Regulation

First shale gas plan for Notts back on council agenda

proposed-springs-road-misson-shale-site-aerial-picture

Nottinghamshire County Council has confirmed it will resume its consideration later this month of IGas plans for two shale gas exploration wells at Misson, Bassetlaw.

The application will be discussed by the council’s planning and licensing committee at a meeting on Tuesday 15 November.

Councillors delayed their decision on the application, the first for shale gas in the county, on 5 October after a warning that approval could allow illegal actions to be carried out on the site. Details

Planners had recommended the go-ahead for the scheme at Springs Road with 37 planning conditions and a legal agreement on routing of heavy goods vehicles.

But Friends of the Earth, on behalf of Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, told the council a covenant on the neighbouring Misson Training Area Site of Special Scientific Interest prevented any noisy or disruptive activities.

Jake White, legal adviser to Friends of the Earth, said in granting planning permission, the council could allow IGas to commit illegal acts.

The committee chair, Cllr John Wilkinson, adjourned the decision to “allow members to receive definitive legal advice”.

IGas wants to drill a vertical well to a depth of 3,500m and another to 4,350m before deviating for up to 1,500m. According to the application, drilling of the wells would last up to 33 weeks. The application does not include fracking but IGas has said it may apply for permission to frack in future.

The meeting reconvenes at 10.30am, at County Hall, Loughborough Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7QP. Committee agenda

  • A second Nottinghamshire IGas application, to drill a shale gas well at Tinker Lane, (A634) between Blyth and Barnby Moor, has been scheduled for discussion by the planning committee meeting on 20 December 2016 or at a standalone meeting near this date.

19 replies »

  1. Ah jolly good. This will be a goer as the council have no room to decline based on purely technical merits. If the lefties decide to decline it for the simple reason of not wanting fracking to go ahead they will be responsible for yet more tax payers paying for costs awarded against them further down the road.
    FoE are only backing anti frackers as a revenue stream. Open your eyes!

    • And exactly what are fracking companies in it for? They want to make money – lots of money – for themselves.

      Commercial businesses are not here for the good of the people. They are here to maximise profits. For themselves.

      Mr M I strongly suspect that you have been placed here by a fracking company to provide false news. Yes, people open your eyes and start to see people like “Mr M” for what they really are!

  2. Mr M – is it only lefties who care about conservation, air & water quality and greenhouse gas emissions? There are some conservatives left who place these things above the interests of their own investment portfolios. In fact air and water quality protection alone are enshrined in law as a human right.
    I am not an FoE member by the way.

  3. Sorry I’ve come to group categories of different psychologies merely for speed and ease. I honestly don’t mean to sound so derogatory…..friends?
    I appreciate you feel high and mighty on the moral compass by apparently protecting this earth where as people like me are terrible and will only seek destruction. However it really is not this simple. I could go on and on about various reasons why it’s not as straight fwd but I’d need to write a book and then you wouldn’t read it because you’re on your path and I’m on mine.
    I have plenty of “lefty” friends but we just have different view points. That’s what makes life fun.
    I will however, wager you a hefty bet iGas inevitably get to test the feasibility of fracking on this particular site though! Time will tell.

    • Mr M- Did you wager a hefty bet in 2010 when the first fracking applications were presented? If you had then bet that shale gas would be flowing by 2016 you would have lost a load of money which is exactly what has happened to investors. They have lost a whole load of money.

      Easy to keep saying it will happen soon, then when it doesn’t to say the same thing over and over again.

      6 long years no gas. 6 long years wasted investment.

      Some winners (Directors) some losers (Investors)

      I would however read your book but I don’t believe any publisher would consider the content as having any substance that would make the book sell able

      You could try a catchy title like’ Mr M and the 3% of the earth’s scientists who know best’

      Available in the ‘fiction department’ or from good joke shops.

      • What a sad and pathetic feel to that reply John, but I wouldn’t expect anything more.
        I’ve made a hefty profit out of fracking as I actually know how to trade (a little tip…..you need to be smart and do your own in depth research!).
        Anyway John I’m sure after last night’s result you feel it’s all going wrong for you and tbh it is so I’d pack up the fight and get a new hobby.

        • Yep. Thought so Mr M. How much have you lost so far or did you bet that the Industry could not produce gas in 6 years? in which case you were smart.

          Betting on the failure of an Industry or that OPEC would not let the US take market share. Wise bet and good earner if you can get the odds.

          Anyone who spouts they have made a hefty profit…….has lost money.

          Interested to watch Trump disband NASA as they are telling the pentagon that climate change is a national security threat.

          • Nope I never make money off a company doing badly I believe only in growth. I could short stocks all day long as it’s far easier but I don’t “love” money enough. However “speculation” is a different story.
            I’m all for people making money. If you ever want a tip just let me know.

        • You’ve made a hefty profit out of fracking?! Which just goes to prove my point! You care not at all for this world and the environment in which we live with other creatures. You care only for yourself.

  4. Of course iGas will get their way. The proven strategy of having Government endorsement pays off and makes legal challenges almost impossible. But the web of deceit that has been used to promote and lobby for the fracking cause will slowly but surely feel the noose of truth tightening around it’s neck.

  5. Ruth, are you going to write a story on the US Chamber of Commerce study which said that if fracking were banned it would destroy 15 million jobs and lop of 1.6 trillion of GDP? I only ask because some of your readers seem to be under the mistaken belief that onshore gas will not create many jobs or much wealth (even as the LCC turns around to grovel at the shale wealth fund trough before it is filled!).

    Thanks!

    http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/themes/bricktheme/pdfs/CoC_BannedFracking_FULL_v3.pdf

    • That was a ‘best case’ PR statement Mike – there are still lots of caveats pending investigation, especially on emissions, seismicity and other and risks. They’ll be drawing conclusions in 2017. NERC is having meetings currently on the real risks of fracking also … they will report directly to Government.

    • I wonder where ukoog get their figures from. Multiple sources including industry backers Centrica have shown UK shale production costs far greater than the market price of all of 2015 and 2016.
      Are ukoog saying Centrica, EY, Bloomberg and the Oxford Institute have got their sums wrong?
      Why is the US output dropping dramatically?
      Why is the US rig count down by 70%?
      How much extra would ‘gold standards cost’?
      The Scottish Government will do the maths.
      Desperate times for an unnecessary industry with dwindling support.

  6. I fear Igas will win the day through NCC fear of the alternative of rejecting the application, followed by costs of fighting the subsequent Igas legal challenges and Government dictats.

    Nonetheless, this application is wholly inappropriate.

    igas has chosen a uniquely inaporopriate site, and expects NCC planners to push it through. The site is in a high risk flood zone (breach of local and national planning policy), it is likely to be detrimental to the SSSI located 125m away (breach of local and national planning policy), and Igas has failed to substantiate its choice of site using the Sequential test (breach of local and national planning policy). It is on a heritage site, and there is a medium to high risk of unexploded ordnance. NCC planners have inappropriately assessed the cumulative impact of the application upon the local community.

    Additionally, the site is the subject of a valid restrictive covenant that specifically protects the SSSI from activities that are noisy or noxious, and damaging to the interests of the SSSI.

    Finally, recent events have demonstrated that Igas has structural financial issues which mean that it may look like a totally different business in several months time. This weakness means NCC should insist on a bond, which Igas is unlikely to be able to pay.

    Common sense says that there are valid planning reasons to reject this application, irrespective of one’s views on the rights and wrongs of fracking. Unfortunately, democracy is likely to be suspended to push it through.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s