Get the frack out!

On one level, the debate over fracking, i.e. hydraulic fracturing, is about energy extraction and the impact of this process on the environment. But dig deeper and there are bigger questions to be asked and answered, says Almudena Serpis.

---

THE images of farmers in the United States igniting their tap water have gone round the world. These astonishing cases are one of the consequences of fracking, as shown in the Oscar-nominated documentary Gasland. 'Fellow citizens of Pennsylvania, we have a serious problem.' These were the words of Gasland creator Josh Fox, addressing a crowd in November 2012. Almost a year on, crisis-stricken times have taken fracking to the forefront on a global scale.

Fracking is rife in the United States, and some European countries are giving it the green light. The UK, for example, lifted its ban on fracking just a few months ago, prompting strong protest. But it's not just Britain doing a U-turn: countries such as Greece, Spain, Germany and Sweden are also jumping onto the fracking bandwagon. This complex practice of extracting shale gas from deep underground is sold as a promise of getting nearer to energy self-sufficiency, but it has been proven to have gloomy consequences for the environment.

'The current economic situation coupled with high levels of political corruption makes it easy for the energy lobby to find open doors wherever it pleases,' says a member of the anti-fracking assembly of Burgos in northern Spain. He tells us that now that the fight for fossil fuels is getting tougher, the search for other resources has begun in earnest.

So what is fracking about?

Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) consists of fracturing shale rock to release natural gas through the 24-hour non-stop exploitation of wells that could be several kilometres deep. Because the gas is found scattered throughout the rock, it is accessed using explosives to open up cracks into which high-pressure fluid is injected to force the gas into the pipes that will carry it up to ground level.

Paco Ramos, Climate and Energy Unit Head of Greenpeace Spain, explains that the fluid used in fracking is made up of 98% water and sand, the remaining 2% being a mix of some 600 highly toxic chemical agents (including mercury, lead, uranium and methanol). The migration of this fluid - usually due to bad sealing and poor well construction - is a commonly documented problem. And it is the leaching of these contaminants into the surrounding land and water supplies that is causing all the concern and controversy, with many objectors warning that this pollution contaminates and even destroys aquifers. Evidence of this is cited in a report on fracking compiled by the Spanish organisation Ecologistas en Accion. And this contamination is also the reason why US farmers' water may actually catch fire.

The average life of an extraction operation is just seven years, with productivity slumping by 60-80% in the first year alone. Fracking is so intensive because, in order to maintain high levels of extraction, new platforms have to be built and run continuously.

Last year, the anti-fracking group Fracking EZ Araba published a report on fracking, which estimated that in order to produce just 10% of gas consumption in Britain for the next 20 years, some 25,000 to 30,000 wells would be needed; this would dictate an opening rate of 1,250 to 1,500 wells each year for the next two decades. The same report also warns that badly sealed and abandoned wells can result in the leakage of methane - a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 - into the atmosphere.

Equally worrying, a study carried out by seismologist Austin Holland at the Oklahoma Geological Survey in August 2011 established a link between fracking and unusual seismic activity, which can cause low-magnitude earthquakes. In the UK, Cuadrilla Resources had to cease its fracking activities in May 2011 after two earth tremors near Blackpool were linked to them. But the company was subsequently given the go-ahead again.

Uncovering the truth

You may find some groups claiming that fracking first started 40 years ago in the United States and that since then, and thanks to four decades of experience, all the right legislation has been passed to make the practice safe. But Paco Ramos suggests otherwise: 'Around 40 years ago the United States was running tests on fracking, but it was not until 2005 that this process truly began. So that makes it very recent. And to be able to get going so quickly, they did not focus on special legislation, but instead simply repealed existing environmental protection laws.'

In 2005 the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing were exempted from protection under the Safe Drinking Water Act enforced by the US Environmental Protection Agency, creating what is known as the Halliburton loophole, after a highly controversial review established that there was no real threat to drinking water.

Not only does Europe lack common legislation covering the environmental protection and safety requirements of fracking activities, but there is also a deep division of opinion between countries. Whilst France, Ireland and Bulgaria have declared a moratorium on fracking, in countries like Spain and the UK the headlines concentrate on the alleged benefits of fracking.

Taking action

Unsurprisingly, fracking has prompted worldwide protest, with anti-fracking action led by ecology groups, NGOs and other environmental organisations. And slowly ordinary citizens are saying no to fracking too. Last year a coalition of 36 environment and health-related NGOs from Europe, the United States, Australia and South Africa published a manifesto against fracking, aimed at raising awareness.

Paco Ramos stresses that it is important to remember the basics: 'We really can't know how much [shale] gas there is: we are just speculating. It could meet less than 10% of demand, and we have to remember that fracking is competing against renewable energies.'

He is right because, whatever the threat to the environment and health, the fracking debate does throw up questions we ignore at our peril - particularly those pertaining to how best to meet our collective energy demands. A UK mining engineer told me: 'We all use electricity; we want to travel by car or go on holiday by plane. Where do we think all this comes from? If it is not in our backyards but in a faraway distant land, then people think that's OK. But now it looks like we might have to make some sacrifices to meet our energy needs. It seems it's another story entirely.'

Anti-fracking organisations believe that the issue is not whether we 'frack or crack', but how we address the issues behind the question of consumption to find ways in which our overall energy, economic, social and political models become sustainable.

'Opposition is big and hopes are high,' says a member of the anti-fracking assembly of Burgos.

However, rethinking the way we use our resources is difficult for anyone who is not in contact with how we acquire those resources in the first place - which might be where we all need to start.                                                              

Almudena Serpis is an activist and writer involved in social movements in Spain. This article is reproduced from Resurgence & Ecologist magazine (No. 280, September/October 2013). To buy Resurgence & Ecologist, read further articles online or find out about The Resurgence Trust, visit www.resurgence.org. All rights to this article are reserved to The Resurgence Trust; if you wish to republish or make use of this work, you must contact the copyright owner to obtain permission.

*Third World Resurgence No. 276/277, August/September 2013, pp 5-6