PRESTON NEW ROAD ACTION GROUP'S COURT CASE 30/8 2017
The Court of Appeal has granted Preston New Road Action Group (PNRAG) permission to appeal the planning court’s earlier judgment to allow fracking in rural Lancashire. In April, the planning court dismissed PNRAG’s challenge against the Secretary of State’s decision to overturn Lancashire County Council’s rejection of an application by Cuadrilla to drill for and extract shale gas through hydraulic fracturing (commonly known as fracking).
The group’s legal team announced today, that their appeal will be heard in London on the 30th and 31st of August.
A spokesperson for Preston New Road Action Group said:
“We hope and pray that justice will be delivered and that Sajid Javid’s decision will be found unlawful and quashed.
“Our community, Westby Parish Council, Fylde Borough Council and Lancashire County Council all refused this dangerous application, and for many good reasons.
“Local democracy was dismantled and overturned by central government, who seemingly wish to micro-manage decisions that are not theirs to make. We believe that this was unlawful and that Cuadrilla’s site development should be stopped.
“This case is no longer simply about fracking: it is about true justice and genuine democracy being delivered at local level.
“For this reason, we will continue with our strategy to challenge this decision on every level. We are hugely grateful to everyone who has supported us, in so many ways, to reach this point.”
DONATE TO PRESTON NEW ROAD ACTION GROUP
We are ready to start more legal initiatives against fracking in the UK if we have to
Endorsed by a long range of private individuals and members of anti-fracking organisations in April 2017.
We have a vast amount of evidence to support claims that Government policies and actions, in relation to fracking for shalegas, have been:
Procedurally unfair, being demonstrably biased and prejudiced to alternatives
Unreasonable and/or irrational in that decisions reached are beyond the range of reasonable responses open to the decision-maker, or that the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person directing him or herself properly could have taken it.
Incompatible with climate change commitments, water directives, and human rights law, and principles established in Rylands v Fletcher.
The evidence on 4 strands can be used to support these arguments.
Water contamination and water resource issues.
Policy bias towards developing that resources that exacerbate climate change at the expense of developing resources that ameliorate climate change.
Health impacts from air and water pollution.
Seismicity concerns.
Our case will make it safer for politicians to say that fracking will inevitably, and irreversibly pollute our fresh water.
Although in the preliminary stages, we do not see any reason why we should wait before notifying the benefits of our initiative to relevant influencers, especially now when we are electing both local councillors and Parliamentary candidates in the forthcoming elections. Our case will present an overwhelming (incontestable) political argument: a challenge unlike those made during court cases in Manchester recently.
We seek to keep influencers informed regarding our legal initiative and enlist your help in presenting, clearly and comprehensibly, the overwhelming (incontestable) argument against fracking; that fracking will pollute our fresh water.
We think our legal challenge could be a strong campaigning instrument: it effectively gets to the essence of the issue of fracking, and if a legal challenge can lead to a ban now, it is our best chance to stop the drilling at Preston New Road, now and for good. We are in the process of assembling the most comprehensive tool kit for our legal team including the most recent scientific research for our lawyers. The case will be presented with the backing and evidence of the scientific community presenting incontrovertible (unarguable) evidence that fracking will inevitably, irreversibly pollute our fresh water.
We hope that our approach will remove the risk and inhibitions about (of) stating the truth regarding the impact of fracking on our water and give you the confidence to be able to state this categorically.
Judicial Review allows us to challenge government level decisions. Environmental JRs are treated differently to other JRs. The UK is a Party to the Aarhus Convention, which requires it to make special provision for environmental cases, particularly when it comes to legal costs. Unsuccessful claimants are only required to pay a proportion of the defendants’ legal costs (as opposed to most or all of them in other cases).
Incompatibility with a European law requirement or making a decision contrary to the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 can also be a basis of challenge. In the area of environmental law, there are many European laws that must be complied with. These typically are “transposed” into domestic law, but if there has been a failure to properly transpose, then an unlawful decision may arise.
It is also unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that results in a breach of a person’s human rights. Typically, human rights considerations will involve balancing private rights against public interest factors. If there is a failure to even consider human rights when they are relevant, or an improper balancing exercise undertaken when considering human rights matters, then a decision may be unlawful.
Is the case of JR disagreement with a decision is not enough to show that it is unlawful. A claim for JR must satisfy one of the following general grounds: (i) illegality; (ii) procedural unfairness; (iii) unreasonableness or irrationality; and (iv) incompatibility. Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, English law does not permit judicial review of primary legislation (laws passed by Parliament), except in a few cases where primary legislation is contrary to EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights. We have to examine the potential for this, but I believe there is scope to challenge other decisions such as the over-riding of local authority decisions.
One problem is that applications for judicial review have to be filed within 6 weeks of the relevant decision. But it is only a matter of time until an opportunity presents itself. The different grounds for judicial review often overlap with one another.
Illegality will arise when a decision-maker acts beyond its powers. To act lawfully, the decision- maker must have the legal power to do what it intends to do. These powers are most often set down in legislation. If a decision maker acts beyond those powers or does things that it is not authorised to do, it will be acting illegally. This is also called acting ultra vires.
Even unlimited seeming powers, for example powers which simply state that an application may be granted or refused, are subject to legal limits. Such limits may be express or may be implied from the statutory scheme within which the power is provided.
A decision-maker must also not fetter its discretion by adopting an overly rigid policy or guidance, or by refusing to consider that it may need to depart from a policy or guidance, albeit in special circumstances.
Procedural unfairness will arise when there is a failure to comply with mandatory requirement to take some procedural step prescribed by legislation or policy, or where there is a legitimate expectation that such a procedural step will be taken. An example of a mandatory procedural requirements is the obligation to consult with prescribed persons about a proposed planning application.
If there is an obligation to consult, it must be done properly. It will be unfair and a potential ground of judicial review if it is not. Other procedural requirements that may give rise to a ground of judicial review are a failure, when otherwise required, to publish a decision in draft, to make due inquiry, or to consider objections before making a decision.
A decision will also be unfair if the decision-maker is biased (or if there is a perception of bias), or if the decision-maker pre-determines a decision and effectively closes his or her mind to other options before considering objections. There is also a requirement to give adequate reasons for decisions, though what is adequate will depend on the circumstances.
Unreasonableness or irrationality will arise if a decision-maker makes a decision based on irrelevant factors or when making a decision fails to take into account relevant factors.
Planning decisions almost always involve the balancing of a number of competing factors. Sometimes there is legislation setting out certain factors that must be considered. In almost all cases, the correct factors to take into account will depend on the individual circumstances of the decision being made.
If the correct factors are not taken into account in this balancing exercise, and those factors are important (or material), then a decision may be challenged.
A decision may also be challenged even if all of the correct factors are taken into account. This is a much more difficult basis of challenge. It involves showing that the decision reached is one that is beyond the range of reasonable responses open to the decision-maker, or that the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person directing him or herself properly could have taken it.
The hurdle to challenge a decision on this basis is high. It is not enough to disagree, or even strongly disagree, with a particular decision. The Courts recognise that the same set of facts may lead to two entirely different but both reasonable decisions. That is why the more common form of challenge on this ground is that the wrong factors have been considered.
Judicial review may be used to challenge other matters, such as policies, reports, advice and guidance, as well as subordinate legislation (regulations and the like). In some instances, statutes can also be challenged as being incompatible with European law or human rights law.
This piece of case law also offers opportunities potentially, especially if there is any way of getting it considered in a wider context (perhaps via a judicial review process):
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The doctrine established in the House of Lords case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) imposes a form of strict liability upon a person who, for their own purposes, brings on to their land, collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes. The defendant can be liable for that which is reasonably foreseeable as resulting from the escape complained of.
The principle may be of relevance if harm is caused as a result of a spillage of chemicals or other materials stored at the drilling/fracking site by an operator. However the Rylands v Fletcher principle is unlikely to apply where there has been an escape of methane gas or contamination by ‘flowback and produced waters’ as these are not substances brought onto the land by an operator. Where however, the release of methane gas has been caused for example by defective cement seals in the wells or faulty steel linings, a cause of action in negligence may well arise.
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is restricted to circumstances in which a defendant has made a “non-natural” use of land followed by escape and consequent damage to the claimant. The House of Lords has previously described the storage of substantial quantities of chemicals on industrial premises as “an almost classic case of non-natural use”.
Where an operator has not caused an “escape” it may still be liable in nuisance if it fails to take reasonable steps to abate the nuisance once it knows or ought to have known about it.
ANOTHER LEGAL CASE ON IT'S WAY... MORE LATER
Breaking: Legal challenge to Government oil and gas licence extension gets go-ahead
Fracking by stealth
“What faith can local people have in democracy if the members of the planning committee can just completely ignore both the strength of local opinion and the sound planning grounds that objectors have raised? It is a sham.
This company lied to Anne McIntosh two years ago when they told her they had no plans to frack. They failed to inform residents about a leak to their existing pipeline. They have failed to do wildlife surveys, and it now appears they manipulated the background noise survey to show elevated background noise that only occurred during the monitoring period. This company is just not fit to frack.” (Ian Conlan from Frack Free Ryedale)
Some history from Ireland
Fracking by Stealth and it's starting in Antrim!
This island's first fracking pad - Woodburn Forest, Antrim. Resevoir can be seen in the background. Let's make this the only fracking pad this island ever sees #ShutDownInfrastrata No Fracking Ulster! We protested all over Belfast city on monday and visited the camp - the people at the camp were delighted to see us coming - they want people to join them any day, any time - there is space for camping.
Sr.Nora from the Mercy Convent International group who campaign on environmental and justice issues, travelled with us on the bus on monday - here she is giving a humanist blessing at the site on monday
Join our group here for updates
Campaign group in NI
(22/6 2016 - This month Infrastrata stopped the project and left Antrim.)
The Irish formed a limited company and involved experts and lawyers
An unusual look at the history of proposals to frack and the current situation in Northern Ireland, presented through infographics
Drilling starts at Woodburn forest site in Ireland despite legal challenge
(Infrastrata left the site in June 2016 and gave up their license in September 2016)
InfraStrata plc, the lead company in the consortium that is carrying out exploratory drilling, said the drilling phase will take around six weeks to complete. The controversial project close to a drinking water reservoir that supplies thousands of homes in Belfast and east Antrim has been met with a series of protests, amid anger from local people. The Stop The Drill protest has been backed by Spotlight actor Mark Ruffalo and human rights activist Bianca Jagger.
Our Politicians just don’t get it!
It does however at least raise the issue on the floor of the Assembly, but I doubt the standard of debate will be robust enough as I don’t believe our elected representatives understand the issues. Sinn Fein clearly don’t despite being advised by Dr Ingraffea at their own conference in the Lough Erne Hotel in February last year.
The reality is there is a lot of confusion around this drill. Confusion that could be avoided if things were made public and the public engaged and placed at the heart of the decision-making process.
The People of Fermanagh and Leitrim deserve Science not Politics and PR
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” Richard Feynman, Challenger Shuttle disaster Report.
The first thing one needs to do is to open up all the cases for review, including those which are bound by non-disclosure agreements. For the industry to still be claiming in a PR fashion – not one documented case of water contamination from fracking – is a scientific fact shows the real value this industry place on Scientific discourse and transparency.
“Hydraulic Fracturing has to be looked at, as a system, that involves several different features above ground, not just the actual sub-surface fracturing itself.” Glenn Paulson, PhD, Scd(Ho), Scientific Advisor to the Administrator, US Environmetal Protection Agency. I believe HF needs to be looked at in this manner to help us gauge the true impact of this industry.
A group of medical professionals led by a former president of the Irish Medical Organisation is to call for a ban of fracking in Ireland.
Concerned Health Professionals Ireland (CHPI), which will be launched on Wednesday, involves more than a dozen health practitioners who believe there is overwhelming evidence that fracking is bad for human health.
Dr Paula Gilvarry, a retired GP based in Co Sligo, said the evidence was now “extremely strong” that fracking affects human health.
She maintained rashes, sore ears and runny noses have been proven to have been caused by fracking along with respiratory illnesses in children with asthma as a result of the release of hydrogen sulfide.
Infrastrata fail to find oil in North Belfast
Press Release re Geza Tarjanyi's (aka Gayzer Frackman's) legal case.
From Frack Free Fylde 02.12.16
The Government is facing a legal challenge in its failure to consider the cumulative effects of climate change and impacts on public health in its decision to permit shale gas fracking near Preston, Lancashire.
Gayzer Frackman a resident of the locality and founder of Frack Free Fylde served proceedings on the Government asking the court to quash the decision to allow fracking. Frack Free Fylde was set up to campaign against the Government’s fracking plans after the earthquakes caused by fracking damaged people’s homes in the Fylde area in 2011.
Climate litigation is increasing across the world. Some recent climate change cases in the Netherlands, the USA and Pakistan, show that people worldwide are being forced to seek climate justice in the courts because governments continue to fail to do what is necessary.
However, the Frackman case is one of the first legal cases in the UK to challenge the Government’s failure to challenge the UK approach to dangerous climate change and the other environmental risks from fracking.
The UK government has obligations to protect its citizens from known risks in line with the best available science and unless it changes course by, for instance, taking into account the full effects of greenhouse gas emissions at the earliest possible stage in decision-making, it will fail to meet its obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008, the Paris Agreement and the Precautionary Principle[1].
A Crowdjustice site has been set up to help raise a contribution of £22,000 towards the costs of taking legal proceedings and it will be launched on Saturday 3rd December. https://www.crowdjustice.org/
Mr Frackman explains that we have nowhere else to go but to court: ‘The British public oppose fracking but the Government will not listen. The scientific reports consistently show that dangers remain from fracking but the Government is content to ignore this. Our local government rejected the proposals to permit fracking in the area consistent with the will of the local community and this decision has ignored the concerns raised completely’.
Emily Shirley who is part of the legal support team says ‘Our Government cannot have it both ways. Internationally, it says it will do all to reduce carbon emissions. Nationally, it pursues dangerous fracking that will increase carbon emissions. It is putting us all at danger’.
For further general information please write to Emily Shirley from the legal team on: safeallianceuk@gmai.com
Lancashire
MAKE A DONATION - Preston New Road
MAKE A DONATION - Roseacre
MAKE A DONATION - Umbrella initiative in Lancashire
(eligible for supplementary funding, read more below)
Who will and who won't be deciding Cuadrilla's fracking applications?
FIGHT FRACKING AT PNR - Preston New Road in Fylde, Lancashire
Legal challenge against Cuadrilla’s plans at the Preston New Road site after Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities, has upheld the appeals in favour of Cuadrilla, and overruled local democracy. Leigh Day Solicitors with consulting barrister Ashley Bowes.Article: Democracy is dead
There is also an umbrella initiative explained here by Barbara Richardson:
Frack Free Lancashire (FFL) is an umbrella/brand for many anti fracking and community resident groups in Lancashire including RAFF, REAF, SAFE, Longridge, Halsall, PNR and RAG and several others. It was established in June 2014 after Cuadrilla submitted planning applications to drill and frack up to four exploratory wells at each of two sites at Preston New Road (PNR) and Roseacre Wood (RW). All groups come together to share information and actions. As a brand it has gone from strength to strength. When at the Paris climate change talks people from overseas recognised the FFL logo and had heard about our campaign.
Each group remains autonomous, has it's own method of working and ways of raising funds (for own use).
However when the communities in Lancashire approached a large NGO to see if they could help fund our formal opposition to Cuadrilla's appeals, they would only agree if any monies raised were done so on behalf on FFL and not for individual groups. A separate legal fund was set up for use by RAG and PNR (both Rule 6 parties at the Inquiry) to prepare and present evidence. A FFL Finance Working group was set up to ensure the money (which was fairly substantial) was distributed fairly and transparently to where it was most needed. Each group had to present a business case detailing what the money was required for and submit receipts on completion.
Now Lancashire is moving into another phase. They need to legally challenge the Secretary of State's decision and will require funds to cover court costs and, should they lose, the government's costs plus expert witnesses. So far only PNR have formally announced their intention to pursue legal action but it is highly likely Roseacre will also do so.
Both sites are in discussion with their legal teams.
An update on the legal case for Roseacre W
A local Roseacre resident, Mr Julian Burton, issued a pre-action letter to the SoS regarding his unusual decision to reopen the Public Inquiry at Roseacre Wood and being 'minded to approve' if Cuadrilla can resolve traffic and road safety issues despite the Planning Inspector's recommendation to refuse the appeal. Mr Burton will be proceeding with his legal challenge this week. RAG will do what we can to support him such as providing witness statements and helping raise funds for his challenge. Our MP Mark Menzies has also written to Sajid Javid as he believes he is wrong to reopen the Inquiry, is wasting public money doing so as the traffic issues are insurmountable and Cuadrilla have had every chance over past 21/2 years to resolve.
Yorkshire
FIGHT FRACKING AT KM8 - Kirbymisperton in Ryedale, North Yorkshire
An appeal by David Davis & Jackie Cray of Frack Free Ryedale to help with the funding of the Judicial Review on North Yorkshire County Councils decision to allow fracking at Kirby Misperton. Leigh Day Solicitors with consulting barrister Ashley Bowes.Film from Yorkshire.
MAKE A DONATION
Legal history from Friends of the Earth
We’re
going to court, 7 July 2016
Earlier
this year North Yorkshire County Councillors voted to approve a
fracking application in Ryedale.
So what’s
the news? At Friends of the Earth, we promised to explore all legal
avenues with local residents. After looking through everything, we
believe the decision was made unlawfully and therefore we have
applied to take it to court.
Tell the
government to halt all fracking immediately.
If the High
Court approves our case, North Yorkshire County Council will have to
reconsider the application.
And today,
the government has finally made public a report from its own
independent advisors, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) on the
impact of fracking on climate change. More than 100,000 people
demanded that they stop keeping the report a secret.
The report
warns that the impact of fracking on the UK’s climate targets is
not properly regulated, and could be incompatible with meeting them.
Tell the
government to stop ignoring the climate risk and halt all fracking.
It's time
to stop ignoring climate change.
We’re
already taking the Ryedale decision to court on the grounds they
didn't properly assess the risk of the fracking application causing
climate change. Now the Government should immediately halt all
fracking plans until it has made a full assessment of the impact of
fracking overall.
Sign now
and ask the Secretary of State for Climate Change to stop sweeping
climate change under the carpet.
Legal actions taken, objection letters
US plea to block fracking in North Yorkshire
A
letter from more than 850 elected officials in the American state of
New York has been delivered to North Yorkshire County Council urging
its members to block an application to frack in Ryedale.
It
tells county councillors fracking has not delivered the benefits
promised in the United States and communities where it has gone ahead
have faced “significant costs”.
Environmental Action
Hub’s comment to Yorkshire fracking permit 25/5 2016
...the
frackers have shot themselves in the foot in Yorkshire, promising not
to use BIOCIDES:
1.
The frackers admit biocides are used in fracking (so toxic there is
no official limit, one molecule will kill life).
2.
When biocides aren't used, how will they keep microlife in the
bedrock from 'eating' the well protection?
Gloucestershire
Frack Off Our Forest serving South Western Energy owner Gerwyn Williams today with a legal notice that in the event of any harm caused by his activities he had prior knowledge (via the Concerned Health Professionals of New York compendium and Medact report into Health and Fracking). Full report and transcript of our meeting with South Western Energy coming
soon!
4
things we learned from the meeting brokered by Gloucestershire Police
at police headquarters... (which we concluded by advising SW Energy
to give up now as there's absolutely no way they will drill here, and
to stop wasting their time, our time and police resources)... Thanks
to Glos Police for arranging the meeting and laying on an impressive
buffet!
1.
SW Energy say they're exploring for both Coalbed Methane and
Conventional Gas or Oil within the Devonian sandstone layers... they
claimed they weren't interested in looking for shale gas or fracking,
and there weren't any suitable layers of rock which could contain
shale gas. Despite being shown photographic evidence of miners
smoking underground and a Daz commercial being shot in a Forest mine
in 1962 and hearing from a mining surveyor who'd worked in the Forest
mining industry since 1948, SW Energy insisted there was still
methane in the coal... and even if there isn't, it's their "duty"
to explore for it anyway.
2.
SW Energy (as well as other companies in the latest, 14th Round)
haven't yet been granted licences but only "formally offered"
them... so they can't get on with doing anything until they have the
licences signed and sealed.
3.
Geologist Oliver Taylor will spend the next year or longer building a
geological model using data (in the public domain) from the Coal
Authority, British Geological Survey and UK Onshore Geophysical
Library, from existing borehole and 2D seismic data (done in the Usk
valley and Fownhope area, quite a way from the Forest). He says they
won't need any more seismic surveys. The oil and gas industry
software is used internationally and projects models based on 5,000
known sites around the world. The geo model will cover the whole of
the two PEDL (licence) areas 318 (Wye Valley, west Dean and SW Herefs
- 140.2 sq km), and 319 (most of the Forest, east as far as Longhope,
Blaisdon and Westbury, plus a section south of the Severn - 197 sq
km)... which go right up to the Welsh border and to the low-tide mark
on the Severn.
4.
Another of Gerwyn Williams's 18 companies UK Water Supplies Ltd will
be used to treat wastewater on site before either discharging it into
a waterway or selling it to local businesses. Gerwyn later told us
that there was probably more money to be made from water treatment
than gas!
Somerset
FRACK FREE SOMERSET OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT’S ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW FRACKING LICENCES
18th
December 2016. Karen Stutz
Just
days after the British government joined nations from all around the
world in agreeing to reduce global carbon emissions, it has voted not
only to allow fracking to take place under national parks, but has
also announced a new round of Petroleum Exploration Development
Licences (PEDLs) for areas in Somerset and Wiltshire.
These
had been subject to assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010, and despite all the evidence submitted
during the consultation period by conservation groups and members of
Frack Free Somerset to show the deleterious impact that drilling
would have for wildlife in these areas, with these decisions and its
recent cuts to renewables, the government has made it amply clear
that it is committed to putting its vested interests in the fracking
industry ahead of any serious attempt to create a sustainable future
for our children.
Frack
Free Somerset is concerned about the air pollution, water
contamination, toxic & radioactive waste, health effects and
industrialized landscapes that affect the communities in which
unconventional gas and oil companies have already been working, and
points to the peer-reviewed scientific evidence continually emerging
from the U.S and Australia, as proof of the dangers inherent in this
industry.
Members
of Frack Free Somerset will resist any attempts by the government and
unconventional gas and oil companies to impose this toxic industry on
our communities, and will be working in close collaboration with
anti-fracking groups across the county, including local groups such
as Keep Wiltshire Frack Free.
If
you would like to find out more about our campaign, or lend us your
support, please sign up at frackfreesomerset.org
Frack
Free Somerset Update
August
2015
At
the end of the 13th Round of Oil &Gas Onshore licenses, Frack
Free Somerset were the only UK community coalition to have 100%
successfully locked the gate on their area.
PEDL
license 227, the last remaining 13th Round PEDL in Somerset, was
ultimately dropped because of, amongst other things, a lack of
‘social licence’. Organised community resistance gets the goods –
period.
However,
with the 14th Oil & Gas Onshore Licensing Round upon us, new
areas of Somerset are now under threat.
The
northern Somerset coastline has been declared a possible location for
future PEDL’s, giving rise to worries of UCG activity on our
doorstep. In Somerset’s eastern quarter, a block of possible sell
offs reaches out from Wiltshire right up to Frome’s doorstep.
Frack
Free Somerset are preparing an accessible information resource about
these developments. So watch this space, we will be posting shortly.
One
thing we can promise, is that Frack Free Somerset is very much alive,
kicking and busily organising in response to the 14th Round. The
Frackers will not succeed. This is Somerset, and we are ready.
ELIZABETH THOMSEN · TUESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2016
Reply to UK Government's consultation on the Shale Wealth Fund
Dear Madam / Sir,
I have an education in science and media and I have been researching the subject of shale gas since 2012 and campaigned alongside with oil and gas consulting engineers, lawyers and scientists.
Quote from your consultation 1.1
Exploring and developing the UK’s shale gas resources could bring substantial benefits and the government’s view is that there is a national need to develop these resources in a safe, sustainable and timely way. The Shale Wealth Fund, which could deliver up to £1 billion of funding, a proportion of which could be paid out to each community over 25 years, will ensure that the benefits of shale developments are shared by communities and regions in which the resource is developed.
In USA, before environmental damage and loss of land to 'sacrifical zones', 1,5$ was spent for every 1$ made. As the casting of the wells can never be without flaws and the subterrain is unpredictable and water filled like a sponge, there is no way to extract shale gas without causing irreversable pollution (toxic and radioactive) of aquifers which will spread in unpredictable ways. There is no way of investigating the subterrain except for driling, and by drilling you will know no more than what is about 10m away from the drill hole. The funding would be spent to destroy our land (soil, air, aquifers) - a kind of senseless internal warfare on the residents and their children. What would be shared by communities would be devastation, like in Pensylvania, USA.
Quote from your consultation 1.2
The government is clear that local people should have greater control and say in decisions that affect them. More than this though, we are committed to delivering an economy that works for all, through ensuring the benefits of economic growth and investment are spread as widely as possible. That is why we are setting out our proposals for the Shale Wealth Fund. These proposals make clear that the benefits of shale will go to local people first, and individuals and communities who host developments will be directly involved in the decision making about how the tax revenues from shale are spent.
Yes indeed, and correctly informed locals do not want fracking for shale gas. A good economy would not be based on polluting aquifers and ruining the land. People first, absolutely. If there are tax revenues from shale gas activities, they would be at the price of sacrificing any future in the fracked land and noone will know, where the pollution in the subterrain will migrate to. On a short term basis, local property owners and farmers will find their property values drop, their property unsellable, and unhabitable and their insurance fees would go up, if they could get insurances at all after fracking comes to their area.
Quote from your consultation 1.3
Having access to clean, safe and secure supplies of natural gas for years to come is a key requirement if the UK is to successfully transition to a low carbon economy. The government remains fully committed to the development and deployment of low carbon technologies for heat and electricity generation and to driving up energy efficiency, but we need gas – the cleanest of all fossil fuels – to support our climate change targets by providing flexibility whilst we do that and help us to reduce the use of high carbon coal.
Fracked gas from shale is not clean, it's toxic and radioactive and as most of the gas leaks outside the pipes, and it's methane, which is over 60 times more potent than CO2 and thus damaging to our climate. Methane clouds from fracked fields in USA can be seen from space. And, as previously mentioned, fracking pollutes soil, air and aquifers.
Quote from your consultation 1.4
Gas provides around one third of our energy supply. It is used domestically, to cook and heat homes, as a fuel for electricity generation, and as a feed-stock by industry for the manufacture of many common products. Developing the UK shale industry could provide the UK with greater energy security by reducing our reliance on gas imports, as well as resulting in growth, jobs, particularly in the north of England, and tax revenues. A study by consultants EY1 has estimated a potential cumulative investment of £33 billion and the creation of up to 64,500 jobs as a result of a thriving shale industry. There are many significant opportunities for UK businesses identified in the same study. For example, a projected need for more than £2 billion worth of steel, a need for around 50 drilling rigs and for over £2 billion worth of sand.
Shales gas is extracted with a loss (50% in deficit before environmental damage, some irreversible, is calculated in). Wells run to a significantly low production volume already after 1-2 years and it's expensive to re-frack, both calculating in the required drilling, adding pressure, chemicals and water - and the environmental damage below and above ground is immeasurable.
Quote from your consultation 1.5
A British Geological Survey (BGS) study of shale gas across the north of England estimated a total shale gas resource of 1,300 trillion cubic feet.2 This can be compared to the current UK annual gas consumption of around 2.5 trillion cubic feet.3 The industry will need to test how much of this gas can be extracted technically and economically. There is a clear possibility of a significant domestic contribution to meeting the UK’s future demand for gas.
It's is in reality not worth even beginning to explore for shale gas, given the arguments above. Even test drilling is seriously irreversibly polluting our aquifers. It's a serious mistake and all business arguments in this consultation need a different basis of information. I would suggest gas is phased out and replaced with other, better, technology and I enquire as to whether or not the business plan for such a strategy would create many more sustainable jobs and technologies.
Quote from your consultation 1.6
We already have world class regulation in place to ensure this happens safely. During the last parliament we also put the right fiscal framework in place to make sure that the right incentives are in place for investment. The government is committed to ensuring that local communities are fully involved in planning decisions that affect them: any shale applications – whether decided by councils or government – will continue to require a full consultation with 1 EY, Getting Ready for UK Shale Gas, April 2014 2 BGS/DECC, Bowland Shale Gas Study, June 2013 3 Based on DECC, Digest of UK Energy Statistics, July 2015. To note – this was the most up to date reference at the time of going to print. 4 local people. The steps we are taking will make the planning system faster and fairer for all those affected by new development.
Fracking for shale gas cannot be done safely. It's not possible. There are no existing regulations that can cover fracking, also because it's technology is outside control in the current UK regulatory framework. However, even if new regulations were in place, they could not be followed or controlled and it still would not be possible to frack safely. The only strategy that would be fair would be to find realistic ways of supplying heat and energy in the future and stop wasting tax payers money and so many environmentalist's time on this serious problem which is still there due to a very flawed and completely inadequate research, analysis, business plan and strategy.
Quote from your consultation 1.7
We are now setting out to ensure that the right framework is in place for households, communities and regions that host shale gas to benefit directly from a share of the revenues and tax that come from shale production. The industry has committed to deliver benefits to communities, and, as set out in the manifesto, it is also right that the government ensures that there is a legacy in those areas where shale is developed, including in the Northern Powerhouse where we expect to see the greatest development, though the framework will apply to all areas where there is shale development.
If the consultation is communicating that there will be a case of revenues, that would be a serious misguidance of the public. It may be possible to produce figures and also compensate locals, however the bottom line will be devastation, sick residents, ruined infrastructure, loss of aquifers, farm land and cause uninhabitable zones, like in USA and Australia. Communicating that there is any real profit or prosperity in relation to shale gas extraction is not in any way an acceptable basis for a fair democratic decision making process, it is simply misguiding, and even worse, if the public trusted this information and went along with the suggested strategies, they would find their land and future ruined for the price of, perhaps, a few more years with very very expensive gas which's extraction would make residents sick and cause seismic events, loss of property value and insurance problems, loss of invaluable aquifers and farm land and cause a severe worsening of climate change.
I do not see any need to answer the remaining consultation document, and I kindly refer to the many websites with excellent comprehensible information about fracking for shale gas. Our website is among them: http://environmentalactionhub.com
God bless your day :) *
LIKE our Facebook PAGE and get news from us.
|
| |
