Regulation

Rule change approved for Cuadrilla’s shale gas site despite fears of intensified fracking

PNR 171203 Ros Wills4

Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site, 3-4 December 2017. Photo: Ros Wills

Cuadrilla has been allowed to change controls on fracking and flaring at its shale gas site near Blackpool.

The Environment Agency announced yesterday that it had approved variations to the environmental permit on the volume of fracking fluid and the duration of flaring.

Friends of the Earth has opposed the changes for the Preston New Road site, saying they could lead to more intensive fracking and more lorry loads of potentially radioactive waste on Lancashire roads.

Volume of fracking fluid

The original permit, grated in January 2015, allowed Cuadrilla to pump 765m3 of fracture fluid a day.

Under the change, the company could pump up to 765m3 per fracture stage. Cuadrilla has confirmed that it could carry out multiple fracture stages in a day.

Friends of the Earth said the change could intensify fracking at the site, with no limit on how many fracking stages would be allowed daily.

It had called on the Environment Agency to undertake a full assessment of treatment techniques available to process the waste flowback fluid on site to minimise the volume of potentially radioactive waste that would be transported on local roads.

The organisation also said there were discrepancies in Cuadrilla’s figures for flowback fluid and, as a result, the number of tankers needed to transport it. Tanker movements could top 2,000 if the company was unable to reuse some of the fluid, Friends of the Earth said.

But the Environment Agency wrote in its decision document:

“There is no increase in risk to groundwater associated with this change. The maximum quantity of waste flow back fluid that can be stored on site has not been changed and remains at 3,000 cubic metres.”

It added:

“In the event that the operator [Cuadrilla] could not somewhere to take their waste, the operator would have to take the necessary measures to ensure that no further waste of this type is generated until alternative treatment/disposal routes were in place.”

The EA also said:

“Any increase in vehicle movements that may result from this change would be managed by the operator in accordance with their planning permission and would be regulated by the local authority.”

PNR 171201 Ros Wills4

Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site, 1 December 2017. Photo: Ros Wills

Flaring duration

The original permit allowed Cuadrilla to flare waste gas during the initial flow testing phase for 90 days for each of the four proposed wells.

The variation permits the company to flare for a total of 360 days for the whole site.

In its decision document, the EA said the change allowed Cuadrilla to be more flexible. The company could spend more time testing the earlier wells without increasing the overall duration.

The EA said the change would not result in harm to human health or the environment.

According to the decision document, an EA screening exercise had concluded that the “predicted environmental concentration of each pollutant modelled is not expected to exceed 70% of the applicable environmental quality standard and as such and EQS breach is considered highly unlikely.”

The EA said Cuadrilla would have to maintain a daily flaring register, recording each day on which flaring of any duration took place, up to a maximum of 360 days. Cuadrilla would have to include its proposed seven-day commissioning periods for the two proposed flares within the 360-day total.

The EA added that the actual environmental performance of the flare would now be monitored, instead of the previous scheme which relied on monitoring by calculation. There would also be “strict” annual emission limits for oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and total volatile organic compounds, the EA said.

Fracturing plans

Under the revised permit, the EA said it required a separate hydraulic fracturing plan for each individual well, rather than one plan for all four wells. It said:

“This will allow the Environment Agency to scrutinise and review each stop of the process as operation proceed on site.”

It would also allow Cuadrilla to update and refine subsequent hydraulic fracturing plans, the EA said.

PNR 171201 Ros Wills5

Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site, 1 December 2017. Photo: Ros Wills

Flaring plan and procedures

The EA said Cuadrilla must produce an updated site plan showing the location and designation of the two proposed flares before flaring could start.

The application for permit variations did not include detailed operational procedures and controls for the flaring activity, the EA said. Cuadrilla must also provide these procedures for approval before flaring.

Seismic monitoring

The permit changes allow Cuadrilla to monitor any seismic events using downhole seismic geophones. The original permit required an array of monitors on the surface.

The EA said the variation would result in more accurate information. While one well was being fracked, an adjacent well could be used to monitor fracture growth, it said. .

Cuadrilla had agreed to use the government’s traffic light system for seismic events from 4 weeks before injection operations to 2 weeks afterwards, the EA added.

Smell

The EA said odour was “not considered likely to be an issue” because the site was 250m away from what were described as “the nearest sensitive receptor”.

Noise

The EA said:

“Noise and vibration are not considered to be an issue due to the design of the flare, the rural location of the site, the distance to the nearest receptor … and the level of background noise”.

In response to concerns about noise, the EA said:

“In the unlikely event that the activities give rise to pollution due to noise and vibration outside the site, a noise and vibration management plan be requested.”

Pollution

The EA said it was satisfied that appropriate measures were in place to prevent environmental accidents that may cause pollution. If there were an accident, the consequences would be minimised, the EA said.

Trust and competence

The EA said some people who took part in its consultation on the permit changes were concerned about Cuadrilla’s competence and its lack of transparency when dealing with the public.

Four permit breaches have been recorded against the company since operations began at Preston New Road in January 2017.

But in its decision document, the EA said:

“We have no reason to think that they [Cuadrilla] would not comply with permit requirements and conditions.”

People who took part in the consultation also said Cuadrilla had not explained the scope of the changes and that the information was different from that in the planning application. But the EA said it was satisfied there was sufficient detail to decide to vary the permit.

The EA said it received 189 responses to the first public consultation on the permit changes, ending in August 2017. There were 33 responses to its consultation on the draft decision which closed last month.

Links

Environment Agency decision document on permit variation (11 December 2017)

Revised permit EPR/AB101MW (11 December 2017)

Environment Agency documents about Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site

70 replies »

  1. One can assume Martin has a car without a steering wheel or brakes. What could go wrong without them is pure speculation. They should be added only when you have made that discovery.

  2. Not a kind way to refer to refracktion, Sherwulfe! I’m sure his diesel is his pride and joy.

    Not a very good analogy, PhilipP. Do I really want a car with the controls on the left? No, I think I just might go for one which has been researched and developed to suit UK roads, with the controls on the right. But, I am sure you can speculate about the “problems” with US motors to your hearts content-Giggle is full of such “information”. You know what they say about those who assume, but it is an understandable, slight, adjustment from speculation.
    Meanwhile, I must away to put at least 15 litres of petrol into my Hybrid otherwise it will not run from the battery! Technology is a marvellous thing. Come on Jim-get that pipe repaired.

  3. Funny logic Martin. Do you really think they’re reinventing fracking, clustered well-pads and horizontal drilling procedures here? Do you think the knowledge and expertise of shale gas extraction, best drill bits and site practices aren’t shared internationally? Funny how all the terminology is identical. Funny how the arial shots of pad sites look the same. You really add new meaning to the word fuzzy logic.

  4. You need to do some more wider research PhilipP, and you might just find you are incorrect in the statements you have just made. If you do not want to take the trouble, just concentrate a little more on USA and research what has happened with regard to fracking there in the last decade and the changes made, and why. You add new meaning to poor research.

    Here’s some better information for you-” Supply crisis forces UK to import Russian gas”. Arriving on 28th December from the Russian Arctic-a great step forward against climate change!! Not only Russia, but the Arctic too. But, of course, that must be fake news because we are “told” we have secure energy supplies! Never mind, over the horizon reality so let’s ignore it.

    • You should investigate beyond the Times Martin. While you reflect it’s mindset and biases it’s worth researching more broadly. Who owns the North Sea pipeline that has been shut down? INEOS. Who stands to benefit from the rising prices forced by this shutdown? INEOS. Who gets more leverage in argument for fracking in the UK (as a consequence of those rising prices)? INEOS. What other reasons might there be to take LNG from Russia than the USA? Oh yes, the storm surges and flooding in the gulf area have seriously impacted the USA O&G export trade from those port facilities. What amplified those problems to such catastrophic levels? Oh yes, climate change.

      Anyway your argument is otherwise irrelevant given that it even if onshore shale gas was a real goer for the UK (highly debatable) it would take 15 years or more to ramp it up production to the levels needed to make a dent in the bigger picture. How’s it been going in the 5 years to date?

  5. When was the pipeline built PhilipP? When did Ineos buy it? 25% capacity of Ineos Grangemouth refinery shutting next week. Looks like a real money spinner! “What other reasons…?” They are very apparent if you check how a buyer can replace lost materials urgently and economically, and nothing to do with your speculation.

    Your level of research is really so minimal, it is not so surprising you make so many errors. Sorry to be critical, but it would be against the anti “code” of DYOR if such errors were not corrected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.