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? 
US shale gas BEING imported into Europe currently after $10 billion investment from INEOS. Norway asking for more US troops to be stationed to give better security.
$Billions dropped yet?
Well it’s nearly a week since this challenge was set; and no further with any credible posts from the anti anti frackers.
So in conclusion:
In the balance, after over 12 months the number of anti anti fracking comments on Drill or Drop giving conclusive evidence that shale gas extraction:
1. Will be economically viable
2. Will provide energy security
3. Is not for plastic
4. Will replace clean renewable energy production
5. Won’t cause seismic activity
6. Won’t pollute ground water
7. Won’t cause property devaluation
8. Will stop imports of gas from conflict areas
9. Is supported by the majority of the UK
10. Will be better than renewables at slowing climate change
is…{acoustic drum roll – how did we live without electricity?]….
STILL none, nada, null.
Lots of diversion about cats and plenty of wind, back ups and flat beer; but no 100% indisputable evidence.
Have a lovely Saturday evening, all 🙂
America as lost $280 billion on it’s shale gas operation since 2007. Every company at present trying to get into Fracking are millions in debt. How long before the tax payer picks up the bill for Fracking, like the 82 billion British pounds in unfunded debt about to be given for the clean up of Nuclear Waste left by the energy companies.
GB
Best send that bill for cleanup to the CEGB, who started it all and as a nationalised industry, that is the tax payer, paying up after all those years of benefit. Or maybe those politicians who supported it and canned our wind programme ( Tony Benn ). The good news is that it’s spent here in the UK.
Europe gripped by a CO2 shortage due to the high price of Natural Gas and maintenance periods…
The U.K was paying record prices for gas only a few months ago which is why we are paying extra in our fuel bills now. This just shows how much we depend on natural gas. CO2 even used to treat drinking water
How are we running out of gas?
The current shortage of gas is because too many factories have shut at the same time across Europe.
It’s also because the high price of natural gas means production has been limited in the UK.
In addition to this a fall in global ammonia prices means it has been cheaper for British fertiliser producers to buy in ammonia from abroad instead of producing it in the UK.
Amid all of these factors, only one of the plants in the UK is operational.
Food and drink suppliers rely on the British based plants as the gas is expensive to import.
As the U.K produces less and less natural gas year on year, what will we be paying in the future post Brexit and what consequences will follow?
The sooner U.K shale gas is produced the better. Then we can all drink to that be it drinking water or something stronger…
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6639642/co2-shortage-running-out-carbon-dioxide/
Recent statement by Claire Perry, Conservative Energy Minister,
“UK security of supply is provided by having access to a diverse range of sources”
and
“Government security of supply assessments have conservatively assumed no shale contributions during the next 20 years”
Fact. We don’t need expensive UK shale but feel free to keep worrying about your lights going out in which case I recommend the Tesla power wall to help you get to sleep.
Powered predominantly by daylight with access to fossil fuel top up if necessary.
John, I am sure everyone can afford a Tesla power wall – not far of £10,000 installed in UK. Plus the another £8,000 for the PV array.
And heating?
But think of what you will save Paul; not only money long term, but all that wildlife, no more oil covered birds; no more oil wars, no more children caught in the middle of a dinosaur conflict; peace, for a time, until something else is called ‘precious’….
And for you, freedom.
This is the problem. The wealthy Guardian readers assume that we can all afford this and the world will be saved. As most of the world’s population earn less than $100 / month this is not going to happen. And please explain how I will save money long term? It will take me 30 years to recover this investment assuming zero FITs. It will be nice to live that long……. Peace? You are joking.
Considering many pay this for a car/kitchen/holiday and cumulatively phones, entertainment, clothes etc that depreciates to nothing, I find your comment remarkable.
This is not the solution for all, but for those who can, through a re-mortgage, cheap loans that are currently on offer, it should be considered.
This is not about those 95% who earn less than $100 a month; they are not the ones who are causing the problem.
How many years will it take you to recover the money you have spent on finite fossil fuels, I wonder?
So £18000 for a power wall and pv panels. The panels alone take 23 years to break even, if your inverter lasts that long? Lots of sunshine now. What about October, November, December, January, February, March. And you think your panel and battery will keep all your energy needs going? Then ASHP, electric car. You are in fantasy land. Even though you are an anti you still want access to fossil fuel back up. Greedy greedy greedy…
The selling point should be, if you are wealthy enough to pay 23 years electric bills up front and hope nothing goes wrong but still connected to the grid and gas supply for your heating choose us. Not factoring in cleaning and yearly roof inspections…
You’ve not addressed the latest on CO2 shortage. How will you solar panels help that?
The Government security of supply report you are stating was prior to the beast from the East and has been reviewed…
How can you state as a fact U.K shale is expensive? It won’t start to be produced for a least a few weeks…
I work in the Offshore oil, gas and renewables industry. It’s my job to worry about everbodys lights going out, so you don’t have to…
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-solar-panels/
Kish, the panels don’t run on ‘sunshine’, they are daylight powered, so unless you live in the land of the midnight sun, thou shalt have light!
‘You’ve not addressed the latest on CO2 shortage’ – Am sorry you re unhappy that your beer is flat, but just gonna have to live with it…..
If you don’t want to buy your own freedom you always have an alternative:
https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/
What about the windless dark week in January???
IF we all changed to ecotricity. Sounds good, we only pay for renewable energy, wind turbines, solar. O.K…
But intermittent renewables only supply the U.K for 20% of its energy needs at a time when the sun and wind decide not you… If we all signed up in the U.K to ecotricity exclusively and shunned gas and nuclear there would not be enough to go around. Throw more money at intermittent renewables I hear you say. Even if we filled the U.K with pv panels and wind turbines on a windless night… Zero… Batteries? Lots of them? How many for a windless week in January??? Country bankrupt…
Ah I think I’ve answered my question to you which you won’t answer
You remember when you said you were running on free 100% renewable energy in a windless week…
You think that by signing up to ecotricity that you are exclusively getting renewable electricity…
Sorry to burst your bubble sher but when there is no renewable energy in the grid, ie during those windless weeks. I can say 100% as you like the 100% figure your electricity at night was being supplied by Gas, nuclear and coal
It’s one big grid, there is no splitting down to wire just ecotricity customers with an intermittent renewables grid. If it was you wouldn’t have posted that comment, you’d be too busy stocking up on candles…
As for the shortage of CO2 it certainly isn’t small beer. Food, medical services and drinking water are much higher on the agenda…
So Kish; I am surprised you have made this statement ‘I can say 100% as you like the 100% figure your electricity at night was being supplied by Gas, nuclear and coal’- when you know I am not grid connected? Strange that your hatred of all things wind has created this alternate reality?
I don’t need candles, or co2, thanks.
Continue living in your connected and troubled world where strings are pulled and sock puppets dance.
My world is better, freedom of choice and can go to bed whenever I please 🙂
So, do you have the answers to my challenge yet?
No?
Remember, 100% non-disputable evidence.
Keep looking……..
In the word of Dylan Thomas…..
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light……..
Nighty night 😉
Tesla to install up to 1.1Gw battery storage.
https://electrek.co/2018/06/29/tesla-pge-giant-1-gwh-powerpack-battery-system/
Tesla battery saves Australia $30 million in a few months
https://electrek.co/2018/05/11/tesla-giant-battery-australia-reduced-grid-service-cost/
The future has arrived
Que ‘Tesla cars crash’ which obviously means large scale battery storage is doomed!
Back home Centrica involved in big battery storage
https://www.energy-storage.news/news/centrica-follows-up-big-uk-battery-project-with-1mw-for-own-headquarters.
and
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/14/uks-largest-battery-project-move-ahead-swindon/
Time for the UK to get a move on with cheap popular renewable energy to fill these rapidly expanding battery banks.
How many batteries do you think the U.K will need for a windless dark week in January???
How many Kishenys does it take to change a light bulb?
Q.How many mice does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.2
The question is how did they get in there in the first place?
How many shers does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer: one
The reason is sher will hold the lightbulb and expect the World to revolve around them…
But the huge proposed renewable energy project I Kent is being opposed by…………… The green Party.
You’re right Mike
Here’s an extract from the Green Party policy
“Replacing fracking, coal power stations, subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear with the clean green efficient renewable energy of the future, and investing in community owned energy.”
So the Green Party say they want renewables but when green projects actually look like happening they get cold feet!!!
The Green Party the number one NIMBY Party…
Use all the energy you want supplied by foreign Countries regardless of their human rights policies or environmental credentials
Then oppose every single energy supply project in the U.K
You can also oppose every new home, train line, airport runway or any other building project in the U.K and call yourself a fully paid up anti, green party environmentalist… Doing it for the planet (great cover for being a nimby)
Then you can call yourself a true Green Party member…
I wonder which bit of Methane being 82 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 the gasheads don’t understand? Long term ice in the arctic is practically gone.
Weather: U.S. Heat Records Breaking : http://www.climatesignals.org/headlines/dangerous-oppressive-heat-wave-scorch-central-eastern-us-heat-dome-expands
… and that’s beyond the wildfires and flash flooding already causing major damage
I guess the same “bit” as agriculture, and anyone who eats meat, keeps pets etc. doesn’t understand. The same “bit” as all of us who heat our homes with natural gas. But you should also be getting concerned about hydrates and biogenic methane coming out of the melting permafrost.
Why not switch to biomass – wood pellets:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/30/wood-pellets-biomass-environmental-impact
A great legacy of Green renewables pressure….
Hopefully we will see the next phase of Drax conversion go to natural gas – not biomass. You never know, it could even be INEOS shale gas direct to Drax.
I agree Paul. We all know Biomass burning wood pellets emit more CO2 than burning coal!
Don’t believe me?
Watch Dispatches Channel 4 “The true cost of Green energy”
Correct me if I am wrong Paul, but weren’t you working on your own-grown wood fuel?
It is apparent that those who support shale are of a particular mindset. The world you live in matches energy to demand; the demand gets ever bigger through wastage and irresponsibility until ‘whoosh’ its all gone in a puff of toxic smoke.
You need to change. The demand should match the energy. It’s not difficult.
So you live off grid, news to me.
Why are you trying to vilify the vast majority of us connected to the grid?
Your condescending tone running through every post against people living in the modern World. You even turn up your nose at owning a TV and will not even look at other peoples arguments. ie the CO2 emissions from Biomass.
Well done for living in a mud shack on your own in the woods [edited by moderator]
Very flaming remarks Kisheny, but happily no where near the truth; have a lovely Sunday.
Don’t worry sher we will all be able to live in your utopian dream World soon thanks to the green poster boy Mr. Musk
Great swathes of the U.K to be covered in solar panels and Batteries! Hurray for the great green revolution. We will all be able to join you on that Moral high ground, probably standing room only surrounded by solar panels. Providing what 11% some of the time compared to the Gas power station producing double the electricity all the time… Let’s see how that plays out.
Rare birds, wildlife all steam rollered over by green gangsters to suck up subsidies all in the name of the planet…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905675/Elon-Musk-build-worlds-biggest-battery-Britain-400m-solar-panel-plans.html
Remember it starts with one solar panel…
You are so angry Kish; take a breath of [clean] air [while you can]; you cannot change the future. I understand you feel that your work and lifestyle is threatened, it must be hard for you.
Physics dictates if I just hold the light bulb, there will be no light, unless of course you think I have the power; enjoy 🙂
Another patronising mash of nothing sher…
Whatever you smoke to think you can light things up with your hand must be entertaining…
Cuadrilla are just weeks away from first U.K Shale Gas…
This will transform the North of England with everybody’s quality of life improving through lower electricity and gas prices for industry and domestic use. Boosting the economy.
Think of the many, not the few sher; Don’t be selfish…
Again, nothing more than derogatory remarks Kish; its seems we’ve hit a nerve; your anxiety is really showing now; change is hard for many and for some almost impossible. Don’t be too hard on yourself; time is a great healer.
‘This will transform the North of England with everybody’s quality of life improving through lower electricity and gas prices for industry and domestic use. Boosting the economy.’ – evidence please.
You are correct Sherwulfe – for heating. But my fire wood is dead wood from our woodland and out of a river at high water. All within a couple of miles of my house. I would happily get my electricity from Ecotricity or Goodenergy but why pay 50-70% more for it? I used OVO for years (not the 100% renewables option obviously as it was more expensive) but they are no longer anywhere near competitive.
The big question is why are new homes not made to incorporate PV / heat pumps / battery (there must be better cheaper versions than Musk’s). Higher insulation standards etc etc. Often in manifestos, never actioned. Perhaps we should all vote for Caroline and co?
Regarding the new properties, I totally agree Paul. There should also be household loans on a par with student loans so that older houses can be brought up to spec and install appropriate energy generation systems. The UK is just too slow, has missed opportunities regarding these new technologies. Let’s hope we don’t live to regret it.
Sadly, unless proportional representation is adopted, our feudal voting system will only allow ‘token’ greens 🙂
I see, so two wrongs make a right. We should carry on.regardless. Gasbag logic.
“Tech billionaire Elon Musk is either “deceptive” or “delusional” in his pledges that Tesla will hit production targets and break into profitability, according to the world’s most renowned company valuation expert.
The idol of the antis, seems to share their problems! Uncanny how an “alternative” theme permeates!
Never mind. Into July. Named after Julius Caesar. Days of decimation amongst the Legions if they had failed. Now we have the ten Green bottles falling off the wall. History has a habit of repeating itself.
When it has happened ten times, then I believe the term is-you’re fracked!
Nearly there.
Lots of anti-renewables and clean energy, but still no support for shale……
1. Will be economically viable – as many have posted, wait and see. If you don’t manage to stop Cuadrilla fracking at PNR we will know. But based on the Preese Hall flow rate it should be economic – and yes, rates were estimated.
2. Will provide energy security – see 1. above – if it is commercial and produced, it will displace imported gas.
3. Is not for plastic – not sure why this is an issue. But most likely it will be used for power generation / heating and fertiliser. We still need plastic though; what we need to do is stop throwing it away.
4. Will replace clean renewable energy production – will provide base load and back up for wind when it is not windy and solar at night.
5. Won’t cause seismic activity – may or may not, if it does and it is too high then will kill 1 above
6. Won’t pollute ground water – very, very low risk, agriculture should be your focus if this is your concern. I would be more concerned about wind farms on peat uplands – Scout Moor comes to mind.
7. Won’t cause property devaluation – may or may not, no different to any other industry building a plant nearby.
8. Will stop imports of gas from conflict areas- see 2 above
9. Is supported by the majority of the UK – see 1. above – if there is lots of it and it is commercial, then it will be supported. Best gauge will be the next election when deveopment plans will have been submitted for approval. If they haven’t then it is not commercial and this is irrelevant.
10. Will be better than renewables at slowing climate change – no change re climate change – see 2 above. Just replaces imported gas which is already being used. No gas – no renewables or should that be no gas or coal, no renewables on a large scale.
Thanks for your contribution Paul, but again, this is the third personal opinion.
So far there has not been any indisputable evidence put forward; hence why thousand are protesting against this industry. It is interesting how the only attack on those opposed to shale are personal or against the alternative energy sources.
Am afraid your imported gas displacement is a non runner; check out the governance’s latest plans, trade deals with the middle east and LNG ports.
Until the Cuadrilla wells, and then the INEOS and KM wells are tested, you are only going to get personal opinions. Anything else is guessing / vested interests.
Thousands (?) are protesting because they don’t want any development of any kind near their homes or, as in the case of the mobile state scrounging swampys, have nothing better to do. In addition there are those who follow the FOE / Greenpeace agenda. I won’t add Green Party as no one knows what they want at the moment (objecting to huge solar / battery farm).
Any home produced gas be it onshore or offshore will displace imported gas if it is economical.
‘Anything else is guessing / vested interests.’ – precisely and why inflict this on a population when there are alternatives? Makes you think eh?
Please do try not to lower yourself to the level of derogatory stereotypical remarks about people you do not know.
‘Any home produced gas be it onshore or offshore will displace imported gas if it is economical’ – nope Paul, the contracts are already signed and trade agreements made behind closed doors; come on Paul, you know how this works?
The Labour Party started issuing exploratory drilling licences in 2008 and the standing Government are right behind it.
The Fylde Coast voted a big Majority for the Conservatives, their manifesto clearly stating its proposals for U.K shale development. What few votes Tina rothery got for the green party actually dropped votes from the last election
How much more support do you need to see for U.K shale gas???
A few weeks from now Theresa will be shouting from the rooftops about our energy security for generations to come. Well done the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, working together for a change!
Am afraid your political knowledge is now out of date. More research to do Kish?
The Labour Party did issue exploratory drilling licences for shale gas in 2008…
The Conservative Party is carrying out the policy set out…
Commercially viable gas will flow from Cuadrillas PNR site in a matter of weeks…
Think that is pretty much up to date…
Oh and the green party are against a solar renewables project in Kent, that’s right isn’t it???
Loving the Sunshine, having a great day watching the tennis in the back garden. Brilliant.
Shame the green party don’t want the U.K to use all this free energy provided by the Universe…
WHY?????????
An Labour will ban fracking; see, waaaay behind.
I love that you have hope Kish, it is an admirable trait. I hope you are not too bitterly disappointed.
So to put this latest diversion to bed, let’s take a look at the ‘Green’s’ objection in Kent.
‘The proposals for the site have some notable opponents, including, perhaps surprisingly, the Swale Green Party.
Tim Valentine, election agent for Swale Green Party, said he feels the site is an important wildlife spot and that the east-west orientation of the panels means will there will be twice the density of usual solar farms.
“They will be in effect putting an industrial roof over eight hundred acres of Kent wildlife,” he said.
“The Green Party are very much in favour of renewable energy and renewable energy at scale.
“But there is no advantage for solar to be on a massive scale like this.
“We would argue solar panels are much better being on the roof of buildings where they will be used.
“This programme proposal is the result of trying to make a solar farm cost effective when there’s not subsidies for solar.
“With windfarms turbines, the bigger you build them the more efficient they become, with those it makes sense, there’s no advantage like that with solar.”
Michael Wilcox, chairman of the Graveney Rural Environment Action Team (GREAT) said the group is critical of the effect the farm will have on wildlife in the area, and that it has a problem with the size of the farm and planned placement of the panels.’
If you understand what a member of the green party stands for you will understand the concerns raised here. That’s democracy.
Solar on roofs = good
Solar covering green sites = not so good, am with Tim on this.
I think You’re in fantasy land sher
“an labour will ban Fracking?”
There is more chance of Diane abbott replacing Rachel Riley on countdown!
Jeremy Corbyn has had ample opportunity to visit the PNR site, even just to show his face when he has been in the area. Why hasn’t he???
The labour party started shale gas exploration off in 2008
The labour party’s 2015 general election manifesto stated that if they were elected to power they would support a regulated fracking industry.
Talking of bans, the SNP are in power and they have stated there is a ban on Fracking in Scotland. Ah they meant that as just media gloss, not a ban just waiting to see the results from England then they will make a decision…
You say old Steptoe is against Fracking? But Let’s be honest he won’t have a chance of being the labour leader at the next election
Emily Thornberry will be firmly in the chair by that stage, past history is a good indicator to future direction
Emily Thornberry voted against requiring a more extensive set of conditions be met prior to consent for hydraulic fracturing being given.
But Let’s be really honest if England win the world cup, all those England flags on the streets will keep her in hiding for years!
‘Jeremy Corbyn has had ample opportunity to visit the PNR site, even just to show his face when he has been in the area’….so again, it shows how little you know.
Read the latest manifesto; Labour say no to shale gas extraction 🙂
[edited by moderator]
Kisheny-the Greens can not be in favour of anything specific-apart from pot. It is not within their DNA, as was shown two elections ago when they tried to explain their own policies and crashed and burned. Hence a previous leader wanders the waste lands looking for something to be against.
Just a reminder about why fracking should raise concerns. My concern almost from the beginning has been firstly regarding those who lie about and/or downplay the risks of the environmental impacts (from everything that comes with shale fracking and related industrialisation), and secondly likewise regarding the larger atmospheric impact of global warming via the inevitable methane leakage at many stages of the upstream and downstream processes. Then of course there’s always those who just politicize the ‘complainers’ as those just doing it according to their own prejudiced agendas. Shame on them. https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-complaints-pennsylvania-2225509887.html
Back in Pennsylvania, PhilipP?
My concern has been those who bring out the fog generator when they start to lose.
[Edited by moderator]
“You know how this works”. Well, Sherwulfe please explain the price of oil rocketing to $80/barre, the impact of the Beast from the East and a 4X increase in oil prices in the 1970s. Because it is quite clear, it doesn’t work, especially when the country has very limited ability for storage. You may live off grid but most don’t and they have been receiving energy bills showing significant increases for some while now.
More fog.
Knew you would bite. For a start we can stop subsidising the shale gas explorations – that would save millions.
Why bring Pennsylvania’s problems to England? Pittsburgh (at the heart of PA) was smart – seeing the problems of fracking it has banned it in and around the city area and is fully supportive of the Paris Climate agreement – whatever Trump says. Though I guess you subscribe to Trumps post truth agenda Martin.
Posts which criticise other individual posters are more likely to be moderated than those criticising groups of people or beliefs.
Interesting moderation there. You can post the remark unmoderated, and repeated, but then those who criticise that remark are moderated!
Not complaining Paul, it is that stage of the process, and expected, without VAR.
By the way PhilipP, we can also stop buying shale gas from USA. That would save millions that would be available to our public services in the UK. via taxation.
What has Trump to do with the debate? Fracking in the USA is only a continuation of what was happening under Obama-anyone remember him? Ahh yes, the first coloured US President, and history will show, the worst. Which is why the US decided not to “experiment” with the first woman President.
Post truth agenda? You mean like Obama telling the UK we would be at the end of the queue for a trade deal when anyone with a single brain cell knew that was not within his power going forward?
Obama signed off on fracking when they needed an alternative to dirty coal power and they knew less about the long term impacts. It’s been a bridge fuel to some extent, but not much, and has created more problems that everyone is aware of now. Britain is not in that situation to begin with. Meanwhile the Republicans and their O&G cronies were in control of Congress and Senate so you can safely say that fracking accelerated despite Obama not because of him.
What has Trump to do with the debate? do you have no understanding of the climate change issues at all? The USA has left the agreements and is pushing hard, courtesy of Trump and partners, to make matters worse. Analysts now saying that the unchecked trends will lead the world into greater costs (damages) than the first and second world wars and the great depression combined.