Skip to footer

France's geothermal 'fracking' conundrum

France has banned fracking but is now planning to tap into geothermal energy which requires a process similar to fracking, Alic writes. The oil industry likely sees an opportunity to reverse the fracking ban.

|
Don Ryan/AP/File
A drilling platform at a geothermal project near LaPine, Ore. Geothermal extraction is believed to be lower risk than fracking, Alic writes, but certainly not risk free both in terms of potential water pollution and seismic activity.
  • By Jen Alic Guest blogger

France finds itself in an interesting conundrum that the oil industry is hoping to take advantage of: The country has banned fracking but is now planning to tap into geothermal energy which requires a process similar to fracking.

In 2011, France banned shale fracking. In February, France’s Environment Ministry awarded two exploration licenses for geothermal energy, which involves drilling deep into the Earth’s crust.

The media has described the oil industry as up in arms over France’s geothermal plans. It’s not fair. Fracking is, after all, fracking. But more to the point, the oil industry likely sees an opportunity here to reverse the fracking ban.

France will have a hard time arguing that geothermal fracking is so much different than shale fracking. The outcome will either be to foster public opposition to geothermal energy plans and sideline this as well, or to advance the shale cause. (Related article: U.S. Game Changing Renewable - Geothermal Power) 

And France’s geothermal energy plans are rather ambitious: Not only have they awarded three licenses, but they are reviewing 18 more. At the same time, along with the 2011 ban on shale fracking, the government revoked shale exploration licenses awarded to France’s Total SA and the US’ Schuepbach Energy LLC. 

Geothermal drilling requires injecting acid and water into fissures to release volcanic heat trapped in rocks in the Earth’s crust. By way of comparison, shale fracking requires an injection of chemicals and water to fracture oil and gas from shale rock buried under the Earth’s surface. The processes are similar, if not the same. 

The oil industry is attempting to call out the Environment Ministry and demanding a review of the fracking ban.

So what IS the difference? Geothermal energy experts say the French projects won’t require the same methods as shale fracking, and that they will only be using rock stimulation to open fissures that are already there. The argument is that they won’t need hydraulic fracturing, because it was already completed earlier.

The oil industry isn’t buying into this because there will ultimately be a bit of fracking to reopen the existing fissures—and fracking is fracking.  (Related article: How to Buy Your Own Shale Boom)

The other difference is that geothermal extraction uses acid rather than the chemicals and sand required for shale fracking.

The oil industry is also quick to point out that geothermal extraction has also created earthquakes and tremors in the past, much like shale fracking is said to do. 

Overall, geothermal extraction is believed to be lower risk, but certainly not risk free both in terms of potential water pollution and seismic activity.

Regardless, the Environment Ministry will have to deal with what is clearly a legislative black hole on this issue.

Original source: http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/France-In-Tight-Spot-over-Geothermal-Fracking.html

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to France's geothermal 'fracking' conundrum
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0411/France-s-geothermal-fracking-conundrum
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe