Shale Gas Cash

The government have already made it clear that she of the revenue from the use of shale gas should go directly to support the areas most directly affected by the drilling of wells. The principle that the areas bearing most of the disruption and inconvenience for the sake of the national good should benefit the most is a good one. I have always been concerned that where the cash is paid to local Councils it should be spent to benefit the areas most directly affected and not spent on other areas miles away. Now there are proposals that the cash should be paid directly to the households in the areas most affected which seems to me a great way of ensuring the people most inconvenienced benefit the most.

9 thoughts on “Shale Gas Cash

  1. I would be much happier if this money goes to insure those houses which become impossible to insure, to buy up those houses which become impossible to sell and to repair those roads which incur damage from all the extra traffic. It will be interesting to see what the radius of the affected area is, as we felt those tremors here in Bury.

  2. I would rather this money be spent to insure those houses it becomes impossible to insure, to buy those houses it becomes impossible to sell and repair those roads damaged by the increased traffic. Which I am sure will turn out to be much more expensive than a £10k bribe per household.

    It will also be interesting to see the radius of the area affected by the expected tremors, as I certainly felt the ones from near Blackpool here in Bury.

  3. As someone who has a water borehole (60 feet deep), has experienced in the UK back in the 1970’s 1st hand ‘fracking’ (as they now call it) which was 10,000 feet deep — get on with it.- Stop beggaring about with radioactive alternatives that don’t work. Get some gas power stations built (they work/take 2 years) and use the cash to create real green long term power generation (barrage/wave power etc.,)

    • Why? Have you actually researched what is involved in fracking? Are you aware that it has been practiced many, many times in this country, with no noticable effects (think: Wytch Farm). It has even been performed in the Fylde (near Esprick – find it, if you can), which has been in production for several years, now.

      Might I ask, are you one who condemns Thatcher for her closure of the mines? If so, why do you consider manual fracking (which is what mining is) to be better than hydraulic fracking?

  4. And how will “inconveniences” be defined? Passing lorries? But what about other lorries that may be passing through – lorries delivering goods and materials for farm and house building, removals lorries, combined harvesters, hay waggons, tractors and trailers, milk lorries… the list could be endless – should they not be compensated for them, too? “Earthquakes”? But tremors are occurring all the time, and few notice them; very often, those that might be a result of fracking are little more than what would be felt when a bus passes. Check out the British Geological Survey site for more information (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/).

    Despite the reports on the BBC assuring us that this has never been done before in this country, there are many sites where it has taken place, with, often enough, few people noticing – or, until recently, bothering to complain about it. The most recent “controversial” site for this is near Kirby Misperton; what is mysteriously missing from the reports is that it is a site that has already been fracked, and the company merely want to extend its life. Curiously, no mention is made of Flamingo Land, which is even closer to the village, and must be a source of greater intrusion into local homes with traffic and noise than fracking has been or ever will be.

    It might actually be more cost-effective for “compensation” to be a paid-for visit to those towns and villages in the USA that have seen the largely-beneficial effect that fracking has brought to them, and let the complainers chat with the locals, there.

  5. How about we just ask the local people if they want fracking and put the cases for and against to a vote. Also with the profits we could build desalination plants to replace the water were using to frack. And agree to use just water to frack and not the harmful / toxic chemicals.

    • If the local population are as ill-informed as you appear to be about fracking, then the result will be a foregone conclusion; the rabid Greens will have won, and you will face a future of ever-increasing energy costs, and ever reducing economic growth. You should do a little bit of research on the subject; it is not difficult, and much information can be gleaned from the internet.

      As for de-sal plants – surely Lancashire has enough rain to supply the water for fracking? Not that much water is actually used (though that does depend upon the site), and what is used is often re-used, several times. Oh, and the chemicals used are not toxic (probably never have been, though there will have had to have been experiments (aka trial-and-error) to determine the best mix).

      The majority of the chemical mix comprises dihydrogen monoxide and silicate; while both are known killers (it is possible that more people have been killed by dihydrogen monoxide than any other single chemical). Alarm has been raised that silicate is highly carcinogenic, but that information must be being withheld from the general population, as many parents continue to actively encourage their own children to play with it! Most people do tend to ignore these facts, as they are such useful chemicals. Other chemicals include guar gum, detergent, and other materials commonly found under the kitchen sink.

Comments are closed.