POLL: Is it time for Britain to frack?

Do you agree? Is now the time to frack? Let us know by casting your vote below.

Is it now time to frack? Let us know by casting your vote below

Fracking enjoys widespread support in Britain, according to a new survey.

Research carried out by the research group Populus for UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) found that 57 per cent were in favour of the controversial tachnique which extracts shale gas from the ground.

The poll quizzed 4,000 people and found that 16 per cent were opposed, with just over a quarter (27 per cent) undecided.

The poll shows that the public would like to see the government use both shale gas and renewables to meet the country’s energy requirements.

Do you agree? Is now the time to frack? Let us know by casting your vote below.

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world’s leading questionnaire tool.

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today.

117 Responses to “POLL: Is it time for Britain to frack?”

  1. MrJonathanHornby

    Talking of evidence yo mention elsewhere – where is the evidence that gas will reduce carbon emmisions? This has been debunked

  2. itdoesntaddup

    I have made no claim about the impact of fracking on gas prices. What it clearly would do is reduce our import bills for expensive LNG, and increase the taxes raised, and increase GDP and jobs. Whether it would have an impact on prices of itself depends on how successful it turns out to be: with high recovery rates and low enough costs we could become a substantial gas exporter, and domestic prices would be lower (as they were when we were a net gas exporter), but if success is more modest, then price effects are likely to be small – although increased supply from elsewhere may lower prices anyway.

    I do suggest that if we ended subsidies and quotas for expensive energy from windmills, biomass, solar, tidal etc. and allowed a proper competitive market, then power prices would be lower. Supply would be met from existing nuclear, coal and CCGT plant, all of which can produce much more cheaply than the subsidised sources, and which don’t require us to double the investment in the grid to try to keep it from becoming unstable. The policy to impose high cost energy is what causes fuel poverty.

  3. itdoesntaddup

    Page 22 here: http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf

    GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coalfired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement). In mitigation scenarios reaching about 450 ppm CO2eq concentrations by 2100, natural gas power generation without CCS acts as a bridge technology, with deployment increasing before peaking and falling to below current levels by 2050 and declining further in the second half of the century (robust evidence, high agreement). [7.5.1, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11, 7.12]

    In comments during the IPCC press conference on AR5 Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the report said:

    We have in the energy supply also the shale gas revolution, and we say that this can be very consistent with low carbon development, with decarbonisation. That’s quite clear.
    But it is important to understand that the shale gas revolution has a
    different impact in mitigation or baseline scenario. In a baseline
    scenario if you have an additional supply of fossil fuels this will not
    help in the end, because if somebody deploys gas so other parts of the
    world might increase coal and in the end you’re back in the business as
    usual scenario, and shale gas will not help. But gas can be very helpful as a bridge technology in mitigation scenarios, and this has been explained in the energy supply sector.


  4. itdoesntaddup

    What on earth makes you think that drillers aren’t liable for clean-up costs and environmental damage? Of course they are – it is a requirement in law that they be properly commercially insured before a licence will be granted to drill. Much more to the point, environmental regulations are designed to make such events rare and limited in scope when something does go wrong. There have been over 2,000 onshore oil and gas wells drilled in the UK to date, and no serious problems have arisen at any of them.

    I agree with your last sentence – but it applies to windfarms, not oil and gas.

  5. itdoesntaddup

    I have told you before that when safe new nuclear capacity is a cost competitive alternative it will have my full support. I am only interested in lower cost of energy so that we can abolish energy poverty. I have no interest in promoting one technology over another for any other reason.

  6. itdoesntaddup

    Hint: the G stands for GLOBAL, and China has by some margin the largest impact on that. The UK contributes less than 1.5% of global anthropogenic emissions, exceeded by just the annual growth in Chinese emissions. The best thing for China to do is to develop its own gas instead of increasing its coal burn. It is also essential if global emissions are to be controlled.

  7. JR

    Once you Frack you can NEVER go back! Health must come before wealth. The way this government is railroading this despicable industry is totally wrong. Fracking has been banned in France, Germany, the Netherlands, some US states & Australia is ‘Locking the Gate’ on it!

    Lord Browne (ex BP, now head of Cuadrilla) has categorically stated that our fuel bills will NOT be cheaper. Browne has successfully appointed his cronies into powerful positions in the Treasury Dept, probably the most powerful government department! Sickening eh?

    Fracking is a return to fossil fuel. It uses trillions of gallons of FRESH water laced with chemicals. During times of drought who do you honestly think will get priority – us? or a 24/7 365 industry that some of the peers in the house of lords have got mega shares in?!

    This industry must be stopped. Our government needs to start LISTENING to the people of the UK or quite frankly we & future generations are doomed.

  8. Guest

    Ah yes, using a different technology means that other things are automatically safe.

    And they are not liable – the taxpayer has assumed that. Moreover, the drillers will need very limited insurance compared to normal drilling.

    The environmental regs and other safeguards have been trampled

    all over by the government…you’re using fake comparisons, as you blame everything else for your higher bill for the poor addiction.

  9. Guest

    Replacing coal. Not replacing other (more highly taxed) gas, which is the situation we see in the UK,

    Moreover, that assumes conventional and not shale extraction. And it’s a bridge, not your continued gas usage!

    “you’re back in the business as usual scenario, and shale gas will not help.”

    Exactly. Thanks for disproving your scenario.

  10. Guest

    Exactly, you’ve said you’ll oppose it and make up excuses as to why you’ll always oppose it.

    You want to kill the poor by raising prices so you can make a higher profit, I get it, as you commit utterly to gas and coal, and to making the poor pay for AGCC.

  11. MrJonathanHornby

    You are touchingly naive over the extent of regulation for Unconventional Oil and Gas (UCG) in the UK and the structure of the companies doing the exploation. Ytrying to extrapolate using existing conventional fields cant be done.

    So for example proposal for a clean up indemnification have been rejected by HMG.


    So far all sites in the UK have been undertaken by shell companies to limit liabilities of the explorers at each site.

    Conventional wells may have been relatively bengin but to pretend that UCG is the same is first rate wishful thinking. Not only have there been problems (leading to themoratorium) the behaviour of the companies and police have been pewter rather than the “gold standard” supposedly promised.

  12. HD2

    It depends on which edition of The Origin of Species one looks at – successive editions varied considerably from the original.

    And ‘Darwinism’ is more a concept and state of looking at how the world runs and how we can best promote evolution (of things, and so the betterment of life on Earth – admittedly, largely from a human perspective), rather than a literal application of Darwin’s text.

  13. HD2

    Oh – and Darwin knew nothing of genes – he referred to ‘natural selection’ as competition between differing individuals, each with unique characteristics, which led to ‘survival of the fittest’ (2nd Ed) and ‘Nature red in tooth and claw’ (2nd ed too, IIRC)

  14. HD2

    Fracking’s a technology the better part of 80yrs old – see countless examples in the USA.
    True, it’s APPLICATION to coal seams (etc) is a modern development, but the fundamental principle is an old one.

  15. HD2

    No – of course not!
    The rise in temperature in the 1990’s was caused largely by the decrease in SO2 emissions from Eastern Europe and the cooling/stabilisation this century by the massive increase in SO2 from China and India.

    All down to badly-designed, run and maintained coal-fired power stations.

    Now, once the c.75% of the planet’s population that rely on coal burning for power (and cement/steel making) have moved to nuclear power, we’ll probably see another sharp rise in temperatures before they, once again, plateau.

    All of which assumes the Sun’s output remains 100% constant – which, of course, it doesn’t and we’re now at the start of what appears to be a new Maunder Minimum, in which case the next 30-50 years are going to be particularly COLD.
    [Just as the medieval Little Ice Age was]

  16. Leon Wolfeson

    So because something else was safe, this is safe because it’s based on the same principle? Er…

    Oh, and no, the principle is different.

  17. Miss Informed

    just like everything else about current politics this is fixed – no human with intelligence and a conscience would ever condone what is clearly poisoning the water table. FIXED OUTCOME. NO DEMOCRACY!!!!

Leave a Reply