Hardly a day goes by without the international media focusing on the pros and cons of fracking. The controversial, not that new, ‘exciting’ solution with potential for energy security, jobs and growth for many. Which at the same time is considered to be a serious environmental threat for others.
During the recent informal environmental ministerial meeting in Lithuania, the shale gas issue came up for review too, particularly given the more than active interest being shown in it by the host country that presently holds the EU presidency.
From a purely geo-strategic perspective, the proposal makes much sense after the considerable positive exploitation of it made in the USA and Canada in this regard. It brought them much closer to self-sufficiency while reducing their dependence on oil-importing countries be they Russia, Saudi and other Gulf countries among others.
What complicates the whole debate are the following issues that simply cannot be overlooked.
The ‘obsession’ with fracking is being considered to have blinded governments to greener sources of energy, particularly in the biogas sector.
UK government figures and the biogas industry itself have shown that generating gas from waste can produce cheaper energy in the short term with fewer carbon emissions than current controversial hydraulic fracturing projects.
In various towns and villages in the UK, local community concern has mushroomed overnight.
Another criticism being levelled at governments and the industry is that, in drawing the battle lines, they have overlooked the first vital task: convincing the public. Which begs the question: what does fracking really entail?
It all boils down to fluid being pumped into the ground at a very high pressure, breaking the rock and freeing the gas trapped within it.
Whether the predictions of earthquakes, ground water contamination and air pollution are true only time will tell.
On the other hand, the industry seems to be still years away from the kind of technological advancement that can put minds at rest on an issue that, as mentioned earlier, can enhance energy security if appraised from a purely non-environmental perspective.
Turning our backs on reality is not an option
On the other hand, the technology is reported to be ‘maturing’. While many have been advocating careful regulation, I still very much doubt how effective and robust the current regulation standards in place happen to be.
That shale gas has the opportunity to prove to be a great boom economically for a number of European countries is a given but one will have to gauge well the socio-economic and environmental ‘cost’ before taking such a quantum leap.
While the UK Chancellor has claimed that it would be a real tragedy if Britain missed out on the energy revolution offered by fracking, whatever the pros and cons, it has definitely morphed into a real game changer. Investors are even gauging its potential rewards even though volatility will remain a key issue and concern.
It would be naïve to simply expect fracking to go away just like a missed golden opportunity or a nightmare when recalling that all predictions seem to suggest that the US could become energy independent by 2030.
Some claim that the opponents of shale gas are a strange alliance of eco freaks and old school nimbyists.
Listening to a number of EU environmental ministers in Vilnius, I fail to classify any of them in either of these two categories.
But, then, to turn ourselves stone deaf to such an ongoing debate would merely mean detaching ourselves from the realities unfolding on the ground.
In life, it is always important to get real but one can only do so after carrying out a serious cost benefit analysis that appraises the whole scenario from all angles. An effective and meaningful Swot analysis is essential. Some argue that we live in a world of trade-offs. But one has every right to find out which way will the scales tip at day’s end.
I hope I am not being utopian when advocating better regulation, particularly since cowboy companies were known to have drawn into fracking about a decade ago… when the US deregulated its oil and gas industry.
We have now got to the stage where even ocean fracking is taking place – predictably the oil industry insists fracking is safe and does not harm the environment. Despite the assurances, even US lawmakers have been seeking greater security over the practice. In other areas, significant damage to drinking water aquifers has been reported.
One thing is certain. Studies carried out so far have proved to be inadequate to offer the appropriate sense of environmental security and reassurance needed to put minds at rest.
Meanwhile, turning our backs on reality is neither an option. It is like ignoring the fact that some powerful neighbour states have long turned nuclear even if the whole issue was never an option for or in Malta.
Leo Brincat is Minister for Sustainable Development, the Environment and Climate Change.