Write your address here

Write the date here

(please post objections by 23th October)

Chief Planning Officer

Planning Services

County Hall

Northallerton

DL7 8AH

Reference: NY/2014/0275/ENV

NOTE: This can be exactly the same letter as the one you are sending to the North York Moors National Park Authority, or you can do a different version, up to you. But please send letters to both planning authorities.

Please begin your letter with a short paragraph saying who you are, and that you would like to object to Third Energy’s application in the North York Moors National Park.

Also if you are responding on behalf of an organisation (Parish Council, charity, environmental group, local business, trade organisation, special interest group, etc.) then please state this in the first paragraph too (e.g. I am writing on behalf of ... ).

Please don’t say that you’re responding on behalf of Frack Free Ryedale, as we will be putting in our own detailed objection separately.

If you are from outside the North Yorkshire area, please state why this application is of particular interest to you, for example, you often visit the National Park as a tourist, you have family in the area, you’re a member of an organisation like the Ramblers, RSPB, etc.

In the body of your objection, please make some of the following points, firstly about the waste water re-injection wells and secondly about other aspects of the application.

You don’t have to include all of them, and if you can put rephrase them in your own words, this would make the objection more powerful. You can also change the order if you wish. And of course, feel free to add your own objections too.

Proposed radioactive waste water re-injection wells

  • the proposed re-injection wells pass through aquifers that supply local drinking water. If and when the well casings fail – and all wells fail eventually - radioactive waste water could pass into the water supply.
  • Ebberston South is located within various protection zones of the Corallian Limestone aquifer, and Yorkshire Water have already stated that the re-injection wells might ‘directly affect their asset’.
  • Third Energy’s claim that re-injection is the Best Available Technology is driven by financial considerations, not because it is the best available environmental option. Detailed comparisons, both practical and financial, with other alternative disposal methods are not included in the application, and the re-injection option seems to have been chosen on the basis that it maximises profitability for the company.
  • There is no proposed treatment process for the waste water before it is re-injected into the ground, which again does not constitute the best available environmental option.
  • Studies in the USA indicate that waste water re-injection is a major cause of seismic activity, and is thought to be responsible for an exponential increase of earthquakes in Oklahoma (In 2007 there were only two per year, whereas there have already been 253 in 2014).
  • The North York Moors National Park should not be used as a testing ground for potentially dangerous new procedures, particularly if there is any chance these might cause water pollution or earthquakes in the area.
  • Third Energy’s proposals are based on a conceptual model using third party information and water analysis from Kirby Misperton, which is 9 miles away and from Ebberston B, which is nearly 3 miles away. No recent geological or water testing has been carried out at the Ebberston South site in order to assess the risks of produced water disposal.
  • Third Energy cannot be 100% certain that waste water won’t travel into nearby aquifers over time, particularly after such a huge amount of water has been injected into the Sherwood Sandstone layer under pressure.
  • The company’s argument that ‘the natural geology controls risk’ is unproven. Third Energy’s consultants, Barton Willimore, state that ‘drilling in the Ebberston area is more difficult than in many other areas due to faulting and associated extensively fractured rocks’.
  • The company argues that the re-injected waste water can't migrate laterally due to 'significant geological faulting', while at the same time claiming that re-injected waste water can't migrate upwards due to an unbroken layer of impermeable rock. These two positions are clearly contradictory.
  • The Environment Agency have failed to conduct any independent survey or analysis of the geology or water composition in the area, and are simply relying on clearly flawed data that is presented to them by the applicant.
  • No alternative sites for these wells have been submitted to the authorities for consideration outside the National Park.
  • Waste water re-injection into an existing aquifer is untested on the UK mainland. Given the untested nature of this technology, the precautionary principle should be applied and no waste water re-injection wells should be allowed in a National Park.
  • Allowing a re-injection well in such a sensitive area could set a precedent for further injection wells in the park, and other National Parks in the UK. These may be used to dispose of toxic waste water from fracking extraction in the future.

You can also include some of these other points. To start this section, you could add a line or two saying that you have the following further objections to the proposal.

  • National Parks are havens for nature and wildlife, and should be free from any such development and remain free of industrial works of any kind.
  • The drilling of the proposed wells will continue for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for three months, This will create constant noise and light pollution for three months and have a damaging effect on wildlife, in particular birds, bats, badgers and other nocturnal creatures, which may be in contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  • The pipeline to Knapton crosses the River Derwent, which contains otters and water voles, both of which are protected species.
  • These works are in close proximity to Dalby Forest, one of the main tourist attractions in the National Park. The increase in traffic, noise and general disruption, particularly during the construction phase of the project, will have a damaging effect on tourism in the area.
  • The application also requires moving a public footpath, which is part of the popular Moors to Sea Cycle Network, again adversely affecting tourism in the area.
  • The pipeline is to be built in the same area as an archaeologically important earthwork remains of the prehistoric period, and these have not been adequately researched or documented. English Heritage have requested that the decision is deferred until a full and complete study has been done on the archaeology of the area.
  • The development of a new gas field at Ebberston Moor is incompatible with the government's legal obligation to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline. According to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the planning system "has a key role to play in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions".

Please finish your objection with a short sentence asking them to reject the application.

Yours faithfully

please sign the letter

Finally, and add your name (and organisation if relevant) below your signature

And you’re done!

PS Feel free to personalise the appearance of the letter when you’ve finished, for example, change the fonts, change or remove the bullets, etc.

Oh, and don’t forget to post it! 