1. Fracking – the nitty gritty UKELA – 23 September 2015

2. Fracking - nitty gritty Remit - “issues of concern” & EIA Agenda (a)context – why are we here? (b)national level problems (c)local problems (d)permitting (e)deregulation

3. Fracking – nitty gritty Context (1) IPCC advice concerning 2 degree average temperature change / emissions reductions by 2030 IEA report – leave 80% fossil fuels in the ground: what constitutes the 80%? unconventional oil and gas is higher carbon than conventional – MacKay & Stone, EU Commission report shale gas displaces does not replace higher carbon fuels – see research of Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester

4. Fracking – nitty gritty Context (2) local environmental impacts eg: groundwater, air, surface water, transport, noise health impacts – eg: University of Colorado research scale of expected activity – 10,000 wells to replace current gas production – optimistic rates of return (Bloomberg)? technology used to extract - HVHF concern that regulation not capable of addressing challenges

5. Fracking – nitty gritty (b) National issues of concern -Petroleum Exploration and Development Licences (Petroleum Act 1998) -no SEA of 13th licensing round for shale gas / oil -14th licensing round: around 50% of remainder of England & Wales opened up to fracking -“objective” narrow -climate impacts recognised but not acted on

6. Fracking – nitty gritty (b) National issues – cont’d August 2015 announcement: * 27 “blocks” offered * 132 blocks subject to “strategic level” HRA HRA - gaps and questions eg: riparian areas, fish species, no licence option? 13 August: DECC / CLG announcement “need” for shale gas and oil, call-in delayed applications, expedite appeals no consultation, query NPPF, EIA Energy Bill: places Oil & Gas Authority on statutory footing – duty to “maximise economic recovery”, environmental responsibility remains with DECC

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

8. Fracking nitty gritty Infrastructure Act 2015 – critique GW monitoring “during” 12 months: not “for” 12 months (3 months at Ryedale, N Yorkshire) methane in water: what about other pollutants in water (heavy metals, arsenic) and air (BTEX, VOCs)? methane in air: at what stage? “independent” well inspection, consultation (“notice”), assessment: rather vague & see existing law? closure: weak duty to “consider” restoration condition no statutory restriction on hazardous chemicals – must be approved no minimum safe distance from surface water or communities (see EU Recommendation) no prohibition on drilling / fracking where air quality is poor transparency

9. Fracking – nitty gritty The Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2015 no “fracking” in land above 1200 metres: SPZ1, NPs, AONBs, WH sites only protects GW Source Protection Zone 1: why not zones 2 & 3? does not prevent frack site being situated at surface within SPZ (“beneath a relevant area”). Spills? does not prevent well passing directly through primary aquifer: well integrity? HRA proposes some protections for some SACs draft regs do not prevent sites being situated at surface within other protected areas (eg: SSSIs which not SACs, NPs, AONBs) draft regs do not apply to existing licences…

10. Fracking – nitty gritty (c) Local issues of concern What is the application for? Exploration / development or production? NB: see Ellesmere Port, Barton Moss (CBM), Ryedale (Yorkshire) intermediate cases: Extended Flow Testing, Cuadrilla, Lancashire length of permission: up to 20 years? connected applications eg: monitoring arrays in Lancs no maximum drill depth (eg: Barton Moss) planning conditions may be missing eg: air quality failure to consider key impacts eg: climate (Davyhulme)

11. Fracking – nitty gritty (c) Local issues of concern (2) conditions may not be enforceable eg: noise (Lancashire) uncertainty eg: Third Energy, Ryedale routine inability of companies to complete activities within set timescales - closure of Preese Hall (3 extensions), Becconsall (3 extensions?) enforcement: Cuadrilla at Becconsall, Lancs (drilling during wintering bird season for nearby SPA), Rathlin at West Newton (gas leak - 6 (?) breaches of permit) insufficient experience / expertise – proposals to vent for up to 6 months (Davyhulme)

12. Fracking – nitty gritty reliance on developer – independent advice? undue reliance on regulators (Gateshead case law) eg: Ryedale boreholes attitude of consultees eg: Natural England (see Lancashire) “pass the parcel” public participation eg: Balcombe planning policy skewed towards gas and oil: pressure from central govt to move fast robust decision making? precautionary approach (A191 TFEU)?

13. Fracking – nitty gritty (c) EIA EIA has previously been “gamed” (eg: sites 0.99 hectares, Cuadrilla Lancs) connected sites eg: Lancashire (Ecologistas en Accion) uncertainty eg: health assessment (Lancs) “advocacy” document consultation eg: Cuadrilla, Lancashire 3 weeks for 9,000 pages industry voluntary commitment only relates to fracking use of fracking “lite” techniques eg: mini fall off test (West Newton) well inspection by connected persons – self regulation

14. Fracking – nitty gritty (d) Permits protection of groundwater eg: drilling thru SPZ at Crawberry Hill hazardous substances: policy commitment – binding? What about oil based drilling muds? transparency: power to disclose chemicals (Water Resources Act 1991) Not a duty on operator? classification of sub surface (non hazardous) – despite Annex VIII WFD substances present (eg: arsenic, see Preese Hall) flaring – green completions = BAT? clarity about BAT – BREF from EU Commission under discussion differences of approach: Lancashire / Yorkshire

15. Fracking – nitty gritty (d) Permits – cont’d closure plan – missing from Cuadrilla Lancs applications post-closure monitoring – missing (Lancs) liability / clean up: financial guarantee (Art 14 MWD) – EA refused to disclose figures venting – methane potent GHG water supply: strategic view (production), water stressed areas in SE England waste disposal capacity (3 licensed plants?) re-use of flowback fluid: dilution avoids cumulation? What proportion re-used? well integrity: recognise that wells fail?

16. Fracking – nitty gritty (e) Deregulation Infrastructure Act: trespass notice to landowners permitted development for monitoring boreholes – but see Ryedale (North Yorkshire) standard rules permits (EA) * drill and core, testing techniques, closure and abandonment premature given early stage of development: speeding up process, public participation, assumes total clarity, process issues community benefits package, tax changes chipping away at regulation taking decisions away from locally elected decision makers, local people loading the dice in favour of shale: at what cost?

17. Fracking – nitty gritty Conclusions uncertainty about impacts & activities – precaution lack of experience (including developers) regulation not designed to cater for this technology key issues remain unresolved eg: waste, closure, liability amidst uncertainty and gaps, govt applies pressure to accelerate roll out of shale…

18. Fracking – nitty gritty Thank you