Brown hares were introduced to Britain over 2,000 years ago. The species is widespread in the North West, particularly on the Fylde Peninsula, in southwest Lancashire and adjoining rural parts of Merseyside. It’s the subject of a Species Action Plan at both UK and Lancashire levels.

The Lancashire Wildlife Trust is currently helping with surveys for the sightings of brown hares in an effort to understand how best to conserve the species. Fylde residents have reported sightings of the hares on land near to the Cuadilla sites. As these animals do not burrow - they live their whole lives above ground - drilling sites are not conducive for their well being, especially when breeding.

Please could you complete the Lancashire Wildlife Trust Survey, especially if you live near or around any of the Cuadrilla sites.

We would also be interested to hear from you about sightings of other wild and bird life spotted near any of the drilling sites. There are currently, for example, numbers of lapwings on the farmland near the Anna’s Road site. The RSPB allocates a red status to lapwings which means that they are severely threatened (at least 50% decline in UK breeding population over last 25 years, or longer-term period).

DECC’s (Department of Energy and Climate Change) report, ‘The Impact of Shale Gas on Energy Markets’ was published a couple of days ago.

The report considers the implications of the “shale gas revolution” for energy markets around the world. It claims to review the prospects of shale gas assessing the reliability of new figures in the context of significant uncertainty. It attempts to assess the potential impact of shale gas on energy markets and climate change mitigation globally, in Europe and in the UK. Additionally it  considers other potential impacts on the UK and key issues the Government will need to consider when developing its own shale gas industry.

In its summing up, it concludes that “communities who are affected by shale gas development should expect to receive, and share in, some of the benefits of the development. We support the Government’s intention to ensure that local communities will benefit from shale gas projects in their area. We recommend that the Government explores ways of sharing substantial material benefits with local communities. A mechanism for sharing substantial material benefits with local communities should be ready to be offered to communities in time to encourage them to take a positive view of the prospect of commercial shale gas operations beginning in their locality.” In other words they want to bribe us into accepting shale gas extraction our area.

On the day of the report’s publication, RAFF was approached by various newspapers, radio and TV stations . This is our official response:

“It is good to read that the report makes clear that no production should proceed without certainty of safety and also find it reassuring that this report highlights the need to discuss realistically, the amount of shale gas that is actually ‘recoverable’ – which the industry states is on average less than 10% of the amount contained in the shale.

“The report wisely warns of the need to avoid potential conflicts of interest in the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil and we agree that this is essential. The unconventional gas industry appears to have a great deal of involvement in its own regulation and that is a recipe for disaster.

“The report also warns it is unwise to guarantee the price of gas will fall in the UK – and adds that bills could even rise. It goes on to warn that the development of shale gas may mean we do not meet our climate change obligations and recommends that the government not rely on shale gas contributing to UK’s energy system when making strategic plans for energy security.

“This report is full of warnings and yet concludes we should proceed. We would conclude that these warnings should be addressed before any further development takes place.”

Last summer, Cuadrilla and their PR company PPS created and delivered thousands of ‘community newsletters’ to residents in the Fylde. Maybe you recall receiving and reading it. It was full of statements extolling the advantages of shale gas extraction for the area, together with reassurances on how safe the fracking process is. The anti-fracking group Refracktion brought the newsletter to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) who have seriously questioned the honesty of some of Cuadrilla’s major claims.

Why was the ASA involved? Well the leaflet contained statements which were demonstrably untrue but which might still convince those who had not looked into the detail of the issues. Refracktion felt that by involving a neutral arbiter like the ASA it could highlight the discrepancies in an objective way. It is not those who Cuadrilla have dubbed “extremists” who are saying that they have mislead the public, but a respected and impartial national organisation – The Advertising Standards Authority. In all 18 issues were investigated, of which 11 were Not Upheld, 6 were Upheld and one was Upheld in part.  Most strikingly, the ASA report concluded, “We therefore considered that the claim that Cuadrilla used “proven” safe technologies had not been substantiated.”

The censure by the Advertising Standards Authority will force a significant watering down of some of Cuadrilla’s claims. The company will not be allowed to distribute the newsletter in its current form again.

This is a major blow to Cuadrilla, and is the latest in a series of setbacks for the company. Cuadrilla has constantly stated that it wants to be a good neighbour, that it wants to interact with the community, and so on. Instead it has  demonstrated a complete lack of integrity and respect for the people of the Fylde. It isn’t within the ASA’s remit to force Cuadrilla to apologise to the people it has deceived. From what we know of the company, an apology is the last thing we’d expect but Cuadrilla should know that any last remaining vestige of trust in the company has been eroded for ever.

The fact that this news has been reported by the local, national and international press means that Cuadrilla’s already damaged reputation is now in tatters.

Halite Energy been refused permission to store gas underneath fields  in Over Wyre. This means that Halite will not carve out 19 caverns in the salt strata beneath Preesall to store 900 million cubic metres of natural gas. According to the Blackpool Evening Gazette, the company, formerly known as Canatxx, was blocked by the Planning Inspectorate following a 10 year battle with campaigners. However, on the Halite website, the company has issued a very short news statement that suggests that DECC (Department of Energy & Climate Change) is behind the refusal. According to the BBC, A DECC spokesman said the application had “failed to demonstrate the suitability of the site’s geology”.

Wyre Council has issued a statement, which suggests that the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for the refusal:

It has never been made clear whether or not Cuadrilla was planning to use this storage facility for shale gas. The company denied it when asked by RAFF but, of course, it will now have to become clear if they were relying on this getting the go-ahead.

The refusal to allow the project to go ahead is fantastic news for all who have campaigned against it over the last 10 years. Some individuals have been singled out for praise on the Gazette website, namely MP Paul Maynard and Lancashire County County Councillor Andrea Kay. Once again, it shows the power of  campaigning by residents and their elected representatives.

According to the Sunday Telegraph (06/04/13), Tom Crotty, the UK head of petro-chemicals giant INEOS, ‘has opened the door to investing in Cuadrilla Resources to take advantage of the possible boom in shale gas exploration.’ However, it seems that INEOS isn’t just interested in fracking for shale gas, but also for by-products including ethane and propane, which can be taken out and used elsewhere in its chemicals business.

If chemical extraction goes ahead, we will witness even further industrialisation and destruction of our countryside. At the very least it will mean the building of more pipelines to transport the chemicals or, if they are transported by road, more tankers on the roads of rural Lancashire.

Both of these chemicals have alarming properties:

Ethane: A colourless, flammable gas. It is an asphyxiant and presents a significant health hazard by displacing the oxygen in the atmosphere. It poses a serious fire hazard when accidentally released. The gas is heavier than air and may spread long distances. Distant ignition and flashback are possible.

Propane: Toxic by inhalation and dermal exposure. Inhalation causes euphoria, agitation, slurred speech, nausea, vomiting, flushing and headache. In severe cases respiratory depression, hypotension, myocardial infarction, cardiac dysrhythmias, seizures, coma and death may occur. Skin contact with liquid propane may cause severe burns.

Hardly reassuring for residents and further evidence that the energy and chemical companies, together with the Exchequer, couldn’t give a damn about people and their environment.

We’ve already covered  Cuadrilla’s blatant disregard for community involvement, despite DECC stating that engagement with the community is an essential part of any Environmental Risk Assessment (ESA) -  see post below. However, we  have acquired more documents about the process and believe it deserves further attention.

The Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) recommends that a mandatory Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) should accompany planning applications for all shale gas operations. The responsibility for carrying out an ERA rests with Cuadrilla. Once it is complete it is submitted for scrutiny to DECC.

DECC states that an essential part of any ERA is community engagement. As such, Cuadrilla appointed Cranfield University (CU) as independent expert advisors on the scope and completion of an ERA for potential shale gas hydraulic fracturing activities at the Anna’s Road and Becconsall, Banks sites.

According to Cranfield, the principal objectives of the community engagement include:

• Ensuring that communities have an appropriate level of understanding of the key technical issues involved in exploring for natural gas from shale.
• Communicating the scope of the issues considered in the ERA and proposed methodology.
• Gathering concerns and views to ensure these are addressed early in the decision process.

However, we have acquired a number of documents that demonstrate that Cranfield has failed spectacularly to meet these objectives.

Cranfield  organised four meetings – two to discuss Anna’s Road and the other two the Banks site. All four meetings were chaired by Dr Frederic Coulon, and comprised  a mix of councillors (from parish to county level) and a handful of others of whom we have no information, but have certainly not come across as having any specialist experience or information on fracking. Of course, we may be wrong and would be delighted if anyone could enlighten us as to who these individuals are and why they were selected to attend.

The glaring omission at these meetings, of course, is that no one from either RAFF or REAF was  invited. Why? Between them these two groups represent hundreds and hundreds of worried residents in Lancashire. Both groups comprise highly articulate and well informed individuals who would have added great value to the discussions. Neither group has a political axe to grind, are better informed than most and are arguably closer to the residents they represent, than any of those who were invited.

First round of ERA liaison meetings, December 2012

Those attending the Anna’s Road meeting were:

•  Cranfield University (CU): Dr Frederic Coulon (FC, Chair), Prof. Simon Pollard (SPo)
• Cuadrilla Resources: Leon Jennings (HSE Director), Robert Jones (Environment and Planning Specialist)
• PPS: Sam Schofield (Director)  (PPS is Cuadrilla’s PR company)
• Cllr Tommy Threlfall
• Cllr Richard Nulty
•  Cllr Paul Hayhurst
• Cllr John Matthews
• Mrs Joan Kirkham
• Mrs Mary Ellitson
•  Mr David Kirkham
• Mr Alan Ashton
• Cllr Kenneth Dodsworth

Apologies:

• Cllr Susan Ashton
• Cllr Linda Nulty
• Cllr Julie Brickles
•  Mr Malcolm Humpage
•  Cllr Susanne Cunningham
• Mr Tim Laycock

Those attending the Banks meeting  were:

• Cranfield University (CU): Dr Frederic Coulon (FC, Chair), Prof. Simon Pollard (SPo)
• Cuadrilla Resources: Leon Jennings (HSE Director), Robert Jones (Environment and Planning Specialist)
• PPS: Sam Schofield (Director)  (PPS is (Cuadrilla’s PR company)
• Cllr John Baldock
• Mr Ian Gill
• Cllr Paul Blane
• Cllr Gail Hodson
• Cllr Malcolm Barron
• Cllr Lucy Hodson
•  Mr Bill Abram
• Cllr Evans
• Cllr Thomas Blane
• Cllr Kay
• Mr Ian Cropper
• Mr David Tilleray

Apologies:

• Cllr Paul Sergeant
• Cllr Martin Forshaw
•  Cllr Ian Grant
• Cllr Yvonne Gagen
• Cllr David Sudworth
• Cllr Roger Bell

You can read the minutes, which include questions and comments from the floor, here. There are no comments on any methodology for collecting or disseminating information from or to residents.

Second round of ERA liaison meetings, February 2013

A second series of meetings was called for the 12 and 13 February. Once again, the liaison group was made up of mainly councillors. A landowner in Becconsall sent a request to Frederic Coulon, Cranfield University, asking if he could replace Cllr Cougan, who was unable to attend. The landowner said, ‘I feel it would be appropriate for me to attend one meeting so that I could understand the process of an ERA and be able to communicate this with other concerned landowners in the area.’

Coulon replied, ‘As Cllr Gagen has been asked to attend by the borough council’s managing directors originally we are looking for another local elected representative of West Lancashire Borough Council as substitute to preserve the character of the group.’ The character of the group presumably meaning councillors, not residents who could possibly lose their livelihood if their area gets fracked.

However, West Lancashire Borough councillor, John Hodson, who is also a member of REAF, did put himself forward and was accepted as a replacement for a councillor who couldn’t attend, so at least at the second Banks meeting there was a little more balance.

Those attending the Anna’s Road second meeting were:

•  Cranfield University: Dr Frederic Coulon (FC, Chair), Prof. Simon Pollard (SPo);
• Cuadrilla Resources: Leon Jennings (HSE Director), Nick Mace (Environment & Sustainability Manager) Mark Miller (Development Director), Matt Lambert (Government & Public Affairs Director);
• PPS: Sam Schofield (Director) (PPS is Cuadrilla’s PR company)
• Cllr Susan Ashton
• Cllr Julie Brickles
• Cllr Susanne Cunningham
•  Cllr Kenneth Dodsworth
•  Cllr Paul Hayhurst
• Mrs Joan Kirkham
•  Mr David Kirkham
• Cllr Richard Nulty
• Cllr Linda Nulty
• Mrs Joyce Whittle
• Cllr John Matthews
• Mrs Mary Ellison

Apologies:

• Cllr Tommy Threlfall
• Mr Malcolm Humpage
• Mr Tim Laycock

Those attending the Banks meeting  were:

• Cranfield University: Dr Frederic Coulon (FC, Chair)
• Cuadrilla Resources: Leon Jennings (HSE Director), Nick Mace (Environment & Sustainability Manager), Eric Vaughan (Well Services Director)
• PPS: Sam Schofield (Director) (PPS is Cuadrilla’s PR company)
• Mr Bill Abram
• Cllr John Baldock
• Cllr Malcolm Barron
•  Cllr Paul Blane
• Cllr Thomas Blane
• Mr David Tilleray
• Mr Ian Gill
• Cllr Gail Hodson
• Cllr Lucy Hodson
• Cllr John Hodson

Apologies:

• Cllr Roger Bell
• Cllr James Kay
• Mr Ian Cropper
• Cllr Rosie Evans
• Cllr Martin Forshaw
• Cllr Yvonne Gagen (Cllr J Hodson attended as substitute)
• Cllr Ian Grant
• Cllr Paul Sergeant
• Mr Rod Sears
•  Cllr David Sud

You can read the minutes here.

We can appreciate why councillors might form part of the mix of invitees. If they’re doing their job properly then they will engage with their constituents and report back on any concerns. All well and good. But try as we might we cannot find one single individual, let alone a community group, that has received any information on the ERA or has been asked to voice their concerns. Nobody we have talked to even knew that these meetings were taking place.

Both RAFF and REAF have sent letters to Coulon expressing their concerns on having been left out of the consultation process. RAFF’s letter (dated 28 February) drew Coulon’s attention to ‘the potential problems associated with the failure to consult on a basis that would stand up to informed scrutiny’.  It went on to say, ‘the competence and integrity of any ensuring report could be perceived to be compromised should this failure become known’.

Coulon replied, ‘Once complete, the exploration ERA will be submitted to DECC for review and subsequently made available to the public through appropriate channels. Therefore, RAFF will have the opportunity to comment and feedback on the ERA’s approach developed by Cuadrilla.’

Sorry Dr Coulon, but you’re missing the point which is community engagement. Providing feedback after the event is not what this exercise is supposed to be about. DECC clearly states that an essential part of any ERA is community engagement. Cranfield has overseen a process that has failed the people of Lancashire.

Councillor John Hodson and member of REAF has raised a number of objections with Cranfield. He said: ‘Following my attendance of the meeting 13th February 2013 held by Cranfield University and arranged as the second of two such events that claimed to be ‘Public Consultation’ meetings, I felt compelled to challenge the methodology of the consultation process. It was claimed that the reason for the small number of people involved, was that it was the most effective way of ‘cascading’ information down to the local community, through the members present.

The very fact that some of those elected members present were in turn asking Cranfield University who was going to ‘consult’ with the wider community, palpably demonstrates the major flaw in the process.

‘A total of Twelve elected members were invited, but not all attended, which again erodes the efficiency of the ‘cascade’ method of consultation.

‘Put simply, if no information cascades down to the wider public, how can the public have any meaningful input back? If Cranfield University feel that the elected members present were sufficiently well informed about the risks as to accurately represent the public on their behalf, then any reasonable minded person present would be able to confirm from the questions raised that this was not the case.

‘As an exercise in consultation, it is difficult to try and think of something less effective in terms of engaging the public and to use this method to set the standard for further Environmental Risk Assessments hardly inspires confidence in the Industry’s commitment to responsible working practises.’

RAFF thinks the process stinks. Firstly, of the 12 people invited to the consultation a lot were pro- fracking councillors. As for the handful of other invitees – who are they – will they be affected by shale gas plans for Lancashire? Do they fully understand the processes involved and their potential devastating impacts on health and the environment? Do they care?

Secondly, these meetings were not publicised. There were no representatives from  any dedicated group representing the concerns of residents. We can see from the minutes of the meetings that no one was asked if they had consulted with the public, nor was there any advice on how to consult with the public, pass on information to the public, etc. We’re sure that if anyone asks, Cranfield will say they’ve done their job by assuming that the councillors have held  public meetings to obtain feedback.

Thanks to Councillor John Hodson Cranfield has now been made aware that there has been no information gathered from the public during this exercise.

Once again, the people of Lancashire have been treated shabbily. Not one aspect of this consultation inspires a shred of confidence that the health and welfare of residents are being put before the interests of Cuadrilla.

Re-published from REAF – Ribble Estuary Against Fracking

We are republishing REAF‘s latest news  item relating to Cuadrilla’s blatant disregard for community involvement despite DECC stating that engagement with the community is an essential part of any Environmental Risk Assessment (ESA).

The Department of Energy (DECC) have recommended that an environmental risk assessment (ERA) should accompany planning applications for all shale gas operations. DECC state that an essential part of any ERA is community engagement. These linked documents highlight the fact that Cranfield University, employed to offer best practice on ERA,  have failed to meet their main objectives of ensuring that the local community fully understands all aspects of the ERA process,  are aware of key technical issues, and can provide input that will inform decisions on shale gas exploration.

• Only two Local Liaison Group (LLG) meetings were planned (see Local Liaison Group Future Meetings)
• The method for choosing the twelve who make up the LLG has yet to be explained and do not appear to proportionally represent the local community (see REAF Cranfield 0313 and REAF response letter Cranfield)
• A request from a local landowner, with concerns about the environmental impact of Shale Gas, to fill a vacant seat at the second meeting was declined (see Request to be included in LLG).
•  There were no public meetings held at Banks prior to the first and before the second LLG meetings. Therefore all questions and concerns were from the LLG group and not from the general public (see ERA meeting Round one and ERA meeting – Round two) and in particular those residents who would be affected by these decisions.
•  At the second meeting substitute councillor John Hodson challenged the methodology of the consultation process (see attachment Cncllr John Hodson). He was informed that the reasons for the small number of people involved was that it was the most effective way of cascading information down to the local community through the members present. Some of these elected members questioned how this information would be passed to the general public. At this point Cranfield and Cuadrilla were now aware that their main objective of community engagement had not been realised and that this part of the ERA process had failed. In the closing remarks (see ERA minutes Round 2-Concluding remarks) Cuadrilla’s developed ERA is now to be submitted for review by DECC in the next 2 months.

Cuadrilla should not now proceed with finalising their ERA until this objective can be met.

• An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) by Lancashire County Council (LCC) is being undertaken at the same site. There have been a number of regulatory bodies who have been consulted in this matter. These organisations do not appear to be part of the ERA process.

The scope and content of an ERA would be a major contributory factor to the viability of individual sites. The risk to public health and the risk of irreversible damage to the environment must never be decided without the full consent of the people whose lives will be most affected.
In the interests of those many thousands of people who could be adversely affected by this industry, REAF should be grateful if you would share this information through whatever channel you have at your disposal.

NB. There were two councillors who attended the first meeting, and three at the second meeting who are members of REAF. They were not originally invited, but requested to attend as substitute councillors, not as members of REAF.

As expected, our pro-shale gas Chancellor, George Osborne, has dismissed your concerns about exploiting shale gas in Lancashire by committing to an exploration drive in the UK with generous tax breaks for the likes of Cuadrilla and other fracking companies. He said, ‘I want Britain to tap into new sources of low-cost energy like shale gas. Shale gas is part of the future. And we will make it happen.” He also promised to “develop proposals by summer 2013 to ensure local communities will benefit from shale gas projects in their area”. RAFF has responded via various media:

• Radio Wave – listen to Cuadrilla’s CEO Francis Egan and RAFF’s Tina Rothery
• The Lancashire Evening Post and the Evening Gazette have also carried quotes from RAFF
• Read more quotes from RAFF on Place North West

RAFF has had quite a lot of publicity this week.

• We were interviewed by the New Statesman a few weeks ago. The item has just been published. Fracking: the new gold rush, by Michael Brooks, New Statesman 21 March 2013.
• We were also interviewed for The World. Fracking in the UK: Supporters Look to Avoid ‘Reckless’ US Mistakes, by Christopher Werth, 19 March 2013.
• RAFF members were interviewed by pupils from St. Aidan’s Church of England Technology College, Preesall, who were conducting research into fracking, as part of the  BBC’s Schools Report project. The interview was broadcast on the North West News on 20 March 2013.
• On 24 March, the Sunday Politics show, presented by Andrew Neil, featured an item on fracking. RAFF took part together with Cuadrilla CEO Francis Egan and Tony Juniper. The item begins about 30.57 minutes in.

Could this be an item in tomorrow’s budget?

According to the Guardian, Energy Minister John Hayes has said that, ‘communities near shale gas fracking sites should be given handouts to accept drilling in their area’. He doesn’t make clear where this money is coming from – the taxpayer or the companies themselves.

Well what a coincidence! Freedom of Information papers, obtained by the Guardian and now made publicly available, show that in a letter sent to John Hayes from Cuadrilla, CEO Francis Egan, late last year, Cuadrilla suggested that taxpayers’ money be offered as a ‘quid pro quo’ to help communities accept wells.

Egan said,  ‘This brings us to the development process itself. There is a certain inconvenience that the local population bears in hosting development of this industry … We consider that there should be financial benefits  in the form of a share of the tax take distributed at a local level. We would be happy to discuss our ideas in this regard with national and local government’

Taxpayers money – well there’s a lot of that around at the moment! No mention of the hand outs coming from the £billions that Cuadrilla itself is set to make from the  industrialisation of Lancashire.  The audacity of Cuadrilla is breathtaking.

Indignant comments can be found all over the social networks. These are just a few of them:

•  They imagine we are as low, corrupt and easily bought as they are – bloody insult
• Try being honest for once in your life, minister, and use the word “bribe”
• The oldest, dirtiest trick in the book – bribing communities to weaken opposition. But then Westminster has centuries of experience in the technique: it’s called Divide and Conquer
• This proposal is making whores of the community – pimped by the government, fracked by the energy sector. They are asking us to sell the requirement for safety, health and well-being.

Funny that Cuadrilla feel they need to pay us off, given that at their presentations they tell us how beneficial it will be for us living in a fracking area – lots of jobs, apprenticeships, wealth, etc.

Anyone willing to bet on whether the pro-fracking George Osborne will  include shale gas community hand-outs in tomorrow’s budget.

A friend of RAFF recently contacted the RSPB (Royal Society for Protection of Birds) with worries about the effects of drilling and shale gas extraction on the large numbers of wintering birds that make their home here on the Fylde and the rest of the Ribble Estuary. Many residents have contacted us this winter with concerns, especially as the birds appeared to be more agitated than usual – thousands flying overhead at odd times of the day – especially in the late autumn/early winter when drilling was still  taking place at Anna’s Road.

The RSPB responded:

Much of lowland Lancashire, where Cuadrilla hold shale licenses, is used by internationally important Pink-footed Geese and Whooper Swans. They arrive in huge numbers in autumn and over-winter there. That’s why there are a lot of protected areas across the region (Martin Mere, Ribble & Alt, Morecambe Bay), as well as RSPB reserves like Hesketh Out Marsh, which borders land that has been ear-marked for shale gas exploration. Developing numerous well-pads over large swathes of the countryside in this area could have serious adverse impacts on the integrity of the protected areas by displacing geese and swans from their feeding habitats.

We are concerned about shale gas and have written to the government asking that shale gas in the UK meets two key criteria:

Firstly, shale gas must not endanger the UK’s ability to deliver on its climate change commitments. Evidence suggests that the overall climate impact of shale is greater than conventional gas and could be as high as that of coal, and that exploiting the world’s resources of unconventional gas will do nothing to prevent dangerous levels of climate change.

Secondly, shale gas exploitation must not be at the expense of nature. This means that Government and the industry need to prove that shale gas can be delivered without unacceptable impacts on UK wildlife and water resources, and that the laws in place are fit for purpose.  If the UK’s shale gas resources were fully exploited, it would mean thousands of drilling sites across the country. Each site is estimated to be at least a hectare in size – equivalent to eight Olympic-sized swimming pools – and as this is a new industry, there is insufficient scientific evidence on the risks shale gas production will pose to the natural environment and how to minimize them.

When Cuadrilla announced, last week, that drilling at the Anna’s Road site would be suspended until 2014, one of the reasons it gave was that it would not be allowed to work on the site between and October 2013 and March 2014, due to the large number of migrating birds which use the area during this period. The company says because of this restriction there is no way it could carry out its planned Environmental Impact Survey in that time.

Last year, it emerged that Cuadrilla  broke the conditions of its Anna’s Road planning permission by drilling beyond an agreed time limit and beyond a cut-off date put in place to protect wintering birds. As far as we’re aware, Lancashire County Council did not impose any financial penalties on Cuadrilla. However the breach did prompt three of the largest wildlife organisations – the RSPB, Friends of the Earth and WWF - to contact the Government with their concerns on the effects of  fracking on wildlife and climate change.

Given last year’s planning breach by Cuadrilla, maybe LCC is taking its job of safeguarding our environment more seriously and has imposed stricter environmental controls on planning. Whatever the reason, one thing is clear – it is vitally important that LCC does not lose planning control to central government through the proposed  Growth & Infrastructure Bill. Somehow we can’t imagine that the Government frack-heads will care too much about our wildlife.

Cuadrilla has announced that it will NOT be drilling at the Anna’s Road site until at least 2014, as it undertakes an Environmental Impact Survey (EIS) at the site. The drilling company will not be allowed to work on the Anna’s Road site between and October and March, due to the large number of migrating birds which use the area during this period. The company says because of this restriction there is no way they could carry out the EIS in that time.

Previously we suggested that Cuadrilla was trying to circumvent environmental considerations by applying to Lancashire County Council to carry out its own scoping report. RAFF was very unhappy about this as It missed out important areas such as Socio Economic Impacts; Landscape and visual assessment; Noise; Traffic; Archaeology; Climate change; and Agricultural considerations. The proposed scope also only considered the impact of Cuadrilla’s activities at the exploratory stage – the preliminary drilling, etc. It did not take into account the production stage – that is, the effects that full-blown fracking will have on our environment.

So why the change of heart by Cuadrilla and is this some sort of victory for residents? Well yes and no.

Why would Cuadrilla delay what has already been a protracted process by another 12 months during which the company voluntarily carries out an EIS. Remember that they have already faced long delays caused by their incompetence at Preece Hall, which led to a moratorium on fracking nationwide. They then displayed further incompetence by damaging their well at Anna’s Road, which has led to another lengthy delay. Something doesn’t add up. Excuse us for being cynical but we can’t quite believe that Cuadrilla is willing to watch £millions dribble away doing something that it isn’t required to do.  It doesn’t add up and leads us to ask the question, is the EIS a smokescreen for something else, such as:

• Has Lancashire County Council listened to the demands of residents and is requiring a full EIS  before planning permission can be granted?
• Has Lancashire County Council refused or are about to refuse planning permission – remember they passed a unanimous all party motion in December last year saying, ‘Unfortunately there are no specific onshore exploration or extraction regulations for natural gas and the offshore regulations developed in the 1990s are not sufficient to address all the issues that arise from moving the process onshore especially in populated areas of Lancashire.’
• The Environment Agency has yet to publish guidelines for disposal of the fracking waste. Cuadrilla still does not have a permit to dispose of  its waste and fracking sludge. No permit = no fracking.
• Is Cuadrilla holding out for the proposed Growth and Infrastructure Bill to come into operation, so that all planning decisions will be taken out of the hands of LCC, and our pro-shale gas Government will then pass all planning applications?
• Is it because Cuadrilla has a buyer in its sight? We know several large energy companies are interested. Maybe a buyer has made it a stipulation of the deal that an EIS is carried out at every site. Remember that Cuadrilla has to sell up and dispose of  (ie sell) some of its sites by August this year, which is another reason why it wouldn’t voluntarily delay matters further – that is unless some big boy is waiting in the wings.

So is it a victory for those of us opposing fracking? Well anything that delays procedures is advantageous. It gives residents longer to discover what is going on in their community and to engage in debate. It sends a clear signal to the international community that the UK is not a push-over in the ‘dash for gas’, plus shareholders in Cuadrilla’s parent companies must be getting jittery with these long delays. So yes we are seeing this as a small victory in a very big battle, and we would like to thank both all those residents who have written to LCC expressing their demands that Environmental Impact Assessments be carried out, and also to Mike Hill, who has worked tirelessly in raising awareness about how unprotected we are here on the Fylde.

RAFF is still demanding that the Environment Agency should carry out the Environmental Impact Assessments, rather than Cuadrilla themselves and we would like to see a separate EIA for each well not each pad. We also have concerns that Cuadrilla’s announcement included the statement that work will begin on ‘a handful of temporary exploratory sites’. We are currently investigating where these are and what work will take place

Yesterday’s announcement attracted plenty of media attention and RAFF was invited to provide statements or speak on local radio and TV stations. You can listen to a rather subdued-sounding Francis Egan and RAFF’s Tina Rothery on Radio Lancashire here  (about 1.05 hours in).

George Osborne is blocking a watertight target for the UK to produce carbon-free electricity by 2030, so last month (February), we asked you to write to Fylde MP Mark Menzies to support former Conservative environment minister Tim Yeo’s green amendment to the Government’s energy bill. The amendment is exactly what is needed to make sure a firm target is in place. Not only will this target ensure we end our dependence on fossil fuels (including shale gas) but it also gives a clear signal to the large number of companies who are wanting to invest in the UK but will only do so if such a target is in place.

Many of you will have had stock replies from M.Menzies by now, saying that, ‘It is my belief that the Government is already taking the necessary action to decarbonise Britain’s energy supply and create the right conditions for green investment in this country. I therefore do not support Tim Yeo MP’s amendments . . . ‘

Mark Menzies had  a choice here. He could have stood up for a cleaner, greener Britain (and Fylde), but he has chosen instead to support pro-fracking George Osborne in his quest for using more dirty fossil fuels.

We shouldn’t be too surprised by this. Despite pledges from M. Menzies for a ‘Gold Standard’ in regulations, restrictions on the number of wells allowed in the Fylde overall, etc, etc, we have heard very little from our MP lately on the subject of fracking. He is still happy to have his smiling photo on the Cuadrilla website, plus readers may remember that back in January – in response to a letter we sent him on why we believe that shale gas extraction will not lead to many jobs or large-scale cash benefits for the Fylde – he replied by including a letter from Cuadrilla (on their headed paper), outlining current and potential benefits for our communities.

For an MP to send out a public relations letter from a  company that is causing much distress amongst residents (and who hasn’t even secured planning permission to resume drilling yet) seems to us either very naïve or very stupid. Either way it speaks volumes about an MP who is widely out of touch with his constituents.

Jessica Ernst chatting to residents

A huge thanks to all who came to the Jessica Ernst talk, “Fracking Community: Actions and Omissions Speak Louder than Words“ on Thursday 7 March.  The church hall in St Annes was packed, and the audience was respectful and attentive as Canadian scientist Jessica portrayed the realities of living in a fracking area with  precision and factual depth.

We were all appalled as she told us how the water in her community had become polluted – how the fracking companies spray their waste on agricultural land – how the Alberta government changes regulations to benefit the energy companies – but worst of all – how she is now classified as a terrorist by her government. A terrorist! What did she do? She dared to take on energy company EnCana and the Alberta government. You can read about her legal case here.

Many of her experiences left the audience stunned – some were crying – all were moved. It was Jessica’s first visit to the Fylde and she was impressed by the beauty of its coastline and rural areas, but used to the vast open spaces of Canada, she said that she could not understand how it would be possible to frack such a densely populated area.

Jessica’s story is the reality of fracking. This happened in a rich and developed country, whose government boasted that it had the best regulations in the world. It seems that even the best regulations can be adapted to benefit the energy companies to the detriment of people’s health and lives. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it will be any different in the UK.

There is hope. As Jessica pointed out, we are so much better informed than she was at this stage of the process. She quoted a Chinese proverb,  ’Many fleas make big dog move’. We need to become that mass of fleas – quickly.

Canadian scientist Jessica Ernst arrived in Ireland on March lst to embark on a hectic two week tour of Ireland, Northern Ireland and England, presenting her disturbing story to the communities who are living in areas licensed or with options licenses acquired for the onshore extraction of shale gas.

Jessica Ernst presented to packed venues in the Leitrim, Sligo and Fermanagh in February 2012, and her well timed return to Leitrim co-incides with Tamboran resources and Enegi Oil both applying for Exploration licenses in Leitrim and Clare, and the deadline for submissions on the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Protection Agency’s research of March 8th  looming.

Jessica presented “Fracking Community – Actions and Omissions speak louder than words” on March 2nd to a packed to capacity St. Josephs Community Centre in Leitrim Village.  Her presentation included her current legal battle against the oil and gas giant, Encana, and  the  Canadian government.

“Once fracking starts – it is so very much harder to stand for your  rights,” explained Jessica Ernst on March 2nd. ”Both industry and government have repeatedly tried to bog down the lawsuit with a variety of tactics including the withholding of freedom of information requests as well as an order to draft and submit a shorter statement of claim.  The Harper government’s appointment  (of the Judge on Jessica Ernst’s case)  now means another judge will have to be appointed to hear the case, (which has attracted global attention and positive support from  the United States, Australia, Britain, Poland and Ireland.)

Jessica further explains that this tactic by the government is  another attempt to delay and exhaust. “ The judges’ abrupt departure from the case could mean considerable added delay as well as additional costs of tens of thousands of dollars for landowner and scientist Jessica Ernst. The oil patch consultant has been waging her battle since 2005.

Jessica explained to a very attentive audience, who later gave her a five minute standing ovation, that the  “customs officer at the airport in Dublin was quite positive about me speaking here about fracking. He asked how long I was to be here, and if I was on holiday.

“oh, that fracking is quite controversial, are you for or against?”  I told him I live it.

He was shocked but smiled, I was so excited about having safe  unfracked Irish water to bathe in because mine is shot. Today, I sip my coffee, gaze out over unfracked sheep and fields of vivid green, in gratitude.’

Jessica Ernst Schedule

• March 4th, – Old Ground Hotel , Ennis, Co. Clare, 8pm
• March 6th – Queens University Belfast, Peter Froggatt Center 7pm
• March 7th – United Reformed Church, St. Georges Road, St. Annes, Lancs 7pm
• March 8th,Balcombe Church of England Primary School, London Road, Balcombe, RH17 6HS 8:00pm until 10:00pm
• March 10th, Gresham Hotel, O’Connell Street Dublin, 11-4pm, hosted by Richard Boyd Barrett TD & Chair of Save our Seafront with speakers from Norway, An Taisce, SIPTU, The Woodlands League and more
•  March llth – NUI Maynouth, 1pm, (Hall E, NUIM Campus, bring lunch)
• Monday 11th March, 7 – 9 pm Smock Alley Theatre, Exchange Street Lower, Temple Bar, Dublin 8, Ireland

Contacts:

For further information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

•  Meg Rybicki – McAuley  Tel: 086 3840254.  Email: youthmardingo@gmail.com    Irish presentations
• Dawn Bourke : bourkedawn@gmail.com  BELFAST presentation
•  Lancashire presentation,  (contact Tina Rothery   07548 086703  Residents’ Action on Fylde Fracking (RAFF – www.stopfyldefracking.org.uk)
• Vanessa Vine, Balcombe, Sussex presentation ,  vanessa.vine@gmail.com (00441342810238)

RAFF contacted all Councillors in the area and invited them to the public meeting where Jessica Ernst (an expert from the Oil & Gas sector) is speaking – this is the response we got from to Lancashire County Council‘s Councillor Rob Bailey:

“ I support fracking and find the attempts to suggest it’s dangerous purile. I also believe man made global warming is fiction. Just be honest and admit you are campaigning against carbon based energy and stop the charade about fracking
Regards Rob”

Do YOU agree? His email is:
Rob.Bailey@lancashire.gov.uk & further details are here:
http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=132

We intend to canvass the opinion of all councillors and publish their answers.

Once again, Lancashire County Council’s Planning department  has informed RAFF that neither of Cuadrilla’s Anna’s Road planning applications are on the agenda for next week’s meeting. One of these, at least, was originally scheduled to be dealt with on 6 January 2013 but a series of delays by LCC means that it  has been continually postponed.

In relation to Cuadrilla’s application to resume drilling at Anna’s Road (05/12/0729), LCC says it will make a site visit before the application is considered at its April meeting.

RAFF was due to make presentations at next week’s LCC Planning meeting but obviously that is also now delayed.

These delays are good news in the short-term; Cuadrilla must be losing £millions and shareholders in parent company AJ Lucas will be anxious over the on-going delays.

The next planning meeting will now be in mid-April and LCC will accept objections to both applications until that date. This means that those of you who haven’t yet sent in your objections have now got another opportunity to do so.

The two applications are:

• 05/12/0729 – Cuadrilla’s application to resume drilling at Anna’s Road. Details of the application and how to send your objections are available here.
• 05/13/0021 – Cuadrilla’s application to drill a horizontal borehole at Anna’s Road. Details of the application and how to send your objections are available here.

Please do encourage your friends, family, work colleagues to send in their objections too. The more of us who object, the more notice LCC will take.

RAFF is delighted to have organised a public meeting with Canadian environmental scientist Jessica Ernst.

As part of an international tour, Jessica is coming to St Annes from Ireland, before travelling down to Balcombe in Sussex. As an environmental scientist, Jessica has 30 years of oil and gas industry experience. She is currently suing Canadian authorities for unlawful activities related to hydraulic fracturing and is undertaking a tour of locations at risk from the shale gas industry. Jessica has valuable, first hand information to share with our community and this is a rare opportunity to hear her experiences of the dangers of shale gas development.

The event will take place on Thursday 7 March at 7.00, at St Annes United Reform Church, St Georges Road, St Annes, FY8 2AE.

Please help us publicise this event by downloading and printing this poster and displaying it in your local shops, workplace, library, etc. It really is a wonderful opportunity to hear from a scientist who has first hand experience of what it is like living in a fracking zone.

RAFF has objected to the application by Cuadrilla Resources to drill an exploratory horizontal borehole for shale gas exploration at Anna’s Road, Westby.

It has been a busy year so far for objecting to Cuadrilla’s planning applications and we apologise for asking you to, once again, contact the planning department at Lancashire County Council and put forward your objections as to why Cuadrilla must not be allowed to drill horizontally at its Anna’s Road site. There are many reasons why it mustn’t go ahead, one of the main ones being that the site is only 250 metres from the largest housing estate in Lytham St Annes, with 2,000 homes on it. There is a public – a big one that needs protecting.

Details of the planning application are on the LCC website.  A ‘Comment on the Application’ link is at the bottom of the page. Please use our  letter for suggestions – you can copy and paste all or part of it – or better still personalise it with your own objections. Thank you

Last month we carried a news item on Cuadrilla’s application to Lancashire County Council to carry out its own scoping report. We asked you to send your objections to LCC and provided some guidance on what to include in your email/letter. Thank you to those who have already done so.

Allowing Cuadrilla to carry out its own scoping report means that Lancashire County Council will determine which issues will need to be addressed by Cuadrilla in the Environmental Impact Assessments that will accompany any future planning applications to frack in Lancashire. Cuadrilla has submitted its own proposed scope to the  Council, who have in turn sent this out to various statutory consultees for comment.  However, despite the highly contentious nature of this issue, and contrary to EU best practice guidance, the Council has made no provision whatsoever for other interested parties (such as local community groups, technical experts, non-governmental environmental organisations, etc) to feed into the scoping process. This is critical because any issues not included within the scope (and so far there are several very important  issues excluded) will not be addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment.

Just to remind you, these are the areas that Cuadrilla have excluded from their scope:

• Socio Economic Impacts
• Landscape and visual assessment
• Noise
• Traffic
• Archaeology
• Climate change
• Agricultural considerations

Quite a list, especially when you consider that the site lies within the Lytham Moss Biological Heritage Site which has a functional link to the Ribble Estuary RAMSAR Special Protection Area and SSSI – an internationally significant site for biodiversity, which supports large numbers of breeding birds and is the most important site in the UK for wintering wildfowl, located approximately 4 km to the south and west of the development site.

RAFF’s environmental friends in the South Lakes have composed a very detailed letter for you to copy and paste and either email or send to Stuart Perigo at Lancashire County Council. This letter makes reference to the Aarhus Convention, which gives members of the public legal right to be involved in environmental decision-making. If you haven’t already written to LCC we urge you to copy and paste this letter and send it as soon as possible to stuart.perigo@lancashire.gov.uk. LCC’s scoping documents can be viewed here.

Counterbalance says scope ‘simply not good enough’

Counterbalance is not noted for its anti-fracking stance but it has recently published a very detailed analysis of what the scoping exercise involves and we would recommend you look at this document because it is very well researched and is good background reading for what is a fairly complex issue.

Counterbalance is very critical of Cuadrilla. It says, “Up to now we had thought Cuadrilla to be a mostly responsible organisation, and when we picked up their scoping document to scan through, we were shocked to find they were seeking to use the scoping document to exclude swathes of what we believe they should be considering.

“In our opinion Cuadrilla either do not know, or do not understand, what is required of them. The alternative must be that they are trying to circumvent the environmental regulations by excluding swathes of matters that need proper assessment and consideration.

“If either of those is correct, it leads us to the view that Cuadrilla ought not to be driving the EIA themselves. That should be driven by another body and Cuadrilla should meet the cost.”

This is exactly what RAFF has been proposing for a long time. Any EIA MUST be undertaken by expert independent bodies. Please help get the message to Lancashire County Council!

A couple of weeks ago we asked you to write to the Environment Agency (EA) to object to its consultations on draft decisions to grant Bowland Resources  (a subsidiary of Cuadrilla) permission to ‘safely manage extractive waste and radioactive substances, generated by exploring for shale gas’ at three sites in Lancashire – Anna’s Road, Westby; Grange Hill, Singleton, Poulton-Le-Fylde; and Becconsall Exploration Site, Banks.

The key word here is ‘safely’ It cannot be done safely because there are inadequate regulations governing the disposal of the toxic sludge that flows back after each frack. We need to remind the Environment Agency of this and tell them not to grant these permits.

We only have a couple of days (until the 20/02/13) to get objections in so please act now.

We listed some of the points you might like to consider including in your comments in an earlier posting. Please feel free to copy and paste some or all of them and email your comments as quickly as possible to psc@environment-agency.gov.uk. Further information on the consultation and the EA is available here.

RAFF and REAF (Ribble Estuary Against Fracking) have already submitted a joint letter which you can view here. You can copy and paste any of these objections and use them as your own.

Earlier this month we also drew your attention to the fact that the Environment Agency may be withholding information from the public because it is ‘commercially sensitive’. The post includes authoritative and detailed comments from Mike Hill, independent engineer and St Annes resident, to the EA, telling them why these permits should not be granted. He concludes, “You are not seriously engaging with the public when you withhold (or don’t know) this information. Certainly, we, the public do not know and that places us at a very considerable disadvantage.”

This is an important post because it shows serious short comings for an agency whose role is to protect the public, not commercial enterprises. You can also use any of these comments in your letter to the EA. Thank you.

The Co-op has long been against fracking and has played an important role in raising  awareness of the issues surrounding shale gas extraction.

Its latest campaign is calling for a Clean Energy Revolution. The Co-op says that the UK can no longer afford to rely on increasingly expensive and environmentally damaging fossil fuels. Instead we need to accelerate the development of a clean and efficient energy future. By harnessing our vast natural resources of wind, water and solar power, and improving our energy efficiency, the UK will be greener and our energy future more secure. As such it is asking us to write to our MPs and ask them to support amendments to the Energy Bill, to  sign Early Day Motion 684 (Community Energy), andto  raise the issue with Ministers. By doing so, hopefully, the Government will recognise the significant potential and benefits of community energy and introduce a comprehensive framework of support.

Please click here to contact your MP. There’s a pre-formatted letter so there is no need for you to add any content. Also, for those who have yet to contact their MP about shale gas directly, this page also includes another pre-formatted form asking MPs to impose a moratorium on shale gas.

As we’ve previously reported, Cuadrilla has commenced its installation of a suite of monitoring equipment around the Anna’s Road site, in order to undertake seismic and fracture monitoring in the area. The technology will supposedly provide an early detection system to prevent more earthquakes. We’ve been contacted by a number of residents who are worried that the fracking has begun. It hasn’t. Driving or walking around the lanes of rural Fylde, you are likely to see scenes such as those captured below. People are also already reporting lots of mud on the roads, especially between Lytham and Moss Side, which is believed to be caused by Cuadrilla’s vehicles coming in and out of fields. Just imagine what our rural roads will be like once the  fracking starts and there are hundreds of tankers bringing in chemicals and taking away contaminated fracking flow back sludge.

The company installing the equipment is Marriott Drilling Group, based in Derbyshire. Good to see Cuadrilla using local people as they’re always claiming! Still at least Marriott is a national company. Last year’s geophysical survey was carried out by mainly Dutch and French workers. The security company currently guarding Anna’s Road is Ghurkha Security, a London-based company.

Not a pretty sight but nothing to what we have coming to rural Fylde once fracking gets underway.

Even the security services have been contracted out to a London-based company.

.

If you remember a couple of weeks ago we asked you to please take part in the Environment Agency’s consultation on waste permits by sending in your objections. The applications from Bowland Resources (subsidiary of Cuadrilla) want permits to manage extractive waste and radioactive substances, generated by exploring for shale gas at three sites in Lancashire – Anna’s Road, Westby; Grange Hill, Singleton, Poulton-Le-Fylde; and Becconsall Exploration Site, Banks.  The Environment Agency has now extended its deadline for consultations until 20 February 2013, so there’s still time to contact them.

Fylde resident Mike Hill, an independent engineer who advises RAFF on  technical and engineering matters, has shared his letter of objection with us. It accuses the EA of not seriously engaging with the public by withholding (or don’t know)  information. Requests to the EA  for information by him have been denied. RAFF has also found it difficult to obtain information on where the waste is going for treatment. We have also been unable to discover what happened to the 80,000 + litres of fracking sludge that was left at Preece Hall after the Environment Agency denied Bowland Resources/Cuadrilla a permit to move it, because it was too radioactive.

Mike Hill says that he has not been given answers to his questions because the Environment Agency claims that this information is ‘commercially sensitive’. Doesn’t the Agency exist to protect the public rather than commercial companies? It rather raises the question of whether it is up to the job if it is not working in the best interests of the public.

The covering letter says:

Please find attached my objection to any Permit being granted for the movement and disposal of flowback by Bowland Resources Limited.

After I have held consultations with your Mr. Steve Molyneux (EA Manager – Lancashire) and Mr. Mark Miller, UK Director, Cuadrilla Resources Ltd., I feel that the public have not been given sufficient information in order to be in a position to raise and add credence to their significant objections. This puts the public at a considerable disadvantage when compared with the information you (The Environment Agency) hold and being withheld from the public by you at the direct request of a private company (Remsol Limited) who plan to profit from this waste.

The full letter says:

RE: Bowland Resources Limited Applications
EPR/KB3634AH/A001, EPR/WB3239DL/A001 ,EPR/KB3636AN/A001, EPR/WB3839DE/A001, EPR/KB3632RQ/A001, EPR/WB3239DL/A001
Dear Permitting Support Centre,

I am writing with reference to the applications as detailed above. The Environment Agency (EA) considers these applications as:
“a Mining Waste Operation for the management of non-inert non-hazardous extractive waste that does not include a mining waste facility”.
“Radioactive Substances Activity – Accumulate radioactive waste and Dispose of radioactive waste”

Unlike industrial effluent that comes from a fixed facility such as a chemical factory I feel that you cannot treat waste from a mobile fracking facility in the same manner. I have worked on many chemical and pharmaceutical plants and there the management of waste is carefully controlled. The filtrate receiver vessels are fixed, the piping is fixed and the drains set out clearly for easy access and monitoring. In addition all facilities are located above ground or buried close to the surface for ease of examination. With mobile fracking facilities the fracking waste is sent into tanks for separation from the sand and gas (green tanking). The gas is sent to a flare. The flowback is separated and stored in mobile tanks. After a relatively short period of time (days) this kit is moved.

The flowback itself is not coming from vessels above the ground but from a borehole two miles deep. This is not easy to examine. It requires very specific tools (wireline) and regulations. The EA does not possess the knowledge in sufficient quantity (as in number of staff who understand and have experience of oil and gas and shale gas in particular) or equipment to be able to make such examinations. If well integrity fails then this waste could easily find itself in surface and ground water.

As neither the EA or HSE inspects for well integrity (as per your own FOIs to me directly) then you have no knowledge of whether well integrity has been maintained or not. So I feel it is a fair comparison to compare this waste with drinking water because unlike waste from a fixed installation this waste is not. Unlike waste from a fixed installation with predefined routes to storage, this waste can escape below the surface and find its way into the aquifer which “must be protected at ALL costs regardless of whether it is used for abstraction or not“ – Mark Miller, Bowland Resources Ltd, Director. I agree with Mr. Miller.
Interestingly, the EA also feel a comparison with drinking water is reasonable because you published the results using drinking water as the final column. (NW Monitoring of Flowback 6th Dec, 2011).

The analysis showed that on certain dates the flowback contained (when compared to mains water) :

• 90 times the permissible level of NORM
• 1438 times the level of lead
• 150 times the level of cadmium
• 2,297 times the level of bromide
• 636 times the level of chromium
• 197 times the level of aluminium
• 20 times the level of arsenic

I could go on but I think that’s sufficient. This is waste that can escape into an aquifer. It is mobile not fixed. It is below ground not above. It is naïve and wrong to just class this waste in the same manner as that from a fixed indusial facility. You can easily examine a fixed facility – you cannot at all easily examine a well two miles deep. You do not have the resources to do so. Therefore, it is most definitely not non-hazardous waste. It most definitely is hazardous waste and should be treated as such. The EA appears to be very much behind the curve here and you need to catch up fast.

In addition to the above I have asked the EA for information on the treatment of this flowback. I have asked :

• How will it be treated?
• Where will it be treated ?
• Who is treating it?
• Where is it being disposed?

I got no answers back to any of these questions. The answer I got back was this is commercially sensitive information. I beg to differ. How can we make proper representations on whether or not the EA should issue a permit or what conditions should be on any permit when we do not have access to the above information. This is ridiculous. You are not seriously engaging with the public when you withhold (or don’t know) this information. Certainly, we, the public do not know and that places us at a very considerable disadvantage.”

Dr Geralyn McCarron is an Irish GP who practices in Brisbane. This well qualified medic (Bachelor of Medicine , Bachelor of Surgery, Bachelor of the Art of Obstetrics, Fellow of the Australian College of General Practitioners, Member of the National Toxics Networks, Member of Doctors for the Environment Australia)  decided to undertake some research in a small rural residential community five hours drive from Brisbane. This rural-based community is surrounded by shale gas fields – comprising approximately 600 wells. There is deliberate venting and flaring of gas and there are fugitive gases coming directly out of the ground. Dr McCarron has written about her findings, The Australian gas fields; personal insights into the health impacts and limitations of regulation. You can download the paper here

(Cuadrilla is planning a minimum of over 800 wells in Fylde and the surrounding countryside. It’s believed that there will be many more. The company has also applied for and has been given permission to deliberately vent and flare its wells)

What Dr McCarron found in this small community shocked her. She said: “There is a back ground level of illness which is way above anything you would expect. In addition, there are severe exacerbations where many people are very ill at the same time. These are usually associated with odour events, changes in wind direction and temperature inversions.”

The community has been trying to get help for the last three years but without any success. Dr McCarron says, “So what about the legislation? You might assume that it would protect the people. In Queensland, we are reassured that we have best practice and we certainly seem to have endless legislation. However, the problem is that the legislation is designed to ensure that the gas developments go ahead at all cost. The gas projects are declared to be of state importance. Simply by declaring Significant Public Status, the Coordinator General can guarantee that the project is approved and can proceed without the recommended restrictions. The companies work on a policy of “adaptive
management” while the Queensland government continues to amend the environmental laws across the state to suit them. As a result, responsibilities for damage caused to the environment and to public health by companies is minimised.”

(RAFF has continually badgered our MP Mark Menzies with our concerns that no Health Impact Assessment has been carried out. Our onshore drilling legislation doesn’t require it apparently. RAFF has also been asking for Environmental Impact Assessments to be carried out. Cuadrilla is currently carrying out its own – you may remember one of this month’s campaigns has been to write to Lancashire County Council to tell them that Cuadrilla must NOT be allowed to carry out its own investigation (which is currently applying for) and that LCC must insist on independent research

The Queensland experience sound eerily similar to our own:

“Unfortunately, the company can get a foot in the door if the community is not strong and united. It only takes a few weak links. They will also sniff around pretending to be the good guys, throwing a trivial amount of money at the local football team or sponsoring a major sporting or cultural event. They positively try to split communities.”

(Sounds familiar? Cuadrilla is currently throwing paltry bits of money at the community – such as sponsoring a  junior football club’s shirts, getting involved in the In Bloom project, sponsoring Young Engineer of the Year in our schools. Insultingly small amounts of money when you consider the £billions in profit they are going to make out of destroying our countryside)

Dr McCarron goes on to say: “Community strength is the only protection. People must be proactive in engaging with their friends, with their neighbours, with everyone. People need particularly to engage those who would be vulnerable to exploitation and ensure that there is no social licence. People need to be vigilant and ensure that the gas company or their representative do not get access to the land for any reason – not for seismic testing, not for exploration bores, not for access roads, not for pipelines. Not for anything.”

(Never has it been more important to come together and speak with one voice. Not just the people of the Fylde and Lancashire but the whole of the UK and Ireland. RAFF is currently in contact with other anti-fracking groups and we are considering how best to target the government with our united concerns. We are also in touch with the wider international community)

“Worldwide, the reason the unconventional gas industry has been able to deny causation for so long is that independent health professionals and scientists were not involved. Baseline environmental testing is routinely omitted; health impact assessments have not been required; there has been no compulsory register of health impacts and properly planned and funded long term epidemiological studies have never been devised or implemented.

The unconventional gas industry is one which is intrinsically unsafe and should not be permitted  If we want our children, our grandchildren and generations to come to be healthy and well, to have safe air to breathe, safe water to drink and fertile land in perpetuity then we must employ the precautionary principle now. In this high risk industry legislation won’t prevent human error. In the unseen depths hundreds of metres below the surface legislation won’t stop salt and acid corroding steel and cement.

There is no debate really – it is prevention not precautionary measures we must insist on. The legislation we should be engaged in creating must enforce a total ban.
”

(Please don’t think that because this is happening in Australia it won’t happen here. It will. We are not protected. Your health and that of your children is at risk. Please pass this very important document on to family and friends. RAFF is just about to resurrect its health petition – please keep checking our website for news of how to download this petition, etc)

RAFF members can often be found outside Washington’s Tea Rooms on Saturdays (12.00 -2.00 pm) engaging members of the public in conversation and listening to their concerns about the potential impact fracking will have on our region.

We are hearing some worrying reports from folk who have incurred damage to their properties but have been told that it’s in their best interests to ‘keep quiet’. One lady told us that her house and that of her neighbour’s had suffered some structural damage but when they complained they were told that it was in their best interests to keep quiet about it because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to sell their houses. We’re not sure if the damage was caused by the earthquake or by last year’s geological survey. Certainly, lots of residents contacted RAFF about the latter – you can read some of their accounts on our Residents Reports page.

Have you been told to ‘keep quiet’ when you’ve complained about structural damage, etc. If so please send us your experiences about this and another dealings – positive as well as negative – that you have encountered since drilling started on the Fylde. You can contact us at info@stopfyldefracking.org.uk.

RAFF has long been demanding that independent Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) are carried out at each of the proposed Cuadrilla well sites, before planning permissions are granted.  Lancashire County Council has now agreed that an Environmental Impact Assessment is required at Anna’s Road, but instead of getting an independent body with some experience of fracking impacts to do it, they have asked Cuadrilla to do it themselves!

Cuadrilla’s idea of the impact fracking will have on our environment leaves out some very important considerations including, Socio Economic, Landscape & Visual Assessment, Noise, Traffic, Archaeology, Climate Change & Agricultural considerations. It also only considers the impact of Cuadrilla’s activities at the exploratory stage – the preliminary drilling, etc. It does not take into account the production stage – that is, the effects that full-blown fracking will have on our environment.

So, once again we are asking you to put in an objection to Lancashire County Council. We have created a letter for you to use  but, of course, the more you personalise it the better.  You can email it, send via the LCC website or post it. It only takes a couple of minutes and officially we only have until 6 February to do so. However, objection letters received after this date and before the Planning Committee meets will probably be counted. The letter is available here.

In Austria, residents demanded that  EIA reports be carried out for each planned well (not just the pad); the process was so expensive that the drilling companies pulled out and Austria is now frack-free! We should also take heart from Cumbria County Council’s recent decision not to allow a nuclear waste site in the county. Central Government thought this was a given. It just shows that we – the residents – can make a difference if we all shout loud enough.

Sending your planning objections

• By email: Please copy and paste the letter  (including your own address) and  send to devcon@lancashire.gov.uk

• Via the web. Please go to http://planningregister.lancashire.gov.uk/PlanAppDisp.aspx?recno=6221 Select ‘Comment on This Application’ and fill in the boxes. You can copy and paste the letter into the relevant space
• By mail: Please print out the letter (and add your address) and send to The Development Management Group, PO Box 100,  County Hall,  Preston PR1 0LD
• By phone: You can also object by phone 01772 531929. Ask for Mr Stuart Perigo, LCC’s planning chief.

You may have heard some of us RAFF folk ringing in on the Sally Naden show on Radio Lancashire on 1 February. BBC Lancashire provided a platform for Cuadrilla’s CEO Francis Egan and Leon Jennings, Cuadrilla’s Health, Safety & Environment Director, to answer questions from the public.

If you missed it you can listen to it again here.

RAFF is appalled at how unbalanced this programme was – no local residents’  groups were invited to take part – nor were there any representatives from single residents – or any independent experts. This was purely a platform for Cuadrilla and all we – the people who are in the firing line –  were offered was the chance to phone in a question. It was very unsatisfactory as people were being cut off before they had the chance to respond to Cuadrilla’s comments.

Eagan was both evasive and patronising. He stated many times, for instance, that the flowback water is completely safe. RAFF has access to an Environment Agency statement that makes clear that the water is hazardous. The EA statement says, for example, that the flowback  contains cadmium (a known carcinogen) at 150 times that found in drinking water;  chromium at 636 times; lead at 1,438 times; and arsenic at 50 times.  Eagan also skirted over the issue of well integrity and we still haven’t got a satisfactory answer to where the thousands of gallons of flowback from Preece Hall are being stored (or have they been dumped) after the EA introduced new regulations for moving the stuff.

RAFF and other Lancashire-based anti-fracking groups have contacted BBC Lancashire to demand fairer coverage for residents. What we’d like to hear broadcast is a panel representing concerned residents, independent engineers such as Mike Hill, independent bodies such as the Tyndale Centre and representatives from the likes of Friends of the Earth.

If you too felt that this was a very unbalanced programme, please email your comments to lancashire@bbc.co.uk

Cuadrilla is to install a suite of monitoring equipment at its Anna’s Road site apparently to undertake seismic and fracture monitoring in the area. The technology will supposedly provide an early detection system to prevent more earthquakes.

Cuadrilla claims it is also installing a further monitoring system that will demonstrate that fractures induced in the shale rock by the fracking process do not extend to the aquifer, which lies approximately a mile above and will not cause contamination of this water. Francis Egan, Cuadrilla’s chief executive, said: ‘One of the most important features of this system will be to demonstrate that any fractures created by hydraulic fracturing stay thousands of feet below the aquifer. It will be an effective way of demonstrating that the process is indeed no threat to water supplies.’

All fine and good then – except it isn’t Mr Eagan - no one is checking the integrity of the well which is the major cause of water (aquifer) contamination, because regulations don’t require it.

Cuadrilla says that the equipment will be fitted across 156 specially prepared holes around the Anna’s Road site. Preparing the holes takes between two and four days per hole.

Please let us know if you are affected by any of the drilling at info@stopfyldefracking.org.uk.

Following last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, there are some pretty bullish statements being peddled around the energy media. It was at Davos that Sam Laidlaw, Chief Executive of British Gas owner Centrica, claimed  that shale gas would not be ‘the game changer we’ve seen in North America and it would be at least a decade before the UK saw any shale gas production’.

Not everyone agrees with him, however. According to energy analysts Platts, the pessimism could be misplaced. Platt’s says that the scale of Cuadrilla’s resource base, together with the prospect of new investors, means that UK shale gas production could get well under way well before Laidlaw’s 10 year prospect. Platt’s also quotes a source close to Cuadrilla as saying, ‘They are dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s” on a farm-in agreement with an energy major.’ Shell, BG and Statoil are names that have been mentioned. The speculation has been enough to see the share prices of AJ Lucas, which owns 41.5% of Cuadrilla, increase from Aus $1.56 to Aus $1.90.

Platts does issue a word of warning though by saying that Cuadrilla needs to be careful on the environmental front as it could upset tourism in the Fylde, an industry that generates up to £500 million per year.

It’s a pity Cuadrilla and their would-be purchasers don’t take more note of Lord Stern’s comments made in Davos to The Guardian. In today’s Observer (27January 2013),  in an item entitled, ‘I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse, Lord Stern admits that he previously underestimated the risks, when he claimed in 2006, that global temperatures would rise between two and three degrees above the long-term average – he now believes we are nearer four. He likens the situation to playing Russian roulette with two bullets rather than one and calls for increased investment in greening the economy, saying, ‘It’s a very exciting growth story‘.

The UK government refuses to listen to the economic benefits of green investment. The City, as well as climate change experts, has long been telling Osborne that he needs to wake up to the seriousness of the effects of climate change and that the UK should be investing in long-term sustainable green energy. Instead, Osborne and the Tory Right are determined to line their own pockets by pushing for shale gas and, in the process, destroy  investor confidence in what was a booming renewable sector. At the end of last year, the government’s official climate advisers told Osborne that his dash for gas is ‘completely incompatible’ with the nation’s legally binding carbon emissions targets and should be ‘plan Z’. Unhappily for us, it remains Osborne’s plan A.

According to a new report from Deutsche Bank, published 25 January 2013, environmental concerns and public opposition are causing governments to take a measured approach to shale gas exploration and development.

The main points of the report are:

‘ A series of developments has improved the outlook for shale-gas development in the UK in the past year. In contrast, France and Germany continue to have full or partial bans in place. Numerous studies are underway which will help to establish proper safety measures and drilling procedures to minimise the risks.’

The improved outlook probably refers to the concessions the UK government is offering to the shale gas sector, such as tax breaks (remember it took them away from the green energy sector). Plus, of course, Ed Davey gave the go-ahead for fracking to recommence in December 2012. Then there was Osborne’s Autumn Statement, which included the news that the government is planning the creation of a single Office for Unconventional Gas “so that regulation is safe but simple”. All positive signs for an impatient and desperate industry but hardly encouraging for those of us concerned about our health and safety. The single new regulation the Office for Unconventional Gas came up with applies to seismic (earthquake) activity only. What about the rest, what about inspections? Unfortunately, the report skirts over these important issues by reporting glibly, ‘Naturally, all existing regulatory controls remain in place, and thus operators will still be required to obtain planning permission, environmental permits, and health and safety clearance before proceeding with any exploratory drilling.’

‘Environmental concerns remain at the fore, and public opposition pressures governments to take a measured approach to exploration. Bulgaria, Romania and the Netherlands suspended hydraulic fracturing in 2012, while the costs of environmental compliance in Austria may be prohibitively high.’

Public opposition works – France and Bulgaria are the proof. The regulatory argument is also a powerful force. How can our government allow fracking to go ahead when the UK’s inadequate regulations for onshore drilling puts its residents’ environment and health at risk? Make the regulations so stringent and, therefore, so expensive, that the shale gas companies will pack up and go away – as they have done in Austria

‘The current or expected deficit of domestic gas production and concern over import dependency drives the interest in shale-gas exploration in both Europe and Asia. The reserves replacement rate has fallen to 39% in major European producing countries in the last ten years, while China expects to grow gas demand by 19% annually to 2015.’

Further proof that any gas produced in the UK will be subject to European/Asian markets, ie, domestic prices will be subject to international market forces.

‘Water resources may emerge as a constraint as exploration efforts uncover commercially exploitable shale-gas assets. While per capita water resources are an imperfect measure owing to variations in regional distribution, they are a useful yardstick for assessing where these constraints may arise.’

Millions of gallons of fresh drink water are required for each well. In some parts of the USA farmers are suffering because their water supply has become unpredictable in areas where fracking is taking place. Droughts are not uncommon in the UK. Water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource worldwide.

‘A measure of caution is in order in drawing conclusions about the future of international shale-gas development given the large number of unknowns, including the scope for improvement in extraction technology, further resource discoveries, the wide variation in recovery factors and the uncertainty over the possible rate of production, all of which make it highly speculative to determine which countries, if any, will achieve a price “revolution” in domestic natural gas markets.’

The hype over falling gas prices is one that is trotted out by politicians and the fracking industry. Ask anyone in the street what they think about their area becoming a fracking zone and those who think it will be a ‘good thing’ always mention falling energy prices. In fact we are aware that some local county council candidates are very reluctant to publicly come out against shale gas because they have been accused of denying elderly people the chance to keep warm via cheap gas. Shale gas will not lead to cheap energy. It has led to price reductions in the USA but the States keeps all its gas for the domestic market. The UK will export some of its gas – the international market dictates the price of gas. North Sea oil did not result in cheap oil for the UK. The report actually supports our view. It says, ‘Development of shale-gas resources in Europe, the Middle East and Africa are considerably more expensive [than USA]. Given current estimates, it appears to be a far stretch to expect that shale-gas production could bring about an equalisation of global gas prices towards the US level.’

The full report, European Gas: The Changing Landscape For Shale Gas, can be downloaded here.

Raff is asking for your help again. The Environment Agency (EA) is currently running several consultations on draft decisions for  Bowland Resources Ltd’s (subsidiary of Cuadrilla) permit applications to safely manage extractive waste and radioactive substances, generated by exploring for shale gas at three sites in Lancashire – Anna’s Road, Westby; Grange Hill, Singleton, Poulton-Le-Fylde; and Becconsall Exploration Site, Banks. You are invited to take part in this consultation – please click here.

There are inadequate regulations governing the disposal of the toxic sludge that flows back after each frack. We need to remind the Environment Agency of this and tell them not to grant these permits. We have listed some of the points you might like to consider including in your comments below. Please feel free to copy and paste some or all of them.

*****************************************

Daveyhulme in Trafford used to deal with Cuadrilla’s waste until the EA refused a permit for it because it was so polluted. Thousands of gallons of flowback water have since been stored at Preese Hall. Neither the EA nor Cuadrilla will say where it is and how it is being stored. This secrecy is very disturbing.

It takes more than 4,000,000 gallons of water for each ‘frack’ for shale gas – the enhanced fracturing of shale rock deep in the earth by injecting at high pressure water carrying a combination of sand and chemicals designed together to stop the rock fractures form closing over again as the water retreats.

With Bowland shale, approximately up to 40%-50% of the total water used, per frack, returns to the surface with the extracted gas. This ‘flowback’ water, carries the residues of the process chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic, together with naturally occurring radioactive materials which are normally locked in the earth but have been absorbed by the water during this process.

The Environment Agency have produced an analysis of the flowback, taken from eight trips made by them between 7th April 2011 and 17 Aug 2011 of, we assume, PH-1 (the fracked well at Preese Hall. Benzene is missing from the list. As this is almost certain to be present, we wonder if it was in fact a consideration in the analysis.

The analyses revealed:

NB 1 milligram (mg) = 1/1,000 gram; 1 microgram (ug) = 1/1,000,000 gram

• Lead  (μg/l) between 90 and 100.  Mains water is at <0.417  – flowback is approximately 225 times normal.
• Cadmium (μg/l) 6.02. Mains water is at <0.04  -  flowback is approximately 150 times normal.
• Magnesium (mg/l) 397. Mains water is at <9.21 - flowback is approximately 43 times normal.
• Chromium (μg/l). 222. Mains water is at <0.349 - flowback is approximately 636 times normal.
• Aluminum (μg/l). 596. Mains water is at <8.04 S  – flowback is approximately 197 times normal.
• Benzyne ?? why isn’t this included?
• Radiation flowback has been seen at levels of between 10 and 90 times the permissible limit (as in the EAs permissible limit for NORM).

According to professional advice, other chemicals (depending what is used in each frack) and metals might include: polyacrylamide, biocide, hydrochloric acid, arsenic (47 times more than found in mains water).

We are looking at millions of gallons of contaminated flowback sludge in Lancashire. Where is it going to be to be treated or dumped? Cuadrilla can’t tell us because they don’t know. REMsol, based in Penwortham, have agreed to deal with the radioactive waste which will presumably then be dumped on Clifton Marsh. Where is the rest going?

Prior to any treatment, the toxic sludge will be stored in containers which need to be properly lined, or it may be stored  in open pits for treatment or disposal. In the USA, such disposal appears largely to be in deep injection wells, a practice which has been devastating to wildlife and, in some instances, has caused identifiable leakage into water systems. Operators in Pennsylvania have sent flowback to municipal treatment facilities, which in turn discharged the still radioactive waste waters into the Susquehanna River, above regulatory limits as those facilities did not have the capabilities to effectively treat the flowback. Other operators sold the radioactive waste water to municipalities to spray on roads to clear snow due to its high salt content.

Could this happen here? Yes it could because we don’t have adequate regulations to stop it.

Over 800 wells are planned for Lancashire. Consider the transportation of the approximately 20 million gallons of flowback to the treatment plants.  The average tanker holds 26,000 litres, so we are looking at 3,384 trips to dispose of flowback alone. And this does not include the tankers that will be transporting the chemicals needed for the fracking process. These tankers will be travelling on narrow rural roads that are ill equipped to cope with such traffic. What if there is an accident? We will witness contaminated sludge seeping into our local waterways and agricultural land – or worse into our highly populated areas.

And then we have to look 10-15 years in the future. Cuadrilla and everyone has gone. The Fylde is left with over 800 spent wells. Within those wells there will be up to 2 billions of polluted water and chemicals.  No one – no one – can explain where this water goes and no one will be checking where it will be seeping, so we will get land contamination for sure, and as the cement bonds deteriorate, which they will, water in the borehole will then leach out into the Sherwood aquifer, resulting in contamination of the UK’s second largest aquifer.

This is a very dirty industry. Without stringent regulations, operators will not store and dispose of the radioactive contaminated flowback in a proper manner. It’s also a very expensive industry and companies will cut corners.

For all the reasons listed above, the Environment Agency must not grant Bowland Resources any environmental permits to manage the extractive waste and radioactive substances resulting from prospecting for shale gas.

*****************************************

We appreciate that this is a complicated business but please do take a few minutes to send in your objections. Remember every voice counts.

And if you haven’t done so already, there’s still time to contact Lancashire County Council with your  objections to Cuadrilla’s current planning permission for an extension to drill at Anna’s Road. Lancashire County Council has  informed us that objections can be made right up  until 13 February when the committee will next meet. Please click here  and select ‘Comment on this application’. You can then fill in your details, and copy and paste some of our suggestions.

RAFF has had a fair bit of contact with Fylde MP Mark Menzies, either as the organisation RAFF or as individuals. We have witnessed him claim that he will fight for many of the issues and concerns raised by us and Fylde residents – as he has had to if he is to maintain his majority – there are just too many concerned residents to ignore.

He has mentioned a ‘gold standard of regulation by the appropriate bodies’ many times – all well and good, this is what we are campaigning for. His latest correspondence though shows that he maybe isn’t quite so onside as he would have us believe. Among other issues discussed in a reply about job and local community benefits, he says,

“ I completely understand your concerns with regards to local employment. There is great potential for local job and revenue creation in Fylde and I will therefore continue to express my expectation to both Cuadrilla and the Department of Energy & Climate Change that there should be significant tangible community benefits if extraction of shale gas is to commence. This is why I have attached a letter from Cuadrilla outlining what benefits there could be to the community.”

That he is falling for the whole Cuadrilla jobs and money shebang is bad enough but attaching a letter telling us just how concerned Cuadrilla is that local communities will benefit from them destroying our environment, and listing the small number of community projects they have already contributed to is beyond the pale. So we ask the question, ‘Is Fylde MP Mark Menzies Cuadrilla’s latest PR recruit?’

The press release is dated 18 December 2012. You won’t find it on Cuadrilla’s web site though, which makes us think that this has been specifically created for M Menzies to distribute to any constituents who bring up the matter of benefits for the community. What is our MP thinking of! What a gross error of judgement Mr Menzies.

Cuadrilla is cleverly playing the money and jobs card. Those of us that have researched the effects of fracking on communities where it is already happening, know that shale gas will bring few jobs and money to the Fylde. What is worrying is that the arguments divide communities where it has yet to happen, which, of course, is just what the pro-frackers want. If you haven’t done so already please read the Letter From America, written by an ex-Lancastrian who now lives in Philadelphia. He tells of the empty promises made by the shale gas companies about local investment, jobs, etc. We wonder if M Menzies would be willing to distribute this with his correspondence. Somehow we very much doubt it.

An emerging global anti-fracking movement is winning victories in countries across the world, according to a new report, The Global Anti-Fracking Movement: What it Wants, How it Operates and What’s Next,

The 24-page report, compiled by the independent global risk consultancy group Control Risks, gives a stark warning to the oil and gas industry – that it has largely failed to appreciate social and political risks and has repeatedly underestimated the “sophistication, reach and influence” of the global anti-fracking movement.

It identifies Josh Fox’s film Gasland as the catalyst for galvanising international action, noting that although the anti-fracking movement didn’t start with Gasland, it would not have gone global without it.  The film  provided a shared reference point for anti-fracking groups worldwide, and almost single-handedly made fracking internationally controversial and has been responsible for the hundreds of anti-fracking groups that have emerged.

The extensive use of online and social media to disseminate information, organise and mobilise has been a notable feature of the movement, and, says the report, helps explain the rapid speed and scale of the anti-fracking movement’s development. Networking may be focused at the local or national level but it quickly extends globally.

A major concern for the industry, says the report, is the radicalisation of anti-fracking groups as permission is gradually given to energy companies to frack. Such action is likely to involve disrupting operations through blockages, occupations or low-level sabotage. The advice for the drilling companies is to make friends and engage with the local community – much as we have witnessed Cuadrilla doing here on the Fylde with their attempts to curry favour though small donations here and there. This community activity goes hand in hand with grossly over exaggerated claims about jobs and economic benefits for the locality.

There’s an interesting table towards the end of the report, which provides an Activism Risk Register for current and prospective shale countries – some 32 in all. It allocates a Low Political and Security risk for the UK, but, rather gratifyingly, when it comes to Anti-Fracking Activism, the UK is allocated a Significant risk, along with only nine other countries -  Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, Romania, South Africa, Sweden and the US.

It’s good to know that we have friends all over the world concerned with the same regulatory, environmental and health issues as we are. Together we are making enough waves for the energy companies to be concerned and for risk consultancies such as Control Risks to take the ever growing anti-fracking movement seriously.

According to the financial press, Cuadrilla is looking to sell to one of the big energy companies. The Financial Times, 11 January 2013, says that a deal would be a coup for Lord John Browne, the former chief executive of BP, who is a director of Cuadrilla. He is also a partner at Riverstone Holdings, the private equity firm that holds 41%t of Cuadrilla, with AJ Lucas, the Australian engineering group and management owning the rest. Co-incidentally, Browne was appointed Cabinet Office Executive by Francis Maude, MP for Horsham (a constituency including the fracking site at Balcombe) in 2010. Until 2007, Browne was group Chief Executive of BP. See RAFF’s  item on how our Government is surrounding itself with climate change deniers and fracking fans like Browne, many of whom have more than a  little vested interest in shale gas production.

The Telegraph,  12 January 2013, names Centrica, the owner of British Gas, among a number of parties involved in negotiations with Cuadrilla’s controlling owners Riverstone Holdings and AJ Lucas. The newspaper says, “For Centrica, taking a stake in Cuadrilla is understood to be one of seven or eight possibilities the company is looking at as part of its diversification strategy.”

Raff isn’t surprised by the news. We always knew that the big guys were waiting in the wings. It’s been obvious for a while that Cuadrilla has been under financial strain. Failed wells and delays in decisions that haven’t always gone their way, have taken their financial toll. In November last year, Centrica announced it was pulling out of the UK nuclear sector and was planning to buy billions of pounds worth of cheap shale gas from the US over the next few years to give Britain greater energy independence. Cuadrilla or Centrica – it  makes little difference to RAFF’s determination to stop this happening in the UK.

Centrica obviously believes that shale gas is economically viable but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the UK shale gas industry will be very different from that of the US.

The Telegraph has urged caution in the past, warning that fracking may not be the economic miracle many are claiming. In an item, “Do not be seduced by a ‘fracking’ gas bonanza”, published 15 December 2012, it claims that the production implications of the shale revolution, and its related economic and strategic advantages, are being blown out of all proportion, It says, “Once subsidies are removed, shale oil and gas is far from cheap, not least because it requires the continuous drilling of small wells, rather than the long exploitation of big wells. So constant – and costly – drilling is needed just to maintain shale output, let alone increase it. US shale energy looks cheap, because domestic prices are cheap. But that’s down to unsustainable tax breaks and laws that stop American energy exports.” Unlike the US, the UK is more than likely to export its gas, just as it has exported its oil. The item concludes, “When the big energy companies and Western governments push in the same direction, they can, for a while anyway, create any conventional wisdom they like, even one with little regard for the facts.”

The Telegraph has  also warned  that shale gas will not be a game changer in the UK.  Published on 10 December 2012, it quotes from a new report, Shale gas: Can it be a game changer?, from consultants Accenture, which says, “One of the biggest challenges for the UK is probably going to be the population density. The UK is much more densely populated than the US making the management of movements more challenging. “The sharp influx of logistics activity during the drilling and fracking phases can have a significant impact on the local community. Increased traffic congestion, damage to local roads, noise and air pollution are among the most commonly cited concerns.”

Last month (December 2012), the Motley Fool, in an article called A Contrarian View on the Shale Oil and Gas Revolution,  provided a host of reasons why shale may not be economically viable. It  concluded by saying, “Isn’t this type of blind faith exactly what prevented us from seeing one of the biggest housing bubbles in history? Shouldn’t we question where the experts are getting their numbers from and meticulously analyse the fine print? “Just as most observers kept mum when banks created complex financial products that were supposed to diversify risk, hardly anybody questions the logistics of shale oil and gas production. Isn’t it worrisome that some of the largest gas producers spend multiples of their operating cash flow to finance exploration and drilling ventures? Isn’t it troubling that estimates of shale wells’ economic lives and decline rates vary so drastically?”

Energy companies and governments aren’t listening to reasoned arguments though. Given our government’s desperation for  anything  to rescue us from our economic malaise, it remains blinkered to the realities of shale gas production on communities. What will it take to convince it of the very serious damage that is inflicting on our health and welfare? A serious accident maybe?

Cuadrilla’s current planning permission for drilling at Anna’s Road was initially due to run out on the 6 January 2013. Lancashire County Council has now informed us that objections can be made up to 13 February, so there is still time to contact LCC with your objections.

Cuadrilla is applying for permission to resume drilling. We must try and stop this permit being granted. You can help! Please take a moment to register your objection. To make it easy, we’ve created a letter for you to either copy and paste or use and adapt as you wish. Further information on the application  is available here.

Although you can copy and paste this objection as it stands, it will get more attention if you can personalise it in some way by adding comments you feel are important to you. It may also be worth reminding the planning officers that just last month, Lancashire County Council made a unanimous decision in calling for specific onshore exploration or extraction regulations for natural gas. LCC has acknowledged that, as they stand, current regulations are totally inadequate to protect residents. How then can they grant planning permissions knowing that we are unprotected and that they (ie LCC) are responsible for any contamination, particularly concerning soil, water and air, as well as greenhouse emissions.

Please click here and select ‘Comment on this application’. You can then fill in your details, and copy and paste some of our suggestions below.

To – LCC Planning

I wish to register my objection to the following planning application on the grounds that environment and health impact studies have not been carried out in order to establish what risk is posed by this drilling. As officers and councillors must be aware, there is also grave concern about the gap in regulation which means the vital ‘Cement Bond Logs’ are not required. As it is those with the power to grant this planning application that may be held legally responsible, I wish to bring this to your attention now. If this application gets the go-ahead, even though you are aware there is no requirement for Cement Bond Logs, you are responsible for any damage or accidents that result.

I am also concerned at the quality of work being carried out by the drillers as there have already been problems at two of their sites (Preesehall & Anna’s Road). The drilling company has shown a disregard for planning details as at the Banks site, as they worked past the set finish date. I want you to stop this planning application so that further investigation into the safety issues and the practices of the drilling company can be done in order to reassure the community that they are protected and not at risk in any way.

Application Number

05/12/0729

District

Fylde Borough Council

Location

ANNAS ROAD EXPLORATION SITE, ANNAS ROAD, OFF PEEL ROAD, WESTBY, BLACKPOOL

Parish

WESTBY WITH PLUMPTONS

Electoral Division

FYLDE WEST

Easting

335370

Northing

430967

Status

Valid

Proposal

VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 05/10/0634 TO EXTEND OVERALL TIME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FROM 18 MONTHS TO 24 MONTHS FROM THE START OF DEVELOPMENT UNTIL 19 SEPTEMBER 2013, EXCLUDING ANY HYDRAULIC FRACTURING, INCLUDING AN EXTENDED PERIOD FOR DRILLING OPERATIONS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR COMMENCEMENT.

I look forward to your response.

IGas Energy Plc, which describes itself as ‘a domestic oil and gas operator and leading developer of onshore unconventional and conventional hydrocarbons in the UK’, is planning to advance its plans for shale gas extraction in Cheshire. The company had previously expressed its interest in the area  but says that the recent “positive geological and political developments for shale gas had led the company to implement an ongoing ‘farm out process’”

In December 201,2 the company released an interim statement announcing its financial results for the six months ended 30 September 2012. Andrew Austin, CEO of IGas Energy commented: “We are pleased to announce a positive set of results, with growth in reserves, material cash flow and strengthening of the balance sheet. The lifting of the restrictions on fracking also means that we are now able to advance our shale assets.”

Following the ending of the fracking ban, by Ed Davey in December ’12, IGAS Energy is planning a further evaluation of its North West shale gas resources, including possible drilling. According to TheBusinessDesk.com, the company is looking to extract shale gas from underneath a number of sites owned by Peel Group, owner of the Trafford Centre, including Ince Marshes and Doe Green at Warrington. It’s believed that the company is also exploring Coal Bed Methane (CBM) drilling.

IGas said it has received interest from a “number of parties” for the shale assets. It went on to say, “A number of studies, including geochemical analysis and seismic mapping, have contributed to a more detailed understanding of the shale potential. The results from these studies indicate that the IGas acreage is even more prospective than originally envisaged. Mapping of the Bowland Shale interval shows the shale horizon extending across the IGas licences in the North West. “The results from these studies, coupled with the soon to be published British Geological Survey (BGS) report on the UK shale resource volumes, is anticipated to further confirm the scale of the shale potential in the UK.”

A recent estimate by Frack Off claims that if IGas’ estimate of the amount of shale gas in the area is correct, it would require around 2,500 wells to produce.

This isn’t the first time Ince Marshes has been targeted for development. Plans to build an incinerator on the banks of the River Mersey were approved in 2011. The Ince Biomass Plant, near Helsby, will be fuelled by almost 200,000 tonnes of recycled wood a year. Land owner Peel Energy said it would generate enough electricity to meet the needs of 37,000 homes. Residents are fighting the development on health grounds.

Cuadrilla is increasing its PR activity and targeting our schoolchildren, by sponsoring Young Engineers 2013. This strategy is supposed to persuade us that they are a ‘good neighbour’, concerned with helping local communities, in the hope that we will forget the risks associated with shale gas extraction. Shame on the Evening Gazette for getting involved with this. How can we hope for balanced reporting when the newspaper is dependent on revenue from this company.

What can we expect next – relevant shale gas courses at our local colleges and universities with the promise of more jobs?  Beware the false promises and consider the comments from a colleague in the USA who contributed to this website recently with his ‘Letter From America’. He said:

‘A local technical college even started a new educational program aimed at helping young people find work in the industry. But, some four years on, and with a growing number of wells being drilled, the jobs promised are still nowhere to be seen.

The jobs did not appear because the gas drilling industry business model does not include local investment and employment!  Unlike aerospace or car manufacturing, production for the gas industry is based upon them staying in one place for a short period of time.  The average well pad can be assembled, fracked, sealed and left (abandoned), all within 6-12 months.  Because of this lack of permanency they do not offer business clustering potential where providers, supplies, etc set up shop adjacent or nearby.  Furthermore, the fracking process itself requires a crew of skilled, experienced workers, rather than new workers.  In our case, almost all these have arrived from other states such as Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas, and because of the transient nature of the job they don’t buy houses in the community but rather live from month to month in hotels or mobile homes.  Yes , we’ve heard rumours of a ‘friend of a friend’ who landed a good job with a gas company, but no one really knows anyone who has found these jobs.’

There is no evidence to suggest that the job situation will be any different here.

Following the Government’s decision to allow fracking to go ahead, announced in early December, the media has been busy reporting people’s reactions and pondering on the likely success or otherwise of the UK shale gas industry. The following links point to some of the more significant coverage in the media.

Comment and debate

Following Ed Davey’s announcement that the Government was lifting the moratorium on fracking, RAFF was contacted by all the major TV stations,  including BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News, as well as satellite channels, radio stations such as BBC FiveLive and Radio Lancashire, and many newspapers and magazines. You can watch RAFF members talking on Granada Reports here

The Voice of Russia provided the opportunity to listen to a lively debate by some of the industry’s most pro and anti fracking campaigners:

• Venessa Vine representing BIFF! and Frack Free Sussex
• Nick Grealy – Cuadrilla lobbyist and “shale gas evangelist”
• Fiona Harvey – Guardian Environment Correspondent
• Tony Bosworth – Friends of the Earth.

You can listen to the debate here.

Economic benefits exaggerated

The pro-shale gas lobbyists are constantly trying to persuade us that there will be huge economic benefits for areas where fracking occurs. ‘Shale Gas Profits’ and the economic benefits of shale gas was the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on 19 December. Eric Ollerenshaw, MP for Lancaster and Fleetood, together with Fylde MP Mark Menzies took part. You can read a transcript of the debate here.

Still on the subject of the economic advantages or otherwise of shale gas, RAFF was very pleased to offer the first’ Letter From America’, a newsletter from a former Lancastrian who now lives inside a fracking area in Wheeling, USA. Our US contributor provides a factual account of what it is like living in a fracking area and how the economic promises have never been realised. Read Letter From America here.  Letter From America will be a regular monthly feature. Please copy/download it and distribute it as widely as possible.

Making it easy for the shale gas companies

The Government seems hell bent on making it as easy as possible for shale gas companies to get a hold in the UK. In his Autumn Statement, George Osborne announced tax breaks for fracking companies. Research shows that  80% of new oil & gas fields since 2009 have got massive tax breaks. The latest research shows the scale of fossil fuel tax breaks. A new Friends of the Earth report says there should be a moratorium on shale gas development in the UK. In its absence, shale should certainty not be given favourable treatment in the tax system, but taxed very highly.

According to another report, released in early December by the Checks & Balances Project, a self-avowed ‘pro-clean energy watchdog group,’ the press routinely quote think tanks that bash clean energy policies and technologies, without mentioning that the groups receive significant funding from fossil fuel interests. This applies to academic institutions as well as companies.

The media largely ignores reports that claim shale gas extraction is dangerous, is bad for the planet and isn’t commercially viable. The announcement before Christmas, by energy research consultancy Wood Mackenzie which cast doubt on the commercial viability of fracking in the UK, was largely ignored by the media, although The Independent carried an item, ‘ Viability of shale gas power source in doubt due to cost’. We have commented on the Wood Mackenzie report here on our website.

For balanced reporting we need to thank newspapers such as The Guardian and The Independent.  In his item in The Observer, ‘The fracking dream which is putting Britain’s future at risk’, Andrew Rawnsley asks where is the evidence that shale gas will be a bonanza of cheap energy. He goes on to say, ‘Even if it can be shown to be broadly safe – or at least as safe as any other form of energy exploitation – there will always be occupational hazards to drilling, which include blowouts, explosions and above-ground methane releases. We will see whether Conservative MPs are quite so enthusiastic for shale gas when they have to explain that to their constituents. We will also see how shire Tories take to the prospect of their pretty patches being invaded by huge convoys of juggernauts and disfigured by gas wells. Intensive drilling is incredibly disruptive’.

Economical with the truth

A chilling video exposes a flawed claim often abused in the sales pitch for promoting shale gas development across the world. It shows how the shale gas industry representatives wriggle out of responsibility for pollution, etc. When watching pay attention to certain words such as, ‘Not one DOCUMENTED case of etc…’ ‘Fracking doesn’t contaminate water etc…’  Just because a case is not documented in the way they define that, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen – there are ‘gagging orders’ used to get those with polluted water to remain silent if they want the mining companies to provide good water in return. As to fracking not causing water contamination – well the ‘fracking’ is just one step in this multi-step process of extracting shale gas, and it is actually more often the case that damaged well-heads cause the most contamination. The video – ‘Un-earthed: Setting the track record straight - a video exposing a flawed claim often abused in the sales pitch for promoting shale gas development across the world’ can be viewed here.

We’re all ‘insurgents’!

In the USA, individuals and the media who are seeking the truth about the potential risks of the shale gas industry are handled like ‘insurgents’!  The Pittsburgh Post Gazette  claims that companies are employing former military counterinsurgency officers and  recommend using military-style psychological operations strategies, or psyops,  to deal with media inquiries and citizen opposition to drilling in Pennsylvania  communities. If any safe/profitable/job-creating/gas-price-lowering technology  requires the use of military techniques to shut questioners down, surely the truth would be all that was required? Drillers using counterinsurgency experts: Marcellus industry taking a page from the military to deal with media, resident opposition.

Murky waters surround fracking sludge

We’re still no closer to finding out how Cuadrilla is going to deal with the millions of gallons of contaminated flowback water. Original plans were to send it to the most appropriate treatment works at Daveyhulme, in Trafford, where it would be treated before being dumped in the Manchester Ship Canal. The Daveyhulme treatment company is now refusing to take future fracking sludge as it claims that it is too polluted for treatment. Cuadrilla are remaining tight-lipped about where exactly they are sending this sludge. The news site forargyll.com says that the issue here is transparency rather than secrecy. It says, ‘Where such things are kept secret, there is no pressure on the developers to exercise environmental responsibility. The practicalities and the environmental implications of this aspect of fracking need to be openly and accurately discussed. If this does not happen, many will be left with no option but to object vigorously to a process which, however long it has been in use elsewhere, remains relatively unevolved in the management of its ecology impacts.’

Planning, Preston, Fylde and Wyre

Hope that the fears and worries of residents are not being ignored came from Lancashire County Council’s unanimous decision to call for industry-specific regulation of fracking. LCC said, ‘ Unfortunately there are no specific onshore exploration or extraction regulations for natural gas and the offshore regulations developed in the 1990s are not sufficient to address all the issues that arise from moving the process onshore especially in populated areas of Lancashire.’ We’re not sure how this will affect LCC’s decisions on Cuadrilla’s planning applications currently under consideration. And, of course, while the LCC news is to be welcomed, this Government is determined to take such planning out of local authority control.

Preston Council responded to the LCC news by stating that it will ban any fracking taking place on its land as it carries out a study into the controversial process. Councillor Michael Lavalette, an independent councillor who put the motion forward, said a ban in France had been started by local councils voicing their fears at the process. He said: “I want us to be in a position to make Preston a ‘frack free city’ with all the information available to us. You can read more in the Lancashire Evening Post.

 No such approach in the Fylde and Wyre whose councils both say that they have no plans to take a similar stance. In fact councillor Peter Gibson, Leader of Wyre Council, said: ‘We’ve already held a seminar in Wyre with the Environment Agency, Health and Safety Executive and anti fracking representatives to discuss the implications of fracking. As a result of that I’m happy to be guided by the expert agencies on the environmental aspects.’  RAFF is intrigued to know who these ‘anti fracking representatives’ are because members of our group who turned up for the meeting were denied admittance. It begs the question of just how informed the Wyre councillors are. You can read about the Fylde and Wyre councils’ attitudes towards fracking in the The Evening Gazette.

Cuadrilla to carry out its own Environmental Impact Assessment?

An alarming aspect of the current raft of planning applications, as revealed by Frack Off, is that as part of Cuadrilla’s  application for an 18 month extension to their planning application at the Banks site in Lancashire, the local council have deemed that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required-  but instead of getting an independent body to carry it out, they have asked Cuadrilla to do it themselves. This is known as ‘scoping’. As Frack Off points out, you ask the company to tell you what areas you should be worried about and then carry out the EIA more efficiently. Trusting that the company has been honest and knowing that if anything unforeseen crops up it was them that did not foresee it not you. We will, of course, be objecting to this as part of our planning application objections which we are in the process of compiling before sending to LCC.

Increased interest in fracking matters

These are just a handful of the hundreds of media items that appeared in December. All this media attention has had many positive outcomes. RAFF has been inundated with requests for information as more and more people have read about shale gas extraction and its implications. We’ve also noticed more action on sites such as 38 Degrees. Its petition,  A call for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the UK now has nearly 5,000 votes and is the most popular petition in the Environment group. If you haven’t voted already please do so and help bring this campaign to the forefront

Of course RAFF will continue to look at new ways of raising awareness, as well as lobbying on behalf of our residents. Together with other local groups we have endorsed a new newsletter, Refracktion, which will be published monthly and will be available electronically, as well as delivered to as many households as we can mange. If you would like to help deliver it then please do get in touch via our email: info@stopfyldefracking.org.uk. Alternatively, you can pick up a copy at the RAFF Information Point, Woodlands Road, Ansdell, which is open most Thursdays from 12.00 – 2.00 pm, or from Washington’s Tea Rooms, Park Road, St Annes, on Saturdays 12.00 – 2.00 pm, where members from Fylde’s anti-fracking groups will be available to chat and pass on the latest news and information.

One of the most important news stories to hit the headlines in the run up to Christmas was the announcement by energy research consultancy Wood Mackenzie which cast doubt on the commercial viability of fracking in the UK. Wood Mackenzie’s analysis of the UK shale gas market was largely ignored by the media, although The Independent carried an item, ‘ Viability of shale gas power source in doubt due to cost’.

Wood Mackenzie’s press release provides the main findings of the research:

Recent announcements by the UK Government concerning shale gas, including establishing the ‘Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil’ and new fiscal incentives are not enough to ensure the development of UK shale gas says Wood Mackenzie. The independent research company stresses that the commercial viability of the UK’s shale resources is yet to be proven and the key determinant will be the quality of the subsurface and well performance.

In its new report ‘UK Shale Gas – fiscal incentives unlikely to be enough’ Wood Mackenzie concludes that a commercially viable UK shale gas development will only be possible if the subsurface is as good as the very best shale plays in North America. Wood Mackenzie’s economic assessment shows that due to higher costs in the UK, average performing plays would need gas prices in excess of US$9 per thousand cubic feet (mcf) to break even.

Niall Rowantree, Unconventional Play Analyst for Wood Mackenzie says; “Recent announcements on fiscal incentives and allowing fracture stimulation, by both the UK Chancellor and Energy Secretary, are intended to re-start exploration. However, despite this regulatory support, the main determinant for a successful development remains well performance. Until many, many more wells are drilled, fracture stimulated and flow-tested, it is not possible to accurately predict the ultimate recoverable volume of shale gas in the UK and therefore any estimates of the ultimate impact on UK gas supply are premature. In the US, tens to hundreds of wells have been required to determine whether a play is commercially viable or not.”

Wood Mackenzie estimates that the UK’s dependency on gas imports in the 2020 to 2025 timeframe will grow to 60-85%, 50 to 75 billion cubic metres per annum. Delivering this magnitude of indigenous shale gas resource in this timeframe will require a world class resource and a few thousand wells, something that is both improbable and unpractical. “Consequently, we think it is unlikely that shale gas production from the UK alone will have a material impact on the UK’s gas price dynamics to 2025,” offers Yvonne Telford, UK Upstream Research Analyst for Wood Mackenzie.

The report outlines four significant barriers which need to be addressed in order to develop the UK’s shale gas resource. Rowantree explains; “The most important first hurdle is overcoming what we see as being two linked issues: addressing the public’s concerns about the safe practice of hydraulic fracturing; and the lack of incentives for communities to permit drilling in their area. While lifting the drilling moratorium is positive, in that exploration and appraisal drilling can re-commence, it is probably not enough to satisfy a sceptical public.”

A second issue critical for successful development is attracting a variety of companies, Rowantree continues; “In North America, the most successful plays have a cross section of companies involved and active acreage turnover. A variety of participants means greater variety in drilling and completion techniques and a higher probability of the play’s subsurface being successfully ‘decoded’. So a key signpost for the ultimate materiality of the UK shale gas industry will be whether a variety of companies with the means and the expertise to drill wells wins acreage when the 14^th Onshore Licensing Round is announced or through M&A.”

Thirdly Wood Mackenzie says the UK’s onshore supply chain will need to grow to ensure that wells can be drilled affordably, quickly and safely; “Building the supply chain and a large enough skilled workforce will take time and confidence from the service sector that enough wells are going to be drilled and stimulated to justify hiring and training staff. A clear and simple regulatory regime and a commitment by companies to drill wells will encourage service companies to build capacity, but this will take time and capacity will start to grow only once a commercial development looks likely,” says Telford.

And lastly on the regulatory side, there is a laborious step by step permitting process with multiple agencies involved: “Operators need to gain approval from landowners, local authority planning officers, the Environment Agencies, the Health and Safety Executive and DECC. Most successful plays in the US have a transparent and efficient regulatory regime with rapid permitting for wells and a well-trained and properly staffed regulator. For example, in the Barnett shale play in Texas, at peak development large operators were drilling close to 500 wells per annum. We’ve seen developments in more laborious regulatory environments, like Poland, progressing at a much slower pace,” Rowantree asserts.

Rowantree sums up; “It is a positive sign for industry that the government has signalled its intention to improve conditions for shale gas exploration. In Wood Mackenzie’s view the necessary next steps are: Creating a transparent, streamlined regulatory system that satisfies both a concerned public and operators; carrying out further work on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), necessary for the 14th Onshore Licensing Round, and enabling a wider range of operators to become involved in assessing the potential of the shales; and designing a fiscal system that makes future investment worthwhile.

As The Independent points out, ‘The Chancellor and David Cameron have championed the prospects for shale gas, arguing that fracking could drive down prices and create thousands of jobs. Their enthusiasm stems in large part from an estimate by Cuadrilla Resources, the UK’s most established fracking operator, that its exploration licence for the shale hotspot around Blackpool contained 200 trillion cubic feet of gas – the equivalent to 70 years of UK consumption.’ Wood Mackenzie’s research highlights facts and figures  that should worry both the government and the UK’s embryonic shale gas sector and, hopefully, stop some of the hype that we constantly endure from both.

The National Trust has spoken out against the Government’s support for fracking. Peter Nixon, Director of Conservation at the National Trust, told The Telegraph: “We have a presumption against fracking because of the threats it poses to the countryside and because at the end of the day it is a fossil fuel that will do nothing to arrest climate change. There is a very real danger that fracking is actually fools gold. It could easily distract attention away from what we really need to do: reduce consumption and pursue more renewable energy.”

 In the same article, The Telegraph also quotes Paul Miner, Senior Planning Officer, Campaign for the Protection for Rural England (CPRE), who said: ‘Before commercial scale extraction happens, there must be a full and transparent planning process. The Government doesn’t appear to have recognised the potential for major landscape damage, or the need to properly consider this at the local level. If fracking is to happen, it must be with the support of local communities, who are most at risk if things go wrong, and without damaging the countryside.”

Both the National Trust and CPRE carry a lot of clout, especially the National Trust, which is the UK’s largest conservation charity, with over 4 million members. It has a history of lobbying Parliament on matters of the environment and conservation and could be a valuable ally in the fight against the industrialisation of our countryside.