Community benefit or bribe? You just can’t win with fracking.

The UK Government’s policy statement on shale gas fracking in England has unleashed a Twitter-frenzy of ‘bribery’ allegations.

The offer of allowing councils to keep more council tax revenue from fracking has outraged a lot of people.

The general theme of Tweets is that the Government is tempting hard pressed councils with cash they desperately need. This is, apparently, very wrong.

We’ve seen this all before – in microcosm. It happens all the time when developers negotiate with local authorities, and sometimes communities, to navigate their projects through the planning process. Very roughly, the expectation is that schemes that result in any loss of amenity, or cause any inconvenience to the public, should deliver some kind of benefit as compensation.

And here’s the golden rule that applies with the public: If they support the project then what’s promised is very appropriately ‘sharing the benefits with the community’. If they dislike it, then it’s ‘a bribe.’

So, irrespective of the merits or hazards of fracking, you really can’t win with this one. If a developer offers nothing the response is often: ‘why should we put up with this when there’s nothing in it for us?’ Alternatively, it’s ‘how dare you try to buy us off with your tainted cash.’

Projects will be judged on their individual planning merits. If fracking gets the go-ahead then communities will likely get a lot of financial return, even if people resent every single penny that’s forced on them.

Wynford Emanuel

Director

Let’s protest about … everything!

What an interesting week it’s been in the fracking furore.

Anti-frackers from my locality have been travelling to south east England.to protest and have their photos taken as they are carted away by the police. At the same time there’s a call in Wales to stop building wind farms immediately – as fracking will provide the energy we need in preferable manner.

So we have protesters shouting about fracking, others opposing wind – and of course there are those who hate nuclear, energy from waste and all fossil fuels.

It’s the people who shout the loudest who get most publicity and nearly always claim to represent whole communities. Usually, they don’t.

Take the anti-frackers as an example. They claimed to represent the unanimous view of a community. But then, in feature piece, a Times reporter knocked on quite a few doors to ask local people their views, and it was all quite different.

The responses were mainly about wanting to know the benefits to the locality and the possibility of cheaper gas or jobs. Some people, all quoted by name, were very enthusiastic – ‘as long as it’s done properly.’

But these aren’t the shouters – many of whom travelled far and wide. They are the people who tend to keep their views to themselves – and so they don’t often get noticed by the media. The result is a distorted reflection of public opinion. Despite the fact that projects should be decided on their individual merits, a small number of activists can thwart what’s good for society. They just make it too much trouble to do.

But we need new energy sources, we need new generation facilities, and some people are going to be annoyed. They’ll shout blue murder. That’s unfortunate, but it’s unavoidable. For society’s sake we can’t let policy be dictated by those who shout the loudest.

Wynford Emanuel

To frack or not to frack? That will be the question.

Fracking: it’s an ugly word for what some people see as a big threat to their environment.

But many others view it as a golden opportunity to tackle our looming energy crisis by reducing our uncomfortable dependence on imported energy.

Most of us have seen the media reports of protests and ‘mini-earthquake’ stories as shale rocks or coal seams deep underground are hydraulically fractured by high pressure fluid to extract gas. We’ll see it all again the next time a proposal crops up. As a nation we need the gas because we have very little storage capacity for cold snaps such as over the past few weeks, but a lot of people are dead set against this technology. So what are we going to do?

Fracking has become big business in north America, in terms of unleashing vast quantities of energy that has reduced gas prices and dependence on imports. Fortunately for the Americans and Canadians, the wide open spaces on their continent mean that they can frack far away from most communities – reducing the volume of opposition (although there’s still plenty of it). They’re even making a Hollywood film about fracking, but if it’s anything like Argo, it’ll be more about entertainment than facts.

The conflicting views of US communities can be seen in this four minute film by the BBC’s Laura Trevelyan http://tinyurl.com/clcrwrk

On our crowded little island the seams to be gasified will always be near to someone – albeit a mile or more underground. Some small earth tremors may result, as they do naturally from time to time. Here in Wales we have already seen opposition and will see it again. People are naturally concerned if they think their local environment and homes may be damaged. Who wouldn’t be?

And while the process of extracting the gas and using it to produce electricity is environmentally cleaner than burning coal, there are lots of other claims and counter claims about its risks that won’t be resolved any time soon.

So, while each application should technically be determined on its planning merits we can’t shy away from the fact that we’ve a tough policy decision to make towards the technology. The UK Government’s moratorium on fracking is over. So, from now on, do local and possible environmental interests come first, or are the needs of the wider economy and energy security more important?

The next time a fracking proposal appears there’ll be media stories and likely opposition by communities, environmental organisations and some politicians. Their views may prevail (subject to compliance or otherwise with planning rules) and they’ll be happy, while the bounty under our feet is sterilised.

The views of local people and environmental and economic experts must and will be heard under our planning regimes. But which principle should we follow? Do we ensure that local people are undisturbed and there is nil potential risk to the environment, or should we allow a tightly regulated industry to exploit a resource that could benefit the whole economy? Compromise isn’t an option; it’s one or the other.

When it comes to the crunch, as it could in the near future, the outcome may dismay some local communities. The balance may shift in favour of the people with the drilling rigs.

Wynford Emanuel

Director