Greenpeace UK say fracking rule ‘just a sham’

Fracking rule ‘just a sham’

Fracking rule ‘just a sham’

First published in News

Rules to protect national parks from fracking are a sham, campaigners have claimed.

Ministers said fracking in areas of outstanding natural beauty should be refused other than in ‘exceptional circumstances and in the public interest’.

But environmentalists warned that since the Government had said shale gas and oil resources were in the interests of the country, the rules created a ‘giant loophole’ that could allow fracking in protected areas.

The new guidance for planners was unveiled as the latest bidding process opened for companies seeking licences to explore for oil and gas across the UK.

Planners were told to put great weight on conserving the scenic beauty and landscapes of national parks.

If an ‘unconventional’ oil or gas exploration scheme represents a ‘major development’ it should be refused unless there were exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest.

The South Downs National Park Authority is currently considering plans by Celtique Energie for an exploratory drill for shale oil and gas in Fernhurst.

Business and energy minister Matthew Hancock said: “The new guidance will protect Britain's great national parks and outstanding landscapes, building on the existing rules that ensure operational best practices are robustly enforced.”

Greenpeace UK energy campaigner Simon Clydesdale said: “The supposed tougher rules to protect our beloved national parks from fracking are a sham.

“By introducing an exception under a vague ‘public interest’ case, they’ve created a giant loophole that could allow fracking, potentially causing serious environmental damage.

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:29am Tue 29 Jul 14

road_rager says...

Whatever the benefits of fracking to our energy security I do not believe fracking can be justified if there is even the slightest danger of it poisoning our water supply
Whatever the benefits of fracking to our energy security I do not believe fracking can be justified if there is even the slightest danger of it poisoning our water supply road_rager
  • Score: 2

12:49pm Tue 29 Jul 14

G Wiley says...

@road_rager - who, apart from the eco-activists who think we should stop all uses of fossil fuels and have no realistic alternative plan, and the nimbys who are really just frightened about the value of their mansions being impacted, says that our water supplies will be endangered by fracking?

So if there is no chance of our water supplies being impacted, would you be happy with fracking going ahead?
@road_rager - who, apart from the eco-activists who think we should stop all uses of fossil fuels and have no realistic alternative plan, and the nimbys who are really just frightened about the value of their mansions being impacted, says that our water supplies will be endangered by fracking? So if there is no chance of our water supplies being impacted, would you be happy with fracking going ahead? G Wiley
  • Score: 1

11:16pm Tue 29 Jul 14

just-no-one says...

G Wiley, please explain this to me... the operators take millions of gallons of clean, fresh water (and add things to it) per frack job and then pump it deep under ground. Depending on the geology, and operational requirements, somewhere between 30 - 70% is not retrieved. If we believe what the industry says that fluid does not migrate into other geological formations nor aquifers.... it stays trapped down there.... for ever.

So that's millions of gallons of fresh, clean water, totally removed from the eco-system and aquifers... for ever.

Unlike the comparison the industry and government uses of watering golf courses, where the water remains in the water-cycle... the industry says that fluid remains down there... for ever.

The returned fluid is laced with heavy metals and NORMS, and the industry tells us whatever is intentionally returned to surface has to be processed and the rest stay down there.

Without taking into account the risk of water contamination through migration pathways, our water supplies will be endangered... because cumulatively, trillions of gallons of water are needed for thousands of frack jobs. And guess what, cumulatively that mean millions and millions of gallons of water are totally removed from the water-system.... yep, for ever.
G Wiley, please explain this to me... the operators take millions of gallons of clean, fresh water (and add things to it) per frack job and then pump it deep under ground. Depending on the geology, and operational requirements, somewhere between 30 - 70% is not retrieved. If we believe what the industry says that fluid does not migrate into other geological formations nor aquifers.... it stays trapped down there.... for ever. So that's millions of gallons of fresh, clean water, totally removed from the eco-system and aquifers... for ever. Unlike the comparison the industry and government uses of watering golf courses, where the water remains in the water-cycle... the industry says that fluid remains down there... for ever. The returned fluid is laced with heavy metals and NORMS, and the industry tells us whatever is intentionally returned to surface has to be processed and the rest stay down there. Without taking into account the risk of water contamination through migration pathways, our water supplies will be endangered... because cumulatively, trillions of gallons of water are needed for thousands of frack jobs. And guess what, cumulatively that mean millions and millions of gallons of water are totally removed from the water-system.... yep, for ever. just-no-one
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Wed 30 Jul 14

G Wiley says...

@just-no-one...

road_rager raised the question of water supplies being poisoned, which I queried and you have not denied and you now switch to another favourite topic raised by 'Gasland The Movie'.

In another recent post I posed the question 'how much formal scientific education and actual knowledge of fracking does a typical protester have?'

Your response, with use of 'big numbers' such as millions, billions and trillions (where are the zillions?) without putting them into context, just shows the typical level of scaremongering and misinformation spread by the eco-activist anti-fracking protesters that we have come to expect.

Checking the Wikipedia article on fracking it states "DEFRA data indicates the amount of water abstracted nationally, at around 16 billion cubic metres. The DECC report shows the usage expected for fracking a well. It is equivalent to watering a golf course for a month. A 2011 report from the Tyndall Centre estimates that to support a 9 billion bcm/year industry, between 1.25 to 1.65 million cubic metres would be needed annually, which amounts to 0.01% of the total water abstraction nationally. This does not mean however that there could not be shortages locally at certain times.".

1.65 million cubic metres is about 362 million gallons.

So yes - the water used sounds a lot, but in fact it is minimal compared to the amount we extract regularly.

How about all the dangers of tremors (all those so far are only really detectable by seismographs) or the poisonous methane missions (methane is not poisonous) that the frackophobes keep raising?

So please stop generating FUD and learn to provide some real quantitative analysis and find out some real facts about fracking.
@just-no-one... road_rager raised the question of water supplies being poisoned, which I queried and you have not denied and you now switch to another favourite topic raised by 'Gasland The Movie'. In another recent post I posed the question 'how much formal scientific education and actual knowledge of fracking does a typical protester have?' Your response, with use of 'big numbers' such as millions, billions and trillions (where are the zillions?) without putting them into context, just shows the typical level of scaremongering and misinformation spread by the eco-activist anti-fracking protesters that we have come to expect. Checking the Wikipedia article on fracking it states "DEFRA data indicates the amount of water abstracted nationally, at around 16 billion cubic metres. The DECC report shows the usage expected for fracking a well. It is equivalent to watering a golf course for a month. A 2011 report from the Tyndall Centre estimates that to support a 9 billion bcm/year industry, between 1.25 to 1.65 million cubic metres would be needed annually, which amounts to 0.01% of the total water abstraction nationally. This does not mean however that there could not be shortages locally at certain times.". 1.65 million cubic metres is about 362 million gallons. So yes - the water used sounds a lot, but in fact it is minimal compared to the amount we extract regularly. How about all the dangers of tremors (all those so far are only really detectable by seismographs) or the poisonous methane missions (methane is not poisonous) that the frackophobes keep raising? So please stop generating FUD and learn to provide some real quantitative analysis and find out some real facts about fracking. G Wiley
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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