Download Frequently Asked Questions on fracking

Frequently Asked Questions on Fracking
Friends of the Earth Scotland Supporter Briefing
Spring 2017
1. Can Scotland ban fracking? Won’t the Scottish Government get sued if it does?
The Scottish Government has the power to ban fracking and is unlikely to face a serious legal challenge
if it does. The government could either use its powers over environmental and planning regulation to
effectively ban this industry, or pass a law in Parliament to do so.
Planning and environmental powers have long been used to put into effect an ongoing ban on new
nuclear power plants. These same powers are used to implement the recent ban on underground coal
gasification. No legal challenge has been made to either of these bans, despite relevant energy powers
remaining reserved to Westminster.
With fracking, the Scottish Government could go further and create a new law to ban these activities.
This is because powers over onshore oil and gas were devolved to Holyrood following the Independence
Referendum as a result of the huge opposition to fracking in Scotland and the markedly different
approach of the Scottish Government to that of Westminster.
In November 2016, Scottish Labour moved to develop new legislation to ban fracking, which should help
to clarify exactly how it can and should be done, preparing the ground to legislate as soon as possible.
2. Isn’t the SNP anti-fracking and won’t the Scottish Government ban fracking anyway?
The Scottish Government put a moratorium in place on shale gas fracking and coalbed methane (CBM)
in January 2015.
While the moratorium has been in place, the Government has gathered evidence on fracking impacts
and is currently running a public consultation. Throughout these processes, the Government is officially
neutral on fracking, saying they will decide whether it goes ahead or not based on the evidence and
responses to the consultation.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon
has said she is personally
‘highly sceptical’ of fracking.
Under public pressure during
the 2016 Scottish elections, she
went as far as to say that unless
it can be proven ‘beyond any
doubt’ that there are no risks to
health, communities or the
environment, there will be no
fracking in Scotland, and the
SNP 2016 manifesto used the
same language.
Within the SNP itself there is strong opposition to fracking. A large section of the grassroots is vocal in
calling for a full ban, with a group called ‘SNP Members Against Unconventional Gas’ (SMAUG) forming
to keep pressure up within the party.
However, the SNP are also being courted by multinational chemical company INEOS, the main
proponent for fracking in Scotland. Unless the Scottish Government really feels the pressure from
thousands of people voicing their opposition to fracking during their consultation, they may be swayed by
INEOS’ arguments. It’s also possible that they would opt for an extended moratorium instead of an
outright ban, meaning communities in the central belt will continue to have the threat of fracking in the
future hanging over them.
3. Won’t fracking create thousands of jobs and bring down energy bills?
No. For a start, it’s far from clear whether the fracking industry is commercially viable in Scotland at all. If
it is, Scottish Government commissioned research says that exploiting shale gas will not bring down
energy bills, and that any skilled jobs could go to overseas workers who already have experience in
these industries.
According to report authors KPMG, estimated peak Scottish employment would only be 1,400. This
clearly de-bunks INEOS’s claims that ‘tens of thousands’ of jobs will be created in Scotland, and the
Scottish Conservatives’ claims that fracking could replace lost North Sea oil and gas jobs.
Economists agree that fracking won’t bring down energy bills. Unlike the US, the UK is part of a wellconnected regional gas market that means any gas produced here will be sold to the highest bidder.
Even Lord Brown, former chair of fracking firm Cuadrilla, admitted that fracking won’t have a ‘material
impact’ on household bills. Should the industry go ahead, any contribution to the economy is likely to be very small: KPMG
estimated just 0.1% of GDP. Economists and geologists agree that neither Scotland nor the rest of the
UK would see a repeat of the US ‘shale revolution’ as our complex geology and dense population make
extraction much more challenging and expensive.
4. Don’t we need shale gas to ‘keep the lights on’?
No. Unconventional fossil fuels are sometimes talked up as improving UK energy security. Concerns are
often expressed about a looming energy gap, and the risks of ‘the lights going out’ in a few years’ time.
Shale gas and CBM would not help to prevent this. Even if the industry was able to press ahead as fast
as it wanted, there would not be any significant Scottish or UK production until the next decade (and of
course, there is a big IF it is proven to be viable).
Further, the amount of gas that might eventually be produced would not help keep any lights on for long.
As part of their research for the Scottish Government, KPMG developed production scenarios based on
input from key industry players that indicate Scottish shale production would likely amount to only 5.5
years worth of gas consumption.
The real solution is to move away from fossil fuels altogether by dramatically ramping up energy
efficiency in our homes, public buildings and industry and moving to mixed renewable sources to
generate our energy needs. Scottish Government policy is already moving away from the use of all fossil
fuels and towards renewables, leaving little or no energy market for unconventional gas in the future.
5. I thought gas was cleaner than coal: Won’t fracking help tackle climate change?
No. Fracked gas is often touted as a ‘bridging fuel’ to ease the transition from dirtier fossil fuels like coal
to renewables. This is because gas produces less climate change-causing gases at the point it is burnt.
However, in Scotland, fracked gas wouldn’t be replacing coal anyway since our last coal fired power
station, Longannet, closed in March 2016.
Further, burning gas has a far higher carbon footprint than generating renewable energy. Investing in
gas now risks locking us into expensive infrastructure and diverting investment away from cleaner
renewables.
Shale gas and coalbed methane wells
also release accidental emissions of
methane – so-called ‘fugitive
emissions’. Methane is a far more
potent greenhouse gas than carbon
dioxide, leading scientists to question
whether there is any advantage of
using fracked gas over coal in climate
terms.
World leaders have agreed that in
order to avert catastrophic impacts of
climate change, global temperatures
must be kept well below 2ºC, and that we should be aiming for no more than 1.5ºC to avoid the worst
impacts in countries most vulnerable to global warming. Even the conservative International Energy
Agency has warned that exploiting the world’s reserves of unconventional gas (including shale gas
through fracking) could lead to a dangerous global temperature rise of 3.5ºC.
6. Haven’t we got much better regulation than the US where much of the evidence of
water contamination, methane leaks and health impacts comes from?
Not necessarily. Regulation varies from state to state in the US, so in some states it’s more robust than
others. The regulatory system here in Scotland was not designed to respond to the risks involved with
hydraulic fracturing and other techniques used in unconventional oil and gas extraction, and there are
some clear gaps in our regulatory framework.
However, even if we could put in place the best regulatory system in the world it couldn’t rule out all the
risks to health, the climate and our environment. The United Nations Environment Program has
concluded that unconventional gas extraction “may result in unavoidable environmental impacts even if
[gas] is extracted properly”.1
Conservative estimates put well failure on newly drilled wells – which can result in leakage of methane
and toxins into air and water – at between 5-9%, and at upwards of 50% during their lifespan. And there
remain big questions around the treatment and disposal of the huge volumes of toxic waste fluids
generated by shale gas and coalbed methane extraction.
What’s clear is that while tougher regulation can make gas drilling and fracking safer, key risks are
inherent to the industry, and of course burning any gas produced will contribute to climate change.
7. Aren’t chemicals used in fracking found under your sink?
It is true that some of the chemicals used in fracking can be found in other forms that are relatively
harmless. However, the drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes use a range of chemicals that are
harmful to health, while also mobilising toxic and radioactive substances that naturally occur in shale
rock and coal.
A 2011 US study questioned 14 major fracking companies and found that they were using many
chemicals that are toxic to humans including benzene, naphthalene, methanol, ethylene glycol, caustic
soda and formaldehyde.2
A 2011 study led by the Endocrine Disruptor Exchange found that of 353 identifiable chemicals used in
944 industry products, more than 75% could affect the skin, eyes, other sensory organs, the respiratory
and gastrointestinal systems; 40-50% could cause nervous, immune and cardiovascular system and
kidney problems; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% could cause cancer and mutations.3
Of particular concern are chemicals used in fracking that are known to disturb hormones in humans and
animals, called endocrine disrupters. Exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals is linked to sperm
abnormalities, reduced foetal growth, cardiovascular disease, respiratory dysfunction and asthma.4,5
Studies on the long-term effects of fracking chemicals on female mice indicates that exposure reduces
fertility.6 Endocrine disruptors include benzene, toluene, ethylebenzene and xylene (or BTEX), which are
naturally occurring in shale and coal, and there are many studies documenting extremely high BTEX
concentrations in air and water surrounding fracking operations.7
A 2016 Yale study found that of the 1,117 water pollutants and 143 air pollutants found in fracking fluids
and waste water assessed, 55 chemicals could be classed as known, probable or possible human
carcinogens.
8. Is there popular support for fracking?
The polls consistently show that fracking is unpopular with the public:
• A 2016 Department of Energy and Climate Change survey showed that the more knowledgeable
people are about fracking, the more they oppose it – 53% of people who said they knew a lot about
fracking were against it, compared to 33% in favour.
• In contrast, renewable energy is hugely popular – 80% of people surveyed by the Department of
Energy and Climate Change in 2014 support the idea of the UK electricity, heat and fuel being
supplied from renewable sources.
• A 2013 YouGov poll showed that people would rather the Government invests in renewables than in
fracking: 78% think the Government is right to spend money encouraging solar and tidal power
compared to just 40% who back spending on shale gas.
• According to a 2012 ICM poll, wind farms are six times more popular with the British public than shale
gas wells. When asked to choose between having a wind turbine or a shale gas well within two miles
of their home, 67% chose wind compared to just 11% for gas.
9. All these terms are really confusing! Should I be talking about fracking, or
unconventional oil and gas?
‘Fracking’ is industry slang for hydraulic fracturing, a technique commonly used to extract shale oil, shale
gas, tight gas, and sometimes coalbed methane. Together, these are known as ‘unconventional oil and
gas’ or ‘unconventional fossil fuel’ technologies, but the term ‘fracking’ is often used as a shorthand to
describe them all.
This is because the impacts of unconventional oil and gas extraction are very similar whether or not
technology precisely described as hydraulic fracturing is used. It’s also because its shorter, and people
have heard of it in the news making it easier to discuss.
In this briefing we have used the term ‘fracking’ as shorthand. As a conversation opener, or in the
context where people know what you are talking about, or you have a chance to clarify, it’s OK to use
fracking like this. In other circumstances it helps to be really clear and explain whether you are talking
about hydraulic fracturing specifically or one or more forms of unconventional gas extraction.
NB - Shale gas, shale oil and coalbed methane are unconventional oil and gas technologies currently
threatening Scottish communities. Other forms of unconventional gas extraction, such as tight gas, are
not currently proposed for Scotland.
There is more information about all these issues at www.stopfracking.scot, and you can also get
in touch with Flick at [email protected].
1
UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS), November 2012, http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP-GEAS_NOV_2012.pdf
2
US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, 2011,
http://conservationco.org/admin/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Final-Rebuttal-Exhibits.pdf-Adobe-Acrobat-Pro.pdf
3
Colborn, T. et al., (2011), Natural gas operations from a public health perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment:
An International Journal, 17 (5), 1039-1056. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2011.605662
4
Bienkowski, B., (2015, April 15). Scientists warn of hormone impacts from benzene, xylene, other common solvents.
Environmental Health News. Retrieved from http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2015/apr/endocrine-disruptionhormones-benzenesolvents
5
Bolden, A. L., Kwiatkowski, C. F., & Colborn, T. (2015). New look at BTEX: are ambient levels a problem? Environmental
Science & Technology, 49, 5261-76. doi: 10.1021/es505316f
6
Kassotis, C. D., et al., (2016) Adverse Reproductive and Developmental Health Outcomes Following Prenatal Exposure to a
Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Mixture in Female C57Bl/6 Mice. Endocrinology.
7
Concerned Health Professionals of New York & Physicians for Social Responsibility. (2015, October 14). Compendium of
scientific, medical, and media findings demonstrating risks and harms of fracking (unconventional gas and oil extraction) (3rd
ed.). See pp.16-51.