The UK government has just announced tax breaks for companies fracking for shale gas. Is that a sound investment in our future energy security, or a misguided waste of public money?  Should the money have been allocated to renewables? Are fracking protesters just 'scaremongering'? Are these tax breaks just another example of business as usual for the big fossil fuel companies?

This podcast records the fracking debate in The Rational Parliament, which explored all sides of the argument around hydraulic fracturing for shale gas.

The Rational Parliament, founded by science journalist Adam Smith, aims to have rational debates on hot topics of the day, debates that are not subject to unchallenged wild claims, debates that balance views and values alongside research evidence.  The Parliament even has a 'rhetoric officer', Johnny Unger who comments on the rhetorical devices used by speakers in the debate.

Members of the Rational Parliament relax before the debate

The first debate of the Parliament, earlier this year, was about GM food.  This, the second debate, looked at 'fracking' (hydraulic fracturing). Chaired by science writer, Michael Brooks, and overseen by Alice Casey (the process officer of the Parliament),  it was kicked off by Joseph Dutton, Research Associate, Global Gas Security Project, University Of Leicester.

"The development of shale gas in the US has caused a stir across the globe for both good and bad reasons. Many countries hope to develop shale, seeking to replicate the US’s employment and financial gains, along with low domestic energy prices and natural gas self-sufficiency. But there are also those that worry about the negative impacts that shale gas development might have on the environment, both locally and nationally and also globally in terms of climate change. In the UK, the opponents and proponents of UK shale gas development point to the US experience for evidence of both the benefits and threats that fracking and shale gas can bring.

Before considering the differing points of view, it is important to note that fracking has already been carried in the UK. Over 200 conventional onshore oil and gas wells have been fracked in the UK, including horizontal wells at the Wytch Farm oilfield in Dorset and Beckingham oilfield in Nottinghamshire and vertical gas wells in Lancashire, geothermal development in Cornwall, and coal bed methane projects in Scotland. However, fracking for shale gas is different to conventional gas, both geologically and from a technical and engineering standpoint.

Opponents of fracking in the UK base many of their arguments on the experiences of shale development in the US, using alleged incidents to highlight the risks and damage that may occur should development begin in the UK. However, false comparisons have been made between the two countries. For example, there are assertions that the patchy regulation of fracking in the US (including a number of legislative exemptions) will be mirrored in the UK. It is the case that all parts of the fracking process are covered by existing UK legislation, while the final decision on development rests with local planning authorities, not national government. Those arguing against development based on environmental impacts point to studies from the US detailing alleged groundwater and aquifer contamination, water usage issues, air pollution, and fugitive methane emissions.

Shale development and fracking do have impacts, as all industrial processes do; however, further study has shown impacts to be less than initially claimed, or in some cases unrelated to fracking. For example, water usage for fracking a well appears to be high, but overall that shale gas sector’s water use is lower than that of mining industries and agriculture. Nonetheless, the development of shale gas in areas that are already subject to water shortages is clearly an issue. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates of fugitive emissions from fr...

Ver todos los episodios