THURSDAY’S public meeting on fracking was well ordered and went well.

Our worst fears were confirmed: there will not be just one well, but as each well has a range of only a kilometre, many more will be required to exploit the gas field, and our countryside will be ruined.

Far too much reliance is placed on UK regulatory systems – why should ours be better than those in France and Germany? The UK regulatory regime depends on enforcing the “industry and operator’s own standards” as well as national regulations.

However, compliance with regulations is assessed on a “case by case” basis, but the criteria for making this assessment can (as far as I can see) only be “industry” practice and standards. As most fracking has taken place in the US, this probably means that the same “industry” standards could apply in UK as in the US, where wells have failed dramatically.

The operator has to appoint and pay his own “independent well examiner” to monitor the operation of the well, but is it likely that the examiner will be truly independent as “who pays the piper calls the tune”? So what we end up with is an industry virtually self-regulating and self-policed.

Fluids hazardous to groundwater will not be used “where they may enter groundwater and cause pollution”. However, the corollary is that they can be used anywhere else, including the well pipe itself, so if there is a break or fracture in a pipe which passes through an aquifer, the risk of contaminating the aquifer remains.

The statistics on the number and proportion of US fracking wells which have failed is not denied. The risk of well failure in UK is recognised but instead of seeking to eliminate risk or prevent danger, Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency will only require the risk to be “mitigated” and/or “managed”.

None of this gives me much confidence or reassurance.

Councillor Paul Andrews, Malton ward

 

• I WAS fortunate to be able to attend last week’s meeting, “Unpacking Fracking”, at the Milton Rooms. Ryedale District Council is to be congratulated for organising this public event and I would encourage all those unable to attend to visit the council’s website and follow the links to two videos; one of the presentations and the other of the Q&A session that followed.

Fracking has the potential to affect all residents of Ryedale and it is essential that the facts are known and available to all. While there is a great deal of information available on the internet, your readers may be interested to know of a free online independent course being run by the University of Nottingham at “FutureLearn.com” – Shale Gas & Fracking. It is a four-week course, can be followed at any time and aims to consider all aspects of fracking from geology through economics to consideration of the social impact.

As residents of Ryedale, surely we have an obligation to try to understand what fracking is and why it is being proposed, as well as the risks and potential impact it may bring. The issue has the potential to split communities and significantly impact on our local area. I implore all readers, irrespective of whether you are for, against or undecided, to take an interest in a subject that has the potential to affect us all.

Bruce Nelson, Nunnington

 

• IN response to David Cragg-James’ letter in February 4 issue, I fear Mr Cragg-James is somewhat misguided with his understanding that we have had a reprieve from fracking in our locality.

The threat is still ongoing and gaining momentum. There may have amendments to the Infrastructure Bill, but this is not yet approved and does not detract from our current local issues, we most certainly have not been “spared the threat”.

Kirkbymoorside, Malton and Norton town councils have all opposed it, with Ryedale District Council holding a vote on February 17 as announced by Janet Waggott at last week’s public meeting.

Third Energy is holding public consultations over the next couple of weeks, with planning decisions being sought in March from North Yorkshire County Council, public opinion cannot wane during this time.

We simply cannot rest on our laurels with this, I politely suggest Mr Cragg-James contacts our Frack Free Ryedale groups on ways to support the campaign, which is still required.

I suggest people who could not attend the Unpacking Fracking meeting view the debate on Ryedale District Council’s website. There were four panellists and it was jam-packed full of factual evidence.

Karen Garrett, Brawby

 

• THE meeting about “Unpacking Fracking in Ryedale” on February 4 was a very well organised opportunity for an impartial public opportunity to hear various aspects of possible fracking in Ryedale.

These included: Fracking involves long-term risk to the communities in Ryedale and the countryside around them. The quality of our ground water is a particular risk here; risks may be reduced but not eliminated. Very good pipes and concrete can help, but for how long?; possible benefits to our economy will be short lived; risks will be long-term – for us now and for future generations. Long-term supervision needs to be set up, with powers to rectify problems as they occur; there does not seem to be any suggestion of financial insurance against the cost of short or long-term risk for those who may suffer and some substantial financial backing is needed.

Fracking can give a short-term profit to some, but is a long-term risk to many.

David Goodman, Oswaldkirk

 

• I WOULD like to thank the officers of Ryedale District Council for their professional and well-organised running of the “Unpacking Fracking” debate in Malton last week, which gave all sides a chance to put forward their views on this industrial developmen

t. Of great interest was Third Energy representative John Dewar’s answer to the final question of the evening from a member of the public: “If the people of Ryedale were against fracking in this area, would you still frack?” The answer? “Yes”.

It seems that with the almost fanatical support of the current Government for global oil companies (Third Energy is apparently registered in the Cayman Islands and 97 per cent owned by Barclays bank), the views of local people don’t matter – they’ll do whatever they like.

Steven White, Great Edstone