Opposition

Fracking risks undermining UK climate commitments, leading environmental groups tell minister

171014 KM KMPC.jpg

Third Energy’s fracking site in North Yorkshire, 14 October 2017. Photo: Kirby Misperton Protection Camp

As Third Energy prepares to frack the first UK onshore well since 2011, nine environmental organisations have told the government they have “growing concerns” about the process.

The groups, including Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Campaign for National Parks, Wildfowl and Wetland Trust and WWF, wrote to the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, saying fracking threatened UK commitments to tackle climate change.

Mr Clark is expected to give the final go-ahead imminently for fracking at Third Energy’s well at Kirby Misperton in North Yorkshire.

Greg Clark letter signatories 171019

The groups said in their letter released today:

“Climate change is the most urgent and complex threat to the British countryside today.

“With the majority of known fossil fuels needing to be kept in the ground, hydraulic fracturing in England risks undermining further deployment of renewables and energy-efficiency measures, jeopardises progress towards carbon reduction, and undermines our international leadership on climate change.”

The letter said fracking was “not currently credible” in the context of the Paris climate change agreement or the UK’s own emissions reduction targets.

It added that the government’s advisor, the Committee on Climate Change, had said shale gas was incompatible with UK carbon reduction targets unless three tests were met.

The UK government has said these test were already being met. But the groups asked Mr Clark:

“How are plans for hydraulic fracturing consistent with ensuring that we do not extract more gas globally than we can safely burn?”

Elisabeth Whitebread, energy campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said:

“It would be deeply disappointing if UK government gave the green light to new fossil fuel projects, just before the UN Climate Change Conference invites international action to protect the climate. We already have more gas than we can afford to burn if we are to meet our climate targets.”

Steve Mason, from Frack Free United, founded in Ryedale, the area surrounding Third Energy’s fracking site, said:

“Giving the final sign-off for fracking to start is a crucial decision for the Secretary of State and we urge him to consider it very carefully before he puts pen to paper. It is a decision that will affect communities across the country and future generations to come.”

“Deeply unpopular”

The groups also said in their letter there were concerns about the local impacts of shale gas extraction.

A report commissioned by the Department of Environment concluded that the process could lead to increased air pollution, from vented gas and increased road traffic. The government, when forced to publish an unredacted version of the report, said it was an internal draft. But the groups said in the letter the risk of reduced air quality would only add to a problem of illegal pollution in the UK which resulted in 40,000 premature deaths a year.

They said shale gas was also deeply unpopular. The latest government survey of public attitudes to fracking found that only 16% of participants supported the process.

 

They asked Mr Clark:

“What strategies are in place to ensure that local environmental impacts are kept to an acceptable level, and that residents’ concerns are addressed?”

“Risks outweigh benefits”

Earlier this month, a government report concluded that shale gas was not necessary for UK energy security, while the Clean Growth Strategy did not mention the process. DrillOrDrop report

The letter said:

“Aside from the climate, pollution, biodiversity, and local community concerns, recent geological evidence suggests there is not enough likely yield to justify the risks, and that extracting shale gas could be much more expensive than previously thought.”

Following this week’s vote in Scotland to ban fracking, Steve Mason said:

“Frack Free United believes that the government should halt all fracking activities and rethink its outdated energy policy.

“The development of a new extreme fossil fuel industry across England would have negative and far-reaching consequences for local communities, the environment, public health, climate change and our future energy strategy.

“With fracking to be banned in Scotland, the Westminster government is now isolated in backing this unpopular industry. Their own recently published energy plans made no reference to fracking, and showed that fracked gas is not necessary for energy security. The government should stop forging ahead with fracking and focus their efforts on clean, cheap and popular offshore wind and tidal power instead.”

  • The letter was signed by senior figures in: 10:10 Climate Action, Angling Trust, Campaign for National Parks, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Frack Free United, Greenpeace, Salmon and Trout conservation, Wildfowl and Wetland Trust and WWF.

Letter to Greg Clark

 

80 replies »

  1. Martin.
    Have many lovely family stories of ‘that time’ in the 70s where families pulled together, saw their parents for a change and connected over card games by candlelight; not the grim picture you sadly portray.

  2. It’s more than a little ironic that, according to the UN rules for accounting for Carbon emissions, the Country which actually produces the Oil and Gas is supposed to account for the Carbon released during it’s use.

    So to lower our carbon emissions, we should be importing as much of our Oil and Gas as possible…

    Bear in mind that for LNG shipments, around 10% of the cargo is lost during transport. This is due to mainly to it being used to power the LNG tankers refrigeration and vapour recovery units.

    Also, just thought I’d drop this in here – the data is taken from Private Eye. Food for thought..

    Despite the constant talk about Solar and Wind power, it’s actually biomass that accounts for 64% of renewable energy production in the EU. Nearly all of this is from wood chip pellets burnt in ex-coal fired power stations.

    How on earth this was generating less carbon?

    The simple answer is, it’s not, yet the EU have been encouraging it’s use by giving Billions in subsidies to convert old coal stations over to wood pellets. For example, in Yorkshire, the Drax power station converted one of it’s power generation units to burn bio-mass at a cost of £750 Million – in return for which they will get a subsidy of £500 Million from the EU & UK Govts.

    BTW, that’s £500 Million per year, so a pretty good rate of return for the Drax Company…

    So why?

    Well, according to UN Climate guidelines, the huge amounts of carbon generated by burning wood (even more than coal on a like-for-like basis) are supposed to be accounted for when the wood is harvested, not when it’s burnt.

    So, for example, as far as carbon accounting goes, all the wood burnt in any converted power station in the EU produces no carbon whatsoever – therefore allowing the EU to claim they are making massive reductions in carbon emissions when in reality, they aren’t.

    But the carbon produced by burning is accounted for when the wood is harvested (by clear cutting forests), right?

    Nope. Nearly all the wood used for biomass comes from the USA, Russia and China. They do not follow the UN Climate guidelines and as far as they are concerned, all carbon is accounted for when the wood is burnt.

    So hundreds of thousands of tons of wood have been cut down, processed, transported (BTW, everybody ignores the carbon produced during processing and transportation) and burnt, theoretically all without producing any carbon whatsoever.

    Even worse, according to UN Climate Guidelines the wood is supposed to be sustainably harvested, but there is substantial evidence that all three Countries mentioned above are not replanting clear cut forests (unsurprising given their track records on the environment).

    Incidentally, despite making lots of noise about global warming and their green credentials, the EU still gives £5.3 Billion in annual subsidies to the coal industry – the most polluting industry of all.

    And yes, there is no such thing as ‘clean coal’.

    • ‘So to lower our carbon emissions, we should be importing as much of our Oil and Gas as possible…’
      Or get on with the move to wind, solar and tidal….political will, influence by the O& G investors, fear of assets becoming worthless all currently bridges to cross, but crossed they will be.

      • Sherwulf
        Both probably. Crack on with low cost renewables and produce our own gas and oil, plus any coal we need from opencast. Win win, not win lose?
        The Stone Age did not end due to lack of stone, and our reliance on coal evaporated when disruptive technology turned up ( oil, gas, renewables and greased by electricity I guess )

        • hewes62; to keep repeating:
          ‘produce our own gas and oil’ – we already do.

          Shale is not needed, nor wanted. So far, it has just caused misery to many (residents and misinformed investors).

          The Fossil Fuel Age is over; though it has not ended due to lack of fossil fuel 🙂

          • Sherwulf
            Oops … produce as much of our own oil and gas as possible during the transition to the low carbon economy.

          • Hi Sherwulfe,

            Yes we do produce our own O&G, but not enough to meet our needs.

            Gas production in particular is falling off a cliff and no amount of investment in the UKCS will prevent us from importing over 75% of our gas requirements within 10 years (you think our power bills are expensive now….).

            The O&G majors are not stupid, have seen the writing on the wall for a long time (well, except maybe for ExxonMobil…) and have been investing in renewables for years (BP first invested in solar in 1981).

            We have also seen the Saudi’s beginning to rebalance their economy away from O&G – although it will take them many years yet.

            The looting and pillaging of BP by the US Legal system after the Deepwater Horizon spill forced them to divest their wind and solar divisions at the time (they needed the cash to survive) but they have got back in since then.

            In the meantime, the likes of BP, Shell and Total are also steadily re-balancing their O&G portfolios more towards gas than oil.

            Forecasts of oil consumption are generally regarded as being accurate out to about 10 years, and I have yet to see any forecast that shows a drop in consumption until 2025 at the earliest – most that go out to 2030 show oil consumption continuing to increase during that period.

            While hybrid cars and solar / wind are providing somewhat of an answer in the developed world, they are not in the third world, where billions of people still aspire to Western standards of living (was it you I had the discussion with about use of Hydrogen fuel cells?).

            There is still no viable alternative on the horizon to diesel power for cargo carrying ships or the long distance trucks needed to get goods to much of the world.

            While the great majority of the World does see the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, until His Orangeness and 52 old white guys get their collective heads out of the sand and admit that Climate Change is real and is here, concerted action will continue to be a problem.

            The Fossil Fuel Age is not quite over.

            The Fat Lady is waiting in the wings, but she hasn’t started clearing her throat yet.

            • Thanks Injuneer. I get what you are saying, but your response is correct only if things do not change.

              How fast has clean energy production developed over the last five years? Much faster than envisaged. Investment and mindset change is what we need.

              If the Queen of Fracks would get her proverbial head out of her proverbial *&^ then we could invest further and more quickly. The technology is there; the political and business will is not.

              The Fossil Fuel Age is indeed over in the context of the post I responded to. But indeed, it could have been curbed sooner. The effect of climate change from fossil fuel emissions was known decades ago. A family member told me in the 80’s whilst doing a an OU course he learned that at that time, if we stopped burning fossil fuels it would still take 100 years before the reverse effects even started to be felt. That’s over 30 years ago; instead we have, and still keep burning this stuff. A better decision and acceptance of the facts would have meant we would be 30 years nearer a positive outcome instead of 30 years and more further away.

              So in this we will agree to disagree.

              Regarding ‘The looting and pillaging of BP by the US Legal system after the Deepwater Horizon spill forced them to divest their wind and solar divisions at the time (they needed the cash to survive) but they have got back in since then.’ I have to say I don’t see this as looting.

              The decisions that resulted in the disaster were and are still played by the O&G industry. Shale extraction in the US is showing us that nothing has changed. The same bloody mindedness exists. No money can replace the lives lost and the damage to the environment, but sadly that’s the trade off in our society. Better for it not to have happened in the first place; just like Shale Gas extraction in the UK.

      • Hi Philip,

        The only stat I didn’t get from Private Eye was the boil-off rate for LNG. I saw that on a documentary on LNG tankers on the Quest TV channel a couple of weeks ago.

        The entry in Wikipedia goes into quite a lot of detail about the process of loading, transporting and unloading an LNG tanker and appears to bear out the +/- 10% cargo loss.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_carrier

    • Injuneer,

      Nice comment. I appreciate the thought that went into it.

      One item to consider is that energy loss through piped gas can be as much as 10% also. This doesn’t just apply to LNG. Of course it is dependent upon distance the gas is piped. This doesn’t even account for fugitive methane emissions (which may result in a loss of as much as 50% of natural gas when relying on old infrastructure such as that which much of the EU relies from Russia). It only accounts for the fuel needed to compress and recompress gas as it travels 100s of kilometers. Obviously, those who argue for continued and increased reliance on foreign gas cannot make any environmental claims if they are arguing against fracking!

      And as for wood pellets, they are atrocious. Over the short term, they are said to be more than 20% worse than coal. Some advocates like to offer up that over 100 years, wood can be seen as carbon neutral, but this is not true. The “neutral” hypothesis relies on the fact that when trees die they release their carbon as they decompose. Thus if you cut a tree down, you just speed up the cycle of carbon release and then the recapture of carbon as another tree takes the first one’s place. The big problem in that logic is that trees don’t give up all of their carbon when they decompose. Much of it is captured in the earth. In fact, that’s part of the way that kerogens are created – which later yield oil and gas. So, burning wood pellets is not carbon neutral, it is carbon additive, even over the long term. And it is much worse than coal.

      The only silver lining is that if we destroy all of the forests, we will create room for the massive windfarms that will be needed to destroy our power grids, create massive demand for rare earth mining, and cause energy prices to go through the roof!

      [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

    • I think that mans justification of insane practices of all types never ceases to amaze me. I wonder if we will ever transcend the present madness of centralised incestuous gratification of immediate monetary imperatives. These obvious frauds of jealously guarded and obfuscated complexities and downright lies of the major energy producers of whatever colour or persuasion or denomination are now becoming common knowledge. I will not protest about one level of insanity just to accept another that is equal or worse. I reject and protest about all insanity, top to bottom, every which way, no matter where it comes from or pretends to appear green, black red, blue or pink, it’s all mad and I don’t accept them as a way to continue to the future.

      Carbon taxes and international Co2 quotas were never more than just another financial con to make money out of nothing. Just like the federal reserve and the bank of England, making money out of thin air.
      “Money for nothing, cheques for free” so to speak.
      We will never manage this planet if we hold on to insane practices, I see as much corporate manipulation in the organised centralised green movement as I do with the supposed black or fossil fuel stranglehold.
      I think we should all fight together for the truth of all of it and seek transparency at all levels. Just fighting one whilst simultaneously accepting the insane proclivities of the other is no more rational.
      So I say let’s drag out the truth from all levels of government, industry and corporate industry and the financial insanity that pervades all of that and us.
      Then perhaps we can build a future on this planet with some sort of logical sane and rational base for everyone, not just for a few psychopaths who just want to see the world burn, rather than give up their power over all of us.
      Perhaps then, and only then, can we do something about repairing and reinstating this damaged planet back to the state in which the human race found it?

  3. Sherwulfe-yep, it was lovely in the work house. As much gruel as you wanted as long as Oliver was not in front of you in the queue. Rickets was really helpful when riding a horse, and all those smutty chimneys were a job creation scheme for the thin kids. Utopia!

  4. I should save your time with the facts, Injuneer. Fallow ground. Or, of course, there could be an audience of wind turbine salesmen, lobbying for their industry?

    I note Drax are a bit miffed that the Government is not stepping up to the trough for conversion of the other units. A small sign that sanity has not evaporated altogether.

  5. “Democrats and the media have been on a yearlong deep dig into Russian involvement into U.S. elections. But when you dig a hole you sometimes run across things you wish had remained buried — like the dirt pointing to Russian ties to the U.S. environmental movement.

    Democrats hoped their digging would expose some kind of Russian connection to President Donald Trump. That hasn’t happened.

    But as the investigations have progressed, there is a growing realization that Russians were trying to influence the political process and policy debates, including environmentalists’ efforts to limit or stop hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, an innovative crude oil and natural gas drilling process.”

    Much more at: http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/357344-democrats-dig-for-russian-connection-and-uncover-environmentalists#.WfMoHVORfxM.twitter

    • Refricktion …….

      YES , the Russians are infultrating all aspects of western society. Look how they are shaping the lives of UK and US citizens.

      It was said that a 140 year woman living in the Outer Hebrides whose Cat got stuck up a tree, swears blind she saw Vladimir Putin dressed as a chamber maid deliberately put it there during the middle of the night.

      I’m also certain that Putin had a direct hand in me braking my finger nail this morning ….

      BRING ON the Russian blame game , we could do with some light entertainment and laughter on here.

  6. https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/489a347972738e3998c495121f26176c63771d71/0_29_1415_849/master/1415.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=27a2cb2b5efa900a90a59b36f3a3098c

    Concerning events today announced in the regional parliament of Catalonia by Carles Puigdemont today which was 83 years to the month of a similar declaration of independence, where the leader was imprisoned and Catalonia occupied.

    The possibility of Spain imposing the central rule of the Catalan breakaway attempt by force is concerning and after the incredibly violent and armed attempts to crush the referendum earlier in the month does no bode well for the peace of the area.

    The independence speech was interesting in that it stated that Spain wanted to impose “harm” and one of those intended harms amongst the list, was fracking?

    That in itself is remarkable don’t you think? the sticking point seemed to be the total blanking and aggressive attitude of the Spanish government to even discuss the proposals and then the violent invasion of the Spanish police to break up the referendum. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from that, by which i mean talk seriously before it gets this far, jaw jaw, not war war, though i suspect certain parties here will see it rather differently?

    Teresa May states that she and her government will not recognise an independent Catalonia, Macron of France has also said the France will not recognise an Independent Catalonia.

    I am sure we all wish whole heartedly for this situation to be settled peacefully one way or the other, but perhaps from previous experience from the Spanish police, who looked and acted more like military stormtroopers, it does not look good?

    • Phil C
      A comment inspired by your thoughts, not disagreeing with them.
      Thank goodness we live in the UK. If Scotland had voted to leave, goodbye with regret but let’s crack on and stay friends.
      Maybe in the EU you can check out any time you like, but never leave.
      No o e will rush to recognise Catalonia at present, but my brother ( an economist who is there ) says they would be happy to sign a trade deal should they become independent.

      • “Welcome to the Hotel Catalonia? you can brexit any time you want, but you can never leave?”
        Sounds familiar?

        It seems Spain central power base are acting all protectionist EU over this? All power grab threats and demands and control freak inertia and no rational and peaceful and logical negotiation?
        What they could have gained by being rational is a united shared Spain, what they now have is a potential civil war? How is that better for anyone?

        Strange days indeed?

        [Typo edited at poster’s request]

    • “The independence speech was interesting in that it stated that Spain wanted to impose “harm” and one of those intended harms amongst the list, was fracking?” Well scoundrels always find a refuge in nationalism and populism and like the Welsh & Scotsnationals use fracking as a soft target to leverage public support.

      That aside the Spain’s PM has not handled things well. He should have let them have a referendum like we let the Scots. Now Spain faces anarchy and chaos, and nationalist sectarian elements all over Europe are watching with glee. I heard a news report today that the Welsh nationalists support Catalan independence. This is a dangerous situation and I not confident that Spain’s government can handle it well. Mr Putin must be delighted!

    • Hi Phil C,

      I had lunch with a Spanish friend yesterday, and there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

      For example, the Catalonian Govt does not allow anyone who cannot speak Catalonian to work in any civil service position. This also includes Doctors and teachers.

      All school lessons must be conducted in Catalonian, not Spanish. For years, schools have taught that Spain is ‘The State’ and is an ‘enemy of the people’ – essentially indoctrinating the younger generation (look at the age distribution of the pro-Catalan demonstrators on TV).

      The same goes for the State TV station, which in Catalonia is run by the Catalonians themselves.

      The way the referendum was held was not as we would know it, with registered voter lists and designated poll booths open all day.

      Instead, there were no designated poll stations or voter lists, and anyone could vote (as many times as they wanted…). When a poll station was closed down by the Police, it moved somewhere else and voters were told on social media where to go.

      The Spanish authorities handled the whole thing very badly and yes, the violence by the Police was deplorable (although even the BBC has subsequently clarified that much of it was ‘fake news’.).

      In the meantime, she felt that the vote in November would see a return to sanity, as it will be held in what we would consider to be a ‘proper’ manner with the majority voting for pro-union parties.

      Oh, if you are wondering why the Welsh Nationalists are supporting Catalonia?

      Welsh speakers given preference in Govt jobs – check.

      Welsh school lessons now compulsory – check.

      Welsh run TV station – check.

      • Injuneer; I think we’ve been here before when the Romans invaded Britain; the British invaded the commonwealth and the ‘new’ Americans ousted the First peoples…..all insisted that they speak the ‘new’ language or else….

        Sadly invaders put their language as ‘first’ and those invaded then speak a minority language. So if the ‘ruling’ culture insists on its occupants speaking it’s language, why so strange that the Welsh insist on Welsh and Catalonians on Catalonian?

      • Hi injuneer, sorry missed your post earlier.
        Yes i have some Spanish friends and some relatives that live there, also one couple in the Basque area who are also not happy with the central Spanish hegemonic control freakery.
        Much of what they say is that the whole issue is unneccessary as all though there are differences of opinion most people just want to live in a peaceful country and issues of independance are no problem, since there are no “hard borders” and everyone is free to move wherever they want without problem?

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11483608/The-secret-history-of-Britain-is-written-in-our-genes.html

        I agree with Sherwulfe about the language situation, English is not the original language in England either, there were many tribes, Scotts, Picts, Gaels, Anglo Saxons, Celts and Brythonic, probably from Bretonac, originally Wales and the west coast and certainly related to Britany in southern France, and probably explains origins of the “Britain” name, going back in history the Britons were probably from the far east and of course Africa via the doggerland bridge.

        Then of course Danes, Norsemen, Normans (same thing but the long way round up from conquered Francs) Armorica may even be the origin of the name for the western continent now called America, which has to do with the sea goddess “Meri” ( that became “Mary”) from which we get Mer in french for water and the Mermen legends of seagoing races after the great flood.

        https://episteme.revues.org/205

        Then Italians of course, and Dutch, Germans (our “Royal” Family). You name it we have been conquered or assimilated by it.

        So you see no language is fixed for long, but do we complain if the Celts and The Gaels insist of dual language road signs and teach Welsh, Scottish and irish in their remaining locations?

        No, of course not.

        What concerns me is that the central Spanish government seem to have forgotten that Catalonia and all the other regions are a loose generalitat of Spain and have a difficult if not disastrous history with Spain and were always strongly independent even when they were invaded and stolen by Franco.

        Spain should have realised that and allowed Catalonia, and other regions to have some further autonomy in a Spanish community government. It could have been a gentle transference and agreeable transition, and now we have potential civil war, what are the Spanish government thinking?

        But sadly of course its all jealously guarded rice bowls and hegemonic imperative power bases, dodgy financial deals behind locked doors and plain old corruption.

        Now that does sound familiar doesn’t it?

  7. Injuneer, let me explain via a simplified version of the carbon cycle. Coal and Oil is carbon that has been buried underground for geographic time periods. It is for all intense and purposes out of the carbon cycle. That is until we dig it up and release it into the atmosphere thereby increasing the amount of carbon in the cycle. Trees however use the carbon available to them from the air. When trees are burnt, this carbon goes back into the air. Can you spot the difference now? This is why coal and gas = bad for GHG emissions and why the EU accounts for Biomass differently to coal and gas.

    • Cross Party
      I think the term ‘fossil fuel’ is well understood.
      As I understand it, Injuneer was addressing the double counting of CO2. Once buy Russia when cutting down the trees, and then by the EU when burning them.
      Good to see the Large Russian Coal producers feel that Russia is carbon neutral. Produce coal, burn or export it, grow trees, CO2 in balance …. no need to cut back coal production or burning it. ( see DESMOG )
      Maybe they are also dissing frack gas as worse than coal, as, well …..they like coal.
      Not that the UK. An go back to coal, but there is plenty out there. Germany loves it.
      But maybe a step too far for a Friday

    • It’s not so simple as that. There are lots of associated emissiosn with forestry – not only in growing the trees, but also the wood processing and then the transportation, and the bound water in wood that has to be burnt off before useful heat is generated. I advised government years ago that biomas co-firing shouild only use waste biomas and only derived from a 50Km radius. I was ignored.

    • Hi CPFF,

      It’s not as simple as that, as partially gone into by some of the other respondents.

      It’s also only valid if 100% of the trees harvested are replaced (which isn’t happening) plus additional trees are planted to take into account the CO2 emitted during transportation and processing (also not happening) and even then, there is a considerable time lag while new growth trees take anything from 20 – 40 years to take in the CO2 released by burning those that are replaced.

      The reality is that because of these false accounting practices, we are not being anywhere near as good as we think we are at sustainably replacing fossil fuel as a source of energy.

      Indeed, we may be in danger of lulling ourselves into a false sense of achievement when in reality much more needs to be done.

  8. Interesting that all of those implicitly supporting unconventional gas exploitation for the UK keep pointing to emissions and other evils connected to reliance on existing supply lines and never mention that those problems (apart from the LNG issues), and more, would arise from building up the onshore industry here. The roll out would have to be aggressive and invasive, unlike anything seen so far, to get anywhere near even a small proportion of energy independence (for UK gas). Do you honestly think that that our wells are all going to be sweet spots of clean, dry, uncontaminated gas? Do you imagine that there is a switch somewhere that is just going to turn on this wonderful local gas supply and avoid the pollution and groundwater contamination risks, the health and environmental impacts and the massive amount of haulage, road damage and traffic disruption? Do you believe the English are going to cheer at the site of their landscape being progressively pock-marked and industrialised with the hundreds and eventually thousands of wells (because that’s what it would take) marching virus-like across the countryside? Reality check please.

  9. As usual the protesters dont know the true full facts. In Texas the Barnett shale has many wells in the acreage with 1/2 m $ homes right on top of it, My sons house being one of them on his acre lot. For good water supply they also have a water well located on there front lawn. I will post pics to prove how so wrong your protesters are. Oh. Last thing, the first load of LNG from shale gas was delivered recently to the UK, All this is actual fact, i will re post pics again on twitter @doublemracing Fact is Fact

Leave a Reply to jackthelad Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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