Overview
of Report

This report has been prepared by The MSSD for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments. This report will be looking at the effectiveness of the regulatory framework of the fracking industry, it will assess the current framework, evaluating whether the framework is fit for purpose, and if not, propose alternatives considering that a lighter touch to regulation is the approach wanting to be taken. Because we are only at the exploratory phase of drilling in the UK, the main focus will be on pre-drilling regulations.

What
is Fracking?

We
will briefly look at what Fracking is and how it works, and looking at this
will also allow us to be able to assess the most pressing environmental
concerns and the controversies surrounding fracking.

Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well. The process can be carried out vertically or, more commonly, by drilling horizontally to the rock layer and can create new pathways to release gas or can be used to extend existing channels. The term fracking refers to how the rock is fractured apart by the high-pressure mixture.[1] In the UK, drilling is only at an exploratory phase, however, there are plans for this to intensify as shale gas reserves have been identified across the UK.

Impacts and Concerns

Having looked at what Fracking is, we will
identify it’s impacts on the environment and its most pressing concerns.

The
extraction of shale gas is a topic that is highly controversial in the United
Kingdom, this is mainly because of the environmental concerns it raises. One of
the major concerns is the water usage in the extraction, the volume of water
that is needed. Vast amounts of water are required for the process and this
must be transported to the fracking sites[2].
The water tends to be transported to the sites, which has its own environmental
impacts, though some sites could use the local water resources and the volume
of water that is required could place a strain on local water resources. In
addition to the amounts of water, the water is mixed with chemicals, this
mixture could escape and could spill or contaminate groundwater in the
surrounding areas.

Another
concern is that fracking could lead to small earthquakes. This was the case in
the town of Blackpool, where two tremors struck, one registered a magnitude 2.3
and the other 1.3. Both tremors occurred near the local drilling site. This
caused the operation to suspended, the site operators, Cuadrilla, commissioned
a report, which found that “Most likely, the repeated seismicity was induced by
direct injection of fluid into the fault zone”[3]
The report goes on to question whether further earthquakes are to be expected
from fracking, it says “the earthquakes occurred
because of a rare combination of circumstances: the fault was already under
stress, was brittle enough to fracture and had space for large amounts of water
that could lubricate it”. The report says “this is unlikely to happen again at
the Preese Hall site.”[4]
To reduce the risk of earthquakes, it has been proposed that seismic activity
monitoring is introduced around fracking sites.

Advantages and Disadvantages
of Fracking

The main
advantages of fracking include, an increase in the production of natural gas,
some could argue that this would ease the burden on finite resources such as
fossil fuels, fracking would thus diversify our energy supplies. A further
advantage is that this is a relatively clean energy source, providing
environmental benefit. The gas produced emits less carbon per calorie of energy
produced than other fossil fuels. It is easy to inject and it can be
transported directly, shale gas requires very little infrastructure investment
before it can be injected into the national gas grid, thus proving to be an
economical benefit. Fracking is also the most natural way to pump gas from the
ground. An abundant supply of natural gas makes prices relatively cheap to
producers and consumers.

The disadvantages of fracking include, Risk of groundwater
pollution, Risk of localised earthquakes (probably not a huge risk when
well-regulated in the UK), Localised noise and traffic congestion, Loss of
amenities, when fracking wells are sited in areas of natural beauty and
national parks, A high water demand for the “process water” needed by the
fracking technology used, potentially entailing additional stress on water
supplies, Planning blight on local properties, and suffering by those
unfortunate enough to live near a proposed site for a fracking well. [5]

Environmental
Policy Context

Fracking also poses wider questions about current
thinking on sustainability and the environment. [6]
John Allen writes, “the shale revolution has the potential to provide the UK
with local, low cost, clean sources of energy and potential for local energy independence”
[7]
from a sustainable development viewpoint, this makes for positive reading. If
fracking is low cost and a cleaner source of energy, it enables sustainable development.
However, looking at the intricacies of fracking, this may not seem the case.
For the process to take place, a vast number of resources are needed, and here
you look at whether fracking, as an industry, is sustainable. The shale gas
industry consumes materials such as water, sand, chemical treatments, drilling
fluids, all of which require transport by road and rail. Perhaps one of the
biggest challenges is the use of water, the volume required is vast, and to
sustain that, there must be an infrastructure in place and policies in place to
ensure that whilst providing the water to sites, there is no inconvenience to
the water flow in the local area and if being transported via tank to the site,
this must be done in a way where the environment is put first.

If we are looking at this from the standpoint
“what is best for the environment”, surely the question would be, why does the
policy not encourage the use of no oil and gas in the UK, because this would be
the best policy for the environment. The answer to this would be several
factors, mainly economical and convenience, the ecosystems we live with and in
are so adept to using those resources, that to prohibiting use would mean that
our systems would fail to exist. A middle ground has been established, whereby
the environment is somewhat protected and that human needs are met, and this
needs to be the case with fracking, whilst there are signs that there are
benefits, economically the policy must promote sustainable development.

“History shows us that whenever we can extract fossil fuels, short term gain, usually trumps long- term consequence. Much has been made, on both sides of the argument, of the US experience, but fracking has not found universal welcome. France, for instance, is in the process of banning it, and Poland is currently deciding whether to develop the industry, or concentrate on other forms of energy.”

[8] – John Allen

If there is regulation and procedures in place to negate the downsides,
surely a cleaner alternative is beneficial long term.   

Regulation
of Fracking

Now we
will be looking at the regulatory framework that is in place for the industry.
This section will be split into three parts: 1) An overview of the regulatory
framework, 2) Assess and analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the
frameworks, 3) Consider whether any improvements can be made to the framework,
looking at different types of regulation.  

Overview
of Regulation

The Environment Agency (EA) in England and Wales, and Scottish
Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) are the environmental regulators who
monitor the environmental aspects of shale gas fracking. The key regulation
that governs how shale gas fracking operators comply with environmental laws is
the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.[9]

The
framework that surrounds fracking is one that is quite complex. Companies
wanting to explore must have permission from a number of regulatory bodies
before they can proceed. In order to explore and produce shale gas, operators
must pass rigorous health and safety, environmental and planning permission
processes.[10]
The first stage is obtaining a Petroleum Exploration and Development License,
(PEDL), these are issued by the Oil and Gas Authority. The Oil and Gas
Authority work closely with other regulatory partners to ensure that the
exploration and development is safe and sustainable. [11]
A PEDL obligates companies to follow its terms. Key PEDL terms include: – conferral
of the right to get petroleum, payment of fees in return, parameters of the
field licensed to the operator, obligation to obtain written consent prior to
drilling, operator’s obligation to work the licensed area in accordance with
‘good oilfield practice’ and termination and surrender provisions. PEDLS are licenses
which grant exclusivity to operators in the license area, they do not give
immediate consent for drilling an exploration well or any other operation.

After a PEDL has been granted, the operator of the proposed
site must then obtain local planning permission from the Minerals Planning
Authority, as shale gas operations involve the extraction of minerals. The MPA
involves local authorities including representatives from districts and county
councils.[12]  Planning applications require the submission
of a standard application form, supported by plans and drawings, certificates
of ownership relating to the application site and design and access statements.
An operator must also negotiate access with landowners. A PEDL and planning
permission alone do not give operators consent to conduct their
operations, access must be secured by the operator, this tends to be through a
license or a lease to be taken that are conditional on the grant of
satisfactory planning consent. When a decision is made on a planning
application, only planning matters called “material considerations” can be
taken into account. There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes a material
planning consideration, although there are some “principal issues” for consideration,
shown in Figure 3 [13]

MPA’s are screened to determine whether any proposals
require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the Environment Protection Agency an EIA describe this
as “the process by which the anticipated
effects on the environment of a proposed development or project are
measured. If the likely effects are unacceptable, design measures or other
relevant mitigation measures can be taken to reduce or avoid those effects.”[14]
This, however, is a contentious issue, as it’s not clear whether operators are
obliged to conduct and EIA and submit an environmental statement under the EU’s
EIA Directive[15]
to accompany their application. Under the EU law, all projects require an
environmental statement, though those under Annex 2 require a case-by-case
examination, and considering certain criteria, it is determined that such a
project is likely to have significant effects on the environment. Even if an
EIA is not required, environmental and health impacts can be addresses through
the conditions of planning permission. Mineral Planning Authorities are
responsible for ensuring operators comply with these conditions.

The MPA, in determining an application, will consider the
advice of a variety of statutory consultees with regards to the protection of
the environment and the public. Local planning conditions can address the
aesthetic impacts, as well as contributions to local noise, traffic and air
pollution. The density of local population may be considered in the local
planning permission process. There will also be conditions for when operations
finish, the operator would be responsible for safe abandonment of the well and
for restoring the well-site to its previous state or a suitable condition for
re-use. The authority which granted permission would require suitable
restoration as a condition of the planning permission. [16]

The next part of the regulatory process is that operators
will probably require a number of environmental permits issued by the
Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)
Regulations to conduct onshore activities.  The environment agency takes a risk-based
approach to regulating, thus the regulation of each site is bespoke to that
site, as the they take into account local site characteristics and site
specific environmental risks.  The Environment Agency ensures
that any shale gas operations are conducted in a way that protects people and
the environment. The Environment Agency’s environmental permitting regulations
cover: protecting
water resources, including groundwater (aquifers) as well as assessing and
approving the use of chemicals which form part of the hydraulic fracturing
fluid, appropriate treatment and disposal of mining waste produced during the
borehole drilling and hydraulic fracturing process, suitable treatment and
management of any naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) and disposal
of waste gases through flaring.[17]  With regards to water, if operators are
wishing to abstract more than 20 cubic meters per day for operational purposes,
they will need to obtain a water abstraction license under section 24/24A of
the Water Resources Act 1991[18]
The licenses are issues by the Environment Agency. A factor to bear in mind
here is the Environment Agency make it clear that water availability at site is
not “guaranteed”, this links back to the planning permission stage, as if the
operators are unable to have a pipeline, they will have to transport the water
to the site, which is expensive, but also, with regards to the environment,
transporting tanks of water would be something they would have to consider.

Another element to be considered is the element of
“induced seismicity”. The MPAs should consult the British Geological Survey
(BGS) to advise on induced seismicity and help to identify suitable locations
for well, drawing on a national and site-specific understanding of geology. [19]
Under s.23 of the Mining Industry Act 1926[20]
“firm sinking boreholes greater than 100ft (30m) deep must give written
notification to the Natural Environmental Research Council. Operators are under
several other continuing obligations, such as keeping records of their
operations and retain specimen cores.

Once
the above has been completed, the operator must notify the Health and Safety Executive
at least of 21 days in advance of any drilling operations, The Borehile and
Operations Regulations 1995[21]
require this. A coordinated regulatory effort is required to ensure that shale
gas wells are designed, constructed and operated to standards that protect both
people and the environment, it must be noted that it only protects those in
proximity of sites. HSE monitors shale gas operations
from a well integrity and site safety perspective. We oversee that safe working
practices are adopted by onshore operators as required under the Health and
Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974, and regulations made under the Act. These
specifically are: The Borehole Site and Operations Regulations 1995 (BSOR) applies
to shale gas operations.  (These regulations are primarily
concerned with the health and safety management of the site). The Offshore Installations and Wells
(Design and Construction, etc.) Regulations 1996 (DCR)[22] apply to all wells
drilled with a view to the extraction of petroleum regardless of whether they
are onshore or offshore. (These regulations are primarily
concerned with well integrity). HSE works closely with the Environment Agency
(EA) and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to share relevant
information on such activities and to ensure that there are no material gaps
between the safety, environmental protection and planning authorisation
considerations, and that all material concerns are addressed. [23]
Drilling operations must not be commenced unless a health and safety policy is
prepared which demonstrates that adequate measure will be taken to safeguard
the health and safety of the persons on the site.

Once
the HSE step is completed, we arrive at one of the final steps in the regulatory
process. This is the Oil and Gas Authorities consent to drill. Operators are
obliged to seek the OGAs written consent prior to the start of drilling
operations. OGA consent is one of the final, and coordinating consents in the
shale gas process. In considering whether to issue consent to drill, the OGA
will have regard to the suite of regulatory controls discussed above, including
ensuring that planning permission is in place, environmental permits and consents
have been obtained, and that the HSE has received notice of intention to drill.
Planning
permission is one of the approvals required before any activity may start on a
site. The planning authority decides whether the activity is acceptable at that
particular location, after local communities and other interested people have
had the opportunity to set out their view on the benefits and impacts of the
proposal. On receipt of OGA’s consent to drill, and
subject to the finalisation of a hydraulic fracturing plan and agreed method
for monitoring induced seismicity (where fracking is going to be conducted), an
operator has in place the requisite consents and may continue its operations.

This concludes the pre-drilling
regulatory framework, there is a duty in place whilst drilling takes place, and
as mentioned, conditions are set out for after the drilling process has been
completed.

Strengths and Weaknesses

One of the main strengths with the
framework presented above, in my opinion, is that the process to start drilling
is so rigorous. There are many steps an operator must take in order to start
drilling, this has a lot of cost and time investment necessary, so these
rigorous checks and procedures ensure that the operator is competent and
ensuring the environmental protection necessary to offset any negative impacts
of fracking in the main.

Another strength with the framework is
the fact that a condition of granting permission to drill, there must be plans
in place on how the site will be restored to ensure that it becomes usable land
again, showing that the regulation is offering a protection measure.

However, it could be argued that there
are more weaknesses with the regulation.

One of the major
ones that comes across with the regulation framework provided above, is one
concerning Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). An operator may have to
carry out an EIA, if the MPA deem necessary when screening the proposal
presented, however, there is no obligation to do so, it only has to happen
should the MPA feel it is a necessity in this case.  There isn’t a “one size all fits” approach
here, it’s bespoke. Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) has
become best practice in non-shale gas industries[24],
however like the EIA, an ERA is not mandatory, an ERA, unlike an EIA would
assess not only the impacts of hazards, but also their likelihood. In their
report, the Royal Society recommended[25], that
to manage environmental risks, an Environmental Risk Assessment should be
mandatory for all shale gas operations, involving the participation of local
communities at the earliest possible opportunity. I would agree with this
statement, an EIA and ERA should be a mandatory step, for all potential
operators and cases of fracking, not just some, it should be a universal
requirement when applying to drill for shale gas.

In her Article, Emily Gosden writes
that the Fracking Regulations may inadequate, with regards to climate change[26]. From
the regulation mentioned above, it does not tackle issues such as climate
change in much depth, whilst it looks at environmental factors, it seems that
this isn’t the most pressing matter on the agenda. The article reports that
Britain’s fracking regulations may be inadequate to prevent environmentally
damaging methane leaks, and that the current regulatory regime fell short of
the minimum necessary standards. [27] Prof Jim
Skea, one of the report’s authors, said that the law instead gave “quite a lot
of discretion” to the Environment Agency (EA) over what monitoring it would
require of future shale gas production. Here, I would agree, the EA can often
be quite vague when it comes to these matters, an example mentioned above would
be the water abstraction licenses requirement, the EA are very vague when it
comes to a definitive answer. This could be something that could be further considered.

Another weakness in my opinion is that the
current framework at present, isn’t very environment focused, and even if it
is, a lot of the environmental factors aren’t factors that are mandatory for
operators or regulators to take into account, as already mentioned, the EIA not
being mandatory is one part. The regulation does not look at in enough detail
issues such as climate change, air pollution, water pollution, and other means
of contamination, these factors should be of more importance when coming to
regulate the shale gas industry, yes, they may be considered, but even that at
best is brief.

Alternate Proposals

The current framework that has been looked at in
this report can be seen to be rigorous in the main, there are a number of steps
an operator must take before being able to start the process. The current
framework could be seen as being on the “heavier side” of regulation, and in
the brief, a theory was posited that there be a lighter touch on regulation, in
this section, we will look at whether this can be the case, and if so, how can
it be the case.  

With regards to regulation, there are two
approaches that can be taken. There is Direct Regulation, which can often be
referred to as “the command and control” regime, this is where standards are
set, as are penalties for failing to meet them, there are often several ways of
drafting direct regulation. [28] The
other approach is Indirect Regulation. Whereas direct regulations focus on the
polluting activity itself, indirect regulation tends to centre on economic
instruments, the effect of which will be to impose higher burdens on higher
polluters, there is also self-regulating, whereby you can apply methods such as
voluntary environmental agreements and codes of conducts to regulate. These
systems tend to have vague standards and are flexible and non-interventionist
in their nature.

We will look at whether we stay with a
command and control approach adopted, or would a self-regulating approach be
more effective in this situation. Before we start that, we will briefly look at
whether the current framework we have looked at is effective in its purpose,
however looking at the effectiveness of the framework is an area where one
struggles as in the UK, we are not at the stages where there is mass production
of shale gas, we are merely at the early exploratory stages of the process. The
only real working example is the Cuadrilla site as mentioned at the start of
this report. Though some regulation, such as the induced seismicity was
introduced because of that site.

Self-regulating such an industry seems
impractical considering the disadvantages mentioned earlier in the report. Simon
Sneddon writes that this method of regulation is more flexible than the
traditional command and control methods, and this method is non-interventionist
in nature and that these methods are criticised for having vague standards and
for being unaccountable, and there is no realistic enforcement system. This, as
a regulation method would not work with an industry such as fracking. An
industry where there are many impacts both environmental and economic and as
such a framework of command and control would be better suited, there is a set
of rules, or steps put in place and there are penalties and fines for operators
should they fail to abide. This is very similar to the current framework in
place. The risks that fracking entails, it would be a uncertain approach to
have a light touch to regulation. However, when there is more data to analyse
once further fracking takes place, it may be the case that we could adopt a self-regulating
framework or one that is lighter than the one in place, but until then, the
current “command and control” framework is one that is effective and sufficient
for use.

Conclusion

The regulation in place at present is several
steps that an operator must take before they are able to drill for shale gas.
The procedure is one that is described as rigorous and upon evaluation this
seems to be the case, though as mentioned when looking at alternatives, there
is no way of knowing how effective the regulation is in the UK, until there are
more working examples of fracking.

[i]

[1] Bbccouk, ‘What is fracking and why is it
controversial? ‘ (BBC News, 16 December 2015) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14432401> accessed 10 May 2017

[2] Bgs, ‘Potential environmental considerations
associated with shale gas’ (Bgsacuk, 0) <http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/environmentalImpacts.html>accessed
10 May 2017

[3] Michael Marshall, ‘How
fracking caused earthquakes in the UK’ (New
Scientist, 2 November 2011) <https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquakes-in-the-uk/> accessed 10 May 2017

[4] Ibid 3

[5] Steve Last, ‘The
pros and cons of fracking in the UK and why you need to know about them’ (Lowimpactorg, 14
October 2016) <http://www.lowimpact.org/pros-cons-fracking-uk-need-know/> accessed
10 May 2017

[6] DrGareth Evans, ‘Fracking:
Truly Sustainable?’ (Sustainablebuildcouk, 16
Dec 2016) <http://www.sustainablebuild.co.uk/fracking-truly-sustainable.html> accessed
10 May 2017

[7] Allen John, ‘Fracking:
believe the hype for a sustainable UK energy market’ (The
Guardian, 22 January 2014 ) <https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/fracking-uk-sustainable-energy-market> accessed
10 May 2017

[8]
Ibid 6

[9] Hsegovuk, ‘The regulation of onshore unconventional
oil and gas exploration (shale gas)’ (Hsegovuk, 0) <http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/unconventional-gas.htm>accessed
10 May 2017

[10] Govuk, ‘Guidance on Fracking: Developing shale
gas in the UK’ (Wwwgovuk, 13 January 2017) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk#regulation> accessed 10 May 2017

[11] Govuk, ‘Guidance on Fracking: Developing shale
gas in the UK’ (Wwwgovuk, 13 January 2017) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk#regulation> accessed 10 May 2017

[12] Society,
T. (2012). Shale gas
extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing.

[13] Briefing Paper Number 6073 on Shale Gas and Fracking –
House of Commons Library

[14] Wwwepaie, ‘Environmental
Impact Assessment ‘ (Wwwepaie, 0) <http://www.epa.ie/monitoringassessment/assessment/eia/> accessed 10 May 2017

[15] Directive 2011/92/EU

[16] Department of Energy and Climate Change – Fracking UK Shale:
Regulation and Monitoring – February 2014

[17] Govuk, ‘Guidance on
Fracking: Developing shale gas in the UK’ (Wwwgovuk, 13 January 2017) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk#regulation> accessed 10 May 2017

[18] Water Resources Act 1991

[19] Ibid 7

[20] Mining Industry Act 1926

[21] Borehile and Operations Regulations 1995

[22] The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and
Constructions, etc.) Regulations 1996

[23] Hsegovuk, ‘The
regulation of onshore unconventional oil and gas exploration (shale gas)’ (Hsegovuk, 0) <http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/unconventional-gas.htm>accessed
10 May 2017

[24] Contribution from Professor Simon
Pollard, Head of Department, Environmental Science and Technology, Cranfield
University

[25] Society, T. (2012). Shale gas extraction in the UK: A
review of hydraulic fracturing.

[26] E Gosden, ‘Fracking regulations inadequate’ The Telegraph (7 July 2016) <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/07/fracking-regulations-inadequate-government-advisers-warn/>
accessed 10 May 2017

[27] ibid 20

[28] Simon Sneddon, Environmental Law (2ND edn, Pearson 2015) 54-61

[i] Bibliography

Websites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14432401

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/environmentalImpacts.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquakes-in-the-uk/

http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/unconventional-gas.htm

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk#regulation

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk#regulation

http://www.epa.ie/monitoringassessment/assessment/eia/

http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/unconventional-gas.htm

Steve
Last, ‘The
pros and cons of fracking in the UK and why you need to know about them’ (Lowimpactorg, 14
October 2016) <http://www.lowimpact.org/pros-cons-fracking-uk-need-know/> accessed
10 May 2017

DrGareth
Evans, ‘Fracking:
Truly Sustainable?’ (Sustainablebuildcouk, 16
Dec 2016) <http://www.sustainablebuild.co.uk/fracking-truly-sustainable.html> accessed
10 May 2017

Allen
John, ‘Fracking:
believe the hype for a sustainable UK energy market’ (The
Guardian, 22 January 2014 ) <https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/fracking-uk-sustainable-energy-market> accessed
10 May 2017

Directives

Directive
2011/92/EU

Reports

Society, T. (2012). Shale gas extraction in the UK: A
review of hydraulic fracturing.

Contribution from Professor Simon Pollard, Head of Department,
Environmental Science and Technology, Cranfield University

E
Gosden, ‘Fracking regulations inadequate’ The
Telegraph (7 July 2016) <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/07/fracking-regulations-inadequate-government-advisers-warn/>
accessed 10 May 2017

Department
of Energy and Climate Change – Fracking UK Shale: Regulation and Monitoring –
February 2014

Briefing
Paper Number 6073 on Shale Gas and Fracking – House of Commons Library

Acts

Water
Resources Act 1991

Mining
Industry Act 1926

Borehile
and Operations Regulations 1995

The
Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Constructions, etc.) Regulations
1996

Books

Simon Sneddon, Environmental Law (2ND edn, Pearson 2015) 54-61

Misc.

PowerPoints
and Notes from Lectures.