Hmmm, now I've looked it up three of them were even deeper than that, the old museum of recollections was influenced by the idea that Gascoigne Wood didn't need a shaft as such and initially back in the 70s it was suggested that they could surface mine it - I've been to Gascoigne Wood some years ago as a bio-tech company of some description had moved in and led us a merry dance on some equipment they wanted to buy from us, they disappeared a few months later, we also had some business with RJB there too when they were running the place AND at Hatfield where I got a tour of the pithead structures, nothing ever came of those enquiries either

So of course you've got me curious now as to what the pit was like that one of my brother in laws worked at until its closure during the 1985 strike and while the info isn't the actual shaft that he worked down its part of the overall complex of Cowpen colliery which became known as Bates, some of those seams that are named on the chart are ones that he worked on although by the 1980's they were working well out under the sea, he used to tell us that the face workers had a journey of at least an hour to get to their place of work - anyway here is the geology of a 700 foot coal mine ... rlhttps://www.dmm.org.uk/shafts/c031-01.htmrl

In 1985 Bates employed 1735 men, 1454 of them below ground.

If coal mining was such an exact science then tunnel collapses wouldn't happen - but they do. As I said before any mineral extraction has its dangers as we seen in mining, oil extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, Piper Alpha in the North Sea. Is Fracking more dangerous than oil/coal extraction?

No-one knows, and that is the issue.

When you try it and something like earth tremors happen and the company responsible admit their responsibility and then go on to say that if they continue then they "don't think" it will happen again then it doesn't fill you with confidence does it - when they then shut down the site admitting that there were too many environmental clauses attached to their licence to drill on that site then again it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in their assurances that its does no damage to the environment.

That's cleared up, then. I wouldn't know the first thing about that sort of stuff.

As Coddy says, you've confused us! ~shivers~

Succinctly put and spot on.

No, but then the only way people wouldn't be up in arms anyway would be if as they broke ground butterflies and candy floss escaped and made everyone smile. Then Mary Poppins sang a song.

At the moment they can't. But wait ... HM Gov has now brazenly announced that it is going to reverse the law which currently (of course) states that a landowner has to give permission for fracking or anything else on their land, to, er, remove this little obstacle.

Given "unprecedented" ground water levels in the South, one wonders what could have happened if fracking had been happening on a widespread basis?

The water would probably have soaked into the fractured shale deep below ground - expect to see this in a government press office release in the near future, repeated immediately by a compliant media.

And there is a very good question.

So, fracking will help flood control. Brilliant!

The only flaw in such a political comment would be that for many years ground water levels have been dangerously low and would fracking therefore make it worse!!

We'll basically lose any ground water deep inside the earth where it will turn to steam and come back through fissures as geysers - the whoel of the UK will then be declared a National Park along the lines of Yellowstone and we'll all have free hot water for life - but we'll have to catch rainwater to drink.

I can't really see a downside actually.

Geothermal power!