Because they take time, money and no-one actually knows what's going to happen until the drilling has started.

Do you have a mobile phone? Look into the mining of Coltan, then, when you've purged your life of all the things it's used in, come back and talk about profit over people.

Not money, we aren't going to waste money on making sure people are safe?

You do know I wasn't involved in mining Coltan. And I make sure the Coltan in my phone wasn't sourced in the Congo.

You don't have to be involved in the mining of it, just the using of it. Angry Birds over people.

I'm sure you do.

I'd like to eradicate everything from my life that causes the environment harm and puts people's safety at unnecessary risk, reducing my carbon footprint is something I'm working on. It doesn't mean I will succeed or do it over night.

All you're doing is highlighting the greed of these companies and showing the reasons I oppose fracking.

I don't suppose they expected that the geology around Blackpool was going to mean that mining resulted in tremors, do you?

And I don't suppose that anywhere else it's caused problems they looked at the geology and thought: 'wow, this could cause problems but let's go ahead anyway', do you?

You're talking about taking risks that could have major consequences that are extremely difficult and costly (for the taxpayer, of course) to deal with. And for what? As has been discussed, it's unlikely to be in order to bring down prices to UK customers, which also means that it isn't going to do anything for energy security, so that only leaves one thing: private profit.

Now I'm not against profit per se, but private profit on the basis of major risk to communities and the environment? Really? You consider that to be acceptable and somehow positive?

It reminds me of the old comment about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I did some reading a few years back about having a tidal barrage at the Severn estuary, would have cost less than it it did to host the 2012 olympics but Brown turned it down as have the tories fairly recently apparently on the back of no evidence of benefit/funding/environmental issues...www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news ... -4088.aspx So 5% of the UKs total electricity requirements for the next 125 years wasn't going to cut the mustard..That HS2 and indeed the fracking projects will undoubtly cause far more damage and provide far less benefit (probably negative) underlines that it's down to certain people not getting fat brown envelopes from it. Seemingly doesn't matter what lot are in charge they all want backhanders at the expense of everyone else. Shale gas is just another sell out (that would have happened under Labour too let's not disillusion ourselves) that will not benefit joe public in any measureable way.

I did some reading a few years back about having a tidal barrage at the Severn estuary, would have cost less than it it did to host the 2012 olympics but Brown turned it down as have the tories fairly recently apparently on the back of no evidence of benefit/funding/environmental issues...www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news ... -4088.aspx So 5% of the UKs total electricity requirements for the next 125 years wasn't going to cut the mustard..That HS2 and indeed the fracking projects will undoubtly cause far more damage and provide far less benefit (probably negative) underlines that it's down to certain people not getting fat brown envelopes from it. Seemingly doesn't matter what lot are in charge they all want backhanders at the expense of everyone else. Shale gas is just another sell out (that would have happened under Labour too let's not disillusion ourselves) that will not benefit joe public in any measureable way.

Strange but I just don't see "vast areas of land that cannot be built on because of the threat of subsidence", instead I see landscaped areas where slag heaps used to be and lots of new housing estates where collieries used to be located - take a look at the landscape in a five mile radius of Xscape and you'll see the same.

I lived in two locations that were built above former colliery workings, a simple "coal" survey is now the norm for conveyancing and if the mortgage provider is still nervous then an indemnity policy is all that is required,

Take a further drive down the M1 and you will see large areas that are the opposite. Especially where the Selby Coal Seam reaches near the surface.

My point is simple, many of those suggesting we should still be mining are opposed to Fracking - why? I think we both know the answer to that.

You're most fond of claiming to be misquoted yourself, so quotes please as support for these claims, because I'm struggling to remember when I have been "so supportive of mining".

To help, I'll point out that noting that energy security was not thought through when the mines were closed on the basis of political ideology, or pointing out entire communities were thrown on the scrap heap because of the same ideology, is not the same as being "so supportive of mining".

I only claim when I know its not correct - and many times no evidence has been produced to the contrary - so even you would accept that is fair?

If I have misunderstood your postings then I apologise - maybe my recollections are wrong but I am sure you have suggested we should still be mining as the coal is more energy efficient than the imported stuff we use to fuel our power stations?

You may be misquoting me there

Possible - that is the case

Do you mean the M62 ?

I was involved in a very small way in establishing the first buildings on what became Whitemoor Pit on the Selby coalfield back in 1978-ish (or so) and the size of that development with five or six individual pitheads in the area meant that it attracted miners from all over the country, and large new build housing estates followed - no problems in building on what were technically quite shallow mines, the problem with coal mining has never really been subsidence which when it happens is usually very localised, its the waste produced over decades that left a problem but even that has been dealt with - take a look at what was the mountain of slag left by the Prince of Wales pit for instance after it was re-mined for coal that had been considered too "dirty" to collect previously.

The environmental concerns over fracking are totally different to that of underground coal mining and even the companies doing the fracking don't really know what will happen until it happens - read the article that I linked to previously and the quotes from the company who caused the problems.

I wouldn't describe the Selby coalfield as technically quite shallow, they were deep mines.
Even though Gascoigne Wood was a drift mine, it went deep to the Barnsley seam, which incidentally gets deeper the farther east one goes. 550 to 600m deep on average.
The strata had to be frozen to sink the shafts and drifts.