Matt Bryan – presentation to CWaC on 29th Sepetember 2014 – “Regulatory Framework”
To open I would like to focus on the issue surrounding shale gas and
coalbed methane. Let me make it quite clear – they are both equally
damaging to the environment (we have a short document here which
explains this in more detail). There is ample evidence from Australia of the
damage done there by CBM extraction, but it seems that because the public
generally know less about it, it has less negative connotations than the
word “fracking”. Igas are using this fact when applying for planning
permission to deliberately confuse the public and councillors. They quite
openly described Cheshire sites as SHALE GAS ASSETS in their investors’
report, and in a press release last month, with no mention whatsoever
about CBM – and yet the license they have been granted is for CBM. Can the
council explain how they came to the conclusion that this is just about CBM
when Igas seem to have quite different ideas? And why is it that an
Environmental Impact Assessment is not required for CBM given its
potential negative impacts on the environment? Shouldn’t this be
implemented immediately as a requirement?
Oxford Geologist Kevin Walsh states that there is in the region of 1000 feet
of millstone grit beneath the coalbed before you reach the Boland Shale.
With a shadow of doubt, IGas are intentionally drilling thousands of feet
past their licensed target in order to extract Shale Gas (you don’t drill an
extra few thousand feet by accident!). CWAC stated that it was the British
Geological Survey’s responsibility to enforce this, whilst the British
Geological Survey have confirmed in writing that it would be CWAC’s! Just one example of the regulatory muddle.
Two earthquakes, magnitude 2.4, were caused by fracking in Lancashire in
2011. Given that the Ellesmere Port’s Igas drilling site is within a stone’s
throw of one of Europe’s largest petrochemical industries and a nuclear
refinement facility, should residents be worried about the potential
apocalyptic consequences of an earthquake in the area? The quake in
Lancashire occurred due to the presence of a pre-stressed fault – is it
possible to identify all pre-stressed faults?
On March 20th 2014 I reported two breaches of planning permission,
relating to lack of chemical bunding, to the environment agency as advised
by CWAC. No reply or apparent follow-up was made by either organisation.
Is this the gold standard of self-regulation we can look forward to in the
future? Why is it permissible for suspected regulatory breeches to be
reported and remain un-answered? Who is responsible for monitoring the
regulatory bodies and what can be done if these bodies are found not to be
doing their job?
The Environment Agency has cut 15% of jobs while putting more resources
into flood defences. They say that the industry will have to self-regulate –
Do you think that this is can be a robust regulatory system? Isn’t it the case
that when profit is at stake corners will always be cut? On top of this there
is some confusion over responsibility when things go wrong. There seem to
be several different regulatory bodies (each passing the buck from one to
the other), but there is no mention of who ultimately takes responsibility in
the event of gas leaks, collateral damage, water contamination, an increase
in road deaths, or seismic activity etc.
The response often given with regard to regulation is that the oil and gas
industry has long been established in the UK and we have all the necessary
regulations in place. However, this has largely been off-shore drilling and
is quite different to this NEW land-based fracking process – and it IS a new
process. Even in the States, modern high-volume fracking techniques have
only been used for the past 8 – 10 years, after the Senate exempted the oil
and gas industry from having to acknowledge or report any groundwater
contamination, also known as the Halliburton Loophole. It is also new to
such a densely populated area. Isn't it the case therefore that the regulations
are being made up as we go along?
Given all this and the fact that you simply CANNOT regulate against wellfailure, leaks, accidents or spills, we are extremely concerned that the
regulatory system will not go anywhere close to providing protection for
local communities. We therefore suggest that the Council apply the
Precautionary Principle when scrutinising planning applications.