Fracking in the United Kingdom

Hydrocarbons are formed in a source rock. They can migrate over geological time to collect in a reservoir rock, from which they may be accessed by conventional drilling and production methods. But the physical properties of a source rock can be altered by so-called unconventional methods, such that the source rock volume becomes the reservoir. Such alteration belongs to the category of well stimulation methods. Well stimulation can apply to geothermal as well as to hydrocarbon resources.

File:Comparison stimulation methods.jpeg

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and acidising are two of the most common methods for well stimulation. The flow chart shows that hydraulic fracking and acid fracking are two categories of unconventional hydraulic methods. But acidising is complicated by the fact that matrix acidising is considered conventional. Note that it takes place below the fracture gradient of the rock.

In the UK legislative and hydrocarbon permitting context, Adriana Zalucka et al. (in a peer-reviewed article from 2021) have reviewed the various definitions,Zalucka A, Goodenough A, and Smythe D 2021. Acid stimulation: fracking by stealth continues despite the moratorium in England, Energy Policy 153: 112244. as well as the role of key regulators and authorities, in

particular the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), the Environment Agency (EA), the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and planning authorities.

They point out that the EA uses terms like 'acid squeeze', which is rarely used by the hydrocarbon industry, and is in any case ambiguous. The definition of HVHF in the Petroleum Act of 1998 is poorly drafted, and uses an excessively large water volume use criterion. 'Associated Hydraulic Fracturing' in the 1998 Act was superseded by 'Relevant Hydraulic Fracturing' in 2016, so that there are now two conflicting legal definitions of what is meant by HVHF. Acid fracking, an important method in the onshore UK context, was not mentioned.

Only three shale wells have been fracked to date in the UK. The authors show that it is possible that none of them would have met the definition of ‘Associated’ hydraulic fracturing, and only Preese Hall-1 (a vertical test well) met the definition of ‘relevant’ hydraulic fracturing. The remaining two wells, Preston New Road-1z and Preston New Road-2, were horizontal wells.

Zalucka et al. conclude that the UK legislation concerning the legal definitions was, and remains, confusing, ambiguous, incomplete, self-contradictory, and full of legal loopholes. To solve this problem they have proposed a new robust definition for unconventional well treatments:

{{Blockquote

|text=All well stimulation treatments of oil and gas wells which increase the permeability of the target rock volume to higher than 0.1 millidarcies beyond a 1 m radius from the borehole.}}

The above definition focuses on increasing permeability, rather than on any particular extraction process. It is quantitative, using the generally agreed 0.1 md cut-off value, below which rocks are considered impermeable. It exempts borehole cleaning processes like acid squeeze or acid wash from being classed as unconventional, by using the 1 m radius criterion. It avoids a definition based on, for example, the quantity of water injected, which is controversial,Smythe, D. and Haszeldine, S. 2017. Could fracking creep under the radar? Nature [Correspondence], 24 August 2017. or the injection pressure applied (whether the treatment is above or below the fracture gradient, as shown in the flow chart above). It also exempts non-hydrocarbon wells from being classed as unconventional.

Experiments on fracking for hydrocarbons began onshore in the USA in 1947.{{cite journal|last1=Montgomery|first1=Carl T.|last2=Smith|first2=Michael B. |date=December 2010 |title=Hydraulic fracturing. History of an enduring technology |journal=JPT Online |volume=62|issue=12|publisher=Society of Petroleum Engineers |pages=26–41 |doi=10.2118/1210-0026-JPT|url=http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf |access-date=13 May 2012 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110927042258/http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf | archive-date = 2011-09-27 | url-status = dead}}

In the UK, the first fracking of an oil well was carried out offshore, shortly after discovery of the West Sole field in the Southern North Sea in 1965. After the industry started to use intermediate and high-strength proppants in the late 1970s, fracking became a common technique in the North Sea oil and gas wells. Fracking from a ship was first conducted in 1980, with HVHF used from 1984 onwards. The target rocks are predominantly tight gas sandstones of Permian and Carboniferous age,https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/media/4521/oga-sns-tight-gas-stimulation-december-2017.pdf and not the thick shales which are the target of most HVHF treatments.

File:Oil well in Lincolnshire - geograph.org.uk - 1139065.jpg

An estimated 200 conventional onshore wells have been subject to low volume hydraulic fracturing; around 10% of all onshore wells in the United Kingdom, including Wytch Farm, which is the largest onshore conventional oil field in western Europe.{{cite news|title=Decision to extend oil production at Wytch Farm 'illogical', say green campaigners|url=http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10663077.Decision_to_extend_oil_production_at_Wytch_Farm____illogical_____say_green_campaigners/|format=PDF|date=9 September 2013|access-date=26 December 2016|quote="We believe that the current public concern about 'fracking' relates to extensive, high pressure, hydraulic fracturing using high-volumes of liquid in very low permeability rock to extract gas from shale, and methane from coal-beds. High volume hydraulic fracturing of this type has not been carried out at Wytch Farm. In the meantime, we look forward to maintaining the highest operating standards and making a positive economic and social contribution to the area."}}

From 1977 until 1994, a hot dry rock geothermal energy experiment was conducted in the Carnmenellis granite of Cornwall. During that experiment, three geothermal wells with depth of {{convert|2.6|km}} were hydraulically fractured "to research the hydraulic stimulation of fracture networks at temperatures below {{convert|100|C}}".{{cite journal|last=Busby|first=Jon|title=Geothermal Prospects in the United Kingdom|journal=Proceedings World Geothermal Congress|date=25–29 April 2010|url=http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/15965/1/GeothermalProspectsUK.pdf|access-date=1 May 2013|location=Bali, Indonesia}}

The surge of public interest in high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the UK can be traced to 2008, when Cuadrilla Resources was granted a petroleum exploration and development licence in the 13th onshore licensing round for unconventional shale gas exploration along the coast of Lancashire.{{cite news| last1 = Westcott | first1 = Catherine | title = UK Parliament Announces the 14th Landward Licensing Round | url = https://www.insideenergyandenvironment.com/2014/07/uk-parliament-announces-the-14th-landward-licensing-round/ |access-date = 23 December 2016 | work = Inside Energy & Environment | date = 31 July 2014}}{{cite news|last1=Kahya|first1=Damian|title=Can Europe benefit from shale gas?|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12242840|access-date=6 September 2016|work=BBC News| date=20 January 2011|quote=Attention is focused on little-known Cuadrilla Resources and its well in Lancashire, where it plans a test drill soon.}} The company's first HVHF job{{cite web|title=Fracking UK shale: Water |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277211/Water.pdf |author=Department of Energy and Climate Change |date=February 2014 |access-date=22 October 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714051036/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277211/Water.pdf |archive-date=14 July 2014 |df=dmy-all}}{{rp|4}} was performed on its Preese Hall-1 wellbore in March 2011, near Blackpool, Lancashire.{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12886987 |title=Blackpool shale gas drilling begins |date=28 March 2011 |agency=BBC News |access-date=29 February 2012}}{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/22/shale-gas-exploration |title=The potential for shale gas is worth exploration |author=Charles Hendry |date=22 September 2011 |work=guardian.co.uk |access-date=26 February 2012}} Cuadrilla halted operations due to seismic activity damaging the casing in the production zone.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/13/fracking-cuadrilla-halts-operations-lancashire |title=Fracking company Cuadrilla halts operations at Lancashire drilling site|author=Terry Macalister|date=13 March 2013|work=guardian.co.uk|access-date=7 October 2014}} On 2 November 2019, the UK government imposed a moratorium on fracking in England.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/02/fracking-banned-in-uk-as-government-makes-major-u-turn|title=Fracking halted in England in major government U-turn|last=Ambrose|first=Jillian|date=2019-11-02|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-11-06|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|quote=This article was corrected on 2 November 2019 to make clear that the government has halted, but not banned fracking as stated in an earlier version}} Scotland{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.scot/policies/oil-and-gas/unconventional-oil-and-gas/|title=Oil and gas: Unconventional oil and gas - gov.scot|website=www.gov.scot|access-date=2019-11-06|quote=On 28 January 2015, we put in place a moratorium on UOG development in Scotland which prevents hydraulic fracturing and coalbed methane extraction taking place}} and Wales{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-44696285|title=Fracking plans face cold shoulder|last=Messenger|first=Steffan|date=2018-07-03|access-date=2019-11-06|language=en-GB|quote="Future applications from developers wanting to drill for oil and gas in Wales will not be supported, ministers have confirmed. The Welsh Government has set out an updated policy on petroleum extraction, which includes fracking. It comes ahead of the devolution of powers of consent for licensing new developments to Cardiff Bay in October. The Welsh Government has opposed fracking for several years, with a "moratorium" in place since 2015"}} have moratoria in place against hydraulic fracturing.

Only HVHF{{cite web|title=Regulation of exploratory shale gas operations: guidance note|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/onshore-oil-and-gas-exploration-and-extraction-environmental-permits|publisher=Environment Agency|format=PDF|access-date=12 September 2016|date=27 November 2012}} combined with horizontal drilling was ever considered likely to enable commercial extraction of unconventional hydrocarbon resources, such as shale gas and light tight oil, in the United Kingdom.{{cite web|title=Developing Onshore Shale Gas and Oil–Facts about 'Fracking'|publisher=Department of Energy and Climate Change | url = https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265972/Developing_Onshore_Shale_Gas_and_Oil__Facts_about_Fracking_131213.pdf|date=December 2013|access-date=7 November 2014}}{{cite journal|title=Unconventional Gas|publisher=Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology|date=April 2011|url=http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn374-unconventional-gas.pdf|journal=POSTnote|issue=374|access-date=8 November 2014}}

The areas where hydraulic fracturing was anticipated to be used included the Upper Bowland Shale of the Pennine Basin in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the Jurassic oil-bearing shales of the Weald Basin in Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent.{{cite web|author1=British Geological Survey|title=Weald Basin Summary: Unconventional Resources in Great Britain -Weald Basin Jurassic BGS Study|url=https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/2775/bgs_weald_basin_shale_media_summary.pdf|publisher=DECC|access-date=26 March 2017|date=2014}}

The national parks with geology of possible interest included the North York Moors (shales), the Peak District (shales and coals), the South Downs (shale oil) and to the south of the Yorkshire Dales (shales and coals).{{cite web|author-last1=Herringshaw|author-first1=Dr Liam |title=From national to fracktional: will fracking come to Britain's National Parks?|date=March 2015 | url=https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/dei/briefs/FractionalParks_DEIbriefing_Final.pdf |publisher=Durham Energy Institute, Durham University|access-date=12 September 2016}}

The subsequent report of 2012 by experts from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering concluded that earthquake risk was minimal, and recommended the process be given nationwide clearance. However, it highlighted certain concerns{{cite report |url=https://raeng.org.uk/media/vvufffxy/shale_gas.pdf |title=Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing |last= |first= |date=June 2012 |publisher=The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering |issue=DES2597 |access-date=29 August 2024 }} which led to changes in regulations.{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attahttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503067/Onshore_UK_oil_and_gas_exploration_England_Dec15.pdf| title=Onshore oil and gas exploration in the UK: regulation and best practice |date=December 2013 | publisher=Department of Energy and Climate Change|access-date=10 October 2014}}

In January 2014, the European Commission issued a set of recommendations on the minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons from shale formations using high-volume hydraulic fracturing.{{cite report|title=2014/70/EU: Commission Recommendation of 22 January 2014 on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014H0070|website=EUR-Lex: Access to European Law|publisher=EU Commission|access-date=23 August 2016|date=22 January 2014}}

A 2016 government report on the UK shale gas sector was finally made available in 2019 after a three year legal battle to make it public, but with three-quarters of its pages blacked out. The unredacted paragraphs said that the government was "undertaking crucial work on communications to increase public acceptability of shale."{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/02/black-wall-as-government-releases-its-report-on-fracking|title='Black wall' of redacted pages as UK fracking report finally released|date=2 December 2019|website=The Guardian|access-date=24 January 2020}} In March 2019, the High Court found the UK government's policy was unlawful and failed to consider the climate impact of shale gas extraction.

In November 2019 the government announced "an indefinite suspension" to fracking, after a report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) said it was not possible to predict the probability or size of tremors caused by the practice. Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said that the suspension might be temporary - imposed "until and unless" extraction is proved safe.{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50267454|title=Fracking halted after government pulls support|work=BBC News|date=2 November 2019}} As of February 2022, the two Cuadrilla wells in Lancashire, which had been out of operation since the ban, were supposed to finally be plugged and decommissioned.

The Eden Project in Cornwall began drilling and fracking two geothermal wells in 2021 as a source for a geothermal power station.{{cite web|author=Eden Project|title=Eden Deep Geothermal Energy Project|url=http://www.edenproject.com/eden-story/behind-the-scenes/eden-deep-geothermal-energy-project|access-date= 17 October 2014}} heating of the artificial biomes using geothermal hot water at 85 °C began in 2023.

By mid March and 4 weeks into the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine the CEO of Cuadrilla asked the government to keep the wells open for energy security.{{Cite news |last=Dominic Glover |date=March 17, 2022 |title=Britain considers lifting fracking ban amid soaring gas prices |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/britain-considers-lifting-fracking-ban-amid-soaring-gas-prices/ |access-date=2022-04-01}}

{{see also|Regulation of hydraulic fracturing|Shale gas in the United Kingdom#Regulation}}

Several government agencies, departments and one government company are involved in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom: the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA),{{cite web|title=Oil and Gas Authority to become new independent regulator|url=http://www.infrastructure-intelligence.com/article/aug-2016/oil-and-gas-authority-become-new-independent-regulator|website=Infrastructure Intelligence|access-date=8 April 2017|quote=From 1 October 2016, the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) will be an independent regulator for the UK government, with a new set of powers to fulfil government expectations for the oil and gas industry.}}{{cite web|title=Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Process|url=https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/2422/oga_well_consents_process.pdf|publisher=Oil and Gas Authority|access-date=8 April 2017}} the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), the local council planning authority including the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA), the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and one of four environment agencies{{cite web|title=Onshore Oil & Gas Sector Guidance Version 1, 17 August 2016|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545924/LIT_10495.pdf|publisher=Environment Agency|date=17 August 2016|access-date=3 September 2016}}{{rp|2}} These environmental agencies are: the Environment Agency for England; Natural Resources Wales;{{cite web|title=Natural Resources Wales|url=http://naturalresources.wales/climate-change/energy/onshore-oil-and-gas-1/regulating-onshore-oil-and-gas/?lang=en|access-date=16 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160514083113/http://naturalresources.wales/climate-change/energy/onshore-oil-and-gas-1/regulating-onshore-oil-and-gas/?lang=en|archive-date=14 May 2016|url-status=dead}} the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA){{cite web|title=Scottish Environment Protection Agency|url=http://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/energy/non-renewable/shale-gas-and-coal-bed-methane/|publisher=SEPA|access-date=16 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160414091421/http://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/energy/non-renewable/shale-gas-and-coal-bed-methane/|archive-date=14 April 2016|url-status=dead}} for Scotland, and; the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA){{cite web|title=NIA:Written Ministerial Statement:Department of the Environment- High-volume Hydraulic Fracturing|url=http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/assembly-business/official-report/written-ministerial-statements-2011-2016/department-of-the-environment--high-volume-hydraulic-fracturing/|access-date=22 December 2016|quote=Within my Department the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) seeks to safeguard the quality of the environment as a whole through effective regulation of activities that have the potential to impact on the environment. High volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is considered by the Agency to be such an activity}} for Northern Ireland.

Before onshore hydraulic fracturing can begin, an operator will have obtained a landward licence, known as a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL), from the OGA.{{cite web|title=Licensing & consents|url=https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/licensing-consents|year= 2017|access-date=8 April 2017|quote=The OGA regulates the licensing of exploration and development of the UK's offshore and onshore oil and gas resources, gas storage and unloading activities}}

A series of steps are then taken to obtain permissions from the landowner and council planning authorities.{{cite web |title=Guidance on fracking: developing shale gas in the UK |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk |publisher=Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) |date=13 January 2017 |access-date=13 September 2016}} The operator then requests a permit from the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA), who together with the local planning authority, determine if an environmental impact assessment (EIA), funded by the operator, is required.

Up to six permits, constituting the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) 2010,{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111491423/contents|title=Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) 2010|access-date=14 September 2016}} two permits "under the Water Resources Act 1991" and one permit "under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015" are obtained from the appropriate environmental agency, to ensure that onshore hydraulic fracturing operators fulfil strict environmental regulations.{{rp|5}}

The role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is to focus on the design and integrity of the well,{{Cite web |url=http://www.hse.gov.uk/shale-gas/assets/docs/shale-gas.pdf |title=HSE Shale requirements |access-date=24 February 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140301010423/http://www.hse.gov.uk/shale-gas/assets/docs/shale-gas.pdf |archive-date=1 March 2014 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }} using an independent expert known as the 'well examiner'.{{cite web|title=HSE's role in regulating onshore shale gas and hydraulic fracturing|url=http://www.hse.gov.uk/shale-gas/about.htm}} The EA and HSE together will "inspect the next series of hydraulic fracturing operations in England and Wales."{{cite web|title=The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive: Working together to regulate unconventional oil and gas developments|url=http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/lit_7317_e1b401.pdf|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/lit_7317_e1b401.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2014-03-28|date=November 2012}}

A hydraulic fracture plan (HFP) is required for both conventional hydraulic fracture well stimulation and unconventional high volume hydraulic well stimulation. The HFP is agreed with OGA in consultation with the EA and HSE.{{cite web|title=Guidance for EWTs and HFPs: Hydraulic Fracture Plan (HFP)|url=https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/3168/onshore-ewt-and-hfp_january-2017.pdf|pages=2, 3|publisher=Oil and Gas Authority Ltd|access-date=8 April 2017|date=5 Jan 2017}} Hydraulic fracturing consent (HFC) is granted following an application to BEIS, to be reviewed by the Secretary of State,{{cite web|title=HYDRAULIC FRACTURING CONSENT|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591631/Hydraulic_Fracturing_Consent_Guidance.pdf|website=Guidance on application for hydraulic fracturing consent (HFC) under section 4A of the Petroleum Act 1998 (inserted by section 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015)|publisher=UK Govt|date=16 February 2017}} and; comply with requirements to mitigate any seismic risks.

In October 2022, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reinstated England's fracking ban moratorium after it was briefly lifted by his predecessor Liz Truss.{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63402777|title=Rishi Sunak reimposes fracking ban in England|first=Becky|last=Morton|publisher=BBC News|date=October 26, 2022|accessdate=October 26, 2022}}

The UK's four environment agencies do not permit chemical additives for hydraulic fracturing fluids that are classed as hazardous to groundwater, as defined by Schedule 22 of Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (EPR 2010),{{cite web|title=The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111491423/schedule/22|publisher=UK Government|year=2010|access-date= 2016-08-28}} Schedule 5 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012,{{cite web|title=The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2012/360/schedule/5/made|website=Legislation.gov.uk|publisher=Queen's Printer for Scotland (QPS)|access-date=1 April 2017|language=en}} and the EU Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC).{{cite web|title=DIRECTIVE 2006/118/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0118|website=Eur-lex.europa.eu|publisher=EUR-Lex - 32006L0118 - EN - EUR-Lex|access-date=18 October 2014|language=en|date=12 December 2006|quote=It is necessary to distinguish between hazardous substances, inputs of which should be prevented, and other pollutants, inputs of which should be limited. Annex VIII to Directive 2000/60/EC, listing the main pollutants relevant for the water environment, should be used to identify hazardous and non-hazardous substances which present an existing or potential risk of pollution.}} The environmental regulator will assess every chemical before it is added to the hydraulic fracturing fluid. The nature of each chemical, but not the concentration, must be made available to the public.

The Joint Agencies Groundwater Directive Advisory Group (JAGDAG) maintains a list of substances that have been assessed as being hazardous substances or non-hazardous pollutants for the groundwater directive. Input of hazardous substances "on the basis of their toxicity, persistence and capacity to bio-accumulate" is not permitted into potable or unpotable groundwater.{{cite web |title= 170116 Substance Determinations final |url= http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/170116%20Substance%20Determinationsfinal.pdf |publisher= JAGDAG/Environment Agency |access-date= 16 March 2017}} Substances which are not hazardous are potentially non-hazardous pollutants.{{cite book |title= Environmental Permitting Guidance Groundwater Activities |chapter-url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69474/pb13555-ep-groundwater-activities-101221.pdf |website= Environmental Permitting |publisher=DEFRA |access-date=16 March 2017 |page=15 |chapter= Chapter 4 |quote= 4.6 The List I and List II groupings of substances under the GWD and 1998 Regulations no longer apply. Substances are instead treated as either 'hazardous substances' (initially broadly equating to the former List I) or non-hazardous pollutants' (analogous to the former List II, but potentially applying to all other pollutants) 'Hazardous substance' is defined in Article 2(29) of the Water FD as meaning substances or groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate, and other substances or groups of substances which give rise to an equivalent level of concern. The GWDD requires a different approach by which Member States or their competent authorities determine which substances should be determined as hazardous on the basis of their toxicity, persistence and capacity to bio-accumulate – i.e. positive determination rather than removal from a pre-determined list. This provides greater flexibility to include substances within, or alternatively exclude them from, the 'hazardous' category. In practice substances which have been determined as List I will continue to be regarded as hazardous and will only be reviewed if new evidence becomes available.}}

At the Balcombe site, the Environment Agency permitted one requested chemical oxirane, while not permitting the use of antimony trioxide, which "would be hazardous if it came into contact with groundwater".{{cite news |last1=Harvey |first1=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |last2=Vaughan |first2=Adam |date=10 October 2013 |title=Fracking firm was barred from using chemical, Balcombe meeting told |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/10/fracking-chemical-balcombe-meeting |access-date=5 September 2014 |newspaper=The Guardian}}

{{main|Hydraulic fracturing#Fracturing fluids}}

Chemical additives, typically around 1 per cent of the total fluid volume, are added to water to reduce water viscosity and modify fluid properties.{{cite web|website=PetroWiki.org|url=http://petrowiki.org/Fracturing_fluids_and_additives |title=Fracturing fluids and additives|publisher=SPE International |access-date=16 October 2014}} The fracking fluid used at Preese Hall-1 in Weeton, Lancashire, was "99.95% water and sand".{{cite web|title=Composition of Bowland Shale Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid for Preese Hall-1 well|url=http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Chemical-Disclosure-PH-1.jpg|author=Cuadrilla Resources Ltd|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161028025458/http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Chemical-Disclosure-PH-1.jpg|archive-date=28 October 2016|access-date=2017-04-04|url-status=dead}} The chemical additives (0.05 per cent) were:

• Polyacrylamide emulsion in hydrocarbon oil (0.043 per cent), which reduces the viscosity of the water to allow faster pumping. It is classed as a "non-hazardous pollutant"{{cite web|title=Substance determinations|url=http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/170116%20Substance%20Determinationsfinal.pdf|website=Water Framework Directive|publisher=JAGDAG/Environment Agency|access-date=28 March 2017}}
• Sodium salt, for tracing fracturing fluid (0.000005 per cent){{cite book|last1=Hardy|first1=Peter|title=Fracking|chapter=CHAPTER 1. Introduction and Overview: the Role of Shale Gas in Securing Our Energy Future|chapter-url=http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/chapterhtml/2014/9781782620556-00001?isbn=978-1-78262-055-6|publisher=Royal Society of Chemistry|access-date=28 March 2017|pages=1–45|language=en|doi=10.1039/9781782620556-00001|date=1 January 2014|quote=The fracturing fluid that Cuadrilla has used at the Preese Hall exploration well site, and plans to use at future exploration well sites, is composed almost entirely of fresh water and sand. Cuadrilla also has approval to use the following additives: Polyacrylamide (friction reducer) Sodium salt (for tracing fracturing fluid) Hydrochloric acid (diluted with water) Glutaraldehyde biocide (used to cleanse water and remove bacteria) So far, as additives to fracturing fluid, Cuadrilla has only used polyacrylamide friction reducer along with a minuscule amount of salt, which acts as a tracer. Cuadrilla have not needed to use biocide as the water supplied by United Utilities to their Lancashire exploration well sites has already been treated to remove bacteria, nor have they used diluted hydrochloric acid in fracturing fluid. Additives proposed, in the quantities proposed, have resulted in the fracturing fluid being classified as non-hazardous by the Environment Agency.|series=Issues in Environmental Science and Technology|isbn=978-1-84973-920-7}}

Proppants may comprise up to 10 per cent of hydraulic fracturing fluid volume. The proppants used at Preese Hall-1 were silica sand:

• Congleton Sand (0.473 per cent)
• Chelford Sand (1.550 per cent){{cite web|last1=Broderick|first1=Dr John|last2=Anderson|first2=Professor Kevin|last3=Wood|first3=Dr Ruth|last4=Gilbert|first4=Dr Paul|last5=Sharmina|first5=Mrs Maria|last6=Footitt|first6=Mr Anthony|last7=Glynn|first7=Dr Steven|last8=Nicholls|first8=Ms Fiona|title=Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts|url=http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/media/eps/schoolofmechanicalaerospaceandcivilengineering/newsandevents/news/research/pdfs2011/shale-gas-threat-report.pdf|publisher=The University of Manchester, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research|access-date=30 March 2017|page=24|date=November 2011|quote=Table 2.4: Composition of Fracking Fluid for Preese Hall Well 1. Total of 6 frack stages}}

Additional chemical additives that were permitted at Preese Hall-1, but not used, were highly dilute hydrochloric acid and glutaraldehyde, which is used as a biocide in very small quantities, to sterilise the water.{{cite web|last1=Bomgardner |first1=Melody M. |title=Better Chemistry Flows To The Oil And Gas Industry {{!}} April 13, 2015 Issue - Vol. 93 Issue 15 {{!}} Chemical & Engineering News |url=http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i15/Better-Chemistry-Flows-Oil-Gas.html |website=Cen.acs.org |access-date=28 March 2017 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20170328103323/http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i15/Better-Chemistry-Flows-Oil-Gas.html |archive-date=28 March 2017 |date=April 13, 2015 |quote=One of Dow's leading microbicides, glutaraldehyde, is a favorite among those formulating low-toxic fracking fluids. Although it is classified as acutely toxic and requires safe-handling procedures similar to bleach, glutaraldehyde has a fan in Apache's Durham because "it has very little chronic toxicity and fares very well in bioaccumulation and biodegradation testing. |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all}} Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation is another replacement available for water sterilisation.{{citation needed|date=March 2017}}

Although some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids such as hydrochloric acid may be classified as toxic, corrosive or irritant,{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/526833/Hydrogen_Chloride_IM_PHE_310516.pdf|title=Compendium of Hazardous Substances: Hydrogen Chloride/Hydrochloric Acid Incident Management|date=June 2016|access-date=3 April 2017}} they are non-toxic at lower concentrations.{{citation needed|date=April 2017}}

Flowback fluid contains high levels of salt and is contaminated with organic "solids, heavy metals, fracking chemicals and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) of varying concentration and low levels of radioactive materials".{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s11356-014-3118-y |pmid=24938807 |pmc=4200344 |title=The flux of radionuclides in flowback fluid from shale gas exploitation |journal=Environmental Science and Pollution Research |volume=21 |issue=21 |pages=12316–24 |year=2014 |last1=Almond |first1=S. |last2=Clancy |first2=S. A. |last3=Davies |first3=R. J. |last4=Worrall |first4=F. }} The Environment Agency strategy for management of NORM-contaminated flowback fluid, after treatment, includes its preferred re-use by re-injection during hydraulic fracturing and its disposal, with caveats, via water treatment sites.{{cite report|title=Strategy for the management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) waste in the United Kingdom|chapter-url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335821/Final_strategy_NORM.pdf|chapter=4.7|page=30|quote="Treatment and disposal may take place by re-injection during subsequent hydraulic fracturing, or it may be carried out at sites remote from the shale gas production facilities, for example sewage or effluent treatment sites and would be expected to remove up to 90% of NORM; only very low levels would still remain. After treatment, the water may still retain some of this natural radioactivity and disposal to rivers, estuaries, sea or groundwater may lead to intakes of radioactivity through consumption of drinking water and contaminated foodstuffs, or by direct exposure pathways."|access-date=2 September 2016}}

Flowback fluid can be treated and reused in later hydraulic fracturing operations,{{cite web|title=Onshore Oil & Gas Sector Guidance Version 1, 17 August 2016|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545924/LIT_10495.pdf|publisher=Environment Agency|quote="Flowback fluid can be treated and re-used as fresh injection fluid for the purpose of hydraulic fracturing and we consider this to be a suitable environmental option. Flowback fluid must be reused where it is reasonably practicable to do so to meet the MWD obligation to minimise waste. However, waste flowback fluid may contain a concentration of NORM radionuclide's above the out of scope values. It will then require a radioactive substances activity permit for its disposal. You must send this to an appropriate permitted waste facility for treatment or disposal"|date=17 August 2016|access-date=3 September 2016}} to reduce the volume of freshwater required and to mitigate issues arising from off-site disposal of flowback fluid.{{cite report|last1=Green|first1=Dr Christopher A.|last2=Styles|first2=Professor Peter|last3=Baptie|first3=Dr Brian J.|title=Preese Hall Shale Gas Fracturing Review & Recommendations for Induced Seismic Mitigation|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/15745/5075-preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review.pdf|date=April 2012|page=22|access-date=5 September 2016}}

Flowback fluid injection in deep disposal wells, which has been linked to significant increase in earthquake rate,{{cite report|last1=Peterson|first1=Mark D.|last2=Mueller|first2=Charles S.|last3= Moschetti|first3=Morgan P.|last4=Hoover|first4=Susan M.|last5=Llenos|first5=Andrea L.|last6=Ellsworth|first6=William L.|last7=Michael|first7=Andrew J.|last8=Rubinstein|first8=Justin L.|last9=McGarr|first9=Arthur F.|last10=Rukstales|first10= Kenneth S.|title=2016 One-Year Seismic Hazard Forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from Induced and Natural Earthquakes|url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2016/1035/ofr20161035ver1_1.pdf|publisher=United States Geological Survey|date=June 2016|version=1.1|access-date=2 September 2016}} is not currently permitted in the UK by the Environment Agency.

Research by Engelder et alia in 2012, indicated that any water injected into a shale formation that does not flow back to the surface, known as "residual treatment water", would be permanently absorbed, (sequestered) into the shale.{{cite web|last1=Craig|first1=Patricia|title=Residual hydraulic fracturing water not a risk to groundwater|url=http://news.psu.edu/story/325692/2014/09/10/research/residual-hydraulic-fracturing-water-not-risk-groundwater|date=10 September 2014|access-date=11 September 2014}}

In January 2014, "applications for permits to frack" were withdrawn by Cuadrilla after arrangements for treatment and disposal of NORM-contaminated flowback fluid were considered inadequate by the Environment Agency.{{cite news|title=Cuadrilla fracking delays over radioactive waste water |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25902272 |agency=BBC News |date=27 January 2014 |access-date=24 October 2014|quote=The Environment Agency (EA) said it would not grant a radioactive substances permit until it was sure the water will be disposed of safely.}} Technologies are developing methods of removing salt and radioactive materials, allowing safe disposal of flowback fluid under Environment Agency licence.{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.desal.2014.07.013 |title=Dual-stage forward osmosis/pressure retarded osmosis process for hypersaline solutions and fracking wastewater treatment |journal=Desalination |volume=350 |pages=79–85 |year=2014 |last1=Altaee |first1=Ali |last2=Hilal |first2=Nidal }} Research in the US also indicates new methods such as "microbial capacitive desalination cells" may become available.{{cite web |last1=Bowley |first1=Elisabeth |title=Energy positive treatment for fracking water |work=Chemistry World |date=5 November 2014 |url=https://www.chemistryworld.com/research/energy-positive-treatment-for-fracking-water/7928.article |access-date=February 27, 2017}}

In March 2025 planners gave support to the proposal by Angus Energy to inject 'produced water' (flowback fluid) from other sites into a second producing conventional oil well at Brockham, but the proposal has been challenged.https://drillordrop.com/2025/03/19/officials-back-plans-to-import-wastewater-to-brockham-oil-site/ One ground of the objection is that the waste water is inadequately defined.

In March 2014, a group of conservation charities including the RSPB and the National Trust released a report containing a 10-point plan for increased regulation, highlighting their concerns about hydraulic fracturing with respect to groundwater pollution, public water supply, wastewater management and treatment both generally and within ecologically sensitive areas including National Parks.{{cite web| url=http://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/our-positions-and-campaigns/positions/climatechange/action/ukenergy/fit-to-frack.aspx|title=Are we fit to frack?|publisher=RSPB|date=20 March 2014|quote=5.Make water companies statutory consultees in the planning process. 6. Require all hydraulic fracturing operations to operate under a Groundwater Permit. 7.Make sure Best Available Techniques (BAT) for mine waste management are rigorously defined and regularly reviewed.}}

UKOOG, the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, pointed to "a number of critical inaccuracies" and stated that: "many of the recommendations are already in place in the UK or are in the process of being put in place" and welcomed future dialogue with conservation agencies.{{cite web|url=http://www.ukoog.org.uk/about-ukoog/press-releases/121-ukoog-fit-to-frack-response|title=UKOOG Fit to Frack response|date=14 March 2014|website=Ukoog.org.uk|quote="UK Onshore Oil and Gas, the representative body of the UK's onshore oil and gas industry, notes the contribution made by leading conservation charities to the debate on shale gas regulation in their report: "Are We Fit To Frack." Of the 10 recommendations in the report, the vast majority are already in place or are in discussion. We look forward to being able to discuss with the six bodies who contributed to this report about the best way forward so that we ensure all misconceptions about the shale gas industry in the UK can be addressed. Ken Cronin Chief Executive UKOOG commented "We have studied this report and the fact that many of the recommendations are already in place in the UK or are in the process of being put in place. We hope that the publication of this report, despite a number of critical inaccuracies, will kickstart a process of open dialogue which we have already proposed to conservation agencies."}}

In July 2014, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) published a report about hydraulic fracturing that was broadly negative. It referred to major shortcomings in regulatory oversight regarding local environmental and public health risks, the potential for undermining efforts to tackle climate change, and the possibility that the process might cause water shortages.{{cite report|author1=Gwen Harrison |author2=Stuart Parkinson |author3=Gary McFarlane |title=Shale gas and fracking: examining the evidence|url=http://www.cieh.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=53520|publisher=SGR and CIEH |date=July 2014|access-date=16 October 2014}} The report received a negative review from an academic based upon the lead author being a Green Party candidate, and hydraulic fracturing protester, and the alleged selective nature of some{{clarify|date=March 2017|reason=Be more specific}} of the data used.{{cite web|first=James | last = Verdon |title=Critique authored by Dr James Verdon of the report, authored by the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health, on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and shale gas extraction in the UK |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/242082273/Letters-JV-CIEH-1 |date=23 July 2014 |publisher=Scribd |access-date=16 October 2014}}

In March 2015, the shale company funded Task Force on Shale Gas criticised "current regulation" as "complex and relatively unapproachable", and responsible for the public's lack of confidence. The Task Force on Shale Gas recommended that the regulatory requirement for an operator-funded independent well examiner{{cite web|title=HSE's role in regulating onshore shale gas and hydraulic fracturing - Shale gas- HSE|url=http://www.hse.gov.uk/shale-gas/about.htm|website=Hse.gov.uk|access-date=5 April 2017|quote=the Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction etc) Regulations 1996, known as DCR. These regulations, include specific requirements for all wells, whether onshore or offshore, and include well integrity provisions which apply throughout the life of shale gas wells. They also require a well operator to provide HSE with regular reports of any activities on the well and to appoint an independent well examiner to undertake regular assessments of well integrity.}} to be passed to a single, new government regulator, who would also "independently monitor fracking sites". UKOOG, the industry's trade and advocacy group, said: "public confidence in the industry is vital". The government responded: "Both the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency have full authority and responsibility to monitor all shale sites - independent of the industry,"{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32041168|title=New fracking regulator needed, report says|date=25 March 2015|access-date=5 April 2017|quote=Lord Smith said: "He said the new regulator would also involve the local community in the monitoring process and assess the integrity of wells to make sure any problems that could lead to leaks are discovered and remedied."}}

In June 2015, the UK regulations for hydraulic fracturing were criticised by the chemicals policy charity, CHEM Trust,{{cite news|last1=CHEM Trust|title=Chemicals from fracking could cause significant pollution and damage to wildlife|url=http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/chemicals-from-fracking-could-cause-significant-pollution-and-damage-to-wildlife/|access-date=29 July 2015|date=21 June 2015}} stating they were not sufficiently protective, and raising concerns about the reductions in funding for the regulators of fracking, like the Environment Agency.{{cite news|last1=Rowell|first1=Andy|title=Fracking poses a 'significant' risk to humans and wildlife, says a new report: A major scientific study says the process uses toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and that an EU-wide ban should be issued until safeguards are in place|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fracking-poses-significant-risk-to-humans-and-should-be-temporarily-banned-across-eu-says-new-report-10334080.html|access-date=8 September 2016|agency=The Independent|date=20 June 2015}} UKOOG, responded to the CHEM Trust analysis, criticised the timing of the report: "The timing of this report is clearly designed to influence local councillors" and stated that "The report includes a number of recommendations that are already part of industry common practice or regulation in the UK."{{cite news|author=UKOOG|title=UKOOG Response to Chemtrust report on Fracking|url=http://www.ukoog.org.uk/about-ukoog/press-releases/151-ukoog-response-to-chemtrust-report-on-fracking|access-date=1 August 2015|date=22 June 2015}} and CHEM Trust{{cite news|last1=CHEM Trust|title=Fracking pollution: A response to the claims made by the UK fracking industry|url=http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/fracking-pollution-a-response-to-the-claims-made-by-the-uk-fracking-industry/|access-date=1 August 2015|date=23 June 2015}} responded.{{cite news|last1=Gosden|first1=Emily|title=Anti-fracking report cited by Andy Burnham was based on 'scare stories'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11692505/Anti-fracking-report-cited-by-Andy-Burnham-was-based-on-scare-stories.html|access-date=8 September 2016|agency=The Daily Telegraph|date=22 June 2015}}

File:Regulation location map.jpg

Professor David Smythe criticised the geological aspects of the UK regulations in a Tedx talk in November 2017,Smythe, D. 2018. 'Fracking: The Wild West comes to the UK'. TEDxFindhornSalon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYCMrcjtBWg followed up in July 2020 by a long peer-reviewed article discussing 14 case histories.Smythe DK 2020. Inadequate Regulation of the Geological Aspects of Shale Exploitation in the UKInt. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 6946; doi:10.3390/ijerph17196946 He claimed, using 14 case studies, that there is a failure of regulation; inadequate geological comprehension and even mendacious geological interpretations by the hydrocarbon operators slip through the regulatory net. He concluded that: "The case histories

demonstrate a laissez-faire and frequently incompetent regulatory regime, devised for the pre-unconventional

era, and which has no geological oversight or insight."

Community and public engagement is a legal requirement{{cite web|author1=Scottish Government|title=Talking Fracking - A Consultation on Unconventional Oil and Gas|url=http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/01/8538/338009|website=Gov.scot|access-date=31 March 2017|page=338009|language=en-gb|date=31 January 2017}} of the EU Directive 2003/35/EC.{{cite web|title=Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC - Statement by the Commission|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32003L0035|website=Eur-lex.europa.eu|publisher=EUR-lex|access-date=31 March 2017|language=en|date=26 May 2003}}

In June 2013, the industry body UKOOG issued their Shale Community Engagement Charter.{{cite web|title=Shale Community Engagement Charter |url=http://www.ukoog.org.uk/community/charter |archive-url=https://archive.today/20170330123354/http://www.ukoog.org.uk/community/charter |archive-date=30 March 2017 |publisher=UKOOG |access-date=25 February 2017 |quote=In June 2013 United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas launched a "Shale Community Engagement Charter", which outlines the steps the industry will take to address concerns around safety, noise, dust, truck movements and other environmental issues |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all}} The shale gas industry has agreed to two types of community benefit for communities hosting shale gas development, including: a one-off payment of £100,000 per site, after hydraulic fracturing had taken place, and; a 1% share of production revenues; yearly operator commitment publications.

In 2014, the government announced its intent to create of a Shale Wealth Fund.{{cite web|title=Shale gas: George Osborne proposes north of England fund|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29968603|website=BBC News|access-date=31 March 2017|date=8 November 2014}} The fund was originally intended to be controlled by "community trusts or councils". A consultation period solicited views from stakeholders, "individuals, organisations, such as charities; businesses; local authorities, and; community groups"; ran between August and October 2016.{{cite web |title= PM rewrites plan to put money from infrastructure in the hands of local people |work= gov.uk |url= https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-rewrites-plan-to-put-money-from-infrastructure-in-the-hands-of-local-people |date= 7 August 2016 |access-date= 30 Mar 2017}}

In March 2016, Stephenson Halliday for the Planning Advisory Service noted that the UKOOG local community benefits scheme "fails all three of the tests" in Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.{{Cite web|url=https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/planning-fracking-informa-5a7.pdf#26|format=PDF|author=Stephenson Halliday|title=FINANCIAL MATTERS: PLANNING FOR SHALE GAS AND OIL – BRIEFING NOTE MARCH 2016|date=March 2016|website=Local.gov.uk|page=26|access-date=16 Dec 2017}}

In 2016, the chemical company INEOS committed to a "share 6% of revenues. 4% of this would go to homeowners and landowners in the immediate vicinity of a well, and a further 2% to the wider community." In terms of total revenue, Ineos have estimated that "a typical 10 km by 10 km development area would generate £375m for the community over its lifespan".{{cite web|title=COMMUNITY AND THE INEOS PROMISE|url=http://www.ineos.com/globalassets/ineos-group/businesses/ineos-upstream/ineos-shale-brochures/community-promise-shale-v12.pdf|publisher=INEOS|access-date=25 February 2017}}

The Infrastructure Act 2015 legislated onshore access for onshore and offshore extraction of shale/tight oil, shale gas{{cite web|title=Planning for Shale Gas and Oil - Briefing Note March 2016|url=http://www.pas.gov.uk/documents/332612/6752551/Updated+26.4+Shale+advice+note+1/cb21f215-c483-42eb-af24-3d8363efb8f5#14|author=Stephenson Halliday for PAS|publisher=Planning Advisory Service|date=March 2016|access-date=22 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223131609/http://www.pas.gov.uk/documents/332612/6752551/Updated+26.4+Shale+advice+note+1/cb21f215-c483-42eb-af24-3d8363efb8f5#14|archive-date=23 December 2016|url-status=dead}} and deep geothermal energy.{{cite web|author=Controller of HMSO|title=Infrastructure Act Section 43: Petroleum and geothermal energy: right to use deep-level land|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/7/section/43|publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO)|access-date=28 August 2016}} Section 50 of the act defined the hydraulic fracturing of "shale strata", also known as "high-volume hydraulic fracturing" as "more than 1000m₃ of fluid per stage, and; more than 10,000m₃ in total" and attached conditions that mean no hydraulic fracturing can take place at a depth shallower than 1000m in unprotected areas.

In order for the Secretary of State to give consent to hydraulic fracturing, legislation includes a range of conditions that operators must comply with, such as: "environmental impacts of development", including soil and air monitoring; 12 months of groundwater methane level monitoring prior to "associated" (high-volume) hydraulic fracturing; no associated hydraulic fracturing "within protected groundwater source areas";{{cite web|author=Controller of HMSO|title=Infrastructure Act Section 50:Onshore hydraulic fracturing: safeguards|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/7/section/50|publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO)|access-date=24 March 2017}}

"The Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2016" prohibited "hydraulic fracturing in protected areas" - i.e. National Parks of England and Wales, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, and UNESCO World Heritage sites - at depths of less than 1200m.{{cite web|author=Controller of HMSO|title=The Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2016: Regulation 3|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/384/regulation/3/made|publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO)|access-date=27 February 2017}}

{{See also|Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing|Shale_gas_in_the_United_Kingdom#Environmental_impact}}

The environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing in conventional and unconventional wells are ground and surface water contamination, water resource depletion, releases to air, traffic, land take, noise, visual impact and seismicity, which are typically addressed in environmental impact assessments for fracking activities.{{Cite web |last=Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd |date=May 2014 |title=Environmental Risk Assessment |url=https://cuadrillaresources.uk/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/PNR-Planning-/Environmental-Risk-Assessment.pdf |access-date=29 August 2024 |website=Cuadrilla Resources}}

The causation of earthquakes with any significant impact or fractures reaching and contaminating drinking water, were "very low risk" if adequate regulations are in place.

A report from AMEC{{cite report |date=December 2013|author=AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK |title=Strategic environmental assessment for further onshore oil and gas licensing |publisher=Oil and Gas Policy Unit, DECC |docket=33917mr007i3|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273997/DECC_SEA_Environmental_Report.pdf|access-date=16 October 2014}} in December 2013 covers many of the environmental issues that would arise were the shale gas industry to become highly developed.

The British Geological Survey is involved with environmental monitoring.{{cite web|url=http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/environmentalImpacts.html |title=Potential environmental considerations associated with shale gas |website=British Geological Survey |publisher=NERC |access-date=21 October 2014}}

In October 2014, EASAC stated that: "Overall, in Europe more than 1000 horizontal wells and several thousand hydraulic fracturing jobs have been executed in recent decades. None of these operations are known to have resulted in safety or environmental problems".{{cite report|title=Shale gas extraction: issues of particular relevance to the European Union|url=http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/EASAC_Statement_ShaleGasExtraction.pdf|publisher=European Academies Science Advisory Council|date=October 2014|access-date=10 December 2014|quote=This EASAC analysis provides no basis for a ban on shale gas exploration or extraction using hydraulic fracturing on scientific and technical grounds, although EASAC supports calls for effective regulations in the health, safety and environment fields highlighted by other science and engineering academies and in this statement.}}

In October 2016, Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure Ltd (AFWI) compared the environmental impacts and risks of unconventional high volume hydraulic fracturing with conventional low volume hydraulic fracturing. The study found that volume of fluid injected and flowback were the only significant differences between conventional low volume and unconventional high volume hydraulic fracturing and that the impacts and risks for high volume hydraulic fracturing scaled up for land take, traffic, surface water contamination and water resource depletion.{{cite web|author1=Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure Ltd|title=Study on the assessment and management of environmental impacts and risks resulting from the exploration and production of hydrocarbons|url=http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/Study_on_the_management_of_environmental_impacts_and_risks_of_conventional_oil_and_gas%20.pdf|publisher=European Commission|access-date=9 April 2017|date=October 2016}}

In February 2016, a study by the ReFINE consortium funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Shell, Chevron, Ineos and Centrica, found "substantial increases over the baseline""in local air quality pollutants", during the short-duration high-traffic phase which includes the delivery of hydraulic fracturing equipment, proppant, water, as well as the removal of flowback from the site. According to ReFiNE, these short-duration increases have the potential to breach local air quality standards.{{cite journal|last1=Goodman|first1=Paul S.|last2=Galatioto|first2=Fabio|last3=Thorpe|first3=Neil|last4=Namdeo|first4=Anil K.|last5=Davies|first5=Richard J.|last6=Bird|first6=Roger N.|title=Investigating the traffic-related environmental impacts of hydraulic-fracturing (fracking) operations|journal=Environment International|volume=89-90|pages=248–260|doi=10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.002|date=1 April 2016|pmid=26922565|doi-access=free}} The industry group UKOOG criticised the ReFiNE study for failing to take into account that water for hydraulic fracturing fluid might be brought in by pipeline, instead of being transported by truck.{{cite news|last1=Vaughan|first1=Adam|title=UK fracking traffic would increase local air pollution, finds study|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/24/fracking-traffic-would-increase-local-air-pollution-study-tankers-water-nitrogen-oxide-emissions|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=9 April 2017|date=24 February 2016|quote=Additionally the report's conclusions fail to take into account, that in the UK, water is more often available through pipelines, so there is no need to transport it across the country by truck.}}

In October 2016, Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure Ltd stated that the overall environmental impacts from low volume hydraulic fracturing to local air quality and global warming are low. Local air quality is impacted by dust and SO2 and NOx emissions "from equipment and vehicles used to transport, pressurise and injection fracturing fluids, and process flowback", while "Emissions of {{CO2}} from the equipment used to pressurise and injection fracturing fluids, and process flowback." contributes to global warming.{{rp|161}}

The RAE report stated, "Many claims of contaminated water wells due to shale gas extraction have been made. None has shown evidence of chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluids".

The Environment Agency definitions of groundwater and aquifer are here.{{cite book |title= Protect groundwater and prevent groundwater pollution |chapter-url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protect-groundwater-and-prevent-groundwater-pollution/protect-groundwater-and-prevent-groundwater-pollution |publisher= Environment Agency |access-date=16 March 2017 |chapter= Chapter 2 |quote= Water stored below the ground in rocks or other geological strata is called groundwater. The geological strata that hold water are called aquifers. Groundwater may rise to the surface through naturally occurring springs, or be abstracted using boreholes and wells. Groundwater may also naturally flow into rivers (called base flow) and support wetlands, forming part of local ecosystems.The legal definition of groundwater is: 'All water which is below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.'Aquifers are: 'A subsurface layer or layers of rock or other geological strata of sufficient porosity and permeability to allow either a significant flow of groundwater or the abstraction of significant quantities of groundwater.}}

In January 2015, the British Geological Survey released national baseline methane levels, which showed a wide range of readings{{cite web|url=http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/groundwater/shaleGas/methaneBaseline/results.html|title=Results summary - National methane baseline survey of UK groundwaters - British Geological Survey (BGS)|website=Bgs.ac.uk|access-date=6 March 2019}} Poor surface well sealing, which allows methane to leak, methane was identified in the Royal Academy of Engineering report as a risk to groundwater.{{cite web|title=Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing | Summary Recommendation 1|url=http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/shale-gas-extraction-in-the-uk|publisher=Royal Academy of engineering|access-date=5 March 2017|quote=To detect groundwater contamination, the UK's environmental regulators should work with the British Geological Survey (BGS) to carry out comprehensive national baseline surveys of methane and other contaminants in groundwater. Operators should carry out site-specific monitoring of methane and other contaminants in groundwater before, during and after shale gas operations}} This was incorporated into the Infrastructure Act 2015 with a requirement that monitoring takes place 12 months before fracturing.{{cite web|title=2015 Infrastructure Act|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/7/section/50|publisher=UK Legislation|access-date=13 September 2016}}

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) have been involved with evaluating the potential water impacts of hydraulic fracturing.{{cite web|title=Shale Gas and Water 2016 An independent review of shale gas extraction in the UK and the implications for the water environment|url=http://www.ciwem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Shale-Gas-and-Water-2016.pdf|website=Ciwem.org|publisher=CIWEM|access-date=31 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160911223407/http://www.ciwem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Shale-Gas-and-Water-2016.pdf|archive-date=11 September 2016|url-status=dead}}{{clarify|reason=Reader shouldn't have to click through to link to find out what CIWEM specifically said about hydraulic fracturing and the implications for water|date=April 2017}}

{{see also|Shale gas in the United Kingdom#Groundwater contamination}}

Both low and high volume hydraulic fracturing "involve storing and injecting large quantities of chemicals". Any surface spill therefore has "the potential to penetrate groundwater". The likelihood of low volume and high volume hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater by surface spills of stored chemicals is rare, however the risk and consequences are moderate.{{cite web|author1=Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd|title=Study on the assessment and management of environmental impacts and risks resulting from the exploration and production of hydrocarbons|url=http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/Study_on_the_management_of_environmental_impacts_and_risks_of_conventional_oil_and_gas%20.pdf|publisher=European Commission|access-date=1 April 2017|page=277|date=October 2016}} To mitigate the risk, the Environment Agency requires chemical and fluid proof well pads.

The 2012 joint Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report indicated that the distances between potable water supplies and fractured formation in various US shale plays is large, meaning the risk of contamination is very small. No cases of pollution by this route have been identified.{{cite web|title=Shale gas extraction in the UK A review of hydraulic fracturing, chapter 4.3.3|url=http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/shale-gas-extraction-in-the-uk|website=RAENG|publisher=Royal Academy of Engineering|access-date=22 February 2017|page=37|quote="The very unlikely event of fractures propagating all the way to overlying aquifers would provide a possible route for fracture fluids to flow. However, suitable pressure and permeability conditions would also be necessary for fluids to flow. Sufficiently high upward pressures would be required during the fracturing process and then sustained afterwards over the long term once the fracturing process had ceased. It is very difficult to conceive of how this might occur given the UK's shale gas hydrogeological environments. Upward flow of fluids from the zone of shale gas extraction to overlying aquifers via fractures in the intervening strata is highly unlikely"}}

Another 2013 paper from ReFine indicated the potential for surface gas leaks from abandoned wells{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.096 |pmid=26822472 |title=Fugitive emissions of methane from abandoned, decommissioned oil and gas wells |journal=Science of the Total Environment |volume=547 |pages=461–9 |year=2016 |last1=Boothroyd |first1=I.M. |last2=Almond |first2=S. |last3=Qassim |first3=S.M. |last4=Worrall |first4=F. |last5=Davies |first5=R.J. |bibcode=2016ScTEn.547..461B |doi-access=free }}

Treated mains water is the norm in the UK, and standards are required by legislation to be high. As such any pollution would have to be removed by the water companies by law. Private water wells are rare, around 62,000 households, out of 23.4 million households or 2.6%.{{cite report |author=Chief Inspector of Drinking Water |title=Drinking water 2012: Private water supplies in England |date=July 2013 |publisher=Drinking Water Inspectorate| url=http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/about/annual-report/2012/private-england.pdf |access-date=16 October 2014}} In rural areas of the US, private wells are common (15%), and small communities are served by investor-owned utilities, or community schemes. UK households would therefore be expected to be less at risk than those in the US.{{original research inline|date=March 2017}}

In the US, baseline methane measurements were not made at the start of the shale gas boom, meaning that it became difficult to prove whether a gas problem was due to a leaking well, or was naturally occurring.{{citation needed|date=March 2017}}

Water use is regulated by the EA (England), the SEPA (Scotland), the NIEA (Northern Ireland) and NRW (Wales) to ensure environmental needs are not compromised.{{cite web|author1=CIWEM|title=Shale Gas and Water 2016|url=http://www.ciwem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Shale-Gas-and-Water-2016.pdf|publisher=The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)|access-date=24 March 2017|page=32|date=February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160911223407/http://www.ciwem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Shale-Gas-and-Water-2016.pdf|archive-date=11 September 2016|url-status=dead}} Water companies assess how much water is available, before providing it to operators.{{citation needed|date=March 2016}} The amount of water abstracted nationally is at around 9.4 billion cubic metres.{{cite web|author=DEFRA|title=Water Abstraction statistics, England 2000 to 2015|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600045/Water_Abstraction_from_non-tidal_surface_water_and_groundwater_2015__2_.pdf|publisher=Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)| date=16 March 2017|access-date=23 March 2017}} In 2015, the EA indicated that water usage at a peak level{{clarify|reason=what is peak level and is there a reference for this?|date=March 2016}} would be 0.1% of national use and hydraulic fracturing may use up to "30 million litres per well".{{cite web|last1=Environment|first1=Agency|title=Written evidence submitted by the Environment Agency|url=http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/environmental-audit-committee/environmental-risks-of-fracking/written/17156.html|publisher=Environment Agency|access-date=7 January 2015}} Drier areas, such as south-east England,{{cite web|url=http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho1208bpas-e-e.pdf |title=Water resources in England and Wales - current state and future pressures |date=December 2008 |publisher=Environment Agency – Southern Region |page=6 |access-date=1 March 2012 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho1208bpas-e-e.pdf |archive-date=28 March 2014 |df=dmy-all}} are concerned about the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies.{{cite news |author=Harvey |first=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=27 November 2013 |title=Water shortages may make fracking impractical, industry says: Quantities required for the fracking process may make it problematic in areas of the UK where resources are scarce |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/27/water-shortages-fracking-impractical-uk |access-date=25 March 2017 |newspaper=The Guardian |quote=Water UK told the Guardian there could be risks to the water supply particularly in the south-east, where the pressure of population puts supplies under stress.}}

The hydraulic fracturing process creates a large number of microseismic events, which require monitoring.

Microseismic monitoring techniques, using geophones and tilt meters can monitor the growth of fractures in the target formation in real time. This can be done using a surface array, or, if there is a nearby offset well, using downhole geophones. This means that the engineers can modify the pump rate based upon the growth of the fractures, and stop pumping if there is evidence of vertical migration into faults. This technology is available from many big oilfield service companies.{{cite web|last1=Microseismic Knowledgebase|title=Microseismic Monitoring 101|url=https://www.esgsolutions.com/technical-resources/microseismic-knowledgebase/microseismic-monitoring-101|publisher=ESG Solutions|access-date=31 August 2016}}

In December 2015, the Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems (CeREES) at Durham University published the first research of its kind, prior to "planned shale gas and oil exploitation", in order to establish a baseline for anthropogenic, induced seismic events in the UK.{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.08.023 |title=Anthropogenic earthquakes in the UK: A national baseline prior to shale exploitation |journal=Marine and Petroleum Geology |volume=68 |pages=1–17 |year=2015 |last1=Wilson |first1=Miles P. |last2=Davies |first2=Richard J. |last3=Foulger |first3=Gillian R. |last4=Julian |first4=Bruce R. |last5=Styles |first5=Peter |last6=Gluyas |first6=Jon G. |last7=Almond |first7=Sam |doi-access=free }}

In May 2011, the government suspended Cuadrilla's{{cite news |url=https://www.ft.com/content/0577dda0-8c82-11e0-883f-00144feab49a#axzz4IrGUugkY |title=Earthquake fears halt shale gas fracking |author=Sylvia Pfeifer and Elizabeth Rigby |date=1 June 2011 |newspaper=The Financial Times |access-date=1 March 2012}}{{cite web |url=http://www.markmenzies.org.uk/news/shale-gas-drilling-an-update |title=Shale gas drilling update |date=5 June 2011 |publisher=Mark Menzies' website |access-date=1 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130103050841/http://www.markmenzies.org.uk/news/shale-gas-drilling-an-update |archive-date=3 January 2013 |url-status=dead }} hydraulic fracturing operations in their Preese Hall-1 well in Lancashire, after two small earthquakes were triggered, one of magnitude M 2.3.{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-13700575 |title=Shale gas fracking: MPs call for safety inquiry after tremors |date=8 June 2011 |agency=BBC News |access-date=26 February 2012}} The largest coseismic slip caused minor deformation of the wellbore{{cite news |last1=Harvey |first1=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |last2=Carrington |first2=Damian |last3=Macalister |first3=Terry |date=13 March 2013 |title=Fracking company Cuadrilla halts operations at Lancashire drilling site |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/13/fracking-cuadrilla-halts-operations-lancashire |access-date=24 August 2016}} and was strong enough to be felt.{{cite news|date=2 November 2011|first=Garry|last=White|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8864669/Cuadrilla-admits-drilling-caused-Blackpool-earthquakes.html|title=Cuadrilla admits drilling caused Blackpool earthquakes|access-date=24 August 2016}}

The company halted operations to await DECC guidance on the conclusions of a study{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/15745/5075-preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review.pdf|title=PH1Frac review|access-date=6 March 2019}} being carried out by the British Geological Survey and Keele University, which concluded in April 2012 that the process posed a seismic risk, but minimal enough to allow it to proceed with stricter monitoring.{{cite news |author=Harvey |first=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=17 April 2012 |title=Gas 'fracking' gets green light |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/17/gas-fracking-gets-green-light |access-date=17 April 2012 |newspaper=The Guardian}} Cuadrilla pointed out that a number of such small-magnitude earthquakes occur naturally each month in Britain.Matt McGrath, [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20595228 Fracking: Untangling fact from fiction], BBC, 13 December 2012.

Cuadrilla commissioned an investigation into the seismic activity, which concluded that the tremors were probably caused by the lubrication of an existing fault plane by the unintended spread of hydraulic fracturing fluid below ground.{{citation |mode=cs1 |url=https://www.politiekemonitor.nl/9353000/1/j4nvgs5kjg27kof_j9vvioaf0kku7zz/viu9lvhwcewb/f=/blg137575.pdf |title=Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale Seismicity |first1 = C.J. | last1 = de Pater | first2 = S. | last2 = Baisch |date=2 November 2011 |publisher=Cuadrilla Resources |access-date=22 February 2012}}{{cite web |url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/uk-quakes-likely-caused-by-fracking.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111103091025/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/uk-quakes-likely-caused-by-fracking.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=3 November 2011 |last=Rearden |first=Sarah |title=U.K. Quakes Likely Caused by Fracking |date=2 November 2011 |publisher=HighWire Press, American Association for the Advancement of Science |access-date=26 February 2012}}{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15550458 |title=Fracking tests near Blackpool 'likely cause' of tremors |date=2 November 2011 |agency=BBC News |access-date=26 February 2012}}

In 2012, a report on hydraulic fracturing produced jointly by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering noted that earthquakes of magnitude M 3.0, which are more intense than the larger of the two quakes caused by Cuadrilla are: "Felt by few people at rest or in the upper floors of buildings; similar to the passing of a truck." The British Geological Survey has published information on seismic issues relating to hydraulic fracturing.{{cite web|title=Fracking and Earthquake Hazard|url=http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquake_hazard_shale_gas.html|publisher=British Geological Survey|access-date=2 September 2016}}

In February 2014, following the small seismic event in the Preese Hall 1 well, and much research, the DECC issued a statement on earthquake risk.{{cite web|title=Fracking UK shale: understanding earthquake risk |author=DECC |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283837/Seismic_v3.pdf |access-date=31 August 2016 |date=February 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151009083056/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283837/Seismic_v3.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2015 |df=dmy-all}}

Up to August 2016, there were two cases in the UK of fault reactivation by hydraulic fracturing that caused induced seismicity strong enough to be felt by humans at the surface: both in Lancashire (M 2.3 and M 1.5).{{cite web|author=British Geological Survey|title=Earthquakes induced by Hydraulic Fracturing Operations near Blackpool, UK|url=http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/BlackpoolEarthquakes.html|website=Earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk|access-date=29 December 2016}}

In October 2018, more earthquakes were recorded in Lancashire, including two tremors of 0.8 magnitude which obliged Cuadrilla to call a temporary halt on the drilling operations.{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-45976219|title=Fracking suspended following earthquake|work=BBC News|date=26 October 2018|access-date=27 October 2018}}{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-46003462|title=Fracking in Lancashire: Second 0.8 tremor in 24 hours|work=BBC News|date=27 October 2018}}

In 2019 a peer-reviewed paper was published under the joint authorship of Cuadrilla and Bristol University authors.Clarke H, Verdon JP, Kettlety T, Baird AF and Kenall J-M 2019. Real-time imaging, forecast system put in place for the drilling of the two horizontal wells at Preston New Road.ing, and management of human-induced seismicity at Preston New Road, Lancashire, England. 'Seismol. Res. Lett.'90, 1902-1915. It described how detailed microseismic monitoring, such as at Preston New Road, could help an operator to assess the seismic risk, and thus make proactive decisions to the mitigate induced seismicity in real time. But the proactive mitigation failed, because in August 2019, after a series of minor tremors and pauses in fracking under the traffic light system, a local magnitude 2.9 earthquake was triggered, and Cuadrilla was obliged to suspend its fracking.https://drillordrop.com/2019/08/26/fracking-suspended-after-2-9ml-tremor-conservative-mp-calls-for-ban/

There is no documented evidence of hydraulic fracturing leading to subsidence. Operations are commonly monitored with tiltmeters, and no compaction issues have been documented. Given the mechanical properties of unconventional rocks (their densities, low porosities, low Biot coefficients, and high stiffness), compaction is very unlikely to occur during hydrocarbon extraction.{{cite report |title=About shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130824104759/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking |url-status=dead |archive-date=24 August 2013 |publisher=Department of Energy and Climate Change |date=19 December 2013 |access-date=30 August 2013}}{{rp|18}}

In an answer to questions from the 'Lets talk about Shale'{{cite web|title=Lets talk about shale |url=http://www.talkaboutshale.com/ |publisher=UKOOG |url-status=dead |access-date=6 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170307123805/http://www.talkaboutshale.com/ |archive-date=7 March 2017 |df=dmy-all}} initiative, run by Westbourne Communications{{cite web|title=Doniya Soni|url=https://uk.linkedin.com/in/doniyasoni|publisher=LinkedIn|access-date=4 June 2017|quote=Website and feedback management for 'Let's Talk about Shale' – an UKOOG initiative where more than 8,000 stakeholders were engaged with.}} for the industry body, UKOOG, they have stated "According to the Association of British Insurers there is, at present, little evidence of a link between shale gas and property damage, and they are not aware of any claims where seismic activity as a result of fracking has been cited as a cause of damage. Damage as a result of earthquakes, subsidence, heave and landslip are all covered, in general, under buildings insurance. Insurers will continue to monitor the situation for the potential for fracking, or similar explorations, to cause damage."{{cite web|title=Does home insurance covers any damage caused by shale gas extraction? |url=http://www.talkaboutshale.com/index.php/q-a/13-q-a/local-development/521-we-received-a-number-of-questions-asking-if-home-insurance-covers-any-damage-caused-by-shale-gas-extraction |publisher=UKOOG |url-status=dead |access-date=6 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170307123837/http://www.talkaboutshale.com/index.php/q-a/13-q-a/local-development/521-we-received-a-number-of-questions-asking-if-home-insurance-covers-any-damage-caused-by-shale-gas-extraction |archive-date=7 March 2017 |df=dmy-all}}

It was reported in early 2015 that farms would not be covered by issues that may arise due to hydraulic fracturing. A clarification by the insurer indicated that this would only apply to a farmer that permitted this on their land. Surrounding farms would be covered.{{cite web|last1=Ben |first1=Briggs |title=NFU Mutual clarifies its position on fracking insurance |url=http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/business/nfu-mutual-clarifies-its-position-on-fracking-insurance/70174.article |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150131202354/http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/business/nfu-mutual-clarifies-its-position-on-fracking-insurance/70174.article |url-status=dead |archive-date=31 January 2015 |publisher=Farmers Guardian |access-date=19 February 2015 |df=dmy-all}}

In March 2017, the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) released a report by the CII Claims Faculty New Generation Group, which explored the Insurance implications of fracking.{{cite web|author1=Chartered Insurance Institute Claims Faculty New Generation Group|title=Insurance implications of fracking|url=http://www.cii.co.uk/media/7546549/new_gen_fracking_report.pdf|access-date=15 May 2017|date=March 2017}} The authors examined the "key perils associated with fracking such as earthquakes, explosions and fire, pollution, injury and death", and found that while "most insurances policies" provided "cover for these risks", "fracking will pose additional complications around liability". The authors also considered that if widespread fracking were to lead to increased claims, "then insurers may have to consider how they underwrite this emerging higher-risk group". The authors recommended: working together within the insurance profession "to monitor and discuss the issues" while remaining "open and transparent about the risks of fracking", and; working with the "energy industry and the government" "to reduce the likelihood of potential risks occurring". The CII emphasised that "insurers need to be prepared for claims in the event of a fracking-related loss and consider policy wordings with increased fracking in mind".{{cite web|title=Insurance implications of fracking|url=http://www.cii.co.uk/knowledge/claims/articles/the-insurance-implicatios-of-fracking/45177|website=Cii.co.uk|publisher=Chartered Insurance Institute|access-date=14 May 2017}}

If the Minerals Planning Authority determine that public health will be significantly impacted, the Director of Public health is consulted so that a "health impact assessment" can be prepared. The Environment Agency then uses the health impact assessment when considering the "potential health effects" during their "permit determination"{{rp|9}}

In 2014, Public Health England reviewed the "available evidence on issues including air quality, radon gas, naturally occurring radioactive materials, water contamination and waste water. They concluded that the risks to public health from exposure to emissions from shale gas extraction are low if operations are properly run and regulated." Public Health England's Dr John Harrison, Director for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, stated that: "Where potential risks have been identified in other countries, the reported problems are typically due to operational failure. Good on-site management and appropriate regulation of all aspects of exploratory drilling, gas capture as well as the use and storage of hydraulic fracturing fluid is essential to minimise the risks to the environment and health."Public Health England. 25 June 2014 [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shale-gas-extraction-review-of-the-potential-public-health-impacts-of-exposures-to-chemical-and-radioactive-pollutants PHE-CRCE-009: Review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to chemical and radioactive pollutants as a result of shale gas extraction] {{ISBN|978-0-85951-752-2}}

In 2015 the health charity Medact published a paper written by two public health specialists called 'Health & Fracking - The impacts and opportunity costs', which reviewed health impacts of hydraulic fracturing and suggested a moratorium until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment could be completed.{{cite web|author-last1=McCoy|author-first1=Dr David|author-last2=Saunders|author-first2=Dr Patrick|title=Health & Fracking - The impacts and opportunity costs|url=http://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/medact_fracking-report_WEB4.pdf|publisher=Medact|year=2015|access-date=20 June 2015}} UKOOG criticised Medact's understanding of UK regulations and said they had not declared that one of its consultants, who was standing for parliament in the 2015 general election, had a conflict of interest.{{cite web|title=Shale gas industry says that Medact Report fails to understand UK regulatory system and lacks credibility|url=http://www.ukoog.org.uk/about-ukoog/press-releases/146-shale-gas-industry-says-medact-report-fails-to-understand-uk-regulatory-system-and-lacks-credibility|publisher=UKOOG|access-date=20 June 2015}} The Times journalist Ben Webster also criticised Medact for not declaring one of their consultant's conflict of interest and reported that the Medact director had not realised that this consultant was also an anti-fracking candidate.{{cite news|title=A report that persuaded doctors to oppose fracking was partly written by a campaigner opposing shale gas extraction near his home|newspaper=The Times|url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/expert-report-on-fracking-risks-was-written-by-activist-q2wxp0jgj0t|date=2015-03-31|first=Ben|last=Webster |access-date= 2016-08-28}} MedAct published a response to these criticisms.{{cite web|title=Rebutting and Responding to Criticisms of the Medact Report on Fracking and Health|url=http://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Fracking-Rebuttal-WEB.pdf|publisher=Medact|access-date=20 June 2015}}

The content of the Medact Report 2015 was referred to by many objectors in the June 2015 Public reports pack for the Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee. Lancashire County Council were uncertain how much weight to attach to the Medact report due to "questions from some quarters" about the objectivity of the report based on association of two its contributors with campaigns relating to shale gas.{{cite web|title=Public reports pack 23 June 2015|url=http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/g4919/Public%20reports%20pack%2023rd-Jun-2015%2010.00%20Development%20Control%20Committee.pdf?T=10|publisher=Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee|format=PDF|pages=723–724|access-date=20 June 2015|quote="PHE did not comment on the Medact report in this document. The Council commented: Many objectors refer to the 2015 report of the public health charity Medact. Medact say the risks and serious nature of the hazards associated with fracking, coupled with the concerns and uncertainties about the regulatory system, indicate that shale gas development should be halted until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment is undertaken. The Medact report has not produced new epidemiological research but has reviewed published literature and has requested short papers from relevant experts in particular subject areas. It has also interviewed academics and experts. Unfortunately, one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report's six chapters – chapters 2, 4 and 5) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. Another contributor to the report (chapter 3) has previously expressed firm views on shale gas and has objected to this application. This has led to questions from some quarters about the report's objectivity.In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the County Council should attach to the report."}}

In 2016, Medact released an updated public health report,{{cite web|title=Shale Gas Production in England – an updated public health assessment|url=https://www.medact.org/2016/resources/reports/shale-gas-production-in-england/|publisher=Medact|access-date=27 February 2017 |quote=Key points. Hazardous pollutants are produced at all stages of the shale gas production process. The range of pollutants are outlined in the report. Based on current evidence it is not possible to conclude that there is a strong association between shale gas related pollution and negative local health effects. However, there is clearly potential for negative health impacts. In particular, there are risks of (i) adverse reproductive outcomes due to exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals, (ii) risk of respiratory effects resulting from ozone and smog formation, (iii) stress, anxiety and other psycho-social effects arising from actual and perceived social and economic disruption.}} citing health risks from shale gas development and calling upon the government to "abandon its shale gas plans".{{cite news|last1=Clark|first1=Pilita|title=Fracking threatens UK's climate change targets, says report: Government's advisers on global warming urge industry to adhere to three conditions|url=https://www.ft.com/content/3abc681e-4438-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d|access-date=29 December 2016|agency=The Financial Times|date=7 July 2016|quote=Separately, a group of medical professionals repeated their call for the UK to abandon its shale gas plans because of the threats it posed to health. A report from the London-based Medact charity said risks included reproductive problems from exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and respiratory damage from smog.}}

File:Balcombe anti frack protest.jpg

Concerns over fracking became an issue for local authorities and communities across the country, including: Sussex, Somerset and Kent, and the Vale of Glamorgan.{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-15040977 |title=Fracking fears over gas drilling in Vale of Glamorgan |date=26 September 2011 |agency=BBC News |access-date=27 February 2012}}{{cite news |url=http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/new-bid-drill-gas-vale-1800032 |title=New bid to drill for gas in the Vale |author=Peter Collins |date=9 December 2011 |newspaper=South Wales Echo |access-date=4 March 2012}} In 2011, Bath and North East Somerset Council voiced concerns that hydraulic fracturing could contaminate Bath's famous hot springs.{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15099549 |title='Fracking threat' to Bath's hot springs, says council |date=28 September 2011 |agency=BBC News |access-date=26 February 2011}} and has become part of the Climate Change debate.{{citation needed|date=December 2016}}

Protests were held against onshore fossil fuel exploration that might necessitate fracking.{{cite news|title=Wrexham public meeting over gas test drilling plan|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-24525495|access-date=15 November 2014|publisher=BBC|date=15 October 2013}} In 2012, industry assurances were tarnished when Cuadrilla came under fire for its categorical denials of its plans for hydraulic fracturing near Balcombe after documents from parent company AJ Lucas materialised appearing to indicate the opposite.{{cite web |url=http://gasdrillinginbalcombe.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/company-documents-contradict-millers-we-have-no-intention-to-frack-in-balcombe/ |title=Company documents contradict Miller's 'We have no intention to frack in Balcombe' |date=13 January 2012 |work=Gas Drilling in Balcombe |publisher=NO Fracking in Sussex |access-date=29 February 2012}} In 2014, Cuadrilla scrapped its plans to frack at Balcombe.{{cite news |author=Harvey |first=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=23 January 2014 |title=Cuadrilla scraps plan to frack at Balcombe site: Natural fractures in shale rock rules out need for hydraulic fracking, company says |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/23/fracking-balcombe-site-cuadrilla |access-date=20 March 2016}} In May 2014, a letter to the Department of Energy and Climate Change dated June 2011 emerged, confirming the company believed that to achieve commercial production, "significant amounts of hydraulic fracturing" would be required at Balcombe.{{cite web|title=Letter reveals Cuadrilla "had to frack Balcombe area of the Sussex Weald to be commercially productive"|url=https://drillordrop.com/2014/05/08/letter-reveals-that-cuadrilla-planned-to-frack-in-the-balcombe-area-of-the-sussex-weald/|date=8 May 2014|access-date=20 March 2017}}

There are a number of anti-fracking groups,{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15021328 |title=New groups protest at shale gas |author=James Melley |date=28 September 2011 |agency=BBC News |access-date=2 November 2011}}{{Cite web|url=http://facebookgroupsagainstfracking.blogspot.com/|title=List of regional/national groups united in demanding that our green islands stay Frack Free.|first=Ross|last=Carruthers|date=7 October 2014}}

which range from the nationwide Frack Off, which was engaged in the Balcombe drilling protest, to local groups such as Residents Action on Fylde Fracking,{{Cite web|url=http://stopfyldefracking.org.uk/|title=Residents Action on Fylde Fracking » Blackpool & Fylde Coast|website=stopfyldefracking.org.uk}} Ribble Estuary Against Fracking,{{cite web|url=http://www.reaf.org.uk |title=Ribble Estuary Against Fracking - News |publisher=Reaf.org.uk |access-date=4 March 2012}} NO Fracking in Sussex, Frack Free Fernhurst{{Cite web|url=FrackFreeFernHurst.com | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130716155233/http://www.frackfreefernhurst.com/|url-status=unfit|website=FrackFreeFernHurst.com| archive-date=16 July 2013| title=Frack Free Fernhurst}} and The Vale Says No!{{cite web|url=http://thevalesaysno.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513232034/http://thevalesaysno.com/ |url-status=usurped |archive-date=13 May 2011 |title=Help us say NO to toxic gas drilling in the Vale of Glamorgan |publisher=The Vale Says No! |date=8 November 2011 |access-date=4 March 2012 |df=dmy-all}} Environmental NGOs Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Friends of the Earth are also against fracking.{{cite book|last1=Grafton|first1=R. Quentin|last2=Cronshaw|first2=Ian G.|last3=Moore|first3=Michal C.|title=Risks, Rewards and Regulation of Unconventional Gas: A Global Perspective|date=2016|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781316869888|page=177|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=thDqDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA177|access-date=20 March 2017|language=en}}

File:Guardian gang of fifty 2014.jpg

A group of fifty geoscientists and petroleum engineers 'from Britain's leading academic institutions' published a letter in The Guardian in support of UK shale gas in 2014. But 43 of these fifty scientists, based at 14 out of the 21 institutions, received hydrocarbon industry funding.

British businessman Joseph Corré set up a website talkfracking.org, and tried to organise a series of events round the country, but they were reportedly boycotted by industry and pro-fracking politicians.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/25/joe-corre-fracking-vivienne-westwood-green-party He commissioned researcher Paul Mobbs to produce a six-part report on 'Frackademics',http://www.fraw.org.uk/meir/frackademics.html mapping the connections between the fossil fuel industry, academic researchers, and government. His case study number 5https://web.archive.org/web/20150502095849/http://www.talkfracking.org/frackademics/frackademics-case-study-5 analysed the origin of the Guardian letter above, concluding that it was a PR smokescreen, and an example of astroturfing.

Anti-fracking campaigners say that there are various problems associated with the process including pressure on local transport infrastructure, air and water pollution, the amounts of water used, and potential economic damage to agricultural, food production and tourism industries.{{cite web|last1=Shale gas|title=Frack Off|url=http://frack-off.org.uk/extreme-energies/shale-gas/|access-date=22 December 2016}}

Pro-fracking campaigners such as the Centrica-backed group North West Energy Task Force say the "fracking industry" "could bring a boost to jobs and the economy" and that "shale gas has a pivotal role to play in the region's future success" and "would act as a catalyst to bring the vital investment necessary to secure existing industries and develop new ones."{{cite news|title=Pro-frackers launch drive to get people behind shale gas drilling|url=http://www.lep.co.uk/news/business/pro-frackers-launch-drive-to-get-people-behind-shale-gas-drilling-1-7289095|publisher=Johnstone Press|date=2 June 2015|access-date=24 December 2016}} In 2014, Business and Energy Minister Michael Fallon said that the opportunity to release up to 4.4 billion barrels of oil by fracking in the Wealden basin, covering Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent, "will bring jobs and business opportunities" and significantly help with UK energy self-sufficiency.{{Cite news|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/massive-oil-reserves-lie-under-commuter-belt-in-south-says-report-9424232.html|title=Massive oil reserves lie under commuter belt in South, says report|last=Prynn|first=Jonathan|date=23 May 2014|work=London Evening Standard|page=8}}

In 2019, a government survey showed that public opposition to fracking had risen to its highest level so far, and support dropped to a record low.{{Cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/support-for-fracking-lowest-ever-level-finds-official-government-survey-a8908016.html|title=Fracking support falls to its lowest ever level|date=10 May 2019|website=The Independent}} Those opposed to fracking constituted 40 per cent of participants, up from 35 per cent in December 2018, and up from 21 per cent in 2013. Opposition to fracking was highest in north-west England (50 per cent), Wales (49 per cent) and Scotland (49 per cent). It was lowest in London (30 per cent), east England (31 per cent) and the west midlands (32 per cent). Support for fracking fell to 12 per cent of participants, down slightly on 13 per cent in the previous survey. This was the lowest level recorded by the survey so far, and 17 percentage points below the peak in March 2014. Strong support for fracking remained unchanged at two per cent.{{Cite web|url=https://theecologist.org/2019/may/29/support-fracking-record-low|title=Support for fracking at record low|website=The Ecologist}}

In 2024 Europa Oil & Gas applied to drill and carry out a 'small-scale' fracking job, also referred to as a 'proppant squeeze', at Burniston, North Yorkshire.https://drillordrop.com/2024/08/02/burniston-gas-drill-and-frack-would-have-significant-environmental-impacts-planners/ The ongoing controversy about whether or not this constitutes frackinghttps://drillordrop.com/2025/03/26/new-twists-in-the-f-word-debate/ illustrates that the old, volume-based, definition of fracking, still used by the government, is inadequate for the task [see the section above on 'Definitions of fracking in the UK context'].

Anti-fracking and pro-fracking campaigners have submitted a series of complaints about advertisements, brochures and leaflets to the Advertising Standards Agency.

In April 2013, "fracking activist" Refracktion reported Cuadrilla's brochure to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), who deemed that of the 18 statements made, 11 were acceptable and six had breached the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code,{{cite news |last1=Harvey |first1=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=24 April 2013 |title=Cuadrilla censured by advertising watchdog over fracking safety claims |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/24/caudrilla-censured-fracking-safety-claims |access-date=5 September 2016 |newspaper=The Guardian}} and that the brochure "must not appear again in its present form".{{cite web|title=ASA Ruling on Cuadrilla Resources Ltd|url=https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130428051225/https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-date=28 April 2013|website=Advertising Standards Authority|access-date=5 September 2016|ref=A12-203806|date=24 April 2013|df=dmy-all}} In January 2015 Reverend Michael Roberts and Ken Wilkinson reported an anti-fracking group's leaflet to the ASA. The ASA resolved the complaint with an informal ruling that the group, Residents Action On Fylde Fracking (RAFF), had "exaggerated the size and scale of planned fracking operations".{{cite news|last1=Merrill|first1=Jamie|title=Anti-Cuadrilla group's fracking protest leaflet misleading, says watchdog|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/anti-cuadrilla-groups-fracking-protest-leaflet-misleading-says-watchdog-9961373.html|access-date=5 September 2016|newspaper=The Independent|date=6 January 2015}} RAFF "agreed to amend or withdraw advertising without the need for a formal investigation".{{cite web|title=Informal ruling on Residents Against Fylde Fracking|url=https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/rulings.html?q=residents+action+on+fylde+fracking#tab-accordion-2|website=Advertising Standards Authority|access-date=5 September 2016|date=7 January 2015}} In 2015, Cuadrilla and Reverend Michael Roberts reported a leaflet produced by Friends of the Earth to the ASA{{cite news|title=Friends of the Earth accused of 'misleading' over fracking|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34570974|access-date=5 September 2016|agency=BBC|date=19 October 2015}} and the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB), now known as the Fundraising Regulator.{{cite web|title=Complaints to ASA and FRSB about Friends of the Earth fracking leaflet|url=https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/complaints-to-asa-and-frsb-about-friends-of-the-earth-fracking-leaflet.html|date=20 October 2015|access-date=20 March 2016}} Friends of the Earth gave assurance to the ASA that they would not repeat claims in their advertisements about "the effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water or property prices" "in the absence of adequate evidence".{{cite news|title=Friends of the Earth ticked off over claims in anti-fracking leaflet|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/04/friends-of-earth-ticked-off-claims-anti-fracking-leaflet|access-date=27 February 2017|newspaper=The Guardian|date=4 January 2017|quote="We approached Friends of the Earth with the concerns that had been raised about its ad," said a spokesman for the ASA. "The advertiser agreed not to repeat the claims, or claims that had the same meaning. On that basis we closed the case informally. The ad must not appear again in its current form."
The ASA said that it has told FoE not to make claims about the likely effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water, or property prices "in the absence of adequate evidence"}} The ASA clarified their position,{{cite web|last1=Parker|first1=Guy|title=Opinion piece: A fractious debate but a clear outcome|url=https://www.asa.org.uk/news/a-fractious-debate-but-a-clear-outcome.html|publisher=Advertising Standards Authority|access-date=27 February 2017|quote=We told Friends of the Earth that based on the evidence we'd seen, claims it made in its anti-fracking leaflet or claims with the same meaning cannot be repeated, and asked for an assurance that they wouldn't be. Friends of the Earth gave us an assurance to that effect. Unless the evidence changes, that means it mustn't repeat in ads claims about the effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water or property prices. Friends of the Earth has said we "dropped the case". That's not an accurate reflection of what's happened. We thoroughly investigated the complaints we received and closed the case on receipt of the above assurance. Because of that, we decided against publishing a formal ruling, but plainly that's not the same thing as "dropping the case". Crucially, the claims under the microscope mustn't reappear in ads, unless the evidence changes. }} after it became evident that FoE rejected the results of their investigation.{{cite web|last1=Bennett|first1=Craig|title=Let's talk about the fracking facts|url=https://www.foe.co.uk/blog/let-s-talk-about-fracking-facts|publisher=Friends of the Earth|access-date=27 February 2017}}{{failed verification|reason=Needs a third-party reliable source to be able to claim that 'it became evident that FoE rejected the results'|date=March 2016}}{{Original research inline|date=March 2016}}

In October 2011 the campaign to prohibit Coastal Oil and Gas from test drilling at the Llandow Industrial Estate, in the Vale of Glamorgan, met with initial success after local councillors unanimously refused the company's plans, though Coastal immediately indicated it would appeal.{{cite news |url=http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/delight-refusal-shale-gas-test-1806531 |title=Delight at refusal of shale gas test drilling |author=Peter Collins |date=21 October 2011 |newspaper=Western Mail |access-date=4 March 2012}} Residents feared that successful exploration would be the prelude for hydraulic fracturing. The basis of the Council's decision was a letter from Welsh Water stating that there was "a very small risk" of contamination of its reserve groundwater sites from exploratory drilling.{{cite news |url=http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/gas-drill-bid-firm-considers-1806648 |title=Gas drill bid firm considers legal action |author=Peter Collins |date=22 October 2011 |newspaper=South Wales Echo |access-date=4 March 2012}} The rejection came despite the Council being told that, strictly from a planning point of view, there were no "reasonable or sustainable grounds" to refuse, and despite the drilling application containing no explicit mention of hydraulic fracturing. The company had additionally claimed that, since the "gas shales in the Vale are not as thick as elsewhere", any discoveries would be "very unlikely" to require hydraulic fracturing for extraction.

Coastal Oil and Gas decided to appeal to the Welsh Government, rather than undertake legal action against the local authority,{{cite news |url=http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/fracking-firm-considers-legal-action-1797820 |title=Fracking firm considers legal action against Vale Council |author=Peter Collins |date=25 November 2011 |newspaper=South Wales Echo |access-date=4 March 2012}} and a public enquiry began in May 2012.{{cite news |url=http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/campaign-against-vale-glamorgan-gas-2036771 |title=Campaign against Vale of Glamorgan gas drilling plan suffers setback |author=Peter Collins |date=27 February 2012 |newspaper=South Wales Echo |access-date=4 March 2012}} Coastal's chances of success at the enquiry were boosted by Kent County Council approval of the company's near-identical plans for preliminary drilling in Woodnesborough, and were increased to near certainty after Welsh Water effectively retracted its previous risk assessment.

In arguing its case, Cuadrilla contrasts its approach with the one taken in the United States, claiming that only three chemicals—a polyacrylamide lubricant commonly found in cosmetics, hydrochloric acid, and a biocide used to purify drinking water—will be used in the UK, compared with the hundreds that can be used across the Atlantic; that it has invested in more expensive, better equipment than that used by companies operating in the US;{{cite news |author=Harvey |first=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=20 April 2011 |title='Gasland changed everything' – fracking firm battles to woo English villagers |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/20/gasland-shale-gas-drilling-uk |access-date=27 February 2012 |website=Guardian.co.uk}} that its wells have three layers of pipe casing to line the wells, whereas many American ones only have two; that the barrier between the gas escaping up the pipe and ground water is thicker; that cement will be returned to the surface, blocking identified leak paths; and that drilling fluids will be collected in closed steel tanks, rather than in lined earthen pits, as often happens in the States.{{cite news |url=https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/the-wonder-gas-that-could-cut-your-energy-bills-sk7xjlhztqf |title=The wonder gas that could cut your energy bills |author=Tim Rayment |date=23 October 2011 |newspaper=The Sunday Times |access-date=5 March 2012}}{{cite web |author=Harvey |first=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=20 April 2011 |title=Shale gas: is it as green as the oil companies say? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/20/shale-gas-green-oil-companies |access-date=28 February 2012 |website=Guardian.co.uk}} According to Cuadrilla's communication advisor, "Gasland (the US documentary about shale gas) really changed everything. . . . Before that, shale gas was not seen as routinely controversial."

In August 2014, a report called 'Shale Gas:Rural Economic Impacts' was published by the UK Government, in response to a Freedom of Information request, from Greenpeace. It was due for publication in March 2014.{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408977/RFI6751_Draft_Shale_Gas_Rural_economy_impact_paper.pdf|title=Shale Gas:Rural Economic Impacts|access-date=6 March 2019}}{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/337645/RFI6751_Economics_of_Shale_Gas_Redacted.pdf|title=DEFRA cover letter|access-date=6 March 2019}} It was notable as large parts of this had been redacted, leading to criticism about the transparency of information being provided.{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/10/fracking-censored-house-price-report|title=Fracking campaigners criticise 'censored' report on house prices|first=Rowena|last=Mason|date=10 August 2014|access-date=6 March 2019|via=www.theguardian.com}}

The Lancashire 'North West Energy Task Force', a body that broadly supports the extraction of shale gas, commissioned a report on the effect of house prices in the area surrounding the Preese Hall 1 well, after the seismic issues lead to a suspension of activity by the drilling company, Cuadrilla. The report concluded that "Taken together, there is no clear evidence based on this data to suggest that onshore gas operations have had a material impact on local house prices" {{cite web |title= Residential research report: The Impact of On-Shore Gas Exploration Activities on Local House Prices |url= https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nwenergy/pages/102/attachments/original/1429019521/JLL_report_-_NWETF_house_prices_(2).pdf?1429019521 |publisher= JLL/NorthWest Energy Task Force |quote= From 1995 to 2014, Preese Hall has seen a higher trajectory of house price growth when compared with Lancashire and the North West. Although Preese Hall saw a larger decline in house prices between the application being submitted and implementation than Lancashire and the North West, the area has seen a price growth of 7.5% between onshore gas operations commencing in 2011 and 2014. This compares with the North West seeing a prices increase by 0.2% whereas Lancashire saw a price decline of 4.2%. Taken together, there is no clear evidence based on this data to suggest that onshore gas operations have had a material impact on local house prices. 34% of households within three miles [5 km] of the subject site fall into the category of Affluent Achievers. A further indication of the prosperity in the area is that 71% of households are owner/occupied|access-date=14 March 2017}}

In January 2017, Friends of the Earth were instructed not to repeat claims about "plummeting house prices" after complaints and an investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority {{cite news |title= Friends of the Earth ticked off over claims in anti-fracking leaflet |url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/04/friends-of-earth-ticked-off-claims-anti-fracking-leaflet |access-date= 14 March 2017 |date= 4 January 2017|quote=Other claims made in the ad, entitled "Pat saved her home from fracking. You can save yours too", included that there would be "plummeting house prices"}}

==See also==

• Unconventional (oil & gas) reservoir
• Cost of electricity by source
• Oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom
• Refracktion, an environmental organisation

{{Reflist|25em

| refs =

{{cite book | title = Hydraulic Proppant Fracturing and Gravel Packing | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=FyGcOI42oBMC&pg=PA250 | year= 1989 | first= Detlef | last = Mader | publisher = Elsevier | isbn = 9780444873521 | pages = 174; 250}}

}}

• [http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/home.html British Geological Survey: Information about shale gas]
• [https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/exploration-production/onshore/ Oil and Gas Authority: Publications, guidance and data including mapping, seismic activity, wells, and licensing and regulation for onshore oil and gas]

{{div col|colwidth=35em}}

• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lHC74fCyeI DECC:6 Aug 2015 - 1. What is shale gas?]
• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFipga_zozI DECC:6 Aug 2015 - 2. The regulatory regime for hydraulic fracturing (fracking)]
• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEOqEfnASSs DECC: 6 Aug 2015 - 3. The role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in fracking]
• [https://www.dur.ac.uk/multimedia/video/research/refine/ ReFiNE: 2013 - Multimedia Gallery]
• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PLzXaGNow Cuadrilla: 25 Nov 2013 - Surface Story]
• [https://vimeo.com/195600303 UKOOG: 14 Dec 2016 - Pad Density Visualisation]
• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo8EB36NR0Q ReFiNE: 30 Sep 2013 - Hydraulic Fractures]

• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsHFYjSkcgg ReFiNE: 30 Sep 2013 - Induced Seismicity]

{{div col end}}

Category:Mining in the United Kingdom

Category:Petroleum industry in the United Kingdom

Category:Environmental issues in the United Kingdom