Right: police clear protesters blocking gas explorers' access to a property.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against a temporary moratorium on fracking
1. If properly managed, fracking is a safe technology
It has been claimed that with appropriate regulations and management on the ground fracking is a safe means of gas extraction.
A 2012 report from the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering has stated that the technique is safe if firms follow best practice and rules are enforced.
The report's chair, Professor Robert Mair from Cambridge University, has stated, 'Our main conclusions are that the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing for shale can be safely managed provided there is best practice observed and provided it's enforced through strong regulation.'
Professor Mair has further stated, 'The UK regulatory system is up to the job for the present very small scale exploration activities, but there would need to be strengthening of the regulators if the government decides to proceed with more shale gas extraction, particularly at the production stage.'
The report concludes that the risk of gas contamination is 'very low' - provided that fracking takes place at a depth of many hundreds of metres, a long way below the level of aquifers, and that the wells are properly constructed.
Each well should be lined with layers of steel and cement; and if this stays intact, the scientists have concluded, gas leakage should not be a problem.
The report has also claimed that with good management of waste water, chemical contamination can be avoided. It is critical of the United States practice of leaving waste water in open ponds, which would not be permitted in the United Kingdom.
Regarding the likelihood of seismic disturbances, the report states that the risk that fracking will generate significant earth tremors is also low. Professor Zoe Shipton, from the University of Strathclyde, has stated, 'The actual explosions are far too small to be noticed at the surface. If the fluid moves into existing faults in the rock that are close to slipping anyway, you'll bring that slippage forward in time.
But the Magnitude 2.3 event in Blackpool last year - that is like a lorry going past your house. In fact the British Geological Survey can't measure below Magnitude 2 in towns because of the traffic.'
2. Opposition to fracking is ill-informed and emotive
It has been repeatedly stated that there is no reliable evidence to support the claims made by the opponents of fracking.
Dave Quast, the California director for Energy in Depth, a public outreach campaign launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America has claimed that opponents of fracking make unsubstantiated claims.
In an opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Daily News on June 20, 2012, Quast stated, 'There is an enormous gulf that separates the talking points used by anti-drilling activists from the facts cited by regulators and scientists, not to mention empirical evidence.' Quast further claimed, 'A recent University of Texas study found that only one-third of news coverage actually cites science and data about hydraulic fracturing, while two thirds is decidedly negative in tone about the process.'
An article published in Popular Mechanics in 2011 claims, 'The idea stressed by fracking critics that deep-injected fluids will migrate into groundwater is mostly false. Basic geology prevents such contamination from starting below ground. A fracture caused by the drilling process would have to extend through the several thousand feet of rock that separate deep shale gas deposits from freshwater aquifers.'
If contamination is going to occur it will be through poor extraction management at well sites above ground where spillage can occur. Supporters of fracking claim the risk is not, as its opponents state, inherent to the process.
Professor Avner Vengosh, of Duke University, who is currently studying groundwater contamination, has stated, 'The debate is becoming very emotional. And basically not using science.' (Professor Vengosh has made this claim in relation to both critics and proponents of coal seam gas.)
There are those who claim that many opponents of fracking are motivated by an irrational fear of its dangers which prevents them from looking fairly at the evidence.
Mark Lubell, the director of the Centre for Environmental Policy and Behaviour at the University of California has stated, 'You can literally put facts in front of people, and they will just ignore them.'
Professor Lubell has explained that the phenomenon, which happens on both sides of a debate, is called 'motivated reasoning.' '
Professor Lubell claims, 'Rational people insist on believing things that aren't true, in part because of feedback from other people who share their views.'
3. Coal seam gas is an environmentally friendly fuel
Coal seam gas is being promoted as a relatively clean alternative to coal and oil. Its supporters argue that coal seam gas represents a cleaner energy alternative to coal-fired or nuclear power.
It has been repeatedly noted that burning natural gas is cleaner than oil or gasoline, as it emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one-third the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent as much sulphur oxides as coal combustion.
In 2012, the United States lobby group PennFuture claimed that natural gas is a much cleaner burning fuel, and it called gas-fired power plants 'orders of magnitude cleaner' than coal plants.
In Australia, Tor McCaul has stated, 'It's almost ironic lately that gas has been receiving such negative press, and yet it can do so much. I've lived in India and I've been through China a number of times, and the amount of wood and dirty coal that's been burnt is quite high. Consequently, the air quality in those countries can be quite bad.' Tor McCaul is the managing director of Comet Ridge, a Brisbane-based coal seam gas exploration and development company.
McCaul's comments are supported by a report by global engineering consultancy WorleyParsons. The report compared greenhouse gas emissions associated with Chinese power generators using Australian liquefied natural gas derived from coal seam gas with those using imported black coal, comparing the technologies across their entire 'life cycle'. It concluded coal seam gas was significantly less greenhouse gas-intensive for most existing, commonly employed, end-user combustion technologies and for most of the life-cycle scenarios considered.
4. The moratorium will discourage investors and developers
The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) has criticised the Victorian government's decision to put a moratorium on coal seam gas exploration, claiming, 'It sends the wrong message to investors.'
APPEA has argued that the Victorian government was ignoring examples of positive CSG development, particularly in Queensland and that the moratorium could deter investment.
It has been reported that brokers are concerned that investing in companies with coal seam operations adds an additional layer of risk. Popular objections to these developments make them seem problematic. Critics of the moratorium claim that it has added to this perception of risk as it appears that the Victorian government will halt development in the face of public opposition to these projects.
James Samson, of Lincoln Indicators, has stated, 'Coal seam gas is fast becoming a political football...The risks of investing in coal seam gas stocks are very real and very publicised.'
5. The moratorium does not offer sufficient protection
Some of the critics of the Baillieu Government's temporary ban on coal seam gas argue that it does not go far enough. Critics are particularly concerned that it is not expected to affect any current leaseholders.
The Quit Coal campaign has noted that the moratorium does not affect coal seam gas developments that have already been begun or committed to. The lobby group states, 'The announcement offers nothing for farmers in prime agricultural land in Western Victoria, in areas like Bacchus Marsh where farmers face continuing uncertainty over possible development of an export coal mine.'
There is also concern that the moratorium is only temporary and that once federal regulations are in place the industry is likely to be able to expand in the manner in which it has in New South Wales and Queensland.
Shaun Murray, a spokesperson for the Quit Coal campaign, has stated, 'While there will be a temporary halt on coal seam gas fracking, companies will still be able to drill for gas across some of Victoria's best farmland.'
Opponents of fracking are generally concerned that no regulatory structure will be sufficiently rigorous to guard against the inherent risks the fracking process poses.