Unconventional and Unburnable: Whygoing all out for Shale Gas is the WrongDirection for the UK’s Energy Policy

TONY BOSWORTH

ABSTRACT

Despite the Prime Minister’s statement that we must go ‘all out forshale’, there remain major doubts about whether this is the right dir-ection for the UK’s energy policy. Unconventional oil and gas, such asshale gas, risk locking the UK into the use of fossil fuels at a time whenmeeting climate change targets means we need to be reducing their userapidly. Despite claims by the industry and its supporters that frackingis safe, there is considerable evidence of impacts on the local en-vironment and human health from the US, where unconventional gasproduction has grown significantly in the last decade, and fromAustralia. There are also doubts about whether the UK’s proposedregulation of the industry will be adequate. The Prime Minster claimsthat shale gas will cut UK energy bills, despite most experts thinkingthat this is, at best, unlikely. The UK needs to move fast towards anenergy system based on much-improved energy efficiency and usingthe UK’s huge potential for renewables. In this context, shale gas is agamble we do not need to take.

1 Introduction

The UK Government has nailed its colours firmly to the shale gas mast. ThePrime Minister, David Cameron, has said that we must go ‘‘all out for

199

Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 39FrackingEdited by R.E. Hester and R.M. Harrisonr The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, www.rsc.org

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

shale’’.1 But despite this gung-ho enthusiasm, there remain major doubts asto whether it is the right direction for UK energy policy.

Friends of the Earth strongly believes that unconventional gas and oil(such as shale gas) are not the answer to the UK’s energy problems because:

� It risks keeping the UK locked in to the use of gas at a time when weneed to reduce fossil fuel use significantly in order to play our part intackling climate change;

� Evidence from the United States, where fracking has grown rapidly inthe last decade, and elsewhere shows that the process of fracking in-volves risks to the local environment and to human health; and

� Despite Government claims to the contrary, most experts think UK shalegas is unlikely to cut energy bills.

In our opinion, shale gas – and other unconventional gas and oil – is bothunconventional and unburnable. This chapter explores these issues andlooks at the real solutions to the UK’s energy problems.

1.1 The Government’s View

The UK Government sees shale gas as a vital part of the UK’s energy future.The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, OwenPaterson, has described the UK’s shale gas potential as ‘‘an extraordinary . . .windfall, which is entirely God-given’’.2

The Government is determined, in the words of the Chancellor of theExchequer, George Osborne, in his 2013 Budget speech, to ‘‘make it hap-pen’’. To this end, Mr Osborne is introducing tax breaks for shale gas pro-duction as part of a fiscal regime which he wants to make the most generousin the world. His Cabinet colleague Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State forCommunities & Local Government, has relaxed planning guidelines to boostthe shale gas industry. For example, drilling companies no longer have toinform householders directly if drilling and fracking might take place belowtheir property. The UK Government has actively manoeuvred against furtherregulation at the EU level because this would delay the development of theindustry in the UK. This is despite the fact that the Impact Assessmentproduced by the European Commission showed that a Directive settingspecific requirements for the exploration and production of unconventionaloil and gas would be much more effective in reducing environmental im-pacts and risks, providing legal clarity and addressing public concerns, thanthe preferred option (and that supported by the UK) of a non-bindingrecommendation.3

2 Environmental Concerns

There are sharply conflicting views on the scale of the risks and the likeli-hood of them occurring.

200 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

Shale gas advocates claim that fracking is safe, with no local environ-mental risks. Ed Davey, the UK Secretary of State for Energy & ClimateChange, drawing on a report from the Royal Society and the Royal Academyof Engineering, has said that fracking ‘‘can take place quite safely, withouthurting the local environment. It will not contaminate water supplies’’.4

But a report for the European Commission, Support to the Identification ofPotential Risks for the Environment and Human Health arising from HydrocarbonsOperations involving Hydraulic Fracturing in Europe,5 identified ‘‘a number ofissues as presenting a high risk for people and the environment’’. It assessedthe cumulative impact of fracking at multiple installations as ‘‘high risk’’ interms of groundwater contamination, surface water contamination, waterresources, release to air, land take, risk to biodiversity, noise impacts andtraffic. In a Global Environmental Alert issued in 2012, the United NationsEnvironment Program concluded that fracking ‘‘may result in unavoidableenvironmental impacts even if (unconventional gas) is extracted properly, andmore so if done inadequately’’.6 In 2013, drilling company Cuadrilla wascensured by the Advertising Standards Authority for writing in a public in-formation leaflet that it used ‘‘proven, safe technologies’’.7

The United Nations Environment Program lists the following potentialrisks from shale gas exploration and production:

� Greenhouse gas emissions;� Land footprint (on natural and crop land);� Risk of explosion (wells, pipelines, transport);� Risk of leakage from wells into the water table;� Risk of leakage from fracking fluid or from produced water into the

water table;� Risk of leakage from improperly treated produced water and fracking

fluids from flowback into the soil and water table and surface water;� Risk of infiltration of fracking fluid into the water table;� Risk of migration of naturally occurring toxic substances; and� Impacts from improperly treated water in crops.6

Friends of the Earth believes there are real concerns about local and globalenvironmental impacts. This chapter cannot consider all of these potentialimpacts in detail but will look briefly at some of them.

2.1 Climate Change

Exploiting shale gas poses major risks for climate change by perpetuatingour use of fossil fuels rather than moving to low-carbon alternatives. Thereare three key issues to consider:

� The comparative emissions of shale gas compared to conventional gasand other fossil fuels;

� The impact on overall emissions of using shale gas; and� The impact on investment in renewable energy.

201Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

Broderick and Wood’s chapter in this book (see Chapter 4) considers thecomparative emissions of shale gas and other fossil fuels, so this chapter willlook at the other two issues.

Climate change is arguably the greatest existential threat that the worldcurrently faces. The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), released in 2013,8 found that warming of the climatesystem is unequivocal and, since the 1950s, many of the observed changesare unprecedented over decades-to-millennia. The atmosphere and oceanshave warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level hasrisen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have increased. Itis extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of theobserved warming since the mid-20th century. This warming has alreadyincreased the occurrence of some types of extreme weather events. Furthertemperature increases will see the frequency of heavy rainfall events and veryhot days increase, with the severity increasing in proportion to warming. Insome regions there will be more droughts and floods, though a lack of dataprevents any firm conclusions on how the frequency will change globally.

Governments of developed countries, including the UK, have repeatedlystated that, to avoid dangerous climate change, global temperatures mustrise by no more than 2 1C above pre-industrial levels. For example, the EU’starget is explicit that ‘‘The EU must adopt the necessary domestic measuresand take the lead internationally to ensure that global average temperatureincreases do not exceed pre-industrial levels by more than 2 1C’’.9

Challenging though this is, it might not be enough. Since the 2 1C targetwas first adopted, knowledge about climate change and its potential impactshas progressed and many scientists now believe that potentially catastrophicimpacts will be felt at lower temperature rises. This is demonstrated by the‘Burning Embers’ diagram, first produced by the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.10 This shows the likelihood of varioustypes of impact of climate change (risk of extreme weather events, risk oflarge-scale discontinuities) for different global temperature rises. The up-dated version of this diagram, produced in 2009, makes it clear that for a 21C temperature rise there are now substantial negative impacts associatedwith extreme weather events and that there are now ‘‘moderately significant’’risks of large scale discontinuities – risks which were thought to be ‘‘verylow’’ in 2001.11 Such evidence has led over 100 developing-country Govern-ments to call for a maximum temperature rise of no more than 1.5 1C abovepre-industrial levels. The ‘Burning Embers’ diagram will be updated by theIPCC in March 2014.

However, even accepting the 2 1C target, the carbon maths is clear: if weare to keep the likely global temperature rise below 2 1C, we cannot afford toburn unabated more than a small fraction of the world’s current provenfossil fuel reserves, let alone any as yet unproven reserves. Exploring for newhydrocarbon resources is simply adding to the stock of already unburnablecarbon. The concept of ‘unburnable carbon’ started to gain traction in 2013following important work by the Carbon Tracker Initiative.12 In the words of

202 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

Professor Dieter Helm of Oxford University ‘‘There is enough oil and gas(and coal too) to fry the planet several times over’’.13

Shell has responded to Carbon Tracker’s work, saying ‘‘There is reallynothing to argue about in terms of the CO2 math itself. It is certainly the casethat current proven reserves will take us well past 2 1C if completely con-sumed and the CO2 emitted’’.14

However, the UK Government’s policy is to maximise hydrocarbon re-covery. In June 2013, Energy Secretary Ed Davey wrote that ‘‘maximisingrecovery of the UK’s indigenous supplies of oil and gas’’ was importanteconomically and for the UK’s energy security.15

Maximising hydrocarbon recovery is not compatible with the UK playingits part in meeting the global 2 1C climate change target which the UKGovernment has repeatedly endorsed. The UK Government needs to leavesome of its proven or potential fossil fuel resources in the ground and, giventhe risk of unavoidable and serious environmental impacts associated withits extraction and the uncertainty over the scale of resources, the startingpoint for this should be unconventional gas, including shale gas.

The background to this is explained below and is drawn from a Friends ofthe Earth briefing paper The UK, Shale Gas and Unburnable Carbon: Questionsfor the Government.16

2.1.1 Carbon Budgets and Unconventional Gas. The work of Meinshausenet al. on carbon budgets has assessed the percentage chance of exceedinga given temperature target for a given amount of global carbon dioxideemissions.17 This shows that if we are prepared to accept a 50 : 50 chanceof the global temperature rise exceeding 2 1C, then the world can emit1400 Gt CO2

18 between 2000 and 2049.w However, if we want only a 1 in 3chance of a greater than 2 1C global temperature rise, then the global car-bon budget for 2000–2049 falls to 1150 Gt CO2.

Clearly, some of this carbon budget has already been used up since 2000.Subtracting global carbon emissions for 2000–2012 gives the remainingglobal carbon budget for 2013–2049.18 For a 50 : 50 chance of going over twodegrees, this is 1050 Gt CO2 and for keeping to a 1 in 3 chance of going over2 1C, the budget is 750 Gt CO2. The IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, releasedin September 2013, gives very similar carbon budgets.

The IPCC has definitions of different likelihoods, ranging from ‘virtuallycertain’ (a 99–100% likelihood) to ‘exceptionally unlikely’ (a 0–1% likeli-hood). Given the clear stating of the EU’s target (see previous), Friends of theEarth believes that the highest level of risk compatible with this ‘do notexceed’ wording would be to keep the likelihood to ‘unlikely’ or lower. Thistranslates to a less than 33% chance of exceeding 2 1C. (The UK’s bindingclimate change target – the first in the world - implies only a 50 : 50 chance ofstaying below 2 1C). This implies that the appropriate remaining globalcarbon budget would be 750 Gt CO2, though even this accepts a relatively

wAll figures are rounded to the nearest 50 – for precise numbers, see Ref. 16.

203Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

high level of risk for something that we have agreed we must avoid (bycomparison, we insure our homes for levels of risk of less than 1%) and atemperature target above that advocated by over 100 countries.

However, proven global fossil fuel reserves, if burned, would emit 2800 GtCO2 see Table 1).19 (So burning the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves wouldemit more than three times the emissions associated with a safe globalcarbon budget).

This does not take account of unconventional reserves. The InternationalEnergy Agency (IEA) has developed a ‘Golden Age of Gas’ scenario.20 Thisassumes ‘‘an accelerated global expansion of gas supply from un-conventional resources’’ so that ‘‘demand for gas grows by more than 50% to2035’’ which ‘‘puts CO2 emissions on a long-term trajectory consistent with aprobable temperature rise of more than 3.5 degrees Celsius (1C) in the longterm, well above the widely accepted 2 1C target’’. The IEA’s Chief Economist,Fatih Birol, has admitted ‘‘we are not saying that it will be a golden age forhumanity – we are saying it will be a golden age for gas’’.21

2.1.2 Implications for the UK. If the world can only burn approximately athird of its proven fossil fuel reserves, then what does this mean for indi-vidual countries? Climate change is a global problem, requiring the co-operation of all countries. The Framework Convention on Climate Change,signed by 195 nations, states that ‘‘The Parties should protect the climatesystem for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind,on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differen-tiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the de-veloped country Parties should take the lead in combating climate changeand the adverse effects thereof’’.22

The issues of responsibility, fairness and justice run through internationalclimate negotiations. The global temperature rise is due to a combination ofboth future and historic emissions: the cumulative build-up of greenhousegases in the atmosphere. Put simply, developed countries are over-whelmingly responsible for historic emissions, and so developing countrieshave a greater claim to remaining future emissions. As a result, splitting anyremaining global carbon budget by a country’s share of the world populationwould be equal, but not compatible with the Convention’s or the subsequentCopenhagen Accord’s ‘‘differentiated responsibilities’’ – for it would be ig-noring all historic responsibility.

Table 1 Global fossil fuel reserves.

Proven reservesEmissions fromproven reserves (Gt CO2)

Oil 236 billion tonnes 724Gas 187 trillion cubic metres 396Coal 861 billion tonnes 1667

Total 2787

204 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

It is hard to see why any developing country would accept any limits on itsown production if countries which have used vast amounts of fossil fuels inthe past are able to ignore this historical responsibility. This means the ‘startdate’ for calculations of national carbon budgets needs to be amended. Astart date of 1990 – widely used in climate negotiations – seems an absoluteminimum. Taking into account historical emissions more comprehensivelywould mean a much earlier start date.

Adding the actual global carbon emissions for 1990–1999 (234 Gt CO2) toMeinshausen’s 2000–2049 global carbon budget for a 33% chance of notexceeding a 2 1C global temperature rise (1158 Gt CO2)17 gives a global figureof 1400 Gt CO2 (rounded to the nearest 50 Gt). On a per capita basis, the UK’sshare of this budget is 12.2 Gt CO2.

How much of this have we used already? Since 1990, the UK has extractedoil, gas and coal resulting in emissions of 12.1 Gt CO2. On this basis, theUK’s remaining carbon budget is 0.1 Gt CO2. The use of production ratherthan consumption figures here is deliberate. Consumption levels are clearlycritical, but production and consumption are linked, and production in onecountry can affect consumption in another: shale gas production in the UShas led to coal exports to Europe (see section 2.1.3).

Maintaining and indeed increasing fossil fuel production creates add-itional pressure to maintain fossil-fuel-based consumption patterns andmakes it harder to reduce demand. Global carbon emissions need to peakand decline almost immediately – this requires a twin approach of reducingdemand and reducing supply of fossil fuels. Friends of the Earth believesthat the prospects of a strong global deal on climate change are made muchless likely if developed countries like the UK continue to accelerate their ownfossil fuel production programmes.

However, the UK is still aiming to maximise hydrocarbon recovery. TheGovernment’s central projections for conventional fossil fuel productionwould emit 3.7 Gt CO2 – already many (37) times our remaining carbonbudget. The production of unconventional gas and oil would add signifi-cantly to this, including a potential additional 7 Gt CO2 from shale gas,based on the recovery of 130 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of shale gas, which is10% of the central (P50) total gas-in-place estimate in the Bowland Shale.23

The potential for shale gas is underpinning the Government’s desire to buildnew gas-fired power stations, risking lock-in to gas. The Government’s officialadvisors, the Committee on Climate Change, have written of the dangers ofsuch a ‘dash for gas’: ‘‘The apparently ambivalent position of the Governmentabout whether it is trying to build a low-carbon or a gas-based power systemweakens the signal provided by carbon budgets to investors (and is) damagingprospects for required low-carbon investments’’.24 Similar views have been ex-pressed by the respected think-tank Chatham House: ‘‘also significant is theargument that a ramping up of shale gas operations could come at the expenseof needed investment in renewable energies like wind and solar’’.25

The Tyndall Centre has calculated that the cost of building shale-gas-generated electricity capacity in the UK (well costs plus power station costs)

205Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

could provide the same electricity generation capacity from onshore andoffshore wind.26

2.1.3 ‘Instead of’ or ‘As well as’?. Fatih Birol of the IEA has said that anincrease in unconventional gas production would be ‘‘a good move if it re-places coal. . . but it is definitely not the optimum path’’.27 This commenthighlights another global-level issue: can we ensure that shale gas will beused instead of other fossil fuels, such as coal or conventional gas fromthe Arctic, rather than as well as them?

This has not been the case in recent years in the US. Analysis by the TyndallCentre for Climate Change Research shows that fuel switching (from coal toshale gas) in the US power sector may account for up to half the total nationalemissions reduction.28 However, the consequent drop in the price of coal hasled to an increase in exports, including to the UK where coal use for electricitygeneration in the UK rose from 30% in 2011 to 39% in 2012, the latest full yearfor which figures are available.29 Tyndall estimates that just over half of theemissions avoided in the US power sector have been ‘exported’ as coal.

2.1.4 Carbon Capture and Storage. Many fossil fuel advocates claim thatproblems of carbon emissions can be addressed through the use of carboncapture and storage (CCS). CCS involves the capture of carbon dioxideemissions from fossil-fuel burning and their storage underground wherethey cannot have an impact on the atmosphere (see Carbon Capture, vol.29, in this Issues in Environmental Science series).

Friends of the Earth believes that CCS may have a transitional role to playin future energy policy, retrofitting many current gas-fired power stations inthe UK and elsewhere, and also being used in industry (e.g. cement, steel)but it is no panacea:

� It can only deal with some fossil-fuel emissions – on power stations andlarge industrial processes, but not on domestic and commercial heatingwhich accounts for much of the UK’s gas consumption;

� It does not eliminate carbon emissions completely;� The use together of the three elements of CCS (capture, transport and

storage) is still commercially unproven at commercial scale; and� It does not have a large impact on carbon budgets. Carbon Tracker has

estimated that even an ‘‘idealised’’ scenario of huge investment in CCSinfrastructure would only extend global carbon budgets by 125 Gt CO2.

30

At present, CCS seems to be more a justification for allowing coal and gasinvestment to go ahead on the speculative assumption that CCS will be fittedin the future.

In conclusion with regard to climate change, extracting shale gas is justadding to the stock of unburnable carbon at both the global and UK levels. Itis underpinning the Government’s ‘dash for gas’ and could adversely affectinvestment in renewables.

206 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

2.2 Water Resources

Fracking is a water-intensive process. Estimates of water use vary from 250 –4000 m3 for drilling and 7000–23 000 m3 for fracking, depending on factorssuch as geology, depth and thickness of the shale.31

In the UK, the total volume of water that could be needed if a frackingindustry were to develop has been assessed as relatively low at the nationallevel in comparison to other uses. However, there could be local and regionalconcerns. The Weald in South East England is a key target area for un-conventional fossil fuels but the water resources in many parts of the regionare already over-abstracted. The pressures of increased demand (frompopulation growth, a growth in the number of households and economicgrowth), reform of the abstraction regime and the impacts of climate changeon weather patterns could add to these problems. Water UK has commentedthat ‘‘where water is in short supply there may not be enough available frompublic water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements forhydraulic fracturing’’.32

2.3 Water Contamination

The risk of water contamination is one of the most controversial issues inthe fracking debate. The industry and its advocates point to studies such as‘Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Develop-ment’ from the Energy Institute of the University of Texas at Austin,33 whichconcluded that ‘‘there is at present little or no evidence of groundwatercontamination from hydraulic fracturing of shales at normal depths’’ andmake claims such as ‘‘Hydraulic fracturing has been in use for more than60 years without any confirmed cases of groundwater contamination’’.34

However, it is necessary to examine such claims more closely.High-volume hydraulic fracturing, such as is carried out today in the US

and as is proposed for the UK, has not been in use for more than 60 years.The first well fracked was in 1947, but this was a vertical well using 1000gallons of napalm injected at relatively low pressure. High volume hydraulicfracturing has been made possible by technical developments in the lastdecade such as horizontal drilling, the use of friction-reducers to create‘slickwater’ and drilling several wells from one well-pad.

The claim that there have been no proven cases of groundwater con-tamination is also questionable. The US Environmental Protection Agencyannounced that it did not intend to complete an investigation into thepollution of an aquifer in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming, although it hadpreviously stated in a draft report that ‘‘the data indicates likely impact toground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing’’.35 Some claimthat this is not the only case where the EPA has stopped its investigations.36

It is also suspected that many claims about groundwater contamination havebeen settled out of court with confidentiality agreements.37

Finally, the industry and its advocates typically adopt a very narrow def-inition of the word fracking, referring just to the stimulation of the well. This

207Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

leads to claims that problems caused by well failure or accidents involvingtrucks carrying fracking chemicals are not ascribed to fracking.38

One study of aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shales in thenorth-eastern US found ‘‘systematic evidence of methane contamination ofgroundwater associated with shale gas extraction’’.39 A review by AssociatedPress (AP) of complaints about well-water contamination in Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia found many confirmed cases of waterpollution from oil and gas drilling. AP concluded that the review ‘‘castsdoubt on industry suggestions that such problems rarely happen’’.40

Methane and fracking fluid may escape/contaminate water via a numberof different routes:

� Migration down naturally occurring fractures in the rock or via exten-sion of fractures created by fracking or via nearby abandoned wells;

� Leaks via well-casings that have been inadequately completed orwhich have subsequently failed (probably a greater risk than thatabove); and

� Leaks or spills of fracking fluid or ‘produced water’ above ground.

If there is a risk of contamination, what chemicals could be involved? Amajor problem is that there is limited data on the chemicals that have beenused for fracking. This is because US law excludes fracking from federalregulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. However disclosure isrequired by some US states and some companies are posting the com-position of the fracking fluid they are using online. In the UK, companieswill be required to publish the contents of fracking fluid.

One study in the US looked at 944 products containing 632 chemicals usedin natural gas operations and assessed the health impacts of 353 chemicals.According to the authors ‘‘more than 75% of the chemicals could affect theskin, eyes, and other sensory organs, and the respiratory and gastrointestinalsystems. Approximately 40–50% could affect the brain/nervous system, im-mune and cardiovascular systems, and the kidneys; 37% could affect theendocrine system; and 25% could cause cancer and mutations’’.41

A study reported in the Journal of Endocrinology analysed water samplestaken from sites near active fracking wells in Garfield County, Colorado, andfrom control sites in the same and an adjoining county.42 The study foundthat the samples from sites near active fracking wells contained higher levelsof endocrine-disrupting chemicals that could increase the risk of repro-ductive, neurological and other diseases.

The fracking industry claims, rightly, that the chemicals used are only avery small percentage of the total volume of liquid that is pumped under-ground. However, given the volume of water used in fracking, this stillrepresents a very large quantity of chemicals. Fracking one well uses between9 and 29 million litres of water, so even if chemicals account for only 0.5% ofthe water volume, this means between 45 000 and 145 000 litres of chemicalsused per well.

208 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

In addition to the chemicals, fracking waste water may also contain sub-stances from deep underground such as strontium, benzene, toluene andNaturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) such as Radium 226.

2.4 Health Impacts

In addition to potential problems caused by water contamination, frackingfor shale gas has also been linked to increased levels of air pollution andassociated health problems. Air pollution was identified as a ‘high risk’ bythe European Commission study mentioned above.

In 2013 Public Health England (PHE), an executive agency of the Depart-ment of Health, produced a draft report Review of the Potential Public HealthImpacts of Exposures to Chemical and Radioactive Pollutants as a Result ofShale Gas Extraction. The general conclusion was that ‘‘the potential risks topublic health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas ex-traction are low if the operations are properly run and regulated’’.43 Withregard to air pollution, PHE concluded that ‘‘the available evidence suggeststhat while emissions from individual well pads are low and unlikely to havean impact on local air quality, the cumulative impact of a number of wellpads may be locally and regionally quite significant’’.

An initial assessment by McKenzie et al.44 looking at birth outcomes foundan association between the density and proximity of natural gas wells withina 10-mile radius of a mother’s home and the prevalence of congenital heartdefects and neural tube defects (defects of the brain, spine or spinal cord).The authors stated, however, that more detail was needed on levels of ex-posure during pregnancy.

A separate assessment by McKenzie et al.45 looked at the risks from ex-posure to hydrocarbons, notably benzene, near fracking wells in Colorado. Itfound that the risk of cancer was increased for people living within half amile of a well compared to those living more than half a mile away – from 6in a million to 10 in a million. It also found that non-cancer health impactswere greater for those living nearer wells.

PHE indicated that their assessment was in some cases based on limitedevidence – for example, at the time of their report, there had only been onepeer-reviewed assessment of the health impacts of air emissions from shalegas operations: the 2012 McKenzie study mentioned previously. However, asthe US group, Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE),has written, with reference to the health impacts of fracking, ‘‘lack of data isnot an indication of an absence of harm’’.46 According to PSE, history offersseveral examples of where ‘‘health-damaging industrial activities were scaledmuch more rapidly than the science of its health effects and subsequentevidence-based policy development’’, including tobacco, PCBs, asbestos andleaded petrol. PSE conclude that ‘‘the science should be put before riskyindustrial processes are allowed to be scaled’’.

In the absence of adequate data, we believe the Precautionary Principleshould apply. Friends of the Earth agrees with the authors of a paper in the

209Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

American Journal of Public Health that ‘‘The paucity of scientific evidencelooking at the public health impact of natural gas extraction complicates theissue. It is difficult and potentially dangerous to formulate policy andregulations in a vacuum’’.47

2.5 Earthquakes

The rise in concern about fracking in the UK started when test-fracking byCuadrilla in Lancashire triggered low-level earthquakes, although it says thatthese tremors were far too weak to cause any damage to buildings or harm topeople.48

However, a possibly even greater risk is to the integrity of the well-casings, typically made of steel and cemented in place, designed to reduceor eliminate the possibility of leaking methane or flowback water. TonyGrayling, Head of Climate Change at the Environment Agency, hasacknowledged that this could be a problem. Referring to the Lancashireearthquakes, which did damage the well-casing,49 he said, ‘‘we need tounderstand what is the maximum damage that might be done in suchcircumstances to a well and the integrity of the casing, whether it wouldincrease the risk of a leak. If there is ground water in the vicinity, that couldbe a problem’’.50

Evidence from the US shows that the Lancashire experience is not unique.Several US states have experienced seismic activity following shale gas dril-ling and fracking in areas where this has not previously happened. Althougha clear causal link has not been proved in all cases, a close correlation be-tween fracking and earth tremors can be seen.51

2.6 Will UK Regulation be Adequate?

The Government and industry claim that the UK’s regulatory regime isstrong enough to prevent any problems. Typical of such views is that of theUK Onshore Operators Group: ‘‘The UK has much stricter regulations thananywhere else in the world and is recognised as the gold standard’’.52

However, Friends of the Earth believes that better regulation can make theindustry safer, but not safe. As has been referred to above, the UnitedNations Environment Programme has concluded ‘‘Hydrologic fracking mayresult in unavoidable environmental impacts even if (unconventional gas) isextracted properly, and more so if done inadequately. Even if risk can bereduced theoretically, in practice many accidents from leaky or mal-functioning equipment as well as from bad practices are regularlyoccurring’’.6

Friends of the Earth is concerned that the proposed regulation of un-conventional gas and oil activity is flawed because:

� It fails to ensure that a precautionary approach is adopted;� It fails to address the serious climate change impacts of burning un-

conventional gas and oil;

210 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

� It is inadequately enforced;� It is not bespoke, despite the United Nations Environment Program,

referencing the European Commission, stating that unconventional gasand oil operations ‘‘will require dedicated regulations’’.6

3 Local Economic Impacts

At the heart of the UK Government’s support for shale gas is its claimedboost to the economy through lowering energy bills and creating jobs. Inneither case is the issue as clear cut as the Government makes out.

3.1 Energy Bills

Rising energy prices are a key political issue in the UK. Household energybills rose by 44% in real terms between 2002 and 2011.53 The main reasonfor this was rising gas prices, which accounted for almost two-thirds of theincrease in the average dual-fuel energy bill between 2004 and 2010.54

Claims about lowering energy bills have been key for the Government. TheChancellor of the Exchequer signalled his enthusiasm for shale gas when hetold the Conservative Party Conference in 2012 that he wanted to make surethat Britain was not ‘‘left behind as gas prices tumble on the other side of theAtlantic’’. More recently, Prime Minister David Cameron has written that‘‘fracking has real potential to drive energy bills down... gas and electric billscan go down when our home-grown energy supply goes up’’.55

But these claims have been widely refuted:

� The Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Ed Davey, has saidthat ‘‘North Sea Gas didn’t significantly move UK prices – so we can’texpect UK shale production alone to have any effect’’;56

� Lord Stern, one of the world’s leading climate-change economists, hasdescribed the Prime Minister’s claims as ‘‘baseless economics’’;57 and

� Lord Browne, the Chairman of Cuadrilla Resources (the leading drillingcompany in the UK) said that fracking in the UK ‘‘is not going to havematerial impact on price’’.58

Shale gas production costs in Europe are likely to be higher than in the US.Reasons for this include less-promising geology, higher population densityand associated problems of land availability, the lack of a competitive on-shore drilling and services industry and tougher environmental regulation.59

Factors such as these led the International Energy Agency (IEA) to concludethat operating costs in Europe will be 30–50% higher than in the US.60

Claims of cheaper gas prices also ignore global market dynamics. Demandfor gas is rising fast, particularly from China, India and other emergingeconomies. This growing demand is likely to soak up new gas supplies,potentially keeping supply constrained and prices high, meaning that ‘‘UK

211Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

households and industry would be tied to a highly unpredictable rollercoaster of gas prices that are generally high and can spike higher due tovolatility’’.61

Bloomberg New Energy Finance has estimated that ‘‘the cost of shale gasextraction in the UK will be between $7.10 and $12.20/MMBtu. . . similar tothe range of market prices for natural gas seen in the UK during the courseof 2012’’ and concluded that hopes that shale gas will lead to lower energyprices for the UK ‘‘should be treated as wishful thinking’’.62 The IEA’s an-alysis shows that gas prices in Europe will be around 40% higher than todayin both 2020 and 2035.61

3.2 Jobs and Local Economy

The shale gas industry paints an overwhelmingly positive picture of its localeconomic impact through job creation. A report for Cuadrilla has claimedthat shale gas production in Lancashire could create up to 6500 full-timeequivalent jobs in the UK as a whole, with 1700 of these in Lancashire.63

The Institute of Directors has calculated that the production phase of a UKgas industry could support up to 74 000 jobs (direct, indirect and induced).64

However, US experience shows that such claims should be treated withscepticism: numbers can be over-stated;65 most employment is in the dril-ling phase, which only lasts around a year;66 and many jobs go to transientworkers who move from one well to another, with 70% of gas-well drillingjobs in Pennsylvania going to people from out of state.67

Job projection claims for UK shale gas vary greatly. The EnvironmentalReport prepared for the Government ahead of a possible new onshore oiland gas licensing round assessed that the new licensing round could createbetween 2500 and 5000 jobs (direct, indirect and induced) in the low-activityscenario and 16 000–32 000 jobs in the high-activity scenario.68

Studies of job creation rarely look at potential negative impacts on othersectors. For example, the Regeneris research for Cuadrilla made no assess-ment of the possible impacts of fracking on tourism and agriculture. Theseare key parts of the local economy in the area where Cuadrilla hopes to drill.

4 Energy Security

Another key argument supporting shale gas in the Government’s armoury isthat it will improve the UK’s energy security, providing a secure domesticsource of gas to replace declining production from the North Sea, and reduceour dependency on imports.

However, there is no guarantee that any shale gas drilled in the UK will beused here. The UK is part of a wider European energy market and gas couldbe sold elsewhere in Europe.

What level of shale gas extraction would be needed in the UK to eliminateimports? Bloomberg New Energy Finance has calculated that this wouldrequire the drilling of 10 000–20 000 wells over a 15-year period, with a peak

212 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

drilling level of around 1000 wells per year.69 At the European level, analysisfor the European Commission shows that, even under the most optimisticscenario for the development of shale gas in the EU, production only offsetsthe decline in conventional production and import dependence will stay ataround 60% in 2040.70

However, this analysis looks at energy security purely from the perspectiveof security of supply. Friends of the Earth believes energy security should bedefined more broadly than just about supply and geopolitics, and shouldalso include price security (providing energy at reasonable prices) and en-vironmental security (achieving emissions targets and minimising otherimpacts). In a report for Friends of the Earth, energy security expert, Pro-fessor Michael Bradshaw, concluded that ‘‘the best way to reduce the energysecurity risks associated with the UK’s growing gas import dependence is tohold the course, promote renewable power generation, improve energy ef-ficiency and reduce overall energy demand’’.71

5 Other Forms of Unconventional Gas

Much of the attention in the UK and elsewhere in Europe in recent years hasfocused on fracking for shale gas. But this is not the only form of un-conventional fossil fuel that is arousing interest in the UK and Europe today.Companies are also investigating the potential for shale oil, coal bed me-thane and underground coal gasification.

Coal bed methane (CBM) is gas which is trapped in coal seams. To extractCBM, companies must ‘de-water’ the coal seam by drilling vertically andthen horizontally (for up to 1 kilometre) and pumping out vast quantities ofwater. This releases the pressure in the coal seams and allows the gas to flow.CBM extraction does not always involve fracking – at least not in the earlyyears of an operation. But if seams are not porous, or when gas flow starts todecline after a few years, wells are often fracked to increase productivity. InAustralia, where CBM (known there as coal seam gas) is more developed, theindustry estimates that up to 40% of wells end up being fracked72 (see alsoChapter 6 by Prof Alan Randall in this book).

Coal bed methane extraction brings many of the same problems as shalegas. Although CBM extraction does not always involve fracking, the chem-icals used in CBM drilling muds can be just as toxic as those used infracking, and there are the same risks of spills and leakages. And becauseCBM is typically found at much shallower depths than shale gas (up to 1200m underground for CBM, compared to 2000–3000 m for shale gas), riskssuch as groundwater contamination are increased.

CBM waste water is extremely salty and has been found to contain not onlyharmful chemicals from the drilling fluids used, but also highly toxic BTEX(benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes) chemicals, including knowncarcinogens, and naturally-occurring radioactive materials.73 Spills andleaks of drilling fluids can also contaminate agricultural land and harmlivestock. Vast quantities of contaminated water must be treated and

213Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

disposed of. Evidence is emerging from Australia that existing treatmentscannot remove all the toxins found in CBM wastewater.74

Communities living near CBM extraction sites in Australia have com-plained of respiratory problems, rashes and irritated eyes,75 though researchhas not been done to corroborate a link. The risks posed to the local en-vironment and human health have contributed to the imposition of a ban inNew South Wales on CBM extraction within 2 km of residential areas.76

Underground coal gasification (UCG) involves the partial combustionunderground of coal and the capture of the produced gas. By making ittheoretically possible to use previously inaccessible coal seams, UCG canincrease usable coal reserves – by 300–400% according to some sources.However, it involves both local environmental risks, notably subsidence andwater contamination (one pilot project in Australia was shut down followingthe discovery of benzene and toluene in nearby groundwater monitoringbores),77 and also contributes to climate change. This could be addressed bythe use of CCS technology, and in the UK the Environment Agency has saidthis will be required if UCG is to be used for power generation.78 However,one comprehensive analysis of the climate impacts of UCG has found thatUCG is unlikely to be deployed widely with more than partial CCS, meaningthat carbon emissions could still be significant.79

6 Friends of the Earth’s Vision

Friends of the Earth believes that the priority for the UK’s energy system isreducing our reliance on fossil fuels, basing our energy future on reducingenergy waste and exploiting the UK’s vast potential for renewables.

Figure 1 UK electricity mix 2010.

214 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

6.1 The Power Sector

Using the 2050 Pathways model developed by the Department for Energy &Climate Change, Friends of the Earth has shown how the UK can move from75% of its electricity being generated from fossil fuels in 2010 to roughly75% being generated from renewable sources in 2030 (see Figures 1 and 2).80

This does not involve new nuclear power stations. By 2030, the UK relies on amix of technologies: offshore wind, onshore wind, gas with CCS, unabatedgas, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal and hydro power, coupled with greaterlevels of interconnection, energy storage and smart demand-managementmethods to ensure reliability and security of supply. Gas is still used, but itsrole is reduced.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has set a target of a 60% cut inemissions by 2030 as a milestone on the route to the longer-term target of an80% emissions cut by 2050. The CCC has concluded that, to meet this goal‘‘it is crucial that the power sector is almost fully decarbonised by 2030’’. Ithas said that power sector emissions should be cut so that no more than 50 gof carbon dioxide are produced per kWh of electricity generated. Friends ofthe Earth’s pathway meets this target.

6.2 Heat

Clearly the power sector is not the only, or indeed the main, sector.81 In2012, 40% of UK gas use was in the domestic sector; accordingly, our

Figure 2 Possible UK electricity mix 2030.

215Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

dependency on gas must also include reducing the use of gas in the do-mestic sector, or changing how this gas is sourced.

This should involve:

� Improving home energy efficiency. A recent report from the Association forthe Conservation of Energy suggested that a home with an average levelof energy efficiency could save d313 a year (or 25% or their heating bill)and an average fuel-poor home could save d650 a year through energyefficiency measures.82 While some people are forced to choose betweenheating and eating due to poorly insulated homes, funding for energyefficiency schemes has reduced considerably since 2012. The only way tocut gas usage effectively, and deal with fuel poverty in the long-term, isthrough a large-scale, publicly funded energy-efficiency programme.

� Development of renewable gas. National Grid calculated in 2009 that re-newable gas (produced mainly via anaerobic digestion or thermal gas-ification of biodegradable waste) could meet up to 50% of the UK’sresidential gas demand.83 However, care needs to be taken about whe-ther the feedstock could be better dealt with by other means, such asrecycling, and the use of agricultural crops for anaerobic digestionneeds to be discouraged.

� Electrification of heat. Early decarbonisation of power generation allowsthe use of electricity for the decarbonisation of other sectors, such asheating through the use of ground- and air-source heat pumps. NationalGrid has said that this is a ‘‘critical component of decarbonising heat’’.84

References

1. Prime Minister’s Office, Local Councils to Receive Millions in BusinessRates from Shale Gas Developments, 2014; https://www.gov.uk/government/news/local-councils-to-receive-millions-in-business-rates-from-shale-gas-developments (last accessed 13/01/2014).

2. The Spectator, Conservative Conference: Owen Patterson says Yes to ShaleGas and No to Wind Farm Subsidies, 2012; http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/10/conservative-conference-owen-paterson-says-yes-to-shale-gas-and-no-to-wind-farms-subsidies/ (last accessed 01/12/2013).

3. European Commission, Impact Assessment accompanying the Communi-cation from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee ofthe Regions on Exploration and Production of Hydrocarbons (such as ShaleGas) using High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in the EU, 2014.

4. DECC, The Myths and Realities of Shale Gas Exploration, 2013; https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-myths-and-realities-of-shale-gas-exploration (last accessed 14/01/2014).

5. AEA Technology for the European Commission, Support to the Identifi-cation of Potential Risks for the Environment and Human Health arising fromHydrocarbons Operations involving Hydraulic Fracturing in Europe, 2012.

216 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

6. UNEP, Gas Fracking: Can we Safely Squeeze the Rocks?, 2012.7. Advertising Standards Authority, ASA Adjudication on Cuadrilla

Resources Ltd, 2013; http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx (last accessed 09/12/2013).

8. IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2013: ThePhysical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the FifthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,ed. T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J.Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

9. Commission of the European Communities, Limiting Global ClimateChange to 2 degrees Celsius. The way ahead for 2020 and beyond, 2007.

10. J. McCarthy, O. Canziani, N. Leary, D. Dokken and K. White, ClimateChange 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

11. J. B. Smith, S. H. Schneider, M. Oppenheimer, G. W. Yohe, W. Hare, M.D. Mastandrea, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, J. Corfee-Morlot, C. H. D.Magadza, H.-M. Fussel, A. B. Pittock, A. Rahman, A. Suarez and J.-P.van Ypersele, Assessing dangerous climate change through an updateof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘‘reasons forconcern’’, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2009, 106(11), 4133–4137.

12. Carbon Tracker Initiative, Unburnable Carbon – Are the World’s FinancialMarkets carrying a Carbon Bubble?, 2012; http://www.carbontracker.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Unburnable-Carbon-Full-rev2-1.pdf(last accessed 06/06/2014).

13. The Guardian, The Peak Oil Brigade is leading us into Bad Policy making onEnergy, 2011; http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/18/energy-price-volatility-policy-fossil-fuels (last accessed 09/12/2013).

14. David Hone, Climate Change Advisor for Shell, The Carbon Bubble RealityCheck, 2013; http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2013/05/bubble/ (lastaccessed 10/12/2013).

15. DECC, Written Ministerial Statement by Edward Davey, Review of UKOffshore Oil and Gas Recovery, 2013; https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/written-ministerial-statement-by-edward-davey-review-of-uk-offshore-oil-and-gas-recovery (last accessed 07/01/2014).

16. Friends of the Earth, The UK, Shale Gas and Unburnable Carbon: Ques-tions for the Government, 2013.

17. M. Meinshausen, N. Meinshausen, W. Hare, S. Raper, K. Frieler, R.Knutti, D. Frame and M. Allen, Supplementary information – Green-house gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 1C, Nature,2009, 458, 1158–1162, doi: 10.1038/nature08017.

18. Using data from J. Olivier, G. Janssens-Marhout and J. Peters, Trends inGlobal CO2 Emissions 2012 Report, PBL Netherlands Environmental As-sessment Agency, The Hague, 2012. (The subsequent figures are verysimilar to those in Meinshausen et al.17).

217Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

19. Reserves and conversion data from BP, Statistical review of World Energy2013, 2013.

20. International Energy Agency, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas, 2012.21. BBC, Campaigners’ Anger over Agency’s Shale Gas Report, 2012; http://

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18236535 (last accessed 12/01/2014).

22. United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange, 1992.

23. I. J. Andrews, The Carboniferous Bowland Shale Gas Study: Geology andResource Estimation, British Geological Survey for Department of Energy& Climate Change, London, UK, 2013.

24. Committee on Climate Change, The Need for a Carbon Intensity Target inthe Power Sector, 2012.

25. P. Stevens, Why Shale Gas Won’t Conquer Britain, 2014; http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/opinion/why-shale-gas-wont-conquer-britain.html (last accessed 17/01/2014).

26. J. Broderick, K. Anderson, R. Wood, P. Gilbert, M. Sharmina, A. Footitt,S. Glynn and F. Nicholls, Shale Gas: An Updated Assessment of Environ-mental and Climate Change Impacts, A report commissioned by The Co-operative and undertaken by researchers at the Tyndall Centre, Uni-versity of Manchester, 2011.

27. EurActiv, Shale Gas Strategy ‘Not the Optimum Path’: Fatih Birol, 2012;http://www.euractiv.com/energy/fatih-birol-gas-definitely-optim-news-513043 (last accessed 01/12/2013).

28. J. Broderick and K. Anderson, Has US Shale Gas Reduced CO2 Emissions?,Tyndall Centre, Manchester, 2012.

29. DECC, Digest of UK Energy Statistics, 2013.30. Carbon Tracker Initiative, Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital and

Stranded Assets, 2013.31. Chartered Institute of Water & Environmental Management, Shale Gas

and Water, 2014.32. Water UK, Briefing Paper – Impacts of the Exploration for and Extraction of

Shale Gas on Water and Waste Water Service Providers, 2013.33. C. G. Groat and T. W. Grimshaw, Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental

Protection in Shale Gas Development, University of Texas at Austin, 2012.34. Real Clear Energy, Gasland II and Anti-Energy Extremists, 2013; http://

www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2013/06/19/gasland_ii_and_anti-energy_extremists.html (last accessed 15/01/2014).

35. US Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Report – Investigation ofGround Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming, 2011.

36. ProPublica, EPA’s Abandoned Wyoming Fracking Study One Retreat ofMany, 2013; http://www.propublica.org/article/epas-abandoned-wyoming-fracking-study-one-retreat-of-many accessed 01/11/2013).

37. Bloomberg, Drillers Silence Fracking Claims with Sealed Settlements, 2013;http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/drillers-silence-fracking-claims-with-sealed-settlements.html (last accessed 01/11/2013).

218 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

38. EcoNews, Industry Word Games Mislead Americans on Fracking, 2013;http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/08/industry-mislead-americans-on-fracking/ (last accessed 10/11/2013).

39. S. G. Osborn, A. Vengosh, N. R. Warner and R. B. Jackson, Methanecontamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling andhydraulic fracturing, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2011 ; published aheadof print May 9, 2011; doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108.

40. USA Today, 4 States Confirm Water Pollution from Drilling, 2014; http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/ (last accessed 12/01/2014).

41. T. Colborn, C. Kwiatowski, K. Schultz and M. Bachran, Natural gasoperations from a public health perspective, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess.: Int. J.,2011, 17(5), 1039–1056.

42. C. D. Kassotis, D. E. Tillitt, J. W. Davis, A. Hormann and S. C. Nagel,Estrogen and androgen receptor activities of hydraulic fracturingchemicals and surface and ground water in a drilling-dense region’’,Endocrinology, 155(3), 897–907.

43. Public Health England, Review of the Potential Public Health Impacts ofExposures to Chemical and Radioactive Pollutants as a Result of Shale GasExtraction – Draft for Comment, 2013.

44. L. M. McKenzie, R. Guo, R. Z. Witter, D. A. Savitz, L. S. Newman and J. L.Adgate, Birth outcomes and maternal residential proximity to naturalgas development in rural Colorado, Environ. Health Perspect., 2014; doi:10.1289/ehp.1306722.

45. L. M. McKenzie, R. Z. Witter, L. S. Newman and J. L. Aldgate, Humanhealth risk assessment of air emissions from development of un-conventional natural gas resources, Sci. Total Environ., 2012; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018.

46. Physicians, Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy, Impedimentsto Public Health Research on Shale (Tight) Oil and Gas Development,2013.

47. M. Finkel, J. Hays and A. Law, The shale gas boom and the need forrational policy, Am. J. Public Health, 2013, 103, 1161–1163.

48. Daily Telegraph, Cuadrilla admits drilling caused Blackpool earthquakes,2011; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8864669/Cuadrilla-admits-drilling-caused-Blackpool-earthquakes.html (last accessed14/01/2014).

49. C. A. Green, P. Styles and B. J. Baptie, Preese Hall Shale Gas Fracturing:Review and Recommendations for Induced Seismic Mitigation’’, 2012.

50. The Times, Blackpool tremors reopen questions over fracking, 2012; http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/naturalresources/article3310081.ece (last accessed 01/10/2013).

51. StateImpact, How Fracking Causes Earthquakes, But Not the Onein Virginia, 2011; http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/08/26/how-fracking-causes-earthquakes-but-not-the-one-in-virginia/ (last accessed14/01/2014).

219Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

52. Kent Online, Kent outlined as key battleground for fracking at four sitesin Tilmanstone, Guston Court Farm, Shepherdswell and Woodnesbor-ough, 2013; http://www.kentonline.co.uk/east_kent_mercury/news/fracking-our-future-hope-or-8502/ (last accessed 14/01/2014).

53. National Audit Office, Infrastructure Investment: The Impact on ConsumerBills, 2013.

54. Committee on Climate Change, Household Energy Bills – Impacts ofMeeting Carbon Budgets, 2011.

55. Daily Telegraph, We cannot afford to miss out on shale gas, 2013; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10236664/We-cannot-afford-to-miss-out-on-shale-gas.html (last accessed 14/01/2014).

56. DECC, The Myths and Realities of Shale Gas Exploration, 2013; https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-myths-and-realities-of-shale-gas-exploration (last accessed 14/01/2014).

57. The Independent, ’Baseless economics’: Lord Stern on David Cameron’sclaims that a UK fracking boom can bring down price of gas, 2013;http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/baseless-economics-lord-stern-on-david-camerons-claims-that-a-uk-fracking-boom-can-bring-down-price-of-gas-8796758.html (last accessed 12/01/2104).

58. The Guardian, Lord Browne: fracking will not reduce UK gas prices, 2013;http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/29/browne-fracking-not-reduce-uk-gas-prices-shale-energy-bills (last accessed 14/01/2014).

59. Chatham House, The Shale Gas Revolution: Hype and Reality, 2010.60. International Energy Agency, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas,

2012.61. New Scientist, The UK’s new dash for gas is a dangerous gamble, 2012;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22594-the-uks-new-dash-for-gas-is-a-dangerous-gamble.html (last accessed 12/01/2014).

62. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, UK shale gas no ‘‘Get Out Of Jail Free’’card, 2013; http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/uk-shale-gas-no-get-out-of-jail-free-card/ (last accessed 15/12/2013).

63. Regeneris Consulting, Economic Impact of Shale Gas Exploration & Pro-duction in Lancashire and the UK, 2011.

64. Institute of Directors, Getting Shale Gas Working, 2013.65. Industry Week, The great debate over shale gas employment figures,

2011; http://www.industryweek.com/public-policy/great-debate-over-shale-gas-employment-figures (last accessed 06/01/2014).

66. Regeneris research for Cuadrilla showing that the number of jobs cre-ated at around 1600 in Lancashire and 5600 in the UK for four yearsfrom 2016 to 2019, falling to under 200 from 2022 onwards.

67. ENR New York, Hydrofracking offers Short-Term Boom, Long-Term Bust,2011; http://newyork.construction.com/opinions/viewpoint/2011/0307_HydrofrackingOffers.asp (last accessed 06/01/2014).

68. DECC, Strategic Environmental Assessment for further Onshore Oil and Gaslicensing – Environmental Report, 2013.

220 Tony Bosworth

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online

69. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, UK shale gas no ‘‘Get Out Of Jail Free’’card, 2013; http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/uk-shale-gas-no-get-out-of-jail-free-card/ (last accessed 15/12/2013).

70. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Unconventional Gas: Po-tential Energy Market Impacts in the European Union, 2012.

71. Professor Michael Bradshaw for Friends of the Earth, Time to take ourfoot off the gas?, 2012.

72. Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Ef-ficiency, Coal Seam Gas Estimation and Reporting of Greenhouse GasEmissions, 2012.

73. National Toxics Network, Toxic Chemicals in the Exploration and Pro-duction of Gas from Unconventional Sources, 2013.

74. National Toxics Network, Submission to New South Wales Inquiry intoCoal Seam Gas, 2011.

75. National Toxics Network, Toxic Chemicals in the Exploration and Pro-duction of Gas from Unconventional Sources’’, 2013.

76. New South Wales Government, Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones, 2013;http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/coal-seam-gas-exclusion-zones (last ac-cessed 17/01/2014).

77. The Australian, Underground Coal Gasification Plant near Kingaroy ShutDown after Cancer-causing Chemical found in bores, 2010; http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/underground-coal-gasification-plant-near-kingaroy-shut-down-after-cancer-causing-chemical-found-in-bores/story-e6frg6n6-1225892659672 (last accessed 17/01/2014).

78. Environment Agency, Underground Coal Gasification, 2010; http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/UCG_factsheet_16_Aug10.pdf (last accessed 06/01/2014).

79. McLaren Environmental for the European Climate Foundation, TheLikely Implications for Climate Change from Development and Deploymentof Underground Coal Gasification Technologies, 2012.

80. Friends of the Earth, A Plan for Clean British Energy, 2012.81. DECC, UK Energy in Brief 2013, 2013.82. Association for the Conservation of Energy/Energy Bill Revolution,

Burning Cash Day, 2014; http://www.energybillrevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ACE-and-EBR-briefing-2014-02-06-Burning-Cash-Day.pdf (last accessed 14/02/2014).

83. National Grid, The Potential for Renewable Gas in the UK, 2009.84. National Grid, Pathways for Decarbonising Heat, 2012.

221Unconventional and Unburnable

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Lan

cast

er o

n 17

/01/

2015

22:

12:3

5.

Publ

ishe

d on

19

Aug

ust 2

014

on h

ttp://

pubs

.rsc

.org

| do

i:10.

1039

/978

1782

6205

56-0

0199

View Online