Industry representative body UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) said that, although it is “pleased” that Defra has now published the previously heavily-redacted report in full, it is merely a “review of existing literature” and is “not analytically robust”.
“It is in danger of extrapolating the experiences of other jurisdictions that have different regulation, planning regimes and geologies,” the group said.
The unredacted report acknowledged “several positive impacts”, including on jobs, energy security and local public services, while impacts on water, noise, landscape and air quality “were said to be low with impacts on tourism neutral”.
UKOOG disputed the report’s indication that house prices near shale gas sites may fall as a result of “negative perceptions”, saying Defra had “admitted” the “evidence…is quite thin and the results are not conclusive”. In reality, UKOOG argued, the experience in the UK of homes near major oil and gas production sites “does not show any negative impact”.
“For example, near Wytch Farm, in Dorset, the value of a detached home in the adjacent area has risen by 48 per cent over the last nine years and near the well at Singleton in Sussex prices have increased by increased by 68 per cent in the same period. The only review of actual impact of shale gas sites, by surveyors JLL, found that property prices actually rose,” the group added.
UKOOG chief executive Ken Cronin said: “It is a shame that this report has become such a cause celebre as it is merely a review of literature and brings nothing new to the debate or any new information in a UK context.”
Today, following a ruling from the Information Commissioner Officer in mid-June, Defra released a full version of its report, which had previously been heavily redacted.
A Defra spokesman said: “We respect the independent decision of the Information Commissioner’s Office and have today released this paper in full. This document was drawn up as a draft internal discussion paper – it is not analytically robust, has not been peer-reviewed and remains incomplete.
“It does not contain any new data or evidence and many of the conclusions amount to unsubstantiated conjecture which do not represent the views of officials or ministers.”