However, it seems likely that this would not be the case, according to this article that has just been published in Nature:
Monday, 27 October 2014
Nature: Fracking Unlikely to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Some people (including local MP Graham Stewart) have said that because burning natural gas produces less CO2 emissions than burning coal (a notoriously filthy fuel) that fracking could help in the fight against climate change.
However, it seems likely that this would not be the case, according to this article that has just been published in Nature:
However, it seems likely that this would not be the case, according to this article that has just been published in Nature:
Thursday, 23 October 2014
EA Letter to West Newton Local Residents
This letter was sent to residents who live very close to the West Newton well site, where serious problems with the well continue. Testing that should have been completed weeks ago hasn't even begun, and well intervention equipment is still present on site this week.
The letter states that the noxious smells that have been emanating from West Newton have stopped.
This is not the case. The smells continue to be reported.
We also note that the EA state,
The letter states that the noxious smells that have been emanating from West Newton have stopped.
This is not the case. The smells continue to be reported.
We also note that the EA state,
Monitoring results will be sent to Public Health England to check that any emissions do not have the potential for effecting public health.Which exposes as a lie Rathlin's claim that the smells are not harmful- they can not possibly know that. Rathlin don't even know exactly what the smells are, and have proved themselves incapable of controlling them.
Thursday, 2 October 2014
East Riding Council stifles democracy by excluding public from controversial planning meeting
In what seems like a deliberate attempt to stifle democracy, East Riding of Yorkshire Council is regularly excluding some members of the public from controversial planning meetings.
Planners met at Beverley County Hall this afternoon to discuss the Crawberry Hill well site planning application, which was know in advance to be controversial and have a large public interest.
So they chose to limit public access to just 40 people, and only allow them access to the gallery where it is impossible to see the speakers and difficult to hear.
More than that number again were outside the building demanding access, but were refused entry.
A formal request was submitted immediately prior to the meeting notifying them of the situation and requesting adjournment to a bigger room, but this was not even acknowledged.
Kayte White is a local resident from Newbald, just a few miles from the development and was left stood on the pavement outside while the meeting proceeded inside:
"Several of us from the village are here and have not been allowed in- we're shocked and absolutely appalled. This directly effects us and we have a right to see what goes on. They must have known this would happen, and there needs to be provision for this situation."
Richard Howarth from Frack Free East Yorkshire said:
"This is a shocking attempt to exclude members of the public who have a right witness these proceedings. This is supposed to be a democratic country and it's important democracy is seen to be done. In other areas of the country it is standard practice to find a bigger room- but East Riding Council are stuck in the past, and it's simply unacceptable.
The situation inside wasn't much better. The few people who did manage to get in all complained that they couldn't see what was going on, and couldn't hear properly- it was an absolute joke."
Minutes from ERYC Planning minutes (available here) show that the average number of members of the public attending is over 40 people. Controversial developments regularly attract far more.
Cherry Burton Village survey- 94% opposed to fracking
Hydraulic fracturing
(fracking) survey results
Cherry Burton
September 2014
Question:-Do
you support hydraulic fracturing?
Responses
Yes 2 4%
No 45 94%
Don’t
Know 1 2%
Comments
(reproduced verbatim)
Yes:
- none received
Don’t Know:-
One received
1) I am confused with the
different information in newspapers and TV from both the fors and
against. We need more info told in simply terms.
No:-
Thirteen received.
1) Several countries have
banned fracking due to environmental problems. It is not safe.
2) We are concerned about the water supply, which comes
directly from the Wolds. Fracking can
cause contamination.
Could it also cause
long term subsidence?
3) Fracking will
industrialise the countryside and increase traffic, disrupting rural
communities and farming conveyance. (Cause earthquakes?) Fracking
could contaminate water aquifers and soil causing danger to the
health of the public, crops, livestock and wildlife. If so
……. Contamination would occur by contact ingestion and
inhalation of chemical leakage. Effects:- Possible rejection of East
Riding crops and livestock – farmers loss! Possible boycott of
the Tourist Industry Possible water shortage Probable
drop in property value Probable defacement of the beautiful
countryside Maybe friends, family, visitors and guests would
avoid the area. Major Questions:- What about the
disposal of the poisonous waste water/chemical
solution/suspension? Where and how would it be stored?
The Future Generation ---- what for them?
4) We are concerned about
the environmental impacts, the pollution of water supply and the
potential of earthquakes as a result of fracking. I don’t feel it
is a safe viable alternative to our energy demands (as a nation).
5) House
prices will go down
Houses
will be uninsurable
Water
pollution
Can Yorkshire water
guarantee water aquifer contamination will not occur? And Rathlin.
Financial
guarantees to compensate should polluting occur.
Earthquakes!!!
Countryside
destroyed.
6) Rathlin Energy do not
get back to you on the telephone number that they have published on
their leaflets and do not follow up messages on their message box. So
what are they hiding?
7) Grave concerns over contamination of water courses.
Concerns
about resultant earth tremors
A small land mass such as
Great Britain is totally unsuitable for negative effects of fracking.
8) All the risks are ours
and with very little benefit!
There
are a number of concerns but my main concern is that if things go
wrong we have to live with the consequences. There is no way of
reversing such things as
a) Contaminate aquifers
b) Sink holes/earthquakes
c) Loss of property
values etc etc.
If
drilling and fracking go ahead, only the energy companies win. We
should have continuing payments into local coffers not 1 off
payments.
9) If it’s been banned
in various European countries and several states in America, there
has to be cause for doubt.
Despite
much talk, no-one seems to be able to say that this process is
completely safe – apart from those with a commercial interest.
Hardly reassuring!
10) Should do it out at
sea and use the sea water.
11) Can we have honest
answers to questions not rhetoric?
What effect will it
have on groundwater, both levels and quality?
What effect will it
have on aquifers?
Will additional
water in ground affect land stability, especially under houses, land
inclines eg hills?
If so much extra
water is being pumped into the ground, won’t it be less able to
absorb rain from the torrential flood type rain that we now
experience on a regular basis
(take this summer for
instance)?
12) Only in so far as 1)
reservations re water supply
2) Long term developers plans. Lack of
detail/transparency
Compiled by Cherry Burton Against Fracking
Survey forms available to
view.
Newbald Village survey: 96% opposed to fracking
This survey was posted through every door in the village of Newbald.
Respondents were able to leave optional
comments about their views on Fracking, of the 51 respondents 28
people felt strongly enough to add comments. All comments have been
duplicated below.
Comments in Favour of Fracking
“Advanced
civilisation needs energy, and gas is far cleaner than coal. More gas
available = less coal; less oil and coal imports, plus less
dependency on undemocratic states that supply the UK with gas. More
energy = more competitive and jobs for my sons.”
Comments against Fracking
“The
health and lives of the people living in East Yorkshire will be
adversely affected.”
“The
potential risk of water contamination is too high”
“VERY
concerned about this issue and frustrated that that we seem unable to
stop it happening”
“fear
of damage to aquifer and water pollution”
“mining
/drilling always in the long run affects ground water”
“I
am opposed to fracking for shale gas because, 1.As a country we
should not be looking for new sources of fossil fuels but alternative
greener sources of energy and 2. we should not be supporting ANY
PROCESS such as fracking which has, ANY POTENTIAL to poison both
surface and ground water supplies as well as risking air and soil
pollution.”
“I
am concerned about the health implications of this industry which
have been seen in other countries which have fracking. We need to ban
this like Germany and France have.”
“Not
happy about potential contamination of water supply; not happy about
damage to landscape
I
feel very strongly about this. I am well informed about the matter
and have researched both in favour of and against fracking. My
decision to be against is an informed decision.”
“Not
enough research being done into risk of damage to chalk aquifer, try
it and see not sensible approach, Who will manage security of wells
once shale gas is removed and the developers move on?”
“I
oppose Hydraulic Fracturing in East Yorkshire”
“We
are worried that is might affect our water and wildlife. We are both
dead against fracking and don't want it to go ahead.”
“Nice
little earner for those involved, but I cannot believe that it is
without risk in terms of subsidence or to the water supply. Also
there is the clutter to consider.”
“Poisoning
our water course, our children , ourselves will lead to destruction
of our area, which is beautiful and currently a healthy place to
live. Stop Fracking, put recourse into sustainable renewable energy.”
“strongly
disagree. I have done several online campaigns, I also filled in gov
campaign and got many of my facebook contacts to do so, really
worried about water supply and wonder why this has been banned in
many countries! why are we doing this in the uk! so short sighted of
councils everybody needs to think of the effect on the surrounding
varea as it will affect everyone. what about house insurance and de
valuing our beautiful village!!”
“I
have concerns about contamination of water supply, the impact on
wildlife and the fracking sites spoiling the look of our beautiful
countryside”
“I
do not support Fracking near Newbald as I am concerned about the
impact on our water supply and on the local wildlife.”
“banned
in usa,germany,france for health risks environmental reasons”
“it
appears to us that if fracking goes ahead we will be left with a
dangerous mess to clean up. lets all do as much as we can before this
happens”
“grave
environmental and health risks,industrialised landscape,loss of
tourism, house prices falling,its time to favour renewables or
catastrophic climate change is a real possibility.”
“I
fear for the health implications that are unknown in the already
fracked areas in the world. The industry is not tried and tested.”
“It
is in principle wrong to expand the use of fossil fuels as a source
of energy. They are all on balance associated with negative long term
consequences. Alternatives need to be developed. I do, however, find
the antifracking movement shrill and hypocritical and rather immature
in its approach. The same people objecting to fracking because of the
putative dangers and its antidemocratic implementation also object to
the expansion of windfarms in the area. Fracking needs to be seen in
the overall context of UK energy policy. It is only reasonable to
object to both fossil fuels and green energy if you can at the same
time promote an alternative. We need to encourage people to use less
energy overall, and to use the energy that they have to consume as
efficiently as possible. I want the taxes that I pay to be used not
to support the private sector to increase fossil fuel consumption, or
the inefficient production of energy from wind turbines, but to
subsidise energy saving and cheap green energy production. So - my
taxes should go towards subsidising home insulation projects;
preventing the loss of household energy to the environment; the
adoption of solar panels by private households; public transport etc.
In addition, private individuals and corporations should be penalised
severely for wasting energy if such waste is avoidable. Also, private
households should be provided a good price (an incentive) for
diverting their surplus solar energy into the national grid - energy
companies shoudl not get this energy on the cheap. Choose wisely
grasshopper.”
“I
don't think we know enough about the concequences of Fracking and I
am concerned about the implications this could have on our children's
lives”
“Worried
about the future for my grandson”
“I
am most concerned about contamination to drinking water through
leaked chemicals into our aquifer.”
“scared
of the risk of pollution to potable water sources and the
industrialisation of our countryside”
“I
believe fracking will damage our water supply and is unnecessary.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)