Let our communities have the fracking vote

After all, it will be Ryedale people exposed to whatever risks may be involved.

The gas companies can hardly claim there is no risk when simply Googling “fracking” will display numerous examples of environmental devastation.

Any failure could be similarly catastrophic for Ryedale. How much have these companies learned – and how much will they be prepared to spend – to prevent any repeat? How will they prove it and how will they earn our trust?

I’m cynical enough to predict that permission will be granted, whether by North Yorkshire County Council or on appeal by the Secretary of State ie central Government, because money talks (and cajoles) infinitely louder than localism. After all, there is cross party support in Westminster for fracking, unless it is in MPs’ own constituencies.

I therefore challenge the local community to find the experts needed to ask the right questions and closely scrutinise the answers.

Every leading academic or industry expert lives somewhere and is therefore part of the community. Let us find them and get them involved. They are likely to have even better informed colleagues and friends they can consult with too. Let us have expert geologists, engineers, hydrologists, seismologists etc robustly challenging the claims of the fracking industry.

If the responses are plausible enough, then the “frack free brigade” – of which I am now one – must concede that the process can be safe and clean.

However, at that point the industry needs to find an insurer on the open market (in the same way that householders throughout Ryedale are currently able to) to indemnify themselves against whatever small risk there might be.

If the risk is proven to be so low, the premiums will be affordable. Failing that, they’ll have no qualms about paying enough into a community fund to mitigate any disaster, as their money will be quite safe.

Of course, this all ignores any arguments about climate change, excessive carbon emissions from burning hydrocarbons and short-term inadequate energy policies. One thing at a time.

Mike Potter, chairman of Pickering and District Civic Society, Pickering

ABOUT a third of the energy used in the UK is obtained from gas – for electricity generation, industrial processing, heating and cooking.

The continuing reduction in North Sea reserves and the need to replace much coal-fired electricity generation by gas means that even if the ambitious targets for renewable energy are met, gas will still be required in substantial quantities for many years to come.

Without development of onshore reserves this means that although there are ample global reserves of gas, imports will have to increase with all that implies for security of supply and related economic factors. The indications are that the hydraulic fracturing currently proposed in the Ryedale area is an extension of the exploratory work which would be expected to produce some commercially marketable quantities of gas and indicate whether larger scale extraction could be viable.

The feature and stories in the Gazette & Herald on November 26 gave a good indication of the type of campaign which can be expected against the exploitation of unconventional natural gas reserves.

The drilling of deep boreholes in North Yorkshire has been carried out over several decades for the proving of coal and other mineral deposits and for gas exploration and extraction.

The measures taken to minimise the environmental impact at the surface are very well established as also is the engineering design and control of drilling required to ensure that surface waters and aquifers are not contaminated during and after the cessation of drilling operations.

The adverse effects of input water with additives (about one per cent) used to carry out fracturing and any associated seismic effects are unlikely to be significant, but the fracking return water which will contain both suspended and dissolved materials from the strata will require treatment for either re-use or treatment for consented discharge.

The argument for the exploitation of unconventional gas (shale gas and coal bed gas) should be based on an objective assessment, as called for by the local MP, of the need, environmental effects and associated current and additional controls required rather than on emotive assumptions voiced by opponents.

David Randon, Wheldrake

I welcome the coverage concerning shale gas exploration in the Gazette on November 26.

A report commissioned by the Government’s chief scientific advisor Mark Walport has concluded that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract gas from shale deposits could be an environmental and health disaster comparable to thalidomide, benzene, dioxins or asbestos.

A Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) report on the impact of fracking on house prices was heavily censored, presumably because it did not match the Government’s policy to back shale gas because it is apparently cleaner than oil or coal, and cheaper.

Studies in the US (Google, “Do scientists believe in fracking”) suggest real environmental threats from fracking, so the precautionary principle ought to apply. Meanwhile, shale gas businesses pursue short-term profit, regardless of the environmental costs.

The key question is climate change. If we must stop burning fossil fuels as the UN demanded four weeks ago, then the dash for shale gas is foolish, even if it could be extracted safely.

Shale gas diverts attention from conservation efforts and renewable energy.

Our local power station at Drax, once dependent on coal, is switching to carbon neutral biomass to produce seven per cent of UK electricity needs.

The Government, Labour and UKIP are shale gas enthusiasts.

The Liberal Democrats sit on the fence. The public should demand debate, transparency and honesty from our representatives, or the consequences could be severe indeed.

Simon Sweeney, Sheriff Hutton

In the light of Third Energy’s intent to submit an application to frack at Kirby Misperton and the disclosure that they are offering £100,000 to the local community for a variety of causes, I would like to urge local schools, community centres and village hall committees to think carefully about accepting financial support and goods by way of football kits etc This may come across as being extremely generous by Third Energy, but in many local people’s minds is nothing but a thinly-veiled sweetener by a clever PR department.

Up until early summer very few people had heard of Third Energy until the onset of the seismic survey. Even through the course of the seismic survey, Third Energy continued to deny that fracking was their ultimate goal. Our land and many farmers around us were surrounded by equipment and when asked point blank, their representatives stood on doorsteps and categorically said No, fracking was not on their agenda.

In my mind, this company cannot be trusted and anyone accepting offers of support should seriously question why the sudden urge to support local causes?

Can we, as a community, trust a company that “accidentally” drilled several thousand feet further than they should have? Oops, our drill slipped, but we found lots of gas and here is a shiny new football kit. Do they think us Ryedale folk were born yesterday?

Karen Garrett, Brawby

Why is the Malton Gazette & Herald scaremongering among the Ryedale residents. There is no need to frighten the readers against this drilling operation.

Walking into the Market Place in Malton, someone thrust a board at me to vote against fracking.

Let’s get the facts straight. The industry is the best in the world for safety and the environment, also the lighting and the noise is regulated, and because the site is away from Kirby Misperton village, there is not a problem. HGV transport and traffic stops at 12am Saturday until 9am Monday.

Maybe we can regulate the buses etc going to Flamingo Land on a bank holiday, or the cattle transport going through Butchers Corner at Malton?

I was at Barton Moss, in Manchester, and saw the destruction protestors had caused. There were tents and homemade shacks at the side of the road, oh also a homemade latrine. I don’t think many Ryedale residents would like that, but the people of Kirby Misperton will see these eco warriors.

Bring on drilling in Ryedale, like it has done for the past 40 years and if it involves fracking, so be it. I have lived in Ryedale for 56 years.

Andy Smith, Nunnington

I doubt if many readers were watching BBC Parliament last Saturday, November 29, but those who did would have seen the Select Committee for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs debating the problems of the dairy industry.

The chairman was our MP, Anne McIntosh.

The debate was well conducted with courtesy between the committee and witnesses representing the NFU, TFA and FFA and the supply chain. I will not attempt to rehearse the arguments because the problem is complex, huge and international. We need the considered multi-party approach like this to find solutions to such problems. Above all we need Members of Parliament like our present Anne Mcintosh, who takes the trouble to be fully briefed and is an excellent committee chairman.

I hope some other constituency asks her to represent them after May 2015. She will be a great loss to Thirsk and Malton.

Sir Charles Legard, Scampston

I am deeply concerned about the recent announcement by Third Energy of their plans to test frack at Kirby Misperton.

Third Energy talk of their good relationships with the community, I just don’t believe them. At their public consultation in Hovingham this year when asked the question, “Will the seismic testing lead to fracking in Ryedale?”, they said “we will not be fracking in Ryedale, this is just a search for conventional gas”.

This was the same story they told the local landowner and the MP, how can we now be expected to trust them?

I would like to call for an open and transparent debate about fracking in Ryedale at the earliest opportunity.

Monica Gripaios, Hovingham