Preston New Road shale gas site, 25 October 2017. Photo: Used with the owner’s permission
The shale gas company, Cuadrilla, has applied to dispose of water which collects on its fracking site near Blackpool into a brook instead of removing it by tanker.
The proposal, made in a 23-document application to the Environment Agency published yesterday, is another variation of the company’s permit for the Preston New Road site.
Earlier this week Cuadrilla was allowed to change environmental controls on issues including seismic monitoring, duration of flaring and the daily maximum use of hydraulic fracturing fluid. DrillOrDrop report
The new change, now open for a public consultation until 26 January 2018, is to pipe uncontaminated surface water into the nearby Carr Bridge Brook and install a treatment plant at the shale gas site.
Frack Free Lancashire said it was disappointed that Cuadrilla appeared to be able to “move the regulatory goalposts at will”.
People have already opposed the move by objecting through the Environment Agency’s consultation webpage. One person said:
“This is an exact example of how opening the door to Cuadrilla enables a foot in the door and tiny tweaks and variations overtime considerably change the application that was first permitted.”
Details
Several times this year there has been surface water flooding at the site. In April 2017, the Environment Agency told Cuadrilla to improve its surface water management after it breached the permit conditions by allowing water from the site to reach a tributary of the Carr Bridge Brook. DrillOrDrop report
Stack of drill pipe. The pipes are connected together and fed down the well as drilling proceeds. Once drilling is completed, the pipes and drill bit are removed from the well. Photo: Still from Cuadrilla webcast
The Preston New Road site has an impermeable membrane which is designed to prevent chemical spills reaching local streams or groundwater. But this means that rain collects on the surface.
Under the present system, the rainwater drains into perimeter ditches and is then taken by tanker to an offsite waste treatment facility.
Cuadrilla wants to pipe the water into the Carr Bridge Brook just over 1km away. The company said the water would first be collected in a holding tank, tested and, if necessary, treated before disposal in the brook.
Cuadrilla said:
“This approach will benefit the environment and project by eliminating or significantly reducing tanker movements from the site and to control surface water attenuation.”
It said the lower number of tanker movements would reduce emissions, noise and air quality impacts.
The non-technical summary, which is part of the application, said the process could change the water chemistry. But it said the discharged water would be monitored and “benchmarked against Environmental Quality Standards”.
The rate at which water was piped into the brook would be controlled to “ensure the levels do not exceed the natural runoff rate”, Cuadrilla said.
But a comment on the Environment Agency’s consultation said the brook fed into a main dyke which regularly overflowed. The additional water in the brook and dyke system would also have a negative impact on local wildlife, which included protected water voles and otters.
The surface water management plan, which also accompanies Cuadrilla’s application, said the maximum daily discharge would be 480m3. This is the equivalent of discharging the pipes and full ditch contents more than twice per day, or 20m3 per hour. This is expected only during extreme and intense rainfall, the company said.
Cuadrilla said the discharge rate should not exceed 24.8 litres/second, a rate based on the rainfall expected in a 1-in-30 year storm.
The treatment plant would use a chemical-free electrocoagulation technology, Cuadrilla said. It is capable of handling up to 10m3/hour.
The company said installing a new sewer to dispose of water would be “disproportionate” because the current planning permission required drilling and hydraulic fracturing to be completed in 30 months. There was also no planning permission for a new sewer.
It added that after drilling and hydraulic fracturing, the risk of contamination to surface water quality was low so rainfall could be discharged into the brook without processing.
Reaction
A spokesperson for Frack Free Lancashire said:
“We are highly disappointed that Cuadrilla appears to be able to move the regulatory goalposts at will. The situation seems to change on a weekly basis as they salami-slice their conditions for their own benefit.
“For example, we are now on Version 11 of the Traffic Management Plan. The application to discharge fluids into the local watercourses is simply another example of Cuadrilla putting the local environment at risk in interests of their own economic expediency.”
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
I know Sherwulfe, terrible isn’t it. I have a number of downpipes from my property. They take the rain water off my roof which is designed not to allow it to disperse naturally, and then into a soak away, that then allows the water into my garden and when the water table rises in the winter it then enters the local brook, because I have installed land drains, like most farmers! Absolutely shocking. The same brook that was taking the yellow water (clay subsoil) from the 40+ new house building site up the road, because the council had not sucked the road drains clear this year and the water flowed down the road, over the road drains and then into the brook-which was already a yellow brook due to recent heavy rainfall. More shock, horror.
Even your premise is incorrect, unfortunately. When the pad is returned to agricultural use you somehow assume that animals will be kept off that land. Simple economics would suggest that with the income from Cuadrilla removed the land owner will not only need to stock his animals over that land again, but might even have to increase their stocking density! So, where does the “none” come from? There is one answer to this Christmas cracker of a quandary-an uninhabited desert! (Unfortunately, many of them soon get covered in oil/gas rigs! Life’s not fair.)
Martin, you appear to be living in a twilight zone as you have ‘answered’ a post to me which does not exist?
If you have a problem with the housing development, you should take it up with the developers and of course the EA.
The ‘none’ refers to no pollution, keep up.
I’d advise the farmers to do their own research Martin . Here’s something to kick off with http://www.mintpressnews.com/livestock-falling-ill-in-fracking-regions/211720/
I know I know there’s someone called Mr Giggle who makes all this stuff up (because its from the internet). Just as the queen makes up everything that you receive via the Royal mail right?