Fracking – the nitty gritty UKELA – 23 September 2015

Fracking - nitty gritty

Remit - “issues of concern” & EIA

Agenda (a) context – why are we here? (b) national level problems (c) local problems (d) permitting (e) deregulation

Fracking – nitty grittyContext (1)

• IPCC advice concerning 2 degree average temperature change / emissions reductions by 2030

• IEA report – leave 80% fossil fuels in the ground: what constitutes the 80%?

• unconventional oil and gas is higher carbon than conventional – MacKay & Stone, EU Commission report

• shale gas displaces does not replace higher carbon fuels – see research of Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester

Fracking – nitty grittyContext (2)

• local environmental impacts eg: groundwater, air, surface water, transport, noise

• health impacts – eg: University of Colorado research

• scale of expected activity – 10,000 wells to replace current gas production – optimistic rates of return (Bloomberg)?

• technology used to extract - HVHF

• concern that regulation not capable of addressing challenges

Fracking – nitty gritty

(b) National issues of concern- Petroleum Exploration and Development

Licences (Petroleum Act 1998)- no SEA of 13th licensing round for shale gas / oil- 14th licensing round: around 50% of remainder

of England & Wales opened up to fracking - “objective” narrow - climate impacts recognised but not acted on

Fracking – nitty gritty

(b) National issues – cont’d• August 2015 announcement:

* 27 “blocks” offered * 132 blocks subject to “strategic level” HRA

• HRA - gaps and questions eg: riparian areas, fish species, no licence option?

• 13 August: DECC / CLG announcement “need” for shale gas and oil, call-in delayed applications, expedite appeals

• no consultation, query NPPF, EIA • Energy Bill: places Oil & Gas Authority on statutory footing – duty

to “maximise economic recovery”, environmental responsibility remains with DECC

Fracking nitty gritty

Infrastructure Act 2015: “fracking safeguards” (s.50) • baseline montoring methane in groundwater – 12 months• assessment of methane in air (fugitive emissions) • some steps to prevent HVHF in groundwater Source Protection Zones and other “protected areas” • “independent” well inspection • some steps re. site restoration, environmental assessment, consultation

Fracking nitty gritty Infrastructure Act 2015 – critique • GW monitoring “during” 12 months: not “for” 12 months (3 months at

Ryedale, N Yorkshire) • methane in water: what about other pollutants in water (heavy metals,

arsenic) and air (BTEX, VOCs)? • methane in air: at what stage? • “independent” well inspection, consultation (“notice”), assessment: rather

vague & see existing law? • closure: weak duty to “consider” restoration condition • no statutory restriction on hazardous chemicals – must be approved• no minimum safe distance from surface water or communities (see EU

Recommendation) • no prohibition on drilling / fracking where air quality is poor • transparency

Fracking – nitty gritty

The Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2015• no “fracking” in land above 1200 metres: SPZ1, NPs, AONBs, WH

sites • only protects GW Source Protection Zone 1: why not zones 2 & 3? • does not prevent frack site being situated at surface within SPZ

(“beneath a relevant area”). Spills? • does not prevent well passing directly through primary aquifer:

well integrity? • HRA proposes some protections for some SACs • draft regs do not prevent sites being situated at surface within

other protected areas (eg: SSSIs which not SACs, NPs, AONBs)• draft regs do not apply to existing licences…

Fracking – nitty gritty

(c) Local issues of concern• What is the application for? Exploration / development or

production? NB: see Ellesmere Port, Barton Moss (CBM), Ryedale (Yorkshire)• intermediate cases: Extended Flow Testing, Cuadrilla,

Lancashire• length of permission: up to 20 years? • connected applications eg: monitoring arrays in Lancs • no maximum drill depth (eg: Barton Moss) • planning conditions may be missing eg: air quality • failure to consider key impacts eg: climate (Davyhulme)

Fracking – nitty gritty

(c) Local issues of concern (2) • conditions may not be enforceable eg: noise (Lancashire) • uncertainty eg: Third Energy, Ryedale• routine inability of companies to complete activities within

set timescales - closure of Preese Hall (3 extensions), Becconsall (3 extensions?)

• enforcement: Cuadrilla at Becconsall, Lancs (drilling during wintering bird season for nearby SPA), Rathlin at West Newton (gas leak - 6 (?) breaches of permit)

• insufficient experience / expertise – proposals to vent for up to 6 months (Davyhulme)

Fracking – nitty gritty

• reliance on developer – independent advice? • undue reliance on regulators (Gateshead case law) eg:

Ryedale boreholes • attitude of consultees eg: Natural England (see Lancashire) • “pass the parcel”• public participation eg: Balcombe • planning policy skewed towards gas and oil: pressure from

central govt to move fast • robust decision making? • precautionary approach (A191 TFEU)?

Fracking – nitty gritty

(c) EIA • EIA has previously been “gamed” (eg: sites 0.99 hectares,

Cuadrilla Lancs) • connected sites eg: Lancashire (Ecologistas en Accion)• uncertainty eg: health assessment (Lancs)• “advocacy” document • consultation eg: Cuadrilla, Lancashire 3 weeks for 9,000 pages • industry voluntary commitment only relates to fracking• use of fracking “lite” techniques eg: mini fall off test (West

Newton)• well inspection by connected persons – self regulation

Fracking – nitty gritty

(d) Permits• protection of groundwater eg: drilling thru SPZ at Crawberry Hill • hazardous substances: policy commitment – binding? What

about oil based drilling muds? • transparency: power to disclose chemicals (Water Resources

Act 1991) Not a duty on operator? • classification of sub surface (non hazardous) – despite Annex

VIII WFD substances present (eg: arsenic, see Preese Hall) • flaring – green completions = BAT? • clarity about BAT – BREF from EU Commission under discussion • differences of approach: Lancashire / Yorkshire

Fracking – nitty gritty

(d) Permits – cont’d• closure plan – missing from Cuadrilla Lancs applications • post-closure monitoring – missing (Lancs) • liability / clean up: financial guarantee (Art 14 MWD) – EA refused

to disclose figures • venting – methane potent GHG • water supply: strategic view (production), water stressed areas in

SE England • waste disposal capacity (3 licensed plants?) • re-use of flowback fluid: dilution avoids cumulation? What

proportion re-used? • well integrity: recognise that wells fail?

Fracking – nitty gritty(e) Deregulation • Infrastructure Act: trespass • notice to landowners • permitted development for monitoring boreholes – but see Ryedale

(North Yorkshire) • standard rules permits (EA)

* drill and core, testing techniques, closure and abandonment • premature given early stage of development: speeding up process, public

participation, assumes total clarity, process issues • community benefits package, tax changes • chipping away at regulation • taking decisions away from locally elected decision makers, local people • loading the dice in favour of shale: at what cost?

Fracking – nitty gritty

Conclusions • uncertainty about impacts & activities – precaution • lack of experience (including developers) • regulation not designed to cater for this

technology • key issues remain unresolved eg: waste, closure,

liability • amidst uncertainty and gaps, govt applies pressure

to accelerate roll out of shale…

Fracking – nitty gritty

Thank you