Fracking off once more

Lancashire Council’s rejection of an application to start fracking on the Fylde Coast has once again set back government plans for UK shale gas development. After 15 months of negotiation energy firm Cuadrilla was all set to extract shale gas at the Little Plumpton site between Preston and Blackpool. But after about four days of deliberation, Lancashire County Council rejected the bid on grounds of ‘unacceptable noise impact’ and the ‘adverse urbanising effect on the landscape’.

Cuadrilla expressed ‘surprise and disappointment’ at the decision. While locals and environmentalists expressed glee.

The Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) says ‘the decision was a terrible mistake’. It claims ‘the economic, environmental and geopolitical arguments are overwhelmingly in favour of fracking’. What’s more, it suggests shale gas could provide thousands of jobs, boost productivity and increase UK energy security ‘all at negligible risk to the environment’. This opinion is reflected by industry experts recently interviewed by Petroleum Review (see July 2015). The CPS recommends that the government ‘should consider allowing exploratory drilling to go ahead without requiring express planning permission if other relevant environmental permits are in place’.

Claire Dutch, partner in law firm Hogan Lovells, comments: ‘The decision may be a set-back for shale gas development in the UK, but it is unlikely to be the end of the story. Cuadrilla seems almost certain to appeal, and the industry will be hoping for a swift and successful outcome.’

An application to start a fracking operation at Roseacre Wood was also rejected recently.

Dr Adam Marshall, from the British Chambers of Commerce believes the decision to be ‘perverse, short-sighted and timid’.

Pouring salt on the wound, a formerly redacted report by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) studying the impacts of fracking, was released on 1 July. According to Greenpeace UK energy and climate campaigner Daisy Sands: ‘This report gives the lie to the shale lobby and ministers’ claims that there’s no evidence of negative impacts for fracking whilst questioning many of the arguments made in favour of it. It’s a complete vindication of Lancashire County Council’s decision to reject Cuadrilla’s bid to frack in the region.’

Apparently the report raises questions about water, traffic, the local economy and other factors, and states there is ‘risk that even if contaminated surface water does not directly impact drinking water supplies, it can affect human health indirectly through consumption of contaminated wildlife, livestock or agricultural products.… Overall the potential impacts on water resource availability, aquatic habitats and ecosystems and water quality is uncertain.’ However, industry experts insist the risk is negligible.

As for traffic, the DEFRA report maintains that an estimated 14 to 51 truck movements will be made to a site each day over a 32- to 145-week period, which ‘could have an adverse impact on traffic congestion, noise and air quality, depending on existing roads…’ The report also concludes that the ‘long-term economic impacts to rural communities is uncertain and will largely depend upon how revenue raised during the shale gas boom is reinvested within the local economy’.

The game is not over yet. Time will tell if Amber Rudd, UK Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, will intervene to promote shale exploration, regardless of local planning restrictions and views.