25 Comments

• Neil Bradbury 7th Aug '13 - 9:13am

  When someone can show me evidence of fracking causing major damage then I will change my view that opponents of fracking are anti science flat earthers. Not sure there could be a better place to start than in the desolate south 😉

• Clear Thinker 7th Aug '13 - 9:46am

  The ignorance and mania in “Large areas of our countryside will soon be dominated by dark, satanic wells” is certainly not worthy of a Libdem approach to this issue.

  People have legitimate worries, for safety and the environment and the value of the homes, for example, and they need to be re-assured.

  But the protests at Balcombe seem very premature, since the company is not fracking at the moment, and they seem out of line with a democratic process which will include a public enquiry which will be necessary before any future fracking were to occur..

• Simon Shaw 7th Aug '13 - 10:08am

  “Last week, the government issued planning guidance on fracking. This gives a clear presumption in favour of fracking. My reading of the rules is that if any local council is brave enough to turn down an application to explore for shale gas, its decision will be overturned on appeal to the planning inspectorate..”

  Could you elaborate on those comments. Andy?

  You give 3 links: one goes nowhere and the other two do not seem to support what you say. Maybe I missed something.

• Simon McGrath 7th Aug '13 - 10:42am

  If only some independent review could be carried out by some respected group of engineers and scientists. Oh, it has been.
  http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/

• Frank Furter 7th Aug '13 - 11:21am

  What are we going to do about future energy supplies? Every potential source has problems and is opposed or disliked by some group:
  1. oposition to fracking (earthquakes, water pollution etc),
  2. opposition to nuclear ( dangerous technology, terrorism, disposal of waste),
  3. opposition to windmills (intermittent supply, noisy, disfigures the landscape),
  4. opposition to coal (whether imported or home dug, its still dirty – climate change),
  5. opposition to gas (especially from Russia – no security of supply, climate change),
  6. opposition to barrages ( environmental effects – whether the Wash or the Severn still disrupts birds and tidal flow),
  7. opposition to solar (China produces solar panels too cheaply which undercut western workers, intermittent)
  8. opposition to biofuels (displaces food crops, causes starvation in third world, reduces woodland)
  9. oil (filthy, dangerous to extract, north sea running out, imports from despotic regimes, price variability)
  That just leaves hydro – surely there must be good reasons to oppose that?
  Whatever source of energy is suggested there is always a vocal group opposed. What are we to do?

  – – –

• bcrombie 7th Aug '13 - 11:30am

  Simon McGrath

  Only if regulated – and we know what the attitude of the Tories is to HSE or ‘red tape’ as they call it. Cuts to Health and Safety Executive etc.

  If this has to be done it has to be done after a proper risk assessment and a regulatory framework that provides proper checks. The Tories tend not to take this too seriously and tend to err on the side of the company

• Graham Martin-Royle 7th Aug '13 - 12:53pm

  @Frank Furter: Go back to the stone age it would seem. No more travel further than you can walk, only eat what you yourself can grow/catch, no more healthcare, no more education, no entertainment apart from what you put on yourself, no industry, no jobs, nothing. The futures bright, the futures stone age!

• John Dunn 7th Aug '13 - 1:56pm

  @ Graham M-Royle & Frank Furter

  I think you both have the overall picture, but I don’t think we need to go back to the stone age. I think somewhere around the 1940’s will do it. So, recycle the patio pressure washer, leaf blower, electric toothbrush, tumble drier,… you get the picture. Think 1940’s with the internet, more concentration on local agriculture, and a decent basic level of healthcare.
  A bit like Cuba in a way.

• Tim13 7th Aug '13 - 2:12pm

  Clear Thinker – Hope you are true to your title! If fracking should be pursued enthusiastically, does that mean we should all dismiss the research which says we should not even burn all of the currently discovered fossil fuel resources, let alone look for more in shale deposits, or risk average temperatures around the world going outside what are regarded as safe levels?

• Frank Furter 7th Aug '13 - 4:53pm

  @ John Dunn
  I’m old enough to remember the 40’s. Do I want to return – no thanks. But this is the problem isn’t it. The good villagers of Balcombe wish to retain their delightful lifestyle, which, without doubt, will be highly energy intensive. But they do not want to put up with any inconvenience or disruption to maintain that lifestyle. Somebody, somewhere else, will have to endure the real cost of producing the energy they use. I pity the poor politicians, they can do no right and yet if the lights go out they will be to blame. If you read Cranford you will find opposition to railways coming there. Now railways are seen as a part of the English countryside, especially on those occasions when steam is visible.

• jenny barnes 7th Aug '13 - 4:56pm

  Opposition to solar:
  Concentrated solar ( mirrors / boilers) in hot sunny places is probably the optimum technology to avoid most environmental problems. If salt is used as the working fluid, there’s enough stored energy to continue production well into the evening; and by connecting up different areas with HVDC grids it can be extended further. It’s costly (although not as costly as wrecking the planet), and for Europeans at least the ideal places to build it are politically unstable – but Spain, Southern Italy, Greece, Turkey are all reasonably feasible sites.
  With sufficient renewable energy, petrol, diesel and kerosene fuel can be made from CO2 and water as an energy carrier, rather than as a fossil fuel source.
  And what Tim13 said.

• nuclear cockroach 7th Aug '13 - 5:10pm

  @Simon McGrath

  The report that you refer to was in response to a request to “review the scientific and engineering evidence and consider whether the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas could be managed effectively in the UK.”

  Furthermore, the report specifically notes that “risks associated with the subsequent use of shale gas nor climate risks have been analysed.” The report makes it clear that further research into the compatibility of a novel domestic source of hydrocarbon fuel and the reductions in greenhouse emissions mandated by the Climate Change Act, 2008, is required. To assume that adding to emissions is “safe” in the absence of that research would be dangerous.

  To say that the research has been carried out, as you say it has, is plain wrong. The report makes it clear that it has not.

• Roland 7th Aug '13 - 10:35pm

  @Clear Thinker
  “But the protests at Balcombe seem very premature, since the company is not fracking at the moment”

  So at what point in the process should people protest? Remember for fracking to begin, the planning process including any public enquiry has completed…

  If and probably when a company decides to frack on my doorstep, I’ll be shouting about it as soon as I know, if only to encourage them to be more generous with the community payback and to encourage them to be much more considered in planning their operations …

• Andy Boddington 8th Aug '13 - 7:05am

  @Simon Shaw

  The fracking planning guidance is new and different interpretations are inevitable. Planning magazine spoke to planning experts who gave the view that it amounts a presumption in favour of fracking.

  My reading concurs with this view. The guidance gives strict instructions to give great weight to the benefits of minerals extraction, including to the economy. Buffer zones between rigs and residential areas or amenities are ruled out. Councils are not allowed to take into account issues such as seismic activity, flaring and venting, potential impact on ground water, or alternative energy supplies. That will be left to the various regulatory bodies. Cumulative impact of wells and cannot be considered at exploration stage – but obviously once gas is discovered it is going to be hard to turn down extraction given the overriding economic imperative of the guidance.

  The overall balance of the document is to give communities and councils few grounds for turning down shale gas projects. It contrasts greatly with the guidance on renewable energy issued last week, which is more balanced.

  @Clear Thinker

  It isn’t necessary to have a public inquiry before fracking will occur. The planning permission will be decided by councillors and I doubt that few will be brave enough to go against the national guidance to put the economy first. If a council rejects a proposal, there might be a public hearing for the appeal, but it is open to the planning inspectorate to deal with the matter by correspondence.

• Dave Eastham 8th Aug '13 - 9:46am

  As far as Balcombe and the planning process re “fracking” is concerned, the latest issue of Private Eye (P.E. Issue 1346 9th to 22nd 8/13 page 5) – has some very interesting things to say about local planning murkiness. – and that’s before the latest planning guidance on the process was issued. As has been quite rightly said, theoretically, the regulatory framework exists within the UK that should adequately safely regulate the fracking process, if properly applied and followed. Unlike some of the tales of woe we have seen from the USA for instance. As bcrombie has pointed out however, this relies on the Health and Safety Executive being functional and having the resources to do this. After the Tories “Red Tape Agenda” nonsense, somehow , I for one, don’t feel exactly very reassured it will happen.

  Greenest Government? – I don’t think so.

• Clear Thinker 8th Aug '13 - 10:20am

  Thanks for the helpful correction, Andy. But there is still a rigorous process to go through, one that has been a welcomed part of our local democracy for a long time. The idea is fundamentally anti-democratic that a process is weak simply because you don’t think it will give the result you want.

  There is some interesting further information here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06073.pdf

• Henry Adams 8th Aug '13 - 11:44am

  Many of the comments above are obviously written by people who are so keen to vent their prejudices or political tribalism that they have neglected to adequately investigate the subjects they are commenting on. If those people had fully investigated fracking (there is much evidence of its negative impacts in USA, Canada, Australia) and climate change (which cannot be ignored when considering fossil fuels), they would realize the insanity of fracking – when it is clear that most fossil fuel reserves will have to remain in the ground if we are to avoid global average temperature rise exceeding 2degreesC (even a 2degreesC rise is hardly acceptable), and if you think that gas can only give half the emissions of coal then you are ignoring the high fugitive methane emissions associated with fracking. Read the highly respected Carbon Tracker on unburnable carbon, the carbon bubble: http://www.carbontracker.org/wastedcapital and for info on the numerous negative impacts of fracking read some of the huge amount of evidence linked to from my fracking website http://www.dragonfly1.plus.com/FRACKING.html . I hope you will then rethink your views, and be open to the urgency to insulate all heat-leaking homes in the UK, to reduce GHG emissions such as from fossil fuels (2030 decarb target ASAP), and to promote clean green renewable energy.
  (I come from a scientific research background (ecology) and am fortunate to be in Tim Farron’s constituency – one of the few reasons that still keeps me voting LibDem – which I have done for a great many years).

• Peter Chivall 8th Aug '13 - 12:03pm

  Without going into the arguments for or against fracking per se, there seems to be a real weakness in the Coalition’s processes that have allowed the Planning Guidance on fracking to come about. Not long ago we had Tory ministers trying to issue guidance that would effectively rule out onshore windfarms (or grid links to offshore) where even a small minority objected. We rightly sat on that and the principles of localism in its wider democratic sense were upheld.
  Yet here we have a return to New Labour centralism which implies that fracked oil and gas are an essential component of national energy provision. How was this agreed? Which LibDem ministers were consulted and what did they say?
  Likewise, Osborne is able to offer massive (and potentially costly) tax breaks to fracking companies, while opposing sensible priceguarantees for onshore wind and other no-carbon renewables. Which LibDem ministers were consulted on this and what did they agree?
  If our Ministers in key positions were either unable, or unwilling, to stand up up to anti-green Tories with their oil-and-gas interests and climate change denyer friends, there seems little point in continuing to suffers as members of this Coalition. When you add the evil farce of the bedroom tax, secret courts, destruction of defendants rights by removing Legal Aid in most trials, and now the Home Office sending facist-style hoardings around on vans and Nazi-style sweeps of ethnic minority workers in the pretence of seeking illegal migrants to arrest, I seriously question I seriously question our own Leadership’s commitment to Liberal values of freedom and fairness.

• Henry Adams 8th Aug '13 - 12:52pm

  Correction to my first sentence, first word: for “Many” I should have written “Some”.
  My frustration with how some commentators ignore both the bigger picture of climate change as well as the numerous down-sides of fracking made me exaggerate there! My apologies.

  Take care not to also ignore how Osborne and Lord Browne (latter both Chairman of Cuadrilla AND in the Cabinet Office – so no conflict of interest there!), are forcing fracking onto us so arrogantly and blinkeredly that local democracy is being over-ridden and disregarded. Central government are so riddled with vested oil and gas interests that we cannot trust them on fracking or any fossil fuel decisions. At least 50 people inside government are paid by the oil and gas industry, with fracking interests at the heart of government (another e.g.: Baroness Hogg at the trough in Treasury – she is a non-exec Director of BG Group – which does much fracking in USA and also holds a stake in Dart Energy (into CBM in Scotland). Have a look at WDM’s The Fossil Fuel Web of Power infographic: http://www.wdm.org.uk/carbon-capital/nexus This pervasive corruption is inhibiting action against climate change.

• David White 8th Aug '13 - 1:06pm

  Here in ‘the desolate north-east’, exploratory drillings are already taking place in the beautiful Yorkshire Wolds (candidate for Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty status). These exploration rigs are huge and the sites are extensive. Many people in both Hull and the East Riding are concerned.

  Anxiety about fracking is not nimbyism – well, not always. The water companies have already formally expressed concerns about the dangers of fracking for our precious water supplies. If you wish to do so,ou can check this at the water.org.uk website.

  In fact, I have an open mind about fracking. However, before I can favour the idea, I shall require much stronger unbiased scientific evidence that the process is safe. No, I’m not worried about earthquakes but I think the chemicals used in fracking do pose a potential health hazard – and, socially, I am concerned about the effects of the considerable lorry traffic upon quiet country roads in superb countryside.

  But I’m not a nimby – honestly: cross my heart and cut my throat!

• Mill TD 8th Aug '13 - 5:44pm

  You could further develop your article by pointing out that close to Fernhurst (the next site to be explored in Sussex) is Shulbrede Priory. Hubert Parry stayed there frequently and we are told it was the view south from this location that was the inspiration for the music for Jerusalem.

  With the way the planning regulations are being changed it seems likely – even though located within the South Downs National Park – that the view from the priory will soon have a large drilling tower slap bang in the middle of it at the proposed Nine Acre Copse drilling site, with large volumes of industrial traffic driving down the narrow country lane.

  The irony is that the rush to build more gas power generation will leave us thoroughly committed just as shale gas fails to live up to the hype and delivers a mere fraction of our requirements at great expense to our countryside. There is plenty of evidence that the US revolution will be very unlikely to be replicated here.

  Example: http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/UK-Shale-Gas-GPC1.pdf#

  Ultimately this will leave us more dependent than ever on imported gas, and with development of alternative solutions (nuclear has always seemed the lowest risk short to mid-term stepping stone) having been put off for another 20 years.

  The short term financial gains will be enjoyed by a small elite minority in the UK and US and Australian venture capitalists.

  Democracy!

• Clear Thinker 8th Aug '13 - 5:51pm

  Is global climate change relevant to this debate?

  On the one hand, you do have to start stopping somewhere, but on the other, the only type of action on climate change that is likely to be effective in the long run is action at the international/global level.

  Put another way, we need energy. If we don’t get it internally, we’ll buy it in from abroad. The amount of energy we use is not likely to change much, but the price we pay for it is.

• Andy Boddington 8th Aug '13 - 7:04pm

  @MIll TD

  I did not know the Parry connection – thanks!

• Henry Adams 9th Aug '13 - 12:02am

  @clear thinker “Is global climate change relevant to this debate?”

  Answer: Fracking is a method of extracting gas (and oil) that is significantly more carbon-emitting (mainly as CO2 & methane) than conventional gas extraction – i.e. that has higher life-cycle emissions in terms of CO2-equivalents per unit energy released than conventional natural gas – and thus global climate change is of fundamental relevance to this debate. (So too are all the other negative impacts of fracking [click my name to get that info]).

  You need to understand how the increasing shift of the oil and gas industry towards using higher life-cycle emissions unconventional fuels (such as shale gas) relates to how much more carbon we can emit to keep our planet’s climate in a liveable state. We have to make decisions NOW on what sources we can and cannot burn – and clearly the higher life-cycle emissions sources (such as coal, shale gas, products from tar sands) should be the first to be rejected. Why not read up about this subject first and get your premises correct – before jumping to conclusions in writing. I’ve given some refs already. Another good one is the recent book: “The Burning Question” by Mike Berners-Lee & Duncan Clark, which follows on from the work by Carbon Tracker and others. It’s strap-line reads: “We can’t burn half the world’s oil, coal and gas, so how do we quit?”

  Your last sentence also appears to ignore the alternative to burning more fossil fuels. I’m not clear if maybe you’ve dismissed that there could be an alternative approach – as part of your presumption or premise? Or whether you want to pass the buck to international agreements, or wait until they happen out of thin air (and that we should carry on extracting and burning in the meantime according to Cameron’s nationalistic “global race” [to global destruction]). But have you noticed how ineffective the COP meetings have been? WDM’s infographic points to a major reason why.

  We do have a choice now – there is an alternative approach: See Two Energy Futures: http://www.no-tar-sands.org/2013/07/two-energy-futures/

• Andy Boddington 9th Aug '13 - 9:28am

  Thanks for all the comments on this topic. There is a new article just up where we might continue the debate:

  https://www.libdemvoice.org/shale-gas-exploration-why-a-cautious-approach-is-the-right-one-35676.html