Regulation

Could questions of definition allow fracking to be classed as ‘conventional’ exploration?

pnr 170822 Ros Wills7

Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site, 22 August 2017. Photo: Ros Wills

Two geoscientists, writing in the journal, Nature, suggested today that official definitions could allow fracking in the UK to “creep under the radar”.

David Smythe and Stuart HaszeldineDavid Smythe (left), former chair of geophysics at Glasgow University, and Stuart Haszeldine, Professor of Carbon Capture and Storage at Edinburgh University, said in a letter to the journal:

“We are concerned that fracking of unconventional oil and gas formations risks being classed as conventional hydrocarbon exploration, a relatively insignificant and unobtrusive cottage industry in the United Kingdom.”

The issue centres on government definitions, which the two scientists argue “have little rational or scientific basis”.

In the UK, high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) was defined in the Infrastructure Act based on the volume of fluid used: 1,000m3 per fracking stage or 10,000m3 in total. At these volumes, higher than those commonly used in the US, legal controls on fracking apply.

Since the Infrastructure Act became law, there have been questions over this definition based on volume.

Professor Haszeldine told The Guardian last year that analysis of more than 17,000 gas wells fracked in the US from 2000-2010 showed that 43% would not be defined as fracking under UK rules. Of 4,500 US fracked oil wells, 89% would not be covered by the UK definition.

Ministers have denied that companies would try to get round the rules by reducing the volume of fracking fluid. Speaking in October 2015, the then Energy Minister, Andrea 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.”

But Hannah Martin, energy campaigner for Greenpeace UK, told The Guardian:

“If the government were as serious as they claim to be about regulating fracking, they would have chosen a definition of this technique that reflects what actually goes on at many drilling sites.”

Brockham well Brockham Protection Site

Angus Energy’s Brockham site in Surrey. Photo: Weald Oil Watch

“Avoiding obligations”

In their letter today, David Smythe and Stuart Haszeldine raised the prospect that in parts of the UK operators could use hydraulic fracturing but avoid the obligations by keeping fluid volumes to below 10,000m3 per well and using the confusion around definitions of what is an “conventional” and “unconventional” formation.

The Oil and Gas Authority, which regulates the industry for the government, said in a Freedom of Information response:

“’conventional’ or ‘unconventional’ are not defined terms”.

The British Geological Survey, in response to questions from a researcher, said:

“Depending on local geological conditions, economics and drilling methods, sandstone or limestone could be interpreted as conventional or unconventional, or tight or not tight”.

But guidance on mineral extraction from the Department of Communities and Local Government defined conventional hydrocarbons as “oil and gas where the reservoir is sandstone or limestone” and unconventional hydrocarbons as “oil and gas which comes from sources such as shale or coal seams which act as the reservoirs”.

David Smythe and Stuart Haszeldine said today:

“This [definition from DCLG] overlooks unconventional ‘tight’ (low-permeability) limestone and sandstone.”

This is a key issue in the Weald Basin in southern England where UK Oil and Gas (UKOG), Angus Energy and Europa are seeking to explore for oil in the ‘tight’ Kimmeridge limestones.

Angus, for example, has described its Kimmeridge limestone exploration plans at Brockham near Dorking in Surrey as “conventional”. UKOG describes itself as “a conventional oil and gas company” with a mandate to “only recover oil and gas by conventional recovery methods”. Both companies have said they do not need to use hydraulic fracturing.

But critics have argued that Kimmeridge oil is unlikely to be extracted in commercial quantities without some form of stimulation of the rock formation. Some have argued that the Kimmeridge limestone would be better described as “unconventional”.

In their letter, the scientists said the sites in the Weald were currently registered as conventional, because the operators were testing thin limestone layers and were not yet fracking. But they said:

“Assuming the UK licensees start HVHF, they can then in principle claim that it is conventional hydrocarbon production by keeping the fracking fluid volume to less than 10,000m3 per well, which would evade environmental obligations specified in the 2015 UK Infrastructure Act.”

North Yorkshire definition

The North Yorkshire draft minerals plan has attempted to tackle the issue of definition by volume. It has developed a new definition of hydraulic fracturing:

“The fracturing of rock under hydraulic pressure regardless of the volume of fracture fluid used.”

But the plan faced opposition in its draft form from INEOS, Third Energy, Egdon Resources, the services company Zetland Group and the industry body UKOOG. It is expected to be opposed by the industry when it is considered by a government-appointed inspector.

Response from industry

In a statement, Ken Cronin, Chief Executive of UK Onshore Oil and Gas, said:

“We would like to clarify some assumptions made in this article.

“The US data used in this report is per well whilst the lower limit of 1000 cubic metres in the Infrastructure Act 2015 is per stage of fracturing and so is therefore not directly comparable. We do not know how many stages are included in the US data and therefore cannot extract per stage data.

“The definition in the UK Act on hydraulic fracturing is very clear: hydraulic fracturing means operations in ‘shale’ or in ‘rock encased in shale’, that use more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage, or expected stage, or more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total.

“In the Weald Basin the Kimmeridge limestone is naturally fractured and the operators have put forward no plans to use hydraulic fracturing technology.

“The suggestion that onshore oil and gas producers would “evade” environmental obligations by taking advantage of the wording of the Infrastructure Act 2015 is, put simply, untrue.”

27 replies »

  1. So, KT, we should have regional definitions? A car in the south east, is a bus in Wales and a donkey in the north. Whatever the definition it needs to be national, these companies operate nationally and purchase their licences nationally.

    Simply an attempt to muddy the waters. Local planning authorities are certainly not experts in oil/gas exploration, and in my experience, are not that expert in many areas of industrial practice. Seems you want to champion local planners when it suits, but then say their advice should be overlooked when it doesn’t. A very confused “local; democracy”.

    • Correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Collier, but is it not the case that the Infrastructure Act introduced a definition of hydraulic fracturing which depended upon the volume of fracking fluid used, thereby replacing an earlier, I think widely accepted definition which related to the technique used in extracting gas? There seems to be little justification for this other than a decision by HMG to speed up the whole planning application procedure by exempting what was previously termed fracking from the ‘rigours’ of public scrutiny at a stage where any potential damage to planet, environment and locality could be prevented. It’s not a question of multiple definitions as well you know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s