INEOS seismic testing in Harthill in June 2017. Photo: Harthill Against Fracking
INEOS Shale sent the National Trust a pre-action legal letter yesterday warning of court action over access to land in Nottinghamshire.
The company wants to carry out seismic testing as part of its exploration for shale gas in the East Midlands.
The Trust has refused to give INEOS permission to carry out the surveys at its 3,800 acre estate at Clumber Park because it opposes fracking.
Friends of the Earth, which campaigns against fracking, has accused INEOS of “sabre-rattling” and “bullying a national treasure”.
“Overtly political positon”
In a press statement today, INEOS said it would begin legal proceedings unless the Trust agreed to give access.
The company said it had tried to arrange a meeting and accused the Trust of refusing to respond.
INEOS’s Commercial Director, Lynn Calder, said:
“We’re asking the National Trust to speak to us about our plans. If they continue to refuse we will have no option but to seek to ask the courts for consent to carry out these surveys.
“The National Trust is taking an overtly political position against all fossil fuels. What it fails to recognise is that shale gas is 50% cleaner than coal and 30% cleaner than oil. The development of shale gas will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Trust says no to fracking
A spokesman for the National Trust told The Worksop Guardian:
“The National Trust is opposed to fracking on its land and will reject any fracking requests or inquiries. Consistent with this, we say no to surveying on our land for fracking purposes.
“The fossil gas that fracking releases is a finite resource: non-renewable, its combustion produces greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change.”
“Bullying tactics”
Guy Shrubsole, of Friends of the Earth, which campaigns against fracking, said:
“This is an extraordinary piece of sabre-rattling by Ineos, who will clearly stop at nothing in pursuit of a fossil fuel that we don’t need, and that the British public don’t want.
“It’s hard to see how reasonable people will tolerate such bullying tactics against a national treasure like the National Trust.
“As protests continue, and sources of finance dry up, fracking companies appear to be resorting to more desperate tactics.”
INEOS seismic testing staff in Harthill in June 2017. Photo: Harthill Against Fracking
Commitments
INEOS has committed to carry out 550km of 2D and 575km2 of 3D seismic surveys as part of its licence agreements in the East Midlands with the Oil and Gas Authority.
Surveys are already underway in the area around Harthill between Sheffield and Worksop, where INEOS has applied for permission to drill a vertical well.
In the licence area which includes Clumber Park (PEDL308), INEOS must acquire 100km of 2D seismic survey and 100km2 of 3D seismic data, as well as drilling a 4,000m vertical well and fracking a horizontal well.
Seismic surveys generate sound waves using specialist trucks or buried explosives to map underground rock structures. Oil and gas companies use the information to help decide the location of well sites.
INEOS has said it will share the results of its seismic testing with the national archives.
The company also said hundreds of landowners had agreed to allow access.
But an investigation by Friends of the Earth showed that at least 14 town and parish councils had refused access for surveying. Nottinghamshire County Council had been expected to discuss this month whether to allow access to more than 142km2 of its land but the issue has been postponed until a meeting inthe autumn.
Rare legal action
The Mines (Working Facilities & Support) Act 1966 gives companies a right to access if a court agrees it is in the national interest.
INEOS said today it believed the surveys would be “firmly in the national interest and that a court would back its position”
Court action is, however, rare.
A Freedom of Information Act request by DrillOrDrop revealed that in the past 10 years, there has been only one application to acquire what are known as ancillary rights for seismic surveying. But this was withdrawn and the then Energy Secretary did not refer that application to the court for determination.
Categories: Industry
DRILL OR DROP? 
Well done National Trust!
How many members will Ineos have alienated with this aggressive bully-boy threat? It’s about 4 million isn’t it?
4 million minus one (me).
Paul
4 million minus 3, you, me and Mrs H
So glad you all admit you are in such a tiny minority!
So glad you admit you are in such a tiny minority!
Just humouring John, Kathryn. You stick to the wine and I will look after the acid…….
Perfect time for the National Trust to go to court.
It will be up to the industry to prove that UK shale is in the National interest.
Clearly not as the Government have not and never will make UK shale a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.
Although they support it they know it is far to risky and not needed for UK energy security.
I hope the National Trust and it’s members challenge The Mines (Working Facilities & Support) Act 1966.
Good, wish they’d taken legal action sooner. National Trust will simply lose money if they decide to let it go to court. Step aside or face the consequences. Ineos will inevitably get consent one way or the other. NT would be better preserving their limited coffers.
Glad to see some robust action from our side.
Yes , lets hope they grind National Trust into the ground .
National Trust are one of the most avaricious organisations out there . They charge for fishing at Runneymede even though fishing on the Thames downstream of the Magna Carter Stone was meant to be free for the last 900 years .
They charge so much for access to the properties they are supposed to be trustees for that they deny access to British families of modest means .
What do they exist for other than to provide sinecures for the privileged ?
The NT is the epitome of an affluent old aged NIMBY. Will try and prevent anyone upsetting their rural nest egg.
Yes I can understand such bitterness towards people/companies/institutions who oppose fracking Striebs , especially when some investors have lost the shirt of their backs with Igas shares.
I would suggest such anger would be better directed against the fat cat directors who continue to draw their plump salaries from such companies.
National Trust members generally are pro-active, educated people. With millions of members, they will be lot more of a formidable opponent than the normal layman who feels out of his depth when contemplating the eye watering litigation costs of challenging a fracking company .
YES , let’s see who has the deepest pockets/influence .
My advice to the National Trust would be to stand its ground and if backing for its decision needs to be confirmed, then put a vote to its members of 5 YEARS +
I’m sure its members can raise extra fighting funds, IF THE MAJORITY back a decision to refuse Ineos access.
Lol Jack my lad I suggest you look at Ineos’ financials, they could buy out the NT many times over. They are the UKs largest privately held company by turnover and their profit is around 2 billion.
They charge £5.40 a month if you seriously can’t stretch to that you need to reconsider your life, properties don’t upkeep themselves someone has to foot the bill for that? did you ever consider that the national trust is dependent on entrance fees and other such fees to actually maintain the properties you seem so keen to complain about [edited by moderator]
Under The National Trust Acts 1907 – 1971 most of the land that the national trust owns is inalienable and unfortunately the Magna carter stance on fishing does not apply to private properties or piers sorry….
[edited by moderator]
I do not hold Igas shares and have no financial interest in that license . I hold UKOG shares where Steve Sanderson has been worth every penny of his eye watering salary .
Furthermore I think surface rights should be much more like sub-surface mineral rights which in the case of gas and oil were nationalised in 1934 . An annual location value tax akin to Adam Smiths annual ground rent would fit the bill – a charge for exclusive use of the commons .
Clearly National Trust would not suffer damage due to a fleet of vibroseis lorries moving slowly across roads so they are just being overtly political and belligerant .
Are you the same Striebs who DID In the past ( around 2015-2016 ) hold Igas shares ????
If not, then I make my apologies. There must of been someone else using that name on the Igas share chat webpage during its continual downward share price spiral.
None of the shareholders thought the CEO, Andrew ( piggy ) Austin as they would call him, was worth his money.
UKOG shareholding pro-fracking activist:
Why do FOE find it necessary to resort to false statements?
Guy Shrubsole-“and sources of finance dry up”.
Is it they can not find someone who knows something about the subject, or do they just believe the public are fools?
Lynn Calder has made it quite clear that Ineos will press ahead with their plans, which they have an obligation to do under the terms of their licences, and they have also indicated what they have earmarked in terms of resource. Pretty clear for anyone to see, apart from FOE it appears.
Being a member of the National Trust and being au fait with their anti fracking stance, one could see this coming
1. Gov sells licence to extract gas to a company
2. Owner of the surface does not allow access for seismic Survey.
3. Company takes owner to court to gain access
The NT web says that they have a presumption against fracking on their land and would say no to it. I presumed that meant no drilling or infrastructure, but it seems any related activity counts.
Unfortunately for them, they do not own the mineral rights under it, and as noted above, there is a right to access if in the national interest. In this case the right is for seismic surveying, and as I am sure INEOS can frack under Clumber Park without being on it, there is only the surveying to consider.
So, a good move by INEOS to get the ball rolling.
I thought it would be interesting to see whether seismic data has previously been acquired over National Trust properties so I requested a copy of the “shape files” outlining their properties. These can then be combined with seismic locations from the national database. Sad to report that the NT have ignored my request.
I’ve had another look, and the NT now publish shape files of their properties. I’ve downloaded these, together with all the 2D and 3D seismic surveys, and as I suspected, there are plenty of NT properties where seismic has been acquired. Maybe the NT could issue a statement regarding whether any damage was done by any of these previous surveys across their properties. (eg Box Hill, Hindhead Common, Slindon Estate, Corfe Castle, Studland, etc)
Jack-I think you will find it has absolutely nothing to do with how many members the NT have, even if they all agreed with them. It will be a decision based upon a court action. If the court action decides in favor of Ineos then the land owner has to comply-I think Ruth explains it quite succinctly within her article.
I don’t think it will have anything to do with deepest pockets or influence-if it did, the NT would have lost already.
I will have to disagree with you Martin on fighting strength and influence.
Just look Cuadrilla and what a handful of novices can do to a company. That’s just one site.
Look how Igas crumbled at Barton Moss.
Ineos are wanting thousands of frack pads across the country .
If fracking companies can’t make it profitable in the USA with their laughable lax regulations. What hope is their in the UK ??
( 1 ) With heavy financial burdens as a result of stronger regulations .
( 2 ) A strong active public against the industry.
( 3 ) Investor / bank money drying up.
( 4 ) limited freedom as to where fracking can take place due to our densely populated country.
( 5 ) The security costs alone will make this industry unprofitable .
( 6 )Lastly, a weakened Tory government will now listen a lot more closely to what the public want, afterall it will want to retain power.
If the general public are strongly against something , it will never get legs in the UK. ( just look at the Poll Tax )
And one more …….
( 7 ) With fracking companies drawing a spotlight and increased financial burdon on the more conventional parts of the Oil and Gas industry . How long do you think it will be before the big Oil companies will say , enough is enough to the fracking industry ??
If you check jack you will find that several of the majors are increasing their shale portfolios albeit not in the UK. They may look at the UK but only after Cuadrilla et al get some results. And only those that don’t have downstream assets ie petrol stations.
By the way Jack, do a little more research on Ineos before you make such ill informed comments about fat cat directors. This is a privately owned company, so the directors have risked everything themselves to develop the company. Yes, they are now what you could call fat cats, but they have taken all the risks and now supply secure jobs for tens of thousands and a great deal of revenue to pay for public services. I shouldn’t knock it, it’s the system that is responsible for 85% of the jobs in the UK, and pays much of the costs for the other 15%.
I was actually talking about Igas Martin.
On this particular company it would appear that the shareholders have been done up like Kippers . Directors pay is a sore topic.
Jack
They can join Carillion shareholders in the smoke house!
But I think I Gas is now in better shape than Carillion.
Wow there are a lot of angry wasps here aren’t there 😉
Ineos say:
But their statement flies in the face of the reality, which is that the development of shale gas increases greenhouse gas emissions:
Lock the Gates Lancs
The article in link you have posted notes, at the bottom, that recent research repudiates the claim that fracking has caused a large rise in methane rates. A point Fibs noted in a recent post.
So the headline is to get you interested ( bad news, fracking etc etc ), with a disclaimer at the end.
Plus it notes that the industry in US and Canada has committed to a reduction in methane emissions.
Certainly the industry can work harder to reduce leaks, to use green completions and to flare rather vent, so this is an issue with an engineering solution.
One thing is for sure, there will be no deep coal mining in the U.K., so any relaxation on coal fired generation will be fired by imported coal from Russia, Poland or America ( in the main ), and upset the CO2 targets.
Sorry Jack, you have been reading too much refracktion. There will be some Igas shareholders who lose money, but others who have made money. That is the whole basis of shares on companies trading on the AIM market. I see no difference between the oil/gas sector and any other in this respect. I have never lost money on Igas or Egdon, and I am certainly not Warren Buffet. You might just find some Igas shareholders have bought shares with profits they made from Angus Energy, so they are in for a “free ride”. That is how some of the “riskier” investments are funded-eg. you win on one race and use some of your gain to plonk on an outsider in the next.
However, that’s just clouding the issue, this is a section regarding Ineos and the NT. Quite a different kettle of fish, as people like John will find out. The government will support industries that are investing in jobs and growth, (with Brexit, they have to), and there are none better than Ineos in this respect.
You talk about the public being against issues-well, there are some of the public against most things, but they still go ahead, and in the case of fracking your cause has not been successful in convincing anything like a majority. So, how do you think you will manage when they realise they are already using fracked gas for their Sunday roasts, but it is being imported? Presumably, it is being bought because it is the most economical source available?
And, please keep off the fake news. Fracking is booming in the USA, with rig numbers double what it was a year ago, and only yesterday BHP Billiton announcing it would be doubling their rig numbers.
You do not get a company like Ineos planning to invest £500m into UK shale if they have not done the maths. I know it is standard on this site to deny that economics are favouring fracking, but the continuous use of fake news to attempt to prove that is silly, and will be blown out of the water by a serious player like Ineos, as and when they are ready to do so. Remember, they are producing gas, shipping gas, buying gas and using gas in manufacturing. They are also highly profitable. I suggest that points in the direction of they know what they are doing. But of course, like any company, if they do not find gas in the quantities they expect they will pack up and invest in other projects but that is not a risk the antis want to allow. I suspect the majority of the public would quite like to find out. They did vote to “take back control”.