Kirby Misperton Protection Camp. Photo: Ian Crane
Opponents of fracking have established a camp near Third Energy’s fracking site at Kirby Misperton in North Yorkshire.
The action follows the rejection by the High Court yesterday of a legal challenge to the granting of planning permission for fracking in the village by North Yorkshire County Council. DrillOrDrop report
Ian Crane, one of the camp’s residents, told BBC Radio York opponents were using land owned by Flamingo Land, the theme park which had previously objected to Third Energy’s plans.
Mr Crane, the presenter of the online show Fracking Nightmare and a former oil executive, said the camp did not have the “express permission” of Flamingo Land. He said:
“We are here to support the local community and raise awareness of what this industry will lead to if it is able to get a foothold.”
Photo: Ian Crane
He said there were about a dozen people at the camp this morning and the numbers were expected to increase “fairly significantly” over the next few days. So far, residents have come from places as far apart as Surrey, Cheshire and Lincolnshire.
In a Facebook post, Mr Crane said:
“The Kirby Misperton Protection Camp looks forward to working with the local Community in their quest to protect North Yorkshire from the abomination of Unconventional Gas exploitation.”
Steven Peers interviewed by BBC Radio. Photo: Ian Crane
Another resident, Steven Peers, from Cheshire, was asked by BBC News how long he would stay:
“As long as there’s a threat of fracking to Kirby Misperton, this tiny little village, we’ll be here. We envisage a few months until the licence expires and then we’ll pack up and go.”
This afternoon, Sue Gough, a member of the local campaign group, Frack Free Kirby Misperton, said:
“The camp is up and running but there is still lots to do.
“One of the most important things at the moment is to have as many local people as possible on site throughout each day and we would urge as many of you to come down and say hello.
“The occasional home cooked meal is always gratefully received as well. These wonderful protectors are here to stop fracking taking place and have lots of advice about how we can do it.
“So let’s show Third Energy that they have not won, we said no and we mean it.”
Third Energy’s chief executive, Rasik Valand, said after yesterday judgement that the company had an obligation to prove that it could carry out fracking in a safe, discreet and environmentally sensitive way.
“We are confident that we will prove to the local community that their elected representatives were right to grant this permission.”
It’s not known when Third Energy will start work at Kirby Misperton. The company is continuing to negotiate with North Yorkshire County Council over conditions of the planning permission that must be met before fracking can begin.
A council spokesperson said agreements associated with seven conditions have been approved. Agreements on another two were currently being consulted on and another seven conditions remained outstanding. Decisions are made by council officers under delegated powers.
- Also last night, anti-fracking campaigners held a demonstration outside the offices of Ryedale District Council in Malton, where the planning committee was meeting to discuss a new minerals plan for the area.
Photo: Frack Free Ryedale
Updated 22/12/16 with latest information on conditions
Categories: Opposition
DRILL OR DROP? 
Energy needs can confuse easily. The simple fact is that the vast majority of new houses around me are being built with gas central heating. They may have some solar panels as well but the heating system is gas. I have one son in the building trade and another who was an estate agent.
Great to see low carbon energy stats. in the press yesterday, but they only stack up with nuclear-and very expensive new nuclear at that. And they largely ignore the issue of domestic heating, because they simply do not produce gas.
My own property is insulated to the gills, double glassed, air sourced heat pump supplemented etc. BUT my gas bill was double when my elderly father lived with us and yet such factors seem to be ignored and are masked by the nonsense of “energy efficiency”. Greens will say social care can be funded by the rich but forget their mobility, and when the tax take drops will borrow more for my sons to pay back.
I know you feel that the north sea is our answer, and it has been. However, I would suggest Ineos are not economically illiterate and have already found fracked gas from US is worth investing huge money in ships to transport to compete not only from Grangemouth, but also Norway! (See that deluded Jim, who has acquired a few licences in England, has just invested in a conservation project in Iceland.)
I accept you point about current players, and it is quite amusing to hear references to “Big Oil”! I would suspect the larger players are waiting for particular developments and will become more active then. It has frequently been the case with development of such resources and the indications of that are there already. That is, if we research and not assume.
Done my brussels. Off to fill my condiments with a terribly poisonous chemical now-ban it and be damned, perhaps (that I also use to kill the dandelions on my lawn.) Then to pay the £400 bill for the tree surgeons who had to deal with the die back on my oak tree caused by that same toxic material the council spread on the road below. Bit more global warming, and that could save me £400-but then, I suspect the German green economy will destroy that hope via the VW emissions. Answer probably is just to fell the tree, but then we run out of oxygen.
Science, facts and assumptions can be very confusing, can’t they.
But then we can have electric cars!
Back to the top of this section-try Googling cobalt (big use in electric cars). You will find some pretty rubbish (but better than the fracking reference) “science” that says it can cause cancer, so that when added as an essential trace element to animal feed it needs a skull and cross-bone symbol. So, you feel it necessary for animal health to supply an essential trace element to their feed, but will probably get sued for huge sums if one of your workers develops cancer many years hence, because bad “science” can still be Googled.
Equally, best source of lithium for Europe is probably found in Finland. Tough for the reindeers.
Better to convert diesel cars to gas, perhaps!
With a small modification to a standard combustion engine you can run it on water, even salt water.
This was discovered by several innovators in the last hundred years. They either died very soon after and their inventions disappeared, or their invention was confiscated by the military. The one thing that cannot be tolerated is development of non fossil fuel energy. No pollution, no special chemicals or heavy metals, nothing but water vapour in the exhaust. Most engines even as they are and running on petrol or diesel can be made 400% more efficient with almost no exhaust, but these innovations are also squashed as they upset the fossil fuel monopoly.
Look it up, don’t take my word for it.
PhilC-surely not suggested we use salt water, are you? Don’t you realise how toxic this material is?
Oh dear, do i have to take you back to school? Yeah? OK then, salt water is so toxic that countless trillions of creatures live in it. 80% of your body is salt water, we carry our own oceans with us, our biggest problem when we became amphibious, was osmosis, that is why our skin and cell structure only allow water to pass in one direction. Simple physics, try living without salt water. Lesson over, go and stand in the dumb corner.
PhilC-suggest you chat to a few survivors of being shipwrecked. They will quickly tell you what killed their colleagues. Salt, like most chloride containing compounds is toxic to humans at relatively low levels of consumption. It is the level of intake, and the internal balance that is critical. Many compounds can be consumed by humans at a certain level and may be beneficial but are toxic beyond that. Try vodka.
Why do you think thousands of tonnes of more expensive sodium bicarbonate are utilised in animal feed to replace cheaper sodium chloride? Sodium+potassium-chloride: acid base balance, Pierre Mongin. I am sure you Google fanatics can manage that one.
Why should you break ranks and actually come up with science that is correct?
Dear dear, you are off on one aren’t you? The point, my dear chapgetting back to the original subject, is that you can modify any internal combustion engine to run on water. You could, at a pinch, or in an emergency, run it on salt water, you would have to flush the entire fuel system afterwards, but it will do for a while. You have totally ignored that and gone off on your usual irrelevant tangent. It would not be advisable to drink the contents of the tank however, any more than you would drink the contents of a diesel or petrol tank, a far more toxic fluid somewhat terminal and frankly insane exercise!
As for toxicity look at Masuru Emoto’s books on water and the necessary water/salt balance that is essential to life. You can immerse yourself in salt water for days on end, but lack of fresh water to drink slowly reduces the bodies natural anti-osmotic defenses and you begin to get salt absorption which leaches out fresh water from your organs and cellular structure. Shipwreck survivors die of exposure, hypothermia, drought and starvation long before salt dehydration, its the lack of fresh water, not the presence of salt water, that kills.
But that is just diversion on your part isn’t it? What you will not discuss is that the internal combustion engine can, with modification, be run on water. Like always, I say look it up, don’t take my word for it, and don’t go on and on about salt water, that is just a diversion on your part.
… Internal combustion engine… run on water… I do hope you are JOKING… I mean… REALLY?!? You just believe everything you read with no knowledge of real life I assume? Internal combustion engine can be run on HYDROGEN, that through Electrolysis can be extracted from H2O… but at a 30% efficiency rating… combined with the engines ~40%… you get a net energy of 12% of what you put into the water to extract the Hydrogen… NOT a very good return… (most batteries are 60-80% efficient just saying)
So, do you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet? Just because Google comes up with an article about Alien lizards that wear human skin and are controlling the world to make it ready for the invasion of zombie Hitler… does NOT mean that it is true…