Photo: cc-by-sa/2.0 – © Mat Fascione – geograph.org.uk/p/4988447
INEOS gave some details this afternoon of another proposed shale gas exploration site.
It is west of the village of Woodsetts, near Rotherham.
The company has already submitted planning applications for exploratory drilling at Bramleymoor Lane, in the village of Marsh Lane, in north Derbyshire, and at Common Road, Harthill, in Rotherham borough (see map below).
On Monday, the company said it had been granted an injunction preventing obstruction or interference to work at these sites. A High Court order also covered potential designated traffic routes to the exploration sites, as well as company offices, and premises or equipment belonging to contractors in its supply chain. DrillOrDrop report
Last month, INEOS sent a pre-action legal letter to the National Trust warning of court action if it was now allowed access to land at Clumber Park in Nottinghamshire to carry out seismic surveying. DrillOrDrop report
INEOS is privately opened by Jim Ratcliffe and holds 1.2m acres of oil and gas exploration licences in the UK, about double that of its nearest rival.
It has committed to drill 28 vertical wells and frack another 11 horizontal wells in the next four years across English licences issued last year.
Source: Google Maps
INEOS said the site near Woodsetts was south of Dinnington Road. There is no other information about the location.
In a statement, it said geological data had highlighted the site for further exploratory work which, it said, would help inform possible future shale extraction in the area.
The company said it was working on preparatory surveys ahead of submission of an application for the test drilling. It was waiting to hear from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be needed. EIAs were not needed for the other two applications.
The INEOS website says the company proposes to drill a vertical well to extract a core sample of rock. This will identify the geological characteristics and gas-producing properties. A Pressure Transient Test would be carried out on the well to establish whether the area would be suitable for shale gas production.
Tom Pickering, INEOS Shale Operations Director, said:
“This project is another step forward for INEOS Shale and our plans to learn more about the geology of our license areas. Throughout this process we will consult local people to make them fully aware of the latest developments.”
Events and dates related to INEOS applications and sites
Thursday 10 August 2017
Expected deadline for comments on INEOS Shale’s planning application for a shale gas well at Bramleymoor Lane, Marsh Lane, north east Derbyshire.
Tuesday 15 August 2017
INEOS Community Exhibition, 2.30pm-7pm, Creswell Social Centre, Elmston Road, Cresswell S80 4BH. Details
Alternative anti-fracking exhibition, 2.30pm-7pm, The Black Diamond, 172 Elmton Road, Creswell S80 4BH. Details
Wednesday 23 August 2017
Bright Blue Energy and Climate Change Forum: How can Government by both pro-business and pro-environment? Speakers are Tom Burke, of think tank E3G, and Tom Pickering, Operations Director at INEOS Upstream. 7pm-8.30pm, The Spying Room, The Morpeth Arms, 58 Millbank, London SW1P 4RW. Details and to register
Monday 4 September 2017
Anti-fracking exhibition, 4pm-9pm, Langwith Bassett Community Hall, Rectory Road, Upper Langwith, Mansfield, NG20 9RF. Presentation 7:30pm-9pm.
Tuesday 5 September 2017
INEOS Community Exhibition, 2.30pm-7pm Langwith Basset Community Hall, Rectory Road, Upper Langwith, Mansfield NG20 9RF. Details
Tuesday 12 September 2017
Hearing at the High Court in London on interim injunction granted to INEOS Upstream against interference and obstruction of its work. Details
Monday 2 October 2017
INEOS Community Exhibition, 2.30pm-7pm Warsop Ex-servicemen’s Club, Car Lane, Mansfield NG20 0BN. Details
Alternative anti-fracking exhibition, 2.30pm-7pm, Warsop Town Hall, Church Street, Warsop NG20 0AL. Details
DrillOrDrop interview with Lynn Calder, INEOS Shale commercial director
Categories: Industry
DRILL OR DROP? 
Jack-suggest you read today’s Times. Not such a trivial item as you suggest. No disrespect Jack, but I suspect the Times might get a little more traction with their view of the item, than you will.
Thank you Martin ,
I have just checked out the article which you have put forward in your above post. It would appear that it relates to Copyright Infringement.
It would appear that another company called Hilltrek Outdoor has tried to RIDE OF THE BACK of a National Trust registered brand name in order to help sell their own waterproof jackets at an eye watering £365 ( ( YES £365 ))
GLENCOE was a registered trade mark of the National Trust, do you think Hilltrek Outdoor should be allowed to use a National Trust registered brand name ??
That question would also apply to any other world leading brand names, like , Sony, Panasonic, Nike, Adidas…… Should every Tom, Dick and Harry be allowed to copy and use these brand names ???
Jack-you haven’t been eating those magic beans, have you?
P.18, under News. Then P21 Comment article by Libby Purves.
I suspect Ineos recognises the context, and comments such as “there is a danger in coercive liberalism, one-note righteousness…etc.” are music to the ears.
Hello Martin,
I do not and have never purchased the Times Newspaper in a paper format or paid to view it online .
I have though read the “free write up “regarding this story online.
If what I have read online is incorrect or not complete, then PLEASE CUT AND PASTE THE FULL ARTICLE on here so that we can all read it.
With the greatest respect Martin,
If I am not on target with article you were talking about in your above post, then please give us all something more than cryptic clues .
Jack-these are not cryptic clues. They give you a reference to read what is being said about the NT. I have no interest in copying that for you-what I am saying is the Times, and other media outlets, have found the NT to be following an agenda which is not supported, on the whole by their employees or the public. That is the context with regard to Ineos.
It is not difficult to visit a library. There are many sources of information that are not easy to access on-line, but not being familiar with them is a real limitation. As was suggested by one of your own group-DYOR. I have not bothered to check but I would suspect that there is a news service you can access on line that would show transcripts of recent media articles about the NT and Felbrigg Hall.
Martin, although I disagree with you on various aspects of Fracking , such as the safety and the economics of the industry.
I do find some your posts regarding the Oil and Gas industry in general, interesting and thought provoking, which does from my point of view get a sympathetic ear towards what you are saying.
On this occasion, I know you are just trying to have a laugh. Come on man, ” go to a library ” what’s that all about ??
You make a statement on here and then without backing it up with a link, you tell me to go to a library or search for something on the internet …
As a Military Strategist though, I would give you top marks … With the policy of trying to ” divide an conquer ” the National Trust.
In your above post, you mention the Felbrigg Hall incident, I thought we had exhausted that topic in previous posts. For those unaware, its about PIN BADGES ladies and gentlemen and the 10 or so people out of 72,000 volunteers that were refusing to wear these PIN BADGES (((( now please stop laughing and pay attention ))) Ladies and Gentleman, just for the record , they were given another option if they didn’t want to wear these Pin Badges.
Speaking for myself Martin, I think the National Trust did nothing wrong in asking their staff at Felbrigg Hall to wear these pin badges for a day or two…….
((( They after all were trying to mark an occasion in history when a segment of the community ceased being persecuted, is that not important ????? )))
Ladies and gentlemen the choice is clear, either support the National Trust as it defends our green and open spaces for your children and granchildrens future, or support the fracking industry and see an industrialisation and as these people are warning, pollution of the land .
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/climate-change/methane-and-fracking/methane-and-fracking.html
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr
THE CHOICE IS YOURS ………
FOR ANYONE wanting to read about the Felbrigg Hall incident and how SOME MEDIA outlets are now trying to tarnish the National Trust with headline grabbing words like, BULLIES and giving an impression like they are slave driving, brutal gangmasters .
Here is the story of that incident, you make your own minds up.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/national-trust-banishes-volunteers-back-room-chores-refuse-wear/amp/
Jack
A reply to the PSR link, and nothing to do with the National Trust.
I am still working my way through all the stuff referenced in the PSR data. I was thinking that they certainly took a pessemistic view on fracking, so I should have a look at coal fired power ( on their web site ).
A subject closer to home. I know what they produce, and, living near to a bunch of them have some skin in the game.
Well, ……they do not like coal either. So dipping into the effects of coal fired power on the respiratory system and nervous system ( written by them) I came across a few issues on the first 3 points I looked at.
1. Looking at Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ( COPD ), Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
They note that ‘while smoking tobacco, Radon and other radioactive gasses, second hand smoke, asbestos, arsenic and nickel compounds have been identified as risk factors for developing lung cancer, data from three large epidemiological studies show air pollution may be a risk. It is possible that burning coal places those exposed to coal related pollutants at greater risk of developing lung cancer’.
While I am sure burning coal in US power plants produces pollutants, it looks like you are at risk from a number of issues prior to being got by a power station. Especially as the studies noted turn out to be of general pollution, and a dip into the study points the finger at pollution in cities. So it’s traffic that gets you prior to power stations.
2. Looking at Altzheimers disease
They quote a study comparing brains of dogs and humans in highly polluted and non polluted cities in Mexico. The study concludes there may be a link between pollution in cities and higher probability of Altzheimers. More study is required. Not quite sure where the link is other than pollution.
3. Looking at the effect of mercury
This looked more promising as US power stations emit 84 tonnes of mercury per year, with a planned reduction to 16 tonnes of mercury per year under the US EPA ‘Clean Air Mercury Rule’.
However the PSR report notes, inter alia, ( in the context of mercury content in the blood of pregnant women’s). ‘In work carried out by Tresande et al ….. between 316,588 and 631,233 children are born in the US every year with high blood mercury levels, high enough to impair performance on neurone-development tests. The lifelong diminution in intelligence costs society $8.7 billion per year (range $2.2 – $43.8billion). These cost estimates contrast sharply with others as low as $10 million dollars attributed to US power plants by Griffiths et al.
So, we are left thinking that the costs of this mercury pollution is very high, and others think very low.
But a look at the Tresande report reveals the larger figure is the effect globally, and this number changes as noted in the US EPA ( NCEE National Centre for Environmental Economics ) working note of April 2006. This note discusses the Tresande findings and considers them high. It is happy with the lower figures and explains why.
It also notes that Tresande considers the cost of lifetime diminution costs etc due to US power stations, in an update note of 2006, to be $1 billion, from the range $51million – $2 billion.
There seems to be no reason why PSR quote a global figure and then linked to US birth numbers and US power plants. Although it does not state coal fired plants, for the Griffiths report, it leaves one with the feeling that a very big cost is on the US, and it’s down to coal fired power stations.
There is no mention of the forthcoming clean air mercury rule in the immediate rubric, nor any mention of the NCEE working paper.
In conclusion, you certainly need to read round all that is written, as there is always for and against it seems, as well as some use of data to make a case, which the data does not support.
I am sure this is also the case for fracking, on both sides of the coin maybe.
PSR do not seem to me against gas fired power stations, but I may have missed that.
Jack-sorry, but you are way off the mark. Why post a link from 3rd August? It was clear in later coverage eg the Times, 7th August-that can be read in most libraries-that the initial “trivial” suggestion was nonsense, with staff across several NT sites refusing to work and members threatening to resign their membership. Descendants of the family were also upset they had been ignored.
If you want to pretend that the NT did not have to do a complete U turn, that is your choice, but all it does is suggest your other posts are equally selective, to support your viewpoint rather than have a balanced debate.
At the end of the day, what will be thrown into question is the assumption that the NT would receive public support if it was in the courts with Ineos. This is nothing to do with persecution, this is an organisation causing offence making something public about an individual who was not around to agree to that publication and without the support they should have sought and obtained, and then trying to insist that others were complicit. There will be many who will have a more suspicious regard for the NT after such an incident, including fairly large chunks of the media.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
Here we have a classic example ladies and gentleman of one man trying to chip away at the foundations of the National Trust.?
Pro-Frackers are clearly upset at the steadfast approach by the National Trust to refuse the fracking industry all access on their land . SO here we have the classic ” divide and conquer ” approach of trying to cause division between National Trust supporters .
Unless Martin is willing to show us EXACTLY what he is talking about instead of suggesting we all pop along to our local libraries, then I will continue to assume it’s about the great Pin Badge saga at Felbrigg Hall.
I will put this to you once again Martin because I would like your opinion on the matter .
” Speaking for myself Martin, I think the National Trust did very little/if nothing wrong in asking their staff at Felbrigg Hall to wear these pin badges for a day or two…….
((( They after all were trying to mark an occasion in history when a segment of the community ceased being persecuted, is that not important ????? )))
Did NT really make such a big mistake in asking people to wear these badges, or is this just some people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill ???
Let’s not forget they did give the people another option if they were not willing to wear these badges .
Jack-trying not to state the bl***ingly obvious, but if you don’t want to purchase the Times, read it in a library, how difficult is it to follow the reference Libby Purves via the internet, with NT added??? I have just done your work for you, and it takes just a few seconds.
If this suggests how thoroughly you have researched the issue of fracking, you will do little to convince the unconvinced two thirds, who may actually do a thorough review. I am trying to be polite Jack, but this site is smothered with selected “facts” taken to mean something they certainly do not. You are not alone, we have had one area in USA showing a decline in fracking being used as ammunition that fracking is failing economically in USA whereas the rig count has rocketed across the country, and world oil prices are below $50/barrel as a result.