The US has a long history of hydraulic fracturing, with the technique applied in some form since the 1940s. With technical advancements, hydraulic fracturing now accounts for more than two thirds of gas production in the US, and over half of oil production, a rapid increase from fairly negligible proportions in 2000. Estimates place the number of hydraulic fracturing operations to date in the region of 300,000 (as of 2015), which should go some way to explaining why I so frequently look to the US for examples in my posts. It’s therefore important to consider how applicable these studies are to hydraulic fracturing in other countries, particularly the UK. The big difference is regulation.
Federal regulations are applicable across every state in the US, with individual states having their own additional regulations. A pattern with hydraulic fracturing regulation seems to be that federal regulations tend to leave the specifics in many areas at the discretion of individual states. For example the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (1974) was enacted to avoid contamination of surface or underground sources of drinking water, with specific requirements for the monitoring and reporting of “State Underground Injection Control Programs”. However a 2005 amendment specifically excludes “the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.” This leaves the level of oversight to be defined by state legislation.
Many variances exist between state legislations. Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania enforce regulations pertaining to pollutant monitoring in surrounding water, well casing designs and stimulation procedures, whereas Texas and Michigan rely on enforcement of pre existing technical regulations to oversee these areas.
The resultant mosaic of regulation means that the degree of scrutiny given to any particular operation depends largely on which state it takes place in. Also by effectively being the forerunners of hydraulic fracturing, the US has often had to respond to reports of environmental damage with new legislation. It’s worth considering then if the UK has a regulatory framework which takes the experiences of the US into consideration, especially given a higher population density and a consequently increased risk of harm resulting from environmental damage.
The UK is not without its variances, with devolved governments of the constituent countries taking differing views on fracking. Scotland imposed a moratorium on fracking in January of 2015, with a (non-binding) vote to ban fracking being passed in May of 2016. The Welsh government has taken similar measures, issuing a Direction preventing the approval of fracking by local authorities, with the Welsh Labour Party further announcing their intention in September 2016 to ban fracking. This follows a UK wide moratorium called in 2011 following the seismic events at the Preese Hall 1 exploration well near Blackpool, which was subsequently lifted in 2012. It should be noted that prior to the seismic events at Preese Hall 1, there was no regulatory consideration for seismicity. This doesn’t bode particularly well for the notion that the UK can avoid mistakes by considering the experiences of the US.
While legislation regarding fracking is in something of a state of flux, with a new briefing paper released less than a week ago, many of the regulatory frameworks applied to fracking are inherited from conventional hydrocarbon extraction, and make few specific considerations for unconventional hydrocarbon extraction.
The risk of this approach is that new regulation will only follow instances where the current regulation proves to be inadequate to prevent environmental damage. With the government strongly pushing the case for fracking, it’s not hard to imagine a desire not to “over regulate”, but with the corresponding opposition to fracking across the general public they will have to tread a very fine line.
No comments:
Post a Comment