Top Five UK Fracking Moments of 2014

authordefault
on

DeSmog UK has compiled a list of the top 5 fracking moments of 2014 for our #FrackingFriday series โ€“ complete with controversial government reforms, industry blunders and the defining moments of a debate that has exacerbated the relationship between public and energy, government and industry, people andย planet.

  1. Fracking Beneath Yourย Floor

In the heat of a scorching summer, the UK government confirmed reforms to the Infrastructure Bill that will now allow fracking companies to drill directly under peopleโ€™s homes. This is despite 99% of the public opposing the changes.ย 

The amendments, which were introduced by Tory peer Baroness Kramer, were defined as an individualโ€™s โ€œright [to] use deep-level land in any way for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermalย energy.โ€

The government did not find anything wrong with the proposals and โ€œdid not identify any issues that persuaded us [the government] to change the basic form of theย proposals.โ€

In a statement by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Conservative energy minister, Matt Hancock, said: โ€œBy removing barriers to deep underground drilling access, we are speeding up oil and gas and deep geothermal energyย exploration.โ€

This is irrespective of reports that connect fracking to earthquakes and wide-scale environmental impacts that would definitely affect those living nearby wellย sites.

Further Tory amendments have also allowed the use of any โ€œsubstancesโ€ in the extraction of shale by fracking companies, even under peopleโ€™sย homes.

  1. The Frackingย Redaction

Earlier this year, a Greenpeace-led campaign investigating the impacts of fracking on affected areas led to the publishing of a heavily redacted document that sparked public outrage towards the governmentโ€™sย secrecy.

The report, Shale Gas: Rural Economy Impacts, showed direct connections between fracking and falling houseย prices.

Green MP and former party leader Caroline Lucas said: โ€œIt appears that the government has a great deal to hide with regards to the risks of fracking for localย communities.

โ€œThe number of redactions would be almost comical if it werenโ€™t so concerning. What are the economic, social and environmental impacts and effects upon housing and local services, agriculture and tourism that the government is so keen to withhold fromย us?โ€

Photo: Screenshot of Shale Gas: Rural Economy Impacts report

A 2010 case study that was within the report shows how fracking in Texas lowered the value of houses within 1,000 feet of a well site. Those properties valued at more than ยฃ150,000 had their values decreased by 3% toย 14%.

Compensation programmes have been offered by the UK government in the case of affected house prices worth up to ยฃ100,000, but this has been widely criticised as โ€œinsultingโ€, with house prices already affected by the prospect of planned frackingย operations.

Barbara Richardson, a member of the Roseacre Awareness Group, which opposes fracking in Lancashire – an area already well-associated with fracking-related earthquakes โ€“ said to the Guardian: โ€œOne couple had agreed a house sale, but just as the plans were announced in February their buyers negotiated a reduction of 14.5% due to the uncertainty overย fracking.

Their agents urged them to take it and move out before more became known about theย plans.โ€

Prime Minister David Cameron recently dodged the question of whether he will publish an unedited copy, claiming he hasnโ€™t seen the redacted March 2014ย report.

  1. Shale Gasย Over-hyped

A report published by government-funded researchers at the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) exposed the โ€œover-hypingโ€ of the apparent potential for fracking in the UK โ€“ declaring an American โ€˜shale revolutionโ€™ would neverย happen.

Jim Watson, the author of the report and professor of energy policy at the University of Sussex, stated that politicians and their industry allies had โ€œover-hypedโ€ the possibility of shale as a source of energy that would determine the UKโ€™s energy future andย independence.

Watson said: โ€œLooking at the evidence base, itโ€™s very hard to support some of the statements made both by industry and some politicians that itโ€™s going to bring down prices, strengthen energy security or create jobs through cheaper energy any timeย soon.

โ€œIt may have an impact. But a lot depends on how fast shaleย develops.โ€

The report, titled A Bridge to a Low-Carbon Future? Modelling the Long-Term Global Potential of Natural Gas, states: โ€œAny talk of shale gas making the UK self-sufficient again, let alone allowing significant exports, isย far-fetched.โ€

A second report, which came out at the same time, by the European Academies Science Advisory Council also stressed that shale development would not become as widespread in the UK for decades due to Europeโ€™s geology being โ€œmore complicatedโ€ than that of the Unitedย States.

  1. Fracking a โ€˜Human Rightsย Violationโ€™

Last month, human rights activist Bianca Jagger delivered a hard-hitting report to David Cameron, calling on the government to investigate the human rights implications ofย fracking.

The report focuses primarily on the health implications of people living by frack sites, where the government is โ€œlegally bound to respect and protect human rights, both under the auspices of its own Human Rights Act 1998 and of the European Convention on Humanย Rights.โ€

Photo: Max Philipps Image Library via Flickr

Speaking about the report, Jagger stated: โ€œThe UK Government is promoting a fracking agenda despite the well-documented health and environmental impacts. The Government has disregarded the Human Rights of ordinaryย citizens.

โ€œThey are rushing through changes to the law of trespass to speed up the ability of shale gas companies to frack under peopleโ€™s homes without their consent. The re-writing of the law is being introduced despite widespread public concern about the health and environmental impact of fracking and in the face of overwhelming public resistance from ordinaryย people.โ€

The report also concentrates on the governmentโ€™s continued efforts to sell the positives of fracking over a steady informative review, with consistent claims that burning shale gas produces fewer greenhouse emissions than burningย coal.

  1. Shale Task Force
    ย 

Controversy within the public debate on shale gas entered a new precedent stage when the former head of the Environment Agency, Lord Chris Smith, was commissioned by the shale industry to lead its new fracking Task Force on Shale Gas.

The โ€œindependentโ€ task force, funded by shale giants Cuadrilla and Centrica, โ€œwill assess the existing evidence, ask for new contributions and lead a national conversation around this vitally important issue,โ€ statedย Smith.

Run by industry-adored PR firm Edelman, the group is tasked with providing more evidence to the debate as local communities across the UK oppose shale development in theirย area.

Funders of the task force also include French oil giant Total, who, alongside its other industry funders, have already provided ยฃ650,000. The task force has promised to find the other half of its required funding from alternativeย sources.

Environmental groups were left unconvinced by the intentions of the task force however, with Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth stating in the Guardian: โ€œThis looks like another attempt by the shale gas industry to buy respectability. If they think that opponents of shale gas, nationally and locally, who are rightly concerned about its impacts, will be convinced by an industry-funded body then they have badly misjudged theย situation.

โ€œRather than putting their money into bodies like this, the industry should engage in genuine debate with localย communities.โ€

Stay tuned, because in the New Year weโ€™ll be predicting the fracking issues expected to flare up ย in 2015.

@Richardheasman4

Photo: Cuadrilla via Creativeย Commons

authordefault

Richard Heasman joined DeSmog UK as a contributing journalist in October 2014. Originally from Stamford, he graduated with an undergraduate history degree (2:1) in 2013 from the University of Lincoln. His dissertation focused on the British mediaโ€™s role in shaping public opinion during the second Gulf War ofย 2003.

After graduating, Richard started his own online publication specialising in political-socio critiques, and now specialises in environmental topics including fracking andย industry.

Richard has been published in the Ecologist as has reported for Blue and Green Tomorrow on a varied range of environmentalย issues.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.
on

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.
on

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who holds shares in Shell and TotalEnergies, called the green transition a โ€œchildrenโ€™s crusadeโ€.

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who holds shares in Shell and TotalEnergies, called the green transition a โ€œchildrenโ€™s crusadeโ€.
on

Carrboro, N.C., accuses Duke of knowingly fueling the climate crisis for decades with harmful emissions, deception, delay, and "greenwashing."

Carrboro, N.C., accuses Duke of knowingly fueling the climate crisis for decades with harmful emissions, deception, delay, and "greenwashing."