We must be informed to make fracking decisions

Safe. Is the net increased production of greenhouse gases safe? Is it safe to pollute globally scarce water resources both via the fracking process and by the inevitable contamination over time of the aquifers by leakage, by seepage and by well failure?

Can it be deemed safe that the full consequences of the accepted increased seismicity in fracked areas are, and will remain remain, terra incognita until there is a really serious event somewhere on the planet? Does safety reside in the use of productive agricultural land on a scale, vast but unknown, to feed our short-sighted thirst for energy at whatever cost to the feeding of our fellow men?

Reliable. If this means that we can place our trust in fracking, accidents apart, for as long as it takes to find alternative really safe energy sources, then Mr Heath must be privy to information which seems to elude those in the know concerning the quantity of shale gas beneath our feet, and even more importantly, how much is extractable. (Cuadrilla guessed about 11 years worth in the Bowland Shale in 2011.) Whatever the answers, the quantities are assuredly finite, and in the meantime...

Relatively clean. Relative to what? Perhaps to coal burning (which carries on in any case, the US exporting its coal for burning elsewhere.) Certainly hands will be cleaner (non-figuratively) but that is all. Methane vented during the fracking process and afterwards is, I understand, a far more potent greenhouse gas than the CO2 associated with coal burning. Decommissioned wells, thousands of them, are not routinely monitored for methane leakage.

It really is not helpful for Mr Heath to characterise attempts to raise public awareness by the adducing of facts and arguments as “mis-information”.

My information derives from material freely available online, as well as from Alan Tootill’s informative book in which the pro-fracking arguments are countered in a reasonable and measured manner, using sources which are verifiable.

Mr Heath’s concern for the future of UK energy provision and for our economic competitiveness is laudable, but not if these are to be sought at the expense of our grandchildren and our planet.

Far from, “hiding our heads in the sand”, those people who are opposed to fracking are seeking to counter the extravagant claims and certainties of the frackers for whom there is no risk to vital water supplies, to the air we breathe, to the climate we have partly adapted to, to the food the world relies on, to our visual heritage.

In their beliefs, the pro-frackers are supported by the shale exploration companies, and by the government in which they trust.

The choice is ours, as Mr Heath persuasively puts it, but only if we have bothered to inform ourselves, otherwise, we have no choice but blindly to follow where the frackers lead us.

This would be far easier for the anti-frackers in the short-term, but, they believe this would simply be wrong.

The evidence is the basis for this belief: the evidence counsels caution, and, I believe, a moratorium.

David Cragg-James, Stonegrave

• As the Labour Party’s Prospective Parliamentary candidate for the Thirsk and Malton Constituency for May’s General Election, I would like to make clear my position on the fracking debate.

The question is a complex one, with the need to balance the national requirement for energy with the natural local concerns with the impact fracking might have on our environment and local economy.

The evidence from areas in this country and in the US is, that if left unregulated, fracking can have a detrimental impact on the environment and blight towns and villages.

Fracking should only be allowed if all the concerns raised by local residents and environmental groups are fully listened to and addressed in the planning process.

If these concerns cannot be satisfied then fracking should not be allowed.

Voters should be clear which candidates support this position and which candidates will support the powerful business interests, intent on private profit, rather than the public good and vote in May accordingly.

Alan Avery, Pickering

• FOR those believing that fracking is anything other than a last gasp of the fossil fuel age, it is helpful to consider the key difference between renewables and fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource. In spite of the temporary blip in prices caused by over-production, and the desire to punish Russia and control Iran, the price of fossil fuels will inevitably rise as the cost of exploiting depleting reserves increases.

Solar power is not a fuel, it is a technology.

For our purposes we can consider the power source, our sun, as an infinite and free resource. History shows that, as time passes, the efficiency of technologies increases and the cost decreases. We see this with computers, washing machines, fridges, cars, televisions, etc.

Solar panels will eventually become as cheap as wallpaper. This is crucial to understanding the green energy revolution. The amount of power produced by solar across the world went up 53 times over the past eight years and will continue to rise exponentially. Homes across York are now generating electricity. In the years ahead all our homes will produce their own power. That is why fracking belongs not to our future but to our past.

Christian Vassie, Wheldrake

• In last week’s Gazette, Third Energy’s spokesman reportedly said that “layers of equipment would need to fail” before water could be contaminated during its operations in Ryedale.

To quote the late, lamented Mandy Rice-Davies: “He would say that, wouldn’t he?”

Hannah Fraser, a consulting hydrogeologist and expert witness with 17 years of experience, has covered the question of such, “fail-safe” measures in her independent report prepared at the request of Frack Free Ryedale and available to everyone on the internet.

In particular, “the use of a site interceptor and soakaway [at Ebberston Moor] is considered highly inappropriate due to the…real risk of a major pollution incident caused by a blow-out.”

The report found wholly insufficient attention to spill management and pollution response. It found an insufficient understanding of the local geological fault structure. It found insufficient testing to establish a baseline against which to measure future changes in water quality.

This is particularly concerning since the consultant’s report also found that the expected level of contamination of the produced waste and re-injection water – especially highly-polluting radioactive brine -- exceeds environmental quality standards by several orders of magnitude.

Chillingly, the report also found that the effect of a single spill, or of the underground contamination of the aquifers, could result in a risk of pollution in perpetuity.

Third Energy’s public over-confidence adds to the veritable litany of half-truths, omissions and redactions for which this industry and those associated with it are becoming household words.

Robert Field, Gilling East