Tag Archives: fracking

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

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

Fracking’s future is in doubt as oil price plummets, bonds crash Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




There’s no doubt that US-based fracking – the process through which oil and gas deposits are blasted from shale deposits deep underground – has caused a revolution in worldwide energy supplies.

Yet now the alarm bells are ringing about the financial health of the fracking industry, with talk of a mighty monetary bubble bursting – leading to turmoil on the international markets similar to that in 2008.

In many ways, it’s a straightforward case of supply and demand. Due to the US fracking boom, world oil supply has increased.

But with global economic growth now slowing – the drop in growth in China is particularly significant – there’s a lack of demand and a glut in supplies, leading to a fall in price of nearly 50% over the last six months.

US oil is flooding the market

Fracking has become a victim of its own success. The industry in the US has grown very fast. In 2008, US oil production was running at five million barrels a day.

Thanks to fracking, that figure has nearly doubled, with talk of US energy self-sufficiency and the country becoming the world’s biggest oil producer – ‘the new Saudi Arabia’ – in the near future.

The giant Bakken oil and gas field in North Dakota – a landscape punctured by thousands of fracking sites, with gas flares visible from space – was producing 200,000 barrels of oil a day in 2007. Production is now running at more than one million barrels a day.

Fuelled by talk of the financial rewards to be gained from fracking, investors have piled into the business. The US fracking industry now accounts for about 20% of the world’s total crude oil investment.

But analysts say this whole investment edifice could come crashing down.

Extreme oil is expensive oil

Fracking is an expensive business. Depending on site structure, companies need prices of between $60 and $100 per barrel of oil to break even. As prices drop to around $55 per barrel, investments in the sector look ever more vulnerable.

Analysts say that while bigger fracking companies might be able to sustain losses in the short term, the outlook appears bleak for the thousands of smaller, less well-financed companies who rushed into the industry, tempted by big returns.

The fracking industry’s troubles have been added to by the actions of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which, despite the oversupply on the world market, has refused to lower production.

The theory is that OPEC, led by powerful oil producers such as Saudi Arabia, is playing the long game – seeking to drive the fracking industry from boom to bust, stabilise prices well above their present level, and regain its place as the world’s pre-eminent source of oil.

There are now fears that many fracking operations may default on an estimated $200 billion of borrowings, raised mainly through bonds issued on Wall Street and in the City of London.

In turn, this could lead to a collapse in global financial markets similar to the 2008 crash.

Is fracking a busted flush?

There are also questions about just how big existing shale oil and gas reserves are, and how long they will last. A recent report by the Post Carbon Institute, a not-for-profit think tank based in the US, says reserves are likely to peak and fall off rapidly, far sooner than the industry’s backers predict.

The cost of drilling is also going up as deposits become more inaccessible.

Besides ongoing questions about the impact of fracking on the environment – in terms of carbon emissions and pollution of water sources – another challenge facing the industry is the growth and rapidly falling costs of renewable energy.

Fracking operations could also be curtailed by more stringent regulations designed to counter fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change.

Its backers have hyped fracking as the future of energy – not just in the US, but around the world. Now the outlook for the industry is far from certain.

 

 

Kieran Cooke writes for Climate News Network, where this article was first published.

 




388678

Fracking in the UK: what to expect in 2015 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The current UK coalition government has overseen the greatest fossil fuel boom since the discovery of North Sea oil, but the controversy that surrounds shale has made it an interesting factor in the run-up to this year’s general election.

The government has shown absolutely no evidence that it is willing to slow down its committed march towards the commercial development of shale gas.

For example, the government recently approved amendments to the infrastructure bill which, amidst heavy public resistance, will allow fracking companies to extract shale from right underneath people’s homes.

This is irrespective of a wide range of academic reports listing both health and environmental implications, as well as direct human rights inflictions.

Chancellor George Osborne also pledged a further £35 million in the Autumn Statement towards the development of shale gas, with £5 million in particular dedicated to twisting the public’s arm on the matter.

And with the introduction of a Task Force on Shale Gas headed by the ex-environmental minister Lord Chris Smith, the energy industry is very serious in styling a UK fracking boom on America’s recent ‘shale revolution’.

Political instability in Eastern Europe has also contributed to the pro-fracking agenda and has encouraged the government to pursue an easier option over greener, alternative energy sources that may take longer to develop.

Shale has continuously been hyped as a cheap energy source that will define UK energy independence from foreign imports – a view discredited by the government’s own energy researchers.

Environmental opposition

An increasing amount of communities across the UK have begun organising attempts to resist fracking proposals in their local area.

Talking to DeSmogUK, Hannah Walters from Frack Off UK said: “This is the fastest growing social movement in the UK right now.

“There are currently around 170 anti-fracking community groups actively resisting this industry on a day-by-day basis with several more forming each week. We’re expecting that number to pass 200 as we move into 2015.”

For example, residents in Fife, Scotland are now urging their council to postpone fracking developments due to worrying reports on health implications and environmental pollution.

However, campaigners are likely to be heavily scrutinised by the police. In December, it was revealed that the police asked Canterbury Christ Church University to hand over a list of members of the public who attended a fracking debate on its campus.

While the University declined the request, it follows similar disclosures that police have been monitoring political activities at campuses around the country, as well as spying on groups that use non-violent methods in their campaigning.

Health impacts

At the end of last year, a hard-hitting report was commissioned by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation and delivered to Prime Minister David Cameron. It cites human rights liabilities for the British Government if fracking commences commercially across the UK.

Focusing primarily on the health implications of people living near frack sites, the report called on the government to investigate the impact of fracking on the rights of individuals.

Other reports have also expressed concern regarding the implications on people around fracking sites due to the chemicals involved with hydraulic fracturing.

Talking to the Courier, Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: “There is a growing body of evidence that environmental and health risks associated with onshore unconventional gas extraction, including coalbed methane, are inherent and impossible to eliminate.”

In a recent damning report by the government’s chief scientific adviser, the author of one of the chapters, Prof Andrew Stirling of the University of Sussex, warned that fracking could carry unforeseen risks that would replicate problems seen with asbestos and thalidomide.

The chapter states: “History presents plenty of examples of innovation trajectories that later proved to be problematic – for instance involving asbestos, benzene, thalidomide, dioxins, lead in petrol, tobacco, many pesticides, mercury, chlorine and endocrine-disrupting compounds.”

Caroline Lucas, MP for the Green Party, when recently writing for the Guardian also lambasted the government’s pursuit of fossil fuels as a “public health imperative”, adding that to save lives, “urgent change is needed”.

Industry decline

Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary has recently expressed his concern regarding a declining fossil fuel industry that needs to adapt to a changing climate and market, stating that the energy industry is “seeing a move from carbon capitalism to climate capitalism.”

“We know with climate change we have got to move out to a low-carbon agenda and we are already seeing the signs that the market is going to be helping to drive this”, he said.

Adaptability and divestment from fossil fuel holdings is a theme expressed by both the secretary and green business institutions, who argue for greater transparency to protect future investors.

They may have been inspired by events in the US where the rapidly grown shale industry has taken a big hit from declining oil prices.

The self titled ‘granddaddy’ of fracking, Harold Hamm, recently lost half of his multi-billion dollar fortune in a shockwave financial crisis that has led to doubts regarding shale as the saviour of US energy politics.

 

 

Richard Heasman writes for DeSmogUK and tweets @Richardheasman4.

This article was originally published on DeSmogUK.

 

 




388553

With sub-$60 oil, fracking and tar sands losses threaten the whole financial system Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Brought about by the recent fall in oil prices, investors are beginning to review the economics of unconventional oil and gas. For the last few years there have been a number of damning reports about the economics of unconventional fossil fuels.

Now it seems those long-ignored observations are being taken seriously by the money-lenders of Wall Street.

John Maynard Keynes was one of the most significant economists of the Twentieth Century, whose observations still draw the ire of pundits and politicians today.

One of his better-known economic aphorisms was, “If you owe your bank a hundred pounds, you have a problem. But if you owe a million, it has.”

Sound advice, but what if you owe hundreds of billions? Then it becomes a problem for the whole economic system, not just the bank.

QE: Floods of funny money for fossil fuels

During the early 2000s a lot of Wall Street’s ‘funny money’, based around complex investment schemes, flowed into unconventional oil and gas developments. It was seen as the new ‘revolution’ in America’s energy system, and a new, politically approved path to energy independence.

When that funding stream collapsed, after the 2007/8 financial crisis, the number of drilling rigs operating in America collapsed too.

In the wake of the crisis the US and other governments instituted quantitative easing (QE) – in effect conjuring ‘free money’ from governments, given at near zero rates of interest to the major banks and finance institutions.

Problem was, in the wake of the crisis, there was little to invest all that ‘new funny money’ in. Throwing free money after bad, the US fracking industry mopped up a large wad of QE cash, and shortly after the number of drilling rigs in the US took off again.

Looking for a fast return, sections of the finance industry specialise in ‘high risk’ or ‘junk’ investments – which in America is reckoned to be worth $1,300 billion.

Over the last 10-15 years the global finance system has loaned the American unconventional oil and gas industry hundreds of billions of dollars. Today somewhere between $150 and $550 billion of those loans are considered to be ‘junk’.

The fracking Ponzi scheme exposed

Now, as oil prices fall, the precarious, Ponzi scheme nature of these investments is being exposed – although the basic facts were made public by the New York Times over four years ago.

There’s a whole lot of reasons why many have seen ‘fracking’ as an economic train wreck waiting to happen. What’s triggered today’s reality-check is the large and fast fall in oil prices, and recent studies which have exposed the flaws in the investment models which underpin the industry.

Now the ‘shale boom’ appears to be over, and the spin and hype which drove that revolution are finally being exposed. And, as Keynes suggests, if this triggers a wider crisis in the bond market it has the potential to cause problems way beyond the parochial issue of ‘fracking’.

The problem with unconventional oil and gas is that it takes a lot of engineering to produce a small return of product. Some studies, such as one carried out by the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies in early 2014, reckoned that half of all unconventional wells were losing money – and the industry as a whole had written-off assets worth up to $35 billion.

To put that into perspective that’s more than JP Morgan’s post-crash bank bailout, and a bit less than Citigroup’s – but unlike the bailouts that $35 billion would never be paid back!

Across America there are a large number of small oil producers – ranging from a few thousand to just four or five barrels of oil per day. These are the people at the bottom of the industry who exist largely on historic land rights and loaned capital.

As oil prices fall, lacking the economic power of the major companies, these are the people who see the biggest impact on their earnings. As a consequence they are more likely to shut down and default on their loans.

There are obvious parallels here with the US sub-prime mortgage crisis. As these many small loans go bad the effects compound up the ‘food chain’ of finance. One measures of this is the bond yield, the earnings from energy investments – which have been sliding all year.

Fearful that the ‘shale revolution’ might implode, some vocal free market pundits are calling for assistance to be given to the US shale industry.

More significantly, in terms of the potential losses, it’s the biggest players in the US shale industry who are practising the moist egregious tactics to keep on the ‘drilling treadmill‘ – continuously keeping new wells coming on stream in order to make up for the low returns and short productive life of the ones drilled previously.

At the national level some of the larger unconventional oil and gas companies have been playing the market to massage their credit ratings – to keep the investment dollars flowing in.

Locally some are receiving back-door subsidies as US states overlook unpaid taxes, or pick up the bill for plugging old abandoned wells. In Florida, they proposed to front-load the high exploration costs for shale onto consumer’s utility bills. Meanwhile some companies under-pay royalties to landowners, or under-pay their workers, in order to save money and make their balance sheets look better.

And that was before December 2014 …

The real fracking financial earthquake began in the first week of December, when oil prices fell below $70 / barrel – the point at which most unconventional production becomes barely economic.

Lower prices were already hitting the Canadian tar-sands industry too, where the break-even price for new projects is estimated at $115 / barrel.

The week before OPEC had unexpectedly decided to keep oil production unchanged – guaranteeing a further fall in prices as traders off-loaded their increasingly loss-making futures contracts. Then sections of the financial media began to express concern about the viability of the unconventional oil and gas sector.

By the second week of December, when prices dropped to $65 / barrel, there were reports that the ‘bubble’ in shale investments might be a serious problem for bond investors – potentially risking another market crash.

As a result the value of many US, UK and Australian unconventional oil and gas companies fell further – to the point where Australian analysts suggested they would make ideal speculative take-over targets, and Canadian dealers start to short-sell tar sands debt in anticipation of a further fall in value.

At the beginning of this week, the third week of December, as oil prices hit $60 / barrel, the off-loading of bonds began as investors tried to limit their exposure to the risk of a crash.

As in 2008, companies started to decommission drilling rigs once again. The shale industry may have written off $35 billion in the last 10 to 15 years – but right now bond holders are staring down almost $12 billion of losses in the last few weeks.

OK – shale is going bust, isn’t that a good thing? Looked at narrowly it is, but there are two problems this gives rise to.

Who’s going to clean up the mess?

Most importantly, where the industry has taken hold (the USA, Canada and Australia) widespread bankruptcy would allow the industry to walk away from the liabilities for the pollution they have created. This potentially dumps billions in clean-up costs on to state and national governments.

The second problem is the collapse of ‘political capital’, as politicians seek to distract attention from one failure by jumping on another bandwagon. In the short-term we might see the nuclear industry strutting around saying “I told you so”. The green energy lobby has also been panicked by recent price falls.

In fact the long-term fundamentals of energy supply have not changed – the current trends have everything to do with the geopolitics of oil and little to do with what will happen to oil prices in five or ten years time.

Those realities are likely to be drowned out as industry and lobby groups noisily queue at the government’s door to sell yet more ‘production’ technologies to gullible politicians, and an incredulous public.

What we need instead is long-term thinking. The difficulty is, in the fall-out from the failure of shale, the more fundamental arguments about the relationship between energy and the economy will be missed.

Bumping up against ecological limits

The greater argument we should be having is about growth and ecological limits, and whether growth has reached its limit in the most developed nations. This isn’t just an issue of climate change, or the depletion of national resources.

The founders of modern economics – Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Malthus – all believed that the economy would grow to a certain point and then stop. That’s not just an issue of material consumption; it’s about the finite nature of the world.

For example, how many hours of TV can you watch a week, or how many ready meals can you consume, before all your available free time / space is saturated?

What the ‘fracking bubble‘ demonstrates is not simply the bankruptcy of extreme fossil fuels – it’s the economic model itself which is bankrupt. Even students studying economics at universities around the world understand that point, and are lobbying for change.

Politicians are not necessarily stupid. They’re goaded into it by well-connected economists who tell them that they have a fool-proof model for how the world works.

The problem is that model is broke. And fracking, or futile carbon trading, or never-ending austerity, are simply manifestations of a failure to accept that it’s time to change the whole model that underlies the political economy.

 

 

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

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on the Free Range Activism website.

 

 




388299

Miscarriage and stillbirth linked to fracking chemical exposure Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




In Glenwood Springs, Colorado, mothers have been suffering from an unusually high rate of miscarriage and stillbirths.

A newly published study has concluded that 70% of cases lived greater than 15 miles from an active well created as a result of fracking and directional drilling. The remaining 30% were between 5 to 8 miles from the nearest active well.

This link is not a coincidence. A major review study undertaken by Susan C. Nagel and colleagues at the University of Missouri emphasises the major health threat posed by fracking and other unconventional oil and natural gas operations (UOGs) – especially to pregnant women and would-be parents.

“UOG operations release large amounts of reproductive, immunological, and neurological toxicants, carcinogens as well as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) into the environment that may negatively affect human health”, the study warns.

The conclusion is clear: unconventional oil and natural gas operations pose a serious threat not only to the environment, but to our health and ability to have children.

“The studies show that humans can be harmed by these chemicals released from fracking”, Nagel said in an interview. “There is strong evidence of decreased semen quality in men, higher miscarriages in women and increased risk of birth defects in children.”

Fracking: releasing chemicals in air and water near operations

Hundreds of chemicals have been associated with processes of fracking. Nagel’s most recent report has found that volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) such as benzene and toluene, as well as heavy metals such as lead and arsenic are directly linked with fracking processes.

More than 750 chemicals are injected into the ground under high pressure, the returned waste of these fluids not only contains the chemicals that are harmful in themselves, but also radioactive materials that have been liberated from the shale layer. The traditional treatment of this wastewater does not remove these chemicals that have escaped from their natural location.

This wastewater is then disposed of in landfills, evaporation pits, as well as being sprayed onto roads to reduce dust and melt ice. These practices directly and indirectly contaminate surface and ground water.

The common spills, leaks and discharges of UOG wastewater entail that those 15 million Americans that live within one mile of directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing are directly at risk, potentially coming into contact with those chemicals that Nagel links to adverse reproductive outcomes.

UOG processes also contribute to the concentration of numerous contaminants into the air, which can be inhaled in the air near operations.

Reproductive disorders – sperm counts down, miscarriages up

More than 130 fracturing chemicals have been identified as known or potential EDCs, while many others remain unassessed:

“Volatile organic compounds and heavy metals are just a few of
the known contributors to reduced air and water quality that pose a threat to human developmental and reproductive health. The developing fetus is particularly sensitive to environmental factors, which include air and water pollution.”

The effects of exposure to EDCs are well documented, affecting reproductive organs, body weight, puberty and fertility. Fertility declines are also linked to fracking chemicals such as BTEX, xylene and benzene. Workers exposed to these chemicals have suffered from low sperm count and negative sperm quality.

Back to Colorado, the exposure of pregnant women to heavy metals increases the risk of miscarriage. During fracking, heavy metals such as lead and cadmium are routinely mobilised and have been shown to contaminate surface and ground water.

Meanwhile high exposure to benzene and toluene, both used and produced by UOG operations, have led to women having three to five times the miscarriage rate of those with low exposure.

Whilst the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment concluded that no single environmental factor could explain the anomalies of miscarriage rates in Glenwood Springs, the majority of women were from the Piceance Shale Basin, a densely – drilled UOG region.

The Ecologist explored previously the negative consequences of coming into contact with ‘gender-bender’ endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which bind to endogenous hormone receptors in order to either activate or repress a typical result.

Other toxic impacts on reproduction

A correlation between benzene and toluene, which are both heavily involved with the processes of fracking, and effects on women’s menstrual cycle has been discovered when looking at petrochemical workers in Beijing. Inability and difficulty to conceive as well as premature menopause is also linked to exposure to toluene.

Preterm birth is the leading global cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Several chemicals associated with UOG operations have been linked to negative birth outcomes including the poor growth of infants in the womb and preterm birth.

Particulate matter is most commonly associated to adverse birth outcomes, and is commonly released into the surrounding air during tight oil and shale gas operations.

One study in Colorado examined maternal proximity to natural gas wells and the specific incident of three birth defects recorded. The study found a link between the deaths and their location, which was 10 miles away from a natural gas well.

And as the study concludes, “The developing fetus is particularly sensitive to environmental factors, which include air and water pollution. Research shows that there are critical windows of vulnerability during prenatal and early postnatal development, during which chemical exposures can cause potentially permanent damage to the growing embryo and fetus.

“Many of the air and water pollutants found near UOG operation sites are recognized as being developmental and reproductive toxicants; therefore there is a compelling need to increase our knowledge of the potential health consequences for adults, infants, and children from these chemicals through rapid and thorough health research investigation.”

 

 

The report: ‘Developmental and reproductive effects of chemicals associated with unconventional oil and natural gas operations‘ is published by Rev Environ Health 2014; 29(4): 307–318. Authors are Ellen Webb, Sheila Bushkin-Bedient*, Amanda Cheng, Christopher D. Kassotis, Victoria Balise and Susan C. Nagel.

Tamsin Paternoster is an reporter with a focus on the environment, social issues and European current affairs.

 

 




388170