More than 450 people filled Lytham’s Lowther Pavilion Theatre for the first town-hall style meeting on fracking in Fylde for more than two years. Speakers are the event are Fylde resident and engineer, Mike Hill, and retired medical consultant, Dr Frank Rugman. The event is chaired by Charles Metcalfe. DrillOrDrop is reporting live from the meeting. Frank Rugman statement and YouTube video of presentation by Mike Hill
10.18pm: Closing “This is your chance to defend the Fylde”
Meeting chairman Charles Metcalfe says it is now down to local people.
Fracking is expected to start in September and it is likely to run for 24 hours a day, he says. “That will be very hard on local people”, he says.
“People have worked very hard to stop fracking, no one more than Mike Hill”, Mr Metcalfe.
“If ever you have not seen eye to eye with one another this the moment to set those differences aside.
“You have only one enemy and that is the fracking company.
“If fracking goes ahead it will change where you live. It may mean you will not be able to earn a living in the same way.
“It is now over to you. There comes a time in your life when you know that something is wrong. This is that time. It is time to stand up and show your disapproval”
Mr Metcalfe said the first step was to come to the meetings in the coming weeks.
“Please tell people what you have learned tonight.
“This is your only chance to defend the Fylde”
10.13pm: Question about fugitive emissions
A woman from St Annes asks whether Cuadrilla is going to use cold venting. She says flaring will have a visual impact and scare people.
Mike Hill says gases can be cold vented if the flare is not ignited or is burning at too low a temperature. There needs to be proper monitoring of the flare, he says.
There is very little we can do about this, Mr Hill says. Monitoring has to be done by the regulators and should be paid for with a levy on the companies. Government is not in favour of this system, he adds.
10.11pm: Statement about licences across the UK
A woman from East Lancashire says there are nine licences in her area. There are also licences in Yorkshire, she says. Nobody in the UK is going to be safe, she adds.
10.09pm: Question about explosives for perforation guns
Anti-fracking campaigner, Gayzer Frackman, asks whether Cuadrilla had a licence to transport explosives on Lancashire roads to the Preese Hall site for its perforation guns. He asks Supt Richard Robertshaw to try to find out because he’s been unable to.
Supt Robertshaw says he doesn’t have an answer to the question
10.06pm: Question on well pad
A man from Polton-le-Fylde asks how big is the Preston New Road site and how many boreholes there could be on the pad.
Mike Hill says it is approximately four rugby pitches.
“My main concern is what’s underneath the surface, not what’s on the surface
“You could potentially have 60 boreholes. You could have five mile laterals – or 300 miles of boreholes.”
Mr Hill says laddering is going to be tried at Preston New Road for the first time in the UK. There could be 10 boreholes with six lateral boreholes off each one.
“It is totally new. It has not been done before with high volume hydraulic fracturing. It is a risk.”
10pm: Question on regulation
A man who had worked in the industry says there has been scaremongering about fracking.
“We are all concerned but coming from the industry I think we need to look at the other side. I am sorry it is going to happen.”
He asks whether the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) and the Health and Safety Executive visit the Preston New Road site.
Mr Hill says a well examiner, paid by the operator, produces documents that go to the OGA. The OGA has not inspected the site, he says. They are not taking an over-arching view, separating revenue-raising from safety. They are in charge of licensing and over-seeing the HSE. Mr Hill says:
“It is a serious problem. ‘We are not going to inspect. We are relying on documentation’. \it’s just not good enough.”
9.51pm: Question on policing
To huge applause, a woman asks why are there 150 police on duty at Preston New Road every day to deal with an average of 20 protesters. How are they going to cope if the Roseacre comes on stream, she asks.
Supt Richard Robertshaw, who is in the audience, says there is a large police presence. The total is usually 100. He says:
“It is costing a significant amount of money. We would rather not be doing it. We don’t think it is good value for money. But we have a duty to allow Cuadrilla to go about its lawful business.
“There have been times when it is has been raised that the police operation is too supportive of Cuadrilla.
“The objective of the policing operation is safety first, facilitating the right to peacefully protest, the right of Cuadrilla to go about its lawful business and the right of people not to be disturbed.”
To applause, Supt Robertshaw said yesterday 8 people locked-on and that took considerable resources to deal with.
Charles Metcalfe says he has been told lawful protest has not been part of the equation and that people who protested had felt intimidated by police.
Supt Robertshaw says “We try where we can to facilitate protest.”
He says slow walks would be overly disruptive of the highway.
A woman in the audience says, to applause, that she is prepared to be held up by the protest.
Supt Robertshaw says other people feel equally strongly that they don’t want to be held up.
Mr Hill says police officers are caught in the middle. But policing will become impossible as fracking increases, he says.
“If there are 100 police officers at Preston New Road and then another 100 at Roseacre and 100 at other sites – how are police going to have 500 officers just policing fracking, what is going to happen to crime?”
Supt Robertshaw says
“We don’t have the resources to do this for an extended period of time.
“This isn’t just a Lancashire issue. We’ve had discussions with the Home Office and other forces.
“There is a commitment that if more officers are required, that is what the police service will do. There is always the capacity to deal with it, at a price.”
A woman in the audiences says car drivers are told the road is closed because of protesters, not because police we allowing a lorry out.
9.47pm: Question on flooding
A woman from Scarborough asks about surface water at Preston New Road.
“There is an enormous amount of water on that site.”
Do you know Cuadrilla have been removing the water in tankers?, she asks.
Mr Hill says pads can flood. Flooding in this area is a problem. When you flood the pad, everything washes into the next door field and the impermeable layer is useless. There is not a procedure in place to stop that happening, he says.
9.44pm: Question on impact on farming
A local dairy farmer asks about the impact fracking could have on his cattle.
To applause, Mr Hill says
“We absolutely must protect our farming industry.
“The government is prioritising tax take from gas over farming in the Fylde. I personally think that is appalling.”
Mr Hills says the horizontal wells could go under Lytham, St Annes and over to Roseacre. The operator can drill a lot further than what is planned by the first four horizontal wells.
Many farms could be fracked and their produce could be regarded as fracked food, Mr Hill says
9.40pm: Question on water
A questioner asks whether water for fracking would have priority over local drinking water, particularly in drought.
Mr Hills says the local water company, United Utilities, has the right to extract water from the River Wyre.
“I would be very nervous about the potential for leaks of fracking fluid getting into water courses. Personally, as soon as Cuadrilla start fracking I will go to bottled water. I just can’t take the risk. I know too much about it.”
Mr Hill says UU can drop water pressure to the level that it would take an hour and a half to fill a bath. Both Cuadrilla and UU are both private companies, he says. Cuadrilla is probably paying more for its water than domestic customers.
9.37pm: Question about well failure
A woman asks how long a well lasts, how many wells fail and what happens.
Mr Hill says a certain percentage of wells fail immediately. It is the job of the regulator to spot it and fix it. He says wells should be monitored for at least three decades – a study of wells in the US found 100% of them leaked over time.
“We need a bond for abandonment and the government refused. We have a real problem on our hands.”
9.31pm: Question about fracking and radiation
A local anti-fracking campaigner asks about whether depleted uranium tips could be used on drill bits.
The questioner asks about the disposal of nuclear waste in wells. Mr Hill says the Infrastructure Act allows any substance to be pumped into wells after oil and gas production. Mr Hill says he his concerned about the industry looking at ways to make operations more competitive. He says he thinks it is a real possibility. Research work is underway on putting high-level nuclear waste down boreholes. It would make the industry extremely commercially viable, he adds.
9.29pm: Question on earthquakes
A Fylde resident asks who will pay for training to prevent earthquakes from the fracking process.
Mr Hill says a report on the 2011 earthquake in the Fylde linked it to fracking at the Preese Hall well. He says this was a serious failure at the well. It could have the potential to leak. A larger seismic event would be needed to cause damage on the surface, he says.
9.23pm: Question on conditions
A questioner says: “I was disappointed that Lancashire County Council had not accepted the advice of officers and approved the site with strict conditions.
“I was disappointed it went to government. I think we have ended up with weak conditions
“Is there no chance at this late stage that Cuadrilla would enter into an agreement with you [Mike Hill] to monitor this site at their expense?
Mike Hill says he had been allowed to go on any of Cuadrilla’s site and inspect anything he wanted to, up to the point when Francis Egan became the chief executive. Since then, Mr Hill says, he has been banned from the sites. Cuadrilla is no longer interested in independent monitoring, he says.
Lancashire County Council has no say on the Preston New Road site anymore. It is in the country’s national interest to frack, as far as the government is concerned, he adds..
Proper regulation and monitoring is too expensive and a barrier to the market place, Mr Hill says.
9.20pm: Question on regulation
A local person says this a moment – after the Grenfell Tower tragedy – to promote regulation of fracking. People don’t want to rip up red tape, she says. This is the chance to get fracking regulated.
Mr Hill says he has tried hard to regulate the industry. He stood in the 2015 general election. The winning MP, Mark Menzies, says the people of the Fylde voted for fracking. Politically it is still in the hands of the Conservative Party, which is in favour of fracking, he says.
The government has accepted some ideas on monitoring, Mr Hill says, but it hasn’t accepted that regulation proposed by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report should be implemented now.
“We don’t have gold standard regulation.
“Ministers wait for a disaster before doing anything.
“It needs to be more than just me. It needs to be the people of the Fylde”
9.13pm: Question on fracking waste
A local person asks what will happen to the contaminated water from fracking.
Mr Hill says he calls it fracking waste. Since 2012, the Environment Agency has decided there is no Best Available Technique for flowback fracking waste, he says. It has decided doing nothing is the best thing to do with the waste left in the formation.
For flowback that comes back up in the wells, the EA decides it should be recycled, Mr Hill says. He adds that Cuadrilla can bring back up the flowback, process it and use it again for fracking again.
9.10pm: Question on moratorium in New York
A PHD student asks how the public could get involved in working for a moratorium.
Mr Hill says it is through meetings like this. He says he has done more than 70 meetings about fracking. He says he hopes that from this meeting, more and more people will get more and more knowledge, and become more active in protecting their areas.
“We need to work this through together and show the government we are not happy”.
9.05pm: Meeting resumes
Question-time part of the meeting now underway.
Chairman, Charles Metcalfe, says business leaders, school headteachers, councillors, police chiefs and Cuadrilla had been invited to attend the meeting. Superintendent Richard Robertshaw is in the audience.
Mr Metcalfe says accusations had been made that Mike Hill had been guilty of scaremongering. The accusations had been investigated and dismissed. Mr Metcalfe says he will not allow criticisms of Mr Hill’s credentials.
8.40pm: Break for 20 minutes
7.50pm: Mike Hill – speaker
Mike Hill, a Lytham resident, engineer and adviser on shale gas, takes the stage. He tells the meeting he is qualified to talk about fracking but is not a fracker.
He says the mainstream media cannot always be trusted to tell the truth. He advised the audience:
“You must check information for yourself.”
Mr Hill says there will always be risks. The key is to assess them and mitigate them. Fracking carries serious risks, he says, which need mitigating. They are health, economic and lifestyle risks, he says.
Health risks
He says the Preston New Road shale gas site is probably the largest pad in the world. It could eventually have 60 boreholes on it, four times the number on the previously largest pad.
He says risks would arise through emissions to air or groundwater. As an example of emissions to air, he says gases could be emitted through poor burning efficiency from the flare. The risks of these gases increase to people living within a 2km radius.
Fracking fluid comprises mostly water, with some sand, dilute acid and polyacrylamide, a friction reducer,he says. About 50% of fracking fluid returns to the surface. A Cuadrilla executive said he didn’t know where the remaining 50% went.
In the flowback water from Preese Hall, Cuadrilla’s only hydraulically fractured well, there was levels of substances about accepted limits that included cadmium, chromium, and arsenic, Mr Hill says.
“It’s not what you pump in that matters. It’s what comes back. That is pretty toxic and can cause problems to the environment.”
Lancashire would need 6,000 wells across 100 sites, he says. Durham University calculated to get 15% of gas out in Lancashire and Yorkshire would need 33,000 wells, Mr Hill said.
Economic risks
Mr Hill says house prices on the Fylde fell by 9% directly related to fracking of one well at Preese Hall.
He says the main other economic risk is job losses. There has been no formal evaluation done, he says. But he says a commonsense evaluation is that fracking will put people off visiting the Fylde and buying produce from the area. 60,000 people work in those industries and an estimated 25% – or 15,000 people, would lose their jobs, he estimates.
Fracking is usually a net loss to the area, he said.
Life style risks
There will a very significant increase in traffic in the area around Preston New Road, because that’s what fracking needs, Mr Hill said.
In Australia, there has been an increase in road traffic accidents, he said. The response has been the creation of one-way systems. Delays start to build up. But at least you don’t get head-on collisions.
Light and noise at night lead to sleep deprivation, Mr Hill says. It could lead to a down turn in the area.
Control the risks
Mr Hill says the industry checks its own procedures. He asks:
“Should you trust the industry to “mark their own exams”
He criticises Cuadrilla for using maximum limits recorded in a year as a baseline measure for its monitoring data.
He quotes the Environment Agency who said it was monitoring fracking by Cuadrilla at Preese Hall by requiring the company to send a fax on a Friday afternoon.
Is it right that fracking companies mark their own exams?, he asks.
“The industry has been de-regulated”
Mr Hill says the industry has been “significantly de-regulated” in the past decades. He gives as an example the right of UK companies to drill under land without the owners’ permissions.
In contrast, he says, regulation of fracking in the US has significantly increased. He says a ban on flaring in some states of the US has reduced some of the risks to local people.
The UK, he says, nothing of the sort has happened. The government refused to ban flaring on fracking sites. Mr Hill says:
“If you have to have shale gas it is better, morally, to import it from the US because the US is better regulated”.
Cutting red tape
Mr Hill says the MPs, civil servants and ministers he has met regard regulation as red tape that constrains business. But regulations can, he says, prevent deaths.
90% of the recommendations in the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report on shale gas have not been implemented, he says.
Why is the government taking this risk with the Fylde?
Why is the UK government prepared to take this risk in the Fylde, Mr Hill asks.
” The government balances the tax take from the Fylde against farming and tourism in the area. The national interest outweighs our local interest”
“Protest can only continue”
Mr Hill says democracy has been sidelined with the decision by the Communities’ Secretary, Sajid Javid, to overrule the decision by Lancashire County Council to refuse permission for fracking. There is no local control over risk,he adds.
To applause from the theatre he says:
“There is nothing left but for people to protest, as they are doing at Preston New Road”.
“The protesters are doing it for our families and our area. These protests are only going to expand, particularly when people learn about what the risks are”.
7.30pm: Frank Rugman – speaker
Dr Rugman is one of the authors of the Medact report on Fracking and a retired medical consultant.
Dr Rugman advises people to do their own research on fracking. He is applauded when he says people in Lancashire wonder whether the government would ever impose a so-called sacrifice zone on anywhere in southern England.
Air pollution
He gives details of increased road traffic accidents in fracking areas in the US. He says there is mounting evidence of the increasing impact of invisible air pollution, particularly diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust causes cancer, he says. Patients with asthma and respiratory disease are particularly vulnerable to diesel emissions. Will fracking increase diesel emissions and will the emissions be monitored?, he asks.
Work by John Hopkins School of Public Health indicates possible associations between:
- Closeness to active fracking and exacerbation of asthma
- Closeness of the mother to active fracking and high-risk pregnancies and premature births
- Closeness to active fracking and migraine headaches, chronic rhino-sinusitis and fatigue
More research is needed to determine whether any associations are causal, Dr Rugman adds.
“Shale gas syndrome”
Dr Rugman refers to what has been called “shale gas syndrome” and says the Pennsylvania Medical Society has called for a moratorium on fracking.
He mentions reports of nosebleeds, dermatological, respiratory, neurological and GI symptoms and increased hospital admissions for heart problems and strokes in fracking areas. There are risks, he says, from radon gas, silica sand and sleep disturbance from noise.
Reports of negative effects on groundwater continue to emerge in the US. A study found toxic groundwater up to 1km from a fracking well.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has finally admitted that there is a connection between the shale gas industry and contaminated groundwater, he says.
But Public Health England report, which concluded that fracking was “low risk”, has been described as “a leap of faith, unsubstantiated by the scientific evidence”, Dr Rugman says. It is, he adds, out of date.
“The assumption that all reported health risks from fracking could simply be overcome by regulation and engineering, has also been widely disbelieved.
“Exposure to harmful volatile organic chemicals from fracking cannot always be eliminated through regulation, as there are technological and economic limitations to the treatment of emissions into the air, into groundwater and from waste.”
“Gold standard regulation”
The audience laughs when he refers to government claims of “gold standard” regulation. In England, he says, there is not even a minimum distance between homes and fracking sites. This ignores evidence that distance is a major factor in determining health of residents, he says.
Dr Rugman says:
“For Fylde residents, the questions are simple: Do you trust this industry with its vested interests, then do you trust the government to regulate this industry?”
He is applauded when he quotes a statement from Cicero on the coat of arms of Lytham St Annes:
“The safety of the people is the highest law”
7.32pm: Meeting underway
Chair of the meeting, Charles Metcalfe, introduces the evening.
7.30pm: People being turned away
Theatre filled to capacity and people being turned away.
7.15pm: Theatre almost full
All but a handful of seats now filled.
6.45pm Crowds gathering
People are already gathering outside the Lowther Pavilion Theatre. A police car and van are parked outside .
Reporting on this meeting was made possible by individual donations from DrillOrDrop readers
Categories: Diary
DRILL OR DROP? 
Wonderful evening explaining in very simple language the peril the population of the whole Fylde Peninsula find themselves in!
This message has been shouted from the rooftops for years now but still the Fylde electorate, like turkeys at Christmas, vote for their own destruction!
What is wrong with you people?
Direct protest in great numbers alongside the renewed Legal Challenges will hopefully save your skins!
Please express your gratitude later!
It’s called Democracy. You could move to North Korea? Or Venezuela? Perhaps it is the minority that have “something wrong with them”?
Perhaps if the early days local media, although at least they have woken up now, plus the national media, who are obviously still behoven to Murdoch and the partly concealed establishment investors, didn’t peddle absolute untruths then the Electorate might have worked out the evils of the Fracking Industry for themselves!
[Edited by moderator]
[Edited by moderator]
Change the system, vote Green (the others won’t stop shale gas). I assume you already voted Green? Didn’t do a lot of good did it? Most people don’t care about shale gas, particularly people in the Fylde. Look at the vote.
Get out there and do something useful, find a suitable alternative to natural gas, we will all support you if you are successful. Please don’t tell me wind farms and PV.
[Edited by moderator] unfortunately for you I have the relevant technical experience in the oil and gas industry which you cleraly don’t. I can talk from extensive personal experience in the industry, unlike even the great Mr. Hill.
Still waiting for someone to tell me what he is an engineer in? What was his job in the oil industry? Clearly a touchy subject based on the lack of response……
[Edited by moderator]
Like all succesful anti-establishment protest groups we are plagued with infiltrators from the establishment who not only attempt to gain intelligence but also tarnish our public image. You know, smelly jobless layabouts, foul-mouthed thugs etc., etc.
[Edited by moderator]
If as you say you live locally to PNR then you should be standing alongside us in defence of your Community and your family and your retirement home! That’s what I spend my non-working hours doing anyway.
You’re welcome to visit us at Maple Farm any Saturday lunchtime to discuss all things Fracking with knowledgeable, friendly people, just like me.
The same invitation extends to all concerned residents of soon to be Fracked gas zones by the way.
[Comments removed by moderator]
Paul, this is the video url address on the drill or drop report page, that seems to establish he is a qualified Consulting Engineer,
https://youtu.be/Hg1zysFT_GM
This is an extract from:
Independent Engineering Review of Church of England Paper on Shale Gas Page 1 of 9
© – Michael Hill
Review of the Church of England Mission & Public Affairs Council and the Environment Working Group Briefing paper on Shale Gas and Fracking
Author: Michael Hill, B.Sc. C.Eng. MIET.
Never mind, always happy to help.
Better this way, you can read the link:
( https://youtu.be/Hg1zysFT_GM )
So Phil C – Civil, Electrical, both or what?
…..and you are asking me….why? The link and the extract was easily done, could you not have done the same? It took me 30 seconds to cut and paste the video link, did you watch the video? And about 3 minutes to dig out the info from the report, may i suggest you go and research out the rest for yourself? There must be a c.v. available somewhere, why not ask him yourself? Why not give it a try, in the time to write these spoonfeeding requests surely you could do it yourself?
Always a pleasure.
Peter, Phil P and hrb. I thought you claim that you guys anti frackers dont have the mobs mentality. Your comments Peter are very threatening and intimidating at personal level. That just reiterate my points regarding Mr Hill crowds from the meeting.
On a personal level I feel that myself and my family are being threatened and bullied by the Frackers, the Constabulary and the Tory government!
Therefore I either roll over or defend myself!
Guess what I am doing?
My guess ??? You are crying faul about how our electoral democracy mistreated you because the scientific facts and evidence dont back up your claims and ideologies the way that you want it personally ??? No?? Not a correct guess???
Gentlemen, please, its always difficult to stay out of the attack/response cycle but its just a hook and a barb and should be treated as such in either direction.
I suggest answering with humour even when provoked, sometimes we get heated and it just leads to more rocks to throw at each other. All that achieves is more rocks.
All sorts of things can trigger anger, it isn’t always the comment, it can be other things.
Try the native American response, think four times before answering, when you have processed it then answer without emotion.
And yes, before you jump i don’t do that all the time either, but i am learning to, largely, funnily enough, to these pages!
If i have the computer on i write in word first, it spell checks and grammar checks too, then read it through, rewrite it, read it again, wait for a while till the emotion is reduced, then read it again and modify it and edit it. Only then send it. If i have the phone, it can be written in a text and sent to yourself, that way the “send” button doesnt get hit too fast.
One day the world may well founder on a hastily posted e-mail or text, or tweet(!) one day. Best try to not let it be you.
It’s all good fun and learning from other people point view at the same time PhilC. A bit of tongue in cheek humour doesn’t hurt the debate imo.
Hmmmm dictatorial governments and oppressed starving people? Sounds like a fracking exploitation opportunity? Perhaps we are not such a pushover?
I don’t think NK has the right geology – but perhaps they do. Venezuela certainly does. Mr. Roberts appears to want the majority ruled by a Nimby minority, at least in the Fylde. Perhaps he should go for a walk and relax a bit?
I am always amused at this N.I.M.B.Y epithet, because actually it is a compliment, there have been many historical examples of Not In My Back Yard, anything from the 300 Spartans fighting the whole Persian army, to the Stalingrad resistance against the invading Germans, the remarkable events at Rourkes Drift in the Boer War, the slaves revolts with Spartacus and the struggle of the slaves in England, Europe, Africa and America.
Many minorities have fought off much larger groups throughout history, they didnt always win, but they often bought time for others to regroup and return to fight later.
Feagin (1984) States that a minority group has five characteristics:
(1) suffering discrimination and subordination,
(2) physical and/or cultural traits that set them apart, and which are disapproved by the dominant group,
(3) a shared sense of collective identity and common burdens,
(4) socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not determine minority status, and
(5) tendency to marry within the group.
(6) which is numerically smaller than the rest of population of the state or a part of the state,
(7) which is not in a dominant position,
(8) which has culture, language, religion, race etc. distinct from that of the majority of the population,
(9) whose members have a will to preserve their specificity,
(10) whose members are citizens of the state where they have the status of a minority, and
(11) which have a long-term presence on the territory where it has lived.
International criminal law can protect the rights of racial or ethnic minorities in a number of ways. The right to self-determination is a key issue. The formal level of protection of national (ethnic) minorities is highest in European countries.
What is interesting in the present context, is that, firstly is a knowledgeable section of a population that foresee a danger in an industrialisation and pollution of their countryside, and everyone’s countryside, only a N.I.M.B.Y? In actual fact, no, because first and foremost they are not protesting just for themselves, they are protecting the whole group, whether the rest understand it or not?
The epithet “nimby” is not therefore even correct, a closer acronym would be N.I.A.B.Y. Not In Anyones Back Yard. That puts an entirely different spin on it, and i suspect the whole nimby epithet is just a disguised intent ant belittling, stereotyping labelling and pigeon holing a group of people who represent a threat to the industry, and that is unworthy of so called adults isn’t it? But of course if that is the sole intent, then it places it where it belongs doesnt it? In the school bullies book of stupidity.
I rather like O.I.Y.B.Y. or perhaps F.O.I.Y.B.Y. as a response, that being, Only In Your Backyard, or Fracking Only In Your Back Yard?
Would that be OK if we used these epithets back to you all in future? And how about M.U.P.P.E.T.’s Mad Utterly Pathetic Polluting Evil Terrorists? Such fun isnt it?
Just to say, we have no intention of going anywhere, we live here, and we will defend our countryside, our villages, our towns and our cities.
Always a pleasure!
Good for nuclear waste dumping perhaps?
What a balanced and informative perspective supplied by this event! Just like the balanced and informed perspective provided by Drill or Drop!
So – advertised by Mr Hill as being neither a pro or anti fracking meeting. No surprises it was clearly anti-fracking. I was amused by this statement by Mr Hill as reported by Ruth on this blog. ““I would be very nervous about the potential for leaks of fracking fluid getting into water courses. Personally, as soon as Cuadrilla start fracking I will go to bottled water. I just can’t take the risk. I know too much about it.”. So Mr Hill gets his water supply from under the PNR site? I hope he is careful with the bottled water he buys – especially water that comes naturally up fractures. Will he be ultra-careful about the chemicals in bottle plastic and/or glass too?.
Yes, I thought he was playing to crowd on this point. He knows what the crowd wants and he gives it to them, feeding it to the anti-fracker’s ego and mob mentality. He is clearly a bit of a politician (unfortunately failed miserably in the general election on a non-issue low priority political agenda) and crowd pleaser who know how to get public attention.
probably the first time a group of people in a peaceful meeting in lytham have been called a mob 😀
Certainly won’t be the last time as when the earthquakes start the good people of Lytham and the rest of the Fylde will realise they have been totally sold down the M55 by the fracking industry and it’s political enforcers!
They voted Tory so they have nobody to blame but themselves! Time to get directly on to their appointed representative MENZIES before it’s too late!
Dont be so sure. Just wait and see when you have an industry figure in the crowd defending against or correcting Mr Hill claims. You’ll see. Yelling shouting yeezing sniping abusing from the anti fracker mobs will happen. It is almost as certain as the sun rising in the east or if you are a Tory as certain as Brexit.
This mob labelling trick is a bit over the top TW. You’ve caught the label-and-smear trick off the pros it appears. The intention is clearly to intimidate and make people want to distance themselves by not identifying with a discredited group. It’s just a word game and weakens your own ability to debate, or be taken seriously I’m afraid.
Phil P. Check out Peter comments and tell me that it is not mob mentality.
There were similar scenes at lowther gardens when the disgraceful and stupid decision to close St Annes swimming pool was taken!
[Edited by moderator]
Try and post again, as there was a “glitch” before, so if this appears twice, apologies.
As 70% of the population seem to support fracking or have no opinion either way, then it would seem unsurprising to obtain an audience out of the other 30% (perhaps with a few others.) What I find a bit weird is why focus this upon a site which has already gone through the various authorisation and public consultation processes several times over, including appeals?
The organiser suggested attendees should do their own research and Mr. Roberts seems to think locals have been asleep for the last ten years. It could just be that they have done their own research over a very extended time period and have reached their own conclusions. Perhaps these conclusions have been influenced by the antis stating there will be widespread industrialisation whilst also stating fracking will never be economic in the UK? Maybe they have been influenced because they have been told fracking in US is dying out due to great problems but they note the decline in petrol prices and research to find out why? Or just, maybe, they want to establish the full truth through test exploration and not be told what to think, and do not think such tests should be stopped by a minority because they don’t want the majority to get the full picture?
I, too, am retired and have no connections to any of the exploration companies. Neither do I bank with Barclays. I do have plastic keys on my laptop-thank you Jim.
Martin…. or perhaps the public should rely on getting the full truth from people like yourself and Paul. You who don’t wish to know anything about fracking in the USA, where the whole scheme for these operations is coming from … why for instance there have been over 9000 complaints in on State alone, with over 4000 being related to water pollution. [Edited by moderator] If the ‘experts’ here prefer to remain asleep what hope has the average person?
The advice to research these things for yourself is good. That’s what I’ve been doing, but to assume 70% public support begs the question of whether that ‘consent’ represents informed consent (the only thing that really counts in my books). When so much of the information has been fudged or concealed or simply not ‘out there’ till now, I don’t think so.
Reality check… How do you suppose that 6000 wells between Preston and Blackpool does not represent a considerable industrialisation of the countryside? Even if contained within just 100 pad sites the logistics (trucking etc) and the pipe network will be impressive. Do you dispute this? The much proposed higher concentration of wells per pad than is normally practices – partly to reduced surface sprawl – was identified many years ago as multiplying risk factors by the way.
Mr. Hill is a Civil Engineer according to info from Phil C posted above. I am also a Civil Engineer by Degree – this would not automatically qualify me to be an “expert” on all things upstream (or downstream for that matter) oil and gas. However I never worked a single day in civil engineering. I spent my whole career in upstream oil and gas, petroleum engineer, process engineer, drilling engineer and operations and development management. So what I am interested in learning (but no one apperas able to, or perhaps no one wants to, tell me) is what Mr. Hill did in his oil industry career? He may have built roads, he may have built platforms as a civil engineer or he may have worked in a diferent area to his qualification within the oil industry like myself for 30 plus years? I read on this BB some time ago that he was an electrical engineer? So what did he do in the oil and gas industry? Surely this distinguished career was highlighted at the start yesterday?
Easy enough Paul, i just did a few minutes of trawling, easy enough, may i suggest as before you do some research yourself? Or even ask him yourself? Simples!
I assume he reads DOD – Mike over to you?
[Comment removed by moderator]
Philip, do you have an alternative proposal to provide secure domestic energy that will have a less industrializing impact on the countryside? The county in which I live is one of the most densely drilled in the US, and I don’t consider it industrialized at all. Many other businesses are more intrusive visually and environmentally than the gas industry. Would you prefer nuclear? If so, you have a point because this source is more energy dense than most alternatives. Of course there are a few drawbacks to nuclear, including cost, that we don’t need to highlight here. Solar and wind are hundreds of times more industrializing than natural gas, so that won’t work. You could try to locate wind offshore but that’s even more expensive, and there are geographical constraints. Can you get more granular on the 6000 wells that you are claiming? Where do you get that information, and over what time frame are you referencing? Thanks!
Martin, yes good point. On this website I have pointed out before how Lancashire County Council resources are being sucked in through the need to police the anti-frackers and the disruption they cause. This discourse at last nights meeting, as reported by Ruth, between the audience, a member of the Lancashire Constabulary, and Mr Hill is illuminating.
“To huge applause, a woman asks why are there 150 police on duty at Preston New Road every day to deal with an average of 20 protesters. How are they going to cope if the Roseacre comes on stream, she asks.
Supt Richard Robertshaw, who is in the audience, says there is a large police presence. The total is usually 100. He says:
“It is costing a significant amount of money. We would rather not be doing it. We don’t think it is good value for money. But we have a duty to allow Cuadrilla to go about its lawful business.
“There have been times when it is has been raised that the police operation is too supportive of Cuadrilla.
“The objective of the policing operation is safety first, facilitating the right to peacefully protest, the right of Cuadrilla to go about its lawful business and the right of people not to be disturbed.”
To applause, Supt Robertshaw said yesterday 8 people locked-on and that took considerable resources to deal with.
Charles Metcalfe says he has been told lawful protest has not been part of the equation and that people who protested had felt intimidated by police.
Supt Robertshaw says “We try where we can to facilitate protest.”
He says slow walks would be overly disruptive of the highway.
A woman in the audience says, to applause, that she is prepared to be held up by the protest.
Supt Robertshaw says other people feel equally strongly that they don’t want to be held up.
Mr Hill says police officers are caught in the middle. But policing will become impossible as fracking increases, he says.
“If there are 100 police officers at Preston New Road and then another 100 at Roseacre and 100 at other sites – how are police going to have 500 officers just policing fracking, what is going to happen to crime?”
Supt Robertshaw says
“We don’t have the resources to do this for an extended period of time.
“This isn’t just a Lancashire issue. We’ve had discussions with the Home Office and other forces.
“There is a commitment that if more officers are required, that is what the police service will do. There is always the capacity to deal with it, at a price.”.
So stretched local government resources which would be much better directed for the a very needy much larger group of Fylde residents (e.g. elderly vulnerable people, children in care, families and single parents in social deprivation & poor housing, homelessness etc.) is squandered by a few (some of whom are “professional protestors” from across the country, who feel they have the high moral ground to disrupt roads, block access to people & workers going about their lawful business.
We are talking millions of £. Money well spent? What are the health implications of the unnecessary heightened anxiety caused by the misinformation that last night’s meeting (and previous similar misinformation copiously supplied for many years by the anti-frackers) caused? What are the health implications of many people trying to go about their lawful daily business but frustrated by the ant-frackers blocking/disrupting roads and all the stress and traffic pollution arising?
[Edited by moderator]
Why don’t you offer to debate with Mike? You’ve done do well at public debates on the past.
You do yourself no favours by repetition PhilipP. It has been gently pointed out to you before complaints are not the same as verified, factual, significant,problems. Just have a look at the record re. “complaints” to the planning process regarding Third Energy.
So now we have 6000 wells for an industry, that you have just posted is uneconomic! How does that work? You haven’t learnt economics at the school of refracktion, have you? You continue to state that fracking in the USA is declining and uneconomic, yet we all know that is just untrue. You can see the rigs mobilised if you do the research. If anyone follows Mr. Hills advice (DYOR) they will see it also.Your continued attempts to misrepresent facts are a show of desperation eg. my post QUITE CLEARLY stated 70% support fracking or have no opinion either way, it made no mention of 70% public support. (I spent years dealing with such differences within negotiation and teaching others, and if you are that sloppy with facts you say a lot.) Whilst this is all the norm. for this site and you are one side of the debate, and I am on the other, you would be wise to remember how it looks to those in the middle. But, don’t let me change your habits.
Perhaps the repetition is due to repeated sidestepping of the points Martin. Have you considered that? Just as you have done with my query above. I’m totally into discussing the hard facts. Let me know when you’re ready to address the numbers and I’ll get back to the economics.
You misrepresent me by saying ‘You continue to state that fracking in the USA is declining’ – show me where. I have referred only to PA State and can show you the drilling graph again if you like. While I can accept that I had interpreted your ‘70% of the population seem to support fracking or have no opinion either way,’ incorrectly that’s a pretty vague statement as there is no indication of how the balance falls withing that 70% (sloppy even?). Just shows how one can obfuscate with a ‘quite clear’ statement.
No desperation just a commitment to clarity.
From one of his tomes, “Mike Hill is a Chartered Electrical Engineer. He studied Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Loughborough University following sponsorship by Marconi Avionics Ltd. Mike worked in oil and gas and then as the engineer on seismic survey crews in the 1990s.” So I’ll guess and say he worked for Schlumberger for at short time, which would explain his obsession with CBLs, even though the rest of the industry doesn’t think much of them especially with modern cement.
I’d like to know where he gets the idea that house prices in the Fylde dropped 9% after one frack job. This is fairly easy to check on Rightmove. As for only drinking bottled water I’ve never read anything as stupid. His water comes from Stocks Reservoir, now that would be a hell of a horizontal well. Reading his website his main gripe appears to be that the Well Examiner is appointed by the operator. This system has worked well offshore for years. Mr Hill seems to want another level of government involvement on top of HSE and EA. He claims 60,000 people work in farming and tourism on the Fylde. This seems to be a lot so I assume it includes tourism in Blackpool. How will 15000 lose their jobs, sounds like a figure plucked from the air. The conditions look very tough to me. They seem to have a lot of noise constraints. As for diesel emissions, the site lies between a motorway and a trunk road. Thousands of vehicles pass within 1/2 a mile of the site every day.
The hard facts are PhilipP, is that fracking in USA is booming. To isolate one state as an example of an industry within a country is a deliberate attempt to mislead. It will not mislead any of the individuals Mr.Hill suggests should DYOR, who may be within that 70%. I think you do a dis-service to think the general public does not have the intelligence to see past that.
Your commitment to clarity is not supported by your continuing attempt to misrepresent an industry from a selected, small sample. Maybe I sound pedantic to you but it is my marketing background. There is a huge amount of research to show that if you try and promote such views they will be quickly exposed and you will achieve the opposite of what you seek-and that was clear even before the days of the internet.
That is why, as someone who wants to see whether fracking can offer something to the UK, I am all in favour of you continuing your approach.
Take a look at todays RNS Number:50344J from Sirius Minerals PLC reference the first £2m funding to their Foundation for funding initiatives through the Project area. If, and when, this follows from the fracking companies in the UK you will find those who may have no opinion either way regarding fracking will quickly make up their minds, especially if they are already feeling happy about a declining petrol/diesel cost to their household budgets.
Make your mind up Martin – it’s not long since you were trying to claim those 50% undecided in your claim that 70% support fracking – at least try to be consistent in the comments on the same article 🙂
There are so many false claims and speculations (not facts!) reported from this meeting – readers may find the following link helpful. http://oesg.org.uk/resources/factsheets/
If i may, can i suggest you enumerate these “many false claims and speculations (not facts!)” for us and give us the low down on each of your claims? Then we will be able to judge for ourselves wont we?
Phil C – if you study the link you will see that there are series of fact sheets – you can compare the fact sheets with the “alternative facts” given at Mr Hill’s meeting. Perhaps you could line those up for the readers – what Mr Hill says versus the expert consensus of UK onshore oil & gas service suppliers? I can lead a horse to water – but I cannot make it drink. I have provided a very useful link, so why not use it, and learn from it yourself??
Ps Phil C, “OESG and its members have decades of experience in the scientific and operational disciplines that make onshore oil and gas possible. Our factsheets are intended to help policymakers and public stakeholders understand the processes of extracting energy, along with the risks, the safeguards employed to protect against these risks, and the regulatory framework within which oil and gas extraction takes place.”
Nick, pardon me, but it was you who made the claims, so may i suggest you post the rebuttals yourself? Why do you guys never want to do the work yourselves and always expect us to do it for you?
I will do my own research, but its not up to me validate or otherwise your claims on these pages one way or the other? You made these claims, you can validate them.
My comment on Mr Hill’s statement that he will switch to drinking bottled water when PNR starts fracking should be enough to demonstrate Mr Hill’s intellectual flaws. Interesting that he has a retired medic, quite rightly pointing out that their is a link between road traffic emissions and poor health – so in one thoughtless statement Mr Hill opts for bottled water – transported by road, with massive embedded energy to produce it and its container (compared to piped water); plus all the chemicals that transfer from the plastic bottles into the water (which is why bottled water has a best before date), plus the fact that plastic bottles are a major environmental hazard and waste and come from fossil fuels. I can’t spoon feed you any more Phil C., DYOR…
It was you that made the claims not me, so you should provide the evidence for your claims, no spoonfeeding required I neither need it, nor have I requested it, why not validate your own, so far, unfounded claims?
Why is that so difficult?
Dr. Nick, this biased point of view is to be expected of Drill or Drop. Though they bill themselves as an “independent source on fracking” they are anything but. They are merely independent in that they do not take any money from institutional sources on either side of the issue.
I have asked Paul Seamans point blank if he can tell us whether or not most of the sponsorship for the site comes from anti-frackers, yet he does not supply an answer. As I have noted before, within the context of the anti-fracking movement, the deception showed by Drill or Drop is not at all unusual and should be expected. Nonetheless, it is still disheartening to see this kind of behavior. I think that Ruth and Paul do a good job of staying on top of the news and I would like to accord them more respect, but it is difficult to do so under the circumstances.
My comment on Mr Hill’s statement that he will switch to drinking bottled water when PNR starts fracking should be enough to demonstrate Mr Hill’s intellectual flaws. Interesting that he has a retired medic, quite rightly pointing out that their is a link between road traffic emissions and poor health – so in one thoughtless statement Mr Hill opts for bottled water – transported by road, with massive embedded energy to produce it and its container (compared to piped water),, plus all the chemicals that transfer from the plastic bottles into the water (which is why bottled water has a best before date), plus the fact that plastic bottles are a major environmental hazard and waste and come from fossil fuels. I can’t spoon feed you any more Phil C DYOR…
Sorry Fibonacci. My post on your comment was supposed to reply to Phil C., but it still stands.
That it? Bottled water?? How about something relevant to fracking on the worlds largest pad at PNR?
How about all the rest of 99.9% of the fracking relevant subject? You can do better than that can’t you?
[typo corrected at poster’s request]
Phil C The fact that you have swallowed the floating plug, cast into your small pond, and easily lured, on a wire trace, hook line and sinker, believing the lie that PNR is the world’s largest fracking pad, shows you are just a jack pike. So easily deceived.
Where did the “world’s largest pad” come from? I have seen / worked on much larger well pads than the PNR site.
Ha! Personal abuse! Now there is a surprise! The last resort of the unscrupulous!
Nick are you unwilling or unable to provide evidence for such claims? Falsity was your claim wasn’t it? Not mine? I have no problems with Mike Hills comments, you do, so why so reluctant?
Please provide the evidence for your claims, that’s all I asked you to do? Why is that so difficult?
Or is that just the industry practice of reeling out nothing more tangible than a minnow hoist by its own hook, barb and plonker?
Honestly, I can get more gas out of a stone?
Did you watch the Mike Hill video Paul?
I don’t recall swallowing anything. So now you have something to prove, the pad size issue seems to be an subject of contention between you and Mike Hill? Fine, go for it! Take up your claim that it is untrue and prove it.
Or is that just another hook barb and plonker remark?
[Typo corrected at poster’s request]
Paul, Re PNR It appears to be Mr Hill who is the originator of this meme. See http://stopfyldefracking.org.uk/latest-news/preston-new-road-super-pad-will-be-largest-in-the-world-with-40-60-wells/
Fascinating Dr Riley
Would you please provide us with some examples of other 40 – 60 well pads with surface works areas > 9.9 Ha and total land take > 13 ha?
Hi Fibonacci
Maybe you didn’t see my reply to your last comment on this topic?
“we don’t keep records of donors’ attitudes to fracking. We are happy to take donations from individuals of all beliefs and none ”
Perhaps you could explain exactly where the deception occurs?
Paul, you may not keep records of your donors attitudes toward fracking but I believe it is disingenuous to suggest that you don’t have an understanding of their attitudes. If your site is anything like others that operate in the same manner, you would have a dialogue with a number of your top donors, they may even “encourage” you to pursue certain stories. I would imagine that this would give you a very good understanding of their allegiances on the subject.
The emperor has no clothes, Paul. I’ve said it, and many others have as well. If you and Ruth believe that you are fooling many people by billing your site as “independent” I am afraid that you are among the few being fooled.
Our site is not anything like others that “operate in the same manner”. Perhaps you should make a top donation and see how it affects the topics we cover?
I was interested to see that you live close to a fracking pad. We would certainly be interested in a story, with pictures, of how life is for you and what process was involved in setting the site up. We would also be interested in whether any royalty payments affected the views of you and your neighbours. If you would like to contribute a guest post (no payment I’m afraid), please get in touch via our Contacts page.
People want to know what actually happens during fracking. Here is the evidence from the UK compiled by the BGS.
Click to access 5075-preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review.pdf
Note the request by Cuadrilla to increase the seismic threshold to be 2.6 magnitude.
Obviously 2.6 magnitude is what they think they will need to retrieve the gas based on their results from Preese Hall.
The largest earthquake caused in Blackpool through fracking in 2011 was 2.3 magnitude. Now they ask for 0.3 magnitude higher.
Note that a 1 magnitude rise is felt 10 times greater.
Factual evidence that readers will find helpful.
Anybody like to argue the fact that Cuadrilla have asked for future seismic thresholds to be greater than the 2.3 magnitude event they caused when they injected into a natural fault and caused well distortion at their Preese Hall well?
In N America the traffic light system is set much higher than in the UK. The 2.3 magnitude event is well within natural events experienced in NW England, and there is no verifiable evidence that 2.3 did any structural damage. Ban the Blackpool trams if you think ground movements at 2.3 are unacceptable.
And ban quarrying, trucks passing near houses etc etc.
“no verifiable evidence that 2.3 did any structural damage” – except to the well bore of course
Oh yet another meme I first heard from Mr Hill long ago – and I have publically corrected him in his presence,, and yet the meme now gets repeated over and over again. The portion of the well bore that was distorted was deep in the shale target and designed to distort and perforate, otherwise how would it be possible to frack the shale? – It has nothing whatsoever to do with well integrity, . In any case I was referring to verifiable surface structural damage…
Ahem! And where is this evidence of falsity Nick? i am waiting with baited (minnow baited that is) breath. Where are these vast rogue false Pikes lurking in the shallows?
“There are so many false claims and speculations (not facts!) reported from this meeting”
As a lead into your anxiously awaited rebuttal of all things deeply undermining Mr Hill (Mr Underhill perhaps?) why not try the biggest pad in the world and work out from there if you like? That seems to be one bone of contention?
Or was that more highly relevant expose’s about bottled water from another industry practice of reeling out nothing more tangible than a minnow hoist by its own hook, barb and plonker?
Phil C – Break open the base of the champagne bottle, cork the neck and place bread within & place the bottle with neck upstream, in the shallows of a stream or river flowing over Bowland Shale- you will catch many minnows that way, in such healthy ecosytems. I have done that since being a small child. You seem to be incapable of questioning/analyising anything Mr Hill says, perhaps you are his “nom de plume”, or perhaps someone like certain people referred to by a famous Rock band (I like rock – I’m a geologist) . Come on, out with it, who are you?
So lets get this straight Nick, you cant, or wont answer a simple request to validate your claims against Mike Hill, so instead you try insulting me with swallowing an imaginary line, I didn’t and haven’t. You still haven’t provided any refutation that PNR is not the largest o$€¥£&g pad in the world. Then you suggest I do your research for you, I will not, as I will not do Pauls research for him, are you. Then you try to insinuate I am, who? Mike Hill??? Ha!Ha! You serious! And all because I very politely asked you to enumerate and validate your claims about Mike Hill’s words?
[Edited by moderator]
Phil C, Mr Hill’s claims about a supepad at Preston New Road are pure speculation (not fact!) designed to give proflle and attention to his campaign, The reality about PNR is this:. https://cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PNR-planning-application.pdf
No not a meme from anyone – a report from Green, Styles and Baptie – haven’t you read it Doctor Riley? Do you rely on Mr Hill for all your research?
You seem very dismissive of anyone who disagrees with you – it reminds me of watching that Canterbury debate, where you went down so well with the audience/
I’m still waiting fro you to provide some examples of other 40 – 60 well pads with surface works areas > 9.9 Ha and total land take > 13 ha.
Haven’t you got any?
Hi Nick. There is nothing here that states that the PNR site is, or is not, the largest in the world, and it appears to be scrambled or redacted anyway. (yes i did look)
At least you have dropped the personal attack nonsense.
But still nothing even remotely relevant to the question?
Still nothing to back up your claims? Also could you enumerate and detail your original claims? I dont see anything of those claims being validated here either?
What does it take to get any validation at all of your claims?
Or should i take it that you have nothing to back up the claims that Mike Hill was in any way inaccurate at all?
Phil C, I am very sorry, but I cannot help you any more on the PNR site. It has a maximum of 4 well heads – as is clearly demonstrated in planning application report link I gave you. This is what is permitted for Cuadrilla to drill. I think that even you can do the math that Mr Hill’s claims of many more wells is purely speculative and incorrect.
Once again Nick, please provide your evidence for your claims of falsity of Mike Hills words, and can you refute the fact of the PNR site as being, or not being, the largest in the world?
I really cant understand your reluctance to validate those claims, it must surely be child’s play to someone as informed as yourself? I’ll help remind you again:
“There are so many false claims and speculations (not facts!) reported from this meeting”
Was that not your claim? Yet repeated requests to establish who is right and who is wrong are avoided by you, why?
I really am not going to do your research for you, you made the claims, so why not validate them, it cant be that difficult surely?
Or admit Mike Hill is correct? Simples!
PNR is certainly not the largest fracking pad in the world. For Mr Hill to say other wise is pure fantasy.
OK, which is the largest pad in the world, and where is it? and the answer to your other claims of falsity is?
Phill C, Why don’t you ask Mr Hill what evidence he has that PNR is “the largest fracking pad on the earth”?. He made the claim and you always believe what he says- hook, line and sinker.
Dr. Nick, so nice to have your input and to see another poster put Refracktion in his place.
Has another triple lock been removed?
Fibonacci – how is failing to answer direct questions putting anyone in their place? 😂 #justaskin