Keeping the lights burning

Risks and rewards of shale gas

FRACKING IS a word that provokes powerful and conflicting emotions according to where the listener stands on the question of fracturing rocks to extract shale gas.

To its supporters, it holds out the prospect of a reliable source of cheap energy. To its opponents, often living above the underground operations it requires, it carries too many risks, including earthquakes, environmental damage and water pollution.

Underpinning both standpoints is the fact that Britain faces some hard questions over the security and sustainability of its energy supply if the lights are to be kept on.

Climate change obligations mean coal’s days are numbered as a means of generating power, and whilst renewable technologies such as wind continue to grow and meet ever more of our needs, the country is heavily reliant on gas often coming from potentially volatile regions, such as the Middle East or an increasingly belligerent Russia.

Against such a backdrop, the Government’s enthusiasm for shale gas is understandable. Equally understandable, though, are the concerns of those residents – Yorkshire communities among them – over the potential harm to their homes and environment. Both must be safeguarded if fracking goes ahead. The report by the task force on shale gas acknowledges the concerns and attempts to steer a middle course between them and the need for energy.

Its proposal that proceeds from fracking be used to accelerate Britain’s transition to renewable and low-carbon sources so that shale gas is the means to a greener future rather than an end in itself is a sensible compromise.

In seeking to minimise the impact of fracking, and suggesting that shale gas extraction may only be necessary for the next few decades, Lord Smith is seeking to take the heat out of the arguments. Whether it is enough to allay the fears of worried communities remains to be seen.