BRIEFING FRACKING POLLUTION: HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
BRIEFING
FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT
WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
June 2015
This briefing was produced by CHEM Trust, a UK-based charity working at UK, EU and International level to protect humans
and wildlife from harmful chemicals.
This briefing accompanies a detailed report, “Chemical Pollution from Fracking” which is available at:
www.chemtrust.org.uk/frackingreport
CHEM Trust’s particular concerns relate to chemicals with hormone disrupting properties, persistent chemicals that
accumulate in organisms, the cocktail effect and the detrimental role of chemical exposures during development in the womb
and in early life. CHEM Trust strongly supports the conservation of biodiversity and believes in the importance of wildlife
protection. Furthermore, monitoring wildlife populations can provide vital insights into contaminant related threats to
human health.
For more about our work, including our regularly-updated blog, see www.chemtrust.org.uk
Further copies of this briefing, and the full report, can be downloaded from www.chemtrust.org.uk/fracking
@CHEMTrust
Email: askchemtrust@chemtrust.org.uk
About the authors
This briefing was written by Dr Michael Warhurst, Executive Director of CHEM Trust, with the assistance of Gwen Buck,
Campaign intern at CHEM Trust. Some of the text comes from the “Chemical Pollution from Fracking” report, written by
Philip Lightowlers.
CHEM Trust also thanks all those who have given their time to read and comment on this briefing, and on the “Chemical
Pollution from Fracking” report.
Acknowledgements
CHEM Trust gratefully acknowledges the support of the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation for their support to
CHEM Trust, which helped fund the writing of this briefing and the “Chemical Pollution from Fracking”
report.
Cover photos clockwise from top left, Diagram of fracking process [Credit US Environmental Protection Agency-Wikimedia Commons], Morecambe
Bay Estuary [Credit Kevin Eaves- Shutterstock.com], Brown Hawker dragonfly Aeshna grandis [Credit Lydeke Bosch- Shutterstock.com], Jonah oil and
gas site, Wyoming, USA [Credit EcoFlight], Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus[Credit Brian Gratwicke-Wikimedia commons], Common blue butterfly
Polyommatus icarus [Credit Radka Palenikova- Shutterstock.com]
Summary High volume hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’, is a controversial technology
used for extracting oil or gas resources which are trapped in shale rocks, coal
seams and similar deposits. In the US, where fracking is carried out extensively,
there are many examples of fracking causing chemical pollution leading to
health and environmental impacts.
Due to our concerns about fracking, CHEM Trust commissioned a detailed
examination of the impacts of fracking with respect to chemical pollution; the
detailed report “Chemical Pollution from Fracking” is available at:
www.chemtrust.org.uk/frackingreport
This briefing summarises the “Chemical Pollution from Fracking” report,
discussing some of the latest developments and includes our recommendations
for the future.
Fracking operations require large numbers of wells, and need substantial
volumes of water and chemicals. This chemical use, combined with the
substances that flowback from underground, makes fracking a potentially
significant source of air, land and water pollution.
In addition, fracking operations also generate substantial noise and air
pollution from vehicles and other equipment. Note that in this briefing we
use the term ‘fracking’ to cover the entire process of shale gas exploration and
production.
Our key recommendations are:
1) All chemicals used in fracking must be disclosed, with no provision
for commercial confidentiality.
2) Stronger EU regulation of fracking is required, ensuring that
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) are required for all sites, chemical
use is controlled and transparent, effective monitoring is obligatory and
wastewater management is safe, including an absolute ban on disposal of
wastewater by re-injection into the ground.
3) Regulations must protect the environment and people even when
fracking wells are no longer used, including financial bonds to cover
clean-up costs.
4) Effective monitoring and enforcement is essential to ensure that
regulatory controls are followed. This means that regulators must have
the resources to carry out these functions; this is a particular concern in the
UK where the Environment Agency (EA) is experiencing substantial budget
cuts.
In CHEM Trust’s view there should be an EU-wide moratorium on fracking
until all our recommendations (see end of briefing) are in place.
CHEM Trust’s focus is on the toxic effects of pollutants, and so this briefing and
our position excludes consideration of fracking’s effects on climate change and
its potential to cause earthquakes.
There is further information for those involved in campaigning against fracking
available from our website, www.chemtrust.org.uk/frackingcampaign
2
Contents
1. What is fracking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Fracking: a source of pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Water and land pollution from fracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Air pollution from fracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Impacts of fracking on
human health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Pollution risks to local people from fracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Chemical risks to workers from fracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. The implications of fracking
on wildlife and the countryside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1 Wildlife impacts of pollution incidents in the US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 UK Wildlife sites under threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3 A threat to rare species in the UK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Can regulation solve the problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1 Will EU regulations prevent pollution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2 Will UK regulators be able to protect people and wildlife? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3 Concerns for the future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4
FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
1.
What is
fracking?
High-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ is a way of releasing
oil or gas resources that are trapped in shale rocks, coal seams and deposits.
This technology has been developed to a commercial scale in the US over the
past 20 years. It involves drilling deep wells both vertically and horizontally,
and then pumping large volumes of ‘fracking fluid’ into the well at high pressure
(see Figure 1). Note that in this briefing we use the term ‘fracking’ to cover the
entire process of shale gas exploration and production.
Figure 1:
Diagram of fracking process [Credit US
Environmental Protection Agency/Wikimedia
Commons]
Fracking fluid is a mixture of water, sand and chemicals, and when pumped into
the well at high pressure it causes the shale to fracture and the sand to flow into
the crevices, keeping them open. When the pressure is released, gas or oil flows
to the surface, along with initially large volumes of wastewater or ‘flowback’
from the fracking process.
A similar process can be used to extract coal bed methane (CBM), releasing
the methane associated with coal deposits by drilling horizontal wells,
fracturing the coal and draining the seams. CBM also produces large volumes
of contaminated wastewater. Shale oil, shale gas and coal bed methane are
collectively called unconventional oil and gas (UOG) resources.
It’s worth noting that each fracking operation, which may be repeated dozens
of times for each well, requires a large amount of water. The Institute of Civil
Engineers estimated that 10,000 to 25,000m3 of water would be required for
each well.1 This water demand, in itself, could have substantial environmental
impacts. For example, not only drying out certain habitats, but also the
increased water extraction from rivers could exacerbate the impact of other
pollutants (e.g. from agriculture or sewage works) due to reduced dilution.
5
FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
2.
Fracking:
a source of
pollution Fracking presents greater cumulative risks to public health and the
environment than conventional drilling due to: (i) the chemicals required;
(ii) the large volumes of water involved; (iii) the additional contaminants in
the flowback; (iv) the need for many transport movements; and (v) the larger
number of wells needed to reach a similar level of production.
UNEP: “[Hydraulic] As the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) has stated, in its review
of shale gas: “[Hydraulic] fracking may result in unavoidable environmental
fracking may result impacts even if [unconventional gas] is extracted properly and more so if done
in unavoidable inadequately.” 2
environmental impacts The scale of commercial fracking shouldn’t be underestimated. For example, it
even if [unconventional has been estimated – based on data from the petrochemical company INEOS -
that this one company is planning over 1000 fracking wells in the central belt of
gas] is extracted properly Scotland alone.3
and more so if done
There have been many cases of pollution from fracking in the US, from a range
inadequately. 2 ” of causes. A frequent one is the failure of the well casings in the upper part of
the well (see examples below).
2.1 Water and land pollution from fracking
The main potential pathways of water and land pollution during fracking are:
• Accidental spillages during the mixing and transport of drilling and fracking
chemicals and water prior to injection into the well.
• Leaks from failure or inadequacy of well casings in the upper part of the well.
A large number of pollution incidents in the US have been due to this sort
of failure4, which has allowed methane and fracking chemicals to migrate
into groundwater, drinking water or nearby properties, sometimes causing
explosions, evacuations and necessitating the replacement of water supplies.5
• Fissures in rock, potentially accentuated by the fracking process, leading to
UNEP
Jonah oil and gas site, Wyoming, USA [Credit EcoFlight] contamination of important groundwater reserves, potentially contaminating
drinking water, springs etc.
• Leaks from storage and treatment of the large volumes of flowback water
produced.
• Leaks from transport of flowback water.
• Inadequate treatment of flowback prior to discharge, and leaks from re-
injection of flow back into the ground (where permitted).
Flowback contains the substances added to facilitate fracking, combined with
salts, hydrocarbons, heavy metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials
(NORM) present in the rock. Flowback waters should be treated before any
release into the environment. In the UK this has so far been done by taking the
flowback to a sewage treatment works by tanker.
The substantial volumes of fracking fluids and flowback involved in UOG
production are potentially significant pollutants of air, groundwater, surface
water and soil.
6
FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
What chemicals are used in fracking?
Fracking fluids are about 91-95% water, 5-9% sand and less than 0.5%
chemical additives. Because the volumes of water involved are huge, this small
proportion of chemicals adds up to significant quantity, perhaps totalling many
tonnes in each operation.
The sand is a proppant, designed to keep rock fractures open, while the other
additives include scale inhibitors and acids to prevent blockages, gelling agents
to help carry the sand, biocides to prevent bacterial growth, friction reducers
to increase pumping efficiency, surfactants (detergents) to aid penetration, clay
stabilisers and “breakers” which reduce viscosity and help fluid recovery.
Different wells use different mixtures of chemicals, and these mixtures may
also change over time. This makes it impossible to predict which chemicals
“CHEM Trust will be used where and when. CHEM Trust strongly believes that there should
be full disclosure of chemicals being used or planned to be used in fracking.
strongly believes This should include the full disclosure of the chemicals present in proprietary
that there should mixtures, with no ability to claim commercial confidentiality.
be full disclosure of A 2011 study in the US, which questioned 14 major fracking companies, found
chemicals being used they used many toxic chemicals, such as benzene, naphthalene, methanol,
ethylene glycol, caustic soda and formaldehyde. It also found 279 products
or planned to be used contained at least one chemical that manufacturers deemed a trade secret.6
in fracking ” The “Chemical Pollution from Fracking” report gives more details about the
chemicals used in fracking, see Chapter 4.
Hormone disrupting chemicals
CHEM Trust is particularly concerned about the use of hormone (or endocrine)
disrupting chemicals, chemicals that can disrupt the sensitive hormonal control
systems in our bodies and those of wildlife leading to negative impacts on
reproduction, neurodevelopment, behaviour and metabolism. Such chemicals
have also been linked to hormonally driven cancers (e.g. breast, prostate and
testicular cancers) and coronary heart disease.
In the US, researchers examined the properties of chemicals used in fracking
and found many were known to be hormone disrupting or reproductive
toxicants.7 A separate study tested fracking chemicals and surface and
groundwater near fracking sites for hormone-related activities. The scientists
found a range of hormone disruption related activities in fracking chemicals,
and in the surface and groundwater samples, including imitation and blocking
of male and female hormones.8
2.2 Air pollution from fracking
Fracking is a source of air pollution, including:
• Evaporation from fracking fluids – including any stored flowback.
• Emissions from the flaring and treatment of gas.
• Diesel fumes from the constant running of pumps, generators, compressors
and from heavy vehicles transporting large volumes of water and wastewater
to and from the fracking site.
7
FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
3.
Impacts of
fracking on
human health
3.1 Pollution risks to local people from fracking
Fracking is a concern to local people because of the potential for air and water
pollution. Noise is also likely to be an issue in many cases.
In a letter recently published by the British Medical Journal, 20 high-profile
doctors, pharmacists and public health academics said the “inherently risky”
fracking industry should be prohibited in the UK on “public health and
ecological grounds.”9
Preliminary studies in the US have shown that there is a higher incidence of
“20 high-profile doctors, skin conditions and upper respiratory problems in communities living close
to fracking operations.10 In a provisional study in Australia, 58% of people
pharmacists and public living close to fracking operations reported health problems including coughs,
health academics said tight chests, rashes, difficulty sleeping, joint pains, muscle pains, nausea and
vomiting.11
the “inherently risky”
fracking industry should
be prohibited in the UK
on “public health and 3.2 Chemical risks to workers from fracking
”
ecological grounds 9 The UK Trades Union Congress (TUC) has raised concerns over the health
and safety of those employed in fracking operations in the UK. Their briefing
states that the biggest health risks lie in potential explosions, exposure to the
hydrocarbons and other chemicals in fracking fluid, including biocides, and
exposure to silica, which is linked to serious illness, including lung cancer.12
Hormone disrupting chemicals used in fracking fluid have a range of toxic
properties which could be relevant to workers, including reducing sperm
counts, affecting menstrual cycles and impairing fertility. Heavy metals like lead
and arsenic, which are found in flowback, also affect fertility and are associated
with a greater risk of miscarriage or stillbirth.13
8
FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
4.
The implications
of fracking on
wildlife and the
countryside Fracking poses a range of threats to wildlife and the countryside, including
potential pollution of watercourses, land-take and disturbance from fracking-
related operations. There are also reports of damage to livestock on farms14.
4.1 Wildlife impacts of pollution incidents in the US
Experience from the US has shown that pollution from fracking can have
devastating impacts on wildlife. For example, spills of fracking fluids have killed
fish (including creek chubs and blacknose dace), salamanders and frogs.15
A fracking-related fire and spill in Ohio, USA, is estimated to have killed over
70,000 fish – showing the scale of damage that fracking accidents can cause.16
Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
[Credit Brian Gratwicke/Wikimedia commons]
4.2 UK Wildlife sites under threat
A large amount of the UK has been defined as available for fracking exploration,
though the Infrastructure Act 2015 has restricted fracking within certain
protected areas. Figure 2 shows a map showing the areas where exploration
licenses have been granted, as of 1st May 2015. A much wider area of the
country is available for licensing, see the interactive map available on the gov.
uk site.17
9Figure 2: On shore licences for oil and gas in the UK
Petroleum Act 1998
Onshore Licensing
1 May 2015
140000 150000 160000 170000 180000 190000 200000 210000 220000 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 310000 320000 330000 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000 450000 460000 470000 480000 490000 500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000 570000 580000 590000 600000 610000 620000 630000 640000 650000 660000 670000 680000 690000 700000 710000 720000 730000 740000 750000 760000 770000 780000 790000 800000 810000 820000 830000
960000 440000 445000 450000 455000 460000 465000 470000 475000 480000 485000 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 515000 520000 525000 530000 535000 540000 545000 550000 960000
ND
950000 950000
WESTERN ISLANDS COUNCIL
450000 450000
PEDL146
940000 YORK DART 940000
NB NC PEDL158
CAITHNESS
930000 930000
445000 445000
920000 920000
WESTERN ISLANDS COUNCIL
910000 Harworth MEXL250
DART
910000
440000 440000
EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE
900000 LEEDS 900000
435000 PEDL183 435000
890000 NORTH YORKSHIRE RATHLIN 890000
880000 880000
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL
430000 430000
870000 870000
PEDL037
TA
ALKANE
860000
NH HIGHLAND
425000
M
Newmarket Vent
M PEDL037
ALKANE
Wheldale Vent
SE PEDL179
DART
425000
860000
850000 NG 850000
NK
PEDL037
M ALKANE
MORAY
840000 PEDL037 840000
420000 ALKANE 420000
NJ WAKEFIELD
PEDL037
ALKANE
830000 PL162 830000
PEDL037 EXL288 DART
ALKANE EXL288
(Area 1 Rest) (Area 1 Fenwick)
DART DART
820000 415000 EXL288
PEDL174
DART 415000 820000
ABERDEENSHIRE Askern Vent EXL288 (Area 2)
(Area 1 Rest)
M DART
DART
PEDL178
CROSBY WARREN
DART PEDL182
810000 TRUMFLEET EGDON
PEDL181
810000
PEDL037 PEDL037 PL161 EXL288 DL001 EUROPA
ALKANE ALKANE ALKANE EXL288
CITY OF ABERDEEN (Area 1 Trumfleet) NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE EUROPA BROUGHTON
(Area 2)
DART
DART
410000 PEDL011
PEDL011 410000
800000 PEDL037 ALKANE ALKANE
800000
PL161
ALKANE
SCOTTISH PEDL173
DART
HATFIELD
790000 PEDL011
BRIGG 790000
BARNSLEY
M ALKANE DONCASTER
NORTH-EAST LINCOLNSHIRE
PEDL011
405000 Houghton ALKANE
PEDL169
HATFIELD
PEDL180
EUROPA 405000
Main ALKANE PEDL241
EGDON
780000 Vent 780000
PL162
SCOTTISH
770000 PEDL011 PEDL011 770000
ALKANE ALKANE
400000 M 400000
Cadeby Vent
760000 ANGUS 760000
NN NO PEDL140
DART
PEDL209
BLACKLAND
PEDL005
EGDON
750000 NM 395000
PEDL043
ALKANE
PEDL139
DART 395000
750000
PERTHSHIRE AND KINROSS
EVERTON CORRINGHAM
740000 PEDL005 740000
M Maltby Vent
ARGYLL AND BUTE
ML004 BECKINGHAM WINGAS
IGAS
ARGYLL AND BUTE ML004
IGAS
CITY OF DUNDEE SALTFLEETBY
730000 390000 ROTHERHAM ML004 390000 730000
PL178
IGAS HEMSWELL
PEDL012 IGAS PEDL210
PL179 DART PEDL005
DART
GLENTWORTH IGAS EGDON
KEDDINGTON
720000 SHEFFIELD EAST GLENTWORTH 720000
DL003
PEDL210 EUROPA OIL & GAS (WEST FIRSBY) LTD PEDL253
385000 385000
TF
EGDON
710000 PEDL200
DART PEDL210
DART
WEST FIRSBY 710000
SK
STIRLING
FIFE DART
PEDL006
PEDL006 IGAS
COLD HANWORTH
IGAS
700000 CLACKMANNANSHIRE 700000
MILTON OF BALGONIE BECKERING
PEDL133 SCAMPTON NORTH
PEDL163 SOUTH LEVERTON
ARGYLL AND BUTE
DART DART 380000 LINCOLNSHIRE AL009
380000
ML007 STAINTON
690000 ARNSFARM IGAS
SCAMPTON
IGAS 690000
PEDL207
DART
AIRTH TORKSEY
PL179 WELTON
680000 FALKIRK PEDL001 680000
DUMBARTON AND CLYDEBANK M ALKANE
PEDL210 IGAS
ARGYLL AND BUTE
EAST DUMBARTONSHIRE
PEDL162 375000
ML006 Bevercotes Vent DART
375000
REACH
EAST LOTHIAN
Whitwell Vent IGAS
M PEDL090 EXL141
INVERCLYDE ALTAQUEST NETTLEHAM
CITY OF EDINBURGH COURAGE EXL141 NEWTON-ON-TRENT
670000 BOTHAMSALL COURAGE REEPHAM FISKERTON AIRFIELD 670000
PL215 PL199
NORTH LANARKSHIRE WEST LOTHIAN PEDL001 EXL141 IGAS
ONSHORE EXL294 EXL294
RENFREWSHIRE
CITY OF GLASGOW BARGEDDIE ALKANE COURAGE
COURAGE CIRQUE
CALOW PEDL001 PEDL090
PL213 FARLEYS WOOD
660000 MIDLOTHIAN
ALKANE
ALKANE COURAGE 660000
PEDL001 PL215
370000 370000
NS NT
ALKANE ML003 BLACKLAND PA
IGAS
NR
EAST RENFREWSHIRE
Warsop Main NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
WHISBY
650000 M PEDL001
PEDL130 EGMANTON
PL199
BLACKLAND PA 650000
ALKANE
DERBYSHIRE
PEDL001
ALKANE M EGDON
Shirebrook Vent
NORTH AYRSHIRE
640000 365000 C.E. 365000 640000
SOUTH LANARKSHIRE
PEDL001
ALKANE
630000
SCOTTISH BORDERS
Old Mill Lane Vent Mansfield Toray 630000
PEDL001 M
ALKANE M PEDL001
ALKANE Bilsthorpe Vent M EAKRING
EAST AYRSHIRE PEDL001 PEDL001 CAUNTON
360000 M ALKANE ALKANE
360000
620000 Kings Mill Vent
PEDL118 620000
EGDON
NU KIRKLINGTON KELHAM HILLS
SCALE 1:250,000
610000 PEDL203
610000
EGDON
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Kms
355000 PEDL202 355000
ALKANE
600000 SOUTH AYRSHIRE
600000
NORTHUMBERLAND
0 5 10 15 20 25 Mls
IRONVILLE
590000
NW
590000
Calverton Vent
350000 M 350000
PEDL208
NEWTON
580000 DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY
580000
440000 445000 450000 455000 460000 465000 470000 475000 480000 485000 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 515000 520000 525000 530000 535000 540000 545000 550000
NX PEDL159
DART
570000 NORTH TYNESIDE
570000
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
SOUTH TYNESIDE
560000 GATESHEAD
560000
NY NZ SUNDERLAND
550000 550000
Areas currently under Licence
540000 540000
DURHAM
530000 HARTLEPOOL County and Unitary Authority Boundaries 530000
KIRKLEATHAM
STOCKTON-ON-TEES
CUMBRIA PEDL068
EGDON
520000 520000
DARLINGTON MIDDLESBROUGH
REDCAR AND CLEVELAND Oil Field Oil Discovery
510000 510000
PEDL068 ESKDALE Gas Field Gas Discovery
EGDON
RALPH CROSS
500000 500000
CLEVELAND HILLS CLOUGHTON
Coal Bed Methane Field
LOCKTON
490000 490000
M
PL077
Mines Gas Developments (active)
PEDL120 VIKING
MOORLAND
ISLE OF MAN
PICKERING AL006
VIKING
480000 KIRBY MISPERTON 480000
NORTH YORKSHIRE MALTON
PEDL177
VIKINGMARISHES
PL081
Gas Storage Location
TA
PL080
PL079 VIKING VIKING
VIKING PL080
VIKING
470000 DL005
VIKING CAYTHORPECAYTHORPE
PL234 470000
PEDL146
SCALE 1:900,000
DART
460000 EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE
460000
SD SE
YORK
See Inset for details of this area 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Kms
450000 450000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Miles
440000 LANCASHIRE M 440000
EXL269 BRADFORD
BLACKPOOL CUADRILLA
ELSWICK
LEEDS
430000
EXL269
CUADRILLA For further details on the UK onshore, contact either: 430000
PEDL165 CALDERDALE M M Toni Harvey tel: 0300 068 6037, email: toni.harvey@oga.gsi.gov.uk
CUADRILLA
BLACKBURN
M Mike Hawkins tel: 0300 068 6038, email: michael.hawkins@oga.gsi.gov.uk
420000 420000
WAKEFIELD
ROCHDALE KIRKLEES M
410000 BOLTON
BURY
410000
PEDL164
AURORA
OLDHAM
BARNSLEY
M
PEDL039 WIGAN
400000 SEFTON
ALKANE
Old Boston
SALFORD M © Crown copyright 2015. 400000
EXL253 ALKANE
Vent
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and database right 2015.
TAMESIDE
ST HELENS Parkside Vent MANCHESTER
390000
KNOWSLEY
Sutton Manor Vent GREENPARK
EXL273 EXL253
ALKANE TRAFFORD M You may re-use this information (not including logos)free of charge in any 390000
M DOE GREEN SHEFFIELD
format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.
STOCKPORT
LIVERPOOL EXL276
WARRINGTON
WIRRAL BIOGAS
PEDL193
ISLE OF ANGLESEY
PEDL191HALTON
ALKANE PEDL145
HALTON IGAS
IGAS
To view this licence, visit
380000 380000
ISLE OF ANGLESEY PEDL184 www.nationalarchives. gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
IGAS
M
or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London
PEDL190
IGAS M
370000
PEDL197
CELTIQUE TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. 370000
MM
FLINTSHIRE
PEDL147
DART
PEDL189
DART
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at
ABERCONWY AND COLWYN
CHESHIRE
MM M john.seabourn@oga.gsi.gov.uk.
360000 DERBYSHIRE M 360000
This document is also available from our website at
SH DENBIGHSHIRE
EXL203
BIOGAS
PEDL187
PEDL188
DART PEDL040
ALKANE
PEDL141
SEVEN NOOKS
STAR
FARM SK https://www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-onshore-maps-and-gis-shapefiles
DART
350000 WREXHAM PEDL040 PEDL056
CITY OF STOKE-ON-TRENT M 350000
PEDL056
IGAS ALKANE NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LINCOLNSHIRE
PEDL186 PEDL185 IGAS
DART DART POTTERIES PEDL057 AL010
ALKANE DART
Gedling Vent MPEDL255
ALKANE/
MMFlorence Vent NEWTON PEDL208
340000 Hem Heath Vent
CITY OF NOTTINGHAM
NEWTON 340000
CROPWELL BUTLER
CAERNFONSHIRE AND MERIONETHSHIRE
PEDL185
DART SJ PEDL078
IGAS
CITY OF DERBY
PEDL254
ALKANE/
NEWTON
PEDL204
NEWTON
KINOULTON
BELVOIR
330000 STAFFORDSHIRE 330000
TF
LONG CLAWSON
PL220 REMPSTONE
IGAS PEDL201 PL220
EGDON IGAS
320000 320000
TG
PEDL078 LEICESTERSHIRE
TELFORD AND WREKIN IGAS
NORFOLK
310000 310000
RUTLAND
SHROPSHIRE CITY OF LEICESTER
CITY OF PETERBO ROUGH
300000 WOLVERHAMPTON
WALSALL
300000
SANDWELL
290000 290000
DUDLEY BIRMINGHAM
280000 SOLIHULL COVENTRY 280000
CAMBRIDGESHIRE
270000 POWYS 270000
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE
TM
WARWICKSHIRE
CARDIGANSHIRE
SUFFOLK
260000 WORCESTERSHIRE 260000
SN SO SP TL
250000 250000
HEREFORDSHIRE
MILTON KEYNES BEDFORDSHIRE
240000 240000
230000 230000
CARMARTHEN SHIRE
LUTON
PEMBROKESHIRE
220000 220000
HERTFORDSHIRE ESSEX
GLOUCESTERSHIRE
210000 MONMOUTHSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 210000
PEDL014 BLAENAU GWENT OXFORDSHIRE
PEDL211 PEDL212 PEDL148 UK GAS MERTHYR TYDFIL
DART ADAMO UK METHANE
200000 NEATH AND PORT TALBOT PEDL218
TORFAEN 200000
ADAMO
PEDL214 PEDL215 PEDL149 RHONDDA, CY NON, TAFF CAERPHILLY
UK METHANEUK METHANEUK METHANE PEDL014
SWANSEA
PontycymmerM UK GAS
190000 190000
PEDL100 NEWPORT PEDL224 SOUTHEND-ON-SEA
PEDL157 SWINDON
ADAMO SONOREX
BRIDGEND PEDL220 SONOREX
COASTAL SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE
THURROCK
180000 PEDL216
CARDIFF SLOUGH GREATER LONDON 180000
TQ
COASTAL WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
PEDL217 PEDL219 MEDWAY
COASTAL COASTAL READING MEDWAY
WEST BERKSHIRE
THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN CITY OF BRISTOL
170000 WOKINGHAM
BRACKNELL FOREST
170000
MEDWAY
NORTH SOMERSET MEDWAY
BATH AND NORTH-EAST SOMERSET
160000 160000
SS ST SU TR
WILTSHIRE
PEDL227 SURREY DL004
PALMERS WOOD PL182 PEDL250 PEDL252
UK METHANE IGAS IGAS COASTAL COASTAL
BROCKHAM ML021
150000 HUMBLY GROVE PL235 IGAS PEDL246 MAG.
KENT
PEDL249
150000
GAS STORAGE ALBURY KEY BLETCHINGLEY ML018 IGAS COASTAL
HERRIARD PL116 PEDL137 EXL189 (Lingfield)CUADRILLA
PEDL021 EUROPA MAGELLAN LINGFIELD
IGAS
HUMBLY GROVE EXL189 (Cowden) CUADRILLA
GOODWORTH PEDL143 PEDL246
140000 MAGELLAN COWDEN 140000
DL002 PL233
IGAS IGAS GODLEY BRIDGE
STOCKBRIDGE
PEDL235 PEDL243
PL249 IGAS CELTIQUE
IGAS
PEDL231 ASHDOWN
BALCOMBE
130000 SOMERSET HAMPSHIRE
AVINGTON CELTIQUE 130000
PEDL234
PEDL070
IGAS LOMER
CELTIQUE BOLNEY
PEDL244
HEATHFIELD
CUADRILLA
120000 WEST SUSSEX BAXTERS COPSE 120000
PL240 PEDL233 EAST SUSSEX
IGAS IGAS PL205
HORNDEAN IGAS
CITY OF SOUTHHAMPTON
PL211 PEDL126 SINGLETON STORRINGTON
110000 110000
09 19 29 39 49 59 69 79 89 99
IGAS NORTHERN
PEDL232
Index to National Grid numbers
CELTIQUE BRIGHTON AND HOVE
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH LIDSEY
28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98
DORSET
100000 100000
DEVON PL241
KEY
08 18
POOLE BOURNEMOTH
WADDOCK CROSS
90000
PL090
WAREHAM
PL089
PL259
PERENCO 07 17 27 37 47 57 67 77 87 97 90000
PEDL237 EGDON ISLE OF WIGHT
PERENCO
EGDON WYTCH FARM
80000
KIMMERIDGE
ML005
PERENCO 06 16 26 36 46 56 66 76 86 96 80000
SX SY SZ TV
70000 05 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 70000
60000 CORNWALL
TORBAY
04 14 24 34 44 54 64 74 84 94 60000
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
50000 03 13 23 33 43 53 63 73 83 93 50000
40000
SW 02 12 22 32 42 52 62 72 82 92 40000
30000
01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 30000
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
20000 20000
10000 10000
140000 150000 160000 170000 180000 190000 200000 210000 220000 230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 310000 320000 330000 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000 450000 460000 470000 480000 490000 500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000 570000 580000 590000 600000 610000 620000 630000 640000 650000 660000 670000 680000 690000 700000 710000 720000 730000 740000 750000 760000 770000 780000 790000 800000 810000 820000 830000
Map showing onshore licences for oil and gas in the UK [Credit Gov.uk; latest version: https://www.gov.
uk/oil-and-gas-onshore-maps-and-gis-shapefiles
10FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
Fracking company Cuadrilla has drilled exploratory wells in Lancashire and
there are fears that if fracking goes ahead it could harm wildlife in the River
Wyre estuary, a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) which is only a few
kilometres away. The concerns are based both on the impacts of extracting
water for fracking, and the potential impacts from pollution.
Morecambe Bay Estuary [Credit Kevin Eaves/
Shutterstock.com]
The Wyre estuary forms part of Morecambe Bay, a wetland of international
importance under the Ramsar convention. This wetland hosts 11 wading bird
species of international importance and four species of national importance
and also includes a large area of salt marshes and reed beds and meadows
which provide habitats for bees and northern marsh orchids, common blue
butterflies and brown hawker dragonflies. The local farmland is also an
important feeding ground for overwintering birds.18
Hawker dragonfly Aeshna grandis [Credit Common blue butterfly Polyommatus icarus
Lydeke Bosch/ Shutterstock.com] [Credit Radka Palenikova/ Shutterstock.com]
11FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
4.3 A threat to rare species in the UK
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), with the aid of other
wildlife charities in the UK, investigated the likely impacts of shale gas or oil
development on British wildlife.19
They concluded that many different aspects of fracking could negatively affect
wildlife, in addition to pollution and reduction in available water resources. The
significant land required by a large number of wells, and the noise and other
disturbance created by fracking activities - which may be 24 hours per day at
times - are both likely to have a negative impact on wildlife.
The RSPB believes that fracking could have negative impacts on some of the
UK’s rarest species, like the Barbastelle bat, which could particularly suffer
due to light pollution. The bat is found on the Sussex Weald which is currently
vulnerable to fracking operations.
Barbastelle bat Barbastella barbastellus [Credit Hugh Clark / Bat Conservation Trust]
12FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
5.
Can regulation
solve the
problem?
Strong, fully enforced, regulation should reduce the impacts of fracking and
reduce the risk of pollution. However, pollution has occurred in the US,
despite US states having legislation and regulation designed to protect the
environment.
Given that fracking could result in many thousands of wells across the EU, the
challenge for regulators is considerable.
Will regulators in all relevant Member States be able to ensure:
• That all these wells will be constructed to a sufficiently high standard to
avoid pollution?
• That all chemicals are being used safely?
• That there will be no pollution from the flowback water?
• That all the wells’ integrity will continue to be monitored once officially
closed, as substantial amounts of contaminated water are likely to remain in
the well?
Furthermore, the issue is not just one of regulation, but also independent
monitoring and enforcement of this regulation. Without this even stringent
regulations will have little impact.
“the UK government It is clear that such monitoring is required; for example, in Denmark in May
2015, the regulator stopped Total drilling its first exploratory shale gas well,
played a key role in accusing it of using an unauthorised chemical, though drilling later re-started
after new assurances regarding chemical handling.20
ensuring that no EU
regulatory changes In the UK, and in many other countries around the EU, cuts in public spending
are reducing the capacity of regulators to do their job effectively. Other
were proposed ” EU countries, particularly newer Member States, may not have effective
environmental – or worker safety - regulators.
5.1 Will EU regulations prevent pollution?
The core of environmental regulation across Europe is provided by EU-level
legislation agreed by the Governments of EU Member States and Members of
the European Parliament. National or regional legislation may then be added to
this by individual governments.
As a result of the expected growth in fracking, the European Commission
started a range of research projects to examine whether the EU regulatory
system was adequate to prevent pollution. The impact assessment produced
during this process concluded that improvement of existing EU regulations
would be beneficial,21 but the UK government played a key role in ensuring
that no EU regulatory changes were proposed,22 and instead the Commission
adopted a non-binding recommendation in January 201423.
The non-binding recommendation encourages EU Member States to adopt
minimum principles, which include: reducing health and environmental
risks by conducting a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and an
environmental impact assessment (EIA), involving the public in consultations,
protecting water quality and monitoring and treating flowback. However,
without revised and binding EU legislation, few of these voluntary
recommendations are likely to be enforced by Member States.
13FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
The role of the EU’s REACH chemicals legislation
The main law controlling chemical use in Europe is REACH, and it was
identified in the European Commission’s studies as not properly addressing the
use of chemicals in fracking.24
As a result of this realisation, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has
recently announced that a ‘use category’ for chemicals used in fracking will be
introduced for REACH registration from 2016.25 Companies selling chemicals
for use in fracking will have to specify this use category in their REACH
registration dossiers. This should provide more transparency about which
chemicals are used in fracking, via the European Chemical Agency’s (ECHA)
public database of registration information26. However, this database won’t
provide information on which chemicals are being used at specific sites.
REACH also, in most cases, obliges those using hazardous chemicals that are
registered within REACH to ensure that their use is covered by an ‘exposure
scenario’, which details how a chemical should be used in order to ensure that
risks are ‘adequately controlled’. This exposure scenario should be produced by
either the chemical producer, the distributer or the end user, and can be viewed
by government regulators – though the public has no general right of access.
In the case of fracking, an exposure scenario should, for example, include how
flowback should be treated to ensure risks from the chemical are adequately
controlled. It is unclear whether exposure scenarios are adequate at the
moment, particularly given that an industry-led process to draft industry
guidance on exposure scenarios for fracking has not yet led to publication of
a final document.27 Without full transparency of exposure scenarios it is not
possible to analyse their quality.
In CHEM Trust’s view all exposure scenarios relating to chemicals used in
fracking should be publicly available. This will allow others to assess the
suitability of the chemicals being used, and whether they are being used in
accordance with the exposure scenario.
In addition, the analysis of chemical risks relating to fracking should consider
the impacts of leakage from the well and from above ground piping, storage and
transport, as these are clearly foreseeable risks.
5.2 Will UK regulators be able to protect people and
wildlife?
In recent years the previous UK Coalition Government has been strongly pro-
fracking, with the Prime Minister, David Cameron, saying the government
was going “all out” for shale gas.28 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George
Osborne, has given fracking companies the ‘most generous tax breaks in the
world’29 and a leaked letter to Cabinet colleagues has shown him asking them
to fully support a fast track for fracking in the UK.30 The new Conservative
government is expected to continue with the same pro-fracking approach.
The UK Infrastructure Act 201531 will halt fracking in - though not under or
near - certain (not yet fully defined) wildlife and groundwater related protected
areas. This is likely to include National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. Both Scotland and Wales have put a moratorium on fracking, but a vast
amount of England remains available for fracking.32
All fracking sites, whether exploratory or producing, require Petroleum
Exploration and Development Licences, planning permission, well construction
notification and approval and environmental permits. But they do not
require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) despite this being part
of the Commission’s recommendation. During the parliamentary debate on
14FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
the Infrastructure Act 2015, environmental groups had asked to include a
requirement for EIAs, but this was not included in the final Act.
UK regulation of fracking is complex and split between a number of regulators.
For example, in England these include the Environment Agency (EA), Health
and Safety Executive (HSE), the Minerals Planning Authority, the British
Geological Survey and the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change
(DECC). A new “Oil and Gas Authority” now regulates the licensing of onshore
oil and gas sites in the UK, and large areas of the country are now licensed for
exploration, see figure 2.
5.3 Concerns for the future
CHEM Trust is not only concerned about the current regulation of fracking,
but also what may happen in the future. Given the scale of operations that the
fracking industry would like put in place across Europe, it is vital that effective
environmental and human health protection policies, adequately tailored to the
particular threats of fracking, are enshrined in law.
Particularly worrying issues for the future include:
1) A strong lobby from many parts of business for ‘better regulation’, which
frequently means deregulation or at least regulatory delays. Such a lobby
could lead to a government removing regulatory requirements. For example,
it could be conjectured that the UK might reduce the controls on treatment
and disposal of flowback fluid, increasing risks to the public and the
environment.
2) On-going cuts in regulatory authorities, such as the EA in England, including
loss of staff and redeployment of staff towards other priorities such as
flooding. This will reduce their capacity to identify failures and enforce
licence conditions in important regulatory areas such as fracking.
3) If the UK were to leave the EU it would mean that some or all of the agreed
EU laws regulating fracking would no longer apply here. If the UK were to
end up with a similar status as Norway, for example, the REACH chemical
regulations would still apply (as these are part of the EU internal market for
products). However, EU Regulations controlling the drilling site might not
apply, as these are not part of the EU Internal Market legislation. That said,
it’s worth noting that Norway & other countries in the European Economic
Area (EEA) have decided to follow the Water Framework Directive.33
15FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
6.
Conclusions Fracking has the potential to have a massive impact on the countryside and
those who live in it – be it people, livestock or wildlife. The potential scale
of fracking operations is huge, creating major water pollution risks from the
large amount of chemicals used, and wastewater generated. Alongside the
water pollution risks, there are also serious risks of local air pollution and land
pollution.
In CHEM Trust’s view there should be an EU-
wide moratorium on fracking until all our
recommendations (below) are in place.
CHEM Trust’s focus is on the toxic effects of pollutants, and so this briefing and
our position excludes consideration of fracking’s effects on climate change and
its potential to cause earthquakes.
There is further information for those involved in campaigning against fracking
available from our website, see:
www.chemtrust.org.uk/frackingcampaign
6.1 Recommendations
Regulations
• The European Commission’s January 2014 recommendations on fracking
need to be turned into legislation. Without effective and legally binding
legislation designed to deal with fracking, then people and wildlife in the EU
are not going to be properly protected.
• All fracking operations, including exploration, should be covered by
Environmental Impact Assessments.
• It is clear that faulty wells are a major pollution risk, therefore the quality
of well construction and safety standards must be strongly regulated and
enforced.
• The toxic and possibly radioactive waste from fracking will require careful
disposal and should be addressed specifically in EU regulations. In
particular, underground disposal of wastewaters (e.g. through re-injection)
should be banned.
• Companies undertaking fracking should have to deposit bonds sufficient to
cover any future compensation claims and to pay for clean up at the end of
the life of the well. A failure to have sufficient resources in restoration bonds
for the clean up of opencast coal mines is now creating a major social and
environmental crisis in Scotland.34
Chemical disclosure
• There must be full public disclosure of all the chemicals used, with adequate
data on their hazard profiles, and clear, publicly available, assessment
of all the potential health and environmental effects. There should be no
opportunity for industry to withhold chemical identities based on claimed
commercial confidentiality.
• Manufacturers and distributers of chemicals must produce and communicate
human and environmental exposure scenarios for fracking substances. These
16FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
exposure scenarios should be publicly available, and must make clear what
are the assumptions made in calculating adequate control, for example, with
respect to the storage and fate of flowback.
• In addition, the analysis of chemical risks relating to fracking (including
exposure scenarios) should consider the impacts of leakage from the well
and the above ground piping, storage and transport, as these are clearly
foreseeable risks.
Monitoring
• Under the supervision of a regulator, operators of fracking wells should
undertake extensive air, land and water monitoring in the vicinity of their
sites prior to, during and after the operation. This is to ensure that clear
baselines are set and any subsequent pollution is apparent.
• There should be detailed and ongoing inspection of operations by
independent experts in geology and ground water protection, to ensure
safe well construction and proper disposal of all chemicals, including
contaminated water, muds and other wastes.
• There must be systems in place to identify emerging chronic or acute health
effects in workers, residents, livestock and wildlife.
• Even when wells are exhausted and sealed, they remain a threat to ground
waters and must be monitored. Operators need to commit resources to
ensure that any future problems are identified and can be remediated.
Regulators
• The regulation and monitoring of a large number of fracking wells will be a
challenge for regulators. There must be sufficient staff and resources to do
this job effectively. This is a particular concern in the UK, where the staffing
of regulators such as the EA has been reducing in recent years.
• It is also vital that regulators have sufficient expertise in the full range of
issues relevant to fracking, including, for example, the safety of wells.
Location
• The vulnerability of ground waters to pollution from fracking should be
recognised and there should be no operations in groundwater source
protection zones.
• There should be no fracking on, near, or underneath, key wildlife sites,
including Natura 2000 sites (both Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and
Special Protection Areas (SPAs), and in the UK, National Parks and Sites of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
• Local communities should be involved in any decisions on fracking in their
area; see the Friends of the Earth position on fracking for more information
on this and other issues.35
Water supply
• Regulators must forbid fracking where there is insufficient water available
for the fracking operation, or if extracting this water will negatively affect
wildlife or people.
17FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
7
References
1
House of Commons Environmental issue-4/reveh-2014-0057/
Audit Committee, Environmental reveh-2014-0057.xml
Risks of Fracking, 2014-15. http://
bit.ly/1CgA16Z
8
Kassotis, C. D., Tillitt, D. E., Davis,
J. W., Hormann, A. M., & Nagel, S.
2
UNEP Global Environment C. (2014). Estrogen and Androgen
Alert Service, Gas fracking: can Receptor Activities of Hydraulic
we safely squeeze the rocks?, Fracturing Chemicals and Surface
November 2012. http://na.unep. and Ground Water in a Drilling-
net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_ Dense Region. Endocrinology
Nov2012_Fracking.pdf http://press.endocrine.org/doi/
full/10.1210/en.2013-1697
3
Friends of the Earth Scotland,
INEOS- the figures they don’t want 9
The Guardian, Doctors and
you to believe and the numbers academics call for ban on
they don’t want you to know, ‘inherently risky’ fracking, 2015.
18th March 2015. http://www. http://www.theguardian.com/
blog.foe-scotland.org.uk/index. environment/2015/mar/30/
php/2015/03/ineos-the-figures- doctors-and-academics-call-for-
they-want-you-to-believe-and-the- ban-on-inherently-risky-fracking
numbers-they-dont-want-you-to-
know/
10
P. Rabinowitz, I. Slizovskiy, V.
Lamers, S. Trufan, T. Holford,
4
Washington Post, Study: Bad J. Dziura, P. Peduzzi, M. Kane,
fracking techniques let methane J. Reif, T. Weiss and M. Stowe,
flow into drinking water, 15th Sep Proximity to Natural Gas
2014. Wells and Reported Health
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Status: Results of a Household
blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/15/ Survey in Washington County,
study-bad-fracking-techniques-let- Pennsylvania, Environmental
methane-flow-into-drinking-water/ Health Perspectives, vol. 123 (1),
January 2015. http://ehp.niehs.
5
Massachusetts Institute of nih.gov/1307732/
Technology, The Future of Natural
Gas Appendix 2E, 2011. http:// 11
M. McCarron, Symptomatology
mitei.mit.edu/publications/ of a gas field: An independent
reports-studies/future-natural-gas health survey in the Tara rural
residential estates and environs,
6
US House of Representatives April 2013. http://www.ntn.org.au/
Committee on Energy and wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/
Commerce, Chemicals used in Symptomatology-of-a-gas-field-An-
hydraulic fracturing, 2011. http:// independent-health-survey-in-the-
democrats.energycommerce. Tara-rural-residential-estates-and-
house.gov/sites/default/files/ environs-April-2013.pdf
documents/Hydraulic-Fracturing-
Chemicals-2011-4-18.pdf 12
Trade Union Congress, TUC
shale gas briefing: Fracking
7
Webb, E., Bushkin-Bedient, and workers’ health and safety,
S., Cheng, A., Kassotis, C. D., January 2015, https://www.tuc.
Balise, V., & Nagel, S. C. (2014). org.uk/industrial-issues/energy/
Developmental and reproductive union-issues/workplace-issues/
effects of chemicals associated tuc-shale-gas-briefingfracking-and-
with unconventional oil and workers’
natural gas operations.
http://www.degruyter.
com/view/j/reveh.2014.29.
18FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
13
E. Webb, S. Bushkin-Bediant, A. 20
Denmark to allow Total to reopen
Cheng, C. D. Kassotis, V. Balise and fracking site, thelocal.dk, 13th May
S. C. Nagel, Developmental and 2015
reproductive effects of chemicals http://www.thelocal.dk/20150513/
associated with unconventional denmark-to-allow-total-to-resume-
oil and natural gas operations, fracking-project
Reviews of Environmental Health,
vol. 29(4), pp. 307-318, 2014.
21
European Commission, Executive
http://www.degruyter.com/ Summary of the Impact Assessment,
view/j/reveh.2014.29.issue-4/ 22nd January 2014.
reveh-2014-0057/reveh-2014-0057. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
xml integration/energy/pdf/
swd_2014_22_en.pdf
14
Bamberger & Oswald, Impacts of
gas drilling on human and animal
22
The Guardian, UK defeats European
health, New Solutions, Vol. 22(1) 51- bid for fracking regulations, 14th
77, 2012 January 2014.
http://www.theguardian.com/
http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/
environment/2014/jan/14/uk-
data/Bamberger_Oswald_NS22_
defeats-european-bid-fracking-
in_press.pdf
regulations
15
Pennsylvania Department of 23
Environmental Aspects on
Environmental Protection, DEP
Unconventional Fossil Fuels,
Penalizes Range Resources $141,175
European Commission, January
for Spill in High Quality Waterway,
2014
2010.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/
integration/energy/unconventional_
portal/server.pt/community/newsro
en.htm
om/14287?id=11412&typeid=1
24
JRC Scientific and Policy Reports,
16
Mother Jones, Halliburton Fracking
Assessment of the use of substances
Spill Mystery: What Chemicals
in hydraulic fracturing of shale
Polluted an Ohio Waterway? 24th
gas reservoirs under REACH,
July 2014.
September 2013. http://publications.
http://www.motherjones.com/
jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/
politics/2014/07/halliburton-ohio-
bitstream/111111111/29386/1/
river-spill-fracking
req_jrc83512_assessment_use_
17
Department of Energy and Climate substances_hydraulic_fracturing_
Change, Oil and gas: onshore maps shale_gas_reach.pdf
and GIS shapefiles:Interactive map, 25
European Chemicals Agency, ECHA
23rd March 2015.
clarifies how to report substances
https://www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-
used in hydraulic fracturing.
onshore-maps-and-gis-shapefiles
http://echa.europa.eu/
18
Over-wintering birds stop fracking documents/10162/21779840/
plan, ENDS Report, November 2013. annex+to+a+news+item+
http://www.endsreport.com/41327/ 20150318.pdf
19
RSPB, Angling Trust, National
26
ECHA: Registered Substances public
Trust, Salmon & Trout Association, database
The Wildlife Trusts and Wildfowl http://echa.europa.eu/information-
& Wetlands Trust, Shale Gas: The on-chemicals/registered-substances
evidence, March 2014. 27
Email from European Oilfield
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/
Speciality Chemicals Association,
shale_gas_report_evidence_tcm9-
12th May 2015.
365779.pdf
1928
Nicholas Watt, Fracking in the 35
Friends of the Earth, All that
UK: ‘We’re going all out for shale,’ glitters... Is the regulation of
admits Cameron, January 2014, unconventional gas and oil
http://www.theguardian.com/ exploration in England really ‘gold
environment/2014/jan/13/shale- standard’?, June 2014
gas-fracking-cameron-all-out https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/
default/files/downloads/executive-
29
Terry Macalister and Fiona Harvey, summary-all-glitters-critique-
George Osborne unveils ‘most fracking-regulation-46661.pdf
generous tax breaks in world’ for
fracking, July 2013,
http://www.theguardian.com/
politics/2013/jul/19/george-
osborne-tax-break-fracking-shale-
environment
30
Damien Carrington, George
Osborne urges ministers to
fast-track fracking measures
in leaked letter, January 2015,
http://www.theguardian.com/
environment/2015/jan/26/george-
osborne-ministers-fast-track-
fracking
31
Legislation.gov.uk, Infrastructure
Act 2015: Onshore hydraulic
fracturing: safeguards.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/2015/7/section/50/enacted
32
Ends Report, Government slammed
for watering down fracking safety,
24th February 2015.
http://www.endsreport.com/47298
33
Letter regarding Norway’s
implementation of the Water
Framework Directive, May 2012
https://www.regjeringen.no/
globalassets/upload/md/2012/
pmer/skm322m12053114260.pdf
34
Opencast coal mining: Liability
for restoration works, RSPB and
Friends of the Earth Scotland, July
2013
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/
opencast-coal-mining_tcm9-353523.
pdf
20FRACKING POLLUTION:
HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU
Notes:Keep in touch with CHEM Trust’s work through our blog at www.chemtrust.org.uk; all our
reports can also be downloaded from this site
Previous publications include: i) Medicines in the Environment: A Growing Threat to Wildlife and
Drinking Water, by Gwynne Lyons (2014)
ii) Frogs at risk and possible implications for humans? Why EU chemicals
legislation needs updating to address chemicals that damage the
immune system, eport and press release, by Professor Susan Jobling, Dr
Alice Baynes and Dr Trenton W.J Garner (2013)
iii) A review of the science linking chemical exposures to obesity and
diabetes, (available in French, Spanish and German), report, briefing
& press release, by Professor Miquel Porta and Professor Duk-Hee Lee
(2012)
iv) Concerns about bisphenol A and recommendations for action, briefing
and press release, by Professor Miquel Porta and Professor Duk-Hee,
(2010)
v) A review of the role pesticides play in some cancers: Children, farmers
and pesticide users at risk? By Gwynne Lyons and Professor Andrew
Watterson (2010)
vi) Why Mollusc Toxicity Tests for Endocrine Disruptors and Other
Chemicals Are Needed – CHEM Trust briefing, by Gwynne Lyons (2009)
vii) Male Reproductive Health Disorders and the Potential Role of Exposure
to Environmental Chemicals, including briefing, by Professor Richard
Sharpe of the Medical Research Council (2009)
viii) Effects of Pollutants on the Reproductive Health of Male Vertebrate
Wildlife – Males Under Threat, Report, Executive Summary and Press
Release, by Gwynne Lyons (2008)
ix) Breast Cancer and exposure to hormonally active chemicals: An
appraisal of the scientific evidence, including briefings in French,
Spanish, German and Italian, by Professor Andreas Kortenkamp of the
London School of Pharmacy (2008)
x) Chemicals Compromising Our Children: Neurological Impairment in
Children, by Gwynne Lynons (2007)
www.chemtrust.org.uk
@CHEMTrust
This report was designed and printed June 2015 by Printguy:
The OV, Bishops Lydeard, Somerset TA4 3DJ . Tel: 01934 750777 · www.printguy.co.uk
on 100% recycled paper using vegetable-based inksYou can also read
