There has been much contention over the last 5 days about the way in which Cuadrilla have appropriated a patch of land over which, according to the police, the public have a right of way.
On Friday the Heras fencing at the site, which had been along the hedge line was moved forward without explanation until it met the edge of the cycle path.
It would surely be cynical to suggest that Cuadrilla’s motivation for this was to deny the area to activists who had caused them problems during the week by “locking-on”. Wouldn’t it?
It took a while to establish who gave them permission. The police didn’t know and it was only by the concerted application of pressure that a PLO finally confirmed on Monday evening that a certain Paul Smith of Lancashire County Council had emailed permission to Cuadrilla on the previous Friday.
We have now had sight of the demand made by Cuadrilla and the rubber stamp given to it by Mr Smith
Nobody we have asked (protestors, police or security staff) claims to have seen Cuadrilla make any effort to do any work which would require this fencing to be in place since they were granted permission 5 days ago.
We do not believe that the granting of this permission, without any qualification or detailed consideration, demonstrates an adequate duty of care for the interests of all of the stakeholders so we have, today had this exchange of emails with Mr Smith. We’ll let you draw your own conclusions about whether his response is satisfactory.
From me to Paul Smith – 14 March 09:40
Dear Mr Smith
I am writing to express my serious concern about the permission which you have apparently granted to Cuadrilla to move their Heras fencing out over the public footway at the side of Preston New Road to the edge of the cycle lane.
I understand that this permission was granted to them by email from yourself, ostensibly to allow them to carry out some work on utilities and sight lines, last Friday (10th March).
This raises the following questions:
1. Is the footway a right of way? If so were the procedures laid down here adhered to and where was the closure advertised?
2. Is there a time limit on the permission. If so what is it? If not, why not? You will of course be aware that although the fences were moved 5 days ago there has been no sign of any work whatsoever on sight lines or utilities in the vicinity of the fence.
3. Why was permission granted to block the footway in its entirety? This is totally unnecessary as any work on sight lines could be done with fencing at either end, not spanning the entire ~20 metres of the footway. Presumably the same is true of work on utilities.
4. Why was a condition not imposed that the Heras fencing should only be moved out while work was in progress and moved back when work was not being done. According to staff on site it would only take 5 minutes to move the fencing in and out, so allowing the footway to be blocked continually is clearly disproportionate.
Pending your response to the above I would be grateful if you would provide a copy of the permission email so that we can validate what is being done against what had been permitted.
As one police officer commented to me yesterday, “You know why Cuadrilla have done this, we know why Cuadrilla have done this, it is just LCC who don’t”.
As long as Cuadrilla are facilitated in blocking legitimate protest by flaunting the permission they have got from you and closing off an area where protest has taken place, then evidence suggests that that protest will simply move as you saw yesterday. The result yesterday was that a highway for which you are responsible got blocked by protest on a lorry.
If I might proffer a suggestion, you would satisfy any of Cuadrilla’s genuine requirements and make the police’s job much easier if you rescinded the permission that you have apparently granted Cuadrilla and reissued a more qualified permission which takes in to account the reality of the situation, and not what is convenient to Cuadrilla.
From Paul Smith to me – 14 March 10:10
Further to your email below I have the following responses:
1. the area of highway fenced off is not a footway but is a grass verge
2. there is no particular time limit as the placing of the fencing at the approved location does not have any impact on the general travelling public
3. as previously stated, it is not a footway but is in fact a grass verge
4. as the location of the fencing does not affect the general travelling public I am happy for the fencing to remain in position until all the remedial works have been carried out.
Please find attached a copy of my email granting permission for the positioning of the fence.
[No sign off or signature – emails between Paul Smith and Nick Mace shown above attached]
From me to Paul Smith – 14 March 10:47
1. The police in attendance at PNR (both PLOs and TAU) have made it very clear that they regard the grass verge and the tarmaced space in between the hedges, as an area to which the public has a right of access. They routinely describe is as a “footway”. Would you please clarify the legal basis on which you appear to be claiming that it is not.
2. Whilst the general travelling public may not be directly impacted by the fencing, you clearly have a duty to ensure that the rights of pedestrians are taken into account. You appear not to have considered the position of pedestrians as stakeholders in this decision that you have taken. Would you please clarify the basis on which you have discounted the rights of the many people who have continually used the area under discussion over the last 2 months
3. Regardless of whether you call it a footway or a verge, you have given indefinite permission for Cuadrilla to block off an area to which the police have confirmed on multiple occasions people have a legitimate right of access. From the email trail below you seem to have rubber stamped a demand from Cuadrilla (it is not phrased as a request is it?) without question, and without imposing any conditions or limitations, or considering any ways in which the impact could have been mitigated by limiting the scope of the permission. In acting in this way you have failed to take into account the needs and rights of all of the stakeholders concerned. Again I think it fair to ask you to explain why.
4. Again you seem to ignore the needs and rights of the many people who have used this area over the last two months. You appear to have been given no indication of the likely duration of whatever works may be envisaged, nor do you appear to have asked for such information. If you did perhaps you would be kind enough to provide some documentary evidence of that.
Having been made aware of the issues involved and the inflammatory potential of your decision, I am genuinely surprised and disappointed that you should adopt such a dismissive attitude towards the issues raised.
I would request that you pay this matter more attention and then respond more positively to me as one of Lancashire’s council tax payers. If you prefer not to then I will escalate this within the council, with my own representative and with the police.
Mr Smith has now replied as follows
1. If the Police routinely describe this area as footway, unfortunately they are incorrect. The area in question is a grass verge with the footway being on the south side of Preston New Road.
2. The rights of pedestrians are taken into account by the availability of the footway on the southern side of Preston New Road. This is no different to any site of a similar nature
3. Permission has been granted for the duration of the remedial works. As you will see from the email from Cuadrilla, I will be informed when the works have been completed. As previously stated, as there is no effect on the general travelling public I have no particular concerns regarding the timescale of the remedials subject to them being carried out in a timely manner
4. The area of adopted highway that is now fenced off for the remedial works to be carried out is far less than the area cordoned off whilst the access was being constructed. This is a vast improvement for the general travelling public.
5. I have not taken a “dismissive attitude to the issues raised” but have answered the queries raised.
To which I have responded at 1pm
Thank you for your reply which I will discuss with police officers on site before reverting to you or escalating this further.
I note the expansion of the email recipients to include Sgt Hill and your other colleagues.
Having discussed with local PLOs and the Chief Constable of Lancashire who was visiting the site today, I decided to check what the status of the land now was, given the open ended permission given by Mr Smith to Cuadrilla, so I emailed the Head of Planning ad 16:45 this evening
Dear Mr Mullaney
With relation to the email trail below, can I please ask you to confirm whether the permission to move the fence, granted to Cuadrilla by your colleague Mr Smith, means that the extra land now within the barrier is officially part of the works area of the development site, and therefore subject to the same planning regulations, development control and other planning department protocols?
I look forward to your response.
The ninth commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness” forbids speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbour.
It would be tiresome to apply that to, and comment on, the serial failures to observe it over on the Backing Fracking Facebook page, but yesterday we were stopped in our tracks by an exchange we read. Here it is in full.
For those of you who do not know Michael Roberts, as well as being one of the admins on the farcical Backing Fracking Facebook page, is also a semi-retired Church of England vicar. Yet here he is not only denying having made a statement which is on record, and claiming to be misrepresented, but accusing the other person of lying about him having made it! That seems like odd behaviour for a man of the cloth.
There can be no doubt that he made the statement “Not next to me, I think it would need to be several hundred yards away from the nearest house. Exactly how far I don’t know” . He can be heard making it in a recorded Radio Lancashire interview here, about 2 minutes and 40 seconds in:
The Reverend Roberts has just been appointed HfD (House for Duty) Priest in Charge at St Anne’s church in Woodplumpton
We wonder what the local parishioners will make of the man who will be now be delivering their Sunday sermons?
Of course it is entirely possible that Michael did not intentionally set out to mislead and that the inconsistency between observable facts and his claims is due to something else.
In that case his new flock may be grateful for the final provision of clause 3.5 of the Church of England’s House For Duty Guidance
The following invitation was extended to Mr Egan in a letter in the Blackpool Gazette and the Lancashire Evening Post by local geologist Trina Froud.
We have recently had the opportunity to question the regulators, and this week brings the British Geological Survey, who are carrying out some environmental monitoring in Lancashire and Yorkshire. But what is missing, and has been for a long time, is the opportunity to talk to Cuadrilla.
And we residents have lots of questions :
- Why is the pad at PNR so very much larger than you said ?
- Do you now intend to drill two laterals from a single vertical well as implied in The Guardian?
- What environmental monitoring do you intend to do at PNR, how long for and will the results be public?
- Did the lack of flowback at stage 1 at Preese Hall, contribute to the 2.3 tremor in the frack stage immediately following?
And that’s just for starters !
Mark Miller, the previous CEO of Cuadrilla, was prepared to meet the public, he held roadshows, invited people to the rigs and in 2012, he appeared on a Question Time panel in St Annes chaired by our MP – the hall was packed. Mike Hill CEng MIET, is a resident of St Annes with more than 20 years experience of the oil and gas industry, Mr Miller welcomed him to the rigs at Preese Hall and Singleton, and Mike was on that QT panel too.
Mr Egan knows what he plans for the Fylde, and Mike Hill has a good idea of what has happened. I read in your paper last week a letter explaining that Mr Hill has been completely exonerated by his professional body, of various accusations made against him. In other words he can be trusted to give an independent professional viewpoint.
So, this is a public invitation to Mr Egan, to appear with Mr Hill, engineers both of you, to answer our questions.
I can guarantee that the hall will be packed – Mr Egan, will you debate the issues with Mr Hill ? For what possible genuine reason would you refuse?” I do not think there is one. The public deserve this debate. Are you game ?
We look forward to learning how confident Mr Egan is in his ability to make a case for his operations here in the Fylde. Over to you Francis!
It is now 8 weeks since Cuadrilla unexpectedly started work at Preston New Road. I say unexpectedly because from what we were told they forgot to alert local residents and possibly the police until the day after they started, which was not a very auspicious start to any pretence at community relations.
How are they doing?
Well, Francis Egan, CEO, of Cuadrilla, is putting a brave face on in spite of protectors continually demonstrating outside the site, and the pop-up protests, which are convincing supply chain companies to re-evaluate their dealings with a company which is so unpopular locally. Only today Drill or Drop report that “Cuadrilla has told DrillOrDrop that its operation remained on schedule.”
However, if we take a look at where they expected to be we can see a yawning gap between what was planned for the first two months and what has actually been achieved. Obviously we don’t have access to their actual project plan, but they have indicated the progress they expected to make in other documents
Here is what we can see in their Environmental Statement:
Anyone who has visited the site will be aware that the access track isn’t even near finished yet. The exploration well pad is still a pile of soil, work on fencing has only just started with sound baffles having been delivered only this week by a freight company who have since asked not to be further involved with the project. The drilling cellars are pits where the boreholes will be drilled, and there is no obvious sign of these having been excavated. The conductor casing (to prevent the sides of the hole from caving into the wellbore) presumably can’t be put in before the pad itself has been constructed. Fortunately for Cuadrilla United Utilities thoughtfully supplied a new mains water pipe running just past the site only very recently. What a lucky co-incidence that was, but we have seen no evidence of any connection between it and the pad site.
At this point the next step would be to drill the first well.
It will be very interesting to see how much later than 2 months it is before the drill bit hits the ground. The arrival date of the drilling rig will give a very clear indication of the impact that protectors have had on the pad construction schedule.
We learned yesterday on the Drill or Drop website that Senior Lancashire County Council councillors have been criticising Cuadrilla‘s record on planning conditions.
Marcus Johnson, the cabinet member for environment, planning and cultural services, told the council’s development control committee this morning: “It has to be said that, as we are discovering at Preston New Road, the applicant [Cuadrilla] doesn’t have a particularly good record when it comes to planning conditions.”
Shall we just take a look at one of the things that is in question currently to see just why our Councillors seem to be losing patience with our off-shore speculator backed chums at Cuadrilla? Wheel washing.
The “Preston New Road Exploration Site Construction Method Statement“, forms part of their planning permission. It states in its very first paragraph that:
The CMS identifies a number of planning conditions applicable to the phase of operation and how they will be complied with on site
In this document we can see that it states very clearly that:
Once the new access has been surfaced a wheel cleaning facility will be installed immediately beyond the surfaced area. This is identified in drawing PNRJ-ARP-DR-CH-0003.A dry wheel wash system will be installed on the outbound lane of the new access road which all delivery wagons will have to drive over prior to leaving site during the construction phase.
What is the new access referred to? It is clearly the 20 metre area between the road and the cattle grid shown here highlighted in brown.
It has already been surfaced as can clearly be seen here, and has been for at least two weeks, maybe longer.
– so according to the plan, a wheel cleaning facility should have been installed two weeks ago, or at very least before any further work on the access road was started. There is a clear critical path identified in the document which goes on to clarify:
Following completion of the temporary site compound, site access junction and wheel washing facilities the works will commence on the main access road. Topsoil will be stripped using tracked excavators with topsoil formed into bunds and treated as described above. The topsoil strip will be undertaken prior to any construction traffic being permitted on the area in accordance with Landscaping, Biodiversity and Archaeological requirements.
Specifically this is what is required according to the permission to operate granted to Cuadrilla:
The dry wheel wash unit uses a bar system which provides efficient wheel cleaning along with environmental benefits, e.g. no waste water, no diesel use, no concrete sump installation, no queues of vehicles waiting for the jet wash. The wheel wash will be monitored by a trained operative to ensure that wagons are suitably clean to exit onto the public highway. If the wheels on the wagon are clean before the entering the wheel wash then it can be driven past the facility to avoid unnecessary cleaning and noise generation. The wheel wash is easily maintained and cleaned by lifting the unit, using the lifting points along the sections and removing the debris with a site based loading shovel or bucket. The dry wheel wash system will be monitored and cleaned out at least weekly or more often if required. As a precaution a road sweeper will be kept on standby to ensure that in the unlikely event of debris or mud being deposited on the A583 then it will be cleared as soon as practicable. Site representatives will conduct daily visual checks during construction to monitor tracked mud being taken onto the public highway to inform whether a road sweeper is needed. The dry wheel wash will typically be as shown in the photograph in figure 3.A standard system is approximately 20m long, with 2 x 3m on/off ramps and 2 x 7m centre sections and can clean up to 15 vehicles per hour if necessary.
Figure 3: Indicative photo of proposed wheel wash
Not only is there no sign of the proposed wheel wash system, the staff on site when questioned appear to have no idea that it was required as soon as the 20 meter access area was surfaced and before further work on the pad access road was started, and even though this has been pointed out to them on numerous occasions they refuse to comply with the regulation and continually allow HGVs and other vehicles to leave the site without any form of wheel cleaning.
On occasion under severe pressure from protectors via the police PLOs they have given wheels a perfunctory dry brush. However, the police claim that they are powerless here and that any attempt to stop a vehicle which has not had its wheels cleaned leaving the site would result in arrest. The best that the police can suggest, in the absence of any enforcement by LCC, is to contact the Environment Agency or our local MP.
Here is a photo (courtesy of Ros Wills) of a truck leaving the site without its wheel having been given any treatment at all.
It is clear from all this that work on the main access road, which is well under way, should not have been started until the wheel wash facilities were installed, but Cuadrilla appear to believe that they can play fast and loose with the terms they have agreed.
Is it any wonder that senior councillors are losing patience, and what can we expect when they start to deal with more serious matters like fracking? If they can’t stick to rules on something as simple as wheel washing, what hope is there that they won’t cut corners where the stakes are considerably higher?
Lancashire County Council Planning Department have been contacted and we will update this article with any response that we receive. If Cuadrilla’s “Community Information Line” can shed any light on this we’ll publish their response as well.
I have now spoken with LCC Planning Department and received a peculiar sort of response. In essence they seem happy to ignore the clear statement that “The CMS identifies a number of planning conditions applicable to the phase of operation and how they will be complied with on site” on the grounds that the condition was (in his opinion) badly drafted. (Who drafted it?). The fact that work has continued in breach of the clearly stated conditions on the CMS, does not appear to concern the Planning Department as no accidents have happened as a result. There was no satisfactory response to my point that allowing breaches until something happens is a pretty appalling way of enforcing regulation.
Apparently Cuadrilla have now brought in a wheel washer (but not the equipment specified in the CMS). This is acceptable to the planners if no dirt is allowed to get onto the highway, pending their provision of the specified equipment. Again there was no satisfactory response to the point that, while it may be acceptable to be flexible with regard to site construction, when a CMS is in place such flexibility should be discussed and documented before being allowed.
So it appears that yet again Cuadrilla get away with having flouted planning conditions. At what point will the council start to sit up and take notice?
POST POST SCRIPT
Shortly after I got the complacent response from the planning department this photo was posted on Facebook
Shame on our planning department.
Chris Faulkner AKA The Frackmaster
An object lesson in how the Oil and Gas industry and its acolytes seem as ready to be taken in by the Emperor’s new clothes as any other bunch of naive and needy people.
It only seem like yesterday that the UK fracking industry and it’s compliant friends in the media were falling over themselves to fawn over the CEO of Breitling Energy, who had contrived to get himself known by the label “The Frackmaster”, and had thus acquired guru like status amongst the unquestioning and the easily impressed.
Here is how he is described on his own company website
Impressive isn’t it?
He was interviewed by the BBC
He was interviewed by the Guardian
He attended and addressed the Shale Gas Conferences in the UK and throughout Europe
He was welcomed by the parafrackers as God’s gift to Yorkshire (How must Lorraine Allanson regret that endorsement now)
He took out an advert in The Daily Telegraph in 2014 which started “Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom, Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth. ”
I could go on but here is Ruth Hayhurst’s summary from Drill or Drop for just one year – 2014
He was the MAN!
But then the gilt began to peel off. His advert in the Telegraph was censured by the Advertising Standards Authority in 2014 who ruled that six claims were misleading, exaggerated and unsubstantiated and should not be repeated.
Questions had been asked as to how this former sex toy web site entrepreneur had become one of the world’s leading authorities on hydraulic fracturing, and in 2016 we learned that the US SEC was suing Mr Faulkner for fraud involving an alleged sum of $80 million on investors’ money through the sale of Oil and Gas working interest investments.
Finally in February 2017 we read on Texas Sharon’s website that Mr Faulkner had been arrested at Los Angeles airport and is being held in jail in Los Angeles without bail on charges of felony.
As Mr Faulkner is notoriously litigious we’ll leave you to Google “Chris Faulkner Frackmaster” for yourselves so you can draw your own further conclusions as to how this man became the guru of the UK fracking scene and what that says about the industry and its supporters.
P.S. If anybody is interested there is a great domain name for sale!
On 18th February 2017 the Daily Telegraph published an article with the title “Cuadrilla takes shale activist row to Government as local firms lose out“.
In the article the reporter, Jillian Ambrose, states that
“Cuadrilla boss Francis Egan has raised concerns with officials in the Home Office, asking that police are given greater clarity on the laws surrounding protest action so that police are able to protect local businesses.”
However, she then went on to state that “There have been a dozen arrests related to verbal death threats and physical assault against workers at Cuadrilla’s site in the last month” and quoted Chamber of Commerce leader Babs Williams (sic) as describing the “appalling and intimidatory tactics” used by anti-fracking activists.
Anyone reading the article without better information might be excused for believing that anti-fracking protectors have been regularly arrested for totally unacceptable behaviour.
So how much truth is there in this article? It is not clear whose ear Mr Egan may or may not have been bending with his presumptuous suggestion that Police don’t know what they are doing and the implication that they should be doing much more for him – we are not told and the suggestion is very generic. I’d ask but as we know Cuadrilla refuse to engage with any questions I ask them. However, what is clear is that Lancashire Police have categorically and unequivocally denied that up to the date of publication of the article a single individual had been arrested for anything resembling the reasons given by Ms Ambrose in her article.
Independent journalist Ruth Hayhurst reported on her website this morning that “A spokesperson for Lancashire Police confirmed at 11.45am on 20 February 2017 that there had been no arrests related to verbal death threats and physical assault against workers at the Preston New Road site.”
She also provided further background on her headlines page where she stated:
Arrests at Preston New Road: The Telegraph article referred to a “dozen arrests related to verbal abuse and physical assault against workers at Cuadrilla’s site in the last month”. The Telegraph told DrillOrDrop the source of this statement was Cuadrilla. The company made a statement on 20/2/2017, saying the reference was to the dozen arrests made in connection with protests at or near the Preston New Road site. Separately, a company spokesperson said that threats of verbal abuse and physical violence are “all taken seriously and have been passed to the Police to investigate and take statements”.
[For clarity we should point out here that as far as we know there have so far been 10 arrests made under Section 14 of the Public Order Act and one under the Trade Union Labour Relations Act. It is clear from Lancashire Polices response that not a single one of these involved death threats or assault. ]
So we have something of a gap here – The Telegraph appear to be suggesting that the claim about the “dozen arrests related to verbal death threats and physical assault” came from Cuadrilla but Cuadrilla are claiming that they only referred generically to some arrests and didn’t specify what they were for. Equally Cuadrilla would appear to be claiming not to have mentioned “death threats” at all.
So what can we make of this?
If this were some down at heel local rag we might charitably assume that a naive reporter got overawed by being offered an interview with Cuadrilla’s CEO late on a Friday, got what she thought was a juicy quote and either misunderstood it or was was unable to validate it during the weekend but published anyway. However, it isn’t the local rag – this is the Daily Telegraph and the reporter concerned is “a Business Reporter covering oil, gas and utilities for The Telegraph business desk“. Somebody who presumably brings the ethics and experience of a professional journalist to bear. She is after all quite caustic about the professional abilities of others.
So maybe this experienced reporter on a quality national newspaper took two unrelated statements (that arrests were made and Cuadrilla’s claims that threats had been made) and conflated them into something more interesting than either statement was in isolation – but that seems unlikely and wouldn’t explain the very specific statement about “verbal death threats and physical assault“. After all there is a considerable difference between verbal “abuse” and a verbal “death threat“. That would be quite an embellishment wouldn’t it?
Could it be then that Ms Ambrose was actually reporting what she was told by Cuadrilla, and that she made a mistake in not confirming the facts with Lancashire Police before repeating the allegation in her article? It seems unlikely that a staff journalist on a national broadsheet would not be careful enough to cover themselves by checking the reliability of a claim that could be so incendiary before repeating it. But then when challenged, she did claim on Twitter (see below) that her statement was backed up by evidence on the Lancashire Police Facebook page. (It wasn’t)
If that’s not it then we have to ask whether a professional and experienced journalist would , intentionally or otherwise, misquote the CEO of a company she was interviewing. That would be an unlikely things for a journalist on a national title to do, and did she not, like every other journalist I have encountered keep her own shorthand notes of the conversation? Again, it seems unlikely that Ms Ambrose does not have a recording or written record of the interview to fall back on to defend her and the Telegraph’s position regarding any statements made by her interviewee, Mr Egan.
I’m running out of hypotheses now but it seems that the gap between the statements made by both parties by way of explanation as to the origin of the defamation still remains to be filled, as the given explanations simply can’t be made to fit together in any coherent way. Maybe an investigative journalist could ask some pointed questions to get to the bottom of this?
Today the Telegraph reporter was made aware of both her mistake with Babs Murphy’s name and the fact that the statement regarding “verbal death threats and physical assault” had been denied by the Police. The article has now been corrected as regards Ms Murphy’s name but the calumny about the “death threats” and “physical assaults” still remains. Indeed Ms Ambrose tweeted rather combatively:
This suggests that she didn’t perhaps realise the gravity of the claim she had made regarding the “verbal death threats and physical assault”.
In any event it seems that the Telegraph are currently standing by their version of events, which is somewhat surprising and disappointing in the face of Lancashire Police’s statement which flatly contradicts it and Cuadrilla’s apparent denial of being the source of the specific information regarding “verbal death threats and physical assault” .
We are aware from some (very justifiably) angry responses on social media that several complaints have now been made to the newspaper regulator IPSO, so we hope that they will be able to shine a light on what really lies behind a very unsavoury defamation of those opposed to fracking.
We honestly don’t know who is to blame, but we do know that there isn’t a jot of truth in the allegation that “There have been a dozen arrests related to verbal death threats and physical assault against workers at Cuadrilla’s site in the last month“.
Watch this space to see how this plays out.
Protest comes in many forms but few a beautiful as this heartfelt song from Andy Severyn, inspired by the trashing of the Valentine’s Day flowers tied to the fencing at Preston New Road.
If you have a couple of minutes give it a listen please
Francis Egan has been very keen on playing down the size of his erection, but as everybody driving past the site at Preston New Road can now see, the site is growing bigger every day. It is in fact very helpful that their first development site is being built somewhere where its impact is so visible to passing residents.
The claim that the site will only take as much land as a rugby pitch (~1 hectare) is being show up for the lie it is with every new load of aggregate and every new portakabin that gets delivered.
The plan submitted to Lancashire County Council shows that the net total land covered by surface works at the development is about 7 hectares (this the area bordered in red on the plan below)
In addition the area shaded yellow (approximate) is being used for the siting of office portakabins etc – in fact if you look you can see what looks like a new small village being sited! We asked both a Cuadrilla employee and an AE Yates employee at the site whether the area shown yellow would be temporary or permanent (for the period of development). The Cuadrilla employee suggested I contact the Community Information line who refuse to communicate with me) and would not /could not tell me more. The AE Yates employee wouldn’t confirm either way but asked me why I thought they would have moved the cabins from their original position (in the pink shaded area on the plan above) to where they are now if they then intended to move them again.
This adds perhaps about another hectare to the developed site meaning that our estimate is that the developed area will be about 8 hectares compared to Mr Egan’s repeated claim to the media that it will only cover the size of a rugby pitch (1 hectare). And remember this is the net usage – if the entire fields in which these developments are occurring were removed from agricultural use then the area concerned would be much greater
Add to this the 90 associated monitoring array points each taking up a space of 20 x 20 and you have a further 3.6 hectares taken out of use. So we are now between 11 and 12 hectares of prime agricultural and being removed from productive use to allow this development to take place.
Remember – this is just one pad of 4 wells. Mr Egan has plans for over 100 pads of 40 wells each!
Over on the stock discussion board “Hot Copper”, investors in Cuadrilla’s parent company AJ Lucas have been getting very jittery as protest slows down developments at Preston New Road.
In an effort to rally the troops one investor has been pointing out what a jolly good deal Cuadrilla have snaffled for themselves here in Lancashire
As shale continues to develop the highest acreage value I have ever heard of is this one. $60,000 per acre!
Which just shows, if it is good shale, with modern technologies, serious value is there to be unlocked.
Cuadrilla had its shale for free. Over 1 million acres.
Even just at Preston new road where the site (including the new admin blocks) now looks to cover about 10 acres (that’s a lot of rugby pitches by the way Francis – about 5!) that’s about half a million pounds worth in total.
It’s great to see that our government is making sure the British tax payer gets a fair deal and that profits won’t just be syphoned out to Cuadrilla’s off-shore owners and investors isn’t it? … er hang on.