A late amendment has been added to the Infrastructure Bill, which is being debated in the House of Lords, which would permit the “passing any substance through, or putting any substance into, deep-level land” and gives “the right to leave deep-level land in a different condition from [that before] including by leaving any infrastructure or substance in the land”.
Yes, you read that right. Any substance. Which of course is intended to mean that any fracking waste fluid can just be dumped under the ground without any independent monitoring or oversight.
However, due to the loose wording of the bill, this could also mean the disposal of nuclear waste too. (Interestingly, part of the deal the British Government did with France for the new nuclear plant in Somerset included a contract to dispose of the French company EDF’s nuclear waste here in the UK.)
This controversial bill, which already allows fracking companies to drill under people’s homes and land without permission, has been criticised from all sides, but they carry on regardless. The final reading of the bill will be in March, so we need to make sure this becomes a key election issue.
For more on this, please read the Guardian article.
An article in this week’s York Press and Gazette & Herald discusses the relative impacts of fracking v solar or wind farms. Professor David McKay, the Government’s former chief scientific advisor, claims that fracking would not be as visually intrusive as a wind farm.
Richard Lane, from York and Ryedale Friends of the Earth group, said: “Visual intrusion is certainly one of fracking’s lesser crimes. Prof McKay chose not to include in his blog post any estimates of the pollution created by each source – particularly the enormous amount of polluted water which is generated by fracking and will then require disposal, or the likely global warming impact of “fugitive” methane emissions.”
Frack Free Ryedale also adds that Prof McKay neglected to mention other the reasons why wind and solar farms would be preferable to a fracking site: for example, noise pollution (fracking sites operate 24/7), large numbers of HGV vehicles day and night, the huge quantities of contaminated and radioactive water fracking produces, air pollution and related health problems, destruction of vast areas of countryside (it is estimated that thousands of wells would be required in Yorkshire alone to make fracking viable), the effect on wildlife, and the very real possibility of contaminating our drinking water supply. Not to mention the effects of burning more fossil fuels on climate change. We know which we would prefer …
Read the full article here.
The effects of fracking in Canada are not a pretty sight. And too comprehensive to summarise in a single sentence here.
There’s a link here: http://brokenground.ca/
The website is written by someone who understands the process — an expert in the field.
The first headline is “Loss of livelihood, sickness and death”. The second “A parent’s worst nightmare”. Then “Building the legal case: Breaking ground to protect nature”, “Persistence in the face of ridicule”, “Canada’s political disconnect”…
“The report warned that communities close to drilling sites could see a large increase in traffic. Residents could face as many as 51 lorry journeys each day for three years, the study said.”
“It also warned of potential strain on facilities for handling the waste water generated by hydraulic fracturing, the process known as fracking, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into rocks at high pressure to extract gas.
“There were also concerns over the potential environmental impact on the countryside.”
Source: Daily Telegraph
“The Lower Derwent Valley is one of the largest and most important examples of traditionally managed species-rich alluvial flood meadow habitat remaining in the UK.”