I agree that scepticism is very important, and I’m definitely sceptical of anything any politician says. Though I wouldn’t go as far as @Blathering to be one of Michael Gove’s “people who have had enough of experts”. For a topic such as this, we won’t get anywhere without people who are experts in geology, engineering, climate science, environmental studies, seismology, hydrogeology and so on. No-one knows everything about the topic, so everyone has to rely on others for bits of the jigsaw of knowledge. I think it is offensive to imply that all of these are paid off, effectively, or that their results would be “tweaked” to serve the interests of those funding the research. True, the funders may influence the kind of questions that get looked at – but no academic would make stuff up to make the funders like them…
And on the scepticism of politicians – the first thing I would do is to look to see what those sceptical Tories are claiming will happen is inevitable. As established by the consultation, the government doesn’t know what the permitted development rights would entail – other than “exploration” wells.
What is currently allowed under permitted development is as follows (niche info – but I would have thought that before making a public statement in the commons, the MPs (of any party) would have looked at this too…its hardly hidden info…rather than following the greenpeace claim that it’s like putting up a shed)
Use of land etc for mineral exploration
Development on any land consisting of— the drilling of boreholes…for the purposes of mineral exploration, and the provision or assembly on that land or on adjoining land of any structure required in connection with any of those operations.
Development is not permitted … if—
(a) it consists of the drilling of boreholes for petroleum exploration (this is what currently prevents shale work)
(b) the developer has not previously notified the mineral planning authority in writing of its intention to carry out the development (specifying the nature and location of the development) (so the Council has to be told what is proposed, and they have a right to insist a planning application is made under certain conditions, described elsewhere in the Order. This includes avoiding protected areas, avoiding amenity issues to local houses, staying a certain distance from houses and so on)
(c) the relevant period has not elapsed (the developer has to wait 28 days between notification and starting work, to allow the council to have a look at the info submitted)..
(some stuff about excavations and explosive charges which are more relevant to the other activities permitted)
(f) any structure assembled or provided would exceed 15 metres in height (so the rig isn’t allowed to be more than 15m..this is smaller than rigs usually used to drill to shale, and it may be that this isn’t appropriate for the work needed to be done, which is an argument the industry will have to make…but this is what is currently allowed)
Development is permitted …subject to the following conditions—
(a) the development is carried out in accordance with the details in the notification…, unless the mineral planning authority have otherwise agreed in writing (so the developer has to do what they say they will do)
(b) no trees on the land are removed, felled, lopped or topped and no other thing is done on the land likely to harm or damage any trees, unless specified in detail in the notification …or the mineral planning authority have otherwise agreed in writing; (as it says…)
(c) before any excavation other than a borehole is made, any topsoil and any subsoil is separately removed from the land to be excavated and stored separately from other excavated material and from each other; (to ensure that soils for the wellpad, for example are appropriately stored)
(d) within a period of 28 days from operations ceasing, unless the mineral planning authority have agreed otherwise in writing— (the site needs to be appropriately restored…the stages of this are set out)
(e) the development ceases no later than a date 6 months after the elapse of the relevant period, unless the mineral planning authority have otherwise agreed in writing. (To ensure that the work is temporary)
You, and those MPs, may disagree that such development should be permitted – but the fact remains that it is. And that a “base” case would be that shale is given exactly these rights, and no others. (I’m sure the shale industry will make the case for greater rights, but that’s not my job...but I wouldn’t think they would try to get much more than that, to be honest…maybe a slightly taller rig and a slightly longer period than 6 months?). Which is quite far from the hyperbole that basically Cuadrilla’s “exploration site” at Preston New Road would be permitted development. It obviously wouldn’t as that involves fracking, and this work is specifically for non fracking development.
I’m with them totally that there needs to be control over traffic management etc (which isn’t excluded through PD, as long as the Order is appropriately worded to require it) and I’m no fan of the current government’s approach to renewables. But there seems to be a gulf between what is claimed could happen and what is actually more likely. Though no-one knows at the moment, as the rights haven’t been written yet.