Contribution
Thank you, Sir Roger. I appreciate your advice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) for his intervention; he makes a good point that our English countryside, wherever it is, needs to be protected. The only way to do that is to ban all forms of fracking.
A 2020 summary of the findings of studies commissioned by what was then the Oil and Gas Authority into seismicity resulting from the operations at Preston New Road emphasised that
“it is not yet possible to accurately predict the seismic response to hydraulic fracturing, if any, in relation to variables such as site characteristics, fluid volume, rate or pressure. Where induced seismicity has occurred, mitigation measures have shown only limited success, and there can only be low confidence in their effectiveness currently.”
In other words, all forms of fracking carry significant risk in relation to seismicity, irrelevant of the volume of liquid proposed.
Other environmental concerns with fracking remain; they are exactly the same for proppant squeeze: potential groundwater contamination from methane migration or the chemicals in frack fluid, methane leaks, flaring and air pollution. Of course, as hon. Members have already drawn attention to, fracking at any volume also leads to more greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. Clearly, the regulatory loopholes around fluid volume are arbitrary and unhelpful. Proppant squeeze carries the same intent and the same risks as higher-volume fracking. It is fracking in all but name.
It is the legal opinion of Estelle Dehon KC that the wording of the Petroleum Act 1998 should be changed to include proppant squeeze. She writes that the current definition has
“caused confusion and proved difficult to apply”,
and instead suggests adopting ��a simple, broad definition”, which
“avoids imposing unscientific volume or rock-formation-based criteria, and thus captures both high and low volume hydraulic fracturing”.
Ms Dehon highlights that many jurisdictions have adopted a broad approach, particularly countries in Europe and Latin America, and multiple US states, where fracking and extractive industries are significant. In her view, and mine, that shows that such a definition is workable. Given the arguments presented today, could the Minister confirm that he will review the current definition of fracking to include those applications for lower volumes of fluid?
At the Labour party conference this year, I was thrilled to hear the Secretary of State confirm that he wanted to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ban fracking for shale gas permanently in England. I was glad to see on 26 November the Government bringing forward new measures in the North sea future plan to implement our manifesto commitments to manage existing oil and gas fields for their lifespans, and not to issue new licences to explore new fields. That is welcome news from a Labour Government committed to showing global climate leadership.
However, I would argue that the proposed ban on fracking is not permanent and does not go far enough. There remain a total of 66 oil and gas licences in England, many of them unused. Under current plans, oil and gas companies will continue to apply for planning permission where there are existing licences and, with the loophole in place enabling companies to propose fracking projects at smaller fluid volumes, they may be able to carry out the exact operations that the Government are attempting to outlaw.
As I have laid out today, if the Government want to ban fracking, they must be comprehensive and must amend the definition of fracking to include smaller-scale volumes of fracking. They must also deal with the issue of existing licences by introducing a ban on granting planning permission for fracking.