Many well-informed people are worried about hydraulic fracturing, the "unconventional" process by which gas and oil are forced from deep underground.
Sceptics fear pollution, geological uncertainties, despoiled landscapes, the effects on carbon emissions and communities alike. Those in doubt - or openly hostile - have a point.
There is something a little glib about advocates of "fracking". They talk too easily of trillions of cubic metres of shale gas and billions of barrels of oil waiting to be harvested. Too often they ignore the bans imposed by other countries, or the evidence of disruption and pollution in the United States.
Fracking's advocates are too quick to depict a bonanza without a cost. They speak of energy independence, not of community choices and natural beauty. They promote another chapter in the carbon economy without acknowledging that oil and gas are part of the planet's travails.
Above all, those who demand fracking avoid talking about price. Is the process viable at present? In the US, plans for the shale basin have been scaled back. As a rough rule of thumb, an oil-equivalent of around $77 makes fracking viable. At the time of writing, the Brent Crude price is $49.60. Why the rush to drill?
And why the rush to drill in Scotland? Of the estimated metric "trillions" in these islands, Scotland might possess five per cent. Nevertheless, Ineos has licences for 729 square miles adjacent to its Grangemouth plant. The firm says a £640 million investment "could" follow if - the usual Ineos attitude - it is not obstructed.
This is a moment to step back. As with North Sea oil, Scotland is a country with noble aspirations and a lucrative carbon legacy. Providing light, heat and power in a risky modern world is no small matter, meanwhile. We have done well with renewables, onshore and off, but we are far from secure. And for every wind farm there is a protest.
We do not, supposedly, care for nuclear. We do not wish to burn coal. Our North Sea rights will provide an environmental challenge for generations. Wind farms are questioned. Now, with some sound reasoning, many want no truck with the frackers. So what follows?
Fergus Ewing, Energy Minister, has announced a moratorium on planning consents for the hydraulic technology. Such is the extent of his present powers. Jim Murphy, leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, has meanwhile seized another opportunity by claiming that, with the promised powers of the Smith Commission, he would impose a "triple lock" on decisions.
This is not the view of Labour across the UK and it is not, however advertised, "a ban". It sits oddly with Mr Murphy who, in 2009, spoke up for an expanded nuclear power programme. That, no doubt, is politics. The political question now over fracking is a question involving Grangemouth, our only petro-chemical plant, and the Ineos multi-national.
When and if new powers are granted to Holyrood, planning standards must remain sacrosanct. There must be no free for all. Mr Ewing's intention to examine the health and environmental implications of the technology is therefore to be welcomed. We need a better idea of what is at stake.
It is possible, too, that a harder truth must be mastered. Perhaps there is no such thing as truly clean or genuinely cheap energy.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article