Conservation & Ecology
from the well head; although I have done that!
stance. If the scheme does require more than the 20m3
Another issue to be aware of is the EA’s /day, then the well will be
subject to the EA regulatory process. This will involve, initially, gaining a formal ‘Consent to Investigate a Groundwater Source’. It needs to be borne in mind that the EA do much of their assessment at this point prior to issuing the consent and obviously prior to drilling the well. If the EA issue the consent, then this is effectively the green light and there is a presumption that they will be licensing the borehole for the volumes demanded of it. The drilling and test pumping needs to go on and prove that the well will operate sustainably and without detrimental impact to the environment or nearby third party abstractors but, again, any regulatory/impact risk (if there is one) is highlighted at feasibility stage, i.e. If there was a neighbour’s well 50m away, then it might be prudent to drill it slightly further away to reduce any potential interference. I guess the final thing concerning the EA is
renewal of the licence within the twelve year cycle. The EA will always adopt the presumption for renewal stance, so long as it can be demonstrated that there is still a need for the groundwater, the well is operating within its licence stipulations and is not having a significant detrimental effect on the environment or a third part user. There are additional maintenance
considerations, such as the down-hole submersible pump etc. and perhaps a down- hole scrub or jetting of the well on rare occasions, ongoing EA licence compliance, but these are normal practice, things all accounted for in the feasibility study and forming part of the business case in the first place.
So why do I need a consultant? I can just get a local driller to do the work and save on the additional fees, can’t I?
Yes you could. It does, however, need to be understood that the consultant is working on your behalf in a highly specialised field. Importantly, there is a design issue and somebody needs to be responsible for it. There are some really good drillers out there, but there are also some very poor ones; and I mean really poor! Drillers form only a part of the delivery
process and that is really having the hardware to drill the well that the consultant has properly designed, meeting the industry standards. Your consultant should hold the necessary Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance policies to cover the design element of the installation. A driller will be unlikely to have this cover and, if the balloon goes up, if there is a problem with the performance of the well in some way, then unless the design responsibility has been expressly introduced into their contract and PI is in place, it will be a shrug of the shoulders I’m afraid. At the end of the day, there is a
professional way of doing things and a “mom
Example of expected strata to be drilled
and pop” way of doing things and, whilst the latter may seem like the cheaper option, this is not always the case and the consultant’s extra fees may be more than recouped by designing a well that might only need to be 50m deep and not 90m deep, or 200mm diameter not 300mm. For a lot of this article, I have talked about managing risk and the need for a diligent approach, and not having someone involved to do this for you potentially takes all of that away. Investigation into whether a groundwater well is a good way forward for
your site may seem like a minefield, and a pathway riddled with uncertainty, but it’s really not. The key is having the right people involved and I hope that this article has dealt with some of those issues. I think the saying is, “it’s straightforward ... if you know what you are doing!”
Iain Howley is the owner of Howley Energy & Water Ltd and offers specialist consultancy services to clients who may be looking to introduce benefits towards their water usage through consideration of a groundwater supply.
PC AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2017 I 129
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
