Shale gas firms face binding law if they fail ‘scoreboard’ test


EXCLUSIVE / European countries allowing shale gas drills will have to publish a ‘scoreboard’ showing compliance with ‘best environmental practices’ which could become legally-binding within 18 months, under new EU rules seen by EurActiv.

The EU would require extensive public consultations and environmental impact assessments to be undertaken by member countries before any new drills could be allowed, the document says.

Defiance of the recommendations would trigger a review that could make them "legally binding" in July 2015.

“A site should only be selected if the risk assessment conducted under this chapter demonstrates that no direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater will result from high volume hydraulic fracturing,” the document says.

Such fracturing is defined as the injection into a well of 1000 cubic metres or more of water per ‘frack’ – or of 10,000 cubic metres of water for an entire fracking process.

Possible restrictions are flagged for flood and seismic-prone areas, and member states are instructed to ensure that installations “are constructed in a way which prevents possible surface leaks and spills to soil, water or air.”

Water flows should be traced, methane emissions should be monitored and “specific infrastructure to capture and transport associated natural gas should be installed”, with flaring minimised, and venting avoided, the paper continues.  

Firms would also be obliged to monitor the precise composition of the fracturing fluid used for each well, the volume of water used for its fracking, the pressure applied during the fracking process, and the fluids that subsequently emerge at the surface.

The recommendation outlines how the Commission would closely monitor the rules’ implementation “in the form of a scoreboard”. A review on 22 July 2015 would then consider “updating its provisions and the need for developing harmonised and legally binding provisions,” if implementation has been ineffective.

But environmentalists and green politicians were downcast after reviewing the proposal. “I think it is sad that the European Commissioners are protecting the interests of a handful of fossil fuel companies rather than the interests of Europe’s citizens,” the Green MEP Claude Turmes told EurActiv.

He called on "responsible" European Commissioners to speak out while the proposal remained in Inter-Service consultations before a 22 January launch.

Less than a directive

The new recommendations are less biting than the directive originally sought – and prepared – by the European Commission’s environment directorate.

But EurActiv understands that they are still being opposed behind the scenes by the Commission’s secretary-general Catherine Day and the commissioners for energy, industry and the budget, all of whom would prefer an ‘advice’ document with less legal clout.

Even so “the Commission’s legal services are 90% on our side,” one source close to the current proposal said, on condition of anonymity.

Feelings are running so high that the Environment Commissioner, Janez Potočnik, is reserving the option of withdrawing any proposal at all, rather than risk allowing a weak and environmentally-unfriendly position to get an EU rubber-stamp.

Despite the rules’ non-binding character, and past experience of what this can mean in Brussels, officials say that it could ultimately be more effective to pass them than to face protracted and time consuming opposition to legislation from London and Warsaw.

“To a large extent, shale gas drills are already covered under existing legislation,” one EU official said on condition of anonymity.

“There are some gaps but the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive applies at certain volumes, the Water Framework Directive applies, the Mining Waste Directive too – there is a body of legislation there already and if we make a shale gas recommendation, it can achieve the same thing (as a directive).”

State aid inquiry for UK shale gas plans?

Having won an intense backroom battle involving diplomatic manoeuvres and pressure on the Commission's president, the UK has to some extent pre-empted the EU’s plans.

Yesterday (13 January), UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced that councils could keep twice as much money in local taxes from shale gas firms as from other businesses, which would boost the industry. 

This may not necessarily fall foul of the EU’s new recommendations.

“Providing they carry out the public consultations and Environmental Impact Assessment then it would not prevent that,” one EU source said. “Tax breaks come more under state aid.”

The Green MEP Claude Turmes agreed, calling for an EU state aid investigation into the UK's plans to be launched immediately. “This goes clearly against the EU decision to phase out fossil fuel subsidies,” he told EurActiv. “It is like bribing local politicians to allow an environmentally extremely harmful operation.” 

British officials contacted by EurActiv declined to comment.


Alessandro Torello, a spokesman for the International Oil and Gas Producers Association (OGP) sent EurActiv a statement saying that although his group tried to refrain from commenting on leaked EU papers, “we believe that existing EU legislation and national laws already cover shale gas operations in a comprehensive way. If the EU commission identifies gaps, we will engage in the debate and we will seek to find the most appropriate way to address any perceived gaps.”

  • 22 January 2014: European Commission to unveil recommendation on shale gas
  • 22 July 2014: Member states to be invited to inform Commission of measures they have taken under the recommendation’s remit
  • 22 July 2015: Commission to review implementation of recommendations and consider making them legally binding
External links: 


Starboard 10's picture

I do wish Foreign civil servants would stop interfering in our National affairs.

Mike Parr's picture

Turmes is right about the Uk bribing local politicos - of course it does raise the question: why UK local councils cannot retain all business rates? that of course would give them more financial independence - & we cann't have that can we?

In the case of the fragrant Catherine, my guess is she is angling for a seat in the House of Dolts (ooops meant "Lords") in the UK. Toeing the Tory-vermin line on fracking would facilitate that - I'm sure she will look good in dead animal skins - keep it up Cathy (I can call you Cathy cann't I?).

Ioana Rus's picture

Here is a quotation from the EC's official document on shale gas: 'At a time when sustainability is key to future operations it can be questioned whether the
injection of toxic chemicals in the underground should be allowed, or whether it should be
banned as such a practice would restrict or exclude any later use of the contaminated layer (e.g. for geothermal purposes) and as long-term effects are not investigated. In an active shale gas extraction area, about 0.1-0.5 litres of chemicals are injected per square metre. This holds even more as the potential shale gas plays are too small to have a substantial
impact on the European gas supply situation. The present privileges of oil and gas exploration and extraction should be reassessed in view of the fact that the environmental risks and burdens are not compensated for by a corresponding potential benefit as the specific gas production is very low.'
Is anyone reading these documents!?!?!?

Mike Parr's picture

Rus: I rather think they are not - or if they do they probably ignore such unwelcome information.

David Barneby's picture

Fracking for Shale gas has had the most devastating effects on the environment in parts of the USA .
The air completely poluted with gas , the water supply poluted , the water in streams inflamable .
The US is a very big country with vast little populated areas . the UK or European countries are much more densely populated , Fracking could render whole inhabited districts uninhabitable . Are we prepared to destroy our environment for economic need or greed ?