As a resident of Fylde with some oil and gas experience, I feel there has been too much said and written about fracking (“A county divided: is Lancashire ready for its fracking revolution?”, News, last week).
The technology exists (with one exception) to carry out this process with as close to zero risk as any human activity. The technical exception is the radioactive content of the water that comes back to the surface. Your feature mentions the solitary UK frack at Preese Hall, where measurements of the returned water contained between 1.2 and 9 times the radioactivity allowed for general discharge. This was disposed of, untreated, by dilution because the quantity was relatively small. That would absolutely not be acceptable for production quantities. One official suggested that existing treatment processes and facilities would cope with dilution as a solution. They will not even begin to cope.
That takes us to the main reason for public hostility. You do not need technical expertise to see that a monitoring of regulations (which do not cover all aspects of fracking, despite what is claimed) to ensure compliance, conducted by a group of agencies each reporting to a different government department, is a recipe for chaos. One senior Conservative admitted at a public meeting that the set-up was “intellectually strange”. Totally dysfunctional is more accurate.
It could all have been so different if those who knew what they are talking about had been listened to in the first place. As it is, the way this “debate” has been conducted, particularly by government, is a case study for any business school in how not to do it. The public is justified in disbelieving anything “officialdom” tells it.
Mike Turner
Lytham St Annes
Your two-page spread about fracking in Lancashire missed out the fundamental issue and that is climate change. It’s as though there is a conspiracy to keep quiet about it and see its application to everyday issues as a nerdy or a knitted sandal brigade concern.
When will it be part of our normal understanding that climate change is here and unless we plan to reduce the extraction of fossil fuel from the earth drastically there will be a build up of catastrophes for human civilisation. Fossil fuels have stored up energy from the sun over millions of years: how can we expect the release of this in a few hundred years to produce no consequences? Time may have already run out.
The Rev Mike Plunkett
Bishop’s Castle, Shropshire
Damian Carrington presents a balanced picture of the strongly divided opinion within communities on fracking. It is clear that the government and the industry need to do much more to gain the confidence and trust of communities facing fracking proposals, including strengthening safeguards for people and the environment.
This is why CPRE is calling for the government to change proposals in the infrastructure bill, currently being considered by parliament, which are inconsistent with the claim that the UK has world-class fracking rules. Proposals such as to allow fracking companies to deposit any substance underground are unnecessarily wide-reaching and likely to exacerbate widespread public concern. Along with the RSPB, National Trust and Wildlife Trusts, we want to see additional protections for sensitive landscapes, such as nationally and internationally protected areas.
More meaningful, inclusive and independent public engagement on fracking is also urgently needed with the prospect of new planning proposals affecting other communities.
With a much more deliberative approach required, it is unclear how far the £5m public engagement fund announced by the government in the autumn statement will go to fulfilling this need.
Nick Clack
Senior energy campaigner
Campaign to Protect Rural England
London SE1
