CPRE BRIEFING NOTE: SHALE GAS AND OIL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE AND EAST KENT: WATER RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

This preliminary assessment of the likely water resource impact of hydraulic fracturing has been made on the basis of an interpretation of the local hydrogeology and structural described for seven sites; and some general conclusions are drawn with respect to the implications for unconventional hydrocarbon extraction in the Kent and Sussex Weald. Each site has its own distinguishing characteristics but there are a few key features, common to all, which mark them out as potentially vulnerable to seismic disturbance. Consideration is given to what this could mean for the region’s water supplies and the quality of the wider river and wetland environments.

The geology varies between sites in terms of age and rock type but they all reveal a history of extensive faulting – evidence of structural weakness. And the high pressures generated by the fracking process could re-activate the faults and initiate a new phase of seismic disturbance, disrupting the rock formations and creating new pathways for the dispersion of toxic gases and fracking fluids. The exploratory sites also feature water-bearing rocks (aquifers) throughout the stratigraphic sequence. Some of these are at relatively shallow depths and support abstraction for local public supplies and agriculture including irrigation. They are also natural reservoirs for springs and seepages feeding the headwater ‘baseflows’ of many of the region’s rivers and wetlands.

The relatively close proximity of aquifers to the target shales presents a high risk of contamination from fracking operations. The East Kent exploratory sites can be taken as an extreme case with the of the , a major public supply resource, underlain at no great depth (500 – 800m) by the Measures with inter-bedded shales as potential gas/oil sources. The sequence also features extensive faulting with a recent history of seismic disturbance. Contamination can also result from failures in the construction of the exploratory and production boreholes. Casings and grout seals break-down by corrosion and fragmentation, and all boreholes eventually leak.

Any assessment of the Wealden sites must also take into account the findings of the British Geological Survey of May 2014 which concluded that there were no opportunities for the extraction of commercially valuable quantities of shale gas. Areas of oil-bearing shales were

2 identified in the west of the region but these are high emission fossil fuels of which UK already has more than sufficient reserves given our commitment to compliance with the 2050 global warming targets. All site appraisals will need to take into account the high levels of water demand associated with the development and production stages, bearing in mind the Environment Agency assessment of all water company supply areas in the South East as “seriously stressed”. Kent is subject to frequent summer hose bans and the supply/demand deficit is forecast to increase under the impact of population growth, climate change and losses in public supply capacity in line with E.C. directives defining environmental sustainability targets. This could leave the water companies with insufficient capacity to meet the additional summer peaks arising from fracking operations without breaching statutory river flow conditions or over drawing on groundwater storage.

Hydrocarbon recovery by hydraulic fracturing is a high- risk undertaking, with implications for environmental quality and public health; and the processes involved are, for the most part, carried out at depth and out of sight. Effective regulation therefore requires, as a minimum, continuous 24 hour monitoring and control of all operations, both surface and down-hole, by independent specialist inspectors. We are not however persuaded that the statutory regulators have the necessary staffing levels and resources to ensure compliance by the operators.

Remediation of contaminated groundwater can be a lengthy and expensive operation; and major events must often be accepted as, for all practical purposes, permanent and irreversible.

In consideration of the over-riding need to protect unique and increasingly vulnerable water resources, we are of the view that there should be a general presumption against unconventional oil and gas development throughout the Weald and East Kent Downland.

2. GENERAL.

CPRE Protect Kent is the Kent Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural , part of the national CPRE charity. It is our objective to retain and promote a beautiful and thriving countryside that is valued by everyone and we believe the planning system should protect and enhance the countryside in the public interest for the important contribution it makes to peoples’ physical and mental wellbeing, as well as its vital role in feeding the nation. It is our position that local planning authorities should seek to ensure that the impact of development on the countryside, both directly and indirectly, is kept to a minimum and that development is sustainable in accordance with national planning policy. This briefing paper has been prepared as a commentary on the current national interest in shale gas and oil reserves, but focuses on the local hydrogeology of the Weald and East Kent.

The following comments and observations are based on the findings from preliminary desk studies relating to sites identified as having potential as sources of commercial quantities of shale gas or oil. The region is known to be underlain at depth by beds of shale, some of which could prove productive, but to extract the methane or oil entails hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to break up the formation using high pressure injection via deep boreholes with lateral extensions of large volumes of water and sand, together with a mix of chemicals, some of

3 which are known to be toxic and/or corrosive1. This gives cause for concern, bearing in mind that the process is designed to break up the shale formations and must therefore be presumed capable of doing the same to other rocks in the immediate vicinity, thereby creating new pathways for the flow of gases and fracking fluids into the overlying shallow aquifers, soils and surface water courses2.

The aquifers in question are:  The Chalk of the N & S Downs  The Lower (“Ragstone Ridge”)  The Hastings Beds of the High Weald and Ashdown Forest.

The findings from the recent British Geological Survey (BGS) report of the Shales of the Weald Basin, released on 23 May 2014, have been taken into account in the conclusions from our preliminary site assessments. In essence, none of the sites can be regarded as potential sources of commercial quantities of methane gas. There could be shale oil resources but estimates of winnable reserves must await further exploratory drilling. No surveys have as yet been undertaken for the E Kent area.

3. GEOLOGY.

3.1. Figure 1 is a sketch map of the geology of the region, centred on the Wealden Basin, an eroded anticline taking the form of an elongated dome with its W–E axis running from Farnham and Petersfield to the Channel coast at . Figure 2 is a N–S section across the centre of the dome showing the general structure and relationship between the gas-bearing shales and younger formations which include the major aquifers of the region. The oldest exposed formations are the Purbeck beds of the Upper Jurassic and the clays and of the Hastings Beds which form the core of the anticline. These are succeeded by the – a horse-shoe shaped lowland area flanking the dome to the NE and SW and this is in turn bordered by the Lower , Clay and the Chalk escarpments of the North and South Downs. The generalised vertical section in Figure 3 shows the two principal shale oil formations; the Kimmeridge Clay and the Lias, at depths of between 1000 and 2000m below ground level (bgl). The sequence is broadly representative of the succession likely to be encountered in the west of the region at Fernhurst and Kirdford or the village sites south of Guildford.

Boreholes at these locations would be expected to penetrate more than 300m of Weald Clay and approximately 500m of sandstones, shales, clays and making up the Hastings Beds and Portland/Purbeck succession. These are underlain by 500m of Kimmeridge Clay, an Upper Jurassic formation comprising shales, mudstones and limestones; and this could mark the highest productive level for fracking operations. The developers will however be anxious to prove the potential of a second, lower sequence of around 300 – 400m of shales with subordinate limestones (the ‘Blue Lias’ of the Dorset coast). A parliamentary briefing note

1 Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Briefing Note. Jan 2013. Hydraulic Fracturing: Impacts on the Environment and Human Health. 2 Chartered Institution of Water and Environment Management. Dec 2013. Hydraulic Fracturing of Shale in the UK. (Policy Statement)

4

“Shale Gas and Fracking”3 identified both the Kimmeridge and Lias as potential methane sources, but these should now be reviewed in the light of the BGS findings.

3.2. Figure 4 can be taken as representative of the N Downs of E Kent, with 250 – 300m of Chalk underlain by 40 – 50m of Gault Clay and a relatively thin Wealden /Jurassic sequence of sandstones, clays, limestones and shales. The Kimmeridge and Lias are not represented in E Kent; and in the Dover area the entire Jurassic sequence is reduced to less than 100m, resting on the Coal Measures of the E. Kent Coalfield, the lower Shale Group of which is likely to be targeted for methane extraction.

4. GEOLOGICAL FAULTS.

4.1. The region features numerous geological faults, evidence of earth movements taking place over the last 150 million years or so. These originate as planes of structural weakness developed along fractures in the rock formations, which allow vertical or near-vertical slippage between adjacent blocks. Figure 5 illustrates the influence of faulting on the sequence in the S Guildford area. Figure 6 is a simplified representation of the main structural features of the region while Figures 7 & 8 provide additional detail for the Western Weald and Ashdown Forest respectively. Figure 7 shows N-S faulting in the vicinity of the exploratory sites at Fernhurst and Kirdford/Wisborough Green; with vertical displacements (“throws”) of 15-20m. These are significant features bearing in mind the recent history of fracking operations causing seismic tremors in areas such as the Fylde Peninsular, characterised by geological faults. And it is worth nothing that high angle faults often feature in the crests of anticlines. The high density pattern shown in Figure 8 reflects the extensive block faulting characteristic of the Hastings Beds of the Ashdown Forest. Displacements here can exceed 200m, producing a complex network of small, often isolated and multi-layered groundwater units. The Ashdown and Tunbridge Wells components nonetheless support local public supply demand and continue to sustain the “baseflow” springs and seepages feeding the headwaters of the , Eastern Rother and Sussex Ouse. But it has proved vulnerable to disruption and induced leakage by drilling operations and would clearly be at risk from any exploratory programme associated with shale gas development.

4.2. There is much less surface detail available for the Downland areas but we have substantial evidence of faulting in East Kent based on records obtained in the course of surveys and mining operations in the Kent Coalfields. Figure 9 is based on records of fault development in the Dover area and is fairly representative of conditions encountered throughout the coalfields. Throws average 30 – 40m and a few are recorded at up to 100m. Local seismic tremors have been attributed to movement on these faults. The earthquake of April 2007 had a magnitude of 4.3, with an epicentre approx. 12.5 km off the south coast. The event generated 200 emergency calls but with no serious injuries, although houses in five streets were damaged and power supplies to ‘several thousand’ houses were interrupted. BGS were quoted at the time as referring to other historic events in this location: notably 1382, 1500 (6 people killed), 1776 and 1950. The latter two events were rated at magnitude 4+.

3 Richards, P. et al. Standard note, House of Common Library. Sept 2013. Shale Gas and Fracking. SN/SC/6073 10th Sept 2013

5

BGS attributed the earthquake to movement on a fault plane trending NNW – SSE which is consistent with the axis of two synclinal (trough-shaped) downfolds developed to the SW of Snowdown and Tilmanstone Collieries.4

The structural geology reflects the influence of two major mountain-building periods:  The Hercynian Orogency(ESE trend) which is dated as post-Carboniferous to early Jurassic (280- 200 M years ago) and whchih produced the coalfield syncline  The Alpine Orogency, which has had its most active phase in the Miocene period (25 M years ago), and this was followed by earth movements which have continued to the present day, raising the area by approx. 150 metres since the start of the Pleistocene (about 2 M years ago).

5. IMPACT OF FRACKING OPERATIONS.

5.1. The presence of geological faults is of special significance insofar as hydraulic fracturing operations could re-activate these structures, (the ‘Blackpool’ episode is a case in point) and create new pathways for the migration of contaminants. This could have implications for the integrity of public water supply boreholes or other lawful water-dependant interests, including protected rights and licenced abstractions for private supplies or irrigation. The Paludina limestones of the Weald Clay for example, are important local sources of shallow groundwater for domestic and agricultural use. There may also be implications for the ‘National Park’ status of the Western Rother headwaters.

Furthermore there is the possibility that the pressures applied in fracking could be sufficient to drive any gases and other mobile fluid components into the Lower Greensand horizons flanking the Western Rother Valley. The Environment Agency in their Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) for the Arun and Western Streams (March 2013), identifies this as an important local aquifer supporting a “significant number” of abstractions in the Rother Valley. The distance from the site to the aquifer at O.D level exceeds 4 km but we should not too readily discount the possibility of contaminants migrating into the aquifer from one of the deeper laterals ‘chasing’ the shales or by diffusion via lenses or stringers within the Kimmeridge Clay. Figure 10 shows the disposition of private water supply sources in the W. Weald and allows a comparison with the proposed fracking sites and fault lines, and highlights the vulnerability of the region’s water resources.

5.2. The East Kent Petroleum Exploration and Development License (PEDL) block features 4 sites near Dover, for which applications have been made for exploratory drilling and testing: Woodnesborough, Tilmanstone, Shepherdswell and Guston. Map Figure 11 serves to highlight the risk to public supplies, with all these sites in close proximity to more than 20 of the water company boreholes drawing on the Chalk aquifer which, in this area, supports nearly 90% of the public supply requirement. Contamination of just a few of these would represent a significant loss of deployable drought output and a corresponding down-grading in security of supply. The aquifer also functions as natural storage for the springflows and seepages supporting the R. Dour through Dover and the Great Stour and Little Stour draining the downland to the NE. These latter streams in their lower reaches also support gravity feeds (marked blue) for irrigation of the areas of intensive agriculture bordering the Stour Estuary below . Any contamination of the Chalk could therefore also impact on the quality of surface water courses and irrigation systems.

4 Historical Geology of Kent and the Boulonnais: Wood, Shepherd-Thorn and Harries, May 2000 www.geologyshop.co.uk/geolkb.htm

6

5.3. All this has environmental quality and public health implications for private and public water supplies, agriculture, amenity and both river and wetland habitats. We also have to keep in mind that most instances of large-scale contamination of groundwater have to be accepted as, for all practical purposes, irreversible. The level of risk is such that there is now a consensus of independent professional opinion opposed to the practice of fracking in fault zones. To support this, we have the evidence submitted last year to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee by David Smythe, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, University of Glasgow5.

In summary he concludes:  Shale basins in the U.K are typically heavily faulted (in contrast to conditions in USA).  Such faults provide a fast-track for migration of gases and fracking fluids into overlying aquifers and surface bodies of water.  In consideration of this, there have been bans on fracking operations in France, Germany Austria, Holland and Spain.  The relevant regulatory bodies in the UK are, in any event, insufficiently staffed and resourced to enforce compliance with the necessary protective measures.  Fracking for shale gas should be banned in areas of complex faulted geology.

(We could add that such conditions apply throughout much of the Wealden Basin)

5.4. Advocates of Fracking will point to its long history in the USA (more than 70 years). But until around 2000 this involved relatively low pressure technology developed primarily for recovering ‘worked-out’ gas and oil fields; and without the complex suite of toxic chemicals. High pressure fracking is little more than 10 years old, and most of the episodes of serious environmental contamination date from this period. The process of borehole construction and installation of casing also carries the risk of ‘over-break’ fragmentation of the rock formations penetrated; and there are no techniques for grout-sealing within the damaged zones which would ensure complete protection against migration of contaminants. In any event, all steel casings, even those of the highest quality, have a limited life and many will begin to break- down within a few years. Pennsylvania State Agency has established 209 cases in which home owners ’water supplies were contaminated from nearby drilling since 2008.

5.5. In the event however, that exploratory drilling comes to the Weald, effective regulation will require continuous, 24 hour, uninterrupted monitoring and supervision by the regulators to ensure full compliance with the conditions of the licences and consents6. What are the chances of this, given that the Environment Agency is already under-staffed and under- resourced for its existing commitments; and is now facing further cuts? The current expedient of ‘self-regulation’ amounts to no-regulation, and we now face what can only be interpreted as active encouragement of largely un-hampered shale gas or oil development; presumably, as a matter of national policy. Attempts have been made to persuade the public that procedures will be put in place to monitor and anticipate seismic episodes greater than magnitude 3. I am

5 Smythe, D.K. Nov 2013. The Economic Impact on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil. Written evidence to House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee.

6 Environment Agency Consultation Draft. Aug 2013. Onshore oil and Gas Exploratory Operations: Technical Guidance.

7 not however aware of any technology that can ensure adequate warning; and of course, once a seismic event is triggered there is nothing that can be done to halt or in any way control its further progress, or ameliorate its impact on the community.

If we take the geological conditions observed at the exploratory sites as broadly representatives of those obtaining throughout the Weald, then we seem obliged to think beyond each localised seismic event and consider the wider collective impact of the regional fracking programme.

5.6. Most, if not all of the intended planning applications are for exploratory and testing purposes to determine the locations and likely yields of the shale gas beds. Assuming a satisfactory outcome, the applicant would then seek authorisation for gas extraction by fracking. The question arises however, as to the wisdom of granting planning permission for exploratory drilling at sites known to feature geological faults, given that, irrespective of the outcome, no authorisation for extraction could follow. To proceed otherwise, would be to impose an unnecessary burden on the public purse and pose a threat to the environment and the region’s increasingly vulnerable water resources; with implications for the quality of life of the affected communities.

8

6. THE DECC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SHALE GAS AND OIL EXTRACTION.

The report of Jan 2014 by the Association of Mineral Exploration Companies (AMEC), commissioned by DECC7 includes environmental impact assessments of options for further licensing beyond the current (13th) round for both conventional and unconventional (fracking) developments.

Assessments are undertaken for:- i] Full development as proposed ii] Restricted further development iii] No further licensing beyond the current level.

The conclusions relating to further development raise special concerns with respect to the implications for the Wealden region.

Assessments are undertaken by reference to 12 objectives, namely:

1. Biodiversity 7. Air Quality 2. Population 8. Climate Change 3. Health 9. Waste 4. Land use, Geology & soils 10. Resource Use 5. Water 11. Cultural Heritage 6. Flood Risk 12. Landscape

Assessments under each objective are rated according to a scale of 5 alternative ‘effects’:-

 Significant Positive (beneficial)  Minor Positive  Neutral (no overall effect)  Minor Negative  Significant Negative (adverse)

Assessments for the most critical stages of exploratory drilling, testing, development and production have rated 10 of the 12 objectives as demonstrating a predominantly negative impact with Population rated as neutral and Flood Risk as ‘uncertain’. No positive assessments were recorded and a separate cumulative impact assessment produced significant negative effects for 9 of the 11 objectives (with Flood Risk excluded).

7 DECC/AMEC. Jan 2014. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Further Oil and Gas Licensing, Environmental Report.

9

7. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON UK ENERGY POLICY OF SHALE GAS AND OIL.

Implications of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee Report 8th May 2014

The following summary draws on sections of the HOL report that have special relevance to the water resource and water environment aspects of shale gas development, some of which may serve as references in the assessment of the Wealden sites considered so far.

7.1. EXTRACTS FROM CHAPS 7 – 9 WITH CPRE COMMENTS IN ITALICS

Para 126. Groundwater contamination is described by the EA as the “biggest environmental risk”, associated with the migration of fracking fluids, fugitive methane and naturally occurring radio-active materials (NORMs).

Para 130. The Environment Agency (EA) will not allow the use of substances in fracking fluids considered to be hazardous to groundwater.

(CPRE: The question arises as to how this is to be policed, given that the Agency’s personnel and resources are already at full stretch with existing commitments, and facing further staffing cuts?)

Para 132. Cuadrilla is quoted as proposing to use only one chemical (a polyacrylamide) which is non-toxic and this is also subject to EA approval.

(CPRE: There is no indication as to whether all other operators will adopt the same principle and whether this will apply to development and production stages)

Para 133. UK regulators will require full disclosure of constituent chemicals.

(CPRE: No details as to how this will be monitored and enforced).

Para 137. HOL notes that shale gas is generally encountered at depths of between 1500m and 4200m below ground level – “a long way from rocks that contain water”.

(CPRE. In the Western Weald, the top of the Kimmeridge Clay is approx. 400m below the base of the Hastings Beds aquifers and in E Kent, the top of the Coal Measures Shale Group is 500 – 800m below the base of the Chalk. It was also noted that BGS are mapping areas where there are ‘big and small’ vertical differences, and this will presumably be used as a basis for screening potential development sites).

Para 138. Prof David Smythe is quoted as saying that it is likely that in the UK, fugitive methane will eventually contaminate aquifers; and a leaky fault is a fast track to shallow groundwater and to surface (David Smythe is Emeritus Professor of Geophysics at Glasgow University and an acknowledged authority on the seismicity of fracking operations in geological fault zones) but:-

Para 139. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering consider propagation of methane through natural fractures very unlikely, requiring high upward pressures over a long period. The risk is seen to be ‘very low’.

10

(CPRE: RS/RAE failed to note that development of fractures or re-activation of faults in the base of an aquifer can also result in a reversed hydraulic gradient which would in turn create a groundwater drain and consequent loss of storage).

Para 140. Prof Davis of Durham University quoted American experience where more than 1 million fracking operations had been carried out with no hard evidence of water supply contamination.

(CPRE: Most of these will pre-date the recent high pressure injection technique adopted only 15 – 20 years ago. There is also a very low density of geological faults compared with UK and European sites and also, for most of the period, there has been no formal obligation on operators in the US to monitor or report pollution incidents. The US case studies do not therefore constitute a reliable model for UK operations)

Para 141. The EA would object to shale gas development at any location important for supplies of drinking water.

(CPRE: Choice of location should also take into account other lawful uses including direct abstraction for industrial, commercial and agricultural requirements, the latter including spray and trickle irrigation. The assessment should also take into account the impact on the environmental quality of springs and seepages supporting wetlands and river baseflows).

Para 142. HOL record that there is a balance of scientific opinion against the likelihood of methane migration via geological faults.

(CPRE: This is not evident from the examples cited, and the Committee seem to have acknowledged that risks remain even with well-regulated sites, and there are many locations within the Weald where the consequences of failure could be severe. Once a seismic response has been triggered, there is nothing that can be done to control its further progress. Post Blackpool, there can be no reliance on the competence or integrity of operators).

Para 144 – 147. HOL records expert opinion (Smythe, Stephenson and BGS) that there is a risk of contamination where the well penetrates an aquifer, and methane can leak as a result of casing and/or grout seal failure. But HOL concludes that there should be no risk or low risk to groundwater, provided that drilling is in the ‘right place’, the wells are properly constructed and sealed, and that operations are properly regulated.

(CPRE: Unfortunately, all casings, regardless of steel quality, eventually fail and grout seals are vulnerable to shock-fracturing. The only certain protection is total avoidance of aquifers and fault zones8).

Paras 148 – 152. There are concerns regarding effective treatment and disposal of flow-back water with examples of bad practice in US, including re-injection of oil and gas waste (including NORMs) which in some instances have been identified as the cause of large earthquakes; an environmental risk “as old as the industry itself”.

8 Osborn, S.G. et al. Duke University, N.C. May 2011. Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing.

11

Paras 153-158. The DECC Strategic Environmental Assessment December2013 forecasts “a high activity” annual flow-back of 108 million cubic metres: all requiring treatment. This amounts to a substantial additional burden on the existing waste-water treatment capacity.

(CPRE: Presumably, just another additional workload for the understaffed regulators?)

Paras 165 – 173. On the basis of experience with the Blackpool seismic events of 2011, DECC authorised resumption of exploratory operations as of Dec 2012, subject to new controls “to mitigate” the risks of seismic activity; the conditions as follows:-

 Preliminary assessment of stress fields and historic seismicity to identify stress faults.  A hydraulic fracturing plan, identifying how seismic risks would be addressed, ensuring no fracturing near “active faults”.  Maintain seismic monitoring, before, during and following fracking.  Implement a traffic light system with a trigger-stop facility.

The Committee concludes that with the recommended protective conditions in place and on the basis of the evidence heard, there should be no risk that seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracturing would be of sufficient magnitude to threaten people and property.

(CPRE: The provisions adopted by DECC would not ensure protection in all instances, and clarification of what constitutes an ‘active’ fault would be helpful. It is possible that an assessment, using the DECC criteria, of the E Kent (coalfield) sites and the heavily block-faulted inliers of the Ashdown Forest would be sufficient to eliminate these as unsafe for shale gas development by hydraulic fracturing).

Paras 174 – 180. HOL, concerning the dangers of atmospheric pollution by emissions from plant, drilling, fracking and flaring operations, noted public fears based on case studies including Mc Kenzie et al on a Colorado gas field where concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons exceeded 60 x the legal UK limit. The findings have been dismissed by Public Health England (PHE) who have questioned the methodology and concluded that the results were not generally applicable. It is their view that the public health risks from exposure to emissions associated with shale gas extraction “are low if the operations are properly run and regulated”. There is however a proviso in para 178 to be mindful of the cumulative risk if operations are scaled up. DECC opinion was that regulatory controls through the planning system and environmental permitting would reduce the risk of impacts on air quality. This is re-enforced by PHE in their preliminary report which concludes that the risks to public health from shale gas exploration and production are low, given proper regulation, and that development “would be very unlikely to have a significant effect on radon levels in homes”.

(CPRE. DECC in their report “Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Shale Gas Extraction and Use” Sept 20139 makes the recommendation (Para 5a) that operators “adopt reduced emissions completion at all stages”, i.e. employing Best Available Technology.

9 Mackay, J.C. and Stone, T.J. DECC. Sept 2013. Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Shale Gas Extraction and Use.

12

The updated DECC Ministerial Guidance10, while recognising the hazards to water quality and public health puts considerable emphasis on the capacity of the regulatory system, acknowledges that this does not ensure total elimination of the risks. The roles of the relevant regulators are discussed under the heading “Minimising the Risks of Groundwater Contamination” and includes a statement that “…a permit may be issued if the risk can be limited” by, for example, the design of the well and monitoring or limiting the concentration of chemicals. And later, in the same section, we have the statement that all operators must comply with the regulations relating to well design and construction etc. “…to minimise the risk of leaks.” Terms such as “limited” and “minimise” are meaningless and do not make for effective regulation. An operator could be seen fully to meet the requirements with measures that, to many concerned observers, would amount to no more than token compliance. Nor is there any reference to the fact that fracking fluids can contain up to 200 chemical constituents, many known to be toxic and carcinogenic). Others are associated with acute conditions of the respiratory, gastro-intestinal and central nervous systems. If total protection cannot be assured, the regulator should be obliged to apply the Precautionary Principle and refuse authorisation.

The handling of flowback fluid is also touched on but there are, again, no details of the constituents. We are simply told that they comprise “sand and chemicals added to assisit the fracking process with small quantities of dissolved minerals.”)

Paras 207 + 208. EA and HSE will work together on well design and integrity aspects, recognising that proper construction and sealing are critical.

(CPRE: But it has to be accepted that no measures can be entirely fool-proof.)

Paras 218 + 219. HOL recognises the importance of fostering public confidence in the process. The industry is not at present seen to have the “benefit of the doubt”.

Paras 220 + 221. The regulators have yet to acquire the necessary familiarity with the special requirements relating to onshore oil and gas.

Para 225. Further reference here to the capacity of the EA to manage the work load.

Para 231. HOL recommend that there should be one considered set of regulations for onshore oil and gas operations and that well integrity should be assessed by reference to both public health and environmental criteria. EA and HSE should also make clear exactly how and when they would inspect well sites.

(CPRE: In view of the declared paramount importance of the environmental and public health aspects, and the concerns already voiced relating to the need for improving public confidence, it would be reasonable to assume that the appropriate regulators would have powers of entry, at any time and without notice, by an independent inspector, to any site for purposes of assessing installations, equipment, materials and processes; and to order the immediate cessation of any operations deemed to constitute a material environmental or public health threat. All related costs would be carried by the operator).

10 Oil and Gas Onshore Exploration and Production 9th Sept 2014: Fracking UK Shale: Water (Feb 2014)

13

HOL also notes that operators are often required to submit the same information to different regulators and recommends that the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil should provide a single point for data input, to avoid duplication and reduce costs for operators

(CPRE: Another pro-development move, shifting costs from the operator to the tax-payer)

Paras 232 – 235. Following from Para 231, HOL recommends that the regulations should make explicit that the well examiner for onshore operations should be independent of the well operator.

(CPRE: We would suggest that the well examiner must be independent or ideally employed by the appropriate regulator).

Paras 236 – 239. HOL, concerning abandoned wells, notes the requirement for operators to notify HSE of abandonment and that the operator remains liable for the well and is expected to remedy any subsequent problems. However, in para 237 DEFRA Sec expressed the view that “concerns over abandoned wells were groundless”.

(CPRE: another public confidence own-goal?)

Para 240. HOL recommends that rules should be introduced for monitoring abandoned wells and a common liability fund established by the industry in case of default by an operator.

(CPRE: It would also be helpful to have legal opinion as to whether or not the liability condition in para 236 is legally binding and for how long after abandonment of the site. There are said to be examples from the US where operators have ‘small print’ conditions absolving them of any responsibility on the day that the site gate finally closes).

7.2. SUMMARY OF HOL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Chap 10).WITH CPRE COMMENTS.

UK ENERGY MARKET (Chap. 2)

Para 259. Indigenous shale gas is a medium term solution that could help in the control of domestic energy charges.

Para 260. Possible benefits:-  enhanced energy security  an interim option, pending further development of renewables  early de-commissioning of high emission fossil fuels  reduced gas price increase for domestic and industrial users

SHALE GAS IN UK (Chap. 4)

Para 263. HOL recommends amendment of legislation to facilitate subsurface (horizontal) drilling under third party land.

(CPRE: By this means, the developers’ task is made even easier than in the US – another public confidence master stroke?)

14

Para 264. There may be potential for economic development, but no reliable estimate can be secured ahead of the exploratory programme.

Para 265. At the present rate of progress, large scale development is unlikely before 2020’s.

Para 266. Progress is unlikely to accelerate with the present complex regulatory regime.

Para 267. Govt. welcomes the community benefit schemes but the shale gas industry needs to promote the development case more effectively.

Para 268. Public opinion remains divided on shale gas as an energy option.

Para 269. HOL welcomes Govt. commitment to development, including the community benefit schemes and tax breaks for operators. Investment will however rest on future trends in proven yields and production costs, and for these we need to await the outcome of the exploratory programme.

POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT (Chap. 5)

Para 270. UK is unlikely to experience gas price cuts on the scale of the US but prices would be lower than imported liquid natural gas (LNG) and supplies would be more secure.

Para 271. The impact on energy-intensive industries may well depend on the rate of progress of shale gas development.

Para 272. The prospects for job creation and further investment in the energy industry, again rests on the outcome of the exploratory programme.

SHALE GAS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (Chap. 6)

Para 273. Shale gas is another fossil fuel with emission levels comparable with natural gas but substantially lower than coal. The development programme will incorporate routine monitoring of methane emission levels.

Para 274. Substitution of shale gas for LNG will reduce the carbon footprint by reducing processing and transport (?)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (Chap 7)

Para 275. Regulators will require full disclosure of fracking chemicals and they will not permit use of hazardous chemicals. If this is enforced then “hydraulic fracturing poses no risk to groundwater in the UK”

(CPRE: Not true, the fracking process will still have the potential to re-activate geological faults and there is also the failure of well casings and grout seals to consider. These will all create pathways for the migration of methane, brines, radon and minewaters into overlying aquifers and the atmosphere. In some situations, fracking could also bring about de-watering of overlying aquifers e.g. Ashdown Forest and E Kent Chalk).

15

Para 276. HOL claims that the weight of scientific opinion does not acknowledge the risk of methane migration and considers that with strict regulation and monitoring, the risk is very low.

(CPRE: the weight of expert opinion is otherwise).

Para 279. Concerning water demand, EA will not permit levels of water consumption likely to threaten household (public) supplies.

(CPRE: The same undertaking should also apply to all existing lawful users including commercial abstractors and agricultural users; and direct abstraction should also be subject to the prevailing level and flow control conditions).

Para 280. HOL are satisfied that, Blackpool notwithstanding, there should be no risk that seismic activity by fracking will constitute any risk to people and property.

(CPRE: This is not realistic. There is to our knowledge, no methodology that can monitor the impact of fracking with sufficient accuracy to predict future seismic responses and once a response has been triggered, there is nothing that can be done to control its further progress or mitigate environmental impact).

Para 281. PHE conclude that given proper regulation, the risks to public health from air emissions are low.

Para 282. Shale gas development would be very unlikely to have a significant effect on radon levels in homes.

Para 283. Traffic and disruption are acknowledged but HOL see a role for the industry’s community benefits scheme to compensate those affected.

(CPRE: There would appear to be no intention to exercise LA control).

Para 285. Given a robust regulatory regime, the risks to the public health and the environment will be low.

(CPRE: By definition, this would imply that anything less than ‘robust’ regulation will result in significant adverse impact).

REGULATORY REGIME (Chap. 8)

Para 286. HOL welcomes EA plans for standard permits, but these will require simplification of the regulatory framework.

Para 287. HOL notes measures required to improve co-ordination of the constituent regulators’ systems.

Para 288. HOL recognises the need to reduce complexity and increase transparency of the regime.

16

Para 289. The option of creating a single permitting body would further delay progress and HOL recommend better co-ordination of the existing regulators. Well integrity is to be monitored by reference to both environmental and public health perspectives.

Para 290. The well examiner should (must?) be independent of the well operation and there must be rules for monitoring abandoned wells.

Para 293. Unless the regulatory system is streamlined, the UK will be unable to take full advantage of the economic opportunities.

Para 298. Exploration and development of shale gas and oil resources is an urgent national priority.

7.3. WATER DEMAND.

7.3.1. HOL in Para 279 raises the question of water consumption for fracking operations. Estimates vary widely but it is useful to take an example from U.S experience based on well field development in Texas where water availability is a key issue. A typical production well would have a life of approximately 2 years and consume water at a rate of around 20,000 litres/day. If we applied this rate to the 4 East Kent sites; assuming 10 production wells per site, total demand would amount to approximately 0.8 Ml/d for the 2 year period. And on the basis of a per capita consumption rate of 150l/h/d, this would correspond to the average daily demand for a community of 5,000 or 6,000 people – a small town; and this, for a county where the water company supply areas are assessed by the EA as already “seriously stressed”. The constituent companies also face major challenges in the formulation of their medium to long- term water resource management plans, and 3 factors have a particular bearing on the strategies developed over the next 25 years, these being:-

 Population growth  Environmental sustainability  Climate change

7.3.2. Population growth is one of the more problematic and uncertain terms in the demand calculation. Growth in the South East has been forecast at 14% over the next 25 years: and for Kent, with a current population (including Medway) of approximately 2M, this would amount to an increase by 2040 of nearly 300,000 new water users: representing an additional demand (assuming average per capita demand of 130 l/h/d) of 39 Ml/d, and this has to be found during the planning period.

7.3.3. Environmental Sustainability remains the largest single element of future demand growth within the medium–long term but it also rates as the most difficult to forecast with any measure of certainty. The European Water Framework Directive requires member nations to take measures to achieve “good status” in the environmental quality of both surface and groundwater regimes; and this could entail substantial reductions in the annual and daily quantities abstracted for public supply from certain specified rivers and aquifers. There is a target date of 2026/27 for full implementation but we have no firm estimates of the likely total reduction required. One water company has adopted a “worst case” figure corresponding to more than 50% of their average and peak abstraction rates; and this would have to be replaced from other (mainly external) sources of supply. The water balance review published by CPRE in the 2006 report “A Water Resource Strategy for Kent” included an estimate of

17 average daily deployable output, as a total for all constituent companies, of 766 Ml/d. If we take the EWFD objective as applying to the authorised maximum daily quantities, the worst case sustainability reduction target for Kent would be 50% x 766 = 383 Ml/d.

7.3.4. A forecast of the impact of climate change demand was outlined in the 2007 CPRE report “A Water Resource Strategy for South East England”. Tentative forecasts were attempted, based on the Hadley Centre UKCIPO2 Report,” Climate Change Scenarios in the UK April 2002.” These clearly require up-dating but, for purposes of a preliminary indication of the implications for demand growth, we could work on the basis of the Hadley forecast of a 1°C increase in annual mean temperature, with a corresponding 5% net decrease in mean annual rainfall. This, as reported in the Environment Agency 2004 review, translates into a 20 year increase for the South East of approximately 3%; and it would seem appropriate to carry the same estimate forward as the increment for the 20 year period 2015 to 2035. The 2006 CPRE estimate anticipated an overall climate change demand growth rate for the 20 year period to 2026 of 3% which, for an initial demand level of 725 Ml/d gave a CC increment by 2026 of 74 Ml/d. If, to simplify the process, we assume continuation of the CC impact at the same rate, this would add a further 40 Ml/d for the period 2026 to 2040, giving an out-turn demand of 839 Ml/d; an increment relative to the 2014 level (755) of 84 Ml/d.

7.3.5. In summary: by 2040, the 3 factors could amount to a combined demand increment of 506 Ml/d which, added to the 2006 dry year critical period demand, gives an out-turn demand of 725 + 506 =1231 Ml/d; a potential deficit for 2040 of 1231 – 765 = 466 Ml/d. (assuming of course that no action is taken to increase the total deployable drought output beyond the 2006 figure of 765 Ml/d)

7.3.6. Even assuming a 100% over-estimate of the demand increment, Kent would still face a net deficit of more than 200 Ml/d to be made-good during the next 25 years; representing a level of capital investment at least 3 x that of any supply-side scheme undertaken in the last 40 years. This is the measure of the competition facing any case for increased abstraction under peak season conditions. There is an inevitable co-incidence of peaks for PWS, irrigation and sustainability requirements, and this is without any special measures needed to address existing local stresses on resources or to improve water company levels of service under design-drought conditions. At such times similar supply/demand shortfalls are likely to apply throughout the South East and the deficit cannot be resolved by improved local transfer agreements or any of the options identified in the short-medium term programmes embodied in the current WRMP.

7.3.7. The quantity of returned flow is also variable, but even assuming no more than 50%, this would represent a significant treatment and disposal task beyond the capacity of most rural communities.

7.4 THE REAL COST OF SHALE GAS AND OIL

7.4.1. HOL have set out the possible benefits from shale gas and oil development (most of which are speculative and almost entirely dependent on the final out-turn yield) but against this we have to weigh the threats, which have been acknowledged in the report but in nearly all cases dismissed as manageable. Groundwater contamination is identified by the EA as the ‘biggest environmental risk’ (Para 126); and they state that they will not permit the use of hazardous substances in the fracking process and will exercise their powers to order full

18 disclosure of chemicals (Para 130). They also make clear that they will not permit fracking near aquifers or active faults.

7.4.2. Even assuming a total enforceable ban on the use of hazardous chemicals, we are still left with the threat to surface and groundwater resources from methane, brine and NORMs arising from the reactivation of geological faults, coupled with poor well construction and failure of casings and grout seals. We note also that no provisions are envisaged for protecting the integrity of aquifers from drainage by basal fracturing associated with the reactivation of faults. The Chalk and Hastings Beds of the Ashdown Forest are seen as particularly vulnerable in this respect and in extreme cases could suffer significant loss of storage.

7.4.3. This calls for a complex and sophisticated regulation strategy that cannot under any circumstances accommodate short cuts or relaxation of environmental quality or public health standards. And even then, the regulators would not be able to deliver full protection. It also pre-supposes that the regulators have the requisite staffing levels and resources to monitor supervise and, where necessary, enforce compliance. Unfortunately the EA; for one, is currently unable to meet its existing commitments and this year faces further staff cuts of more than 1,500 fte.

7.4.4. All this adds up to a strategy at odds with the Government’s declared intention to pursue shale gas development as an urgent national priority; if necessary “streamlining” the administration in order to take advantage of the supposed economic opportunities. This will not be possible without abandoning the precautionary principle (which underpins the EA’s remit) and compromising on public health protection and environmental sustainability.

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

8.1. The geology of the Weald is characterised by a high density of faults, marking planes of structural weakness which could be reactivated by hydraulic fracturing to create new pathways for migration of fluid contaminants into overlying aquifers and any surface bodies of water supported by springs and seepages. Substantial storage losses can also result from basal fracturing of confined and unconfined formations.

Aquifers at risk include:-  The Chalk of the N & S Downs  The Lower Greensand (“Ragstone Ridge”)  The Hastings Beds of the High Weald and Ashdown Forest.

8.2. Borehole casings and grout seals are also vulnerable and can be ruptured, providing additional opportunities for the passage of contaminants. In any event, all casings, irrespective of the quality will in time corrode and fail.

8.3. There is a body of expert opinion which opposes fracking in geological fault zones, and bans or partial bans are now in place in France, Germany, Austria, Spain and the Netherlands.

8.4. The Environment Agency has made clear that groundwater quality must be protected from potentially polluting operations, and under their Groundwater Protection Principles and Practice (Nov 2012), opposes any development that may pollute aquifers “of high value”. This provision could be taken to have general application throughout the Weald where there are many examples of fracking sites in close proximity to vulnerable aquifers.

19

8.5. Many of the operations associated with shale gas extraction will require continuous (24 hour) on-site monitoring and control by competent, independent inspectors to ensure full compliance with the relevant consent or licence conditions. And the question arises as to how this is to be achieved, given that the regulating bodies are already insufficiently staffed and resourced for their existing commitments.

8.6. However comprehensive and sophisticated the monitoring regime, there are no means by which any regulator can guarantee to predict or anticipate the reactivation of a geological fault and the subsequent escape of contaminants. And once triggered, there is no action that can be taken to halt or in any way control its progress or ameliorate its impact.

8.7. There have also been calls for the comprehensive baseline monitoring of groundwater, soil and surface water quality; the purpose being to provide standards of reference for the detection of any pollution arising from fracking operations. This is to be welcomed but most instances of contamination will originate at depth, and there may be a long delay(weeks or months) before any evidence can be recorded at the surface; by which time, most of the damage will have been done.

8.8. Remediation of contaminated groundwater can be a lengthy, expensive and sometimes fruitless operation; and major pollution events must often be accepted as, for all practical purposes, irreversible.

8.9. The hydrogeology of the Weald is therefore such as to make unconventional shale gas or oil extraction a very high risk operation in terms of the environmental impact and the implications for public health.

8.10. The Environment Agency in Nov 2012 assessed the water resources of most of the water company supply areas in the South East as “seriously stressed”, and pollution of just a few public supply boreholes could represent a significant loss of deployable drought output and reduced security of supply.

8.11. The Weald should therefore be seen as a hydrological entity, with a high dependence on groundwater, and with its major aquifers vulnerable to seismic disruption. It would seem to follow that all of the sites identified for exploratory drilling and shale gas or oil extraction should be assessed collectively as a measure of the likely cumulative environmental and public health impact.

8.12. The issue of water supply must also be addressed insofar as the demand on resources under drought conditions could prove prohibitive for extended fracking operations.

8.13. The findings from the recent BGS Survey would seem to discount shale gas as a realistic option and the alternative of shale oil would be at odds with the UK commitment to comply with the inter – governmental agreement to restrict carbon emission rates in line with the 2050 global-warming control targets. If so, we understand that there are already more than sufficient reserves.

8.14. On this basis, we would expect the weight of evidence to support the exclusion of the Weald and Downland region from the search area.

20

Author: Graham D Warren BSc Geol, MSc Hydrol, FGS, MICE, CIWEM 8.11.14

21

Edition)

th

Geological map sketch of the Wealden District

1

ure

British Regional British Geology:the Wealden District (4

Fig Source:

22

Figure 2 North-South Section, Wealden Anticline

23

Figure 3 Generalised Wealden and Fracking Zones

24

Figure 4

Coal Seam Levels 1-7 = Group Levels 7-14 = Shale Group

25

Figure 5 Vertical Section: South Guildford

Fig. 6 Principal aquifers and structural features

26

Figure 7 Structural Geology, Haslemere area. Source: BGS memoir sheet 285

Figure 8 Structural Geology: Tunbridge Wells area Source: BGS Memoir sheet 303

27

Figure 9

Figure 10 Western Weald: Exploratory Sites and Water Resource Features (Sh: Shalford; Ch Chilworth; Al Albury)

28

Figure 11