Advertising Complaints in Australia

A few months ago I blogged about Frack Free Somerset (FFS)'s decision not to challenge a complaint about their promotional material made to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA). Their leaflet contained numerous errors and misleading statements. Because FFS agreed to remove their material and cease using it, rather than to attempt to offer a rebuttal, the ASA never carried out an investigation.

There are obvious parallels to the complaint made to the ASA over Cuadrilla's publicity material, and over an advert placed by the self-styled "Frack-Master" Chris Faulkner.

We in the UK are not the only country to provide an advertising regulator, and in this post I will report on a decision reached by the Publishing Advertisers Bureau in Australia.

Before I do so, however, I want to comment on the situation we now find ourselves in, where advertising standards agencies are finding themselves having to make judgements on what are, in some cases, quite complicated and technical issues, with very little understanding of the subject matter. I very much doubt that anyone at the ASA has any familiarity with oil and gas operations and/or regulation.

While I am sure that the ASA are used to dealing with complaints in subject areas they are not familiar with, I would suggest that this debate is very different to determining whether or not a new brand of shampoo really makes your hair feel 10 times silkier. Yet as an authoritative body it is inevitable that their pronouncements are taken very seriously indeed, when the more I think about it, the less reason I see to do so. Frack-Master Chris Faulkner summed the situation up: "the ASA has been both judge and jury in this case. They appear to have become unqualified experts in fracking and interpreting the complex issues surrounding fracking in the UK".

However, today's blog is about a decision in Australia. The opposition group Frack Free Geraldton (FFG), with support of the Conservation Council of Western Australia (CCWA), published an advert in the local rag, the Geraldton Guardian. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) submitted a compliant regarding the advert, which appears to have been upheld. In each case, the statements made by FFG and CCWA were found to be misleading and deceptive.

The statements, and the reasons for the findings, are discussed below.

"Shale fracking, the process of extracting gas by using toxic chemicals to crack deep rocks, can turn our water into a dangerous chemical cocktail"

It was found that this statement gives a misleading impression of the fracturing process, because it gives the impression that most of the fracking fluid is composed of toxic chemicals. It was found that "The statement that 'toxic chemicals' are used to crack deep rocks creates the impression that toxic chemicals 'alone', certainly not in such small percentage quantities are used to frack", which is not the case: frack fluid is 99% water, with only a small amount of additive, most or all of which is not toxic.

The statement finds that "to an ordinary reasonable reader the words of the advertisement and the accompanying illustration together create the impression that the amount of 'toxic chemical' used is a much greater concentration that is in fact the case", which is a misleading and deceptive exaggeration.

With regards to turning water into "a dangerous chemical cocktail", it was found that while there are risks posed by hydraulic fracturing, "the consensus of scientific data suggests that there have been no cases internationally of hydraulic shale gas fracturing inadvertently breaching a water source and thereby causing contamination", and that "a combination of research from around the world shows us that the risks are low".

Moreover, in their response to the complaint, CCWA "have not produced any evidence that hydraulic fracking fluid has in the course of any hydraulic shale gas fracking process permeated a fresh water aquifer. Its contentions are against the scientific literature".

"Research in the US has found that 6% of fracking wells leak into ground water in the first year"

Anyone who is familiar with this blog will already know why this statement is misleading. It is a topic I have discussed extensively. The 6% statistics refer to the number of wells that have some kind of casing or cement issue in one of the casing strings. However, wells have several casing strings to separate the production zone from any sensitive groundwater supplies. This means that a well with an issue in one casing string will not be spewing hydrocarbons into the environment. It's a belt-and-braces type approach.

A paper by King and King in 2013 (SPE) is instructive in this regard:

For US wells, while individual barrier failures (containment maintained and no pollution indicated) in a specific well group may range from very low to several percent (depending on geographical area, operator, era, well type and maintenance quality), actual well integrity failures are very rare. Well integrity failure is where all barriers fail and a leak is possible. True well integrity failure rates are two to three orders of magnitude lower than single barrier failure rates.

In their response, the CCWA admit that their statement "is not materially correct", and it is therefore found to be "misleading and deceptive".

This is a point I've been making for some time, so it's good to see that even environmental bodies know that it is not correct to say that 6% (or 30% or 50% or whatever) of wells are leaking, even if they do still insist on claiming this in their promotional material.

"Once our water is contaminated, it will be forever" 

This statement ignores the abundant evidence that while any contamination incident is bad, the damage is rarely permanent: wells that do leak can be repaired, spills can be remediated. For example, Considine et al. (2013) examine the environmental impacts from drilling in Pennsylvania, and find 25 incidents that they deem to be "serious". However, they find that in all but 6 cases the impacts had already been remediated satisfactorily. The APPEA provided similar examples of remediation in their supporting evidence for their complaint.

In contrast, "the contentions put forward by CCWA in support of this statement in its submission dated 22 August 2014 are without any independent scientific support. They are unsupported assertions." 

As a result, it was found that "the statement that once contaminated water will forever be contaminated is not supported by contemporary scientific views and is misleading and deceptive." 


For anyone interested in the original complaint, the CCWA rebuttal and the final decision, the documents are available below.

The original APPEA complaint is here.
The CCWA response is here.
Further APPEA comments are here.
The final decision is here.

"5 Fracking Myths Busted" - Busted

A new anti-fracking initiative, Talk Fracking, is currently touring the country. Their website has a thin veneer of balance, claiming to seek an "open debate" on fracking, but you don’t have to scratch too deeply to see their true motivation.

I’ll consider one particular video in detail, which claims to have “busted” all of the reasons to support shale development in the UK.

Before addressing the substance of the video, however, I will address the style. Talk Fracking say that they want to open up a balanced debate on fracking. Yet the video has this strange, childish, mildly insulting caricature of an “industry representative” to present the pro-fracking case. If you’re looking for a balanced debate, putting up insulting straw-man caricatures of your opponents is hardly the best way to start.

A "hasty dash to frack"?

On the whole I've given up writing critiques of articles discussing fracking in the media written by journalists. There's not enough hours in the day, and more importantly, sensationalism - selling papers - is what journalism is all about. You might as well criticise a dog for barking.

However, it's a different story when it's academics writing for the media. The extra respect that members of the public afford to academics means that there is an added responsibility to be accurate. Which brings me on to this article in the Birmingham Post, written by Professor Alister Scott of Birmingham City University, described as "thoughtful" by a senior BBC environmental correspondent.

The first few paragraphs discuss the general discord in the government's energy policy, and I would agree that our energy policy is currently a mess. However, the problems begin when Prof Scott argues that "they have rejected any new EU Directive that would look specifically at issues from the fracking process not covered by existing legislation such as cumulative impact, underground risk assessments, chemical mixes and methane emissions".

It is true that the EU decided to release a Recommendation rather than a Directive. It is however incorrect to claim that the Recommendation has no impact on the activities of operators in the EU. This recommendation mandates a range of measures, including a wide range of environmental factors that operators must assess before, during and after their activities. Member states must inform the EU Commission of measures that they have put in place to meet the requirements of the recommendation.

These measures will be reviewed in 18 months, and if the commission deems that the terms of the recommendation are not being met then they reserve the power to impose legally binding rules at the European level (paragraphs 16.1-16.4). This is hardly the lack of regulation implied by Prof Scott. I'll note in passing that disclosure of the "chemical mix" is required by the Environment Agency.

In his next sentence, Prof Scott claims that "They have even gone further to say that some environmental safeguards should be reduced due the complex burden of permissions and licenses". I'd love to know what environmental safeguards Prof Scott thinks have been reduced? There are moves to reduce the amount of time taken to get permits, and to improve coordination between the various agencies involved (DECC, Local Minerals Planning, EA, HSE). There has been absolutely no move to reduce the environmental safeguards expected during drilling and hydraulic stimulation.

Prof Scott argues that "We need evidence-based policy and we have seen a debate that is more akin to a pantomime. The debate becomes stuck in a groundhog day mentality becoming sterile and increasingly polarised". I'd love to know what Prof Scott thinks is more inductive to "pantomime" debate: reports by the Royal Society, by Public Health England, by the Institute of Directors? Or this?

The renewables industry has long offered payments to local communities to persuade them to accept wind and/or solar farms in their area. However, when shale gas companies offer something similar, "The rush to provide incentives to people and communities affected by fracking is troublesome in social and environmental justice terms". That said, I do agree with the thought that the expectation that shale operators make community payments when industrial developments with a far greater impact - coal mining, large facilities etc - do not could be seen as unfair.

The next claim is that "continual government attacks on environmental safeguards as restricting development encircle the fracking debate". Again, I'd love to know what these attacks on safeguards are? Yes, there is the intention to streamline to permitting process and to improve coordination between agencies. The has been no suggestion of any reduction in any existing environmental safeguard that applies to drilling and/or to hydraulic fracturing.

The fact that "government ministers are quick to condemn 'unsightly' solar and wind turbine developments, but seemingly embrace landscapes of fracking infrastructure" may well be because of the very different scales of impact the two industries have, when measured on a per MWh basis. A single multi-lateral well pad, which might look something like this when completed, will produce as much energy as the entire Scout Moor wind farm, which looks like this. 

I can sympathise that the level of public engagement has perhaps not been what it might be. I'm not sure how mis-informed articles by academics in the media are supposed to improve this. However, there is already abundant "independent scientific evidence", if one cares to look for it, while every kind of measurement possible is being made around putative drilling sites to ensure "effective safeguards for the public and the environment and effective monitoring arrangements". Cuadrilla's Environmental Impact Report for their two new sites in Lancashire will run to over 3,000 pages. Given Prof Scott's concerns, I am sure he will read every page. 

Prof Scott's conclusion is that we're seeing a "hasty dash to frack". The prospects for shale gas in the UK were first realised in the late 2000s, and Cuadrilla drilled and tracked their well in 2011 - still the only onshore well where fracking has been used in shale rocks (as opposed to fracking in conventional reservoirs, which has been done approximately 200 times onshore in the UK). Since then, we've seen about 5 exploration wells drilled, and the first intention to frack a well submitted by Cuadrilla, where stimulation will probably take place in 2015, once the 3,000 environmental assessment has been completed. 

Meanwhile, in the USA thousands of wells will have been drilled and fracked. Meanwhile, other countries with shale potential are making solid progress, and drilling and fracking multiple wells. Argentina, China and Poland spring to mind. If 5 wells drilled and one fracked in 4 years represents "a hasty dash to frack" to Prof Scott, I'd hate to see what slow progress looks like.  

Frack Free Somerset and the ASA

Earlier this year I was contacted by a local Somerset resident. He'd attended a meeting hosted by Frack Free Somerset, and had concerns about the accuracy of the promotional materials they'd used.

The resident was intending to submit a complaint to the ASA regarding these materials, and got in touch with me for some advice about some technical details, which I was happy to provide.

The ASA began their investigation, but the issue has now been resolved as FFS have agreed to withdraw the offending literature without rebuttal (Informally Resolved Cases, Date 7th May 2014). By doing so, there is no requirement for formal investigation.

As far as I see it, this represents tacit acceptance that all of the original complaints are valid. However, by withdrawing rather than making a challenge, FFS have managed to avoid the media fanfare associated with a full ASA investigation.      

There is an obvious comparison here with Cuadrilla's ASA investigation. Of the 18 complaints made by anti-fracking groups, only 6 were upheld by the ASA. In contrast, it would appear that FFS are not even prepared to try and defend the contents of their own promotional materials.

I have re-posted the original FFS brochure here, and the complaint from the local Somerset resident here.




The complaint cites a number of supplementary materials. These are as follows. Attachments 1a-e were data sheets taken at random from Barnett shale wells on the FracFocus website, summarised in attachment 1f. Attachment 2 was DECC's document about fracking and water. Attachment 3 summarised cancer incident rates in Barnett Shale counties (Denton, Johnson, Parker, Tarrant, Wise) taken from http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov. Attachment 4 detailed key health indicators for Denton County taken from Mickley and Blake. Attachment 5 was the DECC document on shale gas regulations and safety. Attachment 6 shows US natural gas prices and shale gas extraction rates (easily available just about anywhere), and Attachment 7 compares coal and CCGT power station efficiencies, Figure 6 in this EIA report.

Letters to the Independent

Several letters have been published in the Independent in response to its recent editorial on shale gas extraction in the UK. Because these letters appear to come from academics, with letters and titles before their names, it seems appropriate that I join the discussion.

The first letter is from Professor Andrew Watterson of the University of Stirling. Prof. Watterson argues that

Unconventional gas is not part of an energy solution; it is a major pollutant. It diverts cash, resources and expertise away from work on the more sustainable energy solutions that are now available. 

We are running out of time on global warming if we do not develop sustainable energy sources now and reduce unconventional gas extraction, not increase it.

These comments are in stark contrast to the conclusions reached by the IPCC, who are considered by most to represent the final word on climate-related issues. In their Summary for Policymakers, they state that

GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal‐fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined‐cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated. In mitigation scenarios reaching about 450 ppm CO2eq concentrations by 2100, natural gas power generation without CCS acts as a bridge technology, with deployment increasing before peaking and falling to below current levels by 2050 and declining further in the second half of the century.

During the press conference to mark the release of this report, the IPCC spokesman was queried about shale gas. His response was

We have in the energy supply also the shale gas revolution, and we say that this can be very consistent with low carbon development, with decarbonisation. That's quite clear.

Clearly, Prof Watterson and the IPCC are in disagreement. I suggest that he takes this up with them.

Prof Watterson then argues that

It diverts cash, resources and expertise away from work on the more sustainable energy solutions that are now available

The figure below shows installed wind capacity in the USA in green, and shale gas production in blue (both normalised to 2013 values). Perhaps even more wind power would have been constructed without the shale revolution, but I don't really see any evidence here of shale gas development distracting from alternative power sources. Indeed, the leaders of several renewable energy industry groups are on record as saying that cheap gas provided by shale has helped them deal with the inevitable renewable energy intermittence issues.

As for the notion that current events in Ukraine can be dismissed as a "scare stor[y] about ephemeral energy-supply crises in Eastern Europe", well, this is hardly worthy of comment, suffice to say that Eastern Europeans are very keen to access secure gas supplies, for obvious reasons.

Prof Watterson is also unable to "make sense" of the possibility of having regulations that are both strong and yet do not cause undue delay to operators. The purpose of regulations is to ensure that operating practices take every safety precaution into account to ensure that risk is as low as reasonably possible (ALARP). The purpose of regulations is not to cause operators unnecessary delay unless doing so will make an operation safer. At present, to drill and frack a well, shale gas operators need a wealth of permits and permissions from a variety of bodies, including DECC, the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, and local planning agencies.

These agencies all work in different ways and to different timescales. "Streamlining" regulations across these organisations will not mean that a well is or is not cemented properly; or that cement bond logs are or are not run to detect any well integrity issues; or that multiple bunding layers are or are not installed to isolate the drill pads from groundwater; or that methane is or is not monitored in groundwater and in the air before, during and after drilling; or that fluids are or are not stored in double lined steel tanks, placed on drip trays. No-one is talking about changing any of the regulations pertaining to these issues. Simply that the process of applying for permits is made more efficient not only for the operator, but also for the regulating agencies: it is equally important that the different regulators know what each is doing with respect to a particular application.  

Dr Robin Russell-Jones also takes issue with the IPCC conclusions on shale gas. Development of shale gas may well lock us in to production for at least 30 years, but then the IPCC argues that gas consumption must increase between now and 2050 (36 years hence) to meet 450ppm stabilisation targets.

Dr Russell-Jones also takes issue with the assumption that "transition to a truly green energy system is unachievable". Whether or not this is really true or not, I genuinely do not know. I'd like it to be possible. However, no modern industrialised country, with the exception of a few small, unusual cases (for example Iceland with abundant and easily accessed geothermal) has yet achieved this, or come even remotely close to achieving this. So I do not know where Dr Russell-Jones gets his evidence from to declare it to be so adamantly untrue. His second comment is simply not supported by evidence. While estimates of methane emissions from shale pads have varied, no measurements have shown that methane levels have reached those needed to make natural gas worse for global warming than coal. Moreover, natural gas leaks are easily fixed where necessary.

Finally, Dr Lowry argues that shale extraction in this country may be uneconomic anyway. In which case lots of gas companies will lose money, which surely is no bad thing if you oppose the use of natural gas. Given that the money invested is their own, these companies can sink or swim on the basis of their own decision making. Clearly Dr Lowry knows more than the geologists employed by Total, GDF Suez and Centrica.

Moreover, the reason that some gas companies are struggling in the USA at present is because the price of gas has plummeted there, which has been great news for domestic and industrial consumers alike. If Dr Lowry is arguing that we'll see a similar plummet here then I am sure the news will be welcomed by most. If, as is more likely, gas prices are reduced a certain extent but not to the amount seen in the USA, then shale gas extraction will remain viable, and will be taxed, providing much-needed funds for local and national government alike.

Is Exxon's CEO a NIMBY?

Can you guess who is the latest star of the anti-fracking movement? No, it's not someone glued to something up at Barton Moss, but Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon. According to the Wall Street Journal, Tillerson has joined a lawsuit trying to prevent fracking in his local area. This would be something of a surprise, seeing as Exxon subsidiary XTO Energy is a major player in the US shale industry.

As you'd expect, the anti-fracking twittersphere has been set alight once more with this news. After all, if Exxon's CEO won't put up with fracking in his back yard, why should the rest of us?

However, is Mr Tillerson really against fracking? As so often seems to be the case, it pays to dig a little deeper. It seems that Mr Tillerson's opposition is not to shale gas extraction in his area, but to the construction of a large water tower next to his ranch. Moreover, while the water company involved has supplied water to fracking companies in the past, it has not done so since 2009: the primary use for the water tower is to supply residential demand.

Associated Press report on shale gas and pollution - what do the numbers really show?

The twittersphere has been alight in recent days with an Associated Press story examining records held by state regulatory agencies regarding complaints of water contamination related to drilling. This story has been widely reported across the media, generally with negative headlines, and extensively re-tweeted amongst anti-drilling campaign groups.

However, it pays to look beyond the headlines, to the actual numbers listed in the report, which is what this post will do. What does the AP report actually tell us about shale gas drilling and water contamination in 4 key US states?


The Question(s):

Firstly, however, it is important to state what we know, and do not know, and what we would like to find out. In scientifc terms, we must state our hypothesis. We already know that contamination can and has been caused at the surface by leakage of fluids from open waste storage pits (not allowed in the UK) and by illegal dumping of waste fluids into streams and rivers without treatment. We also know that contamination of groundwater by fugitive methane can and has been caused by faulty well cement and casing that allows deep sources of methane to move towards the surface.

The question we want to know is - are these types of incidents common or rare; and secondly, are they inevitable, or could they be prevented by better operating practice? If incidents are common and/or inevitable, shale development might be considered an inherently dangerous and therefore unacceptable process. If they are rare and can be mitigated by improved practices, shale gas development should be considered an acceptable technology.


The Data:

The AP report covers 4 states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Texas. It does not specify in detail the nature of the complaints it discusses, which clouds the issue somewhat. However, from the report they appear to range from short term diminished water flow rates (not particularly serious), to contamination by stray methane migration (the most common complaint, apparently), to contamination by fracking fluid itself (the most serious allegation, I'd contend). Regardless, any incident or complaint is one too many, so for the purposes of this post they will all get lumped together.

If we are to determine whether these events are common or rare, we need to have data on the number of wells in the states considered by the report. The NRDC provides some figures for the number of oil and/or gas wells in each state, though these figures are from 2009, and don't say when the various wells would have been drilled, nor whether they are active or abandoned. However, the AP report doesn't specify whether complaints have originated from abandoned wells, old but still active conventional wells, or newly drilled shale wells, so perhaps the NRDC figures are the best to use. Regardless, I did a little more searching on various state regulator websites, finding the following:

• The NRDC list 47,000 wells in West Virgina in 2009. The West Virginia DEP website search function indicates a total of 2095 active gas wells, 96 oil wells and 33 CBM wells active from 2009 onwards (the 47,000 figure does seem high to me).
• The NRDC list 70,000 wells in Pennsylvania in 2009. From the Pennsylvania DEP website, a total of 32,625 new gas, oil and CMB wells were drilled (to "spud" in drilling parlance is to begin drilling) since 2005 (note the AP report incorrectly states there are only 5,000).
• The NRDC list 64,000 wells in Ohio in 2009. The Ohio DNR website lists over 50,000 active producing wells in 2011, although it appears that only 1,000 of these are target the Utica shale.
• The NRDC list 250,000 wells in Texas in 2009. The Texas Railroad Commission (who regulate oil and gas, obviously) count 17,000 wells in the Barnett shale in 2013, approximately 4,000 wells in the Eagle Ford shale (going by permits issued), and 800 in the Haynesville shale.

Before comparing numbers of pollution incidents with the number of wells, I first want to mention one striking feature of the numbers in the AP report - the difference between the numbers of complaints received, and the number of incidents actually substantiated though tests carried out by the various agencies. For Pennsylvania, in 2012 the DEP received 499 complaints, but substantiated only 5, meaning only 1% were considered valid. In West Virginia, the DEP received 112 complaints, of which 4 were substantiated (just under 4%). For Ohio, 113 complaints in 2011-2012, with 4 substantiated (just under 4% again), while in Texas none of the 62 complaints relating to water quality have been substantiated (so 0%). 

Why is the the percentage of substantiated claims so low? I'm sure some readers might be tempted to drag out the litigious American stereotype, ready to complain and sue anything and anyone at the drop of a hat. However, perhaps the most relevant data comes from Pennsylvania, where a Penn State study revealed that 40% of private drinking water wells are failing at least one environmental standard anyway. Furthermore, there are over 1 million drinking water wells in Pennsylvania, and approximately 20,000 new ones are drilled every year. 

The scale of these numbers shows why it is not surprising that many people might have complaints about their water quality. If there happens to be a hydrocarbon well near by, then with all the media coverage of fracking, it is inevitable that drillers get the blame. However, the 40% figure shows that there are in fact there are many other potential sources of contamination, and rigorous testing is required to determine where the blame should properly be apportioned. The AP figures suggest that in over 95% of cases, gas drilling is not to blame.  

Are contamination incidents common?

Lets move on now and consider the numbers of substantiated complaints with the number of wells drilled. For Pennsylvania, 106 cases out of 70,000 existing (NRDC) and 32,000 new (PA DEP) wells = 0.1%. For West Virgina, 4 cases, out of (using the low end DEP figures) 2224 wells = 0.1%. For Ohio, 6 cases out of 50,000 wells = 0.01%. For Texas, 0 cases out of 22,000 shale wells = 0%. For what it's worth, these figures are in line with other reports that have looked into this, such are this report by the Groundwater Protection Council, which reported incident rates per well of 0.01 to 0.03%. Our initial question was: are incidents common or rare? The AP numbers show that incidents of drilling-induced contamination are rare. 

Can better regulations reduce the impacts?

The second question was: is contamination due to drilling inevitable or can it be mitigated by better practice? The rarity of these events alone suggest that they represent aberrations rather than an inherent problem with the drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes. We can go further than this, however. During the Marcellus drilling boom in Pennsylvania, a number of new regulations regarding drilling safety and safe disposal of waste fluids have been enforced from 2010 onwards. Fortunately, for Pennsylvania the AP report breaks down the number of complaints by year, allowing us to judge the effects of these regulations.

The numbers of wells spudded in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively, was 3,340, 3,238, 2,374, and 2,175. In addition to the new wells, remember that opponents of drilling like to remind us that "all wells fail through time", so with all these wells coming in you'd expect to see the number of issues increasing through time, as problems emerge from both new wells and old. 

In fact, the numbers of substantiated issues (and the % of new wells this represents) are, from 2010 to 2013: 29 (0.86%), 18 (0.55%), 5 (0.2%) and 2 (0.1%). This represents a clear decrease in the number of contamination incidents as new regulations have come in to force. The AP numbers show that better regulation can reduce the impacts of shale gas drilling.

In Conclusion

To conclude, just as you should never judge a book by its cover, so you should be careful about judging a newspaper story by its headline. The numbers themselves in the AP report tell a very different story from the headlines it generated.