I WORKED as an analyst for many years and I think it’s fair to say that my expertise was highly regarded, with reports read and trusted up to the highest level. Those reports depended on information and data that could be trusted and verified as accurate.

I still find the skills learned to be useful and highly relevant, so over the past year I’ve been researching fracking quite extensively from any source possible – both pro and anti, while trying to maintain an unbiased position. As the pro side stands to make significant gains and the anti side stands to gain little other than environmental safeguards, the burden of proof must lie heavily with the pro lobby, ie gas companies and government.

I have found little or no hard evidence or data publicly to support the claims of benefits and environmental safeguards made by the pro side, beyond comments along the lines of “don’t worry, it’ll all be okay and very well regulated”, backed up by virtually no proof.

A year ago, I suggested to Anne McIntosh MP that openness and honesty would be the only way to gain public trust and consent. No progress. Only last week, public access was denied by Ryedale District Council at a presentation by a North Yorkshire County Council planning chief.

A recently-published Government report into the effects and consequences of fracking had many paragraphs redacted. As the fracking process has been used extensively in the US, Canada and Australia, there must be a wealth of valuable, but hidden data, so I can only conclude that it doesn’t bear scrutiny.

In those countries, there has been a high degree of self regulation by the companies. Historical evidence over many centuries shows that self-regulation by mining, oil and mineral extraction companies has caused environmental havoc and countless deaths until controlled by effective legislation and enforcement, so self-regulation is most certainly not a safe option.

A recent EFRA committee session chaired by Anne McIntosh questioned the Secretary of State for Environment, but that did little to allay my fears. It appears that conditions imposed during the planning process and subsequent enforcement will be critical to regulation of this industry, yet the planners and Government departments concerned can have virtually no specific expertise and will shortly be subject to yet more draconian budget and manpower cuts.

Meanwhile, the “frack free” side has made available a wealth of deeply disturbing information. Some of it I have been able to verify to my satisfaction, while most I cannot. However, the sheer volume of evidence is enough to make me think that although the “spin” will naturally be negative, there has to be a good probability of truth.

I suggest we need a well chaired televised debate between “experts” from the pro and anti sides, where each can have their respective claims robustly challenged and questioned by the opposition. Let’s see whose “facts” stand up to close scrutiny. Will the industry risk sticking its head over the parapet and putting hard facts from existing operations into the public arena?

With a potentially rich seam of Bowland Shale and existing conventional gas exploitation, Ryedale is “desolate” and far enough from London to be a prime site for making a start. Energy, but at what cost? The entirely realistic risk of polluted water supplies or air quality are drastic for every living organism, without even considering effects on transport, tourism, house prices, seismic activity etc.

Therefore, on balance, I’m now firmly anti-fracking and will remain so in the absence of any remotely compelling evidence. But don’t worry, this will only affect those of you who regularly access a supply of clean water or air.

Mike Potter, Pickering