ON the safety of fracking, Jerry Swift (Letters, December 10) appeals for “evidence, properly sourced and referenced” rather than “hysteria”. Let me suggest some sources that he might investigate.

• The Royal Society (2012) Shale Gas Extraction: Final Report envisages reasonable potential from shale gas extraction within acceptable limits providing various conditions and provisos apply. Notably it refers to low risks of seismic activity, an opinion of limited use, unless specific to local conditions. See royalsociety.org 

• On earth tremors, the New Scientist report, “How fracking caused earthquakes in the UK”, cited opinion from Cuadrilla, the company fracking the Fylde peninsular, which stated, “Most likely, the repeated seismicity (in Fylde) was induced by direct injection of fluid into the fault zone”. The Cuadrilla report has been removed from the internet. See newscientist.com

• The link between tremors and fracking in the Bowland Shale is also reported in “Seismicity: A Case of the Shakes”, from the The Ends Report: Intelligence for Environmental Professionals (2013) Ryedale, as readers must be aware, is directly over the Bowland Shale, hence its attraction for Third Energy. See endsreport.com

• The Journal of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Science (2012) “Fracking Outpaces Science in Its Impact” suggests that the science is not yet sufficiently developed to assess the risks from groundwater contamination in the US, but corporate interests proceed as if risks were minimal or acceptable. We might prefer a precautionary principle. See environment.yale.edu

• More recently, Climate Progress (2014) reports that scientists can now determine if water contamination comes from fracking, and the fluid constituents can now be identified, hitherto a “trade secret”. The report cites the journal Environmental Science and Technology and says the fracking fluid is “often radioactive”, one of the most serious risks, together with methane and carbon dioxide release, both greenhouse gases. See thinkprogress.org 

• Another cautious assessment is from Scientific American (2014), “Fracking Can be Done Safely, But Will it Be?” This refers to risks from methane leaks and water contamination, and the lack of pre-frack assessments of methane levels or other contaminants, undermining the value of post-frack measurements because there is no baseline to compare. Any measurements that have been made are industry secrets. See scientificamerican.com

• The Government Office for Science (2014) “Innovation: Managing Risk, Not Avoiding It” warns that fracking could present environmental and health disasters comparable with thalidomide, asbestos and dioxins. See gov.uk

My concerns about fracking are not based on hysteria, but on researching what is known about an industrial process that threatens to transform the north of England. It is time to get off the fence and declare outright opposition to environmental devastation from potentially 3,300 wellheads across Ryedale within 10 years.

One final thought. We should oppose fracking even if it were safe. It is a fossil fuel and will contribute to climate change just when, according to the UN, we should be phasing them out altogether.

Simon Sweeney, Sheriff Hutton

 

• JERRY SWIFT asks for reliable and well-referenced evidence about the effects of fracking eg. on house prices. He could consult the Government study put out by Defra last March Shale Gas: Rural Economy Impacts which can be accessed at gov.uk/government/publications/economics-of-shale-gas.

It is a fully-referenced study on page 11, with a section entitled “Impact on Property Prices”. Unfortunately, that is as far as his researches will get him as, apart from a few lines on the situation in Pennsylvania, the whole report on property prices is redacted ie blacked out.

As Geoffrey Lean wrote in the Telegraph (also available online), “Many householders are bound to suspect, rightly or not, that the redacted paragraphs contain far worse estimates of what the losses are likely to be in the British shires”. If the Government will not share this information with those affected, it can hardly expect support for its enthusiasm for fracking.

The report also suggests (p.10) that rural communities face three major social impacts: 1) Redacted 2) Redacted 3) Redacted.

Rosalind Field, Gilling

 

• UNTIL the Government starts speaking honestly about the real impact of shale gas on local economies, we must remain cautious. If there is nothing to fear and it’s all very good for us, why did the Government redact large sections of the report on Shale Gas – Rural Economy Impact?

I am begging for a public debate where we’re told the truth, surely that’s not too much to ask in a democracy?

Monica Gripaios, Hovingham