Written evidence submitted by Friends of the Earth England, Wales & Northern Ireland

THE RISKS FROM FRACKING OPERATIONS IN THE UK, INCLUDING POTENTIAL RISKS TO WATER SUPPLIES AND WATER QUALITY, EMISSIONS, HABITATS AND BIODIVERSITY, AND GEOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

1. Fracking poses serious risks to the local environment and to human health. A report for the European Commission[1] assessed the cumulative impact of fracking at multiple installations as ‘high risk’ in terms of groundwater contamination, surface water contamination, water resources, release to air, land take, risk to biodiversity, noise impacts and traffic.

2. Ministers and the industry claim that the UK has the world’s toughest regulatory regime, but analysis by Friends of the Earth[2] shows that in fact much of UK fracking regulation is inadequate, flawed or ineffectively applied and enforced, and that there have already been many problems.

Water quality

3. The former EA chairman Lord Smith has said that “groundwater contamination is the biggest environmental risk in this activity”[3]. This is a major concern as in southern England, up to 70% of drinking water comes from groundwater[4]. Ministers have stated that there is no evidence of groundwater contamination from fracking[5] but recently the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection released details of 243 cases of contamination of private drinking water wells by oil and gas drilling (including for shale gas) between 2008 and 2014[6].

4. The main risk to water is from well failure. Evidence from the US found failure rates in newly-drilled shale gas wells in Pennsylvania to be between 6.9% and 8.9%[7]. In the UK, documents released by the Health & Safety Executive suggest a number of problems at the only well test-fracked to date (Cuadrilla’s Preese Hall 1 well in Lancashire). These include ‘poor’ cement in the lower section and crucial checks not being carried out. Although it is not definite that the well ‘failed’ and if there was significant risk to individuals or the environment, it is not clear why Cuadrilla was allowed to frack a well with ‘poor’ cement, which increases the risk of well failure,  and why they failed to carry out crucial well integrity tests. Nor is this an isolated example: there have been reports of possibly similar problems at Rathlin Energy’s well at West Newton in East Yorkshire.

5. Regulation remains weak both in principle and in practice:

• Baseline monitoring of water quality is not mandatory, no minimum safe distance from water bodies has been prescribed and the use of hazardous chemicals is permitted.
• The EA has permitted drilling through an aquifer (IGas at Ellesmere Port) and in a Groundwater Source Protection Zone (Rathlin Energy at Crawberry Hill, East Yorkshire and did not require a groundwater permit for Cuadrilla’s drilling at Balcombe although there are streams running through the site and a drinking water borehole is just over 2 km from the site.

6. The EU Water Framework Directive includes a presumption that groundwater should not be polluted at all, and prescribes a precautionary approach which includes a ban on direct discharges to groundwater[8]. This approach is also reflected in the Groundwater Directive which prohibits the direct input of “hazardous substances” into groundwater.

Air quality

7. Air quality problems associated with fracking arise from the onsite plant, from transport and from the fracking process itself. In addition to methane (from venting), local air pollutants from fracking can include particulate matter, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen dioxides. There is a large volume of evidence from the US and Australia of potential health problems associated with fracking emissions[9].

8. In the UK, air quality is another case where baseline monitoring is not mandatory. In the case of the application by IGas for CBM production in Davyhulme, despite serious existing air quality concerns, the planning authority initially screened the development out for an EIA[10].

Water supplies

9. Fracking uses large volumes of water. Many areas of the UK, such as South East England, are already under water stress and this is likely to get worse with a changing climate. Intensive exploration for shale oil and gas in South East England could put considerable pressure on water supply, particularly if it occurred in summer months[11].

Habitats and biodiversity

10. Where the risk of significant harm to protected habitats and species cannot be ruled out, a Habitat Regulations Assessment should be a critical part of any Strategic Environmental Assessment such as that carried out ahead of further onshore gas and oil licensing. However the Government did not do so as part of the SEA carried out before the start of the 14th Licensing Round, and has decided to defer the assessment to when individual licence applications are considered (and the SEA carried out for the 13th Round did not consider shale gas at all). This fails to ensure that the cumulative impacts of activity across the UK will be taken into account. If significant impacts on protected habitats cannot be excluded, sites must be screened out at the strategic stage, as recommended by conservation groups[12].

Health impacts

11. New York state has recently banned fracking, citing significant public health risks. The state Commissioner of Health’s report concluded “it is clear from the existing literature and experience that HVHF activity has resulted in environmental impacts that are potentially adverse to public health”[13]. In the UK context, the director of public health charity MedAct wrote that Cuadrilla’s applications for further fracking in Lancashire “pose ​unacceptable risks to the health and well-being of local residents”[14].

NECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS, INCLUDING THROUGH THE PLANNING/PERMITTING SYSTEM

12. Tougher regulation is needed, but this will only make unconventional gas and oil exploration and production safer, rather than safe. The UN Environment Program believes fracking “may result in unavoidable environmental impacts even if (unconventional gas) is extracted properly, and more so if done inadequately”.[15]

13. Planning regulation for unconventional oil and gas is now weaker in England than for onshore wind farms. Onshore wind has to undergo pre-application consultation, has been framed in terms of subjective visual impact and all appeals are being recovered by the Secretary of State. Minerals planning policy changes have not undergone public consultation, which means that the effects of this policy are being 'tested' on people and communities. The Government has referred to its approach to unconventional oil and gas as a 'risk-based' approach - this is the opposite of a precautionary approach where risks are first understood, rather than simply being taken.

14. Friends of the Earth has regularly drawn attention to the need to understand the precautionary principle as a matter of public interest in planning decision-making. The application of the precautionary principle – for instance to groundwater -  means that unless it can be proven that there will be no groundwater contamination a development should not go ahead.

15. Planning practice guidance for England also references the precautionary principle in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment: “the local planning authority must have regard to the amount of information available, the precautionary principle and the degree of uncertainty in relation to the environmental impact”[16]

16. The Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment has said that the precautionary principle should be invoked when:

• there is good reason to believe that harmful effects may occur to human, animal or plant health, or to the environment; and
• the level of scientific uncertainty about the consequences or likelihood of the risk is such that best available scientific advice cannot assess the risk with sufficient confidence to inform decision-making[17].

We believe this applies to fracking, and note the conclusions of the New York study: “there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with [fracking], the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures”[18].

17. Current legal structures contain many gaps as regards unconventional oil and gas. For example, the law as it currently stands enables companies to drill through aquifers and in Groundwater Source Protection Zones. In addition, fracking is currently permitted in SPZs 2 and 3 (SPZ1 is core). Companies are permitted to use hazardous material by way of oil-based drilling muds (below aquifers). Baseline assessment of water and air quality is not mandatory. Friends of the Earth has seen a number of instances in which Environmental Impact Assessment has been “gamed” by developers (eg: seeking to drill on a site 0.99ha in area, just below the threshold of 1 hectare which may trigger assessment). Air quality legislation fails to prevent exploration or production in areas with poor air quality thereby enabling such activities to take place in urban areas (eg: IGas at Davyhulme in Greater Manchester).

18. Waste disposal remains problematic for fracking companies and has been identified as a “substantial and significant impact” for Cuadrilla in relation to its applications to frack in Lancashire. We believe that EU mining waste legislation imposes inadequate obligations on companies to put aside monies in the event of accidents or pollution caused by waste. Existing legislation (eg: Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) concerning clean-up of contaminated land is largely reactive in nature and acknowledges that the state may have to bear the cost. Arrangements for monitoring wells following closure remain unclear. 

19. Government has repeatedly rolled back the regulation of shale gas, including through changes to the law of trespass (currently before the House of Commons in the Infrastructure Bill); introducing “standard rules” permits which are expected to be issued to companies without any consultation with local people; taking away the duty on applicants for planning permission to notify landowners individually of oil and gas applications; and changes to tax law (to reduce the headline rate of tax to 30%). 

THE IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION OBLIGATIONS

20. To avoid global temperature rises not exceeding 2 degrees Centigrade, we can only afford to burn a small percentage of our known fossil fuel reserves. This is accepted by a growing number of people and institutions including the Governor of the Bank of England[19]. Drilling for more oil and gas – whether through maximising output from the North Sea or going ‘all out for shale’ - would just add to the global stockpile of ‘unburnable carbon’. The UK’s role is critical here – historically we have extracted vast quantities of fossil fuels: if we continue to explore for new resources, what hope is there for persuading other countries to keep their reserves in the ground?

21. Friends of the Earth analysis shows that the UK’s planned fossil fuel extraction is equivalent to emissions of between 4 and 20 gigatonnes of CO2 – this is 40-200 times the UK’s fair share of the remaining global carbon budget if we want to stand a reasonable chance of keeping global temperature rises to under 2 degrees C – and that is before additional North Sea oil and gas or onshore unconventional gas and oil are included[20].

22. The IPCC has said that gas could have a role to play in cutting carbon emissions, but only if it replaces coal; and if methane emissions associated with production are low. This has been taken in some quarters as IPCC endorsement for shale gas. But:

• There is no guarantee that any shale gas produced in the UK or elsewhere will be used instead of coal, rather than as well as coal. Professor David Mackay, while chief scientific advisor to DECC, wrote that “without global climate policies … new fossil fuel exploitation is likely to lead to an increase in cumulative GHG emissions and the risk of climate change”[21]. The switch from coal to gas has played a part in cutting US power sector carbon emissions, but coal not used in the US has been exported, including to the UK. More than half of the emissions avoided in the US power sector may have been exported as coal[22].

In the UK, it is clear that there will not be appreciable quantities until the next decade at the earliest. The most optimistic of National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios shows no production until 2020 and the more cautious scenarios have no production until 2022 or 2024[23]. By this time, the Government says that there should be no coal used for power generation in the UK, so any shale gas used for power generation will be displacing not coal but other gas and/or renewables.

• The level of methane emissions from shale gas production is unclear. Some US evidence shows emissions many times official estimates, and at levels which would at least greatly reduce any emissions advantage over coal[24].

23. Peer-reviewed research[25] has estimated that an expansion of unconventional gas globally would cut energy prices, squeeze out renewables and could lead to global carbon emissions rising by 11%.

24. A key part of the Government’s argument for fracking is that it will help improve energy security. However, a scenario which focused on demand reduction and renewables rather than shale would lead to a lower level of gas imports.

25. The need to consider climate change is also vital at the local level. The National Planning Framework states that the planning system “has a key role to plan in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”[26] and encourages “proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change”[27]. In addition, local plans will not be found sound unless they tackle climate change proactively[28]. The Government has also stated that “local authorities would have to take account of climate change where it is relevant under their planning guidance”[29] and backed this up with decisions on specific cases[30].

30 December 2014