Abstract The Elswick Field is located within Exploration Licence EXL 269a (Cuadrilla Resources Ltd is the operator) on the Fylde peninsula, West Lancashire, UK. It is the first producing onshore gas field to be developed by hydraulic fracture stimulation in the region. Production from the single well field started in 1996 and has produced over 0.5 bcf for onsite electricity generation. Geologically, the field lies within a Tertiary domal structure within the Elswick Graben, Bowland Basin. The reservoir is the Permian Collyhurst Sandstone Formation: tight, low-porosity fluvial desert sandstones, alluvial fan conglomerates and argillaceous sandstones. The reservoir quality is primarily controlled by depositional processes further reduced by diagenesis. Depth to the reservoir is 3331 ft TVDSS with the gas–water contact at 3400 ft TVDSS and with a net pay thickness of 38 ft.

Abstract Once highlighted for having significant shale gas resource potential, the Bowland Basin has been at the centre of both scientific and political controversy over the last decade. Previous shale gas resource estimates range from 10 3 to 10 1 TCF. Repeated events of induced seismicity following hydraulic fracturing operations led to an indefinite government moratorium and abandonment of operations across the mainland UK. We use apatite fission-track analyses to investigate the magnitude and timing of post-Triassic uplift and exhumation. Results indicate that maximum palaeotemperatures of 90–100°C were reached in the stratigraphically younger Sherwood Sandstone. We combine palaeotemperature predictions to constrain palaeo heat flow and erosion in regional basin models for the first time. Our results indicate variable maximum Late Cretaceous palaeo heat flow values of 62.5–80 mW m −2 and the removal of 800–1500 m of post-Triassic strata at wells across the basin. Regional 2D basin modelling indicates a gas-in-place estimate of 131 ± 64 TCF for the Bowland Shale. This reduces to a resource potential of 13.1 ± 6.4 TCF, assuming a recovery factor of 10%. These values are significantly lower than previous resource estimates and reflect the highly complex nature of the Bowland Basin and relatively unknown history of post-Triassic uplift, exhumation and erosion.

Abstract We saw in Chapter 14 how the British Geological Survey came under pressure in various ways in the 1980s – the ‘Thatcher years’. Some of its basic funding was diverted to the universities, and one of the reasons for the collaboration between the Survey and the universities was that it provided a means whereby it could recoup its ‘own’ money, so to speak, via the NERC-funded PhD studentships. However, that in itself was insufficient, and increasingly the Survey had to go into the market to help fund its activities through contract or consulting activities. With its large staff and accumulated experience and databases, the BGS (or Institute of Geological Sciences before the beginning of 1984) could readily aspire to be the largest and best geological consulting agency in Britain, although taking on a consultative role entailed a change in its ethos. We can see this manifested in 1991 when three new divisions were established: International, Marketing, and Corporate Coordination and Information. The posts of Chief Geologist, Chief Geochemist and Chief Geophysicist were abolished. Four new programme divisions were established: Thematic Maps and Onshore Surveys; Petroleum Geology, Geophysics and Offshore Surveys; Minerals and Geochemical Surveys; and Groundwater and Geotechnical Surveys ( Hackett 1999 , p. 7). A considerable amount of the BGS’s consulting work had to do with the nuclear industry and radioactive waste disposal. 1 In the early 1970s, the BGS (then IGS) and the Natural Environment Research Council began to focus on the pending major problem of nuclear