Written evidence submitted by the Keep Kirdford and Wisborough Green, KKWG (RUT0126)

Submitter

 

 

  1. Background:

 

  1. I am responding on behalf of Keep Kirdford and Wisborough Green (KKWG) which is situated on the edge of the South Downs National Park (SDNP) with a THIRD of the area of both Parishes located within the National Park.  Visitor numbers are quoted at 39 million visits to the SDNP (SDNP Management Plan, 2011).
  2. I am responding to this enquiry as not only do we live in a Rural area which experiences tourist visits but also on behalf of a local objectors group which was faced with an application for Exploratory Oil/Gas Drilling.  We are very concerned about the damaging effect that fracking would have on rural areas and tourism in England in particular given that Eire, N Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have a commitment to a moratorium on this untried process (untried except for that one well drilled by Cuadrilla at Preese Hall, Lancashire, as confirmed in a letter from DECC 2011).
  3. Before moving to Wisborough Green, a quintessential English village laid out round a Green where cricket and other sports are regularly played and defined as Rural within the Chichester Local Plan, I lived on the Manhood Peninsula (MP) to the south of Chichester but still in West Sussex.
  4. What characterises both these areas of Sussex is a high score for tranquillity, highly rated and designated wildlife areas and associated large numbers of visitors and/or tourists.
  5. A Destination Management Plan was drawn up for the MP by the University of Chichester which demonstrates that 49% of all the income generated by tourism in the entire Chichester District is generated on the MP (DMP, 2010, Univ of Chi).
  6. Visitors attributed their reasons for visiting the area to good food and drink often produced locally on the MP including seafood, the area’s wildlife and the fishing and boating opportunities (largest European caravan site on the edge of Selsey and one of a number of marinas along the south coast including that at Chichester Harbour).
  7. Given the good soil, flat nature of the land and excellent amounts of sunlight there is a greenhouse industry but this is restricted to certain areas and not permitted to become industrialised (Public Inquiry, Madestein, 2012; Chichester Local Plan, 2015). 
  8. The area also commissioned a report on Integrated Coastal Management Zone which is a material condition and which needs to be taken into account with regard to any planning application.

 

KEY QUESTIONS raised by the Committee

 

 

  1.   SPECIFIC CASE STUDY:

Application for Exploratory Oil/Gas drilling within PEDL 234, West Sussex

 

  1. An application by Celtique Energie for Exploratory drilling for Oil/Gas on the borders of the Parishes of Kirdford and Wisborough Green, in West Sussex was rejected on July 22nd, 2014 by West Sussex County Council Planning Committee.
  2. It was turned down on the grounds of excess traffic, narrow lanes not close to the priority roads network, the existence of a Conservation Area in the village of Wisborough Green, Noise and a flawed selection process.  In addition, local residents objected on the grounds of European Protected Species, namely Bechstein and Barbastelle bats which were recorded foraging over the site and using the stream adjacent to the proposed site.
  3. The publication of the British Geological Society, BGS, report on the Weald confirmed that there is NO gas and any possible oil might be difficult to recover (Weald report, BGS, May 23, 2014).

 

“This study has identified the potential for a significant volume of oil-mature shale to be present at several horizons in the centre of the Jurassic, but shales further west and on the northern and southern flanks are not considered mature for oil generation (Figure 50)….

 

“This study concludes that there is no significant Jurassic shale gas potential in the Weald Basin.  Even the deepest Lias shales are unlikely to have attached sufficient maturity to allow for significant gas generation.

 

“….Some of the most prospective plays are in environmentally sensitive areas, in National Parks, Areas of Outstanding National Beauty or under towns and villages (Figure 52).  Shale oil exploration and potential development should progress cautiously to ensure the activity is safe and the environment is properly protected.”

 

The Jurassic Shales of the Weald Basin – Geology, Shale Oil and Shale Gas Estimation, British Geological Society, May 23, 2014

 

  1. The proposed site would have meant many additional HGV movements to and from the site, causing noise and air pollution let alone damage to the rural lanes.
  2. Travelling around rural areas would have been far more difficult for tourists.
  3. The area with its meandering country lanes provides well used routes for cycling and equestrian users.
  4. The increased traffic would impact on rural businesses such as farms, shops and small factories, all of which rely on prompt deliveries for their businesses to function effectively.
  5. Within the previous Local Plan for Chichester, and hence before the SDNP was brought into effect, this particular rural area of the North East Parishes was regarded as being exceptional and given special protection (LP, 1999).
  6. The fact that the application involved importing an industrial process into a very rural area was considered completely unacceptable.
  7. Both Parishes have had their Neighbourhood Plans adopted which both contain a stated wish to remain rural parishes.
  8. The question needs to be asked – why is this area still under threat of such Exploration and potential development?

 

  1. West Sussex

 

  1. Wisborough Green in West Sussex is a tourist area which attracts visitors because it is a quintessential English village, on the edge of the South Downs National Park, on the A272 which is one of very few roads that goes East/West across the Weald, and entices people to stop for a drink or meal, to watch the cricket, participate in the summer fetes and fairs, watch the other sports on the green, use the public toilets, or stay for a day or more to explore the area.  The industrialisation of the village by the creation of an oil/gas drilling operation would have destroyed this idyll.
  2. WSCC sent a 4xA4 sided letter to the company requesting further information on December 3rd, 2013 in connection with the application.  While they did not ask the company, Celtique Energie, for any additional information or clarification on the impacts on the rural location and local economy of the Planning application we are KKWG, group of local residents objecting to the proposal, wished to make the following points on these very important areas:
  3. The uncertainty over the pending decision caused concerns and worry amongst residents and businesses about the future. 
  4. The nature of the village and its road infrastructure is seriously threatened by the large volume of lorry movements set out which will impact the main road (A272), the village roads (Durban’s Road, Kirdford Road), the extensive use of the village green, the children’s playground, and the school walking routes which include the roads to be used.
  5. The Government’s announcement in the Queen’s Speech that it wants to remove home owners’ established right to refuse permission for mineral drilling below their property in exchange for ‘compensation’ of £20k to the community and now recently the Prime Minister’s announcement that householders would be paid £10k each for those experiencing disruption suggests that it is both known and understood that such drilling will cause damage, distress and financial loss.
  6. At the time, the West Sussex Police contacted all the local business owners in person and by email to suggest that they believed the drilling operation (if it had been granted permission) would result in traffic disruption and road closures.  When challenged, they indicated that this was not known but they wanted to gauge concern about the possibility. We believed that such actions would have seriously affected many of the businesses in the village (Pubs, Cafe, Shop, B&Bs, Farms, Stables and other livestock, Ansell’s Yard businesses & the award winning Fisher’s Farm Park, local tourist attraction).
  7. The Government likes to suggest that drilling operations in the PEDL licence areas will create new jobs for the locality. The reality is that there are NO oil industry workers in Wisborough Green who are qualified to work on the site, but the negative impact on the local economy could easily mean that local jobs and businesses are lost leading to an overall drop in jobs and economic prosperity.
  8. In particular, food security, with land and water supplies threatened by air and water contamination would be threatened by such development.

 

  1. Cornwall

 

  1. Before moving to Sussex I lived in Cornwall well known for its large influx of visitors/tourists.  Given the underlying geology is granite the County is not facing an application for fracking BUT it does face issues of road widening which does not contribute to improved economic performance (Young, Imperial College MSc thesis, 2009).

 

  1. Tourism

 

  1. The majority of the PEDLs issued cover rural constituencies and current applications are principally being made in green field sites (Preston New Road and Roseacre, Lancashire; Broadford Bridge, West Chiltington, West Sussex) unless a drill site already exists (Kirby Misperton, Ryedale, Yorkshire; or Markwells Wood, West Sussex).  Shale gas companies are planning hundreds of wells per 10x10 km2 PEDL licence area (INEOS, 2016).
  2. Fracking is a heavy industrialised process unsuitable for the English countryside.
  3. Tens of thousands of wells are required to produce meaningful quantities of gas as the process can only use a well for a relatively short time so another has to be drilled beside the first one…..and so it goes on.
  4. England’s most precious landscapes are already licenced for fracking, with PEDL (Petroleum Exploration and Development Licences) covering vast areas of the country. While the suggestion is that the development will not take place on the surface it is deemed perfectly acceptable (without the production of any evidence) to drill in sideways from just outside these specially designated areas.
  5. Widespread industrialisation of the countryside for shale gas production is incompatible with EFRA’s aim of developing sustainable rural tourism.
  6. A huge increase in HGV truck movements will make places less attractive and less safe for tourists.
  7. Visitors will not want to spend their holidays in the shadow of fracking well-sites and will consequently avoid such fracking ‘blackspots’.  In turn, local accom-modation and tourist attractions will suffer.
  8. Two government reports[1] established that the worst impacts of fracking would be suffered by local communities living adjacent to, or within the vicinity of, such exploratory sites.  Dr Damien Short’s research[2] shows no community which he visited which originally welcomed the fracking industry would do so again.  As Prof. Michael Stephenson of the British Geological Society (BGS) said in a lecture at the LSE Energy Society, Shale Gas and Fracking: the Science behind the controversy earlier this year( Feb 23rd, 2016)

“There is no doubt that this is a very dirty, noisy industry” and “You should never frack near or close to a fault line!”[3]

 

  1.   Health impacts

 

  1. There are now over 650 peer reviewed articles on health as affected by fracking now available in those countries where fracking has been operating for a long time given that epidemiological studies take time to report.
  2. In summary “The arguments against fracking on public health and ecological grounds are overwhelming. There are clear grounds for adopting the precautionary principle and prohibiting fracking.”

http://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/medact_fracking-report_WEB4.pdf

  1. This would have impacts on local communities in England but also deter visitors. 
  2. Recent studies by researchers based at the John Hopkins University demonstrate that people living near fracking wells are four times more likely to have asthma attacks and premature births.

 

  1. Fracking will reduce employment in the rural tourism sector

 

31              Tourism provides millions of permanent jobs for the rural economy (over 3.1 million in 2013, according to Visit Britain).

32. Fracking would only provide a small number of short-term jobs at each well-site.

  1. Even industry estimates of up to 64,000 jobs in 2024 from 4,000 fracking wells are dwarfed by the numbers of jobs in tourism threatened by fracking.

34.              Most jobs on fracking well-sites would go to specialists brought in on fixed contracts, not local people.

  1. Fracking in the USA has been shown to be a boom-and-bust industry and does not create long-term jobs.
  2. Widespread fracking would threaten thousands of permanent jobs in the tourist industry, as visitor numbers would fall and businesses would close.

 

  1. Fracking will affect the reputation of food produced in tourist areas

 

  1. Rural economies depend on farming and food production as well as tourism.
  2. Many areas of the country are known for their high-quality produce and rely on this reputation to attract tourists to local food fairs, farmers’ markets, restaurants, etc.
  3. The introduction of fracking in these areas may compromise the quality and reputation of locally produced food.
  4. There may also be the perception that food from farms grown near fracking wells could be contaminated.
  5. This will result in lower sales, falling tourist numbers, and lower rural employment.

 

  1. Fracking will negatively impact wildlife tourism in the countryside.

 

  1. Large numbers of tourists visit the English countryside to enjoy the wildlife that lives there.
  2. Widespread fracking will have a very damaging effect on wildlife populations, particularly if fracking wells are situated around the edges of protected areas like Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) or locally important Sites of Nature Conservation Interest.
  3. Noise, air and light pollution and increased traffic from fracking well-sites will reduce the population of wild birds and animals, most of whom will leave the area completely (Francis, 2015).
  4. Drilling and fracking at night would also have a detrimental effect on protected nocturnal species such as owls and bats (Francis, 2015).
  5. This loss of wildlife would, in turn, have a damaging effect on wildlife tourism in rural areas and a consequent drop in visitor numbers.

 

  1. Water contamination from fracking could permanently impact an area’s reputation.

 

  1. Fracking also brings with it the threat of water contamination through leaking wells (Evidence collated from industry by Schlumberger, points to 6-8% new wells, 50% of wells after 15 years and all wells eventually, leak) which could contaminate the aquifers that provide our drinking water and groundwater resources.
  2. There may also be surface spills or other above-ground accidents, which could pollute streams, rivers and other water courses.
  3. Fracking companies are not required to post a bond with local councils to pay for environmental clean-up, if indeed such clean-up were possible.
  4. One incident of contaminated drinking water, or a catastrophic explosion at a well-site, would permanently damage the reputation of a popular tourist area for many years.
  5. Any water contamination incident would result in a drop in tourists visiting that area.

 

  1. Fracking will reduce property prices, which will discourage rural investment.

 

  1. Fracking will have a negative effect on house, land and property prices in fracking areas, particularly for properties within one mile of a well-site. This has already been noted in Lancashire.
  2. The DEFRA Shale Gas Rural Economy Report stated: “A study in Texas concluded that house prices valued at more than $250,000 and within 1,000 ft of a well-site saw their values decrease by 3-14%."
  3. The same report went on to say: "House prices in close proximity to the drilling operations are likely to fall. There could be a 7% reduction in property values within one mile of an extraction site." 
  4. A report in Mortgage Introducer magazine stated that properties near the only well that has ever been fracked, Preese Hall in Manchester, fell by 4%.
  5. This drop in property values will, in turn, have a negative effect on rural business investment, as people will be reluctant to invest in new and existing rural businesses in areas where fracking is taking place.

 

  1. Public perception of fracking is overwhelmingly negative

 

  1. Fracking is extremely unpopular with the general public, with only 21% of the population supporting the process, according to the latest Government Wave 18 survey.
  2. If a particular part of the countryside is known to be a fracking zone, this will discourage people from visiting this area, reducing tourist numbers.
  3. Nottingham University survey carried out since 2012 reinforces this view.

 

  1. Defra’s own report states that fracking would negatively impact the rural tourist sector

 

  1. Defra’s draft Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts Paper, which was eventually published unredacted in July 2015, following intervention from the Information Commissioner states:

“Shale gas may transform a previously pristine and quiet natural region, bringing increased industrialisation. As a result, rural economy businesses that rely on clean air, land, water and/or a tranquil environment may suffer losses from this change, such as agriculture, tourism, organic farming, hunting, fishing and outdoor recre-ation.”

These are the major assets of rural communities.

  1. This paper also went on to say that fracking "may reduce the number of visitors and tourists to the rural area, with an associated reduction in spend in the local tourism economy."
  2. When it was finally published, Defra distanced itself from the report’s conclusions, claiming that it was an early draft of an internal document, was not analytically robust, and that work on this report had been discontinued.
  3. Why was this Report not re-drafted as a result so that it could beconsidered by Defra to be ‘analytically robust’ and suitable for publication. Were the effects of fracking on the rural economy not worthy of further examination?
  4. Defra has therefore never undertaken a comprehensive report on the effect of fracking on the rural economy – which of course would include the rural tourism sector, the subject of this enquiry.

 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

 

  1. Cumulative impacts –any applications for fracking need to be considered in association with any other additional planning applications being made in the area.  It became clear at the Lancashire Public Inquiry (April/May 2016) that not enough capacity existed locally for dealing with waste water and the EA argued that such issues were the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority.
  2. It also needs to be born in mind that fracking is not confined to an oil pad site but involves use of large amounts of water which are often brought in by lorries, taking waste materials off-site including large amounts of waste water and cuttings (produced from creating a well), pipelines and the associated facilities for dealing with the wastes, providing materials and taking any products away.

 

Conclusions

−      It is clear from the current evidence concerning Climate Change and with the Paris Convention recently agreed (Dec, 2015) and now jointly signed by China and the USA (September 2nd, 2016) that the most difficult to get at fossil fuel resources should NOT be being exploited, rather they should stay in the ground. 

−      Britain’s fracking regulations may be inadequate to prevent environmentally dama-ging methane leaks from shale gas production, the Government’s official climate change advisers have warned.

−      The Committee on Climate Change said that large-scale shale gas extraction in the UK would not be compatible with the UK’s targets to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless three key tests were met to minimise its impacts.

−      The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) top climate scientist announced that the Earth is warming at a pace not seen in at least the past 1,000 years, making it "very unlikely" that global temperatures will stay below the 1.5O C limit agreed to in the landmark climate treaty negotiated in Paris last December.

−      Widespread fracking should not be undertaken – the UK is too small, has densely populated cities, has many different landscapes much valued by tourism, an inade-quate infrastructure such as facilities for dealing with wastewater and the underlying geology is riddled with faults which cannot mix with such drilling.

−      Not only would such an industry have a very damaging effect on tourism in rural areas, we believe that the shale gas industry threatens the UK.

−      We feel that Defra has a duty to oppose such developments within government, and should instead be working with the Local Government Association to promote sustainable, low-impact tourism in order to preserve the English countryside.

−      The current access points to the South Downs National Park are overwhelmingly reliant on the car which contributes to climate change and public transport issues need addressing as is happening in the New Forest, Derbyshire Dales and Lake District.

Recommendations:

−      We recommend that the EFRA Select Committee should commission a new independent report concerning the impacts of the shale gas industry on the rural economy, including rural tourism.

−      Until such a report is produced, the EFRA Select Committee (in line with the recommendation of the Environment Audit Committee) should demand an immediate moratorium on fracking and other forms of unconventional gas production.

−      A great many recommendations for research were made at the recent US-UK workshop held to consider hydraulic fracturing in Arlington, November 2015.  These should be considered in the context of whether or not they would result in adverse impacts on the rural economy.

 

Joint US-UK workshop on Improving Understanding of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Unconventional Hydrocarbons, 5-6 November 2015, Arlington, Washington DC, USA

NERC and the United States National Science Foundation (NSF), along with the Environment Sustainability & Energy Division of the Royal Society of Chemistry (ESED), are inviting applications from UK scientists to attend a jointly organised workshop on Improving Understanding of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Unconventional Hydrocarbons in Washington DC on 5-6 November 2015.

The deployment of hydraulic fracturing technology to exploit shale oil and gas reservoirs in the USA and now potentially in the UK has raised a number of environmental concerns. This workshop brings together researchers in the USA and the UK to learn from each other to identify the areas of major environmental uncertainty, the focused scientific research questions that need to be addressed, and the opportunities for innovation and translation of existing research within this area.  It identifies over 140 topics requiring research.

Report:  Joint US-UK Workshop on Improving the Understanding of the Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Unconventional Hydrocarbons

Danny Reible1 and Richard Davies2 1 Texas Tech University, Department of Chemical Engineering; Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering; Box 41023, Lubbock, TX, USA 79409−1023 2 Newcastle University, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE1 7RU, UK

 

Aldgate J.L. et al (Feb, 2014), Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development, Environ. Sci. Technol., American Chemical Society, 14 pages.

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es404621d1Environ.Sci.Technol.

Angling Trust, the National Trust, RSPB, the Salmon&Trout Association, the Wildlife Trusts and the Wildfowl&Wetlands Trust (WWT) (March, 2014)

Are we fit to frack: Policy recommendations for a robust regulatory framework for the shale gas industry in the UK; This report is underpinned by a separate document, Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas in the UK: Examining the evidence for potential environmental impacts

AEA Report on the Identification of potential risks for the environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe Report for European Commission DG Environment, Aug 10th, 2012

 

BBC News January 27, 2014 – item about flowback waste water disposal into the canal from the Preese Hall well.

British Geological Society (BGS)/DECC (May 23, 2014), The Jurassic shales of the Weald Basin: geology and shale and shale gas resource estimation, a Report

British Medical Journal (BMJ) (April 26, 2014), Editorial

 

Carson, P (Dec 2013), Presentation at Rogate Parish Hall Information Session, Independent Oil/Gas industry representative

Celtique Energie (2013/2014) – range of publications submitted in association with the application; consultancy reports; website; letters sent to part of the local community

Eg Addendum of Non Technical Summary (NTS); Environmental Statement – all parts and particularly Environment; Ecology; Transport; and diagrams

Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) (2014) Policy Position Statement Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) of Shale in the UK

CDC (2014), Local Development Framework Key Policies – Pre-submission Local Plan

 

Davies R.J. et al (2014), Oil and gas wells and their integrity: Implications for shale and unconventional resource exploitation, Marine and Petroleum Geology.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeto.2014.03.001 p14

DCLG (2011) Localism Bill A plain English Guide to the Localism Bill https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5959/1896534.pdf

DCLG (2012) National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

DCLG (July 2013),

DCLG (March 2014) Planning  Practice Guidance for Onshore Oil and Gas

Dept for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010) Guidelines on scientific analysis in policy making

Dhot, N (2013) Water requirements for fracking, Head of Corporate Affairs UKhttp://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/shale-and-water-water-requirements-could-pose-challenges-fracking

 

EU 2000, The Precautionary Principle, Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  Available from: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_safety/132042_en.htm

 

Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association, FFBRA, April 2014, Evidence to WSCC Planning Committee meeting, held Horsham

Frackfreetameside (March 2014), Evidence to the DECC consultation

 

Government Office for Science (2011), Code of practice for scientific advisory committees

 

Hill, M (2014), Evidence to Royal Society report on regulatory framework

Still confused about Fracking?, Expert Engineer to speak in Bushmills, what does Gas and Oil Exploration mean for the North coast, Presentation in Ireland (May, 2014); The Lancet, June 20th, 2014

House of Commons Hansard (2010) Ministerial Statement, Dec 20th, 2010; Paul Flynn MP and Kate Green MP (2014)

 

Kirdford Parish Council (2014) Neighbourhood Plan

 

Law, A et al (17 April, 2014), Public Health England’s draft report on shale gas extraction, Mistaking best practices for actual practices, BMJ Editorial

 

Mahler, H (1981), Health 2000: the meaning of Health for All by the year 2000, World Health Forum Vol 2, No 1, pp 5-22

MEDACT (2014) Climate Science for Health Professionals, MEDACT 2014; MEDACT (2016)

 

National Planning Statement for Energy Env-1

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_date/file/37046/1938-overarching-nps-forenergy-en1.pdf

New Scientist (May 23, 2014) News item by C Barras about the publication of the BGS report

 

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) circular (2005) Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within The Planning System Ref: ISBN 9780117539518PDF, 751KB, 88 pages

Oil and Gas UK (2012), OPO69 – Well Integrity Guidelines, Issue 1

 

Pater, CJ and S. Baisch (November 2011), Report on Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale Seismicity

Pickles, E (2013) Statement on Local Planning and Onshore Industry circulated by Rt Hon Dan Rogerson MP, October 1st 2013

Plain English Guide to the Localism Bill, www.communities.gov.uk

 

Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineers (2012) Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing June 2012

             

Smythe D (2013) Evidence given to the House of Lords Inquiry into Shale Gas, Nov 11, 2013; Objection (2014) submitted in response to this application and its additional information

Spice, A (2014), Pers comm, email June 4th, 2014

 

Tyldesley D and Assocs (1999) Fife Landscape Assessment, SNH

 

UKOOG (2013), UK Onshore Shale Gas Well guidelines: Exploration and Appraisal Phase

 

WSCC (2013) FAQs factsheet on Oil/Gas developments  November

WSCC (2004), West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016

WSCC (2014) Exchange of emails with Democratic Services

Wisborough Green Parish (2013) Council Minutes November 19th, 2013; WG Parish Neighbourhood Plan, July 2016

 

CLIMATE CHANGE

 

Committee on Climate Change, (Jan 2014) Scrutiny of IPCC report “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013-14, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, is the third of three Working Group reports, which, along with a Synthesis Report due to be published in October 2014, constitute the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report on climate change

 

Stern, N, Lord (2006) Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a 700-page report released for the British government on 30 October 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and also chair of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) at Leeds University and LSE

 

UK Government Climate Change Act (2008). The Act provides the UK with a legal framework, including a long-term target for emissions in 2050

UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol puts binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which sets out the framework for multilateral cooperation to tackle climate change. 

 

ENVIRONMENT

 

AEA (2013), Support to the identification of potential risks for the environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe

AEA + EA Monitoring and control of fugitive methane from unconventional gas operations   http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/134511.aspx

Ashley, L (2014) Commentary included in KKWG newsletter by former Oil worker

 

Broderick, J, Anderson, K, Wood, R, Gilbert, P, Sharmina M, Footitt, A, Glynn, S and Nicholls, F (2011), Shale Gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts.

 

Chichester District Council (2011), Local Biodiversity Action Plan

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

CPRE (2006) Tranquillity report and maps

 

DECC and AMEC (2013), Strategic Environmental Assessment for Further Onshore Oil and Gas Licensing – Environmental Report.

DECC (Dec 2013), Onshore oil and gas exploration in the UK; regulation and best practice

DECC (2014), environmental legislation applicable to the onshore hydrocarbon industry (England, Scotland and Wales), available as ‘onshore_leg_1.doc’ from www.gov.uk

DECC (April 2014), Guidance on the preparation of an environmental risk assessment of shale gas operations in Great Britain involving the use of hydraulic fracking.

DEFRA, Natural Environment White Paper NEWP (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature; DEFRA (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services; DEFRA (2010) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations

DNV (2013), Risk Management of Shale Gas Developments and Operations

 

EA (2009) Arun and Western Streams Flood risk report

Environment Agency (EA), (2012), Position Statement: regulating the recovery of drilling muds, MWRP PS 037, version 1

EA (2013), An Environmental Risk Assessment for shale gas exploratory operations in England.

EA (Aug 2013), Onshore oil and gas exploratory operations: technical guidance, Consultation Draft

European Council EIA Directive 85/337/EEC Environmental Impact Assessment The EIA Directive (85/337/EEC) has been in force since 1985 and applies to a wide range of defined public and private projects, which are defined in Annexes I and II: and 15/05/2014: The revision of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive enters into force.  Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment (2013).

European Landscape Convention, Council of Europe (2000; URL: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm)

 

Francis, Clinton D, Catherine P. Ortega, Alexander Cruz (2009) Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communities and Species Interactions,  Current Biology,  Volume 19, Issue 16, p1415–1419, 25 August 2009 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.06.052

Kleist, N.J., R.P. Guralnick & C.D. Francis (in press) Noise pollution masks intruder song and weakens territorial response. Ecosphere

Francis, C.D. (2015) Vocal traits and diet explain avian sensitivities to anthropogenic noise. Global Change Biology 21, 1809-1820; Swaddle*, J. P., C. D. Francis*, J. R. Barber, C. B. Cooper, C. M. Kyba, D. M. Dominoni, G. Shannon, E. Aschehoug, S. E. Goodwin, A. Y. Kawahara, D. Luther, K. Spoelstra, M. Voss, and T. Longcore. 2015. A framework to assess evolutionary responses to anthropogenic light and sound. Trends in Ecology & Evolution:10.1016/j.tree.2015.1006.1009.

Joint first authors Bunkley, J.P., C.J. McClure, N.J. Kleist, C.D. Francis & J.R. Barber. (2015) Anthropogenic noise alters bat activity levels and echolocation calls. Global Ecology and Conservation 3, 62-71.

Francis, C.D., & J.R. Barber. (2013) A framework for understanding noise impacts on wildlife: an urgent

conservation priority. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment 11, 305-313; McClain, C.R., P.A.P. Durstv, A.G. Boyer & C.D. Francis. (2013) Unravelling the determinants of insular body size shifts. Biology Letters 9, 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0989. vGraduate student author

Francis, C.D., N.J. Kleistv, C.P. Ortega, A. Cruz. (2012) Noise pollution alters ecological services:

enhanced pollination and disrupted seed dispersal. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B

279, 2727–2735; Medinav, I. & C.D. Francis. (2012) Environmental variability and acoustic signals: A multilevel approach in songbirds. Biology Letters 8, 928-931.

Francis, C.D., J.L. Blickley. (2012) Introduction: Research and perspectives on the study of anthropogenic noise and birds. Ornithological Monographs (Auk Supplement) 74, 1-5.

 

Guardian 12th June 2014 
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/12/climate-change-mitigation-global-warming-mark-walport

October 1st, 2013, UN

 

IEEM EcIA guidelines (2006), EcIA Guidelines (Terrestrial)

NB: The EcIA Guidelines (Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2006) are currently under review. Until such time as a revised version is published, the 2006 version remains current.

- See more at: http://www.cieem.net/ecia-guidelines-terrestrial-freshwater-and-coastal-#sthash.TGcd2cr3.dpuf

HSE (2014) Guidance on Regulation of Well Construction; http://www.hse.gov.uk/shale-gas/about.htm

Hopkins, J et al (2007) Adaptation for High Biodiversity under climate change,

British Wildlife magazine and Climate Change series of meetings held at Birkbeck College.

IPCC (2014) Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCCWG2), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Lawton, J et al (2010) Making Space for Nature, a review of English wildlife sites

 

Michaels, C et al, (Sept 2010) Fractured Communities, Case Studies of the Environmental Impacts of Industrial Gas Drilling, Riverkeep – NY’s clean water advocate.

 

Natural England (2009), Green Infrastructure Report No 176

Natural England (2013) Standing Advice on Ancient Woodlands; Bats

Natural England (2009) Biodiversity 2020

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) includes Biodiversity Duty for all public bodies and Schedule 41 list of Habitats and Species of Principal Importance.

Natural Gas Europe, May 2014 edition

 

SDNP Presentations October 15th, 2014, off their website, accessed November 2014

The Independent newspaper, 24/5/2014 item on publication of the BGS report

 

UKWIR (2014), Understanding the potential impacts of shale gas fracking on the UK water industry

 

Welsh Affairs Committee (June 2014), cross party of MPs, June 16th, 2014

West Sussex County Council (July 2003) Minerals Local Plan; WSCC County Structure Plan (2001-2016)

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)

 

HEALTH:

Choppin GR et al (1995). Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Oxford

Colborn, Theo; Kwiatkowski, Carol; Schultz, Kim; Bacran, Mary; (Sept 2011) Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1039-1056.  Doi: 10. 1080/10807039.2011.605662

 

Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources, Science of the Total Environment, May 2012, Vol 424, 79-87

 

Fracking, Shale Gas and Health Effects – a round up of recent research on the potential health impacts of shale gas extraction and fracking.

 

Jackson R. B., et al, Research and Policy Recommendations for Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale-Gas extraction, Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC.

 

Kibble, A et al, Public Health England (PHE) (Nov 2013; June 2014), Review of the Potential Public Health Impacts of Exposures to Chemical and Radioactive Pollutants as a Result of the Shale Gas Extraction Process, PHE

 

McKenzie, L.M. et al (2014), Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Rural Colorado, Environmental Health Perspectives, 28 Jan, 2014.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1306722

McKenzie, L.M. et al (2012), Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources, Science of the Total Environment, 2012.

Doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018

McKenzie, Lisa M; Guo, R; Witter, R,Z; Savitz, D. A.; Newman, L.S; Adgate, J.L. (2014), Birth Outcomes and Maternal Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Rural Colorado. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122, 412-417, soi: 10.1289/ehp.1306722

McKenzie, Lisa, M.; Witter, Raoxan Z.; Newman, Lee S.; Adgate, John L. (2012) Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from shale gas

Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing.  It finds that “in active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking water wells increased with proximity of the nearest gas well and were 29.2 and 64 mg CH4 L-1 (n=26), a potential explosion hazard.)

MEDACT, 2016, Shale Gas Production in England – an updated public health assessment

MEDACT, 2014, Health & Fracking: the impacts & opportunity costs

MidWest Energy News (2014) concerning well integrity

 

National Policy Statement, NPS for Energy EN-1:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/37046/1938-overarching-nps-for-energy-en1.pdf

 

South Downs National Park (SDNP) website – Information session presentations October 15th, 2013

Vidic, R.D.; Brantley, S.L.; Vandenbossche, J.K.; Yoxtheimer, D.; Abad, J.D. (May 2013) Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water quality, Science May 2013, Vol 340, No 6134.  Doi: 10.1126/science.1235009

 

METHANE

 

DECC (2013), Mackay D, and Stone, T, Potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with shale gas production and use

DECC (2014), Mackay, D and Stone, T, Fracking UK shale: climate change

 

Howarth, R. (2014), A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the

greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas Energy Science and Engineering

Howarth R. and Ingraffea A (2013), Shale gas: Time to go slow. World Energy Monitor, World Energy Forum. United Nations

Howarth, R. (2013) Shale gas extraction. In Book: Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability

Howarth R. et al, (2012) Venting and leakage of methane from shale gas development: Reply to Cathles et al. In Climatic Change

Howarth R. et al, (2012) Methane emissions from natural gas systems. Background Paper: National Climate Assessment

Howarth R.W. and Ingraffea A., (2011) Should fracking stop? Yes, it is too high risk. In Nature 477:271-273

Howarth R, W. R. Santoro and A. Ingraffea, (2011), Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. In Climatic Change Letters 106(4):679-690, DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5.

 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) (2013) Anthropogenic Emissions of Methane in the United States. Sought to quantify the current levels, regions and sectors that are the key sources of the potent greenhouse gas.  The study found that current US methane emissions appear to be significantly higher than previous estimates – 1.5 x greater than those by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 1.7 x greater than data from the European EA’s emission database for global atmospheric research.

PHE, (Oct 2013), Review of the Potential Public Health Impacts of Exposures to Chemical and Radioactive pollutants as a Result of Shale Gas Extraction (Oct 2013)

 

Santoro et al, (2011), Indirect emissions of carbon dioxides from Marcellus shale gas development. Technical Report

 

The Lancet 2014, The health implications of fracking, Comment section p 757, Vol 383 March 1, 2014

 

NORM and RADON

 

 

 

 

 

September 2016

[1] DECC/AMEC SEA Shale Gas Env report, 2013 CD48.12 ; Shale Gas Rural economy Impacts (REDACTED) 2014 CD42.16 and full report 2015.

[2] Talk given at Oxted Village  Hall, 6/2/2016 – confirmed in email, paper awaited

[3] Author of 2 books: Shale Gas and Fracking - the science behind the controversy and Returning Carbon to Nature