Stephen Paton - 4th Year Dissertation Final

Stephen Paton 201108729
1
What are the transportation
requirements of a UK Shale
Gas Exploration site and can
they be reduced?
Stephen Paton
Civil Engineering
Session (2014/2015)
A dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the Degree of MEng in Civil Engineering at
the University of Strathclyde

2
Abstract
The transportation associated with the Shale Gas Exploration process is very rarely
discussed when debating the merits and disadvantages of UK Shale Gas Exploration. This
project aimed to shed some light on the subject and discover whether the number of
HGVs required on an exploration site were significant and if they could be reduced.
In order to better understand the exploration process, existing literature was researched
and reviewed. Based on this research, it was discovered that 6 exploration sites had been
constructed in the UK with a further 5 planned. Each of these sites was researched
thoroughly in order to understand their transportation requirements and the timeframe
in which each site would be/had been developed.
The information discovered through this research was compared in order to assess
whether a general trend in site setup existed and whether the transportation
requirements on each site were comparable. Based on the information found from the 11
sites that were researched, a daily 2-way HGV movement schedule outlining stages and
phases of exploration was generated and two trends in exploration site setup were
discovered. The types of roads typically used in exploration were also assessed.
The exploration process was broken down into individual stages and the total number of
HGVs required for each was calculated. A table outlining the total transportation
requirements for individual activities within each stage was generated.
The results from both of these transportation assessments were presented and the most
HGV intensive activities and phases were highlighted. Suggestions for reducing the
number of vehicles required were presented. An assessment of exploration traffic on
local roads was also undertaken.
It was found that the transportation requirements of an exploration site could be reduced
but that even the most intensive exploration traffic generated was unlikely to have a
significant impact on local roads.

3
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1
Aim ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Objectives:...................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 – Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 2
A brief overview of Hydraulic Fracturing ....................................................................................... 2
The shale fracking process itself ................................................................................................ 2
Shales of Interest in the UK............................................................................................................ 3
Carboniferous Midland Valley of Scotland................................................................................. 4
Carboniferous Bowland-Hodder Shale....................................................................................... 4
Jurassic Weald Basin .................................................................................................................. 4
Key Players in UK Shale Exploration............................................................................................... 5
Cuadrilla ..................................................................................................................................... 5
IGAS............................................................................................................................................ 5
Third Energy ............................................................................................................................... 5
Celtique Energie ......................................................................................................................... 5
Licensable areas ............................................................................................................................. 6
Exploration ..................................................................................................................................... 6
How many sites will be required?.............................................................................................. 6
Stages of Exploration.................................................................................................................. 7
Trucks and Lorries used............................................................................................................ 10
Existing information on HGV requirements for Shale Gas Exploration ....................................... 11
Chapter 3 – Methodology ................................................................................................................ 14
Literature Review......................................................................................................................... 14
Exploration Site Data.................................................................................................................... 14
Data Analysis................................................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 4.................................................................................................................................. 14
Chapter 5.................................................................................................................................. 14
Chapter 4 – Defining a “Typical” Exploration Site............................................................................ 15
Site Locations and Shale Depths .................................................................................................. 15
Site and Well Pad Area................................................................................................................. 15
HGV Site Access............................................................................................................................ 17

4
2-way HGV Movements ............................................................................................................... 18
All Existing UK Sites .................................................................................................................. 19
Results.......................................................................................................................................... 26
2-way HGV Movements ........................................................................................................... 26
Site Details................................................................................................................................ 26
HGV route................................................................................................................................. 27
Chapter 5 – Total HGV Requirements of an Exploration Site........................................................... 29
General Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 29
Trucks Used .............................................................................................................................. 29
Construction of Well Pad and Access Track................................................................................. 29
Drilling .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 30
Results...................................................................................................................................... 35
Hydraulic Fracturing..................................................................................................................... 36
Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 36
Results...................................................................................................................................... 38
Initial Flow Testing ....................................................................................................................... 39
Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 39
Results...................................................................................................................................... 40
Extended Flow Testing ................................................................................................................. 41
Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 41
Results...................................................................................................................................... 42
Decommissioning and Restoration .............................................................................................. 42
Chapter 6 – Key Results.................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 7 – Discussion of Findings................................................................................................... 47
Are the daily transportation requirements of an exploration site going to negatively impact
local road users? .......................................................................................................................... 47
Contextualising 2-way HGV movements...................................................................................... 48
Can and should the transportation requirements for an exploration site be reduced? ............. 48
How can the exploration process be streamlined?...................................................................... 49
Site Selection............................................................................................................................ 49
Alternative delivery methods for select materials................................................................... 50
Drilling ...................................................................................................................................... 50
Fracking and Initial Flow Testing.............................................................................................. 50

5
Sequencing of Stages ............................................................................................................... 51
Example of reduction in truck numbers that the implementation of suggested improvements
can cause...................................................................................................................................... 52
Without Improvements............................................................................................................ 52
With Improvements ................................................................................................................. 52
Chapter 8 – Conclusions................................................................................................................... 53
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 54
References........................................................................................................................................ 55
Further Reading................................................................................................................................ 61
Appendix 1 – Additional information on Exploration in the UK....................................................... 63
History.......................................................................................................................................... 63
Regulation .................................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix 2 – Overview of Existing Exploration Sites....................................................................... 66
Celtique Energie ........................................................................................................................... 66
Fenhurst ................................................................................................................................... 67
Wisborough Green................................................................................................................... 68
Third Energy ................................................................................................................................. 70
Kirby Misperton........................................................................................................................ 70
IGas............................................................................................................................................... 71
Springs Roads – Misson............................................................................................................ 71
Ellesmere Port.......................................................................................................................... 73
Barton Moss ............................................................................................................................. 74
Ince Marshes ............................................................................................................................ 75
Cuadrilla ....................................................................................................................................... 76
Grange Hill................................................................................................................................ 76
Preese Hall................................................................................................................................ 76
Roseacre Wood ........................................................................................................................ 77
Preston New Road.................................................................................................................... 79
Appendix 3 – Full Working for Chapter 5......................................................................................... 81
General Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 81
Trucks Used.................................................................................................................................. 81
Construction of Well Pad and Access Track................................................................................. 81
Drilling .......................................................................................................................................... 82
Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 82

6
Results...................................................................................................................................... 92
Alternative Activities for activities highlighted in blue ............................................................ 93
Hydraulic Fracturing..................................................................................................................... 93
Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 93
Results...................................................................................................................................... 96
Initial Flow Testing ....................................................................................................................... 97
Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 97
Results...................................................................................................................................... 98
Extended Flow Testing ................................................................................................................. 99
Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 99
Results.................................................................................................................................... 100
Decommissioning and Restoration ............................................................................................ 100
Results........................................................................................................................................ 102
Appendix 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 103
Calculations for the numbers presented in tables 7-3 and 7-4.................................................. 103
Without Improvements.......................................................................................................... 103
With Improvements ............................................................................................................... 104

1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Shale Gas production is one of the fastest growing developments in onshore domestic oil
and gas production today. This is due to the development of hydraulic fracturing
techniques that significantly increase the permeability of shale by causing fractures in the
rock. Despite shale gas (natural gas) being the cleanest burning of all fossil fuels (Arthur,
2008), many people are concerned about the environmental impacts of shale gas and it’s
extraction from the earth.
The UK is currently in the exploration phase of shale gas utilization and is looking to
discover whether full scale shale gas production is a viable energy production route to
take. A great many concerns have been raised about the exploration process, from the
quantity of water required for fracking to induced seismicity, but very little concern has
been shown to the transportation requirements of the process.
Aim
This research projects aims to shed light on the transportation requirements of a UK
exploration site throughout its lifetime. Stages of highest HGV intensity will be highlighted
and suggestions for reduction in truck movements will be presented.
This project will focus on exploration instead of production. Until the exploration phase is
complete, the scale of Shale Gas production in the UK is impossible to predict to any great
accuracy. The methodology involved in calculating the traffic requirements for production
will be largely the same as exploration however so the intention is to apply the
knowledge learned within this project to production at a later date.
Though small vehicles do access the site, the focus of this project is on HGV movements
as these are expected to be the most likely to cause congestion problems.
Objectives:
 Research pre existing documentation for onshore shale gas exploration and highlight
all relevant information found, in a manner that concisely outlines the exploration
process,
 Using data found through research, generate a clear picture of the transportation
requirements of a UK exploration site,
 Discuss the findings and suggest means for reducing HGV numbers.

2
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
A brief overview of Hydraulic Fracturing
The shale fracking process itself
Overview
Hydraulic fracturing is a relatively simple process to understand. In
essence:
 A horizontal well is drilled in shale rock,
 Explosive charges are set at selective lengths along the
horizontal well,
 These charges are detonated and this creates holes in the well
walls,
 Water and sand are pumped into the well to open and keep
open cracks in the shale,
 This allows natural gases and oils to flow to the surface of the
well where they are collected.
Drilling
Shale rock is typically found deep underground, often upwards of
3km below the earth’s surface. Shales themselves can be upwards of 3km thick. Within
the gross thickness of shales, however, there are typically ‘hotspots’ (organic-rich zones)
which will yield the highest quantities of shale gases and oils (The Royal Society, 2012).
A well will be drilled vertically to a depth close to but above the intended depth, this
deviation from intended depth exists to allow a smooth curve to horizontal as seen in
Figure 2-1. The drill bit will be monitored during the entirety of the drilling process to
ensure that horizontal is reached at the intended depth. A horizontal well will then be
drilled to roughly 1 - 2 km in length (Cuadrillaresources, 2014).
Well Integrity
Before the explosives are set in the well, the well must be lined with steel casing and then
cemented. This helps prevent chemicals from leaking and causing groundwater
contamination (Cuadrillaresources, 2015).
Figure 2- 1 An overview of the fracturing
process (Source: British Geological Survey)

3
Explosives
A perforating gun is used to create cracks in the well lining at set intervals, usually
between 15 and 25 m apart (Chesapeake, 2012). This is done to create an interface
between the well and the shale so that the shale can be fracked and shale gas and oil can
flow. Prominent companies involved in shale gas exploration, such as Cuadrilla and Third
Energy, provide no information on the quantity of explosives required during perforation.
Fracturing
Fracturing fluid is pumped into the well at high
pressure which widens existing cracks in the
shale as well as creating new ones (The Royal
Society, 2012). Fracking fluid contains a
proppant that keeps these cracks open,
allowing gas and oil to flow out of the cracks.
The fracturing process can take several
sessions to complete with each session lasting
two to three hours (Cuadrillaresources, 2014).
Figure 2-2 shows the movement of fracking
fluid and shale gas after the fracturing process
has been completed.
Shales of Interest in the UK
In 2010, the BGS (British Geological Survey) completed a
simple geological survey that resulted in Figure 2-3,
which shows the rough location of shales in the UK
(BGS, 2010). Since then, the BGS & DECC(Department of
Energy & Climate Change) have undertaken more
thorough research into the 3 main shale areas, as shown
in Figure 2-4. These 3 areas will be used to estimate
shale depth variance in England and Scotland.
Figure 2- 2 An Illustration of Hydraulic Fracturing
(Source: Al Granberg/ProPublica)
Figure 2- 3 Main black shale formations in UK
(Source: British Geological Survey)

4
Carboniferous Midland Valley of Scotland
The study done by DECC concludes that
gas-mature shales occur at depths
beginning at roughly 700m below
Ordnance Datum. The shales here are
generally thin (ranging from 1-2inches to
15m) but occur in a stacked sequence.
Due to the significant number of
abandoned mines in the midland area, the
minimum drilling depth was set at 805m
to allow a 305m vertical separation zone
between these mines and drilled wells.
The deepest shale is roughly 5500m
below Ordnance (only at Firth of Forth)
but generally the deepest shale is 1200m.
Carboniferous Bowland-Hodder Shale
The study done by DECC showed that gas-mature shale
depths in this region range from 1500m to 4900m below ground surface. Generally, the
maximum depth of shales in the region range from 3000m to 4000m with the depth of
4900m occurring only in the Gainsborough trough.
Jurassic Weald Basin
The study undertaken by DECC concludes that there is not significant Jurassic shale gas
potential in the Weald Basin. They estimate that even the deepest shales in the area are
not yet gas-mature but that there is significant potential for shale oil extraction in the
area.
Figure 2- 4 BGS/DECC study areas for shale
(Source: British Geological Survey)

5
Key Players in UK Shale Exploration
As of January 2015 only Cuadrilla, Third Energy and
IGAS have drilled exploration wells in the UK. Of these
wells, only Cuadrilla’s Preese Hall well has actually
been fracked and this resulted in two earth tremors
(Gosden, 2015). Celtique Energie did apply for
permission to drill but were rejected by West Sussex
County Council. They initially planned to appeal the
decision but the introduction of fracking restrictions in
conservation areas has made them drop their plans
(Shankleman, 2015). An overview of the site locations
can be seen in Figure 2-5.
Cuadrilla
 Grange Hill – One vertical well drilled – Not
fracked,
 Preese Hall – One vertical well drilled and fracked,
 Roseacre Wood – Seeking permission to drill and frack four wells,
 Preston New Road – Seeking permission to drill and frack four wells.
IGAS
 Ince Marshes – One well drilled (2012) – Not currently seeking permission to frack,
 Ellesmere Port – One well drilled (2014) – Not currently seeking permission to frack,
 Barton Moss – One well drilled (2014) – Not currently seeking permission to frack,
 Misson – Seeking permission to drill and frack two wells.
Third Energy
 Kirby Misperton – One well drilled (2013) – Will seek but not currently submitted
application to frack.
Celtique Energie
 Fenhurst – permission to drill not granted (2014) – plans dropped,
 Wisborough Green – permission to drill not granted (2014) – plans dropped.
Figure 2- 5 Overview of UK exploration sites
(Source: The Telegraph)

6
Licensable areas
Figure 2-6 shows areas of existing UK licence in red and areas that were offered for
licensing in the 14th
Onshore Licensing round that took place on 28th
July 2014. The official
map can be found in the references (DECC, 2014). As can be seen, the majority of existing
and potential licences are found in Central and Southern England.
Figure 2- 6 Licensing areas in UK (Source: friends of the earth)
Exploration
How many sites will be required?
In January 2014 energy minister Michael Fallon said he expected there to be 40 shale gas
sites drilled in England by early 2016 (Lane, 2014). However, as of January 2015 only 6
shale gas wells have been drilled in the UK and only 5 new sites have been announced for
shale gas drilling (Vaughan, 2015). Since Michael Fallon’s estimate of 40 wells in two
years, only 2 new shale gas sites have been drilled.

7
The short answer is that no one knows for certain how many exploration wells will be
drilled but the chairman of Cuadrilla, Lord Browne, estimates that exploration will require
between 20 and 40 fracked wells in order to determine the economic viability of shale gas
production in the UK (Harvey, 2014). Michael Fallon estimates
the same number of exploration wells and expects them to be
drilled over a 2 to 3 year timeframe (Lane, 2014).
Whether their estimate of 20 to 40 exploration wells in the UK
actually means 20 to 40 wells in the UK or really means 20 to 40
wells in England is yet to be seen but until the fracking
moratorium in Scotland is lifted it is likely that Central England
will remain the focus of exploration.
Stages of Exploration
Of the companies that have drilled exploration wells in the UK,
Cuadrilla gives the most detailed outline of the exploration
process (ARUP, 2014). They break the process down into 6 main
stages which can be seen graphically in Figures 2-7 through
2-12.
Well Pad and Access Track Construction
If required, an access road to site will be constructed. Given the
temporary nature of the site, compacted stones are often used.
A layer of topsoil is removed and either transported off site
using articulated lorry or used as screening around the
perimeter the site. An impermeable membrane is placed over
the exposed soil. A temporary surface, often compacted stones
or concrete, is then constructed on top of the membrane. Other
utilities such as fences and mains water connections will then be
constructed.
Cuadrilla estimate that it takes roughly 2 months to construct the
well pad, access track and all relevant on site utilities.
Figure 2- 7 Overview of Construction Stage
(Source: cuadrillaresources youtube video)

8
Drilling
Drilling equipment is brought to site using articulated lorries.
The drilling crane trailer will be set over the area of the site to
be drilled and then raised hydraulically. The crane will then be
raised on its platform and the rest of the rig will be erected
around it. At this stage monitoring equipment will often be
installed on site. This allows groundwater quality, ground gas
and groundwater levels to be monitored throughout the
exploration process.
The length of time required for drilling is dependent on the
depth and type of well being drilled but Cuadrilla estimate 5
months drilling for the first well and 3 months for any
subsequent well. The first well requires an additional two
months due to it being drilled in two separate stages. Firstly, a
vertical well is drilled, typically to 3500m depth below ground
surface, which takes roughly 3 months. Secondly, a horizontal
well will be drilled from this initial well (not necessarily from the
base). This takes roughly 2 months. Subsequent wells, on the
other hand, are drilled vertically to a depth within the shale and
then drilled laterally from the base of the vertical well.
Figure 2- 8 Overview of Drilling Stage

9
Hydraulic Fracturing
The equipment arrives on site by articulated lorry. The specifics
of this equipment can be seen in Figure 2-9.
Several rounds of fracturing are typically required but each round
usually only lasts 2 to 3 hours. These rounds can be spaced over a
number of weeks. Technical data from the well is analysed
throughout the fracturing process. Often a traffic light system is
adopted during fracturing to monitor seismic activity. Cuadrilla
estimates that approximately 8 seismometers are used in this
system.
During the fracturing process, some of the water used returns to
the surface along with shale gas. This water is called flow-back
water and has a high content of total dissolved solids and other
contaminants. It is separated from collected gas and then stored
on site in steel tanks before being sent via truck to a wastewater
treatment facility.
Hydraulic fracturing takes roughly 2-3 months per well.
Initial Flow Testing
Natural gas and flowback fluid are tested to work out the flow
rate of the gas and its chemical composition. As with the
fracking stage, flow-back water is sent away to offsite treatment
via truck. All natural gas collected during this stage is flared.
Initial flow testing lasts for approximately 3 months per well.
Extended Flow Testing
If natural gas flow rates are favourable, extended flow testing
may be undertaken. During this stage connections to the local
natural gas network would be constructed and natural gas
Figure 2- 9 Overview of Fracking Stage
Figure 2- 10 Overview of Initial Flow Testing
Stage
Figure 2- 11 Overview of Extended Flow Test
Stage

10
would continue to be tested for roughly 18-24 months per well.
Decommissioning and Restoration
The decommissioning stage has similar transportation
requirements as the construction stage. All wells on the site will be
plugged. If the site is being considered for production then further
planning permission is required and so the site will be secured but
not restored. Once all work on the site is completed then the site
will be restored. This involves all wells being permanently sealed,
the membrane and temporary surface removed and topsoil being
returned.
This stage would typically take 2 months to be fully completed.
Sequencing of Stages
The sequencing order presented above is the default order used by Cuadrilla in the
planning stage (ARUP, 2014). In reality however, once the well pad and access road have
been constructed, the following stages can occur in almost any order. For example, the
Kirby Misperton well was drilled in 2013 with no intention of fracking. The well was
analysed and found to be gas bearing and so now in 2015 Third Energy are seeking the
necessary planning permission to frack the well.
Trucks and Lorries used
As mentioned in the “Stages of Exploration” section above, articulated lorries are used
frequently during the exploration process. Tanker trucks are also used in the process to
transport water to and from site if mains supply is not available and to remove flow-back
waters from site.
The following are a number of UK businesses that specialize in these types of vehicles and
the capacities of the vehicles they supply. These numbers can be found on their official
websites which have been listed in the references at the end of the report.
Figure 2- 12 Overview of Decommission &
Restoration Stage

11
WG Tanker Hire
 Tanker Capacity = 34 to 65 m3
Greens Environmental
 Water Storage Tank Capacity (flow-back) = 1 to 27 m3
 Arctic Tanker Capacity (easy site access) = 20 to 30 m3
 Rigid Tanker Capacity (difficult to access sites) = 15 m3
Bale Group
 Tanker Capacity = 4.5 to 30 m3
 Palletise loads = 1 to 26 pallets
S. Lyon & Son
 Haulage Capacity = 28 to 50 tonnes
Walker
 Rigid Flatbed Capacity (difficult to access sites) = 18 ft & 3.5 tonnes
 Large Trailers (easy site access) = 40 to 45 ft & 44 tonnes (GVW)
 Plant Trailer Capacity = 29 to 48 ft & 35 tonnes
 Extendable Trailer Capacity = 24 to 85 ft & 50 tonnes
Existing information on HGV requirements for Shale Gas Exploration
There are existing reports that present HGV requirements for exploration sites.
The European Commission’s report, “The impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on
the environment and human health” (European Commission, 2011), presents Table 2-1.
This table shows truck numbers associated with specific activities involved in shale gas
exploration.
The numbers the table uses are based on a report by the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection which outlined the transport requirements of a typical shale
gas development site in the United States (NYCDEP, 2009). Therefore, it is likely that site
size, vehicles used and regulation are all different than that of a UK exploration site.
The European Commission gives little to no context of what their numbers mean or what
their assumed truck capacity is. For example, the total estimate of truck trips is obviously
a total but it is difficult to tell whether the estimate of 20 to 40 truck trips for site access
and drill pad construction is a total, daily or even weekly average.

12
Table 2- 1 Estimated quantities of materials and truck movements for
activities associated with natural gas development
(Source: European Commission)
AMEC also present tables of estimated truck movements in their report “Strategic
Environmental Assessment for Further Onshore Oil and Gas Licensing” (AMEC, 2013).
Table 2- 2 Assumptions on Vehicle Movements (Source: AMEC)

13
Table 2- 3 Estimated Vehicle Movements for Unconventional Oil & Gas
(Source: AMEC)
As can be seen in Tables 2-2 & 2-3, a number of AMEC’s estimates are based directly on
the European Commission’s numbers which in turn means that again these numbers are
based on American data. For the transportation estimates that have been calculated by
AMEC directly however, truck capacity assumptions have clearly been states as have
material assumptions.
The actual sources for some of their assumptions, such as the quantity of drill cuttings
produced are not provided but the majority of their assumptions are backed by citation.

14
Chapter 3 – Methodology
Literature Review
Initial secondary data was sourced using popular search engines. Relevant reports were
stored in a folder on a computer hard drive and references within these initial reports were
tracked down, the useful ones saved and the process repeated. Some key reports were also
sourced from feedback given in the project proposal. Popular news websites were also used
for the majority of 2014 & 2015 references within the literature review.
Exploration Site Data
Data found in the literature review detailed all existing and proposed UK exploration sites
and the companies constructing them. The official websites of these companies were
searched for the majority of data used. When minimal data was available on the official
company websites, popular search engines were used to track down information.
Data Analysis
Chapter 4
Site data found was placed into a word document. This has been included in this report as
Appendix 2. Tables were then generated based on the data presented in this word
document. The site data in Tables 4-5 through 4-11 was compared and the highest and
lowest estimates of daily 2-way flow were taken and used to represent a “typical” range. The
same logic was followed with the timeframe of each stage of exploration.
Chapter 5
The methodology involved in calculating the numbers in this chapter is outlined within the
chapter itself. A more detailed explanation is presented within Appendix 3. The basic
methodology for this chapter involved reading over the information presented in Tables 2-1,
2-2 and 2-3 and comparing this with exploration site data. Often informed decisions had to
be made based on a presented data range in order to undertake calculations. All
assumptions made and all references used have been cited within the chapter itself.

15
Chapter 4 – Defining a “Typical” Exploration Site
This chapter of the report takes all relevant data found when researching the sites outlined in “Key Players in UK Shale Exploration” and
compresses it all down into tables of information, making direct comparisons between sites researched simple. Each stage of exploration
has been covered in detail allowing activity specific traffic frequencies to be considered.
A more thorough overview of the site research undertaken during this project can be found in Appendix 2 along with details on information
sources.
Site Locations and Shale Depths
As can be seen in Table 4-1, the majority of planned and existing exploration wells are situated in Central England.
Site and Well Pad Area
As Table 4-2 shows, the majority of wells are Vertical Wells. These generally fall within the depth range of 1.5 to 3km. In the table VD stands
for Vertical Depth and TD stands for Total Depth. For vertical wells VD = TD but for lateral wells this is not the case. It is assumed for lateral
wells that the Total Depth is the Total Length of the well. Orange boxes show the sources of the information presented in Table 4-3.
Table 4- 1 Overview of Site Locations and Shale Depths

16
Table 4- 2 Summary of Site and Pad Areas and Well Depths

17
Table 4- 3 Range of Site and Pad Areas and Well Depths for UK Explorations Sites Researched
It is expected that the majority of Exploration sites in the UK will fall within the range of values presented in Table 4-3.
HGV Site Access
Table 4-4 shows the proposed access routes for a number of the exploration sites that were researched. As can be seen, it is common for
HGV to be routed to site via A-roads. Temporary Access Roads often have to be constructed. Even if pre-existing site access exists, it is
typical that the access road requires widening in order to accommodate larger vehicles.
Table 4- 4 Overview of Site Access Routes

18
Table 4-5 can be found in the transport assessment of both Roseacre Wood and Preston
New Road and outlines the mindset adopted when selecting site access routes. As can be
seen, route selection should have minimal impact on the local community which is why
larger A-roads are often the preferred route.
2-way HGV Movements
In Tables 4-6 through 4-11 the daily 2-way HGV movements for each stage and phase of
exploration are shown. As can be seen, a number of sites did not include a stage of lateral
well drilling or hydraulic fracturing.
Table 4- 5 Principles for Selection of Preferred Route
(Source: cuadrillaresources)

19
All Existing UK Sites
Table 4- 5 Two-way HGV Movements for the Construction Stage of Exploration

20
Table 4- 6 Two-way HGV Movements for the Vertical Drilling Stage of Exploration

21
Table 4- 7 Two-way HGV Movements for the Lateral Drilling Stage of Exploration

22
Table 4- 8 Two-way HGV Movements for the Fracking Stage of Exploration

23
Table 4- 9 Two-way HGV Movements for the Initial Flow Testing Stage of Exploration

24
Table 4- 10 Two-way HGV Movements for the Extended Flow Testing Stage of Exploration

25
Table 4- 11 Two-way HGV Movements for the Decommissioning & Restoration Stage of Exploration

26
Results
2-way HGV Movements
Table 4-12 presents the expected timeframe and 2-way HGV movements that a UK
exploration site will generate. As can be seen, aside from the phases highlighted in
yellow, there is a large range in daily vehicle movements that can be expected. There are
two reasons for this.
Firstly, the frequency with which vehicles enter the site is dependent on a number of
difficult to control factors. For example, the mobilisation phase for drilling could require a
total of 100 2-way HGV movements over a 2 week period. The site operator could
schedule for 5 trucks to arrive on first day or they could schedule for 25. Protestors could
block the site entrance and delay deliveries, a HGV could crash on route to the site,
delivered equipment could be faulty etc.
Secondly, the delivery route of materials will have a profound effect on daily HGV
numbers. For example, water could be piped to site or driven to site via tanker.
For both of these reasons, the total transportation requirements should be assessed in
order to better contextualise the numbers in Table 4-12.
Site Details
Based on the data presented in this chapter and in the appendix, it is expected that a
“typical” exploration site will take on one of two distinct forms.
1 Vertical Well
When little is known of the area, it is expected that only 1 vertical well will be drilled and
then flow tested with no fracking taking place at all. It is expected that the well will be
between 1.5 and 3km in depth.
If the flow test is not successful then the well will be plugged and the site restored and
abandoned.
If the test is successful then 1 to 4 lateral wells will be drilled and potentially fracked.

27
Any number of Lateral Wells
It is expected that if even a single lateral well is proposed during planning application
then hydraulic fracturing will definitely take place at the exploration site. It is likely that 1
to 4 wells will be proposed in the application. For this site well depths are expected to be
deeper than for the aforementioned site, with wells being at least 3km deep.
HGV route
Based on the information presented in Tables 4-4 & 4-5, it can be assumed that HGVs
accessing the site will travel as close to the site as possible via high capacity roads such as
M & A class roads. They will then follow the most direct route to site that impedes the
local area the least and will then enter the site via temporary access road.

28
Stage Phase Description Approx
Duration
(weeks)
HGV
Movements
(per day)
Overall Time
(months)
1. Construction of
Well Pad and
Access Track
A Commencement
of construction
2 to 3 0 to 36 1.4 to 2.3
B Materials to site 2 to 3 22 to 48
C Completion of
construction
3 0 to 36
2. Drilling (per well) A Mobilisation 1 to 2 6 to 40 1.84 to 5
Vertical Well B Drilling 14 to 20 2 to 36
C Demobilisation 1 6 to 50
Lateral Well A Mobilisation 0.6 to 1 10 to 40 2.8 to 4.28
B Drilling 10 to 18 2 to 38
C Demobilisation 1 to 2 6 to 50
3. Hydraulic
Fracturing
(per well)
A Mobilisation 1 0 to 27 1 to 2
B Fracturing 6 to 8 0 to 24
4. Initial Flow
Testing
A Mobilisation 1 14 to 23 0.46 to 4
B Initial Flow
Testing
2 to 13 0 to 22
5. Extended Flow
Testing
A Analysis of flow
rates
0 to 104 1 to 2 0 to 24
6. Decommissioning
and Restoration
A Mobilisation 2 to 3 0 to 36 1.4 to 2.3
B Materials from
site
2 to 3 36 to 48
C Completion of
decommissioning
2 0 to 36
Table 4- 12 Expected range of 2-way HGV movements for UK Exploration

29
Chapter 5 – Total HGV Requirements of an Exploration Site
In this chapter, all significant truck generating activities have been considered for each
stage of exploration. The intention is to outline the most HGV intensive activities within
the exploration process.
Full working for this chapter can be found in Appendix 3.
General Assumptions
The following calculations assume that all materials will be trucked to site. In reality a
number of exploration sites are connected to a mains water supply which substantially
reduces the quantity of water trucks required. This will be taken into account as an
optional phase in the final table of values for each relevant stage.
Trucks Used
The following truck capacities have been used to calculate total truck numbers for the
materials shown.
Table 5- 1 Design Truck Capacities used in Calculations
Construction of Well Pad and Access Track
Despite variance in site and pad areas found at existing sites, the minimum total trucks
required is fairly consistent at around 900 to 950 two-way truck journeys. The maximum
varies more but this is expected due to differences in site setup, e.g. whether soil is
maintained on site as bunds or whether access roads need to be constructed/upgraded. It
is therefore assumed that the estimates for total truck movements outlined in Table 4-5
are accurate.

30
Hence:
Table 5- 2 Total Trucks required for the Construction stage
Drilling
Assumptions
Well Rig Setup
Third Energy assumes that it will require roughly 100 2-way HGV trips to set up the drilling
rig.
IGas assume that it will require 64 2-way HGV movements to mobilize the drilling rig.
It will therefore be assumed that 64 to 100 2-way HGV trips or 32 to 50 trucks will be
required.
Table 5- 3 Total Trucks required for Well Rig Setup
Well Depth
In Central England, where the majority of the existing UK exploration sites were drilled,
the shale was found to vary in depth between 1.5 and 4.9km below ground surface. The
wells drilled in this area were found to vary in depth from 1.58 and 4.7km below the
ground surface. It is therefore assumed that any wells drilled in the UK will be 0.2km less
than the maximum shale depth and 0.1km more than the minimum. Lateral wells are
generally a maximum of 2.0km in lateral length. It is assumed that a lateral well will be
0.25km lateral length minimum.

31
Therefore:
Table 5- 4 Assumptions on Well Depth
Well Design
For the purposes of calculating cutting volume, casing and cement requirements the
following assumptions have been made based on the well design presented in Cuadrilla’s
Appendix B (cuadrillaresources, 2014):
 From 0 to 175m the bore diameter will be 25” and the outer casing diameter will be
20”,
 From 175 to 1,300m the bore diameter will be 16” and the outer casing diameter will
be 13.375”,
 From 1,300 to 2,000m the bore diameter will be 12.25” and the outer casing diameter
will be 9.625”,
 From 2,000 to 3,000m the bore diameter will be 8.5” and the outer casing diameter
will be 7”,
 From 3,000m and below the bore diameter will be 6” and the outer casing diameter
will be 4.5”.

32
Drill Cuttings
Using the well depths in Table 5-4, the following estimates were calculated:
Table 5- 5 Total trucks required to remove cuttings from site
Casing
It will be assumed, given that after 3000m length only a 4.5”
diameter casing lines the well, that the increase in weight will
be minimal at roughly 10.79 pounds per foot or 1.604
tonnes/km (McCulloch, 2015). On the other hand, from the
surface it is assumed that the change in weight per km will be
substantial until roughly 3000m depth. This is because casings
overlap, as shown in Figure 5-1.
Assuming:
Table 5- 6 Assumed casing weights used in calculation
Figure 5- 1 Typical Well Casing Design
(Source: robinjansen)

33
Then:
Table 5- 7 Total trucks required to deliver casing to site
Cement
Assuming that the volume of cement required is:
Then:
Table 5- 8 Total trucks required to deliver cement to site
Drilling Water
The European Commission assume 40 to 400m3
of water will be required during the
drilling phase.
Cuadrilla estimate 7500m3
water in total for the drilling phase. This is based on the drilling
of 4 wells which is 1875m3
per well (cuadrillaresources, 2014).
It will therefore be assumed that the drilling of a single well will require 400 to 1875m3
of
water. Chemical additives are assumed to be marginal.
Table 5- 9 Total trucks required to deliver drilling water to site

34
Drilling Wastewater
According to Cuadrilla, 40.5m3
of wastewater will be produced per day during the drilling
stage. Drilling takes 10 to 20 weeks per well or 405 to 810m3
of water per well.
The European Commission assumes that the total volume of wastewater will be identical
to that of drilling water requirements i.e. 40 to 400m3
.
It will be assumed that 95% of water used during drilling will be returned. Therefore, it is
assumed that wastewater produced will be 380 to 1780m3
.
Table 5- 10 Total trucks required to remove wastewater from site
Demobilisation of Drill Rig
It is assumed that demobilisation will require the same amount of trucks as mobilisation.
Table 5- 11 Total trucks required to remove drilling equipment from site
Optional – Keep Drill Rig on site
IGas plan on drilling all of the wells on their Misson site before fracking. This allows the
company to keep the drill rig on site throughout the entirety of the drilling stage. Moving
the drilling rig to a new drilling position requires 40 2-way HGV movements or 20 trucks
total.
Table 5- 12 Total trucks required to move drilling rig to a new location

35
Results
Table 5- 13 Total Trucks required for entirety of drilling stage
Table 5- 14 Alternative activities for highlighted activities in table 5-13

36
Assumptions
Casing Perforation
No data on the quantities of explosive required to perforate the well casing could be
found. It is not expected that the number of trucks for this activity will be large so it is
assumed that roughly 1 to 5 trucks will be necessary.
Table 5- 15 Total trucks required to deliver explosives to site
Mobilisation of Equipment
Third Energy estimates that it will require a total of 100 2-way HGV movement to
transport the fracturing equipment to site. It will therefore be assumed that a total of 50
trucks are required to mobilize equipment for this stage.
Table 5- 16 Total trucks required to mobilise fracking equipment to site
Fracturing Fluid
Cuadrilla, IGas and Third Energy all agree that fracturing fluid is made up of at least 99%
water and proppant. For simplicity it will be assumed that the truck requirements for the
remaining 1% of chemicals will be negligible (Cuadrilla estimate 2 trucks).
For the remaining 99% Cuadrilla estimate that 50 tonnes of sand will be required per
fracture (cuadrillaresources, 2014).
Cuadrilla estimate that 765m3
of water will be required per fracture. Third Energy
estimates that each well will require 4000m3
or 2000m3
if water is recycled during the
fracturing process. On the other hand AMEC and the European Commission both have
higher estimates of water use from 10000 to 25000m3
and 11355 to 30465m3
per well
respectively.

37
The amount of water required is effectively dictated by the number of hydraulic fractures
that are undertaken per well. Cuadrilla estimate that a site of 4 wells will have a total of
155 stages of fracturing or roughly 38 to 39 fractures per well. IGas mention multiple
stages of fracturing on their website but give no indication of the number. For their
Misson site Third Energy will be performing 5 fracturing stages.
Using Cuadrilla’s estimate of 39 stages gives a total of 29835m3
of water per well which
agrees with AMEC and the European Commissions’ highest estimates and so their per
fracture value of 765m3
will be used.
It is assumed that Third Energy’s 5 fracture estimate will generally be the minimum
number of fractures performed per well in the UK. Therefore it is assumed that 5 to 39
fractures will be performed per well.
Table 5- 17 Total trucks required to deliver fracking fluid to site
Table 5- 18 Total trucks required to deliver fracking sand to site
Wastewater
Generally, as AMEC assumes, 30 to 75% of fracturing fluid returns to the surface as
wastewater. They do not, however, take into account the flow testing stage and therefore
assume that all of this water returns during the fracturing process. Cuadrilla’s and IGas’s
estimates of 15 to 25% and 20 to 40% flow-back take into account the flow testing stage
and will therefore be used instead.
It will therefore be assumed that 15 to 40% of water will be returned during this stage.
Table 5- 19 Total trucks to remove fracking wastewater from site

38
Demobilisation
It is assumed that demobilisation will require the same amount of trucks as mobilisation.
Table 5- 20 Total trucks required to remove fracking equipment from site
Optional – Keep fracturing equipment on site
It is assumed that the number of trucks required in moving fracturing equipment
between wells will be roughly the same as the number of trucks required to move well
drilling equipment in the previous stage.
Table 5- 21 Total trucks required to move fracking equipment to a new location
Results
Table 5- 22 Total Trucks required for entirety of fracking stage

39
Initial Flow Testing
Assumptions
Mobilisation
The demobilisation of the hydraulic fracturing equipment overlaps with the mobilisation
of this stage and so vehicle movements for mobilisation have already been accounted for
above.
Wastewater
Cuadrilla estimates a 40% flow-back rate during this stage. No other data is given by any
of the other companies mentioned so this value will be used.

40
Occasional Well Servicing
Cuadrilla outlines the fact that occasional well servicing will be required during this stage.
It will be assumed that servicing will occur every two weeks and that a total of 8 two-way
HGV movements would be required per service i.e. 4 trucks per service.
Table 5- 25 Total trucks required during well servicing
Demobilisation
It is assumed that demobilisation will require the same number of trucks as mobilisation
i.e. 50 trucks.
Table 5- 26 Total trucks required to remove initial flow testing equipment from site
Results
Table 5- 27 Total trucks required during the initial flow testing stage

41
Extended Flow Testing
Assumptions
Pipe Installation
At this stage it is typical to connect the site to the gas grid. The length of pipe required for
this depends on how far the site is from the nearest pipeline. For Cuadrilla’s Preston New
Road site 200m of pipeline will be required. For their Roseacre Wood site 50m of pipeline
is necessary. In IGas’s community information booklet on their Misson site, they explain
that for shale gas pipelines 18cm diameter are common.
It will therefore be assumed that between 25m and 500m length pipeline of 18cm (7”)
diameter is typical.
Table 5- 29 Total trucks required to deliver piping to site
It is assumed that an additional 2 to 5 trucks will be required to bring installation
equipment to the site.
Table 5- 30 Total trucks required to install gas piping
Wastewater (flowback)
Caudrilla assumes:
 Removal of flow-back fluid – 2 HGV movements (1 truck) per week.

42
Additional HGVs
Caudrilla assumes the following:
 Minor Maintenance – 2 HGV movements (1 truck) per week ,
 Propane Deliveries – 4 HGV movements (2 trucks) per week,
 Well Servicing – 8 HGV movements (4 trucks) occasionally (assume every two weeks
as with initial flow testing).
Table 5- 32 Total trucks required for general site activity during the extended flow testing stage
Results
Table 5- 33 Total trucks required for the extended flow testing stage
Decommissioning and Restoration
It is assumed that the number of truck movements required for decommissioning and
restoring the site will be equivalent to the number of trucks required during initial
construction. This assumption is based on the fact that Cuadrilla’s numbers for the
‘construction’ and ‘decommission and restoration’ of their Roseacre Wood and Preston
New Road sites were identical. The anticipated timeframe of construction and
decommission were also identical for both of Celtique’s sites. This can be seen by
comparing Tables 4-5 & 4-11.

43
Hence:
Table 5- 35 Total trucks required for the decommission & restoration stage

44
Chapter 6 – Key Results
Table 6-1 shows the expected daily traffic that a “typical” exploration site will generate in
the UK. Phases of exploration that generate higher than typical daily 2-way HGV
movements have been highlighted in red.
Stage Phase Description Approx
Duration
(weeks)
HGV
Movements
(per day)
Overall Time
(months)
1. Construction of Well
Pad and Access
Track
A Commencement of
construction
2 to 3 0 to 36 1.4 to 2.3
B Materials to site 2 to 3 22 to 48
C Completion of
construction
3 0 to 36
2. Drilling
(per well)
Vertical Well
A Mobilisation 1 to 2 6 to 40 1.84 to 5
Lateral Well
A Mobilisation 0.6 to 1 10 to 40 2.8 to 4.28
C Demobilisation 1 to 2 6 to 50
3. Hydraulic Fracturing
(per well)
A Mobilisation 1 0 to 27 1 to 2
B Fracturing 6 to 8 0 to 24
4. Initial Flow Testing A Mobilisation 1 14 to 23 0.46 to 4
B Initial Flow Testing 2 to 13 0 to 22
5. Extended Flow
Testing
A Analysis of flow
rates
0 to 104 1 to 2 0 to 24
6. Decommissioning
and Restoration
A Mobilisation 2 to 3 0 to 36 1.4 to 2.3
B Materials from site 2 to 3 36 to 48
C Completion of
decommissioning
2 0 to 36
Table 6- 1 Two-way HGV movements associated with a “typical” exploration site
Table 6-2 outlines the total truck requirements for each stage of exploration. As with
Table 6-1 the colour red has been used to indicate the most traffic intensive activities

45
associated with exploration. Highlighted in blue are activities that can be completed via
alternative means. These alternative means can be seen in Table 6-3.
Stage Activity Total Trucks
Construction of Well Pad and
Access Track
Total 460 to 1260
Drilling
(per well)
Mobilisation 32 to 50
Well: Scotland England
Vertical Lateral Vertical Lateral
Cuttings 30 to 67 36 to 74 45 to 65 49 to 72
Casing 31 to 69 38 to 76 47 to 67 51 to 74
Cement 2 to 5 3 to 6 3 to 5 4 to 6
Drilling Water 14 to 63
Wastewater 13 to 60
Demobilisation 32 to 50
Total 154 to 364 168 to 376 186 to 360 195 to 375
(per well)
Casing Perforation 1 to 5
Mobilisation 50
Fracturing Fluid 136 to 1051
Wastewater 18 to 398
Demobilisation 25
Total 230 to 1529
Initial Flow Testing Mobilisation 25
Wastewater 398
Occasional Well Servicing 8 to 68
Demobilisation 50
Total 475 to 541
Extended Flow Testing Pipe Installation 3 to 6
Wastewater 0 to 104
Additional HGVs 0 to 520
Total 3 to 630
Decommissioning and
Restoration
Total 460 to 1260
Table 6- 2 Total trucks required during all stages of exploration for a “typical” exploration site

46
Table 6- 3 Alternative activities for activities highlighted in Table 6-2
It should be noted that for both well drilling and hydraulic fracturing, the numbers
presented only take into account a single well. These numbers can easily be adapted to
however many wells are actually present on a site via multiplication. For example, if an
exploration site in England has 4 wells (3 lateral and 1 vertical) and an assessment of total
truck numbers for the drilling stage is required then:
Location Well Type No. of wells Total Trucks
(per well)
Total Trucks
England Lateral 3 195 to 375 585 to 1125
Vertical 1 186 to 360 186 to 360
771 to 1485
Table 6- 4 Example of how to convert single well numbers for multi-well sites

47
Chapter 7 – Discussion of Findings
Are the daily transportation requirements of an exploration site going to
negatively impact local road users?
The short answer is probably not. The long answer is probably not but further research is
required to say for definite.
Shale gas exploration faces severe public opposition in the UK as the popularity of anti-
fracking websites such as www.frack-off.org.uk and www.foe.co.uk can attest. Therefore,
companies which plan on exploring for shale have to do everything they can to get the
public on their side when they propose a site. This can be seen in the public exhibitions
that companies such as Celtique Energie and IGAS host, which often highlight the
community work the company has undertaken (Celtique Energie, 2013).
Given that companies are actively trying to garner public support, it seems unlikely that
any company undertaking exploration work would propose a transportation route to site
that would significantly impact the local area. Table 4-5 shows the level of forethought
that goes into planning transportation routes to site. It therefore seems highly likely that
wherever possible, as mentioned in chapter 4, M and A class roads will be used.
Figure 7- 1 A comparison of baseline flows and road link capacity (Source: cuadrillaresources)

48
In Cuadrilla’s transport statements for their Preston New Road and Roseacre Wood sites,
their assessment was that, even taking into account the expected peak daily 2-way HGV
movements, the transport generated by their sites would have little to no impact on the
capacity of the roads being used. Figure 7-1 shows this numerically.
For both of their sites, Cuadrilla expected a peak daily increase in traffic of 104 vehicles.
This includes small vehicle movements. As can be seen in Table 6-1 the peak increase in
local traffic caused by a HGV movements from a “typical” exploration site would be 50.
In order to meet Cuadrilla’s worst case, a typical site would require at least 54 small
vehicle movements per day. The maximum daily small vehicle movements expected by
IGAS for their Misson site is 40 2-way movements per day. For both of Cuadrilla’s sites the
maximum expected is 36 2-way movements. Therefore, it would be extremely rare for a
typical site to reach 104 2-way movements per day.
Further research is required to determine whether it is common for base-flow traffic
values to fall so far below capacity in the types of areas that sites are typically proposed
for.
Contextualising 2-way HGV movements
Table 6-1 contains many ranges of 2-way HGV movements but without a baseline it can
be difficult to contextualise their significance. As mentioned before, the worst case for
daily truck movements is 50 movements per day. In comparison to this a large
supermarket will typically have up to 20 deliveries per day (40 2-way HGV movements)
(IGAS, 2015). For the majority of the exploration process, however, the daily
requirements will fall well below 40 movements per day.
Can and should the transportation requirements for an exploration site
be reduced?
Given that the transportation requirements of an exploration site are not problematic for
local roads, it may seem like there is no reason to try to reduce the number of trucks
used. This is a naive viewpoint to take however. As mentioned before, fracking is a hot
topic in the UK currently. By reducing the number of trucks required, a much clearer

49
estimate of daily HGV requirements can be generated i.e. if fracking requires a maximum
of 400 trucks instead of 1500 then the expected daily 2-way traffic is likely to have a far
smaller range.
As can be seen in Table 6-1 there is a large range in daily 2-way HGV numbers for most
phases of exploration. This is because there is no standardised setup for an exploration
site and so many variables need to be considered. By streamlining the exploration
process, the number of variables is effectively reduced. For example, if it was mandatory
for water to be sourced to site via pipeline, for all stages of exploration, then between
150 to 1114 trucks (per well) could be removed from the process. In comparison to this,
the additional transportation strain of installing a water pipeline to the site would be
marginal judging by the transportation requirements of installing a gas pipe to site.
Companies undertaking exploration should also be far more open about the transport
requirements of their site. Cuadrilla, for example, on their “RESPONDING TO KEY ISSUES”
page says that “During a typical day of an exploration rig there might be 2-3 lorries visiting
the site” (cuadrillaresources, 2015). In actuality the typical range of expected lorry
movements is more likely to be between 0 and 30 2-way movements or 0 and 15 lorries
per day. This information can only be found in the appendices of their environmental
statements which are unlikely to be found by anyone not actively searching for detailed
site information. A local community expecting 2-3 lorries per day suddenly seeing up to
15 lorries instead are going to be far more likely to oppose exploration than those who
are told up front exactly how many HGVs are potentially going to be required.
How can the exploration process be streamlined?
The following suggestions should help to reduce the transportation requirements of an
exploration site. As with the information presented in Table 4-5, the following is not a
rigid framework that must be adhered to, just factors that should be considered when
planning an exploration site.
Site Selection
A site should:
 Be situated close to a mains water pipeline,
 Be situated close to a mains gas pipeline,

50
 Be situated close to a wastewater pipeline,
 Be situated as close to an A or M class road as possible,
 Have a pad area of no more than 0.016km2
,
 Retain all topsoil dug up during construction as bunds for shielding.
Alternative delivery methods for select materials
 Water should be delivered to site via pipeline,
 Wastewater should be removed from site via pipeline.
Drilling
 If no information on shales in the area is available then a single vertical well should be
drilled and flow tested,
 Otherwise, all proposed wells should be drilled before any other stages of exploration
are undertaken (excluding construction),
 The drilling equipment should be retained onsite for the entirety of the drilling stage.
Fracking and Initial Flow Testing
 Fracking and Initial flow testing should occur simultaneously when fracking is included
in the exploration process,
 Once all fracking and flow testing equipment is onsite it should be retained onsite for
the duration of this stage,
 All fracking equipment should be brought onsite and the first well fracked,
 Once the first well has been fracked, the fracking equipment should be moved to the
second well,
 Once fracturing equipment is installed over the second well, equipment for the initial
flow test should be brought onsite and installed over the first well,
 Fracturing equipment and flow testing equipment could then be moved to
subsequent wells using the same equipment i.e. 20 vehicles are required to move
fracking equipment from the second well to the third well, these same 20 vehicles
could then be used to move flow testing equipment from the first well to the second
well before leaving the site.

51
Sequencing of Stages
The proposed sequencing takes into account the two expected “typical” site variants
outlined at the end of chapter 4.
No pre-existing studies done on shale in area Pre-existing studies done on shale in area
Option 1 (Successful
Initial Flow Test)
Option 1 (Initial Flow
Test Unsuccessful)
Option 2 (Successful
Initial Flow Test)
Option 2 (Initial Flow Test
Unsuccessful)
Construct Well Pad &
Access Track
Access Track
Access Track
Access Track
Drill 1 Vertical Well Drill 1 Vertical Well Drill all Wells Drill all Wells
Flow Test Well Flow Test Well Hydraulically Frack all
Wells (Optional)
Hydraulically Frack all Wells
(Optional)
Drill all Subsequent
Wells
Decommission and
Restore Site
Perform Initial Flow Test
on all Wells
Perform Initial Flow Test on
all Wells
Hydraulically Frack all
Wells (Optional)
Perform Extended Flow
Test on all Wells
Decommission and Restore
Site
Flow Test all Wells Decommission Site
Decommission Site Restore Site or Leave
Site Decommissioned
While Applying to Begin
Production
Restore Site or Leave
Site Decommissioned
While Applying to Begin
Production
Table 7- 1 Sequencing of exploration, based on the “typical” site variants found in research, that will reduce truck
numbers generated onsite

52
Example of reduction in truck numbers that the implementation of
suggested improvements can cause
A worst case scenario for Option 2 with successful initial flow testing and a fracking stage
will be considered i.e. maximum estimate of total trucks from chapter 5 and Table 6-2. It
is assumed that 4 wells will be drilled and fracked (1 vertical, 3 lateral).
Calculations for Tables 7-3 & 7-4 can be found in Appendix 4.
Without Improvements
Construct
Site
Drill 1
vertical
well
Drill 3
lateral
wells
Frack
4 wells
Initial Flow
Test all Wells
Extended Flow
Test all Wells
Decommission
site
Total
Trucks 1260 364 1128 6116 766 630 1260 11,524
Table 7- 2 Total trucks required for a 4 well site with no improvements implemented
With Improvements
Construct
Site
Drill 4
wells
Frack & Initial Flow Test
4 wells
Extended Flow Test all
Wells
Decommission
site
Total
Trucks 1260 769 632 526 1260 4447
Table 7- 3 Total trucks required for a 4 well site with all suggested improvements implemented
Despite the assumption that construction and deconstruction would not improve from
changes made to site operation, the total truck requirements more than halved when all
suggested improvements were applied to the site. The most beneficial improvement a
site operator can make to their planned site is to supply water to the site via a pipeline.
As can be seen, the stage of exploration most improved by this change is the fracking
stage.
Further research into the economic viability of these suggested improvements is required.
IGAS plan to drill all of the wells on their Misson site before any fracking takes place for
the very reason that it reduces transportation requirements. Cuadrilla (the only other
company currently planning on drilling multiple wells) are drilling, fracking and flow
testing each well before subsequent wells are drilled. This is a far more HGV intensive
plan than IGAS’s but is still the preferred solution for Cuadrilla, suggesting some other
benefit to structuring exploration this way.

53
Chapter 8 – Conclusions
The exploration process is unlikely to cause congestion problems on UK roads. All existing
and planned exploration sites in the UK utilize A-class roads for the movement of HGVs.
These roads typically have high capacities. The additional traffic strains that exploration
sites introduce are not high enough to cause congestion on these types of roads.
The exploration process is generally no more traffic intensive than a large supermarket.
The highest expected daily 2-way traffic is 50 HGVs per day but for the majority of the
exploration process no more than 36 HGVs would be expected and even this number
would be rare. A large supermarket can have up to 40 HGV movements per day.
The number of HGVs required for exploration can be greatly reduced by streamlining the
process. By ensuring that a mains water connection is installed on site, the total number
of HGVs required for fracking can reduce by as much as 1051 per well. A number of other
easily implemented changes to the process, such as drilling all wells before beginning
fracking also help to reduce the number of trucks required, though nowhere near as
significantly as the introduction of a mains water supply.
The transportation requirements of exploration are not well presented on the official
websites of fracking companies. Cuadrilla greatly underestimates their own numbers on
their FAQ page and most of the other companies researched had their numbers buried
within larger reports.
Exploration sites in the UK typically fit into two distinct categories. Currently, the most
common type of exploration site is one on which only 1 vertical well is drilled and then
flow tested. Often these sites are plugged and abandoned after this though occasionally
more wells are drilled after this. The second category is becoming more popular and is a
site for which multiple wells are planned from the beginning. A single vertical well will be
drilled, fracked and then flow tested. Following this 2 to 3 lateral wells will be drilled,
fracked and flow tested.
The construction and deconstruction of an exploration site are both HGV intensive. Both
stages require further research to determine whether there is much scope for reducing
traffic. It seems unlikely, as the majority of sites in the UK already implement transport

54
reducing measures, such as retaining topsoil on site as bunds for shielding, but there is
likely potential for further innovation.
Recommendations
Further research is needed to assess whether the suggested transport reducing
improvements would be economically viable on an actual exploration site. Only one of
the sites researched on this project had an identical drilling plan to the proposed
improvement plan. Far more typically, sites complete a well i.e. drill, frack and flow test,
before work on any subsequent wells is started. The reason for this is unknown though it
is likely due to the fact that if the site is abandoned early into the sites lifetime, less wells
require plugging.
Further research is also required to determine whether a significant number of A-class
roads in the UK run at close to capacity. Of the sites that detailed transportation
assessments were available, it was found that the A-class roads used were operating at
far below capacity. Based on this and the fact that all sites researched used A-class roads
for their HGV movements, it was assumed that reaching peak-hour capacity would not be
an issue. More detailed investigation is required in order to test this assumption.

55
References
AMEC. (December 2013) Strategic Environmental Assessment for Further Onshore Oil and
Gas Licensing. (.pdf) Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273997
/DECC_SEA_Environmental_Report.pdf (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
ARTHUR, J. LANGHUS, B. ALLEMAN, D. (2008) AN OVERVIEW OF MODERN SHALE GAS
DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. (Online) Available from:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20100210093849_large.pdf (Accessed: 6th
December 2014).
BALE GROUP. (2015) BALE GROUP. (Online) Available from: http://bale.co.uk/ (Accessed:
28th March 2015)
BGS. (2010) How much shale gas do we have? (Online). Available from:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/howMuch.html (Accessed: 28th March
2015)
CELTIQUE ENERGIE. (June 2013) Fenhurst Exhibition Boards. (.pdf) Available from:
http://www.celtiqueenergie.com/Uploads/Celtique_Energie_Fernhurst_exhibition_board
s_June_2013.pdf (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
CELTIQUE ENERGIE. (2013) Wisborough Green Exhibition Boards. (.pdf) Available from:
http://www.celtiqueenergie.com/Uploads/CeltiqueWisboroughGreenBoards.pdf
(Accessed: 28th March 2015)
CHESAPEAKE. (2012) Chesapeake Energy hydraulic fracturing method. (Online Video).
Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjP-K1VaI1k (Accessed: 28th March
2015)
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (2014) Hydraulic Fracturing. (Online Video). Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN-DFB82T_I (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (2015) Drilling. (Online). Available from:
http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/what-we-do/drilling/ (Accessed: 28th March 2015)

56
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (2015) GRANGE HILL, SINGLETON. (Online) Available from:
http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/locations/singleton/ (Accessed: 28th March
2015)
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (2015) STATEMENT FROM CUADRILLA RESOURCES ON REFUSAL
OF GRANGE HILL PLANNING APPLICATION. (Online) Available from:
http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/news/cuadrilla-news/article/statement-from-
cuadrilla-resources-on-refusal-of-grange-hill-planning-application/ (Accessed: 28th March
2015)
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (February 2014) Summary Report: Independent Environmental
Monitoring. (.pdf) Available from: http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/GGS222-01-Preese-Hall-Summary-Report-26-02-14.pdf
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (June 2014) Roseacre Wood Environmental Statement Appendix
R1. (.pdf) Available from: http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/RW_ES_Vol2_Appndx-R1_TA-Exploration-Works.pdf
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (June 2014) Roseacre Wood Environmental Statement Appendix
B. (.pdf) Available from: http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/RW_ES_Vol2_Appndx-B_Scheme-Parameters.pdf (Accessed:
28th March 2015)
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (May 2014) Preston New Road Environmental Statement
Appendix R1. (.pdf) Available from: http://cuadrillaresources.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/PNR_ES_Vol2_Appndx-R1_Transport-Assessment.pdf
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (May 2014) Preston New Road Environmental Statement
Appendix B. (.pdf) Available from: http://cuadrillaresources.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/PNR_ES_Vol2_Appndx-B_Scheme-Parameters2.pdf (Accessed:
28th March 2015)

57
CUADRILLARESOURCES. (2015) RESPONDING TO THE KEY ISSUES. (Online) Available from:
http://cuadrillaresources.com/about-us/responding-to-the-key-issues/ (Accessed: 28th
March 2015)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE. (February 2014) Developing Onshore
Shale Gas and Oil – Facts about ‘Fracking’. (.pdf) Available from:
/Developing_Onshore_Shale_Gas_and_Oil__Facts_about_Fracking_131213.pdf
(Accessed: 6th December 2014)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE. (2012) THE UNCONVENTIONAL
HYDROCARBON RESOURCES OF BRITAIN’S ONSHORE BASINS - SHALE GAS. (Online)
Available from:
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/UKpromote/onshore_paper/UK_onshore_shalegas.pdf
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE. (December 2013) Onshore oil and gas
exploration in the UK: regulation and best practice. (.pdf) Available from:
/Onshore_UK_oil_and_gas_exploration_England_Dec13_contents.pdf (Accessed: 6th
December 2014)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE. (February 2014) Fracking UK shale:
climate change. (.pdf) Available from:
/Climate_Change.pdf (Accessed: 6th December 2014)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE. (February 2014) Fracking UK shale: water.
(.pdf) Available from:
/Water.pdf (Accessed: 6th December 2014)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE. (2014) 14th
ONSHORE ROUND OF
LICENSING BLOCKS UNDER OFFER. (.pdf) Available from:

58
/14R_Offer.pdf (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. (2011) Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the
environment and on human health. (.pdf) Available from:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201107/20110715ATT24183/
20110715ATT24183EN.pdf (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH TRUST/LIMITED. (2014) UK Fracking Map. (Online) Available
from: https://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/issues/uk_fracking_map_41274.html
GARRINGTON, D. (2014) Fracking trespass law changes move forward despite huge public
opposition (Online) Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/fracking-trespass-law-changes-
move-forward-despite-huge-public-opposition (Accessed: 6th
December 2014)
GOSDEN, E. SHIEL, T. (2015) Fracking: UK shale exploration sites mapped. (Online)
Available from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11373660/Fracking-UK-shale-
exploration-sites-mapped.html (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
GREENS ENVIRONMENTAL. (2015) GREENS ENVIRONMENTAL. (Online) Available from:
http://greensenvironmental.com/ (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
HARVEY, F. (2014) UK shale viability check will take five years, says Cuadrilla boss. (Online)
Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/uk-shale-gas-
fracking-cuadrilla (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
IGAS ENERGY. (January 2015) Environmental Scoping Report. (.pdf) Available from:
http://bassetlawagainstfracking.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Environmental-
Scoping-Report-Springs-Road-1.pdf (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
IGAS ENERGY. (March 2015) Community Information: Springs Road Exploration Well.
(.pdf) Available from: http://www.igas-engage.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NEW-
BROCHURE_IGAS-EM-3-A4-lo-res.pdf (Accessed: 28th March 2015)

59
IGAS ENERGY. (July 2014) Community Information: Ellesmere Port Exploration Well. (.pdf)
Available from: http://www.igas-engage.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/0812_IGAS-
EP-A4-WEB.pdf (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
IGAS ENERGY. (2015) Community Information: Barton Exploration Well. (.pdf) Available
from: http://www.igasplc.com/media/7544/boards-final.pdf (Accessed: 28th March
2015)
IGAS ENERGY. (June 2012) Results Presentation & Shale Update. (.pdf) Available from:
http://www.igasplc.com/media/6144/analystpresentationjune2012final.pdf (Accessed:
28th March 2015)
IGAS ENERGY. (November 2014) Executive Summary of Barton Moss Well Results. (.pdf)
Available from: http://www.igasplc.com/media/10895/barton-moss-results.pdf
LANE, E. (January 2014) UK shale plans ‘substantial’ drilling expansion. (Online) Available
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25714536 (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
LOWBRIDGE, C. (August 2013) Fracking confusion: How UK has been ‘fracked’ for decades.
(Online) Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23756320 (Accessed:
28th March 2015)
McLELLAN, A. (December 2014) IGas finds 1,400 feet thick shale section with key
Ellesmere Port-1 well. (Online) Available from:
http://www.oilbarrel.com/2014/12/16/igas-finds-1400-feet-thick-shale-section-with-key-
ellesmere-port-1-well/ (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
McCULLOCH, L. (2015) WELL CASING. (Online) Available from:
http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?RN=36.21.640 (Accessed: 28th March
2015)
NYCDEP. (2009) FINAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT. (.pdf) Available from:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/natural_gas_drilling/12_23_2009_final_assessment_r
eport.pdf (Accessed 28th March 2015)

60
THE ROYAL SOCIETY & THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING. (June 2012) Shale gas
extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing. (.pdf) Available from:
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-
06-28-Shale-gas.pdf (Accessed: 6th December 2014)
S. LYON & SON. (2015) S. LYON & SON. (Online) Available from: http://slyon.co.uk/
SHANKLEMAN, J. (2015) West Sussex shale exploration plans axed. (Online) Available
from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/12/west-sussex-shale-
exploration-plans-axed (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
THIRD ENERGY. (2014) KM8 FAQ. (Online) Available from: http://www.third-
energy.com/sites/default/files/KM8_FAQ.pdf (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
THIRD ENERGY. (2014) Third Energy – Development at Existing Well Site at Kirby
Misperton. (.pdf) Available from: http://www.third-
energy.com/sites/default/files/Third_Energy_Newsletter_Online_PDF_v1.pdf (Accessed:
28th March 2015)
THIRD ENERGY. (November 2014) PRESS RELEASE: For immediate release. (Online)
Available from: http://www.third-energy.com/sites/default/files/KM8_Press_Release.pdf
THIRD ENERGY. (2015) Assets and Operations: Onshore. (Online) Available from:
http://live-third-energy.pantheon.io/assets-operations#km8 (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
THOMPSON, D. (March 2014) In Pictures: Behind the scenes of the Barton Moss fracking
site. (.pdf) Available from: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-
manchester-news/salford-barton-moss-anti-fracking-site-6892382 (Accessed: 28th March
2015)
VAUGHAN, A. (January 2015) UK’s shale gas revolution falls flat with just 11 new wells
planned in 2015. (Online) Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/19/uk-shale-gas-revolution-falls-
flat-just-11-new-wells-planned-2015 (Accessed: 28th March 2015)

61
WALKER & SON. (2015) Walker and Son (Hauliers) Ltd. (Online) Available from:
http://www.walker-tuxford.co.uk/?cat_id=21&level=1 (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
WGTANKER. (2015) WG TANKER HIRE. (Online) Available from:
http://www.wgtanker.com/hiretankers.html (Accessed: 28th March 2015)
Further Reading
ANDREWS, A et al. (30 October 2009) Unconventional Gas Shales: Development,
Technology, and Policy Issues. (.pdf) Congressional Research Service. pp. 7; 23. Available
from: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40894.pdf (Accessed: 6th December 2014)
CHAMEIDES, B (20th
September 2011). Natural Gas, Hydrofracking and Safety: The Three
Faces of Fracking Water. (Online) Available from:
http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/frackingwater/ (Accessed: 6th December
2014)
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. (3rd
November 2011) Shale Gas North West - Monitoring of Flow
back water. (.pdf) Available from: http://notforshale.com/PDF/FlowbackwaterEA.pdf
GEOLOGY.COM. (2012) Production and Royalty Declines in a Natural Gas Well Over Time.
(Online) Available from: http://geology.com/royalty/production-decline.shtml (Accessed:
6th December 2014)
HEALY, D. (July 2012) Hydraulic Fracturing or 'Fracking': A Short Summary of Current
Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts(Report). Version 0.81 Environmental
Protection Agency. Available from:
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/sss/UniAberdeen_FrackingReport.pdf
HOLLOWAY, M. and RUDD, O. (2013) FRACKING – The Operations and Environmental
Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing, USA: Scrivener Publishing.

62
HOUSE OF LORDS, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. (8th
April 2014) The Economic Impact
on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil. (.pdf) Available from:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldeconaf/172/172.pdf
KIM, W.-Y. (2013) Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection into a deep well in
Youngstown, Ohio. (Online) Available from: http://im.ft-
static.com/content/images/7c4754d6-0a81-11e3-9cec-00144feabdc0.pdf (Accessed: 6th
December 2014)
RAO, V. (2012) Shale Gas – The Promise and the Peril, USA: RTI International.
REDACTED, RURAL COMMUNITY POLICE UNIT. (March 2014) Shale Gas Rural Economy
Impacts. (.pdf) Available from:
/RFI6751_Draft_Shale_Gas_Rural_economy_impact_report.pdf (Accessed: 6th December
2014)
TREMBATH, A et al. (May 2012) WHERE THE SHALE GAS REVOLUTION CAME FROM. (.pdf)
Available from:
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Where_the_Shale_Gas_Revolution_Came_From.pdf

63
Appendix 1 – Additional information on Exploration in the UK
History
Hydraulic fracturing is not a new process. It has been used sparsely in the UK since 1969
(Lowbridge, 2013) to crack rocks in order to keep production going in oil and gas wells. The
difference between fracking in the past and fracking now, and the reason many are
concerned, is that technologies have greatly improved and the scale has increased. It is
estimated that of the 2,152 inland wells in the UK roughly only 200 have been fracked. In
comparison to this, every single well drilled for the purpose of shale gas extraction will
require fracturing.
In the past, fracking for shale gas was not economically viable and so it wasn’t done
(Lowbridge, 2013). The two big technological advances are the development of drilling
technologies, allowing horizontal drilling to be utilized, and the evolution of fracturing fluid.
In the 1950s nitroclycerin was used, in the 1980s gels were used and now slick water is
utilized. This means that larger areas can be accessed through drilling and lower pressures
are required to frack.
Regulation
As mentioned in the “Stages of Exploration” section above, the term “exploration site” can
define anything from a site that a single well is drilled on to a site on which 4 wells are drilled
and fracked. Due to the significant variance in site size, a singular exploration permit does
not exist. Instead, in the UK, stringent regulations must be adhered to before any actual
exploration can be undertaken. Figure A1-1 was taken from the DECC’s report on regulation
and best practice for onshore shale gas exploration and gives an excellent overview of the
regulatory process that operators must follow (DECC, 2013).

64
Figure A1- 1 A roadmap outlining the exploration application process in the UK (Source: DECC)
A PEDL is a Petroleum Exploration and Development licence and is bid for during licensing
rounds. A PEDL gives the licence holder exclusive rights to operate within the licensed area
for as long as the licence is valid. The current licensable areas can be seen in Figure 2-6.
Effectively, there is currently no firm distinction between drilling for shale gas and drilling for
other hydrocarbons. Therefore, many companies that are exploring primarily for
conventional oil and gas have been drilling their wells deeper than necessary in order to see
whether any prospective shale is present in their licensed area. If these companies wish to
hydraulically frack these wells then further planning permission must be sought but if
planning permission has been granted for conventional oil exploration and they drill for
shale as well then currently no further planning permission would be necessary.
Assuming that an operator is planning on drilling for shale gas from the start, however, then
the regulatory route that an operator should take is dependent on whether hydraulic
fracturing is planned or not. In terms of best action, the operator’s actions should be
identical whether the planned site includes a stage of fracking or not, however, an
Environmental Risk Assessment is only mandatory for wells that are drilled and fracked. Best
practice in the application process for shale gas exploration is detailed below:

65
 Operator obtains PEDL,
 Operator conducts an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA),
 Before submitting a planning application, the operator consults the Minerals Planning
Authority (MPA) and other key consultees on their plans,
 The MPA review the formal planning application and determine whether a full
Environmental Impact Assessment is required,
 The MPA will then inform the operator of how detailed the EIA should be,
 The operator will then undertake an EIA,
 Afterwards the operator will submit an initial minerals planning application to the MPA,
 The MPA will either accept this initial application or ask the operator to edit the
application and undertake an environmental survey (ES),
 Once the planning application has been accepted by the MPA, they will advertise the
planning application to local media and the local community,
 It is recommended that the operator consults the Environmental Regulator, EPA, SEPA
etc. before making a formal application,
 The operator applies for permits from the environmental regulator,
 The environmental regulator will either accept or reject the application,
 If the application is rejected then the operator must appeal the environmental regulators
decision,
 The operator then agrees a plan for site restoration and abandonment with the MPA,
 The MPA will then come to a planning decision, deciding whether or not to allow the
proposed plan to go ahead,
 If the plan is rejected then the operator has 6 months to appeal the decision,
 The operator meets agreed upon planning conditions before work can begin,
 The operator informs all necessary authorities of intentions before work begins e.g.
informing HSE and BGS of intention to drill,
 The operator sets up external examination of well design,
 The operator sets up data-reporting systems and supplies all key regulators with agreed
upon information,
 Before drilling, fracking or extended flow testing can be undertaken, DECC consent must
be gained.

66
Appendix 2 – Overview of Existing Exploration Sites
Celtique Energie
Two exploration sites were proposed by Celtique but both were rejected by local authorities
and Celtique decided against appealing. Their plans for these sites are still available on their
website, however, and provide detailed estimates of daily HGV movements for the
construction stage of exploration. Figures A2-1 & A2-2 were found in the online exhibition
boards for both sites and provide an overview of a typical exploration operation.
Figure A2- 1 Timeframe of typical Celtique Exploration process
(Source: Celtique Energie)
Figure A2- 2 Graphical Overview of Celtique Exploration process (Source: Celtique Energie)

67
Fenhurst
Sources
All information presented for the Fenhurst site was sourced from the following:
 Fenhurst Exhibition Boards (Celtique Energie, 2013).
Figure A2- 3 Plan view of the proposed Fenhurst exploration site (Source: Celtique Energie)
Overview
 Aim to construct a temporary site and single exploratory well,
 The well will be drilled to a rough depth of 2.6km.
Plan
 Construct site – roughly 6 weeks,
 Mobilisation and drilling operation – 6 to 12 weeks (vertical well) or 6-14 weeks,
(horizontal well),
 After drilling, rig will be dismantled and removed from site,
 If oil and gas is found after a successful well test then the well will be safely isolated and
considered for long term production,
 If not then the well will be plugged and the site restored,
 Further planning permission would be sought before any long term plans could be
initialised.
Site Access
 Existing entrance off Vann Road where there is an existing access track,
 The access track will be extended and upgraded to allow vehicular access to the
proposed well site compound.
Traffic
 The largest number of vehicle movements will occur over a 6 to 10 week period during
construction of proposed development.

68
Table A2- 1 Traffic forecast for site construction (Source: Celtique Energie)
Waste
 Top and subsoil will be retained on site in bunds and will be replaced during site
restoration.
HGV Roads Used
 A286 onto Vann Road then Temporary Access Road.
Wisborough Green
Sources
All information presented for the Fenhurst site was found from the following:
 Wisborough Green Exhibition Boards (Celtique Energie, 2013).
Figure A2- 4 Plan view of the proposed Wisborough Green exploration site (Source: Celtique Energie)Overview
 Aim to construct a temporary site and single exploratory well,
 The well will be drilled to a depth of roughly 2.7km.
Plan
 Construct site – roughly 6 weeks,
 Moving the drilling rig to site takes roughly 5 days,
 Mobilisation and drilling operation – 6 to 12 weeks (vertical well) or 6-14 weeks
(horizontal well),

Stephen Paton - 4th Year Dissertation Final

Stephen Paton - 4th Year Dissertation Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Stephen Paton - 4th Year Dissertation Final

Similar to Stephen Paton - 4th Year Dissertation Final (20)

Stephen Paton - 4th Year Dissertation Final