Well there is a model - rather a large model which proves the pros and cons of shale gas - ie the USA. The US now has gas fuel at about a quarter of our price in the UK. This has been a boon to their industries particularly the big users of energy and has helped the US to repatriate some industries that had previously gone to China. This model has been ongoing for several years now with NIMBY as the main con.

As we speak plans are underway to import American shale gas to the UK cheaper than anything from Russia, Europe and the North Sea

If our forefathers had all been Ludities and sceptics you would not be happily tapping your keyboards, as you now do, and enjoying the lifstyle you now do, that was founded on invention, enterprise and risk. You would be living in a cave wondering what animal you might catch to eat tomorrow.

Some people can always find a reason not to try something.

And the likelihood of a violent criminal ending up here undetected is?..

There are also reports from those states that the process of fracking is not without pollution risk, reports which our government seem keen to want to disregard.

The only test fracking that has been done in the UK resulted in the company admitting that it was "likely" that their activities had caused several earth tremors, and they haven't recommenced trials - again our government don't seem to want to talk about this.

And finally our government has already openly admited that shale gas will not lower consumer gas retail prices in the UK, so the American model doesn't quite hold water for at least three reasons, yet legislation is still pushed through making it easier for shale gas exploration, why would that be?

Dont forget that our forefathers pressed ahead with unfettered industry with no regard for the environment and we know what pollution was caused then -surely there is a reason to just stop and consider water table pollution, earth tremors, reduction of legal right to object, and cost benefit ?

Quote: JerryChicken "There are also reports from those states that the process of fracking is not without pollution risk, reports which our government seem keen to want to disregard. The only test fracking that has been done in the UK resulted in the company admitting that it was "likely" that their activities had caused several earth tremors, and they haven't recommenced trials - again our government don't seem to want to talk about this. And finally our government has already openly admited that shale gas will not lower consumer gas retail prices in the UK, so the American model doesn't quite hold water for at least three reasons, yet legislation is still pushed through making it easier for shale gas exploration, why would that be? Dont forget that our forefathers pressed ahead with unfettered industry with no regard for the environment and we know what pollution was caused then -surely there is a reason to just stop and consider water table pollution, earth tremors, reduction of legal right to object, and cost benefit ?'" Shale gas does not cause earthquakes, pollute water or use toxic chemicals. Wind turbines do far more damage. It was the US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who once said intensity of natural gas production.” As for earthquakes, 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”. Please can you provide the quotes or links to the quotes to show your claim that "our government has already openly admited that shale gas will not lower consumer gas retail prices in the UK" Sources: scientific-alliance.org/scientif ... s-fracking www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-shat ... -fracking/ moneyweek.com/fracking-what-is-i ... -the-news/ www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -shale-gas

Quote: JerryChicken "There are also reports from those states that the process of fracking is not without pollution risk, reports which our government seem keen to want to disregard. The only test fracking that has been done in the UK resulted in the company admitting that it was "likely" that their activities had caused several earth tremors, and they haven't recommenced trials - again our government don't seem to want to talk about this. And finally our government has already openly admited that shale gas will not lower consumer gas retail prices in the UK, so the American model doesn't quite hold water for at least three reasons, yet legislation is still pushed through making it easier for shale gas exploration, why would that be? Dont forget that our forefathers pressed ahead with unfettered industry with no regard for the environment and we know what pollution was caused then -surely there is a reason to just stop and consider water table pollution, earth tremors, reduction of legal right to object, and cost benefit ?'" Shale gas does not cause earthquakes, pollute water or use toxic chemicals. Wind turbines do far more damage. It was the US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who once said intensity of natural gas production.” As for earthquakes, 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”. Please can you provide the quotes or links to the quotes to show your claim that "our government has already openly admited that shale gas will not lower consumer gas retail prices in the UK" Sources: scientific-alliance.org/scientif ... s-fracking www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-shat ... -fracking/ moneyweek.com/fracking-what-is-i ... -the-news/ www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -shale-gas

Clearly you missed the discussions within government that were reported in January of this year, they basically revolve around the fact as confirmed by Ed Davey that the UK will have no control over the retail pricing of its own shale gas as it has to be touted on the european gas wholesale market, Cameron didnt like to promote this fact but he did warn other european countries not to put legal challenges in the way of fracking or no-one in europe would benefit, in other words the whole of the european market has to get involved or the UK contribution will be negligible on the retail markets - many european governments arent quite so keen as Cameron is.

Meanwhile the report from Cuadrilla Resources in 2011 is available for all to view on the internet in which they freely admit that their activities in Bowland Lancs concluded that it was "highly probable" that their operations caused at least two local earth tremors and they later closed down their site there at significant cost, not really the actions of a company who think they are innocent, dont forget this was their report quoting their own seismic engineers.


rlLord Browne is at least very honest about the risks and benefits associated with fracking, which is more than can be said for somerl

Pretty good judging by all the ones they cannot find.

Even if we find enough shale gas to keep us warm for the next 500 years, I doubt the price will be cheaper in the UK as it will be flogged off to private enterprise and they will have no desire to reduce current rates.

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

Hold on, I was only worried about immigration. Now I'm worried about fracking and bent politicians and scientists as well.....

Sorry, think I missed the point of the thread, is it a complete the sentence?

... you spend too long on the daily mail website?

Which goes to show that when it comes to discussions on immigration, there is an awful lot of associated 'gas'.

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.

Bloody immigrants, coming here, stealing our shale gas

The earthquake argument is an irrelevance. I really couldn't care less if earthquakes are caused when they are so small you need a seismometer to know they even happened. There have probably been hundreds of earthquakes of that size in this country this year alone.

Will the average working man see any savings? Perhaps not, but that's not an argument against fracking either, that's the government.

Unless you happen to live in the area...