The UK Government that has said it wants to maximise the economic development potential of shale gas.
Yet, this is also a government that, laudably, wants our generation to be the first that passes on the natural environment in a better state to the next.
And this is a government that has committed to tackle climate change by halving UK greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels by 2027.
Given that fracking has potentially significant environmental consequences, how do we reconcile these seemingly competing objectives?
The Prime Minister is a strong advocate of fracking and believes our regulatory regime is fit for purpose. He has said, “There is no reason why the process should cause contamination of water supplies or other environmental damage, if properly regulated. And the regulatory system in this country is one of the most stringent in the world... We cannot afford to miss out on fracking”. More recently, Owen Paterson went a step further, declaring that he “would like to see shale gas exploited all over rural parts of the UK”.
Given the scale of a commercial fracking industry, we thought it would be useful to do more to understand the environmental risks and to assess the current regulatory regime. This is timely because the Government is currently consulting on its Strategic Environmental Assessment of the draft licensing round for onshore oil and gas.
To address these issues, we joined forces with fellow countryside conservation charities the National Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, the Angling Trust, the Salmon & Trout Association, and the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust. Today we are publishing the fruits of this collaboration: a review of the evidence for potential impacts in this country that has been peer-reviewed by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and Are we fit to frack? – a summary of the evidence and ten recommendations to improve how the industry is regulated.
Photo-shoot to launch the report with representatives from the NGO coalition, Tessa Munt MP (Lim Dem), Alan Whitehead MP (Lab) and Zac Goldsmith MP (Con)
Environmental risks
Our review, which was largely based on experience in the US to date and spatial analysis to identify potential risks here in the UK, concluded that there are serious risks associated with commercial-scale fracking.
These are particularly significant for the water environment, both because of the risk of water contamination but also because of the impact of significant water use in areas already vulnerable to water-stress.
But wildlife is also at risk to habitat loss, fragmentation and disturbance as a result of the infrastructure requirements of a commercial-scale shale gas industry (from increased noise directly from the fracking process but also from enhanced transport activity).
This latter point is critical. A commercial-scale industry will require many drill sites across the countryside; based on the most recent estimates for the Bowland shale in the North of England, for example, Andrew Aplin of Durham University calculates that 33,000 wells would be needed for full commercial exploitation. That’s anything between 1375 and 5500 separate drill sites.
Finally, we make an assessment of the carbon intensity of electricity from shale gas and assess its compatability with UK Government climate change commitments. We conclude that it is hard to justify large-scale investment in extracting UK shale gas. We argue that further independent evidence is needed to address the impacts of commercial shale gas exploitation - in the absence of carbon capture and storage - on climate change.
Shale gas drill site Southport. Photo credit: Cernan Elias (Alamy)
What’s the solution?
After reviewing the evidence we examined the Government’s approach to regulating the industry. Our conclusion is that it is not currently fit for purpose. It does not offer the level of protection we would all expect for wildlife and our countryside. We have put forward 10 proposals that we believe would significantly address this. They are based on the principles of fully understanding the risks, preventing needless harm, the polluter pays and ensuring full transparency and monitoring of the industry.
As a starting point, we are calling for the most special parts of our countryside to be protected through the creation of shale gas exclusion zones. These zones would cover protected areas, nature reserves and other important sites, including land that we and partner organisations own/manage, which alone amounts to approximately 4% of UK land. In our report you can see the proposed exclusion zones overlaid with existing licenses for onshore oil and gas extraction and areas that Government are ‘minded’ to license later this year. The overlap is considerable: 89 RSPB nature reserves, 634 National Trust sites and 251 internationally important protected areas lie within the potential license zones.
Our view is that we need a clear steer from government that these sites are not up for grabs. These special places should be excluded from fracking. This would send an important signal to the industry that ‘going all out for shale’ must never be at the expense of a far more precious resource – our natural heritage.
Do you think the UK is fit to frack? Do you think Shale gas Exclusion Zones are a good idea?
It would be great to hear your views.
As with many political decisions that affect the environment, the people who make them are (politically) long gone by the time the consequences are felt so they know that they will never be called to account for their actions.
Have been thinking about the right analogy, Nightjar and I think that GM is a good one - thanks for the prompt! New technology used elsewhere, once tested in UK shown (through farm scale trials) to have negative consequences for wildlife, so licenses not granted.
Martin - did you know that the French President has put a legal moratorium on fracking in France ? Which, of course, US companies are trying to overturn - but there is fierce public opposition.
I was also interested to read an editorial comment in Scientific American which basically said that safe fracking is feasible - but it simply hasn't happened that way and environmental damage is significant.
It is worth remembering that it was consumer resistance in Europe, transmitted to the supermarkets, that stopped GM dead in its tracks. GM and Fracking have a lot in common: they may well have some value if carried out within a real ethical framework, but that can never be the case when the company's involved have an overriding (legal) duty to their shareholders - they would argue that they could be breaking the law if they constrained profit other than forced to by regulation etc.
Of course, there is a big flaw in this argument - as exemplified by B&Qs leadership of Forest Certification in the UK - if no one will buy your products then you don't make any profit - which is what has happened to Monsanto and GM in Europe.
Redkite - as ever it is helpful to have your perspective, particularly as it comes from your engineering background. Thanks for your support.
Having some experience of the oil and gas industry and having been involved in the Wytch Farm oil field development in Dorset in the 1980s I think the RSPB and others are absolutely right to advocate great caution. I also think exclusion zones are essential for areas of the country which have any form of environmental designation.
There are several other issues here, firstly, the underlying geology almost certainly profoundly affect the extent of surface facilities, including numbers of wellhead/sites needed,so that experience in one area or in one country may not be valid for another.
Secondly access and utility supply are always a problem and can be as environmentally damaging or more so than the actual wellsites and equipment.
Thirdly a major concern is the size and experience of companies licensed for exploration and production. This type of work requires companies with considerable financial resources and experience if major environmental problems are to be avoided. I suspect the the Government will want to issue licenses to a lot of small companies, lacking the essential experience and resource, on the grounds that the regulations controlling this type of work are sufficient. Quite frankly such an approach would be utter rubbish and would probably lead to many "disasters".
Overall a cautious approach is the right one, one where a few licenses are issued in areas which do not have any form of environmental designation, so that the performance of each licensee can be monitored properly.
As usual, some of the statements made by prominent politicians indicate their lack of appreciation of the issues involved with the consequence that there could be many problems ahead.
redkite