Regulation

Fracking earthquake rules could be relaxed – energy minister

traffic light system

The government may relax regulations designed to prevent earthquakes caused by fracking, according to comments by the energy minister, Claire Perry.

The current rules, known as the traffic light system, require fracking to stop if the operation causes seismic activity at a level of 0.5ML.

But in a letter to a Conservative MP, Ms Perry said:

“The TLS [traffic light system] is set at an explicitly cautious level but, as we gain experience in applying these measures, the trigger levels can be adjusted upwards without compromising the effectiveness of the controls.”

Claire Perry letter to Kevin Hollinrake extract

Extract of letter from Claire Perry to Kevin Hollinrake

The letter, obtained by the Greenpeace investigative team, Unearthed, was in reply to Kevin Hollinrake. His Thirsk and Malton constituency includes the Third Energy fracking site at Kirby Misperton and 35 oil and gas exploration licences.

Mr Hollinrake, who has supported fracking if well regulated, did not back Ms Perry’s proposal to change the threshold in the traffic light system.

He told Unearthed:

“At this point in time I think we need to know a lot more before I’d support that position. The traffic light system is there for a reason.

“To be fair to this government and the responsible approach I think we do take to oil and gas exploration, we haven’t fracked for seven years as a result so clearly we do take this seriously.”

Claire Stephenson, of Frack Free Lancashire, responded to the minister’s letter:

“This move can only be beneficial to the fracking industry and not to local communities who are being forced to endure this technology.

“The fact that they are already deciding to change the safety levels to the industry’s favour, suggests fracking will likely cause seismic events.”

The traffic light system was introduced in 2014 following a series of earthquakes linked to Cuadrilla’s hydraulic fracturing at its Preese Hall site in Lancashire. One of them measured 2.3ML.

The 0.5ML threshold was recommended in a report by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. The initial proposal, of 1.7M, was “undesirably high”, the report siad. But it did suggest the threshold could be “adjusted over time”.

Professor Peter Styles, a former adviser on seismicity to the then Prime Minister David Cameron, has argued that current seismic testing techniques would not reveal faults that could result in fracking-induced earthquakes measuring 0.5-1ML. Even faults likely to induce 1.5ML earthquakes were challenging to detect, he said.

He proposed setback distances of 850m between known faults and fracking, particularly in former mining areas.

Ms Perry referred to Professor Style’s research in her letter, saying the Oil & Gas Authority had commissioned research on historic coal mines, focussing on the area round IGas sites at Tinker Lane and Springs Road in Nottinghamshire.

She said:

“The traffic light system, which is designed to help regulators monitor and respond to any seismic event, is deliberately precautionary to enable the Environment Agency to ensure groundwater is protected and for the Health and Safety Executive to inspect well integrity before resuming operations.”

A BEIS spokesperson said:

“The UK’s world class oil and gas regulations, which have a track record of success that goes back decades, will ensure that shale development can only happen safely and in an environmentally responsible way.

“The seismicity levels were set low as a precautionary measure and may be reviewed in the future subject to scientific advice.”

Cuadrilla, which could begin fracking this week at its Preston New Road site, is putting seismic data online. It said measures already show there are naturally-occuring seismic events of 1.5-2.0ML across north England.

71 replies »

  1. I would have thought it would only be sensible to reassure people that their safety is important, and that regulations are kept tight, when fracking is such a contentious issue. But where is the sense, with climate change becoming a more imminent issue, nature is better off without us to cause the damage we do. Too many idiots in the world!

  2. What is “kept tight” LM?? Someone has to define that and better to do that as experience is gathered. Start very low (done) and then review as data is gathered (to be done). The reassurance to people is that the current level has been set so low and will only be adjusted as real monitoring proceeds. But reassuring people has to be changed to scaring the people by some.

    Getting rid of the idiots in the world would certainly help moderate climate change. But that has been tried and the world didn’t like it.

    • So Martin, obviously we just keep pumping out oil and gas to prevent climate change. Hmmm, what a great plan!
      But what about another idea, how about lobbying the government to invest sensibly and rigourously in renewables including all new houses mandatory fitted with solar panels just to start off with.

      • OFOTN

        Yes, just need to write to your MP. That helps gas and heating oil consumption.

        I do,not think that wanting to import less oil as well as reduce consumption are mutually exclusive ideas.

        • We are tied into trade deals; as the MayBot said today, our historic alliance with Saudi has saved, oh, hundreds of lives…..
          It seems this red herring is another to ostrich over.

          This governance has NO intention of dropping oil and gas production, stop importing and trading with the middle east, or indeed finding a good solution to Brexit – they are rubbing their hands in glee with the prospect of the ‘hidden’ taxes that will be blamed on the EU, and our chip, chip chip of civil rights while we are diverted with nonsense like shale.

          Could well backfire on them…..particularly when the environment induced migration begins escalate….12 years and counting…..

          • Sherwulfe
            Maybe so, in which case our favourite trading neighbours are ( on 47 million tonnes of oil imported in 2017 )

            1. Norway. 21
            2. Nigeria 4.5
            3. US 4
            4. Russia 2.9
            5. Saudi 1.6
            6.Denmark 0.5

            And so on but smaller.

            So I am not so sure that our trading with Saudi Arabia is key to a change in import volumes. Nor that this distribution is greatly dependant on which party is on power.

            Looking at the data, then our trade deals with Norway ( and what do we sell lots of to Norway? No me neither ), Nigeria ( ? ), US, Russia ( maybe funded by selling bits of London to them ), and then Saudi and we sell them Weapons amongst other things. At $80bbl, then say £733 Million a year.

            At 7.33 bbl per metric tonne of oil, so we need 64 x 500 bbl day just to replace the oil from Saudi!

            Or 1/3 of WYF when at full production!

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.