It seems to me, that the response on both sides of the debate on UK fracking, is something of a knee-jerk response. On the one side, the majority of environmental campaigners on the topic, appear to have a very limited understanding of the processes involved, a few going as far as to think that the rock is primarily dissolved, rather than fractured, by the hydrofracking fluid. On the other hand, a general lack of openness, or at least communication, about the exact specifics of the fracking techniques, and the additives of the fluid in particular, might reduce public concern over the matter, and allow a more balanced decision.
Personally, I remain neutral on the hydrofracking debate. During my year in Pennsylvania, I had the opportunity to take a hydrogeology class, which, naturally, focused on the local expertise, including groundwater flows. As I understand it, natural gas released through hydrofracking, would then behave much like any other gas source, flowing upward through permeable (porous) rocks, until it reaches a "trap"- a layer of rock it cannot penetrate, which it is then trapped under. Provided that the aquifer is above this trap, there should be particular risk of contamination, unless of course, a weakness in the rock, such as a permeable fault, allows, the gas to exit the trap. For this reason, I think that it's important to have both geological and geophysical datasets on the public record, to ensure transparency in the decision-making process.
No comments:
Post a Comment