Regulation of fracking

Countries using or considering to use fracking have implemented different regulations, including developing federal and regional legislation, and local zoning limitations.

[1][2] In 2011, after public pressure France became the first nation to ban hydraulic fracturing, based on the precautionary principle as well as the principal of preventive and corrective action of environmental hazards.

[9][10] Germany has announced draft regulations that would allow using hydraulic fracturing for the exploitation of shale gas deposits with the exception of wetland areas.

[13] In the United States, the Ground Water Protection Council launched FracFocus.org, an online voluntary disclosure database for hydraulic fracturing fluids funded by oil and gas trade groups and the U.S. Department of Energy.

[14][15] Hydraulic fracturing is excluded from the Safe Drinking Water Act's underground injection control's regulation, except when diesel fuel is used.

In the context of hydraulic fracturing, it means that drilling permits are issued and exploitation conducted before the potential risks on the environment and human health are known.

The relevance and reliability of risk assessments in hydraulic fracturing communities has also been debated amongst environmental groups, health scientists, and industry leaders.

[19] The second approach relies on the precautionary principle and the principal of preventive and corrective action of environmental hazards, using the best available techniques with an acceptable economic cost to insure the protection, the valuation, the restoration, management of spaces, resources and natural environments, of animal and vegetal species, of ecological diversity and equilibriums.

In the North of England, levels of concerns registered in the deliberative focus groups studied were higher regarding the framing of the debate, meaning the fact that people did not have a voice in the energetic choices that were made, including the use of hydraulic fracturing.

Indeed, the public in the North of England for instance fears "the denial of the deliberation of the values embedded in the development and application of that technology, as well as the future it is working towards" more than risks themselves.

Another finding of the authors is that a quarter of the opposed comments mentioned the possibility of bias in favor of gas industries in the composition of committees.

The authors conclude saying that political leaders may not want to raise public health concerns not to handicap further economic development due to hydraulic fracturing.

There is a concern about trust linked with a doubt on the ability or will of public authorities to work for the greater social good since private interests and profits of industrial companies are seen as corruptive powers.

Alienation is also a concern since the feeling of a game rigged against the public rises due to "decision making being made on your behalf without being given the possibility to voice an opinion".

Uncertainty and ignorance are seen as too important in the issue of hydraulic fracturing and decisions are therefore perceived as rushed, which is why participants favored some form of precautionary approach.