The ArgusEnvironment Agency claims fracking risks have been 'exaggerated' (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Environment Agency claims fracking risks have been 'exaggerated'

The Argus: Environment Agency claims fracking risks have been 'exaggerated' Environment Agency claims fracking risks have been 'exaggerated'

RISKS of fracking have been “exaggerated” and should not be ruled out in national parks, according to the head of the Environment Agency.

Agency chairman Christopher Smith said hydraulic fracturing – or fracking – could be “useful” in helping Britain to reduce its reliance on imported gas because it causes “minimal visual intrusion” to the environment.

The fracking process involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into rock deep underground at high pressure to extract shale gas and oil.

There is potentially more than eight billion barrels of shale oil under the Weald basin in Sussex – but critics argue the process contaminates water supplies and can cause earthquakes.

Lord Smith, who is due to step down next month, said he did not agree with the concerns of anti-fracking campaigners.

He told a national newspaper: “The campaigners fall into two camps. One is very much campaigning against the local impact of drilling at particular sites.

“Provided it’s done carefully and proper regulated, those fears are definitely exaggerated. There’s another set of campaigners who say, ‘This is a better fuel to burn than coal but it’s still a fossil fuel and we ought to be putting everything into renewable and not doing shale gas at all’.

“I don’t agree that with analysis because we aren’t yet ready to see 100 percent of our energy requirements being produced from renewables.”

He said he would not rule out fracking in national parks like the South Downs because “provided it’s being done properly, the visual impact can be very limited indeed. It will depend on any individual location”.

He said: “The South Downs National Park Authority is currently considering an application from Celtique Energie to exploratory drill for shale oil and gas in Fernhurst, near Chichester.”

Energy company Cuadrilla Resources has been actively testing at a site in Balcombe for more than a year, but has ruled out fracking.

A spokeswoman from Britain and Ireland Frack Free said: “Lord Smith’s view on fracking is an indication that the government, and agencies, are wilfully choosing to ignore the large amount of peer reviewed scientific reports that prove fracking is not and cannot be made safe. The continued reference by agencies and individuals that fracking will be ‘safe’ if ‘properly regulated’ is a betrayal to the public.”

It’s your voice What do you think? Email letters@theargus.co.uk, visit www.theargus.co.uk/letters or write to us with your thoughts

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:20am Mon 30 Jun 14

We love Red Billy says...

Just like those about BSE. LOL
Just like those about BSE. LOL We love Red Billy
  • Score: -1

11:08am Mon 30 Jun 14

ruberducker says...

The enviro---mental agency does not own the land..so why are they allowed to place an opinion..
The enviro---mental agency does not own the land..so why are they allowed to place an opinion.. ruberducker
  • Score: 0

11:27am Mon 30 Jun 14

Dontfrackmyfuture says...

The South Downs National Park Vision for 2050 aims to achieve an outcome where "the iconic English lowland landscapes and heritage will have been conserved and greatly enhanced. These inspirational and distinctive places, where people live, work, farm and relax, are adapting well to the impacts of climate change." (http://www.southdow
ns.gov.uk/about-us/v
ision)

Approving plans to extract shale oil and gas, fossil fuels that drive climate change, directly contradicts this vision. And that’s before you assess the impacts and risks on people, communities, land and wildlife due to contamination, pollution, industrial traffic and noise.

To call the intrusion "minimal" is utterly disingenuous. For example- the current exploratory drilling application at Wisborough Green requests 18,894 heavy good vehicle movements through rural Sussex lanes and a small, scenic village. The people who live there will certainly find this more than a 'minimal' intrusion.
(https://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=D__TctL
rwhs )

For shale gas extraction to be economic we would not be talking about 1 well pad. We would be talking about THOUSANDS. Our National parks would be utterly destroyed.
Increasing numbers of scientific, peer reviewed reports are emerging from the USA on the devastating environmental and public health consequences of fracking. It should also be understood that "The UK shale basins are heavily faulted, from the shale layer right to the surface, in contrast to those of the USA" There are 400 more fault lines beneath the surface in the UK, dramatically increasing the risk of chemicals, NORMs, gas and oil leaking into water sources or to the surface. In other words shale gas extraction would be EVEN more dangerous in the UK than in the USA.

(see report by David Smythe http://www.barcombe.
org/fracking/docs/Pr
of%20David%20Smythe/
Smythe%20shale%20gas
%20submission%20to%2
0HoL%20v1.5.pdf)

To allow this process in ANY part of Britain is reckless, and to allow it in a NATIONAL PARK is unthinkable.

It seems that research is OUR RESPONSIBILITY!

http://www.scienceda
ily.com/releases/201
4/06/140623103939.ht
m?utm_source=feedbur
ner&utm_medium=email
&utm_campaign=Feed%3
A+sciencedaily%2Ftop
_news%2Ftop_health+%
28ScienceDaily%3A+To
p+Health+News%29

http://www.truth-out
.org/opinion/item/23
885-dead-babies-and-
utahs-carbon-bomb


http://concernedheal
thny.org/letters-to-
governor-cuomo/

http://thinkprogress
.org/climate/2014/04
/15/3426697/methane-
vastly-underestimate
d/

http://www.nofrackin
gway.us/2014/06/05/c
anadians-scientists-
discover-that-old-ga
s-wells-leak-a-lot-f
orfrackingever/
http://www.geofirma.
com/Links/Wellbore_L
eakage_Study%20compr
essed.pdf

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=sD4NNAb1R
-k
The South Downs National Park Vision for 2050 aims to achieve an outcome where "the iconic English lowland landscapes and heritage will have been conserved and greatly enhanced. These inspirational and distinctive places, where people live, work, farm and relax, are adapting well to the impacts of climate change." (http://www.southdow ns.gov.uk/about-us/v ision) Approving plans to extract shale oil and gas, fossil fuels that drive climate change, directly contradicts this vision. And that’s before you assess the impacts and risks on people, communities, land and wildlife due to contamination, pollution, industrial traffic and noise. To call the intrusion "minimal" is utterly disingenuous. For example- the current exploratory drilling application at Wisborough Green requests 18,894 heavy good vehicle movements through rural Sussex lanes and a small, scenic village. The people who live there will certainly find this more than a 'minimal' intrusion. (https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=D__TctL rwhs ) For shale gas extraction to be economic we would not be talking about 1 well pad. We would be talking about THOUSANDS. Our National parks would be utterly destroyed. Increasing numbers of scientific, peer reviewed reports are emerging from the USA on the devastating environmental and public health consequences of fracking. It should also be understood that "The UK shale basins are heavily faulted, from the shale layer right to the surface, in contrast to those of the USA" There are 400 more fault lines beneath the surface in the UK, dramatically increasing the risk of chemicals, NORMs, gas and oil leaking into water sources or to the surface. In other words shale gas extraction would be EVEN more dangerous in the UK than in the USA. (see report by David Smythe http://www.barcombe. org/fracking/docs/Pr of%20David%20Smythe/ Smythe%20shale%20gas %20submission%20to%2 0HoL%20v1.5.pdf) To allow this process in ANY part of Britain is reckless, and to allow it in a NATIONAL PARK is unthinkable. It seems that research is OUR RESPONSIBILITY! http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/201 4/06/140623103939.ht m?utm_source=feedbur ner&utm_medium=email &utm_campaign=Feed%3 A+sciencedaily%2Ftop _news%2Ftop_health+% 28ScienceDaily%3A+To p+Health+News%29 http://www.truth-out .org/opinion/item/23 885-dead-babies-and- utahs-carbon-bomb http://concernedheal thny.org/letters-to- governor-cuomo/ http://thinkprogress .org/climate/2014/04 /15/3426697/methane- vastly-underestimate d/ http://www.nofrackin gway.us/2014/06/05/c anadians-scientists- discover-that-old-ga s-wells-leak-a-lot-f orfrackingever/ http://www.geofirma. com/Links/Wellbore_L eakage_Study%20compr essed.pdf http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=sD4NNAb1R -k Dontfrackmyfuture
  • Score: 8

11:35am Mon 30 Jun 14

just-no-one says...

In an interview on Thursday with the Guardian, Lord Smith was quoted as saying 'the current resources available to regulate fracking safely could not cope with the government’s hoped-for shale gas boom'.

Lord Smith's view on fracking is an indication that the Government, and agencies, are wilfully choosing to ignore the large amount of peer reviewed scientific reports that prove fracking is not and can not be made 'safe'.

The Government is desperately trying to persuade the public that the rules and regulations here in the UK will be better than those in other countries, yet they are not. For example, in December last year Dallas put restrictions in the city for fracking not to take place within 1500 feet of homes, schools, hospitals and other protected areas, yet no such restrictions exist here.

Just two weeks ago, New York once again voted to continue the moratorium on fracking in the state, a position supported by many health professionals, researchers and organisations including the American Lung Association, Breast Cancer Awareness and the American Academy of Paediatrics.

The continued reference by agencies and individuals that fracking will be 'safe' IF 'properly regulated' is a betrayal to the public. Accidents, incidents, spills, leaks, human error and equipment failure can not be regulated and therefore fracking can NOT be made SAFE.

References:
http://www.theguardi
an.com/.../lord-smit
h-flooding-budget...


http://www.greenpeac
e.org.uk/.../frackin
g-dallas-council-ban


http://concernedheal
thny.org/letters-to-
governor-cuomo
In an interview on Thursday with the Guardian, Lord Smith was quoted as saying 'the current resources available to regulate fracking safely could not cope with the government’s hoped-for shale gas boom'. Lord Smith's view on fracking is an indication that the Government, and agencies, are wilfully choosing to ignore the large amount of peer reviewed scientific reports that prove fracking is not and can not be made 'safe'. The Government is desperately trying to persuade the public that the rules and regulations here in the UK will be better than those in other countries, yet they are not. For example, in December last year Dallas put restrictions in the city for fracking not to take place within 1500 feet of homes, schools, hospitals and other protected areas, yet no such restrictions exist here. Just two weeks ago, New York once again voted to continue the moratorium on fracking in the state, a position supported by many health professionals, researchers and organisations including the American Lung Association, Breast Cancer Awareness and the American Academy of Paediatrics. The continued reference by agencies and individuals that fracking will be 'safe' IF 'properly regulated' is a betrayal to the public. Accidents, incidents, spills, leaks, human error and equipment failure can not be regulated and therefore fracking can NOT be made SAFE. References: http://www.theguardi an.com/.../lord-smit h-flooding-budget... http://www.greenpeac e.org.uk/.../frackin g-dallas-council-ban http://concernedheal thny.org/letters-to- governor-cuomo just-no-one
  • Score: 6

1:01pm Mon 30 Jun 14

andrewedmondson says...

Dontfrackmyfuture says that the drilling application estimates 19 000 truck movements. I have had a look at the Celtique pdf wich says that Phase 1 Exploration involve around 35 trucks per day over a 6 week period which equates to 1500 truck movements. Where does the 19 000 figure come from?

I live in Balcombe near to the Cuadrilla oil exploration site. Claims were made about masses of HGVs running through the village. I didn't notice anymore than usual.

Regarding the claim that peer reviewed research shows devastating impact to public health, a recent overview of research showed that no conclusions can be made yet (http://pubs.acs.org
/doi/abs/10.1021/es4
04621d). Of course, if you just pick the research that supports your cause, then you are right.

Regarding the noise, Cuadrilla didn't make nearby residents aware that they would have to close their windows at night. Drilling is nonstop 24 hours. In the night, there is no other noise, which makes the low hum of the drilling much more apparent. But it only went on for 40 days, so the end was in sight.

They also didn't mention the smell from the drilling. This is only noticeable by some sensitive people such as myself. Something to asl about.

Most industrial processes cause some inconvenience. Who wants a factory next door? The difference between locating a car factory and an oil well is obvious: the oil well must be where the oil is. This fact reduces the strength of opposition to oil drilling just on the grounds of local inconvenience.

Nevertheless, the government has a clear duty to ensure that regulations are met and enforced, which is where everyone's efforts should be focused.

People who spread misinformation and fear about science and technology should be ashamed of themselves. And politicians and government employees who fail to protect the public should be brought to justice.
Dontfrackmyfuture says that the drilling application estimates 19 000 truck movements. I have had a look at the Celtique pdf wich says that Phase 1 Exploration involve around 35 trucks per day over a 6 week period which equates to 1500 truck movements. Where does the 19 000 figure come from? I live in Balcombe near to the Cuadrilla oil exploration site. Claims were made about masses of HGVs running through the village. I didn't notice anymore than usual. Regarding the claim that peer reviewed research shows devastating impact to public health, a recent overview of research showed that no conclusions can be made yet (http://pubs.acs.org /doi/abs/10.1021/es4 04621d). Of course, if you just pick the research that supports your cause, then you are right. Regarding the noise, Cuadrilla didn't make nearby residents aware that they would have to close their windows at night. Drilling is nonstop 24 hours. In the night, there is no other noise, which makes the low hum of the drilling much more apparent. But it only went on for 40 days, so the end was in sight. They also didn't mention the smell from the drilling. This is only noticeable by some sensitive people such as myself. Something to asl about. Most industrial processes cause some inconvenience. Who wants a factory next door? The difference between locating a car factory and an oil well is obvious: the oil well must be where the oil is. This fact reduces the strength of opposition to oil drilling just on the grounds of local inconvenience. Nevertheless, the government has a clear duty to ensure that regulations are met and enforced, which is where everyone's efforts should be focused. People who spread misinformation and fear about science and technology should be ashamed of themselves. And politicians and government employees who fail to protect the public should be brought to justice. andrewedmondson
  • Score: 11

1:46pm Mon 30 Jun 14

ModelCitizen says...

This man is wrong in so many ways.

But just one point. He is stating that fracking in National Parks is OK because the visual disturbance is small.

A National park is not just about the way it looks, The remit of a National Park is considerably greater than this and includes for instance preservation of way of life, conservation of flora and fauna, preservation of character, biodiversity, natural life and much more.

Assume 1 drilling rig. How does the surrounding wildlife deal with the 24 hour lights, burn-off tower and noise? Studies show that wildlife reduces, much moves away, some dies out. After drilling started at Balcombe there was no dawn chorus.

But in reality it's much worse than that as shale drilling requires many wells, set in a pin cushion effect at roughly 2 to 3km centres (and possibly closer in the fractured geology of Sussex). To extract the oil from Sussex will take thousands of wells (the government are still not being entirely truthful about this). Each of these requires and access roads and a considerable number of transporter journeys (estimated at thousands for each well). This is disruption and industrialisation on a large scale and does not sit at all well with the remit of a National Park.

I'll leave someone else to talk about the other issues commonly associated with concentrated fracking; i.e. air pollution, water pollution, methane escape and long term geological instability.
This man is wrong in so many ways. But just one point. He is stating that fracking in National Parks is OK because the visual disturbance is small. A National park is not just about the way it looks, The remit of a National Park is considerably greater than this and includes for instance preservation of way of life, conservation of flora and fauna, preservation of character, biodiversity, natural life and much more. Assume 1 drilling rig. How does the surrounding wildlife deal with the 24 hour lights, burn-off tower and noise? Studies show that wildlife reduces, much moves away, some dies out. After drilling started at Balcombe there was no dawn chorus. But in reality it's much worse than that as shale drilling requires many wells, set in a pin cushion effect at roughly 2 to 3km centres (and possibly closer in the fractured geology of Sussex). To extract the oil from Sussex will take thousands of wells (the government are still not being entirely truthful about this). Each of these requires and access roads and a considerable number of transporter journeys (estimated at thousands for each well). This is disruption and industrialisation on a large scale and does not sit at all well with the remit of a National Park. I'll leave someone else to talk about the other issues commonly associated with concentrated fracking; i.e. air pollution, water pollution, methane escape and long term geological instability. ModelCitizen
  • Score: -1

2:00pm Mon 30 Jun 14

skylight says...

All I see is this . 1) The "experts" and The Govt. with a vested financial interest , with politicians who need only think short term to the next election, assure us that fracking is safe and the risks exaggerated.
2) Hard personal experience from communities in the USA demonstrates that fracking is associated with earth tremors , water contamination and sickness to the people.

What is the wise thing to do? Should we take the assurances of the so called experts? It is a no-brainer. Do NOT frack, until the system is proven safe..
All I see is this . 1) The "experts" and The Govt. with a vested financial interest , with politicians who need only think short term to the next election, assure us that fracking is safe and the risks exaggerated. 2) Hard personal experience from communities in the USA demonstrates that fracking is associated with earth tremors , water contamination and sickness to the people. What is the wise thing to do? Should we take the assurances of the so called experts? It is a no-brainer. Do NOT frack, until the system is proven safe.. skylight
  • Score: 2

2:17pm Mon 30 Jun 14

FrackYou says...

When the "Head of the Environment Agency" demands fracking in the National Parks, you have to wonder just how corrupt this system is. The authors of The Lords report on fracking was written by Lords with ties to the fracking industry.

Regardless of if you live next to a drill test site or not, they haven't DONE any fracking yet, they are just drilling to see if it's viable. The actual fracking is much worse than the test drilling! The chemicals they use (not to mention the masses of water used, and then wasted as it becomes enfused with fracking waste,) disturb Radon and other radioactive materials that are already buried deep in the ground, and ALL the waste from fracking becomes radioactive. God knows what they do with it, (dump it in the sea most likely,) but they themselves admit that as this chemical "sand" is used to hold the fracks open to let the methane escape, it is just left in the ground forever! This then seeps into the water table. Think of how many millions of souls in the National Park rely on that water table to support life.

It's time to stop thinking about lining your pockets and think about the future of this planet. Or we won't have one, it really is as simple as that.

If you don't know about fracking, check out this website: www.dangersoffrackin
g.com
When the "Head of the Environment Agency" demands fracking in the National Parks, you have to wonder just how corrupt this system is. The authors of The Lords report on fracking was written by Lords with ties to the fracking industry. Regardless of if you live next to a drill test site or not, they haven't DONE any fracking yet, they are just drilling to see if it's viable. The actual fracking is much worse than the test drilling! The chemicals they use (not to mention the masses of water used, and then wasted as it becomes enfused with fracking waste,) disturb Radon and other radioactive materials that are already buried deep in the ground, and ALL the waste from fracking becomes radioactive. God knows what they do with it, (dump it in the sea most likely,) but they themselves admit that as this chemical "sand" is used to hold the fracks open to let the methane escape, it is just left in the ground forever! This then seeps into the water table. Think of how many millions of souls in the National Park rely on that water table to support life. It's time to stop thinking about lining your pockets and think about the future of this planet. Or we won't have one, it really is as simple as that. If you don't know about fracking, check out this website: www.dangersoffrackin g.com FrackYou
  • Score: 1

5:05pm Mon 30 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Remove science and technology and we could all be naked and dirty and squatting in a muddy puddle.

If that is what you want fine - enjoy - but please do not try and impose your religion on the rest of us.

Fracking - if it provides the energy we need and the appropriate legislation, as per any other technological development, is imposed - then yes please.
Remove science and technology and we could all be naked and dirty and squatting in a muddy puddle. If that is what you want fine - enjoy - but please do not try and impose your religion on the rest of us. Fracking - if it provides the energy we need and the appropriate legislation, as per any other technological development, is imposed - then yes please. fredaj
  • Score: -1

6:44pm Mon 30 Jun 14

B Chudrun says...

Fredaj who on earth is saying 'remove science and technology' ? No one, except for you - it seems then that you have an inability to understand the basic points. Fracking is just one way to source a particular type of energy, but it is neither sustainable nor economically sensical. There are other options to generate power- (tidal wind and solar) which all use science and technology - which could be put in place before conventional gas supplies dwindle. Are you unwilling to accept evidence which shows 'fracking' has caused major health and environmental problems in the US? Just hoping in the UK we will have better regulations, when there is evidence contrary to that too, is irresponsible. The oil and gas folk have admitted that it will not be economically viable in the UK if it is appropriately (i.e. stringently) regulated - they want to cut corners: No fugitive methane emissions monitoring, no minimum distance of rigs from schools and homes, No avoidance of water-stressed areas; No details of how the radioactive waste will be handled.. Which would you sacrifice - profits, or safety? If safety really was put first, fracking is finished.
Fredaj who on earth is saying 'remove science and technology' ? No one, except for you - it seems then that you have an inability to understand the basic points. Fracking is just one way to source a particular type of energy, but it is neither sustainable nor economically sensical. There are other options to generate power- (tidal wind and solar) which all use science and technology - which could be put in place before conventional gas supplies dwindle. Are you unwilling to accept evidence which shows 'fracking' has caused major health and environmental problems in the US? Just hoping in the UK we will have better regulations, when there is evidence contrary to that too, is irresponsible. The oil and gas folk have admitted that it will not be economically viable in the UK if it is appropriately (i.e. stringently) regulated - they want to cut corners: No fugitive methane emissions monitoring, no minimum distance of rigs from schools and homes, No avoidance of water-stressed areas; No details of how the radioactive waste will be handled.. Which would you sacrifice - profits, or safety? If safety really was put first, fracking is finished. B Chudrun
  • Score: 2

7:09pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

If he's saying that the risks are exaggerated, then by the same token he's still acknowledging that the risks are real. As for minimal visual impact, it's a national park, so no visual impact is acceptable. If only our lords and politicians would start to explore other means of personal wealth creation.
If he's saying that the risks are exaggerated, then by the same token he's still acknowledging that the risks are real. As for minimal visual impact, it's a national park, so no visual impact is acceptable. If only our lords and politicians would start to explore other means of personal wealth creation. Gribbet
  • Score: 2

11:29pm Mon 30 Jun 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Our government gets more corrupt day by day - if that is possible. They should all be tried for the traitors they are. No wonder B Liar changed the law so traitors are no longer executed.
Our government gets more corrupt day by day - if that is possible. They should all be tried for the traitors they are. No wonder B Liar changed the law so traitors are no longer executed. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 2

12:08am Tue 1 Jul 14

Dontfrackmyfuture says...

You want some science Fredaj? (if you can stay on subject)

Hormone-disrupting activity of fracking chemicals worse than initially found;

"In earlier research, this group found that water samples collected from sites with documented fracking spills in Garfield County, Colorado, had moderate to high levels of EDC activity that mimicked or blocked the effects of the female hormones (estrogens) and the male hormones (androgens) in human cells. However, water in areas away from these gas-drilling sites showed little EDC activity on these two reproductive hormones.

The new study extended the analysis to learn whether high-use fracking chemicals changed other key hormone receptors besides the estrogen and androgen receptors. (Receptors are proteins in cells that the hormone binds to in order to perform its function.) Specifically, the researchers also looked at the receptor for a female reproductive hormone, progesterone, as well as those for glucocorticoid -- a hormone important to the immune system, which also plays a role in reproduction and fertility -- and for thyroid hormone. The latter hormone helps control metabolism, normal brain development and other functions needed for good health.

Among 24 common fracking chemicals that Kassotis and his colleagues repeatedly tested for EDC activity in human cells, 20 blocked the estrogen receptor, preventing estrogen from binding to the receptor and being able to have its natural biological response, he reported. In addition, 17 chemicals inhibited the androgen receptor, 10 hindered the progesterone receptor, 10 blocked the glucocorticoid receptor and 7 inhibited the thyroid hormone receptor." www.sciencedaily.com
You want some science Fredaj? (if you can stay on subject) Hormone-disrupting activity of fracking chemicals worse than initially found; "In earlier research, this group found that water samples collected from sites with documented fracking spills in Garfield County, Colorado, had moderate to high levels of EDC activity that mimicked or blocked the effects of the female hormones (estrogens) and the male hormones (androgens) in human cells. However, water in areas away from these gas-drilling sites showed little EDC activity on these two reproductive hormones. The new study extended the analysis to learn whether high-use fracking chemicals changed other key hormone receptors besides the estrogen and androgen receptors. (Receptors are proteins in cells that the hormone binds to in order to perform its function.) Specifically, the researchers also looked at the receptor for a female reproductive hormone, progesterone, as well as those for glucocorticoid -- a hormone important to the immune system, which also plays a role in reproduction and fertility -- and for thyroid hormone. The latter hormone helps control metabolism, normal brain development and other functions needed for good health. Among 24 common fracking chemicals that Kassotis and his colleagues repeatedly tested for EDC activity in human cells, 20 blocked the estrogen receptor, preventing estrogen from binding to the receptor and being able to have its natural biological response, he reported. In addition, 17 chemicals inhibited the androgen receptor, 10 hindered the progesterone receptor, 10 blocked the glucocorticoid receptor and 7 inhibited the thyroid hormone receptor." www.sciencedaily.com Dontfrackmyfuture
  • Score: 1

9:26am Tue 1 Jul 14

Morpheus says...

A lot of people here seem to be happy to go back to collecting wood for heating and making candles for light. If they could explain what they think will happen to our standard of living if we do not have energy I might be interested in listening to what they have to say.
A lot of people here seem to be happy to go back to collecting wood for heating and making candles for light. If they could explain what they think will happen to our standard of living if we do not have energy I might be interested in listening to what they have to say. Morpheus
  • Score: -1

10:14am Tue 1 Jul 14

Dontfrackmyfuture says...

Morpheus- Maybe you are not aware that fossil fuels are a finite resource?
They might last our life times, possibly my daughters, but probably not her children's..... To reduce the discussion to a choice between camping or fracking is a waste of everyone's time.
Morpheus- Maybe you are not aware that fossil fuels are a finite resource? They might last our life times, possibly my daughters, but probably not her children's..... To reduce the discussion to a choice between camping or fracking is a waste of everyone's time. Dontfrackmyfuture
  • Score: 1

7:50pm Tue 1 Jul 14

etarre says...

And there are campaigners like myself that do not want it locally because of health risks, nor nationally because we need to change our energy mix to move towards renewables.

The visual impact of the development of fracking in Sussex would be huge. To extract an economically significant amount of gas, thousands of 'frack pads' with tens of wells would have to be drilled. Combined with pipelines, compressor stations, new roads built to these sites and vehicle traffic, this would result in an alteration of the very character of the Sussex landscape.

It is not safe. The US government has admitted that 4 states have confirmed cases of water contamination, with thousands of individual cases.

How can you guarantee that cement poured thousands of feet down a well and then horizontally will be perfectly sealed with no cracks? How can you guarantee it will not then crack or fault with the subsequent explosion and cracking of the rock around it? You cannot. In fact,
industry figures have shown 1 in 6 wells leak immediately.

250 New York health professionals and organisations put their names to an open letter saying the health risks associated with fracking were too large for it to be pursued in New York state. New York state has since upheld its 5 year moratorium on fracking.

We do not even have any appropriate regulation for this new industry - there is not a regulatory framework for onshore unconventional oil and gas in this country. And yet this year the government wants to put 60% of the country up for licensing! With cuts to the environment agency, I am very worried about the gung-ho approach of this government to fracking, when it has been banned in France and other countries are opposed to pursuing it.
And there are campaigners like myself that do not want it locally because of health risks, nor nationally because we need to change our energy mix to move towards renewables. The visual impact of the development of fracking in Sussex would be huge. To extract an economically significant amount of gas, thousands of 'frack pads' with tens of wells would have to be drilled. Combined with pipelines, compressor stations, new roads built to these sites and vehicle traffic, this would result in an alteration of the very character of the Sussex landscape. It is not safe. The US government has admitted that 4 states have confirmed cases of water contamination, with thousands of individual cases. How can you guarantee that cement poured thousands of feet down a well and then horizontally will be perfectly sealed with no cracks? How can you guarantee it will not then crack or fault with the subsequent explosion and cracking of the rock around it? You cannot. In fact, industry figures have shown 1 in 6 wells leak immediately. 250 New York health professionals and organisations put their names to an open letter saying the health risks associated with fracking were too large for it to be pursued in New York state. New York state has since upheld its 5 year moratorium on fracking. We do not even have any appropriate regulation for this new industry - there is not a regulatory framework for onshore unconventional oil and gas in this country. And yet this year the government wants to put 60% of the country up for licensing! With cuts to the environment agency, I am very worried about the gung-ho approach of this government to fracking, when it has been banned in France and other countries are opposed to pursuing it. etarre
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree