FRACKING Discussion paper
Authors: Ashley Ralston and Bernard Shaw on behalf of NPN Environment Group
The ‘Fracking debate’ continues unabated, where do we, as Catholics, stand on the issues. It is our belief, from a
Christian perspective, as Pope Benedict points out “The whole of creation…must not be bequeathed to future
generations depleted of resources. Human beings legitimately exercise a responsible stewardship over nature, in
order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new ways” (Caritas in Veritate. para 50) that we need to
be both guarded and cautious in our approach (responsibility) to this debate whilst continuing to press for more
reliable data and a definitive regulatory regime(protection)..
The purpose of this paper is to highlight the issues involved and to address them in a Christian context for the
basis of discussion
TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
The process of Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) is in operation in various parts of world, but mainly in the
USA/Canada. Wikipaedia gives a good account of the process, however its sources are probably not authoritative
enough. There are other sources and
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265972/Developing_Onshore_Shal
e_Gas_and_Oil__Facts_about_Fracking_131213.pdf is worth a critical read as it purports to explain the various
issues surrounding the process and safety considerations
Safety considerations--- although operations are already taking place, with varying levels of regulation in place,
time only can tell if these are satisfactory. Until that time there will always be a risk. At present, the main areas of
concern are putting the water into the system under pressure, possible pollution of the groundwater, using water
that is scarce and collecting the gases released safely.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317140158707 highlights some stories from the United
States and the need for greater regulation
Earthquake/tremors as part of the fracturing process are another concern, such as, the tremors experienced in
Lancashire. The following paper sums up this up very well
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-06-28-Shale-gas.pdf
... “seismic events induced by hydraulic fracturing only produce high frequency radiated seismic waves, and so do
not produce ground shaking that will damage buildings. The number of people who feel small seismic events is
dependent on the background noise”. Scientists believe that waste-water injection wells, which are often the
cheapest disposal option for drilling companies, are the main cause of earthquakes associated with hydraulic
fracturing in the US. www.technologyreview.com/news/508151/studies-link-earthquakes-to-wastewater-fromfracking/
Increasing dependence on fossil fuels, which include the damaging impact of increasing exploitation of fossil
fuels and the impact on greenhouse gas emission are outlined in
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237330/MacKay_Stone_shale_stud
y_report_09092013.pdf . Mackay & Stone state ...“The view of the authors is that without global climate policies
(of the sort already advocated by the UK) new fossil fuel exploitation is likely to lead to an increase in cumulative
carbon emissions and the risk of climate change. We would strongly encourage continued efforts from the UK and
internationally to address this issue, proportionate to the emissions involved”.
Risks to health, noise pollution, land and environmental impact assessment, (such as, scarification of the area
around the drilling) are more localised
http://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/tyndall-coop_shale_gas_report_final.pdf-- (page 54) lists the key risks and
impacts of the plant infrastructure, as contamination of groundwater by fracturing fluids/mobilised contaminants
arising from: wellbore/casing failure; and/or subsurface migration, pollution of land and surface water (and
potentially groundwater via surface route) arising from spillage of fracturing additives; and spillage/tank
rupture/storm water overflow from liquid waste storage, lagoons/pits containing cuttings/drilling mud or flowback
water; water consumption and abstraction; waste water treatment; land and landscape impacts; impacts arising
during construction: noise/light pollution during well drilling/completion flaring/venting; and local traffic
impacts.
It is worth noting that experience from the US is not directly applicable due to different geology.
1
Further data is urgently needed and must surely involve carefully monitored experimental drilling to
develop an appropriate regulatory framework.
Planning issues
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224238/Planning_practice_guidanc
e_for_onshore_oil_and_gas.pdf outlines the complex web of permissions required for experimental drilling to
take place. Greenhouse gas emissions (including fugitive methane emissions) must also be taken into
account. Whether this is adequate is open to debate but it does recognise known risks and includes
obligations to restore sites once operations have been completed.
See http://www.ukoog.org.uk/about-ukoog/press-releases/66-how-to-engage-with-shale-gas-hydraulic-fracturingplanning-and-permitting and http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1190191/fracking-fracas both of these
web sites encourages engagement with planning process and apportions responsibility for restoration of drilling
sites.
Concerns: How reliable is the data provided? Are we acting too hastily?, more research is required and definitive
advice sought
ECONOMIC VIEW
The Stern interview to the Independent 3/9/2013 (re the economic misrepresentation) is worth a read,
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/baseless-economics-lord-stern.........=
The Committee on Climate Change has concluded: “Our analysis shows that even if gas prices fall significantly,
investing in low-carbon forms of electricity rather than unabated gas-fired generation will not cost us money. But
if instead prices follow the central projections of the IEA and others, staying at today’s levels or rising modestly,
investment in a portfolio of low-carbon generation would save around £25bn vs. pursuing a ‘dash for gas’ in the
power sector, given a rising carbon price. And if gas prices are significantly higher than we expect, this saving
rises to around £50bn” See http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Shale-gas-blog-final.pdf
The Institute of Directors' report All-hail-shale concludes otherwise, somehow believing that the reduction of US
gas prices (at what environmental cost?) can be replicated in the UK. No doubt the Treasury values the IOD
report. It would be worth acknowledging that UK industry would not want to pay more for energy than in
competitor countries, the logic being that production would just move overseas. No doubt “local economic needs”
and “energy sources” should take account of the financial incentives to local communities included in
http://www.ukoog.org.uk/elements/pdfs/communityengagementcharterversion6.pdf ( £100,000 per well site
where hydraulic fracturing takes place and 1% of revenues allocated approximately 2/3rd to the local community
and 1/3rd at the county level )
There is no reason not to investigate shale gas production, but suggest financial incentives would be better made
to encourage low carbon technologies and energy efficiency.
http://www.gov.uk/2050-pathways-analysis#thedebate provides examples of how 2050 targets might be met and a
web tool that allows users to try various energy balances.
Concerns:
It is expected that our present energy requirements will be outstripped by demand, at the present rate of
consumption, in the near future.
Costs need to be inclusive of all constraints, good or bad, and need to incorporate demographic concerns, such as,
local economic and environmental needs, greenbelt and urban intrusions, population demographics, seashore
views, plant and waste treatment infrastructure. Other issues, needing to be considered are, the cost of protest
activism (recent action at Balcombe 2013), the need to provide ever more energy sources and energy savings
expected from conservation and improvements to households.
The International experience(USA/Canada) is used widely to put the case for a debatable cheap energy source,
but as stated above differing geology makes the comparison doubtful and the ‘cheap energy’ mantra has still to be
realised in the UK. There is no doubt that any new energy source would be of benefit to the energy equation, the
issue here is, at what price is a new energy source worth?
2
THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
How far does our faith explain our choices? What guidance can we get from theological writings, such as,
Scripture, Catholic Social teaching, Old Testament and New Testament.
The Old Testament’s first book, Genesis – commands us to take care of God’s creation, the notion of stewardship
of the goods left behind and future generations are brought to the fore. There are many other examples seen in
some of the Psalms and other OT books.
The New Testament brings into focus our understanding of Jesus, the bringing about of Christianity and the
challenge that environmentalism brings. Interestingly, we have to realise that Christianity, (in the way it has been
used) may have had an influence in causing some of the environmental damage that has taken place. Ironically, it
has taken ‘secular writers and organisations (e.g. Rachel Carson (Silent Spring) Greenpeace for activism),
scientists (e.g. Lovelock)’, to wake us up to the beauty of our environmental heritage and the need to take care of
creation.
Yet we have a good background of scriptural readings, such as, Catholic Social Teaching, e.g. .Populorum
Progressio, Solicitudo Rei are two which address the issues, and in Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict puts this
plainly,
Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in truth), para. 51:
… The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public
sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone.
She must above all protect mankind from self-destruction.
Also many theologians and other writers; such as,
St Thomas Aquinas1, who argues that everything created is subject to the eternal law, hence God bestows
principles of behaviour appropriate to them on all natural things, and in so doing commands all nature, that is,
every movement in nature is subject to God’s eternal law. If we can make judgements about nature and our own
participation in its functioning, but we a clearly subject to nature’s own law, which is an expression of the eternal
law in action.
Hans Kung2, Deep ecumenism has much to offer to deep ecology, Kung argues for a truly ecumenical theology
which can provide a trans-religious approach to a caring for the natural world, i.e. creation. Religion seeks God,
a God that transcends all, found in books, arts, music, wilderness and in the natural world – by destroying the
world we destroy not only ourselves, but God’s gift to us and the most important symbol of the God we yearn for.
Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme3, They coined the phrase ‘ecozoic period’, which is beginning to emerge, how
human beings come to terms with their profound unity with the whole of creation, i.e all living things need to be
protected. As a result, habitats and environments must be cared for, human beings cannot simply impose a
mechanistic approach to structures.. Berry also argues that economic ethics demand that the real cost to the earth
be built into the cost of production.
…..and many other contemporary writers, point out the beauty of creation and why we should be celebrating
God’s wonderful Creation, more importantly, why we should be taking our environment seriously.
Concerns: Are we honest about our commitment to the environment? Can we be certain that we are keeping our
stewardship promises of protecting our environs? Do we care about the Common Good?
Conclusion:
Although this provides only a snapshot of available evidence, sufficient doubt has been raised, in the areas
considered, to make us both guarded and cautious in our responses, leading us to conclude that we need to
continue to insist for a comprehensive regulation regime and reliable data sources.
Our faith engenders our responsibilities to take care of creation, as Pope Benedict in Dei Caritas states, ‘The
Church has responsibility… [and] must defend not only the earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to
everyone. She must above all protect mankind from self-destruction’ , clearly, if we have doubts than we must act
to ensure the public sphere i.e. the common good, is sustainable.
There are numerous papers and articles available through the Internet or via booksellers, however, in order to
provide a basis for discussion, we have selected the websites and books mentioned above, as well as, in additional
references below.
We believe it is our duty to convey and put across the Christian viewpoint, we only have to look at our Mass and
the Offertory to see how much God’s creation means… as we acknowledge “Blessed are you, Lord, God of all
Creation, for through your goodness we have received…”
3
References
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Paul Collins, God’s Earth, Religion as if it really mattered, Gill
& Macmillan Ltd, Dublin, 1995, page 75
2.
Hans Kung, Theology for the Third Millennium: an Ecumenical View, Doubleday, New York, 1988
3.
Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme, The Universe Story, San Francisco: Harper, 1992 .
1.
Internet sites
www.blackburn.anglican.org.>...>environmental issues and Theological Context for Addressing Hydraulic
Fracturing: Bishop of Blackburn 2013
www.ohiocathconf/envir/fracking.htm Valuing the Goodness of the Appalachian Basin Intrinsically and
Instrumentally1 by James Schaefer, Ph.D., Marquette University5, James Schaefer (in his conclusion) sums this up
by saying ‘... an understanding that the gas, shale, land, water, air, and various types of biological life are
valuable both intrinsically–in themselves and instrumentally–for human use now and into the future. Our valuing
them intrinsically and instrumentally can be demonstrated by being prudent, just, moderate, and steadfast in
response to pressure to lease land and allow water to be used for fracking the shale for gas until requisite data
are available to make informed decisions and sufficient safeguards are in place to assure the common good of the
{areas} sustainability.’
http://www.operationnoah.org/theology-resources Link to Operation Noah’s Theology Resources and the Ash
Wednesday Declaration -- gives a comprehensive background to why the Church should heed the warning of
climate change and care for the environment.
http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used provides a listing of substances used in fracturing
fluids in the US.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/methane-emissions-natural-gas-production-far-higher-epa-estimates “If, as
now seems likely, natural gas production systems leak 2.7% (or more), then gas-fired power loses its near-term
advantage over coal and becomes more of a gangplank than a bridge”.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929292.000-fracking-could-accelerate-globalwarming.html#.UpdoPydYx8V “...methane discharges from wells could make shale gas as bad as coal in
contributing to greenhouse gas emissions”.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237330/MacKay_Stone_shale_stud
y_report_09092013.pdf
Although greater natural gas resources reduce the price of natural gas and displace the use of coal and oil, they
also boost overall energy consumption and reduce the use of nuclear and renewable energy sources for electric
power generation. As a result, projected CO2 emissions are almost one per cent higher [in 2030].” On the other
hand, with appropriate carbon policies in place, they find that natural gas “can play a role as a bridge fuel to a
low-carbon future”. In their model, the price of CO2 allowances falls slightly when natural gas is more abundant,
so the cost of the climate policy is slightly reduced.
http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/shale_gas.pdf and
http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/fracking-and-climate-change provide critiques of the process.
There would seem to be genuine concerns about injection of flowback fluids not covered by
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224238/Planning_practice_guidanc
e_for_onshore_oil_and_gas.pdf which states:
“Water that comes back to the surface following hydraulic fracturing may contain naturally occurring radioactive
materials. Whilst storage on-site and the traffic impact of any movement of water is of clear interest to local
authorities, it is the responsibility of the Environment Agency to ensure that the final treatment/disposal at suitable
water treatment facilities is acceptable”.
Many other sources, such as, Christian Ecology Link, Tear Fund, Progressio, Christian Aid, other etc.
which have a Christian background, as well as, other secular NGO’s, government and scientific resources,
are readily available and can easily be accessed from the Internet
4