Photo montage of the proposed shale gas well site at Bramleymoor Lane, Marsh Lane. Montage: Eckington Against Fracking
The eight-day inquiry into Ineos shale gas plans for the Derbyshire village of Marsh Lane ended at lunchtime today.
The inspector, Elizabeth Hill, heard evidence from the company, Derbyshire County Council and the campaign group, Eckington Against Fracking.
Two QCs represented the council and the company.
The campaign group, Eckington Against Fracking, was represented for most of the inquiry by David Kesteven, its chair and a local gardener.
More than 30 members of the public spoke against the scheme, including the current and a former MP and the headteacher of the local school.
No-one, apart from Ineos witnesses, spoke in favour.
The inquiry concerned the first shale gas site in Derbyshire.
It was called because Ineos appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over what it said was unacceptable delays by Derbyshire County Council in deciding the application for a vertical coring well. Council officers had recommended the authority should not oppose the application at the inquiry but councillors voted by nine-one against.
The company wants to use a 60m rig to drill to a depth of 2.4km on land off Bramleymoor Lane. The purpose is to take samples of shale rock to assess whether the area is suitable for fracking. The Bramleymoor borehole would also be used as a listening well for nearby fracking. Ineos told the inquiry it was looking to source energy and raw materials for chemical businesses, including plastics, in the Ineos group.
In this review of the inquiry, we report on reaction from the three parties and look back on the key arguments and evidence from the past eight days.
Reaction
Ineos
A spokesperson for Ineos Shale told DrillOrDrop:
“INEOS Shale is disappointed that it was necessary for a Planning Inquiry to be held over the test drilling application at Marsh Lane – the kind of application that has been approved across England countless times before. However we are pleased to have an opportunity to discuss the science of the application and keenly await the decision of the Inspector.”
Lynn Calder, CEO of Ineos Upstream, at the end of the Marsh Lane inquiry. Photo: Eddie Bisknell
In an interview with local reporter Eddie Bisknell, Lynn Calder, Chief Executive Officer, Ineos Shale, attending the final day, said:
“We’re just standing here at the end of the two-week public inquiry from Bramleymoor Lane core well. We’re still a little bit disappointed that we had to sit in a room for two weeks, to take some core from the ground to test the geology. We don’t really think that helps anyone, dragging it out. We’d love to be back in the community talking about the development with a bit more data than we have today.
“But we’re also very pleased to have been given the opportunity to give our scientific case over the last couple of weeks and we’re also pleased that the local community had the option to have their say to the extent that they did. So hopefully, you know, everyone feels quite happy about that and now the decision is in the hands of the planning inspector.”
Asked if she was optimistic as she had been before the start of the inquiry, she said:
“Yes absolutely. We don’t want to pre-empt any decisions, obviously, and the decision is now with the planning inspector and we will respect her decision, but, yes, we feel that it has gone well.”
Derbyshire County Council
A spokesperson told DrillOrDrop:
“All parties at the public inquiry have put their case forward to the inspector and now we must wait for the inspector to weigh-up all the evidence put before the inquiry and reach a decision on whether or not the proposed development should be allowed to go ahead.”
Eckington Against Fracking
Eckington Against Fracking supporters outside the opening of the inquiry. Photo: DrillOrDrop
A spokesperson said:
“The appeal was about a planning application for an exploratory and listening well. The site is in the wrong place and too close to homes, schools and businesses.
“This well is a precursor to the development of massive industrialisation for the delivery of hydrocarbons that we do not need.
“A government-backed report on the security of energy supplies for the next 25 years modelled that the risk to security of supply was low.
“We need our children and grandchildren to become doctors, nurses, mental health practitioners, therapists, engineers, bricklayers, electricians and joiners, in well-paid, skilled jobs that secure our country’s sustainable needs. We don’t want them to be predominantly hgv drivers, moving toxic waste, silica sand and chemicals in order to serve an industry that is not sustainable and is toxic to humanity in many ways.
“We send a message from the many, not the few. This country belongs to the people, not the corporate giants that wish to ravish and pillage the north for the pockets of the few.”
Key issues and evidence
Listening well
The Bramleymoor Lane application proposed using the borehole as a listening well for fracking elsewhere.
Ineos revealed during the inquiry that the fractured well would be within 500m of Bramleymoor Lane.
Eckington Against Fracking described this news as “chilling”. Ineos said the inquiry could deal only with shale gas exploration but EAF said the listening well meant the application was also for shale gas appraisal.
Green Belt
Bramleymoor Lane where Ineos wants to drill for shale gas. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Ineos maintained that the scheme would not encroach on or be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The company said the Green Belt would “not be harmed in any way”. It cited inquiries for oil and gas schemes at Harthill in South Yorkshire and Bury Hill Wood (Leith Hill/Holmwood) in Surrey. But if the inspector ruled that it was inappropriate development, then the company argued there were very special circumstances that outweighed any harm to the openness of the Green Belt. These included the geology of the site and government support for shale gas exploration, the company said.
Derbyshire County Council said the Marsh Lane scheme would harm the openness of the Green Belt. It would have an urbanising effect and introduce unnatural landforms. There were no special circumstances that outweighed this harm, the council said, particularly because shale rocks cover a very wide area. The Marsh Lane was inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the council concluded.
Eckington Against Fracking urged the inspector to protect what it called “our little piece of paradise” from harm and encroachment. The group said Ineos had chosen a site in the Green Belt because land was cheaper there. It had made a choice not to use non-Green Belt land, the group said.
Alternative sites
Derbyshire County Council said there was no evidence before the inquiry that Ineos had considered sites outside the Green Belt, even though nearly half the exploration licence area, PEDL300, was non-Green Belt land.
Eckington Against Fracking witness, the local MP, Lee Rowley, said an executive of the oil and gas industry organisation had said drilling could happen in urban areas.
Ineos said this was “extremely prejudicial” evidence and should not have been raised. It said discussions with landowners about alternative sites were confidential and commercially-sensitive. The company said geologically the Marsh Lane site offered the best prospect of finding shale gas in the licence area. It could data from a former well drilled in 1987 alongside the site.
PEDL 300. Map: UK Onshore Geophysical Library
Local planning policy
Ineos evidence accepted there would be a “technical breach” of the local development plan which included a policy to protect and enhance the Green Belt. But the company maintained that overall the Marsh Lane scheme complied with the Development Plan.
Eckington Against Fracking said the proposal conflicted with local policies GS1, GS2 and GS6 that seek to protect the Green Belt, enhance the life of communities and limit noise and intrusion.
Derbyshire County Council also argued that the development was contrary to local planning policy.
Government support for shale gas
Ineos says great weight should be given to government support for shale gas, particularly the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) issued in May 2018. This stressed the need for domestically-produced shale gas.
Derbyshire County Council said the WMS did not change policy or relax restrictions on development in the Green Belt.
Eckington Against Fracking said the Government did not refer to shale gas in its clean growth strategy and the fuel was not included in predictions on energy security. The group said the WMS was not relevant to the inquiry. The group said the UK government had a legal obligation to meet CO2 emission targets but no obligation to support the plastics industry.
Noise
The village of Marsh Lane from Bramleymoor Lane where Ineos proposes to explore for shale gas. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Both sides accepted that the area around the Bramleymoor Lane was quiet and peaceful, particularly at night.
Derbyshire County Council said the expected night-time drilling noise would be around 17 decibels above the present background noise. It said this should be taken into account when the likely impact of development noise was assessed. If the scheme were approved there should be a night-time noise limit of 35 decibels.
Ineos The company said the background noise level was not relevant when assessing the impact of development noise at night. The company said the night-time noise limit should be 42 decibels. It cited guidelines from the World Health Organisation which said there would not be sleep disturbance below this level. The company added that 42 decibels would be reduced to 27 decibels in homes with the windows open.
Eckington Against Fracking: The group disputed Ineos evidence on background noise levels. It said the company’s data used an outdated version of sound software. EAF also produced evidence that one noise monitor appeared to have been used at Bramleymoor Lane and Harthill at the same time.
Unreasonable burden
Eckington Against Fracking said if the scheme were approved there should be no drilling at night. The council pushed Ineos to improve sound-proofing around the top drive of the rig. Ineos said it had sourced the quietest rig possible and any further work to reduce noise would be an unreasonable burden, particularly because the site would not generate any money. It said drilling would cost about £6m. No night-time drilling would add about £2m and additional noise reduction measures would add £1m.
Traffic
Part of the traffic route to the proposed Marsh Lane site. Original photo: Eckington Against Fracking
Ineos said there were no reasons to oppose the scheme on traffic grounds. It said council officers and independent consultants for the council could not support the case against the scheme on these grounds.
Derbyshire County Council said its members were concerned about the impact of increased lorry traffic on local roads used for recreation by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. The lack of pavement or verges on the roads were also a concern, the council said.
Eckington Against Fracking said the Ineos proposals would result in “a huge loss of local amenity” and should be refused on traffic grounds alone. It says the Ineos assessment of the impact of HGV traffic was inaccurate.
Community impacts
The headteacher Marsh Lane Primary relayed concerns from local parents who said they would remove their children if the scheme went ahead.
Ineos was criticised for not liaising with local people and organisations and for describing people living the site as “noise sensitive receptors”. The company denied that it had “shied away” from community engagement. It said wanted a community liaison group.
Jenny Booth giving evidence on impacts on tourism. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Tourism
Eckington Against Fracking said the Marsh Lane scheme would not be compatible with the local strategy to promote the area for tourism, estimated to add £100m to the local economy. The two industries could not co-exist successfully, the group said. Ineos said there was no reason why the scheme would affect tourism.
Harthill inquiry
Ineos said great weight should be given to the approval of its similar proposal for Common Road, Harthill, after a public inquiry. Derbyshire County Council and Eckington Against Fracking said the two sites were very different and the inspector’s decision on Harthill wasn’t relevant.
Climate change
Eckington Against Fracking and Friends of the Earth said the climate impacts of the scheme should be considered. Ineos said the climate footprint of the exploration project was negligible.
Airfield
The inquiry heard that the Coal Aston airfield near the site could have to close for 3-6 months during the drilling phase. Ineos discounted concerns about the effect of emergency venting on light aircraft. Eckington Against Fracking asked for a condition to protect the airfield, should the scheme be approved.
Professor Peter Styles giving evidece on subsidence. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Subsidence
The inquiry heard concerns about the impact of shale gas developments on areas where there had been former mine workings. Ineos dismissed a presentation by Emeritus Professor Peter Styles as not relevant because it was about fracking.
- For a quick summary on each day you can visit the DrillOrDrop Marsh Lane inquiry page.
DrillOrDrop reported from each day of the Marsh Lane inquiry. This reporting was made possible by individual donations from DrillOrDrop readers.
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
How do Ineos get away with all the BS ? Its not inappropriate for green belt but if it is then it doesn’t matter because the harm is worth it to them. Evil greedy corporation that cries when good people stand up to them . Im sure there were plenty of people who would rather have spent 2 weeks elsewhere.
as i understand this well is only to be used for core samples & a listening well so once its drilled there will be little more than a pipe sticking out of the ground, Hardly anything to get excited about.
Of course, you missed out the bigger picture gasman; unless it is only listening to Radio 4?
It,s also a listening well for 4 yrs, what is it listening to I wonder?
It seems Ineos has struck 400 land deals Cheshire. If each one is a well site with 10 to 14 wells that’s 4,000 to 5,600 wells. We expect similar in our region.
Now THAT is something to get excited about. 😦
Dear Lynn, You do seem to have problems with judgement. The people at the PI proberbly know more than you about your industry. They are even more disappointed with Ineos now. Really, Andrew Buroni, you should be careful how his credentials are put over as it borders on deceiving the public. his proof of evidence fell well short, I would be embarrassed if I where you.
It is so difficult for you to believe that your industry is a blight And that it is the many ordinary people that reject it not just a few radicals as you continue to tell yourself.
We will fight you to the end, and that’s a promise.
This is the latest video from David Kesteven of the campaign group, Eckington Against Fracking and the Fracking Farmhouse series of videos from the local peoples perspective.
( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Midg_P4_yJc )
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Anyone who starts and finishes a video with images of domestic cats cannot be taken seriously. The country and our biodiversity would be far better off without domestic cats. There would also be a significant contribution to achieving our Paris targets which some on this BB seem to think is something the world is destined to achieve (not you Sherwulfe, you clearly understand the realities of the political world and the aspirations of evolving middle classes).
Ha! Ha! Dear me Paul, that’s a bit desperate isn’t it? So your argument is that because there is a cat in the Fracking Farmhouse video by David Kesteven, that makes any issue discussed by him and very well argued i might add, technically invalid????
Come on Paul, you are better than that aren’t you? Or are you? Surely you learned some better arguments than cat hatred un 10 months?
I didn’t take you for a cat hater, but if you were to extend that thought for a while, the unproven damage to the biodiversity by that particular domestic cat is far far outweighed by the activities and consequences of the oil and gas industry by an exponential degree?
When was the last time a cat contributed to irreversible climate change? Polluted an entire continent? Destroyed human rights and overturned democracy?
Oh, yes, fat cats maybe? But they walk around on their hind legs and wear business suits and are less feline, more wolverine?
Why not discuss the Ministerial Statement and the attempt to overturn the only publicly accountable stage of planning by the use of imposed anti democratic get out of jail clause of “permitted development”? That is more relevant isn’t it?
And all you can say is that there is a cat called Oscar in the video so that is your prime concern????
I can’t believe we are having this conversation so early in the game?
Perhaps David could start and end his videos with a nodding donkey? A real one of course, not one of those mechanical artificial polluting suckers that litter Texas and elsewhere?
Dear me Paul, if this is going to be the standard of discussion in the future, then I begin to worry for your entire industry? (just kidding!)
And, no Paul, I am not a David Kesteven (or indeed a Fracking Farmhouse or even an Oscar, but close?) “disciple”?
I expected better, but there again, I always expect better, and one thing has become obvious over the last few years, better is not on the fracking menu, unless we make it better for ourselves, and for everyone.
‘Anyone who starts and finishes a video with images of domestic cats cannot be taken seriously’
What about domestic dogs?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/apr/22/earth-day-2016-what-happened-to-david-camerons-green-tory-dream-video
I am so glad the anti antis post on this site. It must be so embarrassing for the industry to read the stuff they come out with.
Same deal John- except for working dogs. Not me who is raising these issues:
In the US, there are more than 163 million dogs and cats that consume, as a significant portion of their diet, animal products and therefore potentially constitute a considerable dietary footprint. Here, the energy and animal-derived product consumption of these pets in the US is evaluated for the first time, as are the environmental impacts from the animal products fed to them, including feces production. In the US, dogs and cats consume about 19% ± 2% of the amount of dietary energy that humans do (203 ± 15 PJ yr-1 vs. 1051 ± 9 PJ yr-1) and 33% ± 9% of the animal-derived energy (67 ± 17 PJ yr-1 vs. 206 ± 2 PJ yr-1). They produce about 30% ± 13%, by mass, as much feces as Americans (5.1 ± Tg yr-1 vs. 17.2 Tg yr-1), and through their diet, constitute about 25–30% of the environmental impacts from animal production in terms of the use of land, water, fossil fuel, phosphate, and biocides. Dog and cat animal product consumption is responsible for release of up to 64 ± 16 million tons CO2-equivalent methane and nitrous oxide, two powerful greenhouse gasses (GHGs).
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181301
Another scientific paper for you to digest.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/4/16094674/cats-dogs-meat-diet-greenhouse-gases-climate-change
Note the huge increase in pets forecast in Asia.
Perhaps something to focus on rather than a straight forward exploration well – which hopefully in the future will be Permitted Development.
But I do confess to a particular loathing of domestic cats – I have a passion for wildlife and have seen how my neighbours cats have killed (usually slowly) everything wild in the garden they can get their teeth into. Phil C this is not something I have developed in the past 10 months – long ago I was the country president of the flat cat society inn a country I was living in – a regional branch of the one founded in Australia where feral domestic cats have wiped out 50% (probably more now) of the indigenous small mammals. The “flat” cats are used as hats…..
So the logic Paul, with this diversion, would be to educate and encourage less pet ownership and not add to the problem by extracting shale gas; a good cause for you to champion; but don’t tell them you hate cats or you may be a victim of the flat human society – makes a nice hearth rug I believe; be respectful of their passion and work through mediation 🙂
[Typo corrected at poster’s request]
A fascinating but Irrelevant diversion, perhaps revealing of an attitude that opposes domestic cats but approves of polluting the entire planet and causing irreversible climate change? Which is worse? What this really reveals is that an introduced predator, for which read the fracking industry, it will threaten and destroy the local natural environment, so in fact the anti domestic cat attitude is exactly our attitude towards the artificially introduced unwelcome and unwanted predator of the fracking industry?
How about that for extending the logic? Does that mean you would oppose your own industry?
I will repeat what I said above:
Why not discuss the Ministerial Statement and the attempt to overturn the only publicly accountable stage of planning by the use of imposed anti democratic get out of jail clause of “permitted development”?
That is more relevant isn’t it?
Phil C – Do you mean “the anti’s own goal” Ministerial Statement? HCWS690
“However, recent decisions on shale exploration planning applications remain disappointingly slow against a statutory time frame of 16 weeks where an Environmental Impact Assessment is required. So, we are announcing a range of measures to facilitate timely decisions. These measures only apply in England.”
No point in moaning about it now, the antis, along with Enemies of Industry, Greenpeas and a few wealthy 3rd rate “celebrities” or their kids have brought this upon you all.
The Conservatives are in power, only just, but still there surprisingly. Action like HCWS690 and the brilliant onshore wind MS which effectively eliminated new onshore wind farms in England by DC’s Government are why they get elected.
In the manifesto, elected, actioned……
Dear me, the old “enemies of industry” ploy eh? How i missed that phrase? (not) Absence really does make the heart grow fonder, but it seems presence makes the heart grow fonder for absence? A paradox of proximity perhaps?
How about the “enemies of democracy”? I haven’t used that phrase for a while, looks like i may be using it a lot now?
Or “enemies of cats”?
Are the anti antis really just reduced to epithets now? Wasn’t there a time when fracking was somehow being justified by logic and science? We havn’t seemed that for oh,10 months or more?
Have you ever thought that the answer to the human race’s own self manufactured problems, is not killing and cruelty, but understanding and intelligence?
Like i said, i expected better, but it seems all we get after 10 months is bitter.
No cats were hurt during this conversation, unless the flat cat society is employing road rollers now?
For those who enjoy such things, maybe the introduced predator flat frack fat cat hats and flat fat frack cat hearth mats may recieve the very same experience that they wish upon others?
Strange days.
The Fracking Farmhouse
Published on 30 Jun 2018
David Kestevens talks about the closure of the Mariner East pipeline in the US and how this relates to INEOS. Surely INEOS would put peoples well being first if the pipeline was deemed to have safety concerns. Wouldn’t they?
Includes and update since this was recorded.
Ref:
The Ferret
https://theferret.scot/
Just for you Paul:
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NneKLSSKXrI&feature=em-uploademail )
Miaow!
Miaow!
Are suggesting we ban fracking AND cats?
Yes AND no, in that strict order.
[Comments removed by moderator]
I don’t care what the antis babble on about anymore, they are constantly full of hot air, contradictions and tbh lack of an understanding about what goes on in the real world that they are a mere hindrance to our cause.
The main thing is this will get approved and we can move onto getting on with the job.
wishful thinking GBK, wishful thinking……
‘The main thing is this will get approved and we can move onto getting on with the job’
A quick look at some facts
7 out of 8 plans rejected
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/08/uk-fracking-backlash-seven-out-of-eight-plans-rejected-in-2018.
Another fracking application passed unopposed, millions spent, and then being forced to shut down by Lancashire County Council
http://planningregister.lancashire.gov.uk/DisplayImage.aspx?doc=cmVjb3JkX251bWJlcj01NTIwJmZpbGVuYW1lPVxcYWQubGFuY3NjYy5uZXRcQ29ycG9yYXRlXERhdGF3cmlnaHRcUGxhbm5pbmdcMDgtMTAtMDk3M1wwOC4xMC4wOTczIEJlY2NvbnNhbGwgRXhwbG9yYXRpb24gTm90aWNlLnBkZiZpbWFnZV9udW1iZXI9MjYmaW1hZ2VfdHlwZT1wbGFubmluZyZsYXN0X21vZGlmaWVkX2Zyb21fZGlzaz0yMS8xMC8yMDEwIDE2OjE2OjM2
There is no UK shale industry. It is just an idea being pushed through PR spin.
That idea has been pummelled by well organised communities.
The suggestion of permitted development proves that.
Shale gas could never succeed in the UK.
In the US you have to pay the landowners for the gas. In the US there are vast desolate areas where you can expand into.
Here in the UK we are densely populated, we don’t own the gas and we pay a premium to live in the countryside
What works in the US could never work in the UK
Permitted development and NSIP has been avoided by the Government for many reasons. Now they have been cornered by the resolve of the people they have to decide if they want to go ahead and open up a can of worms.
You can’t have a porch extension but you can have a fracking site will not sit well with communities and owners of multi million pound country properties and estates in all parts of the country.
Permitted development would apply to the North and South equally.
Tricky decision but a failure either way.
Embarrassing John?
I think that term is reserved for those who post about cheap oil and gas sloshing around the world, as oil reaches $80/barrel. Or those who post Third Energy is owned by Barclays Brothers. Or those who post that red diesel is red to stop it being confused with vegetable oil. Or those who post new build houses are not sometimes piled. Or those who post INEOS have financial problems because they have some debt, just as the major owner is declared as the UK’s wealthiest individual, record profits are unveiled and he is awarded a knighthood. Or those who simply can not understand two thirds are still there and are larger than one third. I could go on, the choice is endless.
It would appear that a good number of the antis who used to post have also found it embarrassing and have departed, whilst those who wish to see fracking tested in the UK are multiplying and in the ascendancy.
And all before fracking has produced any positive outcome. The sound of squealing cats will seem quite musical when that occurs.
Oil prices low UK shale not competitive with North sea, Norwegn piped, LNG
Oil prices high UK shale not competitive with North sea, Norweign piped,LNG
Penny dropped yet?
Hi John I think I’ve answered this one a while ago, maybe from you or someone else. It was phrased exactly the same.
I have worked in the North Sea many times, UKCS & Norwegian projects; Norway projects alone about 60 times. I’ve worked on projects to Supply LNG also.
When it comes to costs believe you me LNG is twice the price of piped gas and the North Sea and Canada are the most expensive to work. Bobbing up and down last year on a gas job UKCS last year waiting on weather for ten days alone at a vessel cost of $500,000 A day, gives you some idea of costs.
U.K shale gas will transform the U.K and provide a secure supply of gas to keep the U.K self sufficient for decades at a much much cheaper cost than Offshore supplies easily…
It will also enable the Government to honour It’s promise of energy price caps and pull tens of thousands of people out of fuel poverty…
More twaddle.
The “frackers” can easily put in place a system to reward the land owners and locals John, when they know what they have there as income to reward the landowners from.(If they want to.)
See Sirius Minerals.
Grasping at straws. Careful, some might actually know about such things and rather than be excited, will be laughing.