraulic fracturing with conventional low volume hydraulic fracturing. The study found that volume of fluid injected and flowback were the only significant differences between conventional low volume and unconventional high volume hydraulic fracturing and that the impacts and risks for high volume hydraulic fracturing scaled up for land take, traffic, surface water contamination and water resource depletion.[109]

Air

In February 2016, a study by the ReFINE consortium funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Shell, Chevron, Ineos and Centrica, found "substantial increases over the baseline""in local air quality pollutants", during the short-duration high-traffic phase which includes the delivery of hydraulic fracturing equipment, proppant, water, as well as the removal of flowback from the site. According to ReFiNE, these short-duration increases have the potential to breach local air quality standards.[110] The industry group UKOOG criticised the ReFiNE study for failing to take into account that water for hydraulic fracturing fluid might be brought in by pipeline, instead of being transported by truck.[111]

In October 2016, Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure Ltd stated that the overall environmental impacts from low volume hydraulic fracturing to local air quality and global warming are low. Local air quality is impacted by dust and SO2 and NOx emissions "from equipment and vehicles used to transport, pressurise and injection fracturing fluids, and process flowback", while "Emissions of [[CO2|Шаблон:CO2]] from the equipment used to pressurise and injection fracturing fluids, and process flowback." contributes to global warming.[109]Шаблон:Rp

Water

The RAE report stated, "Many claims of contaminated water wells due to shale gas extraction have been made. None has shown evidence of chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluids".[1] The Environment Agency definitions of groundwater and aquifer are here.[112]

In January 2015, the British Geological Survey released national baseline methane levels, which showed a wide range of readings[113] Poor surface well sealing, which allows methane to leak, methane was identified in the Royal Academy of Engineering report as a risk to groundwater.[114] This was incorporated into the Infrastructure Act 2015 with a requirement that monitoring takes place 12 months before fracturing.[115]

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) have been involved with evaluating the potential water impacts of hydraulic fracturing.[116]Шаблон:Clarify

Groundwater contamination

Шаблон:See also Both low and high volume hydraulic fracturing "involve storing and injecting large quantities of chemicals". Any surface spill therefore has "the potential to penetrate groundwater". The likelihood of low volume and high volume hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater by surface spills of stored chemicals is rare, however the risk and consequences are moderate.[117] To mitigate the risk, the Environment Agency requires chemical and fluid proof well pads.[63] The 2012 joint Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report indicated that the distances between potable water supplies and fractured formation in various US shale plays is large, meaning the risk of contamination is very small. No cases of pollution by this route have been identified.[118]

Another 2013 paper from ReFine indicated the potential for surface gas leaks from abandoned wells[119]

UK and US water differences

Treated mains water is the norm in the UK, and standards are required by legislation to be high. As such any pollution would have to be removed by the water companies by law. Private water wells are rare, around 62,000 households, out of 23.4 million households or 2.6%.[120] In rural areas of the US, private wells are common (15%), and small communities are served by investor-owned utilities, or community schemes. UK households would therefore be expected to be less at risk than those in the US.Шаблон:Original research inline

In the US, baseline methane measurements were not made at the start of the shale gas boom, meaning that it became difficult to prove whether a gas problem was due to a leaking well, or was naturally occurring.Шаблон:Citation needed

Water use

Water use is regulated by the EA (England), the SEPA (Scotland), the NIEA (Northern Ireland) and NRW (Wales) to ensure environmental needs are not compromised.[121] Water companies assess how much water is available, before providing it to operators.Шаблон:Citation needed The amount of water abstracted nationally is at around 9.4 billion cubic metres.[122] In 2015, the EA indicated that water usage at a peak levelШаблон:Clarify would be 0.1% of national use and hydraulic fracturing may use up to "30 million litres per well".[123] Drier areas, such as south-east England,[124] are concerned about the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies.[125]

Seismicity

As of August 2016, there have been two cases in the United Kingdom of fault reactivation by hydraulic fracturing that caused induced seismicity strong enough to be felt by humans at the surface: both in Lancashire (M 2.3 and M 1.5).[126]

In December 2015, the Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems (CeREES) at Durham University published the first research of its kind, prior to "planned shale gas and oil exploitation", in order to establish a baseline for anthropogenic, induced seismic events in the UK.[127]

In October 2018, more earthquakes were recorded in Lancashire including two tremors of 0.8 magnitude which called the Energy firm Cuadrilla to call a temporary halt on the drilling operations.[128][129]

Preese Hall, Lancashire

In May 2011, the government suspended Cuadrilla's[106][130][131] hydraulic fracturing operations in their Preese Hall 1 well in Lancashire, after two small earthquakes were triggered, one of magnitude M 2.3.[132] The largest coseismic slip caused minor deformation of the wellbore[22] and was strong enough to be felt.[23]

The company's temporary halt was pending DECC guidance on the conclusions of a study[133] being carried out by the British Geological Survey and Keele University,[130] which concluded in April 2012 that the process posed a seismic risk minimal enough to allow it to proceed with stricter monitoring.[134] Cuadrilla pointed out that a number of such small-magnitude earthquakes occur naturally each month in Britain.[135]

Cuadrilla commissioned an investigation into the seismic activity, which concluded that the tremors were probably caused by the lubrication of an existing fault plane by the unintended spread of hydraulic fracturing fluid below ground.[136][137][138]

In 2012, a report on hydraulic fracturing produced jointly by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering noted that earthquakes of magnitude M 3.0, which are more intense than the larger of the two quakes caused by Cuadrilla are: "Felt by few people at rest or in the upper floors of buildings; similar to the passing of a truck."[1] The British Geological Survey has published information on seismic issues relating to hydraulic fracturing.[139]

In February 2014, following the small seismic event in the Preese Hall 1 well, and much research, the DECC issued a statement on earthquake risk.[21]

Subsidence

There is no documented evidence of hydraulic fracturing leading to subsidence.[21] Operations are commonly monitored with tiltmeters, and no compaction issues have been documented. Given the mechanical properties of unconventional rocks (their densities, low porosities, low Biot coefficients, and high stiffness), compaction is very unlikely to occur during hydrocarbon extraction.[140]Шаблон:Rp

Insurance

In an answer to questions from the 'Lets talk about Shale'[141] initiative, run by Westbourne Communications[142] for the industry body, UKOOG, they have stated "According to the Association of British Insurers there is, at present, little evidence of a link between shale gas and property damage, and they are not aware of any claims where seismic activity as a result of fracking has been cited as a cause of damage. Damage as a result of earthquakes, subsidence, heave and landslip are all covered, in general, under buildings insurance. Insurers will continue to monitor the situation for the potential for fracking, or similar explorations, to cause damage."[143]

It was reported in early 2015 that farms would not be covered by issues that may arise due to hydraulic fracturing. A clarification by the insurer indicated that this would only apply to a farmer that permitted this on their land. Surrounding farms would be covered.[144]

In March 2017, the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) released a report by the CII Claims Faculty New Generation Group, which explored the Insurance implications of fracking.[145] The authors examined the "key perils associated with fracking such as earthquakes, explosions and fire, pollution, injury and death", and found that while "most insurances policies" provided "cover for these risks", "fracking will pose additional complications around liability". The authors also considered that if widespread fracking were to lead to increased claims, "then insurers may have to consider how they underwrite this emerging higher-risk group". The authors recommended: working together within the insurance profession "to monitor and discuss the issues" while remaining "open and transparent about the risks of fracking", and; working with the "energy industry and the government" "to reduce the likelihood of potential risks occurring". The CII emphasised that "insurers need to be prepared for claims in the event of a fracking-related loss and consider policy wordings with increased fracking in mind".[146]

Public health

If the Minerals Planning Authority determine that public health will be significantly impacted, the Director of Public health is consulted so that a "health impact assessment" can be prepared. The Environment Agency then uses the health impact assessment when considering the "potential health effects" during their "permit determination"[63]Шаблон:Rp

In 2014, Public Health England reviewed the "available evidence on issues including air quality, radon gas, naturally occurring radioactive materials, water contamination and waste water. They concluded that the risks to public health from exposure to emissions from shale gas extraction are low if operations are properly run and regulated."[68] Public Health England's Dr John Harrison, Director for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, stated that: "Where potential risks have been identified in other countries, the reported problems are typically due to operational failure. Good on-site management and appropriate regulation of all aspects of exploratory drilling, gas capture as well as the use and storage of hydraulic fracturing fluid is essential to minimise the risks to the environment and health."[147]

In 2015 the health charity Medact published a paper written by two public health specialists called 'Health & Fracking - The impacts and opportunity costs', which reviewed health impacts of hydraulic fracturing and suggested a moratorium until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment could be completed.[148] UKOOG criticised Medact's understanding of UK regulations and said they had not declared that one of its consultants, who was standing for parliament in the 2015 general election, had a conflict of interest.[149] The Times journalist Ben Webster also criticised Medact for not declaring one of their consultant's conflict of interest and reported that the Medact director had not realised that this consultant was also an anti-fracking candidate.[150] MedAct published a response to these criticisms.[151]

The content of the Medact Report 2015 was referred to by many objectors in the June 2015 Public reports pack for the Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee. Lancashire County Council were uncertain how much weight to attach to the Medact report due to "questions from some quarters" about the objectivity of the report based on association of two its contributors with campaigns relating to shale gas.[152]

In 2016, Medact released an updated public health report,[153] citing health risks from shale gas development and calling upon the government to "abandon its shale gas plans".[154]

The 'Fracking' debate

Файл:Balcombe anti frack protest.jpg
18 August 2013: Fracking protest south of Balcombe, Sussex, England.

Hydraulic fracturing, "or 'fracking' as it has become commonly known, is a big issue for local authorities and communities across the country"[100] and has become part of the Climate Change debate.Шаблон:Citation needed

Concerns about hydraulic fracturing have been raised across the United Kingdom, including: Sussex, Somerset and Kent in England, and; the Vale of Glamorgan in Wales.[155][156] In 2011, Bath and North East Somerset Council voiced concerns that hydraulic fracturing could contaminate Bath's famous hot springs.[157]

Protests have been held against onshore unconventional fossil fuel exploration that may lead to hydraulic fracturing.[158] In 2012, industry assurances were tarnished when Cuadrilla came under fire for its categorical denials of its plans for hydraulic fracturing near Balcombe after documents from parent company AJ Lucas materialised appearing to indicate the opposite.[159] In 2014, Cuadrilla scrapped its plans to frack at Balcombe.[160] In May 2014, a letter to the Department of Energy and Climate Change dated June 2011 emerged, confirming the company believed that to achieve commercial production, "significant amounts of hydraulic fracturing" would be required at Balcombe.[161]

Opposition and support for fracking

There are a number of anti-fracking groups,[162][163] which range from the nationwide Frack Off, which was engaged in the Balcombe drilling protest, to local groups such as Residents Action on Fylde Fracking,[164] Ribble Estuary Against Fracking,[165] NO Fracking in Sussex, Frack Free Fernhurst[166] and The Vale Says No![167] Environmental NGOs Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Friends of the Earth are also against fracking.[168]

Anti-fracking campaigners say that there are various problems associated with the process including pressure on local transport infrastructure, air and water pollution, the amounts of water used, and potential economic damage to agricultural, food production and tourism industries.[169]

Pro-fracking campaigners such as the Centrica-backed group North West Energy Task Force say the "fracking industry" "could bring a boost to jobs and the economy" and that "shale gas has a pivotal role to play in the region's future success" and "would act as a catalyst to bring the vital investment necessary to secure existing industries and develop new ones."[170] In 2014, Business and Energy Minister Michael Fallon said that the opportunity to release up to 4.4 billion barrels of oil by fracking in the Wealden basin, covering Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent, "will bring jobs and business opportunities" and significantly help with UK energy self-sufficiency.[171]

In 2019, a government survey showed that public opposition to fracking had risen to its highest level so far, and support dropped to a record low.[172] Those opposed to fracking constituted 40 per cent of participants, up from 35 per cent in December 2018, and up from 21 per cent in 2013. Opposition to fracking was highest in north-west England (50 per cent), Wales (49 per cent) and Scotland (49 per cent). It was lowest in London (30 per cent), east England (31 per cent) and the west midlands (32 per cent). Support for fracking fell to 12 per cent of participants, down slightly on 13 per cent in the previous survey. This was the lowest level recorded by the survey so far, and 17 percentage points below the peak in March 2014. Strong support for fracking remained unchanged at two per cent.[173]

Advertising Standards Authority complaints

Anti-fracking and pro-fracking campaigners have submitted a series of complaints about advertisements, brochures and leaflets to the Advertising Standards Agency.

In April 2013, "fracking activist" Refracktion reported Cuadrilla's brochure to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), who deemed that of the 18 statements made, 11 were acceptable and six had breached the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code,[174] and that the brochure "must not appear again in its present form".[175] In January 2015 Reverend Michael Roberts and Ken Wilkinson reported an anti-fracking group's leaflet to the ASA. The ASA resolved the complaint with an informal ruling that the group, Residents Action On Fylde Fracking (RAFF), had "exaggerated the size and scale of planned fracking operations".[176] RAFF "agreed to amend or withdraw advertising without the need for a formal investigation".[177] In 2015, Cuadrilla and Reverend Michael Roberts reported a leaflet produced by Friends of the Earth to the ASA[178] and the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB), now known as the Fundraising Regulator.[179] Friends of the Earth gave assurance to the ASA that they would not repeat claims in their advertisements about "the effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water or property prices" "in the absence of adequate evidence".[180] The ASA clarified their position,[181] after it became evident that FoE rejected the results of their investigation.[182]Шаблон:Failed verificationШаблон:Original research inline

Wales

In October 2011 the campaign to prohibit Coastal Oil and Gas from test drilling at the Llandow Industrial Estate, in the Vale of Glamorgan, met with initial success after local councillors unanimously refused the company's plans, though Coastal immediately indicated it would appeal.[183] Residents feared that successful exploration would be the prelude for hydraulic fracturing.[156] The basis of the Council's decision was a letter from Welsh Water stating that there was "a very small risk" of contamination of its reserve groundwater sites from exploratory drilling.[184] The rejection came despite the Council being told that, strictly from a planning point of view, there were no "reasonable or sustainable grounds" to refuse, and despite the drilling application containing no explicit mention of hydraulic fracturing. The company had additionally claimed that, since the "gas shales in the Vale are not as thick as elsewhere", any discoveries would be "very unlikely" to require hydraulic fracturing for extraction.[183]

Coastal Oil and Gas decided to appeal to the Welsh Government, rather than undertake legal action against the local authority,[185] and a public enquiry began in May 2012.[186] Coastal's chances of success at the enquiry were boosted by Kent County Council approval of the company's near-identical plans for preliminary drilling in Woodnesborough,[156] and were increased to near certainty after Welsh Water effectively retracted its previous risk assessment.[186]

Industry response

In arguing its case, Cuadrilla contrasts its approach with the one taken in the United States, claiming that only three chemicals—a polyacrylamide lubricant commonly found in cosmetics, hydrochloric acid, and a biocide used to purify drinking water—will be used in the UK, compared with the hundreds that can be used across the Atlantic; that it has invested in more expensive, better equipment than that used by companies operating in the US;[187] that its wells have three layers of pipe casing to line the wells, whereas many American ones only have two; that the barrier between the gas escaping up the pipe and ground water is thicker; that cement will be returned to the surface, blocking identified leak paths; and that drilling fluids will be collected in closed steel tanks, rather than in lined earthen pits, as often happens in the States.[188][189] According to Cuadrilla's communication advisor, "Gasland (the US documentary about shale gas) really changed everything. . . . Before that, shale gas was not seen as routinely controversial."[187]

Effect on house prices

In August 2014, a report called 'Shale Gas:Rural Economic Impacts' was published by the UK Government, in response to a Freedom of Information request, from Greenpeace. It was due for publication in March 2014.[190][191] It was notable as large parts of this had been redacted, leading to criticism about the transparency of information being provided.[192]

The Lancashire 'North West Energy Task Force', a body that broadly supports the extraction of shale gas, commissioned a report on the effect of house prices in the area surrounding the Preese Hall 1 well, after the seismic issues lead to a suspension of activity by the drilling company, Cuadrilla. The report concluded that "Taken together, there is no clear evidence based on this data to suggest that onshore gas operations have had a material impact on local house prices" [193]

In January 2017, Friends of the Earth were instructed not to repeat claims about "plummeting house prices" after complaints and an investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority [194]

See also

References

Шаблон:Reflist

External links

Videos

Шаблон:Div col

Шаблон:Div col end

Партнерские ресурсы
Криптовалюты
Магазины
Хостинг
Разное

  1. ↑ 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 Шаблон:Cite report
  2. ↑ Шаблон:Citation
  3. ↑ 3,0 3,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  4. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  5. ↑ 5,0 5,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  6. ↑ 6,0 6,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  7. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  8. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  9. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  10. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Mader не указан текст
  11. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  12. ↑ 12,0 12,1 Шаблон:Cite journal
  13. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  14. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  15. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  16. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  17. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  18. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  19. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  20. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  21. ↑ 21,0 21,1 21,2 Шаблон:Cite web
  22. ↑ 22,0 22,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  23. ↑ 23,0 23,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  24. ↑ 24,0 24,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  25. ↑ Шаблон:Cite report
  26. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  27. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  28. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  29. ↑ 29,0 29,1 29,2 29,3 29,4 29,5 Шаблон:Cite journal
  30. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  31. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  32. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  33. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  34. ↑ 34,0 34,1 34,2 Шаблон:Cite web
  35. ↑ Шаблон:Cite report
  36. ↑ Шаблон:Cite report
  37. ↑ Шаблон:Cite report
  38. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  39. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  40. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  41. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  42. ↑ 42,0 42,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  43. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  44. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  45. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  46. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  47. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  48. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  49. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  50. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  51. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  52. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  53. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  54. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  55. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  56. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  57. ↑ 57,0 57,1 Шаблон:Cite journal
  58. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  59. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  60. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  61. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  62. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  63. ↑ 63,0 63,1 63,2 63,3 63,4 Шаблон:Cite web
  64. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  65. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  66. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  67. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  68. ↑ 68,0 68,1 68,2 68,3 Шаблон:Cite web
  69. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  70. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  71. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  72. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  73. ↑ 73,0 73,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  74. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  75. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  76. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  77. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  78. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  79. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  80. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  81. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  82. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  83. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  84. ↑ Шаблон:Cite report
  85. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  86. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  87. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  88. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  89. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  90. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  91. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  92. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  93. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  94. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  95. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  96. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  97. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  98. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  99. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  100. ↑ 100,0 100,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  101. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  102. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  103. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  104. ↑ Full StatementШаблон:Dead link
  105. ↑ Non Tech SummaryШаблон:Dead link
  106. ↑ 106,0 106,1 Шаблон:Cite report
  107. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  108. ↑ Шаблон:Cite report
  109. ↑ 109,0 109,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  110. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  111. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  112. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  113. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  114. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  115. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  116. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  117. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  118. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  119. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  120. ↑ Шаблон:Cite report
  121. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  122. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  123. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  124. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  125. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  126. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  127. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  128. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  129. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  130. ↑ 130,0 130,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  131. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  132. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  133. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  134. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  135. ↑ Matt McGrath, Fracking: Untangling fact from fiction, BBC, 13 December 2012.
  136. ↑ Шаблон:Citation
  137. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  138. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  139. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  140. ↑ Шаблон:Cite report
  141. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  142. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  143. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  144. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  145. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  146. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  147. ↑ Public Health England. 25 June 2014 PHE-CRCE-009: Review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to chemical and radioactive pollutants as a result of shale gas extraction Шаблон:ISBN
  148. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  149. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  150. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  151. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  152. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  153. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  154. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  155. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  156. ↑ 156,0 156,1 156,2 Шаблон:Cite news
  157. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  158. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  159. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  160. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  161. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  162. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  163. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  164. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  165. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  166. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  167. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  168. ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
  169. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  170. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  171. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  172. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  173. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  174. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  175. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  176. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  177. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  178. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  179. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  180. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  181. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  182. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  183. ↑ 183,0 183,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  184. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  185. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  186. ↑ 186,0 186,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  187. ↑ 187,0 187,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  188. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  189. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  190. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  191. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  192. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  193. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  194. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
Источник — http://wikihandbk.com/ruwiki/index.php?title=Английская_Википедия:Fracking_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=14755405