QUESTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENT – 13.11.14
Ground Gas Solutions Ltd
- Various reports and investigations have found that EIAs have regularly been conducted without adequate reference or baseline information on geology, particularly faulting, radiology and groundwater characteristics, water, soil and air quality, public health and local sensitivities. Is this because of negligence, incompetence or conflicts of interests and how can we be assured that these matters will be properly addressed here?
- Your firm is described as an independent EIA consultant. How true is this independence with your work with IGas and Cuadrilla?
- As an EIA affects the value of the development would you agree that an assessment found to be based knowingly on inadequate, false or misleading information should be treated as invalid and possibly as fraud?
- Given that your company only employs 14 people – how are you possibly going to be able to monitor all sites 24/7 effectively?
- Is this really a company of sufficient financial standing and technical expertise that is capable of providing “Gold Standard independent monitoring” when your company’s latest published company accounts (dated 2013) indicate – Assets of £135,526, Liabilities of £319,120? Nett worth of £–103,926?
- Given that all wells will need to be environmentally monitored FOREVER, who will be monitoring them in 50 years’ time and beyond?
- During drilling and fracking, liquids and gas migrate laterally, what will Ground Gas Solutions do when leaks are discovered and the drilling companies have long gone?
- What baseline thresholds are there for gas emissions and what are the penalties if these thresholds are exceeded?
- What baseline data is there on environmental air quality in the CW&C borough area?
- Should an EIA require and take account of full disclosure of all chemicals used and expected, H and S data sheets, and details of waste water treatment?
- To date, Cuadrilla’s Preese Hall well in Lancashire is the only one that has been drilled, hydraulically fractured and flow tested. Can it be confirmed that Cuadrilla Preese Hall 1 drilling well referenced in Mr Talbot’s “Just Part of the Energy Mix” article for the RICS Land Journal July/ Aug 2014 has been shut due to well integrity failure and two seismic activities and Cuadrilla have been granted a request of extension of abandonment to Lancashire County Council? Surely this is evidence enough that neither the technology nor the regulation makes this practice safe?
- Do you think that the developer should be responsible for paying all costs of remediation and management of wells in perpetuity and if not, why not?
- As the frequency of turnover of companies in this industry is notoriously high and you represent the third successive company interested in exploitation in this area in 5 years, why do you think we should accept any of your assurances when it seems likely that you won’t be around to keep to them? Are you required to take out any insurance to cover this?
- We understand that EIA’s have not been required by CWaC for your sites approved for CBM extraction and as a responsible operator we assume that you have made or shall nevertheless make these assessments yourselves. Will you make this information available for public information and peer review?
- The Environment Agency’s presentation made it clear that they would investigate sites if the public made them aware of any concerns. How can the public know whether they should be concerned if sites such as Ellesmere Port have high, opaque fences preventing any view of what is happening inside?
How many high pressure wells has your well design and construction manager Kris Bone constructed in the UK? Answer – Zero
Why do you feel you can flout planning laws by drilling to double the depth allowed for shale when the British Geological Survey have said the council should be looking at enforcement action. Do you plan to repeat the same at the Ellesmere Port site?
- Did you have planning permissions to frack your Doe Green Well as after an FOI request to Warrington Council it would appear you didn’t?
- There have been several claims from the industry which have been rebutted by the Advertising Standards Authority for being misleading – for example their claims to be using proven safe technologies, that there are no material differences between conventional and shale gas production and that there are no proven cases of water contamination. Are you prepared to accept claims made by any drilling company when the ASA has already found these to be misleading?
- What do FoE/ Greenpeace think about the implications regarding shale gas and CBM of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and its recent amendments permitting the return of waste and other materials?
- What is the implication of the recent recommendation of the environmental Green Alliance including Greenpeace, FoE, CPRE, RSPB, NT, WWF and other organisations that the use of fossil fuels be phased out by 2030 and doesn’t it imply that we should be phasing out existing and not now be starting on new fossil fuel developments?