Your address
Date
Environment Agency
Permitting and Support Centre
Land Team, Quadrant 2
99 Parkway Avenue
Sheffield
S9 4WF
Dear Sirs
Reference: EPR/DB3002HE/A001 and EPR/KB3098DE/A001 - Kirby Misperton A Wellsite
Please consider this my response to the application by Third Energy for the above EA permits for
their proposed fracking operation at Kirby Misperton, in North Yorkshire.
Firstly, you can start by including a few brief comments about who you are and your interest in
this application.
If you live near the well-site, your objection will carry a lot of weight, so please try to focus on
things that might affect your day-to-day life, such as noise, pollution risks, etc.
If you're from elsewhere in Yorkshire, please mention this in your comments and explain your
interest in the application.
Also, if you went to the Environment Agency Consultation at Kirby Misperton Village Hall on 16th
June, please mention this in your letter. Also – very importantly – please ask any questions you
feel were not answered on the day, or that you have had subsequently.
If you're not from Yorkshire, you can of course still object. You might like to mention your
connection with the area, for example that you have been, or would like to go to North Yorkshire
on holiday, or have family there.
Then you can include some of the following points (you can remove the bullets if you like, they’re
just there to help you see the different points). If you have time, please feel free to change the
wording, add any further comments, delete sections, swap the order, etc. It is important that each
objection is seen as an objection from a particular person or group.
Groundwater monitoring
 The permit application does not contain any information on existing radioactive substances
in groundwater, which is surely a key factor in any groundwater monitoring programme.
This is going to make it difficult for anyone to assess pollution from the site.
 Under the terms of the Infrastructure Act, groundwater monitoring for methane should be
undertaken 12 months before any fracking of over 1,000 m3 in volume can take place. This
water monitoring has not been done - a fact that Third Energy acknowledges because it has
already made an application for the necessary monitoring boreholes with the NYCC.
Therefore the EA has no choice but to reject or defer this application until this data
becomes available.


There has been no testing for NORMS (naturally occurring radioactive materials) in
groundwater.
Base line testing should be more comprehensive and over a longer period of time to assess
a full range of pollution levels and take account of seasonal variations in groundwater.
Groundwater testing at farms should have also been tested for these substances.
On-site monitoring
 The proposed monthly monitoring of groundwater is too infrequent to pick up pollution as
it occurs, particularly as any onsite tests will take a further week to yield results. It would
be more appropriate to carry out weekly testing, together with daily testing of pH levels,
which will give an immediate result if pollution occurs.
 Borehole monitoring proposals (table 6.3 on page 16 of the Groundwater Monitoring
Report) require ongoing permission from the landowners concerned. Can the EA confirm
that these arrangements are in place? What will happen if farmers do not allow monitoring
on their land in the future?
Site inspection
 What is the Environment Agency’s proposed inspection regime for the site? How much of
the monitoring will be done by the Applicant (or sub-contractors it employs), and how
much by the Environment Agency itself?
 How much will the Environment Agency rely on information sent to them by Third Energy
(e.g. weekly printouts of data, etc.) as part of their ‘monitoring programme’?
Will members of the local community be able to attend inspections by the EA?
Public consultations
 The EA public consultation on this proposed development was held on the basis of
providing information about the five test fracks and flow tests only, over an eight-week
period, and did not include any information about subsequent commercial production.
How, then, can the application that has followed this consultation contain the provision of
commercial production for up to nine years?
 Third Energy have always consulted and referred to this application as a test frack only and
all their figures and projections have been made on this basis. Therefore it would be
inaccurate and wrong to permit any longer term production of any kind as part of the same
application.
Commercial production
 Third Energy’s application is not only for five test-fracks (and the resultant flow tests) but
also for ongoing production, up to and including abandonment and restoration of the well.
In the NYCC application for the same development, Third Energy state that: “production of
natural gas will commence and continue until cessation of natural gas production, which is
anticipated to be circa nine (9) years with all phases of the proposed development to be
completed within ten (10) years.”
 Would the applicant be able to produce gas in commercial quantities for nine years – as
stated on the NYCC application form – on the basis of just five 5-hour test-fracks? Or would
commercial production over this length of time require a rolling programme of further
fracks, and possibly a number of horizontal sections to be drilled at different depths? If so,
should requests for permits for these aspects of the development not be included in this
application along with the current permit request for the five flow test fracks?

If the EA grants the current permits that have been applied for, will it not also be agreeing
to grant further fracking permits in the future, as you will have in effect agreed to
‘commercial production’?
Water leaks on site
 The hydrological risk assessment appears to lack sufficient detail and justification for the
results and the risks. For example, there is no information about where water will go from
the site if it escapes from the bund or drainage system.
 Given the quantity of fracking fluid to be used and the quantity of dangerous chemicals,
such as sulphuric acid, stored on site, it is doubtful whether the existing perimeter drain on
the site is sufficient to contain any serious leaks and spills.
Radon
 North Yorkshire is known to have high levels of radon, yet there seems to be no mention of
this dangerous radioactive gas in any of the submitted documents. Has any baseline radon
testing been done, and if so, what are the results? If not, should this not be undertaken
before any permitting is considered?
Air pollution
 The permit mentions exceedances in air quality for some pollutants during fracking (for
example in the Non-Technical Summary on p39). Surely exceeding air quality safety levels
should not be allowed by the EA? How is this situation to be monitored by the EA?
Fracking fluid
 Is it legal for an operator to recycle fracking fluid from one strata/frack to another, in the
way suggested by the Applicant? While I understand that this might mean less water is
used in the fracking operations, it does mean that the concentrations of pollutants will
become higher and will be more difficult to clean. What happens if it becomes so
contaminated that it cannot be cleaned by the designated facility?
 The flow back water (fracking fluid) is intended for re-use but the Applicant states that this
will be dependant on the physical make up of the flow back water. It may be that it is so
heavily contaminated that it cannot be used. In that case it will be extremely hazardous
and it does not seem clear that there are sufficient safeguards for this, or a plan to dispose
of this waste.
Chemicals in the fracking fluid
 It is hard to understand why something like sulphuric acid can be classed as ‘nonhazardous’. Could the Environment Agency clarify the difference between ‘hazardous’ and
‘non-hazardous’ chemicals in relation to fracking fluid?
 I am concerned about the possible use of biocides in the treatment of the waste water, as
these can be very harmful to the environment, particularly if there was an accident or a
spill. Also, the applicant does not seem to know if they would use biocides or UV for waste
water treatment. I would therefore ask the EA to prohibit any use of biocides in this
application.
 If the produced waste water containing NORMs is ‘perfectly safe’ and the same as in a
‘bottle of mineral water’, as John Dewar has publicly claimed on BBC Look North over the
last two months, why do Third Energy need permits for this water at all? Is it not the case
that the produced water is in fact a danger to human health, hence the need for permits?
Solid waste
 There is a surprisingly large amount of solid waste produced during the flow-test stage. Is
any of this waste radioactive or toxic in any way? If so, what precautions are in place to
deal with it and make sure it is safe? What happens to it in the end?
Perforation of the well
 There appears to be no information about what explosive charges are to be used in
perforating the well during the fracking operation. What explosives are to be used in this
process, and what risks do they present? Also, how are these to be transported to the site
and stored on-site?
 Which company or sub-contractor is being employed to do the fracking?
The Pipeline
 There appears to be no information on the pipeline that is to carry the produced gas from
the Kirby Misperton site to Knapton. However, any leak in this pipeline could have serious
environmental consequences. Is the EA responsible for the safety and upkeep of the
pipeline? If not, who is? Has the safety and integrity of the pipeline been checked recently?
Gas flaring
 The Applicant states there will be no flaring at the site, which is usually used to release
pressure of gas within the well. If there is no facility for flaring at the site, what would
happen if the gas pressure in the well became too great?
Waste water disposal
 Where exactly – ie which company and which town or city – will the waste water be
tankered to? Also, how will this be treated when it arrives at the Disposal Facility, and what
will happen to the ‘cleaned’ water when it has gone through the cleaning process?
 The Non-Technical Summary states that ‘The hydraulic fracture treatment fluid returning
to surface may or may not contain NORMs exceeding those set out in Table 1 of Schedule
23 of the EPR 2010.’ If it is discovered that the waste fluid does not contain NORM
exceeding those in the table, what happens to the waste water? Will it still be treated to
remove other pollutants such as hydrocarbons and heavy metals?
 It is clear that as well as NORMs, the waste fracking fluid will also contain dangerous
hydrocarbons that have been brought up from underground, such as benzene, toluene and
Xylene, and other heavy metals. These are known carcinogens and are probably as
worrying as the NORM that might be in the water, if not more so. How will these be
monitored and removed from the waste water?
Finally, please ask the EA to reply to your questions, and also to refuse the permits.
Yours faithfully
Add name here.
Then you can email your comments (either in an email or as an attachment) to this address:
PSCpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk
If you are sending an email, please put the following text in the subject line:
App Nos: EPR/DB3002HE/A001 and EPR/KB3098DE/A001 - Kirby Misperton A Wellsite