.png)
Proppant squeeze: The fracking loophole that could matter to Foxholes
Yesterday, the Government refused to close the door on lower-volume hydraulic fracturing, known as “proppant squeeze”.
The Government says this is different from the high-volume hydraulic fracturing covered by the current moratorium.
But here’s the crucial point:
Proppant squeeze still involves injecting fluid at high pressure to fracture rock.
The difference is primarily the volume of fluid used. Because it falls below the legal threshold, it is not covered by the current moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in England.
And that leaves a very simple question:
Where is the evidence that this technique is safe?
The Government has said there is currently “no clear evidence” that lower-volume hydraulic fracturing induces seismicity that is felt at the surface.
But that is not the same thing as demonstrating that it cannot cause damaging or unacceptable impacts.
Indeed, during yesterday’s parliamentary debate, Alison Hume MP said there is strong evidence that small-scale fracking carries the same risks as large-scale operations, particularly in relation to seismicity.
Surely the burden should not fall on communities to prove that a potentially hazardous industrial technique is unsafe.
If the industry wants to use it, shouldn't the industry and its regulators have to demonstrate that it is safe and appropriate for the particular geology and community involved?
So what does this mean for Foxholes?
Egdon’s current application is for exploration and testing. Egdon says that the proposed exploratory operation will not involve stimulation of the reservoir.
But if gas is discovered in commercially viable quantities, that would be a different proposition.
Egdon could then seek planning permission for a future production development and that future application could potentially include reservoir stimulation such as proppant squeeze.
That would be a new application and would require its own permissions and consents. It is not automatic. But the possibility is real. Lower volume hydraulic fracturing is currently permitted in principle within the regulatory framework.
Once the drill bit has gone into the ground, the question may no longer simply be “Are they drilling for gas?”
It may become:
“How will they get the gas out?”
And the answer could be hydraulic fracturing by another name.
Please object and help us oppose this proposal to desecrate our landscape.
Protect the Wolds. Protect our Aquifer. Preserve the Chalk Streams.
Comments