'Low health risk' from fracking, says UK agency

 
Cuadrilla shale fracking facility

The risks to public health from fracking for shale gas are low, according to a new official report.

Any problems publicised so far - such as in the US - are the result of operational failure or poor regulation.

The study, by Public Health England, an agency of the Department of Health, reviewed the latest research.

It focused on the risks of emissions of the chemicals used in fracking and radioactive material released with the gas.

The central conclusion is that "potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction are low if the operations are properly run and regulated".

The report recommends environmental monitoring through the lifetime of any project and public disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking fluid.

The findings have been welcomed by the government which is pressing for the development of shale gas in the UK.

Environmental campaigners opposed to fracking say the study highlights the risks and the lack of oversight.

So far exploratory fracking has been limited to one site in Lancashire but the British Geological Survey (BGS) estimates UK shale could yield 150 billion cubic metres of gas, so commercial interest is growing.

US example

The report draws on American research to conclude that though pollutants can enter the air from gas flaring or leaks, "these emissions are relatively small, intermittent and certainly not unique to shale gas extraction…"

One quoted study - from the Barnett Shale in Texas in 2010 - found 70 individual volatile organic compounds including ethane, propane, butane and pentanes close to shale gas activity but observed these to be "localised" and significantly diminished downwind.

But the authors recognise that there is relatively little evidence to go on - the only detailed peer reviewed study of the impact of air emissions was published last year by the Colorado School of Public Health.

That work found that people living within half-a-mile of gas wells had an elevated risk of health conditions including neurological and respiratory effects.

However the Colorado study was criticised for having a small sample size and the Public Health England report says local weather and topography may mean that similar results may not be likely in Britain.

The PHE report acknowledges that extracting shale gas could produce residues containing naturally-occurring radioactive materials - but it argues that these risks would be similar to those in the existing oil and gas industry.

On the dangers of groundwater being contaminated, the study quotes a 2011 paper by MIT researchers who found that nearly half of 43 pollution incidents were related to drilling operations - mainly because of faulty sealing of wells.

Homework marks

According to the PHE study, American experience points to surface spills of chemicals being the most likely to affect water sources.

However it points out that 99% of drinking water in England comes from heavily-regulated water companies so the risk is "considered minimal". The remainder who get their water from private wells are "particularly vulnerable" - but "high quality well integrity" should protect water sources.

Another risk examined is from the chemicals used in the fracking process. An American study found 75% of them could affect skin, eyes and breathing while 25% are carcinogenic.

For that reason, the PHE study calls for full disclosure of the chemicals used and strict enforcement of chemicals handling and of well design.

Overall, the study concludes that the well-publicised problems experienced in the US may not be replicated in the UK because of differences in geology, operation and regulation.

The energy minister Michael Fallon welcomed the findings.

"The UK has the most robust regulatory regime in the world for shale gas and companies will only be granted permission to frack for shale if their operations are safe," he said.

However Greenpeace campaigner Leila Deen said the report was a "timely reminder" of the risks of fracking and the potential long-term health impacts.

"The government has so far responded to these risks by cutting the budget of the environmental regulator and effectively allowing companies to mark their own homework when it comes to monitoring."

 
David Shukman Article written by David Shukman David Shukman Science editor

Birth of 'new Saturn moon' witnessed

Scientists say they have discovered what could be the birth of a new moon in the rings of Saturn.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 273.

    This is a sad puff p[iece in whitch the bbc is either one willingly missleading the public or doing so threw ignorance and i have issues believeing the latter!
    The danger from fracking has absolutly nothing to do with the gases and other issues in the air not a single reason that was even studyed except to again spread misdirection the danger is from contamination of ground water period !

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 272.

    "risks would be similar to those in the existing oil and gas industry"
    OK, how much oil & gas do we produce on land in the UK, how will companies reduce levels of elements such as selenium to levels that won’t affect wildlife in fresh water? NOTE: levels can be much higher offshore without problems (3-4 times).
    PHE study is good for a perfect world; but we don't live in one?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 271.

    Politicians making ill informed decisions based on ignorance or political expediency has always frightened me, and although I'm a great fan of Fracking, Pleae beware!!

    “Any problems publicised so far - such as in the US - are the result of operational failure or poor regulation”
    Of course we will do it right !

    “public disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking fluid” Dream on

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 270.

    We don't have an energy problem - as long as we can use whatever is available. Lots left including 'Fire Ice' Methyl Cathrates (?)

    and Nuclear Power - oooh yes please. Makes our Nuclear Weapons program cheaper :-)

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 269.

    Because we have such a great history of industry regulation in this country, such as with the banks...

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 268.

    It seems to me at the moment the choices in the near future will be between nuclear, fracking or expensive imports. Renewables just cannot supply the demand as it stands. All will be unpopular with someone but needs must until an better alternative is found.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 267.

    We want low energy bills, but we don't want energy generated from resources in this country. What a bunch of hypocrites we are.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 266.

    BS! It is time to stop these Planet Easters!

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 265.

    The Emilia Romagna region in Italy has been wrecked by Fracking,as the Italian government care only for money. When I lived in the Netherlands,a country where fracking the flat land is popular,has made the Dutch countryside less appealing. Please,Please don't do it to the UK,its far too beautiful for it too be done!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 264.

    Oil & Gas:
    You want it- you pay for it! Right!
    Suppliers get it and GOVERNMENT tax it by more than 60%- Right!
    Question: You you want it? How much should government tax it?
    Fracking NO- then tell us how to get cheap energy for the masses!
    YOUR choice!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 263.

    @262. redste

    As far as I know only water, sand and Polyacrylamide (a friction reducer) have been used in the UK so far. In the UK, unlike the USA, it is a legal requirement for the companies to reveal what chemicals they intend to use, but I'm not sure if that's make known to HMG, or make known the likes of you and me.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 262.

    JDB Not a complete global list of the chemicals used but the ACTUAL ones they will use on a specific site, so they can be cehcked when seen in the water supply

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 261.

    Is this the standard of understanding of Public Health England (PHE) on what causes bad health! With air pollution worsening from below PM 2.5 microns pouring out of diesel cars, trucks, and now incinerators. PHE is just the voice of denial that Public health is adversely effected by environmental pollution, and that this is the elephant in the room in regard to large aspects of UK morbidity.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 260.

    @ 258. redste

    There you go, a list of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. You should remember that not all of them are used together or in the same wells.

    http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 259.

    Fracking will pollute the underground water tables and cause earthquakes.
    Not low risk. High Risk. The UK is a tiny country compared to the USA where fracking is rife.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 258.

    If the risks are so low, why aren't the chemicals used placed in the public domain rather that the fracking companies insisting they are kept secret ?
    What have they to hide ? Also why isn't the insurance liability in the public domain instead of secret ?
    Do some proper research BBC and ask the right questions.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 257.

    We were asked "How should the English countryside look in future?"
    Was the answer - to cover countryside in wells sites?
    Lancashire - 7300
    Cheshire - 3000
    Sussex - 6700
    Source http://frack-off.org.uk/wells-wells-and-more-fracking-wells/
    In total to extact Shale Gas, Shale Oil, Coal-Bed Methane & Underground Coal Gasification it is estimated 75000.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 256.

    252.CommanderMethos
    it only takes one person to ignore it and screw up.

    One person would be unable to screw it up. There are numerous checks and safeguards built into the system. Even if there was an accident, the wells are designed to contain any leaks. It would take a combination of faulty parts, human error and bad luck. Look at the excellent safety record in the North Sea.

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 255.

    OK, sorted! Get on with it and we can have cheap energy.
    Its only the greens who at every opportunity demo against everything that would help UK get better.
    Turn the Commons into a powerstation, tap the green energy there and we`re quids in. (Erm to moderator, a Quid is what we used to call a pound before PC sneaked in!)

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 254.

    236.Tim

    I love green energy but you have to be realistic and at the moment much of it it isn't cost efficient (except hydropower). This will change over the next few decades but until then we need to plug the gap with nuclear and hydrocarbons. Natural gas from fracking is the greenest form of hydrocarbon energy and helps us rely less on imported gas.

 

Page 1 of 14

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.