http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... s-councils

Rotten burrowing? And that's just Cameron...

Fracking is illegal in France, yet French owned energy companies can't wait to get started over here. What aren't we being told? Why does the Prime Minister have to offer incentives to get local councils on board?

Since this is an irreversible process, and tantamount to fishing with dynamite, I think we need proper public consultation instead of trying to steamroller it through.

They want to do it here so they can then use it as a selling point as to why they should be allowed to do it in China and elsewhere.

Well you're certainly not being told the truth by Greenpeace.

Or by the oil companies. There are concerns that it will be a flash in the pan. Fracking is totally dependant on high oil prices and ultra low interest rates to be profitable. There have been a few fracking companies going bust and leaving the residents with huge clean up problems in WyomingI think. Some 30 odd texan towns are now without water thanks to fracking. So it not all roses for the industry.

One reason why the US industry is under strain is that they have been prevented from exporting the excess gas they are drilling, causing oversupply in their home market. The spot price for natural gas in the USA is much, much lower than it is over here (where you might recall we sometimes complain that gas costs too much). So as far as market failures go, that one is purely self inflicted and hardly the stuff of nightmares. The flash in the pan claim is desperate wishful thinking.

I don't think the example of Texas failing to mange its resources is all that applicable here either, given that we are not engaging in a lunatic free-for-all and simply allowing councils to retain some income that would previously have gone to central government is not going to change that.

There was a very good Horizon programme of this a few months ago

The problem wiht the US is that the chemicals they use as part of the Fracking porcess are a trade secret so they wont tell anyone whats in them and are not required by law to do so. In the UK they will be required to publish the chemical make up.
Also all of the instances seem to be where they have skimped on the dill lining so allowing the gas to escape - again while this cannot be rulled out its also due to the enviromental laws in TYexas being almost none exsistant

The regulations here should be stronger but a government desperate for oil tax revenue might drop some regulations. We really should not be dumping carcinogens in to the ground anyway. That would avoid any risk of litigation in the future. The earthquake risk is very minimal anyway, even if they are all caused by fracking the damage will be minimal and resolved by a compensation fund.

Regulations here are much much stronger than in the US.
For example, there are many layers of regulation here, any one of which would have prevented the Deepwater Horizon tragedy.
Not just the chemical makeup, they'd have to apply to the government for a Pon15 to let them use it in the first place.

Though with a government determined to eliminate or reduce the impact of regulations do you think that they would be allowed to refuse a request?

There was a doctor who was legally bound not to disclose what chemicals were used, and so could not tell her patient what the cause was, or even refer for specialist treatment. To do so would have exposed her to massive legal penalties.

Putting her own welfare ahead of the health of her patients? Not much of a doctor.

That is seriously [LIFTED] up.

TBH, it's not the doctor's actions that make me most angry in this situation.

I wonder if there is an ethical argument to be made that in the long term she can do more good remaining as a doctor than having to deal with the ludicrous lawsuit that would inevitably follow, with all its repercussions. When you're talking a company the size of an oil firm, if they cannot win they can still drag a court case out to the point that the smaller party goes bankrupt still. That's not a definitive ethical position on my part btw, just an idle thought on the subject.

Unlikely. The oil company involved isn't going to be one of the supermajors, only a much smaller firm would have such a heavy investment in a secret recipe fracking sauce. The big oil services companies like Schlumberger (iirc) are already bringing non toxic solutions to market based on old coffee grounds and cornflakes instead of benzene and boiled puppies. So Exxon and BP aren't going to sabotage their already flaky public reputations for something that to them offers such a minor commercial advantage.

Also it would be highly unlikely that she would have to pay her own fees. Every law school and most of the big law firms in America takes on Pro Bono work to provide experience for juniors and enhance the reputations of their big dogs. If this case is all it's presented as here, she would have to decide whether to get her free lawyers from Harvard, Princeton or whoever has the shiniest teeth in New York.