Cuadrilla’s fracking site at Preston New Road, 24 October 2018. Photo: Eddie Thornton
Cuadrilla’s current fracking site in Lancashire passed a milestone on Friday.
A small earth tremor in the series that began 10 days ago near Blackpool exceeded the 0.5 magnitude threshold while fracking was underway. This triggered the first ever red light in the government’s regulations on induced seismicity.
The tremor, measured by British Geological Survey at 0.8, was too small to be felt at the surface. But under the traffic light system regulations it was enough to require Cuadrilla to stop work at its Preston New Road shale gas site for 18 hours and to report to the regulators on the integrity of the well.
Within hours of the tremor, Cuadrilla’s chief executive, Francis Egan, was telling the media that the red-light level in some other countries was 10,000 times higher than he was having to work to.
From a studio in Westminster on Friday evening, he said the 0.5 limit was “very challenging”. The limit in Canada was 4ML and companies in Europe were operating to red light levels of 2, he said.
In another BBC interview yesterday, he said:
“We are able to limit it to these tiny levels, but it’s very difficult to work within it.”
So how did the UK end up with a red light limit of 0.5ML for tremors induced by fracking?
For the origins of the 0.5ML limit, you have to go back seven years to the last time Cuadrilla tried fracking in the Blackpool area.
In the early hours of the morning of 1 April 2011, there was a small earthquake, measuring 2.3ML, felt across the Fylde.
There were reports of toppled traffic lights and a cracked railway bridge. Residents waking in the night thought their homes were being burgled. Staff at Blackpool’s Bonny Street police station said they felt the building shake. It made the national news.
Preese Hall. Picture by Cuadrilla Resources
The earthquake was later linked to Cuadrilla’s fracking operations at the Preese Hall shale gas well. A Cuadrilla-commissioned report later in the year revealed there were 50 seismic events, including one measuring 1.5ML
The report described the seismic activity as “quite exceptional”. It said the 2.3ML earthquake was:
“2 orders of magnitude stronger than normally observed from hydraulic fracturing induced seismicity”.
The authors, Pater and Baisch, proposed a traffic light system and concluded that a threshold of 2.6ML during fracking at 3km deep would be a maximum acceptable magnitude.
But there was a complication in setting 2.6ML as the threshold at which fracking should pause.
The largest magnitude seismic events tend to occur after fracking has finished and the highest increase in magnitude after fracking was estimated at 0.9ML. So if your red light threshold was set 2.6ML during fracking, you could see a 3.5ML event after the injection operation had finished. And this would be beyond the 3ML worst-case.
The Cuadrilla report therefore recommended a red light figure of 1.7ML. This was based on the 2.6ML threshold minus the 0.9 maximum post-fracking increase in magnitude.
In 2012, a review of the Cuadrilla report for the then Department of Energy and Climate change (DECC), agreed that 3ML was a realistic upper limit for earthquakes induced by fracking. It also agreed that an earthquake of 2.6ML was unlikely to cause structural damage.
But this level of earthquake was larger than Preese Hall which, Pater and Baisch concluded, had led to deformation of the well. The DECC report authors, Green, Styles and Baptie, said of 2.6ML activity:
“Such an event would be strongly felt by people within a few kilometres from the epicenter and could cause some alarm.”
The review also rejected Cuadrilla’s proposed red light limit of 1.7ML. The authors said:
“We consider that the maximum magnitude threshold of 1.7 ML, initially proposed for the traffic light system, is undesirably high from the viewpoint of prudent conduct of future operations.”
They had looked at the pattern of activity preceding the Preese Hall earthquake on 1 April 2011 and all the seismic events had magnitudes below 1.7ML. So, if the threshold had been set at 1.7ML, the red light would not have been triggered at Preese Hall. There would not have been a pause in fracking before the 2.3ML earthquake happened.
The authors said:
“Based on this limit, no action would have been taken before the magnitude 2.3 ML event on 1 April 2011. Instead, we recommend a lower limit of 0.5 ML.”
In December 2012, the then energy secretary, Ed Davey, confirmed that the red level in the traffic light system would be set at 0.5ML. He described this level as:
“larger than the expected level generated by the fracturing of the rock”.
A document published online in 2017 by the Oil and Gas Authority described the 0.5ML level in very similar terms as
“greater than the level expected to be generated by the fracturing of the rock itself.
But this limit has already been passed in the first 12 days of operations at Preston New Road by one 0.8 tremor during fracking and one 0.8ML after fracking had finished yesterday. See DrillOrDrop tremor tracker
On the day fracking started at Preston New Road began, Francis Egan said he could “absolutely guarantee” there would not be another earthquake as a result of fracking for natural gas.
Yesterday, he said:
“You can’t create fractures in the ground without generating a seismic signature.”
Asked what level of tremor would worry him, he said:
“You have to get to a 2 at least before you can feel it. You have to get to a 4 or a 5 before you get to any possibility of causing damage, not serious damage, so I’ll refer you back to the levels in other countries.”
But even before the 0.8ML tremor, critics of fracking were describing the rising magnitude of seismic events as “unacceptable”.
A spokesperson for the campaign network, Frack Free United, said the industry was in a ‘lose-lose’ situation:
“To continue risks a larger ‘industry wrecking event’, like Preese Hall 2.0. To stop just admits that they couldn’t see the fault before they started fracking.”
The local campaign group, Frack Free Lancashire, said:
“The issue is not whether these events can be felt, but whether they could be precursors to similar events that occurred at Preese Hall in 2011, which led to Cuadrilla’s performance as a licensee being questioned by the then Energy Minister, Charles Hendry.”
Stuart Haszeldine, a professor of sedimentary geology at the University of Edinburgh, told the Guardian:
“The practical significance is not whether these tremors are felt at the surface or not, but in the potential to damage the borehole, and the potential to create gas pathways from the shale towards larger faults, towards shallower aquifers, and to the surface.”
So would the government raise the red light limit above 0.5ML? The OGA document from 2017 hinted that the limit could change:
“This level may be adjusted upward if actual experience shows this can be done without compromising the effectiveness of the controls.”
The energy minister, Claire Perry, used very similar words earlier this year in correspondence with the MP, Kevin Hollinrake (see DrillOrDrop report).
“The TLS [traffic light system] is set at an explicitly cautious level but, as we gain experience in applying these measures, the trigger levels can be adjusted upwards without compromising the effectiveness of the controls.”
But more recently, Ms Perry and another energy minister, Lord Henley, have said the government has no intention of changing the 0.5ML limit.
- Cuadrilla said yesterday it planned to resume fracking tomorrow (Monday 29 October) despite the 0.8ML seismic events on Friday 26 October and yesterday (Saturday 27 October 2018)
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
So Cuadrilla is to restart operations on Monday morning. One hopes not before it has reported to the regulators on the integrity of the well.
They should not be allowed to restart without express permission from regulators. Said express permission will be avoided by the regulators for fear of litigation. Loose loose springs to mind.
There was bound to be trouble ahead for Cuadrilla when they tried to palm of the public with a non starter 0.5magnitude threshold.
After seven years of this porky it is obvious that the public won’t accept a much bigger threshold. Hiding behind the ‘for the next few operations’ and ‘can be adjusted over time’ recommendations by the BGS has done the industry no favours.
Same would have happened with the ‘we only use a cupful of friction reducer and a sprinkle of salt story’ Trying to appease the public for a while and then saying that the US uses hundreds of types of toxic chemicals so why can’t we.
Judging on the results so far I would say this approach has been a complete disaster for the industry.
Francis looking for a 4 or 5 then?
The only thing Egan is consistent with is his inconsistency: On the day fracking started at Preston New Road began, Francis Egan said he could “absolutely guarantee” there would not be another earthquake as a result of fracking for natural gas.
Yesterday, he said:
“You can’t create fractures in the ground without generating a seismic signature.”
Some might just call this lying.
and as far as I am aware there are no companies fracking in Europe…….
I believe Cuadrilla tried and failed miserably……
Doctor Dave, if you read his quote in full context it is quite clear that he means an earthquake that is felt.
What Egan said on R4 was
“to cause damage generally you have to be at about a 3 or a 4. This was approximately 10,000 times smaller than that..”
However a 3.0 Ml earthquake is actually 174 times larger than a 0.76 not 10,000 times.
Either he doesn’t know this or he s lying. Either is not a good look for the CEO of Cuadrilla.
Egan means that a 3.5 ML earthquake (ie “about a 3 or a 4”) releases approximately 10,000 times (actually 11,220 times) the energy of a 0.8 ML earthquake. Which rather suggests he knows more about it that you do, or you desperately try to imply.
Nice try but I do know that the difference in energy release between a 3.0 and a 0.76 is actually 2,291, and his comment references size (magnitude) not energy release.
It’s hilarious how the pro-frackers seem to know what he meant to say even though he said something else. I know Francis must be ever so tired, but he really needs to be careful to say what is true and not something vague and inaccurate that he thinks will sway the public.
Why shouldn’t Cuadrilla resume fracking? An 0.8Ml event is microseismic. There’s nothing in the TLS that would prevent them from continuing on Monday, despite the conservative nature of the TLS.
As for the 2.3Ml event several years ago, according to the Richter Scale, events in the range of 2.0 to 2.9 are characterized as thus “Felt slightly by some people. No damage to buildings.” That would include earthquakes up to ~6x more powerful than the PNR 2.3Ml event. There are over 1 million events in this range each year. I don’t believe there was ever any building damage that was definitively connected to this small event.
Refracktion, you might want to check your math and your aspersions. A 4Ml event would be a bit over 10,000x more powerful than a 0.78Ml event. Not a good look for you either.
So Bob, what is the point of a traffic light system if when a red event is triggered, external regulators don’t come in and see what’s occurring; if you just decide to continue yourself regardless, that’s a joke and definitely not gold, silver or even copper standards.
You can deny the damage if it makes you feel better but it does not make it go away; best ask those that actually experienced the event – those that started action groups as a result; people don’t waste their time on imaginary problems.
The point, Sherwulfe, is that a temporary halt is called to make sure that larger events do not occur after fracking stops. You can characterize the standards in any way that you like, but they are FAR stricter than in any other jurisdiction to my knowledge.
Again, check the Richter scale regarding potential damage. Do you have any evidence for confirmed damage from the massive 2.3ml event, or is it all anecdotal?
Here are accounts written on the day by BBC and the Guardian
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12930915
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/01/earthquake-shakes-blackpool
Get out there and ask the residents; or would that be too intimidating?
“An 0.8Ml event is microseismic”
Not according to the Oil and Gas Authority it’s not. You know who they are and what role they play don’t you Bob?
[Image removed over possible copyright issues]
Egan said smaller not less powerful. As you may know, the differences between Richter scale measurements can be expressed in terms of size (magnitude) or energy release. Egan was talking size. No need to check my maths. It’s fine thanks.
The problem is related to the depth of the seismic events. The nearer to the surface they are, the less powerful they need to be to have an adverse impact at the surface. Seismic events in the UK are unusual at the depths reported both at Blackpool and at Newdigate, at around 2km. Preese Hall with absolute certainty shows that a reading of 4 would have a significant impact at the surface. Retaining the current traffic light levels is essential at the depths being explored. Another factor that concerns me is that a seismic event at a second or subsequent drilling could impact on earlier drillings, something that has been noted in the US. But the major concern is the migration of fluids and gases through existing faults that are highly likely to provide easy conduits for them, and who knows when and where they will end up. This industry is playing fast and loose with a UK geology that they do not appear to understand, and this government is fully complicit in this massive gamble. Both need to be brought to account once it all goes wrong. Given the well documented and proven adverse consequences of this industry, there should be no immunity for either the industry chiefs or government ministers and MPs.
“migration of fluids and gases through existing faults” how exactly? If the fault isn’t reopened, no gas or fluid is getting through it. That’s why after almost 2 million fracked wells in North America we don’t have one single instance of frack fluid migration into an aquifer. Not a single one.
[Edited by moderator]
List of the Harmed from North America contains 200 pages of multi victim events causing harm or damage to the Enviroment and people’s health caused by fracking.
Please correct your post forthwith and leave the platform!
[Edited by moderator]
In America there must be well documented legal cases that show these…
In the Worlds most litigious Country there must be thousands of examples of huge payouts to these victims…
Please give us a couple pete…
Kisheny,
Simply explore the good works of an American legal outfit http://www.frackinginjurylaw.com trading under the Frackcident banner I believe or follow the links in list of the harmed.
There are also plenty of examples of communities in North America being relocated to enable fracking to contaminate their land and but not compromise their health. This creates a sacrifice zone which is cheaper for the frackers in the long run.
Here on the Fylde the frackers and their facilitators are starting at square one!
Bob I think you are really Franny Egan, you are quoting him and his industry rubbish word for word. https://youtu.be/lY2x8J1ovp0
Whoops, incorrect poster name! Sorry.
Francis Egan and Cuadrilla may be feeling very nervous now wth all the tremors and they still can’t find the optimal range to frack efficiently to get the gas flowing. Just look at the flare cans. Still empty after 2 weeks of fracking and a dozen of shakers. UK shale looks empty so far. Lol.
When asked in the interview if he was worrying about the seismic could do damages Francis Egan replied he is not worried about the seismic. And rightly so. These quaker are too so.
But he looks concerned and the way he said it certainly showed something else was on his mind that worried him alot more. Maybe it’s the bad gas flow maybe it’s the cost maybe it’s bad PR so far.
The flare cans are still empty and maybe that is what worried him and Cuadrilla.
They will flow after ALL the fracking has been done. The public must be getting a bit sick of all this ‘earthquake’ crap. Especially seeing as nobody has detected anything and this is orders of magnitude below any property damage. No tsunamis or collapsed buildings here!
By the way, the idea the the well integrity could be damaged is BS. The holes that the fluid go through show its already got no integrity!
The idea the water/fluid will magically rise against the force of gravity is similarly contrary to the laws of science. They can in many circumstances, depending on the pressures, but have to be induced. Good idea to understand a bit about well production issues to comment on this.
Johnson. Very good point about magic water migrate upward against the gravity argument. And the hole in well integrity. Good scientific mind.
Ken Wilkin(John)son
“nobody has detected anything” – well apart from the BGS who would seem to have detected 23 separate seismic events of course.
A lot of knot tying going on with the maths.! Strange really, first time we have seen it?
Erm, no. Remember the Tracking Survey, and comments about a majority against fracking? Then we have large surpluses of oil and gas sloshing around the world market so not economic to frack in UK. Then we have no gas will be produced but 1000s of sites industrialising the landscape.
All very exciting for some but another few days at PNR and the first horizontal should be completed without anyone having felt anything-which is why we see the “alternative” approach of trying to suggest that any seismic recording is problematic.
So far, so good may not be exciting, but is the reality. When completed in a few days that is what will attract attention, not the knot tying. And, following a few more successful fracks then the attention will turn to examining where did all the fake news come from, and why.
Plenty of damage caused to property around the Fylde by a combination of earlier seismic testing and Preese Hall earthquakes.
Usual non-disclosure agreements linked to payouts plus denial of blame for earlier damage as occured without warning so no pre-damage photographic evidence collected! Things are a bit different this time round, evidence already collected and Notices of Liability already lodged with the frackers, their contractors and political enforcers!
I hope that the Tourism and Farming trade bodies have lodged Notices of Liability against these people by now on behalf of their Members?