Extract from Friends of the Earth campaign webpage on fighting fracking
A campaign website which said fracking was incompatible with tackling climate change did not break the advertising code, the watchdog has said.
In a ruling published this morning, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) did not uphold a complaint that the statement on a Friends of the Earth web page was misleading, exaggerated or unsubstantiated.
The ASA also did not uphold a complaint about a statement by the organisation that “fracking risks contaminating groundwater”.
“Serious doubts that fracking can meet climate tests”
Friends of the Earth told the ASA there were “serious doubts” that shale gas production at scale would meet three tests, set by the Committee on Climate Change, to be compatible with UK climate targets.
The first test – that emissions at development, production and decommissioning stages must be strictly limited – depended on the strength of UK regulation, FoE said. In 2016, the CCC said the UK needed clearer and stronger regulation.
On the second test – gas consumption must remain in line with carbon budget requirements – Foe said there were no provisions to ensure shale gas produced by the UK would remain unused by another nation.
The third test – accommodating shale gas production emissions within carbon budgets – was unlikely to be met, FoE said. A report from University of Edinburgh quoted by the organisation estimated that just a 1% rate of fugitive emissions from shale gas would risk exceeding UK carbon budgets.
Even if all three tests were met, FoE said it would not show that fracking was compatible with tackling climate change. It said the CCC had considered only UK climate targets, which were lower than the Paris Agreement of 1.5 degrees.
From FoE’s evidence, the ASA said it understood:
- Shale gas found through fracking would be over and above known fossil fuels in the UK
- Shale gas could not help to phase out coal for electricity production in the UK because it would not be available for another 10-15 years
- UK shale gas production would be unlikely to displace fossil fuel production in other countries
The ASA said:
“On the basis of the substantiation provided we considered that the claim was not likely to mislead consumers who viewed the web page, based on their understanding of the claim and the overall context in which it was presented. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.”
“Regulators unable to prevent pollution”
On the risk of fracking to groundwater, Friends of the Earth argued that the regulatory framework in the UK was relatively untested and it could not ensure that the risk of contamination was removed.
A report commissioned by the organisation showed that groundwater contamination could have a significant impact on drinking water sources. It argued that the regulatory systems were unable to prevent pollution occurring.
There was a strong overlap between aquifers used for groundwater supply and areas where fracking could take place, FoE said. The British Geological Survey had reported that aquifers used for public water supply extended across 81% of England and Wales and, of these, 47% were underlain by shale or clays.
The ASA said the evidence showed that where communities relied on water from Source Protection Zones 2 and 3 (where fracking is allowed), there was a risk that fracking could contaminate groundwater and that the groundwater could end up being used as drinking water.
It concluded that the statement was not misleading.
Categories: Opposition
DRILL OR DROP? 
Just to correct the misinformation being put about by a few here – water contamination has been an issue from the very earliest days of fracking (going back to the 1940s). Well before HVHF techniques were being developed in the 90’s and reaching commercial/industrial strength in the late naughties, the stated warnings about fracking included risks to groundwater contamination. Mitigation of this and other risk factors have been huge issues in the development of fracking for the O&G industry. It is naive and irresponsible to claim otherwise and shows a level of ignorance among the pro-frackers that should not be taken lightly.
From the pioneers of the the modern horizontal fracturing techniques – i.e. the field engineers of the Mitchell Wells in Texas (with experience of high pressure fluid fracturing from the early 1980’s onwards) and the simultaneous work of lab-based engineers (Ingraffea and co), studying the physics of rock fracture mechanics at Cornell University – with the specific aim of knowing how oil and/or gas is extracted from shales. Both pioneers, based on considerable knowledge and experience, state that the modern techniques have been exploited and commercialised with unacceptably high risk factors. How does the industry get away with it? Simply by lying.
It is quite obvious isn’t it?
Climate do always change. It will change over the time.
I have never seen a climate that doesn’t change. Has anyone seen one?
Climate is not weather.
Yes it’s obvious/ Indeed it do/ No they haven’t. However, the issue is how abruptly the climate is changing in a way that has never before happened in the 100s of thousands of years that experts can track previous changes. You should be well aware of this. If not, why are you commenting about climate change? Neither you nor I are experts. Personally, I defer to the experts; whose opinions do you rely on? Granted, experts aren’t always right, but when around 97% of the experts and science say global warming is man made, very real, happening right now and possibly irreversible already, is it really worth taking the chance that they are wrong, just for short term monetary gain? Clearly the answer is yes for a number of people commenting here.
It is interesting to read how some of the main contributors to this forum, that support fracking, have responded to this determination. By denying climate change and splitting hairs. When FoE was criticised by the ASA many shale supporters wallowed in it. UKOOG milked it for all it was worth, holding numerous TV interviews and it has been repeatedly referred to. Now when the ASA has ruled in favour of FoE suddenly the ASA are meaningless, wrong, have failed to take this or that into account etc etc.
The ASA is there for a purpose and of course they must ensure a high level of integrity. But I can’t help thinking that for some it has become “weaponised” used as a tool to their fracking fight. I fear that some individuals may sadly be using their own precious time to submit complaints to the ASA with a degree of malice, as a part of their personal crusade. I wonder if when a complaint relating to fracking is submitted to these sort of organisations their heart sinks as they do their job but are aware they are caught yet again between the crosshairs of the fracking fight?
KatT
The burning ( or use of ) of fossil fuel and other activities ( and releases ) that increase the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is not compatible with tackling climate change.
The production of fossil fuel on your doorstep rather than in the colonies may have more impact on fossil fuel use in those areas affected than going back to the status quo … out of sight is out of mind.
So, in isolation, banning fracking in the UK is also not compatible with tackling climate change?
Plus I guess all hearts sink at the thought of another complaint to the ASA or a flood of FOI requests relating to fracking activity ( primarily against ).
Spot on, KatT
Back in the real world it looks like Cuadrilla were fracking as normal yesterday. BGS have added another event of -0.4 @ 15:55:40.0 hrs.
“How can earthquake magnitudes be negative?
Magnitude scales are logarithmic. This means that the amplitude recorded must decrease 10 times for the magnitude to decrease by 1 unit.
At a station close to a magnitude 2 earthquake, the ground moves about 400 micrometres. So a ground movement of 40 micrometres would signify a magnitude 1 earthquake, 4 micrometres a magnitude 0 earthquake and 0.4 micrometres a magnitude -1 earthquake.
Earthquakes with negative magnitudes are never felt. “
Excellent article in the Times about this from Nick Ridley. He also goes on about the anti frack propaganda being funded by Russia, something thats a bit obvious.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/fracking-s-enemies-are-wrong-to-call-these-earthquakes-c8k3rv5lv
Heres the link for Russian meddling. (That will annoy some, as nobody wants to be one of Putins ‘useful idiots’) https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/06_29_2017%20CLS%20%26%20Weber%20-%20Mnuchin.pdf
Plenty to read here
https://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/?ACT=18&ID=20787&LANG
I can’t see the mention of the 0.5 magnitude threshold in this part. I wonder if there would be a 67% chance if the 0.5m was adhered to?
“The new regime includes the requirement for seismic monitoring of each well site area and a system under which operations are halted if seismicity reaches a level greater than 1.7 ML (Operation has to stop if 1.7 is exceeded, the well bled off and then the seismicity monitored until zero events for at least 10 days, then the operation can recommence, otherwise the operation has to be aborted and the seismic risk reevaluated)
Also can’t spot the fact that Cuadrilla stated prior to this report that the Becconsall site was going to be plugged and abandoned and restored this year. Surely the implications of losing a main site and the costs of doing so would have made it’s way onto such a detailed report. Also the Grange Hill site, plugging and abandonment restoration costs etc.
John – clearly you have not seen this report before? Helps with the economics.
Desperate times Ken? That old Cold War era (left over) committee has morphed into a Climate Change denying group. Somebody tried this exact post a year ago. It’s statements were well and truly debunked by scientists.
The shtick about Russian funded anti fracking propaganda is just idiotic. If anything they would want the UK to maintain it’s gas infrastructure and mindset that gas-is-good. UK fracking will be tortuously slow progress at best so they would rather encourage us to stay on those train lines until (inevitably) that drive becomes such a train wreck that dependency on ‘their’ gas would be a backstop. Developing and maintaining gas infrastructure would be part of that scenario rather than developing a greener alternative energy industry.
Paul – if by fracking “as normal” you mean trying to do it without injecting enough sand to enable a flow test then maybe.
Ken you get funnier every day. Keep it up. Have you thought about going on the Radio as a standup? I heard you warming up on LBC. Priceless!
As normal – as per program. One frack a day keeps the Dr. away etc….. (except Sundays of course). The 18hr delays don’t seem to impact the program. Not sure what your comment re sand is meant to mean?
I take it you haven’t read Mr Egan’s Jeremiad in The Times this morning yet then?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/strict-earthquake-rules-may-make-fracking-not-viable-says-cuadrilla-boss-zf8ttcpwt
No I have not. It usually doesn’t let me in as I don’t subscribe. I will try again – thanks John.
I can see enough to understand what you are referring to. Interesting. Not sure he is telling the whole truth but I can’t see down the page. This should only apply if the job is shut down while pumping i.e. the seismic event happens during the frack job. I thought this had only happened on a couple of the stages? But perhaps I haven’t being paying enough attention….. Seismic events post pumping should not cause any problem with the volume put away – unless they have deliberately reduced the stage size to avoid seismicity.
Perhaps the start of the campaign to increase the threshold?
[Image removed over possible copyright issues]
Just out of interest Paul could you say why smaller stages reduce the risk of seismicity and /or reduces the volume harvested. Thanks.
Paul will be along shortly I’m sure, but Cuadrilla’s environmental statement by Arup suggests that seismic activity is directly related to injection volume, hence the lower injection quantities being used at PNR than at Preese Hall.
It hasn’t worked out too well for them so far though after 11 fracks and 5 mini fracks.
I’ll eave Paul to explain any relationship between volume injected / volume harvested but presumably it has to do with the length of the fracture induced by a given volume?
Shalewatcher – Refracktion is correct. You need to think in 2 dimensions perpedicular to the horizontal well bore. Eack frack propogates roughly circular at 90deg from the wellbore, up down, out and behind. So the distance the frack penetrates is directly related to the volume pumped – less volume = less fracture = less surface area exposed = less gas to produce. Less fracture, less sand less, fracture remains open = lower produvtivity. Each frack has been specifically designed for each part of the shale based on the lithology of the shale, boundaries etc etc. So any shortening of the pumping time and volume will mean a less efficient fracture and failure to achieve design fracture.
The risk of seismicity is reduced by slower than ideal pump rates, lower pressure (less energy) and the lower volume which keeps the frack smaller and possibly away from any fault etc.
Increasing the TLS limit would allow higher rates, bigger fracks and I believe more efficient fracks with the additional momentum. And of course greater productivity.
There is plenty of scope technically to increase the TLS limits but possibly not politically as others have pointed out. The Industry should have stood their ground when they had there chance….
[Image removed over possible copyright issues]
Seismic problems looming
“It certainly looks like it would be — I can’t say impossible — but I could say very difficult to make this a commercial venture if you had to continue operating within a 0.5 red line,” said Mr Egan.
https://www.ft.com/content/cb36ad4e-dc5e-11e8-9f04-38d397e6661c
I thought this was a cash cow industry. Stick to 0.5M and make less money. Simple.
With regards to the 0.5M threshold Ms Perry said,
“The Traffic light System thresholds are set at a very low, precautionary level and we have no plans to review these.”
Under review right now John.
To be honest, the ASA Council is a fickle beast, especially as in this case they went against two recommendations. I have tried to get them to realise that a faulty claim that hydrochloric acid was ‘toxic’ but they wouldnt do it.
In view of the fact that our body manufactures it in the periatic cells, for digestion and its also known as E 507, a food additive is also pretty good evidence. Concentrated it is classed as ‘corrosive’ and it would kill you if you drank it. But that isnt a ‘toxic’ effect. Toxic means poison, and it’s not that. So the ASA often get it wrong with Council decisions, as they have in this case. .
I am almost feeling sorry for you Ken
KatT-you make a valid point regarding the ASA, but it has ever been thus. I had a long time keeping on the right side of the ASA, and within most industries you will find it normal for competitors to report to the ASA if they thought another company was claiming something they shouldn’t, or in a way which was not fully correct.
Nothing new, nothing unique to this particular question. So, nothing a grievance could be cultured from-but it will.
The real difficulty is that when the ASA have criticised an organisation-which they are reluctant to do-it is a label which is almost impossible to remove.
Just looking at the ASA’s reasoning…
1. Shale gas found through fracking would be over and above known fossil fuels in the UK – well the Uk currently imports LNG from Qatar and Russia, this imported gas clearly has a higher carbon footprint than home produced gas, If Uk shale gas just displaces some of the imported LNG it will make a contribution to climate change. I’d also be interested to know what the carbon footprint is of North Sea Gas and how it would compare with a full-formed UK shale industry.
2. Shale gas could not help to phase out coal for electricity production in the UK because it would not be available for another 10-15 years – I guess the ASA must have had some expert statement to back-up that estimate but as a non expert I find it difficult to see why a exploration well like Cuadrilla’s could not be transformed into a production well in a shorter time than that.
3. UK shale gas production would be unlikely to displace fossil fuel production in other countries – agreed but if the exploration in the UK is successful it could provide an impetus and example for other countries like France & Germany to experiment themselves. Germany in particular would benefit from a cleaner back-up fuel than brown coal.
It should not be automatically assumed (Shale Watcher etc) that imported gas has a higher carbon footprint than ‘home produced’. Much of it is piped in from reservoirs, not fracked (shale) gas fields. The latter have a far higher environmental impact and methane releases. If you consider like for like, e.g. with fracked gas from abroad, then you’ve also got to consider that you are creating many more points of leakage, venting, flaring, migration and rogue emissions than already present with an existing source. Importing LNG (a minor part of the bigger picture) adds more footprint issues but nobody has presented any actual sums, just assumptions so far. The ‘home-grown’ argument, as being cleaner, would only hold water if it was local gas from reservoir sources not shale.
Leakages and rogue emissions can start from the drilling stage onward by the way, not 10-15 years hence.
Philip P. I did an invited talk for the FT some years ago at Shell’s London office. At that time LNG emissions – just for compression/refrigeration from gas into liquid averaged 1 ton of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions for 5 tons of LNG. Higher if compression trains were in hot climates (e.g. Quatar) compared to cold climates (e.g. Barents Sea https://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/snohvit-field/). Not a minor part of the emission life cycle. Most LNG imported into the UK is from Quatar. The most recent lifecycle assessment for LNG imported into the UK I have come across is this. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11367-017-1285-z.pdf
Cheers Nick. Do you know what proportion of domestic gas consumption is derived from LNG?
Philip P. The latest government energy stats are here. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/736148/DUKES_2018.pdf . You should able to get an estimate from the chapter on gas. Note some imports of gas go out again as exports – so you need to take that into account.