Tag Archives: britain

EU turns fire on invasive species already costing €12 billion a year Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Rivers covered entirely by water hyacinth, cracked pavement shifting under the force of sprouting Japanese knotweed, and a dead red squirrel infected by its invader cousin from North America …

These are the most dramatic pictures that drum home the effects of invasive species, and they weren’t missing from the agenda last Tuesday, when some of the biggest stakeholders and government representatives came together in London to discuss the latest step in the fight against alien invaders.

The star speaker at the conference, convened by the European Squirrel Initiative, was François Wakenhut, head of the biodiversity unit in the European Commission’s environmental department, who briefed the attending MPs and organisations on what’s next in the collective effort against the likes of the killer shrimp and the Asian hornet.

But his main focus was on the new EU Regulation that came into force in January. It marks the first effort geared specifically towards the management of invasive exotics across the union’s member states – and hopes to get a grip on the most problematic plants and animals intruding on native wildlife.

A very British problem – and a growing one

Britain is home to at least 2,000 species that are not native to the country and currently sees ten new species cross its borders every year – as documented in the newly published
‘Field Guide to Invasive Plants & Animals in Britain‘.

Only around 15% of non-native species are actually invasive, meaning that they have negative effects on native wildlife and, in some cases, are also a burden on the economy. But they are the second biggest threat to biodiversity and cost the UK more than £1.7bn annually; across Europe, that number grows to €12bn.

Invasive species in Britain are already covered, at least partly, by various bits of existing legislation as well as several EU directives that deal with wildlife and conservation. And as Wakenhut correctly observed,

“The UK has been at the forefront of the invasive alien species fight over the past years and, in this sense, it is probably not a coincidence that one of the first debates on the implementation for the regulation is taking place here.”

The main legislation in the UK is the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981, which makes it illegal – and punishable by hefty fines and even prison – to release any non-native plant or animal into the wild and also prohibits the sale of some species, like water fern and floating pennywort.

In addition, in 2008 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) put together, along with the Scottish and Welsh governments, an Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain that is currently under review and will be updated later this year.

The different government agencies that are affected by invasive species also have representatives on a programme board, which works to coordinate policy throughout the UK.

Its secretariat, a small body within the Animal and Plant Health Agency, maintains an online database of invasive species and action plans against them, and spearheads campaigns like ‘Check, Clean, Dry’, an effort to educate boat and angling clubs on how to avoid importing and spreading aquatic invaders.

More cooperation between member states

Under the new EU regulation, invasive alien species of Union concern will be banned from possession, trade and release into the wild. Additionally, likely pathways across Europe will be increasingly monitored to prevent the spread of new as well as already established species.

In other words, what is already in place in Britain will now be enforced across all member states. How much this sharing of expertise and monitoring will actually change the situation in this country is questionable, at least until effective pathway management becomes measurable, for example by a decreasing rate of new invasions.

“I’m confident that, within two years, we will be able to show what the trend will be”, says Wakenhut. “Whether that trend will go in the right direction or not – too soon to tell.”

Another aspect of the regulation deals with polluters – those rare cases where the source of an introduction, intentional or not, can actually be proven. “If you can demonstrate that a private operator is at the source of the introduction, you will then be able to direct the responsibility and the burden of the restoration effort or the eradication effort to that operator”, says Wakenhut.

Countries will also be able to enforce emergency measures to circumvent the voting and vetting process of the commission when a surprise invasion calls for immediate action.

Which species are of Union concern will be decided over the course of this year. The European Commission will draw up a list of the most threatening species, which can then be managed across borders and, so goes the plan, eradicated or stopped from invading in the first place.

Priority would ideally be divided between those that haven’t arrived yet and those already wreaking havoc on national ecosystems and economies. But the process brings together a variety of different stakeholders, all with their own axe to grind.

Which is the peskiest of them all?

At the conference, three speakers made their case for three very different species to be placed high on the list: the grey squirrel, the American signal crayfish and Japanese knotweed.

All of these have well documented and often devastating effects. The grey squirrel has all but eradicated the British red squirrel since its introduction in 1876 while Japanese knotweed receives by far the most media attention out of all invasive species in Britain.

In fact, the infamous weed, known for cracking its way through concrete and tarmac and decreasing property values, is a good example of a species that has received enough attention and research funding that there is now a direct effort to keep it in check.

In 2010, after years of quarantined testing, a sap-sucking plant louse that exclusively targets Japanese knotweed was introduced at a few target locations throughout the country. It marked the first time an insect had ever been released against a weed in the EU, but five years later it is still too early to assess how successful this attempt at biological control will be.

“It’s a release program that’s been slightly hindered by the regulatory environment under which we work, so we haven’t been able to release on what we would call dream sites”, says Dick Shaw, the UK director of the non-profit research organization CABI, which is behind the knotweed cure.

“For the UK, we can’t do much more than we’re already doing [about Japanese knotweed]. If you go to France and you see tens of kilometres of rivers completely covered by Japanese knotweed and no one’s doing anything, I think there’s an awful lot more that can be done in the EU”, he adds.

During his presentation with the catchy name ‘Don’t ignore the biggest species: weeds are the worst’, Shaw was making the case for more than just Japanese knotweed. The plant he sees as the most threatening in Europe is actually floating pennywort, which is also widespread and close to getting its own bio control agent in the UK.

Himalayan balsam, another well-known invader whose uncontrollable spread has spurred local ‘balsam bashing’ events, now has to deal with a rust fungus that CABI released last year. As with Japanese knotweed, this intentionally introduced species does not affect native plants – and it’s not meant to eradicate Himalayan balsam, which covers an estimated 13% of Britain’s riverbanks, either.

“If it does work, it can at least stop it from spreading and being as competitive. So you wouldn’t get those monocultures [of knotweed or balsam], you would get it more interspersed with competitive native species. And then slowly they would begin to outcompete the knotweed. That’s the long-term goal”, said Shaw.

The most dangerous species will be decided on at the beginning of next year and the initial EU-wide list will likely be limited to species that already have solid risk assessments to prove their worthiness.

Until then, the member states and, at a lower level, organisations like CABI and the European Squirrel Initiative will try to influence the national and EU-wide selection process as much as possible.

“Inevitably, for the initial proposal that we’ll make, there will be a tendency to build upon what’s already been developed”, said Wakenhut. “So in that sense, we will borrow from what has already been peer-reviewed and risk-assessed. But we need to bear in mind that the list will be a dynamic one. Once we adopt it, it can be changed anytime.”

The main focus must be to keep out what has not yet arrived

One risk with this naturally biased process is that too much focus is put on plants and animals that have already invaded or spread, simply because a strong case for them is easily made – but at the cost of neglecting the prevention of future invasions.

During his talk, Wakenhut repeatedly emphasised the need for proportionality; that prevention is, in most cases, more cost-effective and easier to achieve than the eradication of an established species.

When the quagga mussel, a small invader from the Ponto-Caspian region around the Black Sea, was first found in Surrey last fall, it was already too late. As David Aldridge, an ecologist at the University of Cambridge and expert on the mussel, observed at the time: “We’re really just waiting for these pests to arrive. And you can’t do much once they’re here.”

The quagga is believed to have made its way, largely unhindered, through Central Europe and then to the UK from the Netherlands. “At the moment, there’s a number of species, like the Ponto-Caspian ones, that aren’t yet here but might arrive”, Trevor Salmon, who heads the Environment Agency’s native and invasive non-native species team, said at the conference.

Many of these will come to Britain through Europe and vice-versa. Even though Britain is at the forefront of the fight against them in Europe, this nonetheless makes cooperation between countries imperative.

Especially so since 75% of non-native species are introduced unintentionally, meaning that they can only be stopped by controlling their likely pathways. “It’s hitchhikers. It’s not like the problem is someone sticking a squirrel into a suitcase”, as Salmon puts it.

For now, which species will be included and how high they will place on the list is still up in the air. By next January, the commission will have completed a first draft of invasive alien species that are of Union concern. Its current biodiversity strategy envisions that, by 2020, already established species will be eradicated or controlled and new invasions a thing of the past.

But with the huge volume of people and goods crossing Europe every day, does this regulation have any hope of fulfilling its ambitious goal?

Wakenhut stays vague. “Whether we’ll deliver by 2020 is something we will assess then”, he says.

 

 

Yannic Rack is the editor of a hyperlocal news website and a journalism student at City University London who has written for local newspapers in the UK and the US.

Read: ‘Field Guide to Invasive Plants & Animals in Britain‘ by Olaf Booy, Max Wade & Helen Roy, is published by Bloomsbury this month.

 




385575

Fighting invasive species with EU regulations – slamming the stable door? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Rivers covered entirely by water hyacinth, cracked pavement shifting under the force of sprouting Japanese knotweed, and a dead red squirrel infected by its invader cousin from North America …

These are the most dramatic pictures that drum home the effects of invasive species, and they weren’t missing from the agenda last Tuesday, when some of the biggest stakeholders and government representatives came together in London to discuss the latest step in the fight against alien invaders.

The star speaker at the conference, convened by the European Squirrel Initiative, was François Wakenhut, head of the biodiversity unit in the European Commission’s environmental department, who briefed the attending MPs and organisations on what’s next in the collective effort against the likes of the killer shrimp and the Asian hornet.

But his main focus was on the new EU Regulation that came into force in January. It marks the first effort geared specifically towards the management of invasive exotics across the union’s member states – and hopes to get a grip on the most problematic plants and animals intruding on native wildlife.

A very British problem – and a growing one

Britain is home to at least 2,000 species that are not native to the country and currently sees ten new species cross its borders every year – as documented in the newly published
‘Field Guide to Invasive Plants & Animals in Britain‘.

Only around 15% of non-native species are actually invasive, meaning that they have negative effects on native wildlife and, in some cases, are also a burden on the economy. But they are the second biggest threat to biodiversity and cost the UK more than £1.7bn annually; across Europe, that number grows to €12bn.

Invasive species in Britain are already covered, at least partly, by various bits of existing legislation as well as several EU directives that deal with wildlife and conservation. And as Wakenhut correctly observed,

“The UK has been at the forefront of the invasive alien species fight over the past years and, in this sense, it is probably not a coincidence that one of the first debates on the implementation for the regulation is taking place here.”

The main legislation in the UK is the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981, which makes it illegal – and punishable by hefty fines and even prison – to release any non-native plant or animal into the wild and also prohibits the sale of some species, like water fern and floating pennywort.

In addition, in 2008 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) put together, along with the Scottish and Welsh governments, an Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain that is currently under review and will be updated later this year.

The different government agencies that are affected by invasive species also have representatives on a programme board, which works to coordinate policy throughout the UK.

Its secretariat, a small body within the Animal and Plant Health Agency, maintains an online database of invasive species and action plans against them, and spearheads campaigns like ‘Check, Clean, Dry’, an effort to educate boat and angling clubs on how to avoid importing and spreading aquatic invaders.

More cooperation between member states

Under the new EU regulation, invasive alien species of Union concern will be banned from possession, trade and release into the wild. Additionally, likely pathways across Europe will be increasingly monitored to prevent the spread of new as well as already established species.

In other words, what is already in place in Britain will now be enforced across all member states. How much this sharing of expertise and monitoring will actually change the situation in this country is questionable, at least until effective pathway management becomes measurable, for example by a decreasing rate of new invasions.

“I’m confident that, within two years, we will be able to show what the trend will be”, says Wakenhut. “Whether that trend will go in the right direction or not – too soon to tell.”

Another aspect of the regulation deals with polluters – those rare cases where the source of an introduction, intentional or not, can actually be proven. “If you can demonstrate that a private operator is at the source of the introduction, you will then be able to direct the responsibility and the burden of the restoration effort or the eradication effort to that operator”, says Wakenhut.

Countries will also be able to enforce emergency measures to circumvent the voting and vetting process of the commission when a surprise invasion calls for immediate action.

Which species are of Union concern will be decided over the course of this year. The European Commission will draw up a list of the most threatening species, which can then be managed across borders and, so goes the plan, eradicated or stopped from invading in the first place.

Priority would ideally be divided between those that haven’t arrived yet and those already wreaking havoc on national ecosystems and economies. But the process brings together a variety of different stakeholders, all with their own axe to grind.

Which is the peskiest of them all?

At the conference, three speakers made their case for three very different species to be placed high on the list: the grey squirrel, the American signal crayfish and Japanese knotweed.

All of these have well documented and often devastating effects. The grey squirrel has all but eradicated the British red squirrel since its introduction in 1876 while Japanese knotweed receives by far the most media attention out of all invasive species in Britain.

In fact, the infamous weed, known for cracking its way through concrete and tarmac and decreasing property values, is a good example of a species that has received enough attention and research funding that there is now a direct effort to keep it in check.

In 2010, after years of quarantined testing, a sap-sucking plant louse that exclusively targets Japanese knotweed was introduced at a few target locations throughout the country. It marked the first time an insect had ever been released against a weed in the EU, but five years later it is still too early to assess how successful this attempt at biological control will be.

“It’s a release program that’s been slightly hindered by the regulatory environment under which we work, so we haven’t been able to release on what we would call dream sites”, says Dick Shaw, the UK director of the non-profit research organization CABI, which is behind the knotweed cure.

“For the UK, we can’t do much more than we’re already doing [about Japanese knotweed]. If you go to France and you see tens of kilometres of rivers completely covered by Japanese knotweed and no one’s doing anything, I think there’s an awful lot more that can be done in the EU”, he adds.

During his presentation with the catchy name ‘Don’t ignore the biggest species: weeds are the worst’, Shaw was making the case for more than just Japanese knotweed. The plant he sees as the most threatening in Europe is actually floating pennywort, which is also widespread and close to getting its own bio control agent in the UK.

Himalayan balsam, another well-known invader whose uncontrollable spread has spurred local ‘balsam bashing’ events, now has to deal with a rust fungus that CABI released last year. As with Japanese knotweed, this intentionally introduced species does not affect native plants – and it’s not meant to eradicate Himalayan balsam, which covers an estimated 13% of Britain’s riverbanks, either.

“If it does work, it can at least stop it from spreading and being as competitive. So you wouldn’t get those monocultures [of knotweed or balsam], you would get it more interspersed with competitive native species. And then slowly they would begin to outcompete the knotweed. That’s the long-term goal”, said Shaw.

The most dangerous species will be decided on at the beginning of next year and the initial EU-wide list will likely be limited to species that already have solid risk assessments to prove their worthiness.

Until then, the member states and, at a lower level, organisations like CABI and the European Squirrel Initiative will try to influence the national and EU-wide selection process as much as possible.

“Inevitably, for the initial proposal that we’ll make, there will be a tendency to build upon what’s already been developed”, said Wakenhut. “So in that sense, we will borrow from what has already been peer-reviewed and risk-assessed. But we need to bear in mind that the list will be a dynamic one. Once we adopt it, it can be changed anytime.”

The main focus must be to keep out what has not yet arrived

One risk with this naturally biased process is that too much focus is put on plants and animals that have already invaded or spread, simply because a strong case for them is easily made – but at the cost of neglecting the prevention of future invasions.

During his talk, Wakenhut repeatedly emphasised the need for proportionality; that prevention is, in most cases, more cost-effective and easier to achieve than the eradication of an established species.

When the quagga mussel, a small invader from the Ponto-Caspian region around the Black Sea, was first found in Surrey last fall, it was already too late. As David Aldridge, an ecologist at the University of Cambridge and expert on the mussel, observed at the time: “We’re really just waiting for these pests to arrive. And you can’t do much once they’re here.”

The quagga is believed to have made its way, largely unhindered, through Central Europe and then to the UK from the Netherlands. “At the moment, there’s a number of species, like the Ponto-Caspian ones, that aren’t yet here but might arrive”, Trevor Salmon, who heads the Environment Agency’s native and invasive non-native species team, said at the conference.

Many of these will come to Britain through Europe and vice-versa. Even though Britain is at the forefront of the fight against them in Europe, this nonetheless makes cooperation between countries imperative.

Especially so since 75% of non-native species are introduced unintentionally, meaning that they can only be stopped by controlling their likely pathways. “It’s hitchhikers. It’s not like the problem is someone sticking a squirrel into a suitcase”, as Salmon puts it.

For now, which species will be included and how high they will place on the list is still up in the air. By next January, the commission will have completed a first draft of invasive alien species that are of Union concern. Its current biodiversity strategy envisions that, by 2020, already established species will be eradicated or controlled and new invasions a thing of the past.

But with the huge volume of people and goods crossing Europe every day, does this regulation have any hope of fulfilling its ambitious goal?

Wakenhut stays vague. “Whether we’ll deliver by 2020 is something we will assess then”, he says.

 

 

Yannic Rack is the editor of a hyperlocal news website and a journalism student at City University London who has written for local newspapers in the UK and the US.

Read: ‘Field Guide to Invasive Plants & Animals in Britain‘ by Olaf Booy, Max Wade & Helen Roy, is published by Bloomsbury this month.

 




391599

Dash to frack is an insult to democracy Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




There is not one square inch of our beautiful land that is desolate. We are all entitled to love the place we live in, and our love for our home and our community is worth just as much whether we live in the north of our country or the south.

Shame on those who say, don’t spoil my back garden – but do whatever you like in places far away, where people count for less!

Now I have a confession to make. I’ve never spoken before at a public rally. I’ve never even been to a public rally, this is my very first time.

But I’m proud to stand with you today because whether we frack for oil and gas up and down our country really matters. Because those with the power to decide are on the verge of dragging us down the wrong path. Because only your voices, our voices, can stop them.

For six years, I was Britain’s diplomatic envoy for climate change. Believe me, you can’t be in favour of fracking in Britain and in favour of dealing with climate change at the same time. It’s an either / or choice. Those who say it’s not are being ignorant, or deceitful, or deceiving themselves. It’s that simple.

Sometimes in politics you come to a crossroads and you have to choose. If you pretend you don’t, that’s a choice too, and not an honourable one, it’s a covert choice to stick with the status quo. This is such a crossroad.

No community in Britain will ever benefit from fracking. If a few individuals or businesses do well, it will be at the expense of their communities. Fracking at scale is intrusive, disruptive, noisy, and unhealthy. It really does turn communities upside down. Look at what’s happened in the United States.

Gold-plated promises – worth their weight in hot air

We’re told we will have gold-plated regulation to protect our communities from all those harms. It’s a hollow promise. Actually it’s a lie. It’s a lie because our regulators just don’t have the budgets, the skills, or the people to enforce it properly. It relies entirely on self-policing by the companies concerned.

We tried self-policing with the banks over there in the City. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Sometimes the interests of a community have to come second to the national interest. But there is no national interest in fracking.

Germany is showing beyond doubt that you can have clean energy, you can have energy efficiency, and you can give control over energy back to communities all at the same time without wrecking the economy.

By getting ahead of us on clean energy, our main European competitor is actually widening its lead over us. It’s time for Britain to catch up.

Let’s hear it for Repower Balcombe, showing the way, and all the other pioneers of community energy up and down Britain.

Fracking on an industrial scale won’t build us a future worth having, it would take us backwards, it would lock us further into fossil dependency. It would also turn our country into a global climate pariah.

Democracy in free fall

And this isn’t just about our climate and our energy. It’s about our democracy. What’s been happening on fracking is not democracy in action. It’s democracy in free fall.

Take the Infrastructure Bill. This odious, antidemocratic Bill would trample on rights and protections, including the ancient law of trespass, woven carefully over centuries into the fabric of our Constitution.

It would put corporate interests above the public interest. Wherever you live it would make your voice the last one to be listened to in any decision about the land and the community around you.

99% of consultees don’t want trespass watered down? I know, let’s ignore them!

An unrestricted right to dump wastes of all kinds under people’s land and houses? That’s not going to be popular! Let’s try and sneak it in at the last minute when nobody’s looking, and if people still object, I know, let’s ignore them!

People say they don’t want profits for developers fracking companies to come before their health and their environment. I know, lets ignore them! Let’s make it a legal requirement to maximize the economic recovery of oil and gas!

When I joined the Civil Service 35 years ago, ministers and officials would have resigned rather than connive at such abuses of our democratic system

In Britain today we have the forms but not the substance of democracy, and what’s happening on fracking is a symptom of that sickness. So a victory in the struggle to stop fracking will also be a victory, a crucial victory in the longer struggle to renew our democracy in Britain.

Suddenly, the tectonic plates are shifting

Most of the time in politics things are stuck. The tectonic plates don’t move very much. You may gain a few inches here and there but progress is incremental. But every now and again the plates start to slip and anything is possible. This is such a moment. It may be the only such moment we get.

The plates are slipping on fracking. Suddenly it is dawning on our representatives that the political cost of forcing it through is going to be higher than they thought.

More and more of them are taking the trouble to listen to their constituents, and to get their heads round what’s involved. They are working out for themselves what a bad idea this really is.

That’s what the members of the Environmental Audit Committee have done with their ‘Environmental risks of fracking‘ report and their call for a fracking moratorium. They have shown real courage, defying their Party machines. Let’s now show them the thanks they deserve!

But too many MPs still think it’s more important to do the bidding of those Party machines and of their corporate friends than it is to listen to the people who put them in our Parliament.

The friends of fracking, in the Coalition parties and the Labour Party, including Tom Greatrex on Twitter, are trying a bit harder to look as if they are listening. But what they are really trying to do is lock the tectonic plates back in place before they slip too far, before they make it impossible for the drilling to start.

We must keep up our fight for a fracking maratorium

So now, just as we finally see some progress, now we must push even harder. And here’s what we should push for.

Let’s stop the headlong rush, with a full moratorium now, as demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, followed by a proper national debate. No ifs not buts, and no more opportunistic spin from those who aspire to run our energy policy after May.

While we close the front door let’s stop the Bill from forcing open the back door, with its anti-democratic provisions on trespass and householder permission and so-called economic recovery.

And let’s take off the table right now, once and for all, any possibility of self-policing by companies whose main interest is in minimizing red tape not protecting the well being of communities.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, Jenny Mein and the County Council you lead in Preston: please listen: moratorium now, stop the Bill, no more self-policing. Otherwise you will be betraying the people who put you where you are, and they will not easily forgive you.

Friends, over there, in Victoria Tower Gardens, is a statue of Emmeline Pankhurst. Every struggle that has made our country better has been a struggle to make Britain a country for all the people not just a privileged few.

We are struggling to give the people a voice on energy. Mrs Pankhurst struggled to give women a voice in politics. We are following in her footsteps. We can be so proud of that.

So far, those who want to frack our country into an even deeper political stupor have been able to make progress by bullying and stealth. But now at last, thanks to your courage and determination, our opponents have been forced into the open and there is a real democratic choice to be made.

Our representatives will only make the right choice if they can hear our voice. Are we today going to make our voice heard, not just here on the street but inside the thick walls of that Palace over there?

Let’s make the biggest noise, every one of us, let’s make the biggest noise we’ve ever made in our lives.

 

 

John Ashton is one of the world’s leading climate diplomats, an independent commentator and adviser on the politics of climate change, and a founder of 3EG. From 2006-12 he served as Special Representative for Climate Change to three successive UK Foreign Secretaries, spanning the current Coalition and the previous Labour Government.

This text is an edited version of a speech given by John Ashton, the UK’s Special Representative for Climate Change between 2006-2012, made on 26 January at a public rally outiside Parliament, Westminster, London. It is based on an edited transcript originally published by Responding to Climate Change.

 

 




389674

The EAC’s plan for a ‘fracking moratorium’ in Britain doesn’t go far enough Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Today will be an interesting day for the future of the campaign against unconventional oil and gas in Britain. It could be the day wen we turn a corner – or, quite possibly, not, if the fossil fuel lobby within the government get their way.

Last week, Caroline Spelman let slip that the Environment Audit Committee’s (EAC) new report, the ‘Environmental risks of fracking’, would call for a moratorium.

Since then both the pro and anti side of the debate has been buzzing in anticipation of the report’s content, and whether today’s vote on the Infrastructure Bill would call a halt to fracking in Britain.

The day before that, news emerged that planners at Lancashire County Council were recommending refusal of planning permission for Cuadrilla’s two new shale exploration sites – on the grounds of noise and traffic generation.

Shortly thereafter the North West Energy Task Force, a local ‘astroturf‘ lobby group funded by Centrica and Cuadrilla (their information allegedly ghost-written by Centrica and Cuadrilla’s lobbyists, Westbourne Communications), were quoted as saying that traffic and noise were “not grounds for objections“.

In Scotland there’s an ongoing debate about a ban, fuelled by Dart Energy’s proposed coalbed methane (CBM) developments around Airth, as well as Cluff Natural Resources plans for underground coal gasification (UCG) at Kincardine in the Firth of Forth. It’s even causing spats within the SNP.

Both CBM and UCG have, like shale gas, the potential to cause pollution. Question is, would either of these be caught within the EAC’s proposals for a moratorium on ‘fracking’?

Good effort … but please try harder

The problem with the media-simplified debate over ‘extreme energy’ in Britain is that has focussed, to its detriment, upon shale gas and ‘fracking’.

While shale gas inevitably involves hydraulic fracturing, coalbed methane does not always require it; and underground coal gasification is a wholly different, and arguably worse, process altogether.

I wrote a lengthy submission to the EAC’s inquiry, outlining these differences. In a follow-up article for The Ecologist, I challenged them to ‘prove me wrong’ that they could hold an evidence-based, unbiased exploration of the issues.

While the EAC’s new report certainly excels above previous reports by the Energy and Climate or Economic Affairs committees, it still contains some serious errors and omissions. Top of my list of bullet points for consideration by the EAC’s inquiry (paragraph 46 of my submission):

“Decision-making must differentiate shale gas, from coalbed methane, from UCG, in order to recognise their unique ‘fingerprint’ upon the environment.”

They did not do that. Consequently amendments proposed for the Infrastructure Bill contain a significant flaw. Throughout the amendments to the bill the terms ‘shale gas’ and ‘hydraulic fracturing’ are used. The amendment tabled by the EAC states:

“leave out ‘the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through’ and insert ‘not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets being breached’.”

If enacted, the terms of such a ‘moratorium’ would arguably not apply to coalbed methane – it could be developed (though less economically) without the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing. Coastal Oil and Gas in South Wales, or Dart (recently taken over by IGas) at Airth, or Shropshire and Cheshire, could still go ahead with their extraction plans.

And such a ban would arguably not affect, in any way, the proposed development of UCG by companies such as Cluff Natural Resources or Five Quarter Energy.

A failure to test the evidence

The purpose of the Environmental Audit Committee is to consider how government policy contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, and to audit their performance. In my view the Committee haven’t done that.

They did not seek to quantify the full range of impacts of the various ‘unconventional’ oil and gas technologies currently planned for development across Britain. And it has to be said, the Committee have made some good recommendations in their – admittedly rushed – report. However, they also appeared to accept evidence which was highly questionable.

For example (paragraph 78 of their report) states: “Many of our witnesses acknowledged that the existing UK conventional onshore industry has a generally safe history, with over 200 producing wells and no pollution incidents from well design.”

In fact recent research, by a part-industry-sponsored group, shows that we have no detailed knowledge of at least half of the 2,000 or so deep wells drilled in Britain over the last century; there is no structured monitoring process to check their condition; and at least one well has failed – and none of those where subject to high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF).

The one well in Britain which has been subject to HVHF, at Preese Hall, has failed – and the Health and Safety Executive’s refusal to require the proper inspection of the well during construction is in part responsible for that failure.

The Committee also state (paragraph 36 of their report): “The Researching Fracking In Europe consortium informed us that their ‘research has found that even in the ‘worst case scenario’, flux in the radioactivity of flowback fluid would not exceed the annual exposure limit set by the UK Environment Agency.'”

I tackled that paper, and its flaws, in an article for The Ecologist last July.

It used a highly selective sample of some of the most radioactive natural mineral springs in order to state that the ‘naturally occurring’ radioactivity in flowback water is safe. It also makes some error in its assumptions about dose limits, and fails to show all the data required to validate it findings against the international standard procedures for dose calculation.

That is why we need a proper public inquiry, testing the evidence. All assumptions and data, whatever its source, must be objectively tested to establish how much weight can be applied to them.

Carbon is not the only critical issue

Perhaps my greatest difficulty with the EAC’s report is that it largely concentrates on climate change and carbon emissions. That completely misses the broad range of impacts unconventional fossil fuels create.

We could completely eradicate the fugitive emissions from unconventional oil and gas, making it some of the cleanest fossil fuel production in the world, and the problems it creates would still make it highly damaging.

‘Low carbon’ or ‘green completion‘ unconventional oil and gas production would still generate large quantities of toxic and hazardous materials – with as yet no identified treatment facility or disposal location.

These developments, in particular the pipelines and associated roads, would also damage large areas of the landscape and natural habitats – as outlined in recent US research.

And though it may create a short-term boom for certain vested interests – like the North West Energy Task Force – it would absolutely fail to tackle the greater imperative of addressing the ecological overshoot of our society.

What the media ignored this week

There were two other events in the last week which passed by, seemingly un-noticed.

Firstly, Egdon Resources applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to test drill their Laughton site. No fracking – yet – but it enlarges a new eastern development area in the Bowland shale.

More significantly, Third Energy applied to use two existing, uneconomic wells for the disposal of the waste from other oil and gas operations – one permit for their site at Ebberston (on the border of the North Yorks. Moors National Park) and another permit for their site near Pickering (just south of the national park area).

This represents a significant policy shift as, until now, Britain hasn’t favoured disposal via deep injection. In the US, it is deep injection which appears to give rise to the greatest risks from groundwater pollution and seismic activity.

Third Energy’s current gas wells are ‘conventional’ (free flowing) gas wells. What’s significant here is not the source of the wastewater – it’s that this application could set a precedent for deep disposal from unconventional oil and gas sites.

Again, that’s something the EAC’s moratorium doesn’t encompass.

This is significant because of what follows from it

What happens in Parliament today is significant, but it’s not as important as what comes next. If there’s a moratorium, then we have to make sure that any inquiry processes which follow properly consider all the available evidence.

Alternately, if the Government force a vote to quash the call for a moratorium, that escalates the nature of the debate. It will no longer be a reasoned debate over evidence. The Government will have abandoned any such pretence, and will instead impose their will purely because they can.

If the Government force their will upon Parliament, that’s as big a problem for the Environmental Audit Committee as it is for the public. It basically says that their evidence gathering was a waste of time, and that they are not going to be listened to.

For the public, and anti-fracking campaigners in particular, it’s a clear message. That democratic processes based upon evidence are no longer valid – and that in Britain, as in the USA, it is spin and lobbying which now provide the justification for policy.

If you wish to oppose the development of unconventional oil and gas, with all legal redress closed off by current law reforms, your only option for doing so will be through direct action.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy‘, ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 

 




389417

The EAC’s plan for a ‘fracking moratorium’ in Britain doesn’t go far enough Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Today will be an interesting day for the future of the campaign against unconventional oil and gas in Britain. It could be the day wen we turn a corner – or, quite possibly, not, if the fossil fuel lobby within the government get their way.

Last week, Caroline Spelman let slip that the Environment Audit Committee’s (EAC) new report, the ‘Environmental risks of fracking’, would call for a moratorium.

Since then both the pro and anti side of the debate has been buzzing in anticipation of the report’s content, and whether today’s vote on the Infrastructure Bill would call a halt to fracking in Britain.

The day before that, news emerged that planners at Lancashire County Council were recommending refusal of planning permission for Cuadrilla’s two new shale exploration sites – on the grounds of noise and traffic generation.

Shortly thereafter the North West Energy Task Force, a local ‘astroturf‘ lobby group funded by Centrica and Cuadrilla (their information allegedly ghost-written by Centrica and Cuadrilla’s lobbyists, Westbourne Communications), were quoted as saying that traffic and noise were “not grounds for objections“.

In Scotland there’s an ongoing debate about a ban, fuelled by Dart Energy’s proposed coalbed methane (CBM) developments around Airth, as well as Cluff Natural Resources plans for underground coal gasification (UCG) at Kincardine in the Firth of Forth. It’s even causing spats within the SNP.

Both CBM and UCG have, like shale gas, the potential to cause pollution. Question is, would either of these be caught within the EAC’s proposals for a moratorium on ‘fracking’?

Good effort … but please try harder

The problem with the media-simplified debate over ‘extreme energy’ in Britain is that has focussed, to its detriment, upon shale gas and ‘fracking’.

While shale gas inevitably involves hydraulic fracturing, coalbed methane does not always require it; and underground coal gasification is a wholly different, and arguably worse, process altogether.

I wrote a lengthy submission to the EAC’s inquiry, outlining these differences. In a follow-up article for The Ecologist, I challenged them to ‘prove me wrong’ that they could hold an evidence-based, unbiased exploration of the issues.

While the EAC’s new report certainly excels above previous reports by the Energy and Climate or Economic Affairs committees, it still contains some serious errors and omissions. Top of my list of bullet points for consideration by the EAC’s inquiry (paragraph 46 of my submission):

“Decision-making must differentiate shale gas, from coalbed methane, from UCG, in order to recognise their unique ‘fingerprint’ upon the environment.”

They did not do that. Consequently amendments proposed for the Infrastructure Bill contain a significant flaw. Throughout the amendments to the bill the terms ‘shale gas’ and ‘hydraulic fracturing’ are used. The amendment tabled by the EAC states:

“leave out ‘the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through’ and insert ‘not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets being breached’.”

If enacted, the terms of such a ‘moratorium’ would arguably not apply to coalbed methane – it could be developed (though less economically) without the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing. Coastal Oil and Gas in South Wales, or Dart (recently taken over by IGas) at Airth, or Shropshire and Cheshire, could still go ahead with their extraction plans.

And such a ban would arguably not affect, in any way, the proposed development of UCG by companies such as Cluff Natural Resources or Five Quarter Energy.

A failure to test the evidence

The purpose of the Environmental Audit Committee is to consider how government policy contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, and to audit their performance. In my view the Committee haven’t done that.

They did not seek to quantify the full range of impacts of the various ‘unconventional’ oil and gas technologies currently planned for development across Britain. And it has to be said, the Committee have made some good recommendations in their – admittedly rushed – report. However, they also appeared to accept evidence which was highly questionable.

For example (paragraph 78 of their report) states: “Many of our witnesses acknowledged that the existing UK conventional onshore industry has a generally safe history, with over 200 producing wells and no pollution incidents from well design.”

In fact recent research, by a part-industry-sponsored group, shows that we have no detailed knowledge of at least half of the 2,000 or so deep wells drilled in Britain over the last century; there is no structured monitoring process to check their condition; and at least one well has failed – and none of those where subject to high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF).

The one well in Britain which has been subject to HVHF, at Preese Hall, has failed – and the Health and Safety Executive’s refusal to require the proper inspection of the well during construction is in part responsible for that failure.

The Committee also state (paragraph 36 of their report): “The Researching Fracking In Europe consortium informed us that their ‘research has found that even in the ‘worst case scenario’, flux in the radioactivity of flowback fluid would not exceed the annual exposure limit set by the UK Environment Agency.'”

I tackled that paper, and its flaws, in an article for The Ecologist last July.

It used a highly selective sample of some of the most radioactive natural mineral springs in order to state that the ‘naturally occurring’ radioactivity in flowback water is safe. It also makes some error in its assumptions about dose limits, and fails to show all the data required to validate it findings against the international standard procedures for dose calculation.

That is why we need a proper public inquiry, testing the evidence. All assumptions and data, whatever its source, must be objectively tested to establish how much weight can be applied to them.

Carbon is not the only critical issue

Perhaps my greatest difficulty with the EAC’s report is that it largely concentrates on climate change and carbon emissions. That completely misses the broad range of impacts unconventional fossil fuels create.

We could completely eradicate the fugitive emissions from unconventional oil and gas, making it some of the cleanest fossil fuel production in the world, and the problems it creates would still make it highly damaging.

‘Low carbon’ or ‘green completion‘ unconventional oil and gas production would still generate large quantities of toxic and hazardous materials – with as yet no identified treatment facility or disposal location.

These developments, in particular the pipelines and associated roads, would also damage large areas of the landscape and natural habitats – as outlined in recent US research.

And though it may create a short-term boom for certain vested interests – like the North West Energy Task Force – it would absolutely fail to tackle the greater imperative of addressing the ecological overshoot of our society.

What the media ignored this week

There were two other events in the last week which passed by, seemingly un-noticed.

Firstly, Egdon Resources applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to test drill their Laughton site. No fracking – yet – but it enlarges a new eastern development area in the Bowland shale.

More significantly, Third Energy applied to use two existing, uneconomic wells for the disposal of the waste from other oil and gas operations – one permit for their site at Ebberston (on the border of the North Yorks. Moors National Park) and another permit for their site near Pickering (just south of the national park area).

This represents a significant policy shift as, until now, Britain hasn’t favoured disposal via deep injection. In the US, it is deep injection which appears to give rise to the greatest risks from groundwater pollution and seismic activity.

Third Energy’s current gas wells are ‘conventional’ (free flowing) gas wells. What’s significant here is not the source of the wastewater – it’s that this application could set a precedent for deep disposal from unconventional oil and gas sites.

Again, that’s something the EAC’s moratorium doesn’t encompass.

This is significant because of what follows from it

What happens in Parliament today is significant, but it’s not as important as what comes next. If there’s a moratorium, then we have to make sure that any inquiry processes which follow properly consider all the available evidence.

Alternately, if the Government force a vote to quash the call for a moratorium, that escalates the nature of the debate. It will no longer be a reasoned debate over evidence. The Government will have abandoned any such pretence, and will instead impose their will purely because they can.

If the Government force their will upon Parliament, that’s as big a problem for the Environmental Audit Committee as it is for the public. It basically says that their evidence gathering was a waste of time, and that they are not going to be listened to.

For the public, and anti-fracking campaigners in particular, it’s a clear message. That democratic processes based upon evidence are no longer valid – and that in Britain, as in the USA, it is spin and lobbying which now provide the justification for policy.

If you wish to oppose the development of unconventional oil and gas, with all legal redress closed off by current law reforms, your only option for doing so will be through direct action.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy‘, ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 

 




389417

The EAC’s plan for a ‘fracking moratorium’ in Britain doesn’t go far enough Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Today will be an interesting day for the future of the campaign against unconventional oil and gas in Britain. It could be the day wen we turn a corner – or, quite possibly, not, if the fossil fuel lobby within the government get their way.

Last week, Caroline Spelman let slip that the Environment Audit Committee’s (EAC) new report, the ‘Environmental risks of fracking’, would call for a moratorium.

Since then both the pro and anti side of the debate has been buzzing in anticipation of the report’s content, and whether today’s vote on the Infrastructure Bill would call a halt to fracking in Britain.

The day before that, news emerged that planners at Lancashire County Council were recommending refusal of planning permission for Cuadrilla’s two new shale exploration sites – on the grounds of noise and traffic generation.

Shortly thereafter the North West Energy Task Force, a local ‘astroturf‘ lobby group funded by Centrica and Cuadrilla (their information allegedly ghost-written by Centrica and Cuadrilla’s lobbyists, Westbourne Communications), were quoted as saying that traffic and noise were “not grounds for objections“.

In Scotland there’s an ongoing debate about a ban, fuelled by Dart Energy’s proposed coalbed methane (CBM) developments around Airth, as well as Cluff Natural Resources plans for underground coal gasification (UCG) at Kincardine in the Firth of Forth. It’s even causing spats within the SNP.

Both CBM and UCG have, like shale gas, the potential to cause pollution. Question is, would either of these be caught within the EAC’s proposals for a moratorium on ‘fracking’?

Good effort … but please try harder

The problem with the media-simplified debate over ‘extreme energy’ in Britain is that has focussed, to its detriment, upon shale gas and ‘fracking’.

While shale gas inevitably involves hydraulic fracturing, coalbed methane does not always require it; and underground coal gasification is a wholly different, and arguably worse, process altogether.

I wrote a lengthy submission to the EAC’s inquiry, outlining these differences. In a follow-up article for The Ecologist, I challenged them to ‘prove me wrong’ that they could hold an evidence-based, unbiased exploration of the issues.

While the EAC’s new report certainly excels above previous reports by the Energy and Climate or Economic Affairs committees, it still contains some serious errors and omissions. Top of my list of bullet points for consideration by the EAC’s inquiry (paragraph 46 of my submission):

“Decision-making must differentiate shale gas, from coalbed methane, from UCG, in order to recognise their unique ‘fingerprint’ upon the environment.”

They did not do that. Consequently amendments proposed for the Infrastructure Bill contain a significant flaw. Throughout the amendments to the bill the terms ‘shale gas’ and ‘hydraulic fracturing’ are used. The amendment tabled by the EAC states:

“leave out ‘the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through’ and insert ‘not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets being breached’.”

If enacted, the terms of such a ‘moratorium’ would arguably not apply to coalbed methane – it could be developed (though less economically) without the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing. Coastal Oil and Gas in South Wales, or Dart (recently taken over by IGas) at Airth, or Shropshire and Cheshire, could still go ahead with their extraction plans.

And such a ban would arguably not affect, in any way, the proposed development of UCG by companies such as Cluff Natural Resources or Five Quarter Energy.

A failure to test the evidence

The purpose of the Environmental Audit Committee is to consider how government policy contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, and to audit their performance. In my view the Committee haven’t done that.

They did not seek to quantify the full range of impacts of the various ‘unconventional’ oil and gas technologies currently planned for development across Britain. And it has to be said, the Committee have made some good recommendations in their – admittedly rushed – report. However, they also appeared to accept evidence which was highly questionable.

For example (paragraph 78 of their report) states: “Many of our witnesses acknowledged that the existing UK conventional onshore industry has a generally safe history, with over 200 producing wells and no pollution incidents from well design.”

In fact recent research, by a part-industry-sponsored group, shows that we have no detailed knowledge of at least half of the 2,000 or so deep wells drilled in Britain over the last century; there is no structured monitoring process to check their condition; and at least one well has failed – and none of those where subject to high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF).

The one well in Britain which has been subject to HVHF, at Preese Hall, has failed – and the Health and Safety Executive’s refusal to require the proper inspection of the well during construction is in part responsible for that failure.

The Committee also state (paragraph 36 of their report): “The Researching Fracking In Europe consortium informed us that their ‘research has found that even in the ‘worst case scenario’, flux in the radioactivity of flowback fluid would not exceed the annual exposure limit set by the UK Environment Agency.'”

I tackled that paper, and its flaws, in an article for The Ecologist last July.

It used a highly selective sample of some of the most radioactive natural mineral springs in order to state that the ‘naturally occurring’ radioactivity in flowback water is safe. It also makes some error in its assumptions about dose limits, and fails to show all the data required to validate it findings against the international standard procedures for dose calculation.

That is why we need a proper public inquiry, testing the evidence. All assumptions and data, whatever its source, must be objectively tested to establish how much weight can be applied to them.

Carbon is not the only critical issue

Perhaps my greatest difficulty with the EAC’s report is that it largely concentrates on climate change and carbon emissions. That completely misses the broad range of impacts unconventional fossil fuels create.

We could completely eradicate the fugitive emissions from unconventional oil and gas, making it some of the cleanest fossil fuel production in the world, and the problems it creates would still make it highly damaging.

‘Low carbon’ or ‘green completion‘ unconventional oil and gas production would still generate large quantities of toxic and hazardous materials – with as yet no identified treatment facility or disposal location.

These developments, in particular the pipelines and associated roads, would also damage large areas of the landscape and natural habitats – as outlined in recent US research.

And though it may create a short-term boom for certain vested interests – like the North West Energy Task Force – it would absolutely fail to tackle the greater imperative of addressing the ecological overshoot of our society.

What the media ignored this week

There were two other events in the last week which passed by, seemingly un-noticed.

Firstly, Egdon Resources applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to test drill their Laughton site. No fracking – yet – but it enlarges a new eastern development area in the Bowland shale.

More significantly, Third Energy applied to use two existing, uneconomic wells for the disposal of the waste from other oil and gas operations – one permit for their site at Ebberston (on the border of the North Yorks. Moors National Park) and another permit for their site near Pickering (just south of the national park area).

This represents a significant policy shift as, until now, Britain hasn’t favoured disposal via deep injection. In the US, it is deep injection which appears to give rise to the greatest risks from groundwater pollution and seismic activity.

Third Energy’s current gas wells are ‘conventional’ (free flowing) gas wells. What’s significant here is not the source of the wastewater – it’s that this application could set a precedent for deep disposal from unconventional oil and gas sites.

Again, that’s something the EAC’s moratorium doesn’t encompass.

This is significant because of what follows from it

What happens in Parliament today is significant, but it’s not as important as what comes next. If there’s a moratorium, then we have to make sure that any inquiry processes which follow properly consider all the available evidence.

Alternately, if the Government force a vote to quash the call for a moratorium, that escalates the nature of the debate. It will no longer be a reasoned debate over evidence. The Government will have abandoned any such pretence, and will instead impose their will purely because they can.

If the Government force their will upon Parliament, that’s as big a problem for the Environmental Audit Committee as it is for the public. It basically says that their evidence gathering was a waste of time, and that they are not going to be listened to.

For the public, and anti-fracking campaigners in particular, it’s a clear message. That democratic processes based upon evidence are no longer valid – and that in Britain, as in the USA, it is spin and lobbying which now provide the justification for policy.

If you wish to oppose the development of unconventional oil and gas, with all legal redress closed off by current law reforms, your only option for doing so will be through direct action.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy‘, ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 

 




389417

The EAC’s plan for a ‘fracking moratorium’ in Britain doesn’t go far enough Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Today will be an interesting day for the future of the campaign against unconventional oil and gas in Britain. It could be the day wen we turn a corner – or, quite possibly, not, if the fossil fuel lobby within the government get their way.

Last week, Caroline Spelman let slip that the Environment Audit Committee’s (EAC) new report, the ‘Environmental risks of fracking’, would call for a moratorium.

Since then both the pro and anti side of the debate has been buzzing in anticipation of the report’s content, and whether today’s vote on the Infrastructure Bill would call a halt to fracking in Britain.

The day before that, news emerged that planners at Lancashire County Council were recommending refusal of planning permission for Cuadrilla’s two new shale exploration sites – on the grounds of noise and traffic generation.

Shortly thereafter the North West Energy Task Force, a local ‘astroturf‘ lobby group funded by Centrica and Cuadrilla (their information allegedly ghost-written by Centrica and Cuadrilla’s lobbyists, Westbourne Communications), were quoted as saying that traffic and noise were “not grounds for objections“.

In Scotland there’s an ongoing debate about a ban, fuelled by Dart Energy’s proposed coalbed methane (CBM) developments around Airth, as well as Cluff Natural Resources plans for underground coal gasification (UCG) at Kincardine in the Firth of Forth. It’s even causing spats within the SNP.

Both CBM and UCG have, like shale gas, the potential to cause pollution. Question is, would either of these be caught within the EAC’s proposals for a moratorium on ‘fracking’?

Good effort … but please try harder

The problem with the media-simplified debate over ‘extreme energy’ in Britain is that has focussed, to its detriment, upon shale gas and ‘fracking’.

While shale gas inevitably involves hydraulic fracturing, coalbed methane does not always require it; and underground coal gasification is a wholly different, and arguably worse, process altogether.

I wrote a lengthy submission to the EAC’s inquiry, outlining these differences. In a follow-up article for The Ecologist, I challenged them to ‘prove me wrong’ that they could hold an evidence-based, unbiased exploration of the issues.

While the EAC’s new report certainly excels above previous reports by the Energy and Climate or Economic Affairs committees, it still contains some serious errors and omissions. Top of my list of bullet points for consideration by the EAC’s inquiry (paragraph 46 of my submission):

“Decision-making must differentiate shale gas, from coalbed methane, from UCG, in order to recognise their unique ‘fingerprint’ upon the environment.”

They did not do that. Consequently amendments proposed for the Infrastructure Bill contain a significant flaw. Throughout the amendments to the bill the terms ‘shale gas’ and ‘hydraulic fracturing’ are used. The amendment tabled by the EAC states:

“leave out ‘the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through’ and insert ‘not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets being breached’.”

If enacted, the terms of such a ‘moratorium’ would arguably not apply to coalbed methane – it could be developed (though less economically) without the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing. Coastal Oil and Gas in South Wales, or Dart (recently taken over by IGas) at Airth, or Shropshire and Cheshire, could still go ahead with their extraction plans.

And such a ban would arguably not affect, in any way, the proposed development of UCG by companies such as Cluff Natural Resources or Five Quarter Energy.

A failure to test the evidence

The purpose of the Environmental Audit Committee is to consider how government policy contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, and to audit their performance. In my view the Committee haven’t done that.

They did not seek to quantify the full range of impacts of the various ‘unconventional’ oil and gas technologies currently planned for development across Britain. And it has to be said, the Committee have made some good recommendations in their – admittedly rushed – report. However, they also appeared to accept evidence which was highly questionable.

For example (paragraph 78 of their report) states: “Many of our witnesses acknowledged that the existing UK conventional onshore industry has a generally safe history, with over 200 producing wells and no pollution incidents from well design.”

In fact recent research, by a part-industry-sponsored group, shows that we have no detailed knowledge of at least half of the 2,000 or so deep wells drilled in Britain over the last century; there is no structured monitoring process to check their condition; and at least one well has failed – and none of those where subject to high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF).

The one well in Britain which has been subject to HVHF, at Preese Hall, has failed – and the Health and Safety Executive’s refusal to require the proper inspection of the well during construction is in part responsible for that failure.

The Committee also state (paragraph 36 of their report): “The Researching Fracking In Europe consortium informed us that their ‘research has found that even in the ‘worst case scenario’, flux in the radioactivity of flowback fluid would not exceed the annual exposure limit set by the UK Environment Agency.'”

I tackled that paper, and its flaws, in an article for The Ecologist last July.

It used a highly selective sample of some of the most radioactive natural mineral springs in order to state that the ‘naturally occurring’ radioactivity in flowback water is safe. It also makes some error in its assumptions about dose limits, and fails to show all the data required to validate it findings against the international standard procedures for dose calculation.

That is why we need a proper public inquiry, testing the evidence. All assumptions and data, whatever its source, must be objectively tested to establish how much weight can be applied to them.

Carbon is not the only critical issue

Perhaps my greatest difficulty with the EAC’s report is that it largely concentrates on climate change and carbon emissions. That completely misses the broad range of impacts unconventional fossil fuels create.

We could completely eradicate the fugitive emissions from unconventional oil and gas, making it some of the cleanest fossil fuel production in the world, and the problems it creates would still make it highly damaging.

‘Low carbon’ or ‘green completion‘ unconventional oil and gas production would still generate large quantities of toxic and hazardous materials – with as yet no identified treatment facility or disposal location.

These developments, in particular the pipelines and associated roads, would also damage large areas of the landscape and natural habitats – as outlined in recent US research.

And though it may create a short-term boom for certain vested interests – like the North West Energy Task Force – it would absolutely fail to tackle the greater imperative of addressing the ecological overshoot of our society.

What the media ignored this week

There were two other events in the last week which passed by, seemingly un-noticed.

Firstly, Egdon Resources applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to test drill their Laughton site. No fracking – yet – but it enlarges a new eastern development area in the Bowland shale.

More significantly, Third Energy applied to use two existing, uneconomic wells for the disposal of the waste from other oil and gas operations – one permit for their site at Ebberston (on the border of the North Yorks. Moors National Park) and another permit for their site near Pickering (just south of the national park area).

This represents a significant policy shift as, until now, Britain hasn’t favoured disposal via deep injection. In the US, it is deep injection which appears to give rise to the greatest risks from groundwater pollution and seismic activity.

Third Energy’s current gas wells are ‘conventional’ (free flowing) gas wells. What’s significant here is not the source of the wastewater – it’s that this application could set a precedent for deep disposal from unconventional oil and gas sites.

Again, that’s something the EAC’s moratorium doesn’t encompass.

This is significant because of what follows from it

What happens in Parliament today is significant, but it’s not as important as what comes next. If there’s a moratorium, then we have to make sure that any inquiry processes which follow properly consider all the available evidence.

Alternately, if the Government force a vote to quash the call for a moratorium, that escalates the nature of the debate. It will no longer be a reasoned debate over evidence. The Government will have abandoned any such pretence, and will instead impose their will purely because they can.

If the Government force their will upon Parliament, that’s as big a problem for the Environmental Audit Committee as it is for the public. It basically says that their evidence gathering was a waste of time, and that they are not going to be listened to.

For the public, and anti-fracking campaigners in particular, it’s a clear message. That democratic processes based upon evidence are no longer valid – and that in Britain, as in the USA, it is spin and lobbying which now provide the justification for policy.

If you wish to oppose the development of unconventional oil and gas, with all legal redress closed off by current law reforms, your only option for doing so will be through direct action.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy‘, ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 

 




389417

The EAC’s plan for a ‘fracking moratorium’ in Britain doesn’t go far enough Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Today will be an interesting day for the future of the campaign against unconventional oil and gas in Britain. It could be the day wen we turn a corner – or, quite possibly, not, if the fossil fuel lobby within the government get their way.

Last week, Caroline Spelman let slip that the Environment Audit Committee’s (EAC) new report, the ‘Environmental risks of fracking’, would call for a moratorium.

Since then both the pro and anti side of the debate has been buzzing in anticipation of the report’s content, and whether today’s vote on the Infrastructure Bill would call a halt to fracking in Britain.

The day before that, news emerged that planners at Lancashire County Council were recommending refusal of planning permission for Cuadrilla’s two new shale exploration sites – on the grounds of noise and traffic generation.

Shortly thereafter the North West Energy Task Force, a local ‘astroturf‘ lobby group funded by Centrica and Cuadrilla (their information allegedly ghost-written by Centrica and Cuadrilla’s lobbyists, Westbourne Communications), were quoted as saying that traffic and noise were “not grounds for objections“.

In Scotland there’s an ongoing debate about a ban, fuelled by Dart Energy’s proposed coalbed methane (CBM) developments around Airth, as well as Cluff Natural Resources plans for underground coal gasification (UCG) at Kincardine in the Firth of Forth. It’s even causing spats within the SNP.

Both CBM and UCG have, like shale gas, the potential to cause pollution. Question is, would either of these be caught within the EAC’s proposals for a moratorium on ‘fracking’?

Good effort … but please try harder

The problem with the media-simplified debate over ‘extreme energy’ in Britain is that has focussed, to its detriment, upon shale gas and ‘fracking’.

While shale gas inevitably involves hydraulic fracturing, coalbed methane does not always require it; and underground coal gasification is a wholly different, and arguably worse, process altogether.

I wrote a lengthy submission to the EAC’s inquiry, outlining these differences. In a follow-up article for The Ecologist, I challenged them to ‘prove me wrong’ that they could hold an evidence-based, unbiased exploration of the issues.

While the EAC’s new report certainly excels above previous reports by the Energy and Climate or Economic Affairs committees, it still contains some serious errors and omissions. Top of my list of bullet points for consideration by the EAC’s inquiry (paragraph 46 of my submission):

“Decision-making must differentiate shale gas, from coalbed methane, from UCG, in order to recognise their unique ‘fingerprint’ upon the environment.”

They did not do that. Consequently amendments proposed for the Infrastructure Bill contain a significant flaw. Throughout the amendments to the bill the terms ‘shale gas’ and ‘hydraulic fracturing’ are used. The amendment tabled by the EAC states:

“leave out ‘the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through’ and insert ‘not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets being breached’.”

If enacted, the terms of such a ‘moratorium’ would arguably not apply to coalbed methane – it could be developed (though less economically) without the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing. Coastal Oil and Gas in South Wales, or Dart (recently taken over by IGas) at Airth, or Shropshire and Cheshire, could still go ahead with their extraction plans.

And such a ban would arguably not affect, in any way, the proposed development of UCG by companies such as Cluff Natural Resources or Five Quarter Energy.

A failure to test the evidence

The purpose of the Environmental Audit Committee is to consider how government policy contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, and to audit their performance. In my view the Committee haven’t done that.

They did not seek to quantify the full range of impacts of the various ‘unconventional’ oil and gas technologies currently planned for development across Britain. And it has to be said, the Committee have made some good recommendations in their – admittedly rushed – report. However, they also appeared to accept evidence which was highly questionable.

For example (paragraph 78 of their report) states: “Many of our witnesses acknowledged that the existing UK conventional onshore industry has a generally safe history, with over 200 producing wells and no pollution incidents from well design.”

In fact recent research, by a part-industry-sponsored group, shows that we have no detailed knowledge of at least half of the 2,000 or so deep wells drilled in Britain over the last century; there is no structured monitoring process to check their condition; and at least one well has failed – and none of those where subject to high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF).

The one well in Britain which has been subject to HVHF, at Preese Hall, has failed – and the Health and Safety Executive’s refusal to require the proper inspection of the well during construction is in part responsible for that failure.

The Committee also state (paragraph 36 of their report): “The Researching Fracking In Europe consortium informed us that their ‘research has found that even in the ‘worst case scenario’, flux in the radioactivity of flowback fluid would not exceed the annual exposure limit set by the UK Environment Agency.'”

I tackled that paper, and its flaws, in an article for The Ecologist last July.

It used a highly selective sample of some of the most radioactive natural mineral springs in order to state that the ‘naturally occurring’ radioactivity in flowback water is safe. It also makes some error in its assumptions about dose limits, and fails to show all the data required to validate it findings against the international standard procedures for dose calculation.

That is why we need a proper public inquiry, testing the evidence. All assumptions and data, whatever its source, must be objectively tested to establish how much weight can be applied to them.

Carbon is not the only critical issue

Perhaps my greatest difficulty with the EAC’s report is that it largely concentrates on climate change and carbon emissions. That completely misses the broad range of impacts unconventional fossil fuels create.

We could completely eradicate the fugitive emissions from unconventional oil and gas, making it some of the cleanest fossil fuel production in the world, and the problems it creates would still make it highly damaging.

‘Low carbon’ or ‘green completion‘ unconventional oil and gas production would still generate large quantities of toxic and hazardous materials – with as yet no identified treatment facility or disposal location.

These developments, in particular the pipelines and associated roads, would also damage large areas of the landscape and natural habitats – as outlined in recent US research.

And though it may create a short-term boom for certain vested interests – like the North West Energy Task Force – it would absolutely fail to tackle the greater imperative of addressing the ecological overshoot of our society.

What the media ignored this week

There were two other events in the last week which passed by, seemingly un-noticed.

Firstly, Egdon Resources applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to test drill their Laughton site. No fracking – yet – but it enlarges a new eastern development area in the Bowland shale.

More significantly, Third Energy applied to use two existing, uneconomic wells for the disposal of the waste from other oil and gas operations – one permit for their site at Ebberston (on the border of the North Yorks. Moors National Park) and another permit for their site near Pickering (just south of the national park area).

This represents a significant policy shift as, until now, Britain hasn’t favoured disposal via deep injection. In the US, it is deep injection which appears to give rise to the greatest risks from groundwater pollution and seismic activity.

Third Energy’s current gas wells are ‘conventional’ (free flowing) gas wells. What’s significant here is not the source of the wastewater – it’s that this application could set a precedent for deep disposal from unconventional oil and gas sites.

Again, that’s something the EAC’s moratorium doesn’t encompass.

This is significant because of what follows from it

What happens in Parliament today is significant, but it’s not as important as what comes next. If there’s a moratorium, then we have to make sure that any inquiry processes which follow properly consider all the available evidence.

Alternately, if the Government force a vote to quash the call for a moratorium, that escalates the nature of the debate. It will no longer be a reasoned debate over evidence. The Government will have abandoned any such pretence, and will instead impose their will purely because they can.

If the Government force their will upon Parliament, that’s as big a problem for the Environmental Audit Committee as it is for the public. It basically says that their evidence gathering was a waste of time, and that they are not going to be listened to.

For the public, and anti-fracking campaigners in particular, it’s a clear message. That democratic processes based upon evidence are no longer valid – and that in Britain, as in the USA, it is spin and lobbying which now provide the justification for policy.

If you wish to oppose the development of unconventional oil and gas, with all legal redress closed off by current law reforms, your only option for doing so will be through direct action.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy‘, ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 

 




389417

The EAC’s plan for a ‘fracking moratorium’ in Britain doesn’t go far enough Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Today will be an interesting day for the future of the campaign against unconventional oil and gas in Britain. It could be the day wen we turn a corner – or, quite possibly, not, if the fossil fuel lobby within the government get their way.

Last week, Caroline Spelman let slip that the Environment Audit Committee’s (EAC) new report, the ‘Environmental risks of fracking’, would call for a moratorium.

Since then both the pro and anti side of the debate has been buzzing in anticipation of the report’s content, and whether today’s vote on the Infrastructure Bill would call a halt to fracking in Britain.

The day before that, news emerged that planners at Lancashire County Council were recommending refusal of planning permission for Cuadrilla’s two new shale exploration sites – on the grounds of noise and traffic generation.

Shortly thereafter the North West Energy Task Force, a local ‘astroturf‘ lobby group funded by Centrica and Cuadrilla (their information allegedly ghost-written by Centrica and Cuadrilla’s lobbyists, Westbourne Communications), were quoted as saying that traffic and noise were “not grounds for objections“.

In Scotland there’s an ongoing debate about a ban, fuelled by Dart Energy’s proposed coalbed methane (CBM) developments around Airth, as well as Cluff Natural Resources plans for underground coal gasification (UCG) at Kincardine in the Firth of Forth. It’s even causing spats within the SNP.

Both CBM and UCG have, like shale gas, the potential to cause pollution. Question is, would either of these be caught within the EAC’s proposals for a moratorium on ‘fracking’?

Good effort … but please try harder

The problem with the media-simplified debate over ‘extreme energy’ in Britain is that has focussed, to its detriment, upon shale gas and ‘fracking’.

While shale gas inevitably involves hydraulic fracturing, coalbed methane does not always require it; and underground coal gasification is a wholly different, and arguably worse, process altogether.

I wrote a lengthy submission to the EAC’s inquiry, outlining these differences. In a follow-up article for The Ecologist, I challenged them to ‘prove me wrong’ that they could hold an evidence-based, unbiased exploration of the issues.

While the EAC’s new report certainly excels above previous reports by the Energy and Climate or Economic Affairs committees, it still contains some serious errors and omissions. Top of my list of bullet points for consideration by the EAC’s inquiry (paragraph 46 of my submission):

“Decision-making must differentiate shale gas, from coalbed methane, from UCG, in order to recognise their unique ‘fingerprint’ upon the environment.”

They did not do that. Consequently amendments proposed for the Infrastructure Bill contain a significant flaw. Throughout the amendments to the bill the terms ‘shale gas’ and ‘hydraulic fracturing’ are used. The amendment tabled by the EAC states:

“leave out ‘the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through’ and insert ‘not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets being breached’.”

If enacted, the terms of such a ‘moratorium’ would arguably not apply to coalbed methane – it could be developed (though less economically) without the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing. Coastal Oil and Gas in South Wales, or Dart (recently taken over by IGas) at Airth, or Shropshire and Cheshire, could still go ahead with their extraction plans.

And such a ban would arguably not affect, in any way, the proposed development of UCG by companies such as Cluff Natural Resources or Five Quarter Energy.

A failure to test the evidence

The purpose of the Environmental Audit Committee is to consider how government policy contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, and to audit their performance. In my view the Committee haven’t done that.

They did not seek to quantify the full range of impacts of the various ‘unconventional’ oil and gas technologies currently planned for development across Britain. And it has to be said, the Committee have made some good recommendations in their – admittedly rushed – report. However, they also appeared to accept evidence which was highly questionable.

For example (paragraph 78 of their report) states: “Many of our witnesses acknowledged that the existing UK conventional onshore industry has a generally safe history, with over 200 producing wells and no pollution incidents from well design.”

In fact recent research, by a part-industry-sponsored group, shows that we have no detailed knowledge of at least half of the 2,000 or so deep wells drilled in Britain over the last century; there is no structured monitoring process to check their condition; and at least one well has failed – and none of those where subject to high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF).

The one well in Britain which has been subject to HVHF, at Preese Hall, has failed – and the Health and Safety Executive’s refusal to require the proper inspection of the well during construction is in part responsible for that failure.

The Committee also state (paragraph 36 of their report): “The Researching Fracking In Europe consortium informed us that their ‘research has found that even in the ‘worst case scenario’, flux in the radioactivity of flowback fluid would not exceed the annual exposure limit set by the UK Environment Agency.'”

I tackled that paper, and its flaws, in an article for The Ecologist last July.

It used a highly selective sample of some of the most radioactive natural mineral springs in order to state that the ‘naturally occurring’ radioactivity in flowback water is safe. It also makes some error in its assumptions about dose limits, and fails to show all the data required to validate it findings against the international standard procedures for dose calculation.

That is why we need a proper public inquiry, testing the evidence. All assumptions and data, whatever its source, must be objectively tested to establish how much weight can be applied to them.

Carbon is not the only critical issue

Perhaps my greatest difficulty with the EAC’s report is that it largely concentrates on climate change and carbon emissions. That completely misses the broad range of impacts unconventional fossil fuels create.

We could completely eradicate the fugitive emissions from unconventional oil and gas, making it some of the cleanest fossil fuel production in the world, and the problems it creates would still make it highly damaging.

‘Low carbon’ or ‘green completion‘ unconventional oil and gas production would still generate large quantities of toxic and hazardous materials – with as yet no identified treatment facility or disposal location.

These developments, in particular the pipelines and associated roads, would also damage large areas of the landscape and natural habitats – as outlined in recent US research.

And though it may create a short-term boom for certain vested interests – like the North West Energy Task Force – it would absolutely fail to tackle the greater imperative of addressing the ecological overshoot of our society.

What the media ignored this week

There were two other events in the last week which passed by, seemingly un-noticed.

Firstly, Egdon Resources applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to test drill their Laughton site. No fracking – yet – but it enlarges a new eastern development area in the Bowland shale.

More significantly, Third Energy applied to use two existing, uneconomic wells for the disposal of the waste from other oil and gas operations – one permit for their site at Ebberston (on the border of the North Yorks. Moors National Park) and another permit for their site near Pickering (just south of the national park area).

This represents a significant policy shift as, until now, Britain hasn’t favoured disposal via deep injection. In the US, it is deep injection which appears to give rise to the greatest risks from groundwater pollution and seismic activity.

Third Energy’s current gas wells are ‘conventional’ (free flowing) gas wells. What’s significant here is not the source of the wastewater – it’s that this application could set a precedent for deep disposal from unconventional oil and gas sites.

Again, that’s something the EAC’s moratorium doesn’t encompass.

This is significant because of what follows from it

What happens in Parliament today is significant, but it’s not as important as what comes next. If there’s a moratorium, then we have to make sure that any inquiry processes which follow properly consider all the available evidence.

Alternately, if the Government force a vote to quash the call for a moratorium, that escalates the nature of the debate. It will no longer be a reasoned debate over evidence. The Government will have abandoned any such pretence, and will instead impose their will purely because they can.

If the Government force their will upon Parliament, that’s as big a problem for the Environmental Audit Committee as it is for the public. It basically says that their evidence gathering was a waste of time, and that they are not going to be listened to.

For the public, and anti-fracking campaigners in particular, it’s a clear message. That democratic processes based upon evidence are no longer valid – and that in Britain, as in the USA, it is spin and lobbying which now provide the justification for policy.

If you wish to oppose the development of unconventional oil and gas, with all legal redress closed off by current law reforms, your only option for doing so will be through direct action.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy‘, ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 

 




389417

The EAC’s plan for a ‘fracking moratorium’ in Britain doesn’t go far enough Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Today will be an interesting day for the future of the campaign against unconventional oil and gas in Britain. It could be the day wen we turn a corner – or, quite possibly, not, if the fossil fuel lobby within the government get their way.

Last week, Caroline Spelman let slip that the Environment Audit Committee’s (EAC) new report, the ‘Environmental risks of fracking’, would call for a moratorium.

Since then both the pro and anti side of the debate has been buzzing in anticipation of the report’s content, and whether today’s vote on the Infrastructure Bill would call a halt to fracking in Britain.

The day before that, news emerged that planners at Lancashire County Council were recommending refusal of planning permission for Cuadrilla’s two new shale exploration sites – on the grounds of noise and traffic generation.

Shortly thereafter the North West Energy Task Force, a local ‘astroturf‘ lobby group funded by Centrica and Cuadrilla (their information allegedly ghost-written by Centrica and Cuadrilla’s lobbyists, Westbourne Communications), were quoted as saying that traffic and noise were “not grounds for objections“.

In Scotland there’s an ongoing debate about a ban, fuelled by Dart Energy’s proposed coalbed methane (CBM) developments around Airth, as well as Cluff Natural Resources plans for underground coal gasification (UCG) at Kincardine in the Firth of Forth. It’s even causing spats within the SNP.

Both CBM and UCG have, like shale gas, the potential to cause pollution. Question is, would either of these be caught within the EAC’s proposals for a moratorium on ‘fracking’?

Good effort … but please try harder

The problem with the media-simplified debate over ‘extreme energy’ in Britain is that has focussed, to its detriment, upon shale gas and ‘fracking’.

While shale gas inevitably involves hydraulic fracturing, coalbed methane does not always require it; and underground coal gasification is a wholly different, and arguably worse, process altogether.

I wrote a lengthy submission to the EAC’s inquiry, outlining these differences. In a follow-up article for The Ecologist, I challenged them to ‘prove me wrong’ that they could hold an evidence-based, unbiased exploration of the issues.

While the EAC’s new report certainly excels above previous reports by the Energy and Climate or Economic Affairs committees, it still contains some serious errors and omissions. Top of my list of bullet points for consideration by the EAC’s inquiry (paragraph 46 of my submission):

“Decision-making must differentiate shale gas, from coalbed methane, from UCG, in order to recognise their unique ‘fingerprint’ upon the environment.”

They did not do that. Consequently amendments proposed for the Infrastructure Bill contain a significant flaw. Throughout the amendments to the bill the terms ‘shale gas’ and ‘hydraulic fracturing’ are used. The amendment tabled by the EAC states:

“leave out ‘the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through’ and insert ‘not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets being breached’.”

If enacted, the terms of such a ‘moratorium’ would arguably not apply to coalbed methane – it could be developed (though less economically) without the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing. Coastal Oil and Gas in South Wales, or Dart (recently taken over by IGas) at Airth, or Shropshire and Cheshire, could still go ahead with their extraction plans.

And such a ban would arguably not affect, in any way, the proposed development of UCG by companies such as Cluff Natural Resources or Five Quarter Energy.

A failure to test the evidence

The purpose of the Environmental Audit Committee is to consider how government policy contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, and to audit their performance. In my view the Committee haven’t done that.

They did not seek to quantify the full range of impacts of the various ‘unconventional’ oil and gas technologies currently planned for development across Britain. And it has to be said, the Committee have made some good recommendations in their – admittedly rushed – report. However, they also appeared to accept evidence which was highly questionable.

For example (paragraph 78 of their report) states: “Many of our witnesses acknowledged that the existing UK conventional onshore industry has a generally safe history, with over 200 producing wells and no pollution incidents from well design.”

In fact recent research, by a part-industry-sponsored group, shows that we have no detailed knowledge of at least half of the 2,000 or so deep wells drilled in Britain over the last century; there is no structured monitoring process to check their condition; and at least one well has failed – and none of those where subject to high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF).

The one well in Britain which has been subject to HVHF, at Preese Hall, has failed – and the Health and Safety Executive’s refusal to require the proper inspection of the well during construction is in part responsible for that failure.

The Committee also state (paragraph 36 of their report): “The Researching Fracking In Europe consortium informed us that their ‘research has found that even in the ‘worst case scenario’, flux in the radioactivity of flowback fluid would not exceed the annual exposure limit set by the UK Environment Agency.'”

I tackled that paper, and its flaws, in an article for The Ecologist last July.

It used a highly selective sample of some of the most radioactive natural mineral springs in order to state that the ‘naturally occurring’ radioactivity in flowback water is safe. It also makes some error in its assumptions about dose limits, and fails to show all the data required to validate it findings against the international standard procedures for dose calculation.

That is why we need a proper public inquiry, testing the evidence. All assumptions and data, whatever its source, must be objectively tested to establish how much weight can be applied to them.

Carbon is not the only critical issue

Perhaps my greatest difficulty with the EAC’s report is that it largely concentrates on climate change and carbon emissions. That completely misses the broad range of impacts unconventional fossil fuels create.

We could completely eradicate the fugitive emissions from unconventional oil and gas, making it some of the cleanest fossil fuel production in the world, and the problems it creates would still make it highly damaging.

‘Low carbon’ or ‘green completion‘ unconventional oil and gas production would still generate large quantities of toxic and hazardous materials – with as yet no identified treatment facility or disposal location.

These developments, in particular the pipelines and associated roads, would also damage large areas of the landscape and natural habitats – as outlined in recent US research.

And though it may create a short-term boom for certain vested interests – like the North West Energy Task Force – it would absolutely fail to tackle the greater imperative of addressing the ecological overshoot of our society.

What the media ignored this week

There were two other events in the last week which passed by, seemingly un-noticed.

Firstly, Egdon Resources applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to test drill their Laughton site. No fracking – yet – but it enlarges a new eastern development area in the Bowland shale.

More significantly, Third Energy applied to use two existing, uneconomic wells for the disposal of the waste from other oil and gas operations – one permit for their site at Ebberston (on the border of the North Yorks. Moors National Park) and another permit for their site near Pickering (just south of the national park area).

This represents a significant policy shift as, until now, Britain hasn’t favoured disposal via deep injection. In the US, it is deep injection which appears to give rise to the greatest risks from groundwater pollution and seismic activity.

Third Energy’s current gas wells are ‘conventional’ (free flowing) gas wells. What’s significant here is not the source of the wastewater – it’s that this application could set a precedent for deep disposal from unconventional oil and gas sites.

Again, that’s something the EAC’s moratorium doesn’t encompass.

This is significant because of what follows from it

What happens in Parliament today is significant, but it’s not as important as what comes next. If there’s a moratorium, then we have to make sure that any inquiry processes which follow properly consider all the available evidence.

Alternately, if the Government force a vote to quash the call for a moratorium, that escalates the nature of the debate. It will no longer be a reasoned debate over evidence. The Government will have abandoned any such pretence, and will instead impose their will purely because they can.

If the Government force their will upon Parliament, that’s as big a problem for the Environmental Audit Committee as it is for the public. It basically says that their evidence gathering was a waste of time, and that they are not going to be listened to.

For the public, and anti-fracking campaigners in particular, it’s a clear message. That democratic processes based upon evidence are no longer valid – and that in Britain, as in the USA, it is spin and lobbying which now provide the justification for policy.

If you wish to oppose the development of unconventional oil and gas, with all legal redress closed off by current law reforms, your only option for doing so will be through direct action.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy‘, ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 

 




389417