Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom

History

The first experimental use of hydraulic fracturing in the world was in 1947, and the first commercially successful applications of hydraulic fracturing were in 1949 in the United States.

Offshore

In the United Kingdom, the first hydraulic fracturing of an oil well was carried out shortly after discovery of the West Sole field in the North Sea in 1965. After the industry started to use intermediate- and high-strength proppants in late 1970s, hydraulic fracturing became a common technique in the North Sea oil and gas wells. The first hydraulic fracturing from ship was conducted in the British Southern North Sea in 1980, with massive or high volume hydraulic fracturing used from 1984 onwards.

Onshore

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.

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. The company's first and only high-volume hydraulic fracturing job was performed in March 2011, near Blackpool, Lancashire. Cuadrilla halted operations in May 2011 at their Lancashire drilling site due to seismic activity damaging the casing in the production zone.

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 2.6 kilometres (1.6 mi) were hydraulically fractured "to research the hydraulic stimulation of fracture networks at temperatures below 100 ºC".

Method

This video from the Government explains shale gas and hydraulic fracturing.

Hydraulic fracturing is a well-stimulation technique in which rock is fractured by a hydraulically pressurized fluid. A high-pressure fluid (usually chemicals and a proppant suspended in water) is injected into a wellbore to create an extensive system of small cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas, petroleum, groundwater (in the case of water wells) and brine will flow more freely. In horizontally drilled sections, it is common to perform as many as 30 separate fracture stages, to evenly divide the production zone. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, small grains of hydraulic fracturing proppants (usually sand but aluminium oxide, or ceramic beads may be used) hold the fractures open when the pressure is released. The bulk of the additives are usually the proppant, up to 10%, but other chemicals designed to reduce water viscosity, and to modify other fluid properties may also be added, at quantities typically less than 1% in total. One of the differences between hydraulic fracturing in different countries is the usage of chemicals.

Other fracturing fluid systems such as: gels; foams, and; compressed gases, including nitrogen, carbon dioxide and air; can be injected in place of water. Waterless fracturing fluids have also been developed that use liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and propane. There is sometimes a need to hydraulically fracture in coalbed methane wells and these methods can be used.

Microseismic monitoring of fracture growth

Microseismic monitoring techniques, using very sensitive microphones 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 microphones. 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.

Understanding pressure

When a well is hydraulically fractured, or when any injection is carried out, this is done through a production packer (seal), and is done through the drill pipe or tubing. Fluids are circulated down the tubing, to below the point where the packer is sealed against the production casing. Pressure is then be applied only that part of the casing below the packer. The rest of the well casing will not experience any increase in pressure due to the sealing of the packer. The surface casings do not experience the great pressures experienced at the production zone. This means the stresses on a surface casing are no greater than on a normal oil or gas well. Smaller diameter pipes can sustain much larger pressures than large diameter pipes.

Areas of use

Although the first shale gas well was drilled in England already in 1875, only high volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling is likely to enable commercial extraction of unconventional hydrocarbon resources, such as shale gas and light tight oil, in the United Kingdom. The largest resource is expected to be the Upper Bowland Shale of the Pennine Basin in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

A BGS/Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) report from May 2014 suggest that there is the possibility for the extraction of light tight oil (LTO) in Weald Basin and the average figure of 4.4 billion barrels (700 million cubic metres) is suggested. The overall range of estimations is from 2.2 to 8.6 billion barrels (350 to 1,370 million cubic metres). The data is said to have a "high degree of uncertainty", and the amount that could be produced is unknown, and could be zero. Celtique Energie plans to apply for a permit to drill a test to an oil-bearing shale of the Weald Basin in 2014.

The Durham Energy Institute produced an evaluation of the likelihood of hydraulic fracturing in Britain's National Parks. The national parks with geologies of possible interest are 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).

The Eden Project in Cornwall is in the process of drilling and hydraulically fracturing two geothermal wells for utilisation of geothermal energy as a source for a geothermal power station.

Permitted chemicals

UK environment agencies (EA, NIEA, SEPA and NRW) permit only non-hazardous chemicals for hydraulic fracturing and drilling fluids. Each chemical is assessed on a case by case basis for each well. The nature (though not the concentration) of these chemicals must be made available to the public. Input of hazardous substances into groundwater, and also non potable water is not permitted.Substances on List I of the binding Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) are taken to be hazardous substances. and the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (EPR 2010) provides a description of these substances. SEPA performs this regulatory role in Scotland.

The European wide Groundwater Directive is European legislation that states. In order to protect the environment as a whole, and human health in particular, detrimental concentrations of harmful pollutants in groundwater must be avoided, prevented or reduced.

The Environment Agency definitions of groundwater and aquifer are here.

Substances on List Iof the JAGDAG list are classified as hazardous substances.

In the Preese Hall 1 well, the chemical concentration was 0.05%. The main additive is polyacrylamide, the purpose of which is to reduce the viscosity of the water, to allow faster pumping.It is classed as non hazardous. Additional chemicals that have been permitted are highly dilute hydrochloric acid, a sodium tracer salt and glutaraldehyde, which is used as a biocide in very small quantities, to sterilise the water. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation is another replacement available for sterilisation. Although hydraulic fracturing was not proposed in a well at Balcombe, the Environment Agency permitted one requested chemical oxirane, while not permitting the use of antimony trioxide which is suspected as being carcinogenic.

Drilling and HF Regulation

This video from the UK Government explains how the regulatory regime operates.

The latest regulations were published in August 2016.

Guidance for obtaining HF consent was published in February 2017.

The regulatory responsibilities have been summarised by the Industry body, UKOOG.

In 2012, a joint report by the Royal Society and Royal Association of Engineers (RS/RAE), commissioned by the government to identify the problems and advise regulatory agencies, emphasised that regulation "must be fit for purpose" with a focus on maintaining "regulatory co-ordination and capacity" and "the way in which risks scale up should a future shale gas industry develop nationwide." The government responded with a paper that outlined the requirements of the regulatory framework.

In January 2014, an impact assessment by the European Commission concluded that existing legal and regulatory environments were insufficient, and recommended a new directive with specific requirements for high volume hydraulic fracturing to address: "environmental risks and impacts"; allay "public concerns", and; "enable investments".In August 2016, the Environment Agency followed up their 2013 draft consultation with their final version on guidance for "flow testing and well stimulation, including hydraulic fracturing" for onshore operators in England.

Legislation

The Infrastructure Act 2015 Section 50 is a legislative bill covering aspects of "associated hydraulic fracturing" (unconventional means) for extracting onshore shale/tight oil and shale gas. The act defined "associated hydraulic fracturing", 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. Other legal requirements include a range of conditions that operators must comply with: "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"; "community benefits" and "prohibiting hydraulic fracturing in protected areas" before the Secretary of State can give consent to hydraulic fracturing. and geothermal industries.

Hydraulic fracturing is permitted below National Parks, AONBs, the Norfolk Broads, and World Hedritage sites at depths greater than 1200m.

Criticism

In 2012, the joint Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report was critical of current regulation which failed to ensure independence of the well examiner scheme by ensuring that the well examiner was independent of the operating company. The government responded: "there are a few well operators who wish to use in-house examiners, and that option is legally open to them if they can fulfil the DCR (Design and Construction Regulations) requirements of an appropriate level of impartiality and independence from any aspects of the well design/construction/operation."(paraphrase this instead of using quote)

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. 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.

In June 2015, the UK regulations for hydraulic fracturing were criticised by the chemicals policy charity, CHEM Trust, stating they were not sufficiently protective, and raising concerns about the reductions in funding for the regulators of fracking, like the Environment Agency. 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." and CHEM Trust responded.

Community and public engagement

The industry has committed to a package for communities that host shale development. This includes:

The chemical company INEOS have committed to '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 10km by 10km development area would generate £375m for the community over its lifespan'.

Environmental impact

The Government has issued a video that explains the various regulatory roles and requirements of the HSE and the Environment Agency.

In 2012, the Government commissioned a report to identify the problems and advise regulatory agencies. Jointly published by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Mair, the report included recommendations on groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakage, water usage and disposal, management of environmental risk, implementation of best practice, and various management and regulatory issues. According to Professor Mair,"well integrity is of key importance but the most common areas of concern, such as the causation of earthquakes with any significant impact or fractures reaching and contaminating drinking water, were very low risk" but the report stated adequate regulations must be put in place. 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". This report lead to a Government paper that outlined the requirements of the regulatory framework.

An operator needs to seek planning permission from the local minerals planning authority (MPA). The MPA/LPA/DOE will determine if an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required. EIAs cover a wide range of concerns, including habitat damage, effect on wildlife, traffic, noise, lighting, and air pollution. This reference shows one example. These are presented in less detail in a ' Non Technical Summary'.

In any event, the Environment Agency require that environmental risks due to drilling are evaluated prior to issuing licences to operate.

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".

A report from AMEC in December 2013 covers many of the environmental issues that would arise were the shale gas industry to become highly developed.

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 tack climate change, and the possibility that the process might cause water shortages. The report received some negative academic reviews based upon the main author being a Green Party candidate, and hydraulic fracturing protestor, and the alleged selective nature of some of the data used.

The ReFine consortium from Durham University has produced a series of short video presentations taking an independent academic view on the science of shale gas production. These cover the topics 'What is Shale Gas?', 'Hydraulic Fractures, how far can they go?' 'What sized earthquakes can be caused by fracking?', 'An overview of shale gas risks', and 'Fracked or Friction?'.

The British Geological Survey are involved with environmental monitoring.

The Environment Agency released its licencing protocols in August 2016.

In terms of land usage, the industry body UKOOG published a video showing the likely impact

Information on the well integrity of the Lancashire well PH 1 and well leaks can be seen here

Air pollution

There are concerns, originating in the USA that drilling could lead to pollution from hydrocarbon based chemicals. Regulations in the UK call for total fluid and gas security meaning that in routine operations, no unburnt gases would be emitted.Venting of unburnt gas is only permitted for safety reasons or in an emergency.

In 2014, Public Health England stated "evaluated 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."

For information on flaring see this link

Water

The Environment Agency requires chemical and fluid proof drill pads, as well as other environmental protections.

In January 2015, the British Geological Survey released national baseline methane levels, which showed a wide range of readings Poor surface well sealing, which allows methane to leak, methane was identified in the Royal Academy of Engineering report as a risk to groundwater. This was incorporated into the Infrastructure Act 2015 with a requirement that monitoring takes place 12 months before fracturing.

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) have been involved with evaluating the potential water impacts of hydraulic fracturing and drilling.

Groundwater contamination

The joint Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report from 2012 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.

In 2013, the ReFINE consortium published an information video on the potential for aquifer contamination via vertical fracture growth and suggested a minimum distance of 600m between the aquifer and the horizon being hydraulically fractured.

A 2012 research paper from ReFINE concludes that the maximum recorded fracture in US shale plays is 588m.

Another 2013 paper from ReFine indicated the potential for surface gas leaks from abandoned wells

The Infrastructure Act 2015 'prohibits associated hydraulic fracturing from taking place at a depth of less than 1000 metres'

Research by Engelder et alia in 2012 on the Marcellus shale formation, indicated that any water injected into the shale that does not flow back to the surface, known as "residual treatment water", would be permanently absorbed, (sequestered) into the shale. Shale has no natural porosity that could hold water.

Flowback fluid

Disposal and treatment of flowback fluid is regulated by the Environment Agency. 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". 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.

Flowback fluid can be treated and reused in later hydraulic fracturing operations, to reduce the volume of freshwater required and to mitigate issues arising from off-site disposal of flowback fluid. Flowback fluid injection in deep disposal wells, which has been linked to significant increase in earthquake rate, is not currently licensed in the UK by the Environment Agency.

In January 2014, licences were withdrawn by Cuadrilla when arrangements for disposal and treatment of contaminated flowback fluid were not considered to be adequate by the Environment Agency. Technologies are developing methods of removing salt and radioactive materials, allowing safe disposal of flowback fluid under Environment Agency licence. Research in the US also indicates new methods such as "microbial capacitive desalination cells" may become available.

UK and US water differences

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%. 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.

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.

Water depletion

The DECC report Fracking UK Shale-Water states that water companies must produce, and then update every 5 years, a long term plan with contingency reserves in case of a drought. Water companies will assess the amount of water available before providing it to operators.

DEFRA data indicates the amount of water abstracted nationally, at around 16 billion cubic metres. The DECC report shows the usage expected for hydraulic fracturing a well. It is equivalent to watering a golf course for a month. Evidence presented by the Environment Agency to the Parliamentary 'Environmental risks of fracking inquiry' indicated water usage at a peak level would be 0.1% of national usage.

Some living in drier areas, in East Kent, for example, are concerned about the effect of hydraulic fracturing in using large volumes of scarce water supplies. East Kent falls within the Environment Agency's Southern Region, the third-driest region of England and Wales.

Seismicity

As of August 2016, there were at least nine known cases of fault reactivation by hydraulic fracturing that caused induced seismicity strong enough to be felt by humans at the surface: In Canada, there have been three in Alberta (M 4.8 and M 4.4 and M 4.4) and three in British Columbia (M 4.6, M 4.4 and M 3.8); In the United States there has been: one in Oklahoma (M 2.8) and one in Ohio (M 3.0), and; In the United Kingdom, there has been one in Lancashire (M 2.3 and M 1.5).

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.

In 2013, ReFINE produced a video describing the size of seismic events that could be caused by fracking

In Feb 2016, Stanford Earth published video to explain why seismicity has occurred in waste water disposal from traditional oil wells in US geology. This method of fluid disposal is not currently permitted in the UK.

Preese Hall, Lancashire

In May 2011, Cuadrilla voluntarily suspended hydraulic fracturing operations in their Preese Hall 1 well in Lancashire, after two small earthquakes were triggered, one of magnitude M 2.3. The largest coseismic slip caused minor deformation of the wellbore and was strong enough to be felt.

The company's temporary halt was pending DECC guidance on the conclusions of a study being carried out by the British Geological Survey and Keele University, which concluded in April 2012 that the process posed a seismic risk minimal enough to allow it to proceed with stricter monitoring. Cuadrilla pointed out that a number of such small-magnitude earthquakes occur naturally each month in Britain.

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.

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.

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.

Subsidence

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.

Insurance

In an answer to questions from the 'Lets talk about Shale' initiative from 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."

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.

Public health

Public Health England's Dr John Harrison, Director for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, stated: "The currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to emissions associated with the shale gas extraction process are low if operations are properly run and regulated. 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."

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. 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. 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. MedAct published a response to these criticisms.

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.

In 2016, Medact released another report, and called upon the government to "abandon its shale gas plans".

The 'Fracking' debate

Hydraulic fracturing, "or ‘fracking’ as it has become commonly known, is a big issue for local authorities and communities across the country" and has become part of the Climate Change debate. Others protest using shale gas techniques as a focus, at proposed coalbed methane sites.

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.

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."

Effect on house prices

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. It was notable as large parts of this had been redacted, leading to criticism about the transparency of information being provided.

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"

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

Opposition

There are a number of anti-fracking groups, which range from the nationwide Frack Off which was engaged in the Balcombe drilling protest, to local ones such as Residents Action on Fylde Fracking, Ribble Estuary Against Fracking, NO Fracking in Sussex, Frack Free Fernhurst and The Vale Says No! The Environmental Group Greenpeace publish an online 'live' fracking report Friends of the Earth are also against Fracking.

In the UK and Europe, hydrocarbons are government property, so local residents have little to gain from oil and gas drilling; the situation is different in the US, where landowners commonly also own the oil and gas, and so negotiate lease bonuses and production royalties from the oil companies.

In September 2011, with licences having been granted to two energy companies for exploratory drilling in Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset Council voiced concern that, should the test drilling yield a significant find of shale gas, any subsequent hydraulic fracturing could contaminate Bath's famous hot springs. Similar worries about future hydraulic fracturing have been aired in a number of other places, including the Vale of Glamorgan and Woodnesborough, Kent. Industry assurances about its forthcoming plans were tarnished in January 2012, though, when Cuadrilla Resources came under fire for its categorical denials of plans of hydraulic fracturing near Balcombe after documents from parent company AJ Lucas materialised appearing to indicate the complete opposite.

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 and that the brochure "must not appear again in current form". In January 2015, complaints were made to the Advertising Standards Authority (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" RAFF "agreed to amend or withdraw advertising without the need for a formal investigation". In 2015, Cuadrilla, and others, reported a leaflet produced by Friends of the Earth to the ASA. Friends of the Earth were instructed to not repeat misleading claims about water contamination, cancer, asthma, house prices, and health effects. This was rejected by the ASA. The ASA clarifieded their position, after it became evident that FoE rejected the results of their investigation.

Wales

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. 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. 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, and a public enquiry began in May 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.

Industry response

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; 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. 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."

Political issues

Hydraulic fracturing has brought with it various challenges for Britain’s political parties. That is particularly the case for the Conservative Party, where there are tensions between the aspirations of the leadership – who tend to view shale gas in terms of economic benefit, energy independence, and a means of reducing carbon emissions – and the priorities of many of its supporters who are hostile to the process, especially those who live in areas likely to be explored for shale gas.

The Liberal Democrats, in 2013 in a coalition government with the Conservative government which strongly supported hydraulic fracturing, began taking a position downplaying prospects for a "shale gas revolution", issuing several position papers on climate change which minimized the role of shale gas in favour of renewables. The Labour Party has been more reticent, but MPs have indicated they are receptive to hydraulic fracturing if environmental safeguards and an appropriate regulatory regime are in place. By contrast, UKIP is enthusiastic about shale gas, a stance that is partly derived from its hostility to wind farms. The UK Green Party`s energy policy EN264 states that: "We will halt the development of coal-bed methane, shale gas and similar hydrocarbon exploitation since it is not needed to meet UK energy demands, is environmentally destructive, and will lead to increasing GHG emissions".

As of 2013 the government was solidly behind development of the fossil fuel shale gas industry and was offering to give shale gas companies favourable tax treatment for the unconventional energy source. Also they stated they would turn 100% of business tax proceeds over to local councils instead of the usual 50% which has been seen as controversial in some parts of the media. Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said of the government's proposal to turn the business taxes gained from hydraulic fracturing over to the local councils: "It looks like the government is bribing local councils and it shows how desperate it is to get fracking accepted locally."

The House of Lords report "The Economic Impact on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil" from the Economic Affairs Committee was published in May 2014. It took evidence on a wide variety of subjects from a wide variety of sources. It concludes that shale gas exploration and development should go ahead urgently, and that the regulatory regime was complex, and a hindrance to growth.

In May 2014, the prospect of drilling under peoples homes was put out for consultation and the resulting report in October 2014 indicated that 99% of 40,000 responses were opposed to this. The Infrastructure bill, which became law in February 2015, included an amendment that this was to be permitted. The National Farmers Union issued this statement that indicated concerns with property prices, long term environmental issues and payment for access in line with other industries.

The chemical firm Ineos has proposed that they would pay 6% of income in payments for local people, farmers, and landowners. Ineos chairman Jim Ratcliffe said "Giving 6% of revenues to those living above Britain's shale gas developments means the rewards will be fairly shared by everyone." Friends of the Earth said this was a "transparent attempt to bribe communities"

Conflicts of interest

There have been a number of concerns raised regarding conflicts of interest between policy makers and financial links to hydraulic fracturing, notably:

House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs potential conflicts of interest with regards to hydraulic fracturing:

CPRE Northumberland's Chairman David Montag-Smith is also chairman of the board of directors of Rathlin Energy Ltd who are exploring Yorkshire for shale gas.

Moratoria

In July 2014, the Scottish Government issued an Expert Scientific Panel Report on Unconventional Oil & Gas which investigated the technical, and environmental challenges of this technology. After the third reading of the Infrastructure bill in January 2015, Scotland imposed a moratorium, pending another environmental review. This prompted negative comment from the original report authors.

The Welsh Government stated that applications from drilling companies must be referred to ministers from February 2015. "Planning applications for the exploration, appraisal, or extraction of unconventional oil and gas which would utilise unconventional techniques (including hydraulic fracturing) must be referred to the Welsh Ministers, where local planning authorities are minded to approve them"

Public opinion

In September 2014, Nottingham University published a report on public attitudes, showing a slight reversal of the negative views that were held on hydraulic fracturing. A poll for the Guardian reported that 70% of people were against hydraulic fracturing in National Parks. When the caveat 'fracking with proper regulation' was applied support for hydraulic fracturing rose to 57%, with 26% opposed.

In May 2014, an ongoing survey by the University of Nottingham indicated that support for hydraulic fracturing fell below 50% for the first time. The publicity surrounding the Balcombe protest was considered an important factor.

A January 2014 Guardian poll found that a majority support shale gas extraction, but by a somewhat narrower margin than previously. To the question "Should shale gas extraction be allowed?" 53% said yes (down from 58% in July 2012), and 27% answered no (up from 19% in July 2012).

A poll conducted by Opinium/Observer in August 2013 showed that while men in the UK were evenly divided about fracking taking place in their area, women were strongly against it; the population as a whole preferred renewables such as wind farms.

An ICM poll in August 2013 found that public opinion in the UK was in favour of hydraulic fracturing in general, by 44% in favour to 30% opposed. However, when asked if they favoured hydraulic fracturing in their own area, the public split evenly, 40% in favour to 40% against. Support for fracking was stronger among men, older people, and conservatives.