FRACKING – DON’T LET THIS HARE OUT OF THE BAG AGAIN.
By Paul Andrews
I see fracking is raising its ugly head again, as some conservative MP’s are, urging the government to break yet another manifesto commitment, end the moratorium on fracking and authorise fracking in England. No doubt they think the way is clear for this, following the rise in energy prices, the passage of the Police Act and the imposition of draconian measures to prevent demonstrations.
I joined the protest in 2016 when fracking proposals came within one and a half miles of my village. It was a long fight and ended up in a series of court cases, including the one I took against the government. The outcome was a consensus that fracking was not a good idea and all political parties agreed.
Although I am heavily influenced by them, green policies were not the main reason I joined the fracking fight. It was a matter of protecting amenity and the interests of local business, particularly the agricultural and tourist sectors. I will explain why.
High pressure hydraulic fracturing is different from conventional hydrocarbon extraction. Conventional hydrocarbon extraction involves the drilling of boreholes down into reservoirs of gas or oil which are trapped by domes in porous sedimentary rock. The gas or oil is released by the borehole and rises of its own accord.
High volume hydraulic fracturing is an unconventional process of extracting hydrocarbons from rocks which are not porous. The gas or oil is trapped within the rock itself. In order to release the hydrocarbon, the rock has to be shattered by explosive force and then the cracks in the rock have to be kept open by the injection of a silica substance pumped into them under high pressure. This process has a limited range, as pressure decreases with the distance of the fluid from the pumps and compressors on the surface. So, in order to maximise the extraction of the hydrocarbon from within the shale rock layer, it is necessary to have a grid of drill pads.
Each bore descends vertically and from it a series of lateral bores radiate like the spokes of a wheel. The questions arise: what is the distance between each drill pad and what is the size of each drill pad?
The draft North Yorkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan (Para 5.134) accepted a size of two hectares for each drill pad. Para 5.137 accepted a drill pad density of ten drill pads to every 100 square kilometres. 100 sq.km equates to 38 sq. statute miles, which means one drill pad, each 2 hectares in area at intervals of between one and a half and two miles in every direction, if evenly spaced.
During the public enquiry into this plan, it was stated by a County officer that this is what the industry had requested. Yet the industry representatives at the EIP declared they would not accept any restriction on the density of drill pads in the plan, but that each case should be decided “on a case by case basis in accordance with national policy”.
John Dewar of Third Energy told a House of Commons Committee on 19th March 2015: “Bearing in mind we have nine existing sites in and around the area, some in Ebberston Moor and the Vale of Pickering, we do not foresee the need for more than ten more sites. And how many wells we would put on those sites – depending on the size of the site, it could be 10 or 20, and if it was a bigger site, it could be 20 to 50”.
Andrew Palin, professor of Unconventional Petroleum at Durham University and ex-BP Exe4cutive said:
“To recover 15% of shale gas from the Bowland Basin in Lancashire would need 33,000 wells on 5,500 pads. 15% recovery would be equivalent to just 13 years of UK gas use. To be independent of gas imports we would need to continue drilling 1000 wells every year.”
INEOS CEO Jim Ratcliffe (a billionaire who pays no tax in the UK) was quoted in the Liverpool Echo:
"Under Mr Ratcliffe’s plans, a typical six mile, by six mile parcel of land with up to 200 wells on it could generate nearly £400m for land owners and communities over the average 15-20-year lifetime of a production site. He estimates it could be worth a total of £2.5bn in payments."
Imagine the impact of such extensive development on rural tourism and agriculture. The frackers might make billions, but fracking will provide little new local employment, and whole country areas will be devastated – which has happened to parts of the USA.
It’s not just a matter of earthquakes, pollution or saving the planet. It’s a case of stopping frackers from killing the golden goose which provides much of the prosperity we still enjoy today.
ENDS
