Reaction to fracking go-ahead

Some politicians, campaign groups and residents have reacted with anger at the official lifting of the moratorium on fracking in England. But two leading shale gas companies have welcomed today’s announcement.

Protest at Misson in Nottinghamshire, 20 September 2022. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

The business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, said this morning that people living near fracking sites should tolerate more risk and disturbance in the national interest. His statement to parliament also said:

  • More shale gas sites were needed
  • Government would look to better support the shale gas industry from initial exploration to large-scale production
  • Regulators would be “proactive in extending existing consents and permissions”
  • Ministers would review the policy on disturbance from fracking
  • 100 new offshore oil and gas licences would be offered

A review of fracking science, commissioned by the government from the British Geological Survey, was published this morning. It concluded there were “significant gaps in knowledge” about shale gas basins and that predicting earthquakes remained a “scientific challenge”.

The government had previously said it would be guided by the science in decisions on the moratorium.

Local opposition

Claire Stephenson, of Frack Free Lancashire

“Fracking is a failed technology in the UK and should absolutely be confined to the past. We’ve witnessed more than 10 years of attempts to jack gas out of the ground in Lancashire, with no progress. There have, however, been uncontrollable earthquakes and structural damage – almost 200 reported1 claims.

“There’s also been colossal methane leaks, community disharmony, and most notably: zero commercial gas produced.

“We’re in a climate crisis with a desperate need for a clean, green energy future. Fracking will not make any positive impact3 on the UK’s energy needs or fuel bills, and any attempt to suggest it will, is blatant spin.

 “For the government to use the tragic situation in Ukraine as an excuse to allow a risky and fruitless procedure to go ahead where it has repeatedly failed, and with Jacob Rees-Mogg’s belief 4 that communities “must tolerate a higher degree of risk and disturbance” for “the national interest” is an appalling trade-off.

“We stand strongly opposed and united against fracking anywhere, and we will fiercely challenge this misguided administration’s attempt to backtrack on their Conservative Manifesto promise.”

Susan Holliday, of the Preston New Road Action Group

“The BGS report concludes that forecasting seismic events is a ‘challenge’. “Based on this how can anyone say that fracking can be done safely? 

“The science does not appear to have changed since the moratorium was put in place in 2019, neither has the geology in Lancashire. The WMS says that there is a need for more exploratory sites to gather data, which means that a number of new communities will become fracking guinea pigs. It seems very short sighted to be resurrecting the fracking industry which will also impact on Climate Change when we could be focusing more on renewable technologies”.

Frack Free Misson

“For years following the lifting of the first moratorium, the fracking lobby frequently quoted the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineers’ report in stating that risks to the public and the environment would be low if the industry was well regulated.

“There was a sick irony in an over-promoted Secretary of State citing that same report, whilst simultaneously telling communities that they should ‘accept a higher degree of risk and disturbance’ from fracking. This ‘industry’ has been reduced to a de facto admission that it has neither the competence, integrity or intent of meeting its own professed regulatory standards, and is now reduced to crony-enabled legislative manipulation and bribery to breach an impasse born of its own ignorant ambition.”

Environmental organisations

Danny Gross, energy campaigner, Friends of the Earth

“Ripping up the rules that protect people from fracking would send shockwaves through local communities.

“This announcement suggests that the government is planning to throw communities under the bus by forcing them to accept ‘a higher degree of risk and disturbance’.

“If the government caves into the fracking industry and allows them to cause larger earthquakes, it will further undermine confidence that fracking can be done safely.

“The reality is that fracking will have a negligible impact on energy bills, while sending more climate-changing emissions into the atmosphere. Little wonder that it is one of the least popular forms of energy generation.

“The government should listen to the science and develop an energy strategy fit for the future, not one stuck in the failings of the past. That means investing in insulation and the UK’s vast resources of cheap, clean and popular renewables.”

Freya Aitchison, oil and gas campaigner, Friends of the Earth Scotland

“In ploughing forward with this new licensing round, the UK Government is effectively denying the reality of the climate emergency with scientists and energy experts clear that there can be no new oil and gas. The devastating climate impacts people are enduring with floods in Pakistan, typhoons in Japan and heatwaves in the UK are being driven by burning fossil fuels.

“The UK government’s supposed checkpoint is a worthless charade as there can be no climate compatible new oil and gas. It is a deeply cynical attempt to provide cover for reckless plans to expand the very industry that is fuelling both the climate and the cost of living crises.

“With the cost of living skyrocketing due to the volatile prices of oil and gas, it’s obvious that our current system is completely unfit for purpose, serving only to make oil company bosses and shareholders richer while everyone else loses out. We urgently need a transition to an energy system powered by renewables, and a mass rollout of energy efficiency measures to reduce energy demand.”

“The Scottish Government must be willing to stand up to these reckless plans to expand fossil fuels and hand out permits for oil and gas companies to explore and drill in the North Sea. These plans will lock us into a climate-destroying energy system for decades to come, entrenching reliance on this volatile industry in places like Aberdeen, and leaving people all across Scotland exposed to rocketing energy bills.”

Jamie Christon, chief executive, Chester Zoo

“Extracting and burning more fossil fuels will drive further climate change and directly contribute to biodiversity loss both here in the UK and globally. The result will be even more pressure on nature, at a time when the focus should rightly be on accelerating our investment in sustainable energy sources.

“The rationale for lifting the ban is not built on sound logic. It will do little to bring down the wholesale cost of energy, or to alleviate the immediate energy crisis. That’s not just our opinion. Other leading environmental organisations who, like us, are working across the world to prevent extinction, are opposed to fracking.

“This u-turn on fracking threatens to put local habitats and the UK’s most precious wildlife at risk.

“This proven risk to the environment was at the centre of the opposition to fracking, when sites local to our zoo were originally proposed. This strength of opposition to fracking continues to this date and we’ll continue to do what we can to support the community in opposing any future plans to commence such disastrous plans in the area.”


Chris Hopkinson, interim executive chairman, IGas

“This is a significant statement from Government and we welcome the commitment to pursue secure and affordable supplies of domestic energy.

The development of IGas’ shale gas assets  has the potential to provide secure and affordable energy for the UK in the near term, helping to decouple the UK from volatile and competitive international gas markets.  Aside from the clear benefits in job creation and balance of payments through producing indigenous natural gas, we will support local communities with a comprehensive benefit package.”

Francis Egan, chief executive, Cuadrilla Resources

“I am very pleased that the Government has quickly and decisively followed up the Prime Minister’s announcement of two week ago with today’s WMS. 

“Communities across the North of England stand to benefit most from today’s announcement. Cuadrilla is determined that a portion of all shale gas revenue should be delivered to local residents as a community dividend. This would mean each producing shale gas site could generate potentially hundreds of millions of pounds for local households, families, and communities.

“On top of this, a thriving shale gas industry will drive job creation across the North of England, generate much needed tax revenues for central and local government, and help tackle spiralling gas prices.

“Lifting the moratorium will help the shale industry unlock UK onshore natural gas in quantities sufficient to meet the UK’s needs for decades to come.

“The last few months have highlighted the risks associated with ever increasing reliance on expensive, uncertain, and higher emission gas imports. Today’s WMS sets the foundation for us to move towards gas self-sufficiency, and not be reliant on the whims of dictators, or the vagaries of international supply lines and prices.   The Government has made the right call, and we look forward to working with them to ensure this industry can start delivering for local communities, and the entire country, as soon as possible. “

Charles McAllister, director of policy, government and public affairs, UK Onshore Oil and Gas

“If the government was just to lift the moratorium and leave everything else the same investment would not come.”

He also said:

“UK shale gas offers evident economic, environmental and geopolitical benefits not provided by a continued over-reliance on energy imports. 

“The BGS report clearly states that more data collection is needed in the UK and we are ready to provide proposals to Government to do just that.

“The BGS report also notes that the regulatory framework on seismicity applied to shale gas was inconsistent with wider regulation of extractive industries. It is therefore pragmatic for Government to redress this unjustified discrepancy.

“UKOOG continues to support the UK’s transition to Net Zero. Every single costed Net Zero compliant scenario recognises the need for natural gas and oil throughout and at the outcome of our 2050 goal. The WMS importantly recognises that UK natural gas production has a lower carbon intensity than Liquified Natural gas imports.

“The development of a UK shale gas industry, amongst other technologies, provides a credible path for the UK to become an energy exporter by 2040, following on from 2021 where the UK produced the least amount of energy in over 50 years.”


Andy Prendergast, national secretary, GMB

“Lifting the fracking ban could create thousands of good jobs and end the UK’s gross hypocrisy of happily using shale gas as long as it was fracked in another county. 

“GMB believes we must move towards energy self-sufficiency, particularly in light of global instability after the invasion of Ukraine. 

“We already have an energy crisis caused by years of Government inaction, with gas storage shut down and all but one of our nuclear plants due to close within the next decade. 

“If it can be shown to be safe for workers and communities, fracking offers part of the solution to the energy crisis. 

“We should take this opportunity to build an industry that creates good, unionised jobs whilst investing profits in long term carbon neutral solutions we need to hit net zero.”

For political reaction, see DrillOrDrop report of the government’s statement in the House of Commons

More details

Government says people living near fracking sites should tolerate more risk and disturbance in the national interest

“Significant knowledge gaps” makes forecasting fracking earthquakes “a scientific challenge”, says BGS report

Tory anger at lifting the moratorium – what MPs said in parliament

47 replies »

  1. So, why did the industry previously state how fracking could be a huge success without all these relaxed planning/regulations? Surely they were not making over optimistic, unsubstantiated claims??
    The government and industry assume wrongly that they will have an easier time but the anger from some of their own MPs in parliament today was palpable. The anger in communities is a given.

    The facts simply do not support the claims that fracking will lower energy prices, that it will significantly improve energy security, nor that it can be done safely. After all just a couple of months ago their own Chancellor said just that! The right of the Conservative party might contain MPs that like fossil fuels and deny climate change but they are a minority. We are two years out from an election, the public care about climate change, the environment, like renewables and green energy and will not support fracking when they are provided with the facts and not the spin.

    And as for comments from the unions, the majority of the unions oppose fracking, I think last time around only the GMB and I think Community, which is very small union, supported fracking.

    Fracking was a described as a dead duck back in 2019 and just like the science that hasn’t change either.

    • Well, KatT, as you have failed miserably to keep to the facts within that post, I would suspect little support for what you provide.

      You have been corrected numerous times about the myth you try and peddle about not reducing energy prices, yet you trot it out continuously. It will significantly reduce energy prices to those local to be offered compensation. That is a given fact-if the fracking produces significant gas. In comparison, wind turbines were started in UK with just the landowner receiving a large guaranteed annual income, even if their energy was not used! Perhaps that is the answer? Have a level playing field and just make the offer to the landowner and then decide he/she is the local opinion to determine the matter. Sauce for the goose etc. -although the geese may have suffered deadly consequences from the wind turbines!

      I also noted today during the urgent question no one could explain the huge difference between emissions from transporting LNG from thousands of miles away to sourcing gas in UK as being anyway compatible with concern for climate change. Zilch, just like on DoD. Lots of red herrings about not using gas, but that is not the option. It is the transition fuel and will remain so for many years. Just because you don’t use it don’t think the majority who do will support non use until they have a realistic, economic and secure alternative. That is at the earliest, after our £160B has been spent on new nuclear, and then the economic bit will still not be sorted.

        • Jack take note,

          Fracking poll.

          53% for fracking when offered a substantial discount off their gas bills.

          No shouting required. Tried and tested through all sorts of market sectors where support “strangely” changes as consumers are offered a benefit. I know your search engine is unable to look at benefits Jack but all other consumers, fortunately, live in the real world where they do look at what they may gain from a product. Goodness, this winter in the UK the market may even be deluged with a mass desire to knit scarfs that didn’t show last year!

          Sorry Jack, I have marketed quite a few new products. I really expected very consumers to support until I presented substantial benefits. Surprise, surprise, if the market had a need and that was supplied and could be quantified then the figures moved, but not without the quantification. Yes, the competitors would still try and market what they stated as the disadvantages but would have to try a lot harder.

          You are probably familiar with that comment already.

          • MARTIN ,

            TAKE NOTE

            0% , yes I did say 0%of the public living in close proximity to a Fracking site will accept a ” bribe ” “pay off ” whatever you want to call it , when they are made aware of the toxic dangers of this industry.

            You see MARTIN , I m not sure how things tick on your planet , Fraggle Rock , but here on planet earth people really do value their own lives , that of their families , friends and local communities .

            Whilst watching/looking through the UK news outlets, it’s become crystal clear that this, TINY DETAIL on the PROVEN health dangers and the steep drop in house values are rarely touched on by either party during the interview or news article.

            It’s therfore crystal clear what anyone living in a Fracking area will need to do to stop this industry dead on its tracks .

            Set up a major industrial Fracking Site 🤣
            Fracking companies will be lucky if they get to HAMMER a TENT PEG in the ground

            As far as your so called previous knowledge of marketing strategies go , when it concerns people’s health you’ll find it’s a lot different than trying to shift a few dozen ” Gas Mantles ”

            MARTIN , so forum members are fully aware , what are your thoughts about this WARNING ??????

            The GREED of a FEW is going to KILL US


            • So, the 53% are just a mirage, Jack, or maybe have different views to your own?

              However, they are obviously not a mirage but are real people, therefore I will take notice of what real people signify rather than a fantasy character.

              What do I think about greed? Well, there will be millions in the UK this winter who cannot afford such luxuries Jack, as they have been sold a pup by some real people and some fantasy characters and will be paying the price for what has turned into a very expensive pup. Just like the guys who do that sort of trade down the pub, using a fictional name. As you are still there Jack, maybe you would like to apologize for your own contribution?

              Nope? Thought not.

              • MARTIN ,

                What exactly do I need to opologise for ??????? Telling the truth , presenting the forum members with real , indisputable evidence .

                I think it’s you who needs to opologise MARTIN , as your wild Off-The-Cuff OPINIONS are never back up with any evidence . Therefore as your forum posts show , you are consistently out of touch with reality and wrong on a regular basis.

                Apology MARTIN, please .

                • More twaddle.

                  So, you just ignore some evidence then Jack, when it is inconvenient. Well, that has been evident for a very long time. 53% Jack. Evidence. Given numerous times by me, ignored by you, indeed morphed to zero.

                  How are Chesapeake Energy doing Jack, as you wanted to try and deflect your inability to provide accurate information? Come on Jack, you plonked them into the arena trying to make out their problems came from being involved with fracking rather than being involved with a pandemic. Now, the pandemic has waned Jack, how are they doing? Still fracking? Ermm yes. Making shed loads of money according to? YOU! Goodness, Jack, you have managed to show how fracking in USA is really successful for an operator having set out to fool people that it was a financial disaster. Good one, Jack. Wrong again Jack, to continue the regular basis on which you are wrong.

                • MARTIN ,

                  DO you want to give the readers another jolly good laugh at your expense again ?????

                  I’m happy to assist by ” cutting and pasting ” my comments backed up with credible evidence AGAIN .

                  It’s really getting like GOUNDHOG DAY with you MARTIN .

                  Must ask you again, because it seems you’ve missed this again …… Your thoughts in this Fracking WARNING please .

                  Fracking DANGERS , a letter from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL ( BMJ )


                  Just take a look at the people putting their names to this letter .

                  AND MARTIN

                  FRACKING POLL

                  73 % are AGAINST Fracking in the UK


    • Putting JRM as the spokesman for promoting fracking is a brilliant move…….to stop fracking. He has no idea about the subject,

      ‘But in a bullish performance, Rees-Mogg insisted fracking in England would drive down global gas prices’


      He obviously has not got that information from the founder of Cuadrilla who has just stated,

      “Fracking in the UK will be impossible at any meaningful scale and will not help with the energy price crisis, the founder of the UK’s first fracking company has warned.”


      Keep it up JRM . Great work.

      • Your first paragraph, John, suggests that this is a deliberate tactic. I’m probably missing the irony. If the tactic is deliberate, then this might indicate a level of (unscrupulous) intelligence and resourcefulness scarcely expected of the choice of 200,000 party members.
        I suspect however that irony is at play and, as I suggested elsewhere, Rees-Mogg is the ‘fall guy’ for this crowd of inadequates. Let’s give it a try. Put Rees-Mogg in charge. If this works then they(you and I)’ll take anything we chuck at them, including Rwanda, and then vote for us.
        I’m afraid, I go for the latter.

        • Well, I’m still awaiting any comment that shows better intelligence. Quite the opposite so far, with claims that are unsubstantiated. Seemed to be quite common in the House of Commons yesterday also. More people reading prepared scripts that when challenged it turned out they hadn’t a clue about the subject and just wished to play politics.

          Pretty common, isn’t it?!

          I would just add, this was the subject of an urgent question yesterday, and it was made pretty clear this is only part of Moggy’s responsibility, and his comments regarding hydrogen and other matters clearly showed he has already acquired much more knowledge than some who have been posting on DoD for a long time on what is required. He certainly seemed to know a whole lot more than the local Labour MP about why the Swansea Lagoon has failed to attract investment. Interestingly, locals have been asked and said no, and that is still part of the problem. (Not that local to Swansea but DYOR.)

  2. Perhaps the national secretary of GMB should also consider some of the risk to fracking workers ?
    Fedan JS, A Physico-chemical and Toxicological Evaluation of Fracking Sand Dusts
    Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, November 23, 2020
    Esswein EJ, Breitenstein M, Snawder J, Kiefer M, Sieber WK. Occupational exposures to respirable crystalline silica during hydraulic fracturing. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2013; 10: 347– 56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23679563/
    Rosenman, KD, Hydraulic Fracturing and the Risk of Silicosis. Clinical Pulmonary Medicine: July 2014 – Volume 21 – Issue 4 – p 167-172 https://journals.lww.com/clinpulm/Abstract/2014/07000/Hydraulic_Fracturing_and_the_Risk_of_Silicosis.2.aspx
    Quail M, Overview of silica-related clusters in the United States: Will fracking operations become the next cluster? J. Environ. Health, (2017) 79 (pp. 20-27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26330599
    Hoy, RF et al. Current global perspectives on silicosis—Convergence of old and newly emergent hazards. Respirology. 2022; 27: 387– 398. https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.14242

  3. Ministers admit 34 hospital buildings in England have roofs that could collapse – https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/14/ministers-admit-hospital-buildings-england-roofs-could-collapse-any-time

    *Exclusive: Renewed fears ceilings at affected hospitals could suddenly collapse, injuring staff and patients
    Sun 14 Aug 2022 13.51 BSTLast modified on Mon 15 Aug 2022 14.35 BST)*

    *Thirty-four hospital buildings in England have roofs made of concrete that is so unstable they could fall down at any time, ministers have admitted.
    The revelation has prompted renewed fears that ceilings at the hospitals affected might suddenly collapse, injuring staff and patients, and calls for urgent action to tackle the problem.
    Maria Caulfield, a health minister, made the disclosure in a written answer to a parliamentary question asked by the Liberal Democrats’ health spokesperson, Daisy Cooper.
    Caulfield said surveys carried out by the NHS found that 34 buildings at 16 different health trusts contained reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC), which one hospital boss has likened to a “chocolate Aero bar”. RAAC was widely used in building hospitals and schools in the 1960s, 70s and 80s but has a 30-year lifespan and is now causing serious problems.*

    So if 34 hospitals are in danger of imminent collapse even without the additional dangers of fracking, and anyone over 19 stone is excluded from attending any of these 34 hospitals because of the danger of their weight causing structural collapse. The what effect would fracking caused earthquakes have, not just on these 34 hospitals, but also on any other buildings around the country which are similarly structurally compromised?

    It would appear that UK New PM Liz Truss is only too aware of this situation, as detailed by the NHS report. However, curiously the business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg and the new PM Liz Truss and her new cabinet, who have undoubtedly been directly briefed on the situation by the NHS. Not one of them has mentioned this situation with 34 hospitals and the dangers that lifting the ban on fracking will undoubtedly cause?

    As so often with this government, it’s not so much what is mentioned in speeches and policies, it’s what is not mentioned or addressed.

    Perhaps the new PM Liz Truss and the new business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Kwasi Kwarteng, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, should comment on this situation of 34 hospitals having imminent structural collapse? Then perhaps on the likely dangers of structural failure of other building with similar problems, which would more than likely be in danger of collapse due to the lifting of the moratorium on fracking operations?

    It would be advisable to suggest that an investigation to be implemented by government to assess the location of all the buildings with similar structural integrity problems before any such fracking operations take place.

    That simple proviso could well save lives.

      • ELI-GOTH ,

        It may make no sense to you ??????

        BUT for people who understand the English language , it makes perfect sense.

        A very good point has been raised by YYLEE.

        If you still don’t understand what YYLEE is saying , your old buddy JACK will be more than happy to help you join up the Nursery School level dots .

        Whilst I have your attention ELI-GOTH , what are your thoughts on this ??????

        Fracking causes environmental damage and birth defects.


      • Exactly, E-G.

        Perhaps the answer is everyone lives in a yurt!

        Oh well, all those thundering ambulances and air ambulances out of service then. Maybe if UK stopped sending money overseas to buy energy that it could buy in UK then hospital repairs could happen a bit quicker.

      • Eli-Goth, or should that be eligoth in your own lower case definition?

        Would you care to explain what you don’t understand about the imminent structural collapse and the danger of further damage and dangers to life and limb caused by imminent fracking earthquakes of –

        *Thirty-four hospital buildings in England have roofs made of concrete that is so unstable they could fall down at any time, ministers have admitted.*
        *revelation has prompted renewed fears that ceilings at the hospitals affected might suddenly collapse, injuring staff and patients, and calls for urgent action to tackle the problem.*

        And then you could explain in even greater detail why fracking induced earthquakes will have no effect whatsoever on these 34 hospitals and other buildings such as the aforementioned schools and other structures that are similarly structurally compromised and in danger of imminent structural collapse.

        Then as further evidence, to support your, as yet unproven and truncated opinion, perhaps you would care to explain in detail backed up by linked proof of your, as yet unproven truncated opinion, why a structural investigation, and subsequent repairs, prior to any local fracking operation, would avoid unnecessary injury to life and limb, or perhaps death to those who inhabit, or reside in such structures?

        Perhaps it would also be of benefit for you to explain why it is that your truncated and as yet unproven opinion, should not therefore be classed, under your own proffered phraseology, as (a) post (that) makes no sense(!)

        Also, please describe in detail your as yet unqualified, and as yet unmentioned professional reasons for denying that the NHS have genuine concerns over the structural integrity of 34 hospitals, whilst not excluding schools, public buildings, private homes and any other as yet unknown similarly weakened structure that would be in danger of structural collapse when it is proven that fracking caused earthquakes have damaged nearby occupied structures?

        Your detailed response, and as yet unqualified reasoning to these important questions, would, I am sure, be of invaluable insight to explain your as yet, unproven and very truncated comment.

        • No rational direct reply from eligoth or any other fracking sources about 34 hospital buildings in imminent danger of structural collapse and have been for several years. Further attempts at fracking will inevitably cause more earthquakes. The facts are scientifically established that the British Isles are entirely unsuitable for fracking due to its highly complex faulted geology. Earthquakes caused by fracking will represent even further dangers to life and limb of the residents of hospital and schools, of public and private building which are already in danger of imminent structural collapse even without the additional dangers of fracking caused earthquakes.
          Reading through the comments, perhaps that is an example of an unfortunate if not inconvenient subject matter which is too close to the exposed fracking narrative weaknesses to be directly addressed or even acknowledged by those who seek to enforce fracking with all its attendant absurdities onto the unwilling public who will inevitably suffer from fracking earthquakes and pollution.
          A relevant question that emerges from the lack of any rational response, is whether the refusal to address the facts, which would call into doubt the entire fracking enforcement narrative, is another example of that which is referred to in Jackthelad’s posts. Namely, the suggestion of anomalous and perhaps funded fossil fuel industry sources making unproven comments that have no logical, or rational content or even any professional justification. Maybe that is intended to blank any subject which calls into doubt the imminent enforcement of fracking on an unwilling public.
          However, that is neither appropriate to the seriousness of the inevitable consequences of the imposed fracking operations as detailed, nor is it an honest or responsible attitude to the safety of life and limb.


    Your not trying to imply that Fracking will solve the UK energy crisis are you ??????

    By bringing down Gas costs for UK consumers.

    Didn’t you know ………. Fracking companies are NOT CHARITIES ?????

    Highly expensive to produce , UK Fracked Gas will be sold on the OPEN, international market to the highest bidder .

    Whilst I have your attention . What are your thoughts on this report which highlights Fracking related health issues ??????

    What will the increase COSTS be to the NHS and will this be another burden for the UK taxpayer ??????


    • Well Jack 53% in areas where fracking might happen have been told it will bring down their energy costs. Of course, if it was successful.
      So, the first part is a given, the second part can only be determined by drilling, which is strangely (lol) the norm for oil and gas.

      How would UK fracked gas get to the highest bidder, Jack? LNG? Nope. Pipeline? Maybe, if UK Government didn’t do what USA has done in the past and impose an export ban. Some in USA are wanting theirs brought back Jack as they are not interested in Europe’s problems with $47 whilst they are paying $7. They would like their $7 back nearer to $4. Producers produce, Governments can very easily decide whether what they produce is exported, or not.

      Solving the energy crisis? Don’t think I have ever suggested that Jack. Lot more required, like £160B of tax-payers money for new nuclear to try and support unreliable renewables, yet I notice yesterday some were still suggesting some nonsense about cheap renewables. Sorry Jack, that kat, oops. cat, is out of the bag. Bit like the footie supporters being told about the kid who cost little playing for their team, and then some while after being told how much the three new players would cost to cover him. No longer cheap.

      Now, I quite like new nuclear and more offshore wind when the new nuclear is there to support. Until then gas will do the support. Imported gas is not secure, it is controlled by parties outside of UK control.

      Cobalt causes cancer. Let’s ban EVs! Not the thought you wanted, but my own and scientifically accurate.


        So 73 % against Fracking is a mirage is it ??????

        Let JACK try and explain this simply for you.

        It’s like YOU trying to convince a person how having their head guillotined off it’s a great way to relieve a nuisance headache .

        Then the person finding out the truth about the consequences of such an extreme method.

        DO YOU HONESTLY think that the general public are going to accept such a highly dangerous, toxic process in their local communities when they become FULLY aware of the health risks to their families ???????

        MARTIN , How many people DO YOU know who want to greatly increase their risks of CANCER ????????

        WELL MARTIN ???????

        Whilst I have your attention MARTIN , What are your thoughts on the link between Fracking and CANCER ??????


      • DOES MARTIN LIVE IN THE UK ??????.

        My evidence repeatedly shows , that he/she does not care in the slightest, about the health and safety of you and your families here in the UK .

        My ” links “highlighting the toxic proven dangers of Fracking are continually ignored

        Instead he keeps banging on about a handful of people handling Cobalt in the DRC ( Democratic Republicof Congo ) many , MANY thousands of miles away .


        • Ahh, do I live in the UK?

          What are you on about, Jack? Would it matter? Are you attempting to stir up some anti- foreigner nastiness?

          Do I post consistent with a UK time zone, unlike some others? Do I know about topical threads of news in UK that seem to be unknown to some others, Jack?

          Meanwhile Jack, your links just bang on about a handful of people MANY thousands of miles away.


          (Odd last line you used there, Jack. Why UK readers and not all readers? Anyone would suspect you are trying too hard to associate with a group from outside of that group! Careful Jack, you over egged that pudding.)

          • MARTIN ,

            There is enough evidence on this forum to question your true loyalties.

            It’s abundantly clear that as people read your forum posts , they will be made aware that you DO NOT care about the health and well-being of the millions of UK citizens that will have their lives blighted by this PROVEN toxic industry . If widespread Fracking does go ahead in this country .

            Instead YOU ONLY seen to care about a handful of people handling Cobalt in the DRC ,( Democratic Republic of Congo ) thousands of miles away.

            WHY IS THAT MARTIN ??????

            Where do you really live ??????

            If your really concerned about the people of the DRC , then may I suggest you direct you time and attention to another forum . As this forum is dealing with Oil and Gas extraction in the UK .

            MARTIN , as far as ” posting times go ” it’s strange how you seem to disappear at the weekend….. Are you a paid PR lackey , who is paid Mon – Fri only ????? It’s strange how you don’t want to do much debating at the weekend.

            ALSO , why do you NEVER put up a ” LINK ” to back up your comments ????? Are you frightened that you may expose your IP Address and in doing so expose the company you work for ???????

            As far as your FEEBLE , SHAMEFUL attempt to try and brand JACK as anti foreigner with your comment, quote , ” anti- foreigner nastiness ) ……… IF CARING about the health , safety and economics of the UK in some strange and absurd way makes YOU think I’m in some way anti- foreigner . Then let me be 100% clear , I will NOT be changing the way in which I question your motives and reasons for pushing toxic Fracking on the UK public ONE LITTLE BIT .

            Whilst I have your attention MARTIN , what are your thoughts on this ?????

            Fracking DANGERS , a letter from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL ( BMJ )


            Well MARTIN ???????

            • AND MARTIN in reference to your above comment , QUOTE, ” Meanwhile Jack, your links just bang on about a handful of people MANY thousands of miles away.”

              As far my ” LINKS ” go infoming the UK Public of the DANGERS of Fracking…

              Although we have already had a disastrous experience of SMALL SCALE Fracking with Caudrilla in Lancashire .

              IF you really want to know about the TRUE DANGERS of Fracking . You have to look further afield to another equally well developed country , our neighbour’s and friends in the USA . A place where Fracking has been going on for a number of years .

              The evidence clearly, 100% shows its an environmental, climate changing, toxic to human and animal health disaster.

            • No, JacktheVlad, you need to look at your own posts where that is the case. I don’t have to repeat them. Others have become so aware of the issue they ignore you. Just feel grateful I do not.

              So, some people thousands of miles away can be ignored, whilst other people thousands of miles away cannot. Hmm. Well, Jack, some of the ones you want to ignore are conducting litigation, even though they will probably be categorized like you have, that they are not worthy of consideration.

              I am not in a position to push anything on anybody. Neither are you. I have a different view to yourself and present that. Sorry you have problems with that, Jack, but here in the UK it is a freedom that still exists. UK READERS, your slip up not mine, are pretty used to that Jack. It is called freedom of speech-or post in this respect.

              UK READERS will understand there are many ways to “provide a means of connection”-a link. Just as your system has one and only one, UK READERS will be quite confident in many other means of connection that are provided to them. Probably spreads to most other areas outside of UK as well, unless individuals are seriously controlled and instructed they can only follow the official true path. You stick with your true path, Jack, I will lift my eyes to other truths.

              • OH DEAR MARTIN ,

                YOU really are showing you true colours

                It’s important the FORUM MEMBERS take note of MARTINS refusal to show ANY interest in the health and wellbeing of you and your families living here in the UK .

                TAKE NOTE how he repeatedly ignores evidence concerning the dangers of Fracking

                Thus lack of care and consideration is why he is trying to push this highly toxin industry in to your towns and communities .

                Instead MARTINS only concern is for a handful of people who handle Cobalt in the Democrat Republic of Congo , many thousands of miles away .

                It really does make you question if MARTIN actually lives in the UK .

  5. How dare Rees-Mogg claim that opponents of fracking are funded by Russia! He’s using the same scare tactics as Putin does to justify his war in Ukraine, the ludicrous claim that Ukraine is governed by Nazis. Where’s your evidence, Reece-Mogg? There are plenty of compelling reasons to oppose fracking, given its track record of multiple earth tremors in quick succession that can cause subsidence. I live in a notorious landslip area on the Isle of Wight, where the main coast road was breached by a huge landslip 8 years ago and hasn’t been restored because the land is too unstable, where people had to be airlifted from their homes and only some of them were allowed back several years later. Yet the Government plans to issue a licence to drill near here, where earth tremors could bury homes in the Undercliff in mud and rock slides from the towering cliff and downs above. This Government need their heads examined! In their 2019 election manifesto, the Conservatives pledged to keep the fracking moratorium unless they receive scientific evidence that it is safe. They have no such evidence. Their actions are illegal and will have to be challenged in court. it is time for a General Election.

      • As you refer to the article in your post, Eli-Goth, I would point out that Matt Ridley (The Critic article’s author) has form, I’m afraid, where it comes to digging up allegations concerning Russian propaganda designed to discredit those who attempt to assert the moral case against extinction. Lord Ridley would argue, of course, that extinction is not in question.
        There is nothing new about his position. Four or five years ago, it was argued in response to a similar article by Ridley:
        Matt Ridley’s article in defence of shale is redolent of much recent debate and does him little credit, a combination of fear tactics, guilt by association, xenophobia, class hatred, pseudo science, self importance, irrelevance and half truths. After all, what true Brit of Matt Ridley’s imagination could fail to support shale when unpalatable foreigners such as ……Russians undermine it? How could he or she not be appalled at the sight of “middle class southerners who go North to protest about this stuff”. Ridley’s true Brit. will be pleased that the Advertising Standards Authority has “forced” Friends of the Earth to “withdraw several misleading claims”, not caring perhaps that this is not true. For the record, FOE were found to have made claims which were misleading in that they were not properly substantiated with evidence. They were asked not to repeat them in advertisements without such evidence. Similar findings were made against fracking companies INEOS and Breitling Energy in 2013, and in mid-January 2017 a conflict of interest was revealed, ASA’s chairman also being chair of the pro-fracking Task Force on Shale Gas. FOE, furthermore, contests the ASA’s version of the agreement between them. Ridley’s true Brit. is not the real true Brit., who will indeed care for the truth of the matter.
        The facts, in short, concerning any Russian involvement in the arguments concerning shale exploitation, (or indeed anything else), are unlikely to be found in this source, Eli-Goth. Putin will be able, if he chooses, to exploit whichever decision British industry makes on behalf of its stooges.
        As for The Critic………

        • What a strange circuit!

          What has the ASA to do with Russia?

          I worked in marketing. I knew all about what the ASA were responsible for. They were, and are responsible for, accurate information being presented, amongst other things. If the information is not accurate, then ASA can be asked to stop it happening by calling it out. They did with FOE, as they do for many other situations. In my case, if I had been responsible, it would have been P45 time. Doesn’t seem to have the same value in other situations, regrettably. Even though it may not, the majority of consumers who become aware of it are unlikely to trust that source again. Hence the P45 within a commercial situation. All that marketing spend which has just been completely devalued.

          Goodness, the ASA might have come down heavily upon some organization claiming HMG were responsible for Brexit! They haven’t, to my knowledge, but the devaluation has still occurred.

    • Margaret, I understand your Nimby tendency, but please don’t use a local situation that has been occurring on the IOW for many years, probably centuries, as somehow linked to oil extraction. It is not.
      Landslips have happened on the IOW for a long time and not associated with earth tremors but rainfall. Same along the Jurassic Coast.

      Meanwhile, on the IOW you will just have to continue importing oil to keep you going and transfer the responsibility to someone else to produce it and can whinge about the cost of living whilst doing so. Let’s hope one of those tankers puffing past the IOW, producing emissions, doing the importing doesn’t end up as your own Torrey Canyon.

    • Thank you for your detailed, clear and precise post Margaret Nelmes. You have pointed out precisely why fracking in the British Isles is dangerous to life limb and to property. The list of dangers from fracking earthquakes grow to the point of excluding any justification for lifting the fracking moratorium.
      Also your point that there has been no scientific evidence that the necessary prevention of resulting earthquakes from fracking has been addressed at all in order for the new PM Liz Truss, and the new business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Kwasi Kwarteng, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer have explained how any proposal has justified the lifting of the moratorium on fracking in any way whatsoever.

      Regarding the unproven announcement that fracking is viable in spite of the conditions of the fracking moratorium, and that in the new business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg words, that opposition to fracking is in some unannounced and unproven way, funded by “Russian collusion”, – The immediate response by conservative Labour and Lib Dem MP’s was outrage and horror that such a claim should be made.

      Cat Smith in Parliament spoke as follows-

      An ‘unhinged response’: Lancaster MP reacts to Government suggestion fracking opposition is funded by Russia – https://www.beyondradio.co.uk/news/local-news/an-unhinged-response-lancaster-mp-reacts-to-government-suggestion-fracking-opposition-is-funded-by-russia/

      * Cat Smith was critical of the move, telling him: ‘’It appears that the only person who believes fracking will lower gas prices is the Secretary of State. It’s certainly not backed up by anyone in the industry and there’s no question of the environmentally damaging nature (from) fracking. *
      * ‘’But one thing (he) is perhaps not aware of is the strength of opposition to fracking in communities like mine on Lancashire, where sites at Preston New Road and Roseacre have seen a huge police presence just to manage the protesting. *
      * Ms Smith slammed the response, later saying: ‘’The Secretary of State has been drinking from the fracking Kool-Aid if he thinks Lancashire is crying out for this dangerous and environmentally damaging experiment.*
      * ‘’I really need to work on my poker face when listening to unhinged responses from him.’’ *

      Government Advisor Repeats ‘Russia Funded Anti-Fracking Protests’ Myth – https://www.desmog.com/2022/07/01/government-advisor-repeats-russia-funded-anti-fracking-protests-myth/

      Any investigation into that claim, which is almost universally repeated by the main stream media, shows that the origin of that claim originated from a fracking supporter, who has made similar unproven claims, and as such is equally unproven and from a source that refused to present any proof.

      Any studied conclusion of the claim, indicates that the attempt to blame “Russian collusion” for any opposition, is a historically repetitive method of denouncing anything which contradicts this government’s need to ignore the scientific evidence of the dangers of fracking in favour of “unpopular” railroading over any opposition. Similar to Boris Johnson’s later retracted claim of failure to prosecute the child abuser Jimmy Saville. Therefore, the “Russian collusion” claim may be similarly taken with a large pinch of political salt, or, more sensibly, to be carefully investigated as to who, what and why any that claim has become politically expedient in similar contexts.

      • Cat Smith?, Are you having a laugh?? and her knowledge on the extraction of oil and gas is?, she has a constituency and is acting upon her manifesto by the labour part and keir starmer… thats all, smoke and mirrors and no credibility.

        The information Russian endorsements to green groups is not going to be readily available to search engine, do you not think the government in power in the UK may now a little more that the shadow government?? but then again you are not going to agree…..

      • Except the post couldn’t have been too clear as fracking has yet to be proposed for the IOW!

        As for Cat Smith, well she quoted a downright porkie when she stated fracking would not lower energy prices. She may use an excuse of ignorance, but I doubt she would want to claim that. For those local to potential fracking sites, that is exactly the proposition! The only bit to be added is how close and how much. Just like offered for on shore wind farms. It certainly is backed up by people in the industry. Charles McAllister for instance. But when have Labour ever known what industry is?

        This Internet political approach to matters of fact may excite some, but just turn supposed serious politicians into a laughingstock. With such offerings she should worry a bit more about her own credibility.

        • Margaret Nelmes is correct – News –
          The whole of the Isle of Wight now open for Fracking exploration –
          Isle of Wight News | 26, September 2022
          Report states –
          Moves this week by the Government could lead to fracking being carried out anywhere on the Island, even in AONB areas if ‘in the public interest’. – https://onthewight.com/whole-isle-wight-now-open-fracking-exploration/

          Fracking conspiracy theories aside, clearly a little research is required by those who claim to know of unpublished and unproven false information that has been debunked throughout.

          There are still important safety of life and limb questions to be answered rather than avoided by those who write so much, but say so little. They may refer to my posts to find out what those unanswered questions regarding the dangers of lifting the fracking moratorium to 34 hospitals, which are already in danger of imminent structural collapse without earthquakes due to fracking operations.

          Review completed into hospitals at risk of collapse

          Suffolk hospital assessed legal risk of fatal roof collapse

          Plans for replacement to West Suffolk Hospital are submitted

          Then they can explain what scientific demonstrated proof has been provided to enable the fracking moratorium, which has a scientific proviso to be proven before the fracking moratorium can be lifted with its attendant danger of further earthquakes. They can then detail how those fracking earthquakes will not cause the already imminent structural collapse of 34 hospitals, schools, public and private buildings.

          Also, it can be explained by these self-proclaimed “experts” their own qualifications and knowledge of fracking and also of the new PM Liz Truss and the new business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Kwasi Kwarteng, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. Do these individuals know anything about the legal conditions to overturn the fracking moratorium in order to pursue their imposition of fracking on the unwilling public.

          Perhaps it can also be explained what their own “expert” knowledge is of fracking and its earthquake effects on buildings which are already in danger of imminent structural collapse. And what the inevitable results will be if a detailed structural analysis of all similar buildings is not carried out prior to any fracking allowed in their proximity?

  6. Surely everyone in favour of allowing communities to ‘live with’ increased seismicity are missing the point and likely don’t live in those communities – it’s not just about damage to our property and sanity but about the integrity of the well deep underground. What strength of earthquake barely felt at the surface has the potential to be much stronger deep underground and cause fractures to the concrete well casing etc? Can the science even predict that?
    I suspect not as the science has once again categorically confirmed the seismic unprectabilities resulting from fracking therefore threats to well integrity deep underground are clear and unacceptable. Any seismic event therefore has the potential to cause poisoning of our water table/aquifers with escaping carcinogenic chemicals and rogue methane escapes to poison the air and massively contribute to global warming. That is what is happening in USA (where environmental controls were all but removed) as wells decay and rupture, the methane will escape eventually anyway, as well as during drilling and flaring, which also occurred at PNR when the methane was so poor they couldnt flare it:-
    Cause and effect of rogue methane is however scientific consensus:-

    • Suzie. Your comment on the possibility of almost imperceptible seismic events damaging the integrity of wells is true. The earthquake at Cuadrilla’s Preese Hall site in 2011 was 2.3ML. Although I felt that event several miles away, it was less powerful than the 2.9ML event Cuadrilla caused at PNR in 2019. However, the Preese Hall 2.3 ML event still damaged the integrity of the well. Furthermore, Cuadrilla were seriously criticised by the then minister, Charles Hendry for not revealing the nature or extent of the damage to regulators for six months.
      From Cuadrilla’s track record so far it’s obvious that if they were to be allowed to resume fracking, particularly with a raised TLS level, we as residents could expect multiple seismic events and be expected to just ‘put up with them and any damage underground that possibly multiple damaged wells could cause.

  7. Except Suzie, last time I checked, UK was not USA.

    There are a lot of things that occur in the USA that fortunately do not occur in UK, from infrastructure. If you want to go down that route, then electricity distribution is finished in UK as they have serious issues with forest fires being caused from electricity distribution in USA, resulting in loss of property and deaths of animals and people.

    If you want methane emissions controlled, then maybe UK is a better place to produce fossil fuel than some other areas of the world that couldn’t care less about it.


      This is NOT a good place to produce Fossil Fuels if the process greatly increases your risk of CANCER and other serious health problems.

      If the process greatly reduces the value of your home whilst destroying the environment and rapidly excellerating climate change .


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s