Proponents of shale gas can breathe a sigh of relief – the long-announced documents of the European Commission on this issue have been adopted in the form of a recommendation only and not a regulation or directive. What does it mean? That on the one hand, the Commission recognises the strategic importance of this source of energy in the context of energy policy, but on the other that it advocates cautious and responsible mining of shale gas, with no harm to the environment. This approach is also presented by Poland.
The offensive on both sides, i.e. the proponents and opponents of shale gas, had been going on for several years but it intensified last year. This was when both camps clashed in the European Parliament. Opponents of shale gas emphasised above all the detrimental effect on the environment, however they are guilty of manipulation by citing data which is outdated and inadequate. At the height of the dispute some MEPs demanded that the European Parliament should follow up on France and introduce a moratorium on shale gas mining. To a certain extent the allies of the anti-shale gas lobby included some EU Commissioners. However, two events weighed in favour of freedom in shale gas extraction: public consultation and a letter from the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Public consultation was a success; despite some shortcomings of the poll a lot of people responded and most of them were in favour of this energy source. The letter of Prime Minister Cameron and European businesses presented at the November EU summit was perceived as an important voice even though it did not have legal or binding effects for the EC. It was a signal, and a very clear one at that, indicating that serious business environment regards shale gas as an important alternative source of energy which increases the energy independence of Europe and that they do not want to create bureaucratic obstacles. As a result of all these actions, rather than having two pieces of legislation originally announced for the end of last year, only recommendations have been given.
What are these recommendations? Although they are not binding for the EU member states, they can not be underestimated. Their aim is to establish common rules for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons - so that the Member States interpret the existing European law in the same way. This mostly concerns compliance with the environmental standards and safety in the event of drilling. Even before drilling starts it is recommended that the Member States have carried out public consultation and evaluated the impact on the environment. In the subsequent phases, the following measures are recommended: reasonable management of water resources, reduction of the risk of release of gases into the atmosphere (especially methane), of combustion of gases and monitoring of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing as well as disclosure of the information to the public. The Member States are asked to inform the Commission annually about the measures taken in relation to these recommendations, first no later than December 2014. The Commission will review the effectiveness of these recommendations within 18 months. This review may indicate a need to update the requirements or to develop legally binding requirements.
In conclusion therefore, it provides a whole scenario of conduct for countries interested in the subject. At first glance it looks a bit scary but in fact they are not procedures which prevent or hinder the process. Most of these recommendations are in fact already in use as they are the basic principles of environmental protection. Let me give you the example of Poland. Currently in Poland, at the stage of exploration, SDS of the project are most commonly carried out where all these issues are taken into account. In addition, the last amendment of the legislation in Poland (amendment of a decree about measures likely to affect the environment which entered into force on 1 August 2013) introduced the obligation to analyse the environmental impact of drilling in protected areas such as Natura 2000 or in the protection zones of water intakes, at a depth of more than 1 thousand meters, and in other areas where drilling takes place at a depth of more than 5 thousand meters. There are also important details - such as the need to comply with the EIA Directive on the assessment of the environmental impact (it refers to individual projects). It was recalled that the directive requires a mandatory assessment for the extraction of natural gas in commercial quantities in excess of 500,000 cubic meters per day. This was the threshold amount I mentioned in my amendment to the Directive on the assessment of the environmental impact in September last year. This provision proposed by the EC indicated that for the Commission there is no difference whether it comes to the extraction of natural gas or shale gas. It is natural that in an additional comment, the EC mentioned the potential harmful environmental effects of shale wells. More importantly, at the same time and in the same way, it listed the benefits from this type of operation for the EU and for the individual countries.
We're going in the right direction. Obviously, for anyone who thinks rationally about the future the environmental aspects of shale gas extraction are important. We in Poland want to have an opportunity of mining shale gas seen as a chance to diversify our energy sources, but at the same time we want mining operations to respect the environment and provide the residents with the comfort of having a sense of security. This recommendation of the European Commission is also a manifestation of such a way of thinking.