Vocal Voices

MPs have just voted 298 to 261 to allow fracking under national parks to a depth of 1.200m.

Fracking for natural gas was always going to happen. It is going to be needed for the UK's energy security and also to help the UK to transition to a low carbon or a carbon free economy - if it is used in the right way. It was never going to be left underground.

The problems with, or for, the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, come in a few forms, as the map shows.



In general they are in areas of low population density, which translates into less disruption for communities. Many of them, probably through their unique geology, also cover areas where shale gas reserves have been identified. Those two things also put them next to good road, rail and shipping links.

Look at it how we will, but they are not going to be excluded.

I was shocked to hear that Martin Mere was included in this. They get all the wild swans from Russia there.

Some of that looks to be on the North Yorkshire Moors, maybe some in the Dales National Park? Oh well. If there is 50 years worth of gas down there then fracking is going ahead, and no error. Let's hope it doesn't cause too much upset while it is going on.

Rodo wrote:But they are going to be drilling 1km, or more, beneath the mere.

It is going to happen and no number of trips by the BBC into the woods to show us pretty pictures will stop it.

What we are going to need is proper control of all the operations wherever they may be. There is going to have to be policing and enforcement of the procedures used. If anything those things are more important when the fracking is being carried out under our towns and cities.

The map for shale gas deposits reminds me of one from my schooldays for coal deposits - central belt of Scotland, Yorks, Notts and N.E. and Kent. There are millions of people living above those fields, and we are going to frack there. Should we, therefore, really be worried too much about national parks?

It will bring jobs. It will provide necessary energy resources. The environmental impact will, I reckon, actually be less than all the mushrooming solar panel fields and onshore wind farms. Even the BBC News had to report in their "local's reaction down t'pub" clip a 2-1 majority in favour.

Was that Ladybower shown on the BBC News report?

I was shocked to hear that Martin Mere was included in this. They get all the wild swans from Russia there.

'Ere!! Wot about Slimbridge?

The main issue I have with it is the amount of water that has been poisoned in the US by this. Relative population densities would put about 2bn people in the US compared to the UK. Instead of the 300 million there are.

So whereas you can try and hide the impact in the US, you can't hid it in the UK.

I'm not going to hope they have worked that out because that is sheer wishfulness. We will find out about it after the court cases begin.

Other than that I have no real issue. We need energy security and fracking rather than coal works for me.

Suff wrote:The main issue I have with it is the amount of water that has been poisoned in the US by this. Relative population densities would put about 2bn people in the US compared to the UK. Instead of the 300 million there are.

Sorry, but I simply do not believe the numbers - a link would be nice. I agree that water courses could be polluted, but I do not think that is inevitable. We already poison water sources with agricultural run-off, would fracking really be any worse?

Workingman wrote:Sorry, but I simply do not believe the numbers - a link would be nice. I agree that water courses could be polluted, but I do not think that is inevitable. We already poison water sources with agricultural run-off, would fracking really be any worse?

The gas and waste leaks into the water table and poisons it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... our-feeth/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... washington
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fracking-s ... es/5368362
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fracking-h ... dy/5454353

Then there is the article which claims it's all untrue

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... oned-water

Yet if you go to the mentioned, but not linked, report, You find...

Major Findings
From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources.

Granted they state

We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States

and

The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

But then they hedge their bets with

This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors. These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.

In other words, they have been looking at it for 4 years, have found some issues, but a handful of the 25,000 to 30,000 wells per year is not considered a great risk.

Of course, until you work out that in 10 years the handful may become a "significant minority" and in 20 years could become "A serious problem". But in 20 years time it will be far, far, too late to do anything about that.

I've been tracking this for a few years now. I'm not overly pessimistic about it, but it is a real risk which has not been clearly quantified and cannot be mitigated if the risk occurs. The water is contaminated, potentially for centuries.

There undoubtedly will be consequences that have not been foreseen, but the thought that
occurs to me is that fracking is only a short-term solution to the energy supply problem.
Surely it would make more sense to latch onto a permanent source of energy procurement,
such as wind or tideal power.(Or don't we care about future generations?).

Is one of the items from the recent Climate Change conference that gas will be phased out.
So why spend millions boring for it if we will not be able to burn it?
Glad I won't have to make that decision.
Am still keeping my gas CH boiler. It is an old one with a cast iron burner. These are much better than the ones fitted to new boilers which only last a few years