Fracking should be defined by what it does and what it is for – not by how much fluid it uses, the government has been advised.

Ministers are being urged to overturn the current legal definition based on volume, which was used for the moratorium on fracking in England.

The proposed new definition would close loopholes that currently allow lower-volume fracking, the author said.

The call came in a briefing document, published just before the definition of fracking could be critical in deciding a controversial planning application.

The briefing is by Steve Mason, a North Yorkshire councillor, member of the North York Moors National Park Authority, campaign director of the anti-fracking network, Frack Free United, and a sustainability researcher.

He called for UK legislation to be updated so that the impacts of all forms of fracking could be taken into account in decision making.

The law currently defines associated hydraulic fracturing as fracking for shale or strata encased in shale that uses more than 1,000m3 per stage or 10,000m3 in total.

This volume threshold would allow plans by Europa Oil & Gas, to be decided on Friday (24 April 2026), to frack at Burniston in North Yorkshire.

But the legal definition has been described as “unsuitable” and is said to encourage “ambiguous language”.

Mr Mason said:

“policy should regulate the activity by what it does and what it is for, not by a volume threshold that can exclude relevant evidence and undermine public confidence.”

He said:

“Defining fracking primarily by injected fluid volume creates a policy mirage: applicants can argue that permeability-enhancing stimulation is ‘not fracking’ by staying below thresholds, even where the underlying technique and risks are similar, creating scope to game planning and regulatory processes.”

He said of the current definition:

“The existing flawed policy framework gives power for companies over communities, who are forced to organise and use considerable human capital to respond to the well-resourced, complicated planning applications.”

Europa has described its fracturing operation as a “proppant squeeze” and repeatedly said it was not fracking. The company proposes to carry out four stages of fracturing, using up to 500m3 of liquid per stage.

This is greater than the highest volume per stage in Cuadrilla’s 2019 fracks at Preston New Road in Lancashire. That operation induced a series of earthquakes, felt across the local Fylde region, that led to the moratorium on fracking in England.

A recent statement by geologist Professor Stuart Haszeldine warned that lower-volume fracking could trigger earthquakes. He said:

“regulatory permission for low volume fracking does not remove the risk of unpredictable earthquakes”.

Mr Mason recommended the government should redefine fracking by purpose, function and intent.

He said legislation should be amended “so that onshore operations that intentionally fracture rock for hydrocarbons is classified as hydraulic fracturing, regardless of the fluid volume or geology”.

He suggested the definition should be rewritten to read:

“Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) means any operation that intentionally stimulates any subsurface rock for the purposes of exploring for or recovering hydrocarbons.”

He also called for:

• A clear prohibition on fracking for the purpose of producing hydrocarbons onshore
• Policy to be aligned to climate change commitments: a ban on fracking would, he said, help to reduce damaging greenhouse gas emissions and meet UK carbon budgets
• Separate regulatory regime for non-hydrocarbon stimulation, such as geothermal energy

Mr Mason said his recommendations would close the loophole on lower-volume fracking, support a shift in energy policy, restore public trust, protect the environment and confirm political resolve.

He said the new definition would tackle tensions between national and local policies, which could be important in the Burniston decision.

The North Yorkshire minerals plan adopted a definition of fracking from national planning policy guidance.

This defined fracking as:

“the process of opening and/or extending existing narrow fractures or creating new ones  … in gas or oil-bearing rock, which allows gas or oil to flow into wellbores to be captured.”

But this definition conflicts with the legislation (the 2015 Infrastructure Act and 1998 Petroleum Act) that defines fracking by volume.

Mr Mason said his proposed definition would also tackle other concerns about fracking, such as potential water contamination and carbon emissions.

He said:

“Evidence from across the world shows the impact of fossil fuels emissions threatens to overwhelm multiple global systems. The UK’s Net Zero commitment to reduce these emissions is in direct conflict with any legislation that allows fracking in the UK, with the definition of fracking, acting as the brake for change.”

He added:

“As society moves into the mid-21st century, better, more sustainable policies are needed to prevent climate change from further eroding the biosphere’s ability to support humanity for a just and sustainable future.”