240+ households share Cuadrilla’s shale gas community payment

pnr180101 Ros Wills 3

Cuadrilla’s rig at Preston New Road, near Blackpool, 1 January 2018. Photo: Ros Wills

Cuadrilla said this morning more than 240 households living near its Preston New Road shale gas site near Blackpool have received a share of a £100,000 community benefit payment.

The company said 85% of entitled local residents had applied for the money. The payment is linked to the second shale gas well drilled at Preston New Road.

The £100,000 was split proportionately between households living within 1.5km of the site, Cuadrilla said. Households within 1km were entitled to about £2,000. Those between 1km and 1.5km were entitled to £150.

Money linked to the first well was paid into a community benefit fund. Grants from this fund will be paid to community projects local to the site in early spring this year, the company said.

Cuadrilla’s Chief Executive, Francis Egan, said in a statement:

“We are delighted to have made these payments directly to local householders after listening to their views on how the community payment should be distributed.

“It was encouraging to see so many of those entitled for a share of the £100,000 applying, with over 240 households local to the Preston New Road exploration site benefiting.

“Together with over 50 local jobs created and nearly £5m being invested to date in Lancashire, our community benefits initiative is another important example of how we are committed to putting Lancashire first from our shale gas exploration.”

28 replies »

  1. Strange. I thought PNR was a stain upon democracy in face of local opposition. Instead, a far greater number see it as a cash cow.

    • Indeed Peeny – it’s quite uplifting that 15% seem to have had strng enough principles to tell Cuadrilla where to shoe their bribe. Or maybe they are just rightly cautious about the legal implication of accepting it and then trying to sue Cuadrilla should anything go wrong.

      • It looks like a full 85% of locals aren’t so opposed to fracking that they won’t accept money from it, eh?

  2. 240+ households with a “built In” income stream. Hope local estate agents incorporate that into any property descriptions. Should boost property values!

  3. Let’s see, the (on average) £400 approx for 12 years of nuisance makes an income stream of about £2.80/month. Terrific. Quids in if the flows are unsuccessful and the company goes away though.

  4. A payment of £2000 is inadequate compensation for a heavy industrial process being developed within 1km of your home and a £150 payment is quite frankly a joke. And if a suitable yield is applied to reflect the risk associated with having fracking on your doorstep, the figures when capitalised could never add value to a residential property. There is a very real risk that fracking activity will make residential property less desirable and cause a fall in capital values. The entire system is inequitable and legally wholly inadequate and arbitrary.

  5. Ahh,
    How very generous of them I must say. ” Let’s offer a little incentive to appease the locals” after all it’s all about the money honey” sherking the responsibility of actually caring for our environment just for the sake of having a couple of extra quid ! Pathetic…

  6. Well PhilipP and KatT, I really can’t see the use of making calculations based on an INITIAL payment and then indicating it is the total. I appreciate some others may not see the deception, but I really doubt it is many. But then, the pup has already been sold that very few would accept the “blood money” so I suppose it is the next logical step along the false trail, meandering off to the Lake District where (ironically) they are about to remove wind turbines to try and add value to the area.

    • A fall of say between 10% and 20% in the capital value of a residential property could not be compensated by capitalising dribs and drabs of payments that form part of an arbitrary scheme.

  7. Will not cover their home insurance gap which will appear when fracking starts damaging property. Oh but they must have done their research.

  8. You may be right KatT, (for those capitalists in high value property) but as the payment is per well it really depends on the numbers in that location (is an “octopus” 8 or 1?) Plus the community funding plus a percentage of any returns.
    What is it you get for a wind turbine over your back fence or a solar farm? Just peace of mind (or piece of bats) for the turbines?

  9. It’s been said that migration to the area is on a par to the Klondike Gold Rush of 1897, as fortune hunters fight outside estate agents for available properties located near to the Cuadrilla site .

    £150.00 for 95% of the residents, they’ve really hit the Big Time.

    Cuadrillas site at Preston New Road is NOT in a densely populated area…. Can you imagine the cash bonanza residents in the more populated areas of Manchester may receive ….. Such a cash windfall may only stretch for a Fish and Chip meal for a family of four.

    • By my reckoning you will be lucky to get enough for a bag of cut price oven wedges from your local German supermarket 😉

    • Jackthelad. Now you are admiting Lancashire is NOT densely populated. How contradictory to anti frackers claims Lancashire is highly populated and not suitable for fracking. You can’t have both ways.

      • No TW .

        With 288 properties within 1.5 km of Cuadrillas site. Each property containing at least one resident, maybe four , five six, who knows ..

        That’s still a LOT of people to put at risk….. OR do you TW think that number is small enough to take a chance with health wise ?????

      • TW

        Cuadrilla told us:

        29 households are within 1km of the site

        259 households are between 1km and 1.5km of the site

        Assuming these households follow the national average there will be 2.14 people on average in each one.

        The area covered by the 1km limit is 3.14 km2 and the area covered by the outer 1-1.5 km ring is 3.9 km2

        This leads us to conclude that the population density within 1km of the site is about 20/km2 and in the 1km-1.5km area about 141/km2 (the difference is probably largely due to it including the Carr Bridge site).

        These are both considerably lower than the average population density of Lancashire which is 483/km2.

        Preston New Road was no doubt selected for a variety of reasons as the “poster pad”, the relatively low population density no doubt being one of them.

        If the population densities had been the Lancashire average the payments would have been about £85 and £43. Wowzers!

        You’re welcome

Add a comment

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s