Cuadrilla’s shale gas site at Preston New Road, 4 August 2018.
Permit breaches at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road fracking site have risen to at least six, online publication of a report has confirmed.
The document from the Environment Agency said Cuadrilla breached the rules in the way waste was managed at the site.
A warning letter was sent to the company but the Preston New Road community liaison group was not told about the breach.
This evening three councillors complained that this revealed “serious deficiencies in the power of regulators and the completeness of information provided to the group.
In 2017, Spinwatch reported there had been at least five permit breaches at Preston New Road in seven months. These mostly concerned management of surface water.
Waste audit
The most recent breach at Preston New Road was revealed in a compliance assessment report dated 9 April 2018, more than three months before Cuadrilla was granted fracking consent. The document referred to a four-month audit of waste produced at the site.
The Environment Agency (EA) said it was satisfied “overall” with the way audited waste streams were removed offsite to appropriately permitted waste facilities in line with sound waste management practices.
But it identified a breach of Cuadrilla’s waste management plan (WMP) and what it called “areas where improvements should be made to waste management practices”.
Key issues included:
- Drill cuttings not separated from drilling mud, in breach of the WMP
- Waste space fluid and suspension brine not collected separately, in breach of WMP
- Waste stored on at least 22 occasions at an unpermitted site longer than was acceptable
- Waste transported by an unlicensed sub-contractor
- Waste not accurately described
- Information on paperwork confused, missing or invalidated
- No explanation in consignment and waste transfer notes of unexpectedly high water level in extractive waste
A spokesperson for Cuadrilla told DrillOrDrop:
“The Environment Agency (EA) completed a very detailed “cradle to grave” audit of Cuadrilla’s waste management process including auditing our contractors and sub-contractors. The EA concluded in its report that overall they were satisfied that the audited waste streams were removed offsite at Preston New Road to appropriate waste facilities in line with sound waste management practices. We are likewise confident that all waste streams have been treated and continue to be treated fully in accordance with EA permits
“The EA noted a number of relatively minor non-compliance issues, none of which impacted on how the waste should have been or was in fact treated. We have addressed these minor non-compliance issues and made improvements to the processes we have in place at site and with our contractors.”
Cuadrila’s Preston New Road site, 25 July 2017. Photo: Ros Wills
Community liaison group not informed
The date on the waste audit compliance assessment report coincided with a meeting of the Preston New Road community liaison group (CLG).
According to the minutes of that meeting, the Environment Agency representative, Steve Molyneux, referred to the audit. But the minutes did not record there had been a breach of the environmental permit. The minutes said:
“He [Mr Molyneux] advised that there were no issues regarding current waste management practices, but noted that recommendations had been provided regarding how this could be further improved.”
This evening, three of the six councillors on the community liaison group wrote to the business and environment secretaries to complain about how information was shared with the CLG. Letter to ministers from three CLG councillors
There was a four-month gap between the date on the compliance assessment report and its online publication. Miranda Cox (Kirkham Town Council), Julie Brickles (Fylde Borough Council) and Dawn Ansell (Weeton-with-Preese Parish Council) wrote:
“The CLG had no opportunity to question this development and update residents, which in our opinion is unacceptable.
“If a regulator is not sharing information with the Community Liaison Group there is no transparency in the system. The CLG is therefore undermined as it is clearly unable to provide the open forum for debate that is necessary around a controversial and untested industry.”
The councillors added:
“To compound our concerns further, despite requests from the CLg to have sight on an offsite emergency and evacuation plan, we have been advised to ‘trust’ plans are adequate. Given that Cuadrilla have breached environmental conditions already, we cannot trust their processes and safeguards. We have no confidence in the power of the Regulators.”
DrillOrDrop asked the Environment Agency to comment on the councillors’ letter and to explain why there was a gap of four months between the date on the compliance assessment report and its online publication.
Warning
The compliance assessment report said a separate warning letter had been issued to Cuadrilla. This was recently added online with the date 25 July 2018, the day after Cuadrilla was granted fracking consent for Preston New Road. EA Waste stream audit warning letter 25 July 2018 (pdf)
The EA told Cuadrilla to “ensure full compliance with your Waste Management Provisions”. Further checks would be carried out within three weeks, the EA said.
A site inspection on 17 May 2018 to check on compliance with the WMP recorded:
“Extractive waste observed on site arising from drilling operations included oil based muds and drill cuttings. All waste was stored appropriately and in accordance with the waste management plan.”
Drilling rig at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site near Blackpool, 20 June 2018. Photo: Ros Wills
Breach details
Cuadrilla said in its Waste Management Plan that drilling muds would be reused until spent or spoilt, to reduce the amount of waste produced by the site.
In the compliance assessment report, the EA said waste drilling muds and cuttings should be separated to allow this to happen.
But it said “significantly higher” amounts of spent fluid drilling muds had been produced onsite than had been estimated in the WMP.
It said 2,500m3 of drilling muds had already been produced per well, compared with the total estimate of 400m3/well in WMP.
The EA said:
“We recommend improvements are made to the efficiency of the separation process, if this is not possible a change is required to the Waste Management Plan.”
Spacer fluid is used during drilling to separate mud from cement. Cuadrilla said spacer fluid would be re-used wherever possible. But the EA said there were no notes for dispatching separated waste spacer fluid and suspension brine. It said:
“These wastes were removed from site described as spent fluid drilling muds and/or as returned slurry cement waste. Please ensure waste spacer fluid and suspension brine are collected and managed separately, not mixed into other waste streams. If this is not possible a change to the Waste Management Plan is required.”
On both these issues, the EA said the WMP had not been followed and it recorded a category 3 breach of the environmental permit.
Breaches are ranked from 1-4, where one is the most serious and four is the least serious. A category 3 breach is described as “a non-compliance which could have a minor environmental effect”.
Unauthorised storage
In the compliance assessment report, the EA also told Cuadrilla that all waste producers had a duty to prevent the unauthorised storage of their waste.
It said the audit had revealed:
“On at least 22 occasions, once waste had been removed from your site, the contractor had chosen to temporarily store it at an unpermitted site for longer than is acceptable for the transportation of waste between producer and disposer.
“This issue was addressed with the contractor. Nevertheless, you have a duty to carry out checks to ensure your waste is lawfully managed, asking the next waste holder where they are going to take the waste, requesting evidence that your waste has arrived at the intended destination.
“We would recommend that check procedures are reviewed.”
Unlicensed sub-contractor
The EA also said at least 10% of waste movements from Preston New Road were subcontracted by the primary waste carrier to other companies, one of which was unlicensed at the time.
Paperwork confusion
The EA said paperwork seen during the audit should be improved.
- Operator names were confused on consignment notes
- Non-unique consignment note codes were used on two occasions
- Some consignment notes were missing at the time of collection
- On numerous occasions the consignee invalidated the consignment notes by changing the waste description after the waste was received at their premises
Descriptions of waste
The EA also suggested Cuadrilla was not following regulations which required waste producers to provide accurate descriptions. It said:
“By not adequately following the methodology laid out in this guidance fully waste was not accurately described. The description of the waste should be accurate and should contain all the information that the holder is reasonably in a position to provide to ensure the lawful and safe handling, transportation, treatment, recovery or disposal by subsequent holders.”
High water content
The EA said:
“Approximately 56 loads of extractive waste removed from site were described by the subsequent waste holders as having an unexpectedly high water content (i.e. 90% or more).”
This was apparently caused by artesian flow of groundwater at the start of drilling in June 2017 and water from rainfall. But the explanation was not given on the consignment and waste transfer notes, the EA said. It added:
“greater clarity on the description of the activity that gave rise to the extractive waste would prevent confusion”.
Reaction
The Green Party peer, Baroness Jones, said:
“Cuadrilla has repeatedly shown contempt for our environment and the local community around its Lancashire site. The irony of a fracking company which criminalises peaceful protest to have itself broken the law is not lost on us.
“The dodgy disposal of waste is just the latest in a long list of corner cutting by frackers in Britain, and it’s time the Government saw sense and dropped its illogical support for a dysfunctional industry. Fracking is dirty, dangerous, expensive and unnecessary. The Government must end its reckless dash for gas and instead invest in cheaper, cleaner renewable energy for the future.”
Environment Agency webpage on Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site
Updated 11.10pm on 14/8/2018 with extra information on a letter from councillor members of the Community Liaison Group about the sharing of information.
Updated 16/8/2018 to include warning letter from the Environment Agency and reaction from Baroness Jones
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
And the moto of the EA?
Why do things in halves when you can do them in quarters…
Over 8000 tonnes of water shipped away in 2017, all rainwater?
The apparent breaches of the perimeter ditch and pollution of surrounding ponds in 2017, all recorded with drone footage. Levels drop as the superficial aquifer is driiled through…The first and only inspection of the surrounding ponds made by EA in May 2018, then they don’t check ‘teardrop’ pond, the obvious pollution canditate.
So the perimeter ditch presumably used to store all ‘watery’ fluid from well, rainwater, spillage, aquifer flowback alike …?…. Anything thicker, dump in the storage tanks. Tanker it away to be treated as normal sewerage or industrial waste depending on what it looks like and who’ll take it at the lowest price?…
No independent random sampling of any fluids anywhere except a stream and a couple of token boreholes half a mile away.
No thought to storing rainwater and artesian flowback in a local aquifer for fracking use,no tanker it away. Or get a change in the regs to dump it in Carr Brook.
The EA is a quango, dependent on government funding, and chronically understaffed for the range of the issues they are supposed to oversee and report on. They are unable to do the duties that the public mistakenly believe they perform, and invariably make light of, or ignore, problems they find. It is a supine quango.
Richard
According to the information in the report above.
The 8000 tonnes of waste shipped off site ( not just water ) includes rain and water from the superficial aquifer.
Problems with the discharge from the perimeter ditch have been noted here on DOD, but how does that link to the alledged pollurion of the surrounding ponds?
Re above pond levels, if the levels of the ponds dropped as a result of encountering an artesian aquifer would that not indicate that the water moved from the ponds to the well via that aquifer, rather than vica versa?
I would not presume that all fluid waste was discharged into the perimeter ditch and then recovered as a mixed waste stream of rain water, mud, spacer fluid and sewage. It’s an interesting thought but I have never come across that method of waste treatment in the Uk or abroad in the O&G and power industry.
The EA note that the waste stream from the well included spacer fluid and a heavier load of cuttings than expected as well as being more watery overall. It would be difficult to work that out of all waste was tipped into the ditch first, including taking the sewage cans over to the ditch and tipping them in as well?
The problems of handling the large quantities of rainwater have been noted here on DOD.
There has been Independant sampling in the Weald as reported here on DOD, but no update yet as to what they did or did not find. Maybe good news is no news? But let’s wait and see ( or I missed it ).
There will have been thought on how rain water was handled and the operator took the decision to tanker all pad run off offsite if they could. In hindsight not a good idea and better to just pop it into the local stream as is the norm ( see Wressle for various thoughts on that idea ). They got more rain than they planned for,
Re storing rain water in an aquifer, that has a few issues
1. It would not be storage as the water would not hang around the bottom of the well waiting to come back. You would get back whatever is in the aquifer, which would be salty water in the Fylde I guess.
2. Re injecting well fluids would be reinjecting waste into a formation it had not come from, which is not likely to be approved ( see DOD comments re Weald and Third Energy re injection ).
3. Difficult to re inject aquifer water as it turns up before you reach an aquifer you would re inject it into ( as did the rain ).
4. The well waste is stored in tanks prior to removal from the site. While storage of rainwater could be done by making an even larger site with a separate lined pond, storing well waste in ponds is not allowed in the UK ( just as frack returns are not allowed to sit in lines ponds, evaporating and maybe leaking into the surrounding soils).
Also see past comments on the possibility of Cuadrilla secretly drilling into an aquifer in order to ‘steal’ water.
However, should shale gas fracking take off, no doubt the issue of dealing with the higher levels of well waste etc would lead to other solutions than those used at present for the few wells drilled for shale gas fracking.
The reinjection of drill cuttings is common practice offshore in the UK.
Maybe we will hear a bit more about the problems encountered while drilling the upper parts of the well or wells, why there was a problem with cuttings separation and why the waste contractors used a then unlicensed contractor to handle some of the waste ( including which waste they handled, and what the handling entailed ).
The water in the shallow aquifer is used by local farmers for animals, just down the road is a wind wheel pump arrangement. A few use for private supply. The deeper Sherwood is the supposed saline reservoir but wasn’t checked when they went thru it.
The pond levels dropped when they drilled thru the aquifer. They appear to have been polluted afterwards, presumably when they dumped stuff in the surrounding ditch when they didn’t have room in their tanks. As noted, nothing inspected by EA or anyone at the time.
They had problems, they changed the drilling techniques of the 2nd well after the first, but nothing publicised. You won’t hear about the problems, they’ll get them, cover them up and carry on.
Richard – what did they change for the second well? Did they set an additional casing string? Or drill with foam / air to below the aquifer? Reduce pump rates? Add LCM? Interesting from a drilling engineering perspective.
It appears it was simply a matter of not balancing the hydrostatic pressures. Like, I mentioned nothing is made very visible from both the EA or Cuadrilla. It takes months of pestering with iterative and very explicit questions via FOIs before they will volunteer anything. If you want to troll through look at ‘whatdotheyknow’ requests. So, I was there, as a bystander watching droves of tankers leaving the site seeing pond levels temporarily falling. Others collected drone footage that was presumably sent to the EA to investigate – the EA seems to have adopted the terminology such as ‘teardrop’ pond.
I assume It’s tricky when iniitally spudding to balance? The top layers are superficial boulder clay and gravels with lenses of marl dug out for fertilizing. That creates the interconnected ponds of a superficial aquifer that is down to about 40metres. All this strata is subject to subsidence anyway. Roads are always sinking and collapsing in the Fylde. Always resurfacing, one or two now closed. Cuadrilla are drilling on a topological low point. To an average engineer with a smattering of earth sciences at degree level it looks like madness…
Richard – so “changing the drilling techniques” you previously noted for the second well is increasing the drilling fluid density (mud weight) to stop the aquifer influx by ensuring a higher hydrostatic pressure in the well bore?
It appears the aquifer influx in the first well was in the end not a great amount however needed to be addressed (and presumably was) for the second well.
The important question to ask is did the water flow from the aquifer jeopardise the quality of the cement in the relevant casing string? I very much doubt it as the density of the cement would have been increased accordingly.
This all seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing (other than perhaps breaking the TMP due to increased trucking). Certainly doesn’t seem to be a well integrity issue.
Seem to remember bent pipes coming out of the first well they started and they might have had to abandon one of the four prospective drilling ‘holes’.
It’s a shallow sparsely interconnected reservoir all round the region. Dig a hole and you’re in it. All the ponds are man made from digging out marl for fertiliser. So easy to dig a big one as a reservoir.
“But the minutes [of the community liaison group] did not record there had been a breach of the environmental permit”.
And the fracking companies wonder why they aren’t trusted by local communities.
No,
A FOI requested by me has shown 8000 + tonnes shipped away was supposedly surface water, falling as rainwater. Work out the size of the pad and the rainfall and this shows it isn’t just rainwater. So they’ve been shipping away vast amounts of water from the surrounding ditch that is artesian flow breaching the impermeable membrane or dumped in this ditch when the storage tanks are full or both.
Richard
Thanks.
The pad size is 2.4 hectares ( excluding the access road ), so 5.76 acres ( 5.5 say ).
Each inch of rain gives 113 tonnes of water per acre (googled)
So the site should produce 650 Tonnes of water per inch of rain falling on it.
The average rainfall for Blackpool is 11.8 Inches, so you would expect 7670 Tonnes of water to fall on the site.
However, in 2017 there were a number of storms, and I note that up to 1.7 inches of rain fell in certain areas of Lancashire. If only 1.5 inches fell on the site, then they would have over 900 tonnes of water to dispose of in one day. As such 8000000 litres of water for that year does not seem an unreasonable amount to truck off the site given the additional rainfall, even though this would only be during drilling I guess?
Re the EA reply, I see that they note the well head overflowed to the tune of 2000L
Yes, so I’ll let you work out the storage capacity of the ditch and ponder why Cuadrilla didn’t consider how much water they’d have to expensively ship away rather than digging a local temporary reservoir…
I seem to remember vast amounts of water pumped into Carr Brook with a protype pump arrangement displayed in the application to vary the surface water treatment and both ditch and storage/treatment not having enough capacity. Presumably why the pad was flooded when it did rain heavily. Requests to get the daily disposal tanker figures and correlate with rainfall supposedly not possible and beyond the remit of the EA.
It’s all a long time ago now. There’s no point discussing anymore, Cuadrilla just carry on regardless, retrospective permissions, token ineffectual monitoring by the EA. I’m lucky enough to have sold my house and spend as little time as I need in the region.
Richard
The flood plan gives storage in the gravel interstices, plus up to 50mm above that in the case of heavy rain ( which shows up in pictures of the site). So the site gives storage of approx 1500 tonnes plus ditch, say 2000 tonnes.
But note your later post so over and out on this subject.
All gold standard stuff….
Minor issues it seems. Dont know what the fuss is about?
TW – you’ll probably find it illuminating to discuss the issues with independent professional experts. Then you will begin to see what the fuss is about.
Such as the Environment Agency? Or HSE? Or someone unconnected with Cuadrilla who as worked in the O & G Industry for many years such as Hewes62, Al, myself?
Paul
Indeed.
You would appreciate the need in some countries to send a chap on a Moped behind each consignment of waste to ensure it got to the disposal point. This to ensure it was not dumped, or sold!
But also to tell DONRE that their disposal site near Vung Tau did not then reach the standard required by the international O&G industry and we would use a private company ( and happy to report they improved it ).
Yes, Vietnam was an interesting place to work. I recall BP had an issue with the condensate export / loading pipe line from the Lan Tay gas plant to the port – a meter only on one end of the line. The reason became clear – there was an unauthorised line tapped into the condensate pipe line via which condensate was being stolen by the truck load from a barn. Or so the story goes….
Perhaps the protesters would be better to spend their time following Cuadrilla’s waste trucks from the site? Some of them may have EVs so the pursuit would be range dependent?
Paul
The condensate line scam was interesting. Some thought it was installed during construction, others that it was a good ‘great escape tunnel’ dug soon after installation, as the barn was well clear of the pipeline. I think there was more than 1 meter fitted as the terminal was a joint venture with a fair amount of checks installed, but all losses were down to the operator.
Meanwhile, prior to the pipeline working, the adjacent gov run terminal burned their condensate, a sight to see but not environmentally friendly.
No, Candor, it is yourself and others who constantly try and argue you represent a majority, when you do not, who let down any resemblance of factual statements on the subject.
It has increased as we get closer to test fracking. That is hardly surprising, but it is desperate and looks so to anyone who is undecided on the topic.
I wonder why it is done, other than to create some excitement amongst those who are still anti.
And to correct the record further, as I have stated in the past I would be an undecided on the survey. Currently, I want to see tests conducted to give me further information to make a decision. I do not see myself in a minority but amongst the majority of people I have spoken to on the subject.
However, as is the norm, most of them are of the silent persuasion!
There you go again, presuming arrogantly, to speak for the undecided. Just because you had a few anecdotal conversational experiences doesn’t make it right for a minority of pro-frackers (18%) force fracking on the majority who don’t support it (including the 32% anti-frackers). Just for the record, I too was undecided until I weighed up all the pros and cons; there were definitely more cons, overwhelmingly so. So to presume to speak for all the undecided, is just a tad condescending and based on no evidence or has any hard statistical facts to back it up. I’ll wager I’m not the only one who was undecided and turns anti. However, I’m not going to presume either way, it depends how well the fracking PR propaganda works and clouds the uncomfortable truths.
Think you will find that PNR is a test site. Basically It is the first of its kind in the UK and is under scrutiny to find any issues before they arise. Findings of MINOR issues have been found and are to be rectified. The SIX breaches so far have been MINOR, meaning they are NOT a problem to human life or the environment, but merely teething problems. The minority (anti frackers) are trying to make this into something it is not. I am part of the 49% sat on the fence, that leaves 51% which is made up of anti and pro frackers which equates to minority not majority.
DPNP-fracking is authorised in the UK, under tight constraints. So, nothing is being forced-it is AUTHORISED. Some may dislike it in their locality but that is widespread for many projects. So common, there is now a recognised term for it.
I think you will find it is the antis who are a minority trying to stop an AUTHORISED activity. (I think a number were in Court this week?)
So, it is the antis who are being arrogant, and undemocratic.
You can try and tip a bottle on it’s head, but all you get is an empty bottle.
You have not weighed up all the pros and cons, because test fracking has not been achieved in UK, so there are no cost benefit analyses available to date. You obviously have not considered the economics because no data is available. Commercial companies are investing £ hundreds of millions to see if there is a benefit, but you have already decided against? Mystic Meg, or incomplete analyses?
Sorry, if you post such partial and obviously flawed arguments, don’t expect sympathy. In the real world people are routinely linked up to Smart meters and will see the cost of their energy usage rising against their disposable income. They have yet to see if fracking in UK may assist them and will see that as part of the pros and cons, not your partial “weighing”.
Meanwhile, you will see that many others are still undecided. Perhaps they need to see the bigger picture, with the pros as well as the cons?
Not long to wait-for initial indications.
Hi Martin, in sorting out he pros and cons in the bigger picture, can you help me learn about the benefits of fracking to 1 – local communities, 2 – the regional economy, 3 – employment, 4 – the rural environment, 5 – rural peace and quiet, 6 – combating climate change, 7 – helping to reduce early deaths and illnesses from combustion of fossil fuels, 8 – reducing the risk of contamination from solid waste and liquid waste, 9 – reducing the risk of damage from earthquakes?
And mining in Mongolia does what exactly?
MC you seem to think that because an authorised /official practice has become “law” that it is democratic; despite the majority opposing it? Wow, you have a very warped view of democracy. Fracking is most definitely being forced, by a minority, on communities against their will. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia made up lots of unjust laws and propaganda nonsense; it didn’t make them democratic, nor just.
You seem to throw up a lot of straw men in your arguments to cloud the valid points made. They can be easily burned down.
I don’t want any fracking in my country, based on scientific evidence from other parts of the world, the local environmental and health impacts, and the major global climate change contributions made by fugitive methane emissions from 100s of 1000s of fracking wells across the US. This is all documented, not to mention the negative impacts on diverting resources and investments away from cheaper renewable energy production and energy efficiency industries in the UK. The UK is not some special case, immune from corporate-government corruption, as is plain to see. This is what lies behind fuel poverty, as increasingly pricy and hazardous oil and gas generated heat is lost through leaky, uninsulated, overpriced housing. Not only is the average person unable to afford to buy or rent in this country, but they can’t afford to heat them thanks to these short sighted policies and delay tactics supporting fracking. More decentralised, clean, local renewable energy generation, coupled with large wind and solar, along with battery storage to help balance the national grid, is what we need (amongst many other technologies currently available). We do not need to delay it through tax breaks and subsidy for fracking oil and gas companies at their expense. Even those backing the fracking con said it wouldn’t reduce energy bills; renewable energy and energy efficiency measures will.
I don’t think people will offer you much empathy when you wilfully wish to risk people’s health and wellbeing for test fracking experiments, despite all the evidence weighed against the practice elsewhere. Continue to bury your head in denial and in your patronising, paternalistic way, tell all the people who don’t agree with you they haven’t done adequate research. I wonder how many people you “win” over with that approach?
Well, Robin, if you cease jumping the gun, and jumping to conclusions, you may find out in the not too distant future. Some of us do want to find out, in a controlled and managed way, others-like yourself-want to prevent that happening.
Some of your questions have already been answered, most of the rest will be-one way or another-shortly. Would have thought someone who quotes MSc would seek to test the science rather than speculation and scare mongering that is endemic within the antis, but that view is probably old fashioned today when the “precautionary principle” is mixed into scientific assessment, and when “scientific” papers contain more “mights” than science.
Perhaps you could answer a much less scientific question? Why would the combustion of UK sourced fracked gas, replacing USA fracked gas, or gas imported from other countries have any impact upon health related to combustion of fossil fuels? My basic science would indicate there is less transport related emissions and therefore a potential benefit. Alternatively, you might be thinking that fracking in the UK will be so financially beneficial that consumers will binge themselves and consume it gratuitously? I don’t think that likely, but maybe they would benefit from a potential Sovereign Wealth Fund in other ways? Or, perhaps, as Sterling weakens, they would not be penalised in their pockets as imported goods, and commodities, rose in price and they could afford to do some home improvements such as making their homes more energy efficient, and thus improving their health? And maybe more tax from UK industry would lighten the load of individual taxation but still place more money into preventative medicine to improve health?
Or maybe, I just exhibit a little more empathy for others?
So the issue of the quantities of spent drilling muds/fluids hasn’t hit the headlines?
Already 2,500m3 produced per well when the whole procedure was forecast to produce just 450m3 per well!
Can’t wait to learn the true amount of toxic gas emissions per well that will be pumped into our clean air compared to the licensed quantities!
Glad my grandchildren don’t go to school at Weeton Primary where they are being treated as ‘Receptors’ to produce data so the Establishment can find out once and for all if fracking has the same devastating health impacts experienced in mature fracking locations elsewhere. Those poor children are the guinea pigs in this whole disgusting experiment.
Please refer to the List of The Harmed, a 200 page report each page filled with multiple incidents, each incident with multiple victims either human, animal, fish, environment or water supply. You will be horrified!
What has hit the headlines, Peter, is an Environment Agency spokesman said that it was “committed to ensuring that shale gas operations meet the highest environmental standards”.
Looks as if they are doing so. What’s not to like, unless you want to excite a grievance?
So far only local Environment Protectors NOT he Environment Agency have raised the issue of very variable Radiation readings around the Preston New Road Little Plumpton fracking site and the old exploration site at Grange Road, Singleton!
Surely a conscientious Gold Standard monitoring agency would have multiple radiation sensors and gas testing equipment around such establishments because after all deep drilling can release untold hazardous emissions into the surrounding area at any time?
Nobody was more surprised or alarmed than us to discover that these precautions were not being taken!
MC quote: “What has hit the headlines, Peter, is an Environment Agency spokesman said that it was “committed to ensuring that shale gas operations meet the highest environmental standards”. Looks as if they are doing so. What’s not to like, unless you want to excite a grievance?
While this statement is merely a laudible aspiration backed up by very limited evidence and even more limited resources, it’s interesting that someone who claims to have such vast experience and knowledge of the O&G industry can take largely meaningless identikit govt/officialdom statements as gospel.