We note the letter (13 July) concerning a research project in California where the letter’s author makes reference to certain practices in the US, asking the Scottish Government to take note.
For clarity, the UK does not allow the practices mentioned in the letter as the regulatory environment is very different.
This precise point was made by the independent scientific panel for the Scottish Government, which warned against making comparisons between countries with vastly different regulations.
Scotland relies on gas for energy, as an ingredient in many everyday products and significant employment. We need a reasoned, fact-based debate, not one based on uninformed conjecture.
UK Onshore Oil and Gas
Alan Hinnrichs uses the report by the California Council on Science and Technology as an example of the “toxic side-effects of the controversial drilling practice” for shale gas.
In Britain the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) proposed that there should be a “moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits” but perversely ignored Public Health England’s conclusion that the “current available evidence indicates that the potential risks will be low”.
The EAC also ignored an assurance from the Environmental Agency “that the use of hazardous substances would never be permitted”.
A survey commissioned by Greenpeace, but hidden in a footnote, showed that 42 per cent of people supported fracking while 35 per cent opposed it.
The finding is particularly awkward for Greenpeace because it shows greater support for shale gas extraction than even government surveys have suggested.
The world is rich in shale gas and it will be exploited.
The world has sufficient fossil fuels for decades, if not centuries, so a world without coal and shale gas, as espoused by the green zealots, is unrealistic.
Would Alan Hinnrichs deny developing nations the fossil fuels which will take them out of poverty?