Bishop Hill Losing hearts and minds
Apr 2, 2014 Energy: gas One of the issues that has been exercising the minds of both pro- and anti-shale gas sides is the possibility that the law of trespass might be used to prevent drilling under private property. It seems that the government is to move to extend the get out clause used by coal miners:
The reform of the law would extend the existing rights of water, gas and coal mining firms, set out in the Coal Act 1998, to go under people’s land without permission.
Compensation of around £100 is likely to be offered to landowners.
The revamp would also apply to the geothermal wells that harness heat from deep in the earth.
Hmm. I'm not sure that £100 is going to change the perception that people are being forced to accept drilling under their land and potentially their homes as well. Of course the risks are minute - the wells have a tiny cross-section and are miles below the surface - but the perception of coercion will remain. Hearts and minds will be lost. This is a recipe for years of protest and struggle.
I maintain that a better approach would be to repeal the Petroleum Production Act 1934 and return the oil and gas resources to landowners. But what do I know?
Reader Comments (22)
My first thought is that the change in the law is <I>Designed</I> to 'lose hearts and minds' in regards to cheap energy.
.... I Hate html.
Hmmm...
In the "debate" ... there's also much blathering about extending the trespass upwards too (nasty airplanes). I'm getting really tired of this. Do you own it to the centre of the earth?. What's called permitting has been central to oil & gas exploration and production since like forever and the industry is familiar with a variety of proven implementations - why reinvent the wheel?
I don't for a moment suppose that Bish has faith in our U.K. legislators to do the right thing and the evidence is that they'll screw it up yet again like so many other things they touch. As far as drilling is concerned the frackwits will settle for broken, ill drafted and legally ambivalent regulation any day of the week.
I note that Cuadrilla still aren't moving on Lancashire development - are they waiting until it's a panic and they can dial in "distress purchase" pricing à la STOR generator crews?
I guess reaction may depend on how they approach the land owners.
If the first I knew that a fracking site 1/2 a mile from home is drilling 5000 feet below my garden was when a man appeared at my door and gave me £100, I may be pleasantly surprised.
On the other hand, if I hear of local fracking, and have to go to some basement in the local council offices to find the drilling maps and only then discover that there is drilling below my property, I'd expect one heck of a lot more than £100.
Should those who want to invoke the law of trespass to ban exploration for shale gas be allowed to use the Underground if/when they visit London?
Last week, the Grauniad reported the Prime Minister as saying that shale-gas wells will be "up and running later this year". Does anybody know which ones he may have been referring to, or is he just winging it to test the reaction?
You would just get the green pressure groups buying up land and dividing it up among their supporters to stop development.
I live in Lincolnshire where fracking has already been carried out. Never felt a thing.
"..I Hate html."
Use lower case i.
Strange that the 'trespass' will only relate to drilling, and then only to drilling for oil, gas and coal. Otherwise, Londoners living above the tunnelled infrastructure that is found in many big cities will have a field-day making claims for trespass. But that being the case, why should a company be done for trespass when drilling for gas but not for putting in a new sewer, power line, or water main?
Await a flood of claims from the Aussies.
Rightwinggit:
Okay....
"...i hate html"
*snigger*
@ Otter
Teach your so-called SmartDevice's auto-correct HTML
Does one own everything beneath one's land to the center of the earth? If so, does one own everything above one's land to the farthest reaches of the universe? Makes no sense, at least on a theory of ownership wherein one owns that which one has 'improved' with one's labors or capitol in some sense.
In America that would not fly but in the UK landowners as I understand it do not have mineral rights and only own the house and space on the surface of their property.
I did not think that mineral rights in the UK were associated with land ownership? I know that the United States specifically include rights all the way down (and up) and it is stated as being in direct response to the lack of mineral rights which landowners had in their homelands (the original european countries from which early settlers came from).
Could someone with a knowledge of the law in this area clear this up?
I think the UK should allow companies searching for gas to drill where they want.
But I think the companies should pay a 5% royalty to home owners proportional to the amount of land they own.
And protesters should be fined 1000 pounds each for every day they delay shale gas drilling and the money should be added to the royalties.
Rob @ 2:53
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/planning/legislation/mineralOwnership.html
is a good summary by the British Geological Survey.
Fracking under someones house charge Ground Rent.
Unfortunately, the antipodes of Australia is in mid-Atlantic and the antipodes of the UK is well to the south of NZ.
Perhaps they could base their precedent on how much urban householders get for any sewers, water mains and gas mains that pass under their residences, scaled down where necessary for the greater depth and smaller diameter of shale gas well bores, of course. By my calculation, it comes to five-eights of SFA. And let's not even talk about tunnels.
Really though, deep directional drilling is not comparable to trenching. The ground is not about to subside beneath you because of a steel-cased 6" bore >1500' below, any more than Harry Redknapp's house at Sandbanks is at risk from Wytch Farm's drilling passing 1600 metres underneath. (How much did he get? Also 5/8 I suspect)
In the US, fracking companies negotiate with all landowners above their drilling. Where land is divided into parcels that are too small, the cost of acquiring access rights makes fracking uneconomic.
Great idea - then the landed gentry can make even more money for doing nothing, as they currently are by allowing windmills on their property. Cameron's family will lone the idea.