Cheshire East will remain ‘fracking free’

800px-Halliburton_Frack_Job_in_the_Bakken

Government proposals to develop the shale gas industry will be "welcome" to some councils across the country – but Cheshire East Council says they are not right for them.

The measures, unveiled today, include allowing councils to keep 100 per cent off the business rates for shale gas projects, rather than the usual 50 per cent.

Also, the shale gas industry has promised communities £100,000 for test drilling at potential sites and a further 1% of the revenues if deposits are discovered.

Shale gas is extracted through the controversial fracking technique, which involves deep-drilling with a mixture of water, sand and chemicals in order to release hard-to-reach deposits of shale gas.

Although the British Geological Survey estimates there may be 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in the north of England, Cheshire East Council Leader Michael Jones has confirmed that there won't be any fracking projects in Cheshire East.

Cllr Jones explained: "Let me be clear, there are parts of the country where local councils will welcome ministers' offer to benefit from shale gas extraction, however our main focus as a council is on the exciting potential for geothermal technology in Crewe.

"We believe this is a 'game-changer' for the borough, providing renewable heat and energy on a significant scale and we are in talks with the government to help us develop the site."

He added: "Fracking may well be a useful technology for other areas and good luck to them if it is, however the people of Cheshire East have our assurance that there won't be any in our borough."

The Council is also investigating the use of other renewable technologies such as advanced thermal treatments, which process solid waste, to reduce carbon emissions and introduce a step change in local energy production.

Photo: Halliburton frack job in the Bakken by Joshua Doubek, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Tags:
Cheshire East Council, Fracking, Michael Jones
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Peter Shaw
Monday 13th January 2014 at 6:44 pm
What a dreadfully parochial approach! This potential resource is a truly national asset and should be exploited anywhere in the UK if possible. We must not end up reliant on the Middle East, Russia or the USA.
Pete Taylor
Monday 13th January 2014 at 8:14 pm
I'm not sure quite who is in control but the Coalition Government seem to have granted extraction licence number PEDL197 to a company called Celtique for Coal gasification fracking in an area which (according to the map on the Frack Off website) runs from between Alderley Edge and Wilmslow in the north down to just south of Congleton.
Mark Toombs
Monday 13th January 2014 at 8:41 pm
With David Cameron statement today " that local authorities that allow drilling will receive 100% of the business rates collected from the scheme - double the current 50%." Can't see how Cheshire will want to turn that offer down
Sarah Brown
Tuesday 14th January 2014 at 1:44 pm
Thank God, don't know why anybody would want to trade having our beautiful country ripped up and drinking water potentially polluted for decades for a temporary few pounds off their bill. I know there's a few people who will profit financially from this but do you really want to be the richest man on the slag heap. Fracking really is for the people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Simon Worthington
Tuesday 14th January 2014 at 2:48 pm
Glad to see we have a world renowned energy and mining expert on the Council. The scare stories about fracking attract the gullible element and prevent serious consideration. Sarah, I hope you are well prepared for when the Russian bear cuts off your gas or the ever helpful Americans sell to the highest bidder!!
Margaret Collins
Tuesday 14th January 2014 at 5:00 pm
It is a pity that even the leader of the council is taken in by the misleading information spread by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Two organisations that have never done anything constructive. They only know what they don't approve of from their very blinkered point of view. Geothermal energy can only be used locally close to the drilling. On the other hand we have a national grid for the distribution of gas. It would be better if decisions are made on a less parochial and well informed basis.
Brian Donohue
Tuesday 14th January 2014 at 6:24 pm
The council is obviously influenced by a minority view that fracking not good for the environment in spite of the controls that are imposed on the contractors and ignoring the benefits it will bring both locally and nationally. If we have a valuable natural resource that can be extracted in a safe and non intrusive way (and fracking is not a long term blot on the landscape) we should make the most of it.
Terry Roeves
Tuesday 14th January 2014 at 7:16 pm
Licence PEDL197 does indeed exist for hydraulic fracturing exploration. Like Michael Jones telling residents of Dean Row that there would be no houses built on Adlington Road, we read here of a Jones Home plan for 202 on the green fields just before Browns Lane. He says one thing and something else happens. Can CEC say no to fracking? I don't think so. If they can, then let them prove it.
Mabel Taylor
Wednesday 15th January 2014 at 6:55 am
Mabel Taylor

Maybe those in favour of fracking can tell us what would be the effects on the gas stored underground in disused salt mines at Byley?
Mario West
Wednesday 15th January 2014 at 5:51 pm
Oh no he doesn't!!!

http://bit.ly/1dwcIiS

Looks like Cllr Jones has actually taken some proper advise (after spouting his mouth off again). Prejudging planning is firm grounds for appeal (and would also mean that costs are awarded against the Council).
Pippa Jones
Wednesday 15th January 2014 at 7:03 pm
Fracking is something of a contentious issue. There is no doubt that we have reached the end of cheap energy. The MoD produced a report last year suggesting that we would see oil at $500 a barrel by 2040, and crude oil production has reached a plateau, and is falling in the older fields. Fracking for gas (an expensive and difficult process) is only profitable because the price of oil is high: we are not seeing the beginning of a new era of cheap energy. In the USA, fracking has led to a reduction in coal prices with resultant increased coal usage, fuelling carbon emissions. Carbon production matters: we are on track for a 6 degree rise in global temperature with resultant floods and extremes of temperature. For those who may feel this does not matter, just think about the recent polar vortex in the USA and floods in the UK and elsewhere. A recent pwc report (http://www.pwc.co.uk) "Busting the Carbon Budget" is worth reading (if you don't believe me) to understand the importance of decarbonisation of our economy and the costs of not getting it right.

So while fracking might seem a great way to get some more energy at a time when energy reserves are falling (and it could be argued that it will have less of an impact on the environment than say importing oil from Russia or the Middle East) Rob Hopkins of the Transition movement has produced a useful list of questions to consider:

• Will it exacerbate climate change? Will it add more fossil fuels to the ‘pile’ of burnable carbon at a time when we need to urgently cutting emissions?
• Is it helping us build renewable energy infrastructure?
• Does it move us closer towards, or further away from, a global agreement on putting a cap on emissions?
• Does it involve externalities (pollution, environmental damage, unintended impacts) that someone other than the resource-extracting company will have to pay for?
• What is the impact on local resilience, both economic and ecological?
• What is the impact from a social justice perspective?
• Does the decision to use or not use any given fuel or technology include an analysis of the power relationships of those involved? (i.e. the power of large fossil fuel companies to influence government policy)
• Does it form a decisive part of the push towards the kind of more socially just, fair, resilient future we so urgently need to see?

I don't know what the answer is. Like Sarah, I worry about the effect on the environment (what will lots of drilling rigs look like? will the tankers block up our roads? what will the effect be on our water supply? does it matter that so much water is needed to frack? what about the safety of the chemicals used?). I also worry that government might be seen to be rushing into support fracking without thinking about it in terms of an overall energy strategy (why, for instance, are they supporting fracking financially while wheeling back on the plan to insulate peoples' houses? Wouldn't it be sensible to do both together?). But what really worries me is the legacy we leave for our children and grandchildren. Are we going to be the "grab it all" generation that empties the coal mines, empties North Sea oil reserves and then pulls all the gas out of the ground for good measure? What about the next generation and the ones after that? Do we really not care about what happens to them? Can't we leave something for them?
So all credit to CEC for at least considering other alternatives such as geothermal energy. There are alternatives, which may be part of an overall strategy that might also include some fracking, but if CEC can be bold and develop a strategy that includes non carbon energy sources such as geothermal, biogas (from biomass such as that being developed in Crewe) and solar, and supports energy saving measures such as insulation to reduce all our fuel bills, but particularly those of the fuel poor, then good for them. Perhaps all those new houses could be built to the highest energy spec with grass roofs to reduce flooding and solar panels....
Simon Worthington
Thursday 16th January 2014 at 7:02 am
When someone satisfactorily explains to me why the River Thames froze for around three hundred years and then stopped a couple of hundred years ago and why the northern polar ice sheet retreated a thousand miles over about a five hundred year period 12,000 years ago then I may consider alleged recent (?) human influence over "climate change". The problem is over population and the demands made on natural resources. The earth will survive. Does God care if humans don't?