Fracking Week in Parliament
Blow-out preventer at Cuadrilla’s shale gas site at Preston New Road, near Blackpool. Photo: Cuadrilla’s PNR Live
The government has not estimated the potential effect on employment of shale gas, according to the Energy Minister, Claire Perry. Nor has it assessed the likely volume of flowback waste.
The lack of information came in response to a series of written parliamentary questions from the Conservative MP, Sarah Wollaston (left).
The answers, released yesterday, also produced no detail on what method would be used to dispose of waste from shale gas sites. In response to this question, the minister said:
“It is the operator’s responsibility to agree disposal methods with the appropriate regulators as part of their planning application for all shale gas development.”
Dr Wollaston, the MP for Totnes, is the chair of the parliamentary Health and Social Care Select Committee. She also chairs the Liaison Committee, made up of MPs who chair the House of Commons select committees. According to information from TheyWorkForYou, these were her first questions about shale gas.
She asked about the potential effect of projected shale gas sites referred to in the unpublished Implementation Unit Report on Shale gas. Contents from the report, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, indicated that the Implementation Unit estimated 17 sites by 2020, 30-35 sites by 2022 and 155 sites by 2025.
Dr Wollaston asked for Government estimates of the effect of these projected sites on:
- Employment
- Volume of flowback waste
- Disposal methods for flowback waste
Ms Perry (right) replied:
“BEIS [the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy] has not made any estimates of the potential effect on employment from the future development of the shale gas industry.”
And:
“The Government has not made an assessment of the amount of flowback waste which would be produced from any future shale gas development.”
No estimate on number of shale gas wells or their value
Yesterday’s written answers follow another set of ministerial replies about the industry earlier this week which also provided no information.
In these answers, reported by DrillOrDrop, Ministers confirmed there was:
- no up-to-date estimate on the number of shale gas wells in the UK for the period to 2030
- no news on a decision on Third Energy’s fracking consent
In reply to a question about the estimated value of UK shale gas reserves, a Treasury minister pointed to the most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook, produced by the Office of Budget Responsibility. But this did not refer to shale gas nor separate any contributions from the onshore or offshore oil and gas industries.
Transcripts
With thanks to TheyWorkForYou.com
Question by Sarah Wollaston, Conservative, Totnes, Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee and the Liaison Committee
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the Implementation Unit Report on Shale Gas, what estimate the Government has made of the potential effect on employment of the projected (a) 17 sites by 2020, (b) 30-35 sites by 2022 and (c) 155 sites by 2025.
Reply by Claire Perry, Energy Minister, Conservative, Devizes
BEIS has not made any estimates of the potential effect on employment from the future development of the shale gas industry.
Written answer, 2 March 2018, link to transcript
Question by Sarah Wollaston
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the Implementation Unit Report on Shale Gas, what estimate the Government has made of the amount of flowback waste which would need to be disposed of for the projected (a) 17 sites by 2020, (b) 30-35 sites by 2022 and (c) 155 sites by 2025.
Reply by Claire Perry
The Government has not made an assessment of the amount of flowback waste which would be produced from any future shale gas development.
Written answer, 2 March 2018, link to transcript
Question by Sarah Wollaston
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the implementation unit report on shale gas extraction, what disposal method will be used for flowback waste from (a) the 17 sites by 2020, (b) the 30 to 35 sites by 2022 and (c) the 155 sites by 2025.
Reply by Claire Perry
It is up to the operator to agree disposal methods with the appropriate regulators as part of their planning application for any future shale gas development.
Written answer, 2 March 2018, link to transcript
Question by Sarah Wollaston
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the Implementation Unit Report on Shale Gas, which disposal method is planned to be used for the projected (a) 17 sites by 2020, (b) 30-35 sites by 2022 and (c) 155 sites by 2025.
Reply by Claire Perry
It is the operator’s responsibility to agree disposal methods with the appropriate regulators as part of their planning application for all shale gas development.
Written answer, 2 March 2018, link to transcript
Categories: Politics
DRILL OR DROP? 
Oh Boy! Govt clueless and disinterested. It’s official. We all part with £millions to keep govt and their civil service in place and this is the sort of expertise and interest they have? I have little doubt they know the answers, but ‘no comment’ is a much safer admission. So it’s all to be decided and administered by the industry… who don’t want Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities to be involved. MPAs want to wash their hands of (not in) fracking waste water. EA expected to do it, but it’s mostly not their job – before we even get onto their available manpower and resources. Is it sensible and acceptable strategic planning to promote and encourage a whole new extractive industry, while ‘saying’ they have absolutely no idea about how huge quantities of heavily polluted waste will be dealt with, transported, treated or disposed of? Is that gold standard regulation or no regulation?
This is todays Ian R Cranes tribute video for today. It covers the government answers and goes on to Third Energy departure amongst others.
( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HZltO1lIzvo&feature=em-lbcastemail )
Oh hrb. You just focus on that and you will miss the real fun. (Perhaps that’s the idea-pretty little wooden horse isn’t it-bounce around it.)
Remember the rig delivery at PNR? Thought you had that one under control as well, I remember. Caught napping-some will have noted that. Maybe 1066 all over again.
“I’m struggling a bit here.” Well, that’s a surprise (not). Quite difficult for some to accept that others don’t believe in speculation morphing into fabrication. What did you expect-a range of dodgy posters with unsubstantiated claims?
… think you should take more water with it martin 😮
“Remember the rig delivery at PNR? ….Caught napping.”
Since the convoy including the rig blatantly broke the “Gold Standard” rules of the Traffic Management Plan set by LCC by entering the site by the wrong route and out of hours at around 4.00am I don’t believe Cuadrilla have anything to boast about. It’s just an example of their total, arrogance and the disregard they have for Regulations and the local population.
Pauline
Good to hear that the broken rules are nothing to do with fracking, just traffic management. Are all rules so blatantly disregarded over there in Lancashire, or is it lack of regulation, in that the regulator ( the council ) are fully aware of the breach, who did it and when, but have not taken the action you would like to see?
So, golden rules, Bronze Council?
The traffic management plan was part of the conditions placed on Cuadrilla’s planning permission in order to ensure safer traffic conditions for all road users, not just Cuadrilla and as such should be adhered to. The fact is that Cuadrilla are at present up to at least version eleven of the TMP, including Security workers who previously worked as night club bouncers now being allowed to authorise deviations from the TMP. Cuadrilla continue to dictate to LCC that their convenience is more important than public safety and LCC roll over. So much for regulators enforcing Gold Standard Regulations.
4.2 earthquake in Oklahoma just happened in middle of fracking Wells, just now.
Yes, they’ve had them up to 5.6. Oklahoma has become the man-made earthquake capital of the States… hardly any before fracking and waste water injection started around 10 years ago. It now surpasses California for quakes.
As I understand it more Oklahoma quakes are being caused by their injection of the toxic wastewater, under pressure, into deep underground cavities, than by the fracking itself.
Another 4.2 earthquake in Oklahoma fracking fields at 3 something this morning. Wonder how Wells are standing up to that and pipelines and storage containers for waste water?
The well casing was damaged from the earth tremor at Preese Hall – with the UKs one and only fracking trial to date.
Earthquake in Wales a short while ago. This fracking gets about doesn’t it! Before that, a large one in Scotland. Both countries not allowing fracking at the moment.
Obvious connection. Allow fracking to avoid earthquakes.
I could get used to the anti truth-just take a few unconnected pieces of information off the internet and connect them. It is so much easier than doing any research.
Research that you clearly haven’t done Martin – you cannot sort fact from fiction can you? It’s the same shtick you use to deny climate change science – infantalizing others’s by assuming they do not know how to do research or fact check their sources.
Oh dear, PhilipP. So, now you are more intelligent and adult. I think we can all claim that, but it doesn’t substantiate a debate, it just tries to claim an arrogant position of superiority. Often, clearly false. You certainly DYOR and checked your facts around the ownership of Third Energy. Now, we can all make errors, but why comment on a subject you obviously knew nothing about at the time and did not bother to research beforehand? If you want to excite others perhaps pay them the courtesy of having some intelligence.
I don’t deny climate change science, but I do deny the vast amount of dross that is utilised around it to generate a huge global gravy train.
Next, we will told that all these burst water pipes are somehow connected to seismic surveys. Oh, we’ve already done that one.
But, of course the earthquake one had to be dusted off and brought out prior to PNR fracking.
Clutching at straws…. so Martin, did the earth tremor caused by the fracking operation at Preese Hall damage the well casing or not? Facts only please. Have the induced earthquakes in Oklahoma led to multiple cases of law suits against oil and gas companies (including class actions) or not? Facts only (not waffle) please.
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
What goes on in Oklahoma is really no concern to me, neither is the (fact) that Americans will litigate about almost anything -hence Trump’s Paris decision. If I felt so inclined I could out trump you on litigation in the USA, PhilipP. I see that. as a pointless exercise, you see it as an opportunity to scaremonger. However, there have been plenty of those from the oil and gas industry who have repeatedly re-enforced that practice in USA is not the same as UK practice (facts) and that is one of the major reasons why I will avoid being excited about Oklahoma.
Preese Hall happened-things do. It doesn’t make it unavoidable (fact). If anything, it makes it less likely to happen again (fact). Farmer’s get killed by bulls in Oklahoma (fact), it means that others take extra care in the future (fact). Certainly doesn’t mean that all the dairy farms in Lancashire disappear based upon a precautionary principle (fact).
Sorry to burden you with so many facts, but it is probably good to get used to the diet to come.
“What goes on in Oklahoma is really no concern to me”
Speaks volumes doesn’t it?
strangely enough martin has a very close relative who was putting in ear tags at the nearby ostrich farm and he has confirmed that the problem with the well at preese hall was caused by the massive global gravy train which was passing on the nearby line
I’ll leave you to find the ears on an ostrich, hrb. Certainly there, but no tags possible. Wing tags yes-done that myself-but not with ostriches.
More anti truth. You can see how ingrained it becomes. 1984 compulsory reading at one of the teach ins?? 1984 by lantern light-just about sums up the alternative society.
I’d take anti-frack lantern lighting over pro-frack gas-lighting any day of the week Martin. 😉
i didn’t say that he was putting the tags on the ostriches just that he was at the ostrich farm
Ostriches and Martin have on very comparable habit 🙂