Politics

Sunak joins Truss in backing fracking – with local support

The UK’s next prime minister will be pro-fracking but only if local people want it.

Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss in the Sun/TalkTV debate. Photo: Sun/TalkTV

Liz Truss had already suggested the current moratorium on fracking in England should be lifted and decisions left to local people.

Last night, her challenger, Rishi Sunak, said he also backed fracking with local support.

In the TalkTV/Sun leadership debate they were both asked: “fracking yes or no?”.

Both replied:

“Yes if local communities support it.”

They were not asked how local opinions would be measured.

The shale gas industry wants decisions to be taken out of local control and made by planning inspectors or ministers, rather than councillors.

The government is currently considering a review by the British Geological Survey (BGS)on scientific developments in fracking.

The review was commissioned by Kwasi Kwarteng, a Liz Truss supporter, after pressure to lift the moratorium in England.

This was imposed in November 2019 after ministers said it was not possible to predict accurately whether fracking would cause earthquakes and how big they would be.

Fracking by Cuadrilla near Blackpool in Lancashire had caused a series of small earthquakes, some of which were felt across the area.

Earlier this week, the energy minister, Greg Hands, said the government would publish the BGS review and decide on the next steps “in due course”.

The new Conservative leader and prime minister will be known by 5 September 2022, when the UK parliament returns after the summer recess.

26 replies »

  1. Decisions could go to local councils who will be promised lots of money, by oil and and gas companies, for community projects. How else could they measure community support?

  2. Speaking independently, Sinak and Truss have obviously independently decided that, in spite of all the Russian financed propaganda, fracking is the way forward to balance the independent energy needs of the U.K. with a commitment to low carbon and low pollution. Thank heavens for that. Take care.

  3. Unable or unwilling to take a planet-based ethical stand on fracking, (- too risky with the electorate’s priorities determined by the content of the debates so far,) both candidates bow to populism – (“with people’s support”) -and ignorance and are now prepared to dice with the planet’s future to favour their own candidacy for a now thoroughly discredited political position. Apart from the light cast upon candidates’ approach to ethical considerations, (we are not at all surprised however by this illumination given their history of support for The Lie), this dicing with our future as humanity comes too late. The die is cast: the fire is lit: the planet is burning, and….unforgivably, the candidates and supporters of fracking know it.

    • Ahh, some people have to have their decisions made for them? And then? There is war in the Ukraine. Not a good idea.

      Sorry, I prefer the people’s support to the activist attempt to speak on behalf of the people. There are fortunately more sensible people in the UK than useful idiots, as referred to by a previous Russian (maybe). And, in the Ukraine, it appears.

      Democracy is suggested, and it is changed to populism. Obviously those who speak for the “we’s” have little respect for them. They never have had. Which, is why they don’t speak for a huge chunk of the population. I suspect those good people, and not useful idiots, may be more interested in whatever marketing of the benefits is directed towards them and be able to make their own decisions. After all, after a while people get fed up with the Cons and want to consider the Pros. Especially, if they want the “luxury” of heating and eating.

      • WELL MARTINS,,

        Given the choice of heating or the strong possibility of getting CANCER and other fatal diseases living near a Fracking site

        Plus seeing home values plumit and risk being un-insurable/ un mortgageable , I know which people living in those areas will choose .

        • I am well, thank you Jack. Don’t know about the other ones, though.

          Like you do not know what you suggest you know. You speculate, you do not know. To state it in the way you do is fabrication. Good job English defines such mechanisms so well.

          I do know there are kids in DRC who are risking cancer by handling a known carcinogen to support the EV industry right now. Fact, not speculation.

          Then there is the choice that now emerges for people to live close to the many extra nuclear power stations that are required to try and make unreliable renewables a bit more reliable. That particular choice comes with a whacking great surcharge on energy bills, including the bills for those living near one. No discount, just a whacking great surcharge.

            • Then, why spend all your time fabricating then Jack???

              And trashing your integrity by then trying to defend such nonsense as oil prices were “normal” in 2020? Nope, you do not only put forward concrete evidence. You put forward spurious “evidence” that a company having difficulties in 2020 was not because it was 2020, where “normality” apparently existed!

              That is Alice in Wonderland, or Jack fell down and broke his crown. Fairy tales, Jack.
              .
              I would suggest you worry more about your own sales ability. Your prepared script showing below may ask the question, even amongst Eskimos, why does a poster commenting have a prepared script that they repeat time after time?

              • OH DEAR MARTIN ,

                YOU FORGET so easily

                What laughable twists and turns you dispense …… You really do make it up as you go along ….

                Ladies and Gentlemen , for the real information as to what JACK put forward to MARTIN regarding the ” normal ” Oil price debate .

                Please see Drill or Drop article dated 17th July 2022 , headed Tories , Fracking And Local OPINION.

                Please also note ……….

                JACK ……… Shows evidence to back up his comments

                MARTIN ……… Only ever gives you his OPINION backed up with sweet nothing .

                The official Brent Oil data is all there …..” normal ” Oil price would be about $60 a barrel.

                JUST FOR YOU MARTIN , I’ve cut and pasted my previous post again , haha

                MARTIN ,

                Let Jack help you again.

                You said , quote , ” Oil (Brent) was over $100/barrel prior to Putin invading Ukraine, Jack. It is now, what? Oh yes, $100/barrel. ”

                My response was to show you this link , proving that the general historical trend for Brent Oil was well below $100 a barrel .

                Just take a quick peak at the Brent Crude Oil , historical price data .

                https://www.macrotrends.net/2480/brent-crude-oil-prices-10-year-daily-chart

                If we discard the year 2020 then , as you wish . The previous average, 5 year price for Brent Oil was .
                2019 ………..$ 64.28
                2018 ………..$ 71.34
                2017…………$ 54.71
                2016…………$ 45.13
                2015…………$ 53.03

                Should we now say , for arguments sake , a ” normal ” Oil price would be about $ 60.00 a barrel ??????????

                Which when looking at the historical Brent Oil price is , far , FAR lower than your $ 100.00 a barrel.

                • That really is poor Jack, even for you!!

                  In the real world a pandemic was raging in 2020. It was not doing so in 2019 and before.

                  That pandemic reduced demand for a lot of industries, including oil, as in many places people were locked down, for much of the year.

                  On planet Zog, Jack, it may have been different, but I have yet to join you in posting to that audience.

                  Nope, the price for Brent was over $100/barrel in 2014. What happened then Jack? Oh yes, I recall. US frackers got going and USA became self sufficient, and OPEC+ then tried to force them out of business by a price war-that didn’t work-because they didn’t like the largest importer becoming self sufficient! Now, they have given up that approach and all that is left are a few cheap lobbying options to attempt what OPEC+ threw $billions at and failed. But, thanks for showing what their efforts did for the world oil price, until recently Jack. They must be owed a debt of gratitude at least as big as the $trillions saved to the world economy. Now, they are involved to do so again, but they won’t because they are now exporting, making fortunes according to their “supporters”, and have a sellers market where they have little incentive to lower the price. If their markets want a cheaper price they will have to look to what they might be able to control, locally-just as the Americans did.

                  That is the problem with posting for Planet Zog, Jack, and being the cheap option. You just make the contrary argument for Planet Earth. Well done Jack. As you have stated before, you can indeed be who you like on DoD. Now you have made the argument for fracking, who will you be next?

                • MARTIN

                  YOU really do seem to be having difficulty remembering your previous posts and my responses .

                  Just let JACK help you fill in ALL the dots .

                  During the Covid pandemic the average price if Brent Oil was ,

                  2020 …… $41.96 a barrel

                  Let’s just get that straight and now move on .

                  NOW MARTIN , before we go any further, this is a genuine, friendly question … Do you have difficulty understanding the English language ?????? Remember JACK is always willing to help .

                  LOOK at the previous 5 years 2015 – 2019 , ALL are well below $100 a barrel for Brent Oil . The evidence I have shown above ………… I think forum members may well accept that the GENERAL TREND for Brent Oil was therefore around $60 a barrel.

                  Now you may be able to show that in some distant past , Brent Oil may of peaked at a $100 a barrel in the odd couple of years , but you need to accept the facts , yes FACTS ( evidence ) that JACK has correctly shown you ……… The general trend for Brent Oil for the years previous to the Covid pandemic was an average of about $60 a barrel .

                  Now can we PLEASE get back to discussing the highly toxic dangers that Fracking poses to men , woman and children ???????

  4. Only political shysters and climate deniers will support the provenly poisonous practice of fracking. The popularity seeking duo in combat for the once admired position of prime minister it seems will stoop to any trick. They seem to have missed that the British public have repeatedly denounced fracking.

  5. Nope, Dave. The surveys done, that the candidates should have been briefed upon, show that the majority of those surveyed were NOT against fracking-and that was before any significant inducement was offered as part of a package.

    If your “interpretation” is correct, then there will be no fracking, so nothing to fear and get excited about.

    You also seemed to have missed the bit about the public are not deciding who will be the next PM. The decision makers are, in this instance, a relatively small group, but larger than the two who decided who would be PM after Tony Blair.

    I did like your reference to popularity seeking. Hmm, so democracy is so bad? Excuse me, but that is the way PMs are produced in the UK, and has been for a very long time. Alternatives are not quite so appealing.

  6. There are of course alternative implementations of the democratic principle, Martin. It would appear that the variant we at present use is catastrophically flawed if all it can throw up is the quasi-certainty of one of these two occupying a once respected position. Their devotion to the crime of fracking is of course unclear, as of course is their loyalty to any principle, good or bad. Even their loyalty to Johnson, their integrity(?), ceased to be a principle as soon as a higher (?) self-serving principle could be found to demonstrate a different integrity. If fracking ceases to be a useful vote winner it can be driven through for gain. It used to be called corruption.
    Populism, democracy for some people, will be useful as the means to an end. It can be shed of course as soon as it fails to support the interests of the individual who has benefited if he or she finds a higher benefit, such as political or financial support, personal or not. Have a look at the world!
    As for ‘cons’ v ‘pros’, once again I point out – the planet is burning. The ‘pros’ of fracking exist in the mind of fools and charlatans. Wake up! The planet is burning.

  7. Being “Pro- Fracking” – if local people support it – is not actually being “Pro” anything.

    On that basis one could be in favour of bringing back the birch – if local people supported it. That might have an interesting impact upon the postcode in which parents choose to live so they could select a school that thrashed their children. [Edited by moderator]
    The safety of Fracking has to be established by means other than local opinion. Similarly National Energy Policy is just that – Natiional. Because a local community might wish to support Fracking does not make the activity desirable , safe or necessary. The indifference of a community to burning gas is not a cause for celebration.

    • Except, Philip it was not said at all, and the post was flawed. Local opinion will not decide whether the moratorium on fracking is released. That will be scientific assessment. It would then be up to locals to decide whether they were okay with it in their locality.

      But choosing to live in a locality to obtain benefits of that locality is exactly what many people in UK chose to invest in. Discounted energy bills, and thus more disposable income to assist their children’s education may be significant. Goodness, I even heard the German public this am complaining their politicians had sold them down the river by relying upon external energy suppliers and now their swimming pools were not being heated, their flats had the heating turned off at night and they were having to invest in thicker bed covers! Perhaps they would all love to migrate to parts of the UK? “The indifference of a community to burning gas is not a cause for celebration”. Well, Philip perhaps you would like to explain that to the Germans currently who would like to celebrate the burning of gas.

      There seems suddenly to be a number who have claimed that there is no local support for fracking who are the ones worried that they were wrong. If they were right, why the fuss?

      As for 1720, well really. Those who differ have to be labelled as fools and charlatans. because their interpretation is different-or maybe they don’t interpret they want to know the facts, rather than be handed a false definition of fact. A once respected position? Oh really! Since when? Do you actually live in the UK, 1720, and have you even read any text books on that subject? Do you not know that Rishi was one of the first to resign, forcing Boris to resign, and your version of that is loyalty!? Have you never heard the phrase, “how do you tell if a politician is lying?” Answer:” If their lips are moving.” Respect? Nope.

      More 1984 than 1720.

      • MARTIN ,

        FRACKING is nothing more than a highly toxic, environmentally damaging, climate changing, dangerous to human and animal health process that devalues homes within surrounding areas ….. It also leaves a toxic , heavy financial burden for further generations, maintaining abandoned wells

        I can show you the ” SCIENCE ” to back up anything I’ve said above….. Just ASK .

      • “Rishi I was one of the first to resign” (Collyer)

        Check your facts for ministerial resignations in ‘20, ‘21 and ‘22.

  8. To state fracking would be allowed with communities consent without any clear indicator of how that could be measured is absurd . Clearly though it means given the thousands of objections to LCC and the 5 year struggle PNR locals put up to stop fracking in lancs it must mean Lancs has nothing to fear ! Fracking is a backward step for the environment and experience shows us it’s history in PNR of empty promises and … no gas ! It’s not the answer and glib politicians and the oil and gas industry cannot convince Communities of its benefits ! We said NO!!

Add a comment

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 )

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