Oral evidence: Defra’s responsibility for fracking, HC 589Tuesday 10 March 2015

Oral evidence, 10 March 2015.

Witness

John Dewar, Director of Operations, Third Energy, gave evidence.

Chair

Mr Dewar, can I say a warm welcome to you? Thank you very much for being with us here in London. It is better to see you down here than up there, or vice versa.

John Dewar

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair

You are very welcome indeed. Thank you very much for participating. Could you give us your name and title for the record?

John Dewar

I am John Dewar. I am the Operations Director for Third Energy.

Chair

Can I just ask if you’ve done a cost‑benefit analysis at Third Energy as regards the exploitation of shale gas?

John Dewar

To do a cost‑benefit analysis, you need to know how much money you are going to make and how much money you are going to spend. We have done an awful lot of studies, in terms of how much this particular job is going to cost. We have done some analysis on how much we expect to get back, but we have not done a detailed cost‑benefit analysis, because we do not have the data. The whole point of testing this well is to get an idea of whether the well can produce in commercial quantities for us to conduct that cost‑benefit analysis. The answer is not yet.

Chair

Can you give us a rough idea of how many wellheads you would require to make the operation in Ryedale commercially viable?

John Dewar

Our present focus is on testing the well that we drilled last year. If that well is successful, then the immediate short‑term plan would be to drill some more wells, similar to Cuadrilla, to get a better idea of the resource and the extent of the resource over our acreage. To then project further and say what the total number of wells you would need in the area would be, is very hard and very speculative. We have been asked that question many times. To allay people’s fears, we have said, bearing in mind we have nine existing sites in and around the area, some in Ebberston Moor, and seven in the Vale of Pickering, that we do not foresee the need for more than 10 more sites. We have provided numbers for how many wells we would put on those sites. Depending on the size of the site, it could be 10 to 20. If it was a bigger site, it could be 20 to 50.

Chair

You are talking about an area of tourism and farming housing approximately 50 wellheads.

John Dewar

We would have to think very carefully where we would place the site, so it would not be causing disruption to local residents. Placing the site is quite crucial. We have already, as I said, many sites. One thing I should point out at the very beginning is we have been there for 20 years. We have got lots of sites; we have drilled lots of wells. We have done fracking jobs. We have even done a fracking job on this same site that we are planning to do another one. We have operated quietly and safely, causing minimum disruption to the local population. We have won and built their trust and have good relations with the local regulators. It is not as if we have blown in with the wind and we are now talking about fracking. This is an extension to our natural business. It is another tool in our toolbox.

Chair

As you explained at the public meeting locally, all your existing well heads have been for shallow fracking. We are talking about a different type of operation completely, just for the record. I think it would be prudent to establish that at the outset.

John Dewar

I would like to state it is not a different type of operation. Yes, it is deeper. When I got into this business of shale gas fracking, I was not 100% sure what it involved. I have done fracking all around the world. I have got almost 40 years of experience with Shell. Shale gas fracking I needed to look into. What I learned was that it is not a big outstep from what we do all the time. Conventional fracking, which could be of a tight sandstone or a tight limestone at a higher depth, involves the same equipment, the same people, the same pressures and the same procedures as just fracking, 1,000 or 2,000 feet deeper. The only difference I can see is the volume of fluid that we are talking about. That is the only difference. Everything else is very similar.

Chair

It involves hydraulic fracking, which is potentially causing seismic activity.

John Dewar

It was potentially causing seismic activity before the legislation was changed. I would agree with Cuadrilla that with the 10 safety steps that have been put in place by the Government, the chances of us incurring another seismic event of a similar magnitude are negligible.

Chair

You are working for Third Energy, which is owned by Barclays. Where is Barclays’ head office?

John Dewar

In London.

Chair

Where is its registered office?

John Dewar

You would need to ask Barclays that.

Chair

You do not think it is registered in the Cayman Islands.

John Dewar

Where Barclays are registered, I have no idea.

Chair

If that was the position, would it be a problem, either if you were to frack in Ryedale or any other part of the country, in placing a bond for the security at the end of your activities, for fugitive emissions or any future liabilities?

John Dewar

The regulators have, I believe, the right to request a bond, and they have done so, actually, in some of our previous operations, when we were preparing a site at Ebberston Moor Two, the mineral planning authority requested us setting aside some money if we did not have, for instance, the money to finish the site. That is not a new step, and we would have to listen to what they wanted and take it from there.

Jim Fitzpatrick

It is not a declarable interest, but Barclays’ headquarters are in Churchill Place in my constituency.

Chair

It is Barclays Natural Resources. I do not think that they have their headquarters in Poplar.

Jim Fitzpatrick

Mr Dewar, good afternoon. You will have heard me asking Mr Egan about the regulatory framework and the various bodies that Cuadrilla and you have to deal with. My question is the same. Is that problematic, because you have so many different organisations to which you have to relate, are accountable for, and are monitored by? Does it cause you problems, or is it a workable arrangement?

John Dewar

It can seem confusing at first, from the outside. When you are on the inside, working it, I think it is very good. At the top, you have DECC, which is the ultimate authority, and all bodies report into it. Underneath them, depending on the skills of the regulatory body, we have to go to them for particular things. For example, all things environment‑related go to the Environment Agency, where it has experts in that field. We have been working with it on several applications, and we have to apply for several permits, groundwater permits, radiation permits, a whole host of permits. Moving away from the permitting side, which is Environment Agency, and on to the planning side, which is the mineral planning authority, within North Yorkshire we have three departments looking after it. We have got North Yorkshire County Council, we have got Ryedale District Council, and we have got the North York Moors National Park Authority, for anything in their area. They all work close together. They rely on each other: “Can we borrow your environmental specialist?”. “Can we use your safety specialist?”. They all talk regularly, and they perform, I think, a very good job. Then, with respect to the drilling programme or the fracking programme, we have to go through the Health and Safety Executive in Aberdeen. They are hardened, experienced drilling professionals, and we go to them for approval of the programmes. In addition to that, there is an independent adviser that we have to go to, and we need the approval of all these bodies, plus all the statutory bodies, before we can get overall approval to proceed. I think it is very robust, very sound and methodical. It is one of the best in the world, I would say. If you are going to ask me whether we can improve it, I would say, “Let us look back and set up a committee”. We are learning lessons as we go, both positive and negative, but it is too early to say yet.

Jim Fitzpatrick

Is it too early to say whether there could be improvements to the regime in terms of lead body and cascading down responsibility? I imagine the different regulatory bodies have got different approaches, different emphasis, and are looking at different things. How long do you think it might be before you can qualify whether it could be improved?

John Dewar

I was not thinking of the bodies and structure. I am quite happy with that. I was thinking more of the processes that we are going through, and whether we can improve them. I think we would need to look back at that. I am certainly not suggesting a change to the overall structure.

Jim Fitzpatrick

As the previous questions have indicated, there is some public concern out there. Going back to Mr Egan’s comment, there is a small minority very concerned and a small minority happy. The vast majority of the public have yet to make a decision. You clearly have confidence in the robust, as you describe it, regulatory framework we have. How do you communicate that to the public, or is that not your job? Is that Government’s job?

John Dewar

No, no. It is absolutely our job. It is, first and foremost, our job. We are operating in the local community. It is up to us to inform the locals. I think, for the last 20 years, people have got comfortable with us. We have got about our business in a very quiet way. We have always delivered on our promises. We have got an excellent safety and environmental record. People have just got used to us. I think we have got a good name. Again, not in an overstated way, but we do our best to support local charities, football teams, flower festivals and whatever else, the little way we can. I think trust is something that takes you a long time to build up, and you can very quickly lose it. We are conscious of that and we work extremely hard to maintain that trust with the community. In terms of informing them what we do, for this job alone, we had a consultation in the nearby village of Kirby Misperton, as part of the DECC ERA. Then we held four further public consultation events in each of the surrounding villages of the site. I would say that 80% of the people came out of interest. Of those 80%, more or less all of them left with, “Yeah, looks okay. I think you can do it”. Of course, there is always going to be that percentage either side, but I think that we went a long way to winning over the silent majority.

Jim Fitzpatrick

Thank you.

Chair

I think your impression and my impression, Mr Dewar, might be slightly different.

John Dewar

You are talking, if I may, Madam Chair, about the consultation event we had in Kirby Misperton before the four public consultation events. What you have to remember is that there was a time period between them. The consultation was not so much a consultation event as a public meeting. We did our best to meet the timing on that, recognising that we had not done all the work. We had things like the traffic management plan outstanding and we had the waste management plan outstanding. Of course, when we got questions related to those subjects it was not in the best light, but when we held the four public consultations, we had done an awful lot more work and we were a lot more ready. All those people at that meeting were, of course, invited to the four public consultation events, one of them even in the same hall three weeks later.

Neil Parish

Good afternoon, Mr Dewar. I think you have answered quite a lot of this question, but perhaps there is something else you would like to add. How do you share information about your proposed shale gas exploration sites and proposed licensing applications with the public? You have obviously had the consultation meetings. How else can the public get hold of you, and how do you keep the public informed?

John Dewar

We have quite openly said to all the people that come to our consultation events, and at another public meeting in Malton and the one that Madam Chair is talking about, that we are willing to talk to anyone at any time about their concerns about our plans. We have had, almost on a weekly basis, groups of people visiting us, where we take the time to show them the plant, show them the facility and explain to them what we are planning to do. That is another thing. Could we do more? Absolutely. Do we plan to do more? Most definitely, yes. We have got many months before we actually execute the job. Our challenge is to win over the hearts and minds of as many of the local residents as possible within that time. Right now, we are focusing on getting the permits and the planning applications right first time.

Neil Parish

When the public are coming to see you and contacting you, is it mainly about the environmental impacts of fracking? How, in particular, are you responding to that?

John Dewar

I think, when they come and see us, groundwater pollution tends to be their main concern. We can very quickly demonstrate that that is absolutely not a concern. We roll out a map showing where the fracking is taking place and where the water table is. We show how many barriers we have got in between. We then show them that, even if all this did happen, the water that we are using has actually got no chemicals that are hazardous to the groundwater. That is a prerequisite definition. It has to be approved. Then, on top of all that, the water that is in that area is not actually used for public consumption. There are several layers, layer upon layer, and layer inside layer. It does not take very long to explain to people that water pollution in our area, for this well, is not an issue at all.

Neil Parish

You said earlier in an answer that keeping the public trust is precious and it can be so easily lost. Are you convinced that you can keep the public’s trust and you can gain the public’s trust?

John Dewar

I think we have already gained it. It has taken 20 years to gain it. Could we lose it? Yes, it is possible. We are going to do everything possible to make sure we do not lose it. Forget the scaremongering, forget the misinformation, and just look at what it is we are doing. It is not a big outstep from what we have been doing all the time. On this particular site, we drilled a well last year. No one complained about traffic. One lady complained about noise. I went to visit her; I promised her that would never happen again. The year before, we drilled a side track from a well on that side. No one complained about noise, light, wind, wave, or whatever. We are doing 13 base line assessments right now, 13 base line surveys. You would be hard pushed to come up with 13 things you can measure. We are measuring everything from flood risk, hydrogeological risk, seismicity, traffic, waste, air quality, cultural heritage, and community socio‑economics. We are doing all this to show people that we care and to show people that we want to continue winning their trust, and we will monitor all those parameters before, during and after.

Neil Parish

The final part of my question is: are the Government doing enough to help with public concern? What more would you like to do yourselves and what more would you like to see the Government do? Similarly to my question to the last witness, how many of the people that are contacting you are local and how many would be from a greater distance?

John Dewar

Let me answer the second part of that question first. When Ryedale District Council held a public debate at Malton, we heard after the event that some of the people at that site had been bus‑loaded in from Lancashire.[1] There were 250 people in there. I think the majority of them were antis. They were vociferous and gave me a hard time, it has to be said, but they are not the people that we have to win over the hearts and minds of. There are 50,000 people in Ryedale district area. They are the ones that we have to win. For the people who have already made their mind up and are bordering on protest activities, it is going to be very hard to win them over. What would be nice would be if, once we do this job, and we show people that it was relatively simple, and it was done quietly, efficiently, and without disruption, then I think we will start even to win over not only the locals, who I believe are on our side, but also the protesters, who will then look for something else to protest about.

Neil Parish

Are the Government doing enough to reassure the public?

John Dewar

You would have to really ask the Government that. It is not for me. After we have submitted the planning and the permitting, which we hope to do in the coming weeks or so, given that we are quite close, I would like us to have a meeting with them to review how it went, and to say what could be improved. One of the principles that we live by in our industry is that everything can be improved. You can never pat yourself on the back; you must always be trying to do better. By sitting down with the right people, we will try to do even better next time.

Neil Parish

Thank you.

Chair

Can you give us an idea of the lorry movements at the height of the construction phase?

John Dewar

I would not call them minimalistic, but our lorry movements are very small in comparison. What you have to remember is that we drilled the well already. The drilling of the well uses an awful lot more lorry movements than the fracking of the well. We have broken up the hydraulic fracturing of the well into two phases. One phase is the work‑over, and that will use about 50 trucks, and that is over two weeks. The other side of the operation is the hydraulic fracturing, and that will use an approximate total of 100 trucks in and out. The traffic management plan, where all these numbers are more carefully worked out than what I am giving you here, is ready in draft, but we made a promise to the residents of Kirby Misperton that they would be involved in its finalisation. We are planning to involve them as to when they would like the trucks to move through the village to cause them the least amount of disruption.

Chair

You are proposing to pipe the clean water in, and I think you indicated you are proposing to pipe the wastewater out. Is that still your plan?

John Dewar

It is not. We are still planning to pipe the water in, because that reduces an awful lot of truck movements. We are still planning, as Cuadrilla are, to reuse the water for the next job. That will then limit the amount that we will have to treat offsite. Did I mention that we are planning to do five fracks, starting at the bottom and working our way up? For each frack, whatever we get back will be used for the next one. That causes a problem with the last one, because we have no more jobs that we can use it on. However, that is the smallest job, and for that water we had initially planned to pipe it back. But after discussions with the Environment Agency, with the people at the plant, with the Highways Department at North Yorkshire County Council, we came to the conclusion that overall it would be better to put the water in tanks and truck it off site, as opposed to sending it down the pipeline. There is a change to that.

Chair

Excellent. We did discuss how shallow the pipes were going to be, and my colleagues did not actually believe me. Have you now identified a waste partner?

John Dewar

We have not awarded a contract, but we did look at several. I went to pick out the one that was relatively local, audited them, and was very impressed. This particular company has the accreditation, certification, experience and approval from the Environment Agency. That would be my preferred company to move forward with, but I do point out we have not awarded them the contract.

Chair

We heard from Mr Egan how it is not a good idea to put the water in a tank, because the methane would escape from the wastewater. Can you confirm that you are not planning to do that either?

John Dewar

The waste pits that Mr Egan referred to is not a policy allowed in the UK.

Ms Ritchie

Turning to water quality, in terms of the chemicals that are used the fracking fluid, what combination of chemicals is used? What environmental and safety testing has been done on its impact? Can the water be purified again after use?

John Dewar

What are the chemicals that we are planning to use? At the meeting that I had with Madam Chair at Kirby Misperton, we actually handed out on that day the list of chemicals what we were planning to use.

Ms Ritchie

It would be useful if you could tell the Committee.

John Dewar

There was the proviso that, at that moment in time, the Environment Agency had not actually approved them. What has happened since is that the Environment Agency has approved the chemicals we have submitted. How does that process happen? There is a document that actually defines the process and procedure for defining whether a particular chemical is hazardous or non‑hazardous. You would need to look at the documentation, but it is under JAGDAG, the Joint Agency Groundwater Directive Advisory Group. You would need to look at the details of that and that defines in there how the water is used. Can we use the water again after it has been fully recycled and processed? That water does not go straight into public consumption, but after we have sent the wastewater to this particular company that is permitted and experienced in handling it, they then dispose of it back into the system at a permitted level. How does that work? That works by them proving to the Environment Agency that it is good enough not for drinking water, but for disposing into as big a resource as the sea, for example.

Ms Ritchie

Are you aware of any occurrences of water contamination caused by fracking?

John Dewar

I would give the same answer that Mr Egan gave. There is no evidence to my knowledge of water contamination caused by the direct result of hydraulic fracturing. However, there has been a lot of water contamination. I think one gets associated with the other. I was provided with over 20 peer‑reviewed scientific papers where it was proven that there was contamination caused by fracking. When you analyse them in detail, you actually find that it was not the case. Like Mr Egan, I would like to see papers—because I have gone through quite a number already—where these claims are made.

Ms Ritchie

Will you publish information on the chemicals used and the total volume of fracking fluid used on your site, or would you rely on the Environment Agency to do this? You have already referred to the chemicals, but you have not told us what those chemicals are.

John Dewar

First, with regards to the volumes and the chemicals, both the composition and the constituents are in the public domain already. We had to do that as part of the DECC Environmental Risk Assessment. That is already in the public domain. After we have submitted the planning applications, we will put them on our website for everyone to see.

Ms Ritchie

What sort of environmental permit conditions are you required to meet to ensure that hydraulic fracking does not threaten the quality of water supplies for local communities?

John Dewar

We have to apply for a number of permits and one is a groundwater permit. We also have to apply for an RSR radiation permit. We have got other permits to apply for and each one of those is reviewed by experts and will collectively, when approved, provide that level of assurance that you are seeking.

Ms Ritchie

How is your compliance with the relevant permits ensured?

John Dewar

How is our compliance with the relevant permits ensured? The communication we have with the Environment Agency is not just a one‑off incident. It will monitor us continuously. There is a person called a compliance officer, within the North Yorkshire County Council, and they have come and visited our sites to check on things. We also get visits from the Health and Safety Executive to come and visit us. Within each of these regulatory bodies, I would say the communication is good and it is not uncommon for them to come and visit us.

Ms Ritchie

What is the penalty for breach of your permit conditions?

John Dewar

The penalty would be, I suppose, related in some way to the level of infringement. Certainly in the last 20 years I am unaware of us having infringed any, and it is definitely incumbent upon every person in our company to make sure that we do not.

Ms Ritchie

Thank you.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

Good afternoon. I think, in response to my colleague, you indicated you also were not aware of the research that I quoted to Mr Egan earlier from Canada and Norway that evidenced contaminated water supply. Is that correct?

John Dewar

I would agree with Mr Egan’s reply. Many people who are not professionals within the industry do not make the distinction between losing a barrier and water contamination. For instance, the gas comes up the tubing. If that tubing leaks, we will notice it in what is called the A annulus, where we have pressure gauges and we monitor it. That would be the first line of us knowing that something has happened. If that next casing leaks, we would notice it in what is called the B annulus. For contamination to occur from the fracturing process, all the way through thousands of feet of tubing cement formation, and to get into the aquifer, you would need many, many barriers to break down. Everything in my experience tells me that those numbers are misleading. I am not saying they are wrong, but they are misleading and I worked in Norway.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

You would also like to see the paper.

John Dewar

Yes, I would like to see the paper, and challenge it.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

Can you tell me how well integrity is monitored on a regular basis?

John Dewar

We visit our sites almost on a daily basis. Let me go back and say that over 20 years, we have drilled 19 or 20 wells. It depends how big the area I take is. We have not had one incident of well integrity. We monitor the integrity of our wells by visiting them. I am not saying that it has been done all the time, but a more recent practice is that we run cement bond logs after all the critical casing jobs we do to make sure that the cement has been properly set and hardened. We also have online monitoring through a fibre optic system of the A and B pressures in the annulus. I suppose that we have been known to have visits from the Health and Safety Executive in Aberdeen, and we have had visits from the compliance officer in North Yorkshire County Council.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

How often are those visits, the last two that you mentioned?

John Dewar

For the last two wells we drilled, we were visited on both sites.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

Were you visited by both agencies?

John Dewar

One agency visited all our well sites. The Health and Safety Executive just visited the sites that we were drilling on.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

Do you mind telling the Committee what kind of conditions are imposed by the Environment Agency to ensure that the disposal of the flowback fluid does not threaten the quality of water supply?

John Dewar

This would all be detailed in our groundwater permit application.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

Would you be able to share with the Committee what that is?

John Dewar

It is not dissimilar to what I explained about the levels and barriers that are in place between the fracking that we are doing thousands of feet below and the groundwater, or local aquifer, which are at 1,000 feet. We have got 6,000 feet of separation between where the aquifer is and where the top of the frack is. In terms of cement, you only need a few feet of good cement, well bonded to both the casing and the formation, to actually provide a seal. We have got thousands of feet. I would just repeat that the chances of us getting contamination from the fracking fluid into the aquifer are minimalistic. Even if they are, then it is not harmful. Even if they are and they are harmful, it is not going to cause any problems because that particular area is not connected to anything. It is faulted on both sides.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

Thank you for that.

Richard Drax

Mr Dewar, I have the same questions for you as for Mr Egan, if I may. First of all, it says here that your maximum water use is about 4,000 cubic metres, which you hope to halve with a new technology, which allows you to reuse the flowback water. You have touched on it with the Chair, but just because I am a very simple man, could you just please explain how that flowback works, thereby reducing your water usage by half?

John Dewar

What we do, if I can concentrate on just one job, we pressure up the formation until it reaches a point that it then cracks and we pump the fluid in. While we are pumping the fluid in, we will then be monitoring everything on surface, hoping that the execution and the plan are working. Then, at the end of that job, when we let the pressure go, the formation wants to close itself again, but it cannot close because we have put in proppant, which is essentially sand. However, as it is closing, it does send some of that proppant back into the well. We then get that back, but some of the proppant, the sand, remains down there with the water. How much we actually get back we will have to wait and see. We are estimating, based on previous jobs, that we will get back between 20% and 40% of fluid we pump in. When you work that through in terms of total number of jobs and the total amount we get back, it is a lot less than the 4,000 cubic metres, which is equivalent to two Olympic pools.

Chair

Order, order. We will adjourn and try to get back in eight minutes so you can complete your answer then, if you would. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House On resuming—

Richard Drax

You very kindly, I think, explained about the water and how it flows back. You would cut the amount of water you use by half, which is how you explained that. Thank you for that. My next question is: where will you source your water from? Will that be from a local water company or will you apply for an abstraction licence, or have you got one already?

John Dewar

I have not answered that one. Where we get the water from is from a local water company. It comes from Yorkshire Water. We have a site at Knapton. It is the Knapton generating station. We take water to that station, where we fill up big tanks. The water that we will use will come from one of the big fire water tanks there, sent to the site by underground pipeline, which is infrastructure that is already there, and will then be used to fill up the water tanks that we will have on site. It will be Yorkshire Water supplying us with water. We will send it underground to the site, where it will remain until we are ready to use it.

Richard Drax

At what depth are the pipes underground that go from Yorkshire Water to your tanks?

John Dewar

The pipes are the same depth as all the surface infrastructure pipes that are threading their way up and down the country all over the place, and they are traditionally one and a half to two and a half metres deep.

Richard Drax

Have you ever had problems with sufficiency of water or has that not been a problem? Have you discussed this with Yorkshire Water at all?

John Dewar

Yes, absolutely. We have had several meetings with Yorkshire Water and we have discussed quantity. Yorkshire is a place that is characterised by a lot of rain, I would say. The volume we are using is very small. We use significantly less volume than Cuadrilla uses, because our formations are different and the way we are planning to do the job is slightly different. We are not using a lot of water. Lastly, if there was a drought of a sufficiently long period of time, unlike Cuadrilla we would not stop. We would continue, because we know how to use seawater. We are an island nation, and there is no shortage of seawater. We would be able to use the seawater to do the fracks. However, that would increase the amount of traffic we would have to use, because we have no pipelines going from the sea.

Richard Drax

Seawater would be brought in in trucks.

John Dewar

in trucks, yes.

Richard Drax

How many trucks would that need a day, roughly?

John Dewar

It would require 4,000 cubic metres and each truck takes about 30, so it would be quite a lot of trucks, which is why we would prefer to use the water that we have on site, and send it underground to reduce the traffic. But in a drought situation, where water is cut off from us, all I am saying is that we would have a plan B that would allow us to continue.

Richard Drax

Seawater can be used for this, can it?

John Dewar

Seawater can be used, but it would require some chemicals to be used in addition to the ones that we are planning. It is not ideal, but it can be used.

Richard Drax

It may be better than using drinking water, perhaps.

John Dewar

No, no. It would not be better from the frack efficiency point of view. It would not be as good, because seawater has got all kinds of impurities in it and we would have to nullify those impurities.

Richard Drax

Do the public know that if you run out of fresh water, you might have to resort to truckloads of seawater?

John Dewar

We have not had to mention that, because so far we have not actually brought up droughts in Yorkshire, considering the last three years.

Richard Drax

I lived there for five years and it rained a lot. I remember.

John Dewar

Yes. In fact, we have had to visit one of our sites by boat.

Richard Drax

“Hope for the best and plan for the worst” is the old adage my grandfather taught me. I am assuming the public will know that in the worst case you might have to resort to truckloads of seawater.

John Dewar

So far, we have not mentioned it, but as you have brought it up I will make sure that that is put on our website for people to know.

Richard Drax

Are you aware of Clause 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015, Mr Dewar? I know it is slightly unfair. It caught Mr Egan out, I know. I am not going to read through it, but it is not actually law yet, as I understand it, but it is going to put quite a lot of—

John Dewar

My understanding is that some parts of it are law and some parts of it will be defined in more detail under the secondary legislation. Your question to Mr Egan was, “What impact will it have on us?”. For this next well, it may have an impact in terms of the water monitoring requirement for 12 months beforehand. That is the only area, I would say, that could impact us, so after we submit the planning application. We started monitoring the water a few weeks ago. If that came into play, then it could be one year later before we would be allowed to frack.

Richard Drax

When you say “monitoring the water”, are you talking about monitoring how much water is being used?

John Dewar

No, monitoring the methane in the water.

Richard Drax

I see. This possibly might need you to change your plans.

John Dewar

It might need us to change our plans—not change our plans, but wait longer for the planning and permits to be approved. In addition, we are drilling. I think someone asked the question earlier about monitoring the water and how we are ensuring its quality remains good. In addition to what I have said so far, I could have added that we have been asked to drill four more wells on our site. There will be three shallow ones, to roughly 100 feet, and one relatively deep one, to 1,000 feet.

Richard Drax

Sorry, I did not understand. You have been asked by whom?

John Dewar

We have been asked by the Environment Agency, as part of the water monitoring baseline study that we are doing. We have got to drill three shallow wells and one slightly deeper well to provide us with a baseline of the water in and around the site. At any point in time, both now and in future, we will be able to take samples from that and make sure that none of our activities are influencing the local water, even though it is not actually used as the water supply.

Richard Drax

This lack of certainty on the Infrastructure Act is not going to stop you. You are going to carry on, like Mr Egan, until such time as the rules become law?

John Dewar

Absolutely, we will carry on. I actually welcome many of the changes in the Infrastructure Act. I think I already mentioned to Madam Chair during our meeting in Kirby Misperton that I supported many of the recommendations that she herself was supporting. However, we need to examine it in more detail and we need to wait for the second legislation in July before we can be 100% certain of the long‑term impacts of the future wells that we are going to do.

Richard Drax

Thank you.

Chair

Thank you very much indeed. If we have established that the Infrastructure Act and the regulations do not apply until they are brought before the new Parliament in July, any application you make would be under the existing legislation. Can you give us a commitment today that you do not plan to drill in or under the North York Moors National Park?

John Dewar

Yes, I can give you that commitment. It is impossible to say, “Never, ever”, but I can give you that commitment, as I gave you in February last year when we met, and I said that we had no plans then to do so. The same applies, Madam Chair.

Chair

That is very helpful, thank you.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

Again, this is a similar question as to Mr Egan about: some people would say that the development of shale gas will increase climate change emissions and delay the development of renewable energies. I am just wondering how you would respond to that criticism?

John Dewar

I am a real supporter of all forms of energy. Gas is much cleaner than oil. Oil is much cleaner than coal. Renewables are cleaner than all of them. I think the UK faces a significant challenge in the future. How do we make the transition from what we have got to what we want? I think that is going to take an awful lot of debate, but I am certainly a supporter of renewables. I think we need a mix. There is a tremendous saying in North Yorkshire that “You get owt for nowt”. Even while renewables sound very good on the surface, again, when you investigate deeper, they have got their own particular drawbacks. I do believe we need to look at them all, but we do need to take certain measures to meet our obligations to reduce our carbon footprint.

Mrs Lewell-Buck

Thank you.

Chair

Can I just ask a couple of questions to wrap up at the end? What are the chances of fugitive emissions? Do you plan to burn them off and flare methane gas escaping at the site?

John Dewar

We are quite lucky that the infrastructure is already in place. Our pipelines are already in place. We have export routes for it. We are not planning to do any venting or flaring of gas at the site. Gas, to me, is very precious. It is what we sell. I do not want one thimbleful of gas to escape. We have gas detectors all around our sites and all around our wellheads at the Knapton site. Gas is enormously precious to us. It is not the same as in the States, where gas can be a by‑product, and it is oil that they are after. To us, it is our main product. I do not want to see any leaks or any emissions.

Ms Ritchie

When I was talking to you about water quality, I mentioned to you about chemicals and I asked you to name the chemical or chemicals that are used. We did not get that information. Is it possible now to get that information?

John Dewar

I have the list here.

Ms Ritchie

That is very good.

John Dewar

This is the list that is in our DECC ERA. It is the list that I handed out to the local residents at Kirby Misperton. It is the list that the Environment Agency has reviewed and approved. I can not only give you the name, I can also give you the quantity and then I can give you want it occurs in, like such common things as vinegar, ice cream, or whatever else. If you want that for all eight, it can be very boring.

Chair

If we could have it in writing, because it is rather long.

Ms Ritchie

If you gave it to us in writing, as the Chair said, that would be very useful.

John Dewar

Otherwise, words like, “Hemicellulase enzyme. 0.001%. Food additive. Improves the texture of butter”. I think it could be fairly boring if I continue on that theme.

Ms Ritchie

I think it might be useful, as the Chair said, if you were to furnish us with it. Thank you.

Chair

There is a chance, I understand, of fugitive emissions of gas escaping in the years after you have actually sealed the wellhead. Do you have a process of monitoring that and ensuring that you, Third Energy, or, I understand, a successor company, will actually do the exploitation?

John Dewar

As long as we are in existence, and the licence holder, it is our responsibility, for both the existing wells and wells that have been abandoned. That is our responsibility. If there was ever a leak, it is our responsibility to go back and fix it. We are not planning to—so please do not take it as a plan—but if we were to be sold to someone else and they became the licence holder, then that same responsibility would pass over to them. If we went out of business, heaven forbid, and there was no one else after us, and there was a leak, then that is a grey area right now that is being negotiated between DECC and UKOOG. I think that is an area that needs more discussion.

Chair

That is very helpful. Is it an issue that an area such as Ryedale might be situated on an area of natural geological fault line, in terms of the seismic activity that you might cause?

John Dewar

We do have faults in and around the area. The UK has faults all over the country. One of the protections that the Government put in place is that we can only frack if we have a very good understanding of the subsurface. For that, we will have had to shoot 3D seismic. We will have had to analyse it. We will have had to look at all the nearby faults, and we would not be allowed to frack nearby any big faults. Bearing in mind that the length of our fractures is only a few hundred feet, and the big faults in the area tend to be kilometres away, again the chances of us energising a fault would be very slim. Again, it is part of the protection measures that the Government have put in place.

Chair

Mr Dewar, thank you very much for being with us today, and for answering for our questions so patiently and so comprehensively. We are very grateful to you.

John Dewar

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair

We stand adjourned. Oral evidence: Defra’s responsibility for fracking, HC 589 25 [1] Clarification received from witness on 26 March 2015: Third Energy wish to clarify that these protesters had arrived to participate at a Third Energy public consultation meeting and not specifically for the public information event at Malton held by Ryedale District Council, as suggested by John Dewar’s original answer.