British Geological Survey - Revision history

Melissa Jones at 01:30, 29 August 2017

2017-08-29T01:30:45Z

Melissa Jones: /* People */

2017-08-22T02:29:05Z

People

Melissa Jones: /* Report on induced seismicity caused by shale gas operations */

2017-08-22T02:27:47Z

Report on induced seismicity caused by shale gas operations

Melissa Jones: /* Reserves 'over-hyped' say Scottish geologists */

2017-08-22T02:26:28Z

Reserves 'over-hyped' say Scottish geologists

Melissa Jones: /* Reserves 'over-hyped say Scottish geologists */

2017-08-22T02:23:30Z

Reserves 'over-hyped say Scottish geologists

Melissa Jones: /* Shale Gas reserve estimates */

2017-08-22T02:23:16Z

Shale Gas reserve estimates

Melissa Jones: /* Publications */

2017-08-22T02:22:24Z

Publications

Melissa Jones: /* Report on induced seismicity caused by shale gas operations */

2017-08-22T02:21:29Z

Report on induced seismicity caused by shale gas operations

Melissa Jones at 02:19, 22 August 2017

2017-08-22T02:19:52Z

Melissa Jones at 02:19, 22 August 2017

2017-08-22T02:19:24Z

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 :The evidence from peer-reviewed papers suggests fracking in the UK will not be effectively regulated. It is highly likely that regulatory agencies may lack the staffing and resources necessary to monitor and enforce effective regulation of the industry
 :US and UK peer-reviewed analyses and EU law identify both the precautionary principle and prevention as keys to dealing with fracking. This is underpinned by findings from the peer-reviewed public health literature that already identifies significant hazards and major potential risks from the industry.'<ref>Andrew Watterson and William Dinan, [http://www.regulatingscotland.org/report/frackingandregulation.pdf A RAPID EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT OF REGULATION AND REGULATORY PRACTICES INVOLVED IN FRACKING AND ITS PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS], ''Regulating Scotland'', [pdf] accessed 16 December 2016. </ref>
 ==Affiliations==

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 *Professor [[Mike Stephenson]]
 *[[Bob Gatliff]]
-*Dr [[Rob Ward]]
+*Dr [[Rob Ward]] (also acted as an adviser to the industry-funded [[Task Force on Shale Gas]])
 *Dr [[Phil Richards]]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 :'The aims of this project were to better understand the levels of induced seismic activity that could be associated with unconventional oil and gas activities in Scotland and better understand the robust regulatory and non-regulatory actions that can be taken to mitigate any noticeable effects on communities. The research has found that Scotland is characterised by low levels of earthquake activity and the risk of damaging earthquake is low. On average there are eight earthquakes of magnitude 2 or above in Scotland every year, which is approximately the magnitude above which earthquakes might be felt by people. Hydraulic fracturing to recover hydrocarbons is generally accompanied by earthquakes with magnitudes of less than 2 that are too small to be felt. Evidence from the United States and Western Canada suggests that the probability of induced earthquakes that can be felt is small, although there are a number of examples of earthquakes that were large enough to be felt. Improved understanding of the hazard from induced earthquakes and the successful implementation of regulatory measures to mitigate the risk of induced seismicity are likely to require additional data from a number of sources, including improved monitoring capabilities.' <ref> [http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Unconventional+oil+and+gas+research+published+09112016132500?open Unconventional oil and gas research published], ''Wired Gov'', 09 November 2016. Accessed 15 December 2016. </ref>
-However, a fracking literature review published by academics [[Andrew Watterson]] and [[William Dinan]] concluded that:
+However, a fracking literature review published by Stirling University academics [[Andrew Watterson]] and [[William Dinan]] concluded that:
 :'Although several reports and papers, including some from the UK government and its agencies, state fracking would be safe assuming there is or will be industry best practice and ‘robust’ regulation, the evidence base for such statements is remarkably sparse [...].

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 22 August 2017
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:There is a need to factor this considerable and fundamental geological uncertainty into the economic equation,” he said. “It would be extremely unwise to rely on shale gas to ride to the rescue of the UK’s gas needs.”		:There is a need to factor this considerable and fundamental geological uncertainty into the economic equation,” he said. “It would be extremely unwise to rely on shale gas to ride to the rescue of the UK’s gas needs.”
		+
		+	The shale gas industry has increasingly cited the urgent need to bolster the UK's gas reserve as a key driver behind the push to develop fracking in the UK in the face of protest from affected communities and environmental campaigners alike.

	According to the ''Financial Times'', BGS science and technology director [[Mike Stephenson]] told a recent conference there was little dispute that “significant” shale resources existed in the north of England. The only way to resolve the geological uncertainty, he said, was 'to start drilling', despite acknowledging that:		According to the ''Financial Times'', BGS science and technology director [[Mike Stephenson]] told a recent conference there was little dispute that “significant” shale resources existed in the north of England. The only way to resolve the geological uncertainty, he said, was 'to start drilling', despite acknowledging that:

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 {{‪Template:Fracking badge‬}}BGS has estimated that 1,300tn cubic feet of gas exists beneath the north-west of England, Yorkshire and East Midlands. <ref>*Press release, 'Shale gas resource figure released', 27 June 2013 </ref>
-===Reserves 'over-hyped say Scottish geologists===
+===Reserves 'over-hyped' say Scottish geologists===
 The BGS estimates have been called into question by a team of scientists at [[Heriot-Watt University]] in Edinburgh, led by Professor [[John Underhill]], who warned in August 2017 that the UK's shale gas potential was 'over-hyped' and  'unlikely' to be economically viable. '

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ===Report on induced seismicity caused by shale gas operations===
-The BGS published a report about induced seismic activity of shale gas in November 2016 with a focus on Scotland. It explained that:
+The BGS published a report about induced seismic activity of shale gas in November 2016 with a focus on Scotland. Its purpose was:
 :'The aims of this project were to better understand the levels of induced seismic activity that could be associated with unconventional oil and gas activities in Scotland and better understand the robust regulatory and non-regulatory actions that can be taken to mitigate any noticeable effects on communities. The research has found that Scotland is characterised by low levels of earthquake activity and the risk of damaging earthquake is low. On average there are eight earthquakes of magnitude 2 or above in Scotland every year, which is approximately the magnitude above which earthquakes might be felt by people. Hydraulic fracturing to recover hydrocarbons is generally accompanied by earthquakes with magnitudes of less than 2 that are too small to be felt. Evidence from the United States and Western Canada suggests that the probability of induced earthquakes that can be felt is small, although there are a number of examples of earthquakes that were large enough to be felt. Improved understanding of the hazard from induced earthquakes and the successful implementation of regulatory measures to mitigate the risk of induced seismicity are likely to require additional data from a number of sources, including improved monitoring capabilities.' <ref> [http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Unconventional+oil+and+gas+research+published+09112016132500?open Unconventional oil and gas research published], ''Wired Gov'', 09 November 2016. Accessed 15 December 2016. </ref>
@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 :The evidence from peer-reviewed papers suggests fracking in the UK will not be effectively regulated. It is highly likely that regulatory agencies may lack the staffing and resources necessary to monitor and enforce effective regulation of the industry
 :US and UK peer-reviewed analyses and EU law identify both the precautionary principle and prevention as keys to dealing with fracking. This is underpinned by findings from the peer-reviewed public health literature that already identifies significant hazards and major potential risks from the industry.'<ref>Andrew Watterson and William Dinan, [http://www.regulatingscotland.org/report/frackingandregulation.pdf A RAPID EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT OF REGULATION AND REGULATORY PRACTICES INVOLVED IN FRACKING AND ITS PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS], ''Regulating Scotland'', [pdf] accessed 16 December 2016. </ref>
 ==Affiliations==