Preston New Road, 3 July 2017. Photo: Kristian Buus for Reclaim the Power
Three women councillors from Lancashire are taking part in a lock-on protest against operations at Cuadrilla’s shale gas site near Blackpool.
Along with 10 other Lancashire residents, they locked themselves to heavy objects at 3am at the Preston New Road site.
The protest is designed to stop vehicles entering the site where opponents expect the drilling rig will be delivered soon.
Protest at Preston New Road, 3 July 2017. Photo: Kristian Buus for Reclaim the Power
People opposed to Cuadrilla’s proposals have protested outside the site since work began in January. The company’s plans were refused permission by Lancashire County Council just over two years ago. But the Communities’ Secretary, Sajid Javid, gave the go-ahead to the scheme, following the recommendation of a planning inspector at a public inquiry.
County Councillor Gina Dowding at Preston New Road, 3 July 2017. Photo: Kristian Buus for Reclaim the Power
Lancashire County Councillor Gina Dowding, one of the councillors taking part in today’s protest (above), said:
“It’s abundantly clear that when it comes to fracking, local councils have been rendered weak and helpless. I feel I need to be here with the community to say that we won’t roll over and accept this. We are putting our bodies on the line because our voices haven’t been heard.”
Fylde Borough Councillor, Julie Brickles. Photo: Kristian Buus for Reclaim the Power
Fylde Borough Councillor for Warton and Westby, Julie Brickles, (above) said:
“I’m sometimes called the anti-fracking councillor. I strongly disagree with this: I’m the pro-community councillor and Westby is my community. Residents are rightly scared and we have now run out of options.”
Kirkham Town Councillor Miranda Cox. Photo: Kristian Buus for Reclaim the Power
Kirkham Town Councillor, Miranda Cox , (above) said:
“When your community and family is threatened, you are often left with little choice but to take direct action. As a councillor and member of this community, I have been left with no more alternatives.
“I feel our way of life locally is under attack by an industry that, backed by a distant central government, is seeking to turn Fylde and Lancashire into the largest gas field in Europe. I cannot stand by and allow this mass industrialisation to happen.”
Inskip resident Nick Danby. Photo: Kristian Buus for Reclaim the Power
Retired civil servant, Nick Danby, who lives in Inskip, (above) said:
“I believe that the imposition of fracking on our communities is unfair and unjust and it makes a mockery of local democracy. I have never been inside a courtroom before but, having exhausted all other legitimate means of resistance, I now feel that I have no choice but to continue my protest in the only way left available to me.”
Today’s protest is part of what has been called a “Rolling Resistance” month of action by Reclaim the Power, a UK-based network opposed to fracking.
At 9.20am, Lancashire Police posted on Twitter:
“A583 Preston New Road – Please be aware the is a contraflow in place due to campaigners “locked on” at the entrance to the Fracking site. Temporary traffic lights have been implemented and short delays are expected throughout the day.”
Update
Lancashire Police said Gina Dowing, of Lancaster, Nicholas Danby, Miranda Cox and Julie Brickles, of Preston, Nicholas Sheldrick, from Blackpool, Catherine Jackson, from Fleetwood, Daniel Huxley-Blythe and Jeanette Porter of St Annes, and Barbara Cookson, of Liverpool, were charged with obstructing a public highway and offences under Section 241 of the Trades Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act.
DrillOrDrop invited Cuadrilla to respond to the protest. This post will be updated with any further developments and comments.
Categories: Opposition
DRILL OR DROP? 
Won’t prevent the inevitable that is drilling rig arriving and exploration commencing. Based on previous statements by Miranda Cox it beggers belief people elect this type of person into a position of power then wonder why their local area is going down the tubes. The Green party is literally non existant and are given far too much air time. I wonder what the % of non militant type are public sector based!
We already had a drilling rig and fracking equipment arrive at Preese Hall in 2011.
A reminder of what went wrong.
Cuadrilla drilled through an existing fault, injected fracking fluid into it and caused an area of the Bowland basin shale formation to move.
The results were 50 seismic events. The largest event was 2.3 magnitude which was felt over many kilometres and damaged property.
The well casing was deformed proving how easily things can go wrong with containment.
The British Geological Survey state that as little is known of the fault system of the Bowland basin it is unlikely that similar seismic events would not occur in any future fracking operations.
Now the same company proposes to carry out similar operations on a much larger scale and have asked for seismic thresholds to be set at 2.6 magnitude, a request which has been disallowed for the next few treatments.
Letting this industry develop would be complete madness. Communities will stop it happening.
John, How can a 2.3 mag quake produce the effects you describe. Do you have some special insight or knowledge?? http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/magnitude.html
Yes John, you are quite right, you may recall that the Mexico City earthquake that destroyed many of the recent buildings, though curiously not those built on the Aztec and Mayan foundations. What happened was that although the epicenter was deep and many kilometers away, the city was built in a soil basin. The basin had the effect of locally amplifying the quake and causing resonant effects, that collapsed many of the recent buildings in seconds.
UK strata are highly complex and such strata complexities are common place.
Also the earthquake figure is an estimate, and exponential in each increased step, so a small earthquake said to be low within limits in one test result will not mean that the same quake will not produce a magnitude quake increase elsewhere, and it depends upon where the quake is measured. UK strata is not uniform or predictable, a single property may suffer such amplification effects, or a whole village, town or city.
It’s the same the country over, GBK. Councillors who see their function to further their own interests and protect their own little circle. But then, councillors are usually elected on a very small vote, so we all share the blame.
Anyone notice that when unwanted housing is imposed upon a community, it nearly always is sited away from councillors own property?
“Protecting our children’s future”
How are we protecting our children’s future by leaving big parts of our energy supply to the Russians and the Middle East dictators.
Retired
Grandfather
Pro-renewables
Pro-fracking
Pro-science
Pro a reasoned answer to the “energy trilemma” – energy sustainability / energy cost / energy security.
“Shale Watcher” – You say you are pro-science: the UK developing a new fossil fuel industry – shale gas – is incompatible with UK’s share of meeting the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement (read eg Prof Kevin Anderson of Tyndall Centre re this). The 3 conditions set by CCC for fracking are not being met and are unlikely to be met – especially with a Tory government.
Also we need to reduce our use of fossil gas. There are a number of ways of achieving this – such as buildings insulation, alternative gas sources as re heating use of gas, and increased clean green renewables as re electricity generation.
So fracking fails the climate part of the trilemma. Also – the reduced use of gas would help energy security by reducing “dependence”. And ask yourself why there isn’t much enthusiasm for building new gas power stations that Osborne wanted in his “dash for gas”: on energy cost grounds renewables are increasingly out-competing fossil fuels – as when built – they tap into relatively free energy.
Shale Watcher, You seem far too rational to post on this site! You will find that most of us who favor the exploration of shale gas for practical reasons (and environmental ones too) also believe that renewables are going to be part of the solution. The zealots on this site are usually those who are anti-fracking – they see no solution that involves fracking (at least in their backyards, but they do seem happy to buy fracked gas from elsewhere) and generally favor an energy plan that is unproven, high-risk, and impractical. Glad to have you here and to see that you appreciate the value of good science – that which adheres to the scientific method.
Correction for accuracy:
*Anti-fracking campaigners are NOT happy to buy fracked gas from elsewhere, general consensus is that fossil fuel energy must end everywhere to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
*The energy plan you mention, (I assume this is renewable energy and a radical shift to low energy consumption) is not high-risk, unproven or impractical, especially in comparison to techniques likes fracking or acidisation which have not been tested been tested in country, and prove so risky that companies cannot even get insurance for their practices. In countries where fracking has been implemented, such as the US and Australia, the industrialisation of vast swathes of land proves this is hugely impractical, not to mention the multiple instances contamination and heath impacts.
Please do let me know if you need any of your comments checked for accuracy in the future, very happy to help out. Thanks.
R, you are poorly educated with respect to many of these issues.
If you understood that which you wrote about, you would acknowledge that the “industrialization” argument is an anti-renewables point of view. The energy density of shale gas is hundreds of times greater than that of solar or wind and so will require hundreds of times less generating infrastructure.
Your radical renewables reliance is certainly high risk and impractical, R. Prove me wrong. How will you supply power for weeks on end when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, R? Not only will your plan push tens of millions into fuel poverty but it will kill large portions of the population that don’t have access to reliable energy. This is no joke, R. It’s life or death. Pixie dust will not fuel the world my friend.
I have a home in one of the most densely fracked counties in the US. There are about 300 million people in my country who would argue against your claim that fracking is not practical. We find it not only practical, but also good for reducing pollution, reducing fuel poverty, growing jobs, wealth, and energy security.
Your comments do not make logical sense. They don’t foot with reality, science, and empirical evidence. As soon as you can prove to me that solar and wind are more energy dense than natural gas extraction I will pay attention to you, but not until then.
BTW, several of your anti-frack fact-challenged brethren here are all for using gas, just not domestic onshore gas.
Toodles.
BTW, all the British pro frackers on this site are using home grown North sea gas to heat their homes. That gas is mixed with mainly Norweign piped gas and a smaller percentage of LNG.
A small percentage of the gas in their pilot lights comes from Russia. That is likely to be offset by our exports.
BP statistical review of world energy 2015. 2014 source.
Gas
Britain produced 3500 thousand cubic feet per day (mmscfd)
Britain consumed 6500 mmscfd
Britain imported 1100 mmscfd in the form of LNG
Britain imported 2200 mmscfd through pipelines
79% from Norway
20% from Netherlands
1% from other sources
We also export home grown Gas and output from our home grown North sea has risen over the last 2 years.
Please don’t call yourself “pro-science” if you are willing to ignore the concrete and unprecedentedly alarming scientific evidence surrounding the fossil fuel economy being the overwhelming driving force behind climate change. You can call yourself retired, grandfather, pro-fracking, whatever, but please, not pro-science.
R, you make yourself sound incredibly uneducated with blanket statements such as these. There is overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions have grown significantly during the anthropocene. There is evidence that warming is taking place over a multi-year period. You cannot, however, deliver incontrovertible proof that there is causation present between these two factors because such proof simply does not exist.
So please remove yourself from your high horse and hit the books!
Someone call NASA! Some guy called Fibonacci from an Internet forum says all your proof of anthropogenic climate change is just a big coincidence! We’re all saved! At least all the climate scientists you’ll be putting out of work can probably get a job cleaning up after the fracking industry.
Also, high horse? Jeez, you think us vegan environmentalists would ride a horse!?
You don’t quite get science, do you R? Correlation doesn’t prove causation my friend. Many poor decisions have been made by people who do not understand this.
You are quite prone to hyperbole aren’t you, R? It is no wonder that you have found a home with the anti-frackers!
This what we pay taxes for?
Yes
😦
Interesting articles on shale gas popping up, seems the Americans are hell bent on punishing Russia for their stance on Syria and general naughtiness by hampering their vast gas exports. Germany is none too happy considering they get 40% from them and are set to expand on this figure. Meanwhile Poland is taking its first delivery of US gas so as to not come under Kremlin influence any longer. Qatar would apparently be facing military action from Saudi if it weren’t for the US having a large airbase there, not exactly a secure source of LNG for the UK any longer. The Norwegian pipeline is providing us with gas from an ever depleting resource. Ineos have a near 20 billion turnover with a 2.5 billion profit, that comes with huge political clout that neither the Scottish nor UK government can reject even if they wanted to. Hinkley is facing longer and longer delays and the cost to the tax payer is mind blowing, this is still not 100% signed off I don’t think.
I suggest that these initial exploration wells if they prove positive will pave the way for a dramatic shift forward for shale and the small local opposition will come 2nd to the nations needs.
I love reading your scary stories. Obviously much better for our energy security then to be investing in renewables!! With no clean up costs or health risk involved, what a huge step into the future that would be.
Ah the good old myth of renewables being able to take care of our energy needs anytime within the next decade. So naive.
A myth to you – but increasingly becoming a reality in the real world – as analyses show. Though being hindered in the UK by the Tory government.
HankAdams, real world examples like Australia where they have periodic blackouts, skyrocketing energy prices, fleeing investment, and a renewed push toward fossil fuels? Or like Germany where energy has become a luxury item, no progress has been made on carbon emissions, investment has suffered, and the country is backtracking on renewable commitments? That’s reality mon ami.
You’re right Henry.
Despite the naysayers Germany is indeed a pace setter in renewables, but it is repeatedly misrepresented in these threads. The upswing in the use of coal fired power-generation amounted to 0.8 of one percent, hardly worth making a song an dance about, and was due to filling the gap in electricity baseload during the early closure of some of their nuclear plants. Even then it doesn’t suggest a swing towards coal dependency as the overall curve is downward and they maintain ambitious targets for phasing out coal fired plants, leading with the older ones. The 0.8% blip was also due to cross border sales of power increasing for other reasons e.g. France had a high number of nuclear plants closed for inspection over the last year.
Charges to German consumers are also misrepresented as the cost of power as a proportion of their disposable income has remained fairly steady over the years and there are more and more consumers generating their own power too, enjoying times when they are selling rather than buying electricity. There are skeptics but overall there’s still a strong public commitment to the move towards renewables.
California is another leader in this field.
Philip, it appears that the facts (and many Germans) don’t believe the success story that you spin. Remind us how much carbon emissions have been reduced after $400 billion-plus spent and a decade of renewable deployments?
Many Germans disagree with Philip and believe Energiewende has been an unmitigated disaster.
Electricity has become a “luxury” good – http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
The former Sec of Finance for Germany says that the dream can never work:
http://energypost.eu/end-energiewende/
GBK, let’s be serious, renewables will not provide for a large part of our energy needs for at least 50 years and probably much longer. How can you invest trillions in a system that may not produce any energy for random three week intervals? How impractical is it to create energy storage systems that can provide three weeks or more of backup power? The amount of mining that would be required to create such systems would dwarf anything we have experienced to date, and the economics of it would be astronomically expensive.
Just look at what has happened in Australia and Germany. They have installed renewable generation systems that now produce 1/3 of their power but prices have skyrocketed, power has become a luxury good that isn’t always available, more people are being forced into fuel poverty, business investment is fleeing, and they’ve made very little progress cutting emissions.
Renewables won’t be a practical answer for all of our energy needs for many, many decades. Don’t fool yourself.
There will be renewables there will be gas there will be protesters there will be shale gas drilling. Those are the facts that wont change anytime soon.
Today’s announcement that Hinkley will be over budget and behind schedule! Now that is a surprise. So, renewables just became even more expensive, and this part of the renewable equation does have a huge clean up cost and health risk. Funny how only part of the renewable equation gets a mention. (I know-massive energy storage is just over the horizon! All going to be managed by Unicorns to enhance the green credentials.)
Martin, unicorns are severely threatened by the sixth mass extinction event that we are currently at the beginning of experiencing, as a result of ecological destruction from humans. Please don’t joke about this, this is serious. #savetheunicorns
I read this comments and can only assume that those posting them are taken in by all the slick PR put out by the Fracking companies and their supporters. At least these people are prepared to stand up for their principles, remember if, and it is a big if, they do get recoverable gas in quantities that make it economically viable you will not get cheap gas and these companies will get their profits and run, they will not be there to clean up the mess afterwards. Why do you think Cuadrilla set up a different company for each site, if that company goes bust there is no money to cover the clean up, I suppose not many of those posting the comments live near the site or have taken the time or trouble to go down there and talk to those protesting?
Do a search on Community Windpower Ltd – you may be interested to learn that they set up a different company for each wind farm. I wonder why?
I see we have the “our science is the only true science” back again. (I enjoyed Life of Brian.) Funny though, that they then keep falling down on the basics of science! Maybe, if a wider net was used they just might find that there are other viewpoints, and that it is quite unscientific to insult people simply because they do not agree with your version.
It is interesting that some still post that fracking stands no chance of producing cheaper gas in UK. Some say it is because the companies will trouser the profits, others that costs of extraction will be high.
Well, in the face of the USA experience, it is pretty breathtaking! “That Model T doesn’t stand a chance of working in the UK. Let’s keep the horses.”
Good job there are people who can do the economics and then decide to invest £500m, minimum. I think I know who I will believe. Why has Jim decided not to invest that money in USA? Ahh, I know-Jim doesn’t understand economics!