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

1. No-one has died from fracking

That's a ridiculous argument. As I stated previously, and as stated in one of the reports you linked to, there have been no short term or long term studies on the effect of fracking on human health. There's plenty of concern, not least the compendium from NY and also this independent study from Australia, www.ntn.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Symptomatology-of-a-gas-field-An-independent-health-survey-in-the-Tara-rural-residential-estates-and-environs-April-2013.pdf, which found neurotoxic damage in gas field communities. This is a young industry, we do not know the long term health effects o human health, human reproduction. There could be deaths to come. We just don't know. Governments are increasingly coming to the conclusion that it is not worth the risk.

A report produced by the government’s chief scientific adviser argues that history holds many examples of innovations that were adopted hastily and later had serious negative environmental and health impacts, such as thalidomide, asbestos and tobacco and that fracking could be another example of this. www.gov.uk/government/publications/innovation-managing-risk-not-avoiding-it

1. Gas prices in the Us have fallen significantly since large scale fracking was introduced

and?? however it doesn’t follow that it could do the same here. For some years now economists and key commentators have been warning that for a variety of reasons, the UK, and indeed Europe, won’t see a repeat of the USA experience in this respect.

Leading economist Lord Stern has described the claim that shale gas will cut energy bills as “baseless economics”, and even Lord Brown – chair of fracking firm Cuadrilla – has admitted that it won’t have a “material impact” on household bills. Deutsche Bank lists a number of factors, including population density, uncertainties about recoverable resource, higher extraction costs and differences in mineral-rights .

Unlike the USA, the UK is part of a well-connected regional gas market that means any gas produced here will be sold to the highest bidder. Dart Energy’s deal to provide SSE with gas from its Airth coalbed methane proposal is fixed to market rates.

1. The US will be the only country to meet Kyoto targets because of fracking

Shale gas and coalbed methane extraction are energy intensive processes, and the problem of ‘fugitive emissions’ of methane – a much more potent climate gas than carbon dioxide – has lead scientists to conclude that the benefits of shale gas over coal in climate terms have been overstated.
World leaders have agreed that in order to avert catastrophic impacts of climate change, global temperatures must not rise by more than 2oC – many think even that is too high. Even the conservative International Energy Agency has warned that exploiting the world’s reserves of unconventional gas could lead to a global temperature rise of 3.5oC. According to energy expert Professor Paul Stevens of Chatham House “if the [shale gas] revolution fails to deliver a lot of cheap gas, by the time this is realized it could well be too late to revert to a solution to climate change based upon renewables.” His comments have been echoed by the head of the UN Environment Program.

haven't time to go through your other points now, will do later, but just to reiterate that your 31,000 poverty fuel deaths is as stupid and it is offensive. It is not any kind of argument for unconventional gas, It is an argument for greater regulation of the profits and prices of energy companies, an argument for government to focus on policies to increase energy efficiency and freeze energy bills. It's an anti austerity argument. But it's bonkers to say that shale gas will have any effect on this and blatant scaremongering and political posturing.

apologies for the multiple phone going mental posts. i've reported them to be deleted

My points are what the evidence does tell us. All yours are maybes, there have been a lot of new technologies, hastily introduced that have revolutionized the lives of all.
What level of risk are you prepared to take?
and, your quote if the [shale gas] revolution fails to deliver a lot of cheap gas, by the time this is realized it could well be too late to revert to a solution to climate change based upon renewables implies we should spped up fracking exploration to see what is achievable.

Caroldecker you seem to be blindly dismissing all research and evidence other than that which supports your view. And, you still have not given an answer to my question. It's as if you just don't know.

I am not ignoring evidence, it appears you are guilty of that. have not said there is no risk or definate reward. I believe the balance between risk and reward favours continuing fracking under the current safeguards/regulations. These will chnage over time.
The answer to your question is 42.

Your flippance demonstrates your ignorance.

I would produce the numbers for you but I don't think you'd believe me.

How can you make a judgement regarding the cost/benefits and risk factor of fracking if you don't have a clue about the number of wells there will need to be? I don't mean the exact number -just realistic ball park figure.

42 FYI is way off.

It is obvious you have no undertsanding of risk/benefit anaysis or loss aversion. Nothing you have said or linked to could not be argued about any form of energy production.

And why not 42 - any number of wells would increase gas production and reduce prices. This might save lives.

Carol! You have not backed up anything you have said with any evidence apart from two studies that don't support your arguments.

It is clear yes that there are two schools of thought on Unconventional gas.

1- That there are risks, but the risks can be mitigated by regulation and that the supposed economic benefits are worth any risk anyway.

2 - That the risks outweigh any supposed economic benefit and that it is not possible to regulate the risks away.

The first position is position is supported to a certain extent by the reports you link to. The main report supporting this position is the 2012 Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) & the Royal Society report royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/. This reports supports the idea that fracking can be regulated well enough in the UK to manage the risk.

The report omits a key consideration: the RAE’s ex-President is Lord Browne, Chairman of Cuadrilla, the UK’s leading fracker. Lord Browne was head of the RAE – co-author of the report – until last year. Browne owns 30% of Cuadrilla and works inside government as a non-executive director to the Cabinet Office. The RAE is also part funded by the oil and gas industry. In the last three years the RAE has taken £601,000 from ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Petrofac (an oil services company) – all of whom have links to fracking (see the RAE’s financial reports here). Robert Mair, the Chairman of the report, is a fellow of the RAE.

The influence of the oil and gas industry on the RAE has not decreased with Lord Browne’s departure. His successor – Sir John Parker – is also a scion of the fracking industry. Before taking over at the RAE, Parker headed Anglo American, which has fracking interests in in South Africa. Parker is a gas man through and through – some of his previous positions include non-executive director at British Gas, Chairman of National Grid Transco (gas & electricity distribution) and non-executive of BG Group (which has coal bed methane interests in Scotland).

This report is therefore not independent. and neither is the position it supports.

Sorry Carol

oh and carol, as well as not backing up your ascertains with evidence, answering Fliflop's question with an actual answer , you also haven't said why you think NY have banned fracking ?

You've completely ignored the huge significance of this key state's recent judgement. They made this judgement after reviewing the most up to date evidence. The decision makers involved in this judgement surely have plenty experience of risk analysis wouldn't you think Carol? This study and judgement are huge.

Your ignoring of it is trying to make light and put a smokescreen around it. NY have banned fracking last week because the health risks outweigh any perceived benefit. That is a judgement made last week in a country that has been supposedly seen the benefits for a decade or so now. If fracking was this panacea that you talk about then surely then there would be no bans happening in the US. or canada, where Quebec and New Brunswick have also recently banned it.

and please stop insulting us all by continuing to scaremonger about fracking saving lives. It's nonsense, you know it is. The more times you mention it doesn't mean it becomes anything less of a cynical political lie.

If it is so obvious that fracking is bad, why have not all US states banned it? Fracking is allowed in the majority of the US, so NY's position is a minority view - why is it, in your head, definative?
I am not an expert, but the majority view of the experts and the people who listen to them is that it is ok, otherwise it would be banned in more places.

Because it is still a very young industry and the majority of people, like you, have trusted those with vested interests to tell them the truth. Also as until recently their have not been the studies to show the threat to public health, because baseline studies have not been undertaken and therefore whenever harm does occur the companies have countered that there is no proof.

The companies with licences and planning permission in the UK do not have to perform baseline studies, SEPA and the EA are not performing baseline studies. The reports you link to say that baseline studies are imperative. Why do you think the industry is reluctant to do these?

But now that the studies are coming thick and fast , more and more bans will follow too.

www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/22/new-york-has-outlawed-fracking-it-wont-be-the-last/

Fracking will not happen in the UK. People are waking up and researching this. And campaigning for stricter regulation, for buffer zones, for baseline tests, for appropriate restoration bonds, for transparency in the chemicals used. They are campaigning for there communities to be consulted before they are turned into gas fields, their air and water poisoned, their health compromised and their house prices falling so fast that they are trapped there. Many people that had this happen to them in the US and Australia signed non disclosure agreements in order to be relocated and get out of these gas fields. But increasingly they are speaking out.

That figure you seem so reluctant to give Flip Flop, about the number of wells that need to be drilled for Unconventional Gas to be economically viable? It isn't any where near 42. Try again. I doubt that many of the contributors to this thread know the answer, and I think they may stop there piss taking apathy if they did.

Why has it not been banned across all states? Money - people are getting rich out of it. That is clearly one benefit of fracking, some people get rich - I'll give you that much.

There are experts who think its ok (if all safety conditions are in place) and there are those who don't.

Re 42 wells - the actual numbers required to make the impact you're talking about is thousands - possibly tens of thousands of wells. If you work out how much gas we would have to put into the European market to impact prices and reduce dependency on Russia/ Middle East and how much each well would produce over its lifespan ( 6- 8 years I think) you'll see what I mean.

Fracking wells do not simply pump out gas/ oil for years and years like conventional wells. They have a short lifespan and limited production capacity - so you need more of them, and because you're not getting the fuel out of a pool you can't just drain it, you need to keep breaking the rock up in different places - hence you need lots of wells reasonably closely spaced.

In a shale rich area, exploration will begin with a single well, however over the years there will be the need for more and more wells close by to tap into the resource. They won't of course all be in operation simultaneously but the other issue is what happens when a well no longer produces. Well abandonment is also an issue.

This photo shows a gas field in New South Wales in Australia. This gas field has only 120 Coal Bed Methane wells.

Dart Energy has submitted planning applications (see: P/12/0521/FUL and 12/00576/FUL)to Falkirk and Stirling County Councils, in Scotland, to build 14 new well pads with 22 new wells, around 20 km of pipelines to connect the sites, a gas processing facility and an waste outfall into the Firth of Forth, near Airth between Falkirk and Stirling. Their aim is to produce Coal Bed Methane (CBM) from coal seams.

While 14 well pads may seem fairly modest, especially if you don’t have to live next to them, this is just the thin end of what could become a massive wedge aimed at the heart of the British countryside. Beyond the immediate vicinity of Airth the PEDL 133 block covers 367 square kilometres of central Scotland and Dart is bragging to investors that the block may contain 597 billion cubic feet (bcf) of CBM resources ) , which would require 600+ wells if it could all be exploited

In fact, in their environmental statement for the planning application Dart say that other ‘clusters of wells are also planned for elsewhere in the License area’. On a larger scale Dart expects there to be around 4 times as much gas in its license blocks in the East Midlands, Cheshire, Staffordshire, Wales and Yorkshire, which could mean thousands more wells across Engalnd and Wales. Add on top of this potential CBM exploitation by other companies like IGas and a parallel wave of Shale Gas extraction and we are looking at the threat of the wholesale destruction of vast swathes of the British countryside.

Imagine this photo is your county. Now imagine all of those wells either containing toxic water or being a path way for methane gas to escape. The only thing keeping the toxicity or methane down there is concrete and steel. Now remember that it has to stay intact FOREVER. Long after the companies who drilled it have left the area and moved on. And remember the government doesn't plan to make them liable for any clean up.

In my experience so many people don't realise how intensive this industry is, just how much it will change the areas it is planned to be rolled out in. They think they understand the conventional gas and oil industries and think it is the same. They don't realise that in order to have the anything like the economic benefits that Carol and others prize it has to be huge scale development. There needs to be hundreds of wells, the ensuing infrastructure, traffic. And the ensuing risks to public health.

because also in order to be profitable it needs to skimp on regulation. This is why companies in America, Canada and Australia have been able to make profits, because they have self regulated. They haven't done baseline studies, they haven't been independently monitored. They haven't put in appropriate buffer zones between the population and heavy industry.

It is said that that won't happen here, that regulation will be stronger here. But it already is! Dart Energy have been pumping water and methane out of coal seams on a site at Airth near Falkirk for over 8 months now. Recent enquiries and FOI requests submitted to SEPA have revealed that they have not tested this water at any stage. When asked about the composition of the water SEPA freely admit that the only testing carried out is by Dart.

The permission allows them to dump 300,000 litres per day into the Firth of Forth. The fact that SEPA have not visited the site or monitored the waste water reveal the extent of self regulation and naivety on the part of regulators when dealing with unconventional gas development in the British Isles. It seems that nobody in planning or regulation is learning from the emergent disasters in Australia, the US and Canada.

YABVU to start yet another political thread on fracking, deedee.

If you didn't like the answers before, why are you preaching about it yet again?

There are far better ways of preaching about this than asking AIBU?

Well DeeeDeee, no point in engaging with someone not prepared to listen to expert opinion (not mine, but others) and intent on preventing any change and development to help the poor, so I will sign off.

"Change and development to help the poor" lol

What planet are you from? The only people who will get rich from fracking are the CEOs of the drilling companies and the businesses that serve them - ie lots of the chaps in Lord Browne's colleagues andcircle of friends.

Sallyingforth - YABVU - she can do as many threads as she likes.

believe me sally, i'm talking about this everywhere I can. Merry Christmas!

Carol, pot kettle black, you've completely dismissed the NY compendium and only linked to two studies that also show the risks, dodged questions, made wild scaremongering statements. I've answered every question, replied to every point you've made with facts and independent evidence.

Please again, and for anyone lurking. Don't believe me if you think IBU. just please read this.

attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=836964263029229&eid=ASv1klv6fA5mG4sgt8P5jz7AsfaOGhO8-M7l9I_HoNVRTvDI5AYuNCSSK5Fgta0nB1c&inline=1&ext=1419280261&hash=ASsYjdS4flkxVPIs

and carole, by the way before you go, it IS banned more places

many many more places and more every week

France, Holland, Germany, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, South Africa , Quebec, New South Wales, New Brunswisk

Many US states, including New York State last week.

Here's an up to date comprehensive list, sorry too long to paste.

keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/

Hey Deeedeee- nice to meet you!
I wonder if anyone else was following this thread?

Hello Flip Flop, Merry Christmas!

Surely there must be someone on mumsnet who is reading this with an open questioning mind? I've tried so very hard to only talk about and link to independent information, to back up everything I've said. I am just a normal mum who found out about this as their is a drill site close to my house and I needed to research what that meant. I have read as broadly as I can for the last six months or more. I could so easily just scream how utterly petrified for my children and angry about the lack of democracy, but I haven't. I'm just trying my best to let people know what is happening and can start researching themselves. Please if you are reading this and feel uncertain, look into it. Look past the government hype.