Fracking in the West -

feicim

The other thread on this got locked for apparently not providing links (most posts had links as far as I could see). I thought it was interesting topic so I've started another thread.

With "Links":) Quotes below taken from Irish Times website... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0611/1224298736261.html


Fracking seems is a contentious method to extract gas.

As far as the Irish Government is concerned, it seems that fracking is at present a perfectly acceptable method to extract gas from the ground.

Exploration rights have been granted to two companies.

In February, two companies, the Australian-based Tamboran and the Lough Allen Natural Gas Company (Langco), were granted onshore petroleum licences to carry out preliminary testing in an area which includes the counties of Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Cavan and Fermanagh.

They aussie company Tamboran, has explicitly stated that fracking is the only way to do it....

Mr Moorman acknowledged that it would be “impractical” not to use the process of hydraulic fracturing or fracking to extract the gas though some of it might be liberated using only horizontal drilling.

The EPA in america have noted that Fracking is detrimental to air quality...

“You are going to have huge smog problems where you never had them before,” Jackson was quoted as saying. “These are rural areas. ... There is a lot of activity around those wells and that has an impact on air quality — and we know it already. The EPA will soon be coming out with regulations to deal with the air quality around natural gas production.”

link: http://www.dieselprogress.com/Industry-News/3424/Another-Fracking-Problem?/

Fracking has also been blamed for water (aquifer) pollution.

It seems ideal for use in say a big uninhabited desert... not the west of ireland - where people and animals / plants live and tourists go to visit...

It seems like the typical government ignorance/stupidity/falling asleep at the wheel - that this method can be used in Ireland...

It would be nice for once if this issue could be debated before it is too late...

A free documentary on this topic can be found here

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/gasland/

There seems to be planty of info online on this topic. Surprising the government has absolutely no concerns about this... (just like the way the last dozy government had no concerns about the financial system and ignored all advice/warnings)

Now is the time to do something about this. Ireland doesn't need another shell to sea type debacle...


Edit:

Earthquakes/Tremors in Blackpool suspected to be linked to fracking in the area.

The controversial new drilling operation for natural shale gas in Lancashire has been suspended following a second earthquake in the area that may have been triggered by the process. The earthquake last Friday near Blackpool occurred at the same time that the energy company Cuadrilla Resources was injecting fluids under high pressure deep underground to deliberately blast apart the gas-bearing rock – a process known as "fracking", brought to Britain from the US, where it has been highly contentious.

"It seems quite likely that they are related," said Brian Baptie of the British Geological Survey (BGS). "We had a couple of instruments close to the site and they show that both events were close to the site and at a shallow depth.

"The timing of these two events in conjunction with the ongoing fracking at the site suggests that they may be related." He added: "It is well-established that drilling like this can trigger small earthquakes

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/small-earthquake-in-blackpool-major-shock-for-uks-energy-policy-2291597.html

nesf

Thanks for restarting the thread and providing sources for your quotes.

thebman

I saw this on the journal who had articles on it too. It seems like a bad idea.

But I think Irish politicians know they will lose more votes than they could gain by going for it if it is as dangerous as it seems.

frackingishell

Hi folks, doing a bit of research on this lately, and has anyone wondered why the Fracking issue has stalled and seems to be idling? Well, from what i can gather the price of GAS has to be over 5 dollars per unit to make Fracking profitable, which it isn't now. Currently The August natural gas contract was unchanged at $4.55/MMbtu on NYMEX.

This is why these things are just ticking over at the moment. It is NOT because the planning process etc. is being adhered to, so don't think it is. It is unfortunately a fact that economic factors are going to define how hard we'll all have to work to fight this poison.

Currently in the M&A (mergers and acquisitions) market, a possible bad omen is that BHP Billiton, (the Australian mining giant and world's seventh largest company) is still persisting with it's diversification strategy into Shale Gas. They are trying to buy PetroHawk, which has in or around 25% of the interest in the US Fracking market- if my figures are correct. Despite the fact that their analysts and shareholders don't want to invest in it, as it won't be profitable and will be at best a break-even strategy (unfortunately it's nothing to do with the fact that fracking simply f*cks over the environment...). So for us here in Ireland i see this merger as being a big indicator as to what industry sees as the long term future for Fracking. It also points out to me that we all need to organise better, and meet this problem now, and attempt to nip it in the bud by getting legislation introduced BEFORE the price is above the profitable level. I can only imagine how much harder this struggle will be when our wonderful politicians have big green readies in their eyes,and private swiss bank accounts, and the IMF pressuring them to destroy much of this nation even more like they've destroyed so many before.

Right now we are only being reactionary- turning up in Cavan when they are having a meeting. But we need get professional with out ****, and start making the first moves. We need to get out of our submissive Irish mindsets, and meet up, and formulate a plan to take the initiative here. Let me summarise- Price right now being low means it might be easier for us to win this thing, provided we attack early. I don't know where to start with this, but we need to meet soon.

cavedave

Almost every new energy source is greeted with fears it will horribly damage the environment. That does not mean evidence something will damage the environment should be ignored. But it does make me sceptical of claims we should do nothing new as a precaution until we can absolutely prove nothing bad will ever happen.

Burning natural gas produces a lot less carbon dioxide than burning coal or oil. So on that score if fracking is energy efficient it could be much less bad for the environment than coal or oil burning. There are some sites that say fracking is not that bad. I am no expert on the matter but I support decarbonising so it seems it might be a good step.

frackingishell

Hi cavedave. it's already been done pal- so noone's saying this is a new technology that hasn't been tried and tested like you seem to be suggesting. This is not hysteria like religious and economic protests during the 1600's and 1700's at the theories of Galilleo, and industrialisation destroying jobs etc. etc.

It (Fracking/shale gas)) has destroyed and ruined, and the process hasn't changed. And your argument that it is a clean burning fuel is moot-the damage done to water tables, and environments, and ecosystems negates any end-user benefit.

You can cite websites saying the opposite, and that's your right. But i'm sure there's plenty of neo-nazi websites extolling the virtues of Hitler's actions. My point being that all the research is there that this is lethal, and the downsides far outweigh the upsides, no matter what a few industry-influenced websites say.

cavedave

frackingishell

It (Fracking/shale gas)) has destroyed and ruined, and the process hasn't changed. And your argument that it is a clean burning fuel is moot-the damage done to water tables, and environments, and ecosystems negates any end-user benefit.

Places and lives have been ruined by oil, coal, hydro, nuclear, wind and wood burning

Deaths per TWH by energy source

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

The question is not whether an energy source ruins the energy source kills people and damages the environment but how much. Coal Powerstations kill miners and people downwind if fracking kills less it may be better.

My point being that all the research is there that this is lethal, and the downsides far outweigh the upsides, no matter what a few industry-influenced websites say.

How lethal in deaths per TWH?

feicim

I emailed all 166 TD's re fracking (2 days ago) so far I have 6 replies.

Sinn Fein

a chara,

Thank you for contacting us regarding the issue of fracking. Deputy Colreavy and SF are also concerned about the possible use of fracking here in Ireland. Deputy Colreavy arranged for a viewing of the film 'Gasland' here in Leinster house on 16th June 2011 to make people more aware of the issues surrounding the method.

We have been vocal in sounding our concerns regarding fracking and will continue to do so.

Fracking is a very serious issue and it is something we are keeping a very close eye on here and also encouraging others to educate themselves more on the facts.

We will continue to work on this issue.

Le meas,

Dessie (Ellis)

Labour Party

Thank you very much for your email which has been forwarded to the Minister for Communication, Energy and Natural Resources for his attention.

Yours sincerely,


EAMON GILMORE, T.D.

:rolleyes:

Fianna Fail

I have noted your concern re fracking and have put down a number of questions to the Minister in relation to this issue. Having been in Leitrim and the surrounding area many times I am aware of the valuable and sensitive ecology there. I will continue to pursue this issue to try ensure that nothing happens that would be detrimental to the ecology and way of life in the area. As outlined by the Minister there would be a number of steps to be gone through before any project could proceed including planning. The Bord Pleanála in my experience are very strict in relation to planning issues (Eg refusing the OPW planning for a decentralised Department at Knock Airport) . I would not accept that it is inevitable at all that fracking will be approved but I also accept the need for vigilance in relation to same. Éamon Ó Cuív

Labour Party #2

Thank you for your email.

I am referrring same to Minister Pat Rabbitte.

Emmet (Stagg)

Socialist Party

Thanks for getting in touch and for the links and the information. We have raised the issue with the Minister already. We are opposed to the process on the grounds that you outline. We are going to continue to develop our Party position on the issue and we will keep up the pressure in relation to it.

Best wishes,

xxxx,

Dail Assistant to Clare Daly TD

Socialist Party

Its interesting to see the position (or lack of it) from the 2 government parties.

Labour - are emailing everybody else about it.
Fine Gael - Are ignoring it.

Fianna Fail - Seem to have faith that the institutional bodies will keep Ireland safe from the perils of fracking. (Without being opposed to fracking itself - similar to Labours position).

Sinn Fein and Socialist Party - Actively opposing it.

The lack of response (so far) from Fine Gael is disappointing and hopefully not ominous.

frackingishell

cavedave wrote: »

Places and lives have been ruined by oil, coal, hydro, nuclear, wind and wood burning

Deaths per TWH by energy source


The question is not whether an energy source ruins the energy source kills people and damages the environment but how much. Coal Powerstations kill miners and people downwind if fracking kills less it may be better.



How lethal in deaths per TWH?

are you simple? This is about the environment, and it remaining healthy, and it's destruction.

Don't you even think for one second that you can use your pathetic amateur tactics to derail my point by trying to put words in my mouth, or by trying to justify Fracking by relating the unfortunate death's of other industries.

Not once did i mention human deaths. You're not getting an argument from me Mr. Fracking, best of luck with your campaign though.

However, what i WILL say on deaths is that this has only been introduced on a wide scale recently, and cancer deaths take time to show up. Your method of comparison is like saying the Chenobyl disaster was grand because only a few lads died at the beginning. Cop yourself on, and get a grip- everyone can see your agenda, and everyone can see your childish tactics fail miserably.

cavedave

are you simple? This is about the environment, and it remaining healthy, and it's destruction.

Ok lets talk about the environment. Where does fracking stand in relation to other methods of producing power in terms of environmental destruction?

frackingishell
Don't you even think for one second that you can use your pathetic amateur tactics to derail my point by trying to put words in my mouth, or by trying to justify Fracking by relating the unfortunate death's of other industries.

Not once did i mention human deaths

Because you don't care about humans?

You're not getting an argument from me Mr. Fracking, best of luck with your campaign though.

What is the point of you taking part in a debating forum if you wont get into an argument?

Your method of comparison is like saying the Chenobyl disaster was grand because only a few lads died at the beginning.

The debate about Chernobyl is well known. You can read the wikipedia article here
for example

Late in 1995, the World Health Organisation (WHO) linked nearly 700 cases of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents to the Chernobyl disaster, and among these some 10 deaths are attributed to radiation.

Cop yourself on, and get a grip- everyone can see your agenda, and everyone can see your childish tactics fail miserably.

My agenda to use evidence to do a cost benefit analysis? Oh the humanity! If looking at evidence and debating on a debating forum are childish tactics what do you consider adult tactics?

ei.sdraob

More hysterics and conspiracy theories

For a balanced overview of shale gas there is a free book available here

London, 4 May - The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed report about the shale gas revolution and its likely implications for UK and international climate policy.

The report The Shale Gas Shock, written by Matt Ridley and with a foreword by Professor Freeman Dyson, finds that shale gas:

is not only abundant but relatively cheap and therefore promises to take market share from nuclear, coal and renewable energy and to replace oil in some transport and industrial uses, over coming decades.
will help to keep the price of nitrogen fertiliser low and hence keep food prices down, other things being equal.
is unlikely to be a major source of pollution or methane emissions, but in contrast promises to reduce pollution and accelerate the decarbonisation of the world economy.
Matt Ridley, the author of the GWPF report, said:

"Abundant and relatively cheap shale gas promises to lower the cost of gas relative to oil, coal and renewables. It indefinitely postpones the exhaustion of fossil fuels and makes reducing emissions of carbon dioxide possible without raising energy prices."
Freeman Dyson, in his foreword to the GWPF report, said:

"Shale gas is not a perfect solution to our economic and environmental problems, but it is here when it is needed, and it makes an enormous difference to the human condition.”
“Matt Ridley gives us a fair and even-handed account of the environmental costs and benefits of shale gas. The lessons to be learned are clear. The environmental costs of shale gas are much smaller than the environmental costs of coal.”
The full report can be downloaded here (1.58 Mb 04/05/2011)

kingtubby

Just checked out this website http://what-the-frack.org it gives info on where in Ireland companies have been given license to do this and explains the dangers etc.
Seems quite dangerous surprised I don't here more controversy about it.

ei.sdraob

Burning mountains of coal down moneypoint to power your computer while you type this is also dangerous, all that mercury and other nasties might literary go to your head.

cavedave

ei.sdraob

Matt Ridley, the author of the GWPF report, said:

Matt Ridley is one of the "rational optimists" I linked to earlier that frackingishell *said was industry influenced*

karma_

cavedave wrote: »

Matt Ridley is one of the "rational optimists" I linked to earlier that frackingishell compares to Neo Nazis

He didn't compare anyone to neo-nazis. I suggest you read that part of his post again as you seem to have failed to grasp the point that was actually made.

frackingishell

cavedave, and e.sdraod...you guys can carry on in your little pro-fracking hysterical fantasy bubble there, don't let us disturb you. Keep banging your pro-fracking pots and pans, and continue fooling yourselves as long as you can- noone else is falling for it.

Now continue, and entertain us further.

oscarBravo

frackingishell wrote: »

cavedave, and e.sdraod...you guys can carry on in your little pro-fracking hysterical fantasy bubble there, don't let us disturb you. Keep banging your pro-fracking pots and pans, and continue fooling yourselves as long as you can- noone else is falling for it.

Now continue, and entertain us further.

As a disinterested observer, you're doing an absolutely terrible job of convincing me that your position on fracking has merit. If you want to convince people, debate calmly and rationally. Your near-hysterical reaction to people who disagree with you is only going to make people think you're a nutter.

No offence intended, genuinely.

frackingishell

i hear what you're saying dude.

I'm just getting tired of people quoting this and that in favour of Fracking, at the same time ignoring the basic facts and track record of this process.

You can see from a mile away that these two above, from the way they're going on, that they likely have an agenda, and are in all probability connected to the industry.

I have no such agenda. i have no land, no home in the areas proposed, and i don't even have any relations. But this is my country, and i won't let it or part of it be destroyed by profiteering groups without a fight. Even if there were any benefits to pumping chemicals underground. Which there aren't. Even if the profitable price in international markets comes about, Irish people will see very little of this money. Then when the price dips again we'll be left with a polluted environment, with gas we can't sell, unknown toxic chemicals throughout our water tables (with concurrent impacts on our world class agriculture sector), gas wells everywhere, and what will we have gained? A few local form signers, and the company owners will get rich quick, but there is absolutely no scenario where this becomes a logical, realistic option in this world for the Irish people.

Many analysts have also pointed out that the projected yields for these wells are fanciful, and massively overhyped. Shale rock is a seriously difficult substance to break down, and you'd have to continually pump chemicals in to keep fracturing and exploding the rock.

It's like this. If fracking is allowed happen, when the market price goes over 5 dollars, these wells will be driled, a couple of profiteers will make supernormal profits for a short time and very few jobs will be created. Our water tables will be polluted beyond repair, in beautiful tourist countryside and in world class agricutural land- (the things that we can make last forever i might add, and continualy reap the benefits from). Then the price will dip with the advances in green energy, and more efficient engines/processes around the world. Even if the price doesn't dip, we'll see very little money of it for the nation. Then we'll get a bit of gas out of the wells for a while, (the companies making most of the money), they wont pump any more chemicals in because it's not economically viable to do so. Then we'll have sacrificed everything in these areas for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. We can't be bushwacked once more as a nation,as we were with the banks, like dumb rabbits in headlights, by words such as 'clean energy',' jobs' etc. etc. It's all rubbish in relation to Fracking and Shale Gas extraction

I approached this issue months ago with genuine optimism at the thought of clean fuel; with an open mind I spoke to friends in the US in affected areas, read the scientific respected reports, and read about the the shady dealings in the US Govt in the lead up to them destroying communities in the US. Why did Dick Cheney make a law to exempt fracking (his company Halliburton being a 'pioneer' in the fracking field!) from the oversight of the American EPA in 2005 if this was a clean process with little detrimental environmental impact? Why indeed...Look at these areas now- Massive lawsuits are ongoing, others are settled, and areas are destroyed-literally.

If i sound hysterical it's because this issue demands that we don't roll over tickled and just take it like we have as a nation for so long. So i would urge you to cast off your indifference and do your own research on this important matter.

Your point is taken though. Suffice to say if this were a face to face debate, i'd bother my arse alot more with these numbskulls to dissect their 'points'. And their agendas.

nesf

frackingishell, tone it down a bit please.

ei.sdraob

Conspiracy theory nonsense being entertained in politics again?

anyways this "numbskull" already posted a link to a document signed off by quite a respectable UK organisation with dozen Professors, Lords and Sirs on board which addresses most of the "issues" raised above, the conclusion of the The Global Warming Policy Foundation is that unconventional gas would help the environment and provide a way for humanity to move forward, a win win, the alternatives are much less pretty

MadsL

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Conspiracy theory nonsense being entertained in politics again?

anyways this "numbskull" already posted a link to a document signed off by quite a respectable UK organisation with dozen Professors, Lords and Sirs on board which addresses most of the "issues" raised above, the conclusion of the The Global Warming Policy Foundation is that unconventional gas would help the environment and provide a way for humanity to move forward, a win win, the alternatives are much less pretty

I think I'd call your tap being able to be used to light your cigarette is a bit more than "conspiracy theory nonsense". This study wasn't conclusive, but it points at a problem with the method. Common sense says that blasting underground rock apart using highpressure fluids might just have unintended consequences.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking/single

I'd also wonder at the motivations of The Global Warming Policy Foundation. ithink you might be right in describing it as 'quite' a respectable organisation; as in 'almost' a respectable organsiation.

FundingCiting privacy concerns, Director Benny Peiser declined to reveal the sources of funding for the GWPF. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."

In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward commented ""We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/20/global-warming-policy-foundation-donors

We have called a lot of 'ahead of the curve' people 'Conspiracy theorists' over the years. I'm old enough to remember when we laughed at the 'nutters' who said aerosols were damaging something called 'ozone'. :rolleyes:

nesf

MadsL wrote: »

We have called a lot of 'ahead of the curve' people 'Conspiracy theorists' over the years. I'm old enough to remember when we laughed at the 'nutters' who said aerosols were damaging something called 'ozone'. :rolleyes:

That doesn't mean anything though. Some people will always jump on a bandwagon due to stories or limited evidence or whatever. Just because the bandwagon happened to arrive at truth doesn't mean these people were correct to jump on the bandwagon in the first place.

karma_

nesf wrote: »

That doesn't mean anything though. Some people will always jump on a bandwagon due to stories or limited evidence or whatever. Just because the bandwagon happened to arrive at truth doesn't mean these people were correct to jump on the bandwagon in the first place.

And dismissing it by the same token.

nesf

karma_ wrote: »

And dismissing it by the same token.

Dismiss, no. Sceptical, yes.

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

frackingishell, tone it down a bit please.

no problem Nesf, will do- had a tough day at the office!

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

That doesn't mean anything though. Some people will always jump on a bandwagon due to stories or limited evidence or whatever. Just because the bandwagon happened to arrive at truth doesn't mean these people were correct to jump on the bandwagon in the first place.

True nesf, but we're getting bogged down in semantics here. The point i got there was that people are often dismissed as conpiracy theorists for having a different point of view. I think we'd all agree that most conspiracy theories go nowhere. However, the above is no conspiracy theory. These are real world facts on how Fracking has been a disater. And the facts on the GWPF above are also indicative that everything isn't in the open. If they had nothing to hide, then they'd simply give out all the donation details. Its really quite simple.

With 80 members and half a million in cash, and many secret donors, any logical human being wil infer that the people spending that money have an agenda. Doesn't make it so, but very likely.

Having lived in many places around the world, there's one thing i've noticed about Ireland- we're an awful lot more conservative here, and afraid to stick our heads above the parapet for whatever reason. it's a deeply ingrained cultural thing... That has to change i think if we're to mature as a people.

cavedave

frackingishell
i'd bother my arse alot more with these numbskulls to dissect their 'points'. And their agendas.

are you simple?

Are you saying that i am stupid here?

frackingishell
from the way they're going on, that they likely have an agenda, and are in all probability connected to the industry.

Are you saying here you think I am a shill and am lying about my opinion?

frackingishell

Well, Freud did say the best kind of analysis is self-analysis...But,gee whizz Dave, i'll have to consult my legal team before i answer those to be honest. I'll get back to you soon....i promise.

thebman

Well I do think it would be a shame to not have a proper debate on it. From the articles posted on the journal (presumably this isn't considered a bias source on boards.ie :P), they were pretty damning of this method of extracting gas.

A lot of green experts seem to favor extracting natural resources at any cost to the environment to decrease carbon emissions on the bandwagon of the green agenda to decrease carbon emissions.

A lot of money to be had by supporting government views now they are signed up to carbon reducing targets with financial penalties some might say (<- now that is a conspiracy theory :P).

Realistically it is hard to believe that Fracking hasn't the potential to be extremely damaging to the environment given how it is extracted and the articles I've read on it so far (admittedly mostly from the journal) so I'd personally be on the skeptical side and expect the people wanting to extract it to be able to give cite unbiased sources for why the skepticism is unwarranted.

nesf

thebman wrote: »

Well I do think it would be a shame to not have a proper debate on it. From the articles posted on the journal (presumably this isn't considered a bias source on boards.ie :P), they were pretty damning of this method of extracting gas.

A lot of green experts seem to favor extracting natural resources at any cost to the environment to decrease carbon emissions on the bandwagon of the green agenda to decrease carbon emissions.

A lot of money to be had by supporting government views now they are signed up to carbon reducing targets with financial penalties some might say (<- now that is a conspiracy theory :P).

Realistically it is hard to believe that Fracking hasn't the potential to be extremely damaging to the environment given how it is extracted and the articles I've read on it so far (admittedly mostly from the journal) so I'd personally be on the skeptical side and expect the people wanting to extract it to be able to give cite unbiased sources for why the skepticism is unwarranted.

Does it do more or less damage than coal though? That's the real (and only) question here, since it's an either/or in the medium term given massive resistance to nuclear and the complete lack of political will to make it happen. I'd love to say we could just go 100% wind but it isn't an option with current technology.

Macha

nesf wrote: »

Does it do more or less damage than coal though? That's the real (and only) question here, since it's an either/or in the medium term given massive resistance to nuclear and the complete lack of political will to make it happen. I'd love to say we could just go 100% wind but it isn't an option with current technology.

A comparison with coal is difficult, mainly because the environmental impacts of fracking are relatively unknown. And the impacts are different: the use of large amounts of water (and the creation of significant amounts of waste water), the contamination of aquifers with chemicals and/pr methane., subsidence and possible seismic activity (this isn't scaremongering - it happened a few weeks ago in Brighton) as well as carbon emissions, which are generally higher than conventional gas.

Of course all of this must be balanced against the fuel that the gas extracted through fracking would be displacing.