Anthony Beckett

Software Engineer, Videographer and Web Designer

Legal Arguments Opposing Fracking (The Unconventional Extraction of Oil and Gas) – Report 1

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter – Against Fracking)

Legal Arguments Opposing Fracking (The Unconventional Extraction of Oil and Gas) Report Submitted to Wakefield and Leeds County Council Author of the Report: Simon C. Haigh, BA Single Hons, MIfL

This report will examine in detail the argument against petroleum exploration and development, relating to the contamination of Yorkshire water supplies, based upon the ‘best evidence’ of current medical studies. The drafting of this overview is in response to the government and its Licence Agreement PEDL275 covered under the Petroleum Act of 1998, which gives Hutton Energy PLC and Coronation (Oil & Gas) Limited the ‘right’ to search and bore for and get petroleum. Licence PEDL275 allows both Hutton Energy and Coronation (Oil and Gas) Limited to drill in the following densely populated areas:

Castleford, Allerton Bywater, Methley, Great Preston, Lofthouse, Oulton, Woodlesford, Rothwell, Middleton, Belle Isle, and the Borders of Hunslet and Beeston. Covering a large breadth, the areas directly affected will be the Cities of Wakefield and Leeds, West Yorkshire.

In response to these developments, the evidence in this document will lay out the legal arguments against fracking and why under the current law this highly controversial method constitutes an illegal act. Areas covered in this report will include the Environment Act 1995, the Water Act 2003 and the mounting evidence that unconventional petroleum extraction is detrimental to human health. The emphasis within this document will focus upon Longitudinal Health Studies involving local demographics subjected to pollution from the fracking industry. Another significant area explored will include ‘Water Security’ in context to ‘State Security’ requisite to the subject of ‘Human Rights’ and ‘drinking water’.

During the course of this paper, attention will also be drawn to the French Ruling, which demonstrated the legal argument in the French Courts that fracking would if permitted compromise the French water supply. A legal Decree, it is contended that this judgement has overt implications for British Law. Reminiscent to France and Norway, England possesses similar geological properties which would expose the UK to the same ‘risks’ regarding Water Security as attributed to France.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 1/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To substantiate these claims, this report will therefore focus extensively on the documented health risks of fracking and why these disproportionate health outcomes not only constitute a ‘Public Nuisance’ but are also a legitimate concern for the ‘well-being of the general public’ and the enactment of ‘public law’. The purpose of this study is to offer a comprehensive review for the counter- argument against unconventional mining and its impact upon the local environment. In this detailed survey, the report will look at potential impacts upon regional water supplies, such as the contamination of the River Aire, West Yorkshire. Critical, the findings of the YLMAF report will elaborate upon the latest medical research and the citations of a number of important scientific papers.

Indisputable, the statistical data when taken as a whole presents compelling evidence for concerns regarding unconventional gas extraction and its contamination of Yorkshire water supplies, which would prove ultimately toxic for the local populations residing within the Leeds and Wakefield area. Fallacious, the claims that the industry is ‘safe’ is no longer tenable, and consequently is currently unworkable within the regulation of UK Law.

An indefensible position, the intellectual argument that fracking is ‘safe’ is not only ‘incorrect’, but when examined in context to the incontrovertible evidence is a fraudulent assessment. Corroborating, the conclusions of scientific research, the data when analysed collectively, determines that fracking is a dangerous operation, to quote one of the largest medical studies on fracking from the United States:

‘Earlier scientific predictions and anecdotal evidence are now bolstered by extensive empirical data, confirming that the public health risks from unconventional gas and oil extraction are real, the range of adverse environmental impacts wide, and the negative economic consequences considerable. Our examination of the peer-reviewed medical and public health literature uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p15

Up to date and published in March 2018, the New York Report is produced from ‘extensive empirical data’. According to their detailed analysis of ‘peer reviewed medical and public health literature’, there is shown to be ‘quantifiable evidence of harm’, which in their own words suggests that there is ‘no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health’…

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 2/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The assertions are severe and provide a quandary for the British government, which if it continues to ignore the health implications regarding unconventional petroleum extraction will be held accountable under UK Law. As specified by numerous healthcare sectors throughout the United States, there is no current evidence to date that fracking can be done in a way that does not endanger the general public.

Severe, the conclusions of the New York Health Consultants can be translated into plain English as follows: In the area of West Yorkshire including the Cities of Wakefield and Leeds, the…‘examination of the peer-reviewed medical and public health literature uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health’…

A sober appraisal, the aforementioned statement provided by the organisation the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ ‘puts to bed’ the confident reassurances in the local media from Gareth Turner, the Managing Director at the Normanton Branch of the Well Service Group. In an optimistic tone, he maintained publically in the Pontefract and Castleford Express that:

‘… there are huge economic and employment benefits to fracking when done safely’.

Pontefract and Castleford Express, Wakefield Council Says No to Fracking, Unanimous Vote to Oppose the Government, 20 Feb 2016

A spurious statement, it seems that Gareth Turner’s review of the situation is an active attempt to quell or dispel local fears. From the medical evidence collected in this report, his assessments are shown to be totally incorrect, as there now exists within the public domain ‘quantifiable evidence of harm’, a statement which has legal ramifications. A fabrication, the argument made by Gareth Turner is both nonsensical and wrong, as ‘extensive empirical data confirm[s] that the public health risks from unconventional gas and oil extraction are real’.

Impossible to contest, the corroboration of data compiled throughout the United States and the UK demonstrates unequivocally that fracking is by its very definition ‘unsafe’. This is because it contaminates the water course-ways and the fresh water aqueducts. Identical, the same concerns and legitimate points regarding the dangers of fracking is a position also emphasized by UNEP (the United Nations [Global] Environmental Program. UNEP issued an immediate alert in 2012, and stated:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 3/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Unconventional gas exploration and production may have unavoidable environmental impacts. Some risks results if the technology is not used adequately, but others will occur despite proper use of technology’.

UNEP (United Nations [Global] Environmental Program) and its Alert which it Issued in 2012

In other words, real risks to human health are evident ‘despite the proper use of technology’, to repeat the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, ‘Our examination of the peer-reviewed medical and public health literature uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health’. If the oil and gas industry therefore want to frack in the UK under the current legal regime, they will have to prove that the ‘450 [plus] peer- reviewed studies, reviews and commentaries’ notated by Health and Fracking Medact UK are wrong.

The research into fracking is unmistakable and completely demonstrates that the industry ‘threatens human health’. Under UK Law, specifically the Water Act, any ambiguity concerning the risk to water quality is not legally permitted, so as to safeguard the general public. Put simply, controversy or gaps in knowledge, in legal terms appertain to ‘potential risk’, which under UK Law is interpreted as ‘unacceptable risk’ and is disavowed.

To clarify, the regulatory regimes managed under the 1995 Environmental Act and drafted into law by the former Secretary of State indicates (in its wording) that fracking under the interpretation of the law is illegal and poses real and immediate dangers to the public with regards to the safe consumption of drinking water. A dire situation, the potential contamination of water is now all too evident, and is also expressed by the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts own comments upon the dangers of fracking. In their own summarised report, ‘Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas in the UK: Examining the Evidence for Potential Environmental Impacts’, the charities noted that:

‘Our analysis suggests that the current regulatory regime is not fit for purpose and therefore unable to adequately manage serious environmental risks’.

Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas in the UK: Examining the Evidence for Potential Environmental Impacts, Angling Trust, National Trust, RSPB, Salmon and Trout Association, The Wildlife Trust, March 2014

In this summary of evidence, ‘potential risk’ is elevated to ‘serious environmental risk’, definitions which presuppose that fracking is ‘illegal’. In short, three independent bodies, one in the States and two in the UK have shown that unconventional petroleum extraction has consequences for the environment and local populations, conclusions which denote that fracking can not be conducted

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 4/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

safely and is therefore ‘unlawful’. These negative opinions however are just at the tip of the iceberg, from which hundred of separate studies coalesce and are questioning the logic of fracking. In particular inherent dangers, which are relative to Water Security and the contamination of local drinking water.

A consistent theme repeated throughout the medical journals is the legitimate concern regarding the poisoning of local water supplies. Specifically lethal effects upon the regional environment and human health indicate legal and ethical considerations. Tangible, the science can no longer be ignored and forms the basis of this report. Substantial medical evidence collected during the course of this document will establish the illegality of unconventional petroleum extraction under current UK Law and by extension the rest of the European Union.

No longer a ‘theoretical argument’ the contents of this report will clearly outline the reasons against fracking within a legal and medical framework. Emphasis during the course of this discussion will be placed upon the Water Act of 2003 and examined in context to the French Ruling. A decisive judgement, the verdict enacted within the French Courts has deemed fracking as ‘unlawful’, a ruling which has legal connotations in the UK. Binding, the decision is based upon the evidence that unconventional petroleum extraction would result in the contamination of French water, a cogent argument intrinsic to the British interpretation of law. The question of ‘Water Security’ is a powerful concern, one which is further related to ‘health risks’, a problem acknowledged in Dr. Lisa McKenzie’s aptly named study ‘Environmental Science and Technology Report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development’, to quote Dr. McKenzie:

‘… there are potential health risks because production is rising and increasingly occurring near where people live and development is transforming both the population and character of nearby communities’.

Dr. Lisa McKenzie, Environmental Science and Technology Report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development, 2014, pB

Both observant and pertinent for the UK and the exposition of law, the US findings call to attention the amplification of health risks, demonstrated in the large UK population distributed throughout Leeds and Wakefield. An area of concern, the density of people suggests exponential risk in terms of demographics that can come into direct contact with industrial waste and pollution. Unacceptable, the correspondence between the competition of industry and ‘local health’ suggests ‘public liability’.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 5/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Already established within peer-reviewed literature studying the health effects of unconventional petroleum extraction is a long litany of physiological impacts related directly to pollution from fracking. Uncontested, these conditions include possible neuro-toxin damage including birth defects, elevation in cancer rates and hospital admissions, all of which are demonstrably related to the toxic contamination of water. The synopsis regarding the wide prevalence of pathological diseases appertaining to fracking is no longer a matter of speculation, but is scientific fact, certainties which have legal ramifications for the reading of UK Law.

All of the research quoted in this document has been produced by medically qualified Doctors and Scientists affiliated to prestigious Universities and Professional Organisations. In many of the medical papers, the pollution attributed to fracking is ‘grievous’ and is articulated without ambiguity. This paper will cite over a dozen studies which consist of invaluable information that exploits the latest scientific data on human and environmental damage associated with unconventional petroleum extraction.

In this investigation, the paper is divided into a number of manageable sections that list the adverse effects attributed to petroleum exploration. Clearly expressed, the report methodically details research by eminent Doctors, Scientists and medical professionals, whose expertise questions the prevailing logic that unconventional mining technologies are neither ‘safe’ nor expedient. The sections of the YLMAF report (Yorkshire Lives Matter – Against Fracking) are as follows:

Sections: Content: (1) Fracking Definition (2) General Legal Summaries (3) Industrial Problems, Water Security and Legislation (4) Human Rights (5) Ecological Concerns (6) Fracking and the Enactment of the Law (7) Climate Change (8) Conclusion (9) List of Local Concerns Appendix 1 Local Crop Fires and Fracking Appendix 2 Itai Itai Byou (Pain Pain Disease), Japan:

A Study of River Pollution and its Global Effects Upon Human Health

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 6/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Sections: Content: (Continued) Appendix 3 Minamata Byou (Minamata Disease), Japan:

A Study of Water Pollution and its Systematic Effects Upon Human Health and Large-Scale Populations Appendix 4 Final Word… Contributors Bibliography Scientific Papers and Media Articles

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 7/136

Other Resources and Articles on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking

(1) Fracking Definition The term ‘fracking’ is used in this report to denote High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) and connected activities. This is a relatively new technology and is not to be confused with other forms of hydraulic fracturing which have been around for several decades.

The definition ‘unconventional’ is used to describe the fact that the gas embedded in the shale does not flow out as easily as in the case of conventional sources of gas. It is more difficult to extract, requiring deep shale rock formations to be pulverised and fractured by hydraulically pressurised fluid injected into the ground. Millions of gallons of fluid are injected into boreholes by high-volume, high-pressure pumps on the surface.

Various chemicals and compounds have often been added to water to create hydraulic fracturing fluid. These can include silica (sand) used to prop open the shale fractures, biocides to prevent bacterial growth, surfactants which reduce surface tension to aid fluid recovery, polymers to reduce friction, and chemicals to inhibit corrosion of metal pipes. Chemicals are said to account for between 0.5 and 1% of the fluid mixture. Anything between 10 and 90% of the fracking fluid is recovered at the surface as ‘flowback’, depending on the characteristics of the shale.

The Known Hazards and Problems of Flowback Waste A typical recovery rate of flowback water would be about 35%, which implies a large volume of flowback needing to be managed on the surface. However, flowback is different in nature and composition from the original fracking fluid that was injected into the borehole, containing a range of new materials generated from underground, including many that are toxic and hazardous.

The dangerous ingredients found in fracking flowback water can include various waste gases, heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, chromium, cadmium, mercury, and Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM). For example, the

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

dumping of cadmium into the local river supplies in Toyama Japan led to mass poisoning of the region, an industrial disaster referred to in Japanese as ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease). For further information on the similarities between ‘Pain Pain Disease’ and cadmium exposure from fracking, please refer to Appendix 2. Mercury poisoning is covered in Appendix 3, Minamata Disease.

Of pressing concern from the year 2005, America has used 250 billion gallons of water for fracking. While most industrial uses of water return it to the water cycle for further use, fracking converts clean water into toxic wastewater, much of which must then be permanently disposed of taking billions of gallons out of the water supply annually. Unjustified, this depletion of the UK drinking water when translated into the local region of Yorkshire would prove to be an absolute disaster, reducing water reserves, and from a legal perspective expose the population to unacceptable health risks. An important source of information, regarding the fundamental dangers of fracking, is found listed in the ‘Environment America Research and Policy Centre’s Study’, headed under their suitably named Chapter ‘Fracking Poses Grave Threats to the Environment and Public Health’, subheading ‘Contaminating Drinking Water’, the authors (Elizabeth Ridlington and John Rumpler) of the assessment are unanimous and note:

Chemical Use: Fracking Uses a Wide Range of Chemicals, Many of Them Toxic.

(1) Operators have hauled more than 2 billion gallons of chemicals to

thousands of fracking sites around the country.

(2) In addition to other health threats, many of these chemicals have the

potential to cause cancer.

(3) These toxins can enter drinking water supplies from leaks and spills.

Elizabeth Ridlington and John Rumpler, Environment America Research and Policy Centre Report, 2013, p5

Critical, the ‘Environment America Research and Policy Report’ has acknowledged in its findings that fracking operations throughout the United States have increased in frequency, size, and intensity. With the increased size in operations, the transport of extracted toxic materials has also expanded, in which a significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate that these industrial activities in themselves are dangerous to people and their communities in numerous ways, which are difficult or impossible to mitigate. Risks include adverse impacts on water, air, agriculture, public health and safety, property values, climate stability, and economic vitality, as well as earthquakes.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 8/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Researching many of these complex large-scale industrialized activities and the ancillary infrastructure that supports them have taken considerable time, studies which have often been hindered by institutional secrecy. Nonetheless, research is gradually catching up to the last decade’s surge in fracking from shale. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies, accident reports, and investigative articles has detailed specific, ‘quantifiable evidence of harm’ and has revealed fundamental problems with the entire life cycle of operations associated with unconventional drilling, fracking and its infrastructure.

Industry studies, as well as independent analysis, indicate inherent engineering problems, which contribute to the environmental impact, and suggest that the industry itself and its technologies are inherently unsafe. Serious, the environmental effects of these infractions from the petroleum industry are devastating and are succinctly listed in the ‘Environment America Research and Policy Centre Report’. A troubling enquiry, the study seeks to quantify some of the key impacts of fracking to date, including the production of toxic wastewater, excessive water usage, chemical spillages, air pollution, land damage, earthquakes and global warming emissions, to quote the Environment America Research and Policy Centre’s pernicious results:

(1) ‘Toxic wastewater: Fracking produces enormous volumes of toxic

wastewater – often containing cancer causing and even radioactive material. Once brought to the surface, this toxic waste poses hazards for drinking water, air quality and public safety’.

(2) ‘Fracking wells nationwide produced an estimated 280 billion gallons of

wastewater in 2012. This toxic wastewater often contains cancer causing and even radioactive materials, and has contaminated drinking water sources from Pennsylvania to New Mexico’.

(3) ‘Scientists have linked underground injection of wastewater to

earthquakes’.

(4) ‘In New Mexico alone, waste pits from all oil and gas drilling have

contaminated groundwater on more than 400 occasions’.

Elizabeth Ridlington and John Rumpler, Environment America Research and Policy Centre Report, 2013, p4

In their study, the writers of the report state clearly that ‘toxic wastewater… has contaminated drinking water sources from Pennsylvania to New Mexico’. To review, fracking requires huge volumes of water for each well and according to the ‘Environment America Research and Policy’ report, the industry have already used more than‘280 billion gallons of wastewater in 2012’. Of a matter of

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 9/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

serious concern, the operators convert clean water into toxic wastewater, much of which must then be permanently disposed of taking billions of gallons out of the water supply annually. In the UK, it is not sure how we would replace this loss of water. The presumption is that people in Yorkshire would simply drink it without question.

In a cynical attempt to avoid cynosure regarding the large amounts of water wasted by fracking operators, the government to date have not recently issued any mandatory ‘hosepipe bans’ in Yorkshire during the summer of 2018, which remains an anomalous situation. The local residents have experienced the hottest drought within 30 years, in combination with the highest population density and water usage. The postulation is that the British Government does not want to draw attention to the large volumes of water extracted from the water table, significant quantities which are required by the fracking operators. Immensely problematic, the industry’s exploitation of water reserves compete with local supplies of drinking water and compromise regional populations.

A legitimate concern is that, if the people of Yorkshire experience another drought in tandem to fracking operations and the local ‘hosepipe bans’ are not implemented, the current data suggests that the risk to human health will be many times greater. A potentially dire situation, this is because in the UK the primary method of disposing of the millions of gallons of toxic waste water from fracking will be through dilution. Extremely perilous to human health, the inadequate method of diluting pollution exposes the local people to real danger.

Although an inconvenient truth, the assurances from the government must be that the ‘hosepipe bans’ will be enforced unilaterally during low rain fall a requirement necessary to reduce damage to geographical populations. An unfortunate set of circumstances, these provisions are essential to minimise negative outcomes associated with contamination from fracking. A pivotal issue, the subject of water impairment due to industrial mining in particular its detriment to consumption is demonstrated lucidly in the Japanese mass poisoning case referred to as ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease). A terrible crime, this episode was later amplified in the ‘Minamata Incident’, covered respectively in Appendices 2 and 3.

A real plight, more water equals less risk, thus larger populations consume more water, in which there is diminishing stocks to dilute industrial waste, a complicated decision when it comes to managing ‘unacceptable risk’. The accrued problem of what to do with the large amounts of toxic waste from fracking operations is magnified especially in Yorkshire. This is because the County is the largest in the UK, a district currently in receipt of a massive population boom.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 10/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

A major difficulty for the government is the predicament of safeguarding people and protecting clean water supplies. Of vital significance, the legal subject of ‘conserving… water resources’ is contained within a crucial piece of Legislature. In this Directive, the Secretary of State is tasked with as a matter of State Security in securing ‘fresh water’, to quote the ‘Environmental Act 1995, General Provisions with Respect to Water’:

  1. – (2) ‘It shall be the duty of the Agency to take all such action…

(a) of conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources

in England and Wales: and (b) of securing the proper use of water resources in England and Wales’.

Environmental Act 1995, General Provisions with Respect to Water, p8

  1. – (1) ‘Agency set up to protect…

(a) [land and water course-ways] of special interest by reason of its floral,

fauna or geological or physiological features’. Environmental Act 1995, Environmental Duties with Respect to Sites of Special Interest, p11

A legal dilemma for the Security of State, ‘the proper use of water resources in England and Wales has to be protected’. Now with regards to the lawful enactment of the Environment Act 1995, the crisis for the British Government is not so much the amount of water which is used for fracking, but the amount of water which is lost due to contamination, in particular hazardous water which cannot be circulated back into the water table or the related ecosystem. Loss of water and the possible contamination of the water table are paramount to the interpretation of the law.

Of major significance, ‘water viability’ is a recognised legal argument, a decision vindicated in the French Ruling which banned fracking, due to genuine doubts about the industry’s impact upon Water Security. To reiterate, the risks posed by fracking and the loss of clean water from circulation is a genuine concern which possesses National Security connotations. A legitimate problem, the real issue of contamination of clean drinking water is of upmost significance to the United Kingdom and its State Security.

In context to the French Ruling, the Development Licence (PEDL275) issued by the Secretary of State to frack in Yorkshire is unlawful and is an agreement which cannot withstand legal scrutiny. In addition, the UK Government’s risky proposal of diluting toxic waste by disposing of it into the River Aire will put large numbers of people in Yorkshire at ‘potential risk’ – an unlawful offence. Please refer to Appendix 2 ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease), Japan, which covers the defilement of river water and the poisoning of local populations.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 11/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

An unfortunate knock on effect of these polluting incursions or ‘water offences’ upon the ‘chain of supply’ is that farmers will be affected disproportionately by fracking. An unacceptable situation, this is because farming communities compete with the deep-pocketed oil and gas industry for water, especially in drought-stricken regions of the country. Not only then is the UK Government endangering the clean water supply, but are also negatively impacting upon the state’s ability to feed its growing population, additional to the Agricultural Sector, areas of influence which the Secretary of State has a mandate to protect. Agrarian poisoning of food and people from waste water toxicity is further covered in Appendix 2 ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease).

In general, if the Secretary of State continues with the endeavour to frack, not only will it put the UK ‘water supply’ at risk, but will also reverberate upon the ‘Agricultural Economy’ and by implication the United Kingdom’s ability to produce food, a requirement fundamental to National Security, in which the Secretary of State is authorised to safeguard.

In summing up the core elements of this introduction, it will be demonstrated that the Secretary of State has a legal care of duty to his citizens. The point in question regarding the dissemination of government policy needs to be clearly addressed in context to the wider implications of fracking relating to State Security and the integrity of British drinking water. It should be emphasized at this preliminary stage that mistakes by the petroleum industry or the civil service tasked with regulatory safety will be liable for prosecution.

Automatic immunity from litigation is not conferred through being aligned to the government, rather it is tangent to the ‘weight of evidence’. The possibility of lawsuits at both a National and European level regarding the controversy of petroleum extraction is absolute, as there is ‘real danger’. To illustrate, it is argued that the UK water aquifers and by extension the supply of drinking water will be unacceptably compromised due to fracking operations, to quote UK Medact’s own critical report:

‘Fracking can, in certain circumstances, lead to fracture propagation to the surface or near-surface [water], especially if it takes place at relatively shallow depths. When shale formations are deep in the ground, fracture propagation is less of a threat to aquifers. However, the fracking of shale formations that are geologically faulted may risk aquifers even if they are deep in the ground. In addition, loss of well integrity could threaten aquifers with contamination in areas where they overlay the shale being developed’.

Health and Fracking, The Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p9

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 12/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The scientific opinion held by Medact UK is unequivocal that fracking ‘could threaten aquifers with contamination in areas’. A real and inadmissible risk, this is because in the UK many of the shale formations are ‘geologically faulted’. In short, the geology of the UK and its faulted rock strata unacceptably increases the potential for contamination. This sizable risk to aquifers and damage resulting in pollution and possible health effects is a position which under the UK Water Law is currently ‘illegal’.

Uncontested, there exists compelling evidence in the public domain of real and numerous adverse side effects associated with unconventional petroleum extraction. Corroborated through many scientific journals, the data quoted from the United States is counter to the government’s own official position that such operations, if ‘conducted safely’, presents no appreciable risk. To emphasize, the studies in this report are founded upon the latest scientific data that is cross referenced with academic studies completed throughout the world. Serious, the conclusions are unanimous and show without doubt that there are multiple problems with the unconventional production of petroleum, to draw attention to the systematic report commissioned by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, to quote:

‘A significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate that these activities are dangerous to people and their communities in ways that are difficult – and may prove impossible – to mitigate. Risks include adverse impacts on water, air, agriculture, public health and safety, property values, climate stability, and economic vitality, as well as earthquakes’…

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p14

A litany of impairments, the findings by the New York Health Professionals is not based upon a single study, but rather is comprised of ‘a significant body of evidence’, that not only ‘demonstrate that these activities are dangerous to people’, but also to the ‘communities’, i.e. ‘local populations’ – and to add insult to injury, ‘may prove impossible – to mitigate’.

Up to date, there are innumerable studies (please refer to the Resources at the end of this document), and in the course of this paper it will be shown that the prevailing viewpoint by the British Government and its maintenance that fracking is ‘safe’ is legally unsound. Indefensible, the UK Government’s position is countered by the French, German, Dutch, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Canadian and European Parliament. In each instance, these governments have stated publically that fracking is neither economically beneficial nor safe for public

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 13/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

consumption. A real complication for the British Government is that if it continues blindly in own its tracks of developing unconventional petroleum, the weight of evidence now available suggests that the government cannot win, and is culpable for ‘wanton conspiracy to cause grievous harm’.

It is therefore argued in this report that the onus upon Parliament and the regulatory bodies is to prove without reservation that the fracturing of rock strata for the removal of petroleum is not a threat to the general public, and thereby negate the dozens of medically commissioned studies, research that highlight the dangers of fracking. Moreover according to the UK Medact’s own Report, there are additional risks found in Britain which are not evident in the United States, to quote their incisive conclusions:

‘While much of the experience of fracking and the evidence of its impact has been generated from the US and other countries, it is notable that the risks associated with fracking could be greater in England because of geological factors, the density and size of surrounding populations, and the proximity of agricultural and tourism activity’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

Acknowledged within Medact’s in-depth report, much of the geology of the UK exists upon ‘fault lines’, which are attributed to increased risks, particularly water contamination and earthquakes. Astute, the point of ‘greater’ risks ascribed to unconventional extraction in England is also a position shared by the French Government and its banning of fracking. A pertinent argument, the geology of France and its shale formations is similar to the UK and presents the same risks. These innate dangers in France were deemed as unacceptably high and constituted a real hazard to the population and outlawed as illegal. Identical, the same set of arguments are valid in the UK, and to ignore the French Ruling is tantamount to Breaking the Law, specifically under the ‘Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23 Maliciously Administering Poison, &c. so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm’, an Article covered in Section 6 of this report ‘Fracking and the Enactment of Law’.

Accepted under French Law, the issue of ‘Water Security’ is imperative and a legitimate viewpoint which is likewise tenable under UK Law. The problem of possible contamination in essence is due to the inbuilt difficulty of predicting the fault lines within the rock strata, which makes the process of fracking potentially dangerous. A legal and valid perspective, the same argument is essentially made by Dr. Healy, Senior Lecturer in Geomechanics, to quote his own scholarly report detailing the feasible introduction of chemicals into the water supplies, he states:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 14/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘It is important to recognise that the fracking process of pumping large volumes of water into a borehole at a certain depth cannot control the type of fractures that are created or reactivated. The array of fractures created and/or reactivated or reopened depends on a complex interplay of the in situ stress, the physical properties of the local rock volume and any pre-existing fractures, and the pore fluid pressure (Phillips, 1972). This could have implications for the risk of ground water contamination by fracking operations, as the fracture network generated by the fracking fluid could be complex and difficult to predict in detail’.

Dr. Dave Healy, Senior Lecturer in Geomechanics, Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts, University of Aberdeen, 2012, p6

A clear point of view expressed by Dr. Healy, his assessment of ‘the risk of ground water contamination by fracking operations’ is a position which is not permitted according to the Water Act 2003. This Act does not allow for the mitigation of risk nor permits water that ‘constitute[s] a potential danger to human health’. In other words, the risk to ground water is, according to Dr. Healy, ‘difficult to predict’, and is therefore ‘illegal’, as it ‘constitutes potential danger to human health’. Moreover we know that the risks are ‘real’, due to the actual contamination of water at numerous sites across the United States including Pennsylvania and also Mexico. Multiple, these violations are often complex or impossible to forecast, uncertainties which are not permitted under UK Law.

(2) General Legal Summaries Against Fracking To summarise what we know so far. Abundant in size and scope, the overwhelming evidence continues to mount regarding fracking and its environmental and public health costs. In addition, legislative and governmental bodies are increasingly apprehensive about the inherent risks of unconventional petroleum extraction as found in rulings throughout the United Kingdom (except England) and the rest of Europe.

The proliferation of evidence regarding the negative impacts of fracking upon human health is a position augmented by increasing concern about the many remaining uncertainties, relating to the long term effects of pollution. In response, many countries, states and municipalities have instituted bans and moratoria. At the same time, several jurisdictions across the world have concluded on the basis of existing evidence that the risks and harms associated with fracking outweigh the potential benefits, and have banned the process outright as found in France, Bulgaria and the Netherlands. Similar sentiments have also been expressed within the State of New York, which effectively

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 15/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

prohibited shale gas development, citing public health risks as the primary reason. According to Howard Zucker (New York State Health Commissioner), he criticized the industry and stated…

‘the potential risks (to health) are too great, in fact not even fully known, and relying on the limited data at present available would be negligent.’

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

The choice of words used by the New York State Commissioner maintains that the health risks are ‘too great’ and by definition not to act would be ‘negligent’. In respect to the UK Government and the Petroleum Companies, the observations have the weight of law behind them. ‘Negligence’ is a legal definition, Latin ‘neglegere’ (disregard, slight or neglect), literally ‘neg’ (not) and ‘legere’ (to choose or pick up), and is very different from ‘ignorance’ which is ‘not to know’. ‘Negligence’ therefore is very serious, as it denotes that the ‘facts’ are ‘known beforehand’ and are executed with ‘full knowledge’.

In a legal sense, ‘negligence’ implies a dereliction of duty, which under UK Law is not permitted. This then is the real question why the majority of European countries are either choosing not to frack or are in many instances outlawing the process outright. This is because the health risks associated with fracking are ‘known’ and are very ‘real’. Not to act therefore is a ‘choice’ which is not amenable to the interpretation of the law, by definition to be ‘negligent’. To ignore the large body of evidence would further be irresponsible, an omission to safeguard the public.

Due to the proliferation of evidence of ‘actual human harm’ attributed with hydraulic fracturing and the increasing concerns about the many remaining uncertainties, many countries and states have instituted prohibitions and moratoria. Unilateral, the countries which have banned or expressed concern regarding fracking particularly from a human or an environmental perspective include the following nations:

France and Bulgaria France banned fracking in July 2011 and Bulgaria in January 2012. In June 2017, France expanded its fracking ban to include a ban on all new oil and gas exploration.

Scotland Scotland became the first country in Great Britain to impose a formal moratorium on hydraulic drilling in January 2015, after an expert panel concluded that more studies of fracking risks were needed. In 2016, as part of the

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 16/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

ongoing moratorium process, the Government of Scotland released a series of reports that reconfirmed the evidence for potential contamination of air and water, threats to worker’s health from silica dust exposure, and risks to the health of nearby residents. It further noted that the pursuit of unconventional oil and gas extraction would make Scotland’s goal of meeting its climate targets on greenhouse gas emissions more difficult. Scotland’s moratorium became an effective ban when it was extended ‘indefinitely’ in October 2017, to quote the Scottish review:

‘The evidence collected for the Scottish government enquiry suggests there are significant public health risks and costs from UOGE [Unconventional Oil & Gas Extraction] including fracking and coal bed methane with only 0.1% added annually on average to Scottish GDP if fracking went ahead’.

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, 2017, p18

To comment, 0.1% Gross Domestic Product added to the economy at the expense of ‘significant public health risks’ questions if the UK would, in terms of the large loss of resources, human and environment, actually make a profit. If for example we factored in compensation schemes for injury based upon the Japanese model of dumping poisonous chemicals into rivers, the net loss could actually be billions of pounds to the UK economy. For more details, please see Appendix 2 ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease).

To emphasize, the ‘significant public health risks and costs’ articulated in the Scottish report are many times increased in Yorkshire, due to a higher population density and fault lines. Similar correlations are found also in France with its almost identical geology to Yorkshire, serious risks which have been outlawed in France and Scotland. In respect to the ‘projected’ 0.1% of revenue generated by fracking, this for the most part will be pocketed by the multinational oil conglomerations at the expense of ‘significant public health risks’. In the words of the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, ‘Fracking profits go to private industry but the public – families and communities – bear the costs of the many health complications from the drilling’. An unacceptable compromise, this contravention under UK Law is illegal, a basic argument which has already been established throughout the United Kingdom in Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Ireland Ireland banned fracking when legislation was signed into law by the President on 28 June 2017.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 17/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Wales In February 2015, the Government of Wales declared a moratorium on fracking ‘until it is proven safe’, a contradiction in terms. The test bed studies in the UK will be conducted principally on the populations of Yorkshire, which is both illegal and an infringement of the Helsinki Agreement (Please see Section 4 of this Report). The prospect of threatened security is also acknowledged by the Welsh Government. ‘A significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate that these activities are dangerous to people and their communities’. Containing legal ramifications, the Welsh conclusions are based upon ‘a significant body of evidence’ and indicate that the risks are not acceptable, because the deep-rooted dangers posed by fracking do not compromise single individuals, but ‘are dangerous to people and their communities’.

Canada (Water Act) Canada’s Prince Edward Island included a prohibition on fracking as part of its Water Act. New Brunswick, Canada has also enacted a moratorium on all forms of fracking.

Germany In June 2016, Germany adopted a moratorium on ‘unconventional fracking’ until 2021.

Dutch In July 2015, the Dutch Government banned all shale gas fracking until 2020 on the grounds that ‘research shows that there is uncertainty’ about impacts. Not wishing to sound cynical, the Dutch Government’s reticence appears to be motivated by the industrial sector, as there is ‘prodigious evidence’ to demonstrate public harm, specifically the introduction of toxic waste material into ‘large-scale communities’ – but nevertheless the ‘uncertainty principle’, denotes ‘potential risk’ which is therefore under Dutch Law (as in the UK) illegal.

European Parliament In December 2015, a vote in favour of a report ‘Towards a European Energy Union’, the plenary of the European Parliament affirmed the incompatibility of shale gas extraction via hydraulic fracturing within the European Union’s commitment to decarbonisation, and it acknowledged public concerns about the environmental and health impacts of fracking. While falling short of an outright EU-wide moratorium on fracking, the report ‘Towards a European Energy Union’ states that:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 18/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘…it is questionable whether hydraulic fracturing can be a viable technology in the European Union’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p11

In terms of the European vote, it should be noted that the report ‘Towards a European Energy Union’ quotes ‘public concerns about the environmental and health impacts of fracking’, which is a little disingenuous, as the concerns are primarily being made by healthcare practitioners, whose reports are documenting not ‘concerns’, but ‘actual bodily harm’. In addition, these ‘injuries’ are being perpetrated not against ‘individuals’ but against whole ‘communities’. We might also note that in general the public are ignorant of the health impacts, which are seldom reported in the news accurately and are mentioned as a footnote.

Furthermore, it seems that the petroleum industry is deliberately focusing on ‘air pollution’ to steer the debate away from the real issue of ‘water contamination’. The industry is aware that the population is in general very tolerant of air pollution, and in doing so is attempting to redirect the public’s gaze away from the actual and more pressing subject of toxicological poisoning from the water itself. The issue of ‘clean water’ is integral to the correct interpretation of UK Law, commensurate to the License Agreements, permits which under the current legislation are not lawfully enforceable.

As demonstrated in the French Courts, the primary legal disputation is centred upon ‘Water Security’ and the verification of human contamination based upon existing data. In the UK, the same arguments apply concerning the poisoning of water, in particular potential contamination regarding humans, a perspective which under UK law is illegal. This is because fracking exposes the population to ‘actual risks’, dangers which have already been determined. A universal position, fracking has been demonstrated to cause physical side effects, afflictions observed within the local population, disorders which constitute negative health outcomes and are therefore illegal.

In relation to the UK Government and the question of the legality of fracking, it can be contended that the strong argument against unconventional petroleum extraction has already been satisfactorily established by the French Courts, a unilateral position shared also by Scotland, Wales and Ireland. In this respect, the English Government is in a minority and in its disregard of the evidence is in danger of ‘negligence’. At this juncture, it is useful to summarise the French argument, a basic application for the interpretation of UK Law, to quote:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 19/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘… the legal representative for the French prime minister argued that the fracking ban, even as a precautionary pre-emptive ban, was justified because of fracking’s use of potentially noxious chemical additives. He claimed on behalf of the government that legislation is necessary to protect ‘France’s water supply and to protect the environment around potential fracking sites…

It rejected the argument that the anti-fracking law contravenes the concepts of freedom of contract and free enterprise, holding that the legislature acted out of the public interest for the protection of the environment and that these restrictions, on both exploration and excavation, are proportionate to their objectives’.

Global Energy Review, News and Analysis of Energy Law and Regulation, 2013, p1

Put simply fracking is dangerous and it compromises the water supply, the ban does not contravene free enterprise, as fracking corporations cannot operate safely within the basic parameters of French Statutory Law. The same argument also applies to UK Law – fracking by definition is illegal, because it cannot be done safely and is an operation which invariably endangers the general public. Crucially the same risks have already been highlighted and accepted by the French Government as a potential hazard to the waterways, translated in basic parlance as jeopardising ‘Water Security’ and by de facto the ‘Security of the State’.

Repeated throughout the European Union, the same arguments made by the French Courts were also in principle accepted (albeit reticently) by the German Parliament. In February 2013, the Government of Chancellor Angela Merkel announced draft regulations that would allow for the exploitation of shale gas deposits using the same fracking techniques common in the United States, with the exception only of wetland areas that make up just over 10% of German territory. The draft legislation had come from the Federal Department of Economics, then headed by the party leader of Merkel’s coalition partner, the pro-business Free Democrats. This controversial policy was said to be motivated by fears that consistently high energy costs were harming German industry, facing competitors for example from the U.S. where (it was alleged) energy prices had shrunk to less than 25% of German energy costs.

However these plans immediately drew massive criticisms both from opposition parties and elements of Merkel’s own Christian Democratic Union (CDU), as well as from major Non-Governmental Organizations, large parts of the press and the general public. Within less than a month, the original plan was discontinued for the foreseeable future, and a moratorium was declared.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 20/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Ever since the draft proposals, shale gas fracking has effectively been banned in Germany and the stance of the newly formed Grand Coalition Government expressed the following sentiments in their Coalition Treaty. It stated that:

‘Unconventional gas exploration will not be pursued in the country under this government… According to available studies on its environmental relevance, the fracking technology in unconventional natural gas production – particularly in shale gas production – is a technology with enormous potential risks. The effects on humans, nature and the environment are scientifically not yet sufficiently clarified. Drinking water and health have absolute priority for us.

We reject the use of environmentally toxic substances in the application of fracking technology for exploration and extraction of unconventional natural gas deposits. A request for approval can only be decided upon when the necessary data basis for evaluation exists and is clarified beyond doubt that any adverse change in water quality can be ruled out (precautionary principle of the Water Resources Act). The disposal of flowback from fracking operations with the use of environmentally toxic chemicals in injection wells is currently not justifiable due to lack of knowledge of the risks involved.

Coalition Treaty, Germany, 2016

According to the Coalition Treaty, ‘Drinking water and health have absolute priority for us’ and are contingents which cannot be guaranteed if fracking was allowed on German soil. The same principles also apply to the UK Law. The key sentence in the German summary of evidence relevant for the UK argument include – ‘fracking… is a technology with enormous potential risks’, which include the explanation ‘environmentally toxic’, addendum to the requisite protection of ‘adverse change in water quality’.

Emphatic, these changes in water quality are covered under the German ‘Precautionary Principle Water Resource Act’; a similar law exists in the UK, the ‘Water Supply Quality Regulations 2000’, to quote Section 4 Wholesomeness, covered under ‘Domestic Purpose’:

Wholesomeness 4 – (2) The requirements of this paragraph are –

(a) that the water does not contain –

(i) any micro-organism (other than a parameter) or parasite; or (ii) any substance (other than a parameter), at a concentration or

value which would constitute a potential danger to human health;

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 21/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Wholesomeness (Continued)

(b) that the water does not contain any substance (whether or not a

parameter) at a concentration or value which, in conjunction with any other substance it contains (whether or not a parameter) would constitute a potential danger to human health.

The Water Supply Quality Regulations 2000, Section 4 Wholesomeness

Now this is the nub of the argument, which the British Government must respond to legally. The emphasis of this Act does not require the plaintive to prove emphatically that fracking is dangerous, the burden of proof is much lower, all that is required is to demonstrate that the contamination of water would constitute a ‘potential danger to human health’. The planned dumping of toxic waste into the River Aire, thought currently to be approximately 13 million gallons, falls under this radar.

Contamination of Tap Water from Fracking

A further argument is that the destruction of the environment itself is untenable under the Environmental Act of 1995. This is because the Secretary of State is charged with protecting the River Aire and its water causeways which are ‘of special interest by reason of its floral, fauna or geological or physiological features’, in this case the local bird sanctuary and its rare species of birds which are endangered and protected by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). Of gravity, the legal ramifications are serious. As recent as 1998, killing or injuring a swan was classed as treason. The crown retains all rights to ownership of all unmarked mute swans, which means killing or injuring a swan can be classed as ‘criminal damage’. It is also an offence to injure, take or kill a swan as they are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981. The repercussions for harming a swan are grave.

The suggestion gleaned from this report is that in order to compromise the local breeding populations of swans, the companies licensed to treat and dump the poisonous waste into the River Aire will first have to seek a royal pardon from the Queen. Moreover, the potential drop in the bird population is not only illegal, but theoretically could extend to humans.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 22/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To emphasize, under the ‘Water Supply Quality Regulations’, the introduction of millions of gallons of radioactive waste would constitute a danger to wildlife and human health. The potential for real harm and suffering from the contamination of the River Aire is not a hypothetical point, but is already established in similar cases throughout the world. For instance, in Japan the chemical ‘spillage’ and its after-effects led to mass poisoning, which affected thousands of local residents in Toyama Prefecture.

A terrible affliction known medically as ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease), this condition resulted in large numbers of people becoming ill. Of serious consequence, many Japanese were contaminated through the illegal dumping of cadmium into the Jinzu River, an aggregate element found also in fracking effluence, covered in Appendix 2. For the toxicology report of flowback waste and levels of Cadmium from unconventional hydraulic drilling in Lancashire, please refer to the final table in Appendix 3. The inference from the Japanese Case in question is that a similar type of contamination could also occur in the UK, subjecting the people of Yorkshire to the real possibility of painful disability or death otherwise ‘potential danger to human health’.

With respect to the legal argument in the UK, the point made regarding the Jinzu River Incident is to prove categorically that the poisoning of human beings and their ‘water supply’ can be inadvertently introduced through toxic pollution

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 23/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

transported through the river waterways. The ramifications for Yorkshire concerning such a contamination are dire, and from the evidence at hand remains a theoretical possibility. With these lofty points in mind, in the case of West Yorkshire and the disposing of toxic industrial waste into the River Aire, the plaintiffs of Wakefield and Leeds do not need to prove that the pollution from fracking would be ‘injurious to human health’, rather the burden of proof is less and stipulates only ‘that the supply of water in accordance with the authorisation does not constitute a potential danger to human health’.

To recap, the real possibility of grievous harm exists from dumping dirty wastewater obtained from unconventional petroleum extraction has already been established. This legal position is easily quantified in the medical literature, which relates both to drilling and the contamination of drinking water via river pathways, arguments already accepted in the summaries of the French, German, Scottish, Irish and Welsh governments, to evaluate the evidence so far:

Country Summaries of Evidence (1) Dutch ‘There is overwhelming evidence to demonstrate public harm,

specifically [to] “large-scale communities” but nevertheless the “uncertainty principle” denotes “potential risk” which is therefore under Dutch Law illegal’. – [This argument is the same in the UK].

(2) Germany ‘Fracking technology in unconventional natural gas production

– particularly in shale gas production – is a technology with enormous potential risks’.

(3) France ‘Legislation is necessary to protect France’s water supply and

to protect the environment around potential fracking sites’.

(4) Wales ‘A significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate

that these activities are dangerous to people and their communities’.

(5) Scotland ‘The evidence collected for the Scottish government enquiry

suggests there are significant public health risks’.

(6) EU ‘[The European Parliament] acknowledge… concerns about the

environmental and health impacts of fracking’.

(7) America ‘Our examination of the peer-reviewed medical and public

health literature uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health’.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 24/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

If we review the evidence objectively, the British Government does not have a legal basis, in which it can safeguard the public from ‘risk’ and therefore by definition fracking is illegal. In addition, the possibility of contamination to water supplies is real and is a perspective that we shall address in the next Section of the Report. This area looks at the problems of industrial waste, in relation to the ‘safe’ assessment of risk management and the delegation of responsibility.

(3) Industrial Problems, Water Security and Legislation Section 3 will examine a variety of resources and quotations that document the toxicity attributed with fracking and its pollution relative to the environment. Real concerns include the inherent dangers associated with the removal of ‘flowback’ water in conjunction to the risk of contamination of drinking water, a medical position referred to in the detailed synopsis proffered by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, to quote:

‘In the United States, more than two billion gallons of water and fracking fluids are injected daily under high pressure into the earth for the purpose of enabling oil and gas extraction via fracking or, after the fracking is finished, to flush the extracted wastewater down any of the 187,570 disposal wells across the country that accept oil and gas waste. All of that two billion daily gallons of fluid is toxic, and it passes through our nation’s groundwater aquifers on its way to the deep geological strata below where it demonstrably raises the risk for earthquakes’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p14

An inordinate quantity of waste water, the two billion gallons produced daily are categorised as radioactive by the Environmental Agency. This means that the radionuclides present are registering at much higher levels than NORM, a misleading acronym which denotes Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials. Deadly these compositions are released into the environment through the disposal process and affect water integrity. According to the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, the evidence in the peer reviewed literature suggests that the radioactive levels in some instances are thousands of times greater than the legal requirements, an unsatisfactory position which require that the fracking operators, contractors and treatment facilities all demand special permits to dispose of this highly hazardous waste material. The main problem however is that the large volumes of this radioactive waste is not ‘treatable’ and that the majority of flowback waste is radioactive, to quote the Environmental Science and Technology Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development Report:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 25/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Effluents discharged to publicly owned treatment plants may not be able to provide sufficient treatment for this waste stream’.

Environmental Science and Technology, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development Report, 2014, ppF-G

Uncontested, the risks identified by Dr. Lisa McKenzie’s report from Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver is a genuine concern, an important topic which is also picked up in the New York Times dated February 27, 2011. Worried, the Times reported on the real threat to New York’s drinking water from Pennsylvania’s drilling waste, due to the presence of chemical contaminants, including high levels of radioactivity. The investigation found that sewage treatment plants are neither testing for nor capable of removing the high levels of radioactivity, elements which are then subsequently discharged into waterways that supply drinking water, and that, in some cases, wastewater contained radium levels that were hundreds of times higher than the drinking water standard, a critical point reinforced in the report commissioned by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, to quote:

‘High levels of radiation documented in fracking wastewater from many shale formations raise special concerns in terms of impacts to groundwater and surface water. Measurements of radium in fracking wastewater in New York and Pennsylvania, from the particularly radioactive Marcellus Shale, have been as high as 3,600 times the regulatory limit for drinking water, as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One study found toxic levels of radiation in a Pennsylvania waterway even after fracking wastewater was disposed of through an industrial wastewater treatment plant.

The disposal of radioactive drill cuttings is an additional concern. A recent study found high levels of radon in buildings located in heavily drilled areas of Pennsylvania, with levels of radon rising since the start of the fracking boom. Unsafe levels of radon and its decay products in natural gas produced from the Marcellus Shale may also contaminate pipelines and compressor stations, as well as pose risks to end-users when allowed to travel into homes. There is no federal oversight and, in some cases, a total lack of state regulations for handling radioactive oil and gas waste. Increasing evidence documents illegal, haphazard dumping of radioactive fracking waste, along with its disposal in municipal landfills not engineered to contain radioactivity. North Dakota alone generates 70 tons per day of radioactive drilling and fracking waste’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p93

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 26/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To emphasize, the danger of handling prodigious amounts of waste which is as much as 3,600 times over the legal limit for drinking water is a human catastrophe and cannot be dealt with or disposed of safely. Jeopardising communities, the detritus poses an acute problem in the UK which is a small island with a large population density. Inelegant, the solution to this problem in the United States is ‘document[ed in the] illegal, haphazard dumping of radioactive fracking waste, along with its disposal in municipal landfills not engineered to contain radioactivity’. How will the Secretary of State lawfully guarantee public safety in the United Kingdom, when according to the World Wildlife Trust’s own body of research indicates that…

‘Our analysis [of fracking in the UK] suggests that the current regulatory regime is not fit for purpose and therefore unable to adequately manage serious environmental risks’…

Angling Trust, National Trust, RSPB, Salmon and Trout Association, The Wildlife Trust, WWT, March 2014

Unsettling, the extraction from shale of gas presents particularly high levels of radioactive material, which is deleterious to the human organism, and if we look at the projected models of poisoning in the States comparative to the UK, the contamination will expose the local population of Wakefield and Leeds to severe risk and is therefore illegal. The ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ make it abundantly clear that this waste, even when ‘treated’, is deadly: ‘One study found toxic levels of radiation in a Pennsylvania waterway even after fracking wastewater was disposed of through an industrial wastewater treatment plant’.

Moreover, the technical problems of disposing of this toxic waste is highlighted in New York, in which radioactive waste at just 12 times over the limit presents insurmountable problems for its safe disposal, a troubling point highlighted in the Report commissioned by the ‘Concerned Professionals of New York’, who noted that:

‘drillers [had] sent some of this [radioactive] waste to New York State for disposal even though… [the] EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] scientists had warned the state about this very problem in December 2009 in a letter that advised against sewage treatment plants accepting drilling waste with radium levels 12 or more times as high as the drinking water standard.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, pp98-99

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 27/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

According to the report written by the ‘Physicians for Social Responsibility’, one of the primary sources of contamination of drinking water supplies is through the processing and disposal of polluted water into the rivers. Crucial, the point articulated by the ‘Physicians for Social Responsibility’ who are medically trained experts have proven the correlation between dumping toxic waste into the rivers, a by-products of fracking, and the pollution of public water. The same point is also emphasized by the Environmental Protection Agency, to quote their own findings:

‘Cases of drinking water sources contaminated by drilling and fracking activities, or by associated waste disposal, are now proven’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p18 / [Physicians for Social Responsibility & EPA, Oct 2015]

The point here is important in relation to UK Law, the Secretary of State is charged with maintaining the ‘purity of water’ (Wholesomeness), in particular ‘avoiding potential harm’. It is argued that under the law, it is simply not possible with the current level of technology to avoid contamination or local poisoning. In Wakefield and Leeds, the principle plan for mitigating the risks of contamination is by injecting large amounts of radioactive water into the River Aire and diluting it.

According to the report by the ‘Physicians for Social Responsibility’ supported by the Environmental Protection Agency, the dilution of toxic water is a redundant methodology, an inadequate process demonstrated to be the primary source of contamination of fresh drinking water. In Japan, similar ‘procedures’ to discard deadly elements (cadmium and mercury) from chemical production and mining have led to the poisoning of thousands of people, an unsatisfactory position acknowledged by the Japanese Courts. Please refer to Appendix 2 ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease) and Appendix 3 Minamata Byou (Minamata Disease).

A serious flaw in the UK Government’s strategy to dispose of waste through the river and sewage ways will present a myriad of nasty cocktails and deadly chemicals. An invalid strategy, these contaminants under the UK Law are illegal and are punishable by the penal codes. All the evidence to date in the United States shows unequivocally that the contamination of drinking water is primarily introduced through the rivers, treatment plants and waste disposal sites, deficient technologies which in the UK have legal ramifications. A real major problem for the United Kingdom is what to do with potentially billions of gallons of contaminated water, which in real-time translates into the poisoning of local water supplies, an adoption which is ‘unlawful’. On 30 March 2015, the

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 28/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

UK Medical Organization ‘Medact’ published a study, ‘Health & Fracking: The Impacts and Opportunity Costs’. The summaries of this report highlighted the totally inadequate legal argument adopted by the British Government regarding the human cost of fracking, to quote Medact’s own devastating conclusions:

‘As recently as 2008, there was only a handful of studies on the health effects of fracking. There are now over 450 peer-reviewed studies, reviews and commentaries. A significant majority of the studies indicate potential risks or actual adverse health outcomes associated with shale gas development. Elevated concentrations of air pollutants and indications of potential or actual incidents of water contamination have been frequently found. Reports of adverse health outcomes related to shale gas development in the US also show symptoms that are common across geographic space and consistent with what one would expect from exposure to some of the known toxic pollutants associated with fracking’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

Explicit, the evidence to date is emphatic that fracking is ‘illegal’, because it poses ‘actual adverse health outcomes… [including] actual incidents of water contamination… [and] exposure to… known toxic pollutants’… Put simply people are being poisoned. An indictment, the report is condemnatory, as it shows actual criminality. Unlawful, the government’s choice to ignore the litany of facts is therefore not only ‘negligent’, but is ‘wilfully criminal’.

‘Medact UK’ concluded that fracking leads to significant risks to public health, and called for an immediate moratorium to allow time for a full and comprehensive health and environmental impact assessment to be completed. This request to date has been ignored by the government. It is to be noted that the health assessment is also a legal requirement of the ‘Environmental Act 1995’, which requires the Secretary of State 5 – 3(a) ‘to compile information relating to such pollution / and to carry out an assessment… to remedy or mitigate the effects of pollution of the environment’.

Medact UK’s own report was supported by a letter published in the ‘British Medical Journal’ calling for shale gas development to be put on hold, signed by the ‘Climate and Health Council’ and over a dozen senior health professionals. The letter stated, ‘The arguments against fracking on public health and ecological grounds are overwhelming. There are clear grounds for adopting the precautionary principle and prohibiting fracking’. The ‘precautionary principle’ in this respect refers to the UK Water Laws, which prevents ‘potential harm’, a legal perspective which is being flagrantly ignored by the British Government. This indifference to ‘potential risk’ constitutes a crime, to quote the Medact UK report:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 29/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Fracking for shale gas is an inherently risky activity that generates various health hazards. Some degree of environmental pollution is inevitable. Among the important toxic pollutants are benzene (an example of a ‘non-threshold’ toxin for which there are no actual safe levels of exposure), formaldehyde, heavy metals, NORM [Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials], radon and methane (see supplementary briefing paper. Additional information about potential pollutants and toxins for more detail). Certain aspects of fracking (e.g. loss of wellbore structural integrity due to ageing and leaks from ancillary infrastructure) are impossible to eradicate completely even with the adoption of best practice. Accidents do happen, and some people will be negatively affected by some of the social and economic effects of fracking’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p13

A devastating conclusion in the synopsis outlined, no where does the Medact UK report state that ‘potential risk is remedied or mitigated’ as stipulated in the ‘Environmental Act 1995’. In fact, the observations are far more severe. The hypothetical realm of ‘potential risk’ is non-existent and is negated to ‘actual risk’, in the words of the Medact UK paper, fracking ‘generates various health hazards’… as accidents do happen and some people will be negatively affected’… Note in this definition, the briefing does not state ‘individuals’ but ‘some people’. The inference from Medact is that fracking harms ‘communities’, an intellectual premise shared by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ and their report, to quote:

‘Fracking profits go to private industry but the public – families and communities – bear the costs of the many health complications from the drilling’. Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p266

The statement offered by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ is not conjecture but is fact, ‘communities – bear the costs of many health complications from the drilling’. Profiteering from ‘human loss’, in terms of the deprivation of health or life, is unlawful. In fact, it can be argued that the government’s core initiative of dumping industrial waste into local rivers will be the primary cause for the ‘generat[ion of] various health hazards’. These impacts to human life are scientifically recognised and are unacceptable. Unlawful, the total disregard for local communities constitute gross violations appertaining to the Human Rights Act, in which the ‘state should preserve human life’, a focus which we will return to later, in the words of Medact’s own critical report:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 30/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘While the precise level of risk to human health is indeterminate, the health hazards involved are substantial’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p19

We could also say the same of exploding a nuclear bomb! – ‘While the precise level of risk to human health is indeterminate, the health hazards involved are substantial’. Current Environmental Agency’s hydrologists have stated that the plan in the UK is to discharge the contaminated waste into waterways that flow out into the sea in a dilution treatment method. The problem with this method as already highlighted by the ‘Physicians of Social Responsibility’ is that ‘cases of drinking water sources contaminated by… waste disposal, are now proven’. Note also the use of the plural noun cases, this is because there is now ample evidence of multiple contaminations throughout American water supplies, problems which in the UK would be grossly magnified due to the local population density, addendum to Yorkshire’s faulted geology. Unacceptable, the disregard for human life under UK and European Law is illegal. Another unwelcome difficulty is that the decontamination process itself is compounding or increasing the toxicity of the waste, to quote the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’:

‘[In] October 31, 2017 – A study of fracking wastewater disposed of in rivers and streams found that chemical contaminants in the waste were transformed into more toxic substances when they chemically reacted with chlorinated compounds discharged from downstream drinking water treatment plants. The result was dozens of different, brominated and iodinated disinfection by-products (DBPs). A lab analysis found that all were highly toxic to mammalian cells. Conventional water treatment practices do not remove these chemicals. “It is likely that in oil- and gas-impacted drinking water sources, iodo-phenolic DBPs could form at significant levels, particularly in cases in which chloramination is used.”

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p50

A deplorable situation, the summary of evidence collected in the United States is yet another major hurdle, as the principle method of treating water in the UK is through chlorination, a process which could be adding to the problem of toxicity. To add insult, according to the published materials distributed by Frack Free Leeds, 13 million gallons of radioactive fracking waste from Lancashire may be destined for Leeds and Wakefield. Pausing for a moment and shining a spotlight on the government’s nefarious activities, the introduction of this ‘Un-Wholesome Water’ into the water supply compromises the UK population and is therefore ‘illegal’.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 31/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To call attention to the defective plan, the strategy of tipping the waste into the River Aire is indubitably flawed. Put simply, the transportation of this ‘waste material’ to Yorkshire from Lancashire is beset with a legal challenge. The license to dispose of this waste by the Secretary of State is yet another infraction of the law as outlined in Section 5 of the Environmental Act 1995, in which the Minister is tasked with ‘mitigating the effects of pollution’. A fundamental oversight concerns the removal of pollution from the County of Lancashire with a population of approximately 1.4 million people, and its stealthy transferral to Yorkshire and Humberside with a population of 5.3 million people. Legally objectionable, the transportation of this large amount of poisonous waste water effectively means that the ‘potential risk’ is not ‘mitigated’ but is more than ‘doubled’. Totally unsuitable for the large demography, the proposed water waste scheme suggested by the Minister when reviewed objectively is an ‘intensification of risk’, which is not permissible under UK Law.

Close examination of Lancashire by-laws suggests the County is trying to divest its culpability, which when deconstructed translates as a ‘Conspiracy to Commit a Crime’. A devolution of responsibility, the evidence is clear and suggests that Lancashire cannot dispose of this toxic waste material in the River Aire, an act which is both criminal and is punishable under the penal codes. Moreover from the published data, it is shown that dumping pernicious waste material associated with unconventional petroleum extraction not only poisons the water supply but is also extremely detrimental to human health, to quote the in-depth research by the organisation ‘Environment America Research and Policy Centre’. A meta-analysis, the detailed study on fracking documents the following contraventions:

‘Discharge of fracking wastewater into rivers can pollute drinking water supplies. For example, after water treatment plants discharged fracking wastewater into the Monongahela River, local authorities issued a drinking water advisory to 350,000 people in the area. In addition, fracking wastewater discharged at treatment plants can cause a different problem for drinking water: when bromide in the wastewater mixes with chlorine (often used at drinking water treatment plants), it produces trihalomethanes, chemicals that cause cancer and increase the risk of reproductive or developmental health problems’.

Environment America Research and Policy Centre Report, 2013, p10

Critical, the point cited indicates (yet again!) that the dumping of industrial waste materials into river-ways affect large multiples of people. As noted in the example, this can number into the hundreds of thousands, to recapitulate ‘local authorities issued a drinking water advisory to 350,000 people in the area’.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 32/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

A despicable situation – the following profiled scenario details the plausible poisoning of thousands of people. If 10% of the population failed to observe the ban inadvertently, for example many of the dangerous chemicals under scrutiny can be absorbed through skin contact, such as bathing, then the figures suggest that approximately 35,000 people could be readily poisoned. Added to the potential problem is the increase in toxicity, when chlorides are combined to drinking water for the purpose of water purification.

Reprehensible, the documented breaches of drinking water from fracking and its known repercussions on human health intrinsically questions the legality of the Petroleum Exploration and Development License (PEDL275) issued by the Secretary of State, which essentially constitutes ‘Conspiracy to Commit Criminal and Wilful Damage’, interpretations of the law which could also theoretically include ‘Grievous Physical Harm’.

By the definitions already laid out, the ‘exploration process’ itself falls into danger of being unlawful and from a legal position is tenebrous. These are serious allegations and more so because we know of the health implications associated with ‘water pollution’, infractions that have been systematically documented in dozens of case studies relating to the petroleum industry throughout the world. This then brings us neatly on to the position of the law adjunct to clean water. Yorkshire Water is legally obligated under the ‘Water Quality Laws Directive’ to ensure that water is clean and free of pollution. It cannot infringe its own obligation to its customers by accepting polluting contaminants from other Counties, toxic waste which will compromise the ‘Wholesomeness of Water’. Exacting, the law states the following Directives:

Water Quality Laws Directives (West Yorkshire Local Authority and Quality of Water) Strict standards for the quality of the UK public supply are laid down in national regulations derived from the EU Drinking Water Directive. These standards are based on advice from the World Health Organization (WHO) and are regularly reviewed. In the UK, all drinking water, whether from public supplies or other sources, has to meet standards laid down in the EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC). It is the duty of each EU member state government to translate the requirements of the directive into local laws, which must as a minimum meet the requirements of EU legislation. The law requires that drinking water is ‘wholesome and clean’. It also sets down maximum acceptable concentrations for a number of potential contaminants. In addition, there is a general clause, which requires:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 33/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Water is free from any micro-organisms and parasites and from any substances which, in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health’.

EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC)

To reiterate, the Directive states that drinking water has to be ‘wholesome and clean’, i.e. ‘conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well being’. The implication is that the water is in its sum total ‘whole’ and therefore devoid of ‘additives’, in this case ‘potential toxins’. Inserted also is a Clause which cautions that ‘water is free from… any substances which constitutes a potential danger to human health’. Mandated, the requirement in this Directive is explicit to safeguard ‘potential danger to human health’. In the Water Quality Laws Directive, the stipulation does not state that water companies have to protect against ‘absolute risk to human health’, rather the requirement is much more rigorous and demands safeguarding against ‘potential danger to human health’. The spirit of the law is designed to protect all human life, whilst avoiding risk.

This then poses yet another challenge to the petroleum companies and their exploitation of chemical lubricants used for fracking. Poisonous, these agents have been proven medically and scientifically to fall into the bracket of a ‘health risk’ and is technically designated as a ‘potential danger’. In the UK, the hazard to public water is exasperated and is acknowledged in the Medact UK report of 2015. Devastating for the petroleum industry, this study argues that the UK drinking water is particularly at risk from contamination, due to the local typography and geological structure, to quote:

‘There are also features that are specific to shale formations. In the UK, shale formations are thick and geologically faulted, features that increase health and environmental risks associated with fracking when compared to the US’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p6

In other words, the contamination of drinking water is aggravated through natural faulted shale formations, geological patterns which exponentially increase the risks of fracking in the United Kingdom. A travesty, this wanton disregard for human life, when considered in context to the wholesale contamination of drinking water in the United States, is a crime. Combined, the violations in the US to date have not merely affected ‘individuals’, but instead have compromised the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of people. With the majority of the member states in Europe, this transgression against the people have not been permitted, a stipulation enforced to conserve the commodity of human life and water integrity.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 34/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

In relation to the Medact UK report, its own executive summaries are of great concern. This is because the study demonstrates unequivocally that fracking in the UK is considered to be ‘more dangerous’, due to the specific geological terrain. An exceptionable situation, the British landscape would actually pose an increased risk to the local populations, a hazard which under UK Law is neither tenable nor permissible. A perilous situation, these stresses to the local population are not imagined or exaggerated, but are real, to quote Medact:

‘We can also say that if fracking is characterised by a high number and concentration of boreholes within relatively small rural and semi-rural areas that are well populated, the risk to public health would be considerable’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p6

The UK Government finds itself in an impossible disposition and cannot reconcile ‘potential risk’, a stance which is ‘unlawful’ with the increased predicament to human life, expressed succinctly in the Medact report as ‘considerable risk to the public health’. Under both the United Kingdom (Scotland, Wales and Ireland only) and the European Guidelines (France, Germany and the Netherlands), the definition ‘considerable risk’ in the Courts of Law have been proven to be illegal. Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, the same situation is also evident under the English interpretation of law, in terms of the ‘Water Act 2003’, in which ‘considerable risk’ to the general public is not permitted.

On the evidence at hand, it is argued that if the government allows Hutton Energy PLC to use lubricants in the water to extract petroleum under this Directive alone, the act is illegal and constitutes a criminal offence. In addition, the resultant contamination of the area with high levels of radioactive water and heavy metals is a serious problem, one which cannot be disposed of safely. The contradiction poses a legal and moral quandary for the government, to quote the ‘Environmental Protection Act 1990’:

‘Releases of the most polluting (prescribed) substances must be prevented or, where this is not possible, minimised and rendered harmless by applying Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Costs (BATNEEC)’.

The Environmental Protection Act 1990

As documented within the source material from countless studies, the proposal to ‘render harmless’ millions of gallons of radioactive water is impossible. The idea that this waste will somehow disappear is incongruent with the evidence. The ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ make it amply clear that this effluence, even when ‘treated’, is dangerous, to repeat: ‘One study found toxic

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 35/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

levels of radiation in a Pennsylvania waterway even after fracking wastewater was disposed of through an industrial wastewater treatment plant’. Similar findings are also acknowledged by the ‘Physicians for Social Responsibility’, who maintain that ‘one of the primary sources of contamination of drinking water supplies is through the processing and disposal of polluted water into the rivers’.

The opinion that this waste discharge can be treated ‘safely’ through dilution is a misnomer and if the government thinks otherwise, then the position should be demonstrated scientifically in a Court of Law – as if the evaluation of the Minister is wrong, then up to a million people in the North of England could be negatively impacted. Playing Russian roulette with the lives of Yorkshire people is unsatisfactory; given that subjecting the population to ‘potential risk’ is under the interpretation of UK Law a serious crime. By definition the ‘Environmental Act 1995’ inhibits the pollution of water without ‘remedy’, which unfortunately with the current technology to date is impossible without exposing the local population to ‘potential risk’, a violation of the law. It is manifestedly clear that, when we factor into the equation, all of the new studies undertaken outlining the genuine concerns of the fracking industry, in particular their dereliction of duty, is a matter of public consternation. The wilful act of tipping industrial and radioactive waste into the local water supplies, i.e. the River Aire, is under the European Directive a punishable crime, a theme picked up in the Water Resource Act of 1991:

Water Resources Act 1991 217 – Criminal Liabilities of Directors and Other Third Parties (1) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this Act [or under section 4 of the Water Act 2003] and that offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, then he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Water Resources Act 1991, 217 – Criminal Liabilities of Directors and Other Third Parties, p232

Unambiguous, it is explicitly stated in the Act that the ‘Secretary’, in this context the ‘Secretary of State’, can be legally taken to task. An extension of this argument would be that water companies also have a ‘Care of Duty’ to their consumers, which has specific connotations for Yorkshire Water. This is because it can be contended that if Yorkshire Water accepts the government’s proposals to permit radioactive waste into its rivers, then it can be argued that Yorkshire Water will have acted ‘negligent’, as the overwhelming body of evidence is that the UK Government on this matter is ‘wrong’.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 36/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The legal argument that the British Government is plainly mistaken is demonstrated in the rulings of France, Germany, Netherlands, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, etc. Therefore, it can be construed that if Yorkshire Water or indeed the Secretary of State permits toxins into the environment, they will have broken the law, by failing to take proper care to interpret the wider risks. Furthermore, the Act also allows other ‘third parties’ to be charged. Corporate, these ‘third parties’ are the industries which are creating the pollution illegally, excessive pollutants which cannot be ‘regulated safely’ and therefore have the capacity to cause ‘potential human harm’, definitions which are unlawful. Identical, the selfsame point regarding human safety pertaining to the contamination of water is made elegantly in the report by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, who in their study have utilised empirical data to substantiate scientific findings relevant to fracking and its catalogue of human harm, to quote:

‘Independently, researchers working in Texas found 19 different fracking-related contaminants – including cancer-causing benzene – in hundreds of drinking water samples collected from the aquifer overlying the heavily drilled Barnett Shale, thereby documenting widespread water contamination. In Pennsylvania, a solvent used in fracking fluid was found in drinking water wells near drilling and fracking operations known to have well casing problems. In California, state regulators admitted that they had mistakenly allowed oil companies to inject drilling wastewater into aquifers containing clean, potable water. A 2017 study found that fracking wastewater discharged into rivers and streams through treatment plants created dozens of brominated and iodinated disinfection by- products that are particularly toxic and “raise concerns regarding human health’’’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p18

As demonstrated in the report by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, the contamination of drinking water is extensive, in their own words ‘widespread water contamination… including cancer causing benzene – in hundreds of drinking water samples collected’. According to the report, this is not a hypothetical problem, but is a real predicament, in which the drinking water of the area is vastly polluted and by implication from the ‘hundreds of drinking water samples’ taken are affecting not single individuals but thousands of people. To emphasize, in the UK due to large population density, the issues regarding human health could be many times exasperated.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 37/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

In addition, the waste from fracking produces ‘fowl water supplies’, which in Yorkshire are likely to include high levels of benzene (a carcinogen), hydrogen sulphite, radionuclides, dissolved methane and ethane as well as quantities of heavy metals. As already discussed, the dilution of this waste water is highly radioactive and in the United States is shown to contaminate the local water supplies. The issue of polluted water is an endemic problem affecting potentially thousands of people and is an important issue raised in the ‘Environment America Research and Policy Centre Report’; of concern they noted the following data regarding leakages:

Leakage ‘State data confirm more than 1,000 cases of water contaminated by dirty drilling operations. For example:

  • In Colorado, approximately 340 of the leaks or spills reported by drilling operators engaged in all types of oil and gas drilling over a five-year period polluted groundwater.
  • In Pennsylvania, state regulators identified 161 instances in which drinking water wells were impacted by drilling operations between 2008 and the fall of 2012 to 2013.
  • In New Mexico, state records show 743 instances of all types of oil and gas operations polluting groundwater – the source of drinking water for 90 percent of the state’s residents’.

Environment America Research and Policy Centre Report, 2013, p9

A dire record on human health as shown from the information published within the State data, there is no such thing as ‘clean’ unconventional extraction, as the industry poisons drinking water, in study after study. The question which the UK Government has to address (which is a legal prerequisite) is how many people will be allowed to be poisoned by the infractions of the petroleum industry. Projecting the statistical data in the UK, how would 1,000 violations of drinking water translate in terms of potential injuries and death. The large numbers of people affected, when viewed analytically, are mind boggling. Genuine, the environmental risks attributed to fracking are real and are the same concerns detailed in the United States, in which people and land are being systematically and gradually poisoned by the removal of petroleum and gas.

Underscored throughout numerous reports, the data documenting the poisoning of communities and contamination demonstrate the high risks of unconventional gas and oil extraction. Uncontested, this atrocious situation is a repeating pattern clearly stated and monitored throughout the majority of peer reviewed research. With reference to the UK Government, the substantiation of ‘actual’

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 38/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

bodily harm highlights the legal impediment appertaining to fracking under the UK Water Laws, to quote once again the ‘Health Professionals of New York’:

‘The available peer-reviewed literature reveals both potential and actual harms. Specifically, as demonstrated by PSE’s statistical analysis of the body of scientific literature available from 2009 to 2015, 69 percent of original research studies on water quality found potential for, or actual evidence of, water contamination’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p10

Looking at the peer reviewed literature, if we apply the 69% figure to Leeds population of 727,400 (1998 figures) and for a moment exclude the whole of Wakefield, then 501,906 people would be subject to the ‘potential for, or actual evidence of, water contamination’. As the census figures are 20 years out of date, the potential for contamination could, if we factored in Wakefield, affect nearly a million people. The figures are produced from ‘peer reviewed literature’ that shows clearly that fracking cannot be done ‘safely’, as 7 out of 10 fracking sites will be compromised with a net outcome that the local population’s water supply can and will be affected. In addition, we also know that pollution also occurs through leakage of wells, which throughout the United States has compromised the water on more than a ‘thousand’ occasions, two large scale examples are cited in the ‘Environmental Science and Technology’ report written by Dr. McKenzie and her colleges, who expressed the following consternations:

‘An extensive report by the Ground Water Protection Council exploring drinking water contamination from UNG [Unconventional Gas] development in Texas and Ohio found evidence of leakage from orphaned wells and disposal pits’.

Environmental Science and Technology Report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects, 2014, ppF-G

Numerous cases of drinking water sources contaminated by drilling and fracking activities, or by associated waste disposal, are now proven. EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency’s) assessment of fracking impacts on drinking water resources confirmed specific instances of water contamination caused by drilling and fracking-related activities, and identified the various pathways by which this pollution had occurred, including multiple spills, discharge of fracking waste into rivers and streams, and underground migration of chemicals, including gas, into drinking water wells, to quote:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 39/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Substantial evidence shows that drilling and fracking activities, and associated wastewater disposal practices, inherently threaten groundwater and have polluted drinking water sources, as confirmed by the 2016 final report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the impacts of fracking on the nation’s drinking water. Repudiating industry claims of risk-free fracking, studies from across the United States present irrefutable evidence that groundwater contamination occurs as a result of fracking activities and is more likely to occur close to well pads. In Pennsylvania alone, the state has determined that more than 300 private drinking water wells have been contaminated or otherwise impacted as the result of drilling and fracking operations over an eight-year period. As determined by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the chemical contamination of some private water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania posed demonstrable health risks, rendering the water unsuitable for drinking’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p48

So much for the industry’s claims that fracking is ‘risk-free’ or is ‘safe if done properly’, an intellectual deceit which has been repudiated by the Environmental Protection Agency. This is because there is now ‘substantial… [and] irrefutable evidence [that fracking has]… threatened groundwater and polluted drinking water sources’. These failures however are not minor impairments but, according to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), have posed ‘demonstrable health risks, rendering the water unsuitable for drinking’. The report goes on to cite numerous infringements, which have ramifications for the UK Government and their defence that fracking is a ‘safe industry’, a position which is contradicted by the evidence collected from the United States, to quote:

‘The EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] investigators documented 457 fracking-related spills over six years but acknowledged that they do not know how many more may have occurred. Of the total known spills, 300 reached an environmental receptor such as surface water or groundwater. The EPA also conceded that insufficient baseline drinking water data and a lack of long-term systematic studies limited the power of its findings. The EPA investigation confirmed a number of specific instances where these potential mechanisms did indeed lead to drinking water contamination’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p64

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 40/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

In the Environmental Protection Agency’s own figures, 3 out of 5 spills lead to contamination, which coincides approximately with the earlier figures from ‘PSE’s statistical analysis of the body of scientific literature available from 2009 to 2015, [which showed] 69% of original research studies on water quality found potential for, or actual evidence of, water contamination’. If we observe these figures with scientific detachment, we cannot even say that the industry is ‘nearly safe’, as in the ‘majority of cases’, fracking leads local communities exposed to the real possibility that water supplies will be compromised, subjecting large numbers of people to poisoning or ‘potential mechanisms [which] indeed lead to drinking water contamination’.

Exactly the same point identifying the substantial risk of potential poisoning to regional communities is a major subject, which is also detailed in the Canadian study, commissioned by the Canadian Government, (‘Potential Health Hazards from Shale Gas Exploration and Exploitation – Drinking Water and Ambient Air’). A large appraisal of the evidence, this research similarly acknowledged the real possibility of water contamination. The report determined, ‘Although quantitative data are lacking, the qualitative data available indicate that potential contamination of water related to the shale gas industry may present hazard to the public health, especially for the local population’. The report concluded, ‘Any steps of shale gas exploration and exploitation may represent a potential source of drinking water and air contamination; Hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal were identified as the main potential sources of risk’.

Under UK Law, the remittal of ‘potential risk’ by Committee subsequent to the vitiation of the water supply is illegal, in the words of the Canadians ‘Any steps of shale gas exploration and exploitation may represent a potential source of drinking water… contamination’. This then is another stumbling block of the PEDL275 Licence Agreement, as according to the Canadian criteria, not only the ‘exploitation’ but also the ‘exploration’ for petroleum constitutes a ‘risk’ to the ‘drinking water’ supply, language which, when converted into the words of the UK PEDL275 Licence Agreement Section 2, is cognate with the ‘Right to Search and Bore for and get Petroleum’. The ‘Right to Search and Bore’, if we accept the Canadian assessment, is under UK Law compatible with the interpretation of ‘potential risk’, and are assessments which rescinds the UK Licence Agreements.

Furthermore, the hazards to local populations are found also in the medical data, which indicates that not only is the integrity of the drinking water defiled, but also that these ‘negative results’ translate into local health outcomes. Detrimental, the damage to human life in relation to fracking is flagged up constantly and is a valid point recognised by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, to quote their own summaries:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 41/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘An emerging body of evidence, from both human and animal studies, shows harm to fertility and reproductive success from exposure to oil and gas operations, at least some of which may be linked to the dozens of known endocrine-disrupting chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing…

A 2017 Colorado study found higher rates of leukaemia among children and young adults living in areas dense with oil and gas wells, while a Yale University research team reported that carcinogens involved in fracking operations had the potential to contaminate both air and water in nearby communities in ways that may increase the risk of childhood leukaemia. The Yale team identified 55 known or possible carcinogens that may be released into air and water from fracking operations. Of these, 20 are linked to leukaemia or lymphoma. Other documented adverse health indicators among residents living near drilling and fracking operations variously include exacerbation of asthma as well as increased rates of hospitalization’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p20

Detailing a number of harmful impacts cited in the study, the findings denote higher figures of hospitalisations tandem to inflated rates of cancer for local residents. Horrific, the litany of health effects however do not stop there, as the industry also undermines the health of small children. Public health problems associated with drilling and fracking include poor birth outcomes, reproductive and respiratory ailments, cancer risks, and occupational health including safety problems, to quote the largest medical study on fracking:

‘Studies of mothers living near oil and gas extraction operations consistently find impairments to infant health, including elevated risks for low birth weight and preterm birth. A 2017 study that examined birth certificates for all 1.1 million infants born in Pennsylvania found poorer indicators of infant health and significantly lower birth weights among babies born to mothers living near fracking sites. A 2015 Pennsylvania study found a 40 percent increase in the risk of preterm birth among infants born to mothers who lived nearby active drilling and fracking sites. A 2014 Colorado study found elevated incidence of neural tube defects and congenital heart defects. New studies in Texas and Colorado likewise found associations with infant deaths, high-risk pregnancies, and low birth weight. A 2017 pilot study in British Columbia found elevated levels of muconic acid – a marker of benzene exposure – in the urine of pregnant women living near fracking sites’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p19

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 42/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To conclude this section, if the PEDL275 Licence Agreement goes ahead and as a result subjects the local water supplies to pollution, the course of action can be shown to be in breach both of the Human Rights Act and the European Directives on Clean Water. As already highlighted, the largest study ever completed by the ‘Health Care Professionals of New York’ into fracking demonstrated decreased birth outcomes and increased local health problems, and corroborates research also cited within the ‘Environmental Science and Technology, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects’ report by Dr. McKenzie from the University of Colorado, (School of Public Health), who warned the industry that…

‘There is a growing epidemiological literature on the health effects associated with UNG [Unconventional Gas] development. A retrospective study of 124,862 births in rural Colorado indicated an association between maternal proximity to natural gas well sites and birth prevalence of congenital heart defects and neural tube defects… A working paper exploring 1,069,699 births in Pennsylvania reported increased prevalence of low birthweight and small for gestational age births, as well as reduced appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, respiration (APGAR) scores in infants born to mothers living within 2.5 km of a natural gas well compared to infants born to mothers living further than 2.5 km from a well.

Environmental Science and Technology Report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects, 2014, pG

A terrible ‘holocaust’, it is now known what is causing many of these negative birth outcomes and defects. Scientifically, these ‘stressors’ are mentioned in Dr. McKenzie’s detailed report from the School of Public Health Colorado, to quote:

‘Maternal exposure to ambient levels of benzene has been associated with an increase in birth prevalence of neural tube defects’.

Environmental Science and Technology Report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects, 2014, pG

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of ‘benzene’ supplemented with additional details from the Britannica Encyclopedia states that the solvent…

‘Benzene or benzoic acid is a colourless volatile liquid hydrocarbon present in coal tar and petroleum, used in chemical synthesis. Its common usage as a solvent has now been reduced because of its carcinogenic properties. Benzene is highly toxic, and long exposure may cause leukemia’.

Oxford Dictionary of English, 2e Revised, Oxford University Press, 2005 / Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, 2007, [Benzene]

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 43/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

It is contended from the numerous studies that the primary source for birth defects is a mechanism occurring due to the inadvertent exposure of benzene, combined with heavy metals and radioactive chemicals into the water supply through seepage and inadequate disposal of noxious waste. The numerous toxins including benzene and its pathway into the environment and the human organism is a betrayal, in which the petroleum industry and the government can no longer afford to look away, to do so is to ‘Break the Law’.

Incontrovertible, the damage to human life are documented facts derived from multiple sources, which include the University of Colorado. There is no contention or debate fracking hurts babies and possesses long term health effects. Contained within the reports of the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ and confirmed within the University of Colorado’s comprehensive health report, the current data on petroleum extraction contradicts the government’s position that fracking is both safe and legal. With so many studies now completed into the dangers of Unconventional Gas Development, there is strong and cogent evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) that the waste products of the petroleum industry are extremely toxic for the human being. For further information, please see ‘Resources’ at the end of this report, detailing numerous scientific papers validating the medical stance that fracking is unsafe.

Under UK Law expressed within the Environmental Act 1995, it is illegal to wilfully ‘Cause Harm’, in this case known ‘birth defects’, articulated in the Colorado study as ‘elevated incidence of neural tube defects and congenital heart defects’. Accumulative, these developmental problems are concurrent with the sizeable depreciation of healthy babies born to communities, which ‘tolerate’ industrial fracking, outlined in the studies of ‘Texas and Colorado [relative to] associations with infant deaths, high-risk pregnancies, and low birth weight’. The issue of harm is a position which is covered in the UK Environmental Act 1995, to quote:

(4) “Harm” means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes harm to his property.

(5) The question

(a) What harm is to be regarded as significant. (b) Whether the possibility of significant harm being caused is significant. (c) Whether pollution of controlled water is being or is likely to be caused.

Environmental Act 1995, Part II, p49

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 44/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To address the ABCs of the Environmental Act 1995 equated with the infliction of ‘Harm’, we can note the following points:

(a) Documented congenital heart and neural tube defects in babies and

children are ‘significant’, as this can lead to loss of life and or quality of life. In relation to population vulnerability to NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials), there exists many instances, in which exposure to these agents are so high that consuming these toxic substances in water would invariably lead to higher mortality rates, in the words of the ‘Concerned Professional of New York’, ‘increased rates of hospitalization’ .

(b) The question of ‘hypothetical risk’, in this case ‘possible risk’, has

switched to ‘actual risk’ as laid out by the empirical data from Colorado University, Texas and Pennsylvania. In the UK, it is conceded in the Medact report that due to the shale formations the risk to human life compared to the United States could be many times greater, to quote ‘In the UK, shale formations are thick and geologically faulted, features that increase health and environmental risks associated with fracking when compared to the US… [In] areas that are well populated, the risk to public health would be considerable’.

(c) Fundamentally the pollution of the water is at the real heart of the

problem, because the dilution of toxic waste ‘reduces relative risk’, in the words of the Environmental Act 1995, ‘mitigates or remedies risk’, but when dumped into water causeways elevates ‘actual risk’ – from which the injury of the local population is ‘unlawful’, a premise which is not conjectural but is substantiated in the American data. The conclusion therefore which we can gather from the results of the study is that fracking operations will poison the people in Yorkshire and is therefore under current legislation illegal.

In short, the UK Government are not only endangering local residents to ‘increased risks’, but are also exposing the next generation of children to ‘real risks’. As shown in the American medical reports already cited, the genuine hazards attributed to fracking include chemical exposures ingested and inhaled through contaminated water and air supplies. This is not supposition but is supported in the medical data. The same points are also documented in the UK Report, ‘A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom’. The authors of the report list the following risks, to quote:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 45/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Risks from Fracking 1.2 – Risks and Uncertainties Fracking is associated with a range of risks to health and/or the environment. Among the principal concerns are:

  • Risk of surface water and soils contamination from surface spills
  • Risk of groundwater contamination from leaks at depth
  • Poorly designed or maintained wells and risk of well casing failures over time
  • Radiation risks to surface and groundwater from documented radiation in waste fluids and drill cuttings.
  • Increased pressure on and competition for water resources. [For this point, please refer to the European argument on the issue of ‘Water Security’ tied to ‘National Security’ which the Secretary of State is obligated to protect, and lies

behind the French Government banning fracking].

  • Impact on local air quality of direct emissions from drilling sites at each stage of the process;
  • Traffic, noise, light and dust pollution associated with fracking operations;
  • Risk of spills from improper disposal of waste fluids and drill cuttings
  • Seismic risks associated with injection well disposal of waste fluids
  • Impact on climate change caused by fugitive emissions and the

subsequent burning of gas;

  • Landscape disruption;
  • Compromised land stability [i.e. earthquakes and the collapse of local structures]

A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom, 2014, p7

Frightening, the long summary of community and local affronts brings us on to our next segment of this report, which focuses on the incompatibility of ‘Human Rights’ and the implementation of fracking – a correspondence detailed in the next section.

(4) Human Rights On 28 July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the Human Right to ‘water’ and ‘sanitation’, and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation of all Human Rights. In November 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment No. 15 on the ‘Right to Water’. Comment No. 15 also defined the ‘Right to Water’ as the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. Article I.1 states that:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 46/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights. The water required for each personal or domestic use must be safe, therefore free from micro-organisms, chemical substances and radiological hazards that constitute a threat to a person’s health’.

General Comment No.15, Article I.1, 2002

Under European Law, the dilution of radioactive waste by dumping it into the River Aire is illegal by the stipulations set out by the commission which states water should ‘[not] constitute a threat to a person’s health’. In addition to the Human Rights Article I.1, the paragraph refers to both ‘chemical substances and radiological hazards’, in which the process of fracturing rocks for gathering petroleum is known to introduce these and other toxic elements into the environment.

Compulsory, the regulations are very clear under the Human Rights Articles; any attempt to contaminate water constitutes a Breach of Law and is a criminal offence. This premise can be substantiated as follows: We can define ‘water that is safe’, if it causes no ‘harm’ or ‘toxicological effects’, and radionuclides are proven to be a ‘toxic agent’, which therefore pose a real and genuine risk to human life. The basis of ‘harm’ is associated with the poisonous wastewater from fracking, in particular its contamination of local supplies, to quote the findings of toxicologists from the University of Iowa discussing the toxicity of fracking wastewater, whose research recorded the following concerns:

‘April 2, 2015 – A team of toxicologists, geochemists, and radiation scientists led by the University of Iowa analyzed the contribution of various naturally occurring radioactive materials NORM [Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials] to the total radioactivity of fracking waste fluids, finding evidence of long-lived, environmentally persistent radioactive decay products. “NORM is emerging as a contaminant of concern in hydraulic fracturing/unconventional drilling wastes. The study determined that previous testing and study methods likely underestimate radioactivity by focusing only on radium.

The researchers developed a new method to accurately predict the concentrations of uranium, thorium, and radium and their alpha-emitting progeny, polonium and lead, in fracking wastewater. They found that, under certain conditions, radioactivity increased over time, due to ingrowth of alpha- emitting radioactive progeny of long-lived parent radionuclides such as radium. The authors warned that these decay products may potentially contaminate recreational, agricultural, and residential areas, and that a more detailed understanding is needed of how radionuclides accumulate in higher organisms.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 47/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

In an accompanying article in Environmental Health Perspectives, James Burch, a University of South Carolina epidemiologist who was not involved in the study, said that fracking activities and wastewater disposal, which often take place in close proximity to where people live and work, raise risks for human exposure. “The technology is vastly outpacing what we know about the health effects.”’

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, pp95-96

An exhaustive study, the authors noted that deadly radionuclides such as ‘radium’ may contaminate ‘residential areas… where people live and work’… and by default ‘raise[s] the risk for human exposure’. An area of genuine concern, the report recognised that the problem with radionuclides is that the risk from fracking over time may not diminish but actually increase. In this respect, ‘radiological hazards [are therefore considered to] constitute a threat to a person’s health’. On the issue of fracking and its cessation in the UK, the report titled ‘A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom’, assessed the following relevant observations:

‘This Report argues that the UK Government has a clear and urgent duty to fully investigate the human rights implications of fracking before authorising any exploratory or extractive fracking operations in the UK. It strongly recommends a moratorium on the conduct of fracking operations until such a time as a full, industry-independent, publicly funded Human Rights Impact Assessment has been properly undertaken and placed in the public domain’.

A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom, 2014, p4

The following evaluation is quoted from a recent report, prepared for the Right Honourable George Osborne MP (HM Treasury) and looks into the legal implications of fracking comparative to Human Rights. On the issue of a ‘Human Rights Impact Assessment’, if the government follows the letter of the law, not only has the Treasury got ‘a clear and urgent duty to fully investigate the human rights implications of fracking’, but according to the Environmental Act 1995 it has a ‘legal imperative’. Moreover, if we are a little more objective, the ‘data points’ have already been published and we now know quantifiably that, according to 69% of peer reviewed studies in the United States on fracking, unconventional petroleum extraction, impacts upon ‘water quality… [and or the] potential for, or actual evidence of, water contamination’ . The figures include over a 1,000 confirmed cases of water contaminated by dirty drilling operations and another 743 instances of all types of oil and gas operations polluting groundwater in Mexico.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 48/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To restate, the dangers are ‘already known’. If we are resolute in our critical objections, the coordination of a ‘Human Rights Impact Assessment’ or a moratorium on the conduct of fracking operations is in essence meaningless. To emphasize, this is because a moratorium implies that the evidence is ‘incomplete’ or is ‘not known’ and this is simply ‘not true’. Fracking, according to the studies and evidence submitted, endangers human life and is therefore illegal. The strategy of calling for a moratorium, Latin ‘mora’ (delay), is itself a legally questionable strategy, as fracking should not be ‘delayed’ but is actually required by law to be ‘stopped’. ‘Delaying fracking’ therefore is ‘illegal’, as the evidence is unequivocal. A full examination of the legal arguments (if applied according to the law) compels the industry to stop its operations immediately, under the threat of violating the penal codes. The point regarding ‘Water Security’ and its ‘lawful protection’ from unconventional gas extraction is vindicated by the French Government and its permanent banning of fracking. It is argued in this report that ‘Water Security’ equals ‘National Security’, in which the ‘Secretary of State’ is mandated to protect, in his capacity as ‘Minister of State’.

Cynically the moratorium is an attempt by the industry to stall, whilst it continues with its Human Rights violations, contraventions which are illegal under UK Law. The UK’s responsibilities towards its citizens are listed in the recent report, ‘Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom’. Inclusive, the report lists the codes which the government are obliged by law to respect, to quote:

2.1 – Duties of UK Government ‘The UK is legally bound to respect and to protect human rights, both under the auspices of its own Human Rights Act 1998, and of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR). The UK is also bound to respect multiple and interlocking standards under international human rights law – which includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Further specific human rights instruments of relevance include the European Social Charter, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the 1998 ‘Aarhus’ Convention which provides rights of access to information, to participation and to justice in environmental matters – and which draws extensively upon international human rights law’.

A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom, 2014, pp11-12

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 49/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

In other words, the citizens of Yorkshire have a right to the ‘protection of human life’, a concept enshrined in Article 2 (1) the ‘Right to Life’, to quote:

Article 2 (1) ‘Everyone’s Right to Life Shall be Protected by Law’.

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 (1), 1998

Unambiguous, the ‘Right to Life’ has powerful and direct implications for the use of fracking technologies and contaminants in the UK. The ‘Right’ establishes that no one may be intentionally deprived of his or her life and can be interpreted more broadly as the ‘Right’ to ‘security of person and to bodily integrity’. In the environmental context, Article 2 (1) is also applicable, when activities are harmful to the environment or endanger human life.

The ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) has interpreted Article 2 (1) to include not only negative state obligations to prevent deaths arising from State actions, but also positive obligations of protection. This in essence means that Nation States are under an obligation to actively take action to protect the ‘Right to Life’ from threats by persons or activities, not directly connected with the State. This definition can be understood to mean third parties, private industries or enterprises. The ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) has held that this ‘Right’ can be infringed by the failure of the State to inform residents living near potentially dangerous sites, or alternatively the spilling of any environmental hazards. The measures also include failure to take practical steps to avoid safety risks, as well as negligence by the use of a ‘defective regulatory framework or planning policy’, in the words of the RSPB:

‘Our analysis [of fracking] suggests that the current regulatory regime is not fit for purpose and therefore unable to adequately manage serious environmental risks that may arise from individual projects and cumulative developments, such as species disturbance, water stress and inevitably the residual risk around pollution. Additionally, there is a significant risk that taxpayers and third parties could be forced to pick up liability for damage caused’.

Angling Trust, National Trust, RSPB, Salmon and Trout Association, The Wildlife Trust, WWT, March 2014

The interpretation of Human Rights, specifically the European Convention, has clear relevance accordingly for the potential lawfulness of fracking operations, whose ‘defective regulatory framework’ opens the government up to legal challenges, in the words of the RSPB, ‘Our analysis [of fracking] suggests that the current regulatory regime is not fit for purpose and therefore unable to adequately manage serious environmental risks’.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 50/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The point which also needs to be emphasized is that we are not dealing with incidental environmental accidents, but are contending with ‘serious environmental risks’, which if not ‘regulated’ adroitly will be legally construed as a transgression against ‘Human Rights’. The fundamental problem however is that the risk of fracking is ‘unacceptable’, as it cannot be managed ‘safely’ and is therefore ‘illegal’, a point made eloquently by the ‘Concerned Professionals of New York’, to repeat:

‘Our examination of the peer-reviewed medical and public health literature uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p15

In the example outlined, it can be argued that fracking on the face of probable risk is illegal, as the majority of fracking industries, according to peer reviewed studies in the United States, have been demonstrated to pollute water. In respect to the prevention of environmental risk, if the UK Government persists with fracking, it has a clear duty to the County of Yorkshire to ship in millions of gallons of clean water for the sole use of local residents. If we recall such measures were required by the Federal Government in the United States, in which the ‘local authorities [of the Monongahela river] issued a drinking water advisory to 350,000 people in the area [due to contamination]’…

In the case of Yorkshire, this package would also include bathing water, as many of the contaminants from unconventional petroleum drilling can be absorbed through the skin. Case Law 70 makes it clear that the State has a positive obligation to take measures to prevent any infringement compromising the ‘Right to Life’, which in this context would account for industrial pollution. A ‘Statuary Right to Life’, the legal duty to protect that ‘Right’ falls upon Westminster. Failing the National Government’s due exercise of care, the burden of responsibility is focused upon the Local Councils (Leeds and Wakefield), who are legally tasked to caution the Government against ‘potential risk’ and, if need be, take the Secretary of State to Court. To reiterate, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) imposes an obligation on the State and its Local Authorities to protect life:

Article 2 (1) ‘Everyone’s Right to Life Shall be Protected by Law’.

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 (1), 1998

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 51/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Put into perspective, the Public Authorities and Utility Companies must consider the ‘Right to Life’, when making decisions that might put regional citizens in danger or affect their quality of life. In local regions that are conducting ‘petroleum exploration’, Yorkshire Water would under judicial review be mandated to produce science reports on the ‘effects’ of contamination from fracking. The argument would follow that if millions of gallons of radioactive water is poured into the River Aire, then the Water Companies would have to produce reports, and tell their share holders of the findings, which in theory could expose Hutton Energy and Coronation Limited to legal challenges, including compensation and clean up costs.

In Japan referenced in Appendix 2 Itai Itai Byou (Pain Pain Disease), human suffering caused through dumping industrial waste into the local river cost the average annual health expense (in 1992) 743 million yen in compensation. An additional 1.75 billion yen was allotted per year for agricultural damage, with added costs, annual total of 2.515 billion yen. Another 620 million yen was invested yearly to reduce further pollution of the river. According to the Nipponese Government, 2,000 acres of fertile farming land was lost due to pollution.

This then leads on to the relevant discussion of who is responsible for the safeguarding of the environment and local wellbeing. Strong evidence demonstrates that the Water Companies themselves are not satisfied with the Government’s explanations, regarding the ‘safe disposal’ of contaminated water through dilution. This is because the Water Companies rightly fear litigation, and from a legal perspective the Government’s assurance does not mitigate ‘risks’, as many of the hazards surrounding fracking waste are already ‘known’ and ‘published’. As previously mentioned Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly clearly stipulates the ‘Human Right’ to ‘water’ and ‘sanitation’, and recognises that ‘clean drinking water’ and ‘sanitation’ are essential to the realisation of ‘All Human Rights’.

The Secretary of State therefore under the ‘Articles of the Human Rights Act’ has to ensure ‘Everyone’s Right to Life [a promise that is] Protected by Law’. To recapitulate, Public Authorities are at liberty to consider the ‘Right to Life’, when making decisions regarding the general population. In this document, we have called to attention to dozens of studies that question the prevailing convention that maintains that ‘fracking is safe’. We can confidently state that the proposal for the PEDL275 License under the EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) is a breach of UK and European Law, and is in violation of the Human Rights Article Resolution 64/292.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 52/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The ‘best science’ to date does not support the Government’s decision to extract petroleum, and if it continues down the path of ignoring the evidence, the State will be contravening National and International Law. The Secretary of State and his Government therefore has a legal ‘Care of Duty’ to ‘Safeguard’ the population and examine the medical studies, which highlight the consequences of unconventional petroleum extraction upon health. Already available, this information predominantly is published within the United States and quoted abundantly throughout this report. This is a matter of urgency and failure to do so runs the real risk of ‘negligence’ and judicial proceedings against the government in light of the new medical evidence presented and collated in the ‘Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition March 2018.

A potential disaster, the detriment of human health paralleled to fracking operations is summed up in the UK by Dr. Tim Thornton. This is yet another Doctor, who has pleaded with the authorities to use common sense and more importantly to exercise jurisprudence in their legal duty to ‘safeguard’ Yorkshire Citizens. In his formal statement to ‘North Yorkshire County Council Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee’, responding to Third Energy’s planning application to frack at Kirby Misperton, 20 May 2016: Dr. Thornton stated the facts:

‘Overall there has been an analysis of the science relating to fracking and public health which has shown over 80% of papers and reviews demonstrating significant risk of harm or actual harm to public health’.

Dr. Tim Thornton, Statement to North Yorkshire County Council Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee Considering Third Energy Planning Application to Frack at Kirby

Misperton, 20 May 2016

Disseminated throughout the majority of medical papers is the repetition of the uncomfortable truth of ‘significant risk… or actual harm to public health’, an arbitration which is not contested and is shown in 80% of the peer reviewed literature. The severe assertions made by Dr. Thornton indicate that the move by the government to ignore the attested risks is a wilful and wanton act of non- compliance of Statuary Law. Translated in common parlance – the culprits that poison or harm local populations can be imprisoned. To restate, if the Secretary of State decides to press ahead with fracking, then he will have to demonstrate that the 80% of peer reviewed medical studies are not factually based.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 53/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

A contradiction of fantastical proportions, this massive reversal of current scientific knowledge would force ‘genuine doubt’, a position not allowed under the current Water Articles, which are designed to protect the general public from ‘potential harm’. As previously highlighted by Gareth Turner (Well Service Group), the idea that fracking is ‘safe if done properly’ is completely bogus and contradicts all of the large scale epidemiological studies completed in the United States, research corroborated in the UK by Medact’s own inflammatory report. On the issue of industrial reliability, if we indulge the government and take the time to consider the erroneous argument that fracking is ‘safe if done properly’, the judicial ruling itself (if accepted in a Court of Law) would force an impass on hydraulic drilling. This is because 80% of studies of cases on record show fracking to be ‘mostly dangerous’ and ‘69 percent of original research studies on water quality found potential for, or actual evidence of, water contamination’.

In light of the formidable evidence against unconventional extraction, the issuing of Licences would be impossible to implement. This is because the outcome of such an unlikely judgement that fracking is innocuous, if accepted in a Court of Law, would lead to the ‘Uncertainty Principle’ being enacted lawfully. In essence, the ruling would be required to consider the ‘risk element’, a deadlock which would result in the prohibition of fracking, in order to protect the ‘general public from potential risk’.

The conjecture outlined however is purely hypothetical, as there is ‘no evidence to date’ that fracking, when examined in context to the majority of case studies, can be conducted safely. According to Medact UK, the serious risk factors in their own research are a cause for apprehension and ‘builds [upon] the knowledge, expertise and work of many scientists and individuals whose papers, reports and reviews are referenced’… in their own words ‘450 peer-reviewed studies, reviews and commentaries’. The Medact Report in the UK conclusively establishes a lack of empirical evidence for the safety of fracking and also highlights a number of major concerns, to quote:

‘Fracking… produces a variety of health hazards, and impacts negatively on the natural world… The health effects of these different hazards vary depending on the type and pattern of human exposure. But they include increased risks of cancer, respiratory disease and birth defects’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, pp2 & 5

Repeated over and over again, the statement deduced from ‘Medact’ is not a ‘surmisal’, nor is it a ‘theory’, but is a ‘fact’, fracking ‘produces a variety of health hazards… [and] include increased risks of cancer, respiratory disease and birth defects’. To emphasize, the genuine assertions made by Medact UK contradict

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 54/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

the government’s viewpoint that unconventional gas extraction is ‘safe’, a minority position which in weight of the overwhelming evidence is ‘illegal’. This same stance held by Medact is also upheld by the majority of the member states of the European Union and this is because the evidence is clear that fracking injures people and contaminates the water.

To recapitulate, if Medact’s own study is neglected, the government and its collusion with the fracking industry will be breaking UK and European Law, and could be subject to prosecution under the Water Act. With regards to Medact’s commissioned report in the United Kingdom, its own regulatory body has insisted that the UK Government needs to stop immediately their plans to frack, to quote Medact:

‘The risks and serious nature of the hazards associated with fracking, coupled with the concerns and uncertainties about the regulatory system, indicate that shale gas development should be halted until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment is undertaken.

Such an assessment has not been conducted yet, and would need to: account for all the potential risks to health, including their cumulative and compound effects on each other; be tailored to the specific geological, economic, environmental and social characteristics of the areas targeted for fracking; be based on projected levels of fracking at an industrial scale; and be conducted by a body that is entirely independent of the shale gas industry. The cost of an adequate regulatory system would also need to be factored in. But given that shale gas may deepen the serious threats posed by climate change, there are compelling and important grounds to abandon the policy of shale gas development altogether’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p6

It is worth taking a little time to draw attention to the government’s failure to comply with the law. Medact’s criticisms first of all focus on ‘The risks and serious nature of the hazards associated with fracking, coupled with the concerns and uncertainties about the regulatory system’. The aforementioned statement suggests that Westminster’s policy of disregarding risk assessment is in direct opposition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This states that the government must be proactive, in their own words ‘the failure of the State to protect citizens including failure to take practical measures to avoid safety risks, or ‘defective regulatory framework or planning policy’ is by definition illegal.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 55/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

According to Medact UK, ‘Such an assessment has not been conducted yet’, and is a point of law which is stipulated under the Environmental Act of 1995. Medact continues, ‘[this] would need to: account for all the potential risks to health, including their cumulative and compound effects on each other’, risk factors which according to the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ (2018) are compounded by the fact that ‘chlorinated water chemically increases waste toxicity’, [and is]‘highly toxic to mammalian cells’, an issue for the supply of UK water.

As we have seen throughout the list of impairments attributed to fracking, ‘there are compelling and important grounds to abandon the policy of shale gas development altogether’, a blazon attitude stated in Medact’s own summary of the ‘serious nature of the hazards associated with fracking’. From a legal perspective, the key words used by Medact include the ‘serious nature of the hazards’. Increasingly there is not only a real danger of contamination from the water, but also environmental pollution linked to ‘climate change’.

In light of the ‘best evidence’ presented in this document ‘Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking’ (YLMAF), in conjunction to research compiled by Medact UK Report (2015) and the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ (2018), the government must diligently and objectively analyse all new material as a matter of urgent priority. The Secretary of State closing his eyes to the most recent data and pretending it does not exist is not an option. A dereliction, this indifference amounts to a remiss of professional practice and codes of duty. To be clear, falling back on outdated studies and repeating the government mantra, “Everything is safe and effective. No need to worry” ad infinitum is neither ‘best practice’ nor legal. The scientific concerns highlighted in this paper are ‘real’ and should not be dismissed lightly. For further details on the latest scientific studies, please refer to ‘Other Resources and Related Articles on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking’. This information can be found at the end of this report.

To repeat, the onus of proof is to establish that the industrial standards which relate to fracking are safe. This document openly and lawfully questions that assumption and the prevailing senselessness of conforming to that position. Over the course of this report, we have shown indubitably that controversy exists with reference to unconventional petroleum extraction and its side effects on local populations including documentation of negative health effects. To reiterate, if there is even the smallest of doubt concerning the safety of boring for petroleum, then the local authority with or without the consent of Westminster must on this information alone take legal initiative and actively halt fracking schemes and their Licences. From an official perspective, Leeds and Wakefield Councils only

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 56/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

have to possess a minimal cause for suspicion that fracking can cause injury to take Court Proceedings against the government. The Medact UK’s most recent report and comparative research into fracking programmes makes it patently clear that there exists real and probable concern, and it is therefore the responsibility of the Local Councils to listen to those scientific solicitudes.

In this document, the majority of information we have published is five years old or less and therefore contemporaneous to the review panel. The material presented to the government deals with scientific knowledge that is known about exposure to benzenes, heavy metals, nuclides and their harmful effects. Above all other considerations at a local level, the Yorkshire Councils and Yorkshire Water are legally tasked with looking after the local welfare of citizens. It can be argued that ‘no action’ on this subject in respect of the new evidence at hand, i.e. to let the policy of fracking in heavily built up urban regions and permit the PEDL275 Licence to slip through the local net without dissent from Council members, is tantamount to ‘negligence’.

In addition, such a cause of action would constitute a fundamental failure of professional duty and care to the local people. As private citizens concerned about the local community and wishing to see that Wakefield and Leeds and its Municipal communities in the County of Yorkshire ‘thrive’, we will at a larger level hold Government Ministers legally accountable for their actions, including contractors who are eager to develop the petroleum industry within town and city areas with little regard or consideration for the wellbeing of local populations.

To further assist with these validations, ‘Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking’ (YLMAF) will quote from the systematic report, issued by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking. Up to date, this work discusses the toxicity levels ascribed to unconventional oil and gas extraction, a body of research completed in 2018. Indispensable, this research paper from the American Academies will be further examined during the course of this document and is one of multiple studies which form the basis for the legal arguments against fracking – a vindication accepted within the French Courts. To recollect, the French Government banned fracking, due to the inherent dangers associated with the contamination of French Water, which its government successfully argued that the unconventional drilling industry had adverse repercussions for French National Security. Legally sound, the same dissensions are an extension of the UK argument.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 57/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Compelling, the evidence derived from France and the United States indicates that the Secretary of State’s issuance of the PEDL275 Licence to Coronation (Oil and Gas) Limited and Hutton Energy PLC is ‘premature’ and furthermore in context to British and European Law illegal. Assessment of the ‘best evidence’ has unreservedly proven from the majority of independently peer reviewed studies that the government’s own endorsement of fracking has benefited corporate interests over human health. The growing consensus amongst experts and specialists is that the fracking business model constitutes ‘significant risk’ to State Security.

Consistently the threat of potential injury has been underplayed in the UK’s commissioned for purpose Public Health’s report into fracking. Dismissive in tone, these real concerns have been increasingly ignored or glossed over by paid scientists and medical bodies, which are beholden to government policy. In the case of Public Health England’s controversial report, its general tolerance of fracking continues to maintain a prejudicial summary that is not found in the medical literature. Prodigious, the current evidence to date established in the largest numbers of peer reviewed studies is that unconventional petroleum extraction cannot be done safely without considerable risk.

As already determined, the French Government have ruled in their Court of Law that ‘fracking is not safe’ and poses real dangers in respect to the contamination of local water supplies. The inference is that the pollution of water endangers State Security, from which the Secretary of State is compelled to protect. Put simply, the integrity of drinking water is a matter of state urgency.

In essence, the growing medical disputation that accepts the prevailing orthodoxy that fracking is ‘safe’ or the risks are acceptable (a viewpoint espoused in the Public Health England report) is, when deconstructed, a minority position and is a conclusion that is not accepted in the majority of peer reviewed studies. A public threat, the ‘peril of fracking’ subverts ‘Common Welfare’ and has overriding concerns for ‘National Well-being’ and ‘State Security’. Behind the rhetoric and obfuscation, there is a clear cautionary ‘signal’, a lucid indicator that is beginning to emerge primarily through the publication of new and revised data. Progressively evident, the ‘mixed noise’ and visible contradictions adopted by Public Health England’s scientific jargon warrants immediate and careful investigation from both legal and medical practitioners.

On the surface, the government’s insistence that ‘fracking is safe’ contradicts important systematic studies conducted throughout America, France, Australia, and Germany. A primary and underlying weakness with the research commissioned in the UK is that the assurances from Government Ministers are

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 58/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

only concerned with reviewing data from short term studies into populations exposed to long term risks! The prolongation of general health outcomes are, when analysed, associated with lifetime exposure to carcinogenetic and radioactive materials.

This then leads to questions surrounding the ethicality of dumping radioactive waste material and heavy metals in water supplies without the informed consent of the local population, additional to how you would even begin to study the risks. A moral question, the legal argument against human experimentation, in this respect ‘whole populations’, is set out in the Helsinki Declaration, to quote sections 7 and 8:

Helsinki General Principles: (7) Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote and ensure respect for all human subjects and protect their health and rights.

(8) While the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects.

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Principles for Medical Research, Involving Human Subjects, World Medical Association, 2013, pE1

The standards and codes of conduct on human medical subjects are framed within the Helsinki Declaration. In other words, conducting studies on human beings regarding the safety of fracking and its toxicological effects are not permitted under the law. In short, there is no basis for such a type of study, and in conclusion the ‘experimental methods’ concerning the extraction of petroleum and gas running in the UK are currently illegal.

Placatory, the government’s insistence that fracking can be completed without hazard rejects several important competing research papers that questions the industry’s safety record. Moreover, the economic ‘advantages’ of digging for petroleum are orientated towards ‘unacceptable risk’. To call attention to the associated dangers concerning fracking is an imperative, particularly as the ‘relative risks’ to date have not been properly ascertained within the UK studies, a legal position held sacrosanct in the German Courts.

Other areas of interest which have been glossed over by the UK Government are the real concerns regarding the fracturing of geological fault lines. Damage to these natural fault lines have been proven to cause earthquakes and considerable destruction to property. In such a scenario, it has not been adequately addressed by the Secretary of State – which party would be held

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 59/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

responsible for earthquake damage, and more importantly who picks up the bill, Hutton Energy PLC, Coronation (Oil & Gas) Limited, the insurance companies, the government or the local people?

Once again, the impact of sizeable earthquakes due to unconventional petroleum extraction demonstrates real imperilment to life and property, which when reviewed in context to the United States have seriously detracted from the economic argument that fracking generates revenue. This is because the profit margins relative to fracking enterprises are, to begin with, very ‘negligible’ and when these ‘assets’ are factored in with the millions of pounds of damage to buildings, including drinking water and agricultural land, the overarching evidence is that unconventional mining is neither profitable to the ‘National Interest’ nor amenable to ‘State Security’. The issue of earthquakes relating to the industry is a concern underscored by numerous geologists, to quote the studies of Dr. Dave Healy, Senior Lecturer in Geomechanics, Scotland:

‘Fracking inherently involves geomechanical risks – i.e. the injection of large volumes of pressurised water at depth will, by design, alter the in situ stress state and change the propensity of existing fractures to open or faults to slip, and possibly result in seismic activity (i.e. earthquakes)’.

Dr. Dave Healy, Senior Lecturer in Geomechanics, Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts, University of Aberdeen, 2012, p6

The assertion that earthquakes occur due to fracking is not just postulation, but is demonstrated both in the United States and also in the UK, a viewpoint collated in the research conducted by Dr. Healy, to quote:

‘Two recent earthquakes near Blackpool in the UK have been attributed to fracking treatments applied at the nearby Preese Hall 1 well of Cuadrilla Resources. Detailed and comprehensive analyses by third parties after the earthquakes has shown that the most likely cause of the seismic activity was slip in a previously unmapped, highly permeable fault zone located near the base of the well (de Pater and Baisch, 2011; Geosphere, 2011). Diversion of much of the pumped water into this fault zone eventually led to the relief of sufficient stress to allow the fault to move, on at least two separate occasions, both events occurring shortly after large volume water injections at the well head’.

Dr. Dave Healy, Senior Lecturer in Geomechanics, Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts, University of Aberdeen, 2012, p9

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 60/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Detailed, Dr. Healy’s report shows ‘cause and effect’, which in the ‘Blackpool Incident’ is attributed to large volumes of water being pumped into a fault zone resulting in the occurrence of at least two separate earthquakes. What is disconcerting about the ‘Lancashire Quake’ is that although the risk factors are difficult to assess geologically, the lack of ‘foreknowledge relating to the interior mapping of geological terrain’ suggests that legally the contractors were responsible for both the ‘damage to property’ and more significantly the ‘Endangerment of Life’.

In other words, the regulatory regime in the UK was yet again shown to be at fault, a remiss which is both illegal and a breach of the Environmental Act 1995 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 2 (1). The same factors regarding seismic movement are also evident in numerous peer reviewed papers contained within the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ Report, to quote a section of their own exhaustive study which cited the following serious allegations:

‘Earthquakes are a Proven Consequence of Drilling and Fracking-Related Activities in Many Locations’. ‘Several major studies, using different methodologies, have confirmed a causal link between the injection of fracking wastewater in disposal wells and earthquake swarms. Using structural geology analysis, a 2017 study of the Fort Worth basin showed that a recent swarm of small earthquakes in northern Texas was originating in long-inactive, ancient fault lines in deep formations where fracking wastewater is being injected; human activity is the only plausible explanation. Another recent study using satellite-based radar imagery provided proof that the migration of fracking wastewater into faults increased pressures in ways that triggered a 4.8-magnitude earthquake in east Texas in 2012, while a third study documented the rupture of a fault plane that set off a 4.9- magnitude earthquake in Kansas in 2014 immediately following a rapid increase in fracking wastewater injection nearby.

The number of earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or higher has skyrocketed in Oklahoma since the advent of the fracking boom, with fewer than two per year before 2009 and more than 900 in 2015 alone. The 5.8 earthquake that struck near Pawnee on September 3, 2016 was the strongest in Oklahoma’s history. Felt by residents in five states, the Pawnee quake prompted a state of emergency declaration and an order from state regulators to shut down 67 wastewater disposal wells in the area. In October 2016, the EPA [Environment Protection Agency] recommended a moratorium on the underground injection of fracking wastewater in certain earthquake-prone parts of Oklahoma because regulations had not worked to solve the problem. On November 6, 2013, a magnitude 5.0

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 61/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

earthquake struck Cushing, Oklahoma near the site of the nation’s largest oil hub, where 60 million barrels of crude oil were stored. The quake injured one, damaged more than 40 buildings, closed a school, and triggered evacuations. Oil infrastructure was not damaged. Recent evidence shows that the process of fracking itself can trigger small earthquakes, as several confirmed cases demonstrate’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, pp21-22

The blatancy of the study shows that both the number of earthquakes and their severity are attributed to fracking. In Oklahoma, the addition of approximately 900 earthquakes to factor into the American economy begs the real question – is fracking costing America more money than what it generates? In other word, is unconventional mining harming ‘Gross National Product’, by definition ‘National and Economic Security’? In combination with the extremity of health repercussions, it is a genuine concern that the fracking industry is both out of control and arrogant in its disregard for decency, a perspective articulated in the various reports. A steamroller without direction, the blind indifference the corporations have shown to human life, social and economic, in addition to wildlife ecology is a valid problem, and is an important subject addressed in the next section of this report, which focuses on the environment.

(5) Ecological Concerns To summarise so far, the main argument against unconventional petroleum and gas extraction relates to the contamination of the water supply. This toxicology is difficult to reverse and impacts future generations. (Please refer to Appendices 2 and 3 ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease) and Minamata Byou (Minamata Disease), Japan. In view of these observations, it is imperative that we act now to preserve the world’s fresh water supply from the illegal dumping of industrial waste.

The agenda is real – there is in place a systematic plan to introduce fracking into the UK. These consultations are happening and must be STOPPED! Fracking when examined in context to the medical evidence is a ‘corporate crime’ and by definition is punishable! Water Security without reservation is our number one economic commodity – it is fundamental to ‘Human Life’ (Resolution 64/292), and is even more valuable than ‘Energy Security’. This is because ‘Energy Security’ to a large extent can be mitigated through the immediate adoption of wind and tidal power, whereas contaminated water remains hazardous to human health.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 62/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Complex, the difficulty of cleaning up polluted rivers and drinking water relating to potentially billions of gallons of dirty water is next to impossible as evidenced in Appendices 2 and 3, in which Japan, one of the most innovative and technological nations, has lost over 2,000 acres of prime fertile agricultural land, due to pollution introduced into the Jinzu River, and thereby poisoning the local population. In relation to unconventional mining, the conclusions are self- evident. Toxic, contaminated water from fracking when diluted with clean water means that large irreplaceable amounts of water are extricated from the water table, a deficit which under current technology is irreversible. Short term, this negligence is careless and risks the lives not only ‘individuals’, but also ‘communities’, as demonstrated in the Japanese Cases outlined in the Appendices 2 and 3. The disregard for life and the environment is an imprudence, which is acknowledged in every spiritual teaching, to quote the Wisdom of the Tao Te Ching:

‘Once man interferes with paradise, the sky becomes smokey, Earth’s stillness broken, flowers blackened, the river poisoned, fish depleted, animals hunted, kings and noblemen go back to war… Tyrants bring evil upon themselves Such lessons are primeval: “as you plant so you reap, as you live so you die” Practice the virtue of harmony and let that be your guide’.

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

The Teachings of Lao Tzu are not out of place in the modern world. This is because the Chinese in the ancient world had a centralised system of delivering gas via bamboo pipes to light streets and stoves, thousands of years before the Europeans. In addition, they understood the correspondence between geological faults and mining linked to ‘earthquakes’, in the words of the wise teacher Lao Tzu ‘the Earth’s stillness broken, flowers blackened, the river poisoned, fish depleted’. The summary reads as a keynote speech about the dangers of fracking or in the words of Lao Tzu ‘as you plant so you reap, as you live so you die’.

In this unfortunate situation brought about through ignorance, the king is forced to go to war, because famine is endemic, circumstances ushered into existence through a lack of ‘harmony’ or ‘virtue’ – by definition ‘greed’. A moral tale, this short parable brings us on neatly to the subject of ‘Water Security’. Primary to ‘Economic Success’ and ‘State Security’ are facets, which are dependent upon the issue of ‘Water Security’. If for example the water table locally became contaminated inadvertently, it could kill or injure thousands of people and spell insolvency for Wakefield and Leeds, collectively West Yorkshire – To repeat the mantra, unconventional petroleum extraction is not financially worth the RISK!

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 63/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The enactment of the UK Law regarding the dumping of radioactive material into the water course-way can be summarised in the following two adages:

(A) Absolutely Safe and No Risk = LEGAL (B) Potential Risk or the Management of Adverse Risk = ILLEGAL

In short, it seems the aforementioned deliberations have not in effect been considered or given due attention by the Conservative Government, and the juggernaut oil industry is running ahead at full speed without considering the wider environmental issues. A rollercoaster out of control, the policy of allowing the industry to ‘self-regulate itself’ is heading for an unmitigated disaster. Extremely incoherent, it can be said that for every positive review made by the proponents of the oil industry, equally there exists many intelligent counterarguments.

The published information within the inclusive report ‘Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking’, written by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’, is not ‘conjecture’ but is ‘factual’ and ‘evidence based’. Indeed their own studies recommend the expeditious termination of fracking activities. Not surprisingly, the same intellectual position in the United States is also endorsed by the members of the National Council, whose illustrious institution has also advocated the immediate cessation of fracking. Unequivocal, the ‘best evidence’ to date indicates long term health impairments, associated with unconventional extraction of petroleum in the United States. In summing up, the report submitted in America by the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ is one of the largest ever comparative medical reviews on unconventional mining, and its pages denounce the logic of fracking on the grounds of adverse health effects.

In the UK, the law regarding the oil industry is clear – proper safeguards must underpin all policy on the efficacy and safety pertaining to the commercial production of petroleum and gas. Of primary concern, the central legal proposition relating to fracking must surely hinge upon the reliance that the petroleum industry’s methodologies are ‘safe’ and fit for public service. Of absolute concern, the issue of safety is paramount and if the integrity of water cannot be ‘guaranteed’, then the proposals are not acceptable and neither are they legal! Rather ominous, the archetypical canon of research based upon the oxymoron ‘best evidence’ is being deliberately eroded away by the government’s lack of concern for Yorkshire people and their access to clean drinking water.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 64/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

From a hypothetical perspective, if we take the industry’s stance and argue (counter to the hundreds of medical reports published) that fracking is ‘safe’, the disputation pertaining to unconventional mining cannot still be legally maintained. This is because ‘conflict’ within the data itself suggests ‘ambivalence’, which is not permitted under UK Law!

In a situation where genuine ‘controversy’ exists, caution must exceed public risk, and in fact such action is a legal prerequisite. Without meaning to sound derogative, good science does not deal with ‘best evidence’ but instead with what is ‘known’ and can be extrapolated from the ‘facts’. To call attention to the government’s endeavours, it is lawfully unacceptable to have any degree of ‘uncertainty’, apropos to the activity of removing large amounts of dangerous chemicals and dumping them in the local rivers and landfills. Legally the law does not allow for ‘uncertainty’, if such ambiguity exists, the requirement is simple, the legislation is prescriptive and prevents agents such as benzenes, nuclides or cadmium into the water, dangerous elements that can poison or cause a public hazard. The issue of toxicity and fracking with regards to the environmental concentrations of benzene is addressed by Dr. Lisa McKenzie from the University of Colorado, to quote:

‘The health effects most often associated with benzene include acute and chronic nonlymphocytic leukaemia, acute myeloid leukaemia, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, anaemia and other blood disorders and immunological effects. Occupational exposure to petroleum compounds is also associated with increased risk of eye irritation and headaches, asthma symptoms, and multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma’.

Environmental Science and Technology Report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development, 2014, pD

A toxigenic substance, the heavy elements found within the flowback water from fracking can be construed to be poisonous agents that cannot be introduced lawfully into clean water, when viewed in light of the recently published scientific evidence. Infusion of water with such chemicals constitutes a federal crime within the Member States of Europe. Legally resolute, the law does not permit hazardous chemicals into community supplies of water, which are inherent oversights of the industrial processes associated with unconventional petroleum extraction.

Irrefutable, the fact that benzene and other chemicals have been documented at elevated levels in fracking communities signifies that the exposure of such ingredients in drinking water is ‘harmful’ and, under UK and European Law drafted in the EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC), is in fact illegal.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 65/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Incontrovertible, it can be demonstrably proven that such water is ‘Unwholesome’ and therefore not compliant to the interpretation of the ‘Water Act’, which mitigates against ‘potential risk’.

Looking objectively at the bludgeoning history of corporate health scandals, there is a general and uneasy pattern. This is that when the industrial sector are left quietly alone to fund their own studies, whether it be asbestos, smoking or Mad Cow Disease (BSE), the conglomerate giants always for some reason fail to get it ‘right’ and invariably harm the general public. Consequently the legitimate question that remains unanswered is: Can we afford to trust what we are being told about the ‘relative safety’ ascribed to the fracking industry?

There is a sequence of negative results that questions the rationale of fracking, and these findings are reproduced throughout comparative research evident across the world. Repeated, the figures indicate an inherent problem with the industry – a conclusion that appears with surprising frequency! Undeniable, the documented results presented within this ‘snapshot’ or short survey of studies are not just ‘blips’ on the vast data landscape, but involve systematic programs of research upon ‘large groups of people’, and concern ‘whole populations’. Once again, the question of fracking and its detrimental impact on ‘diverse populations’ are highlighted in many studies, in which the government’s avoidance of the issue is irresponsible and illegal.

In countless examples, the ‘safe results’ relating to the petroleum industry and its favourable acceptance by the American Government have cost an exorbitant price, an expenditure paid for by the ‘public’. Inviolable, the judgement of fracking’s ‘safe record’ is a false interpretation that for the most part is a self- regulating ‘house of cards’ – a conceit that is not substantiated within the medical literature.

It is therefore contended that the introduction of chemicals into the water supply of Yorkshire as a result of hydraulic drilling will (as in other regions of the United States) negatively engender an increase in birth defects. This relative growth in developmental problems in young human foetuses is illegal and can be prevented through the privation of fracking.

This then brings us onto the subject of concern regarding the exposure of children and subgroups to the adverse effects of chemicals associated with the fracking industry, a fundamental point addressed by the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) report on toxic chemicals, a study which stressed the following important factors:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 66/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Children have special vulnerabilities to the toxic effects of chemicals… exposure at critical stages of development may have severe long term consequences’.

WHO Report

In comment to the report, it can be said that children are considered a special ‘subpopulation’, because their health risks can differ from those of adults, as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure, due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight and outdoor play activities. Potentially children are more vulnerable to lower levels of exposure to poisons and are typically considered to be in a higher risk group from underlying toxicity associated with the petroleum industry.

Adding millions of gallons of known contaminants into the rock strata that can potentially lead to ‘poisoning’ and the inevitable reduction of clean water is deliberately breaking the law and under UK Legislation is theoretically punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23). In addition, as nuclides are released from fracking and are demonstrated to act upon the biological systems of the body, the postulation that sections of the population could be negatively affected by fracking is not only a rational argument, but is a probable outcome, as evidenced in numerous studies across the United States.

In summary to the excellent Medact UK Report, the denouement or outcome is unequivocal. Extremely comprehensive and technical, the document outlines in detail the unassailable conclusion that the fracking industry is harmful to the wider population. In general, the devastating impact upon the ‘living systems of the body’ is also fixed into contamination levels, relative to calculated risk. The verification of ‘data-facts’ based and formulated upon the ‘best’ statistical evidence is scientific and suggest intrinsic problems with fracking.

Unconventional petroleum extraction in this report is shown to have a pernicious effect on the body, skeleton and nervous system, and in the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings’ demonstrates medical harm. The study shows that fracking has a clear detrimental effect. These outcomes are associated with a litany of impairments described by the American National Academy of Medicine, these include:

(1) Congenital Birth Defects (2) An Increase in Stillborn Babies (3) Cancer (4) Greater Mortality Rates (5) Higher Hospital Admissions

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 67/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

As we can see, there is a whole group of obnoxious symptoms that are directly equated with the possible ingestion of contaminated water. Perhaps more unexpected is the widespread scientific indifference, concerning the health effects upon the human organism – a lamentable position with regards to the UK Government and its Public Health England Report.

In the broader context of hundreds of scientific peer reviewed studies, research and documented evidence, the complete meta-analysis of data demonstrates ‘human injury’. A comprehensive statistical review of the figures pertaining to the incidence of harm, for example the causation of ‘birth defects’, therefore allows a case to be brought against the UK Government, specifically a public inquest into the particular individuals that head these powerful organisations. Following which, the guilty can be tried in a Court of Law for conspiring with corporate enterprises to contaminate the fresh supply of UK Water. A serious crime, the implications of this matter and its wider consequences for the ruling of related fracking schemes and their Licences throughout Europe should in turn be critically evaluated. An important subject, the issue of culpability is a vital discussion that we will endeavour to explore shortly.

We might also note that, in this information age of scientific ‘facts’, when the figures contradict the agenda, the wheels of industry just keep on turning, and ignore the ‘evidence’. In this dystopia, ‘science’ and ‘statistics’ are both manipulated and the ‘facts’ are transformed into ‘uncertainties’ that can be spun into ‘public opinion’, ‘debate’ or ‘controversy’. When the facts exist independently, we are not dealing with ‘subjective uncertainties’, but ‘objective truths’ that can be tested legally – a viewpoint intrinsic to the implementation of law and regulation.

(6) Fracking and the Enactment of Law This is a very big study area and requires a thorough understanding of the law. Perceived variances recorded within academic and medical literature have severe connotations for the legalisation of petroleum Licences throughout the UK and Europe, in particular the enactment of the Water Laws. The argument regarding ‘wholesome water which is free of contamination’ is worth considering in relation to the government’s acquiescence to petroleum schemes that will lead to statutory legal challenges. The issue of ‘non-legality’ is of paramount importance and informs the basis for the rejection of fracking enterprises throughout the UK. According to the law in the United Kingdom, it is a legal imperative that water companies offer clean uncontaminated water – and to fail to do so is illegal.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 68/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Fracking in context to the law can be shown to ‘constitute a nuisance’. To emphasize, we do not have to prove that fracking is ‘completely safe’, rather the burden of proof is much ‘less’, all that is required is that ‘a potential danger to human health [exists]’ – The Water Supply Regulation Act 2003. Legally therefore the position of ‘absolute proof’ is not actually stipulated, only an indication of ‘relative risk’ or the ‘potential’ to cause ‘harm’ is required. We know that fracking causes medical harm to individuals through the contamination of ground and drinking water.

Supporters of the fracking industry typically argue that demographic statistics are often inadequate for defining ‘levels of risk’. There are a number of sensible issues however that should be applied to the interpretation of the law to prevent ‘theoretical harm’, particularly the concerns regarding statistical analysis and its limitations at outlining accurately levels of ‘uncertainty’. Adequate provisions should therefore be in place to balance ‘risk’ against factors of ‘probability’ that could unintentionally have an adverse effect upon the population.

To avoid this precarious situation, certain underlying circumstances should always be accommodated within statistical variance, for instance in order to militate against potential risk, the highest figure range pertaining to health concerns within any study should always be adopted as a matter of cause. This is not only practical, but arguably is also a legal requirement of the law and its interpretation of ‘potential harm’.

The real issue of fracking agents and flowback waste introduced into the water supply can cause physical injury to local populations, which lead us on neatly to the argument whether unconventional petroleum extraction poses a ‘potential risk’ or legally constitutes a ‘nuisance’. The data unequivocally states that fracking is ‘harmful’. If however we accept for the moment the government’s incredulous position that we need more data to address ‘relative risk’, then the following legal assumptions can be established.

To repeat, if firmer conclusions on possible wider health effects cannot be stated without certainty, then the risk assessment concerning the pollution of local rivers by definition is ‘invalid’ and is therefore ‘illegal’ – under the ‘Uncertainty Principle’. The unethical emphasis of the UK Government to disregard the ‘potential risks of water contamination’ with regard to ‘human life’ and the ‘local population’ is unlawful and violates the first principle of the Human Rights Act Article 2 (1):

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 69/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Article 2 – Right to Life (1) ‘Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law’.

The Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2 (1), United Nations, 1948

As drafted in the Human Rights Article, the Secretary of State by supporting fracking is Breaking the Law. Clear evidence demonstrates that the policy of unconventional mining is ‘unlawful’ and furthermore is a scheme that is provably having a negative effect on the general well-being of populations exposed to this pollution. In other words, fracking in densely inhabited regions is linked to ‘toxicological and adverse health effects’ that are not permitted under the Human Rights Act.

This brings us back to the issue of ‘Wholesome Water’ that, under state sanctioned law, is afforded ‘Absolute Protection’ as an ‘Inviolable Human Right’, and is a minimum statute or an ‘ultra vires’ (a law that goes beyond one’s legal power of authority). The issue of Human Rights is of paramount importance, and concerns also the interpretation of the UK Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation of 2000, Statutory Instruments, to quote:

PART III, WHOLESOMENESS (Section 4, Subsection 2) ‘Wholesomeness: (drinking, cooking and washing) (2) The requirements of this paragraph are –

(a) that the water does not contain –

(i) any micro-organism (other than a parameter) or parasite; or (ii) any substance (other than a parameter), at a concentration or

value which would constitute a potential danger to human health; (b) that the water does not contain any substance (whether or not a

parameter) at a concentration or value which, in conjunction with any other substance it contains (whether or not a parameter) would constitute a potential danger to human health’. The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation 2000, Statutory Instruments, No. 3184, p6

To repeat, the law requires that drinking water is ‘wholesome and clean’, fit for drinking, cooking and washing. Water also has to be ‘free’ from ‘any other substance’ – a stipulation encoded in the EU Directive (98/83/EC), to quote:

‘Water is free from any micro-organisms and parasites and from any substances which, in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health’.

EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC)

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 70/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Stringent, the Directive is clear – it states ‘any substances which… constitute a potential danger to human health’ is illegal. Unequivocal, the requirement in this mandate is explicit. Precautionary so as to protect ‘human life’, the European Directive does not state in its draft that there is a need to avoid ‘absolute risk to human health’. This requirement under the current legislation is not necessary, rather the objective is to avoid only ‘potential danger’. Therefore pretending for one moment that a ‘controversy’ exists regarding that fracking, if properly managed, can be completed ‘safely’ without ‘infliction’, the Secretary of State is still judicially at an impasse and cannot insert himself into the Bill without legal amendment. This is because numerous reports have demonstrated fracking to be injurious to human health, and therefore the ‘potentiality for harm’ outweighs the argument that the industry can be ‘regulated safely’ or without ‘potential risk’.

In conjunction, the introduction and the nature of that ‘risk’, more accurately the ‘relative risk’, cannot be safely determined and therefore in turn cannot be implemented lawfully. This is clearly stated in the EU Water Directive (98/83/EC). For such a prerequisite, the law would have to be revised. Non- compliance to the Statutory Instruments of the Water Act 2000 is a violation of the principle to provide ‘clean and wholesome’ water and is a legal argument that has already been acknowledged within the French Courts. The ‘addition’ of chemicals which can affect the ‘whole-some’ component of ‘water’ is not permitted into the supply chain, defacto. Pollutants from fracking are deemed as ‘toxic’ with serious side effects. Moreover the large amounts of ingredients contained within flowback water have terminal health consequences that under the current law cannot be disposed of safely within public rivers. For this argument, please refer to Appendix 2 ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease), Japan.

The sheer quantity of water that could ultimately translate into billions of gallons denotes that the potential for contamination of the water supply is both ‘real’ and legally ‘actionable’. Furthermore, the ‘potential risks’ regarding the toxicity of the contaminants and their various elements within the water is not a question of debate, but are known and documented empirically – a proposition upheld in the New York Report, to quote:

‘Exposure to increased radiation levels from fracking materials is a risk for both workers and residents. A study demonstrated that radon levels in Pennsylvania homes rose since the advent of the fracking boom, and buildings in heavily drilled areas had significantly higher radon readings than areas without well pads – a discrepancy that did not exist before 2004. The University of Iowa researchers documented a variety of radioactive substances including radium, thorium, and uranium in fracking wastewater and determined that their

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 71/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

radioactivity increased over time; they warned that radioactive decay products can potentially contaminate recreational, agricultural, and residential areas.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s “Findings Statement” noted that naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) are brought to the surface “in the cuttings, flowback water and production brine…” [T]he build-up of NORM in pipes and equipment has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact because it could expose workers handling pipes, for cleaning or maintenance, to increased radiation levels’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, pp23-24

In short, the deduction from the Pennsylvanian studies before and after showed an increased in background radiation levels, and in the Iowa research radioactive substances had negatively affected the wastewater supplies from fracking. Similar findings in New York revealed potential exposure and ‘significant health impact[s]’, which under the interpretation of UK Law is illicit. To clarify, the law expressedly forbids the potential risk of ‘contaminat[ion of] recreational, agricultural, and residential areas’, and if the government is taken to task and is forced into a position of court proceedings, then identified members who are given the responsibility to make executive decisions on fracking schemes could be jailed. This is not idle speculation, but is a requirement of the law.

To reiterate, although the government and their regulatory bodies offer council, it is the responsibility of those individuals tasked with taking the decision, such as the Secretary of State to weigh up the ‘expert advice’, moreover these recommendations given by executive committees can frequently be wrong [i.e. Public Health England], and therefore it is the Secretary’s duty to balance the strength of the evidence in its ‘entirety’, from the spectrum of studies already compiled. This data unreservedly shows that fracking causes general ‘harm’ to populations and is forbidden under the law.

Difficult to repudiate, these genuine concerns suggest that the Licence Agreements should be halted immediately – a lawful position which is advised by Medact UK. The Secretary of State cannot choose Public Health England’s Commissioned for Purpose report over Medact, because of ‘the Uncertainty Principle’, which states that in areas of scientific controversy or medical ambiguity, the Secretary must safeguard ‘potential risk’ and preserve the population in ‘situations of uncertainty’. Being nescient is no defence against culpability, this is because the law does not allow for ‘potential risk’, it requires that the ‘public are safeguarded’. Consultation therefore received from the

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 72/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

government by Public Health England’s detailed and dismissive report concerning the health risks of fracking and its advisory boards are only ‘implicit’ and not ‘definitive’. Essential, the wider implications of the extensive data from the United States must also be examined objectively in conjunction with Public Health England and Medact UK.

The government’s statements on the safety of the fracking industry are not legally binding until tested in Court – and what is more, in France fracking has been abolished, due to real concerns regarding the contamination of the water table. In addition, the same arguments are legally accepted in Scotland, whose moratorium has currently become an effective ban, when the legislation was extended ‘indefinitely’ in October 2017. Fracking therefore is ruled in Scotland as ‘unlawful’. The Scottish Review in particular highlighted the dangerous chemicals and contaminants, which pose a real genuine risk to the general public, to quote their unsettling conclusions:

‘The [industry’s] report claims most fracking chemicals would only have adverse health impacts at “very high concentrations” when much evidence exists on the contrary. The generalized claim that most of these chemicals are safe is problematic and does not give the reader any sense of the number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses which may not be safe’.

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, 2018, p9

The suggestion from the Scottish Review is that fracking chemicals can have health impacts at much ‘lower levels’ than admitted by the industry, in the words of the Scottish Review, ‘when much evidence exists on the contrary’, a euphemism for a ‘lie’. In itself, the admission of the use of very high concentrations of chemicals is a further difficulty, as acknowledged in the report which states that the sheer ‘number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses… may not be safe’. Contrary to the English stance of disregarding the available evidence, the exploitation of large amounts of chemicals documented by the Scottish paper that ‘may not be safe’ are workable definitions within the UK Law and UK Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation of 2000, Statutory Instruments, which require:

‘…that the water does not contain any substance (whether or not a parameter) at a concentration or value which, in conjunction with any other substance it contains (whether or not a parameter) would constitute a potential danger to human health’.

The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation 2000, Statutory Instruments, Part III, Wholesomeness (Section 4 Subsection 2), No. 3184, p6

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 73/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The same law in effect is repeated throughout Europe, to quote:

‘Water is free from… any substances which, in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health’.

EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC)

Transparent, the definition offered by the UK Statuary Instruments and the European Directives highlight the seriousness of the offence of polluting water, a ruling which also impacts upon local Water Authorities. A delicate situation, the Waterboard themselves have to be careful not to be misled by the government’s rhetoric, as they could also be culpable legally for ‘mistakes’. The issue of harm then brings us back to the subject of ‘potential risk’ and the law. The UK and EU Water Directive mandates that ‘Water is free from… any substances which, in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health’. There are no added provisions to this Clause. It does not state that it is permissible to dump millions of gallons of toxic water into the River Aire, as the nullification of ‘potential risk’ is already assumed in the Water Act. Put simply the adulteration of the waterway is therefore considered to be illegal. From a historical perspective, the mining regulations which already existed prior to the fracking corporations were designed to govern waste removal created from the conventional oil and gas industry, and are therefore not applicable to the distinct methodologies associated with fracking, in particular the disposal of radioactive materials. In the UK, in general unconventional petroleum extraction would in essence be using untried and inadequate technologies, to quote ‘The Environmental Law Review’, which stated explicitly:

‘These [regulatory] controls were designed pre-fracking and their application leaves a number of gaps, which may risk harm to human health and / or damage to the environment. Under the current regularity system, the uncertainty and risk associated with fracking is not justifiable’.

Environmental Law Review

In short, the sentence ‘may risk harm to human health’ indicates that fracking is neither ‘justifiable’ nor in context to the law ‘legal’. The list of harmful effects equated with contaminated water correlated with geological fracturing is therefore a malfeasant position and is not permitted. Ubiquitous, the proclivity for the industry to injure populations is widely documented in the United States, and in the UK is unlawful. An indefensible argument, the government adopting the attitude of indifference towards its own citizens is both ‘wrong’ and ‘morally inexcusable’. Looking at the legislation, it is not a question of if the government will be taken to task over this gross violation of constitutional law, but a matter of when…

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 74/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Thus the Local Authority, especially the ‘government’ and their bridge between the industry and the Water Companies, need to be clear when entering the legal arena about the ‘level’ of danger. For example, (hypothetically) if we assume a ‘neutral position’ on fracking and maintain that none of the ‘experts agree’… then the profound lack of coherency within the scientific discourse on the oil industry is legally ‘proscriptive’.

The case of law is clear – in the context of uninformed opinion, there remains no legal ambiguity, because the burden of proof required for the anti-fracking campaign is currently ‘very low’. Factually the law does not require ourselves to validate the experts’ opinions ‘for’ or ‘against’ fracking, what is demanded is to establish if the industry ‘constitute[s] a potential danger to human health’. The French Ruling has already established the legal consensus, an argument fully bolstered by Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Germany and the European Parliament. The evidence and medical opinions are unanimous fracking causes ‘medical harm’. If we however for the sake of argument decide to adopt the spurious position that the industry does not ‘know’, the legal orientation is clear. Until the experts agree, the law is emphatic and protects human life by exercising due care and diligence. In short, the law legislates to avoid contamination, thus to avert ‘potential risk’ perceived or otherwise.

How then do we mitigate against ‘relative harm’, when the ‘risk factor’ though documented extensively in medical literature are in some cases not even acceded to by the government’s own advisory bodies, notably Public Health England’s biased report. Odious, the ‘risk element’ regarding fracking has for the most part been totally downplayed or vilified by Public Health England. A minority viewpoint, Public Health England’s general positive appraisal of unconventional drilling is an anomaly and is unfortunately not acknowledged within the hundreds of science and medical papers documenting the adverse health outcomes of unconventional mining. Please refer to the Resources at the end of this document.

If the government are to proceed with hydraulic drilling, it is not good enough for Public Health England to dismiss or ignore claims that fracking is damaging to health, but rather it must establish in a Court of Law that the ‘450 plus peer reviewed studies’ concerning fracking are wrong or fraudulent. Public Health’s rejection of such a large amount of data out of hand without proving incontrovertibly that the research is incorrect is not compliant with the law’s requirement that ‘potential risk’ is absent.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 75/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Furthermore, the government’s dubious position that fracking is ‘safe’ within a small margin of error is simply inadequate in terms of averting ‘potential harm’, a legal requisite. For the sake of impartiality, let’s take the time to look at the discussion that fracking is either ‘relatively or generally safe’, to quote Gareth Turner, the Managing Director at the Normanton Branch of the Well Service Group, who said in a public statement:

‘… there are huge economic and employment benefits to fracking when done safely’.

Pontefract and Castleford Express, Wakefield Council Says No to Fracking, Unanimous Vote to Oppose the Government, 20 Feb 2016

Upbeat in tenor, the gross generalisations and opinions of Well Service Group are when deconstructed completely unfounded and faulty in their rationalisation. Unsatisfactory, the insistence by Gareth Turner ‘when done safely’ articulates a very weak supposition. To illustrate, we need to be more than clear. The ‘Uncertainty Principle’ underlined by the Director Gareth Turner ‘when done safely’ is in the opinion of this report problematic, a premise which impedes the legal status of fracking schemes. An unsound basis, the idea that fracking is ‘safe’ can be contested, in particular the treatment of hazardous water through dilution measures that are dependent upon ‘risk assessments’ and ‘estimations’.

Grave, the ‘real risk’ is however not known and is therefore not pliant to the definition of the law. The current data from the United States does clearly show that the contamination of water is both real and more critically impacts upon the health outcomes of local communities, an impasse which is illegal. Please refer to Appendix 2 ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease), Japan for a more detailed analysis of what happens when large quantities of chemicals are callously tipped into the local river, an action which thereby poisons the community via the toxic modification of water and agricultural land (food).

The Japanese example is relevant, because the ‘pathway’ for contamination is the ‘river’ and is the same method of disposal put forward for Yorkshire. A diabolical proposal if permitted, the dilution of toxic chemicals through the introduction into waterways will act as a conduit, a vehicle which will unavoidably contaminate the water and food chain. Evidentially the Japanese model concurs with the findings of the ‘Physicians for Social Responsibility’ who note that ‘one of the primary sources of contamination of drinking water supplies is through the processing and disposal of polluted water into the rivers’.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 76/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Unacceptable, this exposure will in the long term invariably poison sections of the local population. From industrial ‘accidents’, we know that the vitiation of water supplies leads to sickness and death and is a real possibility in the case of Yorkshire, because of the amounts of heavy metals and radioactive chemicals which will be dumped. Extremely high, the figures will total millions of gallons and will inevitably lead to ‘harm’ – an unlawful position. It can be argued that the Secretary of State himself has to ‘cause no avoidable harm’, a mandate contained in the Health and Safety Act 2015. The Article of Law continues with the definition as laid out by the Secretary of State and defines ‘cause’ as:

‘5(a) ‘cause’ means cause or contribute to, whether directly or indirectly; and harm is avoidable, in relation to a service…’

Health and Safety Act 2015, Section 1 c28, Subsection (5a)

The service according to the ‘Article of Law’ would refer in the context explained to the supply of ‘Wholesome Water’, i.e. clean water which has not been ‘divided’ or ‘adulterated’. In the explication outlined in the Article, ‘harm’ does not have to be caused directly by a service, in this case by the ‘Well Service Group’ (Normanton Branch) not providing adequate management of wastewater, but instead could be ‘indirect’, for instance ‘not identifying potential hazards’. Unlawful, this inattention to ‘Health and Safety’ could theoretically incorporate the absence of notifying susceptible populations of ‘potential risk’.

To illustrate the point clearly, in the case of fracking operations, dereliction of duty might simply include the omission of advertising health risks to the local community on the chemical benzene. To elaborate, the point in case, fracking contractors would be obliged to publicise benzene, a noxious compound proven to be detrimental to expectant mothers living within the vicinity of oil wells, specifically 2.5 km from drilling sites, in the words of the Environmental Science and Technology Report:

‘…A retrospective study of 124,862 births in rural Colorado indicated an association between maternal proximity to natural gas well sites and birth prevalence of congenital heart defects and neural tube defects… A working paper exploring 1,069,699 births in Pennsylvania reported increased prevalence of low birthweight and small for gestational age births, as well as reduced appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, respiration (APGAR) scores in infants born to mothers living within 2.5 km of a natural gas well compared to infants born to mothers living further than 2.5 km from a well’.

Environmental Science and Technology Report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects, 2014, pG

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 77/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

A ‘genuine hazard’, the requirements of the law would necessitate ‘Well Service Group’ (Normanton Branch) to discuss their plans to mitigate hurting unborn babies within a radius of 2.5 km from digging operations, as failing to do so would be a legal oversight. This is because the law states that services have to act to ‘avoid harm’, thus provision should be met to prevent exposure of contaminants in ‘sub-populations’, such as ‘pregnant women’ and ‘young children’. Once again, it can be argued that the general practices equated with fracking and their ‘wholesale indifference’ to the environment and human life is from a judicial perspective non-permissible. In other words, the law already presupposes that water is ‘clean’ from contamination and is not ‘harmful to drink’ – elevation of potential risk of the population is not permitted. In the words of the Human Rights Act, Article 2(1):

‘Everyone’s Right to Life Shall be Protected by Law’.

The Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2(1), United Nations, 1948

In general, we need active and vocal opposition – people willing to step forward and challenge the ‘institutional blindness’ that to the layman appears on close inspection to be endemic within the industrial sector. This resistance needs to be articulated firmly and set out in writing by medical jurisprudence – legislation that will ensure the continuation of rigorous scientific analysis of the repercussions of fracking and perhaps more importantly dissent from within civil services and governmental departments. Of vital importance, the well-being of the population is a cardinal issue. This elegantly brings us on to the subject of the government and its vague language involving safety protocols within the fracting sector, and the parroting of the Orwellian expression ‘best evidence’, a turn of phrase that belies a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron, the expression ‘best evidence’ is incongruent, as there is no such thing – ‘evidence’ by definition is either established as an ‘incontrovertible fact’ or the proposition is ‘wrong’ and thereby ‘inadmissible’. The Latin etymology of the word ‘evidence’ demonstrates the point very concisely, ‘evidens’ (obvious to the eye or mind – ‘videre’ to see), to quote the Oxford English Dictionary:

Evidence: (1) ‘the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid’.

(2) ‘Law: information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court’.

Oxford Dictionary of English, 2e Revised, Oxford University Press, 2005, [Evidence]

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 78/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The unscientific definition of ‘best evidence’ is employed by the government to get around the awkward truth that the data concerning fracking is emphatic! A clever ruse, the terminology ‘best evidence’ infers disputation, when to quote the Scottish Review ‘much evidence exists on the contrary’.

More specifically, the ‘evidence’ on the toxicity of ‘treated’ flowback water from fracking featured in the ‘contrived debate’ of ‘acceptable risk’ can be ‘proven’ on close examination to be an inadmissible risk. An inconvenient truth, unconventional extraction is demonstrated to be damaging to human health and is shown clearly to be an incontrovertible ‘fact’. ‘Real evidence’ does not depend upon ‘conjecture’ or ‘estimation’ – it deals with ‘facts’, from which the ‘management of risk’ is completely negated. This is because the causality of disease through the toxic contamination of the water is scientifically understood and the risks are fully accounted for.

In short, ‘evidence’ deals with ‘facts’ and concerns that which is ‘known’. If the risk is ‘unknown’ and by default cannot be ascertained, then permitting potentially hazardous chemicals into the water supply is unlawful. Ignoring the negative medical results ascribed directly to the industry is an indictment for conspiracy (See 2c. 45 Criminal Law Act 1977). There is now overwhelming evidence from the medical health professions of the negative causal impacts of fracking. To reiterate, health professionals are increasingly calling for bans upon unconventional mining enterprises, based upon a range of potential health hazards. Objective, the various medical reviews of the data confirm evidence for harm and / or risk, a line of reasoning emphasized in numerous studies, which can no longer be ignored by the UK Government without serious legal ramifications, to quote the ‘Concerned Professionals of New York’ thorough report who stated the following concerns:

‘In May 2015, the Medical Society of the State of New York passed a resolution recognizing the potential health impacts of natural gas infrastructure and pledging support for a governmental assessment of the health and environmental risks associated with natural gas pipelines. The American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a similar resolution that supports legislation requiring all levels of government to seek a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment regarding the health and environmental risks associated with natural gas pipelines.

In May 2016, Physicians for Social Responsibility called for a ban on fracking. In July 2016, the UK health professional organization Medact released an updated assessment of the potential health impacts of shale fracking in England, concluding that the United Kingdom should abandon its policy to encourage

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 79/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

shale gas extraction, and urged an “indefinite moratorium” on fracking. In October 2016, a group of health care professionals in Massachusetts called for an immediate moratorium on major new natural gas infrastructure until the impact of these projects on the health of the communities affected can be adequately determined through a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment. The group noted that the operation of natural gas facilities risks human exposures to toxic, cancer-causing, and radioactive pollution due to the presence of naturally co- occurring contaminants, toxic additives to the hydraulic fracturing process used to produce much of the country’s natural gas supply, and through the operation of transmission pipelines’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p29

The risk factors are known and stated time and time again, ‘the operation of natural gas facilities risks human exposures to toxic, cancer-causing, and radioactive pollution’. Importantly these ‘potential risks’ are not ‘theoretical’ because exposure and contamination has already ‘occurred’ with the dire consequence that the public have already been ‘injured’.‘State data confirm more than 1,000 cases of water contaminated by dirty drilling operations’. Real, the increased propensity towards negative health outcomes in fracking communities therefore demonstrates ‘actual risk’.

An indictment, the government can no longer close its eyes and pretend that fracking is of no consequence medically, when there is now a strong movement within the ‘American Healthcare Profession’ to stop the erosion of public health through the unconventional extraction of petroleum and gas. Resolute, numerous medical organisations throughout Europe and the United States are against fracking, because of the hundreds of documented studies that confirm both ‘potential’ and ‘actual injury’ as a consequence of fracking, results which are now firmly documented within local populations. With regards to unconventional mining, it is worth listing the ‘Professional Health Organisations’, which now oppose the industry – this list is only the tip of the iceberg, to recap:

(1) Medical Society of New York (Concerned Professionals of New York) (2) American Medical Association (3) Physicians for Social Reasonability (4) Medact UK (5) Massachutes Health Care Professionals

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 80/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To elaborate, the listed Healthcare Organisations which disagree with fracking on medical grounds outnumber the opposition. Effectively these medical bodies undermine the credibility that unconventional extraction is ‘safe’, an argument which is also upheld in the French Courts. Categorical, the French Government proved beyond reasonable doubt, when judicially tested by the ‘Palais de Justices’, that fracking is against the law. This is because, according to the Ruling, the industry (in general – 69 percent of the time) poisons the water and causes illegal injury. Collectively the introduction of chemicals into the river and water supplies is not publically admissible within a legal context. The ramifications of such ‘Acts of Misconduct’ are within the parameters of licit concern. Such a provision is a violation of the UK Law and is a serious crime under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Administrating a poison likely to inflict grievous bodily harm is illegal and warrants a maximum of 10 years in prison, to quote Section 23 of the Act:

Section 23: Maliciously Administering Poison, &c. so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm ‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable… to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding ten years…’

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23

The law is clear with regards to the definition of ‘malicious poisoning’, the ‘malicious intent’ suggests to ‘Break the Law’, Latin ‘mal’ (bad) and ‘lit-’ (a lawsuit). In this Act, the ‘sole’ intention to do ‘harm’ by giving a poison is not a requisite, rather the requirement is for only a poison to be ‘caused to be administered as thereby to endanger the life of such a person’. In other words, the perpetrator of such a crime does not have to theoretically ‘inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm’ (although this provision is covered in the Act), the culprit merely only has to ‘endanger… life’, an interpretation which is amenable to the Water Act relative to the causation of ‘potential harm’.

Moreover the industry has to be doubly guarded, as the poisonous element in question can also include ‘destructive things’, such as the release of radiation, in a legal sense to be…‘caused to be administered’, in light of the law ‘destructive’ agents within the water.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 81/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

A serious position, if fracking companies are shown in a Court of Law to engender either ‘potential harm’, such as to ‘endanger life’, or cause ‘grievous bodily harm’, the defendants of the industry could find themselves ‘liable’ to the penal codes ‘to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding ten years’… potentially these are serious crimes, as the risks are severe and involve large numbers of people.

To emphasize, if Hutton Energy PLC or Coronation (Oil and Gas) Limited is taken to task over the dumping of poisonous chemicals into the local water supply, in which it can be proven that the agents ‘administered’ are ‘toxins’, that can ‘endanger… life’, the legal connotations are very harsh. It is propounded that the toxicity of fracking chemicals, in conjunction to the inordinate amounts used by industry combined with the large volumes of radioactive waste discarded annually, amounts to the ‘endanger[ing of] life’, specifically in a legal sense.

To recap Section 23, ‘administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger… life’. Circumstantially the proposition that the actions from unconventional drilling have resulted in injury in the eyes of the law ‘to endanger’ is not that difficult to make in view of the evidence cited in ‘hundreds of peer reviewed studies’ outlining water contamination, and are also critical assertions which have already been attested to in the Scottish Review. To add further comment, the Scottish Government have also rejected the occupational claims that fracking chemicals are ‘safe’, to quote:

‘The [industry’s] report claims most fracking chemicals would only have adverse health impacts at “very high concentrations” when much evidence exists on the contrary. The generalized claim that most of these chemicals are safe is problematic and does not give the reader any sense of the number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses which may not be safe’.

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, 2017, p9

Similar arguments concerning ‘potential harm’ have already been filed by the French Courts. Of serious repercussion, if any of the medical studies quoted in this paper delineating ‘harm’, thereby to ‘endanger’ is accepted within a Court of Law as true or probable, then the co-conspirators will under the Articles of Law be subject to a maximum of 10 years in jail. The burden of proof under Article 23, to emphasize, is very low – one merely has to ‘endanger life’ via the introduction of a ‘poison or other destructive or noxious thing’. The word ‘noxious’ denotes the Latin etymology ‘noxa’ (harm). In this Article of Law, there is no specification of the ‘level of harm’, all we need to do is to prove that the ingredients within the

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 82/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

flowback waste is ‘harmful’, this premise has already been firmly established, as there are numerous studies which have demonstrated a direct correlation on human health and fracking, for example in the State of Colorado, ‘birth prevalence of congenital heart defects and neural tube defects’.

Acute, these medical infirmities relate specifically to the contamination of water, Article 23 ‘Administering a Poison’, a position which is indefensible and in theory has already been maintained within the French Courts, to restate. ‘… the legal representative for the French prime minister argued that the fracking ban, even as a precautionary pre-emptive ban, was justified because of fracking’s use of potentially noxious chemical additives. He claimed on behalf of the government that legislation is necessary to protect France’s water supply and to protect the environment around potential fracking sites’… As stated by the French Government, the extent of environmental harm through a ‘destructive or noxious thing’ also possesses a direct bearing upon the protection of France’s water supply and by inference human health. In this respect, it is worth referring to the chemical components of fracking fluids in conjunction to regional contamination, otherwise the ‘endangerment of life’, to quote the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York’ and their damning report:

‘Nevertheless, of the more than 1,000 chemicals that are confirmed ingredients in fracking fluid, an estimated 100 are known endocrine disruptors, acting as reproductive and developmental toxicants. Adding to this mix are heavy metals, radioactive elements, brine, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which occur naturally in deep geological formations and which can be carried up from the fracking zone with the flowback fluid. As components of the fracking waste stream, these toxic substances also pose threats to surface water and groundwater. A 2017 study found that spills of fracking fluids and fracking wastewater are common, documenting 6,678 significant spills occurring over a period of nine years in four states alone. In these states, between 2 and 16 percent of wells report spills each year. About 5 percent of all fracking waste is lost to spills, often during transport. Spills and intentional discharges of fracking waste into surface water have profoundly altered the chemistry and ecology of streams throughout entire watersheds, increasing downstream levels of radioactive elements, heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, toxic disinfection byproducts, and acidity, and decreasing aquatic biodiversity and populations of sensitive fish species, such as brook trout. New studies documenting changes in the bacterial flora in groundwater following drilling and fracking operations represent an emerging area of concern’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p48

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 83/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

As documented within this report, ‘the intentional discharges of fracking waste into surface water have profoundly altered the chemistry and ecology of streams throughout entire watersheds, increasing downstream levels of radioactive elements, heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, toxic disinfection byproducts’, which in the grand scheme of things is illegal. To emphasize, the ‘profound altering of the chemistry of the water’, ‘decreasing aquatic biodiversity and populations of sensitive fish’, falls under the remit of Section 23 ‘administer to or cause to be administered… any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person’. The risk of ‘toxic substances also pose threats to surface water and groundwater’, and are by definition ‘noxious or destructive’ elements, which ‘endanger life’.

Perhaps even more troubling is the question of spills, which in this example is shown not to be a ‘theoretical problem’, but is cited as occurring ‘6,678 times within four states’. The fact these spills are illegal indicates the likelihood that these infractions are only the tip of the problem and the real extent of damage to life is unknown. The spills from a statuary perspective indicate ‘actual’ or ‘potential harm’, and therefore are illegal.

In UK Law, the introduction of toxins, legally ‘poison or other destructive or noxious thing[s]’, through spills into the water course-ways under Article 23 can be considered as ‘harm’ and under the Article of Law is a serious offence. With regards to fracking companies, the Secretary of State may safeguard himself against financial litigation, there is however no Clause written in the appended law to insure against the ‘Offences Against the Person Act’. This in essence means, if fracking is shown to be illegal (a proposition established in the French Courts), then theoretically Ruling 23 ‘Maliciously Administrating a Poison’ would come into immediate effect, under the general definition ‘administer to or cause to be administered… any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person’.

The government including private industry and the water boards involved in such illegal activities could find themselves caught under Article 23 and jailed as accomplices to a crime. The argument to show that the dumping of toxic waste is illegal can be made very simply under the grounds that it violates the principles of ‘clean’ and ‘Wholesome Water’ and under the French Law the precedent has already been established. Similar legal protocols have also been accepted by the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Governments.

The ramifications are massive for the industry and even call into question the legality of issuing Petroleum Exploration Licences PEDL275. Advocators of the government’s line on permitting fracking fall perilously close to ‘wanton

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 84/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

conspiracy’ to cause Criminal Damage and Harm, and written qualification could theoretically be held accountable, to quote the Criminal Law Act of 1977:

Criminal Law Act 1977 Chapter 45, Part 1 CONSPIRACY Section 1: (1) ‘Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this. The offence Act, if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question’.

Criminal Law Act 1977, Chapter 45, Part 1 (1)

Put in layman’s terms, one does not have to commit any ‘crime’ whatsoever, all one has to do is to agree to carry out a ‘crime with intent’, in this case ‘conspiracy to criminal damage’. This Article in spirit compliments the earlier Act referred to as ‘The Offences Against the Person Act 1861’ Section 23 (Maliciously Administering Poison, so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm). As already stated, one does not have to administer a poison directly, but in frame of law only has to ‘cause [poison] to be administered’. The Act has legal implications for the government and the industry. Section 2 goes on to elaborate in detail what constitutes ‘Conspiracy to Commit an Offence’ and which parties should be held liable:

Criminal Law Act 1977 Chapter 45, Part 1 CONSPIRACY Section 2: (2) ‘Where liability for any offence may be incurred without knowledge on the part of the person committing it of any particular fact or circumstance necessary for the commission of the offence, a person shall nevertheless not be guilty of conspiracy to commit that offence by virtue of subsection (1) above unless he and at least one other party to the agreement intend or know that that fact or circumstance shall or will exist at the time when the conduct constituting the offence is to take place’.

Criminal Law Act 1977, Chapter 45, Part 1 (2)

In other words, an offence against a party can be incurred without full knowledge of criminal activity, if the defendant has prior agreement to a crime that will take place or happen in the future. Interpretation of the law means that

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 85/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

one can be imprisoned for showing ‘recklessness’, as interpreted by the Article. Theoretically, claiming ignorance under the statute is not a defence, as issued under the ‘Consultation Guidance of the Law’, to quote:

1/ Criminal Damage (4.51) ‘On our approach, a conspiracy to commit criminal damage ought to involve proof of an agreement, and hence an intention, to damage property (the conduct element), [i.e. public water], but it should not require proof of actual knowledge on the part of the conspirators that the property to be damaged belonged to another person (the circumstance element). The prosecution should need to show no more than that the conspirators were reckless as to that circumstance element (whether property of another would be damaged)’.

Law Commission Consultation Paper on Criminal Law Act 1977

Technically we might note that in the instance of the Law Commission, the word ‘property’, Latin ‘proprius’ (one’s own or particular), could theoretically include ‘one’s body or build’ – a proposition tacitly acknowledged under the Environmental Act, which covers ‘harm to living organisms… and in the case of man includes harm to his property’, specified in the UK Environmental Act 1995, to quote:

‘(4) “Harm” means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes harm to his property’.

Environmental Act 1995, Part II, Section 4, p49

In relation to ‘Criminal Damage’, the ‘harm to a man’s property’, in a wider sense his ‘corporate body’, collectively the ‘population’, is a destruction, that is dependent upon the deliberation of the defendant, otherwise the petroleum industries and their ‘conduct’. The judgement therefore rests upon the ‘statement of intention’, the ‘conduct element’, i.e. that a knowledge of the crime is implicitly understood, the specifics of the crime are described as the ‘circumstantial element’, which according to the offence may differ. Thus intent to pollute the water ‘the conduct element’ could, if a person died, lead to a manslaughter charge ‘the circumstantial element’. In this case-scenario, pleading innocent to ‘manslaughter’ is not an option, as one by inference of ‘thoughtlessness’ is culpable of ‘intent’ or ‘conspiracy’, and are actions that in themselves, though inadvertent, could lead to a more serious crime, to quote the Law Commission Consultation Paper:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 86/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

(4.52) ‘This is not simply because recklessness as to the circumstance element is what is required for the substantive offence of criminal damage. It is because recklessness as to a circumstance element is the minimum degree of fault we believe should, in that regard, be required on a charge of conspiracy’.

Law Commission Consultation Paper, Criminal Law Act 1977

In other words, pleading not guilty to a charge on grounds that the defendant was not aware of the ‘circumstances’ is not good enough, if it is shown that the ‘conduct element is intact’, the original intention to commit a crime, technically the determination to conspire to commit criminal damage – in the example highlighted the pollution of clean water. Therefore ‘recklessness’ is the minimum possible ‘degree of fault required on a charge of conspiracy’. On the issue of fracking, there is now so much more evidence available about the nefarious chemicals used by contractors and their pernicious effects on the body that ignorance in the Criminal Courts is neither an excuse nor an expedient plea bargain!

On the weight of evidence, the burden of proof for the government’s position that the practice of fracking is ‘safe’ cannot be guaranteed. Unassailable, under legal scrutiny the law requires that the industry is not ‘potentially harmful’ or ‘noxious’ to the general public, and by requirement does not ‘endanger’ health. A major problem, the science to date is very clear, the evidence empirically proves otherwise! The calculated risks then are well known and the government therefore are not permitted to subject the local population to unnecessary risk through the dumping of waste products into public water that has no basis in constitutional law!

On a final point, the Secretary of State should reverse the Licence Agreement PEDL275, issued to the petroleum industry on the grounds of ‘National Interest’. It is argued in this report that ‘Clean Water’ supersedes the ‘National Interest of Energy Sufficiency’, the production of electricity which can be garnered from sustainable sources, such as wind, hydro and solar power. The trade-off regarding the ‘extraction of petroleum’, in replacement for the wholesale contamination of water supplies such as rivers and drinking water, are now proven facts. This exchange of resources (water vs petroleum) invariably leave communities exposed to large risks, which are without exception both ‘unethical’ and more pertinently ‘illegal’. Thus, the Secretary of State must immediately desist the development of fracking schemes in the benefit of National Interest and the safeguarding of local populations, to quote the Licence Agreement (PEDL275):

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 87/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Licence PEDL275 17. 4c ‘That the minister rejects the programme on one or more following grounds:

(II) That the proposals included in the prgramme in persuance of sub- pargraph (c) of the said paragraph 2 are, in the opinion of the minister, not in the national interest.

The minister has to be satisified that: the condition mentioned in the notice is required in the national interest’.

Petroleum Act 1998, Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence, PEDL275, p12

In the Act, it can be stated without objection that ‘Water Integrity’ takes precedence over ‘Energy Supply’ and is integral to ‘National Security’, a requirement which the Minister is tasked with observing. On another point of law with regards to the PEDL275 document, it seems that there is a discrepancy and that the Minister has inadvertently invalidated the Licence Agreement by drafting his own indemnity into the articles which are guaranteed through third parties. This proviso, it is argued, is illegal, as the Secretary of State by inference of his title is an ‘Officer of the State’, and therefore in his capacity can only ‘offer indemnity’ to ‘private contractors’ and not to ‘himself’, in his sworn capacity as a ‘Minister of the State’. Anomalous, it seems that this Clause sets a legal precedence.

It is agued therefore that the ‘Indemnity Clause’ issued by the ‘Secretary of State’ is not fit for purpose, and nullifies the ‘Licence Agreement’. The Secretary of State does not have a magic wand of indemnity – he has to follow the law, in which numerous medical studies deferred to within peer reviewed literature from the United States and the United Kingdom demonstrates that fracking poses a real and unacceptable compromise on large-scale demographics. Scientific, many of the effectuations related to fracking and listed in the YLMAF report are derived from healthcare professionals, objections which concede to the larger concerns of State Security and by extension the Licence Agreement.

On this point, it is worth quoting the drafted ‘Indemnity Clause’ in the PEDL275 Licence, from which the Minister is attempting to extricate himself from potential blame, a legal argument that in the event of an incident would be contested by the oil contractors. A bluff or an attempt to pull the wool over the public eyes, the real question is ‘did the Minister act legally?’ It is contended in light of the overwhelming evidence that the argument is no, to quote the Indemnity against third party claims:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 88/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Indemnity against Third Party Claims’ ‘38: The Licensee, shall at all times keep the Minister effectually indemnified against all actions, proceedings, costs, charges, claims and demands whatsoever which may be made or brought against the Minister by any third party in relation to or in connection with this license or any matter or thing done or purported to be done in pursuance thereof’.

Petroleum Act 1998, Petroleum Exploration and Development License, PEDL275, p25

To emphasize, a ‘Licence’, Latin ‘licere’ (lawful or permitted), is issued by the Secretary of State, and therefore has to be ‘legal’. The precondition of any licence is that it is judicial within the remit of law. Thereby it is argued that in ‘exceptional circumstances’ the Secretary of State can offer ‘indemnity’ to private companies offering employment or services, he cannot however ‘indemnify himself’ through the licensee, as the licence has to be ‘lawful’. To elaborate, the Secretary in his actions has to be ‘impeccable’ and thereby extension – secure the wellbeing of the State.

His capacity to exercise power without ‘preconditions’ should be ‘absolute’, in other words his authority to issue a licence with legal protection from a third party fundamentally questions the Minister’s role and ability to deliver ‘State Security’. His absolution of potential guilt should not be afforded by ‘private contractors’, but by the State. The insinuation is that Clause 38 ‘Indemnity against Third Party Claims’ written into the PEDL275 Licence curtails the protections offered by a ‘sovereign democracy’. Furthermore, the ‘agreement’ or ‘junction’ subjects the populations of Northern England to ‘unnecessary risk’, the ‘conduct element’ which is neither a judicial nor legal use of the Secretary’s authority.

An uncomfortable truth, the question remains who will indemnify the local population, as it seems that the government is not confident to legally safeguard fracking operations, and with good reason! Reading between the lines, it appears that the Secretary of State is unable to issue guarantees or indemnify against criminal damage. The issue of ‘indemnity’, Latin ‘indemnis’ literally means (unhurt, free from loss or damage), therefore deals with compensation of injured parties. Circumspect, Clause 38‘Indemnity against Third Party Claims’ turns out to be little more than ‘smoke and mirrors’.

A charade, the crux of the argument follows that, although Hutton Energy PLC and Coronation (Oil and Gas) Limited could ‘shield’ the Secretary of State from ‘financial loss’ or ‘litigation’, they could not protect the Minister from the penal codes and the more serious issue of whether he had ‘Conspired’ or ‘Broken the Law’. With respect to the voluminous evidence at hand, the fact of the matter

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 89/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

remains that the Secretary of State is potentially vulnerable, particularly in light of the conclusions of Medact UK’s own report, a ‘Who’s Who’ in UK Energy Research and Healthcare. Medact has produced one of the largest medical studies equated with fracking in the UK, and has stated formally in writing that:

‘There are now over 450 peer-reviewed studies, reviews and commentaries. A significant majority of the studies indicate potential risks or actual adverse health outcomes associated with shale gas development’.

Health and Fracking, Medact UK, 2015, p31

To reframe the legal argument regarding fracking, there is no ‘debate’ or ‘ambiguity’, the evidence to date shows empirically that a ‘significant majority of the studies’ (from a large body of 450 peer reviewed papers) state that fracking indicate both ‘risks’ and ‘actual adverse health outcomes’. In this respect, the etymology of ‘actual’ denotes the Latin root ‘actus’ (an event or thing done). Thus in short, it can be asserted confidently that the cause of ‘adverse health outcomes’ is shown to be the direct effect of the ‘act of fracking’. A quandary to disregard the studies places the Secretary in a compromised position, as the ‘hot potatoes’ invariably falls into the Minister’s lap – a point of controversy which he is well aware of.

The Minister in his defence cannot argue that Hutton and Coronation Energy were tasked to extract unconventional petroleum ‘safely’ and therefore ‘legally’, as this in light of the evidence is shown to be an impossibility – a contradiction in terms. The point of culpability is now succinctly demonstrated in hundreds of studies including the World Health Organisation’s own indictment of fracking.

Hypothetically if the industry was sued for damages, it would be likely that the sector would argue that the PEDL275 Licence was either ‘invalid’ or not ‘fit for purpose’ – the splitting of the Titanic. Looking at the situation objectively, the Minister has Broken the Law to ‘issue a Licence’ which cannot be legally upheld. Furthermore the Licence Agreement subjects the local population to ‘potential or actual bodily harm’, a proposition confirmed in multiple studies and corroborated in the report by Medact UK. The findings indicate that if the local contractors continue with their ‘directive’ of fracking, they will also have broken the Law, Article 23, ‘administer to or cause to be administered… any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life… to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm’. Far-reaching, the aforementioned statement is converted into the language of the Water Supply Quality Regulations 2000, Section 4, as ‘water does not contain any substance… at a concentration or value which, in conjunction with any other substance… would constitute a potential danger to human health’.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 90/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

No longer a point of contention, fracking has proven in the majority of over ‘450 peer reviewed studies’ to ‘endanger life’, in the words of Medact UK ‘A significant majority of the studies indicate potential risks or actual adverse health outcomes associated with shale gas development’. The summaries offered by Medact state clearly why the exploitation of ‘dirty technologies’ are not fit for purpose, and fall under the remits of both Article 23, ‘to Endanger Life’ and the Water Quality Regulations 2000.

Thus when scrutinised objectively, it seems to the authors of this report that the PEDL275 Licence Agreement and Clause 38 ‘Indemnity Against Third Party Claims’ is inserted as a means of deceiving the local population and providing a plausible smokescreen. Unconstitutional, it appears that Hutton Energy PLC and Coronation (Oil and Gas) Limited have yoked themselves to the Minister in a Clause, which is primarily centred around ‘non-disclosure’ – a position that in relation to the law is demonstrated to be problematic. This is because the medical community has already systematically documented injury from contamination. Therefore it is contested that the signatures on the PEDL275 Agreement are in effect pretending that they possess immunity from public enquiry, an act which in appearance is not fully supported by the ‘government at large’ – hence Clause 38. An unfavourable situation, the ‘indemnity’ has not been issued by the Secretary of State as legally expected, which is a discretionary requirement by law. The remiss suggests real division on the bench, and potentially the liability of the signatories on the Licence.

In addition, the Secretary of State has overall duty to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which brings together responsibilities for business, science, innovation and energy. This Contract stipulates that energy supplies must be clean, and is yet another hurdle for the Minister to ‘overcome’, to quote his Ordinance:

developing and delivering a comprehensive industrial strategy and leading the government’s relationship with business

ensuring that the country has secure energy supplies that are reliable, affordable and clean

ensuring the UK remains at the leading edge of science, research and innovation

tackling climate change

The four points neatly lead on to the next section – climate change.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 91/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

(7) Climate Change In relation to carbon neutrality, fracking’s economic model is inordinately expensive. This is because unconventional mining does not just do short term harm, but its footprint is often long-term in relation to water pollution and the increase in earthquake damage. When the clean-up and the ‘side effects’ to local populations are factored into the equation including increased expendure for healthcare and mortality, the costs far outweigh the benefits. Of crucial significance, the question remains ‘who actually wins with the Secretary of State issuing fracking Licences?’

Scotland itself argued that unconventional petroleum and gas extraction would expand Gross National Product by just 0.1%. A miniscule amount, this figure however does not take into consideration ‘pollution management’, ‘sickness’, long-term testing and supervision of contaminated wells including structural and earthquake damage. When added together, the extra financial burden upon the community suggests that fracking cannot even break a ‘profit’, a ‘margin’ which inevitably would cost the state additional revenue both environmentally and economically, not to mention the human cost.

How then does the Minister justify a utility commodity in terms of ‘National Security’, in which the costs of production are so high, and the profit margins so low. Disproportionate, the figures suggest a disequilibrium, an imbalance in which the local population will pay for the extraction of their own resources, by the degradation of their local environment, and more critically the likely contamination of drinking water. As already indicated in the Articles of Law, ‘Water Security’ trumps ‘Energy Security’ and this is due to the UK’s complete dependency upon ‘water’ for the continuation of life. In addition, the issue of Energy Security can be ‘remedied’ through renewable resources, such as solar, wind and hydro-power.

Technologically there is no need to go down the expensive and destructive path of fracking, when viable alternatives already exist. In fact, it can be argued that this is a legal requisite. ‘Ensuring that the country has secure energy supplies that are reliable, affordable and clean’. What is required from the Minister is a similar type of reinvestment redirected from the fracking industry into secure and safe energy outlets. In respect of what is known about the dangers of fracking and its ruination of local and wild habitats, this is a legal exigent. When evaluated critically, the issue of ‘environmentally clean’ and ‘secure energy markets’ which are ‘economically viable’ contradicts the logic of unconventional petroleum extraction – a legitimate point also emphasized in Medact UK’s own report, to quote:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 92/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ‘Shale gas extraction also has indirect health effects by virtue of its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of climate change on health worldwide is already serious and threatens to be potentially catastrophic. Fracking threatens to perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuel and make it more difficult to meet our greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets.

The claim that shale gas is a clean source of energy that can aid the transition towards a low carbon energy system does not withstand scrutiny… These conditions are not met in the UK. If anything, shale gas extraction will hinder the development of renewable and zero-carbon energy’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p6

In short, the transposition towards fracking is a move towards contaminating not only the rivers and fish, but also the ‘human animal’, in a global perspective the pollution of the atmosphere and its wider impacts upon the environment. In the air around drilling and fracking operations in the United States and their attendant infrastructure, researchers have measured strikingly high levels of toxic pollutants, including the potent carcinogen benzene and the chemical precursors of ground-level ozone (smog). In some cases, concentrations of fracking-related air pollutants in communities where people live and work exceed federal safety limits. Research shows that air emissions from fracking can drift and pollute the air hundreds of miles downwind. The failure to observe air standards is illegal, as industrial neglect impacts negatively upon human health, to quote once again the ‘Concerned Health Professionals of New York:

‘87 percent of original research studies on air quality found significant air pollutant emissions; and 84 percent of original research studies on human health risks found signs of harm or indication of potential harm’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p10

To put it slightly more succinctly, the majority of studies into air quality shows ‘signs of harm or indication of potential harm’. An anathema, the word ‘harm’ is a definition, which continues to appear in the context to fracking and is not permitted legally, particularly when the risks are known (and are therefore avoidable). We might also note that, under the Health Act 2006, Chapter 28 Smoke Free Premises, Places and Vehicles, the Act protects workers from second hand ‘smoke’. It is contended that this Act is applicable to the ‘petroleum industry’, which have a legal duty of care to protect their workers from ‘smoke’. In relation to the Act, the interpretation of ‘smoking’ can therefore be understood in a broader sense to encompass inhaling ‘any other substance’, in a more literal

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 93/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

sense a ‘noxious substance’ or accelerant which ‘smokes’. In the example highlighted, the release of fumes which subjects the ‘worker’ and perhaps more crucially the community to ‘continued risk’ or ‘harm’ is not legally permissible. In addition, it is recorded in the Act that the requirement for ‘smoke free places need’ not be ‘inside’, to quote Section 4 of the Act:

4(2) ‘The place or places falling within the description need not be enclosed or substantially enclosed’.

Health Act 2006, Chapter 28, Section 4(2)

In summary, the spirit of the Act protects workers from continual exposure to smoke and carbon based pollution, which in context to fracking is considered by Health Care Professionals to constitute ‘signs of harm’ – definitions which are not acceptable and therefore unlawful.

(8) Conclusion As evidenced throughout this report, unconventional extraction of petroleum and gas is illegal, when considered in the wider context of physical harm to the local populations. And this leads us on to a very unusual situation, in which the Secretary of State is willing to gamble the lives of his citizens, so private companies can exact a monopoly. A completely new and sinister set of circumstances has arisen, which consists primarily of a conspiracy of lies within the economical and financial sector, in the words of the Scottish Review ‘when much evidence exists on the contrary’. An aversion to common sense and reason, the collusion within the multinational sphere suggests that wealthy industrialists are at ‘war’ with ‘local populations’. A covert fight based upon the exploitation of a ‘commodity’ with ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. A unique position, segments of the corporate class are funding a ‘war of utility’, Latin ‘utilis’ (useful), a debasement of basic Human Rights. Largely unethical, the definition of ‘war’ is not used figuratively but is adopted in its legal sense:

‘A state of competition or hostility between different people or groups’.

Oxford Dictionary of English, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2005, [War]

To underscore the severity of the situation, the state of affairs suggests a fundamental betrayal by ‘elements’ or ‘individuals’ of the government. More than ever, mankind has the intellectual capacity to ‘thrive’ as a species, and our goal therefore must be the larger objective of introducing safe methods of energy production that can benefit all ‘classes’. Monumental, the issue at hand concerning the perpetrators on the ‘war of utility’ do not just marginally affect the local population but increasingly the unborn generation, a consensus

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 94/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

evidenced within numerous peer reviewed papers, medical reports that document the development of congenital birth defects attributed scientifically to fracking and the pollution of ‘air’ and ‘water’.

The long-term negative implications of fracking remain fundamentally an act of disloyalty to the people of Yorkshire. The YLMAF report (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) has shown that financially unconventional mining does not make sense and will cost the taxpayer money, exorbitant amounts which are in effect stripped away from local councils. The division between private enterprise and communities when deconstructed is shown to be a ‘conflict of interest’ – a futile ‘war of utility’, from which ‘water’ is the basic resource. An urgent requirement, the preservation of this asset needs to be safeguarded legally for future generations.

Moreover this report sets out the argument that the precondition of ‘Water Security’ and ‘Wholeness’ is mandated and forms the basis of ‘State Security’. What is more, the prerequisite of clean water is a lawful position, a Ruling which has been adopted by the French Courts and approved by the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Parliaments. Conserving life and the natural habitats from fracking are measurements of the law, Articles that throughout Europe have been implemented to protect the population and water reserves. Unilateral, these measures also extend throughout Germany and the Netherlands. A tightrope, the British Government can no longer ignore the surplus evidence, to do so is ‘criminal’.

Unanimous, the objections against fracking are multiple and are summarised neatly by the ‘Medical Professionals of New York’ in their detailed analysis. Critical and accepted academically throughout the majority of peer-reviewed research, the scientists demonstrate a litany of medical complaints, incriminations attributed to unconventional petroleum and gas extraction. Universal, these condemnations are listed in the American report and its summary of evidence. Unequivocal, the US Healthcare Practitioners argue for the immediate cessation of fracking – a ‘legal argument’, to quote their conclusions:

Conclusion ‘Concerned Health Professional of New York’ Report ‘All together, findings to date from scientific, medical, and journalistic investigations combine to demonstrate that fracking poses significant threats to air, water, health, public safety, climate stability, seismic stability, community cohesion, and long-term economic vitality. Emerging data from a rapidly expanding body of evidence continue to reveal a plethora of recurring problems and harms that cannot be sufficiently averted through regulatory frameworks.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 95/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

There is no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public health directly or without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends. In the words of investigative journalist Andrew Nikiforuk: Industry swore that its cracking rock technology was safe and proven, but science now tells a different story. Brute force combined with ignorance … has authored thousands of earthquakes … [and] called forth clouds of migrating methane…. The science is complicated but clear: cracking rock with fluids is a chaotic activity and no computer model can predict where those fractures will go. The regulatory record shows that they often go out of zone; extend into water; and rattle existing oil and gas wells, and these rattled wells are leaking more methane.

We close with an observation by Maryland physician Judy Stone, MD, whose recent essay in Forbes speaks for all who have contributed to this Compendium: Fracking profits go to private industry but the public – families and communities – bear the costs of the many health complications from the drilling. There is growing evidence of a variety of health problems being associated with fracking. Common sense dictates that drinking and breathing cancer-causing agents will take their toll. The correlation is too strong to ignore, especially when we have other, cleaner energy options. For our safety and that of future generations, we should not allow the new administration to sell off public lands, nor allow drilling on our land, and should ban fracking completely’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p266

In conclusion, the evidence is solid and can no longer be contested, ‘Common sense dictates that drinking and breathing cancer-causing agents will take their toll… The correlation is too strong to ignore. For our safety and that of future generations, we should not… allow drilling on our land, and should ban fracking completely’. To emphasize, fracking is dangerous to human health and by interpretation of the law is not legal in the UK. Furthermore the lawful argument against fracking is not contested and is moreover accepted in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany and the Netherlands amongst a whole host of other countries and organisations.

On the grounds of public safety, the Local Council, specifically the National Government, should therefore recommend a policy of banning unconventional extraction of oil and gas – a lawful mandate. This stipulation should extend indefinitely. In particular, the National Policy should be based legally upon the parameters of both ‘actual’ and ‘potential harm’, upon which there are legitimate grounds for objection. Real, these injuries ascribed to fracking are prolifically

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 96/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

documented in the American Science Journals. Of immediate priority, the Local Council should consult with the government and address in writing the following concerns:

(9) List of Local Concerns (1) Is the Local Water Board (Yorkshire Water) going to dump industrial

waste from fracking into the River Aire or water supplies? (2) How much of the following ingredients will the government allow into the

river: (a) Benzene (b) Radionuclides (c) Heavy metals (d) Cadmium (e) Mercury (3) What other types of contamination are going to be put into the water,

additional to what ratio and how will it be rigorously monitored and enforced? (4) What extra contaminants are found within the lubricants used to extract

petroleum and natural gasses? (5) What will be done with the radioactive flowback waste? (6) Will this radioactive waste be permitted into local tips? (7) In the case of mass poisonings or contamination of local water supplies,

who is responsible the Secretary of State, Hutton Energy PLC or Coronation (Oil & Gas) Limited? (8) How will the Secretary of State assure local communities, if he is not willing to indemnify the petroleum industry and is only willing to indemnify himself through third parties assurances? (9) Are there any long-term studies planned to monitor cancer rates in the

local regions where fracking is occurring, and are such studies even legal when the presupposition is that ‘[drinking] water is free from any micro- organisms and parasites and from any substances which, in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health’ [Water Directive (98/83/EC)]. Please also refer to the Helsinki Declaration referenced in this document. (10) Will there be any monitoring in the local area of pregnant women, rates

of miscarriages, birth outcomes and sterility in men, negative health outcomes documented in medical research in regions where fracking is prevalent? (11) Will additional health risks be published within the local community? If

not, why not? Article 8 states the ‘Right to respect for private and family life’. According to the interpretation of the Article, the law may be infringed, if the State does not reasonably act to balance community

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 97/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

interests attached to a polluting activity, such as fracking with the effects upon the individual ‘well-being’, for example if adequate information on pollution risks is not provided to those living near fracking sites. This in context to the law would denote advertising the ‘actual health risks’ to pregnant women in relation to their unborn children known detriments associated with the proximity of fracking (i.e. within the range of 2.5km). (12) If there are considered to be potential long-term health problems from fracking (a position not permitted by law), are there any economical contingencies in place to meet this increase demand within the local health services and related authorities? According to the ‘Practitioners of New York’, higher rates of hospitalizations are found in regions which frack. Under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act, any ‘victim’ of such an unlawful action by a public authority may bring proceedings under the Act. (13) Will the local Water Companies be profiting from permitting the dumping

of toxic and dangerous waste into the local rivers? (14) Will the Water Companies be breaking the law, if they comply with the

Licence Agreement to permit dangerous contaminants in the water? Who will be responsible, the Licensee or Yorkshire Water? Resolution 64/292 Human Right to Water and Sanitation / Section 6, it is ‘unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right’. (15) If Yorkshire Water are receiving monies to deal with pollution from

Hutton Energy or Coronation (Oil and Gas) Limited, how much are they obtaining and how will they spend the money to negate the risk – this data should be public knowledge. (16) Can Hutton Energy and Coronation (Oil & Gas) Limited guarantee in

writing the local water supplies? – In practice, the abrogation of such duties are punishable by the penal codes. (17) Have there been any proper reviews of how fracking would affect the local environment, food chain, and agriculture? Please refer to Appendix 1 Local Crop Fires and Fracking. (18) Has the government used computer data and simulations to accurately

predict and pattern models of hazardous pollution and its accumulation of poisonous materials within the river course-ways? For example, if a region of the riverbed is vulnerable to a build-up of toxic waste, large numbers of the population could invariably be poisoned. Please see Appendix 2 ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease), Japan for evidence of pollution build up within river-ways correlated to mass poisonings, attributed to mining. (19) Will the swans, a legally protected species, be safeguarded from the

pollution? (20) How will the bird sanctuary and water course-ways at Fairburn Ings be protected from contamination, to quote the Environmental Act 1995,

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 98/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Section 8 (1) ‘Environmental Duties with respect to Sites of Special Interest… Agency set up to protect… (a) ‘[land and water course-ways] of special interest by reason of its floral,

fauna or geological or physiological features’. (21) Are there any safe-checks in place with the assessment of accidental

contamination of the environment and local population, to reiterate the dumping of radioactive material into the local river is extremely dangerous. Evidence from Japan (Appendix 2 and 3) indicates that the net- effects of dumping toxic waste material from mining into rivers can have negative repercussions and poison the local population, to cite Article I.1 Comment No. 15, ‘Water should be free from radiological hazards’. (22) If we pollute the water with radioactive waste and consequently decide to

reverse the local policy, is it possible to remove this pollution effectively from the contaminated water table and would this decontamination be economically viable? (23) Would the government pay for the decontamination as in Japan? (24) Who is taking charge for the policy of diluting fracking waste, and who is

legally culpable, if fracking is shown to harm individuals and/or damage the environment? Making it clear from the onset that Local Authority will sue individual parties for damages, if fracking is harmful, will provide a strong deterrent to the petroleum industry. (25) Who gains financially from the policy of fracking and who stands to lose if

the policy is shown to be ineffective or worst damaging to the local environment or health? (Human Rights Act, Article 2 – the State’s Obligation for the Preservation and Integrity of Life). (26) Will there be compensation if there are negative consequences for the

regional economy, e.g. loss of water mobility, detriment to life, railway subsidence, and damage to buildings and infrastructure etc. Under Section 7 of the ‘Human Right Articles’, any ‘victim’ of such an unlawful action by a Public Authority may bring proceedings under the Act. (27) What emergency plans does the Council have for decontaminating water

and removing toxins, in the advent of an accident? In the United States, the contingency to supply additional water supplies for an area covering 350,000 residents (the Monongahela River, Northern West Virginia and Pennsylvania) has already occurred. Can we theoretically meet such a demand, the issue of potential risk would require such a proviso was already in place before fracking could occur (Article 2 of the ‘Human Rights Act’ forces the State to take pre-emptive action to negate damage to human life through planning and regulatory bodies). (28) What health and safety measures are in place regarding the environment and is it possible to reverse or negate the damage of harmful effects of pollution within the farming and agricultural sector. Vulnerable to

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 99/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

contamination, farming requires large amounts of clean water to safeguard the food-chain. The proposition is not theoretical but is a requirement of National Security. For further details, please refer to Appendix 2, ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease), Japan. This section studies the critical issues surrounding industrial waste related to systematic food contamination and the mass poisoning of local populations. (29) Has the Local Council undertaken any documented scientific studies

regarding the issue of fracking and its cross-contamination of food stock and/or water supplies? For further details pertaining to concerns within the agricultural sector, please refer to Appendix 1: Local Crop Fires and Fracking, and Appendix 2.

Appendix 1: Local Crop Fires and Fracking

During the writing of this report, it has come to the attention of the authors of this research of an interesting development. This is that criminal damage of agricultural land has accounted for the destruction of significant amounts of crops within regions, which have been earmarked for fracking. To quote the Wakefield Express:

‘A fire destroyed 100 acres of crops and could be seen from more than five miles away… at Kingleys Green Farm, Ackworth. A spokesman for West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service said: “It was like an apocalypse. We could see the fire from Wakefield…” This is the third corn field fire in the district in less than a week. On Sunday night, fire crews attended a 300 meter patch of land that was on fire at East Street in Havercroft. And last Wednesday, a crop fire near Sandal Castle destroyed £15,000 worth of crops within less than an hour. It has been confirmed that last Wednesday’s fire was started deliberately’.

Wakefield Express, Friday 10 August 2018

Havercroft 300 Meters of Land Destroyed

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 100/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Whilst the authors of this report are not suggesting that the damage to crops is anything to do with or related to the fracking sector, it is known that all of the farms fall within or near the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) of Licence Application Block (SE32b and SE42e). In relation to the Ackworth fire, circumstantially it is noted that fracking equipment had previously been seen in the region within the approximate date of the fire on the boarder of Pontefract and Ackworth. Although only theoretical, the legitimate question arises, if explorative, fracking had occurred within these regions at around the time of the fires, is it possible that these unconventional excavations could have released a pocket of flammable methane gas causing the dry crop to become a natural incendiary, facilitating further ignition of fires.

Does This Equal This?

Flammable Tap Water from Methane Caused by Fracking. Methane is a Volatile Gas which is Extremely Explosive.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 101/136

Crop Fire Havercroft West Yorkshire, One of Three Fires in Five Days

Although unstated within any fracking report to date, the issue of increased susceptibility to ‘crop fires’ caused by human and or natural processes within fracking regions should be studied as an area of concern. In addition, the prioritisation of investigations should attempt to focus and ascertain, if there exist numerous correlations between ‘crop fires’ within fracking regions, comparative to areas outside of the fracking zones.

If such correspondences within fracking regions and crop fires exist, what are the wider economic effects relative to potential complications, regarding the food chain. As already recapitulated in this document ‘food and water’ are the key components to ‘National Security’ and should therefore be protected by the government – a stipulation required by law.

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

100 Acres Destroyed at Kingsley Green Farm, Ackworth (In this photograph, the Dense Black Smoke is Reminiscent of Carbon Based Fuels, e.g. Petroleum)

August 1st 2018, Near Sandal Castle Destroyed £15,000 Worth of Crops in Less Than One Hour

Appendix 2: ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease), Japan A Study of River Pollution and its Global Effects Upon Human Health

The purpose of Appendix 2 is to show that the industrial pollution of rivers can and do have negative health impacts upon local populations. Clear examples of these infractions associated with mining are illustrated in the Japanese Case ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease). A detailed study of ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease) has been produced by the University of Hokkaido, Japan. To summarise their own findings, ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease) first appeared in the polluted region of the Jinzu River Basin in Toyama Prefecture, Japan and has been documented since the 1950’s. Incurable, Pain Pain Disease was ‘officially’ recognized in 1968 as the ‘first’ known infliction induced by environmental pollution in Japan. The terrible side effects were effectively covered up by Mitsui Mining & Smelting Company. It took the local population over 20 years to gain recognition of the disease – lawsuits which were based upon the research and testimony of Dr. Hagino. The Courts concluded the following:

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 102/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘The view of the Ministry of Health and Welfare which consisted of 7 articles concluded that the cause of the disease was caused by Cadmium pollution’.

University of Hokkaido

Of significant concern to the people of West Yorkshire, the contamination of the Jinzu River led to the local poisoning of people via the water supply and also local agriculture. Dangerous, Cadmium is also a waste ingredient of fracking flowback water, a toxic poison which in addition includes copious amounts of radioactive material. For further details of the excessive levels of Cadmium and Mercury within fracking waste water, please see the table labelled ‘Cuadrilla Drill Rig (Lancashire) and its Flowback Water’, at the end of Appendix 3.

Due to Cadmium poisoning, in the Jinzu River the fish started to die, and the rice irrigated with river water did not grow well. The Cadmium and other heavy metals accumulated at the bottom of the river, water which was then used to irrigate the rice fields. The rice absorbed heavy metals, especially the Cadmium and accumulated in the people eating contaminated rice. Ecologically through a process of ‘permeation’, the Cadmium contaminated the river, the water, the land, the food and then the people.

In the case of fracking, radiological waste and heavy metals will according to plans drafted by the government be dumped into the River Aire, a strategy which if we follow the Japanese pollution data will invariably contaminate the local agricultural sector and potentially lead to mass poisoning of the food chain. The removal of Cadmium from agricultural land is extremely difficult to extract from the top soil, as it is very hazardous and has cost Japan a large amount of revenue, a consideration which the UK Government needs to consider in relation to fracking.

To demonstrate the expense: In Japan, Itai Itai Byou (Pain Pain Disease) cost the average annual health expense (in 1992), 743 million Yen in compensation. A further 1.75 billion Yen was allotted per year for agricultural damage or a total annually of 2.515 billion Yen. Another 620 million Yen was invested annually to reduce further pollution of the river. According to the Nipponese Government, 2,000 acres of fertile farming land was lost due to pollution. The diagram below shows the patterns of pollution attributed to the dumping of hazardous materials, which extend far outside of the river bank and is poisonous to people living nearby. We can also note the large amounts of toxic waste appear to accumulate around the curvature and indentations of the river and its delta course-ways.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 103/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Another main lesson learnt from ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease) is that people with the worst symptoms came from Toyama prefecture. Perhaps however what is more troublesome is that the Japanese Government found patients with ‘Itai Itai Disease’ (Pain Pain Disease) in five other prefectures, which indicated large-scale poisoning throughout significant regions of Japan. The flow models presented in the above diagrams indicate that if the UK Government dump radioactive waste containing also Cadmium, Mercury and heavy metals, not only will the local population of Wakefield and Leeds be subject to potential poisoning through the introduction of toxins into the River Aire, but also a larger number of people further way from the site of contamination.

The Risking of People’s Lives under UK Law is Illegal.

Of crucial significance to proposed fracking programs, ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease) clearly defines how local populations are severely affected through the pollution of river water. The subject of water contamination now leads on to the issue of how poisons can accumulate also in river basins and delta ways. If we follow the predictive models taken from Japan and apply them to the UK, the contamination of the River Aire would also inadvertently cause the poisoning of large numbers of people in Hull. These concerns are best highlighted in the Japanese Poisoning Case found in Minamata Bay, a preventable tragedy summarised in Appendix 3.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 104/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Appendix 3: Minamata Byou (Minamata Disease), Japan A Study of Water Pollution and its Systematic Effects Upon Human Health and Large-Scale Populations

This section is going to look at the Japanese case known infamously as ‘Minamata Byou’ (Minamata disease), which was caused through the contamination of water with industrial waste. A neurological syndrome, ‘Minamata Byou’ is a disorder which is caused by severe Mercury Poisoning. Signs and symptoms include ataxia, numbness in the hands and feet, general muscle weakness, loss of peripheral vision, and damage to hearing and speech. Not often mentioned in any of the Western literature documenting this infirmity is the severe nerve and neurological pain directly attributed to this condition, additional to birth defects.

As with ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease), people are often severely disabled by the symptoms and are literally in agony for the rest of their lives. In extreme cases, insanity, paralysis, coma and death follow within weeks of the onset of symptoms. A congenital form of the disease can also affect foetuses in the womb, and are similar symptoms which are a concurrent problem found also within fracking communities within the United States.

Minamata disease often led to complete paralysis and gross skeletal deformities, leading to suffering, pain and invariably death.

Minamata Byou Disease was first discovered in Minamata City in Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan in 1956. It was caused by the release of Methyl-Mercury in the industrial wastewater from the Chisso Corporation’s chemical factory, which continued from 1932 to 1968. Highly toxic, this noxious chemical contaminated the water supply and also bio-accumulated in shellfish and fish in Minamata Bay and the Shiranui Sea, which, when consumed by the local populace, resulted in Mercury Poisoning. While cat, dog, pig, and human deaths continued for 36 years, the Japanese Government and company did little to prevent the pollution.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 105/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The animal effects were severe enough in cats that they came to be named as having ‘Dancing Cat Fever’. An important point, the correlation between human and feline deaths seems to have inexplicably gone unrecognised in Japan and is important. To elaborate, cats are the closest mammal to human beings, genetically almost but not quite as close as chimpanzees and great apes, the death of ‘cats’ is of particular consequence, due to their genetic profile which is similar to humans. In the context of fracking sites, an increase in feline deaths would indicate an immediate vulnerability to ‘human populations’. Picking up early mortality rates in cats is vital in communities exposed to poisonous agents from fracking, and is an effective and early indicator of problems within human beings. For further details, please refer to Resources at the end of this report for studies relating to fracking, associated with the death of family pets, page 133.

A Photograph of Tomoko Uemura an Unfortunate Victim ‘Minamata Byou’ (Minamata Disease). A real condition caused through water contamination, this disease was effectively ‘covered-up’ and went unacknowledged for nearly forty years. To date, it has affected more than 20,000 people.

As of March 2001, 2,265 victims had been officially recognised as having Minamata Byou (Minamata Disease), 1,784 of whom had died and over 10,000 had received financial compensation from the Chisso Corporation. By 2004, Chisso had paid 86 million in compensation, and in the same year was ordered to clean up its contamination. On March 29, 2010, a settlement was reached to compensate as-yet uncertified victims. More than 20,000 people have sought to be designated as victims. The conclusion which can be gleaned from polluting water course-ways is that people die in large numbers and both the government and corporate enterprise conspire to cover-up their liability.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 106/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Memorial at the Minamata Municipal Museum A pointless reminder that human greed always causes suffering, in particular the poisoning of water leads to large-scale destruction of the lives of people.

Cuadrilla Drill Rig (Lancashire) and its Flowback Water (Note in the Table the High Levels of Cadmium and Mercury, the Principle Ingredients Found in the Japanese Poisoning Cases of the Jinzu River ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease) and the Minamata Bay Disease, Shiranui Sea, Kumamoto, Japan)

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 107/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Appendix 4: Final Word…

This report is a big Wakeup Call to the local community. If fracking is allowed, it will constitute the biggest environmental and human disaster ever perpetrated in the UK by the industrial sector. The assertion that fracking is a ‘crime’ is a valid and legal definition, which has been collaborated by the French, Dutch, German, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Reviews of Evidence. Furthermore, the proposition that fracking is illegal in the UK under the interpretation of the Water Act has already been tested in the French and Dutch Courts.

What is required are for Ministers and Large Corporate Companies with money and influence to fight this looming injustice, for the larger good, and perhaps more importantly to maintain National Security, addendum to ‘Water Security’, synonyms of prosperity. It might sound clichéd, but we are now in a critical situation, in which the rich and the poor, including the Corporate Sector, must work together to stop what is going to be otherwise one of the largest crimes ever perpetrated against the Yorkshire People since the Civil War.

To finish, I will once again summarise what the experts have said against fracking. Of legal significance, if just one of these statements is correct, the Secretary of State is Breaking the Law and fracking must cease immediately, as such a fundamental breach could force the immediate enactment of the penal codes (Section 23: Maliciously Administering Poison, &c. so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm). Unanimous and based upon ‘over 450 peer reviewed medical studies’, the Doctors and Scientists have highlighted the following risks, to quote:

‘Our examination of the peer-reviewed medical and public health literature uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p15

‘As recently as 2008, there was only a handful of studies on the health effects of fracking. There are now over 450 peer-reviewed studies, reviews and commentaries. A significant majority of the studies indicate potential risks or actual adverse health outcomes associated with shale gas development’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 108/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Earlier scientific predictions and anecdotal evidence are now bolstered by extensive empirical data, confirming that the public health risks from unconventional gas and oil extraction are real, the range of adverse environmental impacts wide, and the negative economic consequences considerable’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p15

‘Elevated concentrations of air pollutants and indications of potential or actual incidents of water contamination have been frequently found. Reports of adverse health outcomes related to shale gas development in the US also show symptoms that are common across geographic space and consistent with what one would expect from exposure to some of the known toxic pollutants associated with fracking’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

‘Unconventional gas exploration and production may have unavoidable environmental impacts. Some risks results if the technology is not used adequately, but others will occur despite proper use of technology’.

UNEP (United Nations Global Environmental Program) and its Alert, Issued in 2012

‘… There are potential health risks because production is rising and increasingly occurring near where people live and development is transforming both the population and character of nearby communities’.

Dr. Lisa McKenzie, Environmental Science and Technology Report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development, 2014, pB

‘A significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate that these activities are dangerous to people and their communities in ways that are difficult—and may prove impossible—to mitigate. Risks include adverse impacts on water, air, agriculture, public health and safety, property values, climate stability, and economic vitality, as well as earthquakes’…

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p14

‘While much of the experience of fracking and the evidence of its impact has been generated from the US and other countries, it is notable that the risks associated with fracking could be greater in England because of geological factors, the density and size of surrounding populations, and the proximity of agricultural and tourism activity’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 109/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘… the potential risks (to health) are too great, in fact not even fully known, and relying on the limited data at present available would be negligent.’

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

‘We can also say that if fracking is characterised by a high number and concentration of boreholes within relatively small rural and semi-rural areas that are well populated, the risk to public health would be considerable’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p6

‘The evidence collected for the Scottish government enquiry suggests there are significant public health risks and costs…’

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, 2018, p18

‘According to available studies on its environmental relevance, the fracking technology in unconventional natural gas production – particularly in shale gas production – is a technology with enormous potential risks. The effects on humans, nature and the environment are scientifically not yet sufficiently clarified. Drinking water and health have absolute priority for us’.

Germany, Coalition Government, Summaries of Evidence, 2016

‘The health risks are too great’.

New York State Commissioner, 2015

‘… one of the primary sources of contamination of drinking water supplies is through the processing and disposal of polluted water into the rivers’.

Physicians for Social Responsibility & Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Oct 2015

‘Cases of drinking water sources contaminated by drilling activities, as well as waste disposal, are now proven’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p18 / (Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oct 2015)

‘… fracking for shale gas is an inherently risky activity that generates various health hazards… Certain aspects of fracking (e.g. loss of wellbore structural integrity due to ageing and leaks from ancillary infrastructure) are impossible to eradicate completely even with the adoption of best practice. Accidents do happen, and some people will be negatively affected by some of the social and economic effects of fracking’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p13

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 110/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Fracking profits go to private industry but the public – families and communities – bear the costs of the many health complications from the drilling’. Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p266

‘While the precise level of risk to human health is indeterminate, the health hazards involved are substantial’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p19

‘There are also features that are specific to shale formations. In the UK, shale formations are thick and geologically faulted, features that increase health and environmental risks associated with fracking when compared to the US’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p6

‘The available peer-reviewed literature reveals both potential and actual harms. Specifically, as demonstrated by PSE’s statistical analysis of the body of scientific literature available from 2009 to 2015, 69 percent of original research studies on water quality found potential for, or actual evidence of, water contamination’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p10

‘Substantial evidence shows that drilling and fracking activities, and associated wastewater disposal practices, inherently threaten groundwater and have polluted drinking water sources, as confirmed by the 2016 final report of the U.S.’

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p48

‘An emerging body of evidence, from both human and animal studies, shows harm to fertility and reproductive success from exposure to oil and gas operations, at least some of which may be linked to the dozens of known endocrine-disrupting chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing…’

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p20

‘… the UK Government has a clear and urgent duty to fully investigate the human rights implications of fracking’…

A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom, 2014, p4

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 111/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Studies of mothers living near oil and gas extraction operations consistently find impairments to infant health, including elevated risks for low birth weight and preterm birth. A 2017 study that examined birth certificates for all 1.1 million infants born in Pennsylvania found poorer indicators of infant health and significantly lower birth weights among babies born to mothers living near fracking sites…’

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p19

‘There is a growing epidemiological literature on the health effects associated with UNG [Unconventional Gas Development] development. A retrospective study of 124 862 births in rural Colorado indicated an association between maternal proximity to natural gas well sites and birth prevalence of congenital heart defects and neural tube defects… A working paper exploring 1 069 699 births in Pennsylvania reported increased prevalence of low birthweight and small for gestational age births, as well as reduced appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, respiration (APGAR) scores in infants born to mothers living within 2.5 km of a natural gas well compared to infants born to mothers living further than 2.5 km from a well’.

Dr. Lisa McKenzie, Environmental Science and Technology Report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development, 2014, pG

‘Fracking activities and wastewater disposal, which often take place in close proximity to where people live and work, raise risks for human exposure. The technology is vastly outpacing what we know about the health effects’.

James Burch, University of South Carolina, Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, pp95-96

‘Overall there has been an analysis of the science relating to fracking and public health which has shown over 80% of papers and reviews demonstrating significant risk of harm or actual harm to public health’.

Dr. Tim Thornton, Statement to North Yorkshire County Council Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee Considering Third Energy Planning Application to Frack at Kirby

Misperton, 20 May 2016

‘Fracking also produces a variety of health hazards, and impacts negatively on the natural world’… The health effects of these different hazards vary depending on the type and pattern of human exposure. But they include increased risks of cancer, respiratory disease and birth defects’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, pp2 & 5

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 112/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘The risks and serious nature of the hazards associated with fracking, coupled with the concerns and uncertainties about the regulatory system, indicate that shale gas development should be halted until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment is undertaken’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p6

‘Exposure to increased radiation levels from fracking materials is a risk for both workers and residents… The University of Iowa researchers documented a variety of radioactive substances including radium, thorium, and uranium in fracking wastewater and determined that their radioactivity increased over time; they warned that radioactive decay products can potentially contaminate recreational, agricultural, and residential areas’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, pp23-24

‘The [industry’s] report claims most fracking chemicals would only have adverse health impacts at “very high concentrations” when much evidence exists on the contrary. The generalized claim that most of these chemicals are safe is problematic and does not give the reader any sense of the number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses which may not be safe’.

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, 2018, p9

‘These controls were designed pre-fracking and their application leaves a number of gaps, which may risk harm to human health and / or damage to the environment. Under the current regularity system, the uncertainty and risk associated with fracking is not justifiable [i.e. potential risk = illegal]’.

Environmental Law Review

‘The group [health care professional in Massachusetts] noted that the operation of natural gas facilities risks human exposures to toxic, cancer-causing, and radioactive pollution due to the presence of naturally co-occurring contaminants, toxic additives to the hydraulic fracturing process used to produce much of the country’s natural gas supply, and through the operation of transmission pipelines’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p29

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 113/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘87 percent of original research studies on air quality found significant air pollutant emissions; and 84 percent of original research studies on human health risks found signs of harm or indication of potential harm’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p10

‘There is growing evidence of a variety of health problems being associated with fracking. Common sense dictates that drinking and breathing cancer-causing agents will take their toll’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p266

‘Our analysis suggests that the current regulatory regime is not fit for purpose and therefore unable to adequately manage serious environmental risks’.

Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas in the UK: Examining the Evidence for Potential Environmental Impacts, Angling Trust, National Trust, RSPB, Salmon and Trout Association, The Wildlife Trust, WWT, March 2014

‘The totality of the science – which now encompasses hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and hundreds of additional reports and case examples – shows that permitting fracking in New York would pose significant threats to the air, water, health and safety of New Yorkers’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p262 (Physicians for Social Responsibility)

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 114/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Bibliography (Science, Medical and Government Reports) McKenzie Lisa M PhD, MPH. Goldstein, Bernard D., Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development, Colorado School of Public Health, university of Colorado and the Graduate School of Public health, University of Pittsburgh, 2014

McKenzie Lisa M PhD, MPH, Human Health Risks Associated with Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources Impact of Unconventional Natural Gas Drilling Operations on the Environment and Public Health, 2014

Huhne Chris, Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, OFGEM, Review, Final Report, 2011

Ridlington Elizabeth and Rumpler John, Environment America Research & Policy Center, Fracking by the Numbers, Key Impacts of Dirty Drilling at the State and National Level, 2013

Environment Act, Chapter 25, The Environment Agency and the Scottish Protection Agency, Crown copyright, 1995

Bushkin-Bedient Sheila, MD, MPH, Dyrszka Larysa, MD, Gorby Yuri, PhD Menapace Mary, RN, Nolan Kathleen, MD, MSL, Orenstein Carmi, MPH, Schoenfeld Barton, MD, FACC, Steingraber Sandra, PhD (Report Co-Written and Endorsed by the Physicians of Social Responsibility, Noble Peace Prize, 1995): Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction) Fifth Edition, March 2018

Grear Anna, Director of the GNHRE, Reader in Law, Cardiff Law School, UK and Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato, New Zealand Grant Evadne, Associate Head, Department of Law, University of the West of England, Editor, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, GNHRE Coordinator, Kerns Tom Dr, Director of Environment and Human Rights Advisory, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Seattle Community College Morrow Karen, Professor of Environmental Law, Swansea University, core team member GNHRE, Short Damien Dr, Reader in Human Rights, and Director of the Human Rights Consortium and Extreme Energy Initiative at the School of Advanced Study, University of London: A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom, 2014

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 115/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Bibliography (Science, Medical and Government Reports) – Continued McCoy David Dr, Saunders Patrick, Dr, Rugman Frank, Dr, Mr Mike Hill, Wood Ruth, Dr, McGlade Christophe, Dr, Ekins Paul, Professor, (UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources and UCL Energy Institute, University College London); Bradshaw Michael Professor, (Warwick Business School, University of Warwick); and Watson Jim, Professor (UK Energy Research Centre): Health and Fracking, The Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and Coronation Oil, and Hutton Energy PLC, Petroleum Act 1998, Petroleum Exploration and Development License, PEDL275 15 September 2015

Watterson Andrew Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK, and Dinan William, Communications, Media & Culture, Faculty of Arts & Humanities, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018

Thornton, Tim Dr.: Statement to North Yorkshire County Council Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee considering Third Energy planning application to frack at Kirby Misperton, 20 May 2016

Statutory Security Supply Reply, Department of Energy and Climate Changes, 2014

Global energy Review, News and Analysis of Energy law and Regulation, Why Frances Fracking Ban was Upheld, Law Business Research, 2013

Utilities Act, 2000, Chapter 27, Crown copyright 2000

Healy Dave, Dr, Senior Lecturer in Geomechanics Department of Geology & Petroleum Geology University of Aberdeen: Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts, 2012

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 116/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Bibliography (Laws and Legal Acts) Water Industry Act, 1991, Chapter 56, Crown copyright 1991

Water Resources Act 1991, Chapter 57, Crown Copyright 1991

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2013

Statutory Instruments, 2000 No, 3284, Water, England and Wales, The Water Supply (Water Quality), Regulations 2000

Criminal Law Act 1977, Chapter 45, Crown copyright, 1977

Offences Against the Person’s Act, 1861, Crown Prosecution Document, Maliciously Administering Poison, and with Intent to Injure, Aggrieve, or Annoy any Other Person

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 117/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Banerjee, N. (16 November, 2017). Industrial strength: How the U.S. government hid fracking’s risks to drinking water. Inside Climate News.

Santos, I. C., Martin, M. S., Reyes, M. L., Carlton Jr., D. D., Stigler-Granados, P., Valerio, M. A., & Schug, K. A. (2017). Exploring the links between groundwater quality and bacterial communities near oil and gas extraction activities. Science of the Total Environment. 618, 165-173. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.264

Soraghan, M. (1 November, 2017). Now it’s oilmen who say fracking could harm groundwater. E&E News. Retrieved from https://www.eenews.net /stories/1060065209

Liberatore, H. K., Plewa, M. J., Wagner, E. D., VanBriesen, J. M., Burnett, D. B., Cizmas, L. H., & Richardson, S. D. (2017). Identification and comparative mammalian cell cytotoxicity of new iodo-phenolic disinfection byproducts in chloraminated oil and gas wastewaters. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 4(11), 475–480. doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00468

Martin, M. S., Santos, I. C., Carlton Jr. D. D., Stigler-Granados, P., Hildenbrand, Z. L., & Schug, K. A. (2017). Characterization of bacterial diversity in contaminated groundwater using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Science of the Total Environment. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.027

Mosier, J. (2017, December 1). UTA research finds dangerous bacteria in groundwater near Texas gas drilling sites. Dallas News.

Sommer, L. (17 August, 2017). How much drinking water has California lost to oil industry waste? No one knows. KQED Science.

Sommer, L. (17 January, 2017). California says oil companies can keep dumping wastewater during state review. KQED Science.

Burgos, W. D., Castillo-Meza, L., Tasker, T. L., Geeza, T. J., Drohan, P. J., Liu, X., … Warner, N. R. (2017). Watershed-scale impacts from surface water disposal of oil and gas wastewater in Western Pennsylvania. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(15), 8851–8860. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01696

Johnston, I., (2017, July 12). Fracking can contaminate rivers and lakes with radioactive material, study finds. The Independent.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 118/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking McMahon, P., Barlow, J. R. B., Engle, M. A., Belitz, K., Ging, P. B., Hunt, A. G., & Kresse, T. M. (2017). Methane and benzene in drinking-water wells overlying the Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, and Haynesville Shale hydrocarbon production areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(12), 6727-6734. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00746

Hill, E., & Ma, L. (2017). Shale gas development and drinking water quality. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 107(5), 522–525. doi: 10.1257/aer.p20171133

Harkness, J. S., Darrah, T. H., Warner, N. R., Whyte, C. J., Moore, M. T., Millot, R., Vengosh, A. (2017). The geochemistry of naturally occurring methane and saline groundwater in an area of unconventional shale gas development. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 208, 302–334. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2017.03.039

Kusnetz, N. (2017, February 21). Fracking well spills poorly reported in most top-producing states, study finds. InsideClimate News. Retrieved from: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21022017/fracking-spills-north-dakota- colorado

  1. Y., Folkerts, E. J., Zhang, Y., Martin, J. W. Alessi, D. S., & Goss, G. G. (2017). Effects on biotransformation, oxidative stress, and endocrine disruption in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(2), 940-947. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04695

U.S. EPA. (2016). Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas: Impacts from the hydraulic fracturing water cycle on drinking water resources in the United States (Executive Summary). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-600-R-16-236ES.

Tong, S., & Scheck, T. (30 November, 2016). EPA’s late changes to fracking study downplay risk of drinking water pollution. Marketplace.org.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. (2016, August 11). SAB review of the EPA’s draft assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources. EPA- SAB-16- 005.

Scheck, T. & Tong, S. (2016, December 13). EPA reverses course, highlights fracking contamination of drinking water. APM Reports.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 119/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Konkel, L. (2016). Salting the earth: The environmental impact of oil and gas wastewater spills. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(12), A230-A235. doi: 10.1289/ehp.124-A230

Shrestha, N., Chilkoor, G., Wilder, J., Gadhamshetty, V., & Stone, J. J. (2016). Potential water resource impacts of hydraulic fracturing from unconventional oil production in the Bakken shale. Water Research, 108, 1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.006

Stringfellow, W. T., Camarillo, M. K., Domen, J. K., Sandelin, W. L., Varadharajan, C., Jordan, P. D., & Birkholzer, J. T. (2017). Identifying chemicals of concern in hydraulic fracturing fluids used for oil production Environmental Pollution, 220, Part A, 413-420. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.082

Grant, C. J., Lutz, A. K., Kulig, A. D., & Stanton, M. R. (2016). Fracked ecology: Response of aquatic trophic structure and mercury biomagnification dynamics in the Marcellus Shale Formation. Ecotoxicology, 25, 1739–1750. doi: 10.1007/s10646-016-1717-8

Wrenn, D. H., Klaiber, H. A., & Jaenicke, E. C. (2016). Unconventional shale gas development, risk perceptions, and averting behavior: evidence from bottled water purchases. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 3(4), 770-817. doi: 10.1086/688487

Yost, E. E., Stanek, J., & Burgoon, L. D. (2016). A decision analysis framework for estimating the potential hazards for drinking water resources of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. Science of the Total Environment, 574, 1544– 1558. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.167

Hildenbrand, Z. L., Carlton Jr., D. D., Meik, J. M., Taylor, J. T., Fontenot, B. E., Walton, J. L., Schug, K. A. (2016). A reconnaissance analysis of groundwater quality in the Eagle Ford shale region reveals two distinct bromide/chloride populations. Science of the Total Environment, 575, 672–680. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.070

Sherwood, O. A., Rogers, J. D., Lackey, G., Burke, T. L., Osborn, S. G. & Ryan, J. N. (2016). Groundwater methane in relation to oil and gas development and shallow coal seams in the Denver-Julesburg Basin of Colorado. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(30). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523267113

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 120/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Banerjee, N. (2016, July 11). Colorado fracking study blames faulty wells for contamination. InsideClimate News. Retrieved from https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11072016/water-contamination-near- colorado-fracking-tied-well-failures

U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2016, May 24). Health Consultation: Dimock Groundwater Site.

Akob, D. M., Mumford, A. C., Orem, W. H., Engle, M. A., Klinges, J. G., Kent, D. B., & Cozzarelli, I. M. (2016). Wastewater disposal from unconventional oil and gas development degrades stream quality at a West Virginia injection facility. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(11). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00428

Fears, D. (2016, May 11). This mystery was solved: scientists say chemicals from fracking wastewater can taint fresh water nearby. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/ wp/2016/05/11/this-mystery-was-solved-scientists-say-chemicals-from-fracking- wastewater-can-taint-fresh-waternearby.

Schladen, M. (2016, April 30). Flooding sweeps oil, chemicals into rivers. El Paso Times. Retrieved from http://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2016/04/30/ flooding-sweeps-oil-chemicals-into-rivers/83671348/

Lauer, N. E., Harkness, J. S., & Vengosh A. (2016). Brine spills associated with unconventional oil development in North Dakota. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(10). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06349

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University. (2016, April 27). Contamination in North Dakota linked to fracking spills [Press release].

Kassotis, C. D., Iwanowicz, L. R., Akob, D. M., Cozzarelli, I. M., Mumford, A. C., Orem, W. H., & Nagel, S. C. (2016). Endocrine disrupting activities of surface water associated with West Virginia oil and gas industry wastewater disposal site. Science of the Total Environment 557-558. doi: 10.1016/j.sci.tenv.2016.03.1

Bienkowski, B. (2016, April 6). In W. Virginia, frack wastewater may be messing with hormones. Environmental Health News. Retrieved from http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/april/in-w.-virginia- frack-wastewater-may-be-messing-with-hormones

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 121/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking DiGiulio, D. C. & Jackson, R. B. (2016). Impact to underground sources of drinking water and domestic wells from production well stimulation and completion practices in the Pavillion, Wyoming, Field. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(8). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04970

Banerjee, N. (2016, March 29). Fracking study finds toxins in Wyoming town’s groundwater and raises broader concerns. Inside Climate News.

Jordan, R. (2016, March 29). Stanford researchers show fracking’s impact to drinking water sources. Stanford News.

Arenschield, L. (2016, February 8). Drillers using more water to frack Ohio shale. The Columbus Dispatch.

Elliot, E. G., Ettinger, A. S., Leaderer, B. P., Bracken, M. B., Deziel, N. (2016). A systematic evaluation of chemicals in hydraulic-fracturing fluids and wastewater for reproductive and developmental toxicity. Advance online publication. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. doi: 10.1038/jes.2015.81

Greenwood, M. (2016, January 6). Toxins found in fracturing fluid and wastewater, study shows. Yale News. Retrieved from: http://news.yale.edu/2016/01/06/toxins-found-fracking-fluids-and-wastewater- study-shows

Renock, D., Landis, J. D., & Sharma, M. (2016). Reductive weathering of black shale and release of barium during hydraulic fracturing. Applied Geochemistry, 65. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.11.001

Dartmouth College. (15 December 2015). Fracking plays active role in generating toxic metal wastewater, study finds. Science Daily.

Drollette, B. D., Hoelzer, K., Warner, N. R., Darrah, T. H., Karatum, O., O’Connor, M. P., Plata, D. L. (2015). Elevated levels of diesel range organic compounds in groundwater near Marcellus gas operations are derived from surface activities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(43). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511474112

Drollette B. D. & Plata, D. A. (2015, October 13). Hydraulic fracturing components in Marcellus groundwater likely from surface operations, not wells.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 122/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Cart, J. (2015, July 30). Central valley wastewater disposal to continue despite contamination. Los Angeles Times.

Jordon, R. (2015, July 21). Shallow fracking raises questions for water, new Stanford research shows. [Press release].

Shonkoff, S. B. C., Jordan, P., Hays, J., Stringfellow, W. T., Wettstein, Z. S., Harrison, R., Sandelin, W., & McKone, T. E. (2015, July 9). Volume II, Chapter 6: Potential impacts of well stimulation on human health in California. In: An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation in California. California Council on Science and Technology, Sacramento, CA.

Stringfellow, W. T., Cooley H., Varadharajan, C., Heberger, M., Reagan, M. T., Domen, J.K., Houseworth, J. E. (2015, July 9). Volume II, Chapter 2: Impacts of well stimulation on water resources. In: An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation in California. California Council on Science and Technology, Sacramento, CA.

Gallegos, T. J., Varela, B. A., Haines, S. S., & Engle, M. A. (2015). Hydraulic fracturing water use variability in the United States and potential environmental implications. Water Resources Research.

Knickmeyer E., & Smith, S. (2015, July 15). Study finds contaminants in California public-water supplies. Associated Press.

McPhate, C. (2015, June 18). New study reveals potential contamination. Denton Record-Chronicle.

U.S. EPA. (2015). Assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources (External review draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/047, 2015. EPA says new study doesn’t show fracking is safe. [Charleston Gazette].

Llewellyn, G. T., Dorman, F., Westland, J. L., Yoxtheimer, D., Grieve, P. Sowers, T., Brantley, S. L. (2015). Evaluating a groundwater supply contamination incident attributed to Marcellus Shale gas development. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 112, 6325-30. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1420279112/- /DCSupplemental

St. Fleur, N. (2015, May 4). Fracking chemicals detected in Pennsylvania drinking water. The New York Times.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 123/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Heilweil, V. M., Grieve, P. L., Hynek, S. A., Brantley, S. L., Solomon, D. K., & Risser, D. W. (2015). Stream measurements locate thermogenic methane fluxes in groundwater discharge in an area of shale-gas development. Environmental Science & Technology, 49, 4057-4065. doi: 10.1021/es503882b

U.S. Geological Survey. (2015, April 1). New stream monitoring method locates elevated groundwater methane in shale-gas development area.

Alawattegama, S. K., Kondratyuk, T., Krynock, R., Bricker, M., Rutter, J. K., Bain, D. J., & Stolz, J. F. (2015). Well water contamination in a rural community in southwestern Pennsylvania near unconventional shale gas extraction. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 50, 516-528. doi: 10.1080/10934529.2015.992684

Cart. J. (2015, February 11). High levels of benzene found in fracking waste water. Los Angeles Times.

Elsevier. (2015 April 8). Fracking fluids contain potentially harmful compounds if leaked into groundwater. ScienceDaily.

Bowen, Z. H., Oeisner, G. P., Cade, B., Gallegos, T. J., Farag, A. M., Mott, D. N., Varela, B. A. (2015). Assessment of surface water chloride and conductivity trends in areas of unconventional oil and gas development – why existing national data sets cannot tell us what we would like to know. Water Resources Research, 51, 704-15. doi: 10.1002/2014WR016382

U.S. Geological Survey (2015, January. 26). Natural breakdown of petroleum underground can lace arsenic into groundwater.

Cozzarelli, I. M. Schreiber, M. D., Erickson, M. L., & Ziegler, B. A. (2015). Arsenic cycling in hydrocarbon plumes: secondary effects of natural attenuation. Groundwater. doi: 10.1111/gwat.12316

Harkness, J. S., Dwyer, G. S., Warner, N. R., Parker, K. M., Mitch, W. A., & Vengosh, A. (2015). Iodide, bromide, and ammonium in hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas wastewaters: environmental implications. Environmental Science & Technology, 49, 1955-63. doi: 10.1021/es504654n

Hopey, D. (2015, January 15). Study: high levels of pollutants from drilling waste found in Pa. rivers. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 124/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Darrah, T. H., Vengosh, A., Jackson, R. B., Warner, N. R., & Poreda, R. J. (2014). Noble gases identify the mechanisms of fugitive gas contamination in drinking- water wells overlying the Marcellus and Barnett Shales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (39), 14076-14081. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322107111

Jackson, R. (2014, December 1). Reopen Barnett Shale water probe. The Texas Tribune.

Kahrilas, G. A. Blotevogel, J., Stewart, P. S., & Borch, T. (2015). Biocides in hydraulic fracturing fluids: a critical review of their usage, mobility, degradation, and toxicity. Environmental Science & Technology, 49,16-32. doi: 10.1021/es503724k

Board, G. (2014, November 3). September drilling accident contaminated water in Doddridge County. West Virginia Public Broadcasting. Retrieved from http://wvpublic.org/post/dep-september-drilling-accident-contaminated-water- doddridge-county

Schaeffer, E., & Bernhardt, C. (2014, October 22). Fracking’s toxic loophole. The Environmental Integrity Project. Waynesburg officials investigate dumping of fracking wastewater. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Brittingham, M. C., Maloney, K. O., Farag, A. M., Harper, D. D., & Bowen, Z. H. (2014). Ecological risks of shale oil and gas development to wildlife, aquatic resources and their habitats. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(19), 11034–11047. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5020482

Parker, K. M., Zeng, T., Harkness, J., Vengosh, A., & Mitch, W. A. 2014. Enhanced formation of disinfection byproducts in shale gas wastewater-impacted drinking water supplies. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(19), 11161– 11169. doi: 10.1021/es5028184

Legere, L. (2014, September 9). DEP releases updated details on water contamination near drilling sites: some 240 private supplies damaged by drilling in the past 7 years. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Maguire-Boyle, S. J., & Barron, A. R. (2014). Organic compounds in produced waters from shale gas wells. Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 16, 2237-2248. doi: 10.1039/C4EM00376D

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 125/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking European Commission. (2015, February 19). Chemical composition of fracking wastewater. Science for Environment Policy, 404

Banerjee, N. (2014, August 12). Oil companies fracking into drinking water sources, new research finds. Los Angeles Times.

Hamill, S. D. (2014, August 3). Drillers did not report half of spills that led to fines. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.post- gazette.com/news/state/2014/08/03/Drillers-did-not-report-half-of-spills-that-led- to-fines/stories/201408020142

Arenschield, L. (2014, July 21). Halliburton delayed releasing details on fracking chemicals after Monroe County spill. The Columbus Dispatch.

Burton Jr., G. A., Basu, N., Ellis, B. R., Kapo, K. E., Entrekin, S. & Nadelhoffer, K. (2014). Hydraulic “fracking”: are surface water impacts an ecological concern? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33(8), 1679-1689.

Lustgarten, A. (2014, July 18). California halts injects of fracking waste, warning it may be contaminating aquifers. Pro Publica.

The Endocrine Society (2014, June 23). Hormone-disrupting activity of fracking chemicals worse than initially found. Science Daily.

Vengosh, A., Jackson, R. B., Warner, N., Darrah, T. H., & Kondash, A. (2014). A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States [Abstract]. Environmental Science & Technology. doi: 10.1021/es405118y

Gibbons, B. (2014, February 19). Woman wins case against Chesapeake Jaqueline Place of Terry Township to receive compensation for well contamination. Thedailyreview.com

Tomasic, J. (2014, January 16). Colorado drilling data: More than a spill a day. The Colorado Independent.

Drajem, M. (2014, January 9). Duke fracking tests reveal dangers driller’s data missed. Bloomberg

Begos, K. (2014, January 05). 4 states confirm water pollution from drilling. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/01/05/14

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 126/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Kassotis, C. D., Tillitt, D. E., Davis, J. W., Hormann, A. M., & Nagel, S. C. (2013). Estrogen and androgen receptor activities of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and surface and ground water in a drilling-dense region. Endocrinology. doi: 10.1210/en.2013-1697

Banerjee, N. (2013, December 16). Hormone-disrupting chemicals found in water at fracking sites. Los Angeles Times.

Endocrine Society. (2013, December 16). Fracking chemicals disrupt hormone function. ScienceDaily.

Hirst, C., & Fuquay, J. (2013, December 7). Second leak reported at east Fort Worth gas well site. Star-Telegram.

MacPherson, J. (2013, October 28). Nearly 300 pipeline spills in North Dakota have gone unreported to the public since January 2012. Huffington Post.

Mall, A. (2013, November 26). New USGS analysis: Threats to water, wildlife, and health from oil and gas development in the Appalachian basin.

National Intelligence Council. (2012, February 2). Global Water Security: Intelligence Community Assessment, (ICA 2012-08).

Vaidyanathan, G. (2013, November 22). Bakken shale: As oil production sets in, pollution starts to migrate — scientists. E&E Publishing, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059990892

Maykuth, A. (2013, September 13). Shale criminal charges stun drilling industry. Philly.com. Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2013-09- 13/news/42012429_1_xto-energy-inc-criminal-charges-attorney-general

Wiener, A. (2013, September 20). DC Water Chief urges Agriculture Secretary not to allow fracking near D.C. Washington City Paper.

Papoulias, D., & MacKenzie, T. (2013, August 28). Hydraulic fracturing fluids likely harmed threatened Kentucky fish species. USGS Newsroom.

Fontenot, B. E., Hunt, L. R., Hildenbrand, Z. L., Carlton Jr., D. D., Oka, H., Walton, J. L., Schug, K. A. (2013). An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale formation. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(17)

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 127/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Jackson, R. B., Vengosh, A., Darrah, T. H., Warner, N. R., Down, A., Poreda, R. J., Karr, J. D. (2013). Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(28), 11250-11255. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221635110

CBS/AP. (2013, June 25). Methane found in Pa. (Pennsylvania) drinking water near fracked wells. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/methane-found-in-pa-drinking-water-near- fracked-wells/

Legere, L. (2013, May 19). Sunday Times review of DEP drilling records reveals water damage, murky testing methods. The Times-Tribune

Gross, S. A., Avens, H. J., Banducci, A. M., Sahmel, J., Panko, J. M., & Tvermoes, B. E. (2013). Analysis of BTEX groundwater concentrations from surface spills associated with hydraulic fracturing operations. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 63(4), 424-432. doi: 10.1080/10962247.2012.759166

Ferrar, K. J., Michanowicz, D. R., Christen, C. L., Mulcahy, N., Malone, S. L., & Sharma, R. K. (2013). Assessment of effluent contaminants from three facilities discharging Marcellus shale wastewater to surface waters in Pennsylvania. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(7), 3472-3481. doi: 10.1021/es301411q

Finley, B. (2012, December 9). Drilling spills reaching Colorado groundwater; state mulls test rules. The Denver Post.

Louis, S. (2012, May 4). Potential health hazards from shale gas exploration and exploitation – Drinking water and ambient air. Presented to Health Canada by SANEXEN Environmental Services; 0/Ref.: RA11-410. Document released under the (Canadian) Access to Information Act.

Hammer, R., & VanBriesen, J. (2012, May). In fracking’s wake: New rules are needed to protect our health and environment from contaminated wastewater (Rep.). Natural Resources Defense Council.

United States Government Accountability Office. (1989, July 5). Drinking water: Safeguards are not preventing contamination from injected oil and gas wastes.

Urbina, I. (2011, August 4). A tainted water well, and concern there may be more.

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 128/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Colborn, T., Kwiatkowski, C., Schultz, K., & Bachran, M. (2011). Natural gas operations from a public health perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 17(5), 1039-1056. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2011.605662

Osborn, S. G., Vengosh, A., Warner, N. R., & Jackson, R. B. (2011). Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 8172-8176. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1100682108

Duke University. (2011). Methane levels 17 times higher in water wells near hydrofracking sites, study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110509151234.htm

Entrekin, S., Evans-White, M., Johnson, B., & Hagenbuch, E. (2011). Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(9), 503-511. doi: 10.1890/110053

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (2009, June 5). Waste from Marcellus shale drilling in Cross Creek Park kills fish. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Lustgarten, A. (2009, April 26). Officials in three states pin water woes on gas drilling. ProPublica.

Lustgarten, A. (2008, November 13). Buried secrets: Is natural gas drilling endangering U.S. water supplies? ProPublica.

Booker, A. E., Borton, M. A., Daly, R. A., Welch, S. A., Nicora C. D., Hoyt, D. W., Wilkins, M. J. (2017). Sulfide generation by dominant Halanaerobium microorganisms in hydraulically fractured shales. mSphere, 2(4), e00257-17. doi: 10.1128/mSphereDirect.00257-17

Stringfellow, W. T., Cooley H., Varadharajan, C., Heberger, M., Reagan, M. T., Domen, J.K., Sandelin, W., Houseworth, J. E. (2015, July 9). Volume II, Chapter 2: Impacts of well stimulation on water resources. In: An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation in California. California Council on Science and Technology, Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015, June 30). Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources, executive summary (draft).

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 129/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Bryant, B. (2014, December 2). The only fracked site in the United Kingdom suffered structural failure. Vice News.

Finley, B. (2017, September 22). Colorado landfills are illegally burying low-level radioactive waste from oil and gas industry, Denver Post learns. Denver Post.

Eitrheim, E. S., May, D., Forbes, T. Z., & Nelson, A. W. (2016). Disequilibrium of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in drill cuttings from a horizontal drilling operation. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 3, 425-29. doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00439

Lauer, N. E., Harkness, J. S., & Vengosh, A. (2016). Brine spills associated with unconventional oil development in North Dakota. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(10), 5389–5397. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06349

Hirji, Z. (2016, April 29). Persistent water and soil contamination found at N.D. wastewater spills. InsideClimate News.

Bruggers, J. (2016, March 10). State begins crackdown on radioactive waste. Courier-Journal.

WKYT. (2016, February, 26). Estill County leaders to fight ‘tooth and toenail’ over radioactive waste in landfill. WKYT.

Peterson, J. (2015, November 23). States lack rules for radioactive drilling waste disposal. High Country News.

Zhang, T., Hammock, R. W., & Vidic, R. D. (2015). Fate of radium in Marcellus Shale flowback water impoundments and assessment of associated health risks. Environmental Science & Technology 49, 9347-54. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01393

Hurdle, J. & Phillips, S. (2015, April 9). New study raises possible link between gas drilling and radon levels. State Impact Pennsylvania.

Nelson, A. W., Eitrheim, E. S., Knight, A. W., May, D., Mehrhoff, M. A., Shannon, R., Schultz, M.K. (2015). Understanding the radioactive in growth and decay of naturally occurring radioactive materials in the environment: An analysis of produced fluids from the Marcellus Shale. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(7). doi: 10.1289/ehp.1408855

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 130/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Kelly, S. (2014, March 24). Research shows some test methods miss 99 percent of radium in fracking waste. Desmogblog.com.

Brown V. J. (Feb 2014). Radionuclides in fracking wastewater. Environmental Health Perspectives 122(2), A50-A55. doi: 10.1289/ehp.122-A50

Warner, N. R., Christie, C. A., Jackson, R. B., & Vengosh, A. (2013). Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in Western Pennsylvania. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(20), 11849-11857. doi: 10.1021/es402165b

Efstathiou, J., Jr. (2013, October 2). Radiation in Pennsylvania creek seen as legacy of fracking. Bloomberg.

Rich, A. L., & Crosby, E. C. (2013). Analysis of reserve pit sludge from unconventional natural gas hydraulic fracturing and drilling operations for the presence of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM). NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 23(1), 117-135. doi: 10.2190/NS.23.1.h

Rowan, E. L., Engle, M. A., Kirby, C. S., & Kraemer, T. F. (2011, September 7). Radium content of oil- and gas-field produced waters in the northern Appalachian basin (USA): Summary and discussion of data. (Rep United States Geological Survey. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5135/ http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/radionuclides.cfm

Urbina, I. (2011, February 26). Regulation lax as gas wells’ tainted water hits rivers. The New York Times.

Soraghan, M. (2017, May 30). EPA investigating emissions in tank deaths. E&E News.

Collister, D., Duff, G., Palatnick, W., Komenda, P., Tangri, N., & Hingwala, J. (2017). A methanol intoxication outbreak from recreational ingestion of fracking fluid. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 69(5), 696-700. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.10.029

Sangosti, R.J. (2016, September 25). Drilling through danger. Denver Post. Retrieved from http://extras.denverpost.com/oil-gas-deaths/index.html

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 131/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Cahill, A. G., Steelman, C. M., Forde, O., Kuloyo, O., Ruff, S. E., Mayer, B., Parker, B. L. (2017). Mobility and persistence of methane in groundwater in a controlled-release field experiment. Nature Geoscience, 10, 289–294. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2919

Nikiforuk, A. (2017, April 11). Methane leaks from energy wells affects groundwater, travels great distances, study confirms. The Tyee.

Malewitz, J. (2016, December 21). Abandoned Texas oil wells seen as “ticking time bombs” of contamination. Texas Tribune.

Urbina, I. (2011, August 4). A tainted water well, and concern there may be more. The New York Times.

United States Government Accountability Office. (1989, July 5). Drinking water: Safeguards are not preventing contamination from injected oil and gas wastes.

Texas Department of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources. (1985). Agricultural land and water contamination: From injection wells, disposal pits, and abandoned wells used in oil and gas production (pp. 5, 12-15). Austin, TX: Dept. of Agriculture, Office of Natural Resources.

Chen, S. S., Suna Y., Tsang, D. C. W., Grahamc, N. J. D., Ok, Y. S., Feng, Y., & Li, X.-D. (2016). Potential impact of flowback water from hydraulic fracturing on agricultural soil quality: Metal/metalloid bioaccessibility, Microtox bioassay, and enzyme activities. Science of the Total Environment, 579, 1419–1426. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.141

Shonkoff, S. B. C., Stringfellow, W. T., & Domen, J. K. (2016, September). Hazard assessment of chemicals additives used in oil field that reuse produced water for agricultural irrigation, livestock watering, and groundwater recharge in the San Joaquin Valley of California: Preliminary results. Retrieved from https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/wp content/uploads/2017/04/ Preliminary_Results_13267_Disclosures_FINAL-1.pdf

McLaughlin, M. C., Borch, T., & Blotevogel, J. (2016). Spills of hydraulic fracturing chemicals on agricultural topsoil: biodegradation, sorption, and co- contaminant interactions. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(11). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00240

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 132/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Parnell, J., Brolly, C., Spinks, S., & Bowden, S. (2015). Selenium enrichment in Carboniferous Shales, Britain and Ireland: Problem or opportunity for shale gas extraction? Applied Geochemistry, 66, 82-87. doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.12. 008

Potter County Today. (2015, November 23). Shale gas impact on agriculture ‘profound.’ Fatal flow: Brine from oil, gas drilling fouls land, kills wildlife at alarming rate.

Dallas Morning News. Central Valley’s growing concern: Crops raised with oil field water.

Ross, D. (2015, June 19). Has our food been contaminated by Chevron’s wastewater? Truthout.

Dechert, S. (2014, October 14). Fracking wastewater spoils California drinking, farm supplies. Clean Technica.

Gottesdiener, L. (2014, September 6). In shadow of oil boom, North Dakota farmers fight contamination. Al Jazeera America.

Hopey, D. (2014, August 6). State: Fracking waste tainted groundwater, soil at three Washington County sites. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Bamberger, M., & Oswald, R. (2014). The real cost of fracking: How America’s shale gas boom is threatening our families, pets, and food. Boston: Beacon Press. Major oil field spill in Kingfisher Co. KOCO.com Oklahoma City.

Royte, E. (2012, November 28). Fracking our food supply. The Nation.

Ramanujan, K. (2012, March 7). Study suggests hydrofracking is killing farm animals, pets. Cornell Chronicle.

Phillips, S. (2011, September 27). Burning questions: Quarantined cows give birth to dead calves. StateImpact.

Webb, E., Bushkin-Bedient, S., Cheng, A., Kassotis, C.D., Balise, V., & Nagel, S.C. (2014). Developmental and reproductive effects of chemicals associated with unconventional oil and natural gas operations. Reviews on Environmental Health, 29(4), 307-318. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2014-0057

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 133/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Sample, I. (2014, December 5). Fracking chemicals could pose risks to reproductive health, say researchers. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/05/fracking-chemicals-could- pose-risks-to-reproductive-health-say-researchers

Hill, M. (2014, June 20). Shale gas regulation in the UK and health implications of fracking. The Lancet. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(14)60888-6

Society of Toxicology. (2014). Toxicologists outline key health and environmental concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing. Science Daily.

Glauser, W. (2014). New legitimacy to concerns about fracking and health. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 186(8), E245-E246. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4725

Stone, J. (2017, February 23). Fracking is dangerous to your health – here’s why. Forbes.

Hurdle, J. (2017, November 30). Fracking ban proposed for Delaware River basin; ‘significant risks’ cited. State Impact Pennsylvania.

Hildenbrand, Z., Santos, I., & Schug, K. (2018, January 9). Detecting harmful pathogens in water: Characterizing the link between fracking and water safety. Science Trends. https://sciencetrends.com/detecting-harmful-pathogens-water- characterizing-link-fracking-water-safety/

Niedbala, B. (2018, January 16). W. Va. company fined $1.7 million for violations at 14 well sites in Greene County.

Observer-Reporter. Water stress from high-volume hydraulic fracturing potentially threatens aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem services in Arkansas, United States. Environmental Science & Technology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03304.

American Chemical Society. (2018, January 31). Potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on streams, downstream recreation, drinking water.

Science Daily. Could leftover wastewater from balky oil well end up a health hazard? (2015, January 1). Naples Daily News. Retrieved from http://archive.naplesnews.com/news/local/-ep-853723380-335781721.html/

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 134/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Resources and Related Articles (Continued) on Water Pollution and Human Health Relative to Fracking Lustgarten, A. (2012, June 21). Injection wells: the poison beneath us. Pro Publica.

Johnston, J. E., Werder, E., & Sebastian, D. (2016). Wastewater disposal wells, fracking, and environmental justice in southern Texas. American Journal of Public Health, 106(3). doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.303000

Frazier, R. (2016, June 30). Is fracking an environmental justice issue? Scientists warn of hormone impacts from benzene, xylene, other common solvents. Environmental Health News.

Davis, B. (2014, November 20). TCEQ memo proves toxic chemicals are being released in the Eagle Ford Shale. KENS 5 Eyewitness News.

Environmental Health, 13(82). doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-13-82 Toxic chemicals, carcinogens skyrocket near fracking sites.

U.S. News and World Report. Open piles offer cheap disposal for fracking sludge, but health worries mount. Inside Climate News and the Center for Public Integrity.

Stamford, L. & Azapagic, A. (2014). Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas. Applied Energy, 134, 506-518. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.063

Maffly, B. (2014, August 24). Utah grapples with toxic water from oil and gas industry. Salt Lake City Tribune.

McMahon, J. (2014, June 26). Air pollution spikes in homes near fracking wells. Forbes.

The Associated Press. (2010, January 27). Texas agency finds high benzene levels on Barnett Shale.

Additional Thank you I would like to thank all the Professionals who offered their particular expertise, information or technical advice during the drafting of this report. Their support and encouragement has been invaluable.

Contact Details for YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) Simon Haigh / E-mail: [email protected]

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 135/136

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Pass on the Pledge If you want to form an ‘Active Alliance’ against fracking, why don’t you make a PLEDGE to do just ONE THING to stop fracking. It might be for example to write to your MP, post a leaflet campaign in your community, or simply put an information post regarding fracking on facebook for all your friends to read. We would then ask that you PASS ON THE PLEDGE to just one more person! What is required is that lots of individuals are doing their own thing (within their particular area of expertise), to peacefully oppose fracking. It need not take a lot of your time and in the opinion of the authors of this report is a very effective method of opposition, a type of resistance which for the fracking companies will prove to be a major headache.

In other words, the actions of lots of DECENT PEOPLE, taking back their own power and working for the COMMON GOOD, will in the long term be very difficult to block politically, predict, steer or infiltrate. Why not begin today and… MAKE YOUR PLEDGE, TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, TO CREATE A BETTER WORLD. For the common good of Yorkshire People, please advertise YOUR PLEDGE to your friends and PASS it on, we need the PLEDGE to go viral. By doing so, you can make a real difference to bring about change for the wider benefit of the community, especially for young children, expectant mothers and the environment… Before you do anything else today, please tell your friends! And promise to MAKE A PLEDGE – IN DOING SO TOGETHER, WE CAN PROTECT OUR CHILREN AND OUR FUTURE…

18 September 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 136/136

Next Post

Previous Post

Leave a Reply

© 2018 Anthony Beckett

Theme by Anders Norén