If You Worry About Immigration.. . . . . .

Quote: Lord Elpers "This link is to an article reporting Lorde Browne's views - the same Lord Brown that had to resign from BP for lying in court! This article says Lord B's views were opposite to those of Prime Minister and George Osborne. I asked you for the link to the quotes from the government and while your at it the prime minister too as you said he had hinted at prices being no lower.

It is true government does not control retail prices and that we are currently tied up with European gas wholesale markets as a major importer. However if the shale gas can be extracted in the huge volumes predicted then this will have an effect on the wholesale markets which should reduce the price because it will be much cheaper to produce. Again if we become a major producer we may wish to renegotiate any European deals because we will be a net exporter. Government can also choose to have a lower tax on gas if needs be. And by the time the gas comes on-line (or is it on-pipe?) we could well be out of the EU and free to make decisions in the best interests of the UK.

I have dealt with the risk of earth tremors and I repeat "Durham University’s definitive survey of all induced earthquakes over many decades concluded that “almost all of the resultant seismic activity [from fracking] was on such a small scale that only geoscientists would be able to detect it” and that mining, geothermal activity or reservoir water storage causes more and bigger tremors. Professor Ray Davies of the University of Durham thinks that fracking “causes as much seismic activity as falling off a ladder”. Conventional mining has a significantly greater potential to cause problems.

"The main reason behind objections to fracking is almost certainly the argument that exploiting more fossil fuel reserves simply prolongs the effort to reduce emissions. However, the evidence in America is that gas has displaced coal and given real benefits in terms of air pollution as well as reducing carbon dioxide output.

The conflict is really between a fundamentalist view that a complete change to renewable energy is needed as soon as possible and a more realistic position that a secure, affordable energy supply is vital for modern societies.

Gas is surely going to be an important part of the mix for many years to come, and a domestic source cannot be ignored. The effect on energy costs may be modest, but security of supply and tax benefits are not to be sniffed at.

There is really no reason why properly regulated fracking should not proceed'"

So to summarise you dont wish to take on board the views of Lord Brown, a man who lost his job as head of BP for trying to keep his gay relationship a secret but a man who clearly has a wealth of experience in fuel exploration and production, so much so that investors in energy exploration company Riverstone snapped him up as their MD - Riverstone own 46% of Quadrilla and he is now Chairman of that business too.

So the guy recognised as one of the country's leading CEO's in energy company's and who has the ear of the government as a special advisor on energy, should have his views dismissed because he admits that "its likely" that they caused tremors in Lancashire and that poor regulation of the fracking process can lead to contamination (he concedes that poor standards in well linings have led to ground contamination in the US), this person is to be ignored because he does not toe the party line?

Its not exactly open debate then is it ?

And to hope that the EU rules on gas markets may change or that the UK might be able to ignore them by not being a member of the club is clutching at straws, its a fact that gas extracted from the uk has its wholesale rates decided outside of UK control hence the reason why Cameron spends so much time pleading with EU members to side with his opinion that shale gas is the golden goose despite all those nasty rumours.