To frack, or not?

There should be a moratorium on fracking and on waste water re-injection until such time as the hydro-geologists, seismologists, cancer and other medical specialists, agriculturalists, experts in animal husbandry, environmentalists, those promoting tourism, health-and-safety experts and toxicologists, not to mention land and estate agents and indeed politicians and others who have voiced fears about this Government’s intention to explore non-conventional means of gas or oil extraction have had their fears allayed, fears exacerbated by what look like the sinister machinations of some and the subterfuge of others.

As Christopher Pickles has pointed out (Gazette & Herald, October 15), the American, and, he might have added, the Australian experience argues extreme caution. The Australians now regret not having listened to American warnings: We too have heard but I’m not sure we’re listening.

Once exploratory wells are sunk at enormous cost, once the extent of gas deposits is known, the more difficult it will be to stop the proces.

The argument, “Yes, I agree, but we have no alternative” is compelling, but hardly a valid argument when the future of our children and grandchildren. The arguments offered at the talks referred to below make it clear that there is no exaggeration here.

Those readers unsure about the benefits of fracking and who missed the admirably informative and well-attended series of talks at local centres, might like to consult the website frackfreeryedale.org, where considerable information about the process, about the experience of areas where it has been tried and about the immediacy of this threat to Ryedale are all available, thanks to the dedication of a few.

I’m not sure we’re doomed as Alan Vowles suggests (Gazette & Herald, October 22) but prefer to be as optimistic as was Ian Crane at the local meetings, that good sense will prevail. If it does, then as Alan suggests, it will be our good sense and not Her Majesty’s Government.

David Cragg-James, Stonegrave