Third Energy’s Kirby Misperton fracking site, November 2017. Photo: Eddie Thornton
When Third Energy announced plans to frack one of its wells at Kirby Misperton, people in the North Yorkshire village decided to monitor the effects for themselves. They began by collecting data to establish a baseline against which impacts could be compared. In this guest post, Mike Potter, a member of the Kirby Misperton Monitoring Group, explains why, how they did it and what they found out.
Mike Potter
Living near a planned fracking site prompted me to look into high volume high pressure hydraulic fracturing about six years ago. But when reasonable questions and suggestions were met with silence, half-truths and weasel words, I became highly suspicious.
A key failing in the early days of fracking in other countries was that baseline data was rarely collected.
How could harm, detrimental effects, or even benefits be recognised when there was no evidence of how things have changed? How can effective regulation be put in place without robust understanding of harmful effects? Fracking is a completely untested process in this country, apart from the Cuadrilla example at Preese Hall in 2011, so no evidence base exists for the UK.
I asked for baseline assessments of health, air and water quality before any fracking took place. I said there should be environmental impact studies using evidence from existing fracking operations. This should be followed by a sensible period of ongoing monitoring of any potential impacts if the industry were to expand commercially. I suggested that data collection and analysis should be strictly independent wherever possible and with an extremely robust provenance.
I received neither response nor reassurance.
Location of Third Energy’s Kirby Misperton site and local landmarks. Map: KMMG
After about nine months, I decided there was no justification to trust the word of either industry or government until I could see some commitment to my requests.
Eventually the government agreed to fund independent monitoring led by the British Geological Survey (BGS) in and around the Kirby Misperton site and at Preston New Road, where Cuadrilla was planning to frack. This work, carried out with four universities and Public Health England, was additional to monitoring required by regulators.
While this monitoring was welcome, it did not cover all the impacts that fracking may have on the local community. Noise and traffic levels were not included, and initially, air quality was measured only at the KM8 well-pad itself.
So a group of concerned residents came together and formed the Kirby Misperton Monitoring Group (KMMG) to address some of these issues.
Why?
We wanted to be sure that appropriate monitoring was in place and accurate baselines were recorded before any fracking-related disruption happened.
We also wanted to establish if there were any gaps in the monitoring by the British Geological Survey, Third Energy and the regulators.
Making our own baseline measurements would give us a solid understanding of the measurement process and the conditions in the area before fracking happened. This would make us better placed to talk about the issues and to hold the operator and/or the regulator to account if we needed to.
Having our own data would mean we would be prepared to challenge any future planning applications if we wanted to.
What?
In deciding what we would monitor, the most important considerations to us were cost, trustworthiness and reliability of results.
Equipment and methods would have to conform to accepted and proven protocols for results to carry as much weight as possible. So, for example, chemical analysis of water samples had to be conducted by an accredited laboratory and traffic surveys were conducted according to industry guidelines.
This wasn’t about being pro or anti fracking.
It was about collecting unbiased data that would allow us to recognise harmful effects on local communities or ecosystems if or when they occurred.
Some people will ask ‘why would we trust your results?’ The use of industry standard protocols means we can robustly defend our findings. We can also compare them to those of BGS and Third Energy and they should closely match. If not, there are serious questions to be answered of ‘whose are wrong, and why?’.
The group initially identified 13 areas where monitoring would be useful. But we prioritised four areas: noise, air, water and traffic.
We believed this was where the immediate possible impact on the community was likely to be greatest and we could make good quality measurements.
Traffic: We carried out six weekly 12-hour surveys and used static cameras at two locations.
Air quality: We had six locations recording nitrogen dioxide and benzene levels.
Water quality: We had access to five boreholes and wells around Kirby Misperton
Noise: We monitored 24/7 about 800m from the site and within the village
Other: We also monitored complaints to police, arrests and incidents.
How?
We appointed two people to lead on each priority area. We developed project plans to track progress, cost, equipment and standards. We bought traffic cameras, air sampling kits, water borehole tests, noise monitoring instrument and a weather station.
Funding for KMMG has come from a combination of our own pockets, other local people who agree with our aims and objectives, and donations from a number of businesses with strong green credentials.
Unsurprisingly, we would welcome further unconditional donations. As you would expect, the most valuable contribution has been the considerable time, commitment and knowledge of our members.
KMMG has brought together people with a diverse range of expertise, and we have sought further advice and learnt a great deal along the way.
For efficiency, small teams work on each of aspect of the monitoring according to their relevant skills and interests, and the wider group meets regularly to share and discuss progress. For example, traffic surveys require plenty of volunteers (we had a team of 30) with the concentration and perseverance to accurately count vehicles in miserable weather for an hour or two, while other aspects of our monitoring have required fewer people, but more specialist knowledge.
Traffic
We identified key traffic locations and recorded vehicle types and numbers, as well as traffic incidents.
Heavy vehicles travelling to Third Energy’s Kirby Misperton site. Photo: KMMG
Air quality
Measuring potential air pollutants, including diesel exhaust, dust, hydrocarbon compounds and methane, requires specialised equipment, and expertise.
We focussed on methods that were relatively low cost, that could give us accurate, quality-controlled results to industry standards and that we could conduct and interpret. Our data was complementary to the BGS air quality monitoring, which was just at the site, while our measurements were around the village.
We used diffusion tubes, which were industry standard and analysed at an accredited lab.
Water quality
We identified where Third Energy’s consultants planned to monitor ground and surface water and we looked for gaps in this monitoring.
We used a suite of tests to measure dissolved gases, chemicals and typical fracking-related compounds. This was considerably broader than Third Energy’s monitoring. The test company supplied transport and bottles for testing, guidance and information sheets to ensure we collected clean specimens.
Noise
We acquired industry-standard equipment, including a monitor, monitor calibration device and a weather station.
We sited the noise monitor and weather station 810m from the well site in a resident’s garden. It was 10m away from Third Energy’s equipment. The weather data is essential to interpret noise measurements.
Results
Traffic: Traffic management plan breached nearly every day
We now have clear evidence that Kirby Misperton Village residents were severely disrupted by the traffic associated with the preparations to frack the well site at KM8. There is robust data we can use to address any future planning applications.
There was a 30% increase in traffic movements at the start of site preparation at KM8. 25% of the increase was light goods vehicles and vans. Police vehicles accounted for 10-15% of daily movements. These comprised 100 movements through the village each day that had not been accounted for in the Traffic Management Plan (TMP), approved by North Yorkshire County Council.
We discovered that the TMP was breached virtually every day and no-one accepted responsibility for the breaches. The county council blamed the Police. The police blamed Third Energy. Ryedale District Council appeared to do nothing.
We know that heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) delivering to the KM8 site were too big to navigate roads in the villages around Kirby Misperton. We now know what traffic comes through Kirby Misperton every day. We also know what the limits are on the amount and type of traffic the village can accommodate in future.
Air quality: increase in nitrogen dioxide with site preparation
We discovered that nitrogen dioxide levels were highest at the well-site, peaking in November 2017. The lowest levels were upwind of the KM8 site. In the village, the highest levels were on the main road through the village.
As well as our own monitoring, we followed the more detailed BGS air quality data (made available online) on particulates and a range of gases. This helped us to understand the impacts of site activities on air quality.
The online BGS data, and recently-released Environment Agency data, also showed large increases in nitrogen oxide levels once activity at the KM8 site began.
Water quality: No evidence of contamination
We did not find evidence suggesting any oil and gas contamination prior to fracking taking place.
We found that many farms were reluctant to allow us to test their boreholes. We also discovered that there are considerably more boreholes than we originally thought. Potential groundwater contamination from fracking is a greater threat to farmers than they may realise.
Noise: Realistic baseline
We can now give the planning authorities a realistic baseline for local noise levels. We also have actual data on the noise levels, duration and quality that communities may experience at different stages of fracking development.
This information could allow people to identify breaches of planning conditions and alert the authorities.
Noise monitoring equipment is very technical and sensitive. Training is essential for both site location, data downloads, maintenance and data analysis.
Third Energy’s Kirby Misperton site at night. Photo: KMP
What we also learned?
We have a better understanding of what needs to be monitored, how this can be done and how to identify when breaches occur.
We have improved our knowledge of monitoring procedures, both generally and at the KM8 site specifically. This has helped us to assess what we have been told by the regulators and Third Energy, and to interpret the data from BGS.
We highlighted that onCline data streamed from the BGS seismic equipment was not scaled correctly, meaning seismic events were not being shown. Additionally, one of the six units was not streaming in real time due to the lack of 3G connection. We raised these issues with BGS, which corrected them, ensuring that seismic data for KM8 was publicly available
We successfully recorded the data we wanted to and we now know where the gaps are. We won’t be blindsided in the future on monitoring issues.
We could have better communicated the results to the village on what we achieved. We need to improve our ability to consolidate and record incidents of all types.
We would like to carry out baseline methane monitoring of the area before drilling and fracking. This will conclusively show any fugitive emissions if or when fracking takes places but it is a very expensive procedure.
We learned that having technically-savvy people on the team was essential. We needed people who could analyse data, install and set up equipment and communicate with the group. We are very grateful for the time and effort given up by the circa 38 people who made up the group.
And finally, we also learned that we needed to plan for separate, secure and consolidated data storage.
Key lesson
The efforts of KMMG members demonstrated how seriously some in the local community are concerned by the prospect of fracking in Ryedale and far beyond.
When significant numbers of rational, intelligent local people recognise the need to commit so much of their time, effort and tenacity over a long and indefinite period of time to such an end, you really have to ask the question why?
For any group who would like more information, please contact frackfreeryedale@gmail.com with your name, address, the group you represent, your e mail address and telephone number.
Categories: guest post
DRILL OR DROP? 
Just a thought. When a well is drilled the operator has to give money to local government. Why not approach your Councillors to support you in purchasing monitoring equipment with that money?
The sharing of information has been the greatest asset to those who have stopped the industry from developing. The incredible work done by this group will be used by communities across the country.
The monitoring of sites will now be easily accessible with known costs.
As more groups come on line access to funds increases.
Excellent work by KMMG and their supporters.
Mike Potter is a councillor on Ryedale district council.
John, thanks I am not local & did not know that.
An excellent report and a great demonstration of action not words. Well done
Is this something that can be done at PNR?
Absolutely, but it needs a cohesive team effort and ideally a driving force. KMMG happy to advise.
I would also advise that ideally a control area is selected to monitor in order to compare with your target monitoring area. This should be another rural location in N. Yorks with similar agricultural activity, topography, village size/development & traffic flows etc, but not having onshore drilling activity. Also, to really get a real picture of baseline, monitoring should continue through several seasons over several years. Gas fluxes from the ground change seasonally & can change dramatically if the ground is frozen or snow covered, subject to rapid snow melt or flooding, rapid barometric pressure falls, or water table changes, waterlogging and/or agricultural changes. Ideally a credible monitoring programme needs to be able to be published in a quality peer reviewed science publication. Also be aware that atmospheric inversions can lead to very high concentrations of gases at ground level, as can some wind directions, particularly those coming to the UK from a SE quandrant, importing pollution from mainland Europe. Apologies if you are already aware of these factors.
Someones worried. Understandable.
Yes I for one am worried….worried about the price of U.K. gas, the security of of our energy supplies and Europe’s increasing dependence on Putin and “Middle-Eastern headchoppers” for our energy supplies. Worried also that green activists are too blinkered to actually consider the problems of relying on weather dependent renewables.
Increased investment and development of renewables will reduce demand for gas. The law of supply and demand would therefore dictate a price reduction. Europe has always fed its demand for energy very heavily from O&G producing areas – why is it suddenly necessary to describe the Middle East and Russia in such an inflammatory way? You also omit that these countries are very dependent on the revenues from O&G sales and will be deeply concerned that credible alternatives are being developed fast – and it could be faster with the right political will and investment. Finally, you should be well aware that not all renewables are weather dependent. Just like financial investments, the wise move is to have a mixed portfolio. As far as I’m aware, the tides roll in and out twice a day exactly as forecast, waves keep crashing, water keeps flowing etc etc. I’m sure that will be worrying Putin.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/16/labour-is-divided-over-proposed-fracking-ban-cuadrilla-chief-shale-gas
Only the antis are worried John – worried Cuadrilla might be succesful at PNR and the economics may work. PNR is the most monitored O & G site on the planet. Perhaps petrol stations should be monitored in the same way? Agriculture? Quarrying? Wind farm construction?
Cuadrilla is clearly grasping at straws. The Guardian article actually highlights Labours stance against fracking. Unite, who oppose fracking have 1,420,000 members.
With all that super monitoring and gold standard stuff if makes you wonder why Me Egan didn’t allow countryfile onto the site even though they gave 3 days notice.
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1015200/Countryfile-Tom-Heap-BBC-fracking-presenters-BBC-video-viewers.
Worried bout seeing what, one wonders.
It seems the industry is getting very jittery. With so many Conservatives opposing shale gas the industry is trying to show it has support from Labour. The GMB may support it but the labour movement and Unite do not. Add the growing list of Conservatives who oppose it and shale gas is becoming isolated and stranded.
Investor problems,one wonders.
Seems to me that monitoring is a good idea if conducted independently and objectively and with careful regard for appropriate control areas/group as suggested by Dr Riley. With regard to factors such as noise I guess we have to allow that any new light industrial development with produce some inconvenience but I guess the planning process is there to balance the inconvenience against the greater good. They happen to be building 1000 new homes near me and that will inevitably produce inconvenience, more lorries, occasional temporary traffic lights etc.. Personally I’m willing to put up with it as I’d like my grandkids to have affordable housing. The parallels with onshore gas exploration are obvious.
Perhaps also we ought to consider the possible harms of NOT allowing gas exploration. U.K. wholesale gas prices have risen more than 20% this year, China is now importing 30% more gas from the world market and inevitably with the switch from coal to gas this process will continue worldwide and the gas market may tighten, with the possible onward effects on the consumer. However much the government tries to cap prices they cannot hold back these forces. So maybe we should also be monitoring the amount of fuel poverty in the area, the temperature in the homes of those living just on the state pension etc. Now clearly onshore UK gas isn’t going to produce a sudden reduction in billls but we must surely be pursuing ways of increasing gas supply.
If only UK gas went into the UK network you might have a point. However it is not the UK government that is recovering the gas, it is a commercial enterprise and any gas will be sold on the open market to the highest bidder. So not condusive with reducing gas prices for UK citizens. Also the fact that Europes largest fracking company wants the fracked gas to run its chemical plants and as feed stock for plastic production, won’t benefit us us either. We simply have all the inconvenience and dangers but get none of the benefits. Unlike your house building scenario
Indeed it is not the government that is recovering the gas but the government will recover taxes and the U.K. as a whole will benefit from lowered imports one hopes. I don’t know but I presume your local community will get the royalty payments which have already been negotiated with shale gas companies. I agree that the amount of gas produced will not effect prices on it’s own just as one farm doesn’t effect the price of milk or beef.
I’m thinking about your local farms and thinking maybe they are commercial enterprises and that you don’t benefit much from them either except that we all drink milk, most eat beef etc, just as 85% of us need gas to warm our homes. So it’s not that you get “none of the benefits” just that the benefits are not really apparent, being divided amongst all the population. By the way you say the fracked gas will be used to make chemicals and plastics, well to my mind that’s great as long as plastics are used responsibly and again they don’t have to be imported.
With best sited onshore wind being the cheapest source of electrical generation we should be maximising the high UK wind speeds to help those on low incomes or retired and help meet our legally binding climate change targets. This would also help reduce Chinese investment in our energy markets.
http://www.refracktion.com/index.php/shale-gas-take-away-anyone/
Of course there could be complications from wind power. Let pro fracker Joe Barton explain.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/barton-wind-finite/
This needs adding to the list of reasons for UK fracking which include cheap gas, freedom from Putin’s grip, and house price rises.
[personal address removed from comment] We are not in the grip of Putin. But I’d sooner be than in the grips of Western psychopaths
Sorry just a thought, around 15-20% of methane emissions worldwide are produced by agriculture, especially from livestock. How about monitoring the effect on the local atmosphere of a 40 cow dairy farm. I believe the area has a few. If you found, for example that cows produce quite a lot of polluting methane, compared for example with a field of wheat, what would you conclude, that we need to close all dairy farms. Why not? Discuss with a consideration of the balance of community costs and benefits.
As I’m sure you realise, the government will not be recovering any taxes, as these companies have complex financial structures and are “based” in tax haven like the Camen Islands and Switzerland etc, The UK operations run at a massive loss and so our kind government actual finance them. Unlike your farm we don’t get to eat the meat or benefit from the manure.
I wonder about the use of the word “blinkered” as some have written. Have any of the posts mentioned climate change? We all need to be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels as a matter of huge urgency. Fracking goes in the opposite direction, to say nothing about the local effects on geological integrity.
Thank you for the many positive comments, but can I first say that I’m just a cog in the mechanism and that this is, and must be, a cohesive team effort.
Secondly, an important point that got lost during various drafts:
Baseline monitoring before any activity (e.g. fracking) takes place is critical evidence if we are to assess the impacts of that activity, as it provides the starting point. Continued monitoring and comparison to the baseline provides evidence of any change, for better or worse. A great diversity of things may be affected and therefore need monitoring. For example, air and water quality, public health, environment (encompassing noise, light, tranquillity etc), seismicity, ecology, traffic, and social factors such as crime levels. Not forgetting the economic impact on existing industries and employment.
Lastly, Nick Riley gives some useful pointers on ‘control’ monitoring, which highlights a very important point. KMMG is made up entirely of volunteers giving their time and expertise freely. We also have jobs, interests, obsessions, families, commitments and even lives. There is a limit to what we have the time, money and energy to do. As fracking is new to this country (spare me the arguments about conventional well stimulation) and as the govt refuse to accept any analysis from how the process has been done elsewhere, the only way to ensure safe regulation is to carefully monitor everything from the baseline to ongoing development. This is the job of both the industry and govt to ensure such monitoring is extensive, robust and independent enough – including ‘control’ monitoring if that is required. If some keen volunteers choose to replicate some of this, so be it, but only as back up, not the primary source.
As the industry will allegedly be pumping significant tax revenues into the exchequer, perhaps an advance on this cash would be a good source of funding for any monitoring, providing no strings are attached. I would far rather money was spent at this stage to ensure safe regulation to prevent any harmful water or air contamination, health effects and any other potential risks. It would be much cheaper in the long run than causing significant environmental or health issues in the near future and the cost of dealing with them. If monitoring showed sufficient harm to stop the industry in its tracks (with consequent loss of future tax revenue), it would still be money well spent by avoiding more significant harm and public cost. If comprehensive monitoring proves there are no problems or harms, then the industry continues as long as no problems subsequently arise and the advance could be paid back for distribution to communities – assuming they want to accept it.
This, of course, assumes that the new source of hydrocarbons and any resultant methane leakage does not critically exacerbate climate change and alter the whole Tory energy policy.
There seem to be a few people commenting that if KMMG are voluntarily monitoring fracking activity, lots of other things should be monitored too. It is a valid point unless there is sound understanding and knowledge of these various ‘other things’ from either centuries or decades of experience, with relevant regulation already in place (quarrying springs to mind). Policing and enforcing adherence to that regulation becomes far more important in such cases, because without it, people will invariably ignore or flout the rules.
Monitoring the amount of fuel poverty in the area or the temperature in the homes of those living just on the state pension would be very helpful and a noble cause, but isn’t that the job of government? KMMG are rather busy with other important issues. Still, it’s more or less a free country, so feel free to crack on with funding and organising such worthy causes yourselves.