New Analysis of Fracking Science (nearly 2,000 studies) Finds Grave Health, Environmental Justice, and Climate Impacts

Major report from health experts and scientists who have closely assessed a decade of science on fracking reveals alarming trends for people and the environment.

WASHINGTON - A new report from leading scientists, doctors, and environmental experts examining nearly 2,000 academic studies, government reports, and investigative reporting finds that drilling, fracking, and the entire fracked oil and gas cycle impose grave harms to human health and well-being and that those problems cannot be mitigated.

Today, Concerned Health Professionals of New York and Physicians for Social Responsibility released the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking, seventh edition, which tracks, assembles, and analyzes key trends in the rapidly growing body of evidence about health, climate, and environmental justice consequences of drilling, fracking, and associated infrastructure.

Overwhelmingly, evidence demonstrates that these activities are dangerous to public health, the environment, and the climate, and that there are fundamental problems with the entire life cycle of operations associated with fracking. Emerging science also shows that fracking is a grave environmental justice issue, with communities of color, Indigenous people, and impoverished communities bearing disproportionate harm.

The Compendium reviews nearly 2,000 academic studies, government reports, and investigations of data by journalists about the environmental and health impacts of drilling and fracking. It is increasingly important to consider the whole body of evidence and identify key trends. That’s what the Compendium uniquely does, allowing the public, elected officials, and regulators to consider the whole body of evidence, identify key trends, and utilize important new research as it appears, promoting health and potentially saving lives.

Sandra Steingraber, PhD, co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York and an author of the Compendium, said,  “Our knowledge about the dangers of fracking is now both broad and deep. All together, thousands of scientific studies, reports, and investigations show us that extracting oil and gas by shattering the nation’s bedrock with water and chemicals creates fundamental, intrinsic, unfixable problems. Toxic pollution, water contamination, earthquakes, radioactive releases, and methane emissions follow fracking wherever it goes. Some of these problems get worse after depleted wells are abandoned, and no set of regulations is capable of preventing harm.”

• With hundreds of new peer-reviewed scientific studies published in the past year alone, several trends in the evidence have been increasingly well-documented. Among more than a dozen emerging trends:
• Fracking poses serious health harms to people, especially those living in proximity not only to drilling and fracking but also to associated infrastructure like compressor stations and gas-fired power plants. 
• Fracking raises human rights and environmental justice issues, disproportionately affecting people of color and low-income communities
• Health problems associated with fracked gas include cancers, asthma, respiratory distress, rashes, heart problems, and mental health problems. 
• Multiple studies of pregnant women living near fracking operations across the nation show impairments to infant health, including birth defects, preterm birth, and low birth weight. Preterm birth and low birth weight are the leading causes of infant death in the U.S.
• Fracking and natural gas are incompatible with climate solutions.

Pediatrician Edward Ketyer, M.D., F.A.A.P., of Physicians for Social Responsibility/Pennsylvania, said, “The fracking science Compendium is an essential resource for health professionals like myself who are addressing how terribly damaging fracking is to the health of our patients and the communities we live in. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies contained in the Compendium indicate clearly that women and children are most vulnerable to the impacts of pollution coming off every piece of fracking infrastructure. As a pediatrician, I’m very concerned that children bear the greatest burden of all as they face cradle-to-grave health impacts from health-damaging chemicals and emissions – to say nothing of the stability of the planet’s climate system which we all depend on. It is clear from this report that fracking has never been done safely anywhere; it is inherently dirty and dangerous, and industry rules and government regulations can’t fix that fact.”

These health problems are born disproportionately by communities of color and impoverished communities. Significant evidence now makes clear that fracking is a significant and growing environmental injustice.

Laura Dagley, BSN, RN, of Physicians for Social Responsibility in Pennsylvania, said, "As a nurse and PSR staffer, I advocate for the health of my communities. Through my work, I have met many people whose lives are negatively impacted by fracking. From seeing the stress that fracking infrastructure has brought to their daily lives, to hearing of many visits to the doctor managing new asthma exacerbation or skin rashes, to feeling their fear as their neighbors' children suffer from a rare cancer, I am reminded of the real people behind the data. With fracking literally in their backyards, many of these individuals struggle to have their voices heard. They do not have the time, money, or numbers in their rural communities to draw attention to the negative toll fracking is taking on their lives. The Compendium compiles a large body of data demonstrating fracking’s harm and succinctly summarizes the research and reports. It is a powerful tool to show policymakers the evidence that fracking is harming people."

At a broader scale, the evidence is overwhelming that fracking is significantly exacerbating climate change and is responsible for the current surge in global levels of methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide over a twenty-year period. Methane escapes into the atmosphere all along the gas extraction, processing, and distribution system, at significant rates that exceed earlier estimates by a factor of two to three and in ways that cannot be mitigated or eliminated through regulations.

Kathleen Nolan, MD, MSL, of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of NY, said, “Detailed and comprehensive research now demonstrates decisively that fracking and its related activities release significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere, making the process calamitous for climate change. Science is telling us that drilling and fracking are incompatible with any meaningful effort to mitigate carbon emissions and that to curb global warming most quickly, we need to stop permitting and subsidizing fracking. Just as we have learned to give up smoking to protect our lungs, we must give up fracking to protect our atmosphere, the air that we all breathe.”
 
From the Main Findings of the Compendium, “As fracking operations in the United States and abroad have increased in frequency, size, and intensity, a significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate that these activities are dangerous in ways that cannot be mitigated through regulation. Threats include detrimental impacts on water, air, climate stability, public health, farming, property values, and economic vitality… Our examination uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health directly and without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends.”

Several experts are available, upon request, for interviews about the new report and the issue more broadly.

For Immediate Release

Monday, December 14, 2020

 

Fracking comes at the expense of water quality

by University of Rochester Medical Center

Well head after all the Fracking equipment has been taken off location. Credit: Joshua Doubek. Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In a perspective piece that appears in the journal Science, Elaine Hill, Ph.D., an economist in the University of Rochester Medical Center Department of Public Health Sciences, calls for tighter regulation and monitoring of unconventional oil and gas development, commonly called fracking, as more evidence points to the negative health consequences of the practice.

The rising toll in the form of increased rates of chronic diseases, stress on rural health care providers, and growing need for mental health and addiction services, ultimately diminish the economic returns for communities that host the fracking industry. "Many of the impacts have lifelong consequences on individual well-being, including future health, education, and labor market outcomes," said Hill and co-author Lala Ma, Ph.D., with the Department of Economics at the University of Kentucky.

The debate over fracking is often viewed through either an economic lens that emphasizes jobs and energy independence, or an environmental one that warns of the damage to air and water quality and human health. Because fracking technology has been operating on a significant scale in the U.S. for the past two decades, the scope of the public health impact due to long-term exposure to air, water, and noise pollution is only now becoming clear.

Hill's research focuses on the complex local health, environmental, and economic implications of oil and gas extraction in the U.S. Her previous research was the first to link shale gas development to drinking water quality and has examined the association between shale gas development and reproductive health, and the subsequent impact on later educational attainment, higher risk of childhood asthma exacerbation, higher risk of heart attacks, and opioid deaths.

The perspective piece accompanies a study in Science that shows increased concentrations of four chemicals associated with fracking in the surface water near well sites, suggesting that wells could be a source of pollution in drinking water. These findings highlight one of the barriers to understanding, and mitigating, the health impacts of fracking as these operations are often shrouded by "trade secrets" and lax oversight. The new study contributes to the need to rethink regulations and monitoring systems, and require regulatory agencies to collect and release reports of additional chemicals in order to better assess the long-term health impacts, according to Hill and Ma.

"Understanding the exposure pathways at play is necessary for policy to effectively control the environmental damages from these operations tightening the stringency of currently regulated chemicals should be considered," said the authors.Study links hydraulic fracking with increased risk of heart attack hospitalization, death

More information: Elaine Hill et al, The fracking concern with water quality, Science (2021). DOI: 10.1126/science.abk3433

Journal information: Science 

Provided by University of Rochester Medical Center 

Fracking and poorer surface water quality link established – new research

During fracking, water is mixed with fluids and injected into the ground.

Wikimedia Commons

August 27, 2021 

Fracking – hailed by some as the greatest recent advance in energy production, criticised by others for the threat it poses to local life – continues to divide opinion.

The term fracking refers to the high-pressure injection of water mixed with fluid chemical additives – including friction reducers, gels and acids – and “propping agents” such as sand to create fractures in deep rock formations such as shale, allowing oil or gas to flow out.

Tens of thousands of hydraulic fracturing wells have been drilled across the US, generating huge benefits for its energy industry and economy: yet the practice remains globally controversial. It is not permitted in numerous other countries, such as France, Germany, Ireland and, since 2019, the UK.

While some see fracking as the most important change in the energy sector since the introduction of nuclear energy more than 50 years ago, others raise health and environmental concerns: in particular, the threat fracking could pose to our water.

Fracking works by injecting fluid into cracks in the earth to extract oil or gas. Wikimedia

Starting in 2010, many US states began to regulate fracking, obliging operators to disclose the substances used in their fluid mix. As economists, we were curious to see whether mandatory disclosures of what’s in fracturing fluids made the practice cleaner, or reduced potential water contamination.

To do that, we needed to compare the environmental impact from fracking before and after the new disclosure rules. We assembled a database that put together existing measurements of surface water quality with the location of fracking wells, and analysed changes in surface water quality around new wells over an 11-year period.

We noticed some strong associations, but also discovered that these associations had not been previously documented. Deciding to study the link between new hydraulic fracturing wells and surface water quality, we were able to provide evidence for a relationship between the two

.

A fracking platform designed to extract oil.

Jwigley/Pixabay, CC BY

The link

Our study, published in Science, uses a statistical approach to identify changes in the concentration of certain salts associated with new wells. We discovered a very small but consistent increase in barium, chloride and strontium – for bromide, our results were more mixed and not as robust.

Salt concentrations were most increased at monitoring stations that were located within 15 km and downstream from a well, and in measurements taken within a year of fracking activity.

This figure plots the associations between salt concentrations and a new fracking well located within 15km and likely upstream of the water monitor.

The increases in salt we discovered were small and within the bounds of what the US Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for drinking water. However, since our water measurements were mostly taken from rivers, not all of the public surface water monitors we used are close to wells, or are in locations where they can detect the effects of fracking: for example, they may be located upstream of new wells. That means the salt concentrations in water flowing downstream from new wells could be even higher.

Our study was also limited by the public data available. We were not able to investigate potentially more toxic substances found in the fracturing fluids or in the produced water, such as radium or arsenic. Public databases do not widely include measurements of these other substances, making it hard for researchers to carry out the statistical analysis needed to detect anomalous concentrations related to new wells.

That said, the salts we analysed are not exactly innocuous. High concentrations of barium in drinking water may lead to increases in blood pressure, while chloride can potentially threaten aquatic life. Elevated strontium levels can even have adverse impacts on human bone development, especially in the young.
Next steps

It is undeniable that fracking has played a big role in replacing the fossil fuel coal as a source of energy. Some studies show that, relative to periods of massive coal-burning, the overall quality of surface water has improved. Fracking has also brought an economic boost to underdeveloped areas. Still, the question remains as to whether it is safe for local communities

.

Where fracking is heavy, roads and pipelines make a web across the landscape.

Simon Fraser University/Flickr

While our study is an important step towards understanding the environmental impact of fracking, more data are needed to truly answer these safety concerns. The good news is, with new disclosure rules, we have a better awareness of exactly which chemicals are being used.

The next step is for policymakers to make sure that government agencies systematically track these chemical in fracking fluids and produced waters, place monitoring stations in locations where they can better track surface water impacts, and increase the frequency of water quality measurement around the time new wells are drilled.

A more targeted approach could go a long way in enabling research and helping to protect the public health of communities for whom fracking could yet be a blessing or a curse.

Authors

Giovanna Michelon
Professor of Accounting, University of Bristol

Christian Leuz
Professor of International Economics, Finance and Accounting, University of Chicago

Pietro Bonetti
Assistant Professor of Accounting and Control, IESE Business School (Universidad de Navarra)

Fracking linked to higher heart attack risk, especially among men

(Photo by David Thielen on Unsplash)

DECEMBER 15, 2021

by John Anderer

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Fracking is a controversial practice, mostly because of its environmental implications, but a recent study also finds that drilling for oil and gas may also increase the risk of suffering a heart attack.

Researchers from the University of Rochester note their findings are unique because they are based on research performed at the Marcellus Foundation, which straddles the New York and Pennsylvania state border. New York has banned fracking, but it represents a multi-billion-dollar industry in Pennsylvania.

“Fracking is associated with increased acute myocardial infarction hospitalization rates among middle-aged men, older men and older women as well as with increased heart attack-related mortality among middle-aged men,” says senior study author Elaine Hill, Ph.D., an associate professor in the University of Rochester Medical Center Department of Public Health Sciences, in a university release.

“Our findings lend support for increased awareness about cardiovascular risks of unconventional natural gas development and scaled-up heart attack prevention, as well as suggest that bans on hydraulic fracturing can be protective for public health.”

What makes fracking so controversial?

The extraction of natural gas via hydraulic fracking is a major air pollution contributor, according to researchers. These fracking wells usually run 24 hours a day, constantly releasing organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, and other chemicals or particulate matter into the surrounding air. Additionally, workers have to regularly supple each well with steady shipments of water, equipment, and chemicals, while removing wastewater produced by the fracking process.

These factors worsen air pollution levels. Each of these wells usually stay operational for at least a few years, which means employees and even nearby communities experience prolonged exposure to air pollutants.

In 2014, there were around 8,000 fracking sites in Pennsylvania. Some regions of the state have more fracking than others, though. For example, three counties in particular house over 1,000 sites. Conversely, New York essentially banned all fracking processes in 2010.

Air pollution exposure, especially prolonged and consistent exposure, has a long-standing link to heart and cardiovascular issues. Recent studies even find that the intensity of both local oil and gas production have a positive association with various heart problems. These include reduced vascular functioning, blood pressure, and inflammatory markers linked with stress and short-term air pollution exposure.

There’s also the matter of all the light and noise pollution coming from fracking facilities. Such developments can lead to greater stress among locals, another risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

Middle-aged men in fracking towns at highest risk

To study this topic, study authors analyzed heart attack hospitalization and death rates across 47 counties along the New York-Pennsylvania border. Some were located in New York, while others were in Pennsylvania. According to data spanning 2005 to 2014, heart attack rates were 1.4 to 2.8 percent higher in Pennsylvania. Exact percentages fluctuated according to both age and the level of fracking activity in a given county.

Results show the connections between fracking and heart attack hospitalization or death was most prevalent among men between 45 and 54 years-old. Importantly, men within that age range are also more likely to work in this gas industry.

Study authors note these individuals probably received the heaviest exposure to fracking-related air pollutants and stressors. Death by heart attack increased among this age group as well, jumping by 5.4 percent or more in counties with more fracking sites. It’s also worth noting that both hospitalization and mortality rates increased significantly among women 65 and older.

Fracking towns face greater risks due to less healthcare

Fracking is generally more common in rural communities and study authors say people residing in such areas are already at a medical disadvantage due to limited healthcare access in comparison to more urban areas. The team believes there needs to be more awareness about the dangers of fracking and they hope these findings will help inform policymakers while making future fracking decisions.

“These findings contribute to the growing body of evidence on the adverse health impact of fracking,” concludes first study author Alina Denham, a Ph.D. candidate in Health Policy at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. “Several states, including New York, have taken the precaution of prohibiting hydraulic fracturing until more is known about the health and environmental consequences. If causal mechanisms behind our findings are ascertained, our findings would suggest that bans on hydraulic fracturing can be protective for human health.”

The findings appear in the journal Environmental Research.

UK

New PM expected to reverse fracking ban as campaigners call for review’s release

BEIS has been sitting on report delivered in early July into possible effect of fracking in UK

Truss has been warned that fracking will not bring down energy bills. 

Photograph: Paul Ellis/AFP/Getty Images


Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent

THE GUARDIAN

Wed 7 Sep 2022 

Liz Truss must publish a recently completed review on fracking in the UK, green campaigners have urged, amid expectations the new prime minister will lift the moratorium on shale gas drilling immediately.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been sitting on a report delivered in early July by the British Geological Survey into the possible effects of fracking in the UK, including the danger of Earth tremors.

Truss spoke in favour of fracking during her campaign for the Tory leadership, and has also advocated expanding oil and gas production in the North Sea. It is thought she will announce an immediate end to the ban on fracking that was imposed in 2019 as part of her energy strategy on Thursday.

She has previously said that fracking should only take place where there was the support of the local community. The Telegraph reported that firms could offer a reduction in energy bills in order to secure community support.

Green campaigners told the Guardian the BGS report – commissioned by Kwasi Kwarteng, now chancellor of the exchequer, while he was business secretary – must be published, if the government was considering a return to fracking in the teeth of opposition from local groups around the country.

Dr Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK, said: “This survey should be published so we can all see the evidence on which the government chooses to make its decisions. However, the report is about the risk of fracking causing earthquakes – that’s not the only thing that informs any decision.”

Danny Gross, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, also called for publication of the report, and said the government must not lift the fracking ban.

He said: “It would be astonishing for the government to lift the fracking ban without also publishing the results of the British Geological Survey review, commissioned by the newly appointed chancellor.”

He added: “But even without the report we know it’s unnecessary, unpopular, incapable of easing the cost of living crisis and will only add more planet-warming emissions to our atmosphere. On the flipside, renewables are cheap, clean, quick to develop and liked by the public. Of the two, it’s clear which one is the pragmatic choice.”

Truss has already been warned this week by the government’s independent advisers on the climate, and on infrastructure, that increasing gas production from fracking will not bring down energy bills.

On Wednesday, the former Conservative environment secretary John Gummer and Sir John Armitt, who chair the Committee on Climate Change and the National Infrastructure Commission respectively, took the unprecedented step of jointly writing to Truss warning that ramping up gas production would not solve the problem.

They wrote: “The UK cannot address this crisis solely by increasing its production of natural gas. Greater domestic production of fossil fuels may improve energy security, particularly this winter.

“But our gas reserves – offshore or from shale – are too small to impact meaningfully the prices faced by UK consumers.”

The BGS said its report had been delivered to the government two months ago. A spokesperson said: “BEIS commissioned BGS to produce a report based on a desk-based study to address six questions related to recent scientific research on the hazard and risk from induced seismicity during hydraulic fracturing of shale rocks. The report was submitted to BEIS on the 5 July.”

A spokesperson for BEIS said the report would be published “in due course”.

Fracking was first attempted in the UK more than a decade ago, but was plagued by a series of problems, including Earth tremors at its site in Lancashire. No gas has ever been commercially produced from fracking in the UK despite numerous attempts.

In 2019 the government stepped in with an effective moratorium on fracking, ruling that only if fracking could be proven not to cause Earth tremors could it go ahead.

Parr said there were additional concerns from fracking, including the possibility of serious health impacts, found in the US where fracking has been pursued at a vast scale. The impacts of fracking on the climate crisis must also be considered, he said.

“This survey will not address how useless fracking is in this energy crisis, because it won’t lower our bills or impact global prices. Nor will this survey address the blight of fracking on British countryside and communities,” Parr said.

“So the government should go ahead and publish this survey but they should be transparent and justify, on a proper evidence base, on all aspects of their decision-making, including that we’re in a climate emergency and so weighing up fracking against cheap, clean energy solutions that would lower our bills and carbon emissions. If they did that, we’re confident it would be rejected.”

 

Fracking won’t cut energy prices, Liz Truss told

The Prime Minister remains committed to the UK’s target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050

By Eir Nolsøe

7 September 2022 •

THE TELEGRAM

Truss wants to issue new licensing for North Sea oil and gas exploration

 CREDIT: Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street

Liz Truss is set for a clash with the Government’s official climate advisers after they sought to shoot down her plans to revive fracking.

The climate change committee, which advises on emissions targets, said ambitions to lift the ban on fracking and expand gas extraction in the North Sea will not make a meaningful difference to consumer prices.

In a letter to the new Prime Minister, the committee said the gas reserves are also too small to bring down prices. Instead, they urged her to focus on improving energy efficiency of buildings and improving the market for renewable energy.

“Ninety per cent of the recent increase in the energy price cap is driven by changes in the price of gas. Addressing our dependency on fossil energy offers us the best way out of these crises,” Lord Deben and Sir John Armitt said in the letter.

Ms Truss has said she wants to shore up Britain’s long-term energy supply by issuing a new licensing round for North Sea oil and gas exploration and reversing a ban on shale-gas extraction.

She has said she remains committed to the UK’s target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 but must improve energy security at the same time.

Gas prices have surged since Russia invaded Ukraine and the Office for Budget Responsibility expects prices to remain at three to four the pre-invasion average until 2027.

The climate change committee set out five recommendations for Ms Truss on how to “reduce the UK’s exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices”.

They include developing “credible” policies to make buildings more energy efficient, removing barriers to a delivering decarbonised power system and delivering a “working” market-based mechanism for low-carbon heat.

Members said addressing a “comprehensive energy advice service” to help the public understand how they can cope with the crisis was vital. Draught-proofing and lowering boiler temperatures alone could reduce gas consumption by 6-8pc.

Ms Truss is expected to unveil an £170bn energy package to help struggling households and businesses within days.

Climate change tsar is hauled over the coals after warning Liz Truss against lifting fracking ban amid energy crisis

• Lord Deben said approving fracking would have no impact on energy prices – 
• The Prime Minister is set to end the ban on the gas extraction method today 
• He urged her to focus on renewables instead of expanding domestic production

By KUMAIL JAFFER POLITICAL REPORTER FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 19:35 EDT, 7 September 2022 | 

The Government’s climate change tsar was told he needs to ‘live in the real world’ after he warned Liz Truss against lifting the fracking moratorium despite the energy crisis.

Lord Deben said approving fracking would have no impact on energy prices – and urged her to focus on renewables instead.

The Prime Minister is set to end the ban on the gas extraction method today, after pledging to take action during the leadership campaign

But Lord Deben, who is chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, warned the PM yesterday the best way to solve the energy crisis was to double down on renewable sources rather than expanding domestic production.

Lord Deben said approving fracking would have no impact on energy prices 

– and urged her to focus on renewables instead

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘There is no sliver of a cigarette paper between the fact that if you want to deal with climate change and you want to deal with the cost of living crisis and oil and gas prices you have to do the same things – renewable energy and energy efficiency –they are the answers.

‘If you want energy bills down, you produce your energy in the cheapest possible way. That happens to be by renewables.’

But last night Craig Mackinlay, part of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group of Tory MPs, who question the cost of meeting the Government’s climate targets, said: ‘Lord Deben and his Climate Change Committee need to come out of their ivory towers and live in the real world. We are facing an energy cost and supply emergency. It is time we unleashed the full potential of all sources of domestically derived power. Fracking could play a huge role in this. The best time for a UK energy policy would have been ten years ago. The second best time is now.’

On Tuesday, Lord Deben and Sir John Armitt, who is chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission, urged Miss Truss to retain the UK’s commitment to deliver a green, decarbonised power system by 2035.

The Prime Minister is set to end the ban on the gas extraction method today, 

after pledging to take action during the leadership campaign

Both figures suggested the size of the nation’s gas reserves – whether offshore or from shale – ‘are too small to impact meaningfully the prices faced by UK consumers’.

During the Tory leadership campaign, Miss Truss suggested fracking could bolster the UK’s energy security and wean the country off Russian fuels.

She said: ‘It’s also very important we use the resources in the North Sea. I support exploring fracking in parts of the United Kingdom. We will end the effective ban on extracting our huge reserves of shale gas by fracking but be led by science, setting out a plan to ensure communities benefit.’

Today Miss Truss will set out her energy support strategy, with help on bills and the expansion of domestic supply expected to be announced.

 

Lord faced scrutiny over work with green companies 

By Lewis Pennock for the Daily Mail 

Lord Deben, who is chairman of the independent Committee on Climate Change, has previously faced scrutiny for his private work with ‘green’ firms.

The peer – formerly Tory environment secretary John Gummer – is also chair of environmental consultancy firm Sancroft International.

He was cleared after a conflict of interest probe in 2019 over £600,000 paid by clients of Sancroft which allegedly stood to profit from his advice to ministers.

The Mail on Sunday revealed at least nine businesses and campaign groups made payments to Sancroft International Ltd – some running into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The peer had always declared the fact he owns and is chairman of Sancroft to the House of Lords register and the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), but he never identified its clients. He has always denied any conflict of interest.

In February, The Daily Telegraph reported that Sancroft was contracted to work for the Qatari government. Qatar accounts for nearly half of Britain’s gas imports.

The CCC wrote to then-business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng suggesting ministers support a ‘tighter limit on production’ of oil and gas and favour imports.

Lord Deben, 82, told the Telegraph: ‘There can be no conflict of interest in advising people everywhere that sustainability demands that they move away from fossil fuels.’

In 1990, while he was minister of agriculture, he famously fed his daughter a beefburger to reassure the public during the mad cow disease crisis.

2019: The Year Fracking Earthquakes Turned Deadly

The first fracking-induced earthquake to claim human lives shows why magnitude may underestimate the danger such earthquakes pose.

Image credits:Inked Pixels/Shutterstock

Friday, February 21, 2020 - Nala Rogers, Staff Writer

(Inside Science) -- On Feb. 25, 2019, an earthquake shook the village of Gaoshan in China's Sichuan Province, leaving 12 people injured and two dead. New research indicates the earthquake and its two foreshocks were likely triggered by hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking. If this is true, it would mark the first time in history that a fracking-induced earthquake has killed people.

The study shows why magnitude, the most common way of reporting earthquake size, could lead people to underestimate the true threat fracking-induced earthquakes might pose. The Feb. 25 earthquake was only a magnitude 4.9, which would not traditionally be considered very dangerous. But it was able to destroy older and more vulnerable buildings because it was so close to the surface -- only about one kilometer deep according to the new study. That's shallow even by fracking standards, but fracking-induced earthquakes do tend to be much shallower than natural ones.

"The shallower it is, then for the same magnitude of earthquake, the stronger the shaking," said Hongfeng Yang, a seismologist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and senior author of the study. The findings are not yet published, but Yang and graduate student Pengcheng Zhou presented them last December at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
How it happened

Fracking involves drilling wells in shale deposits, then pumping in water and other additives at high pressure to break the rock and release trapped oil. In some regions fracking can trigger earthquakes by causing faults in the rock to slip. The slipping happens either because fluids seep into the fault itself, or because the weight or volume of the fluid presses against the fault indirectly, said Thomas Eyre, a seismologist at the University of Calgary in Canada.

Most fracking operations in North America don't cause earthquakes, and the earthquakes that do occur have generally been small. Some media reports have attributed damaging earthquakes in Oklahoma to fracking, but experts believe most of those earthquakes were caused by wastewater that oil and gas developers disposed of by injecting it deep underground. Some of the wastewater included fluids used during the fracking process, but most of it came from ancient underground aquifers, according to Mike Brudzinski, a seismologist at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. The oil beneath Oklahoma is naturally mixed with large volumes of water, and developers must filter out the water before they can sell the oil.

Western Canada has experienced a few moderate-sized fracking earthquakes with magnitudes up to about 4.5, but they mostly occurred in remote locations far from major human settlements. And even in western Canada, only about one in 300 fracking operations causes earthquakes large enough for a person to feel, said Eyre.

"In North America at the moment, we haven't had any hydraulic fracturing-induced earthquakes that have actually caused any damage," said Eyre.

It's a different story in China, however. Several recent studies have shown that the fracking boom that began in about 2014 is triggering destructive earthquakes in formerly tranquil parts of China's Sichuan basin. For example, a magnitude 4.7 earthquake on Jan. 28, 2017, a magnitude 5.7 on Dec. 16, 2018, and a magnitude 5.3 on Jan. 3, 2019 were all caused by fracking, according to published research. The 2018 earthquake injured 17 people and damaged more than 390 houses, nine of which collapsed.

The deadly February 2019 event included a magnitude 4.9 main shock and two smaller foreshocks of magnitudes of 4.7 and 4.3. Using seismic sensors and satellite data, Yang, Zhou and their colleagues found that the foreshocks occurred on a previously unknown fault located within half a kilometer of a fracking well. The foreshocks were between 2.5 and 3 km underground, the same depth where fracking is typically conducted in this region. The main shock struck about eight hours later, on a different, shallower fault a short distance away. The findings suggest that the first two earthquakes and the fluid pumped during fracking may have combined to change the pressures in the rock, causing the second fault to slip.

"It looks to me like some very solid research," wrote Art McGarr, a seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, in an email, after reviewing a digital copy of the researchers' poster. McGarr has studied induced earthquakes extensively, and was one of the researchers who conducted a recent paper attributing prior Sichuan Basin earthquakes to fracking.
Shallow depth increases danger

The magnitude 4.9 earthquake last February damaged buildings in Gaoshan in part because the buildings were old and not designed for earthquake safety, said Yang. The location was densely populated and didn't have a history of dangerous earthquakes, so it was highly vulnerable.

But even so, the earthquake would have been less damaging had it occurred 5 to 20 km underground, as most natural earthquakes do, according to Brudzinski. Instead, it occurred about a kilometer underground, with hardly any rock to absorb the shock before it reached the surface. Most fracking-related earthquakes are less than 5 km deep.

"We always pin everything on the magnitude, so that can be kind of misleading," said Pradeep Talwani, a geophysicist at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. According to Talwani, people in Gaoshan probably felt more shaking from the shallow magnitude 4.9 quake than someone in Seattle would feel from a natural magnitude 6.5 earthquake that struck deep beneath their feet.

Magnitude is a measure of the total amount of energy released during an earthquake, and researchers estimate it by calculating the surface area of a fault and the distance it has slipped, said Brudzinski. What actually matters to a person on the surface is how much the ground they're standing on shakes and how that affects structures around them -- a concept known as intensity, which researchers estimate using a variety of scales. Intensity depends in part on the earthquake's magnitude, but also on its depth, lateral distance away, and the types of rock and soil in the area.

"Right now, most regulations are still based on the magnitude. But there's a recognition now, a growing recognition, that the true risk is related to what kind of structures are there, what kind of soil they're built on, how shallow those earthquakes might be," said Brudzinski.
Deadly earthquakes continue

After the Feb. 25 earthquake that killed two people in Gaoshan, the local government halted fracking, said Yang. But in surrounding parts of the Sichuan Basin, fracking continues. According to online reports by the China Earthquake Administration, several more damaging earthquakes struck the region later in 2019:

• A magnitude 6.0 on June 17 in Changning County that killed at least 13 people and injured 220

• A magnitude 5.4 on Sept. 8 in Weiyuan County that killed one person and injured 63

• A magnitude 5.2 on Dec. 18 in Zizhong County that injured at least nine

Yang, Zhou and their colleagues have not yet analyzed these earthquakes, and according to Zhou, it is not yet clear whether they were fracking-induced. The Chinese government has denied that the June 17 earthquake that killed 13 people was caused by fracking, according to reporting by Reuters. A recent study suggested it may have been triggered by a combination of salt mining and a previous fracking-induced quake.

Despite multiple attempts over several weeks, Inside Science has been unable to obtain comment from anyone affiliated with the China Earthquake Administration regarding either the earthquakes in 2017, 2018 and early 2019 or the more recent ones that haven't yet been analyzed in detailed studies. The administration has reported greater depths for Sichuan Province earthquakes than would be expected if they were caused by fracking. However, those numbers don't match up with the shallow depth estimates from detailed studies, including Yang and Zhou's research and several published studies that included China Earthquake Administration researchers as authors.

Yang said he wasn't surprised that the depth estimates differ. He explained that the China Earthquake Administration's online reports use estimates that are generated automatically using a network of stationary seismic sensors and a general-purpose model. He claimed that his own study and other studies that have pinpointed shallower depths are much more accurate. That's because they use additional data sources and models that are customized for specific locations, he said.

It's unlikely that any of the earthquakes highlighted in this story occurred naturally, according to McGarr. The northeastern edge of the Sichuan basin has long been prone to earthquakes because it is bordered by a large, active fault. But the fracking is happening further to the south and east, where natural earthquakes are rare.

"It used to be a very stable region," said Yang.

Researchers in the U.S. are taking note. No fracking-induced earthquakes in North America have exceeded magnitude 5 so far, and they may still be unlikely to do so, given differences in the local geology, said Brudzinski. But most are quite shallow, only about 2-4 km belowground.

In the past, said Brudzinski, researchers have debated whether there might be something about the fracking process itself that keeps earthquakes small, ensuring some measure of safety despite the shallow depth. The recent tragedies in China suggest that people shouldn't depend on that as a safeguard.

"To me, that has been sort of the most important aspect of what I've seen from China," said Brudzinski. "It suggests that, yes: We can have some larger-size events."

Editor’s Note: Yuen Yiu contributed additional reporting to this story.

Nala Rogers

Nala Rogers is a staff writer and editor at Inside Science, where she covers the Earth and Creature beats. She has a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Utah and a graduate certificate in science communication from U.C. Santa Cruz. Before joining Inside Science, she wrote for diverse outlets including Science, Nature, the San Jose Mercury News, and Scientific American. In her spare time she likes to explore wilderness.

Fracking: Tory MPs set to defy Liz Truss in loyalty vote

IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA

Image caption,

The government lifted the ban on fracking in England last month

By Nick Eardley and Joshua Nevett

BBC Politics

Three Tory MPs look set to defy the government on fracking, after it declared a vote on banning shale gas extraction a "confidence motion".

Labour wants to use a vote in Parliament to force the introduction of a draft law to ban fracking.

The government has ordered Tory MPs to support its policy, or face expulsion from the parliamentary party.

Ahead of the showdown, three Tory MPs signalled they could not "vote tonight to support fracking".

Former ministers Chris Skidmore, Tracey Crouch, and backbencher Angela Richardson, suggested they would not support the government, meaning they could lose the whip.

• What is fracking and why is it controversial?
• Tory anger over plan to buy local fracking support
• Green groups paint us as villains, minister says

In his tweet, Mr Skidmore said he was "prepared to face the consequences of my decision", and Ms Crouch and Ms Richardson both shared his comments with the word "ditto".

However, no other Tory MPs have signalled they would rebel as the Commons debate progressed.

Earlier, Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg said communities would have a "veto" on fracking in their area, as he attempted to quell the rebellion over fracking.

A number of Conservative MPs oppose fracking, but they have been told they must oppose the Labour motion or face expulsion from the parliamentary party.

Ms Truss's press secretary has said the prime minister would not resign even if the government loses Wednesday's vote.

That is because Labour's motion does not amount to a formal vote of no confidence in the government.

Fracking was halted in 2019 following opposition from environmentalists and local concerns over earth tremors linked to the practice.

But last month, the UK government ended the fracking ban in England as part of its plan to limit rising energy costs.

Now Labour says it wants to give MPs a chance to overturn the decision, which broke a 2019 Tory manifesto promise. It will be voted on at 19:00 BST in Parliament.

Some MPs for the Scottish National Party - which opposes fracking - have told the BBC they will take part in the vote.

If Labour's motion is approved, a bill to ban fracking would be given priority to be debated and voted on in Parliament.

In a message to Tory MPs, deputy chief whip Craig Whittaker said the government "cannot, under any circumstances, let the Labour Party take control of the order paper and put through their own legislation".

He said the party was voting "no" on Labour's motion, enforcing what's known as a three-line whip.

"I know this is difficult for some colleagues, but we simply cannot allow this. Please speak with your whip with any issues," the message from Mr Whittaker reads.

When lifting the ban on fracking last month, the government said the practice would resume only where there was local consent, but did not say how this would be sought.

At Prime Minister's Questions, Liz Truss said the government "will consult on the robust system of local consent" and "give clear advice on seismic limits" before any fracking goes ahead.

Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg set out more details during the debate on Labour's fracking motion.

Mr Rees-Mogg said local communities will have a "veto" on fracking after a consultation on community consent, and that national government would be unable to overrule communities objections, with one option under consideration involving local referendums.

"There's an absolute local consent lock," Mr Rees-Mogg said. "Any process to determine local consent must be run independently and this House will vote on any scheme that we bring forward."

The government hopes the Conservative MPs who oppose fracking will back down.

Meanwhile, Labour believes the government is walking into a trap. They want to make this a big dividing line, and have adverts ready attacking each MP who votes against a fracking ban.

One Conservative MP has told the BBC that many will be very unhappy about voting with the government on this issue.

Last week, some Tory MPs told the BBC they were talking to opposition parties about ways they could block the government's fracking plans.

Shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband said the motion gave Tory MPs a "simple choice" between banning fracking and allowing the government to "impose" the activity on communities.

The Liberal Democrats have urged Tory MPs to "show some backbone" by voting for a ban.

"Conservative MPs will not be forgiven if they give the go-ahead to fracking our countryside for more expensive gas instead of backing renewables," said the party's climate change spokesperson Wera Hobhouse.

A no-confidence vote is usually tabled by the opposition and if the government loses, the prime minister will be expected to resign or ask the King to dissolve Parliament, triggering a general election.

The Tory whips have described Wednesday's vote as "a confidence motion", but the government has the final say over how to respond to a defeat.

Nevertheless, defeat for the government would have political consequences. For example, Tory MPs who do not vote with the government on this motion have been warned they will no longer remain in the parliamentary party.

This could stir up discontent at a time when Ms Truss is trying to shore up her authority.