INTERVIEW: Paul Mobbs of Mobb’s Environmental Investigations and Research

INTERVIEW Guest Interview - Paul Mobbs Paul Mobbs, Proprietor, Mobb’s Environmental Investigations and Research If the Shale gas industry continues to follow the path it is on, it could be a major industry providing thousands of jobs and growth for Britain. Industry as well as the government are keen for the shale gas industry to begin and oil and gas companies are already in the application process.

There are however serious worries concerning the environmental impact this could have on both the UK and global issue of climate change and the British Environment.

In the run up to Shale Gas Conference, SMI asked one of their speakers Paul Mobs – Proprietor of Mobb’s Environmental Investigations and Research – a few questions about current debates, regulations, shale gas benefits and harms.

SMi: Which sessions are you most looking forward to hearing at the Shale Gas Environmental Summit?

P.M.: I like attending conferences such as this generally – listening to all the proceedings.

Many of those working on the ‘opposing’ case to shale gas development in Britain rarely attend conferences such as this. I think that’s a pity, as they might find the experience enlightening. If they were to attend they would probably develop a very different view of both of the delegates, and those representing the industry, local government and science agencies.

What I think they would find startling is that, even here, the case for shale gas is based upon a relatively small number of arguments. This is in part the result of shale gas development becoming a politicised issue. Open debate has been stifled as the parties involved increasing default to a narrow set of partisan arguments (for example, the Department of Energy’s pressure on The Telegraph in June 2015 to delete an article which questioned government policy).

As a result much of the recent research around this subject has yet to receive the public attention it deserves. Over the last three to four years, and certainly since I started research in this field in

L

Click to tweet this

1

www.ShaleGas.International

2009, there is now far more evidence available on both the economic, geophysical and environmental characteristics of unconventional oil and gas extraction.

As time has gone by, this has rendered the ‘headline’ case for shale gas development in the UK far less certain. The Department of Energy’s grand unconventional energy project of 2008, conceived in the Thirteenth Landward Licensing Round, is now technically flawed, and failing as a result. That is the greater issue which I believe we should be investigating through forums such as this – setting the direction of future debate rather than repeating or reinforcing that which has gone before.

Unfortunately the political capital which the government has invested in their policy means that a truly objective debate is not taking place. That is bad not just for the public, but also for potential investors or participants in projects who need objective evidence to make decisions.

More problematically, it leaves regulators and local authorities sandwiched between public opinion, which is fuelled by the most recent research demonstrating problems with the process, and an inflexible government, which cannot accept any such criticisms of its flagship energy policy.

SMi: Over all, how much do you think a shale gas industry would benefit the UK? P.M.: Very little. For example, OFGEM’s research indicates that unconventional gas will never plan more than an incidental part – perhaps only 5% to 15% – in the UK’s energy mix. Certainly Britain will be unable to avoid the large-scale importation of oil and gas even if the industry develops rapidly.

The studies carried out in support of the industry’s case do for shale gas development in the UK far less certain. The Department of Energy’s grand unconventional energy project of 2008, conceived in the Thirteenth Landward Licensing Round, is now technically flawed, and failing as a result. That is the greater issue which I believe we should be investigating through forums such as this – setting the direction of future debate rather than repeating or reinforcing that which has gone before.

Unfortunately the political capital which the government has invested in their policy means that a truly objective debate is not taking place. That is bad not just for the public, but also for potential investors or participants in projects who need objective evidence to make decisions.

More problematically, it leaves regulators and local authorities sandwiched between public opinion, which is fuelled by the most recent research demonstrating problems with the process, and an inflexible government, which cannot accept any such criticisms of its flagship energy policy.

SMi: Could the opportunity of shale gas give Britain true Energy security?

P.M.: ‘Energy security’ is a concept which is promoted by certain special interests who seek state subsidies or tax concessions to enable development.

Such concepts are part of a greater economic obstacle to change in the energy sector, identified

L

Click to tweet this

2

www.ShaleGas.International

recently as part of work by the IMF, which estimated global fossil fuels subsidies in 2015 at $5.3 trillion. Given the need to reduce global carbon emissions from fossil fuels, such strategies also carry a higher long-term regulatory risk.

If we look at national economies globally, there is no correlation between the proportion of indigenous energy production versus demand and the relative economic strength of an economy.

For example, Germany imports over 60% of its energy requirements, South Korea almost 90% and Japan more than 90% – yet they are acknowledged as being relatively strong economies. In contrast Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran are energy exporters, and yet they have relatively weak economies.

The US and Russia have large indigenous energy industries, and yet they have their own unique macroeconomic problems.

If we look at what creates a strong economy it is a whole variety of factors, not simply the level of energy imports. While some of those factors do relate to energy, the more critical factors relate to how the national economy integrates into global trade flows – to create both a strong home and export markets, and allow participation in global trade without creating debilitating trade deficits and/ or growing debt.

That is the greater economic issue here – the structure of the UK economy, and why our dependence on a few large industries has failed over recent years.

Britain has undergone a 40 year boom and bust cycle, forged by North Sea oil and gas and financial services. With both of those industries now in trouble, moving beyond that obstacle is about developing a diversified set of economic activities, based within long-term sustainable practices, which meet the strengths of the UK’s knowledge and industrial assets.

Simply replicating the boom-bust fossil fuel resource cycle of the last forty years – which, if enacted, is what the proposed ‘shale gas revolution’ would be – will not achieve a sustainable transition in the structure of the UK economy.

SMi: In your opinion, is the regulation in place tight enough to ensure minimal harm to the environment?

P.M.: This question pre-supposes that the existing problems of unconventional gas and oil extraction are an issue of poor regulation. Currently there is no evidence to demonstrate that such an assumption is valid.

In any case, across planning, environmental and public health legislation, the government’s policy to date has been objectively deregulatory in nature, not the reverse.

We can only manage that which can be measured, and we can only regulate that which can be managed. Therefore regulation requires an ability to adequately measure and explain all impacts

L

Click to tweet this

3

www.ShaleGas.International

and environmental effects, and base regulatory responses upon the objective evidence that those impacts can be managed within defined limits.

Examining shale oil and gas regulation globally, each individual state within the USA, Canada and Australia regulates oil and gas extraction independently. Federal governments – especially in Canada and Australia – have very little direct control.

If the impacts of unconventional gas and oil extraction were due primarily to poor regulation, you would see variations in impacts between different geographical regions due to differences in regulation, and few common factors across all regions. Recent research evidence demonstrates that the opposite is the case.

While there are certain local variations, there is a commonality of impacts from unconventional extraction techniques across different nations and states. Not simply the much publicised earthquakes or water pollution, but also negative landscape, waste management, economic and human health impacts.

For this reason there is a strong likelihood that many of the negative externalities of these processes are systemic within the technology, and will not easily respond to a stronger regulatory framework in Britain.

If not that, then in effect the government is stating – without any evidence – that regulation everywhere else has failed, but that things in Britain can be done differently. That creates doubt about the technical viability of the process if standards are set higher than in any other state, or its economic viability given the higher regulatory burdens this would impose in Britain.

For example, the government’s research studies – most notably the Mackay-Stone report on climate impacts, and Public Health England’s report on health effects – use a narrow and/or selectively interpreted set of data sources to produce questionable conclusions.

Likewise, when the Royal Society conducted their study in mid-2012 there were only 70 or 80 published journal papers on the issue of environmental hazards. Today there are around 500. That wider body of evidence arguably invalidates the central assumption of the Royal Society, that any apparent problems can be cured through better regulation.

The failure to address these evident flaws in government policy cast doubt upon the viability of the industry to deliver upon its public promises.

SMi: Lancashire County Council have recently denied Cuadrilla permission to drill: what do you think the next step for Cuadrilla should be?

P.M.: I was one of the first researchers to work with community groups on the issue of

L

Click to tweet this

4

www.ShaleGas.International

unconventional oil and gas development – a process which I began in 2010. Working with groups around Britain, and via my contacts to groups in the USA and Australia, I have had the privilege to study the development of public opposition to this industry first-hand.

In my view Cuadrilla are a victim of technical circumstance, perhaps also their own managerial style, and quite certainly their close links to the political establishment. That singles them out from other operators who have generally received less publicity.

For example Third Energy in Yorkshire, or IGas, or Coastal in Wales, have carried out their projects with far less negative national publicity. Likewise Cluff Natural Resources is pushing ahead with an arguably more hazardous process – underground coal gasification – in the Firth of Forth which has yet to register as a national media issue.

Fundamentally what any UK unconventional gas and oil company, and Cuadrilla in particular, has failed to establish is a ‘social license’ – an acceptance by the community in which the development is sited that the process has legitimacy.

For Cuadrilla, that failure continues to frustrate their ambitions. The high profile way in which the government has supported their cause through changes to planning and environmental regulation, and the direct support from George Osborne’s office, has, I believe, exacerbated their situation.

The knee-jerk response would be to over-ride local opinion via a planning appeal. Or for the government to make on-shore gas and oil developments “projects of national significance” which circumvent local controls altogether.

In my view any attempt to legislatively or procedurally impose this policy will make matters worse, and local opposition would increase as a result. It assumes a legitimacy of the project, and on government policy, which does not exist at the local level.

The unconventional gas and oil sector, despite all the assurances to the contrary, has failed to convince the public of its ability to work safely. As I have outlined above, whether it be the economic or environmental case, many of those assurances fail to address public criticisms because the industry cannot engage with the results of latest research.

If the industry is to create a social license across Britain it must begin by accepting the problems these processes have created around the world. Ignoring those issues, or getting notorious PR agencies to operate fanciful research groups such as the Task Force on Shale Gas, does not address those genuine local concerns.

Until such time as the industry is able, objectively, to engage with the current evidence on the impacts of these processes, and can be seen to do so, I believe that local opposition will continue to grow across Britain – particularly after the results of the Fourteenth Landward Licensing Round have been announced.

L

Click to tweet this

5

www.ShaleGas.International

Paul Mobbs will be giving address on a Day 1 of the conference on “Unconventional gas and oil – the view from the outside of the perimeter fence” Join the event to have a balanced view of all sides of the debate surrounding the highly topical issue of shale gas. Speakers will range from the political and regulatory to land owners and NGOs and campaigners. This unique conference will also discuss the fledgling industry in Europe and will take a look at current EU regulations on shale gas.

Conference Highlights:

• Gain a balanced insight and understanding of the science behind the environmental debate

on shale gas

• Assess the risks shale gas poses to health and human rights

• Learn about the landscape of the shale gas industry and gain insight into the regulatory

developments in Europe and Britain

• Analyse the difficulties surrounding planning applications

• Debate the possibility of earthquakes and contaminated water

• Discuss how waste water can best be appropriately disposed of Network and debate with:

• Julian O’Halloran, Journalist, BBC

• Professor Michael Bradshaw, Professor of Global Energy, Warwick Business School

• Professor Nigel Brandan, BG Chair in Sustainable Gas, Imperial College London & Panel

Member, Task Force on Shale Gas

• Mike Holgate, Associate, Aquateria Ltd

• Dr Jonathan Scurlock, Chief Advisor, Renewable Energy and Climate Change, National

Formers Union

For Sponsorship/Exhibition: Alia Malick, Director on +44 (0)20 7827 6168 or amalick@smi-online.co.uk To register/for information: Andrew Gibbons on +44 (0) 207 827 6156 or agibbons@smi-online.co.uk

L

Click to tweet this

6

www.ShaleGas.International

ABOUT SHALE GAS INTERNATIONAL Shale Gas International is a one-stop-shop for all things shale. Based in London, and with an international appeal, the Shale Gas International website, newsletter, and focus reports provide oil and gas professionals with timely information about this fast-paced industry.

For advertising opportunities please contact: sales@mw-ep.com For editorial queries please contact: info@mw-ep.com Visit our webiste: www.ShaleGas.International Find us on social media:

g twitter.com/ShaleGasInt l linkedin.com/company/shale-gas-international i facebook.com/ShaleGasInternational f google.com/+ShaleGasInternational

Shale Gas International is published by MW Energy Publishing:

L

MW Energy Publishing 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden London WC2H 9JQ

Click to tweet this

Telephone/Fax: +44 01792 229999

7

www.ShaleGas.International