Study on the application in relevant Member States of the Commission recommendation on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing : final report.
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, energy production, energy research, energy use, environmental impact, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, gas, gas industry, hydrocarbon, natural gas, petroleum exploration, research report

Study on the application in relevant 
member states of the Commission 
recommendation on minimum 
principles for the exploration and 
production of hydrocarbons (such as 
shale gas) using high-volume 
hydraulic fracturing 

Final Report 

Contract 070201/2014/690962/ETU/ENV.F.1 

December 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

ISBN 978-92-79-57946-2 
doi10.2779/76422 

© European Union, 2016 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

This  Final  Report  has  been  prepared  by  Milieu  Ltd  and  Ricardo  under  Contract 
(070201/2014/690962/ETU/ENV.F.1.).  The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  Final  Report  are 
those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The 
Commission  does  not  guarantee  the  accuracy  of  the  data  included  in  this  study.  Neither  the 
Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use 
which may be made of the information contained therein. 

Milieu Ltd. (Belgium), 112 Chaussée de Charleroi, 1060 Brussels, phone: +32 2 506 1000; web 
address: www.milieu.be. Project manager: Florent Pelsy, florent.pelsy@milieu.be 

TABLE OF CONTENT 

List of abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. 5 
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 6 
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 7 
Résumé ................................................................................................................................................. 12 
1 Objectives and methodology ......................................................................................................... 18 

2.1 
2.2 
2.3 
2.4 
2.5 
2.6 
2.7 
2.8 
2.9 
2.10 
2.11 

Assessment of the application of the Recommendation principles and selected EU 

1.1 
legal requirements ................................................................................................................................ 18 
Gathering of stakeholders views on the effectiveness of the Recommendation ...... 22 
1.2 
Cost analysis ............................................................................................................................. 22 
1.3 
Main challenges encountered ............................................................................................. 23 
1.4 
2 Overall findings per country ............................................................................................................ 25 
Austria ........................................................................................................................................ 25 
Denmark .................................................................................................................................... 25 
Germany ................................................................................................................................... 25 
Hungary ..................................................................................................................................... 26 
Lithuania .................................................................................................................................... 26 
The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................... 26 
Poland ........................................................................................................................................ 27 
Portugal ..................................................................................................................................... 27 
Romania .................................................................................................................................... 27 
Spain .......................................................................................................................................... 28 
The UK ........................................................................................................................................ 28 
3 Main findings on the application of Commission Recommendation 2014/70/EU .................... 30 
Strategic planning and environmental impact assessment (Point 3) ........................... 30 
Exploration and production permits (Point 4) .................................................................... 39 
Selection of the exploration and production sites (Point 5) ............................................ 40 
Baseline study (Point 6) ........................................................................................................... 41 
Monitoring requirements (Point 11) ...................................................................................... 42 
Dissemination of information (Point 15) ............................................................................... 44 

3.1 
3.2 
3.3 
3.4 
3.5 
3.6 

4.1 
4.2 
4.3 

4 Main findings on the application of selected EU legal requirements at planning, licensing 
and permitting levels .......................................................................................................................... 49 
Directive 2010/75/EU (IED) ..................................................................................................... 49 
Directive 2006/21/EC (Extractive Waste Directive) ........................................................... 50 
Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) ......................................................... 51 
5 Main findings from stakeholders consultation .............................................................................. 53 
EU stakeholders' interviews .................................................................................................... 53 
Online survey ............................................................................................................................ 55 
6 Main findings from the cost analysis .............................................................................................. 57 

5.1 
5.2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of abbreviations 

BMWFW 

DEA 
EIA  
EA 
EGS  
ENMC. 
EPA  
ETUC  
FEAD 

HEAL 
HVHF 
IADC 
IED 
IOGP 
LBEG  

MAGRAMA 
MINETUR 
NAMR 
NIEA  
OPPPW 
SEA  
SEPA 

Austrian Federal Ministry for Science, Research and 
Economics 
Danish Energy Agency   
Environmental Impact Assessment   
Environment Agency 
Eurogeosurveys 
the National Entity for the Fuels Market 
Environmental Protection Agency 
European Trade Union Confederation   
European Federation of Waste Management and 
Environmental Services 
Health and Environment Alliance 
High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing  
International association of drilling contractors   
Industrial Emissions Directive   
International association of oil and gas producers 
Mining  and  Energy  competent  authority  for  the  states  of 
Lower  Saxony,  Schleswig-Holstein,  Bremen  and  Hamburg, 
and of the continental shelf area of the North Sea. 
Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment  
Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism 
National Environmental Protection Agency in Romania  
Northern Ireland Environment Agency  
Polish Exploration and Production Industry Organisation   
Strategic Environmental Assessment   
Scottish Environment Protection Agency  

5 

 
 
 
 
Final Report 6 

Abstract 

In  January  2014,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Recommendation  setting  out  minimum 
principles  for  the  exploration  and  production  of  hydrocarbons  (such  as  shale  gas)  using 
high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF). The effectiveness of the Recommendation is to 
be  reviewed  by  the  Commission  18  months  after  its  publication.  At  present,  based  on 
available information, there is no on-going commercial production of hydrocarbons using 
HVHF  in  the  EU.  However,  the  following  Member  States  have  granted  or  plan  to  grant 
authorisations for the exploration or production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) that 
may require the use of HVHF, namely: Austria, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, 
Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Spain,  and  the  United  Kingdom  (UK).  The 
present  study  supports  the  Commission  in  the  review  of  the  Recommendation's 
effectiveness  by  1)  assessing  how  Member  States  apply  the  principles  of  the 
Recommendation  and  selected  EU  legal  requirements  at  the  planning,  licensing  and 
permitting  levels,  2)  describing  regulatory  and  non-regulatory  developments  in  Member 
States after the adoption of the Recommendation and 3)  gathering stakeholders’ views. 
In addition, it gathers information on the possible cost of the measures taken as a result 
of the adoption of the Recommendation.  

6 

 
 
Final Report 7 

Executive summary 

In  January  2014,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Recommendation  setting  out  minimum 
principles  for  the  exploration  and  production  of  hydrocarbons  (such  as  shale  gas)  using 
high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF). The effectiveness of the Recommendation is to 
be reviewed by the Commission 18 months after its publication. At the end of 2014, the 
Commission  invited  the  Member  States  to  report  on  the  measures  they  put  in  place  in 
response  to  the  Recommendation.  Out  of  28  Member  States,  eleven  replied  to  the 
questionnaire indicating that they granted or were planning to grant authorisation for the 
exploration  or  production  of  hydrocarbons  that  may  require  the  use  of  high-volume 
hydraulic  fracturing  (in  onshore  and/or  offshore  operations).  The  Member  States 
concerned  are  Austria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). 

At  present,  based  on  available  information,  there  is  no  on-going  commercial  production 
of  hydrocarbons  using  HVHF  in  the  EU.  However,  some  developments  have  taken  place 
or are planned, as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

In  three  countries  -  Germany,  Poland  and  the  UK-  HVHF  was  carried  out  for 
exploration purposes and for a limited number of sites.  
In  the  Netherlands,  a  SEA  for  the  spatial  strategy  on  shale  gas  development 
was completed and will undergo a public consultation phase in 2016.  
In  Lithuania,  two  SEAs  were  adopted  prior  to  granting  hydrocarbon  licenses 
and  shale  oil  and  gas  exploration.    Low  volume  hydraulic  fracturing  was 
carried out at two sites.   
In Hungary, low volume hydraulic fracturing was carried out at the exploratory 
phase targeting shale gas and tight gas resources. 
In Spain, licenses were granted and EIA procedures are on-going.  
In  Romania  and  Denmark,  shale  gas  exploratory  drillings  were  carried  out 
without hydraulic fracturing nor further developments.  
In Austria and Portugal, no licenses have yet been granted or are active with 
the  view  of  exploring  and/or  exploiting  hydrocarbons  using  HVHF  (license 
applications are being assessed in Portugal).  

The  present  study  supports  the  Commission  in  the  review  of  the  Recommendation's 
effectiveness  by  1)  assessing  how  Member  States  apply  the  principles  of  the 
Recommendation  and  selected  EU  legal  requirements  at  the  planning,  licensing  and 
permitting  levels,  2)  describing  regulatory  and  non-regulatory  developments  in  Member 
States after the adoption of the Recommendation and 3)  gathering stakeholders’ views. 
In addition, it gathers information on the possible cost of the measures taken as a result 
of the adoption of the Recommendation. 

Assessment of the application of the Recommendation principles and of selected 
EU legal requirements  

The  assessment  is  based  on  desk-top  research  and  case  studies  carried  out  in  the 
countries,  involving  interviews  and  a  thorough  review  of  the  permitting  process  and 
documents  for  selected  sites,  including  Strategic  Environmental  Assessments  (SEAs), 
licences,  permits,  Environmental  Impact  Assessments  (EIAs),  EIA  screenings  and  risk 
assessments. 

For  each  country,  up  to  five  case  studies  were  selected  based  on  specific  criteria  e.g. 
HVHF  carried  out  or  planned,  timing  of  the  permitting  procedure  in  relation  to  the 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 8 

adoption  of  the  Recommendation,  size  of  the  project,  transboundary  aspects, 
environmental  aspects  involved,  etc.    The  case  study  evaluated  how  the  permitting 
documents reflected the principles of the Recommendation and selected requirements set 
by relevant EU legal acts, for example water and waste related directives. 

Country 

Austria  

Case studies selected 

None. Austria granted exclusive  rights  to  explore  and  exploit hydrocarbons in 
defined geographical areas to two companies. Both companies have not made 
use of their licence. 

Denmark   

-  Nordjylland shale gas exploration well  

Germany 

Hungary 

Lithuania 

The 
Netherlands 

Poland  

Portugal   

Romania  

Spain  

The UK  

-  Damme 3 shale gas exploration site  

None.  Low  volume  hydraulic  fracturing  was  carried  out  at  the  exploratory 
phase  targeting  shale  gas  and  tight  gas  resources.  None  of  the  current 
hydrocarbon sites under exploration were or will be subject to HVHF as defined 
under the Recommendation in the near future.   

Two SEAs (performed in 2007 and 2011)  

- 
-  Gargždai licence (Pietų Šiūpariai-5 site) 
-  Rietavas licence (Rietavas-1 site) 

-  SEA (still subject to public consultation in 2016)   

Lidzbark Warmiński licence  
Lębork licence (Żarnowska and Lublewo sites) 

-  Wejherowo licence  
- 
- 
-  Wodynie-Łuków licence  
- 

Łeba licence  

None.  Three  exploration  and  production  licences  have  been  requested  under 
direct  negotiation  to  date,  but  the  process  is  still  being  evaluated  by  the 
Portuguese authorities. 

-  Barlad EV-2 licence ( Pungesti, Bacesti and Gagesti, Puiesti sites) 

-  Sedano licence: (Sedano 1, 2 and 3 site) 
-  Urraca licence (Urraca 1, 2 and 3 site) 
-  Bezana and Bigüenzo licence (El Coto and Cadialso sites)  

- 
- 
- 

Preese Hall Farm site   
Land at Roseacre Wood site  
Land north of Preston New Road site    

The  national  reports  also  reviewed  the  relevant  regulatory  and  non-regulatory 
developments  adopted  after  the  publication  of  the  Recommendation  and  case  law. 
Finally, the reports identified potential legal uncertainties and useful practices related to 
the planning, licensing, permitting for exploration and production of hydrocarbons using 
HVHF.     

While the national reports cover all aspects of the Recommendation and selected EU legal 
requirements, the present report on the study main findings focuses on key principles of 
the  Recommendation,  identified  in  consultation  with  the  Commission.  The  selected 
principles  are  those  where  the  study  revealed  divergence  in  the  application  across 
Member  States  (e.g.  EIA  related  principles),  incomplete  application  (e.g.  SEAs, 
dissemination of information), or principles for which good practices have been identified 
(e.g. monitoring). 

8 

 
 
 
 
Final Report 9 

Strategic planning and environmental impact assessment  

Only Lithuania and the UK prepared a SEA prior to the grant of licences which may result 
in the use of HVHF. Netherlands granted a few hydrocarbon licenses which were then put 
on hold until the completion of a SEA (currently under public consultation).  

In most countries, legislation establishes restrictions to activities in particular areas such 
as  flood  or  seismic  prone  areas,  reflecting  the  principle  of  the  Recommendation  (point 
3.2).    Restrictions  are  set  in  two  different  ways:  they  apply  specifically  to  hydraulic 
fracturing  or  they  are  set  as  part  of  general  legislation  applicable  to  different  activities, 
including hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation. None of the countries covered include 
in their legislation all the restrictions set under Point 3.2 of the Recommendation. 

In  general,  it  was  considered  that  the  public  had  an  early  and  effective  opportunity  to 
participate in the EIA procedure, when it is carried out (some of the examined sites were 
not  subject  to  either  an  EIA  or  a  screening).  However,  in  countries  where  EIAs  were 
completed  or  are  being  completed,  the  public  participation  procedures  and  EIA 
timeframes differ significantly from one country to another. Even though this element is 
not covered by the Recommendation, it is to be noted that there is no common approach 
to  EIAs,  for  instance  whether  the  EIA  covers  one  specific  well  project,  several  well 
projects in a licence area or the whole licence area. In the countries covered, the scope 
of the EIAs is decided on a case by case basis by the competent authorities.  

Requirements concerning the thresholds that trigger the application of the EIA Directive 
differ  from  one  country  to  another.  Several  countries  have  adopted  or  plan  to  adopt 
specific EIA requirements related to projects involving the use of hydraulic fracturing (i.e. 
Austria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Lithuania,  Portugal  and  Spain).  Other  countries  apply 
specific  EIA/screening  thresholds  related  to  the  depth  of  the  drilling,  the  size  of  the 
installation  and/or  the  proximity  to  sensitive  areas  (i.e.  Netherlands,  Hungary,  Poland 
and  the  UK)  whereas  some  countries  apply  literally  the  EIA  directive  requirements  and 
thresholds (i.e. Romania).  

In practice, the EIAs carried out (i.e. Poland and the UK) or being carried out (i.e. Spain) 
for the examined projects, cover the main characteristics of unconventional hydrocarbon 
exploration  and  the  potential  related  impacts  of  HVHF.  It  was  beyond  the  scope  of  this 
study to carry out an in-depth technical review of their content. 

Finally, even though not covered by the Recommendation, it is noteworthy that none of 
the countries covered by the study have adopted specific guidelines and/or rules on the 
content of the EIA for projects involving the exploration and production of hydrocarbons 
using HVHF.   

Baseline study   

Overall, the ten parameters the Recommendation advised to include in the baseline study 
are  not  systematically  reflected  in  practice.  The  study  has  revealed  such  instances  in 
several  cases  in  relation  to  air  quality,  seismicity,  the  presence  of  methane  and  other 
volatile organic compounds in water, the status of infrastructure and buildings, as well as 
existing  wells  and  abandoned  structures.  Although  not  covered  under 
the 
Recommendation,  it  is  important  to  note  two  elements  which  are  not  clearly  defined  in 
the law, permitting procedures or guidance. The first one is the geographical scope of the 
baseline  study.  The  second  one  relates  to  data  requirements,  i.e.  whether  or  not  the 
baseline must rely on specific samples in the surrounding areas of the exploratory wells 
rather  than  on  available  data.  This  is  generally  decided  on  a  case  by  case  basis  by 
agreement  between  the  competent  authorities  and  the  operators.  Finally,  it  is  also  not 
always  clear  whether  baseline  studies  are  required  before  any  operations  and/or 
specifically before HVHF.  

Monitoring requirements   

9 

 
 
Final Report 10 

Monitoring  measures  were  implemented  at  the  sites  were  HVHF  was  carried  out 
(Germany, Poland, the UK). In Spain, some monitoring measures are foreseen in the EIA 
documents drafted by the operators. No specific trends can be identified on the way the 
monitoring requirements were applied or  are planned to be applied at specific sites with 
the  exception  of  the  UK  where  post-recommendation  sites  (unlike  the  pre-
recommendation site) apply specific monitoring measures reflecting to a large extent the 
principle  of  the  Recommendation.  Lithuania  has  adopted  in  its  law  specific  monitoring 
requirements for hydraulic fracturing covering a number of aspects of this Principle.   

Dissemination of information  

The  principle  on  dissemination  of  information  either  by  operators  or  by  competent 
authorities  is  not  fully  reflected  within  legislation,  at  the  permitting  level  or  on  a 
voluntary  basis  in  the  countries  covered  by  the  study.  The  situation  varies  from  one 
Member  State  to  another,  a  minority  publishes  environmental  permits  or  has  set  up  a 
dedicated  website,  while  others  do  not  disclose  information  publicly  or  very  little  upon 
request.  

Main findings on the application of selected EU requirements  

The assessment of EU legal requirements at selected sites and interviews with competent 
authorities  showed  that  views  and  approaches  as  to  the  application  of  selected  EU 
requirements  to  the  exploration  and  production  of  hydrocarbons  (such  as  shale  gas) 
using  HVHF  differ  across  countries  covered  by  the  study.  This  remark  concerns  in 
particular  the  application  of  Directive  2010/75/EU  (Industrial  Emissions  Directive), 
Directive  2006/21/EC  (Extractive  Waste  Directive),  and  Directive  2000/60/EC  (Water 
Framework Directive). It was not within the scope of this study to examine compliance or 
conformity with the existing EU legislation. 

Stakeholder consultation  

The purpose of this task was to collect and analyse national and EU stakeholder views on 
the  effectiveness  of  the  EU  approach  to  regulating  activities  that  may  use  HVHF.  The 
consultation targeted the oil and gas industry, the water industry, the chemical industry, 
NGOs and geological surveys.  

EU stakeholders’ interviews   

Two  interviewees  respectively  from  the  oil  and  gas  industry  and  the  chemical  industry 
consider  that  it  is  problematic  to  make  a  judgement  as  to  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Recommendation. The oil and gas industry representative argued that it was too early in 
view  of  the  small  extent  of  shale  gas  exploration  in  Europe.  The  chemical  industry 
representative  highlighted  that  it  was  difficult  to  distinguish  the  effect  of  the 
Recommendation  from  the  effect  of  other  EU  and  national  legislation  in  relation  to 
environmental 
hydrocarbon 
exploration/production.  

management, 

management 

waste 

and 

Overall,  EU  stakeholders’  views  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  Recommendation  differ 
significantly.  For  the  representatives  of  the  chemical  and  oil  and  gas  industry,  the 
Recommendation  has  achieved  its  purpose,  as  in  their  views,  it  led  to  changes  at  the 
permitting level and served as the starting point of many debates. They mentioned that 
new  legally  binding  provisions  on  HVHF  were  not  necessary  and  would  make  the  shale 
gas  development  phase  too  difficult  in  the  EU.  They  argued  that  the  current  EU 
regulatory  framework,  supplemented  by  national  requirements  and  industry  guidelines 
was  sufficient.  They  considered  that  the  Recommendation  constituted  a  thorough 
checklist/best practice guide that did not need to be revised. 

Conversely,  NGO  and  water  industry  representatives  suggested  specific  measures  and 
amendments  to  the  Recommendation  or  were  in  favour  of  the  introduction  of  legally 

10 

 
 
  
Final Report 11 

binding  provisions  on  HVHF.  They  argued  that  the  regulatory  framework  for  HVHF  was 
not  consistent  across  Member  States.  NGO  representatives  emphasised  divergences  in 
the  legal  interpretation  as  to  the  applicability  of  EU  environmental  legislation  to  HVHF. 
The  adequacy  of  the  current  EU  legislation  to  regulate  the  environmental  impacts  of 
HVHF was also challenged by NGO representatives.    

All  interviewees  agreed  on  the  importance  of  informing  the  public  about  HVHF  while 
underlying  that  the  Recommendation  did  not  help  alleviate  public  concern.  According  to 
an industry representative, the Recommendation was contributing to better transparency 
whereas NGO representatives stressed that information remained difficult to obtain, and 
that  the  Recommendation  did  not  appear  to  have  resulted  in  an  improvement  in  this 
regard. 

Online survey  

A  clear  divergence  of  opinion  between  oil  and  gas  industry  respondents  and  NGOs  is 
noticeable  in  the  replies  received  to  the  on-line  survey.  The  opinion  of  the  geological 
surveys is mostly aligned with that of the oil and gas industry, while the water industry 
generally  aligns  with  NGOs.  Respondents  from  the  oil  and  gas  industry  considered  that 
the  principles  of  the  Recommendation  were  already  reflected  in  national  legislation  and 
applied  in  practice.  Because  of  the  perceived  existence  of  adequate  national  legislation 
these  respondents  considered  that  the  purpose  of  the  Recommendation  was  already 
partly or fully achieved. On the other hand, other respondents (mainly NGOs) disagreed. 
They  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  Recommendation  did  not  achieve  its  objectives 
because the safeguards identified were not sufficient for the protection of health and the 
environment.  

There  was  a  consensus  among  respondents  that  the  Recommendation  had  not  or  only 
partly alleviated public concerns.  

Cost analysis   

In eight Member States, the study did not reveal any examples of changes in relation to 
planning  and  permitting  for  HVHF  activities  as  a  direct  result  of  the  application  of  the 
Recommendation  (Austria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Hungary,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania 
and Spain). In three Member States (Lithuania, Portugal and the UK), the national expert 
reports  and  stakeholders  survey  indicated  that  the  application  of  the  Recommendation 
may  have  resulted  in  changes,  which  may  in  turn  have  associated  costs.  However  a 
thorough analysis of the situation in these three countries identified only three instances 
where changes are likely to have been implemented as a result of the Recommendation, 
and  only in  Portugal  and  in  Lithuania.  In  Portugal  a  website  has  been  set  up  to  provide 
for the dissemination of information on activities involving HVHF. Moreover as a result of 
the  Recommendation,  EIAs  are  mandatory  for  exploratory  drilling  (sondagem)  and/or 
extraction  of  hydrocarbons  by  unconventional  methods  (including  hydraulic  fracturing). 
The  cost  to  the  regulatory  authority  associated  with  setting  up  the  database  was 
estimated to be low. HVHF has not been carried out at any site in Portugal, and hence no 
costs  associated  with  the  provision  of  information  by  operators  have  yet  been  incurred. 
Concerning the new EIA requirements, this change could potentially incur a cost for any 
projects which would require an EIA under this new law. In Lithuania the legislation was 
amended to include monitoring requirements that reflect some elements of the principle 
of  the  Recommendation  on  monitoring.  Monitoring  requirements  can  incur  costs  which 
are  further  specified  in  this  report.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  there  have  been  no  HVHF 
activities in Lithuania.  

11 

 
 
 
 
Final Report 12 

Résumé  

fracturation  hydraulique  à  grands  volumes.  L'efficacité  de 

En  janvier  2014,  la  Commission  a  adopté  une  Recommandation  relative  aux  principes 
minimaux  applicables  à  l’exploration  et  à la  production  d’hydrocarbures  (tels  que  le  gaz 
de  schiste)  par 
la 
Recommandation doit être examinée par la Commission 18 mois après sa publication. À 
la fin de 2014, la Commission a invité les États membres  à rapporter les mesures qu'ils 
ont mis en place liées à la Recommandation. Sur les 28 États membres, 11 ont répondu 
au  questionnaire  en  indiquant  qu'ils  avaient  l'intention  d’accorder  ou  ont  accordé  une 
autorisation  pour  l'exploration  ou  la  production  d'hydrocarbures  qui  peut  nécessiter 
l'utilisation de la fracturation hydraulique à grands volumes sur terre et/ou en mer. Cela 
concerne les Etats membres suivants: l’Autriche, le Danemark, l'Allemagne, la Hongrie, la 
Lituanie, les  Pays-Bas,  la  Pologne,  le  Portugal,  la  Roumanie,  L’Espagne,  et  le  Royaume-
Uni.  

Actuellement  sur  la  base  d’informations  disponibles  collectées  pour  cette  étude,  il  n'y  a 
pas  dans  l’Union  Européenne  de  production  commerciale  d'hydrocarbures  qui  utilise  la 
fracturation  hydraulique  à  grands  volumes.  Toutefois,  certains  développements  ont  eu 
lieu ou sont prévus dans les pays suivants:  

• Dans trois pays - l'Allemagne, la Pologne et le Royaume-Uni, la fracturation hydraulique 
à  grands  volumes  a  été  effectuée  à  des  fins  d'exploration  et  pour  un  nombre  limité  de 
sites. 

•  Aux  Pays-Bas,  une  évaluation  stratégique  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement  de  la 
stratégie  spatiale  sur  le  développement  des  gaz  de  schiste  a  été  achevée  et  fera  l'objet 
d'une phase de consultation publique en 2016. 

•  En  Lituanie,  deux  évaluations  stratégiques  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement  ont  été 
adoptées avant la procédure d’octroi de licences d'hydrocarbures concernant l’exploration 
des gaz et pétroles conventionnels et non-conventionnels. Des fracturations hydrauliques 
à bas volumes ont été réalisées sur deux sites. 

• En Hongrie, des fracturations hydrauliques à bas volumes ont été réalisées durant des 
phases d’exploration ciblant des gisements de gaz de schiste et de gaz compact.   

•  En  Espagne,  des  licences  ont  été  accordées  et  des  procédures  d’étude  d'incidence  sur 
l'environnement sont en cours de réalisation.   

• En Roumanie et au Danemark, des forages exploratoires ciblant des gisements de gaz 
de  schiste  ont  été  effectués  sans  fracturation  hydraulique.  Aucune  autre  activité 
d’exploration n’est prévue.    

• En Autriche et au Portugal, aucune licence n'a encore été accordée ou est active en vue 
de  l'exploration  et/ou  de  l’exploitation  d’hydrocarbures  par  fracturation  hydraulique  à 
grands volumes. Des demandes de licence sont actuellement évaluées au Portugal. 

Cette  étude  a  pour  but  d’assister  la  Commission  dans  l'examen  de  l'efficacité  de  la 
Recommandation en 1) évaluant la façon dont les États membres appliquent les principes 
de  la  Recommandation  et  certaines  dispositions  juridiques  européennes  durant  les 
phases  de  planification  et  d'obtention  des  licences  et  permis.  2)  décrivant  les 
développements  réglementaires  et  non  réglementaires  dans  les  Etats  membres  suite  à 
l'adoption  de  la  Recommandation  et  3)  en  collectant  les  points  de  vue  des  parties 
prenantes.  En  outre,  cette  étude  analyse  le  coût  éventuel  des  mesures  prises  à  la  suite 
de l'adoption de la Recommandation. 

12 

 
 
 
Évaluation de  l'application des principes de la Recommandation et de certaines 
dispositions juridiques européennes 

Final Report 13 

L'évaluation est basée sur un examen approfondi de la procédure d'autorisation (incluant 
les  évaluations  stratégiques  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement,  les  évaluations  des 
incidences sur l’environnement, les licences, les permis  et les évaluations des risques) et 
sur  des  entretiens  avec  les  autorités  compétentes  pour  les  sites  sélectionnés.  Pour 
chaque  pays,  jusqu'à  cinq  études  de  cas  ont  été  sélectionnées  en  fonction  de  critères 
précis (par exemple la réalisation ou non de fracturation hydraulique à grands volumes, 
la  procédure  d'autorisation  par  rapport  à 
le  calendrier  de 
la 
Recommandation, 
les  aspects 
la  taille  du  projet, 
environnementaux).  Les  études  de  cas  ont  évalué  comment  les  principes  de  la 
Recommandation  et  certaines  dispositions  juridiques  européennes  concernant  par 
exemple  les  directives  sur  l’eau  et  les  déchets  sont  reflétés  durant  les  phases  de 
planification et d'obtention de licences et permis pour ce type de projet.     

transfrontières, 

l'adoption  de 

les  aspects 

Pays  

Etudes de cas sélectionnées  

Allemagne  

-  Site d’exploration de gisement de gaz de schiste Damme 3 

Autriche  

Aucune. L’Autriche a accordé à deux sociétés des droits exclusifs d'explorer et 
d'exploiter les hydrocarbures dans des zones géographiques définies. Les deux 
sociétés n’ont pas fait usage de leur licence. 

Danemark  

- 

 Puit d’exploration de gaz de schiste au Nordjylland  

Hongrie  

Lituanie 

Pays Bas  

Pologne   

Portugal   

Roumanie  

Espagne   

Aucune. Des fracturations hydrauliques à bas volumes ont été réalisées durant 
des  phases  d’exploration  ciblant  des  gisements  de  gaz  de  schiste  et  de  gaz 
compact. Aucune fracturation hydraulique à grands volumes a été réalisée ou 
est prévue dans un futur proche sur des sites d’exploration d’hydrocarbures.  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

deux  évaluations  stratégiques  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement  
(complétées en 2007 et 2011)  

Licence Gargždai (site Pietų Šiūpariai-5) 

Licence Rietavas (site Rietavas-1) 

évaluation  stratégique des  incidences  sur  l’environnement  (phase  de 
consultation publique en 2016)   

Licence Wejherowo  

Licence Lidzbark Warmiński  

Licence Lębork (site de Żarnowska et Lublewo) 

Licence Wodynie-Łuków  

Licence Łeba 

Aucune. Trois demandes de licence d’exploration ont été soumises.  Elles sont 
en cours d'évaluation par les autorités portugaises. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Licence Barlad EV-2 (sites de Pungesti, Bacesti, Gagesti, et Puiesti) 

Licence Sedano: (Site Sedano 1, 2 et 3) 

Licence Urraca (Site Urraca 1, 2 et 3) 

Licence Bezana et Bigüenzo (Sites de El Coto et Cadialso)  

Royaume Uni   

-  Site de Preese Hall Farm  

-  Site de Land at Roseacre Wood  

-  Site de Land north of Preston New Road  

13 

 
 
Final Report 14 

Les  rapports  nationaux  ont  également  examiné  les  développements  réglementaires  et 
non-réglementaires  adoptés  après  la  publication  de  la  Recommandation  et  les  décisions 
judiciaires  importantes.  Enfin,  les  rapports  devaient  aussi  identifier  les  incertitudes 
juridiques potentielles et les bonnes pratiques liées à la planification, aux licences et aux 
permis  d'exploration  et  de  production  d'hydrocarbures  par  fracturation  hydraulique  à 
grands volumes.   

Alors  que  les  rapports  nationaux  couvrent  tous  les  aspects  de  la  Recommandation  et 
toutes  les  dispositions  juridiques  européennes  sélectionnées,  le  présent  rapport  sur  les 
la 
l'étude  se  concentre  sur 
principales  conclusions  de 
Recommandation,  identifiés  en  consultation  avec  la  Commission.  Les  principes  retenus 
sont  ceux  où  l'étude  a révélé  des  applications divergentes  dans  les  États  membres  (par 
exemple  les  principes  lies  aux  évaluations  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement),  ou 
incomplète (par exemple les principes liées à l’évaluation stratégique des incidences sur 
l’environnement,  la  diffusion  des  informations),  mais  aussi  où  celle-ci  a  identifié  des 
bonne pratiques (par exemple en ce qui concerne les obligations liées au suivi).   

les  principes  clés  de 

La planification stratégique et l'évaluation de l'impact environnemental 

Seule  la  Lituanie  et  le  Royaume-Uni  ont  préparé  une  évaluation  stratégique  des 
incidences sur l’environnement avant l’octroi des licences. Les Pays-Bas ont accordé des 
licences  qui  sont  suspendues  jusqu'à  la  finalisation  de  l’évaluation  stratégique  des 
incidences sur l’environnement (actuellement en phase de consultation du public).   

Dans  la  plupart  des  pays,  la  législation  établit  des  restrictions  aux  activités  dans  des 
zones  particulières  telles  que  les  zones  inondables  ou  les  zones  sujettes  aux  séismes 
reflétant  le  principe  de  la  recommandation  (point  3.2).  Les  restrictions  sont  définies  de 
deux  façons  différentes:  soit  elles  s’appliquent  spécifiquement  à  la  fracturation 
hydraulique, soit elles s’appliquent dans le cadre de la législation applicable à différentes 
activités, y compris à l'exploration et l'exploitation des hydrocarbures en général. Aucun 
des  pays  couverts  incluent  dans  leur  législation  toutes  les  restrictions  prévues  au  point 
3.2 de la Recommandation. 

En  général,  le  public  a  eu  une  réelle  possibilité  de  participer  au  plus  tôt  à  la  procédure 
d’évaluation  des incidences  sur  l’environnement,  quand  elle  est  effectuée  (quelques-uns 
des  sites  examinés  n’ont  pas  été  soumis  à  une  évaluation  des  incidences  sur 
l’environnement).  Cependant,  dans  les  pays  où  les  évaluations  des  incidences  sur 
l’environnement  ont  été  achevées  ou  sont  en  cours  d'achèvement,  les  procédures  de 
participation  du  public  et  les  délais  pour  la  réalisation  de  ces  évaluations  diffèrent 
sensiblement  d'un  pays  à  l'autre.  Même  si  cet  élément  n’est  pas  couvert  par  la 
Recommandation,  il  est  intéressant  d’observer  qu'il  n'y  a  pas  d'approche  commune 
concernant  les  évaluations  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement.  Par  exemple,  les 
évaluations  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement  couvrent  soit  un  projet  spécifique,  soit 
plusieurs projets de puits dans une zone de licence ou  l'ensemble de la zone de licence. 
Dans  les  pays  couverts,  la  portée  de  l'évaluation  est  décidée  au  cas  par  cas  par  les 
autorités compétentes. 

Les  règles  concernant  les  seuils  qui  déclenchent  l'application  de  la  directive  sur  les 
évaluations  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement  diffèrent  d'un  pays  à  l'autre.  Plusieurs 
pays  ont  adopté  ou  envisagent  d'adopter  des  règles  spécifiques  pour  les  projets 
impliquant  l'utilisation  de  la  fracturation  hydraulique  (à  savoir  l'Autriche,  le  Danemark, 
l'Allemagne,  la  Lituanie,  le  Portugal  et  l'Espagne).  D'autres  pays  appliquent  des  seuils 
relatifs  à  la  profondeur  du  forage,  la  taille  de  l'installation  et/ou  la  proximité  des  zones 
sensibles à partir desquels les autorités déterminent si une évaluation des incidences sur 
l’environnement est nécessaire (Pays-Bas, Hongrie, Pologne et Royaume-Uni), tandis que 
certains pays appliquent à la lettre les exigences et les seuils de la directive (Roumanie). 

14 

 
Final Report 15 

Dans la pratique, les évaluations des incidences sur l’environnement qui ont été finalisées 
(Pologne  et  Royaume-Uni)  ou  qui  sont  en  cours  (à  savoir  l'Espagne)  pour  les  projets 
examinés,  couvrent  les  principales  caractéristiques  de  l'exploration  des  hydrocarbures 
non  conventionnels  et  les  impacts  potentiels  liés  à  la  fracturation  hydraulique  à  grands 
volumes. Un examen technique approfondi des contenus de ces évaluations ne faisait pas 
partie du cahier des charges de cette étude.  

Enfin,  même  si  cela  n’est  pas  mentionné  par  la  Recommandation,  il  convient  de  noter 
qu'aucun  des  pays  couverts  par  l'étude  a  adopté  des  lignes  directrices  et/ou  des  règles 
spécifiques  concernant  le  contenu  des  évaluations  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement 
pour  les  projets  impliquant  l’exploration  et  la  production  d'hydrocarbures  utilisant  la 
fracturation hydraulique à grands volumes.   

Étude de référence 

Dans l'ensemble, les dix paramètres de la Recommandation dans l'étude de référence ne 
sont  pas  systématiquement  reflétés  dans  la  pratique.  Dans  plusieurs  études  de  cas  les 
paramètres  en  relation  avec  la  qualité  de  l'air,  la  sismicité,  la  présence  de  méthane  et 
d'autres  composés  organiques  volatils  dans  l'eau,  l'état  des  infrastructures  et  des 
bâtiments,  ainsi  que  les  puits  existants  et  les  structures  abandonnées  ne  sont  pas 
couverts.  Bien  que  non  mentionné  par  la  Recommandation,  il  est  important  de  noter 
deux  éléments  qui  ne  sont  pas  clairement  définis  dans  la  loi  et  les  procédures 
d'autorisation.  Le  premier  élément  concerne  la  portée  géographique  de  l'étude  de 
référence. Le second concerne les données requises, à savoir si l’étude de référence doit 
se  fonder  sur  des  échantillons  spécifiques  dans  les  zones  environnantes  des  puits 
d'exploration ou sur des données déjà  disponibles. Ceci est généralement décidé au cas 
par  cas  entre  les  autorités  compétentes  et  les  exploitants.  Enfin,  il  n’est  pas  toujours 
mentionné  dans  les  procédures  d’autorisation  si  les  études  de  référence  doivent  être 
réalisées  avant  toutes  opérations  et/ou  spécifiquement  avant  l’utilisation  de  la 
fracturation hydraulique à grands volumes.   

Obligations liées au suivi 

Des  obligations  liées  au  suivi  ont  été  mises  en  œuvre  sur  les  sites  où  ont  été  réalisées 
des fracturations hydrauliques à grands volumes (Allemagne, Pologne, Royaume-Uni). En 
Espagne,  certaines  mesures  liées  au  suivi  sont  prévues  dans  les  évaluations  des 
incidences sur l’environnement rédigées par les exploitants. Aucune tendance spécifique 
ne peut être identifiée sur la façon dont les obligations liées au suivi ont été appliquées 
ou prévues d’être appliquées à des sites spécifiques, à l'exception du Royaume-Uni où les 
sites  post-Recommandation  (à  la  différence  des  sites  pré-Recommandation)  appliquent 
des  mesures  de  contrôle  spécifiques  reflétant  dans  une  large  mesure  le  principe  de  la 
Recommandation.  La  Lituanie  a  adopté  des  obligations  liées  au  suivi  concernant,  entre 
autres, la fracturation hydraulique et couvrant de nombreux aspects de ce principe. 

Diffusion des informations  

Le  principe  de  la  diffusion  des  informations,  par  les  exploitants  ou  par  les  autorités 
compétentes  n’est  pas  pleinement  pris  en  compte  dans  la  législation,  de  manière 
volontaire ou au niveau de la procédure d’autorisation dans les pays couverts par l'étude. 
La  situation  varie  d'un  État  membre  à  l'autre,  une  minorité  publie  les  permis 
environnementaux  ou  a  mis  en  place  un  site  web  dédié,  tandis  que  d'autres  ne 
divulguent  pas  ces  informations  publiquement  ou  seulement  une  petite  partie  de  ces 
informations sur demande. 

15 

 
 
 
Final Report 16 

Principales  conclusions  sur 
sélectionnées 

l'application  des  dispositions 

juridiques  européennes 

Les études de cas et les entretiens avec les autorités compétentes ont révélés des points 
de  vue  et  des  approches  différentes  dans  les  Etats  membres  quant  à  l'application  à 
l’exploration  et  à  la  production  d’hydrocarbures  par  fracturation  hydraulique  à  grands 
volumes de certaines dispositions juridiques européennes sélectionnées. Cette remarque 
concerne  en  particulier  l'application  de  la  directive  2010/75/UE  (directive  relatives  aux 
émissions  industrielles),  la  directive  2006/21/CE  (directive  concernant  les  déchets  de 
l’industrie extractive), et la directive 2000/60/CE (directive cadre sur l'eau). Cette étude 
n’examine  pas  la  conformité  de  la législation nationale  ou  des  procédures  d’autorisation 
avec la législation communautaire existante. 

Consultation des parties prenantes 

Le  but  de  cette  tâche  était  de  collecter  et  d’analyser  les  points  de  vue  des  parties 
prenantes  au  niveau  national  et  européen  concernant  l'efficacité  de  l'approche 
européenne pour réglementer les activités qui peuvent utiliser la fracturation hydraulique 
à  grands  volumes.  L'industrie  pétrolière  et  gazière,  l'industrie  de  l'eau,  l'industrie 
chimique, les ONG et les services géologiques ont été consultés.   

 Les entretiens des parties prenantes au niveau européen  

Deux  personnes  interrogées  respectivement  de  l'industrie  du  pétrole  et  du  gaz  et  de 
l'industrie  chimique    considèrent  qu'il  est    difficile  de  porter  un  jugement  sur  l'efficacité 
de  la  Recommandation.  Un  représentant  de  l'industrie  pétrolière  et  gazière  a  fait  valoir 
qu'il était trop tôt pour  juger l’efficacité de la Recommandation compte  tenu du nombre 
limité de sites d’exploration de gaz de schiste dans l’Union Européenne. Un représentant 
de  l'industrie  chimique  a  souligné  qu'il  était  difficile  de  distinguer  l'effet  de  la 
Recommandation de l'effet des autres législations européennes et nationales en matière 
de gestion de l'environnement, gestion des déchets et d'exploration et de production des 
hydrocarbures.   

Au  niveau  européen  les  points  de  vue  des  parties  prenantes  sur  l'efficacité  de  la 
Recommandation  diffèrent  de  façon  significative.  Pour  les  représentants  de  l'industrie 
pétrolière  et  gazière  et  de  l’industrie  chimique  la  Recommandation  a  atteint  selon  leur 
point  de  vue  son  objectif.  Elle  a  conduit  à  des  changements  au  niveau  des  procédures 
d’autorisation  et  a  servi  de  point  de  départ  pour  de  nombreux  débats.  Ils  ont  aussi 
mentionné  que  des  nouvelles  dispositions  juridiquement  contraignantes  concernant  la 
fracturation hydraulique à grands volumes ne sont pas nécessaires et créeraient un frein 
au développement des gaz de schiste dans l'Union Européenne. Ils ont fait valoir que la 
réglementation actuelle de l'Union Européenne, complétées par les dispositions juridiques 
nationales  et  les  lignes  directrices  de  l'industrie,  était  suffisante  pour  règlementer  la 
fracturation  hydraulique  à  grands  volumes.  Ils  estiment  que  la  Recommandation 
constitue un guide, des bonnes pratiques ou une ‘check list’ détaillée qui n'a pas besoin 
d'être révisée. 

Inversement,  les  représentants  des  ONG  et  de  l'industrie  de  l'eau  ont  suggéré  des 
mesures et des amendements spécifiques à la Recommandation ou étaient en faveur de 
l'introduction  de  dispositions  juridiquement  contraignantes  concernant  la  fracturation 
hydraulique à grands volumes. Ils ont fait valoir que le cadre réglementaire concernant la 
fracturation hydraulique à grands volumes est différent d’un État membre à un autre. Les 
représentants des ONG ont souligné les divergences d'interprétation juridique concernant 
l'applicabilité  de  la  législation  environnementale  de  l'Union  Européenne  à  la  fracturation 
hydraulique  à  grands  volumes.  La  capacité  de  la  législation  actuelle  de  l'Union 
Européenne  à  réglementer  de  manière  adéquate  les  impacts  environnementaux  de  la 
fracturation  hydraulique  à  grands  volumes  a  également  été  contestée  par  les 
représentants des ONG.  

16 

 
Final Report 17 

Toutes les personnes interrogées ont convenu de l'importance d'informer le public sur la 
fracturation hydraulique à grands volumes tout en soulignant que la Recommandation n'a 
pas aidé à atténuer les préoccupations du public. Selon un représentant de l'industrie la 
recommandation a contribué à améliorer la transparence alors que les représentants des 
ONG ont souligné que l'information reste difficile à obtenir, et que la Recommandation ne 
semble pas avoir donné lieu à une amélioration à cet égard. 

Sondage en ligne 

Une nette divergence d'opinion entre les représentants de l'industrie pétrolière et gazière 
et  les  ONG  apparait  dans  les  réponses  reçues  dans  le  cadre  de  l'enquête  en  ligne. 
L'opinion  des  services  géologiques  est  en  grande  partie  alignée  sur  celle  de  l'industrie 
pétrolière  et  gazière,  tandis  que  l’opinion  de  l'industrie  de  l'eau  s’aligne  généralement 
avec celle des ONG. 

Les  représentants  de  l'industrie  du  pétrole  et  du  gaz  ont  estimé  que  les  principes  de  la 
Recommandation  ont  déjà  été  reflétés  dans  la législation nationale  et  sont  appliqués  en 
pratique. Du fait qu’ils considèrent que la législation nationale est adéquate ils estiment 
que  le  but  de  la  Recommandation  a  déjà  été  partiellement  ou  totalement  atteint.  Les 
autres  sondés  (principalement  des  ONG)  sont  en  désaccord  avec  ce  point  de  vue.  Ils 
estiment  que  la  Recommandation  n'a  pas  atteint  ses  objectifs  parce  qu’elle  ne  garantit 
pas des protections suffisantes pour la santé et l'environnement.  

Les sondés ont reconnu de manière consensuelle que la Recommandation n’avait pas ou 
seulement partiellement atténué les préoccupations du public. 

Analyse du coût 

Dans  huit  États  membres,  l'étude  n'a  pas  révélé  de  changements  en  matière  de 
législation  et  de  procédure  de  planification  et  d'autorisation  des  projets  impliquant 
l’utilisation  de  la  fracturation  hydraulique  à  grands  volumes  dus  à  l'application  de  la 
Recommandation  (Autriche,  Danemark,  Allemagne,  Hongrie,  Pays-Bas,  Pologne, 
Roumanie  et  Espagne).  Dans  trois  États  membres  (Lituanie,  Portugal  et  Royaume-Uni), 
les rapports nationaux, le sondage  en ligne  a indiqué que la Recommandation aurait pu 
entraîner des modifications règlementaires et des coûts associés. Cependant une analyse 
approfondie  de  la  situation  dans  ces  trois  pays  a  permis  d’identifier  seulement  trois  cas 
où  des  changements  sont  susceptibles  d'avoir  été  mis  en  œuvre  à  la  suite  de  la 
Recommandation, et seulement au Portugal et en Lituanie. Au Portugal, un site web a été 
mis  en  place  pour  assurer  la  diffusion  des  informations  sur  les  activités  impliquant  la 
fracturation  hydraulique  à  grands  volumes.  En  outre,  les  évaluations  des  incidences  sur 
l’environnement  sont  obligatoires  pour  les  forages  exploratoires  (sondagem)  et  /  ou 
l'extraction  d'hydrocarbures  par  des  méthodes  non  conventionnelles  (incluant  la 
fracturation hydraulique). Le coût pour l'autorité réglementaire associé à la mise en place 
de  la  base  de  données  a  été  estimé  comme  faible.  Aucune  fracturation  hydraulique  à 
grands  volumes  n'a  été  effectuée  sur  un  site  au  Portugal,  il  n’y  a  donc  pas  de  coûts 
associés à la fourniture d'informations par les exploitants à ce stade. En ce qui concerne 
les  nouveaux  critères  liés  aux  évaluations  des  incidences  sur  l’environnement,  ce 
changement  pourrait  créer  des  coûts  pour  tous  les  projets  qui  nécessiteraient  cette 
évaluation  en  vertu  de  cette  nouvelle  loi.  En  Lituanie,  la  loi  a  été  modifiée  pour  inclure 
des  dispositions  concernant  les  obligations  liées  au  suivi  qui  reflètent  certains  éléments 
de  ce  principe  de  la  recommandation.  Les  nouvelles  dispositions  concernant  les 
obligations liées  au  suivi  peuvent  engendrer  des  coûts  qui  sont  précisés  dans  l’étude.  Il 
est à noter qu'il n'y a pas eu de fracturation hydraulique à grands volumes en Lituanie.  

17 

 
 
 
Final Report 18 

1  Objectives and methodology  

In  January  2014  the  Commission  adopted  a  Recommendation  setting  out  minimum 
principles  for  the  exploration  and  production  of  hydrocarbons  (such  as  shale  gas)  using 
fracturing  (‘the  Recommendation’)1.  The  Recommendation 
high-volume  hydraulic 
includes principles on:   

  Strategic environmental assessment 
Environmental impact assessment 
 
Exploration and production permits 
 
  Site selection  
  Baseline studies before starting operations 
  Spill prevention in the design and 
construction of the installation 

  Operational requirements 
  Use of chemical substances and water 
  Monitoring  
 

Environmental liability and financial 
guarantee  

  Administrative capacity 
  Closure obligations 
  Dissemination of information 

to  address  certain  environmental  aspects 

They  aim 
that  are  currently  not 
comprehensively  addressed  in  EU  environmental  legislation,  and  to  help  create  a  level 
playing  field  for  operators,  and  respond  to  the  public  concerns  with  regard  to  shale  gas 
developments.  

The  effectiveness  of  the  Recommendation  is  to  be  reviewed  by  the  Commission  18 
months2  after  its  publication.  Building  on  the  results  of  the  review,  the  Commission  will 
then decide whether further action is necessary, such as updating the Recommendation’s 
provisions and/or putting forward legislative proposals with legally binding provisions on 
the exploration and production of hydrocarbons using high-volume hydraulic fracturing3. 
This study supports the Commission in this review through:   

  The assessment of how the principles of the Recommendation and selected EU 
legal requirements were applied at the planning, licensing and permitting 
levels in Member States.   

  The gathering of stakeholder views on the effectiveness of the 

Recommendation.  

  The cost analysis of measures taken as a result of the adoption of the 

Recommendation    

1.1  Assessment  of  the  application  of  the  Recommendation  principles 

and selected EU legal requirements  

Member States were invited to inform the Commission by the end of 2014 on measures 
they put in place in response to the Recommendation. Based on the responses received 
from Member States to the Commission questionnaire, the assessment of the application 
of  the  Recommendation’s  principles  and  EU  selected  requirements  covered  11  countries 
(Austria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal, 
Romania, Spain, and the UK) which answered  positively to the question ‘  Did you grant 
or do you plan to grant authorisations for the exploration or production of hydrocarbons 
that may require the use of high-volume hydraulic fracturing (in onshore and/or offshore 
operations)?’.  

1Commission Recommendation of 22 January 2014 on minimum principles for the exploration and 
production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high volume hydraulic fracturing, 
2014/70/EU 
2 See Point 16.2 of  the Recommendation   
3 See Point 16.4 of the Recommendation   

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For  each  country  report,  up  to  five  case  studies  were  selected  and  approved  by  the 
Commission.  In  order  to  guide  the  Commission  on  the  selection  of  case  studies,  the 
different sites were mapped based on the following criteria:    

Final Report 19 

  HVHF carried out or planned 
EIA/screenings carried out  
 
  Before/after the adoption of the 

Recommendation 

  Size of the project 
 

Protected areas/environmental aspects 
involved 

Transboundary aspects  

  Geographical location 
 
  Geological specificity 
 

In case of decentralised permitting 
procedures, permits/licenses granted in 
different regions  

  Significance of public interest 

For  each  case  study,  national  experts  had  to  analyse  how  the  Strategic  Environmental 
Assessments  (SEAs),  licenses,  permits,  Environmental  Impact  Assessments  (EIAs),  EIA 
screenings,  and  risk  assessments,  applied  the  principles  of  the  Recommendation  and 
selected legal requirements under the following EU legal texts:    

  Directive 94/22/EC (Hydrocarbons Directive) 
  Directive 2001/42/EC (SEA Directive) 
  Directive 2011/92/EU (EIA Directive) 
  Directive 2010/75/EU (IED) 
  Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II)  
  Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) 
  Directive 2009/147/EC (Wild Birds Directive) 
  Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 GHG 

Monitoring Regulation) and  Decision No 
406/2009/EC (ESD) 

  Directive 2008/98/EC (Waste Framework 

Directive) 

  Directive 2006/21/EC (Extractive waste 

Directive) 

  Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework 

Directive) 

  Directive 2006/118/EC (Groundwater 

Directive) 

  Directive 2013/59/Euratom (exposure to 

ionising radiation) 

Please note that the above list of EU legal requirements is a selection and is not meant to 
be  exhaustive.  This  report  also  did  not  carry  out  a  conformity  or  a  compliance  check, 
hence by mentioning that some pieces of EU legislation were "applied" or "considered" at 
planning,  licensing  or  permitting  level  does  not  mean  that  they  were  "properly"  or 
"comprehensively" applied. 

The table below provides an overview of the case studies selected for this assessment.   

Country 

Austria  

Case studies selected 

None.    Austria  granted  exclusive  rights  to  explore  and  exploit  hydrocarbons  in 
defined  geographical  areas  to  two  companies.  One  of  the  two  companies,  Rohöl-
Aufsuchungs  Aktiengesellschaft,  never  made  any  attempt  to  use  this  license  for 
shale gas exploration or exploitation activities.  

The  other  company,  OMV  Austria  Exploration  &  Production  GmbH,  planned  shale 
gas  exploration  and  exploitation  activities  in  the  ‘Weinviertel’  area  of  Austria.  The 
shale  gas  exploration  and  exploitation  was  supposed  to  be  carried  out  through 
‘clean  fracking’,  with  only  water,  corn  starch  and  quartz  sands.  However,  the 
company withdrew these plans before having carried out any activities in 2012. 

Denmark   

Denmark granted two licenses  for  the  exploration  and  production of hydrocarbons 
where the exploration target is shale gas,  respectively one in Nordjylland and one 
in Nordsjælland): 

- 

- 

In  Nordjylland  a  drilling  site  was  selected  and  an  exploration  well  was 
spudded on 4 May 2015.  

Total  and  NF  relinquished  license  2/10  (Nordsjælland)  with  effect  from  1 
July 2015. 

Therefore the Nordjylland exploration well was the only case study in Denmark.    

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 20 

Country 

Germany 

Hungary 

Lithuania 

Case studies selected 

In Germany, according to available  information, a total of four wells were subject 
to HVHF as defined in the Commission Recommendation: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In 1982, HVHF was carried out at the well Söhlingen Z4 with a total water 
injection volume of 2,336 m³ during one frac. 

In 1984, HVHF was carried out at the well Söhlingen Z3 with a total water 
injection volume of 1,693 m³during one frac. 

In 1985, HVHF was carried out at the well Söhlingen Z5 with a total water 
injection volume of 1,382 m³ during one frac. 

In  2008,  HVHF  was  carried  out  at  the  well  Damme  3  with  a  total  water 
injection volume of slightly more than 12,000 m³ during three fracs. 

Since the first three sites were subject to HVHF thirty years ago, when a number of 
pieces  of  EU  legislation  were  not  yet  in  force,  this  study  only  focused  on  the 
Damme 3 site where HVHF was carried out more recently (2008). 

No case studies identified. Low  volume hydraulic fracturing was carried out at the 
exploratory phase targeting shale gas and tight gas resources. None of the current 
hydrocarbon  sites  under  exploration  were  or  will  be  subject  to  HVHF  as  defined 
under the Commission  Recommendation  in the near future, according to available 
information. However Hungary does not exclude the possibility to use HVHF.  

In  Lithuania,  SEAs  were  carried  out  prior  to  the  public  tender  procedure  to  grant 
licenses for  the prospecting,  exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons for the 
Šilutės–Tauragės 1800 square  km  area  in 2011  and for the  Rietavas 1599  square 
km  area  in  2006.  Chevron  won  the  public  tender  procedure  launched  in  2012  by 
the  Lithuanian  Geological  Survey  concerning  the  Šilutės–Tauragės  area,  but 
decided to pull out prior to the grant of a license for the exploration and production 
of hydrocarbons including unconventional ones. The Lithuanian report covers these 
two SEAs.   

Shale  gas  exploratory  developments  already  occurred  in  Lithuania  at  two  sites 
under  the  Rietavas  and  Gargždai  license  areas.  At  one  site,  hydraulic  perforation 
tests  were  carried  out,  and  at  another  site,  a  hydraulic  fracturing  test  was 
completed, which did not meet the definition of HVHF. The Lithuanian report covers 
these two sites based on limited available information.  

Netherlands  The  Netherlands  granted  three  onshore  licenses4  during  2009  and  2010,  for  the 
exploration of hydrocarbons in which the applicants have mentioned shale gas and 
or  coal  bed  methane.  In  2011,  the  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  agreed  with  the 
permit holders on a suspension of the permits, awaiting further examination on the 
possible  effects  of  shale  gas  exploration  and  production5.  During  this  so-called 
moratorium,  no  new  exploration  permit  requests  have  been  considered.    In  July 
2015,  the  Minister  of  Economic  Affairs  informed  the  Parliament  that  the  existing 
licenses  will  not  be  extended,  and  that  new  applications  will  not  be  considered. 
Commercial exploitation and exploration of shale gas will not be considered for the 
next five years. 

The national report therefore only covers the SEA for the spatial strategy on shale 
gas  development  which  was  completed  in  July  2015  but  is  still  subject  to  public 
consultation in 2016.   

Poland  

As  of  January  20156,  there  were  53  licenses  on  the  exploration  of  hydrocarbons 
(shale gas) in Poland. None of these covered the production of hydrocarbons using 
HVHF. The following case studies were selected: 

-  Wejherowo  license  no.  04/2009/p  issued  in  2009  held  by  PGNiG,  large 
project  located  in  Pomorskie  Region,  EIA  and  last  environmental  decision 
granted in 2012, HVHF carried out;  

- 

Lidzbark  Warmiński  license  no.  11/2011/p    issued  in  2011  held  by  Wisent 
oil&gas  (currently  ShaleTech  Energy),  project  located  in  Warmińsko-
Mazurskie  Region,  close  to  the  Russian  border,  only  EIA  screening  in 

4 http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/schaliegas/proefboringen-naar-schaliegas 
5 http://www.nrc.nl/schaliegas/ 
6 Ministry of the Environment, http://lupki.mos.gov.pl/gaz-z-lupkow/stan-prac-w-polsce. 

20 

 
                                                 
Final Report 21 

Country 

Case studies selected 

2011/2012, environmental decision granted in 2012, HVHF carried out; 

- 

Lębork  license  no.  16/2007/p  issued  in  2007  held  by  Lane  Energy  Poland 
Ltd.,  medium  project  located  in  Pomorskie  Region,  the  EIA  process  was 
ongoing  in  2014  (one  site  location),  some  public  concern  was  identified, 
environmental decision  granted in 2015, HVHF carried out; 

-  Wodynie-Łuków,  license  no.  51/2009  issued  in  2009  held  by  Orlen 
Upstream  Ltd,  project  located  in  Lubelskie  Region,  close  to  the  Ukrainian 
border,  no  EIA  or  screening,    permits  (e.g.  concerning  extractive  waste) 
granted in 2013, HVHF carried out;  

- 

Łeba license no. 37/2001/p issued in 2001 held by LOTOS Petrobaltic S.A., 
offshore  project  with  new  environmental  permit-  2014  (EIA  carried  out  in 
2014), no HVHF; 

None.  Even  though  studies  showed  that  Portugal  has  some  potential  for  the 
exploration and production of hydrocarbons by unconventional methods,7 and some 
geological  areas  have  been  defined  as  having  potential  for  shale  gas  and  oil,  the 
exploration and production of hydrocarbons by unconventional methods in Portugal 
has  not  yet  been  initiated.  No  shale  wells  have  been  drilled  or  tested  yet.  Three 
exploration  and  production  concessions  have  already  been  requested  under  direct 
negotiation  to  date,  but  the  process  is  still  being  evaluated  by  the  Portuguese 
authorities. 

The  Pungesti  shale  gas  exploration  site  within  the  perimeter  of  the  Barlad  EV-2 
concession  area  into  the  North-Eastern  part  of  Romania  held  by  Chevron  was 
selected as a case study. It is the only site where actual exploration work has been 
carried out in Romania (without involving  HVHF).  The other three sites under this 
concession,  with  similar  permitting  requirements,  were  also  analysed  where 
relevant.  

Portugal   

Romania  

Spain  

Three investigation and exploration permits have been selected, covering a total of 
eight sites: 

- 
- 
- 

“Sedano” license: covering the sites Sedano 1, 2 and 3 
“Urraca” license: covering the sites Urraca 1, 2 and 3 
“Bezana and Bigüenzo” license: covering the “El Coto” and “Cadialso” sites. 

All  of  the  licenses  were  granted  before  the  Recommendation  and  exploratory 
drilling  or  HVHF  has  not  been  carried  out  under  any  of  them.  Out  of  the  selected 
licenses, Sedano and Urraca are the most advanced, since an EIA has already been 
submitted to the competent authorities and at the time of writing this report, it is 
under public consultation.  

The UK  

The following case studies were selected in the UK:  

- 

- 

- 

Preese  Hall  Farm,  Weeton,  Kirkham,  Lancashire,  Cuadrilla  Resources  Ltd,  
(Permission  granted,  HVHF  carried  out  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Recommendation)   

Land  at  Roseacre  Wood,  Lancashire,    Cuadrilla,  environmental  permits 
granted but  planning application rejected in June 2015 

 Land  north  of  Preston  New  Road,  Lancashire,  Cuadrilla  environmental 
permits granted but planning application rejected in June 2015.      

The  national  reports  also  included  sections  on    the  regulatory  and  non-regulatory 
developments    in  this  area  adopted  after  the  publication  of  the  Recommendation, 
relevant  case  law,  potential  legal  uncertainties  and  useful  practices  related  to  the 
planning, licensing, permitting for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons using 

7 For more information please see the replies of Portugal to the EU Survey on the 
Recommendation, available at https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/publication/ShalegasRec2014  

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 22 

HVHF.  Competent  authorities  were  contacted  and  interviewed  to  cross-check  desk 
research and guide experts in gathering all permitting documents for the assessment.  

Each  national  report  was  reviewed  by  the  relevant  Member  State  competent  authorities 
to avoid factual errors.    

1.2  Gathering  of  stakeholders  views  on  the  effectiveness  of  the 

Recommendation  

The purpose of this task was to collect and analyse national and EU stakeholder views on 
the effectiveness of the EU approach to regulating activities that may use HVHF. To that 
end  we  carried  out  an  online  survey  and  interviewed  eight  EU  stakeholders.  The  online 
survey  targeted  representatives  of  the  oil  and  gas  industry,  the  waste  management 
industry, the chemical industry, NGOs, the  labour unions and the  scientific community 
in  eleven  countries:  Austria,  Denmark,    Germany,  Hungary,    Lithuania,    Netherlands,  
Poland,    Portugal,    Romania,  Spain,  and  the  UK.  Two  hundred  stakeholders  were 
contacted  and  had the opportunity to  respond  to  an  online  questionnaire  (questionnaire 
template in Annex II)  within a four month timeframe from February 2015 to May 2015. 
In  addition  to  the  online  survey,  we  also  interviewed  the  main  EU  stakeholders  to 
understand  their  views  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  approach  chosen  at  EU  level  to 
regulate activities that may use HVHF. The following EU stakeholders were contacted for 
interviews:  

 

International association of oil and gas 
producers (IOGP) 
  Business Europe  
 

European Federation of Waste Management 
and Environmental Services (FEAD) 
International association of drilling 
contractors  (IADC) 
European Federation of Bottled Water 

 

 

Food and Water Europe 
Friends of the Earth Europe  

 
 
  Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) 
European Trade Union Confederation  
 
(ETUC) 
Eurogeosurveys (EGS) 
EUREAU 

 
 
  CEFIC 
 

Petrochemicals Europe 

Interviews were completed between February and May 2015. In the absence of a reply, 
no interviews could be organised in the end with FEAD and ETUC.  

1.3  Cost analysis  

The aim of this task was to identify and gather evidence on costs incurred by competent 
authorities in Member States as well as by operators as a consequence of implementing 
the  Recommendation.  Evidence  on  the  consequences  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation  was  mainly  based  on  an  online  survey  into  the  effectiveness  of 
implementation  of  the  Recommendation  and  individual  Member  State  case  study 
interviews. 

From this material, we have sought to determine first whether Member States are likely 
to have incurred costs from implementing the Recommendation. If any examples of cost 
increases  or  reductions  were  identified,  we  considered  whether  these  costs  could  be 
estimated from the evidence gathered. 

When  reviewing  the  information,  it  was  important  to  distinguish  between  evidence 
gathered  on  costs  which  have  been  incurred,  and  potential  future  costs  associated  with 
the  previous  or  anticipated  adoption  of  the  Recommendation,  or  opinion  on  theoretical 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
costs. The focus of this task is on actual costs incurred to date by competent authorities 
in Member States and operators.  

Final Report 23 

1.4  Main challenges encountered 

  Access to information  

In  several  countries  we  have  experienced  some  difficulties  in  accessing  permitting 
documents from competent authorities which led to some delays in the completion of the 
national  reports.  In  Germany,  our  experts  were  not  able  to  access  Damme  3  site 
permitting  documents  over  a  period  of  five  months  (April  to  August  2015)  despite 
contacting  the  competent  authorities  on  several  occasions.  In  Poland  several  permitting 
documents  were  not  available  online  but  only  through  lengthy  official  administrative 
request  procedures8.  In  Lithuania  some  permitting  documents  such  as  ‘drilling  well 
projects’  were  considered  confidential  and  could  not  be  accessed.  Due  to  the  lack  of  or 
limited available information on hydraulic fracturing carried out and the amount of water 
used  in  Denmark,  Hungary  and  Lithuania in  particular,  we  experienced  some  difficulties 
in assessing which  hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation developments, if any, could 
fall under the scope of the Commission Recommendation in these countries.   

  Early stage of development  

No commercial production of hydrocarbons through HVHF is on-going in the EU. In three 
countries  (Germany,  Poland  and  the  UK)  HVHF  was  carried  out.  Within  these  countries 
there have been few ‘post-recommendation’ permitting procedures. In the Netherlands, a 
SEA  was  completed  and  will  undergo  a  public  consultation  phase  in  2016.  In  Lithuania, 
two SEAs were adopted and shale oil and gas exploration including low volume hydraulic 
fracturing was carried out at two sites. In Hungary, low volume hydraulic fracturing was 
carried  out  at  the  exploratory  phase  targeting  shale  gas  and  tight  gas  resources.  In 
Spain,  EIA  procedures  are  on-going  and  the  principles  of  the  Recommendation  and  EU 
requirements were assessed based on EIA documents drafted by the operators and that 
were  not  yet  approved  by  competent  authorities.  In  Romania  and  Denmark,  shale  gas 
exploratory drilling was carried out without hydraulic fracturing. In Austria and Portugal, 
no licenses and permits for the exploration and/or exploitation of hydrocarbons that may 
require the use of HVHF have been granted.  

 

 Limited number of responses from the online survey   

While  just  over  200  national  stakeholders  were  contacted  to  complete  the  online 
questionnaire, and several reminders sent within a four month period, only 18 responses 
were  received  and  covering  only  seven  Member  States  out  of  the  eleven  targeted. 
Responses from two countries represent two-thirds of the total responses: seven Spanish 
organisations and five British organisations replied to the questionnaire. Responses were 
not received from stakeholders in Austria, Hungary, Lithuania, and Romania.  

8 Note that in this case the expert could have access to permitting documents  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 1: Overview of respondents  

Respondents 

Type of respondents 

Final Report 24 

Denmark 

Danish Society for Nature Conservation  

NGO  

Germany 

Deutscher Naturschutzring e.V. 

NGO  

Hungary 

Hungarian Mining Association 

Oil and gas industry 

Netherlands  

Geological Survey of the Netherlands 

Geological Survey   

Poland  

The Polish  Exploration and Production Industry 
Organization  

Oil and gas industry  

Polish Geological Institute 

Geological Survey   

Portugal  

QUERCUS - ANCN 

Spain 

Ente Vasco de la Energia / Sociedad de 
Hidrocarburos de Euskadi  

BNK Hidrocarburos 

ACIEP 

Shale gas España 

Montero Energy Corp. 

Frontera Energy Corp. S.L. 

NGO  

Oil and gas industry 

Oil and gas industry 

Oil and gas industry 

Oil and gas industry 

Oil and gas industry 

Oil and gas industry 

ANEABE - Spanish Association of Bottled Waters 

Water industry  

United Kingdom  

The UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA) 

No Fracking in Balcombe Society (No FiBS) 

NGO 

NGO 

UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) 

Oil and gas industry 

Halliburton 

Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. 

Oil and gas industry 

Oil and gas industry 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 25 

2  Overall findings per country   

The  section  below  provides  a  summary  of  the  key  findings  identified  in  each  national 
report.  

2.1  Austria  
Although  Austria  holds  potential  shale  gas  resources,  to  date,  these  resources  have  not 
been  explored  or  exploited  using  high-volume  hydraulic  fracturing.  Licenses  have  been 
granted  by  the  government  to  two  companies  to  explore  and  exploit  hydrocarbons  in 
specific areas. However, so far no permits have been granted  for the  actual exploration 
level 
and  exploitation  activities  by 
(Bundesländer).  One  of  the  two  companies,  the  OMV  Austria  Exploration  &  Production 
GmbH, had planned exploration activities in 2011. However, these plans were abandoned 
by the company, due to financial infeasibility in 2012. Little information exists regarding 
the  exploration  and  production  of  unconventional  reservoirs  in  Austria.  The  majority  of 
information presented in this report is based on a questionnaire and a number of follow-
up questions, filled in by a representative of the department for Mining and Energy in the 
Austrian Federal Ministry for Science, Research and Economics (BMWFW). 

the  relevant  authorities  at 

the  regional 

2.2  Denmark   
Pursuant  to  information  provided  by  the  DEA,  there  have  been  in  the  past  (before  the 
adoption  of  the  Recommendation)  two  to  three  instances  where  HVHF  may  have  been 
used offshore for conventional oil and gas extraction. No further information is available. 
There  is  only  one  shale  gas  exploratory  well  drilled  onshore  in  Denmark:  1/10 
Nordjylland. For this site, Total only had a drilling permit to carry out exploratory drilling 
without the use of HVHF. Total has returned its license for 2/10 Nordsjælland, the second 
envisaged  site  for  HVHF  in  Denmark.  In  2012  the  Danish  government  introduced  a 
moratorium  for  new  shale  gas  licenses.  This  moratorium  was  introduced  to  explore  the 
possibility  of  enabling  the  production  of  shale  gas  taking  into  account  public  health, 
safety  and  environment.  The  Danish  EIA  law  requires  that  projects  where  fracturing  is 
planned  for  exploration  or  extraction  of  shale  gas  are  subject  to  a  compulsory  EIA.  The 
commercial exploitation of gas resources is subject to the Ministerial Order No 669 of 18 
June 2014 transposing the IED. Well integrity tests must be reviewed by an independent 
and  qualified  third  party.  A  financial  guarantee  is  required  to  obtain  a  license  for 
exploration.  

2.3  Germany   
Hydraulic fracturing has been used in Germany since 1961 (300 times in more than 150 
wells).  Almost  all  of  these  hydraulic  fracturing  operations  were  carried  out  in  tight  gas 
reservoirs and fall outside the scope of the Commission Recommendation. In the 1980s, 
three  HVHF  operations  were  performed,  but  these  are  not  examined  in  detail  in  this 
report  as  they  were  carried  out  before  a  number  of  pieces  of  environmental  legislation 
were in place. In recent years only one HVHF was carried out in Germany (Damme 3) in 
2008.  According  to  the  law  no  EIA  or  screening  had  to  be  carried  out  prior  to  granting 
this  particular  permit.  The  current  German  law  does  not  refer  to  deep  drilling  as  a 
criterion  to  trigger  an  EIA  screening  procedure.  This  would  mean  that  all  onshore 
hydrocarbons wells that do not meet the 500 000 m3 gas per day and 500 tons of oil per 
day threshold are not subject to either an EIA or a EIA screening.  Currently (since 2011 
in  North  Rhine  Westphalia  and  since  2012 in  Lower  Saxony),  no  new  permits  related  to 
the  use  of  HVHF  (and  tight  gas  fracturing)  have  been  granted,  since  the  States  have 
decided  to  wait  until  the  current  legislation  is  reviewed  and  revised  to  comprehensively 
address  the  environmental  impacts  of  the  fracking  technology.  Until  now,  companies 
have  accepted  this  ‘political  moratorium’  and  have  not  applied  for  new  permits.  A  new 
draft  law  on  hydraulic  fracturing  is  being  discussed  in  the  German  Parliament 

25 

 
 
Final Report 26 

(Bundestag).  The  proposed  final  reading  in  the  Parliament  was  planned  for  July  2015. 
However, it was postponed to a new date (not yet specified as of 14 October 2015). 

2.4  Hungary  
No  HVHF  activities  were  carried  out  in  Hungary,  or  are  planned  to  be  carried  out  in the 
near  future.  However  Hungary  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  to  use  HVHF.  Hydraulic 
fracturing  below  the  threshold  as  set  out  in  the  definition  of  HVHF  in  the  Commission 
Recommendation  was  carried  out  at  the  exploratory  phase  in  shale  gas  and  tight  gas 
wells.  Neither  an  EIA  nor  screening  was  carried  out  prior  to  the  grant  of  these  permits 
unless they were located within a Natura 2000 site. However environmental requirements 
were  set  out  in  the  co-authority  resolutions  of  the  environmental  inspectorates  in  all 
cases.  The  legislative  framework  has  not  changed  as  a  result  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Commission Recommendation. No SEAs have been carried out for the exploration and/or 
exploitation  of  hydrocarbons  in  Hungary.  However,  prior  to  the  launch  of  a  concession 
tender,  a  ‘sensitivity  and  loadability’  assessment  is  carried  out  on  areas  subject  to  this 
concession tender. This assessment includes several environmental aspects.  

2.5  Lithuania  
No  licenses  and  permits  were  granted  in  Lithuania  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Recommendation.  Exploratory  developments  using  hydraulic 
fracturing/perforation 
however  already  occurred  in  Lithuania  at  two  sites  under  the  Rietavas  and  Gargždai 
license  areas  in  2012.  At  one  site,  hydraulic  perforation  tests  were  carried  out  and  at 
another  site,  a  hydraulic  fracturing  test  was  undertaken,  which  did  not  meet  the 
definition  of  HVHF.  At  Pietų  Šiūpariai-5  site,  the  aim  of  hydraulic  fracturing  was  to 
explore  the  potential  for  shale  gas  and  shale  oil.  At  Rietavas-1  site,  the  aim  of  the 
hydraulic perforation was to explore the potential for conventional oil but shale gas was 
also  a  potential  target.  Part  of  the  principles  (e.g.  mandatory  SEA  prior  to  granting  of 
licenses  for  hydrocarbon  exploration  or  production,  compulsory  EIA  for  the  activity  of 
extraction  and/or  direct  exploration  of  unconventional  hydrocarbons  using  hydraulic 
fracturing)  was  already  reflected  in  Lithuanian  legislation  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Recommendation. Since the adoption of the Recommendation, several legal requirements 
have  been  adopted  to  regulate  hydraulic  fracturing  and  unconventional  hydrocarbons.  
Some of these requirements reflect several elements of the principle 11 on monitoring of 
the  Recommendation.  As  further  detailed  in  the  section  on  SEA,  two  SEAs  were 
performed  prior  to  the  issuance  of  the  public  tender  procedure  to  grant licenses  for  the 
prospecting,  exploration  and  exploitation  of  hydrocarbons  in  2007  and  2011.  Chevron 
won  the  public  tender  procedure  launched  in  2012  by  the  Lithuanian  Geological  Survey 
but decided to pull out prior to the grant of a license for the prospecting and exploitation 
of  hydrocarbons.  The  Lithuanian  Geological  Survey  was  planning  to  issue  a  new  public 
tender on use of hydrocarbon resources in the Šilutės-Tauragės area in the autumn 2015 
but such plan was abandoned due to lack of interest from operators.    

2.6  The Netherlands   
The three onshore  exploration permits that were granted under the Mining Law in 2009 
and  2010  were  put  on  hold  in  2011,  awaiting  the  approval  of  a  national  strategy 
(including  a  SEA).  For  these  permits,  no  EIAs  were  carried  out.  However,  before  deep 
drilling (below 100 m) would be allowed to start, the authorities would need to screen the 
activity  to  determine  whether  an  EIA  is  required.  In  May  2014,  the  Dutch  Government 
issued  a  concept  note  regarding  the  SEA’s  scope,  which  was  approved  in  October  2014 
following  public  consultation.  On  the  basis  of  this  note,  the  SEA  was  prepared  and 
published  in  July  2015,  with  further  public  participation  in  early  2016.  In  view  of  the 
prepared  SEA,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  Commission  Recommendation  2014/70/EU 
appears to be fully applied at the planning level, although this is a preliminary conclusion 
that  would  need  to  be  confirmed  once  the  SEA  consultation  process  has  been  fully 
completed  in  2016.  In  July  2015,  the  Minister  of  Economic  Affairs  informed  the 
Parliament that the existing permits will not be extended, and that new applications will 

26 

 
Final Report 27 

not  be  considered.  Also,  there  will  be  no  drilling  for  shale  gas  during  the  current 
government  period.  The  government  is  preparing  an  Energy  Report  2015  to  present  an 
integrated vision on sustainable energy after which a National Underground Strategy will 
be  prepared  in  2016.  Considering  the  importance  of  an  integrated  vision,  there  will  no 
longer  be  a  separate  National  Strategy  on  Shale  gas.  Commercial  exploitation  and 
exploration of shale gas will not be considered for the next five years. Local governments 
will be actively involved in the decision making process. As all permits have been put on 
hold  and  will  not  be  extended,  the  application  of  the  majority  of  the  principles  of  the 
Commission Recommendation 2014/70/EU could not be assessed.   

2.7  Poland  
In  Poland,  out  of  the  53  licenses  granted  as  at  the  end  of  2014,  two  licenses  were 
granted  after  the  adoption  of  the  EC  Recommendation,  and  51  licenses  were  issued 
before  the  EC  Recommendation.  29  licenses  with  an  EIA  procedure  were  found,  out  of 
which EIA procedures for seven licenses were carried out during 2014, after the adoption 
of  the  Recommendation.  There  were  no  EIAs  carried  out  for  17  licenses.  For  these 
licenses,  there  was  only  a  screening  concerning  impacts  on  the  Natura  2000  areas 
without  a  consultation  process.  A  number  of  elements  listed  in  the  Commission 
Recommendation  were  applied  at  the  selected  sites,  however  none  of  the  principles  of 
this  Recommendation  were  fully  applied,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  principles  (see 
country report for further details).   

No  major  differences  have  been  identified  in  the  application  of  the  Recommendation 
principles  between  those  sites  that  pre-date  and  post-date  the  Recommendation.  In 
other  words,  the  Recommendation  does  not  seem  to  have  influenced  the  permitting 
requirements  in  Poland.  The  national  laws  transposing  the  selected  pieces  of  EU 
legislation under this study were considered as part of the proposed development at the 
considered  sites.9  In  Poland,  the  license  granting  procedure  is  based  on  public 
procurement rules according to the provisions of the Geological and Mining Act. The gas 
exploration  and/or  production  license  granting  system  is  not  specifically  subject  to  SEA 
and  no  SEA  was  carried  out.  The  Polish  government,  in  cooperation  with  other 
institutions,  carried  out  a  number  of  regulatory  and  non-regulatory  developments  such 
as:  research  on  the  environmental  impacts  of  HVHF  processes  at  seven  locations, 
awareness  raising  campaigns  and  public  consultation,  and  organisational  and  legal 
modifications,  the  latter  aiming  essentially  at  a  simplification  of  the  existing  framework 
for investors.  

2.8  Portugal  
Neither  SEAs  nor  EIAs  have  been  carried  out  so  far,  and  no  licenses  and  permits  have 
been  issued  for  the  exploration  or  production  of  hydrocarbons  using  HVHF.  On-going 
licensing applications are currently under review by the Ministry of Environment, Spatial 
Planning  and  Energy,  hence  many  aspects  of  the  Recommendation  are  currently  not 
relevant  to  Portugal  due  to  the  very  early  stage  of  development.    Following  a  2015 
amendment of the Portuguese EIA legislation, EIAs are mandatory since September 2015 
for “exploratory drilling (sondagem) and/or extraction of hydrocarbons by unconventional 
methods (including hydraulic fracturing)”. A dedicated webpage was also set up. 

2.9  Romania   
No  HVHF  has  been  carried  out  or  was  planned  in  the  shale  gas  exploratory  sites 
examined  in  Romania;  the  permitting  documents  examined  only  cover  exploration 
activities,  not  giving  the  right  to  carry  out  HVHF  or  exploitation  works.  The  procedures 
for  obtaining licenses for hydrocarbon exploration and for the Environmental Agreement 

9 It is beyond the scope of this study to conclude whether or not the identified pieces of EU 
legislation have been properly/comprehensively applied. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
Final Report 28 

for  all  wells  have  been  carried  out  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Recommendation  
The  Commission  Recommendation  appears  to  be  partially  applied  at  the  planning, 
permitting,  licensing  levels  at  the  selected  site  (Pungesti)  and  at  the  three  other  sites 
(Puiesti,  Gagesti,  Bacesti),  where  environmental  permits  have  been  issued  but  which 
were  not  analysed  in  detail  for  the  purpose  of  this  study.  In  this  context,  it  seems  that 
only points 3.3 and 3.4 (EIA) were fully applied for the sites analysed for this early phase 
of  exploration.  Shale  gas  resources  are  not  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  legislation  on  oil 
and  natural  gas.  It  was  recently  clarified  by  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  10 
that shale gas resources are included under petroleum resources.  

2.10  Spain  
Neither exploratory drilling nor high volume hydraulic fracturing has yet been carried out 
in Spain. To date, the only licences that have been issued in Spain are for the purposes 
of exploration. They were all granted prior to the Recommendation. The most advanced 
sites  where  HVHF  might  potentially  be  used  are  at  the  stage  of  the  EIA  procedures.  At 
the  time  of  writing  this  report,  the  EIAs  are  under  public  consultation  and  have  not  yet 
been  approved  by  the  competent  authorities.  The  assessment  of  the  Recommendation 
principles  and  applicable  EU  requirements  are  mainly  based  on  the  environmental 
documentation  presented  by  the  operators  within  the  framework  of  the  EIA  procedure. 
Therefore, all the conclusions or views gathered and reflected are considered preliminary. 
These findings are subject to the decisions that the competent authorities might adopt in 
the  remaining  stages  of  the  authorisation  procedure.  Under  the  2013  new  Law  on 
Environmental Assessment hydraulic fracturing projects are subject to a compulsory EIA 
before operational permits are granted whether at exploration or production stages. 

2.11  The UK  
The  Commission  Recommendation  2014/70/EU  appears  to  be  partially  applied  at  the 
planning, permitting, licensing levels at the two selected sites, for which applications for 
consent  were  made  after  the  introduction  of  the  Recommendation.  However,  while  the 
principles  of  the  Recommendation  are  not  all  fully  applied,  in  some  case  partial 
application results from the current stage of the planning and permitting process, which 
is ongoing.  

Most of the main pieces of EU environmental legislation are considered11 at the two sites 
for  which  an  application  was  made  for  planning  permission  after  the  publication  of  the 
Recommendation.  

The  comparison  between  the  available  planning  and  environmental  permitting 
documentation for the site which pre-dates the Recommendation and those for the post-
Recommendation  sites  highlights  that  the  principles  of  the  Recommendation  as  well  as 
the requirements of various pieces of EU legislation, are now considered when assessing 
the  current  applications  for  hydraulic  fracturing.  However,  this  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  as  a  direct  result  of  the  publication  of  the  Recommendation,  as  a  number  of 
regulatory  and  non-regulatory  changes  were  introduced  in  the  UK  prior  to  the 
introduction of the Recommendation, to address the environmental  aspects of shale gas 
developments in the UK, especially due to heightened public sensitivity. 

One main development however, since the publication of the Recommendation, has been 
the publication of new framework legislation, the Infrastructure Act 2015, which has two 
key  implications  for  the  development  of  shale  gas  in  England  and  Wales.  First,  a  new 
statutory  right  is  introduced  to  use  deep-level  land  (land  at  a  depth  of  at  least  300 

10  Interpretative  Decision  no.  25  of  29  June  2015  on  Article  1  of  the  Petroleum  law  238/2004 
(binding  from  21  August  2015)  stated  that  shale  gas  shall  be  comprised  in  the  category  of 
‘petroleum  resources’  which  are  exclusively  object  to  the  public  property  and  belong  to  the 
Romanian State’. 
11 It is beyond the scope of this study to conclude whether or not the identified pieces of EU 
legislation have been properly/comprehensively applied. 

28 

 
                                                 
Final Report 29 

metres  below  surface  level)  in  any  way  for  the  purposes  of  exploiting  petroleum  in 
England and Wales. Second, a number of safeguards for HVHF (referred to as ‘associated 
hydraulic fracturing' in the Act) have been introduced through amendments made to the 
Petroleum Act 1998 (not yet in force).  

Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  there  are  a  number  of  key  differences  in  the  regulatory 
approach adopted in other jurisdictions of the  UK. While there  are moratoria in place in 
Scotland  and  Northern  Ireland,  the  regulatory  approach  in  both  Scotland  and  Northern 
Ireland  is  likely  to  be  reviewed  following  the  outcome  of  the  research  and  public 
consultation.  In  Wales  even  though  an  official  moratorium  has  not  been  adopted,  the 
Welsh Government declared that it was opposed to unconventional gas and oil extraction.    

29 

 
 
Final Report 30 

3  Main  findings  on  the  application  of  Commission 

Recommendation 2014/70/EU  

This  section  provides  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  application  of  certain  principles  of  the 
Recommendation. These were identified as the main areas of interest in consultation with 
the Commission, due among others, to divergences in the application in Member States 
(e.g.  EIA  related  principles),  relative  lack  of  application  in  Member  States  (e.g.  SEAs, 
dissemination  of  information),  and  the  good  practices  identified  (e.g.  monitoring).    The 
reference and conclusions under this section on pre-Recommendation sites are only used 
for  comparative  purposes  since  the  Recommendation  was  not  applicable  during  the 
permitting procedures at these sites.    

3.1  Strategic planning and environmental impact assessment (Point 3)  

3.1 Before granting licenses for exploration and/or production of hydrocarbons which may lead to 
the  use  of  high-volume  hydraulic  fracturing,  Member  States  should  prepare  a  strategic 
environmental  assessment  to  prevent,  manage  and  reduce  the  impacts  on,  and  risks  for,  human 
health  and  the  environment.  This  assessment  should  be  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  the 
requirements of Directive 2001/42/EC. 

3.2 Member States should provide  clear rules on possible restrictions of activities, for example in 
protected,  flood-prone  or  seismic-prone  areas,  and  on  minimum  distances  between  authorised 
operations and residential and water-protection  areas.  They should also  establish minimum  depth 
limitations between the area to be fractured and groundwater. 

3.3  Member  States  should  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  an  environmental  impact 
assessment is carried out on the basis of the requirements of Directive 2011/92/EU. 

3.4  Member  States  should  provide  the  public  concerned  with  early  and  effective  opportunities  to 
participate in developing the strategy referred to in point 3.1 and the impact assessment referred 
to in point 3.3. 

3.1.1  Strategic environmental planning (Points 3.1 and 3.4)  

Only Lithuania, the Netherlands and the UK prepared a SEA prior to the grant of licenses 
which may have led to the use of HVHF.  

In  the  Netherlands,  as  part  of  the  National  Spatial  Strategy  on  Shale  Gas,  the 
government  decided  to  prepare  a  SEA  specifically  targeting  shale  gas  extraction  which 
was  finalised  in  July  2015.The  list  of  environmental  aspects  covered  by  this  SEA  is 
comprehensive  and  encompasses  all  expected  impacts  and  risks  of  unconventional  gas 
extraction  and  all  phases  of  exploration,  including  closure.  The  SEA  covers  all  the 
national territory.  

Environmental aspects covered in the SEA in the Netherlands    

Deep subsurface 

-  Sensitivity  to  deep  subsurface  migration  of  gases  and  liquids  (e.g.  possible  presence  of 

existing faults, fractures, abandoned wells, groundwater) 
Interference with other functions at the surface 

- 
-  Consideration of waste remaining underground after fracturing activities 
- 

Potential  conflicts  with  other  sub-surface  activities  (e.g.  extraction  activities,  CO2  storage 
and energy storage, geothermal energy, water abstraction wells) 

Stability and vibration   

-  Risk of seismic activity  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 31 

-  Risk of vibration at ground level  

Soil  
- 
-  Disruption of soil structure  

Impact on the quality of soil  

Groundwater  

- 
- 

Impact on the quality of groundwater 
Impact on the quantity of groundwater  

Surface water   

- 
- 

Impact on the quality of surface water  
Impact on the quantity of surface water  

Air quality   

- 

- 
Noise  

Impact on air quality (increase of emissions of methane, other volatile organic compounds 
and other gases that are likely to have harmful effects on human health/environment) 
Total nitrogen deposits due to NOx and NH3 emissions 

-  Noise pollution on housing 
-  Noise pollution on sensitive zones (e.g. silent zones and habitat zones) 

Light pollution   

- 

Light emissions  

Climate change   

-  Contribution to climate change (CO2 and methane emissions) 

Pressure on public space 

Nature  
- 
-  Disturbance of biodiversity fauna and flora  
- 
-  Acidification/eutrophication from nitrogen deposits 

Fragmentation  

Landscape and cultural history  

- 
- 

Impact on elements and patterns  of the landscape and cultural past 
Impact on the spatial and visual features of the landscape  

Archaeology  

Impact on known/foreseen archaeological  sites 

- 
Traffic  
- 
- 
-  Conveying movements 

Flow of traffic  
Infrastructure availability   

The public concerned was provided with an early and effective opportunity to participate 
in the development of the scope of the SEA, as evidenced by the relatively high number 
of responses received. Public participation on the prepared SEA itself is foreseen in early 
2016  as  part  of  the  preparation  of  the  National  Strategy  on  Underground,  following  the 
development  of  an  Energy  Report  in  late  2015.  The  SEA  contributed  to  the  political 
discussion on shale gas development.  

In the UK, the SEA assessed the environmental effect of the draft Licensing Plan related 
to the 14th and potential further rounds of onshore oil and gas licensing in landward areas 
in  parts  of  England,  Scotland  and  Wales.  HVHF  gas  extraction  plans  were  therefore 
subject  to  SEA  within  the  wider  context  of  the  oil  and  gas  licensing  rounds  and 
considered  alongside  conventional  oil  and  gas  extraction  in  those  areas.  The  SEA 
however  considered  the  specific  environmental effects  of  hydraulic  fracturing during  the 
exploration and production stages of unconventional oil and gas exploration. It assessed 
the potential activities that could follow on from the licensing round and which may have 
environmental  effects,  and  more  specifically  the  effects  associated  with  the  six 
exploration  and  production  stages  (non-intrusive  exploration,  exploration  drilling, 
production development, production/ operation/ maintenance, decommissioning of wells, 
and  site  restoration  and  relinquishment)  for  each  activity  of  conventional  oil  and  gas, 
shale gas, virgin coalbed methane and gas storage.  The public concerned had early and 
effective  opportunities  to  participate  in  developing  the  Licensing  Plan  and  the  Updated 
Environmental Report took into account their responses. The revised Environment Report 
was issued for public consultation between 17 December 2013 and 28 March 2014.  

31 

 
 
Final Report 32 

In Lithuania, SEAs were carried out prior to the public tender procedure to grant licenses 
for    the  prospecting,    exploration  and  exploitation  of  (unconventional)  hydrocarbons  for 
the Šilutės–Tauragės 1800 square km area in 2011 and for the Rietavas 1599 square km 
area in 2006 . The SEA Reports do not specifically indicate and/or cover HVHF and were 
prepared according to the broader plans or programmes related to oil and gas extraction 
development  strategies  in  Lithuania.  However  they  cover  all  aspects  of  oil  and  gas 
prospecting, exploration and extraction and indirectly several aspects linked to the use of 
HVHF. The public was informed on how to access the SEA Report and on how to provide 
comments  and  on  the  dates  of  the  public  meeting  and  any  other  relevant  information. 
The  public  and  competent  authorities  had  the  opportunity  to  give  their  opinions. 
Comments were taken into account in the course of the planning procedure. The Šilutės–
Tauragės  SEA  Report  was  under  public  consultation  between  6  June  2011  and  8  July 
2011.  

In  Portugal  no  SEAs  have  been  carried  out  so  far  for  oil  and  gas  exploration  and/or 
production  in  general.  There  is  no  plan  or  programme  on  exploration  and  production  of 
hydrocarbons  by  unconventional  methods  ongoing  at  this  stage,  and  according  to  the 
National  Entity  for  the  Fuels  Market  (ENMC),  unconventional  methods  have  not  been 
used so far for the exploration of hydrocarbons.  ENMC mentioned that in case the use of 
unconventional methods proves to be a “strong possibility”, a SEA would be required. 

3.1.2  Rules on possible restrictions of activities (Point 3.2)  

K
D

S
E

U
H

T
A

E
D

√ 

√ 

L
N

√ 

T
L

√ 

√ 

L
P

T
P

O
R

K
U

√ 

√ 

√ 

Rules on restrictions 
targeting  hydraulic 
fracturing   

Rules on restrictions 
applying  to  several  
activities 
including 
hydrocarbon 
exploration 
production  

and 

Very  few  countries  have  set  specific  rules  on  possible  restrictions  of  HVHF  activities 
according  to  Point  3.2  of  the  Recommendation.  Only  the  UK  and  Lithuania  through  the 
adoption  of  a legal  text,  have  set  specific  restriction  rules  applying  to HVHF.  In  the  UK, 
according  to  the  Infrastructure  Act  2015,  hydraulic  fracturing  is  prohibited  within 
protected  groundwater  source  areas  or  other  protected  areas.  The  draft  Onshore 
Hydraulic  Fracturing  (Protected  Areas)  Regulations  2015  define  such  areas  as  areas  of 
land  at  a  depth  of  less  than  1,200  metres  beneath  any  land  within  50  metres  of  an 
abstraction  point  or  within  or  above  a  zone  defined  by  a  50-day  travel  time  for 
groundwater  to  reach  a  groundwater  abstraction  point,  and  areas  of  land  at  a  depth  of 
less  than  1,200  metres  beneath  a  National  Park,  the  Broads,  an  area  of  outstanding 
natural  beauty,  or  a  World  Heritage  site  respectively.  New  section  4A  of  the  Petroleum 
Act  1998  (not  yet  in  force)  also  provides  that  a  well  consent  must  now  include  a 
condition  which  prohibits  associated  hydraulic  fracturing  (=  HVHF)  from  taking  place  in 
land  at  a  depth  of  less  than  1000  metres,  and  a  condition  which  prohibits  associated 
hydraulic fracturing from taking place in land at a depth of 1000 metres or more unless a 
hydraulic fracturing consent has been granted.  

In  Lithuania,  exploration  and/or  production  of  unconventional  hydrocarbon  resources 
(such  as  shale  gas)  using  HVHF  is  forbidden  in  groundwater  protection  zones  and 
drinking water extraction zones. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the Netherlands, the SEA sets criteria to exclude a priori certain regions/areas from its 
future  shale  gas  exploration  activities  or  pay  particular  attention  to  these  areas.  The 
following  surface  areas  are  excluded  from  the  SEA  scenarios  for  future  shale  gas 
exploration activities:  

Final Report 33 

  Protected areas such as Natura 2000 sites12 
  Drinking water catchment sites  
  Water protection areas such as sites for groundwater protection 
  Large  surface water bodies  
  Urban/residential areas13 

For the depth limitations, the SEA uses a depth limitation of 1,000 meters for horizontal 
drilling, including for groundwater areas. There is no specific distance limitation between 
groundwater and the fractured zone. 

 In  Germany  certain  federate  laws  set  restrictions  for  fracking  in  specific  areas  (e.g.  in 
water  protection  areas).The  current  federal  legislation  does  not  set  such  restriction  of 
activities  targeting  specifically  HVHF.  However  the  draft  law  as  of  April  2015  contains 
some  of  these  restrictions  (e.g.  prohibition  of  fracking  activities  in  protected  areas, 
setting  of  the  minimum  depth  limitations  of  3,000  metres)  but  not  concerning  all 
elements (e.g. no minimum distance between operations and residential areas required; 
no restrictions in flood prone or seismic prone areas).  

Several  countries  (e.g.  Germany,  Lithuania  Poland,  Romania)  contain in  their legislation 
restrictions similar to some of the  ones set under  Point 3.2 of the Recommendation but 
that apply to all types of activities (e.g. all activities restricted in flood prone areas) or to 
all hydrocarbon activities (e.g. prohibition of oil and gas operation in protected areas and 
near water sources).      

It is also common practice that such restrictions are set at the permitting level for each 
site on a case by case basis depending on whether the site falls within a protected area, 
flood prone area, seismic prone area or water protection area.  

Overall  none  of  the  countries  covered  include  in  their  legislation  all  the  restrictions  set 
under Point 3.2 of the Recommendation.   

3.1.3  EIA in accordance Directive 2011/92/EC (Point 3.3 and Point 3.4)  

  EIAs carried out at specific sites  

The  table  above  provides  an  overview  of  the  application  of  the  EIA  Directive  at  specific 
sites examined under this study.  

E
D

K
D

S
E

No  EIA  nor  screening 
carried out at some of 
the examined sites 

Screening  carried  out 
at all  sites examined 

P 

√ 

U
H

√ 

T
L

√ 

O
R

K
U

L
P

√ 

√ 

12 Although horizontal drilling underneath 1000 meters is not excluded 
13 Ibid.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Screening  carried  out 
at 
the 
of 
some 
examined sites  

EIA  carried  out  at 
some of the examined  
sites 

EIA  carried  out  at  all 
examined sites  

E
D

K
D

U
H

T
L

S
E

√ 

√ 

√ 

Final Report 34 

L
P

√ 

√ 

K
U

√ 

√ 

O
R

√ 

P  means  in  this  specific  case  that  the  EIA  screening  did  not  cover  the  entire  project  but  only  the 
construction of the well pad.  

At Damme 3 site in Germany, no EIA was required. A screening was undertaken for the 
construction of the well pad but no screening was carried out for the entire site and HVHF 
activities.  In  Poland,  an  EIA  was  carried  out  for  three  out  of  the  five  sites  reviewed.    A 
screening procedure with no EIA was applied at one site and neither a screening nor an 
EIA  was  carried  out  at  the  fifth  site.  In  the  UK,  an  EIA  was  carried  out  at  the  two  post 
Recommendation  sites  (a  screening  without  an  EIA  was  carried  out  for  the  third  site 
which pre-dates the Recommendation). In Spain from the sites selected, EIAs have been 
submitted  to  competent  authorities  by  the  operator  in  the  “Sedano”14  and  “Urraca”15 
licenses.  None  of  these  EIAs  have  yet  been  approved  by  competent  authorities.  For  the 
“Bezana”  and  “Bigüenzo”  licenses,  the  authorities  have  only  issued  the  EIA  “scoping” 
decision  at  the  time  of  writing  this  report.  In  Denmark  when  Total  applied  for  the 
necessary permits to perform exploratory drilling at Vendsyssel-1, the Municipal Council 
in  Frederikshavn  decided  subsequent  to  an  EIA  screening  that  a  full  EIA  was  required 
before  any  such  permit  could  be  granted.  This  EIA  should  only  concern  drilling  without 
any use of hydraulic fracturing. Future exploratory drilling using fracturing would require 
a whole new EIA. In the same vein in Romania, the EIAs only covered exploratory drilling 
without  HVHF.  A  first  screening  procedure  applied.  In  case  of  exploitation  works,  a  new 
permitting  procedure  would  be  required  as  well  as  a  new  EIA.  In  Lithuania  two  EIA 
screenings were carried for specific project wells where hydraulic fracturing was planned 
but the competent authorities decided that an EIA in these two cases was not necessary.     

  Public participation in EIA procedures  

In countries where EIAs were completed or are being completed, the public participation 
procedures and EIA timeframes are significantly different from one country to another.    

Countries 

Preliminary 
public 
consultation 
timeframe16 

EIA public 
consultation 
timeframe 

Comments 
received 

EIA overall 
timeframe in 
practice 

Denmark   

28 days 

8 weeks 

66 
documents 
containing:  feedback 
public 
from 
who 
authorities, 
were 
to 
comment;  feedback 

invited 

22  months  (from 
Total’s 
submission  of  a 
project 
description 
for 
the  purpose  of 

14BNK Petroleum, July 2013, Environmental Document for the Exploratory Drilling of Hydrocarbons 
in the Interest Areas Sedano 1, Sedano 2 and Sedano 3 (“Sedano” permit) (Documento Ambiental 
para las Perforaciones de Hidrocarburos en las Áreas de Interés Sedano 1, Sedano 2 y Sedano 3). 
15BNK  Petroleum,  November  2014,  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Exploratory  Drilling 
of  Hydrocarbons  in  “Urraca  1”  (“Urraca”  license)  and  December  2014,  Environmental  Impact 
Assessment for the Exploratory Drilling of Hydrocarbons in “Urraca 2 and 3” (“Urraca” license). 
16Before the presentation of the EIA  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 35 

EIA overall 
timeframe in 
practice 

an  EIA  screening 
to the date of the 
permit). 

6 to 8 months 

2  months  16 
days  

than 

More 
2 
years  for  current 
The 
EIAs. 
procedure 
is 
ongoing   

- 
pre-

18  months 
from 
application 
consultation 
(January  2014) 
until  decision  of 
planning 
authority 
2015). 

(June 

Countries 

Preliminary 
public 
consultation 
timeframe16 

EIA public 
consultation 
timeframe 

Comments 
received 

(predominantly 
objections) 
from 
NGOs;  and  feedback 
(predominantly 
objections) 
other 
stakeholders 
neighbours). 

from 
private 
(e.g. 

Poland  

21  days    (30  days 
  a  draft 
under 
law17)  

21  days  (30  days 
under a draft law) 

None   

Romania  

45 days  

22 days  

documents 

39 
containing 
stakeholders/commu
nity  feedback    and 
responses 
related 
from 
companies  
were available 

Spain  

UK  

Five  to  six  months 
in  case  studies.  
Maximum  30 days 
according to a new 
law not yet in force 
for 
case 
the 
studies     

in 
The 
of 

Four  months 
practice. 
Statement 
Community 
involvement 
describes  4  key 
stages 
of 
consultation 
undertaken 
prior 
to  the  submission 
of  the  application. 
The 
two 
first 
stages  were  not 
site  specific.  The 
final 2 stages (Jan-
May 2014) covered 
specific 
the 
exploration 
sites, 
the  planning  and 
EIA  process  and 
emerging 
findings 
from the EIA. 

At least 30 days  

the 

time 

of 
At 
writing 
the  public 
consultation  has  not 
been concluded. 

21  days,  extended 
to 12 weeks. 

- 

Further 
consultation 
(21 
days)  carried  out 
on 
additional 
information. 

- 

Roseacre  wood: 
documents 
66 
containing 
stakeholders/co
mmunity 
feedback 
related 
responses 
from 
companies    were 
available  

  and 

  and 

new 
60 

Preston 
road: 
documents 
containing 
stakeholders/co
mmunity 
feedback 
related 
responses 
from 
companies  were 
available 
(200 
representations 
supporting 
proposal 
11127 
representations 
objecting  to  the 
proposal 
were 
received  

the 
and 

17 At the time of writing this report this draft law is about to be adopted.   

35 

 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 36 

In  all  case  studies  it  was  however  considered  that  the  public  had  an early  and  effective 
opportunity  to  participate  in  the  EIA  procedure.  In  Denmark,  the  Municipal  Council  in 
Frederikshavn performed a public participation procedure leading to the publication of an 
‘objective notice’ where all objections against the project were addressed. In the UK, for 
the  two  EIAs  a  Statement  of  Community  Involvement  described  the  result  of  the  public 
consultation programme during each EIA procedure as further detailed in the box below. 
Such Statement of Community involvement is considered as an example of good practice 
since  it  records  in  a  detailed  manner  the  public  participation  procedure  during  EIAs  to 
ensure the efficient involvement of the public in such procedures.    

Details  on  the  Statement  of  Community  involvement  for  the  Preston  New  Road 
exploration site  

The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) describes the community engagement which has 
been undertaken in connection with the proposed exploration site at Preston New Road which was 
announced on 4th February 2014. It also describes the wider consultation activities associated with 
the  shale  gas  exploration  project,  which  were  undertaken  before  this  date.  There  were  two  key 
stages:  (a)  general  consultation  which  was  not  site  specific  to  enable  comments  to  inform 
development of the EIA, and (b) site specific consultation to provide information on the emerging 
findings  of  the  EIA.    The  SCI  provides  a  summary  of  the  principal  issues  raised  and  how  the 
operator  responded  to  the  issue  through  the  design  of  the  project  and  through  mitigation 
measures.  Chapter  8  of  the  SCI  details  how  the  consultation  activities  influenced  and  shaped 
proposals  for  the  Preston  New  Road  site  and  informed  the  technical  work  (such  as  the  EIA)  and 
sets out the responses to the issues raised.  

In Romania, according to the Environmental agreements for the four sites, the procedure 
for  information  and  public involvement  was  carried  out  pursuant  to  the  law.  tIt  is  to  be 
noted however that there were violent protests at the examined site. In Poland the public 
was  informed  about  the  EIA  procedure  (via  internet,  notice  board)  and  was  able  to 
review  and  comment  at  an  early  stage  of  the  process.  However  no  comments  were 
submitted during the consultation process.  

  Scope of the EIA  

Even  though  not  covered  by  the  Recommendation, it is  to  be  noted  that  in  none  of  the 
countries is the scope of the EIA clearly defined in the law. In particular, it is unclear in 
the law whether the EIA has to cover one specific well project or several well projects in 
a  license  area  or  the  whole  license  area.  In  Spain,   for  the  Sedano  license,  one  EIA 
covered  three  potential  wells  (Sedano  1,  Sedano  2,  Sedano  3)  and  where  relevant  it 
provided  a  specific  analysis  or  assessment  based  on  the  characteristics  of  one  potential 
drilling  well  area.  For  the  Urraca  license  two  EIAs  were  carried  out:   One  covering  the 
Urraca  1  proposed  well  site, and  another  covering  Urraca  2  and  3  proposed  well  sites 
which are located very close to each other.  

In  Poland, concerning  the  Lebork    license,  that  covers  three  well  clusters,  only  one  EIA 
was required for the planned drilling work ‘Żarnowska’ that covered one well (vertical and 
horizontal)  and  to  some  extent  possible  further  developments  of  other  wells.   For  the 
Wejhorowo license the EIA covered 2 well clusters with 8 potential wells. The EIA for the 
Leba license covered 3 wells.   

In the UK, the  EIAs  for the Roseacre Wood and the Preston  New Road exploration sites 
respectively covered  a  cluster  of  four  exploratory  wells.   In  Romania  and  Denmark  EIAs 
covered only one specific exploratory well18.  

18 Note however that there were no other potential areas of interest in the license area.   

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Therefore  in  the  countries  covered,  the  scope  of  the  EIA  is  decided  on  a  case  by  case 
basis by the competent authorities.   

  Thresholds to trigger the application of the EIA Directive   

Final Report 37 

EIA 
Specific 
requirements 
for 
hydraulic fracturing   

thresholds 
Specific 
for 
or 
EIA 
screening(e.g. depth 
of  drilling;  presence 
of sensitive areas or 
size 
the 
of 
installation)  

EIA 
requirements  

Directive 

T
A

√ 

E
D

√19 

K
D

√ 

S
E

√ 

U
H

T
L

√ 

L
N

L
P

O
R

K
U

T
P

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

The  legal  EIA  requirements  applying  to  the  projects  covered  under  the  case  studies  are 
not necessarily the ones that are in force at the time of writing this report. As outlined in 
the  overview  table  below,  several  countries  have  adopted  or  plan  to  adopt  specific  EIA 
requirements  related  to  projects  involving  the  use  of  hydraulic  fracturing  (i.e.  Austria, 
Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain), other countries have set specific EIA 
thresholds depending on the depth of the drilling, the size of the installation and/or the 
presence  of  sensitive  areas  (i.e.  Netherlands,  Poland  and  the  UK)  whereas  some 
countries    apply  literally  the  EIA  directive  requirements  and  thresholds  (i.e.  Romania). 
This is further explained in the table below which details for each country covered the EIA 
thresholds which apply to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale 
gas) using HVHF.   

Countries 

EIA thresholds applying to the exploration and production of 
hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using HVHF. 

Austria  

Denmark  

Germany   

The exploration and exploitation of rock layers in unconventional oil 
and  gas  deposits  through  hydro-mechanic  fracturing  (‘frac 
treatment’) is subject to an EIA.   

Projects  where  fracturing  is  planned  for  the  exploration  or  extraction 
of shale gas are subject to a compulsory EIA.   

No  specific  requirements  or  thresholds  related  to  HVHF.  If  the 
production rate is larger than 500 tons of oil/day resp. 500,000 m³ of 
gas/day,  a  formal  procedure  with  EIA  is  mandatory.  An  EIA  is  also 
mandatory for the establishment and operation of drilling platforms in 
the  areas  of  coastal  water  and  in  the  continental  shelf.  The  current 
German law does not refer to deep drilling as a criterion to trigger an 
EIA screening procedure.    

In  the  draft  Regulation  of  the  Federal  Ministry  of  the  Economy  and 
Energy  for  the  introduction  of  EIAs  in  the  use  of  fracking  technology 
and deep drilling (not yet adopted), an EIA would become compulsory 
for  projects  that  plan  to  carry  out  hydraulic  fracturing  in  both 
conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon deposits.   

19 Specific EIA requirements for hydraulic fracturing set in the draft law (not yet adopted). At 
present, there are no such requirements (see table below) 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Countries 

EIA thresholds applying to the exploration and production of 
hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using HVHF. 

Hungary  

No  specific  requirements  or  thresholds  related  specifically  to  HVHF. 
The requirements of the EIA Directive related to oil and gas production 
apply.   

Final Report 38 

A screening procedure must be applied in the following cases:   

a)  Below  the  production  threshold  of  gas  production  of  500’000 

m3/day), oil 500 tons/day without size limitation.  

b)  Exploratory  drilling  in  protected  natural  zones,  Natura  2000 
zones,  protected  areas  of  caves,  protected  areas  of 
underground  water  (if  the  start  of  the  operation  is  not 
excluded  by  legislation  on  the  protection  of  water  resources 
and drinking water facilities).  

An  EIA  is  required  for  the  activity  of  extraction  or  (and)  direct 
exploration  of  unconventional  hydrocarbons  using  hydraulic 
fracturing.  

No  specific  requirements  or  thresholds  related  to  HVHF.  The 
requirements  of  the  EIA  Directive  related  to  oil  and  gas  production 
apply.   

In  case  of  deep  drilling  (100  meters  depth  or  more)  a  screening 
must  be  carried  out.    The  Dutch  EIA  commission  in  the  Netherlands 
advised the Minister that in the case of shale gas, all permits (whether 
for exploration or production) should be subject to an EIA. 

 EIAs  are  mandatory  since  September  2015  for  “exploratory  drillings 
(sondagem)  and/or  extraction  of  hydrocarbons  by  unconventional 
methods (including hydraulic fracturing)”.     

A  screening  procedure  is  required  for  the  following  prospecting  or 
exploration of mineral deposits:   

Lithuania  

Netherlands  

Portugal  

Poland  

located in offshore waters of Poland, 

 
  underground mining, 
 

carried out using borehole techniques, at depths below 1 000 
m  

o  a)in water intake protection zones, 
o  b)in inland water reservoirs protection zones 
o  c)in areas covered by nature protection schemes or in 

 

buffer zones for nature protection schemes ,  
carried  out  using  borehole  techniques  at  depths  below  5000 
m in other areas (not listed in c) 

As  a  consequence  neither  a  screening  nor  an  EIA  is  required  for  all 
exploration projects of mineral deposits (including oil and gas) taking 
place  between  1000  and  5000  m  depth,  except  if  the  projects  are 
located in the protection zones or maritime areas mentioned above.20  
Projects  likely  to  have  a  significant  effect  on  Natura  2000  sites  must 
be subject to an EIA. The requirements of the EIA Directive related to 
oil and gas production apply.  In addition an EIA is also compulsory in 
case  of  exploitation  or  processing  of  gas,  oil  and  its  derivatives  if 
these  projects  are  located  in  offshore  waters  of  Poland.  The  EIA 
procedure  is  now  required  before  obtaining  the  investment  decision 

20  The  Commission  sent  a  reasoned  opinion  to  Poland  regarding  compliance  issues  with  the  EIA 
Directive. The reply received from Polish authorities is currently under examination. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Countries 

EIA thresholds applying to the exploration and production of 
hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using HVHF. 

Final Report 39 

Romania  

Spain  

The UK  

(e.g.  Decision  on  Approval  of  Mining  Work  Plan),  not  before  granting 
the license. 

Literal transposition of the EIA Directive thresholds   

All  projects  involving  drilling  for  the  prospection,  exploration,  or 
exploitation  of  hydrocarbons,  CO2  storage,  gas  storage  and  medium 
and  high  geothermal  enthalpy,  which  require  the  use  of  hydraulic 
fracturing techniques, shall be subject to an EIA 

The requirements of the EIA Directive related to oil and gas production 
apply.  An  EIA  screening  is  required  for  deep  drilling  projects,  where 
the  area  of  the  works  exceeds  1  hectare,  and  surface  industrial 
installations  for  the  extraction  of  petroleum,  where  the  development 
exceeds  0.5  hectares.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  following  the 
changes introduced by the Infrastructure Act 2015, new section 4A(3) 
of the Petroleum Act 1998 (not yet in force; will apply only to England 
and Wales) requires that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that 
the  environmental  impact  of  the  development  has  been  taken  into 
account  by  the  local  planning  authority,  before  issuing  a  hydraulic 
fracturing  consent  (this  is  required  for  any  activity  where  hydraulic 
fracturing  is  carried  out  at  a  depth  of  1000  metres  or  more  in 
connection  with  the  use  of  the  relevant  well  to  search  or  bore  for  or 
get  petroleum21).  While  this  does  not  alter  the  requirements  for  an 
EIA  or  screening,  the  local  planning  authority  will  be  required  in  all 
cases  to  confirm,  by  providing  a  notice  that  the  environmental 
information  was  taken  into  account  in  deciding  to  grant  the  relevant 
planning permission. 

  HVHF impacts covered   

In Poland, Spain and the UK, the EIAs covered the main characteristics of unconventional 
hydrocarbon  exploration  and  the  potential  related  impacts  of  HVHF..  Further  details  are 
set in the national reports on the coverage of each EIA. Even though not covered by the 
Recommendation  it  is  noteworthy  that  none  of  the  countries  covered  under  this  study 
have  adopted  specific  guidelines  and/or  rules  on  the  content  of  the  EIA  for  projects 
involving the production and production of hydrocarbons using HVHF.    

In  Lithuania  the  two  EIA  screening  decisions  did  not  cover  specific  impacts  related  to 
hydraulic fracturing.  

3.2  Exploration and production permits (Point 4)  

Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  conditions  and  the  procedures  for  obtaining  permits  in 
accordance with applicable Union legislation are fully coordinated if: 

(a) 
(b) 
(c) 
(d) 

more than one competent authority is responsible for the permit(s) needed; 
more than one operator is involved; 
more than one permit is needed for a specific project phase; 
more than one permit is needed under national or Union legislation 

This principle on the coordination of the permitting procedure was met in all sites covered 
(for  the  exploration  stage)  with  the  exception  of  Romania  where  local  authorities  were 
not  involved  in  the  permitting  procedure  for  the  exploration  wells.  The  lack  of 
involvement  of  the  local  authorities  was  one  of  the  reasons  why  15  Local  Councils  in 
Vaslui  County  adopted  regulations  stating  that  exploration  works  with  the  objective  of 

21 Encompassing both oil and gas.  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 40 

finding  possible  shale  gas  reserves  were  forbidden  at  the  perimeter  of  the  villages 
concerned. 

In  Poland,  Marshall  was  the  main  body  in  charge  of  the  coordination  of  the  process  of 
permits issuing. In the UK, according to a statement made in August 2015, the Secretary 
of  State  will  consider  calling  in  shale  applications,  in  particular  where  applications  are 
made  to  local  planning  authorities  that  have  previously  failed  to  meet  the  statutory 
timescales. 

3.3 

 Selection of the exploration and production sites (Point 5)  

5.1. Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure that the geological formation of 
a  site  is  suitable  for  the  exploration  or  production  of  hydrocarbons  using  high-volume  hydraulic 
fracturing. They should ensure that  operators carry out a characterisation and risk assessment of 
the potential site and surrounding surface and underground area. 

5.2. The risk assessment should be based on sufficient data to make it possible to characterise the 
potential exploration and production area and identify all potential exposure pathways. This would 
make  it  possible  to  assess  the  risk  of  leakage  or  migration  of  drilling  fluids,  hydraulic  fracturing 
fluids,  naturally  occurring  material,  hydrocarbons  and  gases  from  the  well  or  target  formation  as 
well as of induced seismicity. 

5.3.The risk assessment should: 
(a)  be  based  on  the  best  available  techniques  and  take  into  account  the  relevant  results  of  the 
information  exchange  between  Member  States,  industries  concerned  and  non-governmental 
organisations promoting environmental protection organised by the Commission; 

(b)  anticipate  the  changing  behaviour  of  the  target  formation,  geological  layers  separating  the 
reservoir  from  groundwater  and  existing  wells  or  other  manmade  structures  exposed  to  the  high 
injection pressures used in high-volume hydraulic fracturing and the volumes of fluids injected; 

(c)  respect  a  minimum  vertical  separation  distance  between  the  zone  to  be  fractured  and 
groundwater; 

(d)  be updated during operations whenever new data are collected. 

5.4.A site should only be selected if the risk assessment conducted under points 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 
shows  that  the  high-volume  hydraulic  fracturing  will  not  result  in  a  direct  discharge  of  pollutants 
into groundwater and that no damage is caused to other activities around the installation 

This  principle  could  only  be  assessed  for  the  exploration  sites  in  Poland,  the  UK  and  to 
some extent Spain through information from the EIA documents. In Poland this principle 
was partially reflected at the permitting level in the post- Recommendation sites with the 
exception of the dynamic modelling of impacts or the update of the risk assessment.   

In  the  UK,  a  qualitative  environmental  risk  assessment  is  required  as  part  of  the 
environmental permit application, which addresses exposure pathways, although it is not 
directly  linked  to  site  selection.  The  requirements  to  mitigate  the  risk  of  seismicity  is 
considered  as  an  example  of  good  practice  within  the  risk  assessment  framework  as  it 
obliges  operators  to  follow  a  set  of  detailed  steps  to  demonstrate  that  the  proposed 
development is satisfactory from a geological point of view.  

UK 2012 Ministerial statement on controls to mitigate the risk of seismicity 

The new controls to mitigate the risks of seismic activity announced in the Ministerial Statement at 
the  end  of  2012  require  the  operator  to  carry  out  prior  geological  analysis  to  identify  relevant 
faulting,  submit  a  fracking  plan  and  carry  out  background  monitoring  of  seismicity  before 
operations start, and that on-going monitoring of seismicity is carried out during operations.  Under 
the new controls, DECC will not consent to hydraulic fracturing until it has seen and is satisfied with 
the fracking plan submitted by the operator.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 41 

3.4  Baseline study (Point 6)   

Before high-volume hydraulic fracturing operations start, Member States should ensure that: 
(a)  the  operator  determines  the  environmental  status  (baseline)  of  the  installation  site  and  its 
surrounding surface and underground area potentially affected by the activities; 
(b)the  baseline  is  appropriately  described  and  reported  to  the  competent  authority  before 
operations begin. 
6.2.A baseline should be determined for: 
(a) quality and flow characteristics of surface and ground water; 
(b)water quality at drinking water abstraction points; 
(c) air quality; 
(d) soil condition; 
(e) presence of methane and other volatile organic compounds in water; 
(f) seismicity; 
(g) land use; 
(h) biodiversity; 
(i)status of infrastructure and buildings; 
(j) existing wells and abandoned structures. 

Overall  the  parameters  listed  in  the  baseline  study  were  well  reflected  at  the  examined 
sites  with  the  exception  of  air  quality,  seismicity,  the  presence  of  methane  and  other 
volatile  organic  compounds  in  water,  the  status  of  infrastructure  and  buildings  and 
existing wells and abandoned structures, which were not systematically assessed.  

Although not covered under the Recommendation, it is noteworthy that the geographical 
scope of the baseline study and whether or not it is based on available data rather than 
on  specific  samples  taken  from  the  surrounding  areas  of  the  exploratory  wells  is  not 
clearly defined in the law or permitting procedures of the countries covered. It is rather 
decided on a case by case basis between competent authorities and operators. It is also 
not always clear whether a baseline must be set before any operations and/or specifically 
before HVHF.   

In  the  UK,  whereas  this  principle  was  not  met  for  the  site  that  pre-dates  the 
Recommendation,  for  both  post-  Recommendation  sites,  baseline  studies  on  air  quality, 
archaeology/cultural  heritage,  greenhouse  gases,  community  &  socio-economics, 
ecology, hydrogeology & ground gases, induced seismicity, land-use, landscape & visual 
amenity, lighting, noise, resources & waste, transport, water resources and public health 
had to be carried out prior to the start of operations. They covered all aspects set in the 
Recommendation with the exception of the status of infrastructure and buildings, existing 
wells and abandoned structures22. It is to be noted that the UK asks for a baseline study 
on public health, which goes beyond the list of elements set in the Recommendation. It 
can be noted as an example of good practice that at the Preston Hall site it was planned 
to  set  groundwater  monitoring  boreholes  around  the  edge  of  the  well  pad  to  set  the 
baseline  of  the  quality  of  groundwater  prior  operations  close  to  the  HVHF  activities.  It 
was  also  proposed  in  the  permit  to  install  surface  network  seismometers  and 
seismometer array over an area of 2870 ha to collect baseline seismic data before HVHF 
occurs.   

In Spain the decision of the competent authorities establishing the scope of the EIA 23 also 
determines the content of the baseline study. It covers all the aspects mentioned in the 
Recommendation  with  the  exception  of  the  presence  of  methane  and  other  VOCs  in 

22 The status of sensitive structures (no definition available) is assessed by DECC in consenting to hydraulic 
fracturing. 
23 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Determination of the scope and level of detail of 
the EIA for the sites “El Coto-2” and “Cadialso-2”, 16 June 2014; Ministry of Agriculture, Food and 
Environment,  Notification  of  the  decision  to  subject  the  project  to  EIA,  “Urraca  1”,  25  February 
2014  and  “Urraca  2  y  3”,  5  August  2013;  Junta  de  Castilla  y  Leon,  Decision  to  subject  to  EIA, 
“Sedano” permit, 19 November 2013. 

41 

 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 42 

water,  the  status  of  infrastructure  and  buildings,  existing  wells  and  abandoned 
structures. 

In Poland, a baseline study was carried out before operation/HVHF. The baseline area is 
defined on a case by case basis.   

A description of the baseline is included in the environmental reports for three sites: Łeba 
and  Łębork  (post-date  Recommendation)  and  Wejherowo  (pre-Recommendation).  The 
elements listed for the baseline are covered by the baseline study, with the exception of 
the  presence  of  methane  or  other  VOCs  in  water,  air  quality,  seismicity  and  abandoned 
structures  (depending  on  the  sites).  As  part  of  the  EIA  procedure,  the  baseline 
description  was  reported  to  the  competent  authorities.  Results  of  environmental 
monitoring for one site (Wejherowo license) had to be sent to the competent authorities. 
However, in the case of the other sites, the monitoring results conducted before the start 
of  operations and after  the EIA are not  reported to the competent authorities. They are 
generally  available  in  the  operator’s  offices24  and  are  made  available  to  the  competent 
authorities  upon  request  or  during  inspection.  In  the  case  of  the  pre-recommendation 
Lidzbark  Warmiński  site,  the  detailed  information  concerning  the  baseline  study  was 
unavailable  and  the  baseline  study  covered  only  part  of  the  listed  environmental 
elements.  

The geographical scope of the baseline differs from one country to another and from one 
site to another. For example in Spain, the EIA for Sedano 1,2, 3  submitted by operators 
refers to the ambient air quality baseline based on available data from air quality stations 
located  between  40  km  to  65  km  away  from  the    License,  whereas  for  example,  at  the 
Zanowska site in Poland, air quality samples are taken within the site.        

3.5  Monitoring requirements (Point 11)    

1.1.Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  operator  regularly  monitors  the  installation  and  the 
surrounding  surface  and  underground  area  potentially  affected  by  the  operations  during  the 
exploration and production phase and in particular before, during and after high-volume hydraulic 
fracturing. 
11.2.  The  baseline  study  required  under  points  6.1  and  6.2  should  be  used  as  a  reference  for 
subsequent monitoring. 
11.3.In  addition  to  environmental  parameters  determined  in  the  baseline  study,  Member  States 
should ensure that the operator monitors the following operational parameters: 
(a) the precise composition of the fracturing fluid used for each well; 
(b)the volume of water used for the fracturing of each well; 
(c)the pressure applied during high-volume fracturing; 
(d)the  fluids  that  emerge  at  the  surface  following  high-volume  hydraulic  fracturing:  return  rate, 
volumes, characteristics, quantities reused and/or treated for each well; 
(e)air  emissions  of  methane,  other  volatile  organic compounds  and  other  gases  that  are  likely  to 
have harmful effects on human health and/or the environment. 
11.4.  Member  States  should  ensure  that  operators  monitor  the  impacts  of  high-volume  hydraulic 
fracturing  on  the  integrity  of  wells  and  other  manmade  structures  located  in  the  surrounding 
surface and underground area potentially affected by the operations. 
11.5.  Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  monitoring  results  are  reported  to  the  competent 
authorities. 

Monitoring  measures  were  implemented  at  the  sites  were  HVHF  was  carried  out 
(Germany, Poland, the UK). In Spain, some monitoring measures are foreseen in the EIA 
documents drafted by the operators. No specific trends can be identified on the way the 
monitoring requirements were applied or planned to be applied at specific sites with the 
exception of the UK where post-recommendation sites, unlike pre-recommendation sites, 
apply specific monitoring measures reflecting the principle of the Recommendation (with 

24  In  case  no  EIAs  are  carried  out  this  information  would  still  be  available  (e.g.  case  of  Wodynie 
Łuków) 

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 43 

the exception of the monitoring of the integrity of wells25 and other manmade structures 
in the surrounding area).  

In Poland, at each site examined, monitoring of both the surface and  underground area 
potentially  affected  was  planned  or  carried  out  before  and  where  relevant,  after 
fracturing  operations.  Boundaries  of  monitoring  area  were  defined  on  a  case  by  case 
basis usually covering the drilling site and adjacent areas.  In Poland, monitoring is based 
on  the  parameters  set  under  the  baseline  study  and  refer  to  the  baseline  study  in  the 
selected  sites  where  HVHF  was  carried  out;  with  the  exception  of  the  seismicity 
monitoring  which  was  only  monitored  at  two  sites  (all  of  the  sites  are  not  located  in 
seismic  prone  areas)..  The  well  integrity  and  monitoring  of  impacts  on  manmade 
structures  located  in  the  surrounding  surface  and  underground  area  potentially  affected 
by  the  operations  are  carried  out  at  the  Wejherowo  site  (pre-dates  Recommendation) 
and the Lębork sites (post-dates Recommendation) only. For the Wodynie Łuków site and 
Lidzbark  Warmiński  sites  (pre-dates  Recommendation)  there 
information 
concerning the monitoring of manmade structures. For three of the sites (post-and pre-
Recommendation)  the  obligation  of  reporting  to  the  competent  authorities  of  the 
monitoring results (for soil and groundwater only) is implemented.  

is  no 

In the UK, whereas the monitoring principles were not met for the site that pre-dates the 
Recommendation, for the sites that post-date  the Recommendation,  monitoring is to be 
carried  under  the  terms  of  an  Environmental  Management  and  Monitoring  Plan.  The 
monitoring  rules  planned  for  these  two  sites  are  considered  as  an  example  of  good 
practice (see table below).  

Environmental  Management  and  Monitoring  Plan  at  Preston  New  Road  and  Roseacre 
Wood sites 

Monitoring is to be carried out  under  the  terms of an  Environmental Management and Monitoring 
Plan (EMMP). The EMMP will be comprehensive in scope, and will cover baseline monitoring before 
operations, monitoring to be carried out during the drilling, fracturing and completion phases, and 
ongoing  monitoring  during  production  and  post-abandonment.  Monitoring  would  cover  a  range  of 
environmental  parameters  including  seismicity,  ambient  air  quality  around  the  site,  noise  levels, 
flowback fluid composition, surface water and groundwater composition and concentrations, ground 
gas  composition  and  concentrations  and  fugitive  gas  emissions.  Monitoring  of  the  groundwater 
monitoring  wells  would  continue  following  exploration  well  abandonment  for  a  period  agreed  with 
the  regulators,  and  subsequent  decommissioning  of  the  groundwater  monitoring  wells.  The 
environmental permit requires sampling of groundwater and surface water for 46 parameters at a 
minimum.  In  each  case  monitoring  works  were  to  cover  a  4km  radius  of  the  proposed  sites 
comprising the construction, operation and restoration of two seismic monitoring arrays comprising 
of 80 buried seismic monitoring stations  and 10 (8 at Roseacre Wood) surface seismic monitoring 
states.  The  seismic  monitoring  stations  would  comprise  underground  installation  of  seismicity 
sensors,  enclosed  equipment  and  fenced  enclosures.  The  surface  array  would  also  comprise 
monitoring  cabinets.  The  applications  were  also  for  the  drilling  of  three  boreholes,  each  installed 
with two monitoring wells, to monitor groundwater and ground gas. 

For  these  two  sites  all  monitoring  parameters  of  the  Recommendation  are  covered  with 
the  exception  of  the  “status  of  infrastructure  and  buildings”  and  “existing  wells  and 
abandoned  structures”.  For  these  two  sites  no  specific  undertaking  was  identified  in 
respect  of  monitoring  the  integrity  of  wells  and  other  manmade  structures  in  the 
surrounding  area.  However,  under  Regulation 13  of  the  Offshore  Installations  and  Wells 
(Design  and  Construction)  Regulations  1996,  the  well  must  be  designed,  constructed, 
operated,  maintained  and  decommissioned  in  such  a  way  that  there  is  no  unplanned 
release of fluids from the well so far as is reasonably practicable. The operator is required 
to provide a weekly report to HSE with details of the operations that week, the diameter 

25  However, it should be noted that HSE will monitor well operations during construction and 
operation based on weekly operations reports submitted to HSE by the well operator. 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 44 

and  depth  of  the  borehole  and  diameter  and  depth  of  the  casing,  and  appoint  an 
independent  well  examiner  to  ensure  that  regulatory  requirements  and  industry 
standards  are  adhered  to.  When  constructing  the  well,  there  is  also  a  requirement  to 
establish whether there are any nearby mine workings in which case the operator would 
need to consult with the Coal Authority and may require separate permission.  

In  Germany,  based  on  available  information,  seismic  monitoring  of  the  Damme  3  well 
was  carried  out  from  the  neighbouring  well  Damme 2.  There  is  no  information  as  to 
whether  further  elements  were  monitored  at  this  site.  Note  that  the  German  draft  law 
package  (not  yet  adopted)  contains  monitoring  requirements  for  fracturing  activities  as 
well as for subsurface storage of flowback water.  

3.6  Dissemination of information (Point 15)   

Member States should ensure that: 
(a)  the  operator  publicly  disseminates  information  on  the  chemical  substances  and  volumes  of 
water that are intended to be used and are finally used for the high-volume hydraulic fracturing of 
each well. This information should list the names and Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers of 
all  substances  and  include  a  safety  data  sheet,  if  available,  and  the  substance’s  maximum 
concentration in the fracturing fluid; 
(b)  the  competent  authorities  should  publish  the  following  information  on  a  publicly-accessible 
internet  site  within  6  months  of  this  Recommendation’s  publication  and  in  intervals  of  no  longer 
than 12 months: 
(i) the number of wells completed and planned projects involving high-volume hydraulic fracturing; 
(ii) the number of permits granted, the names of operators involved and the permit conditions; 
(iii)  the  baseline  study  produced  under  points  6.1  and  6.2  and  the  monitoring  results  produced 
under points 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3(b) to (e); 
(c)the competent authorities should also inform the public of the following without undue delay. 
(i)incidents and accidents under point 9.2(f); 
(ii)the results of inspections, non-compliance and sanctions. 

The  principle  on  dissemination  of  information  either  by  operators  or  by  competent 
authorities is not adequately reflected either within legislation, at the permitting level or 
on  a  voluntary  basis  in  the  countries  covered  under  this  study  as  outlined  in  the 
paragraphs below. In several countries due to the lack of (planned) HVHF activities, this 
principle is not always applicable. In fact this principle could only be assessed entirely in 
Germany, Poland and the UK.    

3.6.1  Dissemination of information by operators  

Dissemination of information by 
operators 

Chemical substances intended to be 
used  

Chemical substances used 

Safety data sheets  

CAS 

Volume of water intended to be 
used  

Volume of water used for HVHF  

Substance’s maximum 
concentration  in the fracturing fluid  

E
D

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

S
E

√ 

N/A 

√ 

N/A 

√ 

L
P

P 

√ 

P 

P 

√ 

P 

K
U

P 

√26 

P 

26This principle is not applicable to the Roseacre Wood Site and Preston New Road where no HVHF 
was carried out.   

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 45 

P: means partial when not applied at all sites  
Blank cells: not addressed,  
N/A: not applicable 

In  none  of  the  countries  covered  is  there  a  specific  legal  obligation  to  ensure  that 
operators  disseminate  information  on  fracturing  fluids.  The  only  exception  is  the  draft 
legislation  in  Germany  (not  yet  adopted)  that  includes  disclosure  obligations  concerning 
fracturing  substances.  In  several  countries  such  information  is  provided  in  practice  but 
does not reflect all the specific points set in the Recommendation. For example, in none 
of the examined countries were safety data sheets disseminated by operators.      

In Spain, as part of the permitting procedure, EIA decisions require operators to provide 
information on the fracturing fluids including the concentration levels or quantities of the 
components.  The  operators  have  made  available  on  their  websites  the  EIA  documents 
that contain information on the fracturing fluids planned to be used.  For example the EIA 
prepared  by  operators  on  the  Sedano  licence  provides  the  composition  of  the  fluid,  the 
function of each of its elements and the concentration in percentage. However it does not 
include information on related safety data sheets and CAS number of substances planned 
to be used.     

In Germany at the Damme 3 site, fracturing substances were not disclosed prior to their 
use.    Around  2010,  when  the  public  discussion  on  the  environmental  side  effects  of 
fracking  grew,  companies,  but  also  the  mining  authorities,  started  publishing  more 
detailed information on their websites, including information on the  chemicals used. For 
instance,  ExxonMobil  published  information27  on  chemicals  used  for  fracking  including 
well  specification,  date,  number  of  fracks,  quantities  of  used  fluids  and  chemicals,  CAS-
numbers, and concentration in fracking fluid. Safety data sheets were not included. The 
table  below  shows  in  details  how  chemicals  used  at  Damme  3  were  disclosed  by  Exxon 
Mobil.  

Materials used in fracturing treatments at Damme 3-2008 (total mixture) 

Position   Description    Total 
mass 
kg 

Subset 
in kg 

Ingredient  

CAS 

Classification  of 
product 
components 

Classification  of 
the 
total 
product  

fluid 

Total 
with 
proppants  

12.6
83.0
00  

Proppant
s  

Ceramic 
proppants  

588. 
000 

Ceramic  materials 
(bauxites) 

66402
‐68‐4 

Not  dangerous 
according 
to 
Directive 
1999/45/EC 

Water  

Carrier 
fluid 
(without 
proppants)  

Clay 
stabilizer 

12.0
95.0
00 

10.6
12 

6.367 

Tetramethylammo
nium chloride  

75‐57‐
0 

T;R21‐25 
R36/37/38 
R50 

Xi; 
N; 

T;  R21,  R25  Xi; 
R36/37/38  N; 
R50 

4.245 

- 

dangerous 
to 

Not 
according 
Directive 
1999/45/EC 

dangerous 
to 

Not 
according 
Directive 
1999/45/EC 

8.80
1 

2.640 

Water 
friction 
reduction 
agents 

440 

Lightweight 
(petroleum) 
distillates, 
hydrotreated 

Polymer 
(polyethylene 

64742
‐47‐8 

Xn;R65 H,4 

Xn; R65 

9036‐

Xi; R41 

27 http://www.erdgassuche-in-deutschland.de/hydraulic_fracturing/frac_massnahmen.html 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 46 

Materials used in fracturing treatments at Damme 3-2008 (total mixture) 

5.721 

Biocide  

460  

23 

46 

46 

345 

glycol-
octylphenyl-ether 

19‐5 

- 

dangerous 
to 

Not 
according 
Directive 
1999/45/EC 

7786‐
30‐3 

10377
‐60‐3 

55965
‐84‐9 

Magnesium 
Chloride 

Magnesium 
Nitrate 

5‐Chloro‐2‐Methyl‐
2H‐Isothiazol‐3‐O
and 
ne 
2‐Methyl‐2H‐Isothi
azol‐3‐One (3:1) 

dangerous 
to 

Not 
according 
Directive 
1999/45/EC 

Xi;R36/37/38. 

Xi;R36/38. O;R8. 

T;R23/24/25 
N;R50/53  C;R34 
R43 

- 

dangerous 
to 

Not 
according 
Directive 
1999/45/EC 

dangerous 
to 

Not 
according 
Directive 
1999/45/EC 

N  C;  Xi  R34; 
R43; 
R20/21/22; 
R61/63 

In Poland an illustrative composition of the fracturing fluid and water consumption which 
may  be  used  is  provided  in  environmental  reports  before  use  (with  the  exception  of 
Wodynie-Lukow  and  Lidzbark  where  no  information  is  available  prior  to  use).  This 
illustrative  composition  does  not  always  specify  the  exact  list  of  chemicals  that  will  be 
used. 

The information about the composition of the fracturing fluid after use is provided by the 
operators  on  their  website.    There  is  also  an  obligation  for  reporting of  the  composition 
and amount of  fracturing fluid and flowback fluid to the Mining Office  after use. Beyond 
the disclosure  of chemicals used, the licenses  were also available at operators’ websites 
for  all  sites  (except  the  Lidzbark  Warmiński  sites  where  the  operator  is  experiencing 
changes  of  name  and  owners).  The  environmental  decisions  were  available  for  the 
Wejherowo and Łeba sites but not for the other sites.  

In  the  UK,  the  principles  of  the  Recommendation  are  not  fully  met  for  the  Preese  Hall 
site.  While  the  operator  has  published  information  on  the  chemical  substances  used  at 
the site but not before use, it does not refer to the specific substances or CAS numbers 
of  each  substance.  Information  on  volumes  of  water  that  were  used  is  not  disclosed  on 
the  operators'  website  and  this  information  is  not  available  from  the  planning 
documentation reviewed.  

For  the  Preston  New  Road  and  Roseacre  Wood  sites,  the  principles  of  the 
Recommendation  are  not  met  as  the  operator  only  lists  information  on  the  chemical 
substances  used  at  another  site  (the  Preese  Hall  site)  as  an  illustrative  example  in  the 
permit applications. Information on volumes of water that are intended to be used is not 
disclosed  on  the  operators'  website.  Information  on  the  substances  to  be  used  is 
available as part of the permit application, which states that the hydraulic fracturing fluid 
will comprise mainly water, a friction reducer and may include diluted hydrochloric acid < 
10%  but  does  not  provide  the  CAS  number  or  safety  data  sheet  or  the  name  of  the 
friction reducer. 

In  Denmark,  only  drilling  was  planned  and  carried  out  (no  HVHF).  On  the  website  for 
Vendsyssel-1,  Total  lists  the  following  substances,  which  they  intended  to  use  for  the 
exploratory  drilling:  bentonite;  soda  ash;  potassium  chloride;  potassium  bicarbonate; 
citric acid; chalk; and conventional salt.  

In Hungary, there is no information available on the operators’ websites (e.g.  Falcon or 
Exxon  Mobil)  related  to  chemical  substances  and  volume  of  water  used  in  low  volume 
hydraulic fracturing.   

46 

 
 
 
Final Report 47 

In Lithuania no information was provided by operators of the two exploratory wells where 
low hydraulic fracturing was carried out.   

In  Romania,  it  could  not  be  verified  at  this  date  whether  the  operator  published 
information on drilling fluids, because due to the decision of definitively withdrawing from 
Romania, Chevron closed up its website and any other office.   

3.6.2  Dissemination of information by competent authorities   

Dissemination of 
information  by  CA on 
publicly-accessible 
internet website 

Number 
completed 
HVHF  

of 

wells 
involving 

Number  of  wells  planned 
involving HVHF  

Number 
granted, 
operators, 
conditions   

of 
name 

permit 
of 
permitting 

Baseline study  

Monitoring results   

blank cells: not addressed  

T
A

E
D

K
D

S
E

U
H

T
L

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

K
U

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

In  Germany,  permitting  documents  are  not  publically  available.  LBEG  did  not  carry  out 
any specific dissemination activities related to HVHF permits in relation to the Damme 3 
site. Brief information specifying the well name (but without well or fracking details) was 
published in the annual reports as for any other new permits.  

In  Denmark, pursuant to available information, there have been in the past (before the 
adoption  of  the  Recommendation)  two  to  three  instances  where  HVHF  may  have  been 
used. Such information is not publicly accessible on a Competent Authority website.     

In  Hungary,  no  HVHF  has  been  carried  out.  Competent  authorities  do  not  disclose 
information mentioned in Point 15 of the Commission Recommendation on their websites 
related  to  oil  and  gas  exploration/extraction  projects  involving  low  volume  hydraulic 
fracturing.  

In Lithuania, no  information as mentioned under principle 15 of the Recommendation on 
the  two    shale  gas  exploratory  developments  that  occurred  in  Lithuania  under  the 
Rietavas and Gargždai license areas were available on the competent authority website.  

The  distribution  of  competences  between  the  State  and  the  Autonomous  Regions  in 
Spain28 result in a lack of a centralised source of information covering information  listed 
in  principle  15  of  the  Recommendation  for  all  projects  across  Spain.  For  those  projects 
falling under the competence of the State, the MAGRAMA has an online research engine 
in  which  the  relevant  documentation  (i.e.  EIA  documentation  and  in  some  cases,  the 
licenses  and  permits)  can  be  accessed  and  which  shows  the  timeline  of  the 
proceedings29. The Recommendation establishes that the information should be updated 

28  In  environmental  matters  as  established  in  Arts.  148  (1)  (9)  and  149  (1)  (23)  of  the  Spanish 
Constitution. 
29Ministry  of  (Agriculture,  Food  and)  Environment,  Catalogue  of  Projects,  available  in  Spanish  at 
https://servicios.magrama.es/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/pcd!3aportal_content!2fMMA!2fcom.mm

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 48 

in intervals no longer than 12 months. The interviewed authorities30 indicated, however, 
that the information available in the referred engine might not be totally up to date. The 
Hydrocarbons Technical Archive of the MINETUR31 also provides information on the status 
of the proceedings both for State and Autonomous region projects. However, the website 
does  not  include  any  documentation.  For  Autonomous  regions,  there  is  no  electronic 
format  database.  The  documentation  can  be  requested  from  the  competent  department 
in  charge  of  environmental  matters.    This  approach  is  therefore  not  in  line  with  the 
Recommendation, which requires information to the published on the internet. 

In  Poland,  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  maintains  a  special  website32  providing 
information  about  licenses  and  wells  (the  number  of  wells  completed  and  planned 
projects  involving  high-volume  hydraulic  fracturing,  license  issue  date,  area  of  the 
license,  expired  time,  counties  covered  by  the  license).  However,  information  is  not 
available  concerning  all  environmental  permits  or  more  detailed  data  like  monitoring 
results, baseline study or accidents/incidents and inspection results.   

In Romania, details of environmental permits / approvals / consents granted are publicly 
accessible  on  the  public  registers  of  the  Environmental  Protection  Agencies.  NAMR 
publishes a map showing the areas of all current prospecting, exploratory, development 
and exploitation activities in Romania. Baseline studies are publicly available on the EPA 
website, while monitoring results are not but can be consulted on request.  

In  the  UK,  for  the  site  that  pre-dates  the  publication  of  the  Recommendation,  planning 
documentation for the  Preese  Hall site is publicly available on the website of Lancashire 
County  Council.  To  date,  there  is  no  central  registry  of  the  wells  completed  or  planned 
projects  involving  HVHF  in  the  UK.  However,  details  of  environmental  permits  granted 
are publicly accessibly on the public registers of the EA, SEPA and the NIEA. Applications 
for an environmental permit, along with any supporting documentation, are available on 
the  EA’s  website.  Details  of  incidents  and  accidents  reported  to  HSE  are  not  publicly 
available nor are they available on request, although details of formal enforcement action 
are  publicly  available  Details  of  non-compliance  with  an  environmental  permit  are 
available of the public registers of the EA, SEPA and the NIEA. 

In Portugal, the website of ENMC includes information on the exploration and production 
of  hydrocarbons  by  unconventional  methods  based  on  the  principles  of  the 
Recommendation, namely the number of wells involving high fracturing methods (none), 
number  of  permits  granted  (none)  and  information  on  baseline  studies  carried  out 
(none). 

a.anonimo!2fcom.mma.launcher_anonimo?NavigationTarget=navurl://2b0b5dbfb58d23967759a69
7b58759ea&CurrentWindowId=WID1258101186250&NavMode=3.  
30 Technical Advisors of the Ministry of Industry, May 2015. 
31  MINETUR,  ‘Hydrocarbons  Technical  Archive’  (Archivo  Técnico  de  Hidrocarburos)  available  in 
at 
Spanish 
https://geoportal.minetur.gob.es/ATHv2/public/permisos/verPermisoSoloLectura.do?permisoid=14
0.  
32 http://lupki.mos.gov.pl/gaz-z-lupkow/stan-prac-w-polsce 

48 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Final Report 49 

4  Main  findings  on  the  application  of  selected  EU  legal 
requirements  at  planning,  licensing  and  permitting 
levels 

As  a  disclaimer,  it  is  important  to  note  that  this  task  was  not  aimed  at  checking  the 
conformity  or  compliance  with  existing  EU  legislation  but  was  aimed  only  at  examining 
how  the  Recommendation  2014/70/EU  and  selected  pieces  of  EU  legislation  were 
considered in practice at planning, licensing and permitting level.  

The assessment of EU legal requirements at selected sites and interviews with competent 
authorities  led  to  the  conclusion  that  there  are  divergent  views  and  approaches  in  the 
countries covered by this study, in particular on the application of Directive 2010/75/EU 
(IED),  Directive  2006/21/EC  (Extractive  waste  Directive),  and  Directive  2000/60/EC 
(Water Framework Directive) to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as 
shale gas) using HVHF.  

4.1  Directive 2010/75/EU (IED) 

In  Denmark,  in  the  case  of  an  application  for  commercial  exploitation  of  oil  and  gas 
resources, the transposing legislation of the IED comes into play and no specific volume 
thresholds  are  set  out  in  Danish  law.  No  environmental  permit  is  however  required  for 
exploratory drilling.  

In Poland, the activities concerned at all sites covered by the case studies are not subject 
to the national law transposing the IED provisions. Gas combustion in flares is defined as 
a diffuse emission and does not require an air emission permit. Emissions may be subject 
to environmental fees.  

In  Spain,  no  information  was  available  on  whether  the  competent  authorities  plan  to 
apply  this  Directive  to  shale  gas  developments.  However,  the  Royal  Decree  815/2013, 
which transposes Directive 2010/75/EU and adapts Law 16/2002 to the requirements of 
the Directive, does not specifically cover activities of extractive industries.   

The  application  of  the  IED  has  been  considered  for  both  the  Preston  New  Road  and 
Roseacre Wood sites in the UK. For each, the IED applies to the proposed incineration by 
flaring of hazardous waste, namely natural gas above 10 tonnes per day, as an activity 
listed  in  schedule  1  of  the  Environmental  Permitting  (England  and  Wales)  Regulations 
2010.  

This differs from the situation in Scotland, where the IED is not applied until the activity 
of refining is carried out. The flaring of gases is therefore not treated as the incineration 
of  waste  under  the  national  legislation  transposing  the  IED.  Where  an  activity  under 
Schedule 1 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 is being 
carried  out  (this  includes  refining  activities),  any  flaring  or  venting  within  the  site 
boundary can be regulated as a ‘directly associated activity’. However Scotland considers 
that no such activities are carried out during the exploratory phase (HVHF is not listed as 
an  activity under  Annex  I  of  the  IED),  and  consequently  that  the  flaring  of  gases  is  not 
regulated and therefore would not require a permit.  

In Romania, the law on industrial emissions transposing the IED does not apply to the oil 
and gas production sector and the relevant environmental documents at the Pungesti site 
do not mention it either.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 50 

4.2  Directive 2006/21/EC (Extractive Waste Directive) 

  Extractive waste definition  

In  Poland,  according  to  permitting  practice,  as  a  result  of  the  HVHF  processes,  the 
following extractive waste arises:  

  Drilling cuttings and muds 
  Flowback  
  Solid part of the flowback 

Gas  produced  during  the  exploration  stage  and  oil  recycled  from  the  flowback  was  not 
classified  as  extractive  waste.  Gas  was  flared  and  oil  was  sold  to  a  refinery.  Hydraulic 
fracturing  residues  remaining  in  the  underground  after  fracturing  were  not  classified  as 
waste. No information could be found on their status.  

In Spain, the current EIA documents prepared by operators mention how non-extractive 
waste  and  extractive  waste  will  be  managed.  They  include  as  extractive  waste  the 
flowback  water  and  the  gravel  (ripios)  and  mud  (lodos)  from  the  drilling  well  to  be 
collected  and  stored  on-site  and  transferred  to  treatment  facilities  for  their  appropriate 
management.  They  however  do  not  consider  the  residues  of  fracturing  fluids  remaining 
underground as extractive waste.    

At the Preston New Road and Roseacre Wood sites in the UK (England), extractive waste 
included  drill  cuttings,  flow-back  fluid,  natural  gas,  scale,  cement,  spacer  fluid  and 
hydraulic  fracturing  fluid  remaining  in  the  formation  after  fracturing.  In  Scotland  and 
Northern  Ireland,  the  production  of  ‘flowback’  fluid  from  hydraulic  fracturing  will  be 
treated  as  an  extractive  waste  activity  and  therefore  will  be  required  to  have  a  waste 
management  plan  in  place,  to  demonstrate  to  the  planning  authorities  that  the 
requirements of the Extractive waste Directive are met.   

In  Germany,  according  to  a  study  carried  out  on  behalf  of  the  Federal  Environmental 
Agency  in  201233,  handling  of  flowback  is  subject  to  requirements  under  legislation  on 
extractive  waste  and  on  wastewater.  Where  the  residues  are  radioactive,  sludge  and 
deposits  fall  under  legislation  on  radiation  protection,  except  where  compliance  with 
legally defined monitoring limits is assured. Flowback is both liquid extractive waste and 
wastewater,  since  flowback  –  recovered  water  –  contains  both  (unaffected)  formation 
water  and  injected  water  that  has  been  affected  via  human  use  through  the  addition  of 
additives, injection, mixing with formation water and extraction.  

No  information  was  available  and/or  no  position  stated  from  the  competent  authorities 
from the other countries covered under this study.   

  Waste facility  

In  the  UK  (England  and  Wales),  following  receipt  of  guidance  from  the  Commission  in 
December 2011, to the effect that flowback fluid from HVHF should be considered under 
the Extractive  waste Directive, the  regulatory  position statement was changed, and any 
new activities were required to obtain a permit under the Extractive waste Directive. This 
approach  has  been  applied  at  the  Preston  New  Road  and  Roseacre  wood  sites.  In  each 
case  the  EA  permit  covers  the  management  of  extractive  waste  and  includes  a  below-
ground  non-hazardous  waste  facility  (the  accumulation  of  injected  hydraulic  fracturing 
fluid which will remain in the underground target formation and has become waste) and 

33 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/461/publikationen/4346-1.pdf 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 51 

an  above-ground  hazardous  waste  facility  (the  temporary  deposit  and  accumulation  of 
hazardous  drill  cuttings  coated  with  residual  Low  Toxicity  Oil  Based  Muds  (LTOBM), 
hazardous  scale  and  hazardous  spacer  fluid  in  storage  containers,  and  which  can  be 
carried out on the site).  

In  Poland,  none  of  the  examined  sites  were  considered  by  permitting  authorities  to 
include any "waste facilities" as defined under the Extractive Waste Directive. Remaining 
underground structures are not considered as a waste facility, either as it is considered in 
Poland that residues of hydraulic fracturing are not extractive waste. 

In  Spain,  the  current  EIA  documents  prepared  by  operators  do  not  mention  that  the 
remaining underground structure will be considered as a waste facility.    

No  information  was  available  and/or  no  position  stated  from  the  competent  authorities 
from the other countries covered under this study.   

  Extractive waste legislation applied to underground injection of waste for 

disposal  

In Poland, in the case studies assessed, the extractive waste legislation was not applied 
to the underground injection of waste for disposal. In one of the case studies, part of the 
flowback  was  injected  underground  into  a  depleted  gas  deposit  at  a  different  site.    In 
Spain,  underground  injection  of  waste  for  disposal  is  not  foreseen  in  the  environmental 
documents submitted by the operator for the sites assessed.  In the UK, no underground 
injection  of  flowback  water  for  disposal  has  been  carried  out.  However  according  to 
competent authorities, since hydraulic fracturing fluids remaining in the underground are 
considered  extractive  waste,  the  extractive  waste  legislation  would  also  apply  in  such 
situation.  No  information  was  available  and/or  no  position  stated  from  the  competent 
authorities from the other countries covered under this study.    

4.3  Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) 

In Germany the proposed law mentions that the injected fluid must be classified as non-
hazardous to water (in case of fracking activities) or as low hazardous to water (in case 
of  flowback  and  produced  water  coming  out  of  the  well  and  injected  underground  for 
disposal). 

In Hungary, the competent authorities consider that HVHF would need a permit in view of 
Article  11(3)(j)  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  In  case  of  HVHF,  the  competent 
authorities  will  determine  a  minimum  protection  zone  between  the  groundwater  bodies 
and  the  fracturing  zone.  The  activity  shall  be  carried  out  under  controlled  conditions, 
including  the  establishment  and  operation  of  a  monitoring  network  and  data  supply 
including the integrity of wells and the changes of the underground fracture network. 

In Poland, in the sites covered by the study, it was considered by permitting authorities 
that the geological and hydrological structure of the license areas would ensure sufficient 
protection  of  the  groundwater.  It  is  therefore  considered  that  hydraulic  fracturing 
products are not injected into groundwater at any of the considered sites. Therefore the 
exemption  related  to  the  prohibition  of  direct  discharges  of  pollutants  into  groundwater 
was not deemed necessary at the examined sites.  

In  Spain,  according  to  operators’  information  for  all  the  sites  selected,  there  are  no 
foreseeable  impacts  in  aquifers,  so  such  authorisation  would  not  be  required  either.  No 
further  information  on  the  competent  authorities’  point  of  view  on  the  interpretation  of 
the application of this EU requirement was available.     

51 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 52 

At UK selected sites, as there were not to be any direct discharges to groundwater at any 
of  the  sites  reviewed,  the  operator  in  each  case  has  not  had  to  rely  on  the  exemption 
under Article 11(3)(j) of the Water Framework Directive . At the Preese hall site, prior to 
restoration work commencing on site, the applicant was to provide the EA with additional 
information to identify any fluids remaining either within the vertical well bore or within 
the  rocks  from  the  fracturing  process,  together  with  a  risk  assessment  to  confirm  that 
any such fluids do not present a risk to any groundwater. The information submitted was 
to include details of any potential processes which could result in fluids discharging into a 
groundwater  bearing  strata.  The  EA  has  confirmed  that  as  part  of  the  decommissioning 
process  (in  which  the  HSE  was  also  involved)  the  operator  provided  this  information, 
together with a risk assessment to confirm that any such fluids would not present a risk 
to groundwater. 

In Scotland in relation to the injection of the fracturing fluid, the available SEPA guidance 
states  that  this  must  meet  the  appropriate  exemption  under  the  Water  Framework 
Directive. Article 11(3)(j) of the Water Framework Directive prohibits the direct discharge 
of  pollutants  into  groundwater,  subject  to  certain  exemptions  (not  specified).  SEPA 
considers  that  existing  guidance  by  Commission  services  does  not  discuss  the 
applicability of Article 11(3) (j) with respect to the initial injection of fracking fluid or the 
re-use of flowback as an injection fluid in fracturing operations, rather than for disposal.   

No information was available and/or no position stated from the other countries covered 
under this study.   

52 

 
 
Final Report 53 

5  Main findings from stakeholders consultation 

5.1  EU stakeholders' interviews      

  Effectiveness of the Recommendation 

The federation of oil and gas producers (IOGP) considers that it is too early to judge the 
effectiveness of the Recommendation in view of the small extent of shale gas exploration 
in  Europe.    The  chemicals  industry  federation  (CEFIC)  considers  that  it  is  difficult  to 
distinguish  the  effect  of  the  Recommendation  from  the  effect  of  other  EU  and  national 
legislation 
in  relation  to  environmental  management,  waste  management  and 
the 
hydrocarbon  exploration/production.  CEFIC 
Recommendation has been achieved, as it has led to changes at the permitting level and 
has served as the starting point of many debates (plenty of which are still ongoing). 

the  purpose  of 

thinks 

that 

The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) Food and Water Europe (FWE) and Friends 
of  the  Earth  Europe  (FOEE)  commented  that  the  non-binding  nature  of  the 
Recommendation means that it is not effective in resulting in new national measures, or 
in  alleviating  public  concern.  These  organisations  and  the  NGO  Health  and  Environment 
Alliance  (HEAL)  consider  that  HVHF  should  be  banned  in  Europe,  and  also  highlighted 
aspects  of  the  Recommendation  that  they  consider  have  not  been  widely  implemented 
e.g. SEAs.   

HEAL  mentions  that  there  will  be  difficulties  in  applying  the  REACH  Regulation  to  the 
shale  gas  sector,  and  expressed  some  concerns  about  certain  points  of  the 
Recommendation stressing that they were  not adequate to provide protection of health 
and  the  environment  (i.e.  the  reference  to  minimised  use  of  chemical  substances,    the 
ability  of  treating  fluids  to  be  considered  during  the  selection  of  chemical  substances, 
dissemination  of  information  on  chemical  substances,  minimum  vertical  separation 
distance,  and monitoring requirements).   

  Transparency and access to information 

All stakeholders underline that informing the public is essential. CEFIC does not find that 
the  Recommendation  has  helped  alleviate  public  concern  –  shale  gas  is  still  a  very 
emotional issue. The crucial question according to CEFIC is what will help alleviate public 
concern.  According  to  this  organisation,  dialogue  and  communication  at  local  level  is 
vital. . BusinessEurope considers that the Recommendation contributes to transparency. 
CEFIC supports the disclosure of chemical use on a well-by-well basis with the underlying 
principle  that  commercial  confidentiality  issues  are  taken  into  account  when  chemical 
information is disclosed 

FWE/FOEE  stress  that  information  remains  difficult  to  obtain,  and  the  Recommendation 
does not appear to have resulted in an improvement in this regard. HEAL raises concerns 
that  exposure  scenarios  developed  under  REACH  are  not  available  to  the  public.  The 
European  Federation  of  Bottled  Water  (EFBW)  comments  that  transparency  is  essential 
for industries such as the bottled water industry to retain consumer confidence.   

  Should the Recommendation be revised 

The oil and gas federation (IOGP) finds that the Recommendation constitutes a thorough 
checklist/best  practice  guide  that  does  not  need  to  be  revised.  This  view  is  shared  by 
other  stakeholders  from  the  industry  (i.e.  CEFIC,  BusinessEurope)  which  consider  that 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 54 

the  Recommendation  is  effective  in  providing  a  flexible  approach  for  Member  States  to 
adjust their legislation and permitting practices. .   

The  federation  of  drilling  contractors  (IADC)  suggests  that  there  is  no  need  for  a 
Recommendation, as many Member States already have national legislation in place and 
HVHF is not radically different to existing operations. IADC and CEFIC also consider that 
the  current  EU  and  national  legal  framework  is  sufficient.    CEFIC  considers  that  the 
purpose  of  the  Recommendation  has  been  achieved,  and  there  is  no  need  for  further 
changes. 

 In contrast the water industry (EFBW and EUREAU) suggest a range of specific measures 
(e.g.  prohibiting  the  use  of  HVHF  in  drinking  water  catchment  areas  and  more  detailed 
requirements  on  waste  water,  risks  of  spillage  during  transportation)  to  increase 
protection of water resources. The NGO HEAL also proposes to further detail and develop 
the  principles  related  to  the  use  of  chemicals.  FWE/FOEE  comment  that  it  would  be 
helpful  to  widen  the  scope  to  include  similar  activities  which  do  not  meet  the  threshold 
for  HVHF  (coalbed  methane,  tight  gas,  conventional  oil  and  gas)  and  to  tailor  certain 
principles that sometimes only restate the applicable EU requirements.    

  Should the Recommendation be replaced by legally binding provisions   

IOGP  mentions  that  in  Europe,  shale  gas  exploration  is  at  an  early  stage.  According  to 
this oil and gas industry federation, new legally binding provisions would make the initial 
development  phase  too  difficult  and  is  likely  to  "kill  the  shale  gas  industry"  in  Europe 
before  it  gets  a  chance  to  even  assess  the  real  potential  for  Europe.  In  the  same  vein, 
the  chemicals  industry  (CEFIC)  does  not  consider  further  EU  regulation  on  shale  gas 
necessary  and  stresses  that  the  current  EU  regulatory  framework,  supplemented  by 
national requirements and industry is sufficient. 

In  contrast,  the  water  industry  (EUREAU)  commented  that  not  all  relevant  Member 
States are active in regulating HVHF, which suggests that legally binding provisions may 
be needed, potentially via amendment or clarification of existing legislation. EFBW agree 
that  legally  binding  provisions  would  be  beneficial  for  the  water  industry.  In  the  same 
vein,  the  NGOs  FOEE  and  FWE  mention  that  the  development  of  legally  binding 
provisions is necessary. They point out that the current EU legislation is not adequate to 
regulate environmental impacts of HVHF and the application of certain EU environmental 
legal  texts  (e.g.  Mining  Waste  Directive,  Water  Framework  Directive)  are  subject  to 
different legal interpretations.   

 

Investor Confidence and Costs 

CEFIC and IOGP consider that regulatory stability is an important step towards increasing 
investor  confidence.  If  the  operating  environment  is  made  too  hostile,  operators  can  be 
expected  to  leave  Europe.  BusinessEurope  considers  that  the  Recommendation 
contributes to investor confidence. 

FWE/FOEE  consider  that  the  non-binding  nature  of  the  Recommendation,  and  non-
specific  measures  mean  that  it  is  not  implemented  consistently  across  Europe.        IADC 
points out that investor confidence is low because it is not clear whether shale gas  could 
be  profitable  in  Europe.  CEFIC  considers  that  a  lack  of  investment  in  shale  gas  could 
result in a shift in chemicals production out of Europe. 

IOGP  and  BusinessEurope  note  that  creating  a  level  playing  field  for  the  shale  gas 
industry  is  a  matter  of  proper  implementation  and  enforcement  at  the  Member  State 
level.  The administrative permitting processes at Member State level could be improved, 
e.g.  following  the  Canadian  permitting  model.  FWE/FOEE  also  highlight  inadequacies  in 
implementing the regulatory processes at Member State level. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 55 

IADC mentions that local authorities typically do not have the expertise required to issue 
permits,  and  some  authorities  set  unduly  restrictive  limits,  to  put  a  practical  barrier  in 
place of projects.  According to IADC, permits should be granted nationally rather than at 
local  level.  EFBW  mentions  that  investor  confidence  in  the  water  supply  industry  could 
potentially  be  affected  by  HVHF.  Investor  confidence  would  be  improved  by  more 
stringent environmental controls, and this would be expected to place additional costs on 
the HVHF industry. 

5.2  Online survey  

Replies were received from stakeholders coming from seven of the eleven Member States 
surveyed, with the majority of responses from stakeholders located in Spain and the UK. 
No valid responses were received from Austria, Hungary, Lithuania or Romania. Over half 
of all responses came from the oil and gas industry, with a further one-third of responses 
from  NGOs.  In  general,  responses  were  aligned  more  closely  to  the  priorities  of  the 
organisation  responding,  rather  than  along  national  lines.  In  the  responses  to  many 
questions,  a  clear  divergence  of  opinion  between  oil  and  gas  industry  respondents  and 
NGOs  is  noticeable.  The  opinion  of  the  geological  surveys  is  mostly  aligned  with  that  of 
the oil and gas industry, while the water industry generally aligns with NGOs. 

Respondents  from  the  oil  and  gas  industry  considered  that  the  principles  of  the 
Recommendation were already reflected in national legislation and applied in practice. A 
minority  of  respondents  (mainly  NGOs  in  DK,  DE,  PT,  UK)  are  of  the  opposite  opinion.  
For  example,  one  respondent  from  Germany  commented  that  an  environmental  impact 
assessment  is  not  compulsory  for  most  activities  involving  fracking.  Respondents  from 
Portugal  and  the  UK  suggested  that  the  adoption  of  the  Recommendation  may  have 
resulted  in  changes  in  regulation  of  activities  involving  hydraulic  fracturing  –  this  is 
discussed  further  in  Section  6  on  the  cost  analysis.  No  other  changes  in  planning, 
licensing  or  permitting  resulting  from  the  Recommendation  were  highlighted  by 
respondents.   

Because of the perceived existence of adequate national legislation, oil and gas industry 
respondents  considered  that  the  purpose  of  the  Recommendation  is  already  partly  or 
fully  achieved.  On  the  contrary,  NGOs  considered  that  the  Recommendation  does  not 
achieve its objectives because the safeguards identified in the Recommendation are not 
sufficient for protection of health and the environment. 

A  majority  of  respondents  (mostly  industry  representatives)  considered  that  the 
Recommendation  has  not  achieved  a  level  playing  field  for  industry  operators,  and  has 
not  improved  investor  confidence,  mainly  because  of  uneven  implementation,  and 
increased  costs,  legislative  burdens  and  delays.    An  oil  and  gas  industry  respondent 
suggested  that  attention  should  be  focused  on  the  application  of  existing  national 
regimes  There  is  a  consensus  among  respondents  (oil  and  gas  industry,  NGO,  water 
industry  and  geological  surveys)  that  the  Recommendation  has  not  alleviated  public 
concerns  (two-thirds  of  respondents)  or  only  partly  alleviated  concerns  (one-third  of 
respondents).  There  was  a  consistent  view  that  improved  information  and  trust  among 
members  of  the  public  are  important  to  alleviate  concern.  Similarly,  almost  all 
respondents  (except  for  two  oil  and  gas  industry  respondents)  considered  that  the 
Recommendation  contributed  to  the  dissemination  of  information  only  partly,  or  not  at 
all. 

Views  on  implementation  of  the  Recommendation  were  divided,  with  industry 
respondents considering that the principles of the Recommendation were already applied 
effectively  at  national  level,  and  the  Recommendation  does  not  need  to  be  updated  or 
made  legally  binding.  In  contrast,  NGOs  considered  that  the  principles  of  the 
Recommendation  were  not  applied  effectively,  and  that  updating  is  required  in  a  wide 
range of aspects. NGOs generally considered that the Recommendation should be made 

55 

 
 
 
legally binding, with one respondent commenting that a legally binding document would 
improve certainty and hence investor confidence.   

Final Report 56 

56 

 
Final Report 57 

6  Main findings from the cost analysis  

The  economic  assessment  identified  a  number  of  potential  sources  of  economic  cost 
impacts which could be associated with the implementation of the Recommendation.  

linked 

respondents 

these  delays 

Survey  respondents  in  Spain  indicated  that  there  were  substantial  delays  in  the 
approvals  process  for  applications  to  carry  out  exploratory  drilling  for  unconventional 
the  Commission 
hydrocarbons.  Some 
Recommendation. However, analysis of the situation in Spain found no evidence that any 
costs resulting from delays in determining exploratory applications were associated with 
the  application  of  the  Recommendation  and  were  more  likely  to  be  due  to  existing 
national  law  and  other  circumstances.  Additionally,  it  is  difficult  to  be  certain  of  the 
significance  of  the  delays  experienced.  Further,  even  if  causality  is  clear,  from  the 
consultee responses it is uncertain what the time delay would have been in the absence 
of  the  Recommendation.  In  view  of  this,  it  was  concluded  that  there  was  no  strong 
evidence for costs resulting from delays to the regulatory processes in Spain, and if any 
such  delays  had  risen,  there  was  no  robust  evidence  on  which  the  costs  of  any  such 
delays could be estimated. 

to 

As  regards  the  cost  of  implementing  the  Recommendation,  industry  respondents 
for  exploration  projects  of  baseline  studies  and 
highlighted  mainly  the  costs 
administrative  costs  and  delays.  Other  respondents  were  not  able  to  provide  specific 
feedback  on  costs.  While  respondents  highlighted  administrative  costs  and  delays, 
several  respondents  noted  that  it  is  difficult  to  relate  these  delays  specifically  to  the 
Recommendation. 

Reviewing  the  eleven  Member  State  reports,  no  examples  of  changes  in  relation  to 
planning  and  permitting  for  HVHF  activities  were  identified in  eight  Member  States  as  a 
direct  result  of  the  application  of  the  Recommendation  (Austria,  Denmark,  Germany, 
Hungary,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania  and  Spain).  In  three  Member  States,  the 
national  expert  reports  and  stakeholder  survey  indicated  that  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation  may  have  resulted  in  changes,  which  may  in  turn  have  associated 
costs.   

Firstly,  there  has  been  an  ongoing  legislative  programme  in  Lithuania  of  measures 
relevant  to  HVHF.  Those  measures  implemented  following  the  publication  of  the 
Recommendation were investigated.  It was found that most of the legal developments in 
Lithuania  do  not  result  from  the  Commission  Recommendation,  although  they  are  in 
some  cases  relevant  to  the  issues  raised  by  the  Recommendation.   Nevertheless,  a 
limited  evaluation  was  carried  out  of  the  potential  costs  associated  with  monitoring 
requirements  put  in  place  in  Lithuania  which  may  have  arisen  from  the  Commission 
Recommendation.  This indicated that the costs associated with specific measures ranged 
from minimal (administrative costs only) up to almost €150,000 per well pad in the case 
of hydrogeological monitoring if a deep borehole is required. Provision of information on 
wastes  produced  could  also  potentially  carry  a  significant  cost  due  to  cost  of 
characterisation  of  drilling  muds,  flowback  water  and  produced  water.  A  cost/benefit 
analysis  was  not  within  the  scope  of  this  study,  although  this  would  be  necessary  for  a 
thorough analysis. 

Secondly,  an  Infrastructure  Act  was  passed  in  the  UK  in  2015.  This  Act  contained  a 
number  of  measures  relevant  to  the  Commission  Recommendation,  although  the  UK 
authorities do not acknowledge a link between the Infrastructure Act and the Commission 
Recommendation.  The  evidence  of  the  Act’s  development  seems  to  indicate  that  these 
measures  were  not  linked  to  the  Recommendation,  but  resulted  from  other  initiatives. 
The definition of “associated hydraulic fracturing" used in the Infrastructure Act is similar 
(although not identical) to the definition of “high-volume hydraulic fracturing” used in the 
Commission  Recommendation.  It  is  possible  that  this  definition  was  influenced  by  the 
Recommendation, but it was not formally acknowledged in any document or interview. It 

57 

 
 
Final Report 58 

was  noted  that  the  UK  Government  carried  out  a  cost-benefit  assessment  of  the 
Infrastructure Act which indicated that the Act would deliver a benefit of £135 million to 
£1940 million over a 20 year period. 

Thirdly,  two  changes  have  been  implemented  in  Portugal  as  a  result  of  the 
Recommendation.  A  website  has  been  set  up  to  provide  for  the  dissemination  of 
information  on  activities  involving  HVHF,  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of 
Recommendation  Article  15(b).  The  cost  to  the  regulatory  authority  associated  with 
setting up the database was estimated to be in the range €900 to €3,000 at 2015 prices. 
The  costs to industry of providing the data for  this website were estimated to be in the 
range  €230  to  €2,400  per  report,  at  2015  prices.  However,  HVHF  has  not  been  carried 
out  at  any  site  in  Portugal,  and  hence  no  costs  associated  with  the  provision  of 
information have yet been incurred. 

EIAs  are  now  mandatory  for  exploratory  drillings  (sondagem)  and/or  extraction  of 
hydrocarbons  by  unconventional  methods  (including  hydraulic  fracturing)”  in  Portugal.  
This  requirement  could  potentially  incur  a  cost  for  any  projects  which  would  require  an 
EIA  under  this  new  law.  It  was  estimated  that  the  costs  of  carrying  out  an  EIA  for  a 
project  involving  HVHF  could  be  of  the  order  of  €250,000  at  2010  prices.  The  time 
required to carry out, submit and evaluate an EIA could be expected to be over one year.  
As there is currently no shale gas development in Portugal, any such cost is speculative 
at present.   

A  cost/benefit  analysis  was  not  within  the  scope  of  this  study,  although  this  would  be 
necessary for a thorough analysis. 

58 

 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
K
H
-
0
2
-
1
6
-
3
0
6
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

doi10.2779/76422