Toby on Tuesday

…'What the frack??'

 

History was made last Wednesday when UKIP triggered our very first debate in the House of Commons. Led by the visionary Douglas Carswell, it was on the deeply troubling issue of fuel poverty. Like our looming food shortages, imminent fuel shortages are the direct consequence of insane Government policies. As Douglas declared, “current policies are not fit for purpose and a new common sense approach to meeting our energy needs is required.” Here in Thirsk and Malton, energy supplies have risen to the top of the political agenda with the discovery of abundant reserves of shale gas. UKIP’s policy is to support “the development of shale gas with proper safeguards for the local environment. Community Improvement Levy money from the development of shale gas fields will be earmarked for lower council taxes or community projects within the local authority being developed.”

Over the past fortnight, UKIP has had the benefit of an informed and inspiring presentation from Colin Heath, an independent energy consultant (also an expert on thorium nuclear fuel, but that’s another story) who is our PPC for Selby and Ainsty, with its strong coal mining tradition. I have also has a useful conversation with a valued old friend, Philip Tate of Frack Free Ryedale. My conclusions on “fracking” for shale gas here are as follows:

1. Shale gas extraction in the UK cannot be compared to the experience in the US for the simple reason that, under the Petroleum Act 1988, shale gas belongs to the Crown and not the landowner, and a Government licence is needed to extract it. The licence holder can then obtain ancillary rights under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 to occupy land, obtain a water supply, dispose of effluent, erect buildings and lay pipes. This means that shale gas extraction is controlled by a range of Government agencies including the Health and Safety Executive, the Environmental Regulatory Authority and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. In the US, the early days of shale were like the Wild West, with wildcatters causing real environmental damage. But without these pioneers, the US would not now be self-sufficient in energy once more and the oil price would not be in freefall.

2. Every well is different. Third Energy UK Gas’s proposed operation at Kirby Misperton (KM8) will be fairly uncontroversial, inasmuch as the site has been active for 20 years. The concrete “pad” on which operations will take place is in a discreet location and surrounded by trees. Also, traffic movements will be modest thanks to existing underground pipelines to and from the Knapton Generating Station. The compensation on offer to the community of £100,000 up front plus 1% of gross revenues (2/3rds to the local community and 1/3rd to the Council, which will also keep the business rates) seems fair and reasonable. Elsewhere, the geology of our part of North Yorkshire is complex, with substantial deposits of sandstone making extraction fairly challenging. This will mean an active campaign of exploration if the potential here is to be realised and every project will vary. As in the North Sea, the falling oil price will impact on the viability of certain operations.

3. Assuming that the various regulatory agencies can ensure the safety of the underground operations, we are then left with the consequences of above ground activity, in particular overground pipelines, interference in farming operations, traffic movement, the fear of falling property values and an industrialised countryside. Here it is significant that Ineos, which aims to become “the biggest player in the UK shale gas industry” is offering as much as 6% of gross revenues to those affected by its plans for Scotland’s Midland Valley, divided between 4% for property owners and 2% for community projects. The reason for this unprecedented generosity is almost certainly to ensure security of gas supply to its Grangemouth power station and the offer may well make the project uneconomic. However, the commitment will certainly ensure support for its planned overground operations as well as its work underground.

To summarise, therefore, fuel poverty and energy shortages are a looming threat. Shale gas reserves should be seen as a blessing if only because, as in the US, they will have the effect of bringing down energy costs. But their extraction needs to be done in a way that meets the stringent requirements of our regulatory bodies, is sensitive to the specific circumstances of each project and is of positive benefit to Thirsk and Malton, rather than the opposite. With common sense on all sides, it should be perfectly possible to achieve this, case by case and in consultation with those directly affected.

Until next Tuesday!
Toby