14th Onshore Licensing Round – Relinquished PEDLs back in the pot

Today (28th July 2014) the Department for Energy and Climate Change has launched the 14th onshore licensing round for unconventional oil and gas with the headlines saying that fracking will not be allowed in national parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty other than in exceptional circumstances – to be decided by the Minister for Communities.

The National picture is shown here, click to enlarge:

14th Licensing Round, England, Scotland, Wales. Green = national parks, Cyan = AONB, Red = current licenses, Pink = new areas being offered for licence. Copyright 2014, DECC, Ordnance Survey.

The situation in the Chew Valley and Somerset is that the previously relinquished areas are back in the pot:

14th Licensing Round, England, Scotland, Wales. Green = national parks, Cyan = AONB, Red = current licenses, Pink = new areas being offered for licence. Copyright 2014, DECC, Ordnance Survey.

• PEDL 227 remains with UK Methane – shown in red
• the entire area, with the exception of PEDL 227, is again on offer to exploration companies – shown in pink
• the entire area, with the exception of PEDL 227, is again on offer to exploration companies by the Coal Authority for exploration for coalbed methane
• permission may not be granted, except in exceptional circumstances, for drilling in the Mendip Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (ANOB), although this could be overturned by the Minister for Communities
• drilling is “likely to be prohibited” within water source protection zones – which relate to ground water aquifers but not surface water drainage such as the Chew Valley Lake
• additional planning guidance will be provided relating to World Heritage Sites – for example Bath Spa

What does this mean for the Chew Valley and surrounding area?

• Parts of the valley may be protected by the AONB
• Parts of the valley should be protected through the water source protection zones but this is patchy
• PEDL 227 around Ston Easton remains. This area is neither within the AONB or water source protection zones. UK Methane’s licence contains a firm commitment to “obtain 19km of 2D seismic data on Block ST65” (the upper portion), “obtain 1.5km of 2D seismic data on Block ST64”, “drill one well to a depth of 800m”.
• Parts of the Chew Valley are neither within the AONB or the water source protection zones which only cover ground water aquifers. Having been both evaluated and relinquished at least twice these areas are again been offered to gas companies for exploration in the full knowledge of previous evaluations.

The new Energy Minister Matthew Hancock adds:

“As one of the cleanest fossil fuels, shale gas can be a key part of the UK’s answer to climate change and a bridge to a much greener future.”

Rather than “one of the cleanest fossil fuels” the Minister presumably means “one of the least dirty”. His view of unconventional gas as a bridging fuel is not shared by DECC’s outgoing Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor David MacKay of Cambridge University, who recently advised DECC that in the absence of a globally binding agreement to control carbon dioxide emissions that any new fossil fuel would lead to increased cumulative greenhouse gas emissions leading to further global warming. Ministers have collective amnesia when it comes to this inconvenient truth.

MacKay and Stone, DECC 2013, said:

“The view of the authors is that without global climate policies (of the sort already advocated by the UK) new fossil fuel exploitation is likely to lead to an increase in cumulative carbon emissions and the risk of climate change. We would strongly encourage continued efforts from the UK and internationally to address this issue, proportionate to the emissions involved.”

In response to Cuadrilla’s position FFCV says: Why Cuadrilla is Wrong About Shale Gas Carbon Emissions

On the same subject Professor Kenvin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research says:

 

Test drilling in West Sussex – planning committee 22 July

Frack Free Somerset report on test drilling in West Sussex – Read about it here

Chew Valley Neighbourhood Plan

You have an opportunity to contribute your views on what happens in your local area in terms of location, size, pace and design of developments.  There are open events during July and August – see http://www.cvnp.co.uk.  These events give people who live and work in the area the chance to comment on what they would like to see included in the Chew Valley Neighbourhood Plan.

Why Wytch Farm is a poor fracking comparison for Somerset – Part II

BP Shuts UK Field After Oil Leak

---

This post updates Why Wytch Farm is a poor fracking comparison for Somerset with the new information we have from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) on the reality of coalbed methane (CBM) production in Chew Valley and the surrounding areas of Somerset and why the two don’t bear comparison. The information presented below is all based on data from DECC, the British Geological Survey and the Ordnance Survey.

What is Wytch Farm?

Wytch Farm is an oil and gas field on the south coast of England, it is described as “the largest onshore oil field in western Europe” despite the fact that most of it is offshore.

What is the significance of Wytch Farm?

In relation to unconventional gas in Somerset Wytch Farm is significant because some people say the development at Wytch Farm shows that similar development in Somerset needn’t be obtrusive – read on.

Where is Wytch Farm?

The onshore processing facilities and oil and gas wells are located on the shoreline of Poole Harbour between Corfe Castle and Bournemouth. The oil field (shown in pink in the figure below) occupies 47.6 sq km in total, of which 16.9 sq km (35%) are onshore and the rest offshore (64%).

Wytch Farm Oil Field shown in pink. Wells in yellow. Onshore or offshore?

How many Wells are at Wytch Farm?

There are 200 wells at Wytch Farm all of which are classified by DECC as conventional oil and gas wells, NOT shale gas or coalbed methane. Of these 55 of the wells (28%) are either in the English Channel, in Poole Harbour or on Furzey Island, which leaves 145 onshore wells (72%). Some of these wells have used directional drilling to extend up to 11 km under the English Channel.

How deep are the wells at Wytch Farm?

The wells at Wytch Farm are approximately 1,600m (5,250 feet) beneath the surface. By comparison the DECC/GeoMet report on potential CBM wells in Somerset is based on wells from 152 m (500 feet) to 1,524 m (5,000 feet) depth, so potentially ten times shallower than at Wytch Farm.

What do the Wytch Farm facilities look like?

Have a look at the links in the first posting Why Wytch Farm is a poor fracking comparison for Somerset, here is an example from Southampton University:

It is not visible to the public because almost nobody lives within miles of it, read on.

What impacts have the Wytch Farm developments had on local communities and how similar might this be to the Somerset case?

There is no direct answer to this post development but it is reasonable to assume that proximity of communities to the wells in an important factor in terms of traffic, air, noise and light pollution. It is worth also noting that any surface spillage at Wytch Farm would drain into Poole Harbour whereas surface spillage in Somerset may drain into Bristol’s potable water supply.

As an indicator of local impacts how many buildings occur within a 2 km radius of the wells and Wytch Farm compared with the potential CBM wells in Somerset – according to the DECC/GeoMet assessment? Note that Dallas City Council has banned fracking within 1,500 feet (460m) of any residence, school, place of worship or protected area.

Using Ordnance Survey OpenData of buildings there is a total of 6 hectares of buildings within 2 km of the onshore wells at Wytch Farm. This includes residential, farm and industrial buildings including the oil processing facilities themselves.

Wytch Farm Onshore Wells, 2km buffer in red

Performing the same exercise around the 300 hypothetical wells in Somerset as specified by DECC/GeoMet gives the following pattern in which there are 876 hectares of buildings within 2km of a well. So in Somerset there are 140 times more buildings within 2 km of a prospective gas well than at Wytch Farm.

Somerset 2km buffer around prospective wells

Another way to look at this is to look at the distance of all building from a well. So this graphic of cumulative area of buildings (Y) against distance to a well (X) for Wytch Farm shows that the proportion of buildings within 2 km of a well is almost zero.

Wytch Farm Cumulative Building Distance To Wells

Conversely this graphic of cumulative area of buildings (Y) against distance to a well (X) for Somerset shows that about half of all buildings would be within 2 km of a CBM gas well.

Somerset Cumulative Building Distance To Wells

For Wytch Farm about half of all buildings would be within 9 km of a well, in Somerset all buildings would be within less than 6 km of a well.

Based on information from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the British Geological Survey and the Ordnance Survey it is pretty clear that conventional oil and gas production at Wytch Farm has little in common with coalbed methane development in Somerset either technically or spatially. The “put a hedge around it” argument is just not good enough.

Is 2 km too big? Let’s try a 460m zone around building like the Dallas City Council ban, what does that look like?

460 m Buffer Around Buildings

The Dallas ban applied in the Somerset CBM field would effectively squeeze out CBM development. Somerset’s rural areas are highly populated when compared to either America or Wytch Farm.