Shale Gas Bulletin Ireland Information

NO to Fracking

1. US EPA report conclusions on water contamination criticised by scientific advisory board

The American EPA has been criticised by its own scientific advisers for a draft report it published in June 2015 on the potential effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water, report Inside Climate News and Motherboard. The study, which was mandated by Congress and took four years to complete, concluded that the "EPA did not find evidence that [fracking] mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States." This conclusion of the draft report, which was widely relayed by the mainstream media at the time, for example by the Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio and the Financial Times, has now been singled out for criticism by the EPA's own Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), an expert panel charged with reviewing and making recommendations on the report before the final version is published, expected by the end of this year. There has been less mainstream media coverage of the results of the year-long review of the draft, issued by the SAB on August 11.

The SAB found, notably, that the conclusions of the report did not accurately reflect the scientific findings in the report itself. According to the letter that accompanies the analysis, the SAB found that the report's core findings "are ambiguous and appear inconsistent with the observations, data and levels of uncertainty" detailed in the report. The SAB expresses "particular concern" about the widely-reported conclusion that the EPA did not find evidence of "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources", noting that it was not supported quantitatively. The SAB recommended that "if the EPA retains this conclusion, the EPA should provide quantitative analysis" to support it in the final report, and "include modifying adjectives before the words 'widespread, systemic impact'."

The SAB further recommends the EPA "revise the major statements of findings in the Executive Summary and elsewhere in the final Assessment Report to clearly link these statements to evidence provided in the body of the final Assessment Report" and "discuss the significant data limitations and uncertainties, as documented in the body of the draft Assessment Report, when presenting the major findings".

The SAB specifically recommends that the EPA should pay more attention to local-level impacts, which "have the potential to be severe" and should "include and critically analyze...any available findings from the EPA and state investigations conducted in Dimock, Pennsylvatia; Pavillion, Wyoming; and Parker County, Texas, where many members of the public have stated that hydraulic fracturing activities have caused local impacts to drinking water resources."

DeSmogBlog reports that the EPA study has long been subject to criticism for "apparent coziness between researchers and the shale industry" and provides examples of this "coziness", which may have compromised the scope and conclusions of the study.

The American EPA has also come under fire recently from an environmental watchdog organisation, NC WARN, which has filed a federal complaint accusing the EPA of a "persistent and deliberate cover-up" of the true data related to emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from fracking operations. The complaint, based on information obtained from a whistleblower within the EPA, alleges "systematic fraud, waste and abuse by a high-ranking EPA official and possibly others in the data collection, results and process of two of the major studies used by EPA in developing policies and regulation." The complaint further alleges that the EPA's principal researcher at the time had undisclosed conflicts of interest that made him biased in favour of the oil and gas industry (which have funded his research and consulting work). NC WARN alleges that the cover-up and industry influence resulted in insufficient regulation of methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure, which has contributed directly to climate change. The complaint notes that "methane emissions from 75% of oil and gas equipment are still not regulated" because the new EPA emissions standards (May 2016) only affect new oil and gas wells and well-site equipment.

2. NGO report evaluates total impact of fracking in the USA

The following are some of the report's main findings:

* Since 2005, more than 137,000 fracking wells have been drilled or permitted in more than 20 states.

* Wells fracked between 2005 and 2015 used at least 239 billion gallons of water, 5 billion pounds of hydrochloric acid, 1.2 billion pounds of petroleum distillates and 445 million pounds of methanol  and more than 938 other chemicals, 157 of which are known to be toxic.

• Fracking operations produced at least 14 billion gallons of toxic wastewater in 2014 alone, in selected states.
• Fracking has directly damaged at least 679,000 acres since 2005.
• Global warming pollution from well completions in 2014 (methane) was at least 5.3 billion pounds (equivalent to 22 coal-fired power plants.
• Pennsylvania regulators have confirmed at least 260 instances of private well contamination since 2005.
• Data from Pennsylvania from 2010-2012 shows a 6-7% well failure rate.
• In 2014, residents in the central and eastern US felt 659 earthquakes, compared to an average of 21 per year from 1973 to 2008.

Another broad-ranging compilation of the impacts of hydraulic fracturing in the United States is the well-known Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking, produced and regularly updated by Concerned Health Professionals of New York and Physicians for Social Responsibility. The Compendium is now in its 3rd edition (October 2015).

3. UK government proposes cash payments to residents in fracking areas

The UK Independent reports that Prime Minister Teresa May has announced that residents in areas where fracking projects are approved will be eligible for cash payments, which have been qualified as "little more than bribes" by Green Party MEP Molly Scott Cato.

In November 2015, under the previous government, George Osborne established a Shale Wealth Fund worth up to £1 billion to be offered to communities accepting shale gas projects from the expected profits of gas extraction. The new government proposes to extend eligibility for these payments to individual residents as well as local authorities However, critics of the plan have been quick to point out that, as the fund depends on shale gas profits (up to ten percent of future profits), local councils and residents are not assured of receiving any payment at all, even if shale gas extraction goes ahead. This blog post points out that, "if the US experience is anything to go by...councils and householders are going to get a ten percent share of a big fat zero!" and notes that in the US surplus income above operating costs has gone to service the enormous debt contracted by the companies in order to finance their operations. As the Greenpeace Energy Desk argues, the point of the proposed payments appears to be to win support for shale exploration, but the payments would only come from "full-on commercial extraction" which may or may not occur in the same areas as exploration. Greenpeace also notes that the plan depends on the government receiving £10 billion in tax from shale gas, "which could politely be described as optimistic", given the UK's generous tax regime for oil and gas companies, the declining profitability of firms operating in the North Sea, and the number of US fracking companies declaring bankruptcy (leaving communities with cleanup costs). The prospect of significant tax revenues, according to Greenpeace, is further diminished by the fact that fracking companies in the UK will be able to offset their costs against their tax liability. Indeed, the UK taxpayer is likely to have to pay oil companies losing money in the North Sea up to £1 billion annually up to 2021 to help them cover their losses and decommissioning costs.

The Fermanagh Herald reports that local people opposed to fracking have rejected the suggestion that local communities and individuals could profit under the government's proposed scheme. Tom White, Chairman of Belkoo Frack Free had this comment: "We're in a situation with North Sea Oil and Gas where the tax receipts are going to be negative by a billion in the upcoming years, so there is no money. There won't be any money."

Local SDLP assembly member Richard McPhillips, cited by the Herald, commented: "This proposal is clear evidence that the British government are getting desperate to reverse public opinion on fracking. Local residents will not put a price on their health or that of their children or the land that they leave behind for future generations." Tanya Jones, Green Party representative for Fermanagh South Tyrone, said: "Effectively bribing local people to accept fracking is not an effective use of resources. Fracking threatens our health, our economy and our landscape. It is entirely unacceptable."