Talk:Fracking in the United Kingdom

Environmental impact

This section is very messy and not encyclopedic. Further, the first three references in the section were dead so I have fixed them along with some basic readability changes. I haven't checked the others, but likely some dead links in there too. Crucially, the first reference in the entire page (used 8 times) was dead, which isn't a great advert for the page.

I'm keen to improve this section in a balanced way, my interest being driven by the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Horse Hill facility in Sussex, and the way downstream Scope 3 emissions are accounted in EIAs for fracking projects in the UK.

I'll keep chipping away and may make some larger single edits where content is repetitive and can be brought into a better paragraph. I'll see how I go. Overall, very surprised how undeveloped this section is considering the amount of attention fracking has in the news over the last 10 years. PutTheKettleOn (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Environmental impact section is/was messy - but then several other sections were also messy, incomplete, and overall, very out of date. To start with, I removed the irrelevant Texan well image, transmuted from a template, and replaced it with a timely photo of drilling at Preston New Road.

The 2024 Supreme Court ruling provides a very suitable line to draw under the whole UK fracking debate. I am doing my best to bring other parts of the page up to date, and then I hope that the page can become relatively stable.

The whole article could also do with being shortened, as I think it is currently approaching the 15,000 word limit above which Wikipedia considers it to be too long and unmanageable. I may try shortening the Process section, since a lot of it is duplicate material or even irrelevant for the UK context. Misstra-know-it-all (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Definitions of fracking in the UK context

I have added this new section, despite the fact that there already exists a page on Fracking. But I have now changed the section heading from 'Definitions of fracking' to 'Definitions of fracking in the UK context'. In fact the main page on Fracking does not have a clear and unambiguous definition of fracking, but jumps directly to Hydraulic fracturing (a subset of fracking), while acid fracking is only mentioned in a historical context. I have already corrected and improved the Well stimulation page, with the addition of a flow chart image which I hope helps to clarify a complex subject.

I am aware that there is a risk of duplication, so I would be happy is someone can suggest methods of reorganising the new material to reduce this.

It could be argued that the whole section on Process is redundant, as it is also covered in the Fracking page, but it does have some useful UK-based detail. Misstra-know-it-all (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Good luck with this - I think you have made a good start. The article itself only exists as a separate page to fracking because the British media focused on one element of many concerns for the environment in the pursuit of unconventional reservoir exploitation, which was fracking itself. I think a key observation you make is around well stimulation below the fracture gradient. People who support a public notion of fracking (usually those commercially wedded to the process) hide behind decades of well stimulation, which had to be below the fracture gradient to repair formation damage around the well bore. Hydraulic fracking for unconventional reservoirs only works if you breach the fracture gradient, destroying the rock fabric itself to access hydrocarbons tightly bound to the host rock (which in the case of shale gas is the source rock). That is not a bad metric to help focussing your cleanup. Happy to support. Geneus01 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank-you for that. I agree that the page only justifies its existence as a separate page because of the controversy in the UK. In the end, after well over a decade, the industry only ever fracked TWO horizontal wells! The fracking issue has in effect died off in the UK (due to the Supreme Court decision of 2024), so the article could best now be treated as a historical account. That means that some of the minor local items dating back to (say) 2011 could probably now be omitted, even though they were relevant a decade or more ago.

However, there are still current localised attempts (e.g. at Burniston) to apply acidising techniques as a way of getting round the legislation, so the page is still worth updating and refining.

I intend to add an essential discussion of the curious Newdigate (Surrey) earthquake swarm of 2018 into the section on seismicity.

My overall philosophy here is to try to cite primarily the peer-reviewed academic literature, of which there exists a fair amount now, and with which I am familiar, rather than just media articles and websites. However, an exception can be made for the excellent Drill or Drop website, which has remained scrupulously impartial and accurate over a decade or more. Another exception is the OnePetro website, which although industry-run, is a very good source of hydrocarbon industry facts and definitions. Misstra-know-it-all (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good - a technique I use in publishing is to remove "points of interest" that break the narrative flow (keeping the message simple) to footnotes, which work really well in Wikipedia. It is a quick way of cleaning up, focusing the message without loss of content.

I think your Mohr's failure envelope metric for fracking is a good one - so why is acidisation of interest to fracking? Excuse my ignorance of the specifics of Burniston but I don't see it (on face value) as being relevant. What is the play in Burniston? Is this in reality acid fracking above gradient and just fracking by another name?

Notes

Geneus01 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

My mention of Burniston seems to have got lost. Turns out that I was editing the page in two or even 3 simultaneous windows! So I've inserted a new para about it under History - Onshore UK. Its relevance is that we don't know whether or not it's conventional or unconventional. There is a suspicion that Europa, the operator, is playing a game here of avoiding the fracking moratorium, by saying that any fracking will be small-scale. As I point out, there is a need here for the new definition of fracking, proposed some 4 years ago by Zalucka et al., to be adopted by the government. Do advise me please if this need more explanation. Misstra-know-it-all (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You risk losing focus here - you have a perfectly good definition of fracking (fracture gradient) - the volume argument is more about environmental impact. You run the risk of compromising your focus (and Wikipedia editorial guidelines) by speculating about what Burniston may or may not be doing in the context of your definition of fracking. I suggest removing it until you know that it forms part of your definition. Geneus01 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You're right here. But since Burniston is an ongoing 2025 controversy about whether or not 'fracking'(however defined) will be undertaken, I've moved the para. to the 'Opposition to ...' section under 'The fracking debate' Do you think it sits well there? Misstra-know-it-all (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes - in the context of how the article is currently structured - I would prefer to keep the article much shorter however, sticking to factual content and not present opposing arguments, which is fine in a polemical essay but not an encyclopaedia (IMO). The problem with presenting opposing arguments is that the polemic risk expressing editorial opinion, which is anathema to Wikipedia. I concede that I may hold a minority opinion on this however. Think about stripping it back by parking what doesn't carry the definition forward as footnotes and see if that unleashes your inner editor. You may find it a cleansing experience. Geneus01 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Process (section removed)

I have removed this whole section, while moving the section's introductory para. to the top of the article. I have kept a temporary 'Elements' section with material that should be retained, but which can be better placed elsewhere in the article.

Just in case anyone wishes to reinstate some or all of it, I append it below. My reasons for removal are that: it duplicated general material found elsewhere; a lot of it was irrelevant to the UK context; there was no mention of acid fracking (a sister process to HVHF, and which is relevant to the UK); and much of the material was out of date. There were also several inline comments suggesting that various parts needed to be re-written.

Please recall that only three onshore shale gas wells have ever been fracked in the UK (by HVHF), all of them in the Fylde, Lancs, by Cuadrilla. Removal helps to shorten the article, which was becoming too long.

The several useful snippets retained in the temporary 'Elements' section should be placed under other headings.

---

Method Main article: Fracking § Method There are six stages in hydraulic fracturing: Perforation; Isolation: Stimulation; Flushing; Multi-stage perforation, and; Flowback. Perforation In shale plays, the cased well is perforated using "shaped charges (explosives)", which are detonated at selected locations in the production zone. In addition to making perforations in the casing, these detonations also create "finger-like fractures" "up to 2.5 cm in diameter" that "extend up to 60 cm into the formation". In the United Kingdom, geothermal wells normally use barefoot completions, rather than "perforated and cemented completions" within a cased production zone. Isolation Each perforated section is isolated using a packer (seal) Stimulation For both low and high volume hydraulic fracturing stimulation of a hydrocarbon well, a high-pressure fluid (usually water) containing chemical additives and a proppant is injected into a wellbore to create an extensive system of small cracks in the deep-rock formations. These cracks provide the pathway for: natural gas, (including shale gas, tight gas and coalbed methane); petroleum, (including shale or tight oil); to flow more freely. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, the small grains of hydraulic fracturing proppant hold the fractures open when the pressure is released. When a hydrocarbon well is hydraulically fractured, this is done through a production packer (seal), through the drill pipe or tubing. Fluids are circulated down the tubing, to below the point where the packer is sealed against the production casing. Pressure is then applied to only that part of the casing below the packer. The rest of the well casing will not experience any increase in pressure due to the sealing of the packer. The surface casings do not experience the great pressures experienced at the production zone. This means the stresses on a surface casing are no greater than on a normal oil or gas well. Smaller diameter pipes can sustain much larger pressures than large diameter pipes.[citation needed] In HDR geothermal hydraulic fracturing stimulation, proppants are not added to hydraulic fracturing fluid, as the rough-surfaced shear fractures stay open through self-propping. Multi-stage perforation In horizontally drilled sections, it is common to perform as many as 30 separate fracture stages, to evenly divide the production zone. In multi-stage fracturing, segments of a horizontal well, starting at the end furthest from the well head, are split into isolated segments and fractured separately. Flowback fluid Flowback fluid contains high levels of salt and is contaminated with organic "solids, heavy metals, fracking chemicals and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) of varying concentration and low levels of radioactive materials". The Environment Agency strategy for management of NORM-contaminated flowback fluid, after treatment, includes its preferred re-use by re-injection during hydraulic fracturing and its disposal, with caveats, via water treatment sites. Flowback fluid can be treated and reused in later hydraulic fracturing operations, to reduce the volume of freshwater required and to mitigate issues arising from off-site disposal of flowback fluid. Flowback fluid injection in deep disposal wells, which has been linked to significant increase in earthquake rate, is not currently permitted in the UK by the Environment Agency. Research by Engelder et alia in 2012, indicated that any water injected into a shale formation that does not flow back to the surface, known as "residual treatment water", would be permanently absorbed, (sequestered) into the shale. In January 2014, "applications for permits to frack" were withdrawn by Cuadrilla after arrangements for treatment and disposal of NORM-contaminated flowback fluid were considered inadequate by the Environment Agency. Technologies are developing methods of removing salt and radioactive materials, allowing safe disposal of flowback fluid under Environment Agency licence. Research in the US also indicates new methods such as "microbial capacitive desalination cells" may become available. Fracture fluids Main article: Hydraulic fracturing § Fracturing fluids Chemical additives, typically around 1 per cent of the total fluid volume, are added to water to reduce water viscosity and modify fluid properties. The fracturing fluid used at the No 1 well, at Preese Hall in Weeton, Lancashire,was "99.95% water and sand". The chemical additives (0.05 per cent) were: Polyacrylamide emulsion in hydrocarbon oil (0.043 per cent), which reduces the viscosity of the water to allow faster pumping. It is classed as a "non-hazardous pollutant" Sodium salt, for tracing fracturing fluid (0.000005 per cent) Proppants may comprise up to 10 per cent of hydraulic fracturing fluid volume. The proppants used at Preese Hall 1 were silica sand: Congleton Sand (0.473 per cent) Chelford Sand (1.550 per cent) Additional chemical additives that were permitted at Preese Hall 1, but not used, were highly dilute hydrochloric acid and glutaraldehyde, which is used as a biocide in very small quantities, to sterilise the water. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation is another replacement available for water sterilisation.[citation needed] Although some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids such as hydrochloric acid may be classified as toxic, corrosive or irritant, they are non-toxic at lower concentrations.[citation needed] Waterless fracturing fluid systems Other fracturing fluid systems such as gels, foams and compressed gases, including nitrogen, carbon dioxide and air, can be injected in place of water. Waterless fracturing fluids that use propane-based LPG have the potential to reduce wastewater toxicity. There is sometimes a need to hydraulically fracture coalbed methane and these[clarification needed] methods can be used. Fracture monitoring Main article: Hydraulic fracturing § Fracture monitoring The hydraulic fracturing process creates a large number of microseismic events, which require monitoring. A 2012 research paper from ReFINE concludes that the maximum recorded fracture height in US shale plays is 588 metres. Microseismic monitoring Microseismic monitoring techniques, using very sensitive microphones and tilt meters can monitor the growth of fractures in the target formation in real time. This can be done using a surface array, or, if there is a nearby offset well, using downhole microphones. This means that the engineers can modify the pump rate based upon the growth of the fractures, and stop pumping if there is evidence of vertical migration into faults. This technology is available from many big oilfield service companies. Misstra-know-it-all (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)