You would think that we, as the founder and former PR director of Cuadrilla Resources, an oil and gas exploration company, would welcome this news. Although we no longer deal with Cuadrilla, we believe this news is positive. But it is misleading to suggest that the announcement will lead to substantial new gas supply to the UK in the foreseeable future. And we believe there are other more practical steps that could be taken to produce significant energy in a timely manner. Here’s why. Fracking – more technically known as hydraulic fracturing – is necessary to release methane molecules from hard shale and many other types of rock. This takes place 2-4 kilometers below the surface, about the distance between Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London, under a series of impermeable layers of rock. The techniques have become unnecessarily controversial in the UK due to misplaced concerns about isolated incidents of groundwater contamination and micro-seismicity, the former only occurring when well management mistakes are made. Fracking has been deemed a safe practice by experienced regulators in countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina and others – countries where many thousands of wells are destroyed annually. We could not import liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US and Canada if it was not produced by fracking in those countries. However, disagreements about security are not the real challenge. In our view, there are two key additional hurdles: technical and economic feasibility and socio-political alignment around scale. First, just because a resource exists does not mean that it is feasible or economical to extract it. In Lancashire, we learned in 2011 that shale formations are extremely gassy. They are also heavily faulted and compartmentalized, unlike the generally continuous gas-bearing formations that underlie large parts of Pennsylvania, Texas, and Alberta. Learning how to recover this gas will take time – and indeed it can create low-level, short-lived ground tremors, an issue which in Britain has been dramatically blown out of proportion. The construction and rail industries could not exist under the standards that have been applied to onshore gas recovery. In addition, the UK is a very expensive place to operate. Governments have singled out the energy sector for regulations that hinder normal operations in agriculture and other industries. The result is that an operation that in the US, Canada and even Argentina is a quick keyhole operation is in the UK a tedious, slow and expensive operation. The democratic process has created these regulations and we do not criticize them. But from an investment perspective, Britain’s cost envelope is itself a major barrier to raising the many tens of billions of pounds needed to launch a major UK shale gas programme. Today’s high gas and oil prices alone are not a sufficient incentive for investors. Existing investments in LNG infrastructure – commissioned before the start of the war – mean that Europe will have ample availability of natural gas (largely from ‘fracked’ wells in other countries) with prices returning to normality in two to three years. The second issue is the sheer scale of the work that would be required to replace even 10% of the UK’s natural gas: thousands of wells would need to be completed over the next 30 to 50 years, with hundreds of wells drilled and fracked annually. That would mean dozens of fracking rigs and crews on the move across the country. At Cuadrilla, we have learned first-hand how resentful this type of industrial activity is in Britain. Many of these crews would be from America. Britain does not manufacture much of the relevant equipment – most of this would be European and North American. Even if the UK produces significant natural gas, we are unlikely to see lower gas prices – any more than living next to a farm would mean paying less for milk. We are appointed by regional market pricing. A 10% increase from one country – which would be large – is not enough to change regional prices. In summary, the sociopolitical and economic barriers to fracking are high. This is why we, as veterans of the fracking protests, are cautious about the prospects for UK-scale shale gas. In addition to the shale gas gesture, we believe two other readily available sources of net zero energy should be pursued. One is the vast amount of hot, non-potable brine beneath large parts of the country – an energy source we are evaluating for potential future ventures. From Northern Ireland to the Wessex Basin in the East Midlands, these salt brines are found in permeable sandstone formations at temperatures of 60-80C. “Twin” wells would allow this hot water to be temporarily extracted to heat greenhouses or other industry, which would then be pumped back into the formation. This is an easily tapped resource. All that is needed is the political courage to seed exploration and change water extraction and planning regulations to include heat. Britain, now a major importer of perishable vegetables, could become a major exporter while drastically reducing the carbon footprint of the country’s horticulture sector. (One of us is involved in a company seeking a license to produce such energy.) And then there’s Britain’s tidal range, the second highest in the world. The moon pulls billions of tons of water up and into our western estuary, which could then be harnessed for power generation. Britain could have a major tidal lagoon industry if we wanted it to. We just need the political will not to weaken developers and drain their resources on dramatic but manageable issues like estuarine fish stocks and the higher cost of an initial trail lagoon. Truss is right to pursue new sources of energy, but misplaces the emphasis. The socio-political will is lacking. The socio-political will is lacking, regardless of the Machiavellian rants of both the left and the right and the Prime Minister’s decrees. Britain will need to rely on imported natural gas for many decades – to suggest otherwise is to mislead the public. We are not here to discount fracking and the incredibly important role this technology has and will continue to play in the global energy transition. But in the case of the UK, there are other low-carbon energy opportunities such as tidal and shallow geothermal heat that are constantly being drowned out by socio-political “sound spasms”. Such technologies will not replace the need for imported natural gas, but could significantly help the UK wean its continued dependence on hydrocarbons. British society needs to find the willpower and patience to activate any of these abundant and reliable sources of energy.
Dr Chris Cornelius, an exploration geologist, was the founder of Cuadrilla Resources and Mark Linder was the first director of public affairs. Neither has been involved with Cuadrilla for many years.
