oil & gas development in hampshire event (5 june 2014) · 2018-08-02 · on exploiting onshore...
TRANSCRIPT
Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan
Oil & Gas Development in
Hampshire Event (5 June 2014)
Summary Report of the event and its outcomes
July 2014
Abbreviations
AONB: Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty
NPPF: National Planning Policy
Framework
BGS: British Geological Survey NPPG: National Planning Policy
Guidance
CIL: Community Infrastructure Levy OUGO: Office of Unconventional Gas
and Oil
CO2: Carbon Dioxide PCC: Portsmouth City Council
DCLG: Department of Communities and
Local Government
PINS: Planning Inspectorate
DECC: Department of Energy and
Climate Change
Q&A: Question and Answer
EA: Environment Agency RSPB: Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions RSRAE: Royal Society and Royal
Academy of Engineering
FoE: Friends of the Earth S106: Section 106 legal agreement
HCC: Hampshire County Council SCC: Southampton City Council
HMWP: Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan SCI: Statement of Community
Involvement
HSE: Health and Safety Executive SDNPA: South Downs National Park
Authority
LPA: Local Planning Authority SPD: Supplementary Planning
Document
MEP: Member of European Parliament SPG: Supplementary Planning
Guidance
MP: Member of Parliament UK: United Kingdom
MPA: Minerals Planning Authority UKOOG: United Kingdom Onshore
Operators Group
NFNPA: New Forest National Park
Authority
US: United States
NHS: National Health Safety
Executive Summary
The continued supply of energy is a critical issue for the United Kingdom (UK). Oil
and gas are important mineral resources and primary sources of energy in the
country. They include both conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons. The
whole of Hampshire, whether you are a resident or a business, relies on oil or gas in
one way or another. However, oil and gas are both finite natural resources which are
being depleted through our and others energy requirements. Even as the UK moves
towards renewable energy, there may still be a need, both locally and nationally, to
continue to secure oil and gas resources to support the sustainable development of
the economy as the renewable energy industry develops.
The planning and regulatory systems are essential to ensure oil and gas
developments are established in the right location, at the right time and with the
appropriate measures in place.
Oil and gas activities are not new in Hampshire. Hampshire has a number of areas
of conventional onshore oil and gas production which are the result of considerable
exploration activity in the last 30 years. In recent years, unconventional oil and gas
has emerged as a potentially significant form of energy supply nationally. There is
currently no unconventional oil or gas (shale) development or associated hydraulic
fracturing (‘fracking’) currently taking place in Hampshire.
In Hampshire, there has been a significant uptake in interest on issues associated
with oil and gas development in the last 12 months, particularly in relation to the
potential for unconventional shale oil and gas extraction and associated fracking.
The Hampshire Authorities clearly recognise the concerns raised nationally and by
Hampshire communities, residents and interested parties about the potential impacts
of unconventional oil and gas extraction through the use of fracking.
In response to this, the Hampshire Authorities held an event on ‘Oil & Gas
Development in Hampshire’ on 5 June 2014 in Winchester. The purpose of the
event was to disseminate information and initiate dialogue with communities,
residents and interested parties.
The Hampshire Authorities commissioned Mike King of Resources for Change as an
independent facilitator for the event and a wide and varied mixture of delegates were
invited and attended on the day.
The Oil and Gas Development in Hampshire Event included a wide range of
speakers with varying interests in this type of development in Hampshire. The day
also included Question and Answer (Q&A) sessions and round table discussions
about what the main issues, concerns and opportunities may be associated with oil
and gas development.
The main outcomes of the event included:
The Hampshire Authorities have considered the outcomes of the event and have
made a number of conclusions and recommendations. These include the potential
preparation of a Supplementary Planning Guidance document on key issues
associated with oil and gas development, the continuation of updates to the HCC
onshore oil and gas FAQ1, the continuation of public engagement on oil and gas
issues and working with the regulators to improve linkages between the planning
and regulatory systems.
This report has been formulated as a reflection of the event and its main outcomes.
Mike King (the event facilitator) has independently verified the contents of this
Summary Report.
1 Hampshire County Council website: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’)
some of Hampshire’s communities have clear concerns about oil and
gas development in Hampshire;
some support for the opportunities for oil and gas to be part of the mix of
supplies to provide energy security for the UK;
a lack of confidence in the ability of the planning and regulatory system;
a need for greater transparency including non-technical guidance on the
planning process;
awareness that there is confusion between the roles of MPAs and the
regulators;
a need for further information on the application of community benefits;
a need for further information on shale oil (as opposed to shale gas)
extraction and what this means for Hampshire;
support for public engagement on oil and gas issues;
recognition that there may be opportunities and benefits associated with
oil and gas development;
local communities would like further guidance on key planning issues
following the adoption of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013);
and
there is a need to continue to update the Hampshire onshore oil and gas
FAQ.
Contents
1 Introduction to the Summary Report .................................................................... 1
2 Purpose of the event ............................................................................................ 4
3 Who attended the event? ..................................................................................... 5
4 Facilitation of the event ........................................................................................ 5
5 Presentations ....................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Session One: Background, Policy and Planning ........................................... 6
5.2 Session Two: Industry perspective and regulation ...................................... 13
5.3 Session Three: Environmental and community concerns ........................... 18
6 Session Four: Outcomes of the round table discussions ................................... 22
7 Feedback on the Event ...................................................................................... 41
8 Additional question raised (including those noted on the feedback forms) ........ 41
9 Concluding comments and recommendations by event facilitator ..................... 54
10 Main outcomes of the day .............................................................................. 55
11 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 56
12 Where can I find out more about oil and gas development in Hampshire? .... 57
13 Annexes ......................................................................................................... 58
1
1. Introduction to the Summary
Report
1.0.1 The continued supply of energy is a critical issue for the United Kingdom (UK). Oil
and gas are important mineral resources and primary sources of energy in the
UK. It is also widely recognised that these resources play a central role in the
country’s economy. The whole of Hampshire, whether you are a resident or a
business, relies on oil or gas in one way or another. However, oil and gas are
both finite natural resources which are being depleted through our and others
energy requirements.
1.0.2 Even as the Country moves towards renewable energy, there may still be a need,
both locally and nationally, to continue to secure oil and gas resources to support
the sustainable development of the economy as the renewable energy industry
develops.
1.0.3 Oil and gas includes both conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons. In
recent years, unconventional oil and gas has emerged as a potentially significant
form of energy supply nationally. This has is largely due to technological
advancements which now make these previously untapped resources potentially
viable for extraction.
1.0.4 The planning and regulatory systems are essential to ensure oil and gas
developments are established in the right location, at the right time and with the
appropriate measures in place. These measures will ensure that the local
environment is protected and local communities are maintained, whilst also
recognising the importance of oil and gas development in the local economy. The
ability of operators to develop sustainable oil and gas sites is also essential.
1.0.5 In 2013, Hampshire County Council (HCC)2, Southampton City Council (SCC)3,
Portsmouth City Council (PCC)4, the New Forest National Park Authority
(NFNPA)5 and the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) adopted the
Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (HMWP)6. The Plan includes a clear policy
(Policy 24) on oil and gas development in Hampshire as well as other polices
relevant to protecting Hampshire’s environment, maintaining its communities and
supporting its economy.
2 Hampshire County Council: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning
3 Southampton City Council: www.southampton.gov.uk
4 Portsmouth City Council: www.portsmouth.gov.uk
5 New Forest National Park Authority: www.newforestnpa.gov.uk
6 Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/planning-policy-home.htm
2
1.0.6 The plan-making partnership has now come to an end and a new partnership has
been established between HCC, SCC, PCC and the NFNPA (hereafter referred to
as the ‘Hampshire Authorities’) to monitor and implement the Plan and take
forward any further associated work. The SDNPA are no longer in the plan-
making partnership. However, a Service Level Agreement is in the process of
being drawn up between HCC and SDNPA for HCC to undertake the SDNPA’s
monitoring duties for the HMWP. It is therefore important to note that all oil and
gas issues in the South Downs National Park should be directed to the SDNPA7.
1.0.7 The oil and gas industry is well established in the UK, having focused historically
on exploiting onshore and offshore conventional oil and gas from relatively porous
rock formations.
1.0.8 Hampshire has a number of areas of conventional onshore oil and gas production
which are the result of considerable exploration activity in the last 30 years. This
means that oil and gas activity is not new to Hampshire. The county has three
producing oilfields, all of which have been operating for many years, and has had
several exploration wells drilled at various times. This means that the Hampshire
Authorities (in particular HCC) already have experience of how this industry
works, how it is regulated and how it is controlled. There is currently no
unconventional oil or gas (shale) development in Hampshire or associated
hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’).
1.0.9 In Hampshire, there has been a significant uptake in interest on issues associated
with oil and gas development in the last 12 months, particularly in relation to the
potential for unconventional shale oil and gas extraction and associated fracking
to take place in county. The recent publication of the Weald Basin study by the
British Geological Survey8 has highlighted that eastern Hampshire may have
potential for shale oil, not shale gas as previously anticipated.
1.0.10 The Hampshire Authorities clearly recognise the concerns raised nationally and
by Hampshire communities, residents and interested parties about the potential
impacts of unconventional oil and gas extraction through the use fracking). In
particular concerns about:
potential impact on water resources;
carbon impact of the continuation of extracting fossil fuels;
chemical usage; and
local amenity impacts.
1.0.11 As a result, HCC officers produced a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
document in 2013 which contains information on oil and gas development in
Hampshire9. This FAQ has been regularly updated since its initial publication.
7 Contacting the SDNPA (Planning department): www.southdowns.gov.uk/contact-us
8 British Geological Survey assessment of the Weald Basin (BGS, (2014): www.bgs.ac.uk/shalegas
9 Hampshire County Council website: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’)
3
HCC officers have also been presenting to a number of different meetings during
this time.
1.0.12 In recognition of the increase in interest, the Hampshire Authorities as part of this
new partnership, held an event on ‘Oil & Gas Development in Hampshire’ on 5
June 2014 in Winchester.
1.0.13 A wide and varied mixture of delegates were invited to the event. The day
included presentations from the:
University of Southampton10;
Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil (OUGO)11 from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC);
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)12;
HCC13;
United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group (UKOOG)14;
Environment Agency (EA)15;
Health and Safety Executive (HSE)16;
Friends of the Earth (FoE)17;
Frack Free Solent18; and the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)19.
1.0.14 The day also included Question and Answer (Q&A) sessions associated with
each presentation session as well as a round table discussion session about what
the main issues, concerns and opportunities may be associated with oil and gas
development.
1.0.15 This report has been formulated as a reflection of the event and its main
outcomes. The report identifies key themes, issues and topics discussed on the
day
1.0.1 This Summary Report sets out:
10 University of Southampton: www.southampton.ac.uk 11 OUGO: www.gov.uk/government/groups/office-of-unconventional-gas-and-oil-ougo 12 DCLG: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government 13 Hampshire County Council: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning 14 UKOOG: www.ukoog.org.uk 15 Environment Agency: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency 16 Health and Safety Executive: www.hse.gov.uk 17 Friends of the Earth: www.foe.co.uk 18 Frack Free Solent: www.frackfreesolent.org.uk 19 RSPB: www.rspb.org.uk
4
1.0.2 All documents associated with the event are available to view at the
following webpage: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/planning-policy-
home/oil-gas-development.htm. This includes copies of the event agenda,
delegates who attended the event, the presentations as well as this
Summary Report.
2. Purpose of the event
2.0.1 The Hampshire Authorities chose to put on this event for the following
reasons, to:
2.0.2 The outcomes of the event will feed directly into the implementation of the
HMWP policies as well as updates to the HCC FAQ on onshore oil and
gas.
This Summary Report sets out:
the purpose of holding the event;
who attended the event;
a summary of the presentations and associated Q&A sessions;
outcomes of the table discussions;
feedback received on the event;
any outstanding questions raised at the event;
facilitators conclusions;
the main outcomes of the event; and
the recommendations following the event.
provide information covering a variety of issues associated with oil and gas development in Hampshire;
clarify the role of the planning authority and regulators with regards to oil and gas development; and
discuss what the key issues associated with oil and gas development are for Hampshire.
5
3. Who attended the event?
3.0.1 A wide and varied mixture of delegates were invited to attend the event
including:
3.0.2 The selection process for determining the delegates for the event is set out
in Annex 1 of this Summary Report.
3.0.3 The delegates list is available to view at:
www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/planning-policy-home/oil-gas-
development.htm.
4. Facilitation of the event
4.0.1 The Hampshire Authorities commissioned Mike King of Resources for
Change20 as an independent facilitator for the Oil and Gas Development in
Hampshire Event. Resources for Change is a sustainable development
consultancy that specialises in facilitating consultee dialogues on energy
and the environment.
4.0.2 Mike has considerable experience, both in the UK and internationally of
designing and delivering constructive interactions between people and
scientific issues. Mike has had extensive experience in facilitating public
meetings, conferences and workshops on key issues including:
Oil field decommissioning (Brent Oil Field ) for Shell UK;
Environmental Change – CCATCH the Solent for Hampshire County Council;
Community Planning for the South Downs National Park Authority;
20 Resources for Change: www.r4c.org.uk
Elected Members from the Hampshire Authorities;
District and Borough Councils;
other Minerals Planning Authorities (adjacent authorities and those from
further a field);
Parish and Town Councils;
regulators;
oil and gas operators;
associated industry;
local interest groups; and
environmental organisations.
6
Conflict Resolution for the Environment Agency - Wales (2011); and
Decision making for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
4.0.3 Mike’s role was to independently facilitate the event and also included
reviewing and validating this report as an accurate record of the events
proceedings.
4.0.4 In addition to Mike, officers from the four Hampshire Authorities acted as
table facilitators for the round table discussion sessions.
5. Presentations
5.0.1 The Oil and Gas Development in Hampshire Event included a wide range
of speakers with varying interests in this type of development in Hampshire.
This section of the Summary Report provides an overview of the
presentations in sessions one, two and three of the day and includes a
summary of the main questions, issues and comments arising from the
three Questions and Answer sessions which accompanied the presentation
sessions.
5.0.2 The agenda for the event is set out in Annex 2 of this Summary Report.
5.0.3 All presentations provided on the day are available to view at the following
webpage: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/oil-gas-development.htm.
5.1 Session One: Background, Policy and Planning
5.1.1 The first session of the event focused on background, policy and planning
associated with oil and gas development. It included an introduction to the
event as well as three presentations. These were as follows:
Councillor Seán Woodward - County Council (HCC)
Councillor Seán Woodward is the Executive Member for Economy, Transport
and Environment at HCC. Councillor Woodward provided an introduction to the
event and the event facilitator. Councillor Woodward is Conservative Member
for Fareham Sarisbury for HCC. He is also Executive Leader of Fareham
Borough Council as well as the Chairman of the Partnership for Urban South
Hampshire (PUSH).
Hampshire County Council: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning
7
Professor David Sanderson - University of Southampton
Professor Sanderson provided a detailed overview of oil and gas in the UK and
issues for UK exploitation at the event. Professor Sanderson is Professor of
Tectonics and Geomechanics in the Faculty of Engineering and Environment at
the University of Southampton. Professor Sanderson is also a consultant for
Sub-surface Description and Modelling at BP Sunbury. Professor Sanderson
has been attending a number of public meetings on oil and gas development
alongside officers from the Hampshire Authorities in the last 8 months.
Professor Sanderson’s presentation addressed the following:
the differences between conventional and unconventional exploitation;
geological issues;
main issues for extraction of unconventional resources;
where opportunities for shale oil and gas may be in Hampshire;
the hydraulic fracturing process;
what a typical fracking site may look like;
water use in fracking;
seismic issues;
fracking fluid components;
well casing;
energy supply issues e.g. supplying gas for electricity generation; and
the strategic importance of oil and gas.
University of Southampton: www.southampton.ac.uk
Alexandra Doyle - Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil (OUGO) (part of
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC))
Alex Doyle from the OUGO gave a presentation on shale in the UK. Alex Doyle
is a policy manager in the OUGO and leads on public engagement. This has
included leading a number of public dialogues on shale gas and oil. OUGO is
tasked with developing an unconventional gas and oil industry in the UK which is
safe, environmentally sound and effective.
Alex’s presentation addressed the following:
OUGOs objectives;
gas in the UK energy mix;
emissions from UK shale;
potential benefits of UK shale;
key documents which have been issued on the subject;
8
Peter Chadwick - Hampshire County Council (HCC)
Peter Chadwick from HCC delivered a presentation on local minerals planning
policy in Hampshire. Peter has been Head of the County Planning team at HCC
since 2012. He was previously Development Management Team Manager at
HCC. County Planning is responsible for developing minerals and waste
planning policy, determining minerals, waste and County Council development
planning applications, as well as Strategic Planning and Strategic Infrastructure
work in Hampshire. Peter’s presentation addressed the following:
the role of the Minerals Planning Authority;
local planning policy (the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan)1;
what issues will be taken into account by the MPA in the planning
process;
how the planning system links to the other regulators;
Eamon Mythen - Department of Communities and Local Government
(DCLG)
Eamon Mythen from the DCLG gave a presentation on national planning policy
in the UK. Eamon is a Senior Planning Officer in the Planning for Minerals and
Sustainable Waste Management Team, in the Planning Directorate of the
DCLG. Eamon works on mineral planning policy which also covers planning for
onshore oil and gas developments.
Eamon’s presentation addressed the following:
why minerals are different to other forms of development;
an overview of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);
an overview of the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG); and
further initiatives to facilitate onshore oil and gas development.
DCLG: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government
overview of the regulatory process;
public engagement; and
looking ahead – the 14th round of licensing and proposals to change
access rights.
OUGO: www.gov.uk/government/groups/office-of-unconventional-gas-and-oil-
ougo
9
Questions and Answers (Session One)
5.1.2 Session One included a Q&A with Professor Sanderson (University of
Southampton), Alex Doyle (OUGO), Eamon Mythen (DCLG) and Peter
Chadwick (HCC). A summary of the questions and the responses is
included below.
Professor Sanderson’s presentation indicated that the recent British
Geological Survey (BGS) assessment of the Weald21 showed that
there were resources of shale oil rather than gas. However, the
presentation focused on gas.....how is oil relevant to Hampshire?
Response from Professor Sanderson (University of Southampton):
Professor Sanderson indicated that he had always had suspicions that the
rocks of the Weald had not been buried deeply enough to generate much
thermogenic gas. The BGS report supported this and indicated that shale
oil generation was more likely. Many issues will be the same for shale oil
as what was described for gas in the presentation. Unconventional oil would
be worth more, but is much more difficult to extract than gas and the
proportion extracted (‘the recovery factor’) will probably be much less than
for gas. Professor Sanderson indicated that there is a need for time to
revaluate the science and technologies behind the extraction of shale oil,
and its economics. A lot of previous exploratory work which has been
undertaken in the Weald has provided some indication of the likely
resources.
Has any long term assessment been undertaken of potential seismic impacts? Response from Professor Sanderson (University of Southampton):
Professor Sanderson indicated that a long term monitoring and assessment
of UK seismicity had been undertaken by BGS, but no detailed study of the
impacts of fracking had been undertaken to date. Earthquakes mainly
release naturally stored energy, this may be triggered by fracking as has
happened in the past during coal mining. The two small earthquakes
experienced near Blackpool in 2011, were clearly triggered by fracking
activities nearby, but the energy released greatly exceeded that input by the
fracking process. Professor Sanderson indicated that the amount of energy
released in shale triggered quakes will be very low and that much larger
earthquakes had occurred naturally in the UK.
21 British Geological Survey assessment of the Weald Basin (BGS, (2014): www.bgs.ac.uk/shalegas
community engagement, consultation and involvement; and
current oil and gas development in Hampshire.
Hampshire County Council: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning
10
There is concern over the ‘guidelines’ provided at Government level on ‘fracking’. There are also concerns about local planning issues, a lack of public confidence in the restoration of mineral sites and the ability to return sites to their original condition as well as the impacts on ancient woodland.
Response from Peter Chadwick (HCC): Peter highlighted that national
planning policy and guidance fed into the development of the Hampshire
Minerals & Waste Plan (2013)22 (HMWP). The local policies in the HMWP
will be used to determine proposals for oil and gas development in
Hampshire. Peter indicated that all planning permissions are temporary and
will have restoration conditions attached and that all permissions granted
will also be monitored by HCC23. Peter highlighted that all minerals sites
will be restored, in line with the planning permissions granted. He also
highlighted that the issue for local communities is largely due to the length
of time mineral extraction can take and the fact that it can be driven by the
market. This means that extension of time planning applications are
common. Peter highlighted the importance for operator compliance with
planning permissions granted.
Why are the power targets beyond 2050 not taking into account other
potential sources of energy supply and in particular the potential
opportunities for nuclear fusion?
Response from Professor Sanderson (University of Southampton):
Professor Sanderson highlighted that the emphasis has been on gas as a
bridging resource towards renewables. But it is also an enabling technology
in the development of other energy resources, as gas allows us to manage
daily demand for energy. There is also a possible role in using waste CO2
as a fracking agent and thus capturing carbon.
Response from Alex Doyle (DECC): Alex indicated that the scenarios used
in the DECC presentation show demand from the National Grid and do not
take account of shale.
Why was the Ernst & Young report24 used in the DECC presentation
instead of the AMEC report25 which more than halved the estimate for
job opportunities?
Response from Alex Doyle (DECC): Alex highlighted that the Ernst & Young
report looked at the national picture in relation to the job opportunities with
22 Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/planning-policy-home.htm 23 Where a proposal has been granted by the authority 24 Ernst and Young: www.ey.com/UK/en/Industries/Oil---Gas 25Amec: www.amec.com/sectors/oil_and_gas/oil_and_gas.htm
11
shale. The AMEC report looked at opportunities associated with licence
areas. The end figures are not miles apart.
What is the latest update on the 14th round of licencing consultation
and associated timings and are there due to be any further stages of
public consultation? In relation to the 14th Round there was talk of
another ‘round’ in the presentation, does this mean another round of
licencing or consultation after the 14th?
Response from Alex Doyle (DECC): Alex indicated that the Government is
currently considering responses received to the SEA report consultation26
on the potential 14th round of licencing for oil and gas. There is no indication
of timings currently as this will be governed by the outcomes of the
Government’s response and whether the decision is made to go forward
with the 14th round. There is no talk of a 15th round as the 14th round has
not been confirmed to date. The Government is currently consulting on
changes to access rights27.
The business rates offered are generous - 100% retention of business
rates. Why this is not in place for renewable energies?
Response from Alex Doyle (DECC): Alex highlighted that the tax breaks
introduced for unconventional oil and gas brings shale into same scheme
as that which is already in place for renewable energy.
Why is the issue of access rights not considered in the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)?
Response from Eamon Mythen (DCLG): Eamon indicated that the planning
process only relates to neighbourhood notifications of development. The
consultation on underground access is not covered by the NPPF as it is a
legal rather than a planning issue.
Response from Alex Doyle (DECC): Alex indicated that the changes only
relate to underground access and changes relate to resources 300 metres
below ground level.
26 Strategic Environmental Assessment for a 14th and Subsequent Onshore Oil & Gas Licensing Rounds
Environmental Report: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/66721/onshore-
er.pdf (DECC, 2013) 27 Proposals to simplify deep underground access for shale gas and geothermal industries:
www.gov.uk/government/news/government-proposals-to-simplify-deep-underground-access-for-shale-gas-and-
geothermal-industries (DECC, 2014)
12
Notes with interest that in the Weald we are now looking at shale oil
rather than shale gas and this some what reduces the potential
benefits which could be realised with gas. But also notes that oil is
potentially more economic. As oil is worth more will there be an
increase in community benefits offered? Also notes with interest that
Hampshire is one of the highest areas for the emissions of CO2. This
means that an area which uses most fuel could now become a major
source of fuel.
Response from Alex Doyle (DECC): Alex highlighted that community
engagement packages are voluntary offers from United Kingdom Onshore
Operators Group (UKOOG) and that the packages offered cover both oil
and gas. Alex also highlighted the potential level of benefits which could be
associated with sites and the level of income this may generated. Alex
indicated that there was a need to see how the community benefits
packages work on the ground before any amendments so their
effectiveness can be assessed.
13
5.2 Session Two: Industry perspective and regulation
5.2.1 Session Two focused on the industry perspective and regulatory aspects of
oil and gas development. It included three presentations, a summary of
which is provided below.
Jane Longman - Environment Agency (EA)
Jane Longman is the Team Leader for the Hampshire and Isle of Wight
Installations team at the EA, based in Romsey. Her team regulates large
industrial processes and landfill sites including the conventional oil production
sites in Hampshire. Jane’s presentation addressed the following:
the role of the EA including in the planning process;
importance of groundwater;
role as regulator at existing sites; and
Environmental Permit conditions.
Environment Agency: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Ken Cronin - United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group (UKOOG)
Ken is the Chief Executive of the trade body UKOOG. UKOOG is the
representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry including
exploration, production and storage across both conventional and
unconventional sources. Ken’s presentation addressed the following:
about UKOOG;
the history of oil and gas development in UK and in Hampshire;
operation in sensitive areas;
managing the environment;
the drilling process;
environmental agreements;
regulation of the industry;
the case for gas;
community benefits;
economics – supply chain, employment; and
working with communities.
UKOOG: www.ukoog.org.uk
14
Questions and Answers (Session Two)
5.2.2 Session Two included a Q&A with Ken Cronin (UKOOG), Jane Longman
(EA) and Tony Almond (HSE). A summary of the questions and the
responses is included below.
Why is 'what is supposed to happen' different to what actually
happens on the ground? Balcombe residents did not have HSE visits.
EA permits were not requested at Balcombe e.g. mining waste and
groundwater permits.
Response from Tony Almond (HSE): Tony highlighted Balcombe is a
conventional not an unconventional oil or gas development site. The HSE
will visit conventional wells based on an assessment of the risks.
Response from Jane Longman (EA): Jane highlighted that Environmental
Permits apply to both conventional and unconventional oil or gas
developments. Jane also highlighted that three years ago no permits would
have been required before viability of a site had been assessed but now,
Environmental Permits are required at all stages. Jane indicated that a
Mining Waste Permit will be required for oil and gas developments in
Hampshire.
Tony Almond - Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Tony joined HSE in 2005 and has worked in various policy areas including work
related stress and musculoskeletal disorders. Tony works in the Hazardous
Installations Division - Offshore, Gas and Pipelines Team.
Tony’s presentation addressed the following:
the role of the HSE;
regulation;
main hazards;
how the HSE conducts its interventions;
lifecycle approach to well integrity;
well notification information;
working with the EA; and
independent well examination
Health and Safety Executive: www.hse.gov.uk
15
How many well engineers do HSE have? How often do they visit sites?
Response from Tony Almond (HSE): Tony indicated that he did not know
the exact numbers off hand. HSE are currently recruiting more engineers.
Tony indicated that he would provide the figure for the final report (see
section 8 of this Summary Report).
What does the word ‘appropriate’ mean in relation to enforcement by
HSE? Do the HSE have powers to enforce? How independent are the
HSE officers employed to enforce? Monitoring seems feeble. Who
pays for an independent assessor?
Response from Tony Almond (HSE): Tony highlighted that the HSE have a
range of enforcement powers. This includes powers to stop development
and prosecute. Tony highlighted that Great Britain has a world class health
and safety regime and that the operator helps to pay for enforcement.
The US experience has highlighted a number of contamination and
severe health issues associated with fracking. This has been
demonstrated through financial settlements now being awarded to
those who have been impacted by local fracking. It was also noted
that gagging orders are in place in the US preventing impacted
communities from speaking out. Who will be responsible in England
for the costs of contamination?
Response from Jane Longman (EA): Jane highlighted that Environmental
Permits will consider issues relating to environmental detriment. This will
mean that an operator would be liable for any proven impact.
Response from Ken Cronin (UKOOG): Ken highlighted that all oil and gas
operators are fully insured. They are also fully regulated through regulators
and will comply with permissions, consents and permits issued. There is no
question of the industry walking away from that. Ken highlighted the need
for monitoring which is vital before the start of a development so there is a
benchmark. Ken also highlighted that regulation is very different in USA
compared to the UK, in particular with regards to issues of well integrity.
In the event of serious breach of regulations, would there be criminal
liability?
Response from Ken Cronin (UKOOG): Ken highlighted that the industry is
regulated and insured. Ken could not comment on direct liabilities.
Response from Tony Almond (HSE): Tony highlighted that there are
liabilities through these duties.
16
In relation to shale oil, what are the chances of methane escaping and
what will happen to it?
Response from Ken Cronin (UKOOG): Ken highlighted that the realities will
depend on each site. Methane will be flared if the amounts are low. This will
require a DECC Flaring Permit. Operators will also need to ensure
compliance with EU Directives. Ken indicated that if the methane levels are
large enough, it will not be flared and will be used or treated on site. It can
be used as a source or energy on site or transferred directly into the
National Grid.
Response from Jane Longman (EA): Jane reiterated Ken Cronin’s
comments and indicated that the management of methane is already
happening in Hampshire in this way for conventional oil and gas
developments.
Existing oil wells have significantly sized gathering stations. Will
unconventional also have gathering stations?
Response from Ken Cronin (UKOOG): Ken indicated that extracted gas
would go directly from site into the National Grid. Ken also highlighted that
the oil and gas industry in the UK is unique in its connection directly into the
National Grid. Oil will be piped, trucked or transported by train from site.
Where will the water come from for development?
Response from Jane Longman (EA): Jane highlighted that operators will
apply for an Abstraction Licence for water abstraction and that will be only
granted if there would be no adverse impact on water resources and there
is sufficient water resources to supply the development.
Response from Ken Cronin (UKOOG): Ken indicated that fracking sites will
be located close to mains water to reduce HGV movements and that the
industry will engage with water companies in a protocol to look at the issue
of water supply for the oil and gas industry.
Oil wells tend to be vertical but fracking tends to be horizontal. Is
there a technical issue? Is there an issue with pressurising the well?
Will contamination of the water supply occur?
Response from Ken Cronin (UKOOG): Ken indicated that the type of well
will depend on type of resource being extracted. The difference is not in the
well, it's where the hydrocarbons are located. The equipment is the same.
Ken highlighted the Royal Society Report28 which indicated that fracturing
fluids will not enter water resources. Triple steel casing is used to ensure
28 Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing: https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-
gas-extraction/ (Royal Society, 2012)
17
there is no contamination. Ken highlighted that the industry will also monitor
before, during, after the development.
There is no doubt about the EA’s commitment to monitoring.
However, a local energy recovery facility (Chineham) has not received
any monitoring visits from the EA. Why? Raised concerns that the
reduction of the resources at the EA. The delegate indicated that he
was fearful that there was a lack of resources to deal with the
monitoring requirements of an expanded industry.
Response from Jane Longman (EA): Jane highlighted that all sites have an
Environmental Permits and the EA is resourced to undertake the monitoring
visits required. The EA takes a risk based approach for monitoring. The EA
also encourages pre-application discussions to ensure that the operator is
aware of issues at earliest stage. Although the EA office Jane represents
does not monitor the site at Chineham, she indicated that it is likely that
regular visits do not occur as the sites has been deemed to be low risk
based on the risk based approach.
Concerns that the South East is an area under ‘water stress’ and
fracking needing lots of water. How will this be addressed?
Response from Jane Longman (EA): Jane asked Simon Moody of the EA
(a delegate at the event) to comment. Simon indicated that understanding
water issues is key. There are Catchment Management Strategies in place
in Hampshire. There are places where water abstraction can and cannot
take place in the county. Simon highlighted the importance of discussions
with water companies on this issue.
Response from Ken Cronin (UKOOG): Ken highlighted that hydraulic
fracturing can take place for as little as 1-2 weeks as part of the
development.
Raised concerns about restoration of sites and what happens when
there is a change of operator? It was indicated that voluntary
contributions seem to be along the right lines but questioned whether
a similar scheme to the Community Infrastructure Levy should be
introduced?
Response from Ken Cronin (UKOOG): Ken highlighted that the industry is
working with the Government currently on post abandonment issues. Ken
also highlighted that the industry is working with insurers. Financial bonds
are already in place for development sites. The industry is working on a
liability fund for post restoration. Ken assured that everything will be in
place as part of the consenting and decision making regimes.
18
5.3 Session Three: Environmental and community
concerns
5.3.1 The third session of the event focused on environmental and community
concerns. It included three presentations, a summary of these is as
follows:
Brenda Pollack - Friends of the Earth (FoE)
Brenda Pollack is FoE’s South East Regional Campaigner. Brenda is involved
in regionally significant campaigns and previously worked to influence policy at
a regional level.
Brenda’s presentation addressed the following:
potential problems associated with fracking;
claims made by supporters of fracking;
will shale gas cut energy bills?
will shale gas help to tackle climate change?
is fracking safe and can we rely on our regulatory system?; and
do we need shale gas?
Friends of the Earth: www.foe.co.uk
Tim Dawes - Frack Free Solent
Tim Dawes is a member of the Green Party, has served as a parliamentary
candidate and has held a number of senior roles within the national Green
Party. Tim is a founder member of Frack Free Solent and has been active in
organising and speaking at events in Hampshire and West Sussex on fracking
issues.
Tim’s presentation addressed the following:
the impact of gas wells;
what wells look like;
water issues;
traffic issues; and
other amenity issues (noise, flaring, lights, fumes).
Frack Free Solent: www.frackfreesolent.org.uk
19
Questions and Answers (Session Three)
5.3.2 Session Three included a Q&A with Brenda Pollack (FoE), Tim Dawes
(Frack Free Solent) and Helen Crow (RSPB). A summary of the questions
and the responses is included below.
The air quality in Fawley (where there is major industry and the oil
terminal) is cleaner than Lyndhurst which is located in the New Forest
National Park. If we don't go for shale we will need more coal and oil.
How can going for other more polluting resources be justified?
Response from Tim Dawes (Frack Free Solent): Tim indicated that the UK
does not have an energy strategy in place. The UK tends to be reactive to
market fluctuations and does not set out a sustainable strategy. Oil and gas
are not the only alternative. There is a need for more renewable energies
and a more balanced energy agenda. Tim does not accept that gas is a
clean fossil fuel as methane leakage is inevitable. Coal burning produces
more CO2 but does not have leakage like gas does. Methane emissions on
top of natural carbon sink leads to massive increases.
Response from Brenda Pollack (FoE): Brenda highlighted that gas escaping
is a huge problem and that methane is far more potent than CO2 as a
warming gas. When this is taken into account gas production is not as clean
as some think. Brenda also indicated that there are issues with getting good
evidence partly due to companies imposing gagging orders in the USA.
Response from Helen Crow (RSPB): RSPB isn’t saying there is no role for
gas in the future energy mix but there needs to be a major shift to
Helen Crow - Climate change officer, Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds (RSPB)
Helen Crow is Climate Change Policy Officer at RSPB. Helen works full time on
UK energy policy. At present, Helen’s time is split mainly between policy and
advocacy on marine renewables and shale gas.
Helen’s presentation addressed the following:
why climate change matters for wildlife;
how RSPB is responding to unconventional resources; and
‘Are we fit to frack?’ report and accompanying evidence review
RSPB: www.rspb.org.uk/fracking
20
renewables. Fossil fuels will undermine the development of the renewable
agenda.
Renewable energy proposals face enormous opposition. Wave power
generation is not efficient enough to be a viable source. How can
renewable go forward in the face of opposition?
Response from Helen Crow (RSPB): Helen highlighted that there are other
renewable options not just wind and that the UK is one of leading
developers of marine renewable technologies.
Response from Tim Dawes (Frack Free Solent): In relation to wave
generation, Tim indicated that the lagoon principle is best solution for a way
forward. Large scale energy production possibilities have massive potential.
Tim indicated that we need a Government who is behind renewables, not
fracking.
Response from Brenda Pollack (FoE): Brenda indicated that it is a myth
about unpopular renewable energy projects. DECC attitude trackers29 on
big issues shows that the majority want more renewable energy projects.
Brenda also indicated that the Rampion offshore wind farm proposal (off the
coast of East and West Sussex) is likely to get planning permission in
summer and has had virtually no opposition.
Response from other event delegate: The vast majority of the population
are not opposed to renewable energy and this is highlighted in the surveys.
DECC attitude trackers show that only 14% are opposed to wind turbines.
Land based wind turbines may be controversial in some areas but this is
not a reason to say fracking is the way to go to. There is no single answer
to energy futures. A vast array of different techniques will be required.
The real reason behind the Alpha Piper disaster was not due to failure
of the pipes. This is different to the reason presented in Frack Free
Solent’s presentation. Therefore it was questioned what the other
evidence was which allowed them to come to this conclusion?
Response from Tim Dawes (Frack Free Solent): Tim indicated that lots of
lessons were learnt from this disaster and the primary cause was failure in
the pipeline. The record is there.
Response from other event delegate: The delegate highlighted that it is
important for facts be evenly balanced. Piper Alfa was compressor failure. It
was not a failure of the wellhead as presented in the Frack Free Solent
presentation.
29 DECC attitude trackers: www.gov.uk/government/collections/public-attitudes-tracking-survey
21
What advice would the three speakers give to Minerals Planning
Authorities on the processing of onsite and offsite issues?
Response from Brenda Pollack (FoE): Brenda highlighted that the MPA is
likely to say that the Environment Agency (EA) covers many issues. It is
difficult to know who does what in the planning and regulatory system.
Planning officers need to have confidence when they are granting planning
permission that all issues have been suitably addressed. Brenda
highlighted that in documents for the Fernhurst planning application in the
South Downs National Park, there was no clear information in the planning
application regarding exactly what the testing involves after the wells are
drilled. Brenda raised concerns that officers do not have the right level of
information and instead rely on the regulators.
Response from Tim Dawes (Frack Free Solent): Tim highlighted that issues
associated with the treatment and disposal of waste water has been seen in
Lancashire. The EA will guide this through Environmental Permitting. Tim
highlighted issues with disposing of radioactive materials as treatment
capacity is not there currently in UK.
Response from Helen Crow (RSPB): Helen highlighted that Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) associated with oil and gas
development need specialist treatment facilities. There may be the need for
more capacity in the UK.
22
6. Session Four: Outcomes of the
round table discussions
6.0.1 The final session of the event included round table discussions. Three
questions were set in advance of the event to form a basis for discussions.
6.0.2 A total of 22 tables were set up for the round table discussions and
delegates were allocated to tables upon registration. This was intended to
ensure that there was a balanced mix of different types of delegates on
each table but also delegates which shared similar interests in the oil and
gas issues. Each table had its own table facilitator for discussions. These
facilitators were officers from the Hampshire Authorities. The key
messages which came out of the table discussions can be summarised, by
question, as follows:
Question 1: What do you think the main issues are for the planning and regulatory system in Hampshire in relation to oil and gas?
6.0.3 A number of comments received in this session related to the planning and
regulatory system. These included comments on the:
planning and regulatory systems themselves;
issues related to the local environment, communities and economy –
sustainable minerals development; and
community involvement, engagement and benefits.
6.0.4 The following diagrams highlight some of the main issues associated with
these three areas.
23
The Planning and Regulatory System
24
25
26
27
Issues related to the local environment, communities and economy – sustainable minerals development
28
29
30
Community involvement, engagement and benefits
31
Question 2: What opportunities or benefits associated with oil and gas development could there be for Hampshire?
6.0.5 Opportunities or benefits associated with oil and gas development were
discussed. Other issues were also identified under this question which
included some questions, concerns or issues which delegates have. All
issues raised are highlighted in the following diagrams:
32
Potential opportunities and benefits
33
34
Other comments received under question 2
35
6.0.6 A number of other comments on opportunities or benefits were also
highlighted in this session. These included:
opportunities for the collection of data by multi agencies;
the need for employment to be as local as possible;
opportunities and benefits which may be associated with oil and gas
need to be effectively communicated.
6.0.7 In addition to the comments noted in the table, some tables questioned the
level of benefits for Hampshire. Some indicated that there would be no or
only limited benefits.
6.0.8 Some comments also noted that opportunities and benefits will only be
viable if oil and gas development is proven to be a safe and workable
process.
6.0.9 Some of the tables also reported large differences in opinion on whether
there were any opportunities or benefits. One table also noted that there
will be negative impacts on the tourism trade, through industrialisation and
associated amenity impacts e.g. noise, light, smell.
Question 3: Are there any issues which require further local implementation guidance following the adoption of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan?
6.0.10 Many of the tables identified the need for further detailed guidance on oil
and gas issues in Hampshire. However, some did not. One of the options
identified was the production of a stand alone document which explains
key issues in a non technical manner. Many others identified the need
further guidance to sit alongside the HMWP, acting as a dissemination
strategy to inform the wider public on key issues associated with oil and
gas development.
6.0.11 Some of the tables also identified areas where further local implementation
guidance on specific issues could be required. In addition, a number of
other comments were received under question 3. These are all outlined
and include the areas set out in the following diagrams.
36
Areas identified where further guidance is needed
37
38
Other comments received under question 3
39
40
41
7. Feedback on the Event
7.0.1 Out of the 190 delegates who attended the Oil and Gas Development in
Hampshire Event, 106 delegates provided feedback on the event. This is
welcomed by Hampshire Authorities as it provides an opportunity for
improvement in the event that further public meetings are organised. The
outcomes of this feedback are set out in Annex 3 of this Summary Report.
7.0.2 On the feedback forms, delegates had the opportunity to add any additional
comments which they did not have an opportunity to raise or felt where not
covered by the event. These are set out in section 8 (Additional questions
raised) of this Summary Report.
8. Additional question raised (including
those noted on the feedback forms)
8.0.1 Following on from the question raised in Session Two (Industry perspective
and regulation) of the event, the HSE indicated that they would be able to
provide information on the number of HSE inspectors for the final report.
However, this issue is currently subject to a Freedom of Information
Request nationally which means that the HSE were unable to provide this
information to the Hampshire Authorities in advance of the publication of
this Summary Report. The HSE have indicated that they will send the
information to the Hampshire Authorities once this information is available
and this will be attached as an addendum to this report once this has been
received.
8.0.2 On the feedback forms, delegates had the opportunity to add any additional
comments which they did not have an opportunity to raise or felt were not
covered by the event. The following table outlines those received, and
includes a response by the Hampshire Authorities.
42
Figure 1: Additional questions which delegates raised on the feedback forms
Comments received Response from Hampshire Authorities
Environmental issues:
How local landscape and environmental issues would be addressed in the event that an oil and gas proposal is received?
The Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) includes clear policies on protecting Hampshire’s environment. The Plan includes:
Policy 2: Climate change: mitigation and adaptation
Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species
Policy 4: Protection of the designated landscape
Policy 5: Protection of the countryside
Policy 6: South West Hampshire Green Belt
Policy 7: Conserving the historic environment and heritage assets
Policy 8: Protection of soils
Policy 9: Restoration of minerals and waste In the event that a proposal for oil and gas development is received in Hampshire, all proposals will be considered against all the relevant policies in the HMWP.
How will site remediation issues be addressed?
The Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) includes clear policies on protecting Hampshire’s environment and maintaining Hampshire’s communities. The Plan includes:
Policy 9: Restoration of minerals and waste
Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and amenity
Policy 11: Flood risk and prevention
Policy 13: High-quality design of minerals and waste development In the event that a proposal for oil and gas development is received in Hampshire, all proposals will be considered against all the relevant policies in the HMWP.
Proposals and plans must assess effects on agriculture and farming practice and should fully mitigate these.
The Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) includes clear policies on protecting Hampshire’s environment. Any proposal received will be considered in relation to its potential impact on the local landscape as well as the protection of soils. In relation to these issues, the HMWP includes:
Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species
Policy 4: Protection of the designated landscape Proposals should seek to
43
enhance agricultural output e.g. through improving water supply and ensure soils are managed appropriately during construction and development.
Policy 5: Protection of the countryside
Policy 6: South West Hampshire Green Belt
Policy 8: Protection of soils
Policy 9: Restoration of minerals and waste In the event that a proposal for oil and gas development is received in Hampshire, all proposals will be considered against all the relevant policies in the HMWP. Policy 8 in particular considers the potential impacts on best and most versatile agricultural land and the need to protect soils. The restoration of sites, in particular on agricultural land is an important consideration.
Social issues:
How will road transport impacts be addressed?
The development of any oil and gas site will involve HGV movements. The level of HGV movements will depend on a number of factors including:
the stage of the development (e.g. is the site being set up, exploration, appraisal or production),
whether fracking is taking place (i.e. there may be a need to import water for use);
what alternative transportation methods are available (e.g. pipelines or rail connections). The Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) includes clear policies on maintaining Hampshire’s communities. The Plan includes:
Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and amenity
Policy 12: Managing traffic
Policy 13: High-quality design of minerals and waste development In the event that a proposal for oil and gas development is received in Hampshire, all proposals will be considered against all the relevant policies in the HMWP.
What are the issues associated with the production and transport of oil and gas?
Fracturing of community will be caused by oil and gas development. Fracking divides opinion and many small local communities are going to be upset, not brought together by
Concerns noted. The Hampshire Statement Community Involvement (2014)30 sets out how Hampshire County Council will engage with communities in planning policy work and when planning applications are received for minerals developments in Hampshire. The other Hampshire Authorities also have their own SCI’s which set out the same provisions31.
30 Hampshire Statement of Community Involvement: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/sci-2.htm 31 Links to the other Hampshire Authorities Statement of Community Involvement can be found at: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/sci-2.htm
44
this invasive practice. Although community benefits sit outside of the planning process and their availability will not be taken into account when decision making, Policy 14 (Community benefits) of the HMWP encourages agreements between relevant minerals developers or operators and local communities as a source of funding for local benefits. The supporting text for this policy also sets out an expectation that all major minerals developments will be accompanied by a site liaison panel. These panels allow local communities to be actively involved in the construction phase, operation and restoration of minerals sites in Hampshire. This allows for local communities views and aspirations to be highlighted and discussed.
Need for a detailed communications strategy on this issue.
Suggestion noted.
What is the risk of seismic tremors during the fracking process?
DECC monitor seismic issues. More information is available on their website: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283837/Seismic_v3.pdf www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-light-monitoring-system-shale-gas-and-fracking and The Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) includes clear policies on maintaining Hampshire’s communities. This includes a policy on protecting health, safety and amenity (Policy 10). This policy states that minerals and waste development should not cause an unacceptable impact on subsidence and migration of contaminants. In the event that a proposal for oil and gas development is received in Hampshire, all proposals will be considered against the relevant policies in the HMWP.
What are the polluted water and waste water toxicity issues which may be associated with oil and gas development?
It is important that oil or gas development does not have a significant impact on water resources, particularly when these feed into local water supplies. This means that the issue of water supply for oil and gas development site will be a critical part of the development of any proposal and are very important considerations in the planning process, even though this issue is covered under other regulatory regimes. When proposing a site, developers must ensure that there is sufficient water and infrastructure for their operations, and, where necessary, will apply for an abstraction license from the Environment Agency (EA). It was highlighted in the presentation by the EA at the event and in the subsequent Q&A session that oil and gas operators will apply for an Abstraction Licence and this will be only granted if there would be no adverse impact on water resources and there are suitable resources to supply the development.
How will water supply issues be addressed?
Is the use of seawater an alterative to abstracted water?
45
For unconventional oil and gas development with associated 'fracking', water is an essential part of the process as it is injected, at pressure, into the shale rock to help with the gas extraction process. Water use is greatest at the production stage as part of the 'fracking' process. As a result, the 'fracking' process is likely to use significant volumes of water, though the Government considers the amount is not exceptional compared with other industrial or leisure activities. The presentation from UKOOG and in the subsequent Q&A it was highlighted that fracking sites will be located close to mains water to reduce HGV movements and that the industry will engage with water companies in a protocol to look at the issue of water supply for the oil and gas industry. However, it is also recognised that other sources of water could be used in the fracking process e.g. the use of sea water. Evidence indicated that 'fracking' takes place at a depth sufficiently distant from groundwater to ensure that the risk of fractures extending into aquifers is considered to be negligible. This means that extraction takes place well below the aquifers that provide drinking water. In relation to shale gas, a report was prepared by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (RSRAE) on the scientific and engineering evidence relating to the technical aspects of the risks associated with 'fracking'32. As indicated in the Q&A in session 2 of the event, Hampshire has Catchment Management Strategies in place and there are places where water abstraction can and cannot take place in the county. Simon highlighted the importance of discussions with water companies on this issue. The EA protects water resources as part of its role as an environmental regulator. Where risks to the environment are significant (for example where development is proposed contrary to the EA Groundwater Protection policy and guidance), the EA is likely to object to any planning application for the construction and operation of individual wells. Water companies will also assess the amount of water available before agreeing to supply an operator.
32
RSRAE Report on Fracking: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-06-28-Shale-gas.pdf
46
If the operator applies for a licence to extract water, it will be granted by the EA only where a sustainable water supply is available. The UK regulatory regime already ensures that hazardous substances must not be allowed to enter groundwater. Groundwater will be protected in the 'fracking' process through any planning permissions being granted or associated consents. In addition, in the UK the regulations prevent flow back fluid contaminating water sources. The Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) includes clear policies on maintaining Hampshire’s communities. This includes a policy on protecting health, safety and amenity (Policy 10). This policy states that minerals and waste development should not:
release emissions to the atmosphere, land or water (above appropriate standards);
have an unacceptable impact on human health;
cause an unacceptable impact on coastal, surface or groundwaters;
cause an unacceptable impact on public strategic infrastructure;
cause an unacceptable cumulative impact arising from the interactions between minerals and waste developments, and between mineral, waste and other forms of development.
The Plan also includes a policy on flood risk - Policy 11 (Flood risk and prevention). In the event that a proposal for oil and gas development is received in Hampshire, all proposals will be considered against all the relevant policies in the HMWP. The Hampshire Statement of Community Involvement (2014)33 sets out how Hampshire County Council will engage with communities in planning policy work and when planning applications are received for minerals developments in Hampshire. This includes water companies as the SCI now includes a commitment to consult all water companies on oil and gas proposals which may impact their area.
33
Hampshire Statement of Community Involvement: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/sci-2.htm
47
The onshore oil and gas FAQ gives a summary issues relating to water use and protection of water resources: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’).
What is the general public’s opinion is on fracking?
This is difficult to conclude. Durham University is researching the public perception of fracking. This is available to view on the University’s website: www.dur.ac.uk/dei/projects/framingfracking.
How will confidence in the ability of the industry and regulators to manage operations effectively and engage with local communities be built?
Hampshire County Council encourages pre-application discussions: www.hants.gov.uk/pre-application-2 . The Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) supports the establishment of local Liaison Panels for oil and gas sites. UKOOG have information on their website about oil and gas developments and local communities. This can be found at the following webpage: www.ukoog.org.uk/community.
Economic issues:
Why the speed in pushing this through and over planning?
The onshore oil and gas FAQ gives a summary of the Government’s position on unconventional oil and gas: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’).
How does oil and gas fit into the national economic and economy perspective?
Future problems (as have happened in the US) not covered by insurance or oil companies e.g. Balcombe – they set up a small company with limited liability. UK companies are refusing to cover damage to property so how will oil companies get cover?
See Ken Cronin’s from UKOOG comments in session 2 of the event for comments on liability and insurance.
Would like to see more of a comparison between renewables and the dash for more fossil fuels
DECC and OUGO provide more information on UK energy issues and its links to oil and gas. More information can be found at the following webpages: DECC: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change OUGO: www.gov.uk/government/groups/office-of-unconventional-gas-and-oil-ougo#make-the-most-of-our-natural-resources
What is the balance between the opportunities of more carbon based energy and encouraging /
48
developing renewable energy? The presentations provided by FoE, Frack Free Solent and RSPB at the event also addressed these issues. See section 6 of this Summary Report. The role of gas in future energy
supply seemed to be a one sided discussion
More background on the national energy balance and forecast and how this relates to the importance for onshore oil and gas production
Other issues:
Location map of shale potential in Hampshire would have given a better focus
A plan showing all licences and existing oil and gas sites in Hampshire was available to view in the refreshment area on the display boards at the event. More information on this issue is also set out on the onshore oil and gas FAQ: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’).
Where can I find out more Information on the fracking process and fracking fluids?
DECC have prepared a lot of information on this issue which is available at the following link: www.gov.uk/government/groups/office-of-unconventional-gas-and-oil-ougo. More information on this issue is set out on the onshore oil and gas FAQ: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’).
Long term monitoring, in particular with regards to well integrity
As indicated at the event, HCC monitors all oil and gas sites permitted by the authority to ensure compliance with the planning permissions granted. In the event that conditions of the planning permission are being breached, the partner authorities have powers to take enforcement action to ensure compliance. More information on our monitoring and enforcement duties can be found at the following link: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/monitoring-and-enforcement-homepage.htm At the event, the EA and the HSE also outlined their monitoring activities. District and Borough councils will not monitor minerals developments as they are not the determining authority for such proposals.
The fact that HCC or the local borough council do not enforce planning conditions (or the EA come to that) – they talk the talk but let the applicants walk all over conditions.
How will or can bonds be used to cover liabilities associated with oil and gas sites?
Comment noted. Whilst this issue lies outside of the planning process, the Hampshire Authorities will
ensure the relevant organisations or regulatory bodies who are involved in this area are informed that
this issue has been raised at the event.
How are sites chosen or Operators will bring forward sites based on DECC licence areas.
49
prioritised? MPAs will determine planning applications for oil and gas development
Comments on resources are noted.
More information on this issue is set out on the onshore oil and gas FAQ: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’). The FAQ will be updated following the publication of this report.
What is the time frame for planning applications?
Differences between shale oil and shale gas
How will the Government resource the regulatory and planning requirements around this initiative?
What are the simple ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of fracking for oil and gas?
OUGO provides more information on oil and gas in the UK, in particular with regards to shale. More information can be found at the following webpage: www.gov.uk/government/groups/office-of-unconventional-gas-and-oil-ougo#make-the-most-of-our-natural-resources. Some of the issues of concern and potential opportunities and benefits which may be associated with oil and gas development are set out in the HCC onshore oil and gas FAQ: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’).
Would like to see a live debate between the fracking industry and anti fracking campaigners
Comment noted.
Perhaps would have been useful to say more about how effective the regulatory system already is and has been with associated case studies e.g. waste incineration. Also useful to highlight how the planning system works, how decisions are made (back to basics)
Comment noted. Hampshire has some good examples of major waste infrastructure. This includes three energy recovery facilities located at Portsmouth, Marchwood and Chineham. These sites are actively monitored by HCC officers to ensure compliance with the planning permissions granted34.
Will anything different be done by Yes. The Hampshire Authorities will consider the outcomes of the event and see what further
34 Hampshire County Council (Monitoring and enforcement of minerals and waste developments): www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/monitoring-and-enforcement-
homepage.htm
50
Hampshire County Council as a result of the event?
guidance may be needed to meet concerns and the issues raised. Recommendations which are associated with the outcomes of the event are set out in section 11 of this Summary Report.
There is a need for a detailed Supplementary Planning Guidance document on oil and gas development in Hampshire
Comment noted. Recommendations which are associated with the outcomes of the event are set out in section 11 of this Summary Report.
Importance of the duty to co-operate – potential to share guidance with adjoining areas
Comment noted. The Hampshire Authorities are committed to working with its adjoining communities or minerals and waste planning authorities with regards to minerals and waste development. This commitment is set out in the new Hampshire Statement of Community Involvement (2014)35.
Sequential testing of sites / preferred areas should be set out in Local Plan
Comment noted.
DECC 1970 – Sir Allen Cotterill’s proposals for underground coal gasification were never followed up. We have 400 years of coal to exploit. Is return to original gasworks an economical and environmental alternative to fracking or the importation of gas?
No rights of appeal for objectors Comment noted. The key is the danger of
regulation process and things falling between regulatory bodies, specifically as the funding of staff is being cut
Think the notion of bridging the transition to renewables is misleading – there is no obvious
35 Hampshire Statement of Community Involvement: www.hants.gov.uk/ sci-2
51
push to development of renewables and gas will be an excuse to delay investment
The need for the event to consider counter arguments to the anti fracking debates.
Can we resign as a queen’s subject now our castles are to be undermined? (ones castles)
Risks needs to be set against any opportunities or benefits.
There is a need to boost the regulatory system i.e. improve funding to HSE, EA, HCC to provide sufficient confidence in the system. Budget cuts have resulted in a lack of trust in regulators being able to do their job properly.
Should the Planning Inspectorate have a specialist unit to deal with oil and gas development?
Stronger interdepartmental dialogues to ensure all aspects of regulation are followed to avoid mistakes and things being missed.
Profits from the sale of gas derived from fracking to be nationally shared – future pension plans?
Comments noted. Whilst this issue lies outside of the planning process, the Hampshire Authorities will ensure the relevant organisations or regulatory bodies who are involved in this area as informed that this issue has been raised at the event.
Would the points that have been Comment noted. The HMWP includes a policy which considers this issue – Policy 9 (Protection of
52
raised in the discussions actually have an effect? You got the feeling that this issue was already a ‘done deal’.
health, safety and amenity). Water companies will be consulted on all oil and gas developments within the HCC administrative area. This commitment is set out in the Hampshire Statement of Community Involvement36.
Concerned about the attendance of lobbyists at events like this. They make millions out of the misery of Hampshire’s residents and definitely do not represent the people
Comment noted. The intention of the event was for all interested parties to be represented to ensure a balance of discussions.
Enforcement of conditions of planning approval
Comment noted. As indicated at the event, HCC monitors all oil and gas sites permitted by the authority to ensure compliance with the conditions granted. More information on our monitoring and enforcement duties can be found at the following link: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/monitoring-and-enforcement-homepage.htm At the event, the EA also outlined its monitoring activities.
Moratorium for fracking in Hampshire
Comment noted. At a full County Council meeting (at HCC) on 23 May 2013, a motion was presented that ‘In view of the potential environmental risks, this Council considers the controversial impact of fracking’. At this meeting, the issues were referred to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee, to report to the County Council at a future meeting. Following consideration by the Select Committee, the following was concluded by the Chairman of the Committee:
noting that a number of Members initially had concerns about shale gas extraction and associated fracking, but after being briefed on the subject had been reassured that there were suitable and robust regulations in place to manage the risks, particularly the prospect of continuous monitoring of planning permissions, environmental permits and seismic activity;
noted that the evidence base about the effects of shale gas extraction and associated fracking would increase over time, and this would help inform future decisions;
noted that should there be planning applications for fracking in Hampshire in future, the County Council would have the opportunity to put requirements in place to mitigate the impact through
36 Hampshire Statement of Community Involvement: www.hants.gov.uk/ sci-2
53
the Regulatory Committee and any planning permissions granted. This motion was again considered at the meeting of the Environment and Transportation Select Committee held on 5 November 2013. It was recommended by the committee that:
having considered the executive summary of the independent review into major risks, and carefully reviewed the national and the local position, the Committee conclude that no further County Council action is required at this stage; and
the Committee is satisfied that rigorous regulations and controls are in place to manage the potential risks from shale gas extraction and associated fracking, and that the County Council now has an up to date planning policy framework in place (through the adopted Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan).
More information on this is available on the HCC website at the following link: www.hants.gov.uk/councilmeetings/meetingsummary.htm?date_ID=1069
54
9. Concluding comments and
recommendations by event
facilitator
9.0.1 On the day of the event, Mike King (the event facilitator) made the following
concluding comments:
9.0.2 Mike King has independently verified the contents of this Summary Report.
1. From listening to all the input today I am struck by the complexity of the
issues and in particular the concerns raised about cumulative impacts. It
seems to me that this is an area that needs closer attention as local
communities may well be faced with multiple potential impacts.
2. Another theme that has emerged for me is what could be described as a
credibility gap around regulation. From what we have heard robust
regulatory frameworks are in place for onshore oil and gas as they are for other
environmental and safety issues, however, people’s perceptions on the ground
are often very different with first-hand experience of regulation not doing what
it was understood to do. This is perhaps a challenge for the regulators; how to
build confidence in the process of regulation.
3. There are many people here (at the event) from local communities which is
great but I am left wondering as to how they, as one representative, take back
all what they have learnt today and communicate that with their
community. Perhaps there is a need to engage further with local communities
who might experience onshore oil and gas in the future.
55
10. Main outcomes of the day
10.0.1 The Hampshire Authorities have considered the outcomes of the day and
have concluded the following:
1) It is clear that there are concerns associated with oil and gas development
in Hampshire. These include potential impacts on the local environment,
communities and economy. There is concern over how impacts will be
mitigated.
2) There is a lack of confidence in the ability of the planning and regulatory
system to monitor developments appropriately, in particular with regards to
the reduction in staff resources at these authorities to undertake such duties.
3) There is a need for further information on the application of community
benefits associated with oil and gas development.
4) There is a need for more information on shale oil and what this means for
Hampshire.
5) There is concern that development of further fossil fuels industries will
undermine the drive for renewable energy.
6) There was some support for the opportunities for oil and gas to be part of
the mix of supplies to provide energy security for the UK.
7) There is support for public engagement on oil and gas issues, to ensure
local communities are informed of key issues associated oil and gas
development in Hampshire and to build confidence and trust in the planning
system.
8) There is a need for greater transparency within the planning process including
non-technical guidance.
9) There is acknowledgement by many delegates that existing oil and gas
operators in Hampshire have a good existing operational record.
10) There is confusion between the roles of MPAs and the regulators.
11) Restoration and aftercare of oil and gas sites is a key consideration.
12) There is a need for MPAs to continue to work with the regulators and to
improve and publicise the linkages between the planning and regulatory system
for oil and gas developments, and other minerals and waste developments.
13) There may be opportunities and benefits associated with oil and gas
development e.g. community benefits, development of the local economy,
environmental benefits through restoration, development of infrastructure.
14) There are areas where local communities would like further guidance on key
planning issues following the adoption of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan
(2013).
15) There is a need to continue to update the Hampshire onshore oil and gas
FAQ to reflect the release of new information and issues identified at the event
which are not covered.
56
11. Recommendations
11.0.1 As a result of the event and its main outcomes, the following
recommendations have been formulated:
1) The Hampshire Authorities to discuss with Councillors and Members about the
preparation of a Supplementary Planning Guidance document on key
issues associated with oil and gas development in Hampshire and the
preparation of further non-technical guidance as appropriate.
2) The continuation of updates to the Hampshire County Council onshore oil
and gas FAQ. The updates will include more information on the following
issues:
energy issues;
shale oil;
the linkages and overlap between the planning and regulatory systems;
consideration of cross boundary issues;
what oil and gas development comprises and the importance of site
management;
potential review of the included policy flowchart;
frequency of monitoring by HCC;
where unconventional oil or gas extraction is taking place elsewhere in
the world.
3) The Hampshire Authorities to support the re-establishment of existing
liaison panels at oil and gas sites in Hampshire where they currently exist.
4) The Hampshire Authorities to require the introduction of Liaison Panels at
all new oil and gas sites which are granted planning permission in Hampshire.
This meets the requirements of the supporting text for Policy 14 (Community
benefits) of the HMWP. The Hampshire Authorities will strongly encourage the
establishment of Liaison Panels ideally at the pre-application stage.
5) Continuation of public engagement on oil and gas issues, to ensure local
communities are informed of key issues associated with oil and gas
development in Hampshire and to build confidence and trust in the planning
system. This will include officer liaison with existing Liaison Panels, District,
Borough, Parish and Towns Councils, emergency services and local interest
groups.
6) All delegates at the event (or those who expressed an interest to attend the
event) will be informed of any further planning policy work which may
take place on oil and gas development in Hampshire in the future. All
other interested parties (who are not already informed of planning policy work)
that contact the Hampshire Authorities after the event on oil and gas will also
be informed of any work.
57
12. Where can I find out more about oil
and gas development in Hampshire?
12.0.1 If you require further information on oil and gas development in Hampshire,
the event or the HMWP, please contact HCC by:
Calling: 0845 6035654 (Hantsdirect)
emailing: [email protected]
writing
to:
County Planning, Economy, Transport and Environment Department,
Hampshire County Council, The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire. SO23
8UD
12.0.2 HCC has already prepared a FAQ on onshore oil and gas which is
available to view at www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’).
This FAQ is regularly updated as new information and guidance is
published.
7) Continue to work with the regulators, to improve the linkages between the
planning and regulatory system for oil and gas developments as well as all other
minerals and waste developments.
58
13. Annexes
59
Annex 1:
How delegates were determined
The Hampshire Authorities wrote or emailed over 3,000 interested parties or
organisations in April 2014 and asked them to express an interest in attending an
event on oil and gas development.
Organisations, interested parties and local residents were contacted were based on:
All Elected Members from the Hampshire Authorities (HCC, SCC, PCC and NFNPA)
Members of Parliament (MP’s) and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs),
District, Borough, Town and Parish Council’s, existing oil and gas operators and
water companies in Hampshire were invited to express an interest in attending the
event.
The Hampshire Authorities received just over 250 expressions of interest to attend
the event. This included expressions from organisations requesting one or more
spaces.
The event was limited to 200 delegates due to the nature of the event and the size of
the venue.
HCC officers on behalf of the Hampshire Authorities reviewed all expressions of
interest and selected the invitees, with a view to ensuring a mixed and balanced
group of delegates from different interests, organisations and backgrounds.
200 invitations were sent out in May 2014. A wide and varied mixture of delegates
were invited to the event including Elected Members, District, Borough, Parish and
Town Councils, other Minerals Planning Authorities, regulators, operators and
associated industry, local interest groups and environmental organisations.
All organisations or interested parties who expressed an interest in attending were
offered at least one space at the event. All Hampshire residents who expressed an
interest to attend were given a space on the event.
UKOOG represented the oil and gas industry at the event. Local operators were also
in attendance at the event. Local water companies were also invited and two
companies attended (Portsmouth Water and Sembcorp).
those who have previously expressed an interest in the development of
the HMWP (i.e. on the HMWP consultee database) with a known interest
in oil and gas issues; and
those who have a known interest in oil and gas development in
Hampshire who do not feature on the above database currently.
60
Attendance by officers from the Hampshire Authorities was important so that relevant
departments from within the councils (e.g. officers from highways, public health, land
management, economic development, energy, landscape, archaeology, ecology)
also gained an understanding of the issues associated with oil and gas development.
This will assist the Hampshire Authorities to deal with any oil and gas proposals
received in the future more effectively. Many of these officers also acted as table
facilitators for the Round Table Discussion session.
A small waiting list was prepared. This comprised additional expressions of interest
from organisations that already had been allocated a space on the event.
All delegates at the event (or those who expressed and interest to attend the event)
will be informed of any further work which may take place on oil and gas
development in Hampshire in the future. Delegates have an opportunity not to be
informed of the updates by requesting removal from the associated database by
HCC officers by requesting removal via the contact details available at the end of this
report.
61
Annex 2:
Oil and Gas Development in Hampshire event
5 June 2014
Agenda
Time Item Proposed speaker / lead
- 9.30-10.00 Registration
HCC staff
1 10.00-10.05 (5 mins)
Introduction by Executive Member for Economy, Transport and the Environment
Councillor Seán
Woodward – Executive
Member for Economy,
Transport and the
Environment at
Hampshire County
Council
2 10.05-10.10 (5 mins)
Introduction to the day Mike King (Resources for Change) – Event facilitator
Session 1: Background, Policy & Planning
3 10.10-10.35 (25 mins)
Oil and Gas: Issues for UK exploitation
Professor Sanderson - University of Southampton
4 10.35-10.55 (20 mins)
Shale gas in the UK: Realising the economic potential, safely and responsibly
Officer from OUGO – Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil
5 10.55- 11.05 (10 mins)
Onshore oil and gas development and the planning process
Officer from DCLG – Department of Communities and Local Government
6 11.05- 11.15 (10 mins)
Oil and gas development in Hampshire Peter Chadwick - Hampshire County Council
11.15-11.30 (15 mins)
Coffee and tea break in King Charles Suite and networking
Refreshments led by Guildhall staff
7 11.30-11.50 (20 mins)
First Morning session panel Q &A Mike King (Resources for Change) – Event facilitator
62
Time Item Proposed speaker / lead
Session 2: Industry perspective & Regulation
8 11.50-12.10 (20 mins)
An oil and gas operators perspective, community engagement and community benefits
Ken Cronin - UKOOG
9 12.10 – 12.30 (20 mins)
Environmental Regulation – Oil and gas development in Hampshire
Jane Longman - Environment Agency
10 12.30-12.45 (15 mins)
Regulation of health and safety issues - The Regulatory Framework for shale gas – HSE’s perspective
Tony Almond – Health and Safety Executive
11 12.45 – 13.05 (20 mins)
Second morning session panel Q&A Mike King (Resources for Change) – Event facilitator
13.05-14.00 (55 mins)
Lunch in King Charles Suite and networking
Refreshments led by Guildhall staff
Session 3: Environmental & Community concerns
13 14.00-
14.05 (15 mins)
Introduction to the afternoon session Event facilitator
14 14.05-14.20 (15 mins)
Oil and gas development: Friends of the Earth perspective
Brenda Pollack - Friends of the Earth
15 14.20-14.35 (15mins)
Oil and gas development: Frack Free Solent perspective
Tim Dawes - Frack Free Solent
16 14.35-14.50 (15 mins)
Oil and gas development: RSPB perspective
Helen Crow - RSPB
17 14.50 – 15.10 (20 mins)
Afternoon session panel Q&A Mike King (Resources for Change) – Event facilitator
15.10-15.25
Coffee break in King Charles Suite and networking
Refreshments led by Guildhall staff
Session 4: Onshore Oil & Gas development in Hampshire
18 15.25-
16.25 Round table discussion – We want now to hear from you
Mike King (Resources for
63
(60 mins total - 15 mins per question, 15 mins feedback)
(15 mins per question) Based on what you have heard today…
1) What do you think the main issues are for the planning and regulatory system in Hampshire relation to oil and gas? (15 minutes)
2) What opportunities or benefits associated with oil and gas development could there be for Hampshire? (15 minutes)
3) Are there any issues which require further local implementation guidance following the adoption of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan? (15 minutes)
Feedback – key points from a selection of groups (15 minutes)
Change) – Event facilitator and table facilitators
19 16.25-16.30 (5 mins)
Conclusions, next steps and thanks Mike King (Resources for Change) – Event facilitator
64
Annex 3:
Feedback received on the event
106 feedback forms were filled in at the event. The feedback came from the following
types of groups, as set out in the following diagram.
Figure 1: Feedback received, by delegate group
The delegates were asked to provide feedback on the following areas, the:
organisation of the event;
balance of delegates;
speakers;
event facilitator;
table discussions;
Hampshire County Council’s presentation;
HCC/ SCC / PCC / NFNPA Officer
Local Resident Representative
Other minerals and waste planning authority(not partners)
Government Organisation / Department
County Councillor / City Councillor / Member
Local Environment Group Representative
District/Borough Officer
District/Borough Councillor
Industry Representative
Parish/Town Councillor
Planning consultant / legal
Other consultancy
Education
Water companies
Other
65
any additional questions or issues that delegates believed were not
adequately addressed at the event; and
any comments delegates felt they did not have an opportunity to raise at the
event.
Organisation of the Event
The following chart highlights the ratings given by delegates to the organisation of
the Oil and Gas Development in Hampshire event.
Figure 2: Ratings for the organisation of the event
Largely, comments received about the organisation of the event were very positive.
This included comments on the effective organisation of the event and the event
being one of the most informative events on this topic that delegates had attended.
Some of the other comments received are noted in the following table, along with a
response from the Hampshire Authorities.
Score of 5 is good, score of 1 is poor
66
Figure 3: Comments received on the organisation of the event
Comments received Response from the Hampshire Authorities
Registration Registration / reception: Confused and poor. There was confusion over bringing photo ID or not. It should have been made clear that the delegates table numbers where on their badges
Comments noted. Feedback on the organisation of the event will be taken into account when organising any further events.
Venue Audio issues: Need for a better PA systems, Speakers throughout the hall, need for a wireless system, the need for someone to regulate the sound system, hall acoustics
Comments noted. Feedback on the organisation of the event will be taken into account when organising any further events. The Hampshire Authorities have provided feedback to Winchester Guildhall on the audio issues and the use of the room for large meetings.
Need for better laser pointers for speakers
Toilets being out of action
Need for better laser pointers for speakers
Refreshments: No drinks at lunchtime, queues for refreshments, need for more water on the tables, more time should have been allowed for refreshments
Display issues: The need for larger display screens
Presence of security Comments noted. Due to the size of the event and the nature of issues being discussed, it was important to ensure the smooth running of the day and the safety of all delegates attending.
Agenda and hand-outs
Provide an agenda in advance
Comments noted. Feedback on the organisation of the event will be taken into account when organising any further events. In this instance, the Hampshire Authorities were unable to provide an agenda in advance of the event due to the finalisation of the agenda not taking place until just before the event took place.
Due to the size of the event and the number of
Hand-outs for the presentations would have been useful
67
presentations, it was decided that it would not be
sustainable to provide paper copies of the
presentations for all delegates. A dedicated
webpage was instead set up and all
presentations were available to view and
download the day after the event -
www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/planning-
policy-home/oil-gas-development.
Content of the day
The round table discussions could have been moved to the end of the morning session
Comments noted. Feedback on the organisation of the event will be taken into account when organising any further events.
Need for more locally defined requirements and information from Government – not just industry spin
It was important that the event included a wide variety of interested parties and represented all interests in oil and gas.
It was very useful for organisations to have an opportunity to display information. It really encouraged people to come and speak to the organisations during the breaks. If the event was run again, more display areas could be beneficial
Comments noted. Feedback on the organisation of the event will be taken into account when organising any further events.
It is always difficult to get a balance of views – perhaps a Q&A involving both anti fracking / scientific / industry perspectives
Comments noted. Feedback on the organisation of the event will be taken into account when organising any further events. The event was structured to essentially tell the ‘story’ of oil and gas development and also allow local communities and environmental groups to raise areas of concern.
68
Balance of Delegates
The following chart highlights the ratings given by delegates to the mix of delegates
at the event.
Figure 4: Ratings for the mix of delegates at the event
Largely, comments received about the mix of delegates at the event were very
positive. This included comments on the good mix of delegates present.
Some of the other comments received are noted in the following table, along with a
response from the Hampshire Authorities.
Score of 5 is good, score of 1 is poor
69
Figure 5: Comments received on the mix of delegates at the event
Comments received Response from Hampshire Authorities
The event should have included more involvement from Hampshire local residents or objector groups
Comments noted. See Annex 1
of this Summary Report.
The event should have included more industry representatives / input / speakers with actual experience in community exhibitions for oil and gas developments
I was concerned with my ‘perception’ of the selection of Elected Members at the event. However, there was generally a good representation of the people
Too many regulators were in attendance
There should be less HCC officers and other council representatives in attendance
There was a need for more delegates from ecological representatives
There were too many planning consultants and planning officers in attendance
There were a lot of Parish Council representatives (understandably) in attendance
The event would have benefited from more industry representatives
There was a need for more delegates from water companies
70
Speakers
The following chart highlights the ratings given to the speakers at the event.
Figure 6: Ratings for the mix, range and speakers at the event
Largely, comments received about the speakers at the event were positive. This
included comments on the good range of speakers and the balance achieved with
regards to the issues discussed.
Some of the other comments received are noted in the following table, along with a
response from the Hampshire Authorities.
Score of 5 is good, score of 1 is poor
71
Figure 7: Comments received on the speakers at the event
Comments received Response from Hampshire Authorities
Content, style and timing of presentation
AM speakers were good and well prepared. PM speakers were speaking from the heart
Comments noted.
Anti fracking presentations were rushed and had less time than the regulators
Comments noted. The planning and regulatory sections of the event
were constructed to explain how different agencies
and bodies are involved in the overall process. As
explained at the event, there are many different
organisations that all have different roles in oil and
gas developments. The Hampshire Authorities
considered it to be important to have sessions to
allow this to be explained. Three different
environmental organisations also had the opportunity
to present their concerns and issues associated with
oil and gas development.
Heavy on Government who were seen to be given more time than other groups
Need for more of a local political view Comments noted. Councillor Woodward from HCC provided an overarching introduction to the day. Local Elected Members were invited as delegates at the event. Elected Members from the MPAs will determine any planning applications for oil and gas development within their administrative areas in Hampshire. It is therefore important that a local political view is not determined before any proposal for oil and gas development has been received otherwise the MPA could be seen a pre-determining planning applications.
Some presentations contained too much information Comments noted. Feedback on the style and content
72
Speakers should not read from notes of presentations at the event will be taken into account when organising any further events and requesting presentations.
Quality of statutory organisations presentations– to many acronyms, to much details, death by PowerPoint, monotone, speaking to the screen
Slides went up too quickly and could not see all the details
Some of the speaker’s presentations covered similar issues or repeated issues
Problems hearing some of the presentations Comments noted. The Hampshire Authorities have provided feedback to Winchester Guildhall on the audio issues and the use of the room for large meetings such as the event.
Content, style and timing of presentation
Reduce the length of time for presentations and have more time for discussion
Comments noted. Feedback on the timing of presentations at the event will be taken into account when organising any further events and requesting presentations.
Pro and anti speakers could have been mixed up –but maybe was a good idea to keep them separate
Too much focus on shale gas. More information on shale oil would have been good, but recognise that the Weald study is only a few weeks old so understand
Comments noted. Feedback on the content of presentations at the event will be taken into account when organising any further events and requesting presentations. The Hampshire Authorities were unaware of the publication date for the BGS assessment of the Weald basin37, when organising the date for the event. The late publication of the BGS assessment, just in advance of the event, meant that this issue was potentially not explored as much as it could have been. Further events, if undertaken, will benefit from their being more publicly available information on this
37 British Geological Survey assessment of the Weald Basin (BGS, (2014): www.bgs.ac.uk/shalegas
73
subject. The HCC FAQ has also been updated to reflect this new information38 and will be updated again following the publication of this report.
Would have been useful to have had more of focus on DECC licencing regime
Comments noted. DECC and OUGO provide more information on oil and gas licencing. More information can be found at the following webpages: DECC: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change OUGO: www.gov.uk/government/groups/office-of-unconventional-gas-and-oil-ougo#make-the-most-of-our-natural-resources More information on this issue is also set out on the onshore oil and gas FAQ: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’).
Content, style and timing of presentation
Professor Sanderson’s was the best presentation as he was independent and could speak his mind
Comments noted.
Some speakers were excellent; some gave incorrect information which can be damaging. The anti fracking group were quoting from the Huffington Post! In some cases no qualification for messages being promoted by anti speakers
Comments noted. Feedback on the style and content of presentations at the event will be taken into account when organising any further events and requesting presentations. The purpose of the event was to consider oil and gas development.
To much focus on the USA regulation where things are very different
Facts of hydraulic fracturing – the facts used in some presentations in the morning sessions were incorrect on
38 Hampshire County Council Onshore oil and gas FAQ: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning (see ‘Hot Topics’)
74
several levels (particularly on the issues associated with water stress, risks etc.)
The overriding needs is to prioritise energy reduction was lost in discussions and this needed to be picked up in more detail
More time should have been spent on whether we should be looking at fossil fuels at all
Difficulty of an event with such a wide range of knowledge’s among delegates, with some coming from a low knowledge base
It would have been good to have got a general view from DECC on the role of gas in energy system and meeting our 5 yearly carbon targets
Over focus on fracking as opposed to well integrity. From the well head down, conventional and unconventional is a pressurised system and any leak is undesirable.
Hand-outs Would have been useful for the slides to have been supported with hand-outs
Comments noted. Due the number of presentations and the number of delegates, it was decided that it was not sustainable to print out all slides. Instead, these were made available to download at the following webpages: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/planning-policy-home/oil-gas-development.htm. The suggestion to provide hand-outs in advance of the event will be considered when organising future events.
Would have liked the option to print out hand outs before the day to make notes on
Potential other issues which could have been addressed by the
Suggestions on other presentations or other issues which could have been covered or covered in more detail included:
More of an industry perspective
Landowner’s perspective
Suggestions on other areas which could have been covered by the presentations are noted and have been identified as issues for further consideration in the event that further events are organised on this issue.
75
presentations Community engagement perspectives
Risks and difficulties with extraction of oil and gas
New technologies in the energy industry
Comparative energy study results – short, medium and long term
The differences between US / Australian / UK regulatory regimes
Issues of protection of water resources
Mitigating against pollution
Waste disposal should have been considered more
Impacts and risks
How exploration / production works and how it’s managed
What happens after a frack if a company goes bust?
Presentation from national organisations such as Greenpeace as well as more local environmental groups
Speaker from a site that is operational in the UK
Background on how much energy is consumed in Hampshire and how much is produced
A local view from someone in a ‘target zone’ – if you can find some unbiased!
Logic and risk / benefit should be included against all options
Benefits of petrochemicals from oil
More case studies / practical examples
Remediation of sites
Historical background of renewables and other renewable options e.g. wind power generation
Highlight how effective the regulatory system already is and has been with associated case studies e.g.
76
waste incineration
More on the real financial value of fracking to the UK
Closing the loop on artificial fertilisers which require natural gas
There should have been more science in the presentations
Traffic issues – the real trouble with infrastructure
Property values and the impact on prices from fracking
Industrialisation of rural areas not covered
The historical environment
77
Event Facilitator
The following chart highlights the ratings given to the event facilitator (Mike King of
Resources for Change).
Figure 8: Ratings for the event facilitator
Largely, comments received about the event facilitator at the event were very
positive. These included comments on his approach, his good time keeping and
presentation.
Some of the other comments received are noted in the following table, along with a
response from the Hampshire Authorities.
Score of 5 is good, score of 1 is poor
78
Figure 9: Comments received on the event facilitator
Comments received Response from Hampshire Authorities
I don’t think Mike’s role was that of a facilitator – it was more of a compare. The real value will be assessed when the final report is published.
Comment noted.
Facilitator needed to be more aware of audio issues – better checks for speakers and helping them if they had the microphone placement wrong.
Comments noted. The Hampshire Authorities have provided feedback to Winchester Guildhall on the audio issues and the use of the room for large meetings.
79
Table Discussions
The following chart highlights the ratings given to the table discussion at the event.
Figure 10: Ratings for the table discussions at the event
Largely, comments received about the table discussions at the event were positive.
Some of the other comments received are noted in the following table, along with a
response from the Hampshire Authorities.
Score of 5 is good, score of 1 is poor
80
Figure 11: Comments received on the table discussions at the event
Comments received Response from Hampshire Authorities
It would have been better to have more than one session, sessions throughout the day to give more focus
Comments noted. The organisation of the round table discussions was based on the fact that delegates had the opportunity to absorb the presentations throughout the day and take these into account when discussing the table questions set. Feedback on the table discussions will be taken into account in the event that further events are organised which include such sessions.
A clearer definition of what the expected outcomes were would have been useful. It was not clear what Hampshire wanted to achieve from the session
Comments noted. Feedback on the table discussions will be taken into account in the event that further events are organised which include such sessions.
Questions a bit ambiguous and overlapping / not specific enough / too wide
There should have been a question relating to risks
Could have done with a longer discussion time
Strong personalities will always override others / Too many egos
Not sure how much delegates gained from table discussions
Useful to have a mix of interests represented
There were too many planning consultants and planning officers on my table (table 7) and the facilitators favoured other officer’s views over others
Comments noted. Officers had tried to ensure a mix of delegates at each of the tables with different interests, to ensure mixed discussions.
There were no discussions on the principles on whether we should be pursuing a new fossil fuel
Comments noted. The purpose of the table discussions was to discuss oil and gas development in Hampshire.
81
Hampshire County Council Presentation
The following chart highlights the ratings given to the Hampshire County Council
(HCC) presentation at the event.
Figure 12: Ratings for the HCC presentation at the event
Largely, comments received about the HCC presentation at the event were positive.
This included comments that the presentation was clear, concise and to the point.
Some of the other comments received are noted in the following table, along with a
response from the Hampshire Authorities.
Score of 5 is good, score of 1 is poor
82
Figure 13: Comments received on the HCC presentation at the event
Comments received Response from the Hampshire Authorities
The presentation was very brief (time constraints) but nonetheless made some valuable points about the role of the local planning authority in terms of managing the demand for growth in the plan-led system
Comments noted. Feedback on the HCC presentation will be taken into account when preparing further presentations on this subject for local meetings or further organised public events.
Presentation could have been longer
The broad range of delegates made it difficult to cover the basics and more detailed aspects of planning
Suggestions on other areas which could have been covered included:
the success of Humbly Grove Liaison Panel would calm fears about oil / gas development
explanation of HCC’s role in planning process in comparison to that of local authorities in two tier authorities
more explanation about oil and gas development in Hampshire
detail of case studies and practical examples
included links to emergency services involvement in the process
HCC has already done a great deal to inform. FAQs should be promoted and developed.
Comments noted.
Too many detailed references to the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan and this made sections of the event not entirely clear as some delegates did not have awareness of the Plan.
Comments noted. The event was linked to the implementation of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) and this was made clear in the expression of interest documentation and the invites. More information on the HMWP can be found at the following webpage: www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/planning-policy-home.htm
This document can be made available in large print, on audio media, in Braille or in some other languages. For further information, please contact Planning Policy in the County Planning group at Hampshire County Council: Telephone: 0845 603 5634 (Hantsdirect)
Email: [email protected]
Write to: Planning Policy County Planning Economy, Transport & Environment Department Hampshire County Council Floor 1, Elizabeth II Court West Winchester SO23 8UD
Internet: www.hants.gov.uk/county-planning
_______________________________________________________________________
