Live updates from the final full day of evidence at the public inquiry into plans by Egdon Resources to produce oil from its site at Wressle in Lincolnshire.
Today’s session is expected to hear more evidence from Egdon consultant James Dodds and from the company’s planning witness, Paul Foster.
Egdon is appealing against refusals of planning permission by North Lincolnshire Council in January and July 2017. The company is seeking permission for 15 years of production at Lodge Farm, Clapp Gate, Appleby. The proposals include the use of two production techniques, proppant squeeze and acidisation.
On Day 1 (click here for updates) the inquiry heard that Egdon Resources had not carried out a ground investigation before installing the site liner. On Day 2 (click here for updates) the inquiry heard that, if approved, this would be the first use of proppant squeeze in the UK onshore. On Day 3 (click here for updates) Egdon gave evidence that it would need hydraulic fracturing consent from the Oil & Gas Authority for its operations at Wressle. Public opponents said the Wressle proposals were unconventional and untested.
The hearing, at Grange Farm Hobbies Centre, in Scunthorpe, is expected to last until 15 November 2017.
2.45pm Adjourned
The inquiry closes adjourns until 9.30am on Tuesday.
2pm Egdon Resources case
Evidence from Paul Foster, planning director, Barton Willmore
Paul Foster, Barton Willmore, 10 November 2017. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Mr Foster says had and Egdon Resources had meetings with North Lincolnshire Council before submission of the first application. The company appealed in April 2017 against the refusal of permission in January 2017. Before the second application was made, the company held another meeting with the council, along with meetings with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and British Steel. The company appealed against the second refusal in July 2017.
The council and the company agree on a large number of issues, Mr Foster says.
Mr Foster says the Wressle-1 proposals comply with national energy policy. He says fossil fuel electricity generation is expected to continue. Oil from proven reserves is also needed.
Minerals are essential to quality of life, Mr Foster says. The impact on the natural environment because of mitigation measures, he says, and complies with national planning policy. There will be no adverse impacts on the highway network. It seeks the sustainable use of onshore hydrocarbons and meets national needs, according to the National Planning Policy Framework, Mr Foster adds.
Mr Foster says the proposal complies with the local development plan. Egdon has submitted sufficient information on environmental protection from both applications to show there will be no adverse impacts of hydrocarbon production. Mr Foster says the proposal complies with local policy M1 on mineral development.
Local policy DS13, on groundwater protection and flooding, Mr Foster says the proposal complies. This policy is not about groundwater protection, Mr Foster says. The council earlier disagreed with this point.
Mr Foster says the council came to the wrong decision by arguing it had insufficient information on the groundwater protection to approve the application in January 2017. On the second application, he says neither the environmental health officer nor the Environment Agency objected and the council again made the wrong decision in refusing.
Mr Foster says the council should have the justification for refusal at the time of refusal. At the time of refusals they had insufficient information to justify the reasons for refusal, he says.
“I am still of the view that the council had enough information to approve the application”
Precautionary principle
North Lincolnshire Council argues that the committee applied the precautionary principle when it felt it did not have sufficient information and refused the application.
Richard Glover, for Egdon, asks whether the precautionary principle can be applied in planning and whether it has been applied properly. Mr Foster says there is no reference to the precautionary principle in the NPPF and there is only one reference in planning practice guidance. It is a form of risk assessment and dates from the 1992 Rio Summit, Mr Foster says.
There was a lack of trust in two members of the planning committee in the regulator, the Environment Agency, Mr Foster said . Decision-makers should have clear evidence on why they can’t rely on a regulator, Mr Foster says. He says there is no a lack of knowledge or risk of harm in the case of the Wressle proposal.
Mr Foster says Anglian Water, on the day of the first application, said it had no objections to the application. The reasonable thing to do for the committee was to defer the decision and asked the company, Environment Agency or Anglian Water for more information. Or they could have added new conditions on the site membrane.
Mr Foster says:
“The refusal of planning permission was an unreasonable line to say based on the various options they could have taken”.
Mr Foster says:
“There was a lack of duty of care on arriving at the decision [on the first refusal]”
On the second application the committee had even less reason to refuse. They had a wealth of new information, he says. It should have been even more clear that there was enough information.
In dismissing the applications, the local planning committee did not take account of guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Concerns by third party
Mr Foster says the third party objections were either irrelevant or from people living outside north Lincolnshire. Objections about noise, highways, lighting, seismicity, ecology do not raise concerns that suggest the proposal would have adverse effects, he says.
Mr Foster says he has heard nothing during the inquiry which makes him change his mind.
Where the actual risk has been demonstrated to be low then very little weight should be given to the concerns of objectors, Mr Foster says.
Benefts
Mr Foster says the proposal will add to business rates, some local employment, reduce imports and add to biodiversity benefits. He says:
“The proposed development is sustainable as defined by the NPPF.”
He says the proposal are of national importance, reducing the need to import from abroad. The need for indigenous onshore production will become more important as North Sea production declines.
He says it may need to little local benefit but provide great national benefits. All communities have a role to play in energy generation. The planning balance is strongly in favour of the development.
1.25pm Break
The inquiry resumes at 2pm
1pm Egdon Resources case
Re-examination of James Dodds
Richard Glover, for Egdon Resources, and Managing Director, Mark Abbott, 10 November 2017. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Mr Dodds says mistakes in his documents make no difference to his risk assessment.
On calculations on how fast water could move through the liner, he says the liner is protecting land underneath and allowing time to deal with contamination.
Richard Glover, for Egdon Resources, asks what evidence has been used to support the argument that there is a clay cap in this location. Mr Dodds refers to the great oolite formation, which he says is clay-rich, dips under the site. He points to a British Geological Survey log of a borehole near the Wressle site and a drillers’ log for the site. Mr Dodds says: “I’m starting to lose the plot a bit”.
Mr Dodds says he was not asked to do additional baseline survey work by the Environment Agency or the council.
Mr Glover refers to an earlier question from the public about the location of the Brigg Fault. Mr Dodds says there is no evidence that faulting is significant for the risk assessment.
Mr Glover asks Mr Dodds whether the Environment Agency relies only on the information from an applicant. Mr Dodds says the agency has access to its own data and has built local knowledge.
12.49am Egdon Resources case
Questions to James Dodds from the inspector
The inspector, Keri Williams, asks about the protection for the liner. Mr Dodds says the geotextile layers will protect the liner from damage. Mr Dodds says a site investigation – not carried out before installing the liner – would have been helpful. He says:
“With hindsight and the information about the sand under the site I don’t think it would change anything. It might be worth doing a site investigation. I would be very surprised if it came up with anything unusual.”
Asked about private water supplies, Mr Dodds says they have been properly assessed because they have been identified.
On contamination problems, Mr Dodds says you would know where this would have happened and it would be manageable. I’m not saying it would be easy or cheap.
12.30am Egdon Resources case
Questions to James Dodds from members of the public
Faulting and aquifers
Andrew McLeod asks Mr Dodds about the reference in the Elliott hdyrogeology reports, sent to the planning committee, that the principal aquifer is isolated from the reservoir by a fault. Mr Dodds says
“To be perfectly honest with you I don’t know what he means”.
Mr McLeod says the map shows a fault isolating the aquifer. “I don’t think so”, Mr Dodds says.
Mr Dodds says faulting is no form of mitigation. There are principal aquifers below the site. There are faults in the area. There has to be movement within the system.
Mr McLeod asks whether that statement is correct. Mr Dodds says the principal aquifers have been risk-assessed. The presence of faults has not come into mitigation.
Mr McLeod says the only fault mentioned is the Brigg Fault. Yesterday that 3D survey material did not show the fault. This was available in 2012. So this information, given to the planning committee, was incorrect. Mr Dodds says there is no material fault. Mr McLeod says the crux of this appeal is that the information was inadequate. That information on the fault was given to the planning committee even though it was inaccurate.
In a response to Jean Turner, Mr Dodds says the Envireau Water report was provided to the Environment Agency as part of the permit application, as well as to North Lincolnshire Council for the second planning application.
Mr Dodds is asked whether his company would be monitoring at Wressle-1. He says it isn’t monitoring at present. He is asked whether his firm is monitoring at KM8 in North Yorkshire. Mr Dodds says he is involved in that site monitoring. He is asked if he is aware of criticism of the quality of monitoring KM8. Mr Dodds says his company is highly experienced in groundwater monitoring. I have every confidence that Envireau Water is capable of monitoring at Wressle-1 if it were asked.
11.25am Egdon Resources case
Continued cross-examination of James Dodds
Groundwater monitoring boreholes
Alan Evans, for North Lincolnshire Council, questions Mr Dodds about the groundwater monitoring boreholes.
Mr Evans points out that Borehole 2 has a change marked in the schematic geology but not in the drillers’ logs. Mr Dodds accepts that the two do not correspond. Has this been corrected?, Mr Evans asks. Mr Dodds says they were in the Envireau Water report, which went to the Environment Agency.
There is nothing in the borehole records that could be interpreted as Kellaway clay, Mr Evans asks. Mr Dodds agrees.
The drillers’ records show there is no capping layer of Kellaway clay, Mr Evans suggests. Mr Dodds agrees.
Mr Evans says reliance was being put on the Kellaway clay by Egdon but the drillers’ logs don’t show this. Mr Dodds agrees that the shallow boreholes don’t show clay.
Mr Evans says the rotary drilling produces a grey mush which makes interpretation more difficult. Mr Dodds says the drillers’ logs record what comes back from the drilling. Clay comes back as a slurry. Hard rocks come back as chipping. The drillers record the vibration and speed of progress of the borehole because that indicates the hardness of material, Mr Dodds says. The exclusion of information is also useful, he adds.
Mr Evans asks again whether interpretation is more difficult from rotary drilling, than coring.
You weren’t there when this was being done?, Mr Evans asks. Mr Dodds agrees.
No permeabiliity testing was carried out?, Mr Evans asks. No, Mr Dodds says. He confirms that no hydrogeoligst was on site. A hydrogeologist would have considered the texture and colour of the returns from the borehole, he says.
Egdon’s argument for a capping layer
Egdon argues there is a capping layer on the site because there was formerly artesian conditions, an area of confined groundwater under pressure.
Mr Dodds says there would be a range of definitions of artesian conditions. But he says:
“In order to generate confinement, you have to have a seal on top of the aquifer, and for a sufficient seal that has to be practically impermeable.”
North Lincolnshire Council has submitted an alternative definition, The council says you don’t necessarily need an impermeable covering at the top or bottom – a low permeability layer may be enough to confine water at a higher pressure. A contrast is enough to create the conditions.
Mr Evans asks whether there have been an calculations or detailed analysis of Egdon’s theoretical argument. Mr Dodds says they have not been any calculations. He says there is evidence at the Wressle site for a 20m head of water in the past and this would require a cap layer.
Risk assessments
Mr Evans says the Elliott report screeens out the Lincolnshire Limestone from any risk because of a capping layer and artestian pressure. This stands and falls on whether artestian pressure (which doesn’t exist)and a capping layer (which may not exist). If the inspector does not accept these are present then it would be wrong to screen out the Lincolnshire Limestone, Mr Evans asks. Mr Dodds agrees.
The Envireau Water report also screens out the Lincolnshire Limestone from risk for the same reasons, Mr Evans says.
Mr Evans puts it to Mr Dodds that the Lincolnshire Limestone should be screened in to the risk assessment, not screened out. M Dodds says it should be screened out because of a low permeability cap. He accepts it should be screened in if the low permeability cap is wrong.
Mr Evans says the British Steel borehole at Clapgate takes water from the Great Oolite formation, as well as the Lincolnshire Limestone formation. Mr Dodds says if water is in the Great Oolite it would be able to flow into the British Steel borehole.
Shouldn’t this be risk assessed if there is potential for this water to reach the borehole, Mr Evans asks. Mr Dodds says the Great Oolite has been identified as a receptor in the Envireau Water report.
Mr Evans says the Envireau Water report screened out the Great Oolite from the risk assessment. Mr Dodds says this is because of the capping layer (see above and artesian conditions below).
Baseline data
Mr Evans says the detail of baseline data is a matter of judgement. Mr Dodds agrees this is the starting point.
Mr Evans asks if Envireau Water are involved in the baseline data application. There was a more detailed level of baseline research with contact with people by email and post. Mr Dodds agrees. He says there are scientific and political reasons for doing work above and beyond what is necessary. Mr Dodds says:
“It is entirely wrong to infer anything that was done or not done in the Vale of Pickering.”
Conceptual models
Mr Evans suggests that there should be a conceptual model in a risk assessment.
“There is nothing that would pass muster as conceptual models in the Elliott reports?”
Mr Dodds agrees. It doesn’t mean to say he hasn’t considered this issues, he says.
Mr Evans puts it to Mr Dodds: “We don’t think you [in the Envireau Water report] made a conceptual model”.
The Envireau Water model lacks detail at the shallower geology, Mr Evans says.
Mr Dodds says the conceptual model informs the risk assessment. They explain the geological sequence for the Wressle-1 well. It focuses on the shallow section, he says.
A conceptual hydrogeological model has not been presented, Mr Dodds says. The detail is is in the text, which is appropriate to the risks. No hazards or receptors have been missed, he says.
Groundwater monitoring boreholes
Mr Evans puts it to Mr Dodds that a large section of the site, including the boundary with the Ella Beck, that is not covered by the boreholes. Mr Dodds agrees that the northern side of the site is not monitored by the boreholes.
That could have been avoided if there had been suitably qualified staff on the site and the boreholes would have been drilled to an appropriate depth. Mr Dodds agrees.
Mr Evans says there could be a dense contaminant that lies below the superficial boreholes. Mr Dodds says that trace could be picked up in the boreholes. This is second best, Mr Evans suggests. The best thing would be to have boreholes that went to an appropriate depth. Mr Dodds agrees.
You can’t tell from a trace the significance of a pollution incidence. Mr Dodds says the monitoring doesn’t sit in isolation and is part on overall management system. He says the mitigation assumes there will not be contamination because it will have been caught by the liner.
It would be better to look in the place where it is more likely to be, Mr Evans suggests. You should be looking there in a deeper borehole. I don’t disagree, Mr Dodds says.
Mr Dodds says if your analysis suggests there is contamination you would monitor in the appropriate way.
11.05am Break
The inquiry resumes at 11.25am
10.23am Egdon Resources case
Cross-examination of James Dodds
Mr Dodds (right) cross-examined by Alan Evans (left), 10 November 2017. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Errors
Alan Evans asks Mr Dodds about the mistakes in his witness statement and a page of corrections. Mr Dodds incorrectly said there were 600mm of stone (instead of 300mm) and 50mm of sand (instead of geotextile) on top of the liner. Mr Dodds says he can’t find the source of the errors. Mr Evans says:
“That’s got the hallmarks of carelessness. Do you accept that?”
Mr Dodds say typographically errors occur in documents. Mr Evans says “sand” is not a typographical.
Calculations on permeability of the liner
Mr Evans raises the issue of leaks through the liner. Have you done any calculations of what could get through this liner on a short term basis?
“There have been no calculations, no”
There are no calculations of what could get through the liner, Mr Dodds confirmed.
Mistakenly claimed Artesian conditions
Mr Dodds says the sealing effect of geology continues but the artesian conditions no longer exist. He confirms that the hydraulic gradient below the site has changed.
Mr Evans refers to a report by R Elliott, submitted with the January application for Egdon. This report suggested that the artesian conditions remained and that the cap may be fractured.
“We now know that is wrong because there are not artesian conditions there”, Mr Evans says
“Since then the [groundwater] observation boreholes were drilled and they demonstrated that this report is incorrect”, Mr Dodds says.
Mr Evans asks what was the evidence for making the statement in the first place. Mr Dodds says he doesn’t know. “It is unevidenced and it was proved wrong”, Mr Dodds says.
Mr Evans says the claim of artesian conditions was still being made for by Mr Elliott in Egdon in May 2017, after the groundwater boreholes had been dug. Mr Evans says:
“That’s careless. He’s got that wrong. He hasn’t taken account of further evidence available at that time. He shouldn’t have got it wrong because there was evidence available.”
He’s an highly experienced engineer but he’s not an experienced hydrogeologist, Mr Dodds says.
Mr Evans says:
“He’s the author of the report put before the planning committee on hydrogeology, water management and pollution. Are you saying he’s less than experienced?
Mr Dodds says Mr Elliott may have a team of hydrogeologists behind him.
Incorrect statement on hydraulic gradient
Mr Evans refers to a report by Envireau Water, overseen by Mr Dodds and his company. This says there is a moderate risk of spillage, leaching and infilltration from the surface. But the risk of this reaching the aquifer is low because of an upward hydraulic gradient which prevents downward movement of water.
“That’s not correct, is it?”, Mr Evans asks.
Mr Dodds admits this is an error.
Protection for Lincolnshire Limestone
Mr Evans asks what evidence was being relied on by Egdon when it said in one of the Elliot reports that the Lincolnshire Limestone aquifer was protected from spills at the surface. Mr Dodds says it was the Kellaways Formation. Mr Evans asks if this the Kellaways clay (not the Kellaways sand). Indeed, Mr Dodds says.
Mr Evans says a geology map shows that half the site is not underlain by the Kellaways formation at all.
The Kellaways formation could not form as a cap for the whole site, Mr Evans says. Mr Dodds agrees.
Monitoring borehole construction
Mr Evans says the borehole logs show evidence of the Kellaways formation in the base of three boreholes.
The intention was to log the material drilled from the water monitoring borehole to Eurocode 7, a recognised European standard, Mr Evans says. The method of drilling then made it inappropriate to log to that standard. Mr Dodds says this logging would be impossible.
9.38am Egdon Resources case
Continuing evidence from James Dodds, hydrogeology and water management consultant, Envireau Water
James Dodds, 9 November 2017. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Mr Dodds says the Wressle site has been designed to be sealed. It contains rainfall, to a volume up to a 1:100 year event, and releases water to the environment when safe to do so. In a water quality problem, the site can be isolated. This protects the environment from uncontrolled discharge, he says.
Risk assessment
The key risks are to shallow groundwater and surface water, he says. Risk assessments have been carried out following accepted procedures. The mitigated risk is very low or negligible, he says.
Baseline studies on ground and surface water were robust, he says. Richard Glover, for Egdon Resources, asks whether further information would have made any difference to the conclusions. Mr Dodds says:
“One wouldn’t look to the ends of the earth for data. One would restrict the search to the scale of the development.”
He says the search for groundwater information would use Environment Agency, British Geological Survey and private databases. This would show where water was being extracted. It was what happened in this case in the baseline studies, he says.
Susan Wagstaff, for North Lincolnshire Council, had suggested door-door studies should have been carried out. Mr Dodds says these surveys are rare, apart from proposals where water would abstracted. In this case because the risk assessment comes out with “no risk” there is not requirement to do this sort of survey, he says.
There was sufficient baseline assessment of any receptors to risk, he says.
“As long as the pathways and the receptors have been identified then the mitigation will protect and the mitigated risk is reduced to practically nothing.”
Site design and mitigation of risk
The potential risk to the water environment comes from accidental spill of liquids, Mr Dodds says. The site includes embedded mitigation measures including: earth bunds; bentomat impermeable membrane; interceptor to prevent uncontrolled release of surface water; casings to the well. Clay geology also produces a seal.
Mr Glover says the council is concerned about the bentomat liner, which could leak, leading to potential pollution. He asks Mr Dodds how likely this would be.
Mr Dodds says any liner has a finite permeability. But he says the permeability is very low. There are several barriers to leaks on the site, he says. Liquids are held in tanks and surrounded by a bunded areas. The bentomat is the third barrier.
He says the site in production would be staffed 24-hours. In normal operations there will be someone doing inspections every day and two people involved in tankering. The spill will move extremely slow through the liner.
“You are talking months, many months, before anything would go through that liner”
Remedial action would be taken immediately, he says. It would be cleaned up – or if it had moved into the gravel layer the leak and gravel would be bagged up. The operation would take minutes.
Mr Dodds says he doesn’t agree with the council’s case that groundwater monitoring boreholes would not pick up some hydrocarbon spills. He says any hydrocarbon spill will dissolve in the water, leaving a trace that is detectable in the monitoring boreholes. As water is taken from the borehole, any pollutant will also fall.
Mr Dodds says no statutory consultee objected to Egdon’s proposals on groundwater issues. British Steel withdrew its objection to the second application.
All the work done on the Wressle well will be done at 1,600m. This is separated by 700m from aquifers. The water management proposed means the site is self-contained and hydrologically isolated from any spills or problems. This, together with adequate storage, mitigates any uncontrolled spills. Mitigated risks are very low or negligible, he says.
The risk assessments clearly shows that the site construction civil works do not a pose a significant risk to the water environment. Operations for oil and gas production (proppant squeeze, acidisation, radial drilling or side-track drilling) do not pose a significant risk to the water environment, he adds.
“It is my opinion that sufficient information was supplied to satisfy the planning authority for both the first and second applications.”
Detail on the site construction was adequate, he says. The level of information is appropriate level of risk.
“I do not agree with North Lincolnshire Council that is is insufficient information or any material risk to local residents, community or the local economy.”
9.32am Egdon Resources case
Extra information
Richard Glover, for Egdon Resources, submits extra documents. In response to issues raised on previous days. He says the Environment Agency would approve the installation and design of the interceptor. In answer to a question by Kathryn McWhirter, he says the permeablility of the oil formation is 55 millidarcies.
9.30am Inquiry opens
This report has been made possible by donations from individual DrillOrDrop readers
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
Thanks Ruth, this has turned out to be more revealing of the failings of the industry than expected.
Some very revealing and rather embarrassing climb downs and apparently factually “inaccurate” specification from Egdon documents by James Dodds, more about that later.
While we are waiting for the inquiry autopsy, here is Fracking Nightmare with Ian R Crane, because i know how much you have missed him.
Enjoy!
You have misinterpreted reality again Phil, Mr Dodds has given a very robust defence and the council are in deep ****. You only see what you want to see and this is why you will never learn at your old age. Thanks for the video but Mr Crane produces these to earn him money to allow him to feed his unhealthy appetite. Fracking should be the least of Mr Cranes concerns as they should be yours.
Still looking at fantasy documents GottaB?
This is almost too easy, sorry, but you will make these “i see no shi(p)s” statements, i didnt even have to try hard, thanks to Ruth again.
“Mr Dodds says: “I’m starting to lose the plot a bit”.”
“Mr McLeod says the only fault mentioned is the Brigg Fault. Yesterday that 3D survey material did not show the fault. This was available in 2012. So this information, given to the planning committee, was incorrect. Mr Dodds says there is no material fault. Mr McLeod says the crux of this appeal is that the information was inadequate. That information on the fault was given to the planning committee even though it was inaccurate.”
“Errors
Alan Evans asks Mr Dodds about the mistakes in his witness statement and a page of corrections. Mr Dodds incorrectly said there were 600mm of stone (instead of 300mm) and 50mm of sand (instead of geotextile) on top of the liner. Mr Dodds says he can’t find the source of the errors. Mr Evans says:
“That’s got the hallmarks of carelessness. Do you accept that?”
Mr Dodds say typographically errors occur in documents. Mr Evans says “sand” is not a typographical.”
“Calculations on permeability of the liner
Mr Evans raises the issue of leaks through the liner. Have you done any calculations of what could get through this liner on a short term basis?
“There have been no calculations, no”
There are no calculations of what could get through the liner, Mr Dodds confirmed.”
“Mistakenly claimed Artesian conditions
Mr Dodds says the sealing effect of geology continues but the artesian conditions no longer exist. He confirms that the hydraulic gradient below the site has changed.
Mr Evans refers to a report by R Elliott, submitted with the January application for Egdon. This report suggested that the artesian conditions remained and that the cap may be fractured.
“We now know that is wrong because there are not artesian conditions there”, Mr Evans says
“Since then the [groundwater] observation boreholes were drilled and they demonstrated that this report is incorrect”, Mr Dodds says.
Mr Evans asks what was the evidence for making the statement in the first place. Mr Dodds says he doesn’t know. “It is unevidenced and it was proved wrong”, Mr Dodds says.
Mr Evans says the claim of artesian conditions was still being made for by Mr Elliott in Egdon in May 2017, after the groundwater boreholes had been dug. Mr Evans says:
“That’s careless. He’s got that wrong. He hasn’t taken account of further evidence available at that time. He shouldn’t have got it wrong because there was evidence available.”
He’s an highly experienced engineer but he’s not an experienced hydrogeologist, Mr Dodds says.
Mr Evans says:
“He’s the author of the report put before the planning committee on hydrogeology, water management and pollution. Are you saying he’s less than experienced?
Mr Dodds says Mr Elliott may have a team of hydrogeologists behind him.
Incorrect statement on hydraulic gradient
Mr Evans refers to a report by Envireau Water, overseen by Mr Dodds and his company. This says there is a moderate risk of spillage, leaching and infilltration from the surface. But the risk of this reaching the aquifer is low because of an upward hydraulic gradient which prevents downward movement of water.
“That’s not correct, is it?”, Mr Evans asks.
Mr Dodds admits this is an error.”
Is “robust” a broken robot BTW?
Yeah…….all about as “robust” as Teresa May’s job prospects…….not.
Phil. You simply recite trivial information. You clearly don’t understand what this appeal is about.
Mr Evans is simply making mountains out of molehills.
I guarantee this appeal will not favour N Lincs Council.
[Comment edited by moderator]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Nope
Is that the same Ian Crane who believes 9/11 and the Paris Charlie Hebdo massacre were put-up jobs by some vague international capitalist conspiracy? If so, beware the company you keep. No doubt his fellow demonstrators at KM will have formed a view of his character.
Thanks Ruth. This has proved the high standards Egdon adhere to hence why their prior history is without one blemish.
It also proves there are far too many busy bodies that are both hypocritical and fall short of genuine knowledge, Google isn’t a substitute for the real world.
Reading back . So many untruths by the opposition present as if they were fact. For example the government have run down North Sea oil production ….absolute piffle the government do not drill for or sell oil. Its exploration and production are down to commercial interests. Nowt to do with the government. Then all the nonsense about trust of the Environment Agency, if they they have facts which proves that the EA have not done their job then. In the event, then individuals of the North Lincs CC can write to their MPs expressing their concerns. In the meantime the EA is a local government concern, and governments are put in place by a national public. What they are appearing to suggest is that a CC transcends the Government…. Just the whole gist of the anti’s all philosophy, rarely any fact . No wonder Lincs is one of the poorest counties in England. If they turn it down this time, then one hopes that EDR will take it to a Judicial Review and make claims for damages from the NLCC, for loss of earnings
[Comment edited at poster’s request]
Ruth, thank you for the good work, I was a little too hasty to condemn the dialogue due to my frustration at the Council. Please accpet my apology.
I am finding it hard to believe that so many only think of themselves and not of others. The whole case has a knock on effect to many, and not just the few. I am a Health and Safety Professional and I see what a few pence on a gallon of fuel can devastate.
How many more will be shoved in to fuel and food poverty when the prices of food rise to make up distribution costs. I work with over 300 men and I hear daily the stories of their neighbours selling things to keep the bread in and the wolves from the doors. Its heartbreaking.
There is no such thing as a fully electric articulated lorry. Diesel will have to be around a lot longer than many think. Even electric and hybrid cars are delivered to car dealerships on Diesel trucks.
As the fuel strike highlighted a few years ago, without trucks you literally get nothing. And I recall the famous “Fair Fuel Price” stickers all over lorries that year, and the fights that broke ut in queues at the petrol stations
One question to those who live rurally, is why buy your heating fuel in the summer? Is this because its cheaper? I think you know the answer to that. What happens when your heating fuel becomes extortionate in all seasons? Will you move home or pay a dividend to go Solar?
Its nice to go on holiday, some can never afford to. But what about the aviation fuel? Electric planes? I don’t think thats going to happen in my lifetime. And of course one of the biggest polluters is the aviation industry. They welcome fuel prices rising, it just means they can add that to your ticket or baggage allowance.
We all love the planet, but we need to take in to consideration “Everyone” not just those who can afford it. If North Lincolnshire Council start feeling the pinch because they do not welcome “investment” from any source, then what cuts will they be forced to make? A local bus route? A library? Or increase parking fees? Even an Increase in business rates?
The fallout from this hearing has many outcomes, can people start thinking of the positives and not think of just their ego’s
James
Jim
‘How many more will be shoved in to fuel and food poverty when the prices of food rise to make up distribution costs. I work with over 300 men and I hear daily the stories of their neighbours selling things to keep the bread in and the wolves from the doors. Its heartbreaking.’
This is the result of austerity and greed policies from our present governance, not about oil and gas production. If we continue along the fossil fuel road, the costs will be immensely higher than those currently endured by the neighbours of your men. You need to separate your arguments and work on a solution for both. The world is a much bigger place than Lincolnshire. There are over seven and a half billion people on our planet. Some don’t have food, never mind a bus route or a library.
‘People in many parts of the world are already living with the first serious consequences of global warming. For the most vulnerable countries, including small island developing states in the Pacific and elsewhere, the need for action is real and immediate.’
H. E. Mr. Frank Bainimarama, Prime Minister of Fiji Bonn 2017
However much more oil is produce in the UK that is less we have to import from the corrupt Middle East, it is also less pollution of the seas made by tankers burning more than 100 tons of fuel per day to bring the oil to us from the Gulf.It is less money too to fund the religious conflicts of the Middle East
Vernon, this is bigger than you imagine.
UK hands world’s largest oil company Saudi Aramco $2bn loan to secure IPO Telegraph today.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/uk-hands-worlds-largest-oil-company-saudi-aramco-dollar2bn-loan-to-secure-ipo/ar-BBENwlq?li=AA54rU
If shale is indeed to displace the Middle East Oil, why is the government still doing trade deals? Makes you wonder…….
Sherwulf
I think that the UK was as keen to work with the Saudi Gov when we were self sufficient in oil and gas and energy independent if you included the rump of the coal industry.
Maybe the loan is more to get the expected business for London than any thoughts of oil or gas issues.
I also doubt that UK shale oil, or any ( tight or otherwise ) Lincolnshire oil would worry OPEC.
Ie business as usual for London.
[Comment edited at poster’s request]
Oops, energy Independant if you include the rump of the coal Industry…….
[Edited in previous comment]
The article states:
‘The UK Export Finance (UKEF) group said the loan guarantee will be used to help deepen trade ties Credit: Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters’
We currently trade oil don’t we?
Sherwulf
Thanks. I may have got the wrong end of the stick.
I do not think shale oil in the UK will amount to anything. Outwith the discussion as to whether tighter oil is fracked oil, or any need to frack Weald shale I see no plans yet to develop shale oil a la shale gas.
So, UK shale oil will not displace imported oil.
Hence my thought that the UK is happy to provide the loan to Saudi whether we are net importers or exporters. Even if we were 100% renewables London would still be keen to get the IPO business and strengthen ties.
Hi Sherwulfe, since the Saudi Prince Salman coup in the last few weeks, it seems that maybe all of the present deals are thrown to the wolves again?
Clearly there have been many arrests and operations seized in this clearing of the decks?
Just what that means to any existing deal agreement remains to be seen. Did the Saudis force the Libya president to resign or be arrested?
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out for the coming Saudi Aramco flotation?
I suspect there will be less if not only one represented interests that have influence in that particular deal?
One thing that emerged was that an AI called Sophia has now gotten Saudi nationality (really!) and as a result of that has launched it’s own crypto currency?
It seems we have stumbled into the latest Blade runner set?
If it wasn’t real you would think it was a sci fi movie?
Stranger and stranger things are happening it seems?
Oh, and the latest buzz, is that the global currency “reset” is set, or reset, for next week?
A Saudi AI coup perhaps? More clearing of the AI decks?
To answer your question “Did the Saudis force the Libya president to resign or be arrested?” The answer is no.
Yes it was the Lebanon prime minister, I stand corrected.
Jim-anyone would think oil is not being produced in Lincolnshire and the industry is unknown in that neck of the woods.
Lincoln used to be a centre of agricultural machinery production, replacing the horses on farm. Then we moved on, to enable Lincolnshire to be one of our prime producers of grain. Driven by what? RED DIESEL. Now, it seems some in Lincolnshire say we don’t want to produce oil from under our feet, but you good old tax payers can continue to subsidise our way of life. Additionally, huge volumes of that grain will be used for what? To produce FUEL. That is not green, it is immoral.
I find it more than a little ironic that there is this focus upon ground water, yet there are sites in Lincolnshire still heavily contaminated with rocket fuel from the cold war days. Perhaps the Council should get their own act into order, but the way they are going, they will not be able to afford it.
So Martin. Your solution is to turn Lincolnshire into a huge oil and gas field, instead of agricultural fields? And the Fylde to be covered in frack sites, and where next? Why not cover all of Lancashire and have done with it; Yorkshire, Cumbria, the North East, the Midlands; where does it stop? And will this then make you feel better? That you will no longer be the only one breathing in toxic fumes from your neighbour’s activities……
So Sherwulfe. My solution is to continue the small scale oil development in Lincolnshire which is already present, and inconspicuous. I suggest you have a look around in that county and find a sign of “a huge oil and gas field”, or the toxic fumes.
I used to manage a business in Lincoln and know the area well. One of my own staff lived a couple of miles away from a working oil site and had no idea it was there until I pointed it out to her. She was aware of the toxic fumes and noise coming from several very active RAF bases around her village, but was quite content around that as the alternative was a worse prospect for her. She liked living in a small rural village with a nice school for her daughter but knew she had to commute into Lincoln to get well paid employment so her family could enjoy the lifestyle they wanted. Even taking todays technology, she required a car utilising fossil fuel, due to the distance involved. Her husband had the same requirement.
She actually felt quite good that oil to help support the lifestyle she wanted was actually coming from her own locality, and in the bitter Lincolnshire winters could turn up her thermostat on her oil fired central heating with the benefit of two decent incomes.
I think you will find Wressle is projected to produce around 500BOD. Even Wytch Farm, declining in output, is 15000BOD. No sign of toxic fumes there. Very expensive housing, surrounded by wildlife sanctuaries and a marine environment enjoyed by many divers.
Reality.
As you point out Martin, Wytch Farm oil field is pretty significant. It is the largest onshore oilfield in Europe I believe, but most residents of Dorset have no idea it is there! Dorset remains a beautiful part of the country.
[Comment edited at poster’s request]
Martin, I find it very fascinating that you have multiplicity in your ‘work experience’ and ;friends’ that are used to support your diversionary posts.
For the avoidance of doubt, we are not talking about the past, but about the future. If you ever bother to do active reading rather than scan the first line and just post the same misunderstood emptiness, there may be a worth while conversation.
Shall we try to put the Wytch Farm nonsense in perspective for once shall we?
I was born not far away and spent my childhood and early adulthood exploring the Purbecks, sailing in Poole Harbour and watching the growing presence of the Furzy Island oil extraction development, now owned by Perenco, who bought it off BP who decided they did not want it on their books.
Sailing in Poole Harbour you could see the growing development. This is part 2 of a two part document examining Wytch Farm in relation to the proposed coal bed methane development in Somerset.
What it reveals is that Wytch Farm is an offshore oil field with onshore facilities.
https://frackfreecv.wordpress.com/2014/07/04/why-wytch-farm-is-a-poor-fracking-comparison-for-somerset-part-ii/
Wytch Farm has not been free from problems however, as much under BP ownership as Perenco, who are Perenco? Look it up, originally an offshore concern.
When I was young we sailed around the bay in the summer and explored the many bays and beaches, the air and water was sparkling clean and clear, you could see the bottom of the harbour easily, in places you could get out and walk in the water in the middle of the harbour.
I still go go back to visit family and friends and went there this last summer and talked to many about the Wytch Farm development.
OK, reality time, the water is no longer clean and clear, the tidal race at Shell Bay (near Sandbanks) often has oil slicks that wash in and out with the race.
The air is no longer sparkling clear, a haze is everywhere, occasionally it does get clear days, but quickly hazes over again.
You can smell oil on the water, I did just that on a boat to be absolutely sure it was not here say.
The oil extraction is all offshore, there were objections from the National Trust who own Brownsea Island nearby and the nature sanctuary’s and RSPB sanctuary at Arne Point to any onshore extraction, look at the map link for location.
Onshore fracking cannot be compared to the Wytch Farm development which is all offshore. Leaks do happen and there thete were reports in local papers, now few and far between, but it is often blamed upon shipping and private boats and yachts and the media nationally never report it.
It is no accident that Sunseeker (Chinese owned) have their luxury yacht manufacturing base there, and many yacht clubs have their bases and boats harboured there.
I looked at the quality of the water, we went out to the places we used to sail and swim, I could see that the water was murky and in places surface oil sheen was visible. I did not ever see that when I used to sail and swim there.
Perspective guys, it’s chalk and cheese, offshore pollution is hidden by the harbour and the race, and blamed on shipping, all the wells extend out into the channel between Poole, Southampton and the Isle of Wight.
So let’s put this supposed paragon of virtue of Wytch Farm into its correct perspective because it is not relevant to onshore operations and that it is not as pollution free as is claimed shall we?
Sorry to burst one of the prime onshore fracking industry’s greeny bubbles.
[Comment edited at poster’s request]
Phil, it’s very easy to check if the source of the oil sheen that you see on the surface is shipping or oil extraction operations. If boats are the source it will be diesel or other fuel oil, if from Wytch Farm it will be the mixture of many different organic molecules that is crude oil. Only a very small sample is needed for standard chromatograph analysis.This analysis will be conclusive even if the sample has been floating around and getting biodegraded for some time. Oil production facilities are, rightly, subject to stringent environmental regulation and if there was any indication of a leak from the Wytch Farm operations the EA would have been all over them. If you’re still worried about it why don’t you alert the EA and ask them to do the analysis? I suspect they will have already done it.
Stevo, I used to be an EA contractor, cleaning up oil spills, both inland and coastal. As the EA weren’t keen on paying for the clean up themselves, they liked using me because I was quite good at tracing the source. Part of proving who was responsible was taking samples for laboratory analysis, as you rightly suggest. When I found the source, the polluter would have to pay.
Not one of the clean ups I was involved with was necessary because of a spill or leak from a producing oilfield. Most were the result of theft or vandalism to diesel tanks.
[Comment edited at poster’s request]
Terri.
Are the tests sensitive enough to identify individual deposits from a mixture of sources?
Does the EA analysis act on the whole sample or act on the majority content?
Is this monitoring being done on a daily basis or ‘to order’?
As an EA contractor, did you have baseline samples of the oilfield production?
A clearly complicated process and an interesting topic to discuss. If you could point is to information that will help understand this process, would be grateful. Most interesting.
Phil clearly has noticed a great difference in the environment near Wytch Farm over time.
Who would fund the analysis and ultimate clean-up I wonder?
Sherwulfe, the test costs would be included with clean up costs, to be paid for by the polluter’s insurer. Rarely, if ever, would more than one oil type be identified in one oil spill. The EA wouldn’t do the laboratory analysis. I would use accredited specialists. I wasn’t involved in monitoring, only spill clean ups as necessary. The laboratory analysis would clearly identify the oil type, and I would use this alongside other methods to trace the source.
It generally doesn’t take long for a spill to reach a watercourse, unless it is contained at the source. Once in a watercourse it is normally quickly noticed. Swift remedial action can contain and remove the problem quite easily.
I can only speak from my own experience which was quite extensive across southern England. I would be very surprised if oil that Phil identified came from Wytch Farm. Almost certainly from boats to be honest.
From past conversations with local interests over just that issue, the EA simply stated there was no problem and to do that privately is very expensive, so that is not resolved.
There is another aspect of that of course and that the shipping sometimes illegally flushes out the ships tanks and bilges just offshore in the solent, they used to do it in the harbour until the harbour police appealed to the government and the coastguard and made that a heavily fineable offence, that was i believe back in the 90’s.
The trouble is that with any testing, if some of the oil slick comes from shipping, the EA simply say that is all it is, and any crude oil is simply what was in the bilges.
So you see it is not that simple, like the whole oil and gas industry, it is always difficult to prove source, the industry know that and play on it. I suspect even if it was proved it would be squashed claiming no funds and austerity prevents investigation.
An exploiters playground.
The last i heard, was that there were some samples taken from i recall five locations and scientific testing, i dont know if it was chromatograph or not, i wasn’t involved at that time, i was abroad. The intention was to identify the source.
It was very expensive, which was the only part i did help with, but what came back was a mixture of ship diesel, lubrication oil and crude oil and other chemicals, so it was unproven as to the precise source. I remember the telephone conversation and the discussion of what to do next.
Certainly the poor quality of the water now, or at least this summer, that i knew from my sailing days to be crystal clear, was concerning if not alarming.
What is just as interesting than that even perhaps, is that Wytch Farm is an offshore oil extraction operation, the effects of that are in the solent, the water between the Isle of Wight and Dorset.
The Channel itself between UK and France, is one of the most busy ship lanes on the planet, and it is well known that ships have, and apparently still do, flush out their tanks and their bilges at sea before they dock in harbour, though it is illegal, the coastguard are similarly financially crippled as the EA.
At one stage earlier this year, there were six coastguard ships to patrol the entire UK coast, three of those were in dock having repairs, what chance to monitor shipping and illegal tanker and bilge flushing, let alone oil leaks and identify the origin of oil leaks?
This year a Russian warship sailed through the channel unopposed or monitored and was only identified on radar and the UK navy scrambled.
The main point is that the Perenco operation is run by a previously offshore oil company, and the oil extraction bores are all offshore, none onshore, and as such is not comparable or applicable to onshore fracking as a paragon of virtue any more than totally offshore exploration and production is applicable to onshore operations.
That is what i find enlightening.
[Comments removed by moderator]
Phil, The chemical make up of Wytch Farm oil will be different from that from other fields, it is usually possible to “type” crude oils back to their source field as no two crudes are chemically identical. If there was a mixture of a crude and a refined petroleum product, say diesel, they would be easy to see as separate components in the analysis as diesel is a single-molecule liquid and would produce a “spike” on the anlaysis. If the crude you mentioned came from an oil tanker illegally washing its tanks out in the Channel the analysis should resolve where that crude came from. By the way this analysis and interpretation are standard stuff and by no means complex or particularly costly.
Just to set the record straight, the deviated wells into Wytch Farm are drilled from onshore, reaching the field deep below the sea bed, so they do not get anywhere near to the surface until they reach land, so is very unlikely they are leaking into the Solent.
The Solent lies between the Isle of Wight and Hampshire.
Wytch Farm is onshore and offshore to west and south of Bournemouth, well away from the Solent.
Frack me sidetrack a map expert!
I’ll try and break this to you gently AI, maps aren’t real? No, really! There are no monocoloured blue areas with a label saying Solent, or Hampshire in real life? They ain’t there!
It’s a representation, a convenient cypher, it’s not real?
The real stuff is out there, out of the window, you know, it’s big wet and salty and scary and wobbly and it doesn’t have labels on it? And it doesn’t care!
That line on the map saying Dorset and Hampshire, the Solent and the Isle of Wight? The real thing is much much much bigger, and bumpier and those nice neat lines on the map? They ain’t there buddy!
Do you know that Hampshire moved? Really! It did! Bournemouth used to be in Hampshire and then it was in Dorset! Just like that! Lock stock and barrel! Just lines on a map, and they are all different you know! Yes! Different map makers draw the lines in different places!
The real stuff, that moves too! Water flows and ebbs, tides and currents, circulation, coasts erode and deposit, it all moves about! Bournemouth used to be in Hampshire and the Solent was there, now it has moved on the maps to Dorset, but it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t care!
I don’t care, that whole stretch of water is the Solent to me, I bagsied it, I was born nearby!
I have first choice, so sorry buddy, it’s all Solent to me, I have swallowed enough of it!
Map readers eh?
Wytch Farm is an interesting oil field.
The top sides for the wells and the process plant are all onshore. It is called Wytch Farm because that is the Farm the process plant is next to!
The reservoir is both offshore and onshore. The onshore section of the reservoir was not too much trouble. To access the offshore section BP would have liked to drill offshore from man made islands or platforms, but that was not allowed. Hence the onshore drilling from as near as they could get and the long reach horizontal wells from there.
If the offshore part of the reservoir is leaking to sea, it would be surprising.
A look at the OS map shows where some of the wells are. The nearest to being offshore are those on Furzey Island
The key issue was pipeline integrity as the various wells fed the product back to the process plant.
The plant was quite simple, being nowhere near the complexity of offshore platforms, and less power demand.
At its height it produced over 100,000bbl of oil a day, but dropped down considerably to around 18,000bbl by the time BP sold their share of it to Perenco (50.1%). Perenco took it over, being an private international company who produce from both onshore and offshore developments.
So the reservoir is both onshore and offshore, all the top sides infrastructure is onshore apart from any pipelines from Furzey to the mainland and it’s nothing like a Shale oil or gas development ( as its a conventional oil play that produces associated Hydrocarbons ).
An offshore section of the reservoir is accessed by deep horizontal wells.
I never saw a haze over Swanage or Wytch Farm, but you could see one over Bournmouth.
[Comment edited at poster’s request]
Swanage is well known to have its own weather, i have driven through Bournemouth in pouring rain and as you get to the Purbecks at Corfe, the sky clears and by the time you get to Swanage its brilliant sunshine.
I have some photos of the sky above Poole and Bournemouth banked up with clouds but Swanage is in bright sunshine, i also have some very dramatic storm cloud photos over Bournemouth taken from the observation point above the Corfe to Swanage road.
The haze stays mainly over Poole and Bournemouth, and seems to bank up at the cliffs, but it does also get to Swanage too.
i think i have just talked myself into going back there in the spring.
Good fish and chips as well
Hewes, you beat me to it! Completely agree.
The restaurant not the fast food one, and there is another on the right of the road just past the school as you come into Swanage, happy days.
Stevo-it may not be a coincidence that there is a huge oil refinery at Fawley dealing with thousands of ships in and out per year. Fawley has a very good record at improving water quality in the Solent but what these ships may drop off-shore is another matter. Best solution is to avoid that risk and produce from on shore sites.
I know that post was directed at Stevo, Martin, but you are absolutely right. Oil production in this country is better for the planet in a number of ways.
Well an interesting thread at last.
Conclusions from your posts:
that ‘it is usually possible to “type” crude oils back to their source field’ (stevo)
‘the test costs would be included with clean up costs, to be paid for by the polluter’s insurer’ (terri)
So would this have to be paid for upfront by the complainant?
Which is ‘very expensive, which was the only part i did help with, but what came back was a mixture of ship diesel, lubrication oil and crude oil and other chemicals, so it was unproven as to the precise source (Phil)
and the fish and chips in Swanage are the best 🙂
The solution:
More of these: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/11/brighton-rampion-wind-farm-turbines-renewables
means less oils slicks to analyse (sorry terri) and less oil and its derivatives to pollute the seas from whatever source, for Phil to sail.
Let’s all meet up for fish and chips sometime 🙂
‘I’m happy and proud to be part of a city that is, for the most part, cheerfully willing to do its bit for a brighter future. In fact, I now can’t wait until those giant blades start turning’.• Alice O’Keeffe
Sherwulfe, just to answer that question, ‘So would this have to be paid for upfront by the complainant?’ Me, being the contractor would pay, and I would recover costs subsequently. GC/MS (Gas chromatography, mass spectrometry) was about £100 (to ascertain oil type), and TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons) would be used to determine how much contamination was present in soil samples when dealing with contaminated ground, costing about £60 per test, so not at all expensive.
I believe that only about 40% of the oil that is produced is used in energy production, the remainder is used for plastics etc., so it is essential to us all. We need a balance of energy sources I believe.
[Typo corrected at poster’s request]
Thanks for that terri. Maybe this process could be useful for Phil?
I too believe in a balance of energy sources; that balance has to be tipped in favour of clean energy.
Crude can be fractioned into many products. However, as all of us now know, and sadly some still seem to dispute, we are on a timer here. Oil and its derivatives, including plastics are contributing to the destruction of our planet, wherever you get them from. Those of us in the developed world who are the biggest consumers, therefore the biggest polluters, need to act now to reduce consumption of these products.
Fortunately, despite our present governance dragging their proverbial feet due to fingers stuck in oily pies, the clean energy industry is expanding faster then anyone envisaged; technology that had been shelved or even suppressed is even coming into play, ethical investors are fueling the growth and consumers are seeing how clean energy can compete with the dirty stuff.
I look forward to seeing the seas clean again, enjoy your sailing Phil, and our reliance and addiction to this plastic killer suppressed before that fish and chips is so full of oil it is not worth eating.
This post has come from a computer powered by wind 🙂
Tanker trucks in Australia have been filmed spraying nearby roads with fracking waste, fracking waste was also filmed being dumped in a land fill quarry in USA. Hydrocarbon waste was dumped in a canal in UK,
It costs a lot of money to properly dispose of toxic waste, operators are all ready cagey about where toxic waste will be disposed of with the present favourite evasion of “its a secret” strategy.
That will only become more of a problem with the inevitable cost saving “solutions”.
‘Hydrocarbon waste was dumped in a canal in UK’. What does this actually mean, Phil? Sounds like a scare story against the O&G industry.
[Comment edited by moderator]
It’s one of the events that jas been discussed here on occasion.
http://www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/news/10971603.MP_demands_answers_on_why_waste_water_from_fracking_was_dumped_into_the_Manchester_Ship_Canal/
Perhaps that could be analysed to establish the origin. I don’t know who did the Poole testing but it was more than £500?
Are you trying to deceive Phil? ‘Hydrocarbon waste was dumped in a canal in UK’. That article clearly shows that no law was broken. The effluent released by United Utilities (the water treatment company) complied with the EA-granted licence.
It is distortion of the facts like that that feeds this nimby/neurotic culture.
Maybe you should do more reading before you pay over £500 for a simple lab test.
[Comments removed by moderator]
terri
You should hang around for a bit.
Your expertise would be welcome when any information relating to oil pollution and or sampling crops up on the site.
Examples would be
1. Anything from the Weald where those against ( and for ) oil production are carrying out their own sampling.
2. Any relevant issues re Cuadrilla ( so far just more silt than there should be I believe )
3. Whatever falls out of the baseline surveys issue at Kirby Misperton.
Read this, by an engineer, on the huge quandary of how to treat and dispose of fracking flowback and produced water. I doubt it can be done in an environmentally safe way, I doubt they can reduce those heavy metals to legal dumping levels other than by dilution – which is a joke, as they will still there in the same quantities. I doubt existing industrial water treatment plants would be able to cope with the high salinity. Then there’s the radioactivity, low, but how much of it if this industry scales up. Look at the figures for dumping in the North Sea – and that’s the amount they admit to. No, I am not coming for fish and chips. Plastic, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, often too many food miles. I am now careful to eat fish oly very occasionally, when someone cooks it for me. Give me lovely little turnips, plucked moments earlier from the garden, steamed, caramellised with a little organic rape seed oil and a drip of Sussex honey.
Here’s the paper on fracking waste waster:
http://www.after-oil.co.uk/fracking_wastewater.htm
Getting back to reality, well, the Saudi version of reality i suppose, this is the you tube video of the Sophia AI (no relation i hope) and she (it) was confirmed as a Saudi national citizen during a business event in Riyadh.
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/region/saudi-arabia/video-sophia-becomes-first-robot-to-receive-Saudi-citizenship
That in itself is quite interesting, since the AI robot is a female emulator and as such has achieved Saudi nationality citizenship, and it is not wearing a veil and perhaps has more freedom than a female in Saudi Arabia? Will she (it) be allowed to drive? Walk down the street without a male escort? Walk ten paces behind her programmer perhaps? The siyuation gets more bizarre the more i think about it?
I think Saudi Arabia is very complex. As a ‘new’ country, as part of the created ‘Middle East’ it is still working out what it wants with the people it holds. The oil has created an unbalanced society where money has magnified the original problems in culture and has not been helped by western interference.
I have hope that they will resolve some of the issues surrounding the treatment of women, things have progressed somewhat over the last few years; still along way to go.
Still after the revelations regarding Harvey Weinstein and others, unbelievably in prominent positions in our own society, we have a long way to go ourselves. It is easy to spotlight that which is on the surface, but underneath, well that’s a more difficult prospect altogether.
I have just observed the 2 minutes silence. War fueled by egos and grab for resources is such an ugly thing. RIP all those who were sent to your deaths in the two World Wars. By your sacrifice we enjoy our freedom. Let’s not waste it by bowing down to oppression.
Agreed, a few moments silence and some good music on Classic FM does wonders for the spirit.
Time to repair, not tear apart.
and to build, not destroy.
Rest In Peace all those who went before us and laid down their lives to give us this day.
And those who are still doing so, god help them.
I may not agree with you on other things Phil, but on this, well said.