Frack site flare disappears from view

One of the flare stacks at Cuadrilla’s Lancashire fracking site was no longer visible this morning.

Single flare stack at Cuadrilla’s fracking site at Preston New Road, 23 February 2022. Photo: Chris Holliday

A photo taken from outside the Preston New Road site near Blackpool showed just one of the two flares stacks above the noise barrier.

Local people reported the company was at the site yesterday (22 February 2022).

Two flares have been part of the view of Preston New Road since 2018.

Cuadrilla announced a fortnight ago (9 February 2022) that it would plug and abandon the two shale gas wells at the site.

A statement from the company said the work would comply with Oil & Gas Authority regulations.

Cuadrilla carried out the UK’s first high volume fracks on onshore horizontal wells at Preston New Road.

The fracks in autumn 2018 and summer 2019 caused earthquakes of a strength that breached UK regulations.

On 26 August 2019, the site was responsible for the UK’s largest fracking-induced seismic event, measuring 2.9 on the local magnitude scale.

The Oil & Gas Authority suspended fracking at Preston New Road that day. A moratorium on fracking was imposed across in England in November 2019 and remains in force.

DrillOrDrop asked Cuadrilla what had happened to the flare stack. We’ll update with any response.

23 replies »

  1. Flare stacks disappear and the flat earthers still believe, the earth is still…… Well?

    The Earth consumers are still consuming, Well?

    • It must be chucking out time at frack earthers moratorium clinic? Careful, they might still be contagious!

      Poor guys….

      As for Don Quixote and Sancho Panza still tilting at windmills, look what good it did them?

      I did enjoy that!

  2. Loads of bird mincers still mincing away! Apart from the one in Wales that fell over.

    Queue the dead parrot excuse.

  3. That’s what comes of maritime transport of oil that could be produced on shore UK. Remember the Torrey Canyon?

    The recruit is again reacting positively to the irresistible, magnetic, lure of reality. The signs are promising. Can I have a gold star?

    • The irony of posting birds coated in oil but would happily import oil and gas to the UK from the US. Rather than prospect our own resources!

  4. Nope! The Real World irony is the production of oil and gas pollution worldwide and its entirely destructive health effects on the human race and animal life, the climate, the environment and the ecology of the planet for the last two hundred years.

    That is regardless of how, or where it is extracted from or used, when or where it is transported to or from, and whether it is from the effects of spills from drilling rig accidents and disasters or merely transport by land or sea.

    This is not some argument about what causes more or less deaths and health issues from one place, or how or where it is transported to or from.

    The real issue is that the very existence of the oil and gas extraction and production pollution, be that spills from drilling or transportation. The fact is that fossil fuel pollution kills 20 million people per year worldwide. That oil and gas pollution causes health issues to anywhere between 200 million to 1 or 2 billion severe health issues to human beings worldwide per year.

    That the deaths to wildlife worldwide are murderous and catastrophic to all life on the planet. And that does not even begin to address the short and long term effects on sea and land, the atmosphere and on clean water sources. Massive destruction of environments and ecologies worldwide.

    In human term’s fossil fuel pollution causes 20 million deaths per year worldwide, links provided:

    But rather than place the blame entirely where it belongs, deep in the “heart” of the polluting activities of fossil fuel corporate industry. While all the alternatives are attempted to be minimised and rendered impotent by the same greed and avarice that pervades the fossil fuel industry in order to preserve its monopolistic profit motive. And invent irrelevant disputes about where it is produced or how it is transported, as is demonstrated by those silly arguments.

    So, to take an even closer look at fossil fuel pollution deaths, just to put the entire subject back into its true perspective. I’ve said all this before, but its always worth raising the discussion into the facts, rather than to minimise and obfuscate the true issues here.

    The reports that state that fossil fuel pollution s responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. This is the report by the BMJ. There are other corroborating sources of the same report:

    Fossil fuel air pollution blamed for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide (.pdf download link on page)

    Air pollution from fossil fuels, a major cause of premature deaths

    “The report, entitled “Toxic Air: The Price of Fossil Fuels” and co-published with the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA)[1], is the first of its kind to assess such costs. It says that globally, around 20 million deaths each year, and estimated economic losses amounting to USD2.9 trillion, or approximately 3.3% of global GDP, can be attributed to air pollution from fossil fuels.”


    There are many more if you wish to do your own research.

    Now there are 15 other questions for you both to answer, as I have listed previously. if you choose to answer, I will provide substantiated links to those as well.

    If, however, you decide not to answer, just as you have been avoiding to answer the inconvenient truth for more than a year now, then you are your own worst enemies, aren’t you?

    Have a nice evening……

    • Not everyone agrees with you, either, Paul. But apparently you agree with me about gas flares? Perhaps you have chosen to answer the 16+ and rising questions about the death dealing health destroying toxic legacy of fossil fuel pollution per year?

      If you are, then go ahead.

      If you are not, then what you say is nothing more than a waste of time, isn’t it.

      [Edited by moderator]

      The example you provide only goes to show just how pervasive the fossil fuel industry have penetrated the media and how they influence opinion for money and position. i would count that as nothing more than the fossil fuel industry creating propaganda in order to fool the unwary into dropping their guard against the reality of the deaths and health issues worldwide from fossil fuel pollution.

      Like I said, it doesn’t matter where the toxic pollution, oil spills, drill rig accidents like in the Gulf of Mexico, tanker oil spills in the ocean, air pollution from leaking methane and natural gas flares, comes from, goes to or is transported to or from.

      The Real World issue is the toxic legacy that is killing 20 million people per year worldwide due to fossil fuel pollution. Fossil fuel pollution causing severe health issues for anything between 200 million to 1 to 2 billion people per year worldwide. (links provided mc/eg)

      The unimaginable number of deaths of all animal life, like the birds and bats and bees in toxic gas flares, the deaths of seabirds and ocean wildlife worldwide caused by the same toxic pollution from fossil fuel operations and leaky abandoned wells. The fact that our planets’ life forms, including human beings, are in the middle of the 6th major extinction event in history of the Earth. Where are the fossil fuel industries efforts to reduce or to reverse all of that? More profit and fuel poverty for everyone? World war 3 or 4? Or just more greed corruption and profit motivated insanity?

      You mentioned the tax paid by the fossil fuel industry the other day, but what you did not mention was the countless trillions of profits locked away in offshore “shell company” “trusts”? The convoluted and incestuous process of moving all that money around so that no one can trace it. A tiny fraction of that would pay for the massive increase in people’s energy bills that will massively increase in April and lead to people who work for a living, either being able to heat and power their homes or feed themselves and their children.

      Would you call that allowable, rational or reasonable, or even humane? No, I’m sure you don’t, and neither would I.

      And that is only the beginning. The list goes on and on, doesn’t it.

      Do you want to take up the baton and attempt to explain away the evidence now, Paul?

      Fine, then go ahead.

      So if you are willing to take up all those toxic batons and defend your fossil fuel industry. Then I will await your imminent explanation for all of these toxic issues from fossil fuel pollution. And what you intend to do about it.

      Have a nice day…

    • Actually, Paul, no one gets shale gas from a gas flares. The shale gas is being burned in the atmosphere. It’s combusted. It’s a dead parrot (or any other bird, bat or insect). Untreated gas flares are due to inefficiency and wastefulness processes.

      I recall, in the UK at least, the public were promised that there would be no gas flares permitted when the rights to extract shale gas and oil exploration were sold to the operators. Remember that? What happened to that promise then, Paul?

      Perhaps, as you seem to have picked up the fossil fuel PR role today, you can explain why gas flares were quietly allowed in the UK? (Question number 16)

  5. [Edited by moderator]

    Deaths caused by fossil fuels?

    [Edited by moderator] I can look at the deaths over the last decade within my family. Not one due or connected to fossil fuel. Fact. As most lived into their 90s a high proportion within that sample would not have done so without fossil fuel. Fact.

    Let us look at other countries. Yes, there are large countries where there is evidence of fossil fuel adverse impact in densely populated areas. Is the life expectancy lower there than in the rural areas of same countries? Nope. The opposite, because fossil fuel has provided benefits to those where it is readily available.

    Then, for those interested, check the mortality levels resulting from natural disasters. Now, very much lower than in history. Why? Well, it is obvious and available for all to see that rescue and rebuilding is now rapidly utilising fossil fuel to achieve that. Including the almost immediate attendance by the TV crews, to show it. For the severe short sighted, just take a look at the services being supplied in the UK currently to repair storm damage.

    And, then there is the agricultural output that has been required to feed an ever expanding world population, that relies upon mechanisation and fossil fuel. Prior to that, populations would not increase as rapidly because many would starve, or die from conditions associated with malnutrition. Ironically, the well off West is now doing it’s best to go backwards by importing food that it could grow but can’t because the agricultural land is being repurposed, and converting grain into fuel where data indicates that is 24% more carbon intensive than gasoline production, with people in the world starving who would not if they had grain. What a brave new world? Nope. Idiocy.

    The grab hold of a reference that defies common sense is the tried and tested method for some. However, it is the failure of social media.

    The wider public do possess common sense.

    What parts of the world were on your list to visit, Phil C, from a previous post directed to Paul? Hope, in order to be consistent, and to maintain the bird theme, that you have invested in some budgie smugglers. But, it is a long swim-good luck.

    • I believe the figure Martin quotes regarding grain-based fuels being 24% more carbon intensive than gasoline refers specifically to ethanol.

      US political support for ethanol has little to do with any green agenda. Iowa grows lots of corn which can be converted to ethanol, and Iowa is one of the first states to hold primaries for the presidential election. Hopeful presidential candidates find themselves having to make “the ethanol pledge” if their candidacy is to make it past first base.

      See “King Corn” Series 6 Episode 13 of The West Wing, currently streaming on Channel 4.

      • I don’t have a television, Paul. I don’t use ethanol or fossil fuel for my EV either, though I guess some comes from producing electricity. Incidentally, that is still going well and no problems from batteries or heating. But we do have our own charging device in the garage. Nor do I agree with the use of potential food being grown for internal combustion engine vehicles either.

        Furthermore, I don’t have any gas supply in our house either. We had that removed 25 years ago. We installed solar panels and air circulation systems, underfloor heating and invested in some wind generators of the most efficient design we could find, and updated them just the last year or so. They have toroidal shrouds which prevent bird deaths and create self-governing speed regulation. That prevents the end point of the blades from creating the vortex that is so wasteful in energy terms, and that is what kills birds. The wind generators are fine now we have access to the roof so that they can be cleaned and maintained.

        I also posted a link to the film about wind farm generators in Sweden, which clear-cut vast areas of Forrest and created a dangerous blot on the landscape and were done only to take advantage of the grants to have them built at all. So I don’t agree with the same greed and profiteering from wind farms, either. So I’m not anywhere near as polarised in my opinions and intentions as some would like to have you believe.

        i do believe that fossil fuels are toxic, and the substantiated proof is all there for anyone to see. There has to be a transition, but that must be controlled, as clearly from the news today, political insanity has made the prospect of continuing fossil fuels even more dangerous than it was before. Because those who hold monopolies of any kind, in any field of human endeavour, can control the world and everyone suffers for that reason, and that must be avoided at all costs.

        I am not in any way a supporter of the big three bladed wind generators as they are old technology and are made from plastics which degrade and end up in tips. They also kill birds unnecessarily because of their stupid design, they are wasteful in their energy production because it takes so much energy from the wind to get them going. They suffer also to wind speed extremes, and they have internal brakes which make them even more inefficient and when failure occurs they catch fire and disintegrate.

        All of that can be changed by having many smaller wind generators that incorporate all the latest technology to make them many times more efficient and certainly less of a spectacle than the enormous, wasteful three bladed versions.

        I am sure there will now be a push for more fossil fuels. That would be a mistake to allow that to prevent further research and development of the only rational way forward, and that is renewable energy in all its forms, not just the few that are available at present.

    • For crying out loud, try, just try and understand. Stop wasting energy by pointing out the obvious to all of us, (apart from one or two posters, ) viz. that FFs have in the past, AND still do, bring the world untold benefits. But we have now realised with anthropogenic, anthropogenic, global heating that their day is over because they are killing, yes killing the planet they have heretofore benefited. Other sources of energy must be developed and that process can be accelerated by eschewing the stupidity inherent in further promoting that which is killing us and devoting the millions spent in this process of ecocide, genocide – call it what you will – to the development of renewables, tightening regulations to make it difficult for those who can contribute to this development to profit inordinately from the activity. Inevitably there will be mistakes, and attempts to exploit the recovery, but decent regulations will help, and time is of the essence.

  6. Oh, Dear. Oh, Dear.

    Nope. Everything I said and previously as well, is neither clumsy nor contrived. Quite the opposite, in Fact. Everything is clear and precise, substantiated and linked to the sources. Unlike anything you have said on this issue. So that nonsense excuse of yours can be ignored, can’t it.

    Your lack of answers is only proof that you cannot and will not answer the questions in any way that can be substantiated and proven by reference to the original documents.

    I proved just that. If you have any substantiated evidence whatsoever that anything I have said is not true, then provide it here with substantiated documents, links and fact checked details.

    Mere empty rhetoric and diversions and deflections won’t do it.

    You will just have to read the Facts again, and attempt to understand why it is that the British Medical Journal have themselves fact checked that 1 in 5 people die from fossil fuel pollution worldwide per year. (have you noticed that phrase “per year” by the way?) The rest is about population statistics and deaths per year worldwide and in the UK.

    That is the mathematics and arithmetic that you talk about so much, but never actually supply any? And the deaths and health effects of the numbers that I have so helpfully provided to you for well over a year is precise and definitive statistical mathematics that prove that 20 million people per year die of fossil fuel pollution. The rest of the mathematics show the number of people in the UK who die and are subject to the severe and long term effects from fossil fuel pollution every year. All perfectly clear and precise.

    If you admit you don’t understand the substantiated verified Facts. That is not my problem. That is your problem. I suggest you read it again.

    And in order to correct yet another of your commonly trotted out deflections. I have never sought to control over who posts on this site when or where, or what about. I remember you tried to say that about someone else. That didn’t go down very well, did it.

    Perhaps you misunderstood the spelling of my comment as well? But of course, that is nothing more than the usual attempts at deflection and defection from the issues, isn’t it. I suggest you read again what I wrote, and you will see what I did say, not what you thought I said. No sense of humour, obviously? No change there.

    If you can’t or won’t answer the questions, or don’t understand the questions, then just say so. That is all you need to do. Then everyone will understand that you have no answers.

    Enjoy your fishing.

  7. Dont worry Ruth, it has been found at Wressle according to their person on the ground.There may be a reward. its only taken them around a month to notice.

Add a comment

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

You are commenting using your 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