Government Erodes More of our Rights to make life easier for Big Companies

Fracking could be allowed under homes in Britain without owners' knowledge

Planning minister says law will be changed so companies do not have to directly notify people about gas drilling in their areas

Rowena Mason, political correspondent
theguardian.com, Wednesday 18 December 2013 17.37 GMT

Fracking could take place under thousands of homes without their owners' knowledge after ministers said companies would no longer have to notify people directly about potential gas drilling in their areas.

Nick Boles, the planning minister, said the law would be changed to allow gas companies to put in fracking applications without sending out letters to tell people about possible drilling beneath their properties. Instead, companies will be required to publish a notice in a local newspaper and put up site displays in local parishes, as well as conducting a wider consultation.

Campaigners said the announcement was a blow to all communities likely to be affected by fracking, following concerns about minor tremors caused by test drilling for shale gas near Blackpool, and the potential for flaring, air pollution and contamination of water.

However, the government said it would be too burdensome for gas companies to tell everybody within a wide radius of drilling that it might take place under their homes.

It would mean a "disproportionately large number of individuals and businesses" would have to be personally informed, Boles told MPs in a written statement.

Ministers have repeatedly dismissed safety and environmental concerns about fracking, saying it will be tightly regulated and developed responsibly.

The announcement comes after a report on shale gas found two-thirds of the UK's land could be made available for fracking companies to license, with new areas opened up in the Midlands, Cumbria and Wales.

The technology uses high pressure water and chemicals to fracture underground rock and release trapped gas. Because it takes place many miles underground, the companies themselves may not know precisely where they are drilling.

"The associated underground extraction takes place very deep below the Earth's surface, over a wide geographical area," Boles said. "As a result, it is often not possible to identify the exact route of any lateral drilling.

"Without the changes to the secondary legislation, the widely drawn area on planning applications for onshore oil and gas projects would require the notification of a disproportionately large number of individuals and businesses. This would be unnecessarily excessive when other forms of complimentary notification exist."

Tony Bosworth, energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said it was unacceptable when the government had already accepted that fracking could have "potentially significant local impacts".

"People should be notified personally if firms want to drill or frack for oil and gas under their homes. Removing that right is a further blow to local communities who are rightly concerned about the impacts of fracking," he said. Ministers should be strengthening rules to protect local people, not weakening them in yet another sop to an industry that wants to keep us hooked on dirty fossil fuels."

David Cameron has heralded the potential for shale gas to bring down household energy bills like it has in America, where there has been huge exploitation of the new resource.

However, many MPs are nervous about the prospect of new drilling for shale gas in their constituencies and there have been high-profile protests from Blackpool to Balcombe in Sussex about the possibility of shale gas drilling in these areas.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/18/fracking-allowed-homes-without-owners-knowledge-gas-drilling

Put the fracking under every home owned by the Government, see what they would say then!!!!

Start in Whitney and the Chipping Norton area. Set an example to the nation.

Absolutely, right under Cameron's house, see what he thinks then.

Morning Sassy and Irn

Sorry I fail to see what the issue is here, there is no evidence that fracking is dangerous and there is so many benefits for jobs and natural resource. I find articles like this scare mongering tactics no better than the mail

You beat me to it didge.

I thought Labour were screaming out for the Conservatives to get more growth, help the economy - won't this do just that?

PhilDidge wrote:Morning Sassy and Irn

Sorry I fail to see what the issue is here, there is no evidence that fracking is dangerous and there is so many benefits for jobs and natural resource. I find articles like this scare mongering tactics no better than the mail

Morning Didge.

There is a thread on here already showing there are serious concerns over the effects of fracking. I don't think the public really have the knowledge to know this one way or the other and we look to the experts and case histories to help us judge. I'll go look for it.

Here it is

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t1133-fracking-in-ponder-texas-the-real-cost-video

Maybe join in on that one as this thread is really about the government eroding our rights. Fracking is just an example.

Morning Didge.

I disagree.

Proponents of fracking would have us believe that it is the answer to all the ills of the UK economy; a way of releasing natural gas from our extensive shale deposits to replace the dwindling North Sea supplies, creating cheap energy and jobs. According to some it’s even green, as natural gas-fired power stations emit less greenhouse gas than coal-fired ones do.

It is, however, not so simple. Fracking – hydraulic fracturing, to give it its proper name – works by blasting large amounts of water through shale to release shale gas. In the process it can destabilise the ground in the area: last year, Cuadrilla had to stop fracking temporarily in the Blackpool area after it was implicated in two earthquakes.

It also creates large volumes of heavily polluted water, as the fracking process releases much more than shale gas, including radioactive elements. This then has to be disposed of safely and not allowed to contaminate ground water or water supplies. The line from fracking companies and from the government is that ‘there is no evidence of fracking causing any groundwater contamination’, as Michael Fallon said recently, but in this, as they say in parliament, the minister is mistaken in his mind.

There are extensive fracking operations in the US, particularly in Pennsylvania where the Marcellus Shale is one of the most extensive potential sources of shale gas. Companies there certainly have managed to contaminate groundwater and water supplies. In May 2011, for example, Chesapeake Energy Corporation was fined $900,000 for allowing methane to get into the water supply for 16 homes, resulting in the startling phenomenon of flammable tap water. Fracking supporters may argue that the methane got into the water supply as a result of the drilling which precedes fracking, rather than because of the fracking itself, but that would be splitting hairs.
Hiding the truth

One reason why these reports are not more common is that the fracking companies pay those affected not to talk about it. One family who were relocated earlier this year after their home was polluted by fracking was given a gagging clause forbidding them to discuss, not only why they had had to move, but fracking in general or even the existence of the Marcellus Shale. The ban also applied to their two small children.

If fracking were as benign a process as the government maintains it is, it would be unlikely that US companies would have to pay people to keep quiet about it. The official position that fracking does not cause pollution is dollar-based, not evidence-based.

As Michael Fallon made clear in his recent talk about ‘southern Nimbys’, if the government is determined to roll out an extensive fracking programme, they will be taking on their own heartland, the people who own million-pound rectories in Sussex or Dorset. If they are really prepared to do so it will be because assuring a continued supply of domestic fossil fuel is essential for capital reproduction, centred on the City of London, not the shires.

Renewable sources of energy could keep our lights on, but they would not do the same job for capital, hence the government’s stipulation to local authorities that they are not allowed to consider renewable projects as alternatives to fracking.

A few days before Cuadrilla started drilling in Balcombe, a trial started in Leighton Buzzard of the largest battery in Europe in what could be a breakthrough for renewable energy by allowing it to be stored until it is needed and so balance supply and demand on the national grid. The development of this technology would save greenhouse gas emissions and could save the UK £3bn a year (according to Imperial College research). But for capital, the best option is still to blast gas out of the ground.
- See more at: http://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/16590-fracking-dangerous-destructive-unnecessary#sthash.XBTIQLkR.dpuf


This would be especially true in those area that have naturally high radod levels in the ground, like the West Country.

That is setting aside the fact that the Government are doing this without voters having any say so.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Morning Sassy and Irn

Sorry I fail to see what the issue is here, there is no evidence that fracking is dangerous and there is so many benefits for jobs and natural resource. I find articles like this scare mongering tactics no better than the mail

Morning Didge.

There is a thread on here already showing there are serious concerns over the effects of fracking. I don't think the public really have the knowledge to know this one way or the other and we look to the experts and case histories to help us judge. I'll go look for it.

Hi Irn

Concerns is one think and I respect concerns, but again there is no evidence that this is in anyway dangerous. If it really was dangerous just like global warming countless scientists would be speaking out against this. That is not the case though as far as i can see.

Sassy wrote:That is setting aside the fact that the Government are doing this without voters having any say so.

All Governments do that all the time, do you want a referendum on every single policy made whilst someone is in Government?

Sir David King warns against fracking
Former UK scientific adviser says gas from unconventional sources could have huge environmental consequences


Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 16 September 2013 17.42 BST

Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the government, has warned of the "enormous environmental consequences" of attempting to fulfil the UK's gas needs by fracking and has played down the idea that it would have a major impact on the UK's energy market.

King, who left his government post in 2007, has been appointed special representative on climate change to the foreign secretary, William Hague, with effect from 1 October.

But, in contrast to many of the coalition's senior figures, who are eagerly espousing shale gas as an alternative to investment in renewable energy, he does not believe gas from unconventional sources can be relied on to power the UK.

"It will not be a game-changer here as it has been in the US," he told the Guardian in his first interview since his new appointment. "You will not be able to do that and there would be enormous environmental consequences."

He said that the role of gas in future would be much reduced, with the fuel providing only a back-up service in power generation, turned on at periods of peak electricity demand and then turned off again in favour of renewables and nuclear power.

This view is in stark contrast to ministerial urgings for a new "dash for gas" that some in the coalition have said should take over from the push for renewable energy. George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, has introduced new tax breaks for shale gas exploration. David Cameron has said that shale gas will reduce bills. And Ed Davey, the climate change minister, said last week that fracking would not endanger the UK's climate targets.

King's reappointment to a government role – primarily to guide the UK's stance in international climate negotiations, but he also to advise on aspects of the UK's greenhouse gas reduction – will cause consternation among some green campaigners, because of his controversial views on the progress of UN climate negotiations. He does not believe that the current style of talks, aimed at producing a global agreement similar to the Kyoto protocol of 1997, will bear fruit in the way their backers hope.

His view is that the US, which declined to ratify the Kyoto protocol, will not sign up to a legally binding international treaty on climate change because that would require a majority in favour in Congress, which he sees as unlikely. At the same time, he notes, China – the world's biggest emitter – is refusing to countenance a global agreement if the US stays outside.

King said that a "considerably more creative" solution was needed.

This would be most likely to take the form of a "bottom-up" arrangement by which each country could set its own targets on greenhouse gas reduction, and meet them at a national level, rather than having to submit to internationally set goals.

Many green campaigning groups deplore such a suggestion because they see it as much less rigorous than a formal treaty and easier for countries to wriggle out of, leaving greenhouse gases to continue their rapid rise.

The consequences of such a rise are expected to be set out in stark terms later this month, when scientists meet for the first time in seven years to hammer out the final details of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They are expected to say that climate change is 95% likely to have been caused by human actions, and that if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue their rise, the results will be felt around the world in the form of sea level rises, glacial melting, storms, droughts and floods.

King said the climate negotiations were "one of the biggest challenges for diplomacy". His new role will take him centre stage at the next round of the UNFCCC talks in Warsaw this November, in vital negotiations that are supposed to form a staging post on the way to a major conference in Paris in 2015, at which governments have pledged to forge a new global climate agreement.

King's views on shale exploration come as anti-fracking campaigners celebrated a partial victory in the high court on Monday. Protestors camping at a potential fracking site in Sussex were told they could stay in place until early October.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/16/david-king-fracking-shale-gas


There's one who is.

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:That is setting aside the fact that the Government are doing this without voters having any say so.

All Governments do that all the time, do you want a referendum on every single policy made whilst someone is in Government?

OK, so you don't this something that they are talking about effecting 60% of the country, going under property and in areas of outstanding beauty should be something that is discussed first, and licences not just handed out?

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

All Governments do that all the time, do you want a referendum on every single policy made whilst someone is in Government?

OK, so you don't this something that they are talking about effecting 60% of the country, going under property and in areas of outstanding beauty should be something that is discussed first, and licences not just handed out?

One is not countless and he only warned of possible consequences not any evidence

No I don't think it is an issue at all, people need to get over the fact we need resources and that we will need to build further homes. The world is getting bigger, so what do you suggest, mass genocide or the loss of some of our countryside?

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:

OK, so you don't this something that they are talking about effecting 60% of the country, going under property and in areas of outstanding beauty should be something that is discussed first, and licences not just handed out?

One is not countless and he only warned of possible consequences not any evidence

No I don't think it is an issue at all, people need to get over the fact we need resources and that we will need to build further homes. The world is getting bigger, so what do you suggest, mass genocide or the loss of some of our countryside?

I think the world is getting a damn site smaller as the population gets bigger.

Reduce the population to 3 or 4 billion and we'll be ok.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

One is not countless and he only warned of possible consequences not any evidence

No I don't think it is an issue at all, people need to get over the fact we need resources and that we will need to build further homes. The world is getting bigger, so what do you suggest, mass genocide or the loss of some of our countryside?

I think the world is getting a damn site smaller as the population gets bigger.

Reduce the population to 3 or 4 billion and we'll be ok.

Easier said than done Andy, though it does need the world to get together and do something about this for the future as it is not sustainable. Mind you some western nations like Italy are seeing their populations decrease, though this should be a priority for the world going forward

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I think the world is getting a damn site smaller as the population gets bigger.

Reduce the population to 3 or 4 billion and we'll be ok.

Easier said than done Andy, though it does need the world to get together and do something about this for the future as it is not sustainable. Mind you some western nations like Italy are seeing their populations decrease, though this should be a priority for the world going forward  

Well it won't happen here as long as the Conservatives keep throwing money at those on benefits.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Easier said than done Andy, though it does need the world to get together and do something about this for the future as it is not sustainable. Mind you some western nations like Italy are seeing their populations decrease, though this should be a priority for the world going forward  

Well it won't happen here as long as the Conservatives keep throwing money at those on benefits.

Sorry Andy, that has nothing to do with the rising world population, are you saying the population of the world is down to the Tories on benefits solely in this country?

Some people do need benefits to help them back into work, it is much fairer now and back the system

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Well it won't happen here as long as the Conservatives keep throwing money at those on benefits.

Sorry Andy, that has nothing to do with the rising world population, are you saying the population of the world is down to the Tories on benefits solely in this country?

Some people do need benefits to help them back into work, it is much fairer now and back the system

No but it has fuelled the population rise in the UK - both through encouraging those on benefits to have more children (3 and above is the magic number) and encouraging immigrants to come here - our benefits system is much more generous than that of most other countries.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Sorry Andy, that has nothing to do with the rising world population, are you saying the population of the world is down to the Tories on benefits solely in this country?

Some people do need benefits to help them back into work, it is much fairer now and back the system

No but it has fuelled the population rise in the UK - both through encouraging those on benefits to have more children (3 and above is the magic number) and encouraging immigrants to come here - our benefits system is much more generous than that of most other countries.

Complete fabrication, more foreign people work by percentage than Brits do, so your presumption is based upon nothing more than gobbledygook.

Could we stick to fracking and the Government allowing companies to do it under peoples houses and on 60% of the country without consulting anyone?

I already answered the above Sassy

You said there was not evidence against fracking. Fracking releases Radon in the rocks. They have quite a problem with it in the West Country. It has been proved to cause lung cancer, over 200,000 cases per year in America. Now you might be happy with that being released under your house and around you, I'm not.

No there is not enough evidence against fracking,

200,000 cases per year, sorry that is bull.

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2012/07/ap-to-josh-fox-fracking-does-not-cause-breast-cancer/

There is no evidence, there is speculation, not evidence, of people trying to link something very poorly to cancer.

I didn't say fracking, I said radon. And fracking does release radon, look it up.

'Exposure to radon in the home is responsible for an estimated 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year. Radon is a health hazard ' http://www.epa.gov/radon/

There are some contributions there that warrant consideration.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t1133-fracking-in-ponder-texas-the-real-cost-video#7832

Yes we all can post links and No sassy there is no link with cancer due to fracking, that is nonsense:


http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/07/skeptics_cant_stop_our_frackin.html


http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/21-scientists-back-california-fracking-plans-for-shale-1.453631


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266881/Prof-Robert-Mair-Here-are-the-facts-about-fracking.html

PITTSBURGH (AP) — In the debate over natural gas drilling, the companies are often the ones accused of twisting the facts. But scientists say opponents sometimes mislead the public, too.

Critics of fracking often raise alarms about groundwater pollution, air pollution, and cancer risks, and there are still many uncertainties. But some of the claims have little — or nothing— to back them.

For example, reports that breast cancer rates rose in a region with heavy gas drilling are false, researchers told The Associated Press.

Fears that natural radioactivity in drilling waste could contaminate drinking water aren't being confirmed by monitoring, either.

And concerns about air pollution from the industry often don't acknowledge that natural gas is a far cleaner burning fuel than coal.

"The debate is becoming very emotional. And basically not using science" on either side, said Avner Vengosh, a Duke University professor studying groundwater contamination who has been praised and criticized by both sides.



http://bigstory.ap.org/article/experts-some-fracking-critics-use-bad-science

Irn's link from the fracking in Texas thread. Rather long, but from a better source, more factual and more informative:

Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction

Here's the link...

http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/full_report35.pdf

My article summed you up very well Sassy, as it was neutral:




One expert said there's an actual psychological process at work that sometimes blinds people to science, on the fracking debate and many others.

"You can literally put facts in front of people, and they will just ignore them," said Mark Lubell, the director of the Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior at the University of California, Davis.

Lubell said the situation, which happens on both sides of a debate, is called "motivated reasoning." Rational people insist on believing things that aren't true, in part because of feedback from other people who share their views, he said.

Vengosh noted the problem of spinning science isn't new, or limited to one side in the gas drilling controversy. For example, industry supporters have claimed that drilling never pollutes water wells, when state regulators have confirmed cases where it has. He says the key point is that science is slow, and research into gas drilling's many possible effects are in the early stages, and much more work remains to be done.

"Everyone takes what they want to see," Vengosh said, adding that he hopes that the fracking debate will become more civilized as scientists obtain more hard data.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/experts-some-fracking-critics-use-bad-science

From the link I provided...

The report Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction is a detailed assessment and synthesis of existing research on fracking as well as the results of interviews with representatives from state and federal agencies, industry, academia, environmental groups, and community-based organizations from across the United States. Interviewees identified a broad set of social, economic, and environmental concerns, foremost among which are impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the availability and quality of water resources.

Its definitely the getting rid of the contaminated water that seems to be a big problem. We have only just got our rivers etc back in good nick, really don't want them contaminated again.

Sorry Irn and Sassy but the pro's outweighs the cons, nothing is without danger, but there are clearly way more pluses to this than negatives, no matter how hard you try and the reality is there are even more positives to the affect on helping against global warning:







Concerns about the potential problem also led to regulatory changes. An analysis by The Associated Press of data from Pennsylvania found that of the 10.1 million barrels of shale wastewater generated in the last half of 2011, about 97 percent was either recycled, sent to deep-injection wells, or sent to a treatment plant that doesn't discharge into waterways.

Critics of fracking also repeat claims of extreme air pollution threats, even as evidence mounts that the natural gas boom is in some ways contributing to cleaner air.

Marcellus air pollution "will cause a massive public health crisis," claims a section of the Marcellus Shale Protest website.

Yet data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that the shale gas boom is helping to turn many large power plants away from coal, which emits far more pollution. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency passed new rules to force drillers to limit releases of methane from wells and pumping stations.

Some environmental groups now say that natural gas is having a positive effect on air quality.

Earlier this year, the group PennFuture said gas is a much cleaner burning fuel, and it called gas-fired power plants "orders of magnitude cleaner" than coal plants.

PhilDidge wrote:PITTSBURGH (AP) — In the debate over natural gas drilling, the companies are often the ones accused of twisting the facts. But scientists say opponents sometimes mislead the public, too.

Critics of fracking often raise alarms about groundwater pollution, air pollution, and cancer risks, and there are still many uncertainties. But some of the claims have little — or nothing— to back them.

For example, reports that breast cancer rates rose in a region with heavy gas drilling are false, researchers told The Associated Press.

Fears that natural radioactivity in drilling waste could contaminate drinking water aren't being confirmed by monitoring, either.

And concerns about air pollution from the industry often don't acknowledge that natural gas is a far cleaner burning fuel than coal.

"The debate is becoming very emotional. And basically not using science" on either side, said Avner Vengosh, a Duke University professor studying groundwater contamination who has been praised and criticized by both sides.



http://bigstory.ap.org/article/experts-some-fracking-critics-use-bad-science

Well, I just can't believe it!