Dear,
I am gravely concerned about the
lack of information and communication from our councils regarding hydraulic
fracturing. I am a parish councillor and
was at the parish council liaison meeting held on 22nd October at
Ryedale District Council. We were given
an overview of the process by a senior officer of North Yorkshire Council’s
planning department and while that was fine as far as it went, it was quite
obvious that they had no real information about how it would actually affect
the residents of North Yorkshire. The
officer stated that they were in regular contact with Third Energy, yet was not
also consulting with other informed sources of information on hydraulic
fracturing. I do not think this is good
enough, I would expect people who represent us to be researching widely and
consulting with experts other than those with a vested interest in the process
of fracking.
We are under major threat from
hydraulic fracturing in Ryedale and across the UK. This process of extracting gas is not safe;
there are many, many examples of how it pollutes water supplies, the land that
crops are grown on and causes many types of problems with the health of people
living in the vicinity of hydraulic fracturing wells.
Third Energy, the company that has
applied for permission to “frack” at their site in Kirkbymisperton have stated
that their brochure explaining the process was distributed to all people living
within five miles of their site. I did
not receive one of these and I live about a mile away. I have however, seen the brochure on line and
would call into question many of their claims, as well as the fact that their
photographs taken from the air zoom in close so that you cannot actually see
how near to housing the wells will be. Third
energy is being very economical with the truth when they make the following claims:
Page 2: Once the
oil or gas flow has been stimulated, the operations are no different to other
oil and gas production.
Conventional oil or gas
production does not involve injecting water, sand and chemicals under very high
pressure, nor does it produce large amounts of toxic waste water to be
disposed of. Water is sometimes used to
flush out remaining gas from conventional wells but toxic chemicals and sand
are not added to the water as they are in the fracking process.
Page 2: The additives (in frack fluid) are
commonly used substances that are non-hazardous and are typically found in most
homes – many of them in food and toiletries.
From my own research
carried out online from reliable sources, I would strongly refute this claim.
Carcinogens such as benzene are added to fracking fluids, which also contain
heavy metals and radioactive materials such as radium and radon, which become
part of the fluid when drawn from the great depths that wells are bored. Fifty-nine chemicals used in the fracking
process have been identified by Concerned
Health Professionals of the NY’s recent report (
http://concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CHPNY-Fracking-Compendium.pdf)
as being harmful to human health. It might be worth noting as well, that
chemicals found in some of our toiletries would also be hazardous if they made
their way into our drinking water.
I would be very
interested to know exactly which chemicals Third Energy plan to inject at
pressure into our land, as I suspect the list would include very hazardous
ones.
Page 2: This water will be transported from Knapton using the existing
pipeline and, once fracturing is completed, any flow back water will returned
to Knapton via the same pipeline.
With a mini-frac, this might be true because it
lasts for only 10-15 hours, but this would surely not be the case with a fully
productive well? Again, it is very
likely that fresh water would have to be trucked in and the contaminated waste
water trucked out. I would very much
like to know, if full production were to take place, where the fresh water is
to come from.
Page 2: From here (the water) will sent for safe disposal to an
authorised contractor.
No one seems
to be able to fully answer this question. Who are these authorised contractors? Dr Jim Marshall of Water UK said this year
that there are no facilities for dealing with this. How will the contaminated waste water be
disposed of exactly and where? I do not think it unreasonable to expect a categorical
answer to this question.
Page 2: We have calculated that we will need a maximum of 4,000 cubic
metres of water for the fracturing fluid – about the same volume as two Olympic
swimming pools.
.It is not
made clear in the glossy brochure that the amounts of water quoted are the
quantities that would be required for a mini frack, not for a fully operational well. Do we really want 4,000 cubic
meters, which is 880,000 gallons, of pure water to be used and contaminated for
hydraulic fracturing? Water is not an infinite resource as some might think it
is.
Page 3: The company has been operating
safely for 20 years.
There have
been “incidents” at the current site in Kirkbymisperton; I was forced to close
all windows and stay indoors by a “mistake” that was made by a worker some
years ago. I, among many others, rang
the Ryedale District Council about the appalling smell at the time and was
referred to someone in charge who admitted somebody had done something
wrong. Humans make mistake, it is a
fact. On the whole though, I respect
that Third Energy have operated safely, but fracking is much more dangerous and
risky and it has caused terrible environmental damage elsewhere. Water supplies
have been polluted, the air and land around well sites has been polluted and
many workers, neighbours and farm animals have become ill. It does not follow that because Third Energy
have operated safely with conventional gas extraction, that their fracking
operations will be safe. UN toxins
expert Dr Marianne Lloyd-Smith said that you can regulate fracking to make it
safer but you cannot make it safe.
Page 3: We employ over 20 people locally.
Twenty
people locally do not make a major contribution to our economy or employment
record and is really quite laughable.
Page 4: Since 1975, thirteen wells have been
drilled through the aquifer on our licence areas in the Vale of Pickering and
there has been no incidence of aquifer pollution. Around 2,000 onshore wells
have been drilled in the UK, most of which have also been through aquifers.
Again, there has been no incidence of aquifer pollution.
Third Energy are being disingenuous here because they are not comparing
like for like. Conventional gas wells, of which they speak, are hugely
different from a well created by hydraulic fracturing because they do not use
the extreme pressure in the process that fracking does. It is the pressure that causes well casings
to rupture. According to the Schlumberger report into well integrity, 6% of
fracking wells fail immediately, 50% fail after 15 years and all wells fail
eventually. It follows then, that just
because Third Energy’s conventional wells have not failed, it does not mean
that their fracking wells would not fail. It is a ridiculous comparison to
make.
Page 4: The UK has one of the most highly regulated oil and gas
industries in the world.
Again,
Third Energy is being economical with the truth here. I accept that the
offshore and conventional oil and gas industry is well regulated, (although
this has not prevented some major spills disastrous to wildlife in the
past). But, there are NO regulations in
place relating to fracking, this industry is largely self-regulating. And to
make matters worse, the Environment Agency has had its budget cut by 40%
meaning that is does not have the manpower or expertise to monitor this
industry effectively.
Here are
just a few of the regulations that don’t exist, but in many people’s opinion, should:
·
There is no legally required
independent base-line testing of water, air and soil before, during and after
fracking. While fracking companies are supposed to do this testing themselves,
there is no obligation to make this information available to the public.
·
There is no legally required
independent seismic testing before, during or after fracking.
·
Fracking companies do not legally
have to reveal the chemicals that they add to their fracking fluid to the
public.
Furthermore,
the Government is doing all it can to reduce regulation for fracking companies,
in particular in the current Infrastructure Bill that is going through the
House of Commons at the moment. This is the Bill that is going to change the
Trespass Law, which will allow companies to drill under people’s homes and land
without permission. There is also an amendment which will allow fracking
companies to deposit ‘any substance’ into underground wells. Yes, ‘any
substance’.
Page 4: As part of the planning process, we will be undertaking
widespread public consultation which we will publicise through the local media.
Well so
far, I have not even received a copy of Third Energy’s glossy six page brochure
and I am only about a mile away from their proposed new well. I have heard rumours of a meeting for invited
people only but no one seems to know exactly where this is or was due to take
place. I do not trust a company that
does not have the courage to hold an open meeting; it smacks of underhandedness
and cover up.
Page 5: Although local residents will experience a slightly heavier flow
of traffic in the area, the disruption to normal routines should not be
significant.
Again,
Third Energy is being disingenuous here because the number of truck movements
they quote are only about right for a mini frac. If full scale production went ahead, the
number of truck movements would increase dramatically and residents would find
their normal routines significantly disrupted.
Page 5: During the actual fracturing process,
there will be noise from pumps and other equipment.
But they
do not say exactly how much noise, and it will be considerable. The compressors
that create the high pressure required for the fracking process are extremely
loud and operate during day and possibly night times. Third Energy has NOT told us that the
drilling phase is also very noisy and according to their brochure, the second
stage, hydraulic fracturing to stimulate gas flow, takes about 35 days. So, for a mini frack, remember, not a full
scale production well, the noise residents will have to endure will last for
five weeks. Once full scale production
starts, the peace and quiet of an area would be a thing of the past.
Page 6: If Third Energy receives planning permission and before the
start of hydraulic fracturing, it would provide the agreed community benefits
of £100,000 per hydraulically fractured well site.
This is
outrageous in its assumption that ordinary people are willing to be bribed in
such a way. It may sound like a
brilliant deal to some communities, until the fact that property prices in the
vicinity of a fracking well site fall dramatically. What works out at roughly
£200 per resident is not much of a bonus in those circumstances.
Page 6: If the appraisal leads to commercial production, one per cent of
gross revenues from production will also be paid into the local community fund.
At current gas prices, production revenues from one tcf of gas could yield
about £70 million to the local community over 20 years.
Come on Third Energy! Please do not patronise us, we are not so
stupid as to think that we might all become millionaires if we sign up to
fracking. It is likely that the amounts
paid will be no-where near the figures you quote. It is also useful for us all to remember that
if fracking goes ahead near Kirkbymisperton, it will not be confined to one
well only. A fracking well typically is
unprofitable within a year or so of it being drilled so new wells have to be
constantly drilled nearby. Within 20
years there could be hundreds of wells across Ryedale if Third Energy is
allowed to begin fracking.
I would ask; is any money, however
much, adequate compensation for not being able to sleep at night because of
light pollution from flares and site lighting, polluted drinking water,
polluted air and land? Are we going to
stand by and watch this happen, leaving a devastated and polluted countryside
to our children for their future? I hope
not. I am a member of Frack Free Ryedale
and if you agree with the points I have raised in this letter, I urge you to
join us, to write to your councillors and MP; it is time we stood up to be
counted as against this filthy, dangerous technology. We need to persuade our elected
representatives, who should be listening to us, not huge corporations anxious
to increase their profits, to concentrate revenue on clean technologies such as
solar, which in Germany and other countries, is generating a significant
percentage of their electricity requirements already,
Thank you for taking the time to
read this. If you wish to see the brochure produced by Third Energy, it is available on Frack Free Ryedale's web site: www.frackfreeryedale.org
Yours sincerely,
Sue Gough, Artist and resident of
Ryedale, North Yorkshire
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
