Closing Tomorrow: You can complete it online really quickly here- answering a very definite NO for Question 4! Make your voice heard loudly on this one! This is the consulation for changing the legislation to allow Fracking companies to drill under homes.This consultation came in during the post election media, is the subject of an Early Day Motion and may be transferred here. Please share widely https://econsultation.decc.gov.uk/decc-policy/consultation-on-underground-drilling-access/consultation/intro/view . Or Thanks Rahima for this template letter:please send your emails to: [email protected] Consultation on Underground Drilling Access for oil and gas To Whom it May Concern I wish to make this submission to the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil in response to the consultation regarding whether the Government should legislate to provide underground access to gas, oil and geothermal developments below 300m. The concluding three questions attached to the consultation paper will be addressed at the end of this submission. Firstly by way of introduction there are a few points noted in the Consultation Paper which I would like to address. It is noted at the outset that the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil is part of the Energy Development Unit in the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Its purpose is to promote the safe responsible and environmentally sound recovery of the UKs unconventional reserves of gas and oil. The purpose of the Consultation concerns the advancement of two industries that are in the early stages of development in the UK. The document notes that the Government believes that shale gas and oil may have the potential to provide the UK with greater energy security growth and jobs. It is stated as a fact that successful exploration of unconventional resources in other countries notably the United States have proved to be an important source of energy. This statement is seriously in question. Considerable evidence is available from the United States to suggest that the industry has a significant failure rate in terms of wells drilled, and a grossly inflated projection of available recoverable gas, which has not proven at development stage. Also in the case of the United States, the methodology used i.e. hydraulic fracturing, has proven to be an environmental disaster, with water contamination, airborne pollution and impacts on human health and animal health. This is especially important given the vastness of the land mass and the more spread out and sparse population. Were this model to apply in the UK such outcomes would be seriously prejudicial to public health and safety and the well being of the nation. Additionally the high proportion of well failures would prove to be a regulatory nightmare and particularly in circumstances where developments were closed down after a short operational period. The question arises as to who then is going to be responsible for safe guarding and maintaining these abandoned wells where a toxic cocktail of chemicals has been used as an inducement to generate gas flow. The document produced by your office for this consultation notes that there are large scale shale resources in the UK, while admitting that the knowledge is not here as to how much of this unconventional gas and oil is technically and economically recoverable. No mention is made in this paragraph as to the environmental viability of any attempt at recovering this resource. Statements to the affect that the recovery of these resources in an economically viable way is a question for the industry. The importance here for the Government must be safeguarding the environment and public safety and the level of certainty required is something that the Government must take responsibility for at this stage, and in this circumstance the purpose of this consultation is very premature. The proposals set out for consultation that would apply to any underground drilling for the extraction of unconventional oil and gas, and the issue of access rights, at this stage is a very serious proposition in the absence of a technical understanding of how this process can be done in the UK context in a safe and environmentally viable manner. To conclude this introduction it is noted that this consultation relates solely to England Wales and Scotland, but it is a transferrable matter to Northern Ireland and whether the proposals could be extended there as apart of the UK. I am somewhat disappointed given the Departments remit relating to Climate change that recognition is not given to the fact that shale gas is methane and therefore a green house gas. There is no comment provided on the harmful atmospheric affects of unmitigated release of methane into the atmosphere and indeed the conclusions of many experts in the field that consumption of this gas results in a high level of emissions. Surely there are many other alternatives that could achieve a reduction in green house gases where they to be properly explored, such as hydro, wave and tidal energy etc. There are viable alternatives and should be provided with incentives from Government that will insure the necessary investment is made in developing their potential, and such alternatives will attract widespread public support. I am also concerned that the consultation document seeks to downplay the significance of the quantities of chemicals that are used in the hydraulic fracturing process intended for use in the harvesting of shale gas, shale oils etc. Where an average input of 1 million gallons of water is used per individual well frack, up to 40,000 gallons of highly toxic chemicals and carcinogens are added to this mix. The returned waste water is a highly hazardous substance and can be radio active, as radon is commonly occurring in shale. On the basis of these omissions it places a question mark over the status of this consultation document and that in itself is a serious concern given that this consultation is coming from a government department and the consultation process is intended to gauge public acceptance for the enactment of a law to allow access to drilling underneath private property where the risks associated with such a practice are not fully understood or in this circumstance where an honest appraisal of the potential hazards of this industry are not highlighted or are deliberately played down. Permission to Drill The document notes there are currently around 176 licenses issued by the DECC for onshore oil and gas in the UK. Landowners agreement to access land is required and companies need to obtain a right of access from landowners for both surface and underground land. What is unique about shale gas extraction is the intention to drill a number of vertical wells which will then span out to horizontal drilling across a large underground surface area. This potentially can extend up to two miles. In this circumstance a landowner or homeowner could be subjected to underground drilling of their property from an access point on another landowners property where their consent will not be required. There has to be a concern also that in the event of access being denied the operator can refer to the Secretary of State, the matter can be taken through the Courts, and in the event of being unsuccessful the landowner can be brought to ruin through legal costs incurred. This is clearly weighted against the rights of the individual and the public at large. It is noted that a key part of the permissioning process will involve planning permission from the local authority at the formative stage. The planning authority may require an Environmental Impact Assessment in which case this will be part of the public consultation and it is also noted that the shale industry through its trade body has committed to carrying out EIAs where hydraulic fracturing is involved in the exploration stage. The difficulty that arises here is the actual enabling legislation in Britain for the EIA Directive and it has been recognized at European level that the EIA Directive is not designed to provide an adequate and appropriate assessment for this activity, particularly where such activities apply to underground and the potential impacts on hydro geology. This is therefore a false screen and there is a requirement for a proper review on how environmental assessment should be carried out for the shale industry where hydraulic fracturing is involved. This to include an explicit requirement for a Health Impact Assessment, potential seismic activity etc. These are necessary measures that require addressing before consideration can be given of a law that will allow underground access to lands and property. It is also a requirement to give weight and meaning to the Environmental Regulator and their permitting system.Iin order for the Regulator to identify associated risks and decide on the sufficiency or otherwise of proposed mitigation it will be first necessary for them to have available a full and critical analysis of all likely impacts associated with the process, in order to make an informed decision. On that basis it will be possible to ensure a regulatory regime and regulatory framework that is fit for purpose. What is being proposed here is the setting aside of the rights of individuals who have serious and grave concerns to say no to horizontal underground drilling under their properties, on the basis that what is clearly an inadequate regulatory regime has concluded that it is safe to do so and that it is in the greater public interest. It is important that the risks associated for the extraction of shale gas and oil are properly recognised . An understanding of the magnitude of risks is essential to the consideration of this document. The potential hazards are such as to have far reaching consequences for public health and safety as a result of water and air pollution and emissions. There is now a growing body of evidence from the United States and Australia in particular, which make a very compelling case for the suspension of consideration of the further development of this industry; pending the development of a safe regulatory regime that takes into account the best international practice and takes onboard the informed concerns of many leading experts across a range of disciplines in this field. Once this genie is out of the bottle it will be very difficult to put it back. This rush to drill is not supported by the kind of investigations that are essential to reach informed conclusions on whether the proposals can be safely adopted. It is incorrectly stated that no ground water contamination has happened in the US. As a result of contamination emanating from hydraulic fracturing and affecting an aquifer or drinking water supplies. It is necessary to consider the geology and the long term potential of contaminated fluids making their way into drinking water supplies. This can easily happen over a period of ten to twenty years and this potential hazard is not being properly evaluated here. The seismic activity near Blackpool in 2011 rightly alerted the DECC to the need for new controls for fracking operators in order to mitigate seismic risks. However this needs to be further explored and particularly in circumstances where there is a proposal to allow underground drilling that will take place under peoples properties. This is a legitimate concern and no one can predict the long term impacts or the chain of events that may be set in train as a result of using this technology. In response to the three questions set out: Question 1: Should the government legislate to provide underground acces to oil and gas developers below 300m? NO In regard to question 2: Do I have preferred alternative solution? The best form of mitigation is avoidance. There is simply not enough evidence to suggest that this activity can be undertaken in an environmentally sound way. The criteria set out for assessing these projects does not have the range of binding requirements to allow for a proper evaluation of their likely significant impacts, and therefore this consultation is premature in the absence of a proper regulatory regime that will include a full evaluation of all likely significant affects, it is not possible in the public interest to proceed with this legislation. In reply to Question 3: The industry proposes payment and notification through a voluntary scheme in return for access. This is not appropriate in circumstances where this activity represents a large scale potential hazard to the public at large and this activity cannot be confined to a localised impact. It is the duty of government to provide and care for the environment and the sustainability of that environment for current and future generations. Developments of this nature may only be permitted on the basis of best available international assessments and advice from a range of disciplines covering the potential range of likely impacts associated with permitting this development. Thank you for your consideration.
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:47:30 +0000