MEPs demand shale gas impact assessments

Vote narrowly in favour of environmental impact assessments for fracking projects.

MEPs have called for mandatory environmental impact assessments for hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking), the process used to extract shale gas. The vote, in Strasbourg yesterday (9 October), was very close – 332 in favour and 311 against, with 14 abstensions.

MEPs were voting on an amendment to a European Commission proposal to revise the 1985 EIA Directive.

Energy companies have complained that extra bureaucratic processes will slow down shale-gas exploration in Europe, at a time when new extraction techniques have resulted in lower energy prices in the United States.

As a compromise, MEPs backed a proposal in which environmental impact assessments (EIAs) would be required for shale-gas extraction but not for initial exploration. It would only apply once companies begin using hydraulic fracturing for tests.

“We are revising this key legislation to align it with Europe’s new priorities, such as soils, resource use and protecting biodiversity,” said Andrea Zanoni, an Italian Liberal MEP who is in charge of the dossier. “Hydraulic fracturing raises concerns. We lay down clear criteria to avoid conflicts of interest and involve the public.”

Negotiations with the Council of Ministers may be difficult, as many member states are adamantly opposed to requiring EIAs. Janez Potocnik, the European commissioner for the environment, said after the vote that the Commission “will now be carefully examining the proposed amendments”.

France supports EIAs for shale gas, but the UK and Poland are opposed. The UK circulated instructions to British MEPs telling them to vote against EIAs. Germany’s position is unclear, though it was German Liberal MEPs who crafted the compromise on exploration.

Antoine Simon, shale-gas campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said he would have liked to see all exploration activities covered. “The problem in the US has been that there is no requirement for gathering baseline information before a project, so residents can’t prove a causal link between the operations and [environmental damage],” he said. “Then the industry says these chemicals were naturally present in the groundwater. If they had this data from before operations, they could prove that they are not.”

“But this vote is an important first step, and it’s important that it wasn’t only the left wing and ALDE that supported it but included a number of European People’s Party MEPs as well,” he added. “It shows they’re conscious of the impact shale gas can have. This is the first time in EU legislation you would have a clear reference to shale gas.”

The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) said it was concerned that the Parliament’s approach could stifle development of shale gas exploration in Europe. “They risk undermining energy investments in the European Union, especially in new gas developments, if left in their current form,” said Roland Festor, OGP’s EU Affairs Director.

“The text adopted would require undertaking long and complex environmental studies at a very early stage in the exploration phase, undermining – without bringing additional environmental benefits – the efforts to develop domestic oil and gas opportunities, such as gas from shale,” he added.

Last week OGP highlighted a report from the University of Texas which concludes that methane emissions from shale gas wells are significantly lower than previously thought. The issue is key as the European Commission prepares a policy proposal dedicated to shale gas, which is expected before the end of the year. It is still unclear whether this proposal will be new EU legislation or guidance.

Speaking at an event showcasing the new report, Jose Delbeke, director general of the Commission’s climate action department, said that mandatory testing for methane leaks at sites will have to be introduced.

MEPs backed the Commission’s proposed changes in other areas of the EIA directive, including rules on public consultation and deleting the requirement for ‘accredited’ experts and instead requiring ‘competent’ experts.

Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey