to utterly disagree with the Government's stance on fracking?

[deeedeee]

to think if New York, Quebec, New Brunwick, Holland have all banned fracking in the last month then you'd expect our government to be doing the same, not giddily offering tax breaks.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30525540
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/17/new-york-state-fracking-ban-two-years-public-health
montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/couillard-rules-out-fracking
globalnews.ca/news/1734016/nb-government-to-introduce-fracking-moratorium/

All these places have listened to increasing scientific studies and say that the risks to public health are too great. Compare this to our prime minister's approach. www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/16/cameron-windfarm-subsidies-onshore-energy

This government is not protecting our health and environment. We all need to look into why and ask them to stop.

The prime minister thinks that opposition will magically disappear when they have steam rollered through the infrastructure bill and wells are up and running www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25735548

How does this compare to the fact that the UK's only current well has already caused two earthquakes and already leaked?

www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ruffalo/the-science-on-fracking_b_6336392.html

i have responded to very point!!

every point

Like lots of other people I'm delighted that we're going ahead with fracking in this country.

Almost all the "objections" are ill-informed nonsense from the "I'm against everything brigade".

No energy source is free from risks, fracking isn't either but the risks are small compared to the benefits.

The potential benefits of fracking to the UK are going to big or very big. The successful fracking program in the USA has been a welcome boost to their economy and a big contributor the recent fall in crude oil prices.

The objectors to fragging can go on hugging their bunnies; meanwhile the rest of us can Drill Baby Drill!

Fracking is a total red herring. It's trashing our countryside and investing in energy that is leading the world into climatic meltdown. That isn't even hyperbole, that's actually what we're heading for. I find it astonishing that politicians can fiddle about with crap like fracking in times like these. They should be pouring money into nuclear, or wind, or solar. We've all got our heads in the sand because we'll do anything for short-term convenience.

Urbane that's a very ugly sentiment. What about the environment? And the future? What about something other than cold hard cash?

Urbane landlord, The judgement in New York says that the risks out weigh any benefits . Is governer Cuomo and the New York State health department illinformed and against everything? Have you read the report?

For those that haven't read the report it says
Respiratory health: The report cites the dangers of methane emissions from natural gas drilling in Texas and Pennsylvania, which have been linked to asthma and other breathing issues. Another study found that 39 percent of residents in southern Pennsylvania who lived within one kilometer of a fracking site developed upper-respiratory problems compared with 18 percent of those who lived more than two kilometers away.
Drinking water: Shallow methane-migration underground could seep into drinking water, one study found, contaminating wells. Another found brine from deep shale formations in groundwater aquifers. The report also refers to a study of fracking communities in the Appalachian Plateau where they found methane in 82 percent of drinking water samples, and that concentrations of the chemical were six times higher in homes close to natural gas wells. Ethane was 23 times higher in homes close to fracking sites as well.
Seismic activity: The report cites studies from Ohio and Oklahoma that explain how fracking can trigger earthquakes. Another found that fracking near Preese Hall in the United Kingdom resulted in a 2.3 magnitude earthquake as well as 1.5 magnitude earthquake.
Climate change: Excess methane can be released into the atmosphere, which contributes to global warming. One study predicts that fracking in New York State would contribute between 7 percent and 28 percent of the volatile organic compound emissions, and between 6 percent and 18 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions in the region by 2020.
Soil contamination: One analysis of a natural gas site found elevated levels of radioactive waste in the soil, potentially the result of surface spills.
The community: The report refers to problems such as noise and odor pollution, citing a case in Pennsylvania where gas harvesting was linked to huge increases in automobile accidents and heavy truck crashes.
Health complaints: Residents near active fracking sites reported having symptoms such as nausea, abdominal pain, nosebleeds, and headaches according to studies. A study in rural Colorado which examined 124,842 births between 1996 and 2009 found that those who lived closest to natural gas development sites had a 30 percent increase in congenital heart conditions. The group of births closest to development sites also had a 100-percent increased chance of developing neural tube defects.

Would you be happy to live next to a well?

No - I live in a naice place

Would you be happy to live next to a well?

I already live near to a nuclear power station. If they want to frack here too then that's fine by me.

TBH I can't see fracking causing any more problems than coal mining, something for which we have a great tradition in this country - and everybody was very upset when that industry was shut down. Now we're getting something that might just replace it and people are up in arms again.

late breakfast, have you read any of the independent evidence I link to? or any evidence? what are you basing your assumptions on.

Your assumptions are terrifying. Do you understand the repercussions of fracking next to a nuclear power station? Increased seismic activity next to nuclear reactors ???

What are you basing your assumption that fracking won't cause any problems on? Please cite your evidence .

And please show your evidence of how it is going to replace the Coal industry in terms of jobs or energy?

Nobody at all has commented yet on the fact that New York state has banned this industry, because the risks outweigh the benefits. Nobody has commented at all on the independent compendium that shows 96% of studies provide evidence of harm to environment and public health.

Yawn, this again. Clearly OP didn't get the reactions she wanted last time.

I'm afraid I still don't understand the level of ignorance and apathy on display here.

Be so kind as to stop yawning and start debating?

I'm afraid I still don't understand why you're so desperate to convince us dear readers that YOU ARE RIGHT. Your posts make it clear that you're not interested in debate, only in making sure that your voice is the loudest.

some research here might help you understand the truth.
And, despite 'tax breaks' shale gas companies will pay 30% tax, compared to the 20% for other companies. So not spending our money, but taking less to encourage projects. Which, incidentally, will go back up to 62% when the companies have recovered 75% of thier investment.

oh dear, no I wouldn't expect them to frack near a nuclear power station - but you weren't asking about that. I'd much rather live near a fracking well (whose activities will be very tightly regulated) than (say) near a wind farm.

OP, perhaps you might get more of the reaction you want if you go and find an Eco-debate forum? Surely the reaction you are getting now, coupled with the results of your last rant thread, shows you that actually MumsNetters really aren't interested?

Personally, I truly don't care about fracking. Honestly. You can provide as many links as you like but I DONT CARE!

Also, all you have done on here is shout very loudly and then refer to our collective ignorance, you're not winning anyone over.

I have no problem with fracking, or nuclear power, or indeed coal fired power stations.

I do have a problem with relying on countries in the Middle East and Russia for supplies of oil and gas.

I do have a problem with the expectation that 'renewable' energy sources can provide the energy we need.

I do have a problem with excessive subsidies to wind farms and solar power.

I do have a problem with 'green' taxes added onto all energy bills which hit the poorest members of society the hardest and have been proved to be a major factor in fuel poverty.

I do have a problem with people shouting "we are all doomed, the world is going to end if we do x". The human race would still be living in caves if people took that attitude.

Just a few questions then - for those who aren't at all bothered about this fracking malarky:

1. What happens if they frack a pre-existing geological fault?
2. Who is checking that the rules and regulations are being followed and are they rules enforced? Are these systems up to the job? Do they have concern public health and safety as priority?
3. How close can they frack to your home? How safe is it to have a well head near a residence, or a nuclear power plant, and how do you know?
4. How many wells would be needed to actually make any impact at all on our energy requirements?
5. What infrastructure would need to be in place to service these wells?

That's just to get you started. Answers on a postcard please .....

I think people may be coming across as apathetic because they aren't concerned about fracking. Clearly you are but I'm not.

You have provided some links to reports and articles that back up your point of view but there are many other reports which disagree with it.

Personally there other things in the world which worry me and I would see a nice, reliable supply of energy and employment opportunities as a good thing in a turbulent world.

As far as I know fracking is not being subsidised. Tax breaks are on profit. Oil companies want to make profit. Only productive wells make profit. This is not the government supporting an industry that's going to swallow our economy whole.

flipflop, I am no geologist so can't answer your questions but Health and safety is massive (and actually interesting) in oil companies. I know that there have been terrible accidents but it does seem to be an industry that carries out full enquiries and constantly puts in new regulations based on what has been discovered.

Presumably, if nothing else, the threat of litigation will make sure that your questions are thought about and answered by geologists and surveyors.

There are over 200 UK wells using fracking already in the UK link so nothing new

flipflop The answer to your first question is the same as the answers given by deep shaft mining companies and oil drilling companies, and in the case of oil drilling it is answered for both on and off shore drilling. The self same question was bandied about by the doom merchants when coal and oil exploration was in its infancy.

Calloh, of course H and S is massive in oil exploration, however the industry is largely self regulating.

Drilling companies report to the HSE however at Preese Hall ( the only hydraulically fractured well in the UK to date - Caroldecker I will come to that).

So Calloh I have some more questions for you:

If the management of health and safety is so effective how on earth were Cuadrilla allowed to continue to frack a damaged well?

The incident happened in 2011. They fracked a pre-existing fault which triggered a very minor earthquake. (There's your answer to my first question). However the earthquake damaged the well and potentially compromised the integrity of the well, yet they carried on. The consequences of this could have been significant, yet they were willing to take the risk and left to do so.

And, why, if the Health and Safety Executive are so effective why did they not pay one inspection visit to the Balcombe well in the summer of 2013? How did they know that the well was built to standard and being managed effectively?

Oh and regarding litigation, at Balcombe, Cuadrilla set up as a subsidiary of there larger company so had protected their interests from litigation.