Government’s double U-turn makes fracking rules even more complicated
The government changed its mind again on Wednesday about banning fracking from the surface of England’s most important natural areas.
Tucked away in a long government webpage was a link to a six-week on consultation on “Surface Development Restrictions”. More plainly, this was about plans to exclude fracking from the surface of some wildlife sites.
They include Sites of Special Scientific Interest, where the government said it would ban fracking (January 2015), then said it wouldn’t (July 2015) and this week said it would.
The latest announcement, low-key though it was, makes the labyrinthine rules covering fracking more complex and introduces new inconsistencies. Here are a few of them.
Surface versus underground
If the government’s proposals are adopted, oil and gas companies cannot drill a well to be fracked from the surface of National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, SSSIs, internationally important wetlands (Ramsar sites), European designated Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation, and World Heritage Sites.
But companies can frack under any of these areas as long as the rigs are located outside.
The RSPB said this wasn’t sensible. And Hannah Martin, a campaigner with Greenpeace, said:
“Some of England’s special scenery and nature reserves could still be ringed by fracking rigs bringing light, air, water and noise pollution to areas that should be completely protected. This seems like a statement designed simply to mollify concerned backbenchers but lacking the substance to actually protect the countryside from fracking pollution.”
1,200 metres or 1,000 metres?
Fracking can take place underneath National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites at depths of 1,200 metres or more.
Under SSSIs and the other wildlife sites fracking can take places at depths of 1,000 metres.
No one in government has explained what difference 200 metres makes.
Laws, conditions and policy statements
The depth that fracking can take place under protected areas is set out in legislation. The details are in The Infrastructure Act 2015, which amends the Petroleum Act 1998, along with secondary legislation in the still draft Hydraulic Fracturing regulations 2015 (see Byline article, 30th October 2015).
The ban on fracking operations from the surface of protected areas will, if government plans are approved, be a condition in a drilling company’s Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence. But this is just for new licences.
For existing licences, the government will issue a policy statement. This, according to the proposals, will indicate that:
“The Secretary of State [presumably of Energy and Climate Change] is not minded to grant consent for any programme which includes ‘associated hydraulic fracturing’, as defined in 4B(1) of the Petroleum Act 1998, from new or existing wells that have been drilled at the surface in specified protected areas”.
"Not minded" is not the same as a ban.
Conventional versus unconventional
The bans on fracking from the surface of protected areas and the restrictions of the depths at which fracking can take place apply only to ‘associated hydraulic fracturing’.
They do not apply to drilling for conventional oil and gas, which do not use fracking. They also do not apply to unconventional oil and gas operation, such as the extraction of coal bed methane, if they don’t use high volume hydraulic fracturing.
So what is ‘associated hydraulic fracturing’?
The Petroleum Act, as amended by the Infrastructure Act, defines this by the use of fluid used in the hydraulic fracturing of shale. Under the Acts something is fracking if it uses:
"(1) More than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage, or expected stage, of the hydraulic fracturing, or
(ii) More than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total.”
So if a company proposes to use slightly less than these volumes is it still ‘associated hydraulic fracturing’? And, if not, does that mean the restrictions on fracking from the surface of protected areas don’t apply? That’s not clear. When asked, the Energy Minister, Andrea Leadsom, said she couldn’t answer because she didn’t have the definition with her.
When pressed on what would happen if fracking companies tried to get round the law, Mrs Leadsom said:
“That absolutely would not be in anyone’s interests to play games like that. That would be an appalling thing to do. I would absolutely not permit that sort of game-playing to happen. There will be a very clear definition.”
“It won’t be the case that you can simply flout the rules by having a litre or two less of water. That will not be the case I can assure you of that.”
England versus the rest of the UK
This week’s announcement applies only to England. The government plans to devolve the licensing of onshore oil and gas to Scotland and Wales.
In January, the Scottish Government announced a moratorium on all planning consents for unconventional oil and gas extraction, including fracking. It was widened to include underground coal gasification last month but there’s uncertainty about whether exploratory drilling will be permitted in the meantime.
The Welsh Assembly voted in February for a moratorium on fracking through the planning system. And in August the UK government announced it would not issue onshore licences for oil and gas exploration in Wales.
In September, Northern Ireland’s environment minister included a presumption against unconventional hydrocarbon extraction in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement, a new guide for the planning system. The guide did not include a moratorium or ban and it set no timescale for how long the presumption would apply.
Licences, permissions, permits, approvals
To drill a well onshore in England, an oil and gas must get permissions from multiple local and national government agencies.
• A Petroleum and Exploratory Development Licence (PEDL) from the Oil and Gas Authority which gives an exclusive right to drill but not permission.
• Planning permission from the local minerals authority, usually a county council, unitary authority or National Park authority
• Environmental permits from the Environment Agency, usually covering impacts on groundwater, waste disposal and industrial air emissions, and possibly permits for water abstraction and discharge.
• Consents from the Health and Safety Executive on the well design and construction and drilling operations.
• Well consent from the Oil and Gas Authority
In 2012, the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering recommended in a report the co-ordination of these organisations with one taking the lead.
Three years later, the Task Force on Shale Gas, which is investigating fracking, recommended a new bespoke regulator for onshore underground energy. It said:
“It is our belief that not only will this new regulator be able to command more public confidence, its specific remit will allow it to develop expertise and skills required to ensure that it is able to execute its duties effectively.”
In a report released in March this year it called on the government elected in May to legislate as soon as possible to establish a new regulator.
So far the government has announced no plans to do so and there are no signs that the regulation of onshore oil and gas will get any easier to follow.
Other headlines this week
Court hearing A judge at Manchester High Court gave anti-fracking campaigners until 4th December 2015 to leave their protest camp in Cheshire after an application for a possession order by IGas and two landowners.
Objection Officials recommended Ryedale District Council should object to Third Energy’s planning application to frack at Kirby Misperton. A new consultation on the plans is underway after the company was asked to provide more information.
Drilling plans Egdon Resources announced plans for seven new oil and gas wells over the next year, mostly in Lincolnshire.
Solar scheme Repower Balcombe, based in the West Sussex village which saw anti-fracking protests in 2013, said plans for a community-owned solar farm have collapsed because of the Government’s withdrawal of tax relief. The scheme will go ahead but will now be a commercial enterprise.
Shale gas application IGas submitted a planning application for an exploratory shale gas well at Misson, in Bassetlaw, in north Nottinghamshire.
For daily headlines on fracking and onshore oil and gas visit DrillOrDrop.com
Coming up next week
• A committee of Hull City Council to vote on a policy to take action if fracking threatened the city.
• Ryedale District Council meets to discuss Third Energy’s application to frack at Kirby Misperton
• Publication expected of the Government’s public attitudes survey on fracking
Picture credit: David Burr