Chapter 7: Environmental impact of
development of shale gas in the UK
125. Opponents of shale gas development
are concerned about environmental and health risks. These concerns
must be taken seriously and addressed by Government, regulators
and the industry. This chapter will examine each of the main fears
and attempt to distinguish between the legitimate concerns and
those that have been exaggerated. We address the regulation of
shale gas development in the UK in Chapter 8.
FIGURE 10
Shale Gas Extraction
Source: CP14/038 British Geological
Survey © NERC. All rights reserved.
Groundwater contamination
126. Groundwater contamination was
described by Lord Smith of Finsbury, Chairman of the Environment
Agency, as "the biggest environmental risk".[245]
Opponents of fracking told the Committee that contamination could
arise from: chemicals present in the fluid used to fracture the
rock; fugitive methane; and naturally occurring radioactive materials
(NORMs) that return to the surface with wastewater after fracking
has taken place.
CHEMICALS PRESENT IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID -
US EXPERIENCE
127. The Frack Free Balcombe Residents
Association (FFBRA) wrote that in the US, over 600 chemicals had
been used in fracking fluid and some of these were "hazardous
air and drinking water pollutants."[246]
They were also concerned that many of the chemicals used are
"proprietary and 'trade secret chemicals', making assessment
of their health impact difficult".[247]
They cited a 2011 report from the US House of Representatives'
Committee on Energy and Commerce as the source of these claims.
128. This report was the result
of a Committee on Energy and Commerce investigation that looked
at hydraulic fracturing during the infancy of the US shale revolution.
The 14 leading oil and gas service companies were asked to disclose
the products used in their fracturing fluids between 2005 and
2009. 750 chemicals and other components were found to have been
used over the period. The US report concluded that "more
than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known
or possible human carcinogens[248]".[249]
Presenting the report, Representative Henry Waxman urged the US
regulators to make certain that there were strong protections
in place to prevent chemicals from entering drinking water supplies.[250]
He did not otherwise propose restrictions on fracking. The findings
of the report do not reflect current practice in the US.
129. Since that report was published
in 2011, the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board in the US has recommended that operators disclose
all chemicals used in fracturing fluid.[251]
Mr Chris Wright told us that unlike the chemicals involved
"in making a couch, a sculpture, a wind turbine, a solar
panel or a Starbucks
you can increasingly access all of
the chemicals used on each fracturing job from the Frac Focus
website."[252]
The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report into
shale gas extraction in the UK said that many claims of contaminated
water wells due to shale gas have been made in the US and none
have shown evidence of chemicals found in hydraulic fluids.[253]
CHEMICALS PRESENT IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID -
UK PRACTICE
130. Unlike in the US, the composition
of fracturing fluid in the UK requires regulatory approval from
the Environment Agency. Dr Tony Grayling, Head of Climate
Change and Communities at the Environment Agency, said they would,
"not allow the use of substances in fracking fluid that we
consider to be hazardous to groundwater
we have a tighter
regulatory regime than is the case in some states in America."[254]
Professor David MacKay, Chief Scientist at DECC, told us
that the Environment Agency "has the powers to require full
disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, so there
will not be anything secret."[255]
131. With reference to Cuadrilla's
operations in Lancashire, Mr Ian Roberts from the Residents
Action on Fylde Fracking (RAFF) group said that the wastewater
that returns to the surface following fracking "contains
some nasty chemicals".[256]
Asked to specify, Mr Roberts replied, "I do not have
a scientific background and I cannot detail the chemicals involved."[257]
Ms Tina Rothery added that when the companies "go into full
production, they have access to up to 600 chemicals in the States
at each well
We cannot say which ones they will use because
generally they will not say. It is very hard to get this information."[258]
132. The Cuadrilla website has a
section entitled "fracturing fluid". It displays the
pie chart below which shows that 99.95 per cent of their proposed
fracturing fluid is water and sand. The remaining 0.05 per cent
is polyacrylamide, a chemical that Professor MacKay said
is "commonly used in cosmetics and facial creams."[259]
Mr Egan told us that Cuadrilla
"propose to use one chemical, which
is non-toxic, in our fracturing fluid. The Environment Agency
will review it and approve it, and if it is declared hazardous
to groundwater we will not use it
people say frequently
to me: "You don't say what is in your fracturing fluid",
and I say, "It's been on our website for the last three years."[260]
FIGURE 11
Composition of hydraulic
fracturing fluid proposed by Cuadrilla
Source: www.cuadrillaresources.com
133. Concerns about pollution
of groundwater by fracking fluid seem largely based on reports
of past practice in the US, where greater transparency is now
enforced. The position in the UK is clear: the regulators require
full disclosure of chemicals used in fracking fluid, they do not
permit use of hazardous chemicals and operators do not use them.
Provided that the regulator enforces this prohibition, hydraulic
fracturing fluid poses no risk to groundwater in the UK.
FUGITIVE METHANE
134. Some witnesses expressed fears
that methane might find its way into groundwater. The Committee
heard that this could happen by methane migrating up natural faults
into groundwater or through leaking from a poorly constructed
well.
FUGITIVE METHANE - "FLAMING FAUCETS" AND
REPUDIATING MYTHS
135. Two American films, Gasland
and Gasland 2, have received great publicity for appearing
to demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing has led to tap water
in nearby homes becoming flammable.[261]
Professor Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at the
University of California, Berkeley, told us that it was well documented
that the "flaming faucets" shown in the movie are a
natural phenomenon that pre-dated fracking, and are known to be
the result of generation of biogenic methane by bacteria that
gets into well water.[262]
Mr Wright told us that the portrayal in the second Gasland
film of water from a hosepipe being set on fire had been ruled
a fraud by the local courts as the perpetrators simply hooked
a garden hose up to a residential gas line.[263]
No opponents of fracking cited these two films in support of their
arguments.
136. The UK Onshore Operators' Group
(UKOOG) said that "repudiating some of [the] myths"
around contamination has been more difficult due to the "lack
of baseline monitoring in the US, making it difficult to prove
that the industry has not been at fault".[264]
Professor Mair told us that
"the evidence from the US is rather
hard to unravel
not least because of the absence of baseline
monitoring
there is no question that there are some areas
where the geology is such that methane naturally bubbles up into
groundwater. It can be very misleading to imply that it is all
down to hydraulic fracturing and shale gas extraction."[265]
FUGITIVE METHANE - MIGRATION THROUGH NATURAL FAULTS
UP TO AQUIFERS
137. As Figure 10 at the beginning
of this chapter illustrates, shale gas is found deep underground;
it starts to be produced between depths of 1,500 metres and 4,200
metres.[266] Professor Stephenson
told us that "the key is to remember that shale will be exploited
or fracked pretty deep, so a long way from rocks that contain
water
Most geologists find it very hard to imagine contamination
could occur in those circumstances."[267]
He also said that the BGS were mapping areas where there were
big differences and small differences between possible shale layers
and layers containing aquifers: "it is not finished yet but
that would be a very important way of essentially screening which
parts of the country have aquifers close to shales".[268]
138. Professor David Smythe,
Emeritus Professor of Geophysics at the University of Glasgow,
thought it was likely that in the UK, "fugitive methane
will eventually contaminate aquifers."[269]
FFBRA cited Professor Smythe's concerns and quoted him as
saying, "a leaky fault is a fast-track back to shallow groundwater
and to the surface for methane".[270]
139. The Royal Society and Royal
Academy of Engineering's report does not reflect Professor Smythe's
fears. It considered propagation of methane through natural fractures
very unlikely: sufficiently high upward pressures would be required
during the fracturing process and then sustained for a long time
afterwards once the fracturing process had ceased and it was difficult
to conceive of how this might occur. Even if that did happen,
the permeability of the fractures would need to be similar to
the overlying aquifer for any significant quantity of liquid to
flow and it did not think this would be likely either.[271]
Professor Mair told us that the risk was "very low".[272]
140. Professor Richard Davies
of the Durham Energy Institute, Durham University said that, although
there had been well over a million fracking operations in America,
many of which happened in areas where there were natural faults,
"There is not yet any hard evidence to show that contamination
has occurred in the water supply due to fracking operations."[273]
Mr Wright wrote that there was not a single instance of a
hydraulic fracture contaminating groundwater in the more than
two million hydraulic fractures that have been performed over
the last 65 years.[274]
141. The Environment Agency issued
draft technical guidance on onshore oil and gas exploration in
August 2013. It provides that if the Environment Agency determines
that there is a risk of groundwater contamination, a permit for
groundwater activity will be required.[275]
An operator applying for a permit would need to provide the Environment
Agency with "a conceptual model showing the hydrogeological
relationship between the zone of interest and any overlying or
adjacent aquifers."[276]
Dr Grayling told us that the Environment Agency would object
to shale gas development if there were proposals to drill in a
location which was important to supplies of drinking water.[277]
Ms Harvey said that the industry would monitor how high fractures
grow during operations to make sure that the fractures did not
get near water supplies.[278]
142. The weight of scientific
opinion is that the risk of methane migrating up natural faults
and into aquifers is "difficult to conceive" and "hard
to imagine" in the UK. With strict regulatory oversight and
monitoring, the risk of methane contamination of aquifers through
natural fractures is very low.
NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (NORMS)
143. About 25 per cent to 75 per
cent of the injected fracturing fluid flows back to the surface
through the well after fracking has taken place.[279]
This fluid is mixed with methane and saline water containing minerals
from the shale formation below. This 'flowback water' (or 'wastewater')
will typically contain naturally occurring radioactive materials
(NORMs).[280] Most
witnesses who expressed fears about NORMs were concerned with
the safe treatment and disposal of the wastewater once it returns
to the surface. These concerns are dealt with in a separate section
below. Fears were also expressed that well failure could lead
to NORMs entering groundwater underneath the surface.[281]
LEAKS FROM POORLY CONSTRUCTED OR SEALED WELLS
144. A leak from a poorly constructed
or sealed well could provide a way for fracturing fluid, methane
or NORMs present in wastewater to get into groundwater. Tony Grayling
told us that "where there have been problems
in the
United States, they have been to do with the poor sealing of the
well nearer the surface".[282]
Professor Stephenson said that "There are peer-reviewed
papers in the United States that have come out recently that show
that there is evidence of fracking gas getting into water supplies."[283]
Professor Stephenson and Professor Smythe both highlighted
one recent study from the US.[284]
This paper attributed the presence of methane in aquifers near
to shale gas extraction sites in the Marcellus shale to leaking
wells.[285] The paper
concluded that the two simplest explanations were that methane
had leaked from wells due to faulty or inadequate casings and
imperfections in the sealing of the wells.[286]
145. The British Geological Survey
considers that there is a risk of contamination where the well
goes through the underground layer that contains aquifers.[287]
Professor Stephenson said that "the important thing
is that those wells are completed and engineered properly".[288]
Professor Mair agreed: "a much more likely source of
potential contamination is poorly constructed wells, so well integrity
is paramount."[289]
Dr Grayling said that "It is particularly critical from
the point of view of environmental protection that the well is
properly constructed and sealed
it is our responsibility
to ensure, along with the Health and Safety Executive, that those
regulations are properly applied."[290]
146. Professor Mair said that
"if all the right safeguards are applied
that is an
important proviso
then, yes, I believe that shale gas can
be produced safely without any significant risk of contamination."[291]
Lord Smith of Finsbury, Chairman of the Environment Agency, said
that "provided that drilling takes place in the right place
and provided that it is properly regulated
there should
be no risk to groundwater."[292]
147. The only significant risk
posed to groundwater by hydraulic fracturing is of methane or
wastewater entering aquifers as a result of a poorly constructed
or sealed well. This is also a risk for conventional onshore gas
and oil production. The risk is low as long as independent monitoring
ensures that wells are properly constructed and sealed.
Disposal and treatment of flowback
water
148. Flowback water returning to
the surface after hydraulic fracturing may contain hazardous materials.
The water that returns is heavily salted and often contains heavy
metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs).
Mr Chris Wright described this as the "real hazard"
from oil and gas production, a problem he said was as old the
industry itself.[293]
Opponents of fracking have cited the disposal and treatment of
flowback water as an environmental risk.
US EXPERIENCE
149. Frack Free Balcombe Residents
Association (FFBRA) told us that recent reports had revealed elevated
levels of radioactivity, salts and metals downstream from US water
treatment plants.[294]
FFBRA also quoted Avner Vengosh, Professor of Geochemistry
and Water Quality at Duke University: "'Years of disposal
of oil and gas wastewater with high radioactivity has created
potential environmental risks for thousands of years to come'."[295]
Professor Vengosh made this statement in October 2013 when
releasing a study from Duke University that compared the quality
of shale gas flowback water from the Marcellus shale with stream
water above and below a disposal site in Pennsylvania.[296]
150. The Duke study was based on
water samples taken between August 2010 and November 2012.[297]
Mr Wright told of an operator in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania
who sent flowback water to a water treatment facility that was
not equipped to handle the NORMs present.[298]
He said, "It should never have happened
It would never
happen in Pennsylvania today."[299]
151. FFBRA also said that much of
the flowback water in the US was injected into the ground to be
disposed of, "where it can cause earthquakes by stressing
and lubricating existing faults."[300]
Professor Muller told us that earthquakes induced this way
"are of concern."[301]
He said the larger earthquakes produced in the United States "came
from storage of flowback water in specialised sites and pumping
far more water down into those than should have been done. That
can be avoided by regulating the use of the flowback water".[302]
152. Finally, FFBRA said that flowback
water in the US was often held in open lagoons.[303]
Sir David King said that "in the United States, still
today, the water is pooled. The pools have membranes to prevent
the water from going into the ground. I would suggest that membranes
are not always trustworthy."[304]
FLOWBACK WATER IN THE UK
153. DECC published a Strategic
Environmental Assessment in December 2013 (carried out by AMEC)
which predicted that under a high activity scenario, there could
be annual production of 108 million cubic metres of flowback water
that would require treatment.[305]
This was approximately three per cent of UK total annual wastewater.
Depending on where it was treated it "could place a substantial
burden on existing wastewater treatment infrastructure capacity."[306]
154. FFBRA quoted this assessment
as indicating that "currently there is no safe way of treating
and disposing of this material, and it is deemed to be nasty enough
that there is no waste facility in Britain equipped to treat it."[307]
Mr Roberts said that Residents' Action on Fylde Fracking
(RAFF) understood that Cuadrilla "do not have any plans in
place to treat safely and dispose of the waste flow-back water."[308]
He said that the flowback water that came out of the Preese Hall
site[309] went to a
treatment plant at Davyhulme,[310]
"but our understanding is that that plant became overwhelmed
with the quantity, toxicity and radioactive nature."[311]
155. Mr Lee Petts from Remsol
Limited said that the flowback water "can be treated, the
contaminants largely removed and it can be returned back into
the water environment".[312]
He said the flowback water could be treated at about a dozen existing
industrial waste water treatment plants around the UK.[313]
Cuadrilla had yet to make a decision on future plans as it was
exploring options around on-site recycling.[314]
It was "incorrect" that the Davyhulme treatment plant
had been compromised as described by Mr Roberts: "my
enquiries
confirm that treatment of the wastewater was
completed successfully and without any identified detriment to
the treatment process."[315]
The DECC Strategic Environment Assessment said that given the
industry is not expected to be at substantial scale before the
2020s, "this will allow time for any necessary new investment
in infrastructure such as waste water treatment capacity."[316]
156. Under the UK regulatory regime,
flowback water is deemed to be a mining waste and operators require
an environmental permit to dispose of it.[317]
The disposal method is agreed between the operator, the treatment
facility and the environmental regulator as a condition of the
permit.[318] All facilities
in the UK that can treat flowback water hold the appropriate permits
to deal with the waste.[319]
As explained in paragraph 115, the Environment Agency would
not permit flowback water to be stored in open pits and lagoons
in the UK.
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES
157. Professor Muller told
the Committee that the technology for recycling flowback water
has been developed so that it could be substituted for fresh water
for future hydraulic fractures.[320]
Mr Petts said that a better option than treatment would be
"to clean it up at the drill site so that it can be reused
by fracturing at another stage in the well."[321]
The DECC Strategic Environment Assessment said that "if on-site
treatment and recycling could occur, wastewater volumes
could be reduced."[322]
158. In the US, disposal of flowback
water after hydraulic fracturing has in recent years aroused some
environmental concerns, now being addressed. In the UK, by contrast,
flowback water is subject to the regulations on mining waste and
its disposal and treatment is carefully controlled.
Demands on UK water supply
159. Hydraulic fracturing requires
water. WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were concerned
about possible demands on the UK water supply.[323]
Ms Rothery said that "you are using four Olympic-size swimming
pools per frack, per well
it is an awful lot of water."[324]
160. DECC's recent Strategic Environment
Assessment predicted that under a high activity scenario, annual
water use could be up to 9 million cubic metres.[325]
This would represent an increase of nearly 18.5 per cent on the
current amount of mains water supplied to the energy, water and
waste sectors annually but was "substantially less"
than 1 per cent of total UK annual non domestic mains water usage.[326]
Mr Wright told us that water usage in the US was "quite
modest
water consumption for fracturing is 0.13 per cent
of Colorado total water usage."[327]
Mr Roberts said RAFF would "not want to overstate this
problem" as they believed it was the South East of England
that was most at risk.[328]
RESPONSE FROM REGULATORS AND THE WATER INDUSTRY
161. The Chartered Institute for
Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) published an independent
report in January 2014 which considered the implications of shale
gas development for water resources. The report described claims
that the shale gas industry represents a threat to the security
of public water supplies as "alarmist."[329]
It suggested that if a large industry developed, there would be
greater pressures on water that could lead to issues with water
sourcing, particularly in the South East, although water usage
would be comparable with other industrial users. UK Water Industry
Research (UKWIR) and Water UK believe that the risks can be mitigated
with appropriate regulation.[330]
162. Dr Grayling said that
"it is very important to understand
that if you want to take large amounts of water from the environment,
you require a licence from the Environment Agency
we would
not license levels of abstraction beyond that which would be environmentally
safe."[331]
Professor MacKay told us that
"there is no potential at all for
a shortage
planning permission will be granted and permits
will be issued
only when there is a plan that will ensure
that the water requirements are sustainable and that there will
no impact on the security of supply to existing customers."[332]
Water UK and the UKOOG have a memorandum
of understanding which is intended to identify and address any
potentially locally significant effects on water resources.[333]
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES
163. Professor Mair told us
that technological advances could enable water use to be minimised
by replacing it with flowback water.[334]
Mr Petts agreed. He also thought there would be a "move
to waterless fracturing systems using inert gases instead of water
to reduce that water demand."[335]
Professor Muller said that some operators in the US have
started to use saline water instead of fresh water.[336]
164. Fears of water shortages
arising from shale gas development have been overplayed: demand
for water from onshore shale operators, even at high levels of
activity, would be comparable to demand by other industrial users;
regulators will not permit levels of water consumption that threaten
household supplies; and technological advances such as the substitution
of saline water and recycling of flowback water are likely to
reduce demand for fresh water.
Seismic activity
PREESE HALL
165. On 1 April and 27 May 2011,
two earth tremors measuring 2.3 and 1.5 on the Richter Scale were
detected in the Blackpool area. A link was suspected to hydraulic
fracture injections at a well at Preese Hall, Lancashire, operated
by Cuadrilla Resources Limited. This well was hydraulically fractured
during exploration of a shale gas reservoir in the Bowland basin.[337]
Operations were suspended and Cuadrilla commissioned a number
of studies into the relationship between the earth tremors and
their operations.[338]
166. As a result of these tremors,
earthquakes are perceived in the public consciousness as one of
the major environmental risks associated with shale gas development.[339]
Ian Roberts from the RAFF group told us they were "a concern".[340]
A section labelled "Our Concerns" on the RAFF website
says "we have already had two notable earthquakes and numerous
small ones
What more is to come?"[341]
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 2011 TREMORS
167. Natural seismicity in the UK
never exceeds magnitude 5 on the Richter Scale.[342]
Coal-mining operations can produce seismic tremors up to magnitude
4.[343] Professor Mair
told us that it was "very unlikely" that any tremor
produced by shale gas operations would be greater than magnitude
3, an event he described as "no worse than a heavy lorry
driving past the house".[344]
He said the two tremors at Preese Hall were "very, very small
events" and that the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering
were "quite clear that there is no material risk from earthquakes."[345]
168. Mr Petts said that "there
was one in Wigan in Lancashire last month or the month before
that was a magnitude 1.5.[346]
We have not heard anything about that in the press; there has
been no discussion of that."[347]
Mr Wright said the Preese Hall tremors were "far below
the magnitude able to be felt at the surface."[348]
The Secretary of State for the Environment told us the tremors
probably caused "the same drama in someone's house as a bus
going past."[349]
FFBRA said that in relation to the issue of groundwater contamination,
"the question of earthquake triggering is but a sideshow."[350]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE PREESE HALL TREMORS
169. The Government announced in
July 2011 that following discussions between DECC and Cuadrilla,
there would be a pause in hydraulic fracturing operations to enable
further study of the seismic events.[351]
A report by three independent experts was commissioned by DECC.[352]
It agreed with the reports commissioned by Cuadrilla that the
tremors were caused by the direct injection of fluid in a tremor
zone. It made a number of recommendations for the mitigation of
seismic risks in the conduct of future hydraulic fracture operations.
The report concluded that there was "no reason why Cuadrilla
Resources Ltd should not be allowed to proceed with their shale
gas exploration activities" and they recommended "cautious
continuation of hydraulic fracture operations".[353]
170. On 13 December 2012, DECC announced
that exploratory hydraulic fracturing could resume in the UK subject
to new controls to mitigate the risks of seismic activity:[354]
These controls would require the operator to:
· carry out, prior to the start
of activity, an assessment of stress fields and historical seismicity
to identify what stress faults might exist in the area;
· submit a hydraulic fracturing
plan to DECC showing how the identified seismic risks would be
addressed, ensuring no intention to frack near active faults;
· carry out seismic monitoring
before, during and after hydraulic fracturing;
· put in place a traffic light
system which has a trigger mechanism to stop hydraulic fracturing
operations under certain conditions.[355]
171. Ms Harvey said the measures
were "probably the most stringent anywhere in the world for
induced seismic activity"; Professor Mair agreed.[356]
Professor Stephenson thought these measures were "important"
for public reassurance.[357]
Mr Egan said that Cuadrilla "will put in an exhaustive
seismic monitoring array around each well site".[358]
In relation to the introduction of monitoring systems, Mr Roberts
said that, "I think we have to acknowledge that that might
mitigate further problems."[359]
DAMAGE TO WELL INTEGRITY
172. Mr Roberts said that the
particular concern of RAFF was the damage seismic activity could
cause to well integrity.[360]
FFBRA also raised this issue.[361]
The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report recommended
that attention should be given to any damage to well integrity
following seismic activity; well integrity should be reviewed
by the independent well examiner.[362]
The UK Onshore Shale Gas Guidelines provide that operators should
include in their well examination scheme arrangements for the
examination of induced seismicity risks in well design.[363]
173. The Government have introduced
stringent planning and monitoring requirements governing the activities
of onshore oil and gas operators which might lead to induced seismicity.
On the evidence we have heard, there should be no risk that seismic
activity caused by hydraulic fracturing would be of sufficient
magnitude to constitute any risk to people and property.
Dangers to public health
174. Opponents of fracking expressed
concerns about the dangers of emissions into the atmosphere arising
from on-site machinery, HGV movements, drilling, hydraulic fracturing
and flaring. They feared that communities living close to shale
gas developments would be at a higher risk of health problems
as a result of atmospheric pollution. These fears are based on
studies from the US that appear to point to health risks for people
living close to unconventional gas and oil production sites.
US ACADEMIC STUDIES
175. The most detailed human-health
assessment to date in peer-reviewed literature is a study by McKenzie
and others of the Colorado School of Public Health.[364]
This research looked at the impact on a local community of a large
shale gas development site. It estimated that health risks were
greater for those living within half a mile of a well site than
those living more than half a mile away.[365]
Another study highlighted to us found that the concentration of
carcinogenic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) near
an unconventional gas field in Colorado were over 60 times the
legal limit in the UK.[366]
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND REPORT AND RESPONSE OF UK REGULATORS
176. Both the US studies were addressed
in the draft report by Public Health England (PHE) into the public
health impacts relating to shale gas extraction.[367]
It noted that the McKenzie paper was preliminary and further research
was required; it took the view that the McKenzie study had limitations
and uncertainties, that the results were not easily applicable
to other areas and that the methodology was not recommended for
use in the UK. PHE concluded that "the currently available
evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from
exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction
are low if the operations are properly run and regulated."[368]
177. Dr Grayling emphasised
that "there are practices permitted in the United States
that we would not permit in [the UK]".[369]
Mr Figueira said that under licence conditions venting of
methane would only be allowed in case of a safety requirement
and flaring of methane would be kept to the technical and economic
minimum.[370]
178. Dr Grayling suspected
that part of the air quality issue identified in Colorado arose
at production stage with a higher density of operations.[371]
The UK would "certainly need to be mindful of the cumulative
risk that you might get when operations scale up, and we will
adapt our regulatory approach accordingly to ensure that you do
not get unacceptable levels of pollutants going into the atmosphere."[372]
The DECC Strategic Environment Assessment considered that regulatory
controls through the planning system and environmental permitting
would reduce the risk of impacts on air quality.[373]
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
179. The Trades Union Congress expressed
fears over the impact of air emissions on the health of workers.[374]
It cited a study of 2012 by the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the US which found that workers may
be exposed to dust with high levels of "respirable crystalline
silica", a cancer-causing substance, during hydraulic fracturing.[375]
The reports of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering
and of Public Health England do not refer to this study. The Health
and Safety Executive told us that the occupational health and
safety risks to workers from shale gas pilot activities are "considerably
lower than for other mineral extraction industries (e.g. coal
mining and offshore oil and gas)."[376]
180. Public Health England (PHE)
has recently reviewed all the available evidence on the risks
to public health arising from air emissions from shale gas activities,
including US studies brought to our attention by opponents of
shale gas development. We find persuasive the conclusion of PHE's
preliminary report that the risks to public health from shale
gas exploration and production are low with proper regulation.
Radon
181. Dr David Lowry told us
that shale gas "would have to be stored for at least a month
before being distributed to people's homes to allow for this radioactive
decay of radon."[377]
He cited a US report that "some shale gas deposits contain
as much as 30 times the radiation that is found in normal background."[378]
Professor Stephenson did not regard the presence of radon
in gas as "a serious risk."[379]
He told us that shales are "weakly radioactive
much
less than you get in somewhere like Aberdeen or Cornwall
This is quite a well known phenomenon".[380]
Public Health England's interim report took account of the US
study and "considered very unlikely that shale gas activities
would have any significant effect on radon levels in homes."[381]
We find persuasive the view of Public Health England that shale
gas development would be very unlikely to have a significant effect
on radon levels in homes.
Traffic and noise pollution
TRAFFIC
182. Opponents of fracking expressed
concerns about the impact of increased traffic resulting from
shale gas development, particularly in rural areas. The RAFF website
warns that "the Fylde will be turned into an industrial zone
and will have a negative knock-on effect on our main industriestourism
and agriculture."[382]
FFBRA said villagers at Balcombe were "plagued by heavy traffic"
as a result of activity by Cuadrilla.[383]
Mr Grealy told us that "the number one concern"
from Balcombe residents was traffic.[384]
Citing a recent report from the Institute of Directors, EDF wrote
that a typical 10 well shale gas pad would require 8,000 truck
movements over the course of its life.[385]
183. The DECC Strategic Environment
Assessment estimated the expected traffic levels at a well pad
site during three different stages of shale gas development:[386]
TABLE 1
Estimated Vehicle Movements
Development phase
| Vehicle movements/day
| Duration of vehicle movements
|
Exploratory drilling
| 14-36
| 12-13 weeks
|
Production development
| 16-51
| 32-145 weeks[387]
|
Production and operation
| 10-45[388]
| Dependent on well productivity
|
Source: DECC (2013)
184. The Strategic Environment Assessment
concluded that any adverse effects of traffic on local communities
could be mitigated by planning controls.[389]
The Department for Communities and Local Government also told
us that consideration of applications for planning permission
would take account of expected traffic movements.[390]
Planning controls could cover the development of a transport plan,
the scheduling, timing and frequency of movements, speed restrictions
and the use of alternative routes to and from the site.[391]
INEOS welcomed the industry's proposed community benefit scheme
because of the inconvenience that could be caused to local communities
by increased traffic.[392]
185. The Committee recognises
that development of shale, like any other industrial activity,
would cause an increase in traffic and disruption in some places,
especially during periods when wells were being drilled. Although
planning controls may mitigate disturbance, there should be a
role for the industry's community benefits scheme to compensate
those affected individually.
NOISE FROM SHALE GAS OPERATIONS AT BALCOMBE
FIGURE 12
The Decibel Scale
Source: Reproduced by permission
of HSE
186. Noise requirements around operating
sites are put in place as part of the planning approval from the
local authority and of the environmental permit issued by the
environmental regulator.[393]
Lord Smith told us that the Environment Agency had received complaints
from residents about the noise from Cuadrilla's site at Balcombe.[394]
Mr Egan said that Cuadrilla had received a complaint which
they investigated[395]
and measured 52 decibels, whereas the night time limit was 48
decibels,[396] a difference
he described as "less than a whisper."[397]
187. Balcombe residents made representations
that the breach was more significant than a whisper. On the basis
of analysis from acousticians at Salford University, the Parliamentary
Office of Science & Technology understands that it was probably
misleading of Mr Egan to assert that the difference between
48 and 52 decibels was less than a whisper, but the increase could
be considered modest. Figure 13 above shows where some common
sounds would register on the decibel scale.
188. Spectrum Acoustic Consultants
were monitoring noise levels at Balcombe over the 10 week period
these events took place. They found that there were some occasions
when noise levels increased slightly above the night time limit,
"occasional short term 'spikes'
to above 50 decibels".[398]
They noted that sound levels prior to drilling were shown to be
above the noise limits and that the minor excesses would not be
significant. They concluded that "the noise limits during
well site operations are being met."[399]
189. On the evidence available
to us, Cuadrilla's operations at Balcombe appear usually to have
observed prescribed noise limits, with occasional minor lapses.
CUADRILLA AND THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY
190. Ms Rothery told us that the
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) had upheld complaints about
a number of claims that Cuadrilla had made in an advertising brochure,
published in summer 2012.[400]
We received representations from Balcombe residents that also
drew attention to the ASA ruling on the brochure. The ASA examined
18 complaints against advertising by Cuadrilla.[401]
It rejected 12 of these. The remaining 6 complaints that were
upheld by the ASA were matters of nuance and modest misstatement
rather than blatant attempts to mislead. The ASA ruled that the
brochure must not appear in the same form again.[402]
191. It is widely believed, by
opponents and others, that exploration and production of shale
gas in the UK would pose dangers to the environment and to public
health. Government, regulators and the industry need to take these
fears, legitimate and exaggerated, seriously and tackle them.
We heard an impressive amount of scientific evidence that with
a robust regulatory regime the risks to the environment and public
health are low. With such a regime in place, we consider the environmental
risks to be small, whereas the benefits if shale gas development
takes place are substantial.
245 Q 161. Back
246
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
247
Ibid. Back
248
A carcinogen is a substance that may lead to cancer. Substances
labelled as carcinogens will have different levels of cancer-casuing
potential; some may cause cancer only after prolonged, high-levels
of exposure (American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org). Back
249
United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and
Commerce (2011) Chemicals Used In Hydraulic Fracturing,
18 April. Back
250
See http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/committee-democrats-release-new-report-detailing-hydraulic-fracturing-products
for the Committee on Energy and Commerce press release, 16 April
2011. Back
251
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (2011) Shale Gas Production
Subcommittee Second Ninety Day Report, US Department of Energy,
18 November. Back
252
Chris Wright. Back
253
Mair, R. et al (2012) Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review
of hydraulic fracturing, Royal Society and Royal Academy of
Engineering. Back
254
Q 167. Back
255
Q 211. Back
256
Q 187. Back
257
Q 188. Back
258
Ibid. Back
259
Q 211. Back
260
Q 82. Back
261
Chris Wright. Back
262
Professor Richard Muller. Back
263
Chris Wright. Back
264
UKOOG. Back
265
Q 70. Back
266
DECC (2013) Developing Onshore Shale Gas and Oil - Facts about
'Fracking'. Back
267
Q 30. Back
268
Q 26. Back
269
Professor David Smythe. Back
270
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
271
Mair, R. et al (2012), Op. Cit. Back
272
Q 69. Back
273
Q 130. Back
274
Chris Wright. Back
275
Environment Agency (2013) Onshore oil and gas exploratory operations:
Consultation Draft, August 2013. Back
276
Ibid. Back
277
Q 160. Back
278
Q 31. Back
279
Mair, R. et al (2012), Op. Cit. Back
280
Ibid. Back
281
Q 192. Back
282
Q 181. Back
283
Q 30. Back
284
Q 30 and Professor Smythe. Back
285
Q 30. Back
286
Jackson et al (2013) 'Increased stray gas abundance in a subset
of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction',
Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the
United States of America, Volume 110, No 28. Back
287
Q 30. Back
288
Q 26. Back
289
Q 69. Back
290
Q 181. Back
291
Q 71. Back
292
Q 181. Back
293
Chris Wright. Back
294
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
295
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
296
See http://nicholas.duke.edu/news/radioactive-shale-gas-contaminants-found-wastewater-discharge-site
for Professor Vengosh's discussion of the study's results. Back
297
Warner, N., Christie, C., Jackson, B. and Vengosh, A. (2013) 'Impacts
of Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal on Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania',
Environmental Science & Technology, 47 (20). Back
298
Chris Wright. Back
299
Q 236. Back
300
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
301
Professor Richard Muller. Back
302
Q 49. Back
303
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
304
Q 210. Back
305
DECC (2013) Strategic Environmental Assessment for Further
Onshore Oil and Gas Licensing, AMEC Environment and Infrastructure
UK Limited for DECC. Back
306
Ibid. Back
307
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
308
Q 187. Back
309
Preese Hall was a well near Blackpool, Lancashire that Cuadrilla
hydraulically fractured in 2011. See paragraph 165 for more
detail. Back
310
An area of Trafford in Greater Manchester. A wastewater treatment
works, operated by United Utilities, is located there. Back
311
Q 187. Back
312
Q 188. Back
313
Q187. Back
314
Q 187 & Q 188. Back
315
Remsol Limited (supplementary written evidence). Back
316
AMEC for DECC (2013), Op, Cit. Back
317
DECC (2013) About shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking),
19 December. Back
318
DECC (2013) About shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking),
19 December. Back
319
Ibid. Back
320
Professor Richard Muller. Back
321
Q 188. Back
322
AMEC for DECC (2013), Op, Cit. Back
323
WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Back
324
Q 190. Back
325
AMEC for DECC (2013), Op, Cit. Back
326
Ibid. Back
327
Chris Wright. Back
328
Q 190. Back
329
Grant, L. and Chisholm, A. (2014) Shale Gas and Water,
The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
(CIWEM). Back
330
See http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/shale-gas for
Water UK's policy position (27 November 2013) on shale gas extraction. Back
331
Q 166. Back
332
Q 212. Back
333
AMEC for DECC (2013), Op, Cit. Back
334
Q 69. Back
335
Q 190. Back
336
Q 47. Back
337
Green, C., Styles, P. and Baptie, B. (2012) Preese Hall Shale
Gas Fracturing, Review and Recommendations for Induced Seismic
Migration, commissioned by DECC. Back
338
Eisner et all (2011); Harper (2011); GMI (2011); de Pater and
Pellicer (2011); Baisch and Voros (2011) Back
339
Q 119; Q148. Back
340
Q 189. Back
341
See http://stopfyldefracking.org.uk/our-concerns/ Back
342
Q 70. Back
343
Ibid. Back
344
Ibid. Back
345
Ibid. Back
346
An earth tremor of magnitude 1.5 was recorded by the British Geological
Society on 20 October 2013 in Wigan: http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_events/20131020170645.html#page=summary
Back
347
Q 189. Back
348
Chris Wright. Back
349
Q 268. Back
350
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
351
House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, Shale
Gas: Government Response to the Committee's Fifth Report of Session
2010-12' (7th Special Report, Session 2010-12, HC Paper 1449). Back
352
Green, C., Styles, P. and Baptie, B. (2012), Op, Cit. Back
353
Ibid. Back
354
See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-controls-announced-for-shale-gas-exploration
for the DECC press release announcing that shale gas exploration
can resume and introducing the new controls. Back
355
Ibid & Q 31. Back
356
Q 31 & Q 70. Back
357
Q 29. Back
358
Q 86. Back
359
Q 89. Back
360
Q 189. Back
361
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
362
Mair, R. et al (2012), Op. Cit. Back
363
UKOOG (2013) UK Onshore Shale Gas Well Guidelines, Issue
1, February 2013. Back
364
Kibble, A. et al (2013) Review of the Potential Public Health
Impacts of Exposures to Chemical and Radioactive Pollutants as
a Result of Shale Gas Extraction: Draft for Comment, Public
Health England, 31 October. Back
365
McKenzie LM, et al (2012) 'Human health risk assessment of air
emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources',
Science of the Total Environment, 10 February. Back
366
Colborn T, et al (2011) 'Natural Gas Operations from a Public
Health Perspective', Human and Ecological Risk Assessment:
An International Journal, 20 September. Back
367
Kibble, A. et al (2013), Public Health England Op, Cit. Back
368
Ibid. Back
369
Q 167. Back
370
Q 164. Back
371
Q 167. Back
372
Ibid. Back
373
AMEC for DECC (2013), Op, Cit. Back
374
TUC. Back
375
Ibid. Back
376
Health and Safety Executive. Back
377
Dr David Lowry. Back
378
Ibid. The report by Marvin Resnikoff from the Radioactive
Waste Management Associates is available here: http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/marcellus/2012/04/Resnikoff.pdf
Back
379
Q 32. Back
380
Ibid. Back
381
Kibble, A. et al (2013), Public Health England Op, Cit. Back
382
See http://stopfyldefracking.org.uk/our-concerns/ Back
383
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association. Back
384
Q 1 42. Back
385
EDF. Back
386
AMEC for DECC (2013), Op, Cit. Back
387
32 to 73 weeks under a low activity scenario, 32 to 145 weeks
under a high activity scenario Back
388
Dependent on the assumed duration of fracturing per site and management
of flowback water Back
389
AMEC for DECC (2013), Op, Cit. Back
390
Department for Communities and Local Government. Back
391
AMEC for DECC (2013), Op, Cit. Back
392
INEOS. Back
393
Q 168. Back
394
Ibid. Back
395
Q 81. Back
396
The night time limit was actually 42 decibels. Back
397
Q 81. Mr Egan asked to make a correction to the transcript
following the evidence session: the night-time limit was 42 decibels,
the day-time limit was 55 decibels and the noise level measured,
following a report, was "varying between 45 and 48 decibels
with occasional short duration peaks to 51 decibels". He
added: "Cuadrilla accepts that a 50Db noise level is louder
than a whisper and noise at a level of 50 Db has been compared
to a "quiet suburb" or a "conversation at home"." Back
398
See http://balcombeparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/noise-report-balcombe-sep-13.pdf
for the report by Spectrum Acoustic Consultants entitled 'Noise
monitoring during operations: Lower Stumble Well Site, Balcombe,
West Sussex'. Back
399
Ibid. Back
400
Q 186. Back
401
See http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx
for the April 2013 adjudication of the Advertising Standards Authority. Back
402
Ibid. Back
|