Lancashire County Council has confirmed that it will have to pay only a “relatively small” part of Cuadrilla’s costs following the decision last week to approve planning permission for fracking at Preston New Road.
Local newspaper reports at the weekend had suggested that the council faced a bill of £330,000 for the company’s fees. But the council said the figure related to the costs it has had to pay to host and participate in the public inquiry earlier this year.
Last Thursday (6 October 2016), the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, allowed Cuadrilla’s appeals against the refusal of permission for four fracked shale gas wells and a monitoring array at Preston New Road.
The company had applied for the costs against the county council for both the Preston New Road appeals. But the council confirmed that Mr Javid had awarded costs on the monitoring array appeal only.
A council spokesperson said:
“Costs have been awarded against the county council relating to one specific part of the inquiry – the part of the inquiry which dealt with the monitoring array at the Preston New Road site.
“What is significant is that costs have not been awarded against the county council relating to the main site – the drilling and fracking operation – which took up the majority of time during the inquiry – so the costs relating to the monitoring array will be relatively small compared to what they might have been.”
The level of costs is not yet known, the spokesperson said. The company has yet to submit them to the council.
The Secretary of State’s decision letter referred briefly to the application for costs. It said:
“Two applications for a full award of costs were made by Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd against Lancashire County Council in respect of Appeals A and B [Preston New Road drilling, fracking and testing and the Preston New Road monitoring scheme].”
“These applications are the subject of a separate decision letter, also being issued today.”
The Planning Inspectorate told DrillOrDrop that the information was held by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). DCLG told DrillOrDrop:
“This information is not publically [sic] available.”
Since then, the costs letters have been published on the Planning Inspectorate’s web pages for the appeal.
Mr Javid said on Thursday he was minded to approve the Roseacre Wood site, against the recommendation of the planning inspector at the public inquiry. He has reopened the inquiry to give Cuadrilla another opportunity to provide evidence on highway safety issues. At the end of the original inquiry, Cuadrilla did not apply for costs on the Roseacre Wood appeals.
More details on inquiry expense
A Freedom of Information request revealed that the £330,000 expenses of the inquiry to Lancashire County Council included costs of consultants, legal support, venue and security.
In a recent report, researcher Anna Szolucha said the council had invoices of over £110k for consultants and £116k for security.
But she said the total figure:
“under-represents the full costs incurred by the council because it excludes officers’ time which would be “highly significant” in the calculation of the total sum. We must also add to this all the costs incurred at earlier stages of the planning process at the council.”
Updated 11/10/2016 to include quotes from Lancashire County Council, DCLG and Dr Szolucha
Update 18/10/2016 to include link to cost letters
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
Well that’s the nature of protest and appeal.
The Wednesbury test applied at the Grange Rd site. Costs refused.
Click to access Appendix%20C.pdf
The Wednesbury Test will have been applied to each appeal separately. It appears costs have only been awarded awarded for the monitoring sites and not the main applications.
The PNR main application to drill, frack and commercially test appears to have had costs refused. This means that LCC were acting reasonably when they rejected the application on visual, noise and traffic.
Although each application is judged on it’s own merits Councils across the country will from now on will be able to reject similar applications for fracking sites knowing they would be acting reasonably.
This will be a huge blow to the industry and of serious concern for worried investors.
My experience in applying for costs against an appellant for unreasonable behaviour was that it took several months after the Appeals process ended (I have won costs twice aggainst a developer). So if this has already been decided it has happened quickly. But perhaps this took place while the SOS was considering the appeals. There should be PINs letters of confirmation of Cuadrilla’s application(s) for costs if these have been determined either way. No one seems to be quoting directly from PINs?
Fracking is now a human rights issue. Is anyone preparing material for the Permanent People’s Tribunal which is scheduled to put fracking on trial in the US and the UK in March 2017?
In what way is this a humans rights issue? (Comment removed by moderator)
You clearly haven’t haven’t been following this closely have you…. individuals, communities, local councils, farmers, water supplies and landscapes being shafted (quite literally) by the fracking push.
Very much so. We’ve been working on a case presentation for PPT since before any decision was announced. Both government and Cuadrilla have trampled on human rights for the last 3 years. This now includes Sajid Javid and his reckless threat to overturn an independent Planning Inspectors report.
Do PPT have any legal standing anywhere? Can they prosecute / enforce anything?
See http://extremeenergy.org/2015/07/23/a-permanent-peoples-tribunal-on-fracking/
Here is someone who cam afford to pay for the cost. LCC and the protesters can ask this rich man to fund their course.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1939748/green-tycoon-bankrolling-anti-fracking-protesters-so-he-can-promote-his-rival-wind-turbine-business/
just read this article .Remember three quarters of our media is owned by 4 billionaires . The one thing this government and the shale gas industry will never say is Do Your own Research. (Comment removed by moderator)
Billionaires like Murdoch are allowed to fund Fracking and provide propaganda support for this disreputable industry but a mere millionaire is criticised. The Disgusting Sun has shot itself in the foot with this article . The one comment so far after that article shows the mentality of your average Sun reader . but Thanks TW some good pics on there .
I never take what’s published in the Sun as gospel. Actually dont read the Sun that often just come across the article today. But if it is true then both sides of the fracking debate have their own vested interests in financial gains which make it difficult to see the merits and evidence objectively.
Goodness – Claire Smith from Stay Blackpool actually lives “next to” the field at Preston New Road! Who knew? What a delightful surprise for the neighbours – I wonder if that might make up for the impending invasion by the frackers LOL.
If this were true (which it’s not) wouldn’t the fact that this guy’s earning millions from green technology rather prove that fracking is unnecessary?
Regardless of the legal rights or wrongs of councils being liable for costs of appeals they justifiably defend, Cuadrilla are scoring a massive own goal here.
With LCC closing libraries right left and centre, people won’t forget Cuadrilla screwing hundreds of thousands of pounds from our essential services.
Bunging a couple of grand at kids’ soccer teams isn’t going to make that smell go away.
The problem is the media, including the local papers are portraying this as if it’s all the fault of the NIMBY anti-frackers that libraries etc are being closed. Blackpool Gazette and it’s sister papers are falling over backwards to promote fracking and ridicule anyone who’s against it. They must be getting a lot of backhanders from the pro fracking lobby because, judging by the vast proportion of motorists honking support at yesterday’s demo, the Gazette are certainly not representative of local feeling.
That’s what we expect to hear from anti-frackers, and especially ones with the last name Hobson! When these people lose arguments of any kind (which happens very often since they don’t base their arguments in rational fact) they deflect and they whine. When the people spoke through democratic channels and defeated the LCC’s unwise decision (unwise according to the QC) it is entirely just that the LCC pay costs. When the nana broke laws and was faced with a big bill, the same thing happened and the anti-frackers tried to leverage the situation to make the operators look bad. These anti-frackers don’t like facts and they don’t like consequences. Thank god the country is starting to understand this.
Offensive as always peeny, still frit? go tell it to the residents.
He can’t help it Phil – I feel quite sorry for him
This is an undemocratic decision and an outright refusal to acknowledge the democratic rights of the community. It seems the only course open to communities facing these Corporates is civil disobedience.
how is it undemocratic? Were the Conservatives not elected democratically. If so, can you please provide a reference to support your contention?
Cameron and Osborne were leaders when elected and they said (on record) that this country was not a dictatorship and that fracking permissions would rest with the local planners.
And permissions did rest with local planners. They still do. But when decisions by local planners conflict with national interests, the democratic process triggers a mechanism that allows national interests to be weighed in the matter. In this case it is a “sanity” check!
Let’s have full exposure and transparency on how that national interest was determined then – under the new (unelected prime minister)
A sanity check! from you? Thats like asking Trump to do a body search on Clinton.
Thought I would take a quick “sanity” check of the US energy market. Just like to remind you of how much you rely on imports from Saudi Arabia and other countries. How much trouble the US shale industry is in, and what you could have using renewable s meaning you would not have to be beholding to countries like Saudi and Venezuela.
In 2015, the United States imported approximately 9.4 million barrels per day
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
US shale companies running at a loss
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Cheap-Shale-Gas-Will-End-Soon.html
The renewable potential of the US
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy-80-percent-us-electricity.html#.V_uB2vkrLIU
The US dash for shale gas was never going to work. To expensive, otherwise you would not be importing yet another 9.4 billion barrels today. Quick, quick drill some more shale wells (oops,forgot, to expensive)
Might be wise to listen to the US renewable option. You state that is the long term solution.
Your futile attempt to take market share from OPEC has however forced a global price war on oil which in turn help proves that UK shale is not economically viable.
Thanks for that.Every cloud.(UK saying)
Sorry to burst your bubble, John. But the US dash for shale gas has already happened my man. You missed it! It has been an extraordinary success – far greater than even the most bullish analyst would have predicted.
No, John, the shale revolution has been going on in the US for the last 25 years. It has added massive amounts to our already masssive GDP. It has given jobs to hundreds of thousands here, and it has lowered energy prices dramatically. At the same time, it has been the driving force in cleaning our air.
Our refineries will always import some oil and gas, but the the US is just about to become a net exporter of gas as you will see here: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-15/us-gas-exports-poised-to-surpass-imports-for-first-time-since-1957
You cite an article by Art Berman. He is a laughingstock in US energy circles. He has been so wrong for so long that all you can do is chuckle!
You keep on hoping that the shale revolution is a big myth, John. Keep twiddling your thumbs. We will gladly take your country’s jobs and investment. After all, its survival of the fittest! Best of luck.
The shale boom is already over in the US. Take a look at these charts – particularly the third one: http://wolfstreet.com/2015/03/06/the-collapse-of-fracking-as-we-know-it/
Investors who want to big-it-up for the UK are really only interested in the boom phase, unless you’re INEOS of course, who also want cheaper access to onshore gas for their mega-plastics plant at Grangemouth.
The really big players won’t give a damn if shale-gas drilling goes full steam ahead here or not – in fact they’ve already figured out that that’s it’s probably not going to happen at any speed and will have hedged against that. The minnow prospectors like Cuadrilla and iGas can take the risks and go belly up and they won’t blink an eyelid. But the important thing for them is to make the UK believe that it needs shale gas. Exporting US shale gas will help regularise international trade of the commodity, putting it’s prices up in the US i.e. as more gets exported it squeezes supply over there and brings that industry back into profitability – then they can tear into more of the land over there because it makes money.
Geo-politically it also helps the US be a stronger player on the global stage.
You can’t even remain consistent for a single paragraph, Philip. You start by telling us that it’s all over, you end by talking about supply squeeze and the strengthening geo-politics of shale production for the US.
The FACT is that shale gas accounts for almost 70% of US consumption now. You will have to explain to all of us how that has just ended while no one noticed, Philip. Why was there no price response to the obliteration of the industry? Why are production figures flat/rising? Why is commentary from shale gas firms confirming that production continues with plans for growing production.
Can you answer any of these questions?
Do you think that Centrica/British Gas is a small company? You understand that they have a large farm-in arrangement with Cuadrilla, right?
Get a grip – you always misquote don’t you. I didn’t “start by telling us that it’s all over” I said the boom phase is over – as clearly expressed in the charts. Your high consumption figure is because of the glut, hence low price (silly you). Production having bottomed out, of course it’s going to rise again … slowly this time. But with the decline curves (output per site) being so steep on existing wells the US can only go back to producing high volumes with more rampant drilling – until the entire land is pock marked with well sites (and the farm land ruined).
Philip,
Have a look at page 50 “Modern Jazz” open economics, free market driven scenario of the linked report:
Click to access World-Energy-Scenarios-2016_Full-report.pdf
“RD&D and gas exploration lead to continued rapid growth of unconventional gas supplies driven by the
US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, and China. Saudi Arabia joins the fray before 2030. Unconventional
gas production continues to grow to 2040 peaking at just under 1,200 MTOE, and reaching 26% of total
natural gas supplies in the same year. Beyond 2040, unconventional gas production declines rapidly,
settling at 323 MTOE in 2060. “
Sure, Philip. They’ve been saying that for 20 years.
For a good reason: http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EA_FrackingNumbers_scrn.pdf
‘ We will gladly take your country’s jobs and investment. After all, its survival of the fittest! Best of luck.’
interesting………
No, Sherwulfe, it is very, very interesting. ;o)
I don’t have a clue who you are hballpeenyahoocom, only that you don’t have the remotest clue as to what you’re talking about. Fact 1. A financially viable method of undertaking high pressure high volume fracturing (which is what we’re talking about here) was first experimented in 1997. The industry did not pursue this method of gas extraction in commercial production terms until 2007, your claim that ‘The Shale Revolution’s Been Going On In The USA For The Last 25 Years’ is demonstrably risible.
Fact 2. The typical life of a shale well’s 12-18 months without further fracking. A shale well’s output falls by 50% within 12 months, it is therefore a ‘Boom and Bust’ industry. Fact 3. The only way to continue to extract shale gas is by drilling more and more wells, this is why 1.5 million wells have been drilled in the USA since 2007. That’s almost 167000 wells per year. Where do you propose we site the first 167000 wells this country will need if we are to emulate the USA? Fact 4. Whilst shale may have been a financial success it has been at a terrible human cost. Earlier this year the EPA admitted that they had covered up reports of water contamination and that the truth was there were 1000’s of cases of contamination that were demonstrably due to fracking. Before you rubbish this statistic please remember that it is the EPA themselves who are the source of this shocking fact. Thinking how long it took before the tobacco industry admitted the link between smoking and cancer, the health risks of fracking have been speedily proven with New York State banning fracking on public health grounds after a 3 year study with other states becoming increasingly concerned. Fact 5. When shale wells are abandoned the operating company (which will be a small subsidiary company several layers removed from the parent company and is only responsible for that one site) is allowed to go bankrupt thus relieving the parent company of the responsibility of monitoring the derelict well or clearing, cleaning and restoring the site. These costs are then borne by local residents and the state. It is probable that the same methodology will be adopted in this country where it is Cuadrilla Bowland ltd who are the company seeking planning permissions and will operate the PNR site, whilst Cuadrilla Elswick ltd is responsible for Roseacre Wood.
Jules,
FACT1: You’re wrong. According to Wikipedia (and many other sources) high volume hydraulic fracturing (hvhf) was first practice in 1968. As the site notes, “American geologists gradually became aware that there were huge volumes of gas-saturated sandstones with permeability too low (generally less than 0.1 millidarcy) to recover the gas economically.[29] Starting in 1973, massive hydraulic fracturing was used in thousands of gas wells in the San Juan Basin, Denver Basin,[30] the Piceance Basin,[31] and the Green River Basin, and in other hard rock formations of the western US.”
FACT2: You’re wrong again (surprise!). You say, “The typical life of a shale well’s 12-18 months without further fracking” but that doesn’t square well with the data. http://www.marcellus-shale.us/marcellus-production.htm Yet, the fact of the matter is that the point you are trying to make is moot. Gas producers would prefer that well production last for only one day, rather than 7-15 years. They would like to make their returns sooner than later. A shorter life allows less risk and variability, and allows capital to be reinvested more rapidly. So, you’re absolutely wrong about lifespans of shale wells, but it’s too bad that you are because operators would prefer sharper decline curves (approaching harmonic).
FACT3: You are correct that the only way to extract gas is to drill wells. This is the first cogent point you have made. Unfortunately you follow it with a rambling diatribe that includes a lot of misleading data. According to the Baker Hughes Land Well count, the US drills somewhere just under 40,000 wells per year. That supports an economy far larger than the UK’s (and one that supplies most of its own gas too).
FACT4: You state, “Whilst shale may have been a financial success it has been at a terrible human cost. Earlier this year the EPA admitted that they had covered up reports of water contamination and that the truth was there were 1000’s of cases of contamination that were demonstrably due to fracking.” It may surprise you to note that fracking has been an outstanding success in cleaning the air in the US and reducing GHG emissions. Studies have been done that demonstrate that fracking is saving the lives of thousands as it knocks out coal generation. As to your claims regarding the EPA, they are simply false. The EPA has not admitted to covering up one thing. They have been asked by their SAB to provide data to corroborate their claim that fracking has not led to systemic pollution of water resources. I challenge you to prove your claim of an EPA cover-up, I then suggest you call the NY Times with this information as it is a rather large story if you are correct!
FACT5: I doubt that the UK regulatory scheme will allow for operators to abandon wells. I would imagine that funds will be deposited or bonds posted to support wells taken off-line. I know there are quite a few wells onshore in the UK already, so I don’t know why this would be a particular problem.
Thanks!
Nice one. Offer a local choice then call them insane if its not the decision expected.
Phillip, I can’t remember if it was you or the other Phil who was so impressed with Ingraffea’s work on fugitive methane emissions. Here is Steven Chu, Nobel Laureate, former Sec. of Energy, and huge fan of renewables speaking about Ingraffea/Howarth’s Cornell study on fugitive emissions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs6eeAtMcEc
His resignation was soon after this wasn’t it. Basically the republican dominated congress were bulldozing the administration (that he was then part of) and the EPA into defending the shale-gas industry. The EPA was rendered toothless, as became evident in the Dimmock settlement case. In his resignation announcement, he warned of the risks of climate change from continued reliance on fossil fuels, and wrote, “the Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones; we transitioned to better solutions”. Also Chu has been a vocal advocate for more research into renewable energy and nuclear power, arguing that ‘a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combat climate change and global warming’.
Anyway further studies have yeilded results far closer to the Howarth/Cornell studies that Ingraffea was involved in.
Perhaps you should extend your research beyond ‘Energy in Depth’ – a propaganda arm of O&G
Transitioning away from fossil fuels is a good idea, but it will take much longer than you recognize.
If you have evidence of further studies that show high methane emissions rates, please share them with us. All of the independent experts are of the opinion that rates are relatively low 1-3%. Perhaps Philip Purves has information that these climate change scientists do not?
“Well, well, well, what have we here then?” said the policeman spotting three holes in the ground. Excuse the droll humour but it hardly takes a British mr. Plod to expose a very leaky cover up. So now halfpenny, you’re shifting you position from practically zero emissions towards 3% – equal to the worst of fossil fuel industries. Keep going and I’ll tell you when you’re getting warm. No doubt you’ve also shifted your position from saying (a few posts ago) that its the same boring old fracking that has been around for 60 years. You’re doing a very poor job of pretending to be an expert.
Hi Philip!
Here are some facts about the history of fracking from Wikipedia that might help you get your mind around the subject: “Hydraulic fracturing began as an experiment in 1947, and the first commercially successful application followed in 1950.”
I’ve never represented that fugitive methane emissions are zero or are near zero. I have said that they are very low relative to the 10%+ figures that some of you anti-fact anti-frackers spew.
My estimate comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has said, “Central emission estimates of recent analyses are 2%─3% (+/‐1%) of the gas produced, where the emissions from conventional and unconventional gas are comparable.”
Perhaps Philip Purves knows more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? If so, please explain why. Thank you!
Honestly, the granny in the video link – see my post below starting “Two clips…” gives a more accurate and informed picture of present day fracking than you have ever done. High volume, horizontally drilled, muti-stage, slickwater fracking is a far far cry from it’s first commercially successful application … and the engineers who came up with the original process are dead against the way the has been pushed and exploited beyond any limits that could be considered safe or clean.
This is not the place to deposit a ‘wheelbarrow’ load of stats on the upstream and downstream emissions on the end to end fracking (drilling/deliveryprocess. Graphs would save a lot of description but I cant see a way of uploading an image. I’ll check out the IPCC lead though and compare it with my EU, US and UK sources. They’re still correlating satellite/ground/airborne measurements, and also looking ahead to a new EU satellite that will have a much higher definition sensor for plotting methane emissions.
Of course there should be more research into renewables and nuclear research (including how to get rid of all the radioactive spent fuel currently being stored on the surface in Cumbria waiting for a solution to the disposal problem)….but in the meantime…
The point is that we have not reached a point where renewables are anywhere near ready to take over from fossil fuels (today for example gas was generating 60% of our electricity at times). 80% of homes use gas for heating. We cannot rely on weather dependent renewables, surely that’s just obvious. It would take years for us to scale up nuclear power to the position of say France where 80% of their power comes from nuclear.
So we have a choice, absolutely massive reductions in demand for gas and electricity, or burn coal, or burn gas…(or some combination of the three) as a way of dealing with intermittent renewables…..you choose.
Human Rights are enshrined in clean water and clean air laws and agreements that the UK is signed up to though both the United Nations and through EU directives. EU Groundwater and Air Directives should have applied to the . In fact councils have a legal responsibility to do something about these directives according to expert Paul Mobbs (environment consultant) – who gave a very clear breakdown of planning rules and regulations, especially on fracking exploration and development (see link). I don’t imagine much has changed since 2012 when he gave this talk . Brexit hasn’t happened yet but it’s interesting that Jim Ratcliff, head of INEOS- one of the biggest corporate pushers of fracking in this country, immediately relocates his HQ back to Britain after the Brexit announcement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdy_8yRfFhk
http://stopfyldefracking.org.uk/latest-news/local-anti-fracking-groups-offer-to-raise-cash-for-county-councils-possible-legal-costs/
If the stories of £330,000 costs against LCC are correct is it time for the Council to call in the promised funds from stop fylde fracking etc.? (see link above). With the Granny costs we are fast heading towards £400k.
“we are willing to put our money where our mouth is to protect our communities and the environment.”
As a LCC Council Tax payer I would like you to do exactly that and pay up so that these costs don’t come out of our Council Tax
And the £330k costs quoted are only Cuadrilla’s costs for 2 out of 4 appeals. So how much has LCC spent on it’s own defence and expert witnesses for the 4 appeals. Presumably more than £330k. No doubt LCC will let us know……
Perhaps FOE should pick up LCC’s tab?
Paul, will the LCC pay for the judicial review challenge to the appeal? I would imagine that could be very expensive too.
They will certainly pay their own costs if they take the SOS decision to judicial review. But it is unlikely the Council will do this. It is more likely that our anti industry anti everything Friends of the Earth (I think you have them over there too?) will go to JR if anyone does. But they need a very good reason(s) for a Judge to decide there is a case for JR. I think if it goes to JR the appellant pays all costs if they lose their JR. I was involved with one JR which we lost and it cost us around £50,000 – which we had to pay to the developer who won. We called the JR to try and overturn an Appeal decision, we fought it and lost it and had to pay up.
The Cuadrilla appeal decision may mean the end of the possible Rydale / Kirby Misperton possible JR brought by FOE. But we shall see. On the flip side if the Yorkshire JR is granted then I assume this means there may also be similar grounds for a JR in Lancashire – but the SOS’s decision here may put a stop to it.
Well, let’s hope that they do attempt a JR. It is worth the price of admission watching them lose and then whine about how painful the losses are and how they can’t update the library now. Perhaps they will learn to think before they make rash decisions, but my guess is that they will not. Thanks, Paul.
You are an arrogant and insufferable triumphalist Halfpenny. With any luck we’ll help you break out of this frac-frenzy loop that you’re stuck in. The mania is well recognised.
His unpleasant rhetoric really doesn’t do much for the pro-fracking case does it? It’s like having the spoiled kid in your son’s class that nobody likes in the car with you isn’t it? You’re stuck with him, but you really would like to push him out into the traffic 😉
And this is where democracy dies, its just as well the British did not take the nazis to court to protest their invasion plans, we would still be paying the court costs, or maybe we are.
I believe that the price of rural properties a few hundred metres from fracking sites would de value. I base that on common sense. No one will choose to buy the houses closest to the sites.
As the Industry proposes hundreds of wells there will be thousands of effective properties.
People who go into social care when they get old use their own money until that runs out. Usually that money is in the value of their house. It is then up to the tax payer to pick up the tab. That tab is nearly £30,000 per person per year.
As a LC Council tax payer I am not prepared to see extra millions spent on old age care because property value has decreased through fracking and people are less able to support themselves and have no choice other than turning to the state sooner.
In his press release 2nd April 2014 Cabinet Member for Highways CLLr. John Fillis said
” From the information we have so far the impact on the rural roads will increase the deterioration and direct damage during the exploratory stage, if this is increased to full production the road network would collapse”
and also
“Expecting the people of Lancashire to carry the costs of these roads, to the detriment of the existing network is totally unacceptable. The people of Lancashire should not be forced to subsidise the Fracking Industry”
Putting a stop to this unnecessary, unwanted industry would save us all a lot of money.
John,
You may or may not be correct. But that is not the point. LCC went into an appeal against the recommendation of the planning officer, the inspector agreed with the planning officer, the SOS agreed with the inspector. Now it looks like LCC may have to pay up. If they had granted planning permission for the one site in the first place they would not have exposed themselves to these additional costs incurred through the appeal process.
So as a LCC Council Tax payer are you happy to see LCC throw money away losing an appeal which they were very unlikely ever to win in the first place? And to add insult to injury, potentially having to pay Cuadrilla a load of money as well? In addition to whatever LCC’s own costs were?
But perhaps stop fylde fracking, FOE, all those groups that lobbied LCC to refuse all the applications, will reimburse LCC all their costs?
Paul – you seem to be saying the LCC had no choice but to agree permission in the first place. Were they told this? Either way it meant that the option was not theirs to decide, so the government should carry the bill for misleading local planners into believing that they had any right or any say in the matter, even if that right was taken away after the event.
Philip, in the majority of planning cases if a Council’s Planning Committee refuse an application that their Planning Officer has recommended be approved as it is in accordance with national planning law and the local plan, the developer will win an appeal. LCC were aware of this but took advice (I recall) that indicated otherwise. Of course the Planning Committee were under emormous pressure to refuse all the Cuadrilla applications BUT they are not planning or technical experts. Local Planners are the experts; the Local Councillors on the Planning Committee are not experts. Generally Planning Committees follow the advice of their Planning Officers. In the event the Planning Officers make an incorrect (technically) recommendation the Planning Inspector at PINs will correct it, otherwise the PI will usually support the Planning Officer – as happened in the Cuadrilla Appeals. The SOS just rubber stamped what the Inspector recommended. Apparently there is plently of guidance available on this for Planning Committees – but some times emotions take over (and concerns about getting re-elected of course).
I have been in lots of Planning Committee meetings and in many of them the Head Planning Officer will indicate the chances of success at appeal if the Councillors vote against the Planning officer’s recommendation. I have also been at one where the Head of Planning told us (objectors) that localism was not a planning consideartion and that planning law takes precedent (this was just after the NPPF and Localism Bill came into being – the two are in obvious conflict).
And if you check back at one of my earlier posts there were offers to underwrite any costs incurred by LCC should they lose an appeal. Whether anyone took this seriously is another matter……
Paul. You say the Secretary of State just rubber stamped what the Inspector recommended. If that is the case, why is he also not paying the Inspector the courtesy of rubber stamping her decision on the Roseacre Wood site? He has stated he is ‘minded to approve’ it, subject to discussing traffic plans with Cuadrilla depite the fact that the Inspector quite clearly states the proposed site is totally unsuitable on traffic and highway grounds and the Cuadrilla appeal should be dismissed.
Quote from the Inspector’s Report:
12.860. Since the proposed development would be neither safe nor sustainable, it would not have the support of the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS). The national need for shale gas exploration cannot therefore be pleaded in support of this appeal. Even it were appropriate to take that factor into account, I believe that the need to ensure the safety of members of the public is paramount and would strongly outweigh that important consideration.
12.862: I conclude that all other material considerations are strongly outweighed by the harm that would result to highway safety. Given the conflict in this respect with the Development Plan and the relevant national policy, Appeal C should be DISMISSED.
Given the fact that Cuadrilla have already had three attempts at providing a suitable traffic plan for the Roseacre Wood site, none of which have been acceptable, how does the Secretary of State now expect to conjure one up? Is the Secretary of State now intending to ignore the Inspector’s findings that ” the need to ensure the safety of members of the public is paramount” and that therefore the Appeal should be dismissed?
Are public lives really to be sacrificed for shale?
Pauline, I thought the subject under discussion was the 330k costs claim? Does this not apply only to the applications recommend for approval by the planning officer? These were also recommended by the inspector and the SOS agreed. I don’t think they are claiming costs for roseate? I may be wrong? Planning law is exactly that. All the emotive issues, rightly or wrongly, are not part of planning law it would seem. To get decisions to go the way you would like would appear to require fundamental changes in the planning system. But then nothing would ever get built or done.
Sorry for typos. I will blame my phone and eyesight.
I can confirm that Caudrilla did not claim legal cost for Rosearce as because planning officer did not recommend approval.
Money money money money money, we can see where your focus lies Paul. What really matters is people and the environment, and that aspect is always carefully avoided in court.
Phil C – my focus lies in reality and fact. Whilst you do not like or agree with much of what I post, it often turns out to be correct. I am speaking from many years of planning experience, fighting developers, submitting objections, trying to persuade planners and planning committees to refuse application, building Rule 6 parties, raising funds, finding “expert witnesses” and fighting appeals, and taking part in Judicial Reviews, even once helping to get the SOS to overturn a planning application that the planning officer recommended refusal, but the planning committee approved. The latter is very unusual. And I have been successful in getting developers to pay my Rule 6 party costs on two separate occasions where the developer’s appeals have failed.
So I have been through a lot more in planning terms than most posters on this board and have a reasonable understanding of how the system works. And I don’t necessarily agree with the planning system but we all have to live with it.
You should focus your efforts in trying to change the planning system. That is a whole different subject – but it can be, and has been done.
What we are doing is not intelligent, its insanity enshrined in social conduct. We have ceased care for anything other than money. One day this sad misguided species will factualise rationalise and objectify itself into extinction. The earth will then be littered with some very rich skeletons.
Am I interested to know what corner you have been fighting; which planning applications you fought with such passion.
I realise the subject is the £330,000 claim but my point was that you say the SoS just rubber stamped what the Inspector recommended, which he did re. Preston New Road. The situation is though that the SoS has also said he is ” minded to approve Roseacre Wood subject to discussing traffic plans” despite the fact that the Inspector’s report quite clearly shows that she has found that approval of Roseacre would be an unacceptable risk to the public users of the highway and therefore the Appeal should be dismissed. You say planners are the experts, the local councillors are not experts. My argument is that the Inspector is the expert, the SoS is not. Yet the SoS npw appears to be hell bent on defying the local planners, defying the Inspector and be willing to put public lives at risk in order to push the government agenda of fracking.
Pauline, I agree that the SOS appears to have provided Cuadrilla with an unexpected second chance for Roseacre. I don’t think Cuadrilla were expecting this. So perhaps this should be the target of a Judicial Review.
The SOS does have access to lots of planning experts within PINs, but he is also subject to politics as well……
Sherwulfe, sorry I only just saw your question. I was involved in fighting wind farms in AONBs and around national parks. No need now as government policy and subsidy cuts has pretty much stopped applications for new wind farms. At least in the areas we are trying to protect in England. Under the previous coalition and the labour governments it was an uphill struggle.
Paul.
I will not challenge your stance on this. All I can say is beauty is in the eye of the beholder 🙂
But I am perplexed.
I salute your determination and action. A perceived threat from something you do not agree with, something that will change the look of the countryside, around where you live and across the country. Something you believe will not make a difference to our energy needs and whose costs would be more than the power it generates. Something that would vex you to see, may affect the price of your house, affect your life; the stress affect your health.
But you are safe now, as the government you support have changed their policies; the reason why I believe may become clear very soon.
I am perplexed; by your lack of empathy.
How are you different to those who live in Little Plumpton and Roseacre; those who live in areas earmarked for shale gas exploration and potential production around the UK? What of the wells that will affect SSSIs, sit on the edge of AONBs? Will you campaign as hard to protect these spaces? Will you campaign for justice, so that the residents of the Fylde and the rest of the UK are afforded the same privileges you have of being able to say NO to wind farms?
I am perplexed; can you see why?
And if you can, will you give a hand to those on their uphill struggle against the developments which those people believe will change the look of the countryside, around where they live and across the country. Something they believe will not make a difference to our energy needs and whose costs would be more than the power it generates. Something that would vex them to see, may affect the price of their house, affect their life; the stress affect their health.?
Can you?
Will you?
Curiouser and curiouser! To oppose something that LOOKS harmful, and then to support something that DOES harm is surely quite irrational? But, if the world has absolutely no sense, who’s stopping us from inventing one? We seem to have strayed into some sort of dark Fracktured looking glass world, where nothing makes any sense and sense means nothing. We can all see the cracks, but not for those on the inside? Now i have no problems with imagining six impossible things before brexit, but this mad hatters tea party seems to be serving from a cracked pot?
Sherwulfe & Phil C:
1) Turbines not beautiful in the proposed locations, not providing what we need, and providing the developers with too much profit. The two primary developers we dealt with up here (one an open cast coal miner) were complacent and arrogant. One was specifically targetting AONBs across England. Fortunately they failed – after 4 years of being fought they left England and now focus on Scotland only. They inadvertently provided their economics to us for one project – they were making a rate of return or profit of 100%, equivalent to around £200 million over the 20 year life. Ironically this was roughly equivalent to the total ROC subsidy. If you had to deal with them, you probably would also have objected. Perhaps Cuadrilla are the same, I have had no dealings with Cuadrilla other than declining to have my name put forward for their Drilling Manager job a couple of years ago.
2) Shale gas surface – I have said many times that i don’t believe this will go ahead in the UK. This BB keeps saying it is too expensive, I don’t know about that, I don’t think anyone really will know until some exploratory drilling and testing has been undertaken. But I don’t think it will go ahead because of surface considerations, primarily planning issues such as well density, traffic, noise, residential amenity impacts, waste disposal, all planning issues. And you will be surprised to hear that I agree that these are significant issues and they will stop shale gas development in England as our population density is too high.
3) Shale gas sub-surface – I don’t have any major issues with this. My experience, technical knowledge and insight into the EA / HSE etc. indicates that the well construction will not be a problem and the stimulations will be sufficiently regulated.
4) Gas – you will know from my posts that I am an advocate of continuing to use gas in the UK and globally to displace coal and to provide reliable electricity generation for many years to come. Most forecasts / studies support this i.e. gas demand will increase globally as populations increase and standards of living rise in third world countries.
5) Empathy – of course I have empathy (I did have to look this up). But I do not agree with protesting, camps, getting prosecuted etc. This is not going to get the result people want. The developers need to be beaten in the planning system. If the planning system is not working then focus needs to be made on changing it. It takes time but it can be done. I don’t that the current planning system will grant a shale gas multi well multi pad development approval. But perhaps the Government needs to be changed?
6) Technical input – I don’t have any problem addressing technical issues for anyone, I have offered this before. But generally people who live near potential shale gas sites do not like to hear positive technical feedback on the subsurface.
7) Stress – any planning development which impacts a person directly will cause stress. Housing developments across the UK are the same. In my area we are inundated with them, on greenfield sites – local people are very stressed. Fully understandable.
I have planned, engineered and /or supervised several onshore wells in the UK in the 1980,s – in Hampshire, East Sussex, North Yorks and Lancashire. I recall even then we had issues with local objectors, sugar in our petrol tanks, Linda Macartney on BBC which showed film of a lake we were going to decimate which was in fact was many mile away. And is probably still fine with offspring of the same swans swimming in the water. The wells were drilled, some were discoveries, some were dry, some are still on production. There were no issues in the end that I recall and all the doom and gloom scenarios did not happen.
We seem to have lost the reply links to your posts, however i will try here, so if you miss it that is a shame. OK, where do i start?
1) – I cant help but see the irony in this, though i am sure you didnt mean it that way. You say that the wind turbines did not look beautiful? Could you please explain to me how a drill tower and many more to follow, will be any more any more beautiful? you say they are not providing what you need? You do not specify what it s that you do need? You say they make too much profit? that is curious as in your world of reality and facts, profit is surely the sole and only motive? why are you not congratulating them for their entrepreneurship?
2) – Shale gas surface? i have not seen this raised as an issue, are you telling me something i should know?
3) – Shale gas sub-surface, we do have major issues on this, and we have had no evidence so far that any regulation is even applicable to unconventional high pressure fracking, and as far as i am aware, there has been no regulations on ‘stimulation’ whatsoever.
4) – Gas i understand you are an advocate for gas, however i see no logical, ethical or ecological reason to endanger our countryside in doing so, nor those who will be subjected to this against their will. If you want to extract gas, then why not do so off shore, or is the industry intimidated by the the Chinese monopolizing the off shore activities?
5) – Empathy, i do not need to look it up i do have trouble however in discerning who i have empathy for, i cant seem to prevent myself feeling empathy for everyone, whether i disagree with them or not, maybe that is because i do not live in your factual objective rational world. A great failing i am sure. The planning system was flawed anyway, but government intervention has made it a laughing stock, it is far too late to try and correct that, the damage is all ready done, and yes, lets change this government, but we dont want any of the most likely suspects, it seems we have to scrap the whole system and start again, planning included.
6) – Technical input, would you care to offer your expertise to the Lancashire residents, you clearly have a deep knowledge of the subject, and i am sure they would value your advice. I will ignore the generality comment.
7) Stress – any planning development which impacts a person directly will cause stress. Housing developments across the UK are the same. In my area we are inundated with them, on greenfield sites – local people are very stressed. Fully understandable. i dont need to comment at all on this, only that it applies to unconventional high pressure fracking, unless that is what you meant?
8) – I will add another item, use of high quality drinking water at cheap rates not available to local residents and the possibility of depleting aquifers in the high demand process of fracking.
9) – Another item, waste water disposal, there is no information on this whatsoever, please detail how this will be achieved legally. Very few if any waste water treatment facilities have either the capacity or the ability to treat high levels of polluted and radio active waste water. Most of them just open the flush valves to the sea as is it. Perhaps the industry will ‘re-inject’ the waste back into the wells under pressure, with the inevitable disastrous results, or like in USA, Canada, Australia and elsewhere, simply dump it illegally and secretly into nearby streams and rivers, or dribble it onto roads.
10) – Last one, the ‘doom and gloom’ scenarios have occurred elsewhere and are still occuring, and as time goes on and the wells begin to age and fail, those doom and gloom scenarios will return and bite us in the gluteus maximus, which will also not be beautiful.
Phil C,
Shale gas surface / shale gas subsurface is just a way of separating the issues into two distinct categories. Common in the industry – wellhead and down is subsurface, upstream of wellhead is surface.
Gas source – I don’t have a problem where it comes from although I would rather it was from the UK, offshore is fine. But most people in industry agree, and the figures confirm, that the UK offshore industry is in decline and gas production is dropping (it may have increased a bit recently) but the general trend is down. It is too expensive to look for and develop new reserves. There are only 7 offshore exploration wells being drilled in the UK sector this year. It is cheaper to import from Norway, Qatar (LNG), Netherlands, and it would seem also the US (shale gas). So this is what we will do going forward. Onshore UK shale gas is going to be too expensive you all tell me so it won’t be developed on pure economics logic. As I said before, even if it is cost competitive with imports the planning system won’t allow it.
Stress – that is what I meant, oil and gas developments in the same category as other developments.
Waste water disposal – I agree this is an issue which needs resolving, however permits are required. But what do you mean by ” high levels of polluted and radio active waste water”. From what I have read the RA issues are not as significant as people try and make out. But either way, this is an issue for the permitting system.
“as time goes on and the wells begin to age and fail, those doom and gloom scenarios will return and bite us in the gluteus maximus”. Technically I have a real problem understanding how this can happen in a properly constructed and decommissioned well which is depleted without any significant primary porosity and zero permeability, with a reservoir pressure below the hydrostatic head of a column of water and zero productivity index. How can gas flow from the shale to the depleted fracture environment into the wellbore, through a column of kill fluid, steel and cement plugs? Geological time perhaps.
Technical input – if you want me to have a look at a drilling program for a shale gas well and critique it I can do this. But this process is already undertaken through the well examination process. And will you accept what I say?
Of course i will accept what you say, and thanks for your reply and clarification on the shale gas sub-surface issue, that may well come in useful. i wasnt considering geological time in the doom and gloom scenario, most wells fail immediately, others within weeks and the prognosis is that all wells fail eventually. whether that will be in our lifetime remains to be seen, though that will certainly become a concern for future generations, personally, i would rather not indulge in practices now that will blight the lives of future generations to come, however they may be organised and configured, better to stop it here, when we can where we can.
For most of the rest of the world that is too late, and as we can all see, rationality is not a local or global political practice, only who has the biggest nuke and who is willing to wave it about. So i agree with some of which you say, fracking isnt the worse thing that can happen, but it is something we can discuss without dropping bombs on anyone. That ability appears to be in the hands of lunatics and egotists. My main fear in all this, is that these fracking practices are a time bomb waiting to go off under our feet, and on that scenario alone amongst others, i object to it, and i feel its only fair to do so. So will you accept what i say?
Phil C,
Discussion and debate is good and healthy. My comment on “will you accept what I say” was a specific reference to my offer to reviewa drilling program for you. Not much point in my doing it if you wouldn’t accept my findings.
I accept your point of view, however I must disagree with your statement “most wells fail immediately, others within weeks and the prognosis is that all wells fail eventually.”
We would be in a terrible mess if this was remotely correct.
Just to confirm that the call in of the Cuadrilla appeals was not specific to shale gas applications the following link goes to a list of recent SOS called in appeals / applications:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-applications-called-in-decisions-and-recovered-appeals
Paul, thanks for your input. I wonder, were you one of the original team that drilled Hesketh 1 well drilled in 1990 (joint venture British Gas and BP)?
‘Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter’. Martin Luther King, Jr.
‘and it would seem also the US (shale gas)’
this you know is not for heating and electricity generation, so why include it?
‘The developers need to be beaten in the planning system. ‘
Indeed they were at local level where it matters most. Unfortunately this current government who I agree needs replacing, decided to take the decision away from the people; those who would be affected the most and the government representative, hardly impartial, is even contemplating overturning the recommendation of the Planning Inspector to uphold the refusal for Roseacre.
It was stated that the decision of LCC regarding Little Plumpton was ‘not unreasonable’ as reflected in the award of costs. So all this together I would say the planning system works, however, when it does not give the answer the government wants it is overridden.
You say you do not agree with protests, but what more do these people have in a system that gives lip service to democracy and flouts the planning system as it stands?
Sherwulfe – no I was not involved in the Hesketh 1 well drilled in 1990. I lived overseas from 1988. In 1990 I was working in Sharjah UAE and Yemen.
Regarding US shale gas – my understanding from the press is that Centrica have forward purchased US shale gas LNG with deliveries to UK starting in 2018 (and that it will go into the National Grid):
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-centrica-idUKBRE92O0PT20130325
“The 20-year deal with U.S. exporter Cheniere Energy Inc will supply enough liquefied natural gas (LNG) to heat 1.8 million British homes starting in 2018, and comes as domestic gas production continues to decline while U.S. output hits record highs.”
“Prime Minister David Cameron, under pressure to bolster Britain’s vulnerable energy import infrastructure, welcomed the Centrica deal, which will diversify the country’s energy mix away from dependency on a small group of existing gas suppliers and will give Britain its first taste of cheap U.S. shale gas.”
Re Hesketh-1 Well – is it leaking / is the surrounding area polluted? Is the nearby RSPB Reserve at Hesketh Out Marsh decimated and all the birds departed due to the well? More a question for Phil C who has advised us that “most wells fail immediately, others within weeks and the prognosis is that all wells fail eventually”
Well, that was a side swipe from the blue, I must have touched a nerve, perhaps I should me more careful where I drill? Never mind, I have no direct information on that as I am sure you are well aware. I would point out that it was not an unconventional high pressure fracking drill, but I’ll look into it if you cant do so yourself. I’m sure you will accept that it may take a while. Will you accept what I say?
Phil C – try the RSPB first? A quick note on conventional vs unconventional wells to try and clear up your comment “it was not an unconventional high pressure fracking drill”.
Conventional wells produce from conventional reservoirs, usually sandstones, limestones, sometimes dolomites, basement rubble or even naturally fractured basement. These conventional wells generally have primary porosity (connected) and good permeability (ability to flow through the rock). They mostly do not need any stimulation (or fracking). Conventional wells may be normally pressured, over pressured or very high pressure (HPHT) with surface pressures as high as 15,000psi when producing. The surface pressure in a conventional well is provided by the hydrocarbons in the reservoir and will be sustained for many years depending on whether the production is oil or gas or both, the amount produced, if reservoir pressure maintenance is being provided (naturally or artificially) and the overall size of the field.
Unconventional wells include shale gas / shale oil wells. These produce from shales which are the source rocks for conventional reservoirs. These shales produce hydrocarbons over geological time i.e. very slowly. They possess almost zero primary porosity and almost zero permeability. They generally are incapable of sustaining a flow of hydrocarbons as the secondary porosity is not connected. So shale wells are stimulated by high volume high pressure fracturing, basically a process to create artificial fractures hydraulically which are kept open with proppant (sand grains) when the hydraulic pressure is taken off. These fractures provide artificial or secondary permeability along their length for gas from the near fracture face to flow down into the wellbore. But because the shales possess very little primary permeability the flow rates are not sustained and the rates drop off to zero relatively quickly. Hence the steep decline curves often referenced on this BB. Shale gas / oil wells are not high pressure wells. The only process in shale wells that high pressure is used for is the surface injection pressure for the hydraulic fracture treatment which is provided by the surface frack pumps. At the end of the frack job the high pressure is bled off and the well flow at significantly lower pressure if successful. Same for conventional wells if they are fracked.
I hope the above will help explain why shale gas wells are far less of a threat to the surface environment at any stage in the well’s life cycle, including production and after abandonment. There is no “tank” or “energy” to sustain a serious leak or pollution incident.
Conventional wells such as Macondo in the Gulf of Mexico are a different story. High pressure, high porosity and permeability, deep water, low fracture gradient, huge reservoir, high gas oil ratio. Very high productivity index (PI). Very different to a shale well.
I agree with you John, if it can be clearly shown that houses within a certain distance of the site have been devalued then Cuadrilla should use some of their profits to compensate the residents, after all in the USA where you own the mineral rights under your own home they would be coining it in from a proportion of the sales.
I also think, if Cuadrilla get costs, in the interests of PR and acting as good neighbours, they should return the money or plough it into local community benefit. Why make victims of protestors.
Yes great idea. Use the fund to promote community liason with environment concern sor put in back to the local library (maybe not enough to do this) but something like that. Or even better throw a party for everyone.
better still, lets not frack at all, just threaten to, then when everyone objects, take them to court and fine them costs and make money that way, no infrastructure costs, no frackgas to try and sell to a falling market, no expensive equipment to buy, no staff to pay, no business premises to pay rent on, just a few cheap lawyers. Why spend unnecessary money, just cut out the middlemen and go straight for profit. No need to destroy the lives and health of the people, everybody wins.
You’ve cracked it! That’s what they’re up to.
LCC should point out its legal duty to abide by EU directives (for the time being) and appeal for reasonable time to gather the pollution stats of the Shale-Gas Industry to date. This way they will demonstrate responsibility and concern for the public good. The shale-gas industry’s track record is appalling and the proof is out there – with air and groundwater contamination alone. New data is pouring in from studies which should have been part of the monitoring and evaluation regime from the outset. It’s a dirty, leaky industry, one of the worst, despite what it’s ideologically and profit driven propagandists would have you believe.
Could anyone explain why the contents of Written Ministerial Statement were given such weight at the Public Inquiry when the Written Ministerial Statement wasn’t issued until AFTER the LCC decision was made? Since the decision made by LCC was therefore made when different rules applied, how can they now be liable for costs?
Excellent point Pauline, that renders the decision legally null and void.