 |
I attended a meeting of the following group in a parliamentary building on Tuesday. The following is a written submission I had earlier sent to them. But as I was placed fourth on the agenda, there were serious time pressures by my turn was reached and people from the floor of the meeting needed their opportunity to contribute. So I spoke very briefly. The group is chaired by Lee Rowley M.P.
To : All Party Parliamentary Group on “The Impact
of Shale Gas“.
Dear Lee Rowley and
Associates,
This is my submission for consideration at
your meeting on 24 July when you will be investigating “Shale
Impacts In Former Mining Areas”. I hope to attend your meeting and
hopefully face questions related to this submission.
I am a Member of “Coal
Aston and Dronfield Against Fracking” which is a non-political
organisation drawing its membership from across the political
spectrum. This presentation is made on their behalf. Whilst this
body pursues a range of wider concerns, the matters I deal with
below are part of their brief and are intended to cover the specific
topic you are currently pursuing.
(1) Much Underground
Fracking Will Operate Under Built-Up Areas.
In recent years, the
Government have issued a wide range of “Petroleum Exploration and
Development Licences” (PEDLs) given to firms who are permitted to
seek authority to engage in exploratory vertical underground
operations which will then (the firms hope) lead them on to engage in
related horizontal fracking operations. The great bulk of these PEDLs cover
territory where wide ranges of coal mining operations have taken
place in the past and/or where untapped coal seams still remain. For
it is in such areas that shale gas is the most likely to be found.
When these firms seek
initial rights to engage in exploratory vertical operations in order
to discover whether the surrounding underground territory will be
able to deliver the quantities of shale gas they are seeking, such
explorations tend only to be practical when they initially are
undertaken either in rural areas or within significant green field
territory contained within a basically urban unit. The early use of
urban territory for purposes of exploration being restricted by the
fact that very heavy traffic will need to be used during exploratory
processes and these will prove to be extremely difficult to operate
from in major built-up areas. For such areas already tend to have
obvious high level transport operations. So any significant additions
will be seen by planning authorities as being likely to lead to major
bottlenecks. Although there are still major transport problems which
many of us believe will arise in approaching the more rural sites.
But whilst vertical
searches for initial access points for the discovery of shale gas
will often be centred upon rural terrain, the bulk of shale gas
sources themselves will eventually be found beneath urban territory.
The entry points initially used by fracking firms in mainly rural
territory, will thus often be used to lead onto underground access
points which will undermine neighbouring urban territory. There are
two main reasons why urban facilities have come to be built on top of
former coal mining areas.
First of all, coal getting
goes back 5,000 years to Neolithic times and was advanced especially
by the Romans hundreds of years ago. Coal was initially only obtained
close to the surface via digging into hillsides or via shallow
digging into surface areas. Small mines with a single entrance each
were then developed known as “bell pits” - these often came to
run (one after the other) in single rows along the top of specific
coal seams. Then shallow mines were operated, each with an entrance
and exit in close proximity to each other. Often entrances came to
double as exits. In time (when the above forms of shallow
mining became inadequate or were worked out) the land they had
previously occupied often came to have houses, gardens, paths, roads,
shops, schools and other communal facilities built upon them. This
occurred because the population in England needed such facilities as
it grew rapidly over time from just over 2 million in 1500 to some 50
million by 2000. Formerly worked mining territory being seen as ideal
spots for such developments.
A second factor leading to
housing and other social provisions being built on top of exploited
coal mining territory, was the dramatic increase in coal production
which took place from the time of the birth of the Industrial
Revolution. Miners and their families were moved into newly
established coal mining areas, with their homes and other facilities
being built above (or close to) the seams of coal which were being
dug out. Whilst nowadays (apart from a small number of drift mines)
coal production has ended in the UK, yet many former miners'
residential areas remain occupied. So their current residents still
live above or in the vicinity of former underground coal seams.
From the above pattern, it
follows that the great bulk of proposed fracking operations (whilst
often starting out from rural territory) will come to operate beneath
much urban territory. For the starting point for any fracking
operations will fan out from its underground (and normally rural)
starting point. For instance, INEOS claim that when they move to
horizontal fracking techniques they can fan out for a mile and a
quarter from their starting point – which can be a total of two and
a half miles if taken in opposing directions Yet in the USA (where
INEOS admit they will need to hire fracking experts) the firm
Haliburton claim that they have engaged in fracking operations which
fan out for some three and a half miles.
(2) Will Underground
Fracking Create Surface Damages ?
When a firm engages in
fracking techniques under current government legislation, its seismic
operations (which are a key to its procedures) are expected to
operate at 1,000 metres or below; although the Government have powers
to reduce this minimum level in specific cases. There is also the
question of how closely the Government agencies will check that firms
are always operating within the established guidelines.
The question that then
arises is whether fracking taking place beneath former or remaining
coal seams will cause surface problems. For this could be
particularly damaging and dangerous when underground fracking
operations take place. If disrupted by seismic fracking operations,
there is the possibility that remaining low level or former coal
seams might experience disruptions but (with luck) this might play
itself out before surface sink holes or the like emerge. Although I
know of an area in the past whose residents could at times hear such
mining operations taking place beneath their homes.
However, if underground
seismic fracking shakes up land which has had former coal mining
operations taking place close to its surface, then ground level
collapses could well be even more prevalent. For such disruptions
have no time to settle before they reach ground level. An indications
of some of the types of territory which could well be effected emerge
via experiences from past natural earthquake activities. On 27
February 2008 an earthquake took place at Market Rasen in
Lincolnshire which led to the United States Geological Earthquake
Programme working with the Daily Telegraph and others to obtain
reports from people whose land and properties had experienced the
effects of this incident at its different levels of local intensity.
Unfortunately, many people would not have been aware that the survey
had taken place. Yet within my own area alone, the following number
of disruptive incidents were recorded – Chesterfield 83, Sheffield
303, Rotherham 88. Mansfield 51 and Derby 150. See the following -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580010/UK-earthquake-town-by-town-statistics.html
But whilst there are
limits to what can be done to protect people from natural
earthquakes, they do not need to be exposed to dangers from man-made
fracking operations. These can be blocked. A body which your APPG
could pursue on this matter is .the British Geological Society. They
hold details on underground fracture lines which could well be
effected by man-made seismic operations.
The dangers of underground
seismic fracking operations mainly as experienced in the USA is
covered in a substantial work entitled “Methods of Environment and
Social Impact Assessment”, edited by Riki Therivel and Graham Wood
(Routledge). It states-
"Seismic Risk is a
significant problem in some parts of the world.....For example,
hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') can potentially cause significant
geological problems that as ESIA (i.e. an
"Environmental and Social Impact Assessment".
HB) for a fracking operation would need to assess.
Fracking involves pumping liquid under pressure into rock formations
to force shale gas out. The main geological risks are that expelled
gas might contaminate underground aquifers, and the possibility of
earthquakes. Earthquakes caused by fracking are usually small, but
associated waste-water disposal by injection into deep wells can
induce larger earthquakes (Ellsworth 2013). For example, a
fracking-induced 5.7 earthquake in central Oklahoma in November 2011
destroyed 14 homes and injured two people....Subsidence and slope
stability are also factors that should be considered. Subsidence is
caused by underground mining and is usually associated with
traditional coalfield areas. where the subsidence extends for
considerable distances around collieries". For more details see
-
(3) Important Coal
Authority Sources.
A major body which should
concern itself about the dangers of seismic forms of damage from
fracking operations is the British Coal Authority. It has a fine past
record in discovering where past mining operations have taken place.
And it points out that it has by no means yet discovered every site
given the long, complex and often unrecorded ancient history of
mining operations in this country. For instance, I lived immediately
next to the Unstone-Dronfield By-Pass when it was constructed in the
early 1970s. The Coal Authoritiy Interactive Map shows that over 20
former mine exits and entries appear under the road's construction,
with many more of these being within close proximity of the road.
A major source for
discovering the up-to-date records of past forms of mining operations
which have taken place in the British Isles is the Coal Authority
Interactive Map. Specific areas can be homed into on their
Interactive Map and different categories can then be checked out.
These include all discovered mine entries and exits, development risk
areas, areas of past and probable shallow mine workings, coal
outcrops, areas of underground workings and some two dozen further
categories. In some cases (such as the crosses which show mine
entries and exits) these can also be linked into and more specific
details will appear such as those showing the depth of the mine
shafts concerned. It would be helpful for your APPG to examine the
Interactive Map, by linking it to a large screen. The Common's
Library would also be an avenue which specific MPs could turn to for
Coal Authority print outs of their own Constituency areas. The
Interactive Map can be found here -
A whole host of other
valuable coal mining data can also be traced from the Coal
Authority's other sources, such as the following -
(4) Current Failures By
The Coal Authority.
Unfortunately, when either
Council or Government Planning Enquiries are being held to determine
applications for planning permission for vertical or horizontal
operations, the Coal Authority are currently failing to make adequate
use of the information they hold.
In a printed submission
from the Coal Authority relating to an application by INEOS for
vertical exploration on a site near Bramleymoor Lane, Derbyshire S2
15RD which was made available for the public when a Planning
Inspectorate held a public enquiry on the matter in Chesterfield
recently, they stated that “There are no known coal mine entries
within 20 meters of the boundary of the property” concerned. This was a
phrase repeated in the written evidence which was also supplied by
INEOS, but without them quoting its source. The quotation coming
from the Coal Authority document “CON29M Non-Residential Report”,
initially issued on 23 December 2016.
I appreciate that it is
common practice for the Coal Authority to use such 20 metre
measurements. But why do they not also point out that (a) there could
be other coal mine entries within the 20 meter area which have not
yet been discovered – especially as these are in the vicinity of
other recorded mine entries and (b) provide us with the actual
distance of the nearest known former mine entry ? For when INEOS made
its initial application to the Derbyshire County Council for vertical
operations in a field off Bramleymoor Lane, this showed that their
operations were intended to take place either above or very close to
two former recorded mine entrances. It was only under public
criticism that INEOS then moved their site somewhat to the south of
the same field. This has enabled them to evade the 20 metre limit
which could have led to criticism from the Coal Authority. But the
Coal Authority should not have allowed the final INEOS application to
escape criticism, just for the sake of what can only be a few metres.
(The initial map which was used by INEOS had added a red box to
the Coal Authority's own Map showing its initial plans for its
operations. It, appears as the second map on this blog item I ran -
http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/2017/12/is-this-frackings-greatest-danger.html
)
An illustration of the
danger of surface collapses from past underground mining operations
can be seen within a mile of my home at our aptly named “Coal
Aston” area. At a house at Eckington Road in 2011 on land at its
back garden, there was a collapse which was serious enough to require
assistance from the facilities of the Coal Authority themselves and
from other public bodies. This is at a spot next to the roads on
which INEOS are currently seeking to employ heavy transport - if they
can gain permission for vertical underground operations at nearby
Bramleymoor Lane.
( I have found
difficulty attaching the source for the above, but I will bring the
relevant 22 page document with me to your session).
(5) A footnote : what
expertise do I hold on these matters ?
A persistent question
asked by INEOS at a recent Planning Authority enquiry into their
proposals for the Bramleymoor Lane site, was what expertise
contributors held on the matters they raised. So I had better
pre-empt such a hurdle.
Although I have never
worked in any aspect of coal mining, I come from solid mining stock.
My father and father-in-law were miners and up to the age of 27 I was
brought up in a solid mining community in County Durham at Easington
Colliery. Also my six uncles all became miners and two of my aunts
(obviously plus my mother) married miners. There was a pit disaster
there when I was 14 years old, killing 81 miners and then two rescue
workers. At the time, my father was in a different seam from where
the explosion occurred. I also had numerous cousins who were miners
or married to miners. At Easington I also came to work closely with
the local MP Mannie Shinwell, who earlier as the Minister for Fuel and
Power had nationalised the then coal industry.
I later taught separate
Yorkshire and Derbyshire miners groups on Industrial Day Release
classes run by the Sheffield University Extramural Department,
annually over a period of 21 years. Also having close links with
people such as Peter Heathfield who became the Secretary of the NUM.
Then I became the MP for North East Derbyshire for 18 years, which
for previous periods covering a total of 68 years from 1908 onwards
had had ex-miners as MPs. It was during my period as an MP that the
final deep mines were closed in Derbyshire, so these matters and
ex-miners' futures were always solidly on my agenda. Then the future
of the drift mine “Moorside Mining” (which still exists and is
just five miles from my home) and its operations became a major item
on my agenda.
In my time as an MP, four
of my former day-release students were fellow MPs and one had
previously served as an MEP. Another was a former Yorkshire Miner
whom I had studied alongside when an adult student at Ruskin College
in Oxford. Whilst many of my former mining students became local
councillors, NUM officials, social workers and the like. Then in the
Commons I had close links with my neighbouring MP Dennis Skinner, who
is a former Derbyshire Miner. I was also member of a group of MPs who
pursued miners and ex-miners concerns.
Given the massive social
problems arising from the decline of local mining, I was faced with a
wide-range of complex problems as an MP which would not have emerged
in more settled circumstances.
From my own collection of
books on the Mining Trade Unionism, I stress the three which are
relevant to my own background. (1) W.R. Garside “The Durham Miners
1919-1960” - George Allen and Unwin 1971, (2) Frank Machin “The
Yorkshire Miners” - NUM Yorkshire Area 1958, (3) J.E. Williams “The
Derbyshire Miners” - George Allen and Unwin 1962. Williams
impressive book is especially substantial, being 933 pages long. He
taught on our Miners' Day Release Classes before I did.
Yours sincerely,
Harry Barnes.
