Fracking and Unconventional Gas Exploitation in the UK – A Guide

Intended Audience and Purpose of this Guide This guide aims to provide succinct, objective information about

fracking and unconventional gas drilling and its perceived risks for:

• the general public

• MP’s, MEP’s and local government politicians and officers

• Companies, farmers, landowners

• Media – local and national

It aims to clarify:

The techniques, technologies and terminology involved

The known and perceived risks associated with these techniques and technologies

This guide has been produced by The SaFE Alliance.

Introduction To understand these issues we need careful use of accurate

terminology – for both i) general clarity and ii) to distinguish the

‘fracking’ that is being talked about in the UK from ‘traditional fracking’.

‘Traditional fracking’ has been carried out for around 60 years and is

carried out with vertical wells drilled into conventional reservoirs of gas.

This is not the type of fracking that is proposed for the UK and which

has already been carried out in Lancashire at Fylde.

Modern Fracking and Unconventional Gas Drilling This section clarifies what is involved in ‘modern fracking’ and

unconventional gas drilling. At both exploration and exploitation

phases, they involve:

a) ‘High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing’ (HVHF) or ‘High Pressure Hydraulic Fracturing’ (HPHF) – these terms are used interchangeably, and are explained in more detail below;

and

b) ‘unconventional gas drilling’ (UGD) and ‘unconventional gas

exploration’

High Volume or High Pressure Hydraulic Fracturing (HV/HPHF) is just

one component of unconventional gas drilling activity, so these are

two distinct but related activities. These activities are also sometimes

referred to as Shale Gas Extraction.

To clarify these terms and technologies further:

• ‘Unconventional Gas Drilling’ and ‘Unconventional Gas Exploration’

uses several techniques and technologies, including HV/HPHF, that have

been developed since the late 1990’s. It is called ‘unconventional’

precisely because it involves new technologies, none of which yet have

a standard operating procedure. HV/HPHF is typically 1 of 4 components

of unconventional gas exploration and drilling – each of these 4

components is described in the paragraphs following this section.

These 4 technologies have only been used together in the US since

2002, and together they make modern fracking distinctly different from

‘traditional fracking’. Any conscious statement that the type of fracking

proposed for the UK has been used for 60 years (or decades) is

therefore deliberately misleading.

The industrial activities required for unconventional gas exploitation

include all the related industrial activity above and below the surface,

including:

a) the storage and transportation of all gas, chemicals and

equipment involved in the industry;

b) the treatment of the very high volumes of `slick water´

recovered from the wells.

• ‘High Volume / High Pressure Hydraulic Fracturing’ (HV/HPHF)

involves pumping fluids down to significant depth (e.g. this may be

6000ft to 7000ft below the surface) in very high volumes and under

very high pressures to expand fine fractures within seams of shale rocks

- hence the terms ‘High volume’ and ‘High pressure’ hydraulic

fracturing. This also requires the other technologies of ‘Unconventional

Gas Drilling’ (explained below) to recover the methane gas trapped in

the rock. As a technology, HV/HPHF has emerged since the late 1990’s.

Concerns about ‘fracking’ are therefore more accurately understood as

relating to the combined and cumulative risks associated with the 4

components of unconventional gas drilling - one of which is HV/HPHF –

and all the associated industrial activity it requires to bring the gas to its

users and manage the wastes produced by the industry.

For those who are concerned, the regulatory framework, the risk

assessment and the protection of citizen rights and environmental

quality in relation to both of these activities are argued as being

inadequate and unsafe in the UK and Europe.

Four Components of Unconventional Gas Drilling These four key components of unconventional gas drilling / shale gas

extraction are:

a) Use of ‘slickwater’, also known as fracking fluid;

b) Use of that slickwater/fracking fluid at very high pressure in

very high volumes

c) Directional drilling;

d) Use of multi-well pads

In more detail:

a) ‘slickwater’ combines water with known and unknown (publically)

chemical additives to reduce the friction of water, which is pumped

under high pressure in high volumes into the wells. The chemicals used

include heavy metals, chemicals which are neurotoxins and VOCs

(Volatile Organic Compounds). Typically around 50% or more of

slickwater is not recovered and remains in the well and the rock strata

allowing a gradual flow of liquids and gases over time once the drilling

activity has ceased;

b) use of high pressure (e.g. up to 6000psi) and high volume fracturing

fluid to i) expand the fractures at depth and ii) to bring gas back to the

surface. According to Professor Tony Ingraffea (Professor of Engineering

at Cornell University) upwards of 5,000,000 gallons of fracturing fluid is

needed for each well, most of which will remain below the ground, the

rest of which will return to the surface as a hazardous liquid waste.

c) Directional drilling is directed i) away from the vertical and ii)

in any direction, at significant depth e.g. to drill horizontally in shale

seams where gas is trapped, possibly in eight different directions from a

single vertical drill up to 2-3kilometres in length;

A diagrammatic representation of the extent of fracturing from well pads Map created by Brigitta Varadi in collaboration with Eddie Mitchell and John the Map.

d) use of multi-well pads – e.g. the well is usually moved to drill at

perhaps 8 to 16 positions on one drilling pad.

So 64 to 128 direction drills

could be drilled for one pad,

which means the risk factors

for each drill pad are many

times those for traditional gas

drilling and ‘traditional

fracking’, where one well is

used per pad.

The Known and Perceived Risks There a several technical problems well known by the industry that

have not yet been solved:

• Cement well-casing failure: around 1 in 20 wells worldwide

have casing failures in the short term;

• What to do with hazardous slickwater produced in production

phase. This waste typically contains chemicals such as Lead,

Cadmium, Chromium and Arsenic, all at levels many times the

maximum permissible limit in drinking water

In more detail, significant risks identified by US and UK experts who

have been involved in the development of fracking and UGD and who

have worked in the oil and gas industry for many years include:

a) The contamination from various toxins used in slickwater migrating into the aquifer/water table arising from drilling operations, particularly arising from:

Fracturing of well casings that is known to arise from HV/HPHF activity because of the very high pressures used. Across the global oil and gas industry it is widely accepted that typically at least 1 in 20 well casings (5%) fail in this way. The well casings at Fylde in Lancashire are known to have fractured.

Potential leakage of slickwater which is forced back up the outside of well casings from the base up toward the surface.

b) The potential risks from handling, transport and treatment of toxic chemicals and liquid wastes associated with activities at site and beyond – because the fluids are used in such high volumes (e.g. 5 million gallons per well) and because a variety of the chemicals involved are so highly toxic to human and environmental health;

c) ´Fugitive emissions’ i.e. the unplanned and uncontrolled leaks of methane and other substances resulting from unconventional gas activities in the short, medium and long term – significant because

methane is 20 to 100 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Fugitive emissions can also pose significant health risks, carried by prevailing winds;

d) Risks of short, medium and long term pollution of ground water associated with the high levels (e.g. 50%+) of unrecovered fracking fluids left in the ground;

e) NORMS (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials) released into

fracking fluid and the aquifer - there is no treatment for NORMS;

f) Risks of earth tremors and earthquakes where the HV/HPHF activity releases tensions or pressures in the rock causing greater instability at depth – the well drilled at Fylde in Lancashire was damaged as a result of earth tremors;

g) Massive levels of water use, potentially exacerbating water

shortages and raising costs for other uses through increased

competition for a limited resource;

h) The collapse of property values and the saleability of properties and agricultural land in areas where fracking and unconventional gas industry activity is or has been carried out.

Source: Reuters

Experts emphasise that the greatest short and medium term risks

relate to the drilling and industrial activity near and at the surface, with

fractures in drill casings being the biggest single concern.

Medium to long term risks relate to the unknown and uncontrollable

aftermath of unconventional gas drilling, at and below the surface.

Professor Tony Ingraffea has described the outcomes of fracking activity

as ‘fundamentally unpredictable’ as small changes in any of the multiple

factors involved can easily result in a big change in the deep level

outcomes. Therefore preventing or controlling the risks from this

activity is also fundamentally unpredictable.

Concerns about the weaknesses in UK and EU regulatory frameworks

include:

• Failures to properly assess and communicate the risk to citizens,

and to protect citizens against the risks;

• Failures to protect the environment, particularly a) the quality

of ground water reserves, b) ecosystems, c) water availability,

and d) businesses which are dependent on ground water

quality;

• Failures to allow adequate public participation in environmental

decision-making related to unconventional gas drilling and

exploration activity;

• Failures to protect citizens against threats to the peaceful

enjoyment of home and life in areas effected by unconventional

gas drilling activity, including risks to property values and

saleability of property.

What Is Needed Certainty over safety and reliable regulation is needed. For all

unconventional gas exploration and exploitation activities (current and

future) in the UK it is essential that the following are undertaken and in

place prior to any unconventional gas drilling proceeding:

A. a full, proper, independent and publicly available assessment of any potential risks to human and environmental health and safety;

B. a full and proper framework for the protection and regulation of any risk associated with all unconventional gas drilling activity, and any other related and currently unclear risks;

C. a full and proper framework for checks, enforcement and penalties

for failures to comply with health and safety, environmental and

other regulation and oversight on an on-going basis both during

UGD activity and in perpetuity when the well is abandoned and the

risk of leakage remains into the future;

D. full EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) for all HV/HPHF related

development proposals and associated industrial activity.

Self-assessment and self-regulation by the industry is not acceptable or

appropriate as this allows worst case scenarios and worst practice to

occur, rather than best case scenarios and best practice.

There is also a call for a full and open LCA (life cycle assessment) over

exploration, drilling and 20-30 year post drilling phases, covering all

unconventional gas drilling, HV/HPHF and associated industrial activities

at the drill site and beyond the site. This LCA should cover:

Overall climate change impacts – CO2 and methane

Water impacts - quality / pollution, availability and cost of

water supplies

Embodied carbon and energy impacts

Impacts on ecosystems health, value and services

Other Relevant and Significant Concerns Other concerns relate to the unconventional gas industry’s use of NDAs

(Non Disclosure Agreements) with those impacted by UGD and/or

HV/HPHF activity. The two primary concerns are:

That NDA’s distort the public and political awareness and understanding of the impacts and risks associated with unconventional gas drilling and HV/HPHF activity because those badly affected by these activities are legally bound by NDA’s not to disclose those adverse impacts. Therefore information on the actual harms caused by the industry is not freely available to the public,

politicians or decision makers in public bodies, as this information is restricted and suppressed by NDA´s. NDA’s appear to have been widely used in ‘fracked’ areas of the USA.

The NDA’s may have been put in place without each party to the

NDA having equal or sufficient understanding of the long term

implications of the NDA i.e. this may represent conscious “mis-

selling” of what is provided in exchange for the NDA.

Pro-fracking interests talk of ‘no documented cases’ of harm, with a

narrow use of the term ‘documented’, simply because documented

cases have been prevented by NDA’s. They also talk of ‘no documented

cases of harm from fracking’ with a narrow use of the term fracking to

cover only the one day activity that occurs deep below the ground and

not all the impacts that flow from it and from associated industrial

activities.

Meanwhile anti-fracking groups cite ‘numerous documented cases’ of

harm, with a broad use of the term ‘documented’ covering interviews

on film, website listings of ‘the harmed’, investigative journalism, and so

on. They also have a broader view that includes all the activities and

impacts of the unconventional gas industry, including well leakages and

impacts from management of the waste liquids from drilling activity.

Other concerns relate to:

Transparency v’s the level ‘obfuscation’ (deliberate confusion, clouding, mystification) of the issues by companies involved in the unconventional gas industry and aided by some politicians, either consciously or unconsciously.

Loopholes in regulations - for example, ‘stimulation’ is allowed by UK planning regulations in exploratory drilling, where ‘stimulation’ is a term used to allow the use of HV/HPHF activity, at lower levels

of activity than would be required at a stage of commercial exploitation by unconventional gas drilling.

The potential restrictions that lobbying legislation might place on those seeking to raise public awareness regarding the apparent lack of a safe framework of risk assessment, regulation, management and control of unconventional gas drilling industry activities.

The EU Commission’s proposal for investor-state dispute settlement under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)1 would appear to enable US companies investing in Europe to directly challenge EU governments at international tribunals, when they find that laws in the area of public health, environmental or social protection interfere with their profits. EU companies investing abroad would have the same privilege in the US. See http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/

Unconventional Gas Drilling, HV/HPHF and

Sustainable Development In a broader sense concerns relate to the practical definition of

‘sustainable development’, which is directly relevant to the legal roles

of the Environment Agency, planning system and DEFRA as they exist to

promote and help deliver sustainable development in the UK.

There is sufficient evidence (expert and otherwise) to argue that USG

and HV/HPHF activities might (legally) fail to qualify as conforming to

the core components and principles of sustainable development in

economic, social and environmental terms. It might (legally) be argued

to actively hinder the achievement of sustainable development.

Specifically the known on-going risks and unknown future threats from

unconventional gas industry activity appear entirely contrary to:

a) The precautionary principle;

b) The principle of meeting the needs of the current generation

without reducing or threatening the ability of future

generations to meet their needs.

For any credible pursuit of sustainable development, it is essential that

the activities and impacts associated with unconventional gas drilling

and exploration should be assessed in a robust and internationally

acceptable way in terms of their contribution to aiding or inhibiting

sustainable development.

Transparency of Interests and Avoiding ‘Slease’ A further area of significant concern is the lack of any independent and

publically available review of interests in relation to HV/HPHF and

unconventional gas policy development and decision making. Calls for

such a review suggest it must cover:

Elected and unelected government roles;

Paid and unpaid roles i.e. including business representatives on

boards of government depts., etc.

Financial and business interests:

• current benefits and known potential future benefits

• direct and indirect i.e. including close family members, or

friends etc

Any substantial Influence on analysis, risk assessment and decision

making processes of relevant Government departments and public

bodies;

• E.g. any role that has allowed, encouraged or enabled fast-

tracking of analysis and / or decision-making in relation to

unconventional gas industry activities, including reduced

consultation periods, where this might influence decision

making in one way or another;

Vested interest’s influence on advisory reports to decision making

bodies (such as EA, DECC, DEFRA, DCLG, etc), politicians, etc.

Full transparency of interests and potential future benefits to

politicians and business representatives with a role in government;

Any influence that the design & implementation of ‘efficiency

savings’ and ‘civil service reform’ might have had in compromising

or influencing decision making in relation public consultation and

involvement in policy;

Independence or relevance of experience of any key advisors e.g.

PM’s / Ministerial energy policy advisers.

Other relevant political interests:

Environmental Audit Committee should report on how any

Government / Ministerial pursuit of HV/HPHF and unconventional

gas might relate to or be in conflict with other core areas of

Government policy, such as in relation to core DEFRA policies:

a) Maintaining secure water supplies, high standards of drinking

water and effective sewerage services

b) Protecting and enhancing our urban and natural environment

to improve public health and wellbeing

c) Making sustainable development a part of all government

policy and operations

Potential failure to undertake proper assessment of risk to and

protection of designated special landscape areas i.e. AONB (Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty) - e.g. in relation to European

Landscape Convention, including appropriate public and

stakeholder engagement

Specifically a full review would need to identify:

Any Minister´s direct or indirect family interests in the

unconventional gas and HPHF industry e.g. including potential

for direct benefit to the Chancellor via his own or his wife´s

likely inheritance;

Any failure of the Minister for the Cabinet Office to properly

protect the electorate against conflict of interest in installing

and oversight of business representatives in government roles,

whether that is in terms of a) their formal role, or b) their ability

to influence decision makers outside of their formal role,

through the access to senior decision makers that their role

affords.

For undertaking a full and proper review of conflicts of interest and any

inappropriate influence on decision making, the following would have

some role:

Public Administration Select Committee

The Ministerial Code

Sir Alex Allen – PM’s independent adviser on ministerial

standards

In essence, it appears that there is a clear lack of distinction between

industry and government in this area, and therefore a lack of

independence and robustness in policy formation and regulation.

Legal Routes A number of legal routes might be used where there is concern about

failings in the system to protect citizen and environmental rights.

Three potential areas of legal action are:

a) Judicial review i.e. ‘unreasonableness’ of decisions re a) robust

regulation regime, b) depth of analysis in decision making, lack

of need for EIA etc;

b) EU law route (e.g. Aarhus Convention); if UK government can be

found to be failing to protect its citizens and fail to involve them

in environmental decision making

c) Local site related action – including possible trespass for drilling

under the land of others

In principle, if a public authority, such as the local planning authority,

Environment Agency, a government Minister or department, has not

dealt lawfully with an application or has acted ‘unreasonably’ or

‘irrationally’ in a policy decision, then it can be challenge in what is

called “judicial review”. More information about this process can be

found on the following website: http://www.leighday.co.uk/Asserting-

your-rights/Human-rights/Environmental-Litigation-

Service/Environmental-case-studies

Summary This document proposes that in the light of available information it is

entirely rational and appropriate to call for the following, and to use

legal actions against public bodies or the government where necessary

to pursue and achieve these objectives:

1. A robust human and environmental health protection and regulation regime for the unconventional gas industry and HV/HPHF activity in the UK and Europe, which is enforceable,

2. Full transparency of interests and action against apparent conflicts of interests

3. A full and proper independent investigation and understanding of potential economic gains and losses associated with unconventional

gas industry and HV/HPHF activity undertaking prior to implementing policies to encourage the industry, including impacts on a) jobs, b) other industries such as tourism and heritage (historical and environmental), c) land and property values, d) saleability of properties, e) landscape value.

Relevant Expert Perspectives The following list cites a number of highly relevant expert perspectives

that indicate the extensive weaknesses and failings in the current UK

government’s approach to encouraging unconventional gas activity:

Tony Ingraffea, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Cornell University, USA and previously an employee of

Schlumberger, a company involved in developing fracking

technology – to see a detailed presentation by Tony Ingraffea, based on

scientific and other collated evidence of the realities of unconventional gas

industry activities in the USA, go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OSCFLRtiiU#t=16

Mike Hill, UK Oil & Gas industry engineer – the following provides a

summary of some of Mike Hill’s significant work and engagement with government

regarding the inadequate UK system of regulation:

http://www.frackingdigest.co.uk/royals2.htm

David Smythe, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics Glasgow University

– the following provides an expert geophysicists opinion that indicates of why the

existing assessment and regulation system is entirely inappropriate, using

Balcombe and northwest England as examples:

http://www.davidsmythe.org/fracking/fracking.htm and

http://www.davidsmythe.org/fracking/cuadrilla%20sussex%20critique%20V1.pdf

Jessica Ernst (Canada), is a scientist who has worked in the oil and

gas industry – the following provides her scientific perspective on the

environmental consequences of fracking activity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU6DJE9h6uc

Professor Jim Watson, research director at the UK Energy Research

Centre and professor of energy policy at the University of Sussex – the following summarises the views of an independent energy expert on the

inaccurate and premature statements by Government ministers on these issues:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10433041/David-Cameron-

was-wrong-to-raise-publics-hopes-on-fracking-says-energy-expert.html

Sir David King, ex-Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government – the following summarises his views on the potentially very significant

environmental consequences of pursuing unconventional gas exploitation:

http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2013/09/17/sir-david-king-fracking-could-

have-enormous-environmental-consequences/

Sir Nicholas Stern, Chair of the Stern Report on the economics of

climate change, cross-bench peer and Professor at the London

School of Economics – the following summarises the failure to use any robust

economic analysis in the assessment of the economic impacts:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/baseless-economics-lord-stern-on-david-

camerons-claims-that-a-uk-fracking-boom-can-bring-down-price-of-gas-8796758.html

The SaFE Alliance (The Safety in Fossilfuel

Exploitation Alliance) The Alliance’s key messages are:

Safety - ‘Our objective is Safety’

Rationality - ‘The SaFE Alliance is an rational response to the available evidence’

Clarity and Transparency – ‘We have a right to clarity and transparency’

The Alliance aims to:

Collaboratively pursue UK and European legal routes to ensure citizen and environmental safety, with a robust and coherent risk assessment, regulation and control system in place, including oversight and penalties for failure to comply, etc through legal challenges Government Ministers and departments, and public bodies e.g. Environment Agency, planning authorities, etc.

Raise funds collectively to pursue these legal actions, whether at local or national level, and to create a fund that enables the Alliance to be prepared in advance of any specific needs to respond quickly to relevant legal situations

Campaign for greater public and political awareness of and clear understanding of the risks and threats to human and environmental health and quality of life through a linked media campaign - including risks and impacts in relation to water quality and climate change, as well as saleability and value of land and property

Clarify, collate and raise awareness of independent expert perspectives and independent technical research on the issues

Clarify and campaign to remove significant conflicts of interest within government and industry, including in relation to advisory roles to, and within, government i.e. tackle ‘Slease’