In one of her first decisions as prime minister, Liz Truss announced that the moratorium on fracking would be lifted. Early decisions from prime ministers should be uncontroversial and should signal intent, but it appears that Truss has needlessly backed herself into a corner on fracking and created conflict between the home nations.
First minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, was adamant that Wales would not follow England in lifting a ban and instead would focus on renewable energy. He declared that, “Just for the sake of clarity to say that there will be no fracking here in Wales; a way to create energy security for the future is to invest in renewable energy, in which Wales has such abundance”.
The words of Kwasi Kwarteng from earlier this year have also caused embarrassment for Truss. When he was business secretary, Kwarteng viewed fracking as “having a high cost for communities and for our precious countryside”. He continued:
“Those calling for [fracking’s] return misunderstand the situation we find ourselves in. If we lifted the fracking moratorium, it would take up to a decade to extract sufficient volumes – and it would come at a high cost for communities and our precious countryside.
“No amount of shale gas from hundreds of wells dotted across rural England would be enough to lower the European price any time soon. And with the best will in the world, private companies are not going to sell the shale gas they produce to UK consumers below the market price. They are not charities, after all.”
Opposition to fracking
Fracking involves drilling into the ground and sending a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals at a particular layer of rock in order to release the fossil fuel gas inside. It is called ‘fracking’ owing to the way that the rock is fractured apart from the high-pressure blast.
Fracking has only taken place in the UK on a small scale and the company Cuadrilla was the only one given permission to frack in Lancashire. This site faced repeated local protests on environmental and safety grounds. These local groups have responded angrily to the lifting of the ban and have promised to renew their opposition. Their aim now is to focus on a complete ban, rather than the indefinite pause of a new moratorium:
“And this time we won’t settle for a moratorium either. We’re just going to keep on hammering this until we get the proper ban on fracking.”
Opposition has also been voiced to the fracking plans in North Yorkshire. Only a few years ago another company, Third Energy, faced anti-fracking protesters at its site in Kirby Misperton, Ryedale where exploration work was taking place.
Who is in favour?
It may seem simplistic to state that only fossil fuel companies would be in favour of fracking, but it is certainly not popular with either the public or, more importantly for Truss, with potential Conservative voters. According to the most recent government polling, only 17% of the public support fracking, compared to 90% who support solar.
Only 4% of those asked strongly supported fracking, compared with 22% who were strongly opposed.
Of people over 65, only a small percentage had not heard of fracking at all, whereas that number increased to almost one in four 16–24-year-olds. Public awareness is definitely growing about fracking and opposition to fracking seems robust.
What problems does fracking for shale gas solve?
Perhaps Truss believes that by lifting the ban on fracking, this would ease the cost of the energy crisis. The UK only receives 3% of its gas from Russia, but has still been affected by the rise in wholesale prices. It is estimated by the UK Onshore Oil and Gas body, that fracking would meet less than 5% of UK gas demand over the next five years, assuming no shale gas is exported.
As Carbon Brief reports, renewables and changes in behaviour offer far greater near-term potential to replace gas imports than fracking. If the UK is serious about energy security, then continuing to frack will not achieve this aim.
Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary of state for climate change and net zero, commented last week that, “British fracked gas would cost the same as foreign imported gas, and thus would not help bring down energy bills”. Therefore, the argument that fracking would significantly ease the cost of the energy crisis seems unlikely and nor will fracking achieve the aim of energy dependency – the two arguments Truss claims.
Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester, went further in his evaluation of fracking when he posted in a typically blunt style on Twitter that: “Whatever the question, fracking is not the answer.”
What problems does fracking for shale gas cause?
As well as not helping the UK in an energy crisis, fracking has long been linked with serious environmental and health concerns. Firstly, fracking uses huge amounts of water to achieve its purpose and, as we saw with the droughts this summer, water in the UK is not always in good supply.
There are also concerns over the possible contamination of the groundwater, tremors in the ground which cause houses to shake, as well as a higher risk for leukaemia in children who live near fracking sites. All this, for not a great deal of shale gas anyway.
Is this new government serious about the climate emergency?
By lifting the moratorium on fracking before the release of the British Geological Survey (BGS) report, Truss could find herself having to complete an embarrassing U-turn. The BGS was commissioned by the government to review the latest scientific evidence around shale gas extraction, and their report was submitted over two months ago.
For Truss to forge ahead and lift the ban before the conclusions of this review have been made public and properly scrutinised, seems unwise. Her decision not to impose a windfall tax on energy companies, but rather to commit the UK to continued reliance on fossil fuels, appears incongruous with any attempts to reach net zero. Yet given Truss’s links to the energy companies – having previously worked for Shell, and having received a significant donation to her election campaign from the wife of a former BP executive – perhaps net zero isn’t her motivation.
The UK’s new business and energy secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, announced a few days ago that “We will extract every ounce of oil and gas from the North Sea”.
This new government, much like the last one, will soon gain the reputation of not abiding by its promises. More worryingly, it is continuing the reputation of being in thrall to fossil fuel interests. That’s bad for those facing a cost-of-living crisis this winter, it’s bad for the country, and it’s bad for the planet. Enough is enough.
