Fracking Fail in Falkirk

frackBy Liz Thomson @LizThomson88

The second Ineos public meeting intended to sell fracking to the central belt ended in defeat for Directors Gary Haywood and Tom Pickering.

Questions from the audience on the potential dangers to public health exposed embarrassing gaps in the knowledge of the men who claim to be able to frack safely in Scotland.

Falkirk residents branded the presentation a “white wash” as the pair failed to improve upon their first lack lustre performance in Denny. One man captured the mood in the hall when he addressed Ineos bosses directly, saying:

“I put it to you that you actually don’t know if this can be done safely or not. All you see in front of your eyes are pound signs.”

When quizzed about existing studies into public health it was revealed that neither man had read the comprehensive report published in 2014 by the New York Health Department, which led to a state wide ban.

Carol Anderson of Concerned Communities of Falkirk said: “Where is the proof and evidence that this is going to be safe for our health….the fact remains that there is no body of evidence that shows it is safe.”

Mr Pickering replied: “You’re right there hasn’t been in the US, the kind of rigorous study that would be expected here…”

However, when the New York State report was highlighted to him, he replied:
“The New York study, I can’t comment on because I haven’t read that one.”

The 186 page report containing over 100 pages of references and abstracts of other recent studies resulted in Governor Cuomo banning the technology based on “the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes”.

The study concluded fracking may adversely impact climate change, drinking water; lead to surface water contamination, and seismic activity. The report also raised concerns about Community impacts associated with boom-town economic effects such as increased vehicle traffic, road damage, noise complaints, increased demand for housing and medical care, and stress. Several peer reviewed reports were also referenced describing commonly reported symptoms in residents living close to well pads including; “skin rash or irritation, nausea or vomiting, abdominal pain, breathing difficulties, coughing, nosebleeds, anxiety, stress, headache, dizziness, eye irritation, and throat irritation”.

Data indicating links between low birth weight and congenital defects – and proximity to well pads during pregnancy was also cited; as was a 2014 study suggesting proximity to higher density well pad development was associated with congenital heart and neural tube defects.

CEO Gary Haywood defended the failure to examine the New York report saying:
“Even if I looked at the New York study…I’m not the right person to judge whether that study is a solid study. The right people to look at that are the people in Public Health England and the Royal Society who are qualified.”

“These studies….say there’s no risk to public health…[they are] bodies we would trust to make that judgement”

However, campaigners pointed to flaws in the reports, neither of which were authored by academics with public health expertise.

Last year, A British Medical Journal editorial condemned the Public Health England report, branding the authors’ support for fracking; “A leap of faith unsubstantiated by scientific evidence.”

Writing in the respected medical journal Professors Adam Law, Jake Hays, Seth Shonkoff, and Madelon Finkel criticised the focus of the PHE report on “hypothetical” engineering and regulatory solutions rather than on health outcome data, stating:

“The [PHE] report incorrectly assumes that many of the reported problems experienced in the US are the result of a poor regulatory environment. This position ignores many of the inherent risks of the industry that no amount of regulation can sufficiently remedy, such as well casing, cement failures, and accidental spillage of waste water. There is no reason to believe that these problems would be different in the UK, and the report provides little evidence to the contrary, despite repeated assertions that regulations will ensure safe development of shale gas extraction.”

Further embarrassment was caused to the Ineos bosses when – despite their repeated assurances that fracking fluid is safe – under questioning both men were forced to admit they had no knowledge of specific chemicals.

A member of the audience asked Mr Pickering to comment on the dangers associated with Glutoardlahyde, a biocide commonly used in fracking to eliminate bacteria in water; only to be told “I can’t comment on a specific chemical, that’s not my area of expertise.”

Glutoaldrahyde has been identified by the Australian National Toxics Network as one of several chemical products in widespread use that pose significant hazards to humans “because they remain dangerous even at concentrations near or below their chemical detection limits.”

According to the NTN group – coordinated by UN climate change expert Dr Mariann Lloyd Smith – the chemical has induced occupational asthma and contact dermatitis in workers exposed to it. It is a known mutagen – i.e., “a substance that may induce or increase the frequency of genetic mutations” – and is readily absorbed through the skin.

Residents also enquired about the use of chemicals containing endocrine disruptors (EDCs) during the fracking process. These chemicals, which have been found to disrupt hormonal function have been detected widely in wastewater and surface waters across the globe. According to the World Health Organisation EDCs are associated with altered reproductive function; increased incidence of breast cancer, abnormal growth patterns and neurodevelopmental delays in children.

In 2013 University of Missouri researchers found greater hormone disrupting properties in water located near hydraulic fracturing drilling sites than in areas without drilling. he researchers found that 11 chemicals commonly used in the fracking process are endocrine disruptors.

However, when asked by CCoF activist Maria Montinaro whether he knew what endocrine disruptors are , Mr Jaywood responded abruptly, stating “Yes, It’s not relevant.”

Ms Montinaro said: “[EDCs are] very relevant to this industry. The impact of minutiae chemicals on people in our environment is crucial. Endocrine disruption and the science behind that needs to be taken into account as well.

Mr Haywood also struggled when faced with questions about the disposal of toxic waste water. One resident told him: “You said you know what chemicals you use, so you should be able to tell me what you’re dealing with and how you treat it, how you extract it, what do you do with the waste water at the end of it, where does the treated water go for disposal. That’s something that should already be known.” to which Mr Haywood replied:”It’s impossible for me to answer the question about how we’re going to treat hypothetical chemicals, because we’d be here for weeks.”

When quizzed about buffer zones between well sites and communities, the men made frequent reference to the stringency of the local planning system in an attempt to allay fears.

In reference to a site at Skinflats with planning permission, just 800m from the local primary school Mr Pickering said:“ that’s a site that has been through the local planning process and been assessed, has been considered and has been granted consent.”

“Every single site regardless of where it sits in any of those areas has to be assessed on the same basis of noise, activity, traffic, as it goes through the planning system.”

It was revealed last week that Ineos will impose a minimum 400m buffer zone, despite the recommendation by the Scottish Government to leave a distance of 2km between residential areas and wells.

Maria Montinaro said: “The Scottish Government introduced in their new Scottish Planning Policy buffer zones, but the problem with those buffer zones is, as we’ve found out now, it is up to the industry whether or not they want to introduce a buffer zone…they determine the buffer zone and have decided a minimum of 400m, not 2km.

“The SPP (Scottish Planning Policy) says that the council can challenge that…The problem is, we know our councils do not have the financial resources to do this.
“There is a £46 million deficit just in Falkirk Council. Concerned Communities of Falkirk had to raise £80’000 to take their case to public Inquiry, that’s just one application. The scale of this industry is thousands of wells. Our councils cannot afford to stand up to this industry, our communities can’t, we do not have the financial wherewithal. But we know, that if the buffer zone was 2km, this industry would have no way of going through the central belt of Scotland, we are too densely populated.”

She added:

“It would be prudent of Ineos to actually study the compendium of evidence available and come back to us with what they consider is the importance or relevance of that evidence. To these communities, public health is the one priority, you cannot buy that.”

Dr Mariann Lloyd Smith, Senior Advisor to the Australian National Toxics Network said:

Air pollution increased significantly at Pennsylvania’s natural gas sites with sulfur dioxide emissions jumping 57 percent from 2012 to 2013. Similar increases in air pollution were recorded in Australia’s National Pollutant Inventory for 2012-13.

“While it is worrying that the industry proponents appear to know little of the chemicals used in their own industry, nor of some of the most important scientific reviews of the active industry, it is even more surprising that they were so quick to dismiss the issue of endocrine disruption. A  2013 study of surface and groundwater near gas drilling sites showed that they  exhibited moderate to high levels of endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) activity, whereas, samples taken from sites with little drilling showed little EDC activity.  

“Exposure to EDCs can increase the risk of reproductive, metabolic, neurological, and other diseases, especially in children and young organisms.

“Importantly, US researchers have already observed a positive association between the density and proximity of shale gas development; pregnant mother’s residences, and the prevalence of congenital heart defects and possibly neural tube defects in their newborns.

“It is important to remember that Children are not little adults: they have special vulnerabilities to the toxic effects of chemicals. Children’s exposure to chemicals at critical stages in their physical and cognitive development may have severe long-term consequences for health.” The unique vulnerability of children to hazardous chemicals is well recognized by WHO, UNICEF and UNEP.”

The Ineos tour continues today. Tickets for the remaining dates can be reserved here:

Comments (17)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Thistle says:

    LIVESTREAM 7PM: INEOS(FRACKING) – Community Engagement Programme – Bishopbriggs Academy

  2. maxi kerr says:

    Why the FRACK are we even discussing this. Just run em out of town.

  3. bringiton says:

    “The right people to look at that are the people in Public Health England”
    This is the problem.
    The people who bear all the risks live in the Central belt and those who will benefit directly do not.
    This has never stopped the British state in the past riding roughshod over indiginous peoples’ rights and safety and will almost certainly happen in this case should we fail to send sufficent Scottish MPs to London to represent us.
    The usual trick for Westminster is to get the HoL to secretly pass legislation which gets around things the “elected” politicians do not want to be seen as being responsible for.
    That will be much more difficult to hide with a large block of SNP MPs to keep them honest.

  4. Optimistic Till I Die says:

    And this before the US Geological Survey (?) report last week (?) finally acknowledging that minor earthquakes across a number of US states had been caused by the fracking industry.

  5. jcd says:

    Just a couple of money grubbing schmucks who couldn’t care less if your kids get poisoned so long as they make a profit out of it.

    1. Dean Richardson says:

      If they allowed fracking anywhere near their own homes, I might be convinced that the procedure is safe. Until then, I reserve the right to be highly sceptical about it all.

  6. ELAINE FRASER says:

    I attended this meeting and was also shocked at how little information /’expertise’ (at least in the main areas of concern to the community ) the two representatives of the INEOS appeared to have.

    It really did feel like a scene from Erin Brockovitch or Michael Clayton. It also felt like a juggernaut that will be very difficult to stop and I say that because I don’t believe that the meeting was ever intended to answer serious questions about health and safety /environmental concerns . The person chairing began by saying he didn’t work for INEOS but didn’t tell us who exactly he was.
    The two speakers droned on knowing the audience was hostile but going through the motions anyway because no doubt they have some box to tick about a ‘duty’ to ‘consult’ the community. The video shown to kick it all off had a couple experiencing what life would be like without gas – no this no that etc etc no phones, no i-pads nothing until they sat naked – had the whiff of PROJECT FEAR all over it – i.e. there is NO ALTERNATIVE you will have nothing not even the clothes on your back if this doesn’t get the go ahead.

    I fully understand that we are all heavily dependent on oil and gas and that future energy supply is a key issue for any government including the SNP but this really is too important for us to sleepwalk into. Even if they could have somehow demonstrate it would all be safe the question would remain is this the way to go ? – just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should.

    I only became aware of this meeting from having attended a previous one on fracking before Christmas. None of my friends or neighbours attended yet we will all be affected . My sense is that many have no idea of the scale of what is being proposed or the serious implications for all our futures .

  7. Ineos CEO Gary Haywood may well claim that “…the Royal Society…” is a body “…we would trust” but should the public have similar confidence in reports emanating from these “independent” bodies?
    If you Google “Frackademics Case Study 2: Academic involvement in major shale gas studies” they pose the question “As public funding falls, and business takes a greater role in deciding research priorities through awarding grants to institutes, can academia retain it’s objective detachment?”
    In answer they cite the case of Professor Paul Younger of the University of Newcastle who has worked on the 2012 Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering review of shale gas and who “…is also the co-author of a recent paper which argued the Government’s proposed controls over earthquakes from fracking were too stringent, and another paper critical of the recent study from ReFINE on well failure rates. He is also a director of Five Quarter Energy, along with other senior figures from the university, which has UGC licences along the North East coastline, and has received financial support from the government to further their project.”
    The Frackademics website also features flow charts outlining the links between a multitude of Oil and Gas companies to academic institutions and the panel of experts authoring major reports prompting some fears that “if you pay the piper you call the tune”.
    Whilst it is clearly right and fitting to have expert opinion from all sides is it not equally crucial for public confidence that there be full transparency and that we know where everyone is coming from?

    1. bringiton says:

      I think it is,as always,called “Follow the money” and that includes those who own and direct HM press.

  8. MBC says:

    Can anyone explain?

    SG ‘recommends’ a buffer zone of 2km. If planning is fully devolved to Scotland why does it not INSIST on a 2km buffer zone?

  9. Fran says:

    This highlights the urgency of taking action against TTIP. Get along to the Scottish Parliament if you can:

  10. f0ul says:

    Why would you expect a UK company, doing fracking in the UK be reading a report written in the US, where everything is different?
    The main difference is that geologically, the two areas are very different. Scottish rock is one of the most stable in the world. That fact alone would make the NY report useless, but why would facts like that ever get listened to?
    In issues like this, where the protesters have already made up their mind, no amount of correcting facts is going to change things.
    This is about not wanting companies to make money – even though its what pays for the majority of people’s pensions. Nothing’s free in this world!

  11. Tarisgal says:

    I wondered why the SNP never comment exactly what their stand was on fracking and whether they would be backing this proposal. I emailed my local SNP MP for this area and the reply I got was that no, they had not made a statement about where they stood because they were in a rather difficult situation. It has been devolved to them. BUT – if they were to issue licenses subject to certain conditions, which the fracking companies (such as INEOS) didn’t like, those companies could and very likely WOULD, appeal to WM, the licenses would very likely be granted, and the conditions that had been put on the licenses by the SG would not apply and thus it would give the fracking companies carte blanche to do whatever they wished in the way of fracking. And the SG doesn’t want to risk that happening. I was told that the SG was technically ‘between a rock and a hard place’.

    He told me that an announcement was very imminent (it was announced later that afternoon actually!) that the SG were putting a moritorium in place, until further reports, re safety were gathered. They (SNP) hoped that that could carry them up to the election. And with the hopes that a large group of MPs were elected, they hoped they could ban fracking altogether in Scotland, as they know that is what the population wants.

    My MP made it clear that he and his SNP colleagues were TOTALLY against every form of fracking on a personal level. But he was at pains to assure me that through the high volume of emails he and his colleagues continued to receive about this highly contentious subject, it led them to recognise that Scotland as a whole was against it and thus, they saw it as their duty to do what they could to ensure that this practice would not take place, given the chance to really do something about it.

    At the moment, they can do nothing to safeguard Scotland from the likes of INEOS. A bit like Scotland having had certain tax powers. If Scotland use them, any surplus amount must be given to WM, so what is the point of using them? In this case, giving Scotland the power to grant licenses, but all appeals looked at in England. Then ENGLAND decide what/what kind of fracking takes place in Scotland. Makes a mockery of giving the SG the power…

    Anyway – that is the explanation I was given. I’m hoping that the Election may well change things considerably…

  12. Doug says:

    A news report from Oklahoma about the increase in quakes.

  13. Neil says:

    This pertains to a part of the world that has particulate air pollution on a par with downtown Delhi and Beijing. That is pollution that actually kills people. No-one seems to care about that?

    The meeting sounds like the blind arguing with the blind. Every well drilled in the N Sea, or Devon for that matter, is hydraulically fractured several times, and I think it would actually be an HSE breach not to do so. I do get a feeling this is all a bit like walking in front of a train waving a red flag, from people who may well be worried about being struck by meteorites whilst not saying ‘frac off’ to the reality, rather than the risk of shortening lives from air pollution.

    At the end of the day, the gas you burn in your cooker or your gas-burning power station really is going to come from somewhere or other, whether it is hydraulically fractured limestone in Siberia, or from hydraulically fractured shale in Falkirk, or Pennsylvania, and it is considerably cleaner than running a diesel engine or a coal-fired power station. So, to be honest, the protesters should really be campaigning against burning gas, amongst more pressing matters. Failing that, they are NIMBYs (in Grangemouth, of all places).

  14. Timhycaw says:

    Il aurait pu se dГ©tacher comme un odieux ou un geste ignorance lapidГ©e si | lasilix sous cutan? Et pour ГЄtre protГ©gГ©s contre eux, Г  ГЄtre regardГ© par plus de visages que | due mesi senza ciclo | dutasteride

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.