MP12: Oil and Gas

Policy M12: Oil and Gas
The thrust of the policy is welcomed as it makes no distinction between conventional and unconventional oil and gas. The general support for the exploration and appraisal of oil and gas is also welcomed. However, the wording of the first part of the policy (1a) is not justified as well as being confusing and unclear. Firstly, there is no glossary in the draft Plan which defines “protected areas”. There is no definition in the NPPF to assist. More importantly, the inclusion of protected areas is unnecessary as an applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposal is in accordance with development plan policies including those which apply to protected areas such as SSSIs and conservation areas.
The requirement for the need for development to be demonstrated (1a and 2a) is at odds with national planning policy guidance, the Minerals PPG and the written ministerial statements. The Government fully supports indigenous supplies of oil and gas in order to reduce imports and manage security of supply. The Committee on Climate Change report of May 2019 on Net Zero Emissions acknowledges that the UK will continue to require oil and gas up to and beyond 2050.
It is unclear from the policy if there are three tests - to prove exceptional circumstances, to show that the reasons for designation are not compromised and thirdly, a need for the development.
We therefore wish to see 1a and 2a deleted as they are unnecessary and not justified.

The Coal Authority supports this policy against which propsoals for oil and gas extraction will be considered. We are also pleased to see that PEDL areas are identified.

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - consultation
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and
production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect
to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the
NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals
plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently
assessed on a case by case basis.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required
under the current policy framework set by government. Our view is that minerals plans should include
a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning
process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters
covered by other regulatory regimes. MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out
their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning
policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases including; Frack Free Balcombe
Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.
Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision
UKOOG Response:
We support the vision for the minerals local plan, in that it recognises that, ‘minerals are a valuable
natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused
to minimise waste’ and we agree that, ‘Mineral development will be designed, located, operated and
restored to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised’.
Specific Policies
SP2: Biodiversity-Led Restoration
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
SP3: Climate Change
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy SP3 that, ‘All new development, including
minerals extraction, should therefore seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change’, but we would like to point out that emissions
associated with the extraction of oil and gas, including the flaring of waste gasses, are regulated by
the Environment Agency through environmental permitting, which requires operators to use BAT
(Best Available Techniques) to control emissions during operations. We note that the justification text
in 3.31 states that, ‘All new development, including minerals extraction, should therefore seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,
including flooding, where practicable’. This contradicts the wording of the policy itself, which uses the
term ‘minimise’. For consistency we believe that the term ‘minimise’ should be used in both the policy
and the justification text.
We support the statement that, ‘This policy does not presume against the future extraction of energy
minerals. Indigenous mineral extraction has potential benefits in environmental and climate change
terms’, but for clarification the combustion or use of the final product (oil or gas) is not a consideration
for assessing extraction focussed planning applications.
SP4: Sustainable Transport
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of minimising traffic movement and utilising existing infrastructure
where it is feasible to do so, and the onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of
materials and waste products from its operations to reduce transport movements.
In our view there would be merit in including a comment in the justification text that minerals,
including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found, as meeting the test in part 2 of the
policy, ‘…. all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows: b)
within close proximity to the County’s main highway network and existing transport routes in order to
avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation’, may not be
feasible to meet.
SP5: The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
UKOOG Response:
Onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and do provide a good opportunity, post
decommissioning, to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition that maximises habitat
creation and an overall net gain in biodiversity, which should be considered at application stage. Under
UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the extraction of shale gas with the use of hydraulic
fracturing is prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be
considered on a case by case basis, which aligns with the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the
WMS 2018.
MP12: Hydrocarbons
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG are supportive of policy MP12, which states;
‘1. Exploration and appraisal of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located where this will not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
2. The commercial production of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and
equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located at the least sensitive location taking account of environmental, geological and
technical factors.
3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent aftercare of the
site, whether or not oil or gas is found’.
There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2
b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but
in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used. In our view the terms should be the same
regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production, the tests should be equally relevant.
Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the
term ‘will not have an unacceptable impact’.
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of managing the water environment, but we would like to remind
the council that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate many of aspects stated in Policy DM2 and
supporting text, in particular the EA regulate groundwater activities through the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

The policy is not legally compliant as no future site-specific proposals for hydrocarbon extraction in the area are included in the emerging minerals plan. No sustainability appraisal (SA) has taken place specifically for Petroleum Exploration Licence (PEDL) areas.
Paragraph: 106 Reference ID: 27-106-20140306 states:
Criteria-based policies for each of the exploration, appraisal and production phases of hydrocarbon extraction. These policies should set clear guidance and criteria for the location and assessment of hydrocarbon extraction within the Petroleum Licensed Areas.
The policy is insufficiently clear in terms of guidance and criteria as it is reliant on the Environmental Impact assessment regulation (2011) which is generic for all developments. The objectives of the SA are more appropriate for aggregates than unconventional gas extraction. specifically:
Sustainability objective 11. Protect and improve local air quality.
5.13 and 5.14 do not cover all aspects of potential air pollution due to unconventional gas extraction. Methane leakage will be much harder to control and is far more serious. It is well established that air pollution is associated with unconventional oil and gas extraction; this includes primary emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and dust, and secondary pollutants such as ozone.
Sustainability objective 12. Protect and improve water quality and promote efficient use of water. Vast amounts of water are required for unconventional gas extraction (circa 6 million gallons, which could mean 60m gallons per drilling site if there are 10 wells). The policy and supporting documents are insufficiently clear as to how they will ensure that a detrimental effect is avoided due to the abstraction of water (which may need to be transported from elsewhere). There is no clear definition of what classifies as an unacceptable impact in policy DM2
Sustainability objective 14. Protect and improve human health and quality of life. In addition to the safety risk to those site workers in the immediate area of unconventional gas extraction, examples from the US suggest that local residents could require evacuation. This is not a consideration covered by the policy.
The policy is not sound. In March 2016 the Government declared its intention to legislate for a zero carbon economy by 2050. The policy does not meet Sustainability Appraisal Objective 7 Minimise any possible impacts on, and increase adaptability to, climate change. The burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change. Additionally promoting unconventional gas extraction would appear to be inconsistent with Sustainability Objective 10. Promote energy efficiency and maximise renewable energy opportunities from new or existing development.

Dear Planning Policy Team,

Thank you for all the good work that went into the drafting of the plan. I did meet officers during the last consultation round.

Our group feels, however, that the omission of a policy on hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is a serious one. The nature of the abstraction process is very different from the much easier one of getting 'conventional hydrocarbons' out of permeable rock formations. Shale has to be fractured underground using horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing. This can only be done up to a mile or so from the well head requiring well pads every couple of miles (and repeated fracturing every year or so). This would change the landscape. There are many well documented risks of fracking e.g. seismic activity in mining area, greenhouse gas emissions, ground water contamination, toxic flow back water, destructive impacts upon the health of local people, farm animals and wildlife.

We believe that the plan isn't 'sound' because of the exclusion of the above and because it is at odds with national policy on climate change. We do hope that a revision can be made to embrace the points we've made.

Thank you for considering these comments,

See attachments

Unsound and unjustified publication minerals local plan; objections letter on policy MP2 proposal MP2p at Mill Hill Barton-in-Fabis. Objections: This representor's 2018, Issues and Options consultation comment, is to be reappraised an objection. • My (&) numerous - what are now MP2p-related - objections written in on the politically withdrawn minerals local plan, and on what is now a MP2p-related planning application, are essentially relevant
concerning this consultation process; including my letter at 2018's Draft plan.
• The planning and environmental mal-cumulative - noting DM8 5.97. - everything else that's been foisted at the adjacent, rural parish - and out towards Lockington; where's the geographical spread in that. • Is it not somewhat volte-face - when the County Council tends to policy prefer site extensions - that Shelfo rd 's currently considered too sizeable.

A description to a local planning authority (LPA) is under way
re where 'would not want to see what looks very damaging 'fracking'. The plan's (MP1) undertow throughout would be provision-linked to LPAs'
negative urbanizing vision. • It is unsound and unjustified LPA &/or ' highways'
(their): hard-surfacing too much, works degrading land, excessive demolition re buildings; so even down to MP5 recycling at Bunny,
with regard to my local environment, the publication version is: failing, environmental-degradation complicit, encroaching, in a number of matters wasteful, environmentally unsound.
• Mis-presenting representation(s) 'observed; and the County Council lack of involvement with, concerning the Clifton area committee(s).

Regarding the above, for the Examination Hearing Sessions, it is necessary I request participation.

Whilst the site proposed to be allocated by this policy (Policy MP2p – ‘Mill Hill near Barton In
Fabis’) is not located within the local authority area of Broxtowe Borough Council, it is situated
immediately adjacent to the Borough’s boundary.
The Borough Council is of the view that the policy and supporting site development brief should
be slightly amended to enhance the level of protection for the various natural and recreational
assets along this part of the Borough’s boundary.
A number of environmental and recreational assets within the Borough Council’s boundary may
potentially be adversely affected by this allocation. These include not only the Attenborough
Gravel Pits SSSI, which is referred to within the site development brief, but also the
Attenborough Nature Reserve (open space) and Trent Valley Green Infrastructure (GI) Corridor.
The Borough Council notes that the ‘policy’ does not refer to the ‘Trent Valley Green
Infrastructure (GI) Corridor’, which runs along the River Trent. There is also no reference to this
GI Corridor within the site development brief. This important GI Corridor is not only of
environmental and biodiversity value, but is also an important recreational route within the
Borough. The development of a minerals extraction facility close to this location has the potential
to impact upon the environmental assets of the local area, as well as the potential of the area as
a recreational resource to the local community.

The Borough Council recommends that mitigation measures should be proposed within the
policy and site development brief to protect the various nearby environmental and recreational
assets within the Borough’s boundary, including the Attenborough Gravel Pits SSSI,
Attenborough Nature Reserve (open space) and the Trent Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor,
in order to both protect wildlife and biodiversity and also to minimise any disturbance to the
recreational use of these areas. Examples of such mitigation measures could include additional
buffers between the mineral extraction site and the banks of the River Trent.
The Borough Council also recommends that the Trent Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor is
referenced within the site development brief.

Parts 1 (a) and 2 (a) of Policy MP12 refer to ‘protected areas’, although the policy does not
currently define which types of ‘protection’ this term refers to. The Borough Council is of the view
that it would be helpful for the policy and supporting text to clearly define the extent of these
‘areas’. In particular, it would be useful to clarify whether these areas include land designated as
‘Green Belt’ or land protected by other designations (for example, Local Wildlife Sites, SSSIs,
Local Nature Reserves etc.).
The Borough Council recommends that the term ‘protected areas’, as referred to within parts
1(a) and 2(a) of Policy MP12, should be clearly defined within the policy and supporting text. The
Borough Council considers that the inclusion of mapping illustrating the extent of these
‘protected areas’ would also be very useful

Policy DM2 as drafted refers to making efficient use of water resources and that SUDs is the preferred method for surface water disposal which is welcomed.

It is noted that reference is made in the supporting text of Policy DM2 (para 5.24) to the submission of hydrological/ hydrogeological investigation being required where necessary. However Policy DM2 does not specify what would constitute sufficient technical detail to satisfy the requirements of the policy to protect existing water resources which are used for the supply of potable water.

(Continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary)

To be effective it proposed that Policy DM2 be amended as follows:

; 1. Proposals for all stages of minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated in a hydrogeological/water quality risk assessment that there are no unacceptable impacts on surface water quality
and flows or groundwater quality and levels at or in the vicinity of the site

Anglian Water is identified as a statutory consultee through Schedule 4
(zf) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)
(England) Order 2015 in relation to development involving the boring for or getting of oil and natural gas from shale.

It is noted that the Submission Draft Local Plan includes a specific policy relating to hydrocarbon minerals including the proposals relating to the extraction of shale gas.

Reference is made to exploration proposals ensuring that it would not have an unacceptable impact on the environment or residential amenity. However no further guidance is provided in terms of what would constitute an unacceptable impact in this context or what is the required at each stage identified in Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons Minerals.

The policy relating to hydrocarbon extraction should specifically refer to water resources/environment and require applicants to demonstrate that there proposals would not have an adverse impact on potable water sources in the ownership of Anglian Water. This would include providing sufficient technical detail at the planning application stage about how any risks to potable water resources will be addressed.

It is therefore proposed that Policy MP12 is amended as follows:

‘3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent
aftercare of the site, whether or not oil or gas is found.

4. Proposals at each stage must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable impacts on surface and groundwater quality.’

MP12
1. No future site-specific proposals for hydrocarbon extraction are included in the minerals plan.
2. The policy is inadequate because it has failed to take consideration of the impacts on climate change, on the detrimental impact on the environment, the local community and the water supply.
3. Seismology experts are recommending 500m separation from former mine workings and 850m from any fault lines – these recommendations should be followed.
4. Other Plans have stronger policies with regard to climate change and hydrocarbons (e.g.Cumbria and Kirklees) and Nottinghamshire should be leading way.

1. There needs to be proper consideration to the evolving awareness and scientific recommendations to the damaging environmental impacts of hydrocarbon extraction (fracking) for shale.
2. We need a separate detailed policy in order to safeguard communities and the environment.

SP4
1. The existing plan is inadequate in relation to recent developments in science and policy that now recognise our climate emergency. It is no longer adequate to ‘reduce impact’ of greenhouse gases and global warming.
2. There needs to be fresh approaches so that we change direction away from fossil fuels altogether. Only then will national targets be reached. The Minerals Policy is a good place to start.
3. Government has now committed to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 – this is a start and NCC need to address this. To ignore this policy is dangerous.
4. We know that 2050 is not soon enough to address the emergency...but to do nothing is not an answer.

The County Council need to declare a Climate Emergency and make new plans to address it for all our sakes.

See attachment for full details.

Policy MP12: Oil & Gas
This policy is not sound on two main grounds – climate change and unconventional hydrocarbons. And it is not legally compliant on climate change.
Climate change
1) Although there is a separate policy on Climate Change (SP3), which we support, there are specific issues relating to oil and gas which should be added in Policy MP12.
2) There is a legal requirement for Plan policies to reduce climate emissions (Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s19(1A)). The Plan period will extend beyond 2030 so should be compatible with statutory climate emissions reductions targets set for 2030, and with carbon budgets through the Plan period. Policy MP12 should be redrafted to ensure that proposals for exploitation of hydrocarbon minerals are tested against this requirement.
3) Plan policies should take a precautionary approach to climate emissions and should not approve any development which may cause leakage of methane in the short, medium or long term. In particular, any proposal which cannot reliably quantify and control methane leaks in the short, medium and long term should not be allowed. That should mean no new working of coal, oil or gas seams, given the impossibility with current technology of guaranteeing the integrity of well casings, etc. For the same reason, the Plan should continue to support capping of disused coal mines to prevent methane leaking to atmosphere.
4) As an example, the Cumbria Minerals & Waste Local Plan adopted in September 2017 includes under Policy DC13 (Criteria for energy materials) a requirement that, for exploration and appraisal, “the impacts of the development have been considered in relation to impact on climate change”; and, for commercial exploitation, “the impact of the development has been considered in terms of contributing to the mitigation of climate change”.
5) The Kirklees Local Plan adopted in February 2019 includes under Policy LP42 (Proposals for production of hydrocarbons) a requirement that proposals “will be considered against the following criteria: … h. Where a proposal demonstrates that it will have a net zero impact on climate change.”
Unconventional hydrocarbons
6) The statement in section 4.108 that “It is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development” is not sound.
7) This has been demonstrated in public examination of the North Yorkshire Minerals & Waste Joint Plan in 2018 where a number of issues were considered requiring specific policies for hydraulic fracturing, including:
• A definition of hydraulic fracturing suitable for the planning system: “Hydraulic fracturing is the process of opening and/or extending existing narrow fractures or creating new ones (fractures are typically hairline in width) in gas or oil bearing rock, which allows gas to flow into wellbores to be captured.”
• 500m separation distance.
• Arguments for a maximum wellpad density and for financial guarantee.
8) Similarly, the East Riding Joint Minerals Local Plan Policy EM6 Extraction of Shale Gas (Hydraulic Fracturing) includes criteria requiring “adequate provision of the supply of water”, “measures to avoid pollution of ground water, aquifers, and potable water supplies”, “measures to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts as a result of vibration and induced seismicity”, “measures to avoid air pollution”, etc.
9) In the Nottinghamshire context, specific reference should be made to risks associated with former coalfield workings. Bassetlaw MP John Mann has urged consideration be given to a report by Geophysics Professor Peter Styles who has drawn attention to the importance of making use of high-resolution mapping of faultlines and recommended 500m separation of hydraulic fracturing from former mine workings and 850m from any fault lines.
10) Specific reference should also be made to the importance of the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer. The Water Framework Directive requires a precautionary approach, particularly to protect groundwater from all contamination. Particular care will be required to protect Sherwood sandstone aquifers used for drinking water and agriculture, and particularly in the former coal mining areas which are already subject to minor earthquakes and minewater pollution. (The biggest risk of earthquakes is to damage well linings and allow leakage of toxic fluids and gases.)
11) As well as a risk of methane leakage affecting climate emissions, there is also a risk of venting carcinogenic gases such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX) as well as radon which is radioactive, which may be a direct threat to public health. Diesel compressors which are necessary for high pressure hydraulic fracturing and vehicles also contribute to gasfield haze with particulates, nitrogen dioxide and ground-level ozone likely occupational hazards. Silica sand used in hydraulic fracturing may also be a major health hazard. A precautionary approach should therefore be taken, particularly to any proposal which may involve hydraulic fracturing.
12) Policy MP12 should make clear that definition of site boundary must include (in 3-D) the full extent of any horizontal drilling underground. (As required by Town & Country Planning Act 1990 s55(1) which defines “development” to include “… building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land …”)
13) The scale and intensity of high volume hydraulic fracturing requires specific policies to protect Nottinghamshire’s people and environment. Shale is not porous so the gas (and perhaps oil) that it contains does does not flow to the well - to drain an extensive area it is necessary for fracturing to create artificial porosity. This has to be done across an area not at a single location requiring the construction of many originating well pads each of which is associated with a great deal of surface activity and infrastructure. During the time the Plan will be in force large parts of Notts could be turned into extensive gasfields – exploiting shale gas in Northern Notts and South Western Notts, and coal bed methane in Eastern Notts. The potential scale of industrialisation of the countryside is indicated in a briefing by Ineos showing upto 420 wells in each 10km square licence area (30 wellpads with upto 14 horizontal wells from each wellpad. This will require extensive roadways, pipelines, etc as well as the wellpads. While Ineos acknowledges that social and environmental constraints mean that the actual intensity of development will be less than this theoretical maximum, it is still anticipating perhaps 10 wellpads with 12 wells from each per 10km square – around 120 wells in total – which could result in over 1,000 wells just in Ineos’ licenses around the Sherwood Forest area.
Background information
1) Fossil fuel extraction has been a major source of climate emissions through methane leakage, particularly over the last decade when high volume hydraulic fracturing has become established in the US and elsewhere. A NASA team recently calculated that fossil fuels have contributed about 12 to 19 teragrammes methane to the atmosphere each year since 2006, about half of the overall increase, the other half being due to biogenic sources. (John R Worden et al, Nature Communications 8, 2227, 20 December 2017. See: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=91564&src=ve)

2) The planning authority has a responsibility to check that other regulators will be able to do their job. Planning Practice Guidance (Reference ID: 27-112-20140306) advises minerals planning authorities that “before granting planning permission they will need to be satisfied that these issues can or will be adequately addressed by taking the advice from the relevant regulatory body: …
Mitigation of seismic risks…
Well design and construction…
Well integrity during operation…
Operation of surface equipment on the well pad…
Mining waste…
Chemical content of hydraulic fracturing fluid…
Flaring or venting…
Final off-site disposal of water…
Well decommissioning/abandonment…”
(As an example, the Planning Inspector in rejecting an appeal by Egdon Resources against refusal of planning permission for a conventional oil well at Wressle by North Lincolnshire Council (APP/Y2003/W/17/3173530 & APP/Y2003/W/17/318060, 4 January 2018 https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3173530&CoID=0) found that the required ground condition report had not been prepared and this did not seem to have been addressed by the Environment Agency in their Environmental Permitting decision document (para 24).)
In some cases, planning conditions may need to be used to ensure these issues are adequately addressed, particularly to protect ground and surface water and to minimise the impact on the causes of climate change in the short, medium and long term.

3) Regulatory failures include a failure by the Environment Agency to stop Cuadrilla dumping fracking wastewater from Preese Hall containing radioactivity into the Manchester Ship Canal. And Michael Hill, an engineer involved in fracking at Preese Hall, states that “the only well to have been fracked in the U.K.
suffered an integrity failure that the HSE were not aware of for up to THREE years,
suffered damage to the casing due to unpredicted induced seismicity, caused by the fracking, which neither HSE nor the DECC were aware of for over 12 months,
was never inspected once by the HSE for well integrity, which may or may not have leaked into the surrounding formations (we do not know because the EA have not checked) and which has now been abandoned.”
http://media.wix.com/ugd/b0aabf_5902a55b06fd4338a56db38dd8687240.pdf

4) A review of evidence on regulation by Watterson & Dinan of Stirling University (October 2016) concluded (http://www.regulatingscotland.org/report/frackingandregulation.pdf):
• the evidence base for robust regulation and good industry practice is currently absent. There are multiple serious challenges surrounding location, scale, monitoring and data deficits facing regulators overseeing onshore UGE and fracking in the UK;
• the evidence from peer-reviewed papers suggests fracking in the UK will not be effectively regulated. It is highly likely that regulatory agencies may lack the staffing and resources necessary to monitor and enforce effective regulation of the industry;
• US and UK peer-reviewed analyses and EU law identify both the precautionary principle and prevention as keys to dealing with fracking. This is underpinned by findings from the peer-reviewed public health literature that already identifies significant hazards and major potential risks from the industry.

5) UK government policy and guidance on high-volume hydraulic fracturing is based on out of date research, such as the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering review (July 2012) and a report by Public Health England (although this was published in June 2014 it was not significantly changed from a 2013 draft which was based on evidence available upto 2012). This ignores more than 80% of the peer reviewed scientific literature on the environmental and health impacts of shale gas development which has been published since 2012: www.psehealthyenergy.org/our-work/shale-gas-research-library/ And only one out of 10 recommendations of the RS/RAE review had been implemented in full after 2 years: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60888-6/fulltext

6) The most detailed research is probably that carried out by the State of New York's Department of Environmental Conservation which considered the available information on potential environmental impacts of high-volume hydraulic fracturing and possible mitigation measures and concluded (in June 2015): "In the end, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives that would adequately avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts and that address the scientific uncertainties and risks to public health from this activity. The Department’s chosen alternative to prohibit high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the best alternative based on the balance between protection of the environment and public health and economic and social considerations." (2015 SEQR Findings Statement, page 42: www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html)

7) The most comprehensive review of peer reviewed studies on the impacts of fracking has been produced by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York. The sixth edition dated June 2019 (https://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/) lists the following emerging trends:
1. Regulations are simply not capable of preventing harm.
2. Fracking and natural gas are incompatible with climate solutions.
3. Fracking and the disposal of fracking waste threaten drinking water.
4. Drilling and fracking contribute to toxic air pollution and ground-level ozone at levels known to have health impacts.
5. Public health problems associated with drilling and fracking include poor birth outcomes, reproductive and respiratory impacts, and cancer risks.
6. Occupational health and safety risks for workers are severe and include both physical and chemical hazards.
7. Earthquakes are a proven consequence of both fracking and the underground injection of fracking waste.
8. Fracking infrastructure poses serious potential exposure risks to those living nearby.
9. Drilling and fracking activities bring naturally occurring radioactive materials to the surface.
10. Drilling and fracking activities harm wildlife through multiple pathways.
11. The risks posed by fracking in California are unique.
12. Fracking in Florida presents many unknowns.
13. The economic instabilities of fracking exacerbate public health risks.
14. Fracking raises human rights and environmental justice issues.
15. Health professionals are increasingly calling for bans or moratoria on fracking, based on a range of health hazards and as reviews of the data confirm evidence for harm.

The Minerals Local Plan was discussed at Misson Parish Council on the 2nd October
A summary of the discussion and feedback is below which bi hope is helpful:
Generally clear and well-written document
With regard to hydrocarbons: inherent conflict between any form of extraction and SO3: minimise and mitigate impact on climate change, and national objective that planning supports transition to low-carbon economy. Now that coal has almost entirely been removed from electricity generation, any further development of oil or gas reserves is a increase in net contribution to climate change. Renewable forms of electricity generation are by now the largest growth area by far.
While on one hand the desire to treat all forms of oil or gas extraction equally makes sense on many levels, the document was presumably drafted before the recent seismic activity at Preston New Road. For shale gas, should there be a comment about such activity?

This view has been unanimously approved by the Neighbourhood Forum Managing Committee and confirmed by a meeting of Forum members. For more information see: http://www.tssneighbourhoodplan.org/ and http://www.tssneighbourhoodplan.org/Climate-Change/
Our Neighbourhood Forum believes that this plan is not ‘sound’.
1. This view has been formed because the plan has failed to consider the alternative of a separate fracking policy and a failure to comply with current national policy on climate change.
2. We in Teversal, Skegby and Stanton Hill live in a former industrial landscape with four coal mines and related railways working up to the 1990s. This has been transformed through trails and forest parks into a beautiful environment and we now have a growing tourism industry. The Minerals Plan should oppose the re-industrialisation of the landscape with: lorry movements, toxic gas haze, groundwater contamination, increased accident risk, occupational hazards, horizontal drilling – requiring a 3-D site boundary and complex mapping of fault lines, need for large amounts of water for fracking, need to dispose of toxic flowback water, need for a precautionary approach to protect groundwater – particularly the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer, toxic air emissions, mapping to protect groundwater sources and sensitive sites, methane leaks making greenhouse gas emissions greater than for coal overall, seismic activity, particularly in former coalfield areas, difficulties of regulation due to scale, damage to farming and tourism.
We believe that fracking will not bring the price of gas down (latest research from the BGS suggests very limited reserves), it will provide very few local jobs, while destroying amenity based tourism jobs and businesses, it has ignored evidence of seriously destructive impacts to the health of local people, farm animals, wildlife, local economy, climate and local environment – which cannot be regulated away. We hope and trust you will take our carefully thought out and researched submission seriously.
1. We believe that Notts CC should consider that North Yorkshire’s Draft Minerals and Waste Plan includes a number of protections for fracking proposals: defining hydraulic fracturing as any fracturing which allows gas to flow; a separation distance of 500m from homes; setting a maximum density of well pads; requiring a financial guarantee in case fracking companies go bust before cleaning up a site.
2. The Cumbria Minerals and Waste Plan requires any commercial exploitation of hydrocarbons to contribute to “mitigation of climate change”; the Kirklees Local Plan requires any production of hydrocarbons to have “net zero impact on climate change”. An objective of our Neighbourhood Forum is to pursue policies and objectives that reduce the Neighbourhood’s carbon emissions to a verifiably sustainable level. We urge Nottinghamshire County Council to adopt a similar objective within the Minerals Plan.
3. Fracking seismology expert Professor Peter Styles recommended 500m separation from former mine workings and 850m from any fault lines (supported by Bassetlaw MP John Mann – EDM#1303, May 2018). This recommendation should be incorporated in the Minerals Plan.
4. We also would like to raise an issue ignored in the previous consultation: a legal requirement for Plan policies to reduce climate emissions (Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s19(1A)).

(Continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary)

FFN finds that the justification for Policy MP12 is largely unchanged from the initial version of the Plan to which it objected in 2016, and that its extensive comments, including those in response to the draft Plan in September 2018, have received little credence from the MPA and minimal coverage/feedback in the Summary of Consultation document. There is a short explanation in one paragraph (4-108) headed by the statement “it is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development” and thus an assumed reliance upon other development management policies in the Plan to confront any adverse impact of such development. FFN regards this approach as too complacent when other MPAs in areas licenced for oil & gas exploration have seen fit to develop and adopt more appropriate policies, dedicated to the special difficulties that can be encountered by major shale gas extraction ( MPAs include North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Kirklees).

Having an all-purpose policy for all hydrocarbon minerals fails to recognise that hydraulic fracking will give rise a very different set of local circumstances compared to the conventional exploration of hydrocarbons. This is largely due to the depth of drilling and scale of the proposed surface operations should sufficient reserves be found. It should thus be treated as a special case where proposals do not necessarily merit approval solely on the basis that development management policy criteria are met.

In this sense MP12 is unsound because there is evidence (see below) of widespread harm to the environment and health (especially via atmospheric pollution and water contamination) of affected communities that shale gas-field development has caused elsewhere in the world, and this can be attributed to its sheer scale as well as poor regulation. Therefore FFN believes that the County Council has cause to be more circumspect in its treatment of applications involving exploration and production of shale gas, especially as it admits in para 4.102 that in the USA it is “exploited on a very large scale”.

The Submission Draft Local Plan of 2014 did recognise in para 4.112, that shale gas extraction is “a very intensive activity”, but tellingly, this has been omitted from subsequent versions (see now para. 4.103). The implication is that getting gas or oil out of shale rock is in the same league as getting ‘conventional’ hydrocarbons out of permeable rock formations (which allow gas or oil to flow smoothly to a well head from some distance). This is clearly misleading. In fact, high volume hydraulic fracturing of shale needs to take place deep underground using horizontal drilling which has so far occurred only in Lancashire in the UK (at Preese Hall and Preston New Road) by Cuadrilla in the period 2011- 19. In both locations, this process has been sufficiently intense to trigger significant earth tremors leading to exploration being abandoned or postponed.

The Government has recently been warned by a report from Professor Styles of the risk that deep fracking can trigger seismic activity in former mining areas ( Ref: https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2017-19/1303
http://www.talkfracking.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Fracking-and-Mining-Styles-Final.pdf ). This is a legitimate concern in the northern part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield where the most extensive shale gas resource underlies mine working areas, and in the light of Government proposals to introduce permitted development rights for exploratory drilling, so it is clear that tighter rather than looser regulation should apply in Nottinghamshire. Professor Styles has recommended high resolution mapping of fault lines and a minimum separation distance of 500m of hydraulic fracking from mine workings and 850m from any fault lines.

Since there are regular tremors recorded in parts of the county, the MPA must view seismicity reports from the appropriate regulator with great care. If shale gas production were to proceed, the biggest threat from these earth movements is of damage to well linings which can lead to leakage of toxic fluids and gases. Such leakage can in turn contaminate the groundwater resources which coincide with much of the Nottinghamshire coalfield and whose protection (including from deep drilling) should be subject to a precautionary, minimal tolerance approach (as per the EU Water Framework Directive).

It should be understood that in production hydraulic fracking can only be carried out up to a mile or so from the wellhead. This requires the building of well-pads* every few miles which leads to potentially extensive infrastructure: ie not only multiple well-pads but also roadways, generators, 24 hour lighting and pipelines etc capable of industrialising the countryside, disrupting agriculture and overwhelming local communities. The extent of cumulative impacts is likely to be considerable and thus beyond the experience of the County Council which seems as yet unable to envisage what a full-scale gas field landscape might look like.
[*NB. estimated as up to one hundred times the number of wells for the same amount of gas as in an conventional gas field]

Beyond the visual prominence of a mass of drilling rigs, fracking sites are known to create a gasfield haze at scale. This can be caused by a ‘cocktail’ of ozone, BTEX ( incl benzene & toluene),and diesel fumes from heavy vehicles and generators –which will include particulates and nitrogen oxides. In addition, the local infrastructure will be further tested by regular heavy lorry movements to carry the large volume of water required to be pumped underground and returned for disposal as contaminated wastewater.

Indeed the range of issues from the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance on Onshore Oil & Gas (DCLG July 2013) that MPAs are obliged to satisfy themselves about for such applications, and indeed the very publication of such guidance, should serve to underline the merit of a separate policy incorporating ‘tailor-made’ measures. Moreover, in the interests of public health and environmental protection when applying these measures, it is hoped that the County Council will avoid relying entirely on advice on from overstretched and underfunded Government agencies, notably the Environment Agency, and should avail itself of independent advice that is based on peer reviewed academic studies.

MP12 is also unsound because it fails to take climate change objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008 properly into account. A key reason for concern about proposals to extract large volumes of methane gas is that they involve a fossil fuel which, when burnt, will generate significant carbon emissions. This brings into question whether the County Council is truly “committed to tackling the causes of climate change …and securing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” through the planning process (see paragraph 3.30), especially in light of the legal requirement within the ‘Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,s19(1A).

The MPA is hamstrung partly by policy advice from the Government which has supported fracking activity mainly on the basis that it can provide a bridge to a low carbon economy. However this claim has been quashed by a High Court decision in May 2019 which has subsequently led to a revision of former para 209a (NB. It now becomes para 205) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Elsewhere, however, para 149 of the revised NPPF urges that “Plans should take a proactive approach in mitigating and adapting to climate change…” which surely provides a good platform for reconsidering Policy MP12.

At present it appears that the MPA is too ready to trust the effectiveness of MP12 and a range of development management polices in dealing with the significant social, economic and environmental upheaval that the shale gas industry might bring to communities in the county. The already drilled site at Misson in Bassetlaw is the likely stage for gauging the level of such upheaval shortly since planning applications are expected for its production stage later in 2019. One often overlooked factor is the considerable business risks taken by fracking companies. The costs of developing unconventional gas fields are high, such that many of the companies are highly indebted. Indeed there is a history of losses and capital restructurings amongst operators such as Island Gas ( involved at Misson ) -which has lead to sell-offs and the abandonment of sites to avoid legal or planning enforcement action. Given this potential outcome, it is wise for MPAs to insist on a sizeable public insurance bond at the planning stage in case of abandonment or a major pollution incident prior to the satisfactory completion of restoration measures.

Since methane is the most damaging of greenhouse gases, a willingness to entertain applications for unconventional hydrocarbons, which will be burned or escape into the atmosphere (NB complex extraction techniques run a high risk of leakage), is at odds with Policy SP3 which aims “to minimise the impact of minerals development upon climate change” and “move towards a low carbon economy”. This stems from a fundamental inconsistency in the NPPF.
FFN recommends that the aspiration for a low carbon transition should be deleted to accord with the recent High Court decision (by Justice Dove) referenced above, and that the MPA should pursue an approach taken in the adopted Kirklees Local Plan (2019). Under Policy LP42 (Proposals for production of hydrocarbons) Kirklees MPA has brought forward a requirement that applications “will be considered against the following criteria”: including… “h) Where a proposal demonstrates that it will have a net zero impact on climate change.”

For these all of the above reasons, FFN has consistently disputed the conclusion in paragraph 4.108 that “there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development. FFN believes that a separate policy approach -as has been favourably treated by the Inspector at the Public Examination of the North Yorkshire Minerals & Waste Joint Local Plan (2018) – is important to ensure that certain matters, particular to proposals involving fracking, are always considered in planning decisions. This has been demonstrated in North Yorkshire where a number of issues were considered requiring specific policies for hydraulic fracturing, including:
• A definition of hydraulic fracturing suitable for the planning system: “Hydraulic fracturing is the process of opening and/or extending existing narrow fractures or creating new ones (fractures are typically hairline in width) in gas or oil bearing rock, which allows gas to flow into wellbores to be captured.”
• 500m buffer zones
• Maximum wellpad density
• A financial guarantee or bond as standard

The most comprehensive review of peer reviewed studies on the impacts of fracking has been produced by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York. The sixth edition dated June 2019 (https://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/) lists the following emerging trends:
1. Regulations are simply not capable of preventing harm.
2. Fracking and natural gas are incompatible with climate solutions.
3. Fracking and the disposal of fracking waste threaten drinking water.
4. Drilling and fracking contribute to toxic air pollution and ground-level ozone at levels known to have health impacts.
5. Public health problems associated with drilling and fracking include poor birth outcomes, reproductive and respiratory impacts, and cancer risks.
6. Occupational health and safety risks for workers are severe and include both physical and chemical hazards.
7. Earthquakes are a proven consequence of both fracking and the underground injection of fracking waste.
8. Fracking infrastructure poses serious potential exposure risks to those living nearby.
9. Drilling and fracking activities bring naturally occurring radioactive materials to the surface.
10. Drilling and fracking activities harm wildlife through multiple pathways.
11. The economic instabilities of fracking exacerbate public health risks.
12. Fracking raises human rights and environmental justice issues.
13. Health professionals are increasingly calling for bans or moratoria on fracking, based on a range of health hazards and as reviews of the data confirm evidence for harm.


It should be noted that the geology and land use in the UK is not comparable to the USA because of greater faulting and a higher population density with greater proximity to areas in residential, employment and infrastructural use - eg railway lines. In addition, as has been previously highlighted, if fracking takes place in proximity to former coal mine workings in Nottinghamshire, there is an added risk of triggering faults that are already susceptible to movement and subsidence.

Furthermore, we would like to see more explanation of what the MPA interprets as “unacceptable environmental impact” in MP12 (1b) when assessing the location of proposed oil & gas development. This part of the policy cannot be effective without some criteria on how unacceptability is to be determined, particularly against a presumed “national need to explore and develop new domestic sources of oil and gas” (para 4.104). For instance, it raises questions as to what type of impacts are acceptable without mitigation, and if there are permanent adverse effects, is mitigation sufficient as a temporary fix? Surely an overriding need cannot be justified if unacceptable harms exceed claimed benefits? More clarity is required, perhaps in Policy SP5, for the benefit all parties if these policies are to be implemented fairly and effectively.

In an ideal world, FFN hopes that a change of Government policy would obviate the future need for unconventional extraction of shale gas in England. The bans (or moratoria) on fracking activity already established in Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Germany,and New York State after comprehensive studies provide evidence of widespread concern about the adverse impacts and about increasing fossil fuel dependency in the face of an escalating climate crisis.

In the interim, if the County Council is minded to convert Policy MP12 or to create a new separate policy applying solely to proposals for unconventional hydrocarbons, FFN recommends that the MPA includes the additions indicated by Nottingham Friends of the Earth in a separate submission -which is copied in section 6 below.
(Continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary:

FFN recommends that attention to the following matters, which are specific to hydraulic fracking, will assist the MPA in modifying or re-writing Policy MP12 so that it attains soundness.

Suggested addition to Policy MP12 (Oil & Gas)

A condition should be added to Policy MP12 to ensure that any proposed development will not compromise the Council’s duties in relation to climate change mitigation, and will be fully compatible with statutory climate emissions targets and carbon budgets during the Plan period.

Suggested additional Policy MP12a (Hydraulic fracturing)

Policy should be added to address problems specific to hydraulic fracturing, including:

• A definition of hydraulic fracturing suitable for the planning system, such as that discussed in the North Yorkshire Minerals & Waste Joint Plan Examination (“Hydraulic fracturing is the process of opening and/or extending existing narrow fractures or creating new ones (fractures are typically hairline in width) in gas or oil bearing rock, which allows gas to flow into wellbores to be captured.”).
• Minimum separation distance from homes and other sensitive sites.
• Minimum separation distance from former mine workings.
• Minimum separation distance from fault lines (and a requirement to make use of high resolution mapping, as recommended by Professor Peter Styles).
• The site boundary of the development to include in 3-D the full extent of any horizontal drilling.
• Maximum well-pad density.
• Financial guarantee.
• Protection of the Sherwood sandstone aquifer.
• Arrangements for adequate provision of water supply and disposal of toxic waste water.
• Measures to avoid unacceptable impacts of vibration and induced seismicity.
• Measures to avoid air pollution, including BTEX and radon.
• Measures to protect people working on site, for example from silica dust, radioactive water and gases, and emissions from compressors.
• A risk assessment to demonstrate beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that any risk of adverse impacts has been eliminated

Frack Free Misson’s response to Nottinghamshire Country Council Minerals Local Plan Publication Version 30th August 2019 – 11th October 2019 is focussed on fracking. The extraction of all fossil fuels has huge environmental impact, and fracking brings additional environmental concerns.
This is diametrically opposed to UK Policy on the reduction of carbon emissions.
We believe that this plan is not “sound”. We have listed our reasons below.

1. Policy MP 12 Oil and Gas section 4.108 - NCC has excluded consideration of a separate fracking policy and failed to comply with the current national policy on climate change. Shale gas is extracted by unconventional means and is very different from conventional oil and gas extraction. Therefore NCC should take a more precautionary approach and have a separate Policy within their Minerals Plan to cover fracking.

2. Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Report May 2019 Policy MP12 Oil and Gas Pages 185-187. We have stated previously that fracking should be covered by a separate Policy. It is quite clear that reference the extraction of fossil fuels, it is impossible to mitigate or avoid areas of vulnerability to climate change.

POLLUTION

3. The potential to contaminate aquifers has been explored in the USA. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) summarised that ‘the co-location of hydraulic fracturing activities with drinking water resources increases the potential for these activities to affect the quality and quantity of current and future drinking water resources.” The EPA study reviewed hundreds of confirmed water contamination cases from drilling and fracking. Any sign of drinking water contamination signals a public health crisis.

4. CHEMTrust Briefing from July 2015 “Fracking Pollution : How toxic chemicals from fracking could affect wildlife and people in the UK and EU” lists the main potential pathways of water and land pollution from fracking –
• accidental spillages during mixing and transportation of drilling and fracking chemicals
• leaks from failure or inadequacies of well casings in the upper part of the well. A large number of pollution events have occurred this way in the USA, allowing methane and fracking chemicals to migrate into groundwater, drinking water and nearby properties, sometimes causing explosions, evacuations and necessitating the replacement of water supplies.
• Escapes via fissures in the rocks
• Leaks from storage, and during transportation of flowback water
• Inadequate treatment of flowback water prior to discharge

5. CHEMTrust Briefing from July 2015 states that fracking presents greater cumulative risks to public health and the environment that conventional drilling due to
• the chemicals required
• the large volumes of water required
• the additional contaminants in the flowback
• the need for many transport movements
• the larger number of wells needed to reach a similar level of production

6. CHEMTrust Briefing - Fracking is a source of air pollution caused by
• evaporation from fracking fluids – including any stored flowback
• emissions from the flaring and treatment of gas
• diesel fumes from the constant running of pumps, generators, compressors, and from heavy vehicles transporting large volumes of water and wastewater to and from the fracking site

7. Ethane is a dangerous greenhouse gas. In 2010 a sensor in Europe picked up a surprise increase in ethane, when levels have been falling since 1980s. Fracking boom in the US was suspected and air testing over the Bakken oil and gas field in North Dakota was found to be emitting 250,000 tons (125,000 tonnes) of gas. This is from just one field. Ethane is used in plastics manufacturing. Full report in the Independent newspaper 29/4/2016.

8. Expert monitoring of the IGas Springs Road site on 12/2/2019 by ITC certified optical gas imaging thermographer using FLIR GF 320 camera clearly shows gas emissions from the site stack streaming over the countryside during the exploratory drilling phase. This is a major concern to us in North Nottinghamshire, and should be to NCC. Earthworks video may be viewed on YouTube – https://youtu.be/VToXD_-B2Kg

9. At the Westminster Forum in April 2019 concerning Unconventional Oil and Gas Market in the UK, IGas’ Development Director Ross Glover set out company vision for back-to-back shale development. This is for 4 or 6 well pads, with 10 wells on each, with constant movement of construction and drilling equipment between sites. The scale of commercial fracking should not be underestimated. We believe that NCC should therefore consider North Yorkshire’s Draft Minerals and Waste Plan and include protections for fracking proposals -
• defining hydraulic fracking as any fracturing which allows gas to flow
• a minimum separation distance of 500 metres from homes
• setting a maximum density of well pads
• requiring financial guarantees for damage to homes
• requiring financial guarantees in case fracking companies go into liquidation prior to cleaning up a site, or if sold, obligations are passed to any new owners with no limit.

10. In January 2019 Nottingham City Council announced its commitment to become a “net-zero carbon” city by 2028, adding to existing policy that at least one fifth of energy procured across the area is sourced from low-carbon facilities by 2020. NCC proposed Minerals Plan does not follow this plan for the rest of the County.

11. The Cumbria Minerals and Waste Plan requires any commercial exploitation of hydrocarbons to contribute to “mitigation of climate change”. The Kirklees Local Plan requires any production of hydrocarbons to have “net zero impact on climate change”. We urge Nottinghamshire County Council to adopt a similar objective within the Minerals Plan.

GEOLOGY

12. Professor Peter Styles, expert on fracking seismology recommended 500 metres separation from former mine workings and 850 metres separation from any fault lines. This was supported by John Mann MP for Bassetlaw (EDM 1303 May 2018). This recommendation should be incorporated in the Minerals Plan.

13. Dr. Ian Fairlie, independent consultant on radiation in the environment, with degrees in Chemistry and Radiation Biology, and former consultant to the UK Government has emphasised the dangers of bringing highly radioactive materials to the surface during extraction of fossil fuels. This is already well known from North Sea Oil production, where the workforce is constantly screened. Materials there may be disposed of in the sea, many miles away from habitation. NCC Minerals Plan should ensure protection of the local area, humans and livestock, and for containment and safe disposal of radioactive waste. (Dr Ian Fairlie’s lecture - 'Radioactive Dangers of Fracking' 27.09.2018 may be found on YouTube.)

14. David K. Smythe, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, University of Glasgow made an objection to the IGas Springs Road Misson application on the grounds of geology and hydrogeology. In his 58 page report he stated he had found 27 errors, omissions and misleading statements which he said suggested the Applicant was treating the planning system with contempt. To summarise this report lists boreholes, coalmines, geological faults, likely fluid flows and much more. Para 5.4 Conclusions – “The geology of the UK shale basins is intrinsically unsuitable for fracking. No similar geology has been fracked before. Fracking poses a direct threat to groundwater resources, and there is a possibility that fugitive methane may reach the surface in days.” He criticises the IGas geological model and says “there are many possible and likely flow pathways within the complex geology whereby fluids could escape upwards. This includes the possibility that the Principal Aquifers of the Sherwood Sandstone and the Magnesian Limestone lying directly above the fracking zone could be contaminated irreversibly. The risk, however small, of permanently contaminating one of England’s main water resources should not be contemplated.” NCC should adopt a precautionary approach here as the risks are too high.

15. NCC Minerals Plan makes no mention of seismic activity. There have been well publicised abnormal seismic events at Cuadrilla’s fracking sites Preese Hall and Preston New Road near Blackpool, recorded by the British Geological Survey, and leading to the suspension of fracking at the sites. Misson area is on a fault line, and much of Nottinghamshire has been subject to coalmining, with associated instability and subsidence. There is an elevated risk of chemical contamination of aquifers should well casings move or crack through seismic events as a result of the extreme forces exerted during the fracking process. What is NCC’s policy for dealing with such events?

NATURE

16. Section 2.13 Nature highlights important SSSIs and Local Wildlife Centres around the County being restored and managed after historic declines have been halted. The area around Misson and Misson Springs is home to multiple SSSIs, one of which borders the Springs Road potential fracking site. These are home to a number of protected species such as great crested newts, long eared owls, bats, turtle doves, moths, marsh and hen harriers, rare orchids and grasses.

17. Following an investigation with other wildlife charities into the likely impacts of shale gas or oil development in the UK, the RSPB concluded that many aspects of fracking could negatively affect wildlife. The significant land required by a large number of wells, and the noise and other

disturbance created by fracking activities (24 hours at times) are both likely to have a negative impact on wildlife. (Report Are We Fit to Frack? RSPB, Angling Trust, National Trust, Salmon and Trout Association, Wildlife Trusts and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust 2014).

18. The RSPB Website states they do not support fracking. “Fracking shale gas threatens to undermine the UK’s commitment to fighting climate change and protecting nature. The RSPB does not support shale gas extraction in the UK because
• the regulatory framework for the industry does not provide sufficient protection for the natural environment
• there is evidence from the Committee on Climate Change that the exploitation of shale gas may not be compatible with the UK’s emissions reduction targets.

19. Misson Springs and Misson are homes to the largest organic farm in the UK, an industrial scale organic dairy herd and milking parlour, and fishing ponds. What protections are NCC offering these and other businesses in the event water, air and land become polluted through fracking and therefore unusable for organic farming?

20. Section 2.20 Climate states that parts of Nottinghamshire have already experienced more frequent and heavier flooding and this pattern is expected to continue. The Flood Map for Planning (Environment Agency and UK Gov.) clearly shows Misson Springs and Misson are in an area at great risk of river flooding. Fracking therefore should not be allowed to take place within this area due to the risk of chemicals and radioactive materials being spread by flood waters and heavy rain over agricultural land and into water courses. Spillages on sites should also be taken into consideration.

21. Section 2.22 highlights the importance of sand and gravel extraction in the Trent and Idle valleys, and subsequent conversion to wetlands. Misson and Scrooby are surrounded by sand quarries with licences being extended in both areas. After extensive effort by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and others, wildlife in the area is making a comeback. A precise approach should be adopted by NCC against further industrialisation of an already heavily industrialised area, and the destruction of hard work by locals and the Wildlife Trusts.

22. We believe that fracking will not bring the price of gas down. It will provide very few local jobs, whilst potentially destroying local businesses. It has ignored evidence of hazards to health, to destruction of agriculture, wildlife, and the local environment. And of course the massive impact on climate change. These are not things that can just be regulated away.

We hope that you will consider very carefully our researched and thought out submission.

Frack Free Misson’s response to Nottinghamshire Country Council Minerals Local Plan Publication Version 30th August 2019 – 11th October 2019 is focussed on fracking. The extraction of all fossil fuels has huge environmental impact, and fracking brings additional environmental concerns.
This is diametrically opposed to UK Policy on the reduction of carbon emissions.
We believe that this plan is not “sound”. We have listed our reasons below.

1. Policy MP 12 Oil and Gas section 4.108 - NCC has excluded consideration of a separate fracking policy and failed to comply with the current national policy on climate change. Shale gas is extracted by unconventional means and is very different from conventional oil and gas extraction. Therefore NCC should take a more precautionary approach and have a separate Policy within their Minerals Plan to cover fracking.

2. Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Report May 2019 Policy MP12 Oil and Gas Pages 185-187. We have stated previously that fracking should be covered by a separate Policy. It is quite clear that reference the extraction of fossil fuels, it is impossible to mitigate or avoid areas of vulnerability to climate change.

POLLUTION

3. The potential to contaminate aquifers has been explored in the USA. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) summarised that ‘the co-location of hydraulic fracturing activities with drinking water resources increases the potential for these activities to affect the quality and quantity of current and future drinking water resources.” The EPA study reviewed hundreds of confirmed water contamination cases from drilling and fracking. Any sign of drinking water contamination signals a public health crisis.

4. CHEMTrust Briefing from July 2015 “Fracking Pollution : How toxic chemicals from fracking could affect wildlife and people in the UK and EU” lists the main potential pathways of water and land pollution from fracking –
• accidental spillages during mixing and transportation of drilling and fracking chemicals
• leaks from failure or inadequacies of well casings in the upper part of the well. A large number of pollution events have occurred this way in the USA, allowing methane and fracking chemicals to migrate into groundwater, drinking water and nearby properties, sometimes causing explosions, evacuations and necessitating the replacement of water supplies.
• Escapes via fissures in the rocks
• Leaks from storage, and during transportation of flowback water
• Inadequate treatment of flowback water prior to discharge

5. CHEMTrust Briefing from July 2015 states that fracking presents greater cumulative risks to public health and the environment that conventional drilling due to
• the chemicals required
• the large volumes of water required
• the additional contaminants in the flowback
• the need for many transport movements
• the larger number of wells needed to reach a similar level of production

6. CHEMTrust Briefing - Fracking is a source of air pollution caused by
• evaporation from fracking fluids – including any stored flowback
• emissions from the flaring and treatment of gas
• diesel fumes from the constant running of pumps, generators, compressors, and from heavy vehicles transporting large volumes of water and wastewater to and from the fracking site

7. Ethane is a dangerous greenhouse gas. In 2010 a sensor in Europe picked up a surprise increase in ethane, when levels have been falling since 1980s. Fracking boom in the US was suspected and air testing over the Bakken oil and gas field in North Dakota was found to be emitting 250,000 tons (125,000 tonnes) of gas. This is from just one field. Ethane is used in plastics manufacturing. Full report in the Independent newspaper 29/4/2016.

8. Expert monitoring of the IGas Springs Road site on 12/2/2019 by ITC certified optical gas imaging thermographer using FLIR GF 320 camera clearly shows gas emissions from the site stack streaming over the countryside during the exploratory drilling phase. This is a major concern to us in North Nottinghamshire, and should be to NCC. Earthworks video may be viewed on YouTube – https://youtu.be/VToXD_-B2Kg

9. At the Westminster Forum in April 2019 concerning Unconventional Oil and Gas Market in the UK, IGas’ Development Director Ross Glover set out company vision for back-to-back shale development. This is for 4 or 6 well pads, with 10 wells on each, with constant movement of construction and drilling equipment between sites. The scale of commercial fracking should not be underestimated. We believe that NCC should therefore consider North Yorkshire’s Draft Minerals and Waste Plan and include protections for fracking proposals -
• defining hydraulic fracking as any fracturing which allows gas to flow
• a minimum separation distance of 500 metres from homes
• setting a maximum density of well pads
• requiring financial guarantees for damage to homes
• requiring financial guarantees in case fracking companies go into liquidation prior to cleaning up a site, or if sold, obligations are passed to any new owners with no limit.

10. In January 2019 Nottingham City Council announced its commitment to become a “net-zero carbon” city by 2028, adding to existing policy that at least one fifth of energy procured across the area is sourced from low-carbon facilities by 2020. NCC proposed Minerals Plan does not follow this plan for the rest of the County.

11. The Cumbria Minerals and Waste Plan requires any commercial exploitation of hydrocarbons to contribute to “mitigation of climate change”. The Kirklees Local Plan requires any production of hydrocarbons to have “net zero impact on climate change”. We urge Nottinghamshire County Council to adopt a similar objective within the Minerals Plan.

GEOLOGY

12. Professor Peter Styles, expert on fracking seismology recommended 500 metres separation from former mine workings and 850 metres separation from any fault lines. This was supported by John Mann MP for Bassetlaw (EDM 1303 May 2018). This recommendation should be incorporated in the Minerals Plan.

13. Dr. Ian Fairlie, independent consultant on radiation in the environment, with degrees in Chemistry and Radiation Biology, and former consultant to the UK Government has emphasised the dangers of bringing highly radioactive materials to the surface during extraction of fossil fuels. This is already well known from North Sea Oil production, where the workforce is constantly screened. Materials there may be disposed of in the sea, many miles away from habitation. NCC Minerals Plan should ensure protection of the local area, humans and livestock, and for containment and safe disposal of radioactive waste. (Dr Ian Fairlie’s lecture - 'Radioactive Dangers of Fracking' 27.09.2018 may be found on YouTube.)

14. David K. Smythe, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, University of Glasgow made an objection to the IGas Springs Road Misson application on the grounds of geology and hydrogeology. In his 58 page report he stated he had found 27 errors, omissions and misleading statements which he said suggested the Applicant was treating the planning system with contempt. To summarise this report lists boreholes, coalmines, geological faults, likely fluid flows and much more. Para 5.4 Conclusions – “The geology of the UK shale basins is intrinsically unsuitable for fracking. No similar geology has been fracked before. Fracking poses a direct threat to groundwater resources, and there is a possibility that fugitive methane may reach the surface in days.” He criticises the IGas geological model and says “there are many possible and likely flow pathways within the complex geology whereby fluids could escape upwards. This includes the possibility that the Principal Aquifers of the Sherwood Sandstone and the Magnesian Limestone lying directly above the fracking zone could be contaminated irreversibly. The risk, however small, of permanently contaminating one of England’s main water resources should not be contemplated.” NCC should adopt a precautionary approach here as the risks are too high.

15. NCC Minerals Plan makes no mention of seismic activity. There have been well publicised abnormal seismic events at Cuadrilla’s fracking sites Preese Hall and Preston New Road near Blackpool, recorded by the British Geological Survey, and leading to the suspension of fracking at the sites. Misson area is on a fault line, and much of Nottinghamshire has been subject to coalmining, with associated instability and subsidence. There is an elevated risk of chemical contamination of aquifers should well casings move or crack through seismic events as a result of the extreme forces exerted during the fracking process. What is NCC’s policy for dealing with such events?

NATURE

16. Section 2.13 Nature highlights important SSSIs and Local Wildlife Centres around the County being restored and managed after historic declines have been halted. The area around Misson and Misson Springs is home to multiple SSSIs, one of which borders the Springs Road potential fracking site. These are home to a number of protected species such as great crested newts, long eared owls, bats, turtle doves, moths, marsh and hen harriers, rare orchids and grasses.

17. Following an investigation with other wildlife charities into the likely impacts of shale gas or oil development in the UK, the RSPB concluded that many aspects of fracking could negatively affect wildlife. The significant land required by a large number of wells, and the noise and other

disturbance created by fracking activities (24 hours at times) are both likely to have a negative impact on wildlife. (Report Are We Fit to Frack? RSPB, Angling Trust, National Trust, Salmon and Trout Association, Wildlife Trusts and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust 2014).

18. The RSPB Website states they do not support fracking. “Fracking shale gas threatens to undermine the UK’s commitment to fighting climate change and protecting nature. The RSPB does not support shale gas extraction in the UK because
• the regulatory framework for the industry does not provide sufficient protection for the natural environment
• there is evidence from the Committee on Climate Change that the exploitation of shale gas may not be compatible with the UK’s emissions reduction targets.

19. Misson Springs and Misson are homes to the largest organic farm in the UK, an industrial scale organic dairy herd and milking parlour, and fishing ponds. What protections are NCC offering these and other businesses in the event water, air and land become polluted through fracking and therefore unusable for organic farming?

20. Section 2.20 Climate states that parts of Nottinghamshire have already experienced more frequent and heavier flooding and this pattern is expected to continue. The Flood Map for Planning (Environment Agency and UK Gov.) clearly shows Misson Springs and Misson are in an area at great risk of river flooding. Fracking therefore should not be allowed to take place within this area due to the risk of chemicals and radioactive materials being spread by flood waters and heavy rain over agricultural land and into water courses. Spillages on sites should also be taken into consideration.

21. Section 2.22 highlights the importance of sand and gravel extraction in the Trent and Idle valleys, and subsequent conversion to wetlands. Misson and Scrooby are surrounded by sand quarries with licences being extended in both areas. After extensive effort by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and others, wildlife in the area is making a comeback. A precise approach should be adopted by NCC against further industrialisation of an already heavily industrialised area, and the destruction of hard work by locals and the Wildlife Trusts.

22. We believe that fracking will not bring the price of gas down. It will provide very few local jobs, whilst potentially destroying local businesses. It has ignored evidence of hazards to health, to destruction of agriculture, wildlife, and the local environment. And of course the massive impact on climate change. These are not things that can just be regulated away.

We hope that you will consider very carefully our researched and thought out submission.

Please see attached supporting statement.
We are pleased to note that policy MP12 provides a simple policy that makes a positive statement in support of onshore oil and gas.
We have concerns with one element of the draft policy. There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2 b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used.
We wish to object to this element of the policy, which we believe needs to change. In our view the terms used should be the same. Regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production the tests should be equally relevant. Reference to unacceptable environmental impact should be changed to “significant unacceptable environmental impact” because as currently worded all impact can be read as unacceptable. Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the term ‘Are located where they will not have a significant unacceptable environmental impact’.

Please see attached supporting statement
We have concerns with one element of the draft policy MP12. There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2 b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used.
We wish to object to this element of the policy, which we believe needs to change. In our view the terms used should be the same. Regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production the tests should be equally relevant. Reference to unacceptable environmental impact should be changed to “significant unacceptable environmental impact” because as currently worded all impact can be read as unacceptable. Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the term ‘Are located where they will not have a significant unacceptable environmental impact’.
As noted above we are largely supportive of policy MP12. However, if it were to be suggested that policy MP12 should be significantly amended INEOS would wish to put forward revised text to the anticipated Minerals Plan Examination as set out in our earlier representations to the draft Minerals Plan

The issue raised is complex and we have found it helpful when responding to other plans for the matter to be debated. This was done most recently at East Riding of Yorkshire in January 2019 where the Inspector was able to hear the points raised on each side of the argument and to understand that there was in fact little between the parties in terms of principle. In our submission this may not have been fully apparent in reviewing written submissions and this was confirmed by the conduct of the Hearing where the Inspector thanked the parties for their frankness, helpfulness and courtesy. We anticipate that policy MP12 may be subject to scrutiny and we believe that it would be helpful for all parties to be able to come together to discuss the issues.

See attachment

Strategic Objective SO3 Climate change aims to encourage minerals developments to minimise their impacts on climate change by “encouraging efficient ways of working including reductions in transport and onsite machinery emissions”.
As highlighted in our previous representations, Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) puts an obligation on plan-making authorities to ensure that:
“Development plan documents must (taken as a whole) include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority's area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”
We also note the NPPF wording within the environmental objective, which states, planning should:
“contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy” (para 8c)
Para 150(b) of the same document states:
“new development should be planned for in ways that:…can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation and design.”
In this context, while we welcome this objective, its wording underplays the urgency required in achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change (i.e. it only “encouraging efficient ways of working” regarding mitigation and focusing principally on flood risk re adaptation).
In June 2019 legislation was passed committing the UK to becoming net zero carbon by 2050. The Committee on Climate Change’s Net Zero report1 (May 2019) is clear about the need for all facets of the British economy, from transport, energy, industry, house building to infrastructure (et al), to help the country reach the 2050 net zero target. The report states that ‘most sectors will need to reduce emissions close to zero without offsetting’ (pg 11; 2019) to achieve this aim. We see no reason why mineral extraction should be omitted from these aims.
To make the objective consistent with this recent change to law (and national government policy); compliant with the amendment to the PCPA 2004 and enable delivery of sustainable development (NPPF para 35 d), alternative wording should be used to ensure aim of the objective and its accompanying wording recognise these recent legislative and policy priorities.
We would ask that the plan’s policies be reframed around the need for the minerals industry as a whole to contribute to the UK achieving the net zero target by 2050. The CCC estimates that adherence to this will meet our Paris Agreement requirements to limit the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C
and to pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5°C. Such a commitment in the context of the approach to minerals, will require the council revisiting these policies with this critical objective in mind.
As a society and related to mineral extraction, we can no longer just assume a business as usual approach anymore, especially when drawing up local plans. The CCC’s 2019 report states that ‘This target is only credible if policy to reduce emissions ramps up significantly across all levels and departments of government’ (p16). As this plan takes us to 2036 (just 14 years before this target is meant to be reached), it’s imperative the county council delivers more compliant and forward-thinking policies to tackle climate change.
A focus on policies covering those least compliant forms of mineral extraction (i.e. unconventional hydrocarbons) would be a start (as we have suggested changes later on to make those relevant policies sound). Our suggested amendments to the wording of strategic objective 3 are below.

SO3: Addressing climate change
Minimise and mitigate the impact of mineral developments on climate change [INSERT] with the aim of helping achieve compliance with the government’s 2050 net zero GHG target. encouraging [INSERT] This will be achieved by ensuring efficient ways of working, including reductions in transport and onsite machinery emissions. [INSERT] The ‘great weight’ attached to mineral extraction should be balanced against the need for compliance with the binding 2050 target and climate change considerations within the NPPF.
[INSERT] All minerals proposals must reduce existing and future [INSERT] vulnerability flood risks linked to, and aid in by [INSERT] ensuring adequate adaptation to climate change through good quarry design and operation, water management, location of plant and appropriate restoration, particularly for quarries in the Trent Valley flood plain. [INSERT] Minerals proposals must contribute to climate change adaptation by relinking fragmented habitats and creating new areas of habitat to allow the migration and dispersal of species. [INSERT] Tree planting led restoration of minerals sites, where appropriate, would help meet the UKs net zero 2050 target (as per the CCC’s recommendations) and will be encouraged2.