UK Fracking friendly report by Greenpeace doesn't emphasize
650 products containing chemicals with potential cancer-causing properties have been used in USA fracking (Balaba and Smart, 2012).
They just state:
For all future (UK) fracking activities, the companies must disclose the chemicals used either on their own websites or on third party websites. However, this is “subject to appropriate protection for commercial sensitivity.”
The provided link to more information on this commercial sensitivity isn't available (surprise surprise), the article then continues trying to convince the reader that all safety measures will be taken and all UK regulations met - which is pretty impossible when UK authorities are not allowed to know what chemicals are being used for the fracking process!
Read full report by clicking the link to the article below
650 products containing chemicals with potential cancer-causing properties have been used in USA fracking (Balaba and Smart, 2012).
They just state:
For all future (UK) fracking activities, the companies must disclose the chemicals used either on their own websites or on third party websites. However, this is “subject to appropriate protection for commercial sensitivity.”
The provided link to more information on this commercial sensitivity isn't available (surprise surprise), the article then continues trying to convince the reader that all safety measures will be taken and all UK regulations met - which is pretty impossible when UK authorities are not allowed to know what chemicals are being used for the fracking process!
Read full report by clicking the link to the article below
Shale and water: Is there a risk of water contamination?
Or continue reading here if you want to just read how Greenpeace are trying to convince their readers that UK fracking processes are safe, directly after stating that no one except the frackers themselves know what chemicals are being used!
How is the water regulated?
In the US, water usage, treatment, and disposal is largely regulated by the individual states.
More generally however, fracking is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Also, under the US Clean Water Act, the definition of a pollutant was outlined so as not to include “water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas.”
Known as the ‘Halliburton loophole’, these exemptions were put into place under the George W. Bush administration in 2005.
In the UK, the Environment Agency assesses the risk on a site-by-site basis to determine the specific permits required.
Also, as a recent DECC report states, regulators take a “risk-based approach to the regulation of the use of chemicals in shale gas fracking activities.”
Factors such as a geological assessment, the casing design, and fracking fluid composition must be provided to the Environment Agency (or, in the case of Wales and Scotland, the Natural Resources Wales or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency) in order to determine the risks and whether a permit is required.
More specifically, companies must apply for an abstraction permit if more than 20 cubic metres per day of water is to be abstracted from surface or groundwater bodies. As DECC points out, “the water requirements for hydraulic fracturing are likely to be much greater than this limit”.
However, if the water is to be sourced from a mains supply then the company must ensure that it can meet the conditions of the abstraction permit under which the mains is operating.
According to the IoD, it is unlikely that Cuadrilla will need a permit for groundwater activity so long as only substances classified as ‘non-hazardous pollutants’ are used in the fracking fluid.
Regarding the fracking fluid, a permit is required from the Environment Agency “where fluids containing pollutants are injected into ground, where they may enter groundwater. This may also be needed if the activity poses a risk of mobilising natural substances that could then cause pollution,” the DECC report explains.
Companies will also be required to get a permit for safe disposal of the waste water produced during the fracking process.
It’s interesting to note, that Cuadrilla fought to be exempt from several regulations.Documents and emails obtained by Energydesk through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request show the extent of lobbying by Cuadrilla to be exempt from the 2011 regulations on how it monitored and disposed of waste products from drilling.
Unlike in the United States however, Cuadrilla failed to create their own loophole.
A full list of permits required for the various activities and risks associated with fracking can be found in the Environment Agency’s most recent report.
Water UK is currently lobbying to have water companies incorporated into the planning process as consultees, with Marshall stressing that “direct communication links between operator and water company is essential”.
No comments:
Post a Comment