Is David Cameron right to be confident in the UK’s shale gas regulation?
Fracking could lead to air and water pollution, water shortages and pose a threat to human health, argue protestors. But the UK Prime Minister David Cameron says the process is safe – because the system for regulating it in this country is one of “the most stringent in the world”.
In today’s Telegraph, Cameron writes:
“International evidence shows there is no reason why the process should cause contamination of water supplies or other environmental damage, if properly regulated”.
Well-respected institutions seem to agree. Reports from Parliament’s Energy and Climate Change (ECC) Committee, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Royal Society have all concluded that the environmental impacts of shale gas extraction can be managed – so long as the regulations are strong enough.
So do the UK’s rules come up to scratch?
The basics: how the regulatory system works
Say you are a company looking to extract oil and gas in Lancashire. You first have to apply for a licence to extract oil in the area from the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
Getting the licence is only the first step. Once you’ve got it, the next step is getting planning permission from Lancashire county council to drill an exploratory well.
Lancashire county council will consult with other regulating bodies – including the Environment Agency (EA) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – about whether to grant planning permission. If the EA or HSE aren’t satisfied with your plans, they’re going to object to your application.
Here’s the process in some more detail:
Image - Screen Shot 2013-08-12 At 15.10.55 (note)
Source: presentation by the EA’s head of environmental policy Tony Grayling, March 2013
Fracking for shale gas is a controversial process. It’s energy and water intensive, and has the potential to cause a lot of problems if not properly managed. Unsurprisingly then, you might need to make nine different applications for permits from the EA, relating for example to risks to groundwater, surface water pollution and water abstraction.
And after all that time and effort, that’s all just to get permission to explore for shale gas and frack an exploratory well. The EA recently issued a consultation on the environmental rules governing shale gas exploration, but the proposed rules don’t apply to the full commercial exploitation.
Regulating earthquakes
The possibility that fracking could trigger earthquakes is perhaps the best known danger – particularly after the first exploratory fracking in led to earth tremors near Blackpool in 2011.
The government announced a ‘ traffic light’ warning system for earthquakes caused by fracking last year. Under the the new rules, you’ll be required to monitor whether your operations are causing any seismic activity. If an earthquake greater than 0.5 on the Richter Scale is detected, then you have to stop fracking.
To provide a bit of comparison, the Royal Academy of Engineering pointed out last year that coal mining causes earthquakes of up to four on the Richter scale. So the government is playing it very safe on this front.
Limiting water use
You need a licence to use a lot of water. And the process of opening up the rock by fracking really goes through the stuff – somewhere between nine and 39 million litres per well, according to the Tyndall Centre.
The EA says:
“A licence will be granted if the quantities proposed for abstraction can be taken in a way that doesn’t harm the environment or other users. There is no guarantee that directly abstracted surface water or groundwater will be available.”
In other words, your hypothetical oil and gas company’s application will be assessed in the same way as anyone else who wants to abstract water. And if there isn’t enough water available, then the licence won’t be granted.
This sounds logical – but water industry group, Water UK, told Carbon Brief that there is still a lot of uncertainty at present, and it’s worried about how much water the domestic oil and gas industry will need.
It’s not just a demand-side problem – there’s also a question of how much water we’re going to have in the next few years. There are already concerns – which the Committee on Climate Change expressed most recently – about how much climate change will affect the country’s water resources in the future. So it sounds like Water UK is right to be worried.
Groundwater pollution
The use of chemicals like hydrochloric acid and glutaraldehyde as a part of the fracking process has caused controversy in the US. Environmentalists argue the chemicals could leak into groundwater underground – although some experts appear pretty dismissive of this possibility.
In this country, the government has decided that operators should disclose “either on their own websites or third-party developed websites”, what chemicals they are using. Under the EA’s regulations, your hypothetical company will be required to submit an assessment of whether its activities pose a threat to groundwater.
The EA says:
“Should we believe groundwater to be at risk we may use a notice either to require that a permit be obtained, which would include the appropriate measures designed to minimise any impact or risk, or if necessary to prohibit the activity altogether.”
But environmental charity RSPB says it’s worried the EA’s rules may not account for unforeseen events or accidents. Robert Cunningham, head of water policy at the charity, told Carbon Brief:
“The issue is the risk of failure â?¦ A groundwater spill can take a decade to clear up, and the consequences and costs could be massive. Who’s going to carry the can?”
In other words, the RSPB argues the regulatory system could work well most of the time, but fall down when something unexpected occurs.
Speeding it up
The EA recently announced it’s speeding up the process of applying for environmental permits. By September, it hopes to be issuing permits within 13 weeks, speeding it up to a couple of weeks by February.
But this may not apply in all cases, however. The EA also suggests the application process may be extended to four to six months at sites of “high public interest”, to give local communities a time to respond. It adds:
“Given the current level of public interest in unconventional gas and oil exploration, it’s likely that we will treat such sites as being of high public interest.”
We asked the EA what this might mean for shale gas exploration. Can companies expect to get environmental permits within a couple of weeks, or will they have to wait six months? The EA’s responded that it “will deal with shale gas exploration permit applications on a case by case basis”.
Just getting going
What does this all mean for our hypothetical shale gas company in Lancashire – and for Cameron’s claim that the industry is well regulated?
The vast majority of the rules and regulations – for example those related to the planning process, or to well construction – have already been developed for the conventional oil and gas industry. The EA seems to be largely going through a process of bringing them into one place, creating clarity for the new industry.
But guidance for full-scale commercial operations hasn’t yet been developed – and this seems like bit of a gap. We asked EA when this guidance is due and were told it is “due in due course as the industry develops”, but didn’t give us any further information.
Some questions remain, too. Will the EA’s proposed rules successfully prevent water pollution in all cases? And how much chance will local communities have to respond to a company’s application?
Until the commercial regulations are published, Cameron’s claim that the UK has the strongest system in the world seems to be over-egging the pudding.