Dr Jim Marshall, policy and business adviser, Water UK – Edited speech 'Understanding the impacts of shale gas on the UK water industry” at – UK Shale 2013, 17 July 2013:

Provision of drinking water is a cornerstone of our public health and as such a service that cannot be compromised. The subject of water needs to be addressed and planned - not taken for granted or as an after thought.

The physical or chemical quality of the water we drink is just one aspect. Equally important is the perception of water. Of people's trust in it if you will. Without that, it doesn't get drunk and it makes no difference that we have the best quality water in the world - and arguably we do.

So if people lose confidence then we also have a problem -- and I mean we all have a problem. You from the perspective of your social contract to operate but also the water company has a problem with our reputation.

Water is being used by opponents and proponents of fracking in equal measure but we aren't taking sides. What I want is for water to be considered at the right time in an open manner.

Sure there are challenges and we need to be upfront about those. Now is the time to address them and get the frameworks in place. If we do that then water won't be an issue. If we get it wrong then water has the potential to stop the industry in its tracks.

It is difficult to draw direct comparisons with other countries or sectors. Water is essentially a local factor and requires a local plan to effectively manage it.

But it is important to look across and see what others have done - for example some of the work done by Halliburton and others on recycling of flow back or adapting technology from areas such as southern Europe or Israel where they have to work more with saline waters.

But we need to deal with our challenges in their own right.
Last year the water industry commissioned its own research into understanding the potential impacts. This is due to be published soon and some of my thoughts are related to this report.

Broadly speaking there are four - water quality, water quantity, removing and treating waste water and infrastructure.

Drinking water in the UK is the best in the world -- not my statement but that of the OECD.

Since the English and Welsh industry was privatised we have spent over £20 billion upgrading works, investing in new tech and improving the pipes bringing it to our houses. We are proud of this record and the UK should not jeopardise its position.

Ways of working have shifted focus slightly in recent years. We don't simply rely on treatment to remove all contaminants prior to drinking. It's better, more sustainable, to deal with problems at source.

Take pesticides or pharmaceuticals -- these compounds are becoming increasingly common in river waters. The trouble is its very expensive to take them out during treatment. Therefore we try to focus on addressing the problem at source. Water companies have to carry out risk assessments on all their drinking water supplies.

These are known as safety plans and require the assessment of risk at every stage of the process from the source to the tap. If something happens anywhere along this route then companies need to consider it and ensure that there are barriers in place to protect water at its end point – the point of supply to kitchen tap.

There are risks to water quality associated with any activity taking place in a catchment.

Shale gas wells are another risk we have to assess, understand and plan for. To do this we need you to help us understand the risks - to get the truth from the noise.

What are the risks and can they be quantified for example:
• contamination of aquifer as a result of fracturing running through geology;
• contamination via a failure in the well casing;
• direct contamination of surface waters from poorly managed waste water or chemical handling?
• tertiary risk associated with traffic movement or drilling in general.

Shale gas reserves and drought

This isn't particularly unusual. Only last week there were stories in the press about water shortages meaning that food supplies will become more reliant on imports begging the question where do food policy and energy policy meet? With water?

Water in this country isn't particularly well connected. We don't have a national water grid or a system of canals to shunt water from north to south. Water companies have some options to balance supplies but in the grand scheme of things these are still relatively local.

The only way to bring water into an area is to either abstract it from local sources, take advantage of tap water, recycle returned fluids or rainwater or tanker it in.

You could have a direct abstraction from a river or groundwater source. This would need to be licensed by the EA (or Natural Resources Wales) who would look to CAMS to assess the water availability locally, what the other demands are in that area and if water can be used more efficiently.

Our research analysed the resource situation in the main shale gas areas and concluded that – with the exception of Northern Ireland and the Bowland Basis – the situation is variable and depends on the location of the specific well fields. The Weald basis for example is currently over-abstracted.

You may want to consider a supply of potable water from the local water company piped directly to the fracking site. From discussions I have had treated drinking water is your ideal. It's clean, it’s available reliably and it’s got a built-in biocide. If you were to take potable water you would need to consider the size of the infrastructure needed to meet the demand.

You could get your water provided by a tankered water supplier – such as Water Direct. This could allow water stress issues to be overcome but what about the visual impacts of truck movements -- a challenge I know is one that you already face and is a very public issue.

Or you could invest in some form of water recycling or reuse. From the figures I have seen there should be a sizeable percentage of water recovered from the ground after fracking.

The trick will be to look at recycling options to reuse this water – perhaps coupled with rainwater collected from the site - to reduce the burden on fresh water supplies.

Getting this water back to the optimal chemistry to allow effective use of the fracking fluid will take some treatment on site. But I understand it is possible. In Manchester recently we heard from Halliburton about how they have formulated frac fluids to deal with the demands of recycling flowback water for reuse. There is work to be done but its an option.

The reality may be a combination of these approaches. With a connection to the mains augmented with recycled water, on site storage and tankers to meet the peak demands. The configuration would vary locally and perhaps even seasonally.

What would be useful would be for operators to produce a water management plan for each site or play. We do similar things with farmers and have found that by really considering water it can be used more efficiently. This has a benefit to the environment – less water out – but equally importantly I'd argue it’s a benefit to your bottom line -- water costs money.

Waste water

The next challenge is what to do with the water that is no longer needed. Taking aside the discussion on reuse the chances are that there will be volumes of water that need to be removed from the site. The research carried out on behalf of the water industry has indicated that flowback water should be treatable at larger urban waste water treatment facilities.

Flowback waters are typically highly saline – which is toxic to bacteria used in the treatment process - so it will only be these larger works that can provide the required dilution.

That said, more consideration needs to be given to: water containing naturally radioactive materials or NORM; transportation of waste to works; and how costs can be fully recovered so that water customers don't end up carrying the can.

None of these challenges will be new to you and indeed you may have other challenges from your perspective that I haven't really covered. In simple forms reducing your water impact will save money. Getting water right is also essential as part of your social contact.

It’s also true that none of them are insurmountable - by regulation and enforcement, by innovation and most importantly through communication and collaboration.

We have heard already from the EA that the environmental regulations are in place. What we need to add to that is the roles of Ofwat and DWI in regulating the economic and drinking water aspects of the water industry.

Having spent some time looking closely at the regulations I honestly believe that they are robust. I think there could be a tightening up of some of the European legislation around impact assessments. The Commission however are developing a framework for shale gas that they assure me will capture everything - we wait.

Perhaps of more importance is the ability of the regulators to audit, inspect and enforce.

The EA has been cut in recent years and has a fraction of the resource it used to have. It is not uncommon for the regulated to pay the costs of regulation and I suspect a similar model may work for shale gas.

But that's up to [industry] and the EA to discuss. What is important is that to maintain the credibility of the sector that proper robust audit and enforcement is carried out.

A quirk of the planning process is that water companies are not statutory consultees. We rely on the EA to flag up water related issues. We think this is inefficient and are lobbying to correct this. However that will take time to change.

In the meantime, setting up direct communication links between operator and water company is essential. It works in the north west with Cuadrilla and United Utilities in regular contact - although I understand that initial approaches could have been made earlier.

I have spoken to a lot of water companies about [these issues] in recent months and they are generally as unsighted about the impacts of shale gas as other members of society.

Some, in anticipation, are starting to do baseline quality monitoring. Others are looking at their water resource management plans to see what impacts it could have. Others are just simply waiting to see what comes about.

There is a bit of a theme here - talk and talk early. The earlier the engagement with the water company, the better the decisions that can be made.

Maybe a site could be provided with water more easily if it was planned a mile to the west or maybe there could be options around on-site storage or access to raw water. Maybe some of our supply chain could help bring innovation and different ways of thinking to the party.

What is needed at this stage is a clarification from both sides. I am hearing the need for a “cards on the table” session with water companies and shale gas operators. Let’s get the key people together.

We can discuss each other’s perspectives – see where the real barriers are and where the opportunities exist. This should happen sooner rather than later. I propose that Water UK are in a position to be able to bring something like this together inwhatever format works best.

I can visualise an output of a ways or working or MoU or just a better understanding of the impacts of shale gas on the water industry. It feels like this should happen this summer or at the vary latest early autumn. What do you think?

Provision of drinking water is a cornerstone of our public health and as such a service that cannot be compromised. Public health is as much about perception and trust as it is about absolute quality. Water needs to be properly addressed and planned for - not taken for granted or as an after thought.

While most in the process sector have welcomed the UK government's belated backing for shale gas, some engineers now see a need to manage expectations of some of the more enthusiastic converts.

For example, in a recent letter to The Times, London mayor Boris Johnson promised to ‘leave no stone unturned or unfracked’ if shale gas is found in London.

In a statement on his company's website, though, David Symons, director at consultancy WSP – a firm with significant international shale experience – responded by suggesting that Johnson was getting a bit carried away:

"Although oil has been found in many areas across southern England – from the Weald basin to even some small finds in north London - the reality is that shale gas is a new science and there’s still considerably uncertainty on where the resources are and whether they are economically viable to extract, " said Symons.

“Rather than big sweeping statements the Mayor could do much better to focus on the elements in the 2020 Vision that are in his control, such as making London a leader in energy efficiency." 

Fair comment, I suppose, but the Mayor's robust stand does make a welcome departure from the unfounded scare stories about shale, which are still being peddled by many politicians, scientists and journalists. 

While most in the process sector have welcomed the UK government's belated backing for shale gas, some engineers now see a need to manage expectations of some of the more enthusiastic converts.

For example, in a recent letter to The Times, London mayor Boris Johnson promised to ‘leave no stone unturned or unfracked’ if shale gas is found in London.

In response, though, David Symons, director at consultancy WSP, which has international shale experience, suggested that Boris was getting a bit carried away with the shale fever:

"Although oil has been found in many areas across southern England – from the Weald basin to even some small finds in north London - the reality is that shale gas is a new science and there’s still considerably uncertainty on where the resources are and whether they are economically viable to extract, " said Symons.  

“Rather than big sweeping statements the Mayor could do much better to focus on the elements in the 2020 Vision that are in his control, such as making London a leader in energy efficiency." 

"The Vision, quite rightly, commits to retrofitting every badly insulated home in the city – as a way to save energy and be ‘a formidable creator of employment.’ 

Making London the leader in energy efficiency is far more practical and far more deliverable than big rhetoric which inspires passion but little else.”

Fair comment, I suppose, but the question still remains about how cities like London set about tapping into shale and other energy resources – especially given all the uncertainties over power supply in the years ahead.

A West Midlands dairy recently experienced a problem with a blender that threatened to cause a production stoppage and downtime costs of around £3000 an hour.

The blending plant was exhibiting some unexplained operation of the valves and showing various valve position feedback alarms. Downtime from any operational failure is never good news and a return to full production was critical.

Monitoring the system controlling the process didn’t reveal anything obviously wrong but the site engineers knew they had to get the problem resolved as soon as possible and put in a call to the Mitsubishi technical support hotline.

Mitsubishi Electric has a firm commitment to service and technical support, via its System Service Group, providing added value services including 24 hour telephone support and a full complement of authorised engineers to provide everything from routine service to emergency downtime mitigation. The System Service offering supports both current and past generation product lines, with authorised Service Agents providing local engineers at regional centres and key partners providing expert advice and on-the-ground repairs.

Mitsubishi can also offer service support for other vendor’s automation equipment, providing a “one stop shop” and peace of mind.

The Mitsubishi technical support line took the call, evaluated the problem and contacted Mitsubishi Electric’s Service Agent NISCAM. Service engineer Carl Chadwick received the call, contacted the customer and took as much detail as possible. Then set off on the 33 mile journey to the plant, knowing that time was of the essence.

Mitsubishi Electric products are extremely reliable and it is not uncommon to find examples of PLCs still in continuous operation after 20 or more years of service. So, finding nothing wrong with the PLC itself as expected, Carl singled out one of the troublesome valves and started a code trace of the valve control logic. It was found that there was a request to open the valve but no output to the open solenoid. The logic was checked against an earlier backup taken three months earlier during a routine health check as part of the customer’s “Mitsubishi 3 Diamond Service Contract” and key differences were found.

The site laptop was checked and found to have two version of the program saved. One was fully commented, looking very much like the original post-commissioning work and a second, later version.

Comparing these two programs with the one loaded in the PLC, Carl quickly identified differences surrounding the valve control logic. It then emerged that modifications had been made by one of the dairy’s site engineers the previous Friday as part of ongoing efforts to improve productivity. Carl’s suspicion was that the valve control modification had been implemented but with a very slight error. Carl noted the changes then re-loaded the program and after testing found that the valves were now operating correctly, with no positional errors shown. Carl stayed on site for a further 30 minutes whilst the process was started, to ensure all valves operated and the process sequence was stable. Finally, he saved the program as the latest version, and retained a copy for the Mitsubishi archive system.

This cautionary tale of course highlights the importance of effective program management, fully commented documentation and regular backups, as part of a customised Diamond Service Contract. The problem would have been difficult and time consuming to diagnose but for the fact that Carl already had an archived backup against which to compare the incorrect program running in the PLC.

Perhaps more importantly it demonstrates Mitsubishi Electric’s commitment to service and support. With downtime costing the Dairy an estimated £3000 per hour, Mitsubishi’s ability to provide local engineering support to expedite a return to normal functionality certainly helped to save the day.

Welcome to our website. If you continue to browse and use this website you are agreeing to comply with and be bound by the following terms and conditions of use, which together with our privacy policy govern Process Industry Match’s relationship with you in relation to this website.

The term “Process Industry Match” or “us” or “we” refers to the owner of the website. The term “you” refers to the user or viewer of our website.

The use of this website is subject to the following terms of use:

• The content of the pages of this website is for your general information and use only. It is subject to change without notice.
• Neither we nor any third parties provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors to the fullest extent permitted by law.
• Your use of any information or materials on this website is entirely at your own risk, for which we shall not be liable. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements.
• This website contains material which is owned by or licensed to us. This material includes, but is not limited to, the design, layout, look, appearance and graphics. Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice, which forms part of these terms and conditions.
• All trademarks reproduced in this website, which are not the property of, or licensed to the operator, are acknowledged on the website.
• Unauthorised use of this website may give to a claim for damages and/or be a criminal offence.
• From time to time this website may also include links to other websites. These links are provided for your convenience to provide further information. They do not signify that we endorse the website(s). We have no responsibility for the content of the linked website(s).
• You may not create a link to this website from another website or document without Process Industry Match’s prior written consent.
• Your use of this website and any dispute arising out of such use of the website is subject to the laws of England and Wales.