Fracking's opponents won only narrowly, and the case that earned the most respect on their side was about land, not tremors. “We aren't the size of the US,” wrote that voter, putting houses, countryside and wildlife ahead of a resource that would “yield little for the effort to get it”.
The most-respected Yes case was a plain energy-sovereignty argument: “we should optimise, not prevent, our use of own natural resources rather than just keep importing.” Others backed it with figures, one setting Bowland Shale estimates against annual demand to reach a century of supply. Another pointed to the North Sea, asking why the UK would be “the only country to produce oil and not make a profit”.
No voters mostly answered with fear and with substitution. Some warned of water: “poisons the the water table”. Others cited quakes: “We should not be causing earthquakes on purpose.” A quieter strand said the North Sea already has the infrastructure. Yes voters took on the quake point directly, calling the tremors no more than a passing bus, and the two camps never settled whose picture of the risk was right.
The debate sat inside the argument over how to keep the lights on during the net zero transition. Yes voters framed it as hypocrisy over importing gas, with one saying “We NEED gas even during a net zero transition”. A few in the Yes camp, though, wanted fracking limited offshore or doubted the geology, and one No voter shrugged that “our geology is just not suitable”.
So the margin was thin, and the sharpest disagreement was less over whether gas is needed than over where the UK should dig for it.
56 Opinions
There were problems when it was allowed previously. We aren't the size of the US, houses and protection for countryside and wildlife are more important. Stick to real renewables, not something that will yield little for the effort to get it.
The same as new oil sites in the North Sea, we should optimise, not prevent, our use of own natural resources rather than just keep importing.
Fracking poisons the water, there should be a global ban not just one in the UK
It's dangerous. It's harmful to local environment & poisons the the water table. Absolutely NOT
I voted No because fracking has caused several small earthquakes in the UK. We should not be causing earthquakes on purpose.
It's been proven that fracking is safe. So is north sea oil,we could be so self sufficient unless we are the only country to produce oil and not make a profit!!
The UK's annual gas consumption is currently around 70 billion cubic metres (bcm). The Bowland Shale in northern England in-place resource is estimated by British Geological Survey for 23,000 – 65,000 bcm, with current methods 1,800 – 13,000 bcm could be extracted (8%–20% recovery). Assuming 7000 bcm, this one source would could be enough for 100 years of current gas demand. We have also other geological formations with identified shale gas potential. The sooner the better.
We've got a lot of earthquake enthusiasts in the right of the room today it seems
I think this could be answered factually. I think our geology is just not suitable. Unlike, say, Alaska.
54% Well, it’s nice to see how we want to keep paying the highest energy bills across Europe. So we keep importing gas and oil from other countries that use their own energy resources to supply the foolish countries that don’t use their own resources to lower their citizens’ energy bills. It has to be said, only an idiot would cut off his nose to spite his face, and we seem to have plenty of planks living in the UK at the moment.