The British fracking revolution is coming – you can’t afford to ignore this

For years now, ‘fracking’ and ‘horizontal drilling’ have been the biggest stories in the energy sector.

Combined, these techniques have enabled America to unlock vast reserves of gas and oil from previously inaccessible ‘shale’ rock formations.

The US now looks set to be a global energy superpower, with internal pressure building to allow increased energy exports. And the states that are most heavily involved in fracking are enjoying spectacular economic growth.

The good news is that – while a US-style energy glut may be a while off – the fracking revolution is gathering ever more momentum on this side of the Atlantic too.

What’s all this stuff about ‘fracking’?

If you’re still slightly bamboozled by all the talk of ‘fracking’ and energy revolutions, let me just set the scene briefly.

‘Fracking’ or hydraulic fracturing, is a drilling technique that enables resource companies to extract oil and gas from previously hard-to-reach shale energy deposits. It basically involves pumping a lot of water at high pressure into these rock formations, and blowing them apart to get at the good stuff inside.

Fracking isn’t a new technique by any means (in fact, it’s been used onshore in Britain for many years). But a combination of high energy prices and advancing technology means it is now far more economically viable.

Another key advance – perhaps even more important – has been ‘horizontal drilling’. Again, keeping things simple, this technique means you can access a much wider area of resource without having to drill as many wells.

The US has been the biggest beneficiary of all this so far. Partly because landowners have good reason to encourage drilling on their properties – they own the rights, so can make a fortune if oil and gas are struck – shale has really taken off. As a result, US natural gas prices have tumbled. In turn, this has made life easier for consumers, and encouraged companies to ‘reshore’ – bring industrial plants back to the US – to take advantage of cheap energy.

However, the US isn’t the only place with substantial shale deposits. Here in the UK, we’ve got loads of the stuff. A report last year suggested that there could be as much as 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas lying under 11 counties in the Midlands and northern England.

What does that mean? Well, oil companies won’t be able to extract all that gas. But even if just 10% was produced, that would be the equivalent of 51 years’ gas supply for the UK at current consumption levels.

Given that energy bills and energy security are both hot topics, you can see why the government is keen to promote shale energy in the UK – not to mention the economic growth and jobs boom that shale could potentially provide.

And of course, this could all be great news for investors too – assuming it all goes ahead.

But fracking is controversial. Environmental groups argue that it can contaminate water supplies and cause earthquakes. Supporters argue that these concerns are unfounded (and official studies do suggest that these risks can be easily contained, given a sensible level of regulation). They also point to the huge success of fracking in the US – given our own tenuous economic position, can we really afford not to develop this resource?

The perhaps bigger problem is that – as with almost any development, from wind turbines to nuclear power stations to airports to high-speed rail lines – nobody wants this in their back garden. Who would?

There’s no doubt that this is a sticky issue, and I suspect there’ll be a wide range of views among readers: from those who are all for it, to those who are dead set against it, to the pragmatists who don’t really like it, but don’t mind profiting if it’s going to happen anyway.

It’s certainly worth understanding what’s going on, because this is going to be one of the biggest stories in investment for a long time to come. For more on the ins and outs of the fracking debate, do take a look at this report that my colleague David Stevenson at the Fleet Street Letter put together.

Good news for investors in fracking

In any case, it’s been an exciting couple of days for shale’s supporters.

For one thing, on Monday, David Cameron announced that local authorities will be able to keep all business rates revenue from any fracking site. Previously, they would only have expected to keep 50%. That’s a significant boost – a typical fracking site will now generate an extra £1.7m a year in revenue for a local authority.

Meanwhile, there’s been a huge vote of confidence from one of the biggest companies in the sector. French oil giant Total, which has been a key player in global shale, is making a significant investment in UK shale. The company is buying a 40% stake in two licences in the ‘Gainsborough Trough’ in Lincolnshire. It’s paying $1.6m to the existing partners, and will then invest up to $46m to finance further exploration work.

The following companies are now in partnership with Total: Dart Energy (17.5%), IGas (14.5%), Egdon Resources (14.5%) and eCorp Oil & Gas UK (13.5%). Both Egdon (LSE:EDR) and IGas (LSE: IGAS) are listed in London. Shares in Egdon soared by 49% yesterday while IGas jumped 17%.

David has been holding his favourite companies in the sector for quite some time now in his Fleet Street Letter portfolio; he also recently tipped them in MoneyWeek magazine’s New Year issue). For other ideas on how to profit,  you can take a look at our cover story from November.

• The Fleet Street Letter is a regulated product issued by Fleet Street Publications Ltd. Your capital is at risk when you invest in shares; never risk more than you can afford to lose. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Please seek independent financial advice if necessary. Customer Services: 020 7633 3600.

• This article is taken from our free daily investment email, Money Morning. Sign up to Money Morning here.

Our recommended articles for today

For investors in Latin America, history matters

Recognising Latin America’s historical struggles can help investors figure out the best place to put their money today, says James McKeigue.

The $5trn gamble

Five years ago, central bankers set the printing presses rolling. That decision has paid off, says Bengt Saelensminde – at least for now.

  • Shoveller

    One major obstacle, hardly mentioned in the media is what to do with the huge volumes of carcinogenic waste water produced. This is not the contaminated water left underground that potentially may cause long term problems but the waste water left above ground. It is a similar long term problem to that of nuclear waste disposal.
    Fracking produces fossil fuel and is not the panacea politicians think. It can only contribute to climate change. Haven’t we seen enough of that lately to think again about subsidising more fossil fuel extraction? This is the politics of the asylum.

  • mikeT

    What if individuals, and not The State, owned the mineral rights in the ground under their property (as in the US)? Many more converts to fracking, I think.

  • Chester

    Based on recent “unemotional evidence”, most observers could conclude that the climate change argument needs some serious re-validation

    That aside, the real story here is that low energy prices ultimately drive growth, assuming sustainable credit conditions and favorable demographics – neither of which the UK will enjoy anytime soon. The few politicos who get it also believe energy cost reductions will offset phase 2 of the financial storm (due anytime soon), and sustain the illusion that debt fueled growth is real. The same “growth” they rely on to sustain our broken, bankrupt system of welfare and state largess

    Sadly, the anti-fracking lobby and the rest of us may be worrying about even more fundamental issues in the near future

  • gamesinvestor

    If the oil price (and gas) continue to fall as they have been you might be buying on hype here. In Wyoming there are many fracking wells that have been abandoned and the clean up of the mess left to the government.

  • pfvll

    shoveller –

    1. There’s no reason why the water used for fracking should be particularly carcinogenic – the chemicals in it are in tiny amounts, mainly for reducing the surface tension to improve penetration (like soaps). There is certainly no problem in leaving it underground – one of the normal ways of treating contaminated water for drinking is to allow it to filter through sand or rock, and in this case the water is already about a mile underground, nowhere near the ground water extracted for treatment for drinking. The water which returns to the surface can safely be dumped in normal waste water systems, but many States in the USA legislate that the waste water must be treated back to drinking water standards before dumping back into rivers or surface water – like the widely-legislated modern rules for waste water from any chemical plant these days.. In the overall costs of deep drilling, this is not an unduly high-cost operation.

    To compare this with nuclear waste is ridiculous hyperbole, the sort of nonsense spouted by the stop-everything groups who use pseudo-science to convince a public who, unfortunately, are so ill-educated in the basic sciences that they are unable to see how ridiculous these Luddite claims are.

    Yes, the gas produced is a fossil hydrocarbon fuel which produces CO2 when burned – but much less than oil and a tiny fraction of that produced by coal, and none of the other nasties produced by burning coal. Not that atmospheric CO2 has any more than a miniscule effect on global temperature compared with the water vapour which has been keeping Earth comfortably warm for millions of years. This is not a wild statement – the real science, accepted by climatologists, shows conclusively that atmospheric C02 levels increase well after (about 800 years after) – global temperature rises. In other words, global warming causes CO2 increase, not vice -versa. That is real science, not the twisted pseudo-science PR put out by the IPCC.

    What is really disturbing about this exciting development is that the politicians are showing every sign of treating shale gas as theirs. It is not – it belongs to the people of the UK, who should get the first slice of the profits as much reduced , but economically established, energy costs. Only then should the next slice be used for exports to reduce our long-standing balance-of-payments deficit. And we will all benefit hugely from the security of a home -based energy supply.

    Let’s not fritter away the benefits, as was done with North Sea oil.

  • Paul Morris

    Further to your comments concerning the chemical contaminated waste water. The bore holes are lined with concrete which fails very quickly after injection some reports saying as much as 5% initially and steadily rising thereafter to as much as 20% in the first year allowing waste to escape into aquifers, ultimately ending up in our water supply as has happened in the US and once it’s there it’s there for good. Is short term profit really worth it?