Fracking Stumbles Ahead onto Uncharted Paths

Rally against Fracking in Ohio, United States

Ministerial Optimism sees Fracking Stumble Ahead onto Uncharted Paths

In a letter regarding the controversial drilling process Sarah Boyack MSP says regarding the Scottish Government’s position “I am sure that you share my hope that the Minister’s optimism is well-placed” [1].

I do share Sarah’s hope, but optimism is a frivolous commodity when dealing with the regulation of heavy industry. Gas extraction by hydraulic fracturing, known as ‘fracking’, with its highly dubious record of negative health and environmental impacts, demands a more serious attitude.

Onshore gas extraction has hit set-backs in the in the UK in the last six months, with Vale of Glamorgan Council rejecting plans for exploration in September [2] and in October gas drilling company ‘Cuadrilla Resources’ published a report saying it was “highly probable” that their operations triggered earth tremors near Blackpool [3]. These events could spell further trouble ahead for the on-shore gas industry as increased public awareness of its impacts affects policy making.

However, reliable information on these impacts is desperately lacking. Anecdotal reports of cancer rates and neurological conditions increasing in areas of gas development in the US have caused considerable stir [4], but there are only a couple of governmental studies and their results are inconclusive [5]. A county in Colorado state investigated potential adverse health effects of a proposed 200-well operation and concluded that nearbye residents might experience chemical exposures, accidents resulting from industry operations, and psychological impacts such as depression, anxiety, and stress [6], but their study was never been finalised due to disputes with the gas companies and local residents [5]. Bernard Goldstein, a professor in the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh, says published epidemiological studies relating shale gas production to health are “virtually non-existent” [5].

US journal Environmental Health Perspectives reports vastly increased levels of methane in ground-water near fracking sites [6], but there information about the effect of dissolved methane on human health is limited.

It is claimed that toxic chemicals from the fracking process, as well as enormous amounts of salt, some radionuclides, heavy metals, and other contaminants are entering the water supply from ponds of waste water from the extraction process [5]. Although this impact is better understood, it is not well quantified.

This lack of data from the US is crucial because it is the only country with any active fracking operations.

Yet all of this might be brushed aside if there was a clear view on the impacts on energy policy.

Scottish Government Minister Furgus Ewing [1], the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency [8], and the UK Department for Energy and Climate Change [9] all believe that shale gas can help in the transition to a low-carbon economy. But their view is opposed by scientific groups including the Tynadall Centre. In a report for the Cooperative they concluded that gas from fracking will increase global greenhouse gas emissions [10].

For fracking to be permitted in Scotland, a company needs a drilling licence from the UK Government Department for Energy and Climate Change, planning permission is required from the local authority, and authorisation from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency [8]. So far these conditions have been met by only one operation in Scotland, in Canonbie, Dumfries and Galloway. However the operator, Greenpark Energy, says it has not yet decided whether it will use the technology [11]. Another firm, Dart Energy, is developing a site for extracting coal-bed methane on Airth, Falkirk. The fate of this site is unclear, with Furgus Ewing denying knowledge of the company’s intent stated in the Scotsman that they may apply for a licence to frack [11].

Fracking is on the cusp of going big on the British mainland without any reliable data on its likely health and environmental impacts.

It is not clear that this technology is a mistake but concerned citizens should ask for more than poorly-informed optimism from their decision makers.


  1. Letter from Sarah Boyack MSP enclosing note from Fergus Ewing MSP.
  2. BBC News
  4. Earth Works Action
  5. Environmental Health Perspectives
  6. Garfield County, Colorado
  7. Environmental Health Perspectives
  8. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
  9. UK Parliament
  10. Tyndall Centre
  11. The Scotsman

This post was originally published on Bright Green.





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.