The ArgusFracking regions' £800,000 payout (From The Argus)

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

Fracking regions' £800,000 payout

The Argus: Police and protesters in Balcombe last year Police and protesters in Balcombe last year

Communities affected by controversial "fracking" will be offered an average of £800,000 in additional compensation in an effort to stave off opposition in Conservative heartlands, according to reports.

Prime Minister David Cameron, an avid supporter of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, will make the announcement as a survey is published showing the extent of shale gas reserves in the south of England, according to the Times.

The Government will hope the extra money quells criticism of plans to reform trespass laws to allow the fracking industry to grow to give Britain an alternative source of energy.

The compensation will be offered alongside one-off £100,000 payments in areas with fracking sites and a 1% share of profits made.

The announcement will come as the British Geological Survey (BGS) publishes a long-awaited study into the extent of shale gas reserves in the south of England.

According to the Times it is expected to show reserves in Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire, all areas where the Conservatives enjoy support.

Ministers firmly back the exploitation of shale gas reserves in rocks beneath the UK, claiming it could bring down energy bills and create thousands of jobs. Environmental activists are bitterly opposed to the technique, which opponents say can increase climate change, cause small earthquakes and pollute water supplies.

The Prime Minister has insisted fracking will be "good for our country" and has blamed a "lack of understanding" of the process for some of the opposition.

Mr Cameron's Tory colleague Lord Howell, Chancellor George Osborne's father-in-law, has caused controversy by calling for fracking to be carried out in the "desolate North".

The BGS has already found large reserves of shale gas in the North but has now completed a months-long survey of the extent of it in the South.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said fracking would not bring down energy bills as the gas or oil exploited would be sold on European markets and not used in the UK.

She told BBC Two's Newsnight: "Even the boss of (fracking firm) Cuadrilla has said fracking in Britain wouldn't reduce energy prices.

"Lord Stern has called it baseless economics and that's because here in the UK if we frack in the UK we don't actually use that gas or oil in the UK, it gets sold on European markets at the going price.

"That's very different from the (United) States where because it's a much bigger country and they are less locked into those bigger world markets they use their own gas and oil as they frack.

"Even the experts, even the people who are in the forefront of the fracking ideology are saying actually that it's not going to lead to lower prices so if you want lower prices you need to go down the renewable route."

Andrew Austin, of IGas Energy, said his company already exploited oil and gas reserves in the south of England.

He told Newsnight: "We've known that there's a big potential for oil and gas exploration across the country but particularly in terms of oil in the Weald basin which is the area that stretches roughly from Winchester across towards Gatwick up to the M25 and down to the coast at Chichester.

"There's been a long history of oil and gas exploration in this area. we as a company produce oil and gas from around 20 sites across that area, around 40 million barrels have been recovered to date across that area."

Friends of the Earth's South East regional campaigner Brenda Pollack questioned the timing of the announcement, coming after the local and European elections.

She said: "These latest estimates will set alarm bells ringing across the south east of England where fracking firms seem intent on punching holes in some of Britain's most beautiful countryside in the search for profits.

"No wonder the Government waited until after the elections to make this announcement as Lord Howell recently warned that fracking will cost the Tories thousands of votes in their heartlands.

"Shale oil and gas are not the solution to the UK's energy challenges. Rather than drilling for more dirty fossil fuels that will add to climate change, the Government should be backing renewable power and energy efficiency."

Friends of the Earth’s south east regional campaigner, Brenda Pollack said:

“These latest estimates will set alarm bells ringing across the south east of England where fracking firms seem intent on punching holes in some of Britain’s most beautiful countryside in the search for profits.

“No wonder the Government waited until after the elections to make this announcement as Lord Howell recently warned that fracking will cost the Tories thousands of votes in their heartlands.

“Shale oil and gas are not the solution to the UK's energy challenges. Rather than drilling for more dirty fossil fuels that will add to climate change, the Government should be backing renewable power and energy efficiency.”

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:21am Fri 23 May 14

Nosfaratu says...

'Er', how much? For people who are deliberately sabotaging the prosperity and safety of this country. Perhaps disruption of legal activities should be greeted by a 5 year jail sentence. 'Lucas and Pollack' first.
'Er', how much? For people who are deliberately sabotaging the prosperity and safety of this country. Perhaps disruption of legal activities should be greeted by a 5 year jail sentence. 'Lucas and Pollack' first. Nosfaratu
  • Score: -5

8:57am Fri 23 May 14

HJarrs says...

Today, it was announced that there are billions of barrels of frackable oil under the south east. This on top of the reserves of gas. Where do we stop? There are many times more reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels than can be burnt if we want to prevent run away climate change.

There are plenty of alternatives as articulated in strategies such as Zero Carbon Britain. We do not need this gas and oil for short term economic gain and long term pain. Leave it in the ground not in the atmosphere.
Today, it was announced that there are billions of barrels of frackable oil under the south east. This on top of the reserves of gas. Where do we stop? There are many times more reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels than can be burnt if we want to prevent run away climate change. There are plenty of alternatives as articulated in strategies such as Zero Carbon Britain. We do not need this gas and oil for short term economic gain and long term pain. Leave it in the ground not in the atmosphere. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

10:20am Fri 23 May 14

Mrs Newcastle says...

HJarrs wrote:
Today, it was announced that there are billions of barrels of frackable oil under the south east. This on top of the reserves of gas. Where do we stop? There are many times more reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels than can be burnt if we want to prevent run away climate change.

There are plenty of alternatives as articulated in strategies such as Zero Carbon Britain. We do not need this gas and oil for short term economic gain and long term pain. Leave it in the ground not in the atmosphere.
I agree with you view , I will be supporting the nimbys
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Today, it was announced that there are billions of barrels of frackable oil under the south east. This on top of the reserves of gas. Where do we stop? There are many times more reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels than can be burnt if we want to prevent run away climate change. There are plenty of alternatives as articulated in strategies such as Zero Carbon Britain. We do not need this gas and oil for short term economic gain and long term pain. Leave it in the ground not in the atmosphere.[/p][/quote]I agree with you view , I will be supporting the nimbys Mrs Newcastle
  • Score: -3

11:54am Fri 23 May 14

pachallis says...

HJarrs wrote:
Today, it was announced that there are billions of barrels of frackable oil under the south east. This on top of the reserves of gas. Where do we stop? There are many times more reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels than can be burnt if we want to prevent run away climate change.

There are plenty of alternatives as articulated in strategies such as Zero Carbon Britain. We do not need this gas and oil for short term economic gain and long term pain. Leave it in the ground not in the atmosphere.
@HJarrs - same old sound bites - just tell the UN that they have got it wrong with their strategy for global emission reductions.

Without a globally agreed pragmatic, realistic, economic strategy; following one of your 'alternatives' instead is just worthless posturing and won't lead to any real change in total global emissions.

If we leave our carbon-based fuels in the ground then someone else will provide them - perhaps Russia, America or the Middle East?

Of course doing so will, of course, satisfy the nimbys in their 4x4s who are more worried about the potential impact on their house prices; or the fractivist doom-mongers spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about earthquakes and water pollution.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Today, it was announced that there are billions of barrels of frackable oil under the south east. This on top of the reserves of gas. Where do we stop? There are many times more reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels than can be burnt if we want to prevent run away climate change. There are plenty of alternatives as articulated in strategies such as Zero Carbon Britain. We do not need this gas and oil for short term economic gain and long term pain. Leave it in the ground not in the atmosphere.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - same old sound bites - just tell the UN that they have got it wrong with their strategy for global emission reductions. Without a globally agreed pragmatic, realistic, economic strategy; following one of your 'alternatives' instead is just worthless posturing and won't lead to any real change in total global emissions. If we leave our carbon-based fuels in the ground then someone else will provide them - perhaps Russia, America or the Middle East? Of course doing so will, of course, satisfy the nimbys in their 4x4s who are more worried about the potential impact on their house prices; or the fractivist doom-mongers spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about earthquakes and water pollution. pachallis
  • Score: 4

6:40pm Fri 23 May 14

Mr chock says...

http://www.theargus.

co.uk/news/11231836.

Six_men_in_court_for

_teen_prostitution_c

ase/?ref=mr
this is the story they have remove the comments area on WHY
Six men in court for teen prostitution case
http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/11231836. Six_men_in_court_for _teen_prostitution_c ase/?ref=mr this is the story they have remove the comments area on WHY Six men in court for teen prostitution case Mr chock
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Fri 23 May 14

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Today, it was announced that there are billions of barrels of frackable oil under the south east. This on top of the reserves of gas. Where do we stop? There are many times more reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels than can be burnt if we want to prevent run away climate change.

There are plenty of alternatives as articulated in strategies such as Zero Carbon Britain. We do not need this gas and oil for short term economic gain and long term pain. Leave it in the ground not in the atmosphere.
@HJarrs - same old sound bites - just tell the UN that they have got it wrong with their strategy for global emission reductions.

Without a globally agreed pragmatic, realistic, economic strategy; following one of your 'alternatives' instead is just worthless posturing and won't lead to any real change in total global emissions.

If we leave our carbon-based fuels in the ground then someone else will provide them - perhaps Russia, America or the Middle East?

Of course doing so will, of course, satisfy the nimbys in their 4x4s who are more worried about the potential impact on their house prices; or the fractivist doom-mongers spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about earthquakes and water pollution.
Well, I have read the relevant part of the IPCC report and afraid that you will struggle to find fracking identified as a central part of the solution to climate change.

As for the "if we don't do it they will" argument , it works the other way round. If the wealthy UK can't get off fossil fuels, why should anyone else?
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Today, it was announced that there are billions of barrels of frackable oil under the south east. This on top of the reserves of gas. Where do we stop? There are many times more reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels than can be burnt if we want to prevent run away climate change. There are plenty of alternatives as articulated in strategies such as Zero Carbon Britain. We do not need this gas and oil for short term economic gain and long term pain. Leave it in the ground not in the atmosphere.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - same old sound bites - just tell the UN that they have got it wrong with their strategy for global emission reductions. Without a globally agreed pragmatic, realistic, economic strategy; following one of your 'alternatives' instead is just worthless posturing and won't lead to any real change in total global emissions. If we leave our carbon-based fuels in the ground then someone else will provide them - perhaps Russia, America or the Middle East? Of course doing so will, of course, satisfy the nimbys in their 4x4s who are more worried about the potential impact on their house prices; or the fractivist doom-mongers spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about earthquakes and water pollution.[/p][/quote]Well, I have read the relevant part of the IPCC report and afraid that you will struggle to find fracking identified as a central part of the solution to climate change. As for the "if we don't do it they will" argument , it works the other way round. If the wealthy UK can't get off fossil fuels, why should anyone else? HJarrs
  • Score: -3

12:23pm Sat 24 May 14

pachallis says...

@HJarrs - you are quite right that fracking is not mentioned in the IPCC report, but that is just you being pedantic.

What the summary report does say is that 'GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coalfired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated'.

Which to me clearly indicates fracking is a perfectly valid source of natural gas to help reduce global pollution levels. Admittedly other sources (i.e. remaining North Sea, other country fracked and piped; or Middle East LNG shipped by sea) exist alongside alternatives such as biogas.

Later it states 'Strategies to reduce the carbon intensities of fuel and the rate of reducing carbon intensity are constrained by challenges associated with energy storage and the relatively low energy density of low-carbon transport fuels Integrated and sectoral studies broadly agree that opportunities for switching to low-carbon fuels exist in the near term and will grow over time. Methane-based fuels are already increasing their share for road vehicles and waterborne craft. .... Commercially available liquid and gaseous biofuels already provide co-benefits together with mitigation options that can be increased by technology advances.'.

So switching vehicles from diesel to methane (i.e. Natural Gas and therefor potentially fracking) is another mitigation route that the UN see as a route forward.

As far as you wanting to follow a 'Zero Carbon Britain' approach and lead the world, this to me is a clear indication of why the Greens will never be more than an minority party. You talk about wanting to lead the world by moving to a Zero Carbon environment but with no justification as to whether it is actually required, or the impacts on the people of the Britain.

We'll wait and see the results of the MEP elections on Sunday evening, but from the English council elections it is clear that the Greens, who claimed they were the 4th major party, are now clearly in 7th place behind even Independents and Resident's Association.

Perhaps voters now realise after seeing the juvenile antics of the one Green MP; the embarrassing failings of the one minority green-led council; and the extreme left-wing anti-capitalist anti-big business focus of the controlling green-left faction who want to nationalise the energy and rail companies and get rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent.

Could it be that the Greens are against fracking because it is supported by capitalist big business rather than any real concerns about the environment that they try to portray?
@HJarrs - you are quite right that fracking is not mentioned in the IPCC report, but that is just you being pedantic. What the summary report does say is that 'GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coalfired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated'. Which to me clearly indicates fracking is a perfectly valid source of natural gas to help reduce global pollution levels. Admittedly other sources (i.e. remaining North Sea, other country fracked and piped; or Middle East LNG shipped by sea) exist alongside alternatives such as biogas. Later it states 'Strategies to reduce the carbon intensities of fuel and the rate of reducing carbon intensity are constrained by challenges associated with energy storage and the relatively low energy density of low-carbon transport fuels Integrated and sectoral studies broadly agree that opportunities for switching to low-carbon fuels exist in the near term and will grow over time. Methane-based fuels are already increasing their share for road vehicles and waterborne craft. .... Commercially available liquid and gaseous biofuels already provide co-benefits together with mitigation options that can be increased by technology advances.'. So switching vehicles from diesel to methane (i.e. Natural Gas and therefor potentially fracking) is another mitigation route that the UN see as a route forward. As far as you wanting to follow a 'Zero Carbon Britain' approach and lead the world, this to me is a clear indication of why the Greens will never be more than an minority party. You talk about wanting to lead the world by moving to a Zero Carbon environment but with no justification as to whether it is actually required, or the impacts on the people of the Britain. We'll wait and see the results of the MEP elections on Sunday evening, but from the English council elections it is clear that the Greens, who claimed they were the 4th major party, are now clearly in 7th place behind even Independents and Resident's Association. Perhaps voters now realise after seeing the juvenile antics of the one Green MP; the embarrassing failings of the one minority green-led council; and the extreme left-wing anti-capitalist anti-big business focus of the controlling green-left faction who want to nationalise the energy and rail companies and get rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent. Could it be that the Greens are against fracking because it is supported by capitalist big business rather than any real concerns about the environment that they try to portray? pachallis
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

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