Fracking talk

We are all very aware of the need for the resources to power our nation long term, but to suggest that fracking should “get going” is ridiculous. Fracking would only be a very short-term solution to a lifelong problem and I would politely suggest you conduct some research before condoning it.

Fracking is an unknown quantity in the UK, despite protestations from the industry and government that it will be “safe” and “well regulated”, but the history in other parts of the world speaks for itself.

I for one, am not prepared to allow Ryedale or anywhere else in the UK to be guinea pigs. The only gain is in the pockets of gas companies and governments.

Fracking wells only have a certain life. Once abandoned, the gas companies will only maintain them for five years, then it falls upon the landowner to foot the bill for maintenance. It would only be a matter of time before the landowner is responsible for a hugely expensive environmental clean-up.

Would you also like to see a site of 50 wells going 24/7 from your living room window, hear the noise, live daily with the pollution? Would you agree it is okay to dump nuclear waste and other nasties down abandoned wells as the government has passed to do prior to the dissolution of this last Parliament?

The MEDACT report has stated that fracking has the potential to seriously affect health, would you like to see this happen?

Please bear in mind Mr Pearson that the anti-fracking campaigners are not a bunch of short-sighted tree-huggers, but local residents, farmers and businessmen and women who wish to preserve Ryedale, protect homes, their children and future generations.

Tourism and agriculture are the lifeblood of Ryedale and both industries have the potential to be decimated. With 19 sites of up to 50 wells per site planned for the whole of Ryedale would you consider that a nice area to visit let alone live?

I am a lifelong resident of Ryedale, a normal hard-working person who always looks at arguments from both sides. I have looked at this from every possible angle and cannot see the benefit. I am seriously hoping that your “getting real” does not become a reality in years to come as there will be no going back.

Karen Garrett, Brawby

IT was interesting to read election communications from certain politicians locally claiming to be anti-fracking. Hot on the heels of Robert Wainwright came Eric Hope and probably others.

Strangely, both previously voted not only against the Liberals’ motion to ban fracking in Ryedale, but voted against amendments for a five-year moratorium and then for a moratorium until 90 per cent of experts confirmed fracking to be safe.

I’m at a loss to know how this translates to being anti-fracking, other than to hoodwink voters until they’ve put their cross on the ballot paper. Did they not consider it important to investigate the facts and attend the district council debate before they voted?

Please remember the election statements of your local councillors (particularly when they’re in writing), then publicly hold them to account if they break the promises.

We can but hope this is a permanent miraculous conversion to join the “scaremongers and environmentalists” who have been desperately trying to warn everyone of the real risks from fracking.

Perhaps now re-elected, they can convince their Tory colleagues on North Yorkshire County Council planning committee about the dangers, because strangely, the critically important issues of climate change and fracking seemed to have been completely airbrushed from all election campaigns.

You may be interested to know that, as an election candidate, a significant number of people I spoke to on the doorsteps of Pickering are deeply concerned about the prospect of fracking in Ryedale. It’s certainly a fact that the vast majority of those who have made the effort to investigate fracking are firmly against it, while the overwhelming majority of pro-frackers are those who will make money from it.

Finally, regarding the legal “duty of care”, here’s a question for your elected representatives (or amended for anyone from the industry): Given the known risks, if you ever vote to approve fracking, will you have the honesty and integrity to accept a share of liability for any damage caused by that industry in the coming years? The answers are yes or no.

Mike Potter, Pickering

THERE really is no need for us to take the risks associated with fracking for shale gas. Studies show that UK renewables can largely provide for our energy needs. Significantly, in the case of solar and offshore wind, their costs are falling.

Sid Pearson, who says “get real” to people opposing fracking would do well to remember the urgent need to tackle man-made global climate change. This means reducing fossil fuel use, not looking for new sources.

As a major international conference on climate change approaches, we are warned by the expert scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that in order to avoid catastrophe, man-made climate changing emissions must be curtailed to the extent that they do not result in a global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees C. This means a radical shift in the way we produce energy.

As regards fracking and international climate negotiations, John Ashton, the UK’s former special representative for Climate Change and now one of the world’s most effective climate change campaigners says, “You can be in favour of fixing the climate. Or you can be in favour of exploiting shale gas. But you can’t be in favour of both at the same time”.

Embracing the alternatives to fossil fuels has other positive aspects. For instance, just a third of the UK’s offshore renewable energy resources from the wind and waves could make Britain a net exporter of electricity and create 150,000 jobs according to a Government study. Which would you support? Climate chaos or a stable and safer world powered by renewables?

Josephine Downs, York & Ryedale Friends of the Earth, Swinton

IN response to Mr Pearson’s letter on May 6. The points Mr Pearson raised are important as they clearly highlight why many people, just like Sid support fracking and yet demonstrate confusion regarding energy security for the UK.

The first point made by Mr Pearson suggests the Ryedale farming community supports fracking, really?

Re-elected Councillor Robert Wainwright, in his letter to the Gazette & Herald, April 17, wrote: “Why would I support fracking when Hovingham has always been my home and the land I farm is just 200 yards from a proposed drilling site?”

Of greater concern is the belief that imported gas comes from Russia, it does not. Seventy-two per cent of gas imports come from Western Europe (55.4 per cent Norway, 14.6 per cent Netherlands, 2.7 per cent Belgium, according to figures from UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG).

The arguments supporting fracking articulated by Mr Pearson are based on misinformation that leads to a flawed and irresponsible conclusion, resulting in the industrialisation of Ryedale. Sleep-walking into fracking through irrational fear could lead to a potential nightmare where public health is concerned.

A point not lost on NHS Scarborough and Ryedale Clinical Commissioning Group (SRCCG), which states: “The NHS SRCCG does not believe it is in possession of sufficient evidence to conclude the application for hydraulic fracturing in the Ryedale area necessarily poses low risk to the health of the community.”

I suggest Sid and people like him wake up and smell the coffee before it’s too late.

Martin Rivett, Broughton