Miranda Cox at a demonstration outside Lancashire County Council in Preston, 14 December 2017. Photo: George Brown
In this guest post, Miranda Cox, a member of Kirkham Town Council in Lancashire, reflects on the opposition to Cuadrilla’s shale gas site nearby at Preston New Road. Last week, Lee Petts wrote about his impressions of the company’s operation.
It’s been a very strange year for those of us in the anti-fracking campaign. We have made bonds forged in adversity and we have pushed ourselves to the very limits of our mental and physical tolerances.
Some of us, who previously have never protested, have been arrested and criminalised; we have been physically hurt and traumatised by a deep sense of betrayal.
Speak to many involved at the roadside or behind the scenes, and they all tell the same story, that fracking changed the way they view the whole world.
It’s a changed view not just about the environment but also about politics, democracy, economic and social norms that once accepted, are now challenged.
The sense of betrayal is directed at those authorities we have spent a lifetime respecting and expecting to be protected by.
The past month in particular, has highlighted beyond doubt that this battle is as much about our fight for democratic justice as it is about our desire to stop an industry we firmly believe is toxic to the environment, to politics and our communities.
Lancashire County Councillors vote to amend a condition of Cuadrilla’s planning permission, 13 December 2017. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Wednesday’s narrow vote in the Lancashire County Council’s Development Control committee to allow yet another variation in Cuadrilla’s traffic management plan, is a highly concerning political development.
Without rehearsing the argument that planning was originally refused by LCC, when it was led by Labour, it is clear that the new Conservative administration seeks to behave as their parliamentary counterparts, by resolutely voting along party lines.
Inconsistent
There is growing resistance to fracking across the world with a number of investors divesting from construction schemes and pensions. Even the UK Government is not consistent in the message that this new fossil fuel has a place.
The economic argument is being debunked, and the safety credentials are questioned. Theresa May’s Government is attempting to re-brand as a green party whilst shamelessly pursuing fossil fuel extraction at the expense of renewables. It is an agenda of chasing short-term financial gain ahead of any responsibility to the environment or communities.
The blatant denial of evidence from the US and Australia is leaving England isolated. For a government intent on unionism it is following an isolationist agenda on fuel. Scotland has banned fracking and there’s a moratorium in Wales.
It therefore is so painful that planning conditions are changed regularly to suit the Industry rather than protect the residents, as is the purpose of planning regulations.
The fact that county councillors and officers, who rarely visit the site, who know little about protesters, appear to wave through changes based on assumption.
“Self-regulation”
Surface water flooding at Cuadrilla’s shale gas site, 25 October 2017. Photo: Alan Finney
In the past year, Cuadrilla at the Preston New Road site has been found wanting regarding its water management, health and safety and communication. There have been numerous traffic breaches and acts of violence. Reports made by protectors have highlighted these issues.
Regulators told a community liaison Group that they “were learning on the job”. Cuadrilla is, in effect, self regulating, whilst maintaining a public facade of being a good neighbour.
Its investment in school science competitions, awards ceremonies and children’s sports is a conventional PR tactic and is combined with online astro-turf groups attempting to discredit dissident voices.
Dismay
The fact the Environment Agency passed a variation in the fracking process and that LCC passed yet another traffic alteration against this background, has left many dismayed.
Adding to this cauldron of mistrust and anger are the police. Earlier this week, I had sight of some notes from a police and crime authority meeting. Fracking featured, naturally, as the police response to the protest so far has been controversial and expensive.
The injuries sustained to protesters (this writer included) include broken fingers, torn ligaments and cartilage, bruises, concussion, loss of consciousness. People have been dragged, wheelchair users tipped, people tripped, shoved and pushed.
Repeatedly we are told that the aim is to be even-handed but the balance consistently falls in favour of the industry. Scenes such as this are repeated in Yorkshire and Derbyshire, so the conclusion is that it is a deliberate attempt to curtail protest.
Police narrative
Protest outside Lancashire County Council in Preston, 14 December 2017. Photo: Frack Free Lancashire
The briefing notes repeated the idea protesters are not local, ignoring the many locals who are roadside, or attending meetings and working behind the scenes.
This narrative of “local”and therefore legitimate, against “national” and therefore a trouble maker, has been played out since day one and repeatedly challenged by those who have been part of the demonstrations.
Unfortunately there is a disingenuous element to the Police s relationship with the community.
On one hand we are told in meetings that our rights to protest are upheld but actions on the ground have been the opposite. Despite attempts to reassure us, the fact we know what is being “spun” to authorities and the media away from the front line leaves us distrustful.
Our community relationship with our police will never be recovered.
For now, many view the force as security guards for corporate interests. Those who have seen other campaigns forewarned us, but for many the realisation has been difficult.
The police collusion in facilitation of fracking is clear when myths about protesters are perpetuated in police community meetings, repeated by the media and used as “evidence” in planning meetings.
“Shouting into the void”
Many town and parish councillors are frustrated by their inability to be heard amid the clamour to enforce the fracking agenda.
Residents are determined, when they are aware of the issues, pushing themselves to make their presence felt, while others are cowed by fear or simply don’t believe their actions will make a difference.
I understand that.
Having stuck my head over the parapet I know how hard it is to keep going, to keep shouting into the void, to make complaints.
We are fighting an entire system, not just one industry.
We are faced with a Government infiltrated by oil and gas lobbyists, and faced with a County Council and regulators incapable of robust action. And we are fighting perceptions too, as we have a media, which at best, likes to paint anti-fracking campaigners as extremists, or at worse just ignores the protest.
As we prepare to rally resistance to a second site, tucked away in rural Fylde at Roseacre, we cannot help believe that even-handed judgement is a thing of fiction.
This post first appeared on social media and the Frack Free Lancashire website
Categories: guest post
DRILL OR DROP? 
You’ve been sold-out by your own, soon to be even more, sovereign government.
A truly exasperating read in this article. The lady in the picture is dressed head to toe in synthetic polymer garments, clutching her (synthetic polymer) mobile phone. I guess she enjoys a modern, comfortable lifestyle, and why not? But for the life of me, I can’t understand why said lady doesn’t recognise where all that synthetic polymer comes from. It comes from oil and gas. The very stuff she seems determined to prevent being extracted from under her feet. Presumably, the lady is perfectly happy to consume the essentials of the modern way of life she enjoys, based on the oil and gas that’s extracted overseas, processed into polymers, made into consumer goods and then sold to her here in the UK. Exporting our jobs and our wealth overseas in the process. Presumably, she doesn’t mind at all where the oil and gas comes from, just so long as it is not from under her own feet? Has the lady turned her heating up in the cold snap, I wonder? Burning the gas from Qatar, Norway, Russia, and elsewhere? I dare say she doesn’t give that a single second of thought. Protest all you like, but at least stop for a minute to consider how credible your protesting looks. Right now, to me, it looks rather lacking in the credibility department.
Some wild assumptions there Fred Blogs. Firstly the picture doesn’t show a ‘head-to-toe’. How do you know that’s not a woolen hat and scarf or some blend of natural fibers? OK the jacket looks like gore tex, a kind of PTFE, but I’m sure she’d be happy with alternatives. The phone? well, Apple have proved you can make the bodies for those from cast and machined metal alloys – just as the microphone which looks like a plastic handle but is actually anodized alloy. Then there’s your implied assumption that whatever polymer products she uses needs to come from onshore (UK) ‘fracked’ hydrocarbons – why? There is nothing in her argument against O&G per se . So your implication of hypocrisy doesn’t wash I’m afraid.
I think the most important point she makes is that this government is “shamelessly pursuing fossil fuel extraction at the expense of renewables” and the context for this clearly is her beef about assault on democracy due to the insistence on local fracking. With a government kowtowing to aggressive lobbying, being diverted the promise of shale gas I believe England has abdicated a potential world leadership position in the drive for better cleaner alternatives and being a good global citizen regarding the climate change issues. Some such innovations are being pursued by UK industry but the government’s dalliance and diversion of funds and tax incentives towards yet another fossil fuel industry, with decades of dependency on more hydrocarbons as a consequence, is showing how our leaders’ heads are firmly stuck in the FF tar-pits.
Well said Phil.
Nice name Fred Bloggs! Guess it’s not your own?
Anyway we who live in the shadow of the 3 mile danger zone of PNR fracking site love this lady unconditionally! She and others have dedicated the last year and more to Democratically fighting Fracking!
Bribery and lies haven’t beaten them yet and we are determined they won’t!
Two outstanding Judicial Reviews into the decisions to overturn Democracy and turn the Fylde Peninsula into the largest Gasfield in Europe are due to conclude shortly. If science and truth are listened to fracking should be finished, not just in Lancashire but throughout England!
It’s already finished virtually EVERYWHERE ELSE and for very good reasons.
Study the 174 page List of the Harmed if you have any further doubts.
Well said Fred. Or should I say “Right Said Fred”.
The anti frackers used emotional blackmail and scare mongering tactics to wage a psychological compaign on those with legitimate concerns. They make it out as if they are victimized and being the saviour of mankind. Some of them are true but most are just exaggerated concerns and emotional tactics.
Has someone hacked your handle TW; you sound different?
No one is professing to be the saviour of mankind, well no one in this altercation. These people are fighting for their way of life to be restored, some have gone further after DYOR and realise the implications to society and to the planet. Please don’t negatise this, without them you will surely end up in a country that is even more ‘fracked up’ and a world where humans no longer exist.
Sherwulfe. I agree with your principles of rights to protest and legitimacy. Absolute power lead to corruption and that applies to both sides od the debate. But the anti frackers exaggerated concerns and emotional tactics are annoying and does not help in this debate and modern society where facts and scientific facts need to be examined in its true form and merits so that we can make informed decision and facilitate progresses.
There has to be a balance, I agree TW. Sadly the ‘facts and scientific facts’ are here and have been ‘examined in its true form and merits’ but ignored, so ‘we’ have made ‘informed decision’ and now ‘facilitate progress’ in action. I am sorry this annoys you as you feel it is too emotional, but at least we have touched a nerve.
‘ in synthetic polymer garments; interesting that you have brought this up Fred. Recent studies have shown that clothes made from oil based products are contaminating the sea, not from floating around like the plastic bags, but from washing these items and flushing the water containing tiny polymer particles into the oceans, which are then entering the food chain via marine life and subsequently, yes, you guessed it, us. Scientists in the ‘know’ are now refusing to eat fish, they feel it that serious.
So the question will arise soon, do we continue to use these products and pollute our food supply or carry on regardless? Time to go back in time. Back to natural and ethically sourced fabrics; yes there are places in the world that still make these. Leave what’s left of the oil and gas in the ground where it belongs? Now there’s a thought………
Allow me to paraphrase this article briefly: “When democracy works in a fashion that doesn’t suit me, I will kick and scream and say that it’s not democracy. I believe that I have the moral authority to dictate what is right for the UK despite the fact that the plurality of voters has disagreed with my opinion. Whenever possible, I will make emotive arguments and will avoid factual reference in this debate.” Thank you Miranda!
‘plurality of voters’ = meaningless phrase EKT. Never has this been put to the UK voters at large as a single issue. The government was not voted in on this single issue. Whenever it has been put to samples of the population as a single issue it is voted against. Democracy was defended by Cameron and Osborne when the Fracking issue was first put to the public by them (and this government is a continuation of theirs but with a reduced majority – not even a majority in fact) it was clearly stated that that local people would decide. That’s democracy.
But that’s the way that democracy works, is it not Philip? What percentage of issues are voted on in isolation at the national level? Almost none. Fracking was clearly part of the platform upon which the ruling government was built. There’s a reason that you wouldn’t put energy projects, highways, electric transmission lines, sewage treatment plants to a vote – no one wants them, yet we all need them. They are keeping you alive this cold winter, Philip.
Democracy isn’t limited to the local level, Philip.
Well, not keeping promises and the mismanagement of this issue is likely to be the last straw for this govt. Not hard to predict.
I’m sure like me,Philip, you will recognise the phrase “the plurality of voters” – it’s good to know that Peeny is eating his greens isn’t it, but how many IDs does he need on this page ?
What evidence from Australia ?
I wonder if the lady was so keen to tail against the O&G industry before it arrived in her backyard? I guess she was perfectly content when the industry was in someone else’s yard, not her own. Classic and unforgivable nimbyism here in the face of a vital new home grown energy resource for the nation, I suspect.
Certainly not in your back yard going by your time zone FB , or are you a night shift worker? It would be good if contributers disclosed names and where they are speaking from (roughly at least) and whether they have a financial stake in the industry before criticising those who will be most affected.
TW – without addressing the specific points raised and launching into a character assassination you reveal that you are being more emotional about the issues than those you try to delegitimise by name-calling as ‘blackmailers and scaremongers’.
For the record, though it is the business of nobody here – I will not disclose my real identity for the simple fact that the protestors could be climbing on my house, my trees, padlocking themselves across my drive and slow walking in front of my transport anytime they feel like. I have zero issue with objections and protests but I draw the line at intimidating and preventing law abiding citizens going about their lawful business.
I would also point out the rather obvious issue that every single person living a modern lifestyle has a stake in the oil and gas industry. The roads you drive on, the fertiliser you put on your lawn, the chiller cabinet in your local supermarket, the shoes on your feet. They are all products of the industry you wish to disrupt.
Did the lady protest outside Wilton or Grangemouth chemical factories, who are using shale gas now 24×7? Or was she not bothered because the shale gas came from fracked wells some distance from her backyard? If she did not, why does she feel her back yard is somehow more important than someone elses? It would be real interesting to know.
My backyard? Ineos, Cuadrilla, all are welcome to frack my backyard if they wish.
Fred.
No one will be ‘be climbing on my house, my trees, padlocking themselves across my drive and slow walking in front of my transport anytime they feel like’ – do not confuse your importance here.
‘They are all products of the industry you wish to disrupt’
– the industry NOT accepted here is unconventional oil and gas extraction, due to the process being controversial at best. It is not needed as we have more than sufficient reserves on the planet; should we burn what we have we will no longer see humans on this planet.
‘I would also point out the rather obvious issue that every single person living a modern lifestyle has a stake in the oil and gas industry.’;
– these are some of the products of the oil and gas industry, from which, due to several factors, the climate impact was not disclosed for so long. You cannot change things overnight, but these will indeed change. There is no blame on users of these products until the issues are ignored when the impacts known. There are many who are making positive changes to their lifestyle with the knowledge gained regarding the negative effects of products from oil and gas, like for example plastic in the ocean. As individuals we can choose products not wrapped in plastic as a conscious choice, where available.
There are always alternatives and many are taking them, that’s why the O & G giants are so spooked 🙂
This post comes to you from a computer powered by wind.
Dear Fred Bloggs, no-one is suggesting that if one does not support ‘fracking’ (your words) they must not use anything connected to fossil fuels. That would be rather immature. What people are suggesting is that we have no need to start a New Onshore Gas and Oil industry. It is not compatible with our / this Governments commitments to Climate Change. As for the wonderful Miranda Cox, her involvement was quite accidental. As a diligent local Councilor, she and other Councillors visited the Preston New Road site in order to see it first hand. She was absolutely shocked and disgusted by the way she and her colleagues were treated by the police on that day. Miranda and many, many other people like her could not just turn their backs and walk away. Nor will they. Respect.
So, you agree with me then that the O&G industry is an essential part the modern way of life. You agree with me that it is acceptable to import shale gas derived ethane from the USA. You agree that the lady referred above thinks that too. Just so long as the industry is in somebody else’s backyard. Do you really not see what you are advocating here?
Nobody has anything to fear in protesting against just about anything they choose in the UK. Done within the law and without impeding the lawful activities of others, then neither the police nor anyone else will have anything to say about it. O&G companies are going about their day to day activities. Within the law, they are free to do so. I hope the full force of the law is brought to defend their rights as well as those of the protesters.
Where is the evidence for the statement “at the expense of renewables”??? That is just nonsense, and there is no evidence of that in the UK. The UK is meeting carbon emission targets because of it’s policy supporting renewables, unlike many other countries.
Certainly, in my case, I support the test fracking in UK to determine whether we can replace some of the imported gas with UK sourced gas as it provides more energy security and produces tax revenue to help pay for things like the NHS, and my State Pension. Gas from Russia, Norway, Qatar etc provide neither of those.
Waffle-you live up to your name. Just check how much imported gas we use currently and the projections. The UK commitments to climate change are being met currently. If you replace one dollop of Norwegian gas with one dollop of UK gas please tell me the problem with that-apart from Nimbyism.
Once you start creating false arguments you are close to losing the debate.
‘Once you start creating false arguments you are close to losing the debate’ with the rubbish you have just posted above Martin, I’d say you have.
I agree apart from one major point. The UK has largely reduced its energy use by off shoring most of the UK manufacture base. Net reduction in global emission is zero to negative. Further damage to the economy by importing both primary energy and manufactured goods whilst at the same time exporting our wealth and our jobs is hurting our country severely. We have a serious and unsustainable trade deficit with the rest of the world. The answer to much of these issues lies right under our feet. Look to the USA where a huge re-shoring of manufacturing is taking place based on newly developed domestic tight oil and gas. Hundreds of thousands new highly skilled jobs are being created and soon the USA will be the worlds largest energy exporter too. The economic effect of the new energy resources is transformational in the USA. Can we have some of that economic growth and wealth too please?
‘We have a serious and unsustainable trade deficit with the rest of the world. ‘ I agree here Fred, but the shale industry is not the answer. We are a small, windy island that is one of the most densely populated in the world. It is just not safe to have the two side by side.
Now if you are to talking energy generation to improve on trade deficit, I would look to the clean energy industry, of which we can be world leaders, providing energy for home and for export, from generation and from development opportunities. Not only will this create ‘Hundreds of thousands new highly skilled jobs’ it would create a million opportunities.
https://www.campaigncc.org/greenjobs
Let’s not destroy the planet, land and communities; let’s improve, sustain and move forward.
As shown by the US, indeed tight gas is part of the answer. I am all in favour of developing more benign ways of supporting our modern society indeed I have said so before. A more sustainable future and a modern O&G industry are not exclusive. They are largely dependant on each other. At the present time there is no substitute for steel, concrete, ammonia, plastics, electronics, air travel, etc… Without O&G. It is likely to remain that way for a very long time indeed.
A hydrogen economy? Where does the hydrogen come from? A steam reformer. Electolysis, where does the base load power come from? A nuclear or CCGT station.
There seems to be little serious resistance to the idea that a modern O&G industry is essential to a civilised, modern society. Photo voltaic cells and wind turbines all need directly or indirectly, products from the O&G industry. That is indisputable really.
Until we can substitute hydrocarbon feed stock from algae or something else, then it’s going to stay that way for decades to come.
So, just what exactly are the protests about? We accept fracked ethane imports yet we don’t want the same at home?
Not in my back yard we don’t? Is that what the protesting is all about? At this juncture it is very hard to reach any other conclusion.
My back yard? Sorry, but along with other large areas of the UK the mineral wealth was extracted a number of decades ago from under there. Nobody protested back then. We just got on with meeting a national need for secure indigenous energy and wealth creation.
Fred; you are looking back not forward. Technology is advancing rapidly, quicker than most anticipated. Its not just what you use, but how you use it.
No one who opposes shale in the UK accepts fracked ethane imports. It’s JR and his crew who accept this to make even more plastic products to wash into the sea.
It’s a strange misconception that we cannot do without oil and plastics. What we cannot do without is energy, all products have substitutes.
What we can do without is more fossil fuel burn and plastic pollution. Shale oil and gas is a dirty product, but clearly, though the sector profess it to be for heating and energy production, it’s the ethane they are after.
We have all learned a lot from ways mineral extraction took place in the past; unfortunately no one has told the shale companies.There is no ‘national need’ for shale to meet ‘secure indigenous energy’ and ‘wealth creation’ it appears is only for the few not the many.