POWER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our aim is to respond to concerns expressed by local Parish Councils, individuals and/or public interest groups on issues affecting the wellbeing of the Wolds and the health of its residents. POWER is non-political and works independently, taking cognizance of local feelings, evidence sourced from Government, Industry, the Scientific community and others qualified to enable a more informed debate. Since the possibility of so-called fracking was first mooted, many of you have attended meetings POWER has arranged with representatives of the Shale Gas/Oil industry and Government agencies to discuss the proposed exploration and extraction processes and how these might affect our area. More of these meetings are planned to allow additional expert opinions supporting and opposing shale gas extraction to be considered. As in all things past, we will continue to take a balanced and informed position and make recommendations only after the most thorough examination of all available evidence.

 

We note with regret, at some recent events around the region a small element of the anti-fracking movement has made unsubstantiated and misleading claims, raising degrees of alarm in many peoples minds, especially among our more vulnerable elderly citizens. Others, whilst possibly with good intention, use a less direct approach using anecdotal and speculative visions that are as harmful as those who would attempt to conceal the real issues. I would hope you agree this is not in the best interests of our communities and residents.

 

Before judging the effects and consequences from any proposed exploration and/or extraction of shale gas/oil, we believe it is necessary to question the legitimacy of the intended practice and the regulations both current and proposed, to monitor any future operations should these proceed. We see no value in presenting spurious arguments or resorting to scaremongering for the sake of being heard.

 

POWER members realise the subject of so-called ‘fracking’ is an emotive one with roots stretching back several decades when safeguards and welfare were, in several parts of the US, sacrificed on the altar of commercial materialism and profit. We recognise a lot has changed within the shale gas/oil industry since those early days but conclude there is much that remains to be explained and several vague solutions clarified. This cannot be achieved in an atmosphere where wild assumptions and falsehoods only muddy the waters around the real issues we believe need serious debate.

 

A clear example of how the spreading of inaccurate and misleading information can cause confusion and mistrust is demonstrated by a recent case where, following complaints by the industry and others, the Advertising Standards Authority investigated and subsequently condemned claims by Friends of the Earth and others on unsubstantiated statements designed to cause concern and based on unrelated case studies and anecdotal quotations (The Times 26/09/2016).

Among the many unsubstantiated facts regularly put forward are:

 

• ...shale gas wells are more prone to leaking than other wells where hydraulic fracturing is used. We find no recent historical or scientific evidence to back this claim. Whilst no system is 100% guaranteed, an independent study on the proposed UK well design shows any pressure from the frack-pipe is highly unlikely to be transmitted through the surrounding external pipes and reinforced cement jackets designed to protect ground water.

​

• ...shale gas wells need re-fracturing. This happens on average 1 per 100 and is not the frequent occurrence as often alleged. Re-fracturing would also require additional planning permission. We are also satisfied proposed H&S monitoring protocols would detect any fluctuation in this rate.

​

• ...a misleading spectre of unabated field production. In reality any future field development would be decided site by site and constrained by local planning factors including the consideration of cumulative impacts at local and regional level.

​

• ...open flaring or dangerous ‘burn-off’ of gases. So-called ‘flaring’ will be enclosed as for landfill gas and this is currently a requirement by the Environment Agency. Flaring would only be undertaken during exploration, not field production, and only until the operator can prove the composition and calorific value of the gas. Once exploration is complete and the gas quality is verified ‘green’ (or low emission completions as required) such gas goes straight to pipeline/generator as opposed to being flared. We would question the logic that any company would ‘burn-off’ profits by flaring any more than was absolutely necessary.

​

• ...24 hour hydraulic fracturing. This is not possible in the UK due to existing noise restrictions unless equipment was developed with sufficient attenuation. Lancashire shale gas sites for example limit hydraulic fracturing to daytime hours only.

​

• … creation of open flow-back water lagoons. These are not permitted and there is no likelihood of this happening in the future. There is zero prospect of the Environment Agency relaxing current regulations that require all flow-back water to be stored in sealed tanks.

​

• … de-hydration and processing. This already takes place in the UK for other oil and gas fields. Whether the hydrocarbon originates from shale or another reservoir is immaterial. This process is not perilous and certainly not specific to shale. Where shale gas is found in the UK to date, this has been demonstrated to be very pure methane (approx 98%) so no H2S.  However if H2S were detected, proven technologies used every day in other UK industries would be employed to deal with it.

​

• … the adverse impact of constructing pipelines, production pads and drilling. All pipelines will of course be required to maximise access to the existing grid. In the US because of geographical-spread, the existing gas transmission infrastructure isn’t as developed as in the UK, therefore the impact associated with grid connections in the UK will be significantly lower.

​

• … drilling will be carried on under your property and lower its value. Drilling must be contained within a defined PDL area and not extend beyond that border. No evidence of property valuation variations have been confirmed to date.

​

• … the reliance for gas on Russia. We import around 50% of our gas requirement. This mostly originates from Norway and Qatar rather than Russia (National Grid Future Energy Scenario 4.4.1-4) which means billions of pounds per annum are being ‘exported’ to other countries in lost tax revenue, job creation and investment. North Sea production rates for example are dropping steadily and all professional analysts believe this is unlikely to recover due to the high operating costs offshore in the UK.

​

​The reader may be excused for thinking this cataloguing of myth is designed to allay all fears or dismiss the deeply held convictions of those opposed to the process as irrelevant. Not so! Whilst Cuadrilla and Third Energy confirm the likelihood of any operations in East Yorkshire are some years off, POWER remains vigilant and committed to a thorough examination and assessment of all proposed operations and conditions relating to any shale gas/oil extraction in this area.

 

As I mentioned earlier, POWER has members from several communities and naturally we endeavour to come to a mutually agreed position when making any recommendation. Where neutral advice is concerned, we have a ‘core committee’ which compiles evidence and opinion for consideration.

 

POWER concentrates on areas of concern, particular - but not exclusive to the Wolds’ environment and wellbeing of our residents. These by their very nature encompass a broad range of related questions not yet sufficiently addressed by either Government or Industry and include:-

 

• …on noise/traffic/visual impact//air pollution. We strongly believe these must be addressed through the ERYC local planning process and industry regulators. It is worth restating that in the event unacceptable impacts occur, it is our view companies must face enforcement action and/or loss of licences.( A move that would greatly reduce their prospects of success with further planning applications). All exploration and production companies must be able to demonstrate they have a clear commercial imperative to operate in a sustainable and responsible manner.

​

• ...on regulation. Taking cognizance of the Government’s vision on shale gas being an intrinsic part of the nation’s energy mix, we believe the necessary guarantee of effective  regulation and inspection protocols at national and local government level is not yet met! Current proposals pertaining to the on-site regulation of drilling and extraction remain unclear but in our view, it is important all such regulation remains independent and not as proposed, company led! Regulation however should not in itself become an inhibitor to the industry. Regulation must also include overseeing the return of land in a safe and usable condition on the cessation of either exploration or extraction.

​

• on irradiation, transport, treatment, sourcing and disposal of water. We would seek to see more detail on the volumes of water required, its likely contamination level, transportation and post-treatment application and disposal. Currently only three plants in the north can treat waste or contaminated water because of the limited demand in the market for the process at this time. When there is more waste to dispose of then a further acceptable and cost-effective on or near-site solution must be in place in advance of any drilling operations commencing. There is ample existing technology in the UK stemming from the nuclear industry to deal with most, if not all, contaminated waste water types. Investment in these new sites must be of paramount importance as the scenario to be avoided at all cost, is the transportation of contaminated and/or irradiated waters over considerable distances on the unsuitable country roadways of our area.

​

We understands from reliable sources and despite claims to the contrary, fresh water though preferred, is not a prime requisite! Sea water, dedicated brine-wells, water from O&G wells and waste water (treatment plants etc.), can also be used during exploration. With concerns being expressed on substantial, increased levels of methane being occasioned over and above that naturally occurring from tectonic movement and displacement, we would urge a planning moratorium be imposed in the East Riding to ensure a safe and constant supply and re-use of other sourced waters on site to minimise, if not eliminate demand on East Yorkshire’s natural and unique aquifer.

 

Recently, shale gas imports from the USA have commenced. This is an expensive but (we are informed) an essential short term option (five years) to bolster gas reserves needed to meet our current national demand. It is also an expensive option!

 

At some point in the future planning applications will be submitted to East Riding Council by the Shale Gas/Oil industry to allow first exploration; and subsequently extraction of shale gas. We have identified and raised concerns at regional and national level on loopholes by which some ‘exploration’ may be allowed without the necessity of full planning permission.

 

Finally, in view of the Government’s unequivocal support, the opinions expressed by locally appointed representatives and others must be based on factual evidence and not erroneous assumption. It is therefore important we remain so informed to meet the challenge where any further industrialization of our area is proposed.

​

Yours sincerely,

 

 

​

​

Ian Dewar