The village of Marsh Lane, from Bramleymoor Lane, Derbyshire. Photo: DrillOrDrop
The Environment Agency announced today it had granted a permit to INEOS for proposed shale gas exploration at the village of Marsh Lane in north east Derbyshire.
It also emerged today that the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, had ruled that the company’s planning application for drilling, coring and testing at the site, off Bramleymoor Lane, did not need an environmental impact assessment. A public consultation on the planning application is expected to begin soon.
Permit details
Known as a “standard rules” permit, the approval would allow INEOS to carry out drilling, waste management and testing at Bramleymoor Lane. It does not allow fracking.
INEOS still needs planning permission from Derbyshire County Council before any work can go ahead at the site. It will also need approval for its plans from the Oil & Gas Authority.
The Environment Agency (EA) said the permit has fixed rules and conditions covering what it described as “common, low-risk industrial activities”. If companies want to carry out other activities on the site in future, they must apply for what is known as a “bespoke” permit that is tailored to those activities.
An EA spokesperson said:
“Our regulatory controls for onshore oil and gas are in place to protect people and the environment.
“Standard Rules permits are common across industry and maintain high levels of environmental protection. They do not allow companies to carry out fracking – this activity requires a bespoke permit application which would be subject to a site-specific environmental risk assessment and extensive public consultation.
“As with all decisions on whether to issue environmental permits, we will assess a company’s proposals to ensure they meet strict requirements. If an activity poses an unacceptable risk to the environment, the activity will not be permitted.”
According to the documents, the permit would allow INEOS to manage extractive waste generated from drilling, coring, leak-off testing, acid wash and decommissioning.
The company estimated its proposal would generate 764 tonnes of waste. This would include:
- spent drilling mud
- drill cuttings
- hydrocarbons
- spent spacer fluid
- spent suspension fluid
- cement returns
- produced and or formation water
INEOS has also applied for a standard rules permit for another proposed site at Common Road, near the village of Harthill, in Rotherham
Location of proposed Bramleymoor Lane site
Environmental impact assessment
Derbyshire County Council ruled in February 2017 that the Bramleymoor Lane planning application did not need an environmental impact assessment.
Several opponents of INEOS’s application appealed against this decision to the Communities’ Secretary, Sajid Javid. INEOS also asked Mr Javid for a ruling. His decision had been delayed by the general election but was received by at least two opponents today.
The ruling said:
“On the basis of the information, the Secretary of State considers that the extent of any impact would be contained mainly in the immediate area. He is not persuaded that this is a development of the magnitude and complexity of impact, in terms of areas and populations affected, to suggest that a significant environmental affect is likely.
“The Secretary of State notes that the development as a whole would be in place for a maximum period of five years, with the drilling phases lasting only three months, and that the site is to be restored as agricultural land upon completion of the project”.
The public consultation on the planning application had been delayed until Mr Javid’s ruling. It is now expected to begin soon.
Links
Details on environmental permit for Bramleymoor Lane
DrillOrDrop page on Bramleymoor Lane
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
Jolly good. I’ve said it a few times, Ineos is a game changer for pro frackers as they have lobbying clout.
I think after the dismal display by anti frackers and Mike H they scored an own goal.
To summarise what was said:
Based on ‘disputed’ data from foreign countries that was taken several years ago the UK just shouldn’t take the risk of benefiting from home grown energy! We should continue to import from brutal foreign regimes and pretend it’s ok by calling for more renewable energy. Again pretending that renewables are a mere stone throw away from supporting our complete energy needs.
Mike Hill doesn’t give speeches for free and the event should have been deemed as an anti fracking rally. No pro speakers turn up as they are simply heckled and intimidated. Why should a normal person have to subject themselves to behaviour that is clearly normal with antis?
Unfortunately for the anti crew they don’t understand that growth involves risk. Could you imagine what they must think of someone like Elon Musk or any other entrepreneur for that matter?
What I will say to them is that unlike the US or Oz our rules are far tighter, the small size of the UK means what happened in the early days abroad simply cannot happen here.
There are two types of anti frackers. Locals (NIMBYs) and people that just don’t understand development. The original Swampy tried to stop a large out of town shopping centre not far from me back in the day and guess what, the world didn’t end.
I doubt there are any people sitting on the fence on this site, you’re either pro development and mitigate risk through learning and practising or you’re risk adverse and don’t like change. The latter don’t go on to become capitalists nor benefit from a monetary society unless they win the bingo or are lucky to receive some inheritance money or work in the public sector (I do realise there will be some entrepreneurs in the public sector and I look fwd to meeting one one day!). They are predominantly pro socialism as they feel hard done by society and believe anyone with extra cash is crooked. The truth is we are wired differently and see risk as potential. You learn from your mistakes and rectify them. In the case of fracking everything is being monitored, we even have the antis doing it for free for us, any issues will be dealt with swiftly. And please don’t go on to say ‘ahhh but the chemicals could seep up through time when we all have our backs turned and it’s game over’. I suggest invest in a chemistry book and also research farming and other industry!
The poorest argument I heard the other night was from someone purporting to be an academic. Well I’m not an academic but I do have an MBA so I understand the academic world as well as the business world. Academics are adverse to risk hence they never leave the comfort of their sanctuary that is education. They typically vote for a Corbyn or Lucas character and truly believe they are so superior that they feel they should make decisions for us. I look forward to meeting someone from academia that has also had a high earning normal job out with their little bubble.
This world isn’t going to last forever, not because of fracking but due to a factor out with our limited control, you can take your pick of what they may be but hopefully the intellect on here realises that fact.
All of our antis that preach on here fall into one of the above generalisations. The sad thing is they then deny it but don’t tell us in a simple sentence why they are anti!
An update on how the UK energy market is moving
Let Ian Conn, chief executive of Centrica tell you why they are selling off their 2 larger UK power stations and moving a long long way from being involved in large scale centralised power generation.
” The reason for this is the energy world is becoming more distributed. Energy production is becoming more possible in peoples homes and businesses and we see the future in smaller more flexible generation assets so we are still interested in generation it’s just of a different type”
on energy security
” The UK has become connected to the continent by pipe and also connected to Norway by pipe and we now have multiple liquefied gas facilities to import so I think the UK’s security of supply is actually significantly better than it was 30 years ago”
Radio 4 22/06/2017
Looks like change ahead.
I do hope “the future in smaller flexible generation” does not include open cycle gas turbines. They are way way more costly than onshore wind (the cheapest form of UK electricity generation) and well above the costs of offshore wind which is seeing prices drop dramatically.
More here
The installation of solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses plus new technologies such as battery storage threatens the traditional model of large, centralised power plants.
https://www.ft.com/content/1c7db78a-30fe-3d9e-a06e-6fb970de4a5f?mhq5j=e3
Also
BEIS said £25m would be made available to test using hydrogen to cut greenhouse gas emissions from heat. The money will fund research into whether existing gas pipes can be used for hydrogen, and what impact having a hydrogen boiler would have for consumers. A further £10m is being invested in “smart heating”.
Unlike gas, hydrogen produces no emissions when burned, although it is only considered a green fuel if produced with renewable power.
The newly appointed energy minister, Claire Perry, said: “The UK government is committed to leading the world in delivering clean energy technology and today’s investment shows that we are prepared to support innovation in this critical area.”
Sensible moves in a common sense direction.
Now that really is good news!
Thanks John.
Stereotyping in narrow bias again GottaMuppetLabelNow? See we can all do that, fun, isn’t it?
I think you just demostrated why this poisonous industry is a risk too far?
Now the moves to properly regulate the industry the party(!) is almost over……aahhhhhh!
Ah little Phil, you are one of the above but just not quite man enough to tell us which then again I wouldn’t expect you to as had you sussed out a long time ago. What sort of ‘engineer’ were you exactly? And John, that big long winded message told me absolutely nothing I didn’t know already and yet here we are still progressing with exploration. Times nearly up for the first test wells, how does that make you feel? Which one are you John, I am guessing an elderly chap that lives nearby a proposed site ?
Ha! Ha! GottaLittleMuppetNow, you spend so much time posting multiple ID little mischiefs, we know who you are not, and never have been. Some of us are too busy to sit behind an industry office desk posting derogatory remarks at all times of the day and night.
As for me I went to great lengths to say precisely my engineering credentials, pity you cannot say the sane. Oops! Spelling or Freudian?
UK shale gas is unlikely to be viable because the industry is slow and tentative in its operations and action. It is attached with a stigma that it doesn’t seem to know how to shake it off effectively. In a sense of high end fashion, Renewables are fashionable and catchy now. Impractical expensive and insufficient but very fashionable for the current younger generation. Whereas shale gas is like old fashion wool sweater. Not very fashionable amd in fact not very catchy but very practical reliable and affordable.
TW-the young like to be mobile. Their understanding of fracking will be from reducing prices for the fuel they put into their cars that the bank of Mum and Dad supplied.
Currently, exploration in UK is slow and tentative, and rightly so until it is established what the outputs and costs may be. If both start to look attractive the bigger players will soon mobilise a positive information campaign highlighting the financial benefits. They do know how to deal with the stigma as you call it, but the timing will be managed. The antis know all this which is why they are desperate to stop exploration at this stage, but as the lady from Ineos stated, they are not going away.
I also like the look of the hydrogen trial that is proposed John, but you missed the bit about where the hydrogen will come from!
Martin. Regarding the hydrogen production story, I think I posted story awhile ago on this site regarding this. A team from Western Australia Uni and Britain they came up with a new cheap and efficient system of generating hydrogen by passing natural gas through a high temperature electrode. In brief, the carbon component from natural gas is turned into high quality commercial grade graphine (almost like carbon capture idea) and the hydrogen is released as gas for clean burning. As far as my memory recall, they are trialing a pilot scheme at the moment. If this is upscale natural gas burning will be clean as as whistle.
Thanks John P. Good to read a contribution with substance after GBH’s desperate attempt at button pushing. I was also interested in the hydrogen (over existing pipes) research that you pointed to a few posts ago. Unfortunately that link didn’t work.
The energy future looks interesting indeed with distributed agile power-gen networks taking a lead in pointing the way ahead (evidenced from abroad).
Sadly having the energy industry dominated by a ship of fools for so long I believe we’re at (or just beyond) a tipping point in global climate feedbacks. From losing the great air conditioning system of the arctic ice cap the further accelerating methane releases will take over from where AGW has got us, in runaway fashion. This isn’t alarmism it’s simply news – based on data – with methane being a greenhouse gas with 20 to over 80 times the impact of CO2 (depending on the duration of measurement).
The least Britain can do is not generate even more methane and play its part as good global citizen when it comes to climate agreements. Without concerted and increasingly focused efforts internationally this direction the world’s habitats and food security will be suffering immense and increasing damage.
Here is the link for the hydrogen production story.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/22/cheap-and-clean-australian-company-creates-hydrogen-with-near-zero-emissions
Thanks TW. Safe distribution of hydrogen is the big challenge for a possible ‘hydrogen-economy’ – using hydrogen at least as an energy transport medium. Then there’s this new wax technology allowing a ‘bar’ of encapsulated h2 to be safely handled for car fuel and other uses… https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35315
A pipeline strategy would be an interesting development too. Simply winding the pressure down on existing gas networks would be problematic – without something to bridge the transition away from fossil gas.
And where will the natural gas come from??? Qatar??? Or Yorkshire???
As BEIS state above the hydrogen must come from re newables. Electrolysis requires electricity.
This has the huge advantage in that this is in fact a way of storing renewable energy. No wastage. Use all the renewable energy as it is being generated and ‘bank’ it as hydrogen.
Large offshore floating wind farms generating electricity for public use. When they overproduce, start making hydrogen.
Plenty of free source
Click to access 467ac5b8919.pdf
John Powney. Yes hydrogen gas sound good in general but the problem at an industrial scale is its instability as a gas and its storage and transportation via metal pipe (it make metal brittle and easy to crack). So its uses in daily application remain limited.
Ammonia is one of the most concentrated forms of hydrogen (molecule) and safe transporting can be seen in agricultural feedstocks – usually after being converted into urea solids for easy handling. But these are still products and byproducts of O&G, primarily natural gas. However, big advances are happening in biotech now looking at bacterial production of ff substitutes and even direct hydrogen production.
Electrolysis for H2 is a great use of peak energy and over-supply from wind/solar. There’s a British company specialising in this already but with current government mentality they’re not getting the pathways to market here. Chinese and European interests have snapped up their technology.
And this: http://www.itm-power.com/project/wind-hydrogen-development-platform