Tag Archives: fracking

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

Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




During the 2000s the ‘fracking boom’ in the USA was fuelled by speculative Wall Street finance. When that bubble burst in 2008, the dodgy finance was cut off and the number of drilling rigs collapsed by over 50% within a few months.

Last December, I wrote in The Ecologist of how the ‘funny money’ from quantitative easing was once more fuelling the number of drilling rigs, supporting the Ponzi-style ‘shale bubble’.

Just over a week ago I wrote of how that junk-debt-fuelled house of cards was being shaken by the fall in oil prices.

Now Baker-Hughes, the US drilling services company which monitors industry trends, has announced the biggest weekly decline in US drilling activity since 1991; and the decline over the last six weeks – the decommissioning of 209 rigs – is the largest since their records began in 1987.

An upcoming production downturn

That interruption in the ‘shale drilling treadmill’ means that the clock has started to tick. Within a year or so, due to the high decline rate of unconventional oil and gas wells, production will begin to tail-off once more.

The gas drilling stall in 2008 led to gas production levelling-off in 2011/12. When quantitative easing cash flooded in to turn the drills back on again, many rigs switched to drilling for shale oil instead. Today it’s not clear whether the US government can or will prevent the ‘shale bubble’ imploding.

In addition to the finance issues, over the last few weeks we’ve also seen health and environmental agencies in New York State and Quebec recommend bans on future development of the industry there.

Whether or not these difficulties will bring an official realisation of the unsustainable nature of unconventional fossil fuels is not clear. That same finance treadmill ensures those involved in the industry make big bucks from this process.

As a result they have the ready cash to pay public relations agencies to obfuscate the debate on unconventional gas and oil.

Crisis? What crisis?

And here in Britain? In the corridors of power, the events of recent weeks appear to have had no recognition whatsoever. The problems of the global oil and gas industry – from the US to Britain, to Australia – has not diverted the political shale gas and oil bandwagon (at least in England and Wales).

Last week I attended the public hearings for the Environmental Audit Committee’s (EAC) inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘. For me, those sessions typify the problems our national politics has in examining contentious public debates.

The Committee did not appear to want any specific detail of what the impacts of fracking would be in Britain – demonstrated by experience elsewhere, or through analysis of the proposals outlined by the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

And though the Committee were looking at the ‘environmental impacts’, much of the debate was centred around conventional economics and investment models – not the identification of ecological or health impacts.

At the same time, across Parliament Square, the Government were trying to steamroller through their shale project as part of the Infrastructure Bill – from tax breaks for drillers, to weakened regulation, all designed to facilitate the Government’s unsubstantiated case for a UK ‘shale revolution’.

The myth of a ‘balanced debate’

Politicians might call for a ‘balanced debate on shale’, but arguably it is they who are peddling a manufactured rhetoric. This is because the political process has been hijacked by lobbyists paid by the industry, whose manipulative tendrils reach right inside the Government.

For me, the most eye-opening part of the EAC’s evidence session was when Caroline Spelman asked, “What could be done to address public mistrust over fracking and who would be trusted to provide an objective assessment of the pros and cons?”

They very fact the question was posed shows how out of touch politicians are on this issue. For example, they could start by asking representatives of public to their inquiry, to ask them directly what their concerns are.

Instead what we often get in the place of public involvement, or the substantiation of the Government’s claims using objective evidence, are stooges – public relations representatives who say what the political consensus wants to hear.

The witness at the EAC’s inquiry I found the most troublesome was Chris Smith: formerly chair of the Environment Agency (who issued Cuadrilla’s fracking permit last week); chair of the Advertising Standards Authority (who recently took umbrage at  an anti-fracking leaflet); and chair of the new ‘independent’ Task Force on Shale Gas.

The problem for the Committee was that the Task Force on Shale Gas hasn’t done any work yet! All Smith could do was apologetically state that they would produce statements on a range of issues at some future date.

Industry ‘astroturf’ has become the benchmark of impartiality

While the Task Force on Shale Gas might laud itself as being independent, and command Parliamentary time in the place of those who might have something substantive to say, the details surrounding the Task Force’s organisation say something rather different.

There is another body called the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Unconventional Gas and Oil. Like a number of other APPGs in Parliament it’s essentially an industry ‘astroturf’ group, set up as a lobbying vehicle to access decision-makers in government.

The secretariat for APPG on Unconventional Gas and Oil is provided by a political lobbying company, Edelman, using funding from companies with direct links to or investment in the shale gas industry – such as IGas, Cuadrilla, The Weir Group, Centrica, Total and GDF Suez.

And what has this to do with Chris Smith’s ‘independent’ Task Force on Shale Gas?:

In fact the Task Force on Shale Gas’s ‘industry front’ credentials go deeper than that:

  • One of the three panel members the Task Force’s panel has an academic post which is part-funded by BG Group – who have investments in shale in the USA;
  • Another panel member is a professor at the University of Manchester – where research funded by Cuadrilla and others is being carried out – who signed an ‘open letter’ with other academics calling for politicians to recognised the “undeniable economic, environmental and national security benefits” of shale gas in Lancashire”;
  • One of the three ‘advisory experts’ has done consultancy work for an oil and gas exploration company, promoting the business case for shale gas development in Poland; and
  • Another advisory expert has spoken in support of shale gas at other Parliamentary committees, and has stated that “UK climate campaigners should support fracking for shale gas.”


Fracking is also polluting British democracy

To return to Caroline Spelman’s question, ” … who would be trusted to provide an objective assessment of the pros and cons?” – arguably not the Task Force on Shale Gas!

Such ‘objectivity’ is not based within people, or their credentials. Objectivity is defined by how evidence is assessed, and the transparency of the assessment process which digests and ranks that evidence.

When we trace the connections, and examine the substances of the debate to date, much of the media promotion of shale gas presents a partial view, overtly hostile to any contrary view, and often based upon debatable evidence.

Politicians ask for a ‘balanced debate’ from campaign groups, and yet much of the imbalance is fronted by the industry side. Even witnesses at the EAC’s inquiry believed that politicians had over-stated the benefits of shale gas.

When governments pursue policies such as unconventional energy in the absence of balanced evidence, then ultimately it’s the public and the environment who will suffer.

However, that’s not simply because ‘fracking’ is bad for the environment. It’s because the exercise of executive power in Britain today has become toxic for our democratic institutions.

 

 

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

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

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 




389204

Toxic landfills, fracking and the lethal threat of Environment Agency neglect Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Zane, a beautiful bright 7-year-old boy who had just won his green stripe belt at martial arts class, and who was described by his headmaster as a “larger than life” figure, died on the nmight of 8th February 2014. Both his parents were taken ill, and his father, Kye, remains paralysed from the waist down.

The cause of death and harm remains officially unknown nearly a year later. Initial reports suggesting carbon monoxide poisoning from water pumps were later discounted. But firemen at the scene detected hydrogen cyanide, later confirmed by Public Health England.

In fact, the house is a rare all electric house with no gas supply and no capability of generating carbon monoxide. No carbon monoxide was found in the family home. Also, it took Public Health England 14 weeks to confirm to the family that hydrogen cyanide was indeed found in their flooded house.

Was it a cover-up?

And amazingly, despite the immediate finding of hydrogen cyanide in the home, the pathologist was never told to test Zane’s blood for hydrogen cyanide.

As early as March, the family sent a report to the coroner suggesting important lines of enquiry including testing for hydrogen cyanide. But there is still no official confirmation of what actually killed Zane.

The family’s own investigations into the surrounding area have since revealed that a field 6 metres from their home that contains a lake and looks so idyllic, is actually contaminated land – but this did not show in environmental searches.

Zane’s parents bought the house in 2004, when an environmental report showed no land contamination. However, subsequent reports for a neighbouring property in 2011, and for their own home, ordered by Zane’s parents last month, indicate contamination due to an old landfill site behind their home, now an infilled lake.

They also discovered that the Environment Agency knew about the toxic hazard from the landfill, ordering gas-proof membranes to protect their own staff when they built cabins nearby. This week, the family told Talk Fracking that the authorities, including the Environment Agency, have been “walls of silence”.

In response to questions about climate change, the Met Office confirmed that the flooding was “consistent with what is expected from the fundamental physics of a warming world“, thus increasing the potential dangers that flooding could compromise more landfill sites.

Fracking may need countless new landfills to dump its waste

In a recent submission to the Environmental Audit Committee, researcher and consultant Paul Mobbs analyses the water treatment and waste management associated with fracking. He forecasts a 50% increase in hazardous waste landfill, a staggering quarter of a million tonnes.

In December, Talk Fracking gave the Government some Christmas reading in the form of scientific reports on the health dangers of fracking. They included the Government’s own scientific advisor warning that fracking could join historic scandals such as asbestos, thalidomide, and lead in petrol.

Energy Minister, Matthew Hancock replied to Talk Fracking this week, citing two reports, one a three-year old study by the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE), and the other by Public Health England. In his reply he concedes that both reports call for effective regulation and strong enforcement to bring the health, safety and environmental risks to a low level.

With the proposed massive expansion of this new industry across the country, and the many known and accepted risks, including the landfill issues highlighted by Paul Mobbs, you would expect a responsible Government to increase Environment Agency staff accordingly.

And now the Environment Agency cuts its regulatory capacity

In one of the reports Matthew Hancock used in his defence, the RAE stated that “regulatory capacity must be maintained“. But just two days after Zane’s sad death, news of 25% staff cuts hit the headlines.

Frontline services, according to Chris Smith, the then head of the EA, wouldn’t be affected by cuts, even while the agency was already struggling, calling nearly a fifth of frontline staff in from other teams in order to cope with the flooding.

Chris Smith now heads the ‘independent’ Shale Gas Task Force, where he earns around £1,500 a day, funded by fracking companies.

The new head of the Agency is Sir Phillip Dilley, earning £100k for three days a week work. He used to head the engineering firm, Arup, and is still listed as a trustee. Arup was employed by the leading fracking company, Cuadrilla – whose chairman Lord Browne sat as an advisor in the Cabinet.

It’s also been recently revealed that the EA pension fund invests in the very fracking companies it is supposed to regulate. The Environment Agency has just issued Cuadrilla with a brand new permit for drilling in Lancashire.

What Zane’s tragic story tells us is that regulators are less concerned about public safety, than about avoiding public awareness of the risks posed by contaminated, unregulated landfill sites throughout the UK. How many are there? Could you be living by one?

And if the Environment Agency cannot even monitor and ensure the safely of our existing industrial and domestic waste dumps, how wise is it to encourage a fracking boom that will cause a 50% increase the landfilling of hazardous waste, creating a massive new toxic legacy for the future?

 

 

Petition: ‘Call for a public debate into the death of 7 year old Zane‘ (38 degrees).

This article is based on one originally published by Talk Fracking, a campaign group committed to highlighting the issues surrounding fracking in the UK, holding the policy makers and industry to account and providing a forum for debate.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Death by landfill – cutting ‘green tape’ costs lives‘.

 

 




389167

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962