UK fracking support at record low –  latest government survey

aa summary

The latest findings from the government survey of attitudes to fracking in the UK puts support at its lowest level since the question was first asked.

The results, published this morning, has support at 16%. This is three percentage points down on the previous survey carried out in spring this year and 12 percentage points down on the response in December 2013.


Opposition to fracking was up, at 33%, after falls in the previous two surveys. This was the highest level recorded by the survey, also reached in autumn 2016.


The gap between opposition and support was the largest recorded by the survey, at 17 percentage points.



This survey, commissioned by Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), is the second carried out since Cuadrilla began work at its shale gas site in Lancashire in January 2017. It is the first since INEOS submitted shale gas exploration applications for Derbyshire and Rotherham.

A spokesperson for Frack Free Lancashire said:

“The trend is evident – this industry continues to lose support day by day in spite of efforts to alternately buy local support and to attack local opposition using the sledgehammer of legal injunctions.

“It is clear that the fracking companies’ attempts to demonise protest are backfiring and that they are failing dismally to get the social licence they need to operate in our communities.

“Many those that expressed an opinion in favour of fracking cited increased employment, lower bills and using less fossil fuels as their reasons. These arguments are pushed strongly by the fracking PR machine but are almost totally without substance. As people become aware of the reality we expect to see a further decline in support for fracking as the scales fall from people’s eyes.”

Ken Cronin, of the industry body, UKOOG, said:

“These findings shows that the majority of respondents are either supportive or ‘don’t know.   The industry will continue to work with local communities in an accountable manner with full disclosure.”

Elisabeth Whitebread, energy campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said:

“Communities don’t want the unnecessary industrialisation of our countryside for shale gas we don’t need. And more than three-quarters of people support renewables, so the government should listen to their own opinion polls, stay true to their manifesto promise, and support offshore wind and solar instead of a new fossil fuel industry.

“Concern about climate change is at its highest since 2012, and to meet our climate targets, we must leave fossil fuels in the ground. The fracking industry is pulling UK energy policy in entirely the wrong direction and the public is right to be concerned.”

Rose Dickinson, Friends of the Earth campaigner, said:

“This makes bad reading for the industry because they know they are desperately fighting an unwinnable battle for support. In just the last week INEOS has taken desperate measures to try and stop peaceful protest, and Cuadrilla had to deliver machinery under cover of darkness – all in a bid to try and force fracking on communities that don’t want fracking.

“The extent to which this industry has failed to win over the public is undeniable, opposition is increasing not only where fracking is proposed, but across the whole country.”

More on support and opposition

According to the survey, strong support for fracking had fallen to 2%, the lowest level recorded.

Strong support

Strong opposition has risen for the second consecutive survey to 13% but is still one percentage point below the highest ever recorded by the survey in March 2016.

Strong oppose

Participants who said they neither supported nor opposed fracking remained the largest proportion in the survey at 48%. This was down 1% on the previous survey and was the first fall since the survey carried out in June 2015. The number who said they didn’t know was up one percentage point at 3%.


Awareness of fracking was 78%, up from 75% in the previous survey. Participants who said they knew a lot was still only 13%, but this figure was up from 10% in the spring. Participants who said they had never heard of fracking or shale gas was down slightly at 22%.


BEIS said awareness of fracking was highest among participants in social grade AB (90%), aged over 65 (90%), with incomes over 50,000 (91%) and homeowners (88%).


reasns for support

The most common reason for supporting fracking remained “the need to use all available energy sources” (42%). This has continued to rise since December 2106 and the latest figure is an increase on the previous survey of seven percentage points. Other reasons for support, such as reducing dependence on other fossil fuels, cheaper energy bills and reduced dependence on other countries remained fairly constant. But “good for local jobs and investment” fell from 30% to 26%. “Positive impact on the UK economy” also continues to fall.

reasons to oppose

“Loss or destruction of the environment” remained the most common reason for opposing fracking. This saw an increase of eight percentage points in this survey to 68%. Other reasons, such as “risk of contamination”, “too much risk/uncertainty”, “risk of earthquakes”, “unsafe process” and “use of chemicals” saw falls of between nine and four percentage points.

Of participants who were neutral or did not know whether they supported or opposed fracking, 73% said this was because they didn’t know enough about it.


The Wave 22 survey for BEIS carried out 2,097 face-to-face interviews in homes among a representative sample of UK adults, aged 16+. The interviews were conducted between 30th June 2017 and 4th July 2017 on the Kantar TNS Omnibus, which uses a random location quota sampling method. The questionnaire was designed by BEIS and Kantar Public drawing on a number of questions from previous surveys.


Wave 22, the latest BEIS quarterly public attitudes survey

130 replies »

  1. I suspect many of the ambivalent people in the survey may not live anywhere near an onshore oil & gas area. I also suspect their knowledge of the processes involved and of the potential adverse consequences will be limited, in part due to very limited nationwide publicity. A geographical survey of opinions would be useful. Although I live in Balcombe, I knew nothing about the subject until some while after the demonstrations had ended. Now I strongly oppose

    • I think it would be fascinating to see how these figures might vary on a regional basis but as far as I am aware there is little regional polling on the subject – the You Gov Lancashire survey was quite revealing this June

      66% opposed fracking within 5 miles of their house with only 21% in favour and just 14% don’t know. It seems proximity sharpens the mind.

      • Major shale gas extraction plans won’t work at 5 mile stand-offs unless you’re talking about great tracts of empty countryside… is their much open prairie land between Preston and Blackpool 🙂 ?

        • Well I think that’s kind of the point Philip P – we can therefore cut out the “within 5 miles of their house” as with the density proposed by Cuadrilla it could never be more than about 2 miles from any house in the Fylde

      • It is the ultimate straw man argument. People oppose fracking just as they oppose any industrial installation. Why should we expect anything different? And should public opinion determine energy policy – especially when it is informed largely by propaganda?

        I would be interested to know if a poll was taken asking a wide audience whether they would rather have a well pad within a mile, or an 800 turbine windfarm within a mile, which most would prefer. I am surprised that no one has taken this poll yet.

        • Funny you should say that Peeny – you really must try to keep abreast of events in the UK – last time this was asked was in Wave 21 where responses to the question “I would be happy to have a large scale renewable energy development in my area” were Agree 58% and Disagree just 16%. – not far off the reverse situation with fracking wells is it? Who’d have thought it?

          • I’d be curious to know exactly how that question was posed, Refracktion. As you know, the devil is in the details and if details were not provided to those who were questioned, it is much easier to have a positive opinion.

            As you said, proximity tends to sharpen focus. I agree and I wonder whether proximity to 800 massive wind turbines would truly be preferable to one small and unobtrusive well pad (like the 200 or so already located throughout the UK) to most people if given these detailed choices.

            • Peeny the clue is in the words

              “responses to the question “I would be happy to have a large scale renewable energy development in my area” were”

              To be fair it’s a statement requiring agreement not a question but I would have credited even you with the gumption to understand what was meant there 😂

              Your question is pointless as the comparison here is to 100 well pads and, as the DECC’s chief geo-sceintist has said, they are nothing like the 200 or so already located throughout the UK in terms of the scale of their operating requirements – water in, contaminated fluid out, sand in, pressures, pad size etc etc etc. But we’ve done this so many times now its really boring. Can we have some new silliness of yours to sort out as the old stuff is very tedious.

              • Oh I think the scale at a place such as Wytch Farm is not dissimilar, Refracktion. That location has been worked over many, many times such that over the years the scale is probably quite close.

                My question is far from pointless, but I can understand why you would say it is. You know that it goes right to the heart of the matter. I didn’t ask the question about locating near 100 well pads because that isn’t realistic, is it? No, the comparison of one well pad with 700-1000 wind turbines is justified by the fact that they would produce approximately the same amount of energy.

                I will say, once again, that if this question were posed correctly in a poll, we would find a much different result than what you have cited.

            • Peeny you are funny with your constant insistence on reframing everything. But look here’s the thing – the government doesn’t need American industry folk to help it ask its research questions. Sorry old boy! Disappointing isn’t it?

              And is it ignorance or a desire to mislead which leads you to claim that “the scale at a place such as Wytch Farm is not dissimilar” when there are just 13 well sites with about 100 wells (including producers and water injectors) there compared to the 4-6000 wells and 100 pads planned by Cuadrilla here? Do tell.

              • Is it ignorance or deception for you to try to compare 13 well sites with approximately 100 for Cuadrilla? That doesn’t seem very fair now does it? And they’ve been operating that site for 40 years, using who knows exactly how much water and other materials over that extended time frame. The Cuadrilla operation would be of short duration by comparison.

                But back to the point, which is that the people are likely to prefer a well pad to the energy equivalent installation of 700-1000 wind turbines. You have produced nothing that would dissuade me from this opinion. Ironically, the locals around Wytch farm seemed fine with that installation but were protesting loudly against a wind farm being built nearby.


            • “Is it ignorance or deception for you to try to compare 13 well sites with approximately 100 for Cuadrilla?” – Neither Peeny as I am not trying to make that comparison. I am laughing at your attempts to do so. Given that Wytch Farm is a conventional well and a conventional well uses a couple of hundred cubic metres of fluid for every 20,000 or so cubic metres used in a fracked well, then I’d say that a couple of thousand cubic metres in total at 100 wells at WF is rather less than 120,000,000 cubic metres required for 6000 wells on the Fylde , but it’s obviously not worth trying to talk sense to you Peeny. And you think Cuadrilla’s 20-30 year timescale is “of short duration” compared to 40 OK LOL.

              Where your wind farm analogy falls down is firstly that the choice is not restricted to wind and secondly that you do not have to site a wind farm where they are planing the fracking wells, although personally I wouldn’t object if they did. I find them strangely beautiful. Keep on taking the tablets.

              • Again, we are comparing a single well pad with a wind farm consisting of approximately 800 turbines. That well pad isn’t going to operate for 30-40 years as you suggest. More like ten years. And the volume of fluid that runs through the 40-60 wells associated with that pad is probably not all that different than that which has run through Wytch farm over the course of 40+ years. So, I think the comparison is entirely appropriate.

                If you don’t want to use wind to compare that’s fine with me., but it seems to be the renewable generator of choice for the north of the UK. Solar wouldn’t compare as favorably due to latitude. I don’t know of massive hydro resources available nearby. You have tidal but that’s expensive and not of sufficient scale. Nuclear is an option, but I think you might have difficulty selling that. What is your choice for comparison if not wind, and how do you justify it?

            • Peeny – Cuadrilla will be peppering the Fylde with a well pad every couple of miles for 20-30 years – didn’t you know? You are seriously suggesting they’ve pumped 120,000,000 cubic metres into those conventional wells at WF Peeny? Really?

              The simplest comparison is cheaper LNG Peeny, but you know that. I’d prefer renewables but we’ll no doubt use the cheapest source of gas until we get there (Supply and Demand 101 you know) and spoiler alert: it won’t come from the UK.

              • But if you remember, the question that I suggested would ask individuals whether they would prefer to live within a mile of a well pad or an 800 turbine wind farm. I did not ask them whether they would prefer to live within a mile of one hundred well pads, because this is not possible nor is it appropriate given operator plans and drilling technology.

                As for water usage, a typical fracked well uses 5 million gallons, but flowback can be recycled and reused. A 40 well pad might use 200 million gallons, less an estimated 80 million gallons re-used, for a net of 120 million gallons or 450k m3. Now that’s not quite as scary as the figure you have tried to pass-off, and it’s probably not that different from what has been used at Wytch Farm.

              • How is it that you have come to know so much more about UK shale gas economics than all of the energy analysts that make investment decisions, Refracktion? Many of them are eager to invest in gas production in the UK. This isn’t because they are dying to lose money my friend.

                If you think that you can source gas across the globe, ship it to terminal, liquify it, ship it across the ocean, regasify it, and ship it to the customer more cheaply than you can produce that gas domestically, that’s your business. But I know some very wealthy companies that disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion! ;o)

            • “the question that I suggested would ask individuals whether they would prefer to live within a mile of a well pad” Ah but Peeny how many time do we have to tell you that you don’t get to reframe the questions to suit yourself? As you would say “Jeeze?”

              • You haven’t paid attention very well, have you Refracktion? From the very outset of the discussion, I said that the question was not framed appropriately, and that I would argue for a new format. This was the basis for the discussion, but you seem to have forgotten!

            • “Many of them are eager to invest in gas production in the UK. ”

              really – the share prices say otherwise old stick!

              • A) some share prices have fared very well as of late;
                B) if you believe share price is the only determinant of investor appetite, you are gravely mistaken my friend.

            • “I know some very wealthy companies that disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion!”

              Peeny old boy – you do keep coming out with statements like this but you can never back them up – come on – surprise me!

            • The energy you could produce from 1 well pad is finite. The decline curves all show quick depletion.

              The wind is infinite and free.

              If you want to compare wind and shale gas you need to consider the short and long term

              Shale produces more energy in the short term but creates pollution, health risks, road damage and leaves an abandoned site which will eventually cause environmental issues as casings corrode.

              Wind turbines use energy to manufacture but then produce free sourced power………forever.

              It’s the case of the dirty hare and the clean tortoise

              Best sited onshore wind is the cheapest form of UK electricity. Offshore wind is expanding and prices are plummeting.

              8MW turbines can be sited in many remote locations as the UK wind speeds are favourable and infrastructure requirements are relatively low.

              Also they can be sited in congested industrial areas and are already proven to be successful.

              There is no need or room for an onshore shale gas industry.

              • Where did you get that fairy dust, JP? It must be some really good stuff because you are clearly seeing stars!

                Wind may be infinite, but wind turbines are not. They have a finite lifetimes – as few as ten to twenty years. And they are hardly costless from an environmental perspective with their heavy reliance on mining for key materials. They are not only incredibly expensive, and unreliable, but they are unsightly and this is why communities band together to prevent them from being erected.

                So, one well pad vs. 800 wind turbines yields a pretty clear choice. I believe a majority would prefer the well pad – assuming they are well-educated.


            • Your windfarm comparisons are absurd and desperate Fibs. For shale gas you don’t get the stand-off options that you get with wind. You have to go where the shale formation goes and I’ll be surprised if you won’t be insisting on pads within half a kilometer of housing before too long. Meanwhile offshore wind is advancing dramatically for UK powergen. For solar there’s even renewed talks of a 4.5 gigawatt facility in Tunisia to help feed into Europe.

              Closer to home IKEA is now selling a new and effective solar capture and power storage bundle for around £3000 – a system that would have cost over £12000 just a few years ago.

              To deal with renewables’ intermittency issues storage revolution is now entering the ‘S’ curve, both on the home front (behind-the-meter storage) and at utility scales. Your outmoded, polluting and climate bothering plans for shale gas have no future. Likewise for the future of politicians who support the shale gas (UK) insanity.

              • Talk is very cheap, Phillip, especially talk from anti-frackers.

                There is no storage technology around today that will solve for intermittency. There aren’t enough cobalt reserves to produce the storage required just for the UK, much less for the rest of the world. New technologies may some day solve that problem but they will be far more expensive than gas.

                The FACT is that the UK is going to be using lots of gas for the next 30+ years. Rather than have someone else frack that gas and pipe/ship it to the UK, the environmentally sound and responsible option is to produce it domestically. This would not only reduce the carbon footprint, but it would allow the UK more energy independence, less exposure to swings in international prices, more tax revenue, more jobs, more wealth, and it would keep UK wealth out of the hands of terrorists.

              • Onshore wind is not competitive when you include the costs of backup power. A number of nations have found this out the hard way.

                Gas provides clean affordable energy. You provide pixie dust.

            • One small stir and your argument leaps from frying pan to fire Fibs. You imply that UK shale gas is around and available today. That’s cheap talk indeed – a completely flawed argument. You should admit there is no switch you can throw or wand that will magic it on-stream at the quantities you envisage without it needing 10 to twenty years if everything went perfectly to plan (another far fetched idea) – to reach the quantities you envisage for the UK’s energy salvation.

              • “a completely flawed argument” LOL

                Yes, anti-frackers often cite empirical data as “flawed.” They are much more comfortable with hypotheticals, fearmongering, and hyperbolic propaganda.

                The Utica shale went from essentially zero production to 3.5mn mcf/day in the period of three years.

                The gas is there in the UK, it is available, and it can be brought online in quantity rapidly. Not as rapidly as in the Utica, because the services industry is not as developed in the UK, but with such rapidity as investors and the UK government demand.

                If the UK wants to take 20 years, it can, but it can also develop it rapidly.

                So much for the “completely flawed argument” eh, Philip? LOL

            • Funny how when I press for the facts I still get lumped together with anti-fracking and fear mongering. Instead of delivering your LOL twitch how about disclosing the whole picture on the Utica shale play. Take for instance Ohio’s 1500 wells as part of that count you mention. Please describe the breakdown of how you would see the well/pad distribution happening here and how those billions of cubic feet would be piped across the land, how the haulage would work for the 3-4000 miles of steel shafts (just for the wells), where the 1500 x 5-10 million gallons of water required for all the fracking comes from and where/how the many millions of gallons of toxic flowback will be treated before underground injection or dumping in the sea via existing treatment works.

              • Well pad distribution is becoming easier and easier as lateral lengths increase. As you may know, these laterals can run 4+ miles now, meaning that spacing between well pads can be upwards of 6-8 miles in a highly prospective area.

                The piping is remarkably easy as the UK already has infrastructure in place to feed the gas into the system. Only localized branches need to be built.

                I don’t believe that your estimate of 3500 miles of steel shafts is accurate. The well casings and steel parts extend to a certain depth, but not all the way to the end of the borehole. I believe that produciton tubing and casing is used at lower depths and may be made from fiberglass and/or plastics.

                Water hasn’t been a big issue in the US, where fracking accounts for a small fraction of one percent of water use. In fact, because of fracking the US is saving water because gas-fired generation requires less water use than coal. Also, frack water flowback is being recycled and reused, so the actual use per well is not very large in the scheme of things (golf courses tend to use much more water than the gas industry). If the UK drilled 100 wells per year (from perhaps three well pads) that would probably require somewhere on the order of 400 million gallons of water (assuming 20% flowback reuse) which is equal to approximately .005% of the 7.3 trillion gallons the UK uses each year. I don’t think that burden is overly onerous considering the positive impacts of natural gas supply to society.

                I don’t believe that treating of fracked water poses an exceptional hurdle. The scale of operations will not overwhelm capacity to handle this water.

            • I just want to know the facts as do many others. If the facts come from you then people like yourself and Martin can’t blame me for fear mongering and hyperbole. In fact if the industry would stop lying to and deceiving the public about shale gas fracking and came clean about what it all actually meant in terms of the plain unadulterated facts, including the risks – without hype and without fear mongering, I’m think you may reduce the protesting considerably. Your industry has a huge trust issue.

              • I don’t think that the industry is guilty of lying to the public in a systemic fashion. I’m sure that you can find incidences where someone from the industry has lied, but the same can be said for any and every industry under the sun. I think that because of the intense scrutiny, the onshore o&g industry is actually much more honest and forthcoming than many others.

                Regardless, I don’t buy the fact that you should tell lies to counteract the lies of others. I also think it is important to consider the independent scientific opinions of bodies such as the EPA, National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Academy, the RAE, the US Geological Survey, California Council on Science and Technology, Wyoming Dept of Env Quality, and the US Dept of Energy’s National Technology Laboratory to name a few. These bodies aren’t lying. They all have an obligation to serve the publics’ best interest. They have all attested to the fact that fracking can be e undertaken relatively safely. None of them have found the hype and scare stories issued by the anti-frack community to carry any weight.

            • Surprised at your using the Texas golf course comparison fibs. You may not be intending to deceive but the fact that all of the golf course water returns to nature’s water cycles, though seepage or evaporation, and precisely none of the fracking waste or injected water should be allowed anywhere near those systems kind of shoots holes in your argument. Attempts have been made to claim the waste water/brine can be treated safely through sewage treatment or similar systems then dumped at sea – it appears this is being proposed for UK fracking wastewater – but that process has just been banned in PA as not being fit for purpose.
              Texas is also facing severe water shortages as are many other parts of the world.

              To say ‘Water hasn’t been a big issue in the US’ is quite a jaw dropper given that it’s the most frequently raised concern. And look at the earthquake problems in Oklahoma where they’ve been carrying out deep underground injection of drilling waste water from several States. It’s now the man-made earthquake capital of the US.
              …to be continued

              • No, Philip, it doesn’t shoot holes in my argument at all. And you may not be intending to deceive, but your argument about water being removed from the water cycle is inaccurate.

                Waste water can be very effectively treated at industrial treatment sites and returned to the water cycle. Also, when water is injected deep underground, it isn’t removed from a cycle, it just is moved to a longer, geologic cycle, Those h20 molecules don’t permanently leave the earth.

                As you may not realize, the use of fracking in Texas has resulted in a net water savings, because gas generation requires less water than coal generation.

                I will say this again “water has not been a big issue in the US” because fracking is a relatively small user of water compared to other industrial and commercial processes. We use the golf course comparison because fracking uses less water than golf courses as a whole, but it provides far greater utility to society than do golf courses, and its output is considered far more essential to society than golf courses. The comparison is fair – if we’re willing to use that much water to keep golf courses green, we should definitely be willing to use less water to keep our nation in supply of affordable, relatively clean energy.

              • And I’m not sure why you would make a big deal of the .005% annual use of water in exchange for a domestic supply of affordable and relatively clean energy. Doesn’t make much sense to me!

            • So now we’re talking about an industrial wastewater management infrastructure as a necessary part of the run up to full gas production. Will these treatment plants be sited per pad or at some other location? Do tell.

              If drilling and fracking is ramped up quickly (that you seem to suggest is possible) you must be talking about round the clock operations on very highly clustered pad sites. This will take huge amounts of trucking for water, sand, fluids, pipes and waste removal. The several times tens of millions of gallons required would be drawn at a rapid rate from where? Local supplies? It’s misleading to compare that with annual averages of other types of usage.

              • Interestingly low pressure in St Annes last week was blamed by UU on the Lytham festival, which had portaloos and no direct connection to the mains that I could see for anything else.

                I can see all we have lots of low pressure to look forward to over the next 20 years if they start fracking even hundreds not thousands of wells

              • I don’t see why wastewater wouldn’t be dealt with as specified in the planning document. Do you Philip? Perhaps you have some new information to add?

                If drilling and fracking is ramped up quickly, it will be done withing the constraints of planning approvals, correct? Why would there be a need for “highly clustered pad sites”? This makes very little sense to me at all.

                Water sources would be specified in the planning application as well. I’m not sure why you think that several times tens of millions of gallons would need to be drawn at a rapid rate. If a well requires 5 million gallons, and perhaps 30% is sourced from recycled water, that means 3.5 million needs to be sourced.

                In the example earlier, we anticipated 100 wells per year or 350 million gallons needed throughout the year over a somewhat dispersed geography.

                Won’t be a problem at all, but I do understand the need to inject fear into the discussion, Philip.

        • Let’s be clear fibs. If you’re talking pads with 8 mile spacings (which I doubt because 4 mile plus ‘superlaterals’ was a record set only a few months ago) then the number of wells clustered on each pad would have to be very high to get the optimum borehole layout for maximum yields – say in the order of 30-40… of course not all drilled at once but probably 5 or 6 at a time in quick succession (guestimates on my part). So Mike Hill would be right after all – after having been accused of being a clueless scaremongerer!

          Let’s go with laterals in the order of 2.5-3.5 miles. If so then you’re still talking about (probably )over 100 frack stages per well, you tell me. Then your stated ‘average’ of 5 million gallons per well is too low – that’s the volume being quoted for the much shorter boreholes of the current PNR tests.

          350million gallons is in fact several times 10s of millions of gallons but I guess you can even the extraction rate by the use of holding ponds.

          Has the planning document been made available for this site ? Ruth? Paul?

          • Actually, the longest lateral on record is xom’s odoptu-11 which measured 7 miles. Regardless, we can agree that laterals are becoming longer and longer, reducing the above ground footprint for operations as this occurs and increasing efficiencies, including the use of water.

            I believe that Cuadrilla has mentioned figures as high as 60 wells per pad. Of course, those wells could be drilled over a multi-year period.

            The staging of the well will be determined by the engineers, based on the specific geology. I don’t think we have any way of knowing the amount of stages per well on average ahead of time.
            I’m not sure that it matters too much for this discussion, however.

            The 5 million gallons is actually more than double the 8,400 m3 number that Cuadrilla supplied. Most of the industry publications I’ve read state 3-6 million gallons per well, so I used 5 as an estimate.

            The laterals you anticipate may use less or more than 5 million. I haven’t seen specific data to understand that relationship.

            Regardless, the more water used for longer laterals the better – as it promotes efficiency. The company’s are able to access more gas from a single site rather than using less water per site but more water overall if they accessed the same gas from multiple pads.

            350 million gallons is a tiny fraction of water usage in the UK.

            • “The 5 million gallons is actually more than double the 8,400 m3 number that Cuadrilla supplied”

              Keep up Peeny – we’ve done this before – the 8400 m3 was what they used at Preese Hall before they had to stop – you know because of the earth quakes they caused while fracking (or doing the seismic survey as you claimed).

              For PNR they volumes quoted are more than 5,000 gallons. Why don’t you look them up and come back when you have some relevant data to argue with?

              • As soon as you provide a quote where I claimed that the tremors were caused by seismic surveys, my good chappie! [Edited by moderator]

                • Here you go Peeny – you were using your GBH ID at the time of course “It didn’t help that Cuadrilla didn’t conduct their 3D seismic tests correctly back in the day and caused a tiny little rumble equivalent of an HGV going past your house, oooo big deal! Lessons learnt and off we go.”

                  You seem to be claiming that the UK uses 7.3 trillion gallons of water each year. (“which is equal to approximately .005% of the 7.3 trillion gallons the UK uses each year.”). This is equivalent to 33 billion cubic metres. It isn’t easy to find published statistics on total annual UK water consumption but two quotes I found today say

                  “Annually, 18 billion tonnes of water are taken from rivers, reservoirs and underground aquifers.” (that’s 18 billion cubic metres)


                  “Around 6.5 million megalitres (Ml), or 6.5 billion m3, of water was directly abstracted from non-tidal sources in England and Wales in 2006.”

                  Both of these would suggest that your UK total of 7.3 trillion gallons looks rather high. You may of course have a reputable source for that figure – if so can you let us know what it is please before we go further into the comparison you are trying to make?

              • Still no response to the fact that 100 wells would ostensibly use just 0.005% of the UK’s annual water consumption? Cat got your tongue?

            • Will you really be trucking water equally from all parts of the UK fibs? … to make your reference to the whole of UK’s water usage a fair argument. I don’t think so. The burden will fall on particular catchments no doubt.

    • From fracking though piping, storage, more piping and use, leakage in Calif. alone has wiped out all GHG benefits of all Calif wind/solar installs ever made.

      And, since wind/solar depend on gas backup here, even more emissions must be included in wind/solar truth telling. Wind/solar solve nothing, but add to pollution and environmental impacts.

      Dr. A. Cannara
      650 400 3071

  2. Do any anti frackers have diesel cars adding to the pollution levels?
    I have an electric more cleaner car .

    • Yes John I do – I bought it because the government told me it was cleaner. I will definitely move to a non-diesel car when it’s time to change. Congratulations on your choice.

  3. Welcome back PhilipP-made up with your fellow antis, or just tolerating their misrepresentation? Editing their comments, is still my advice.

    Just (perhaps) you should check who are investing in UK on shore gas/oil (including fracking) at the moment. I know it will not fit your false suggestion that it is ignorant PIs who are mugs to be fleeced, but that’s life. Neither will it fit the scenario that there is shortage of funding for such exploration, but that’s life too.

    With two thirds to be convinced, you will have to do better-they are the ones who are not gullible, and unlike refracktion, will look beyond Nimbyism..

    • Oh you mean at the environmental, climate change, national political and geopolitical issues Martin. Don’t worry I look at those too poppet. You are very grouchy today – things not going well? Bless!

  4. I see the same old faces are still banging the fracking drum with the same tired attacks on anyone who opposes them. They haven’t anything positive to say about fracking so revert to personal invective. They were at first insulting, then highly amusing and are now just a tired, trite, boring irrelevance. You wouldn’t recognise the truth if it marched up Honesty Avenue in battalion strength, preceded by a massed band playing ‘True’, wearing fluorescent dayglo Orange uniforms with “We Are The Truth” written on them.

  5. I’m still waiting to see a reaction from Cuadrilla, Ineos or the backing fracking crowd. Are they trying to pretend this hasn’t happened? Did Ruth ask them for a reaction?

  6. Oh dear refracktion-investments not working out? Backed the wrong horse?-now there’s a clue.

    Not grouchy at all, quite chipper old chap. Seems the truth is difficult for some to take, especially when they have to admit they have been fooled by misinformation (hardly a good reference to provide for the undecided!) No wonder you are so concerned about Ponzi schemes.

    My poor old ancient PETROL vehicle (V reg.) about to be sent off to the great scrap yard (how’s that for maximising use of a resource) and the Outlander PHEV to replace it on a short term lease, as I suspect improvements will be available within the normal 4 year lease period. Maybe Jim will have a hybrid/gas vehicle available? I really need to get it all tied up as I understand there is a whole group out there looking to replace their cars. Shocking what these PIs get up to.

    You really should listen to that Mr. Hill-DYOR. But, having done so, best not to re-define the results, otherwise no better than believing the government-and that one had left a few clues, like not regulating the banks properly. not regulating immigration at all, calling elderly ladies who disagreed with them bigots, “rewarding” OAPs with a few pence extra per week, weapons of mass destruction etc. etc.

    Must go, the dog has found his way to my “den” and is desperate for his football practice. Can’t ignore him as he is currently moulting and I will be doing overtime with Mr. Dyson if I did.

    • Martin – that must be the most irrelevant content-free rambling post of the week – you win the award. Well done!

  7. Nice to see you are the judge and jury refracktion! Improvement over the teacher or the economist.

    Content free? Well, If you really think Ineos would want to react to this survey, there definitely is some content missing. They will know exactly what this means to them, because they will have it analysed by professionals, who might just say, “well, of course, we would expect totally different responses if the national survey audience had been furnished with details of what financial benefits could accrue. And, we would also point out there are plenty of local developments that swing the local populations opinion when they realise what benefits could accrue locally.” I have commissioned quite a few similar surveys so I will not bore you with further content.

    If you want to ignore what has happened across this, and other countries, with such projects, feel free and concentrate on washing of wheels, and leave it to the likes of Ineos to deal with the economics and what influences opinion, nationally and locally. I think you will find they already have that calculated.

    • Well it IS my award Martin – be fair!

      Are you seriously suggesting that INEOS haven’t had the opportunity to furnish the UK public with “details of what financial benefits could accrue”? Come on! They’ve tried little else for years but recently they seem to have put the carrot away and started to try to beat people with sticks which is never a great way to get them to support what you are doing (unless you live in North Korea of course). Maybe they got a sneak preview of the results and thought they had nothing left to lose by attacking people instead of sweet talking them?

      I don’t think even INEOS can spin their way out of this brewing PR disaster but it will be fun watching them try.

  8. RePower Balcombe, a local co-operative set up after the demonstrations by people who wanted to do something positive, has so far installed four solar energy arrays; 3 on local schools and one on the outbuildings of a nearby farm. The aim of this was to generate as much electricity as the whole of Balcombe used. In one school they have installed battery storage which is working above expectations, further reducing the energy the school takes from the grid. They were well on the way to delivering a solar farm nearby but had to back-out when the government changed the rules which disadvantaged cooperatives. (One wonders why!) The whole project was saved by being bought out by a non-cooperative business; glad it was saved but sad that RePower lost the project. However, funds from the purchasers paid for the batteries and have also paid for LED lighting in some schools (ongoing project), and will be used for other similar local projects. And they will receive annual payments for so many years (can’t recall) as well. The cooperative is also actively pursuing further projects. Balcombe is within an Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty and much of the village is within a Conservation Area. The exploration site was within about 50 metres of the London to Brighton mainline railway and is surrounded by farmland.There really is another way other than ripping up the countryside. Investment in Renewable energy alongside aggressive energy use reduction are the way forward. New solar arrays appear quite regularly on Balcombe rooftops and electric car ownership is increasing. I personally wouldn’t mind a wind turbine nearby; at least they’re unlikely to pollute the air, the water and the ground or need massive industrial plants working hour after hour, day after day, year after year and disrupting all local life.
    Yes, got a diesel because I was ‘sold’ the low pollution impact spin, but about to change that early in 2018.
    And we’re not just NIMBY’s; all anti fracking/shale/unconventional groups support each other; we’re Not In Anyone’s Back Yard ‘ies.

  9. Ineos have not been able to give actual costings to locals simply because they have not fracked one well in UK. If you knew anything about the subject of oil and gas you do need to find what can be extracted, either locally, or over a wider area and what it will cost to do so. There are plenty of references on here to other projects eg. UKOG, where it is pretty basic that flow tests will determine economics-the clue is, that comes after drilling! Is that so difficult to understand? Not for two thirds of people I suspect.
    In terms of PR, Ineos will have all the arrest statistics from PNR, the inconvenience to locals and the interference with local business. You will find they are perfectly capable of promoting the action they have taken as beneficial to most of the local population, protecting their rights as well as the rights of Ineos and their contractors. Recent events have made that easy. You will have a different view obviously, but it is not your view Ineos will be wanting to address.

    I know oil/gas confuses a lot of people, but how about supermarkets-should be a bit more familiar?

    My local small town was approached to have a supermarket development added. Local opposition, fanned by the shop keepers, against it and that was the predominant view, because the majority had no opinion either way. Ah, but then it emerged that the supermarket would include, at their expense, a new doctors surgery complex together with good access and car-parking. Until then, the town car-parks were difficult because they were full of patient’s cars, who were attending the existing cramped surgery. “Strangely” this changed public opinion, not only amongst the local shoppers/patients but also many of the high street shop keepers who would expect shoppers to be able to park easier. Planning was accepted quickly after that.

    I could have also used a large industrial project which showed the same lesson, but that seems to set people off down strange routes.

    Lot’s of content there. Some explained, some not, as I expect most can understand without.

    • “In terms of PR, Ineos will have all the arrest statistics from PNR, the inconvenience to locals and the interference with local business. You will find they are perfectly capable of promoting the action they have taken as beneficial to most of the local population, protecting their rights as well as the rights of Ineos and their contractors. ”

      Well good luck with that then – I think people can see the truth about a union bashing, VAT avoiding, UK fleeing, freedom squashing company when they see one 🙂

      • It is interesting to see that the industry always try to say it is the protesters that are the problem, totally ignoring the fact that it is oil and gas industrialisation of communities that is the problem, not protest, as is so often pointed out.

        We note that all the action from the industry and government co- opting the police, are all against protest. Not protecting the population from industrialising private corporations.

        Who is protecting the people? Where are our protections?

        Where are our protections from government sponsored oil and gas exploiters?
        Councils object and refuse planning permission?
        What does the government do? Protect the councils and the people?
        No they overturn it in central government where they, up to now, held sway.

        What happens when people get frustrated with the refusal of representation and do something about it?
        The police are co- opted to violate their charter and harass and commit acts of violence against the protesters, and then break the law themselves, where is the outrage about that?
        What happens when the oil and gas industrial invaders break their planning conditions? Nothing!

        Who monitors the corporations?
        Who is on site to monitor that these “gold standard” regulations, that have yet to show themselves, are being adhered to?

        Who protects the rights of the local people against the potentially out of control self regulated oil and gas industry?

        As far as present practice is concerned, there are no regulations of any description that have any teeth to regulate anything?
        The few small controls that do have any relevance to the industries activities are contravened every day, apparently with impunity, both from councils and government and regulatory bodies.
        What happens when people get so frustrated they lose their control and break a few minor common laws?

        The invading industrialising private corporation takes out an injunction to stifle legal protest!

        These pro frackers, these anti anti’s, have said they support fracking “if it is sufficiently regulated”

        Well it isn’t!

        Therefore they cannot support fracking!

        It is as simple as that.

        No regulations, no fracking.

        Why are these people not screaming from the rooftops for hard and fast publically accountability of the industry, because without that, they have stated very clearly, they cannot support fracking!

        Therefore, by extrapolation,
        No one can support fracking!

  10. Well refracktion, some people even (wrongly) believe vested interest regarding energy sources, then cause unnecessary pollution , and then promote themselves as “experts” on the avoidance of the same to the rest of the population. Track records are an important reference, indeed, but I have confidence that the majority have pretty good abilities at identifying the real ones, rather than the fake ones, by themselves making sure their sources are believable and their research is accurate.
    Really need to do better-if this guff was that believable there would not be two thirds of the population who were not against fracking.

    My surveys these days are done when I meet other dog walkers. They have been right on every recent issue that has been discussed in any detail, and their assessment on fracking for gas is, “if it can be shown in this country that it can be done safely and might reduce/control my gas bill, then bring it on.” None would go along with not testing that out in a controlled way to get real results, because simply, they do not trust politicians, antis, or any vested interest to supply them with their views and be expected to follow like sheep. Yet, you obviously feel that is still the route to pursue, and the other two thirds will be convinced through your efforts to prevent that-good luck.

    • Oh Martin – if this guff was that believable there would not be five sixths of the population who were not pro fracking. Do us a favour and try to stay sensible!

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s