Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site near Blackpool, 5 August 2018
The shale gas company Cuadrilla, announced this morning it had received permission to frack its second horizontal well in Lancashire.
The company said the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) granted hydraulic fracturing consent today for the well at Preston New Road near Blackpool. 180919 Hydraulic Fracturing Decision for Preston New Road
The first well at the site received consent in July 2018. Cuadrilla said planning and environmental permits for both wells were already in place.
Last week, officers at Lancashire County Council approved the lighting plan for the hydraulic fracturing stage of the Preston New Road operation. This includes lighting for the 28m coiled tubing tower. Some campaigners and councillors had argued that this should have been decided by the council’s planning committee.
Francis Egan, chief executive of Cuadrilla, said the company was delighted to receive this second fracking consent.
“We are currently completing works on site in readiness to start hydraulically fracturing both wells in the next few weeks.
“The UK’s need for a new and reliable source of natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel, is underlined by a new report¹ suggesting the UK is going to have to rely on more coal to generate electricity. That would be a massive backwards step in reducing carbon emissions, as would continuing to import gas over long distances by pipe and ship.
“We are very proud to be the first operator in the UK to make significant headway in shale gas exploration.”
A spokesperson for Frack Free Lancashire said:
“It is unsurprising that the pro-fracking UK government have yet again, waved away the myriad of issues around fracking, and granted permission for Cuadrilla’s second well to be hydraulically fractured.
“The financial resilience of multi-million-pound losses Cuadrilla and their international backers is worrying, with recent reports that they have already burned through all of the funds Centrica gave them, and that’s even before they’ve managed to frack.
“The continual emerging climate, environmental and health evidence against fracking, and the increasing opposition – now including Conservative MPs who are threatening a rebellion against their own party on this matter – suggests that this industry is on a hiding to nothing, albeit an expensive one for them.”
Richard Marshall, a campaigner against Cuadrilla’s operation, said:
“Claire Perry shows utter contempt for the people who will suffer the consequences of fracking. Even members of her party agree that decisions on planning should be left to local authorities. She is totally ignoring all the evidence that says fracking will increase pollution and threaten water supplies. It is shameful that this government are putting people’s lives at risk.”
The Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, said:
“The fiasco of allowing fracking at Preston New Road has been an exercise in trampling over democracy and the wishes of local people.
“The Government is paving the way for a whole new fossil fuel industry just when we should be dramatically reducing our reliance on dirty energy. If they continue down this road, they’ll face a growing backlash in Parliament and across the country.”
Yesterday, another fracking company, Third Energy told the Yorkshire Post that it would not frack this year at its gas well at Kirby Misperton in North Yorkshire. The company is still awaiting hydraulic fracturing consent after BEIS ordered a financial resilience test. Fracking equipment was moved offsite in the spring. A spokesperson told the paper:
“We are not pushing the Government for final consent because don’t have the equipment available. We don’t know when it will become available.”
Categories: Industry
DRILL OR DROP? 
Turned Scottish now, hae you? English a difficulty? Funny, it has always been the case when you drift into uncertainty. Well, not funny, just deflection but easy to read.
What I do know, is I would not believe any PM emission data within the current market. I suppose there must be some out there who do, and then state they know. But, there we are. Back to fact and fiction. Why not adopt the precautionary principle, so loved by the antis?
Thanks for showing how easy it is to be conned into believing something is better for the climate. Was it that which convinced you?
English is not a problem for me Martin, but then I appreciate there is more to making yourself understood than just stringing some random words together to form a Collywibble.
I have to confess I am relying on academic “experts” for the information on diesel emissions from modern cars, and I can imagine how much you hate them.
BMW have been putting rather expensive PM filters in the cars I have bought since about 2005 Martin (they cost about 2 grand to replace).
I presume you have some evidence that they don’t work and that this is all a con – or is this just more content free verbiage from you? And if so have you let BMW know that you are onto them? They’ll be quaking in their boots over in Munich I’m sure!
You mean the same BMW who can’t run or modify a supply chain and have to close the factory? Or the same BMW who supplied me with a new car fitted with variable dampers that ceased working after 6k miles and they refused to accept it because they were BMW, even whilst it was common knowledge they had a big problem with the system? Maybe the same BMW about to be investigated by the EU concerning a cartel to restrict costly technology that could reduce pollution? (That could produce a fine of 10% on GLOBAL REVENUE. So, good luck with getting your vehicle serviced properly if that happens.)
No-I wouldn’t believe a word they said based upon that. Hope you don’t get in a row reference congestion charges. Not sure that not being informed correctly is a let off.
I note the antis are concerned about the money being spent by Cuadrilla!
If it gets a bit tight, then crowd funding is a good fall back. Seems there is a never ending supply of funding via that route.
It takes more than a couple of pro fossil fuel dinosaurs to crowd fund something Martin!
Crowd funding relies on popular support and fracking is something the majority of the country have decided not to back (as indicated in all good Government public opinion surveys😉). 🎣
You mean the two thirds who are even now NOT against fracking, crembrule??? (Welcome back. All hands to the pumps-excuse the wording?)
How much gas being produced at PNR needed to switch them on to crowd funding, or even cheering from the rafters? Oh dear. The reality is approaching but the heads are buried somewhere along Blackpool beach.
Could be some very awkward moments for some second tier politicians as well. Are you ready for the opportunity, Ruth? (Tory one.)
Energy prices high and rising, constraints on energy supply around the world and maybe a further drop in the value of Sterling around the corner. (Sorry John, but it is the reality.) Even ignoring the possibility of another Beast from the East, a perfect storm in the making.
I think I might need a bigger bucket.
mind you don’t kick it by accident…it may contain a nasty substance…..
Gas prices high……North sea gas, Norwegian piped gas, LNG all far cheaper than UK shale says energy experts
Gas prices low…….North sea gas, Norwegian piped gas, LNG all far cheaper than UK shale says energy experts
Not a really complicated reality to understand
On a serious note, Cuadrilla have shown Claire they are funded at PNR through to at least the end of June 2019. More reality, I’m afraid but get used to it.
Ms Perry to you
And now for something completely…the same
The truth is indeed out there
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
‘For its part, Exxon warned of “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.” Like Shell’s experts, Exxon’s scientists predicted devastating sea-level rise, and warned that the American Midwest and other parts of the world could become desert-like’.
‘Looking on the bright side, the company expressed its confidence that “this problem is not as significant to mankind as a nuclear holocaust or world famine.” – well that’s okay then…..
Sherwulfe
Nothing surprising there, it was noted in the early 80s that CO2 would be a problem, but that was linked to coal, which was seen as a bigger problem than oil or gas. One way put was to use gas as it was then seen as more efficient. Another was a large increase in Nuclear. Looks like gas won the race.
And ( lest we forget ) acid rain was causing trouble in Scandinavia prior to us cleaning up our coal fired power stations and dashing for gas ( now we have a dash for wind ). Now that rain is less of an issue.
All this just after the oil crisis, and while Doncaster had declared itself a Nuclear Free Zone, and was encouraging the use of coal in council run areas ( as you would ).
But nothing from the guardian on the thoughts of those countries who produce most of the oil ( and coal ).
What did China and Saudi Arabia think of the CO2 threat, and did they realise the damage they were going to do? Or maybe the gov of Norway should be ostracised for producing all that oil that they do not need ( and gas )?
hewes, I see your point, but this article was not about coal; you cannot weigh one off against the other, they are all on the same side of the scale.
Sherwulfe
Re coal, it was a discussion in the coal industry at the time. What did we know about oil in the NCB?
Re China and Saudi, yes, both are big producers of fossil fuels, both of which produce CO2. Just to note that coal is happily soldiering on in that respect globally. Not always noted here on DOD as Coal in the UK has already dropped, but globally it is alive and well.
So two wrongs don’t make a right as they say; two industries knowingly polluting the planet as far back as the 80s and doing nothing about it; insane
Francis Egan said a long while ago that investors won’t wait forever. Seeing as they have produced nothing in 8 years and the attempts to prove that UK shale could actually be viable would take dozens of wells with years of flow testing the industry has no chance of success.
That’s the reality when you try and start the wrong industry in the wrong decade.
Ahh Sherwulfe, back to assumption again. Almost as dangerous as speculation and fabrication but hey, who notices?
Seem to recall it was around 15 years of largely failed attempts before the N.Sea was up and running, John. Nobody will have remembered that? Nobody will realise that one successful shale gas well for one company would attract new finance, as it would change people’s perceptions of the technology? Nah, course not.
Things will look better in daylight chaps.
Dear me Martin, you are indeed a climate denier. Your beloved oil and gas mateys have let the cat out of the bag and you are still in the corner eating their sweeties.
I loved the comment by Cuadrilla in the Guardian article accusing Labour or being divided on the farcking issue [he was put clearly in his place by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, said: “Labour’s position on fracking is unequivocal: we will ban it.”, that the ‘ two horizontal wells will be done slowly because of concerns over seismic activity, meaning the process is expected to take around two and a half months.’…..unfortunately this cannot last [ask Eric], like everything they do, all a smoke screen.
Get your chairs bolted down for the best seats in the house for the end of fracking as we know it…. (That’s if Kisheny hasn’t already single handedly given the big boys all the ammo they need to shut down the investment from pension funds, and make a big hole in the purse…..
‘Things will look better in daylight chaps.’, or even better with all night lighting for 5 months?
Nothing to do with climate, Sherwulfe. Don’t know how you managed that great leap. Maybe it was because you read somewhere that such a link was the ultimate “insult” and may take you to the moral high ground?
What it is to do with is to determine if the UK can replace some of those increasing gas imports (some from fracking, some not) with home produced gas that contributes taxation to the coffers for maintaining services and employment in the public sector. No, I really would not expect Labour to understand that. They used to try, but have even given up on trying.
Anyone ever explained that “prototypes” take somewhat longer than subsequent production?
Clutching at the straw of confusion is interesting. Will there be a discarding of this straw if/when the gas is produced successfully? I doubt it because where there have been factual errors strewn around the anti cause in the past they are still dragged out. I suspect the only real difference would be the audience evaporating. It seems to have started already.
you are babbling again MC; lay off the sugar, it fuzzes the mind.
……….DIRE STRAITS………… and I’m not talking about the pop group.
Cuadrilla SPENDS ALL Centrica’s funds.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cuadrilla-spends-all-centricas-funds-dhrsr682t
Cuadrilla , About us
https://cuadrillaresources.com/about-cuadrilla/cuadrilla-partners/
With the above link, you can click on to and view the 2017 public accounts.
Cuadrilla TOTAL TAX INCOME for the YEAR 2017 was £ 218, 000 .. That’s one weeks wages for a Premiership Footballer.
IT LOOKS LIKE it will only take the flap of a butterflies wings to sink this ship.
Jack
Same as any mineral extraction company. No revenue until you start to produce the goods. Thinking about it, same for any business. Same as putting on a play. No income until 1st night I guess.
Re Centrica money, I think spending it was the plan ( why else would they hand it over )?
I expect they wanted a return for their money…it’s not a gift….
Sherwulfe
Yes, I expect they do, tho there is some risk attached ( or probability around success or failure ) that they were happy to take.
and probably no longer happy as they will not add to the investment; speaks volumes