The Task Force on Shale Gas has today released its second report on the impact of a fracking industry on the UK, specifically assessing local environmental and health impacts.

The report has assessed the available evidence on the potential local environmental and health impacts of a shale gas industry in the UK and made a series of recommendations.

Launching the Report, Lord Chris Smith, chair of the Task Force on Shale Gas said:

“Our conclusion from all the evidence we’ve seen is clear. Only if the drilling is done properly and to the highest standard, and with rigorous regulation and monitoring, can shale gas fracking be done safely for local communities and the environment.”

“We highlight four essential ingredients for safe operation: full disclosure of chemicals; baseline monitoring from the outset; strong well integrity, independently regulated; and ‘green completions’ to contain the gas that’s created and minimise emissions.”

“The evidence shows that many of the concerns associated with fracking are the result of poor practice elsewhere in the world, such as poorly constructed wells.”

“It is therefore crucial that stringent regulations are established in the UK, as set out in our recommendations, in order to meet these legitimate concerns. We also recommend the formation of a National Advisory Committee to examine, collate and evaluate health impacts associated with shale gas operations once they have begun and data from the first wells becomes available.”

Among a number of water-related issues addressed in the report, the report states:

"Whilst fracking requires a lot of water, it is not as water-intensive as some other industries. A well needs between 10,000 and 30,000m3 (10,000 to 30,000 tonnes or two to six million gallons) of water over its lifetime. For comparison, this is the same amount of water required to run a coal-fired power station for 12 hours, or to water a golf course for one month - or the amount lost each hour by a large utility company through leakage.”

It also says that the water used in fracking itself (or fracking fluid) is not drinking water although it is initially most often drawn from the same water supply.

The Task Force has reiterated the recommendation from its first report, that water should wherever possible be piped into a well site, rather than being trucked in with all the associated lorry movements and that shale gas companies should work closely with water companies to ensure demand for water is adapted accordingly during times of potential water stress, such as drought.

Other key recommendations include:

• Full disclosure by shale gas operators of the chemicals being used in their operations – with Environment Agency monitoring on site to confirm additive levels are within agreed and safe limits
• The process of ‘green completions’ – whereby fugitive methane emissions are minimised on site – should be mandatory for production wells
• The disposal of wastewater by deep injection – which has been associated with earthquakes in the United States – should be avoided in the United Kingdom in line with current Environment Agency practice, particularly where the nature of the geology is unsuitable
• Baseline monitoring of groundwater, air and soil to be established at the moment a potential site is identified, with community representatives given an oversight role in monitoring and all results made public. Current planning regulations that require full planning consent before boreholes can be drilled for monitoring should be changed

The Task Force also wants operators to commit and be held to the very highest standards in well construction, independently monitored. The Task Force found many of the problems associated with shale gas derived from historical poor practice in the United States, rather than the process of fracking itself – a situation it says can and must be avoided in the United Kingdom.

The report says that Public Health England should commit to reassessing and evaluating its report into the health impacts of shale gas once a statistically significant number of wells have been established and data is available. All results and conclusions must be made public

The recommendations follow months of academic review, visits to communities potentially affected by fracking, input from industry, experts, campaigners and relevant associations. To underline the scientific and robust nature of its report, later today the Task Force is also publishing a briefing document which sets out the scientific foundations of its findings.

“Our guiding principle is to provide trusted, factual and impartial information that people need in order to make up their own minds about shale gas,” said Lord Chris Smith, “With this second report the Task Force has reviewed evidence, visited shale gas sites and met with experts and communities, all of which has informed our environmental and health recommendations. We look forward to the public’s response.”

The Task Force will publish two further reports in 2015 covering climate change and economics. A final report on the potential risks and benefits of shale gas for the UK will be published as the culmination of the Task Force’s research in the spring of 2016.

The Task Force on Shale Gas was launched in September 2014 to give careful consideration to public concerns, and to provide an impartial and transparent assessment of the potential benefits and risks of shale gas extraction to the UK.

Environmental organisation Greenpeace has questioned the Task Force report’s recommendations on the grounds that it is entirely funded by shale gas companies including Cuadrilla, Centrica and Total.

Daisy Sands, Greenpeace Head of Energy said:

"The fracking companies and their Task Force are also calling for the powers to bypass local democracy so they can drill bore holes without planning permission….the local planning process is the only way residents get to have a say over fracking in their community and that's under threat.”

However, the Task Force points out that while it has initially been funded by businesses that operate in the shale gas industry, it operates completely independently from its funders. The funders have committed to the Task Force Constitution, which states explicitly that they have no control or influence over how the Task Force operates, what it publishes or the conclusions it reaches.

Click here to download the second Interim Report