Regulation

Cuadrilla focusses on single shale well – with under 11 months left for more drilling and fracking

pnr 190107 daniel huxley-blythe3

Fracking equipment leaving Cuadrilla’s shale gas site at Preston New Road, 7 January 2019. Photo: Daniel Huckley-Blythe

The shale gas company, Cuadrilla, has less than a year to drill two wells and frack three under the terms of the planning permission at its site near Blackpool.

The countdown comes as the company told residents it was exploring only the single well fracked so far at Preston New Road and continued to remove equipment from the pad.

The company has confirmed it finished fracking the first well, known as PNR1z, before Christmas. It began moving equipment off the site in mid-December and since then observers have reported the de-mobilisation of items including sand silos, the coiled tubing unit, cherry picker and a mobile crane.

According to reports from a meeting of the site’s community liaison group this week, Cuadrilla said it was now testing the flow of PNR1z, and expected to see a steady flow of gas soon. Observers have described a shimmer above the flare stacks on the site.

The company was reportedly unable to say how long the flow test phase would last. But according to reports, Cuadrilla said it was exploring only PNR1z at this stage.

Based on the results from this well, the company said it would then decide whether to explore the other well drilled at the site, PNR2, and drill PNR3 and PNR4, the final wells for which it currently has planning permission.

Reports from the meeting said the company described this as a “more costly approach” but one that could provide better outcomes.

The formal minutes of the community liaison group have not yet been published but people who attended the meeting said Cuadrilla denied it was leaving Preston New Road and insisted that the removed equipment would return in 2019.

Members of the group reported that Cuadrilla said it was learning from PNR1z and hoped to be able to drill and frack faster on any subsequent wells.

Earlier this week, DrillOrDrop asked Cuadrilla what equipment would remain on the site. The company’s spokesperson said:

“Any equipment that Cuadrilla doesn’t own and doesn’t need for flow testing has simply been returned until it is required again. We won’t be publishing a log of this. We also won’t give day to day updates on movement of equipment on and off site to ensure security and operational continuity.”

Ticking clock on planning permission

The time limit for the work at Preston New Road is set by two conditions of the planning permission, granted in 2016 by the then local government secretary, Sajid Javid.

Condition 2 stated:

“All drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations shall be completed within a period of 30 months from the date of the commencement of the drilling of the first well.”

Condition 3 of permission required Cuadrilla to notify the county planning authority of various stages of the operation at Preston New Road, including drilling. This set the start dates for Condition 2.

The county council has confirmed:

“Cuadrilla advised the County Council by letter dated 31/5/2017 that commencement of drilling operations on well 1 commenced on 31/5/2017.”

This date marked the installation of the conductor casing, not the start of drilling with the main rig, which was 17 August 2017. But both the council and the company accept that the start date of drilling was 31 May 2017.

The council said:

“We have taken the date of commencement of the installation of the conductor casing as the start of drilling for the purposes of Condition 3.”

An officer confirmed that the end of the 30-month period for drilling and fracking was 30 November 2019.

A spokesperson for Cuadrilla agreed: “That is our understanding”.

Future permissions

Cuadrilla could seek to extend the planning permission to drill and frack the extra wells at Preston New Road by applying to Lancashire County Council. But officials confirmed last week:

“The County Council has not received any request for formal pre-application advice regarding an extension to the time periods for drilling wells 3 and 4.”

Under the council’s constitution, what are described as “controversial” planning applications must not be decided by council officials under delegated powers. This suggests that any decision for extended planning permission would be made by elected members of the development control committee. The application would also be expected to go through a public consultation process.

The Oil & Gas Authority (OGA) confirmed last week that it had not yet approved the hydraulic fracture plan for PNR2.

The OGA also said Cuadrilla had not submitted hydraulic fracture plans for the yet to be drilled PNR3 or PNR4.

115 replies »

  1. After having finally received a copy of the Cuadrilla Bowland 3D seismic survey, 10 months after it should have been put into the public domain, my lawyer wrote to the EA on 14 November, attaching a 17-page report in which I have re-interpreted the geology between Preese Hall and Preston New Road. I can report that this survey is of excellent quality (better than I had expected), but I am not yet in a position to publish details of my work.

    Cuadrilla’s main problem was that the anticipated 300 m of Millstone Grit at PNR-1 was completely missing. This demonstrates a major misunderstanding of the geology. My re-interpretation explains why. Cuadrilla’s draft Hydraulic Fracture Plan geological pictures for the next well to be fracked, PNR-2, are, to date, nothing more than bodge-up cosmetic alterations of their old version.

    The EA has agreed to take my work into account before approving any new HFP. If this is to be taken seriously, Cuadrilla will have to re-interpret its geology from the ground up (or, rather, from the ground down!). This will take 2-3 months. Maybe that explains in part why they have felt obliged to clear the PNR site.

    • David – [edited by moderator] – any interpretation that you do is done with the knowledge gained by Cuadrilla drilling their recent wells. Anyone can make improved interpretations with more knowledge.

      • “Judith?” Where do i start? Lets try some information for you shall we? [Edited by moderator]

        Engineering, Geoengineering and Geoscience and all forms of science, physics, engineering and other professions are intended to be an informative and an advisory process in order to guide and advise specialist operations and to make the science and physics available for the betterment of mankind.

        What any form of physics or science or engineering is not, however, is to berate or talk down to, or to bully, or insult, or to become overbearingly insulting to the quite understandingly lack of such knowledge to those who have not had the privileged of learning such a method of improving our understanding of the world around and below us.

        What you display here is an insult to the profession and all those who work to establish a better world.

        It is not your place to decry or to insult anyone, anyone at all, in fact quite the opposite is true, it is however your place to correctly inform and to guide and to deliver advice to those who are not as privileged as to have attained such achievements.

        Frankly i am surprised that the institution have not reprimanded you for bringing your industry and your profession into disrepute.

        [Edited by moderator]

        • But Judith is right. Hindsight is easy! It is easy to say 300m of something is missing when a hole has been drilled through it. Thats why wells are drilled. Similar case at the recent IGas well where “someone” apparently noted that there was no chance of missing the Bowland Shale as it was everywhere in the area and therefore no need to drill a well.

          • No, Paul, what “Judith?” darling says is no where even approaching that elusive “right” or is in the slightest way true at all.

            [Edited by moderator]

        • PhilC – maybe you could point me towards another scientist other than Stuart Haszeldine who has any respect for [Prof] Smythe. [Edited by moderator]

      • And the fog is generated-probably being turned to smog via red diesel being used “scientifically” instead of vegetable oil for the chips by a colour blind cook!

        The royal “we” is somewhat over used.

        Meanwhile, oil tankers keep on emerging from HH, already declared commercial. Strange one that, seems to have defied so much speculation. Maybe, it is not an outlier?

        And my hairdresser has survived her dice with danger as she clipped my selenium enriched tresses. (Interesting that the shampoo was made in China! Maybe another indication as to why electricity generation has reduced in UK?)

        • Ahh! We didnt think it would be long before the other sock puppet appeared did we boys and girls? (that’s the “we” Martian, get it?)

          Stepping in to protect “Judith?” from having to apologise to David K Smythe and everyone on Drill or Drop no doubt? (how many “we”s do you want?)

          We suppose this is meant to divert from “Judith?” darling having to answer the question by making this vague, very vague, personal remark Martian?

          Nope! It wont work “Judith?” we still awaiting your apology to David K Smythe and all at Drill or Drop.

          If this is the best you can come up with Martian, i would keep quiet about it if i were you, even the children aren’t laughing any more and they are looking for things to throw!

          So sad isnt it? All that wasted space that could have provided clear and precise science and engineering information and advice for everyone to feel complimented and informed about the real issues, and in stead we get this meaningless unsubstantiated insulting drivel that only serves as an ego boost for those who need such things, and provides nothing scientific or relevant or substantive to anything to do with the subject of the post.

          Are we surprised boys and girls?

          No, of course we are not.

          It wont work “Judith?” we still await your apology to David K Smythe and all at Drill or Drop.

          As someone said some time ago, i wont hold my breath…….i wonder who that was?

          • How many “we’s”? Quite a few less than all.

            “Wasted space”. Indeed.

            Quality, not quantity. A lesson for the teacher.

            Needless verbosity, aka fog, a refuge.

            I still prefer Paul.

            • Doesnt work Martian and Paul.

              Easy to blow that Martian generated fog away.

              That is nothing but a weak attempt to cover up the abysmal faux pas from the “Judith?” death ray diplomacy and it wont wash.

              But the “Judith/” darling avatar will not answer for her/his own self?

              Once again we are reminded that we must not give any power or control to these people over our country and our future and that of our children judging from these frankly rabid outbursts.

              These people betray themselves every time and we still await the personal apology from “Judith?” darling.

              Nothing else will be accepted.

          • PhilC – you will have to wait for a long time for me to apologise to Smythe. He should apologise to the academic community for providing such a bad example.

            • Do you really want to stick out your neck on this “Judith?”

              Well lets have a look at your words shall we? Perhaps that will explain to you why your comments are unacceptable and why you should be ashamed of your comments.

              “David – when will you realise that other than the antifrackers, who know nothing about geoscience,”

              Who are the “antifrackers?” Do you know them all personally and know exactly what their knowledge and qualifications are? No, of course you dont, therefore that “statement” is wrong and is an entirely unfounded and unsubstantiated claim from you and therefore is totally rejected.

              Prove that or withdraw it and apologise for that insult.

              “no one respects or listens to you.”

              Who is “no one?” Do you know everyone on the planet personally and know exactly what their knowledge and qualifications are? No, of course you dont, therefore that “statement” is wrong and is an entirely unfounded and unsubstantiated claim from you and therefore is totally rejected.

              And yet you mention the support of Stuart Haszeldine here and he is “someone” is he not? And therefore your “no one” comment is immediately contradicted by your own words right here?

              “Any interpretation that you do is done with the knowledge gained by Cuadrilla drilling their recent wells. Anyone can make improved interpretations with more knowledge.”

              Really? Prove it! And why didnt Cuadrilla, who had this information for 10 months but made no “improved interpretations” during all that time?

              you have a very low opinion of Cuadrillas ability to interpret their own information and yet you say that David K Smythe did carry out an “improved interpretation” of the data?

              By your own logic, such and “improved interpretation” could not have been made by David K Smythe?

              Your comments are therefore not only wrong, they are unproven, unfounded, unsubstantiated and the very words you use are self contradictory, unscientific, and totally discredited.

              Also you display here regularly little more than a childish petulant unproven, unfounded, unsubstantiated claims that those who you seek to denigrate and insult rather than providing any contrary information or even references, you bring your institution, i am assuming that you do belong to a professional institution, though your content would tend to bring that into doubt, into disrepute and they should reprimand you in the strongest terms.

              What is the institute you belong to?

              Also you insult everyone here with your continual derogatory remarks if they dare to disagree with your overbearing ego-maniacal attitude. That is not an adult response to an engineering or scientific question.

              Any engineer or scientist worth his or her reputation, would value facts above personal prejudice and would argue point for point in great detail, and not descend into the sort of character assassination you continually like to default upon.

              I have critiqued and discredited your comments point by point, and just to lighten the mood after that unpleasnt task,

              In the words of Paunch and Judith

              “Thats the way to do it””

            • PhilC seems to be under the impression that people have any interest debating with him. I’m not sure what he doesn’t understand about that it is only worth debating with people who know something about the subject. As far as I can see he’s not shown a single bit of evidence that he knows anything factual about hydraulic fracture stimulation. [Edited by moderator]

            • So there we have it ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, still no proof of anything, no science, no physics, no engineering and no evidence of their claims, not even any geology, surprise surprise, just empty childish unprofessional opinionated weasel words, an insult to their industry, their institute and, not really a surprise is it?

              With the present failure of Cuadrilla to achieve fracking in the UK and have removed their equipment. We notice that the anti anti PR hotdeskers have nothing to say about that do they.

              So they are reduced to these unsubstantiated viscous personal attacks on everything and everyone from the Friends Of The Earth, to any and every opposer of their narrow blinkered brainwashed views and towards individuals who dare to speak the truth such as David K Smythe.

              And what proof have either of these produced to substantiate such a viscous personal attack? Where is the detailed point by point contrary substantiated proven scientific or engineering data to attempt to argue anything with logic science, engineering, or anything? Anything at all?

              Nope. Nothing, nothing at all.

              And we are meant to accept this unprofessional behaviour as if it has any validity whatsoever? Really? Not on your climate change denier imaginary friends we are not.

              Meanwhile back in the real world, this compromised, owned and fossil fuel industry funded government is busy tearing itself apart limb from limb, with the present wast of time two year bottled brexit debacle. Another vote tomorrow will bring it all tumbling down around their deaf ears.

              And then what will happen? The DUP has fled with the bribe money and withdrawn their support from Theresa May over the Irish brexit border foul up. The tory party is no longer a coalition with the DUP and is in a minority in parliament on the fracking issue.

              Theresa May is now surrounded by all those circling wanna be sharks jostling for the leadership position and ready to withdraw support for fracking and every other issue the tories have made a dogs dinner of.

              And here on Drill or Drop of course we see a reflection of that utter chaos as the reality of their precarious position dawns at last, and so we get all this bitterness and bile, probably to attempt to divert attention from the stark reality of the utter failure of fracking in the UK.

              And then they try desperately to “justify” their desperate vacuous prevarication and unsubstantiated accusations with yet more empty noise and even emptier rhetoric with yet more untrue unsubstantiated accusations.

              So what are we to make of all this?

              Its simple enough isn’t it, just treat these empty headed recidivists with the same contempt with which they treat everyone else.

              Yet more examples of why we must not let these people have the slightest influence over our future in this country and that of our children and future generations.

            • Read what you just posted PhilC and please tells us what you have contributed to the discussion. The usual rambling nothing…….nothing at all….

            • Read what you just posted Paul Tresto and please tells us what you have contributed to the discussion. The usual rambling nothing…….nothing at all….

            • PhilC – is there any point presenting engineering and scientific arguments to someone such as yourself who clearly wouldn’t understand them?

            • Dear me? Such venom? Talk about hitting raw nerves? And all because of that unacceptable personal attack by “Judith?” darling on David K Smythe which i quite rightly objected to, and said so, and proved that everything she said was not only technically incorrect, that it was entirely unsubstantiated, just like the fury we see here from these “contributors” reveals?

              We only need to scratch their surface and they quickly revert to type, and they still offer nothing evidential, scientific or engineering to counter anything David K Smythe says. Nothing at all, just empty rhetoric.

              What this is really about is no more than the desperation to divert attention from and cover up the utter failure of Cuadrilla to produce so much as a whiff of fracked gas from their once so vaunted prophesied triumph? Hence the abject fury of these replies.

              They are angry and it has to come out somewhere, and all that bile and bitterness comes out right here doesn’t it? Glad to be of service.

              A bit sad though really isnt it.

            • PhilC – so that’s a no then – you wouldn’t understand the engineering or geological arguments. I realised that was the case but thought I’d ask before wasting my time writing them down. There are probably adult education classes you cab attend that would help – don’t be embarrassed – most other people don’t know much about geocience and engineering

            • Still trying? Now we see the real “Judith?” darling dont we boys and girls? Not pretty is it?

              I told you what you must do, just apologise to David K Smythe or actually produce some scientific or engineering information to argue anything he said.

              You made the claim, you argue it.

              Surely something as simple as that is not entirely beyond even your unprofessional capabilities?

              What is the problem? Too many syllables for you?

            • PhilC still seems rather upset that someone has dared to question the understanding of the only geoscientist that the antifrackers can produce that argues there’s an safety issue with fracking. If you look really hard you might be able to find another one.

            • And as for “Judith?” darling, merely displays an overbearing ego, and a dismal contravention of professional decorum coupled with a desperate need to boost its own ego by denigrating anyone who dares to challenge it.

              We see this displayed here with almost religious zeal, still desperately telling his/her self he/she knows anything at all but cannot provide one iota of evidence to back up her insults to David K Smythe or anyone? Pity really because i have fourty five years of engineering experience here and abroad including geo engineering post grad so i could have put her right on any criticism he/she had on any criticism, but i will not hold my breath for anything so scientific.

              We have seen that attitude here before haven’t we boys and girls? Do these people get brainwashed to generate such delusions of grandeur? Or is it a required “skill” before selection? Certainly several others show the same symptoms right here on Drill or Drop. They fall by the wayside as this one will too.

              None of what has been said by this one is true of course, i have been posting here for seven years or so, and we have debated engineering subjects this “Judith?” probably hasn’t heard of. But here we have this “Judith?” come lately screaming in here as if she knows anything at all.

              Clearly he/she does not.

              Sad really isnt it? Yet another example of why we must not let such as these have one shred of a say over anything in this country and that of our children and future generations?

              Well, lets move onwards and out from this ego frenzy shall we?

              Time to tell the truth and shame the devil isnt it.

              [Word removed at poster’s request]

            • PS, I notice your links are 2013 and 2015, the links i provided are 2016, 2017 and 2018 (awaiting moderation, too many links i think) and are hence much more up to date from the attack diatribes you supplied.

              To pre-empt that, the first three are here:

              We all know there was, and is a bitterness and hared from your colleagus who support fracking against David K Smythe, a more balanced view in from right here on Drill or Drop.

              https://drillordrop.com/2016/09/15/fracking-researcher-takes-first-step-in-academic-freedom-case-against-glasgow-university/

              https://drillordrop.com/2017/08/29/guest-post-by-david-smythe-the-geology-and-oil-potential-of-horse-hill/

              https://drillordrop.com/2017/08/24/could-questions-of-definition-allow-fracking-to-be-classed-as-conventional-exploration/

            • PhilC – so to counter my argument that the only other “scientist” that I know who agrees with David Smythe is Stuart Haszledine but posting a series of links to articles by David Smythe with the only other “scientist” agreeing with his views is Stuart Haszledine. Thankyou for proving my point.

            • What utter rubbish “Judith?” there is only one mention of Stuart Haszledine in one report all the others mention no such thing.

              You contradicted yourself when you said “no one” supports David K Smythe and only later did you admit that Stuart Haszledine did support him.

              Your links are out of date and mere fear smear from hate mail and professional jealousy, and now you are desperately trying to recover face saving from yet another faux pas and you havent done that at all.

              Sorry to burst your weaponised narrative bubble, you have failed yet a gain to prove anything.

              Really desperate “Judith?” there is a name for a condition that must never be wrong on anything, but i am not allowed to say it, however you display that with a worrying regularity.

              Nope, no cigar.

              Rejected totally.

            • PhilC – do you have memory issues? My first post on this subject that you objected to specifically said that the only other scientist who agreed with Smythe was Haszledine – for some reason the moderator has edited that bit out. The links that I’ve posted are only a few years old and their age doesn’t matter – do you think that within the last few years these scientists have changed their mind regarding their views on Smythes work? The professional jealousy argument is truly pathetic – why would any of those be jealous of someone who doesn’t have a job and who’s academic record is very mediocre (I guess you haven’t checked his H-factor if you know what that is)

            • Whoops! That hit a nerve again! Clearly you do have memory issues, your comments are discredited and the arguments in your outdated links have also been discredited and overturned by more recent events as illustrated in the links.

              Accept you got it wrong again and stop trying to change the subject to attempt to point score, it wont work.

            • That is the end of the subject now, you can scream and insult as loudly as you want.

              I will ignore it and nothing is going to change that.

              You haven’t proved a thing and this endless unprofessional and insulting prevarication of yours is dismally tiresome and a waste of valuable time and space.

              End of conversation.

              Have a nice day.

            • my comment have not been discredited. You have provided no names of other geologists that agree with smythe. The links that I provided were replies from very well regarded geoscientists who you seem to be insulting. It’s you who should provide them with an apology.

              [I think this discussion has now run its course – moderator]

    • Thank you David, we hold you and your posts on Drill or Drop in the greatest of respect and admiration and will always do so.

      Unlike a certain “contributor” who has merely displayed precisely what science or physics or engineering is not, and merely displays ignorance.

    • ‘Members of Cuadrilla’s management team have each played leading roles in the drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing of more than 3,000 natural gas and oil wells across the world.’

      or

      An inexperienced start up company with a string of technical failures and inaccuracies, haemorrhaging investors money and unable to proceed within the parameters it set itself.

  2. As suggested before Christmas. Well 1 to be flow tested and then forward plans to be decided from there.

    Not very exciting and rather time consuming, but as expected.

    If it takes longer than originally planned but the results are encouraging then they might need an extension, but as the antis have helped to produce some of the delays, they will be quite understanding! LOL

    • Martin. Do you know why Cuadrilla using so much liquid nitrogen and water at PNR even when they claim to have finished fracking already? Or Anyone?
      That seems to be the question everyone asking at the moment.

      • Possibly the tankers contain contaminated fracking waters that are being removed from site having being recovered using the nitrogen?

        • John

          I have seen no information to say that they use a cryogenic package on site to remove VOCs. Their gas ( and some doubt that they have produced any frack gas ) is mainly methane, so no VOCs to separate ( especially as they are just popping it up the flare).

          Nitrogen is used for blanketing and gas lift in the main ( unless anyone knows otherwise ).

          • ‘ is mainly methane, so no VOCs to separate’

            Please explain how you know this and why do many shales contain VOC’s. Why do you suggest the Bowland shale has none?

            The cooling systems are stated as small and you need to separate the returning gases and fluids therefore less to flare.

            It will not be free of VOC’s and they have to be separated.

            • John Powney

              That UK shale gas is mainly methane is in the link below…front page

              https://knowledge.energyinst.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/124544/Energy-Essentials-Shale-Gas-Guide.pdf

              There have been various discussion here on DoD as to its exact composition, from some saying is is high in H2S. some thinking it is high in Ethane (for plastic) and others saying that, as it will be low in higher ends (propane, Butane etc, propane will need injecting in it prior to popping it into the grid. Cuadrilla had said it is low in H2S, if any , but have kept quite otherwise. However it seems that their flare OK flaring what they find.

              But of course it does contain VOCs, but these do not need separating out from the gas prior to flaring.

              The information in the environmental permit.

              In particular Schedule 3, Table S3.1, Under the first Discharge Point section where VOCs are monitored in the gas stream to the flare, where they are burned. Hence my comment that there are no VOCs to separate (which would be better said as no need to separate the VOCs in the gas prior to flaring).

              https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/395902/Permit_AB3101MW.pdf

              You do need to separate the gas and fluids, and this is done in a normal separator on site as explained briefly on page 48 of the document linked below.

              https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/395889/DD_and_Annex.pdf

              I did say, unless anyone knows otherwise… so happy if someone corrects me with information that says Cuadrilla are removing VOCs from the gas stream prior to flaring (and maybe where that process is mentioned in the Permit above ).

              Which is back ot saying, nitrogen is most probably being used as gas lift for the well and vessel blanketing / pipework purging should they be doing that at present.

              Hope that helps.

      • TW
        Interesting

        How much Nitrogen and Water have they used since they finished fracking?

        Quads of Nitrogen and amount of water in Tonnes would sufficeto help answer the question.

      • Nitrogen is used to unload the frack fluid from the well to allow the gas to flow by reducing the hydrostatic head. As Peter Roberts has pointed out they will also need to truck off site the recovered frack fluid. However the types of trucks used for carrying liquid nitrogen and fluid waste are very different so should be easy to identify what is gouing in / coming out of the site?

    • Martin. According to Francis Egan the antis have not caused any delays. Therefore we can conclude it must be Cuadrilla’s incompetence that is leaving them so far behind schedule.

      • That would be believable if the antis had not been so proud to promote the length of lock-ons or lorry surfing, Pauline, and that still exists on the record..

        Those petards may blast open a few more doors, if they start to close.

        • I can only repeat wha Francis Egan has said. He claims the protests have caused no delays. Surely you are not accusing Mr Egan of peddling misinformation to the media and his shareholders.

  3. 3D survey misses 300 metres of millstone grit.

    BGS state in their findings on the Preese Hall earthquakes,

    “Earthquakes in the magnitude range 2 to 3 ML require only relatively small rupture areas, and so can occur on small faults”

    Hello Mr reality.

    If you can’t find 300 metres of millstone grit how do you guarantee to find small faults?

    • John Powney – do you actually realise that the Millstone Grit Group is made up of a large proportion of shale and is not 300 m of medium to coarse grained sandstone don’t you?

        • I don’t know why you use the word guarantee – they can’t identify small faults full stop. However, that is no big deal as experience from over 2 million hydraulic fracture stimulations has shown unequivocally that the presence of small faults doesn’t pose a risk

          • ‘the presence of small faults doesn’t pose a risk’

            Strange comment as I had just posted what the BGS state in their findings from Preese Hall

            “Earthquakes in the magnitude range 2 to 3 ML require only relatively small rupture areas, and so can occur on small faults”

            I doubt the Government, property money lenders, and house insurance companies, would consider 3ML quakes no risk.

            • Tremors of 2 to 3ML don’t pose a risk. There have been thousands of such tremors and they have never resulted in injury or damage.

  4. I think you have an answer TW. Maybe correct, maybe not.

    I was not interested in that question but interested in the key one:

    “How much of a “shimmer”, will it get bigger and will it sustain?”

    Process has its points of interest, but output (or not) is what will be the key factor to the two thirds (including myself) who currently are not anti fracking. Indeed, if it turns out good output, then more of the two thirds will start moving to pro. It is the way these issues develop-see Newbury by-pass. Which is why the antis are desperate to keep the process stage and fear the risk of the output stage.

    • Martin Collier, we did our best to prevent all stages of the filthy fracking process but were beaten by the overnight delivery of the drilling equipment facilitated by Lancashire Constabulary and left unpunished by Lancashire County Council!
      The geological makeup of the Fylde gas has halted the fracking for the time being and when the Tories, only in temporary charge due to the bribery of the DUP, are thrown out of power as a result of the Brexit fiasco the cessation will become permanent.

    • The figures from the latest govt survey
      Support for fracking 15%
      Opposition to fracking 31%
      Neither support not oppose 54%

      Manipulating the figures as you seem to have done Martin, one could also say that 85% do NOT support fracking

          • Martin, claiming that two thirds are not anti fracking is not the reality, it is just a manipulation of the figures and is deliberately misleading.

            During times of universal deceipt, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
            Unknown

            • It is the reality Fifi. Uncomfortable for you, but reality often is.

              How many Market Research studies have you conducted? None, by your comments.

              A little piece of advice, when you question a group and two thirds say they are either in favour of an existing activity/product etc. or have no view for or against, then that is a majority over those who would wish that activity/product etc. to be banned. The fact that the antis scaremongering is not moving the no views is the key and the fact the antis try to disguise that with comments such as your own is very revealing.

              It is the limp that reveals the Achilles heel.

            • Well said Fifii! Vive la révolution!

              And it is always interesting to note that its the limp wrist that reveals the even limper anti anti sock puppet….

  5. Well, by that time (2022 earliest), much will have taken place and the results of that will have been absorbed. Speculate as much as you like Peter but the clock will keep ticking and the reality will emerge and that will determine the future.

    You mean the police who have a responsibility to take action to avoid the risk of public order offences? If a Council started to punish for that they might find a whole can of worms opened.

    • Martin. ” You mean the police who have a responsibility to take action to avoid the risk of public order offences.” Lancashire police have admitted that the convoy of more than 30 HGVs which breached the TMP by entering the PNR site at around 4.00am, from the wrong direction, was Cuadrilla’s decision. The police did NOT request this. Cuadrilla TOLD the police they would be carrying out the delivery. LCC were also not consulted and were unaware until after the event. Cuadrilla are pulling the police and LCC strings

      • Do you and the activists think these minor breaches gonna cause the end of the world?
        They have corrected these breaches and the world has moved on since then, pretty much like burning log for cooking and heating. We have moved on from the stone age where family huddle around the wood fire for warmth and heating, you know?

        • Just a correction, the world hasn’t moved on from burning logs. Large parts of the Third World still huddle round wood stoves, not families actually, mostly women doing the cooking. They inhale the fumes which has a similar effect to smoking. The WHO estimates that hundreds of thousands die each year as a result.

    • The only thing one can say with any certainty is that 31% oppose fracking and only 15% are in favour. The good people will decide for themselves which of us is trying to disguise the truth

  6. All I can say is,let them get on with it.got to be the best thing for the UK,but the locals cannot further than there noses.[edited by moderator]

  7. Reading the Sunday Times this morning it looks like the cancellation by Toshiba & Hitachi of major nuclear projects has woken up the media to the potential news value of the UK’s energy future. No doubt the cold snap in February will move the issues up the agenda. Also watch the long end of the gas price curve probably rise this week anticipating February.

    To paraphrase in non-Sunday Times language, huge multi billion pound nuclear investments are now too risky for private firms; they are pulling out. There is leaving a hole in the UK’s energy policy. If the government doesn’t pull it’s finger out and formulate a Plan B it will be too late.

    Given that one of the first duties of HMG is to keep the lights on, an early move might be to delay the closure of coal plants. An alternative might be a U turn on onshore wind farms with government subsidised gas plants (hopefully part-powered by fracked gas) to fill the intermittency void. We probably also need a new long-term gas storage facility to iron out winter supply fluctuations.

    • ‘We probably also need a new long-term gas storage facility to iron out winter supply fluctuations’

      Really.

      Britain’s National Grid (NG.L), the company that owns the transmission network for electricity and gas and balances supply and demand, argues that storage is no panacea.

      “You can only withdraw a certain amount of storage in one day, so the day’s demand would never be met by storage alone,” a spokeswoman for National Grid said.

      She said on any given day, Britain could get gas from its North Sea reserves, from Norway, via pipelines linked to continental Europe, from shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG), or from storage.

      “It is this mix that enables security of supply,” she said.

      Relying on a ‘cold snap’ to promote UK shale. Like the ‘beast from the east’, laughable.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.