I NOTE your report on demands for the SNP leadership to detail what it covered by its moratorium on fracking.
Each political party have stated their opinions on fracking.
The Conservatives stated: "Successfully extracting shale gas can create a whole new British industry."
The Labour Party said: "It does make sense to investigate fracking, with a robust regulatory framework."
Ukip stated they “support the development of shale gas with proper safeguards".
The Green Party: "A ban on all UK fracking operations and a withdrawal of licences as soon as possible."
The SNP's view was "every SNP MP has voted in favour of a UK-wide moratorium."
Now the meaning of the word “moratorium” is “a legally authorised ban or delay”.
This allows the SNP to examine and investigate the pros and cons of fracking, which is similar to what the Labour Party stated.
So here are some facts to ponder as regards fracking. Chemicals used in fracking are toxic; waste water from fracking cannot be recycled, therefore somewhere must be found to store it, a bit like spent nuclear fuel rods; one well can in its life time use as much as five million gallons of water. Exploratory drilling, and fracking has caused earthquakes and tremors.
We have the geological fault line that runs through the Great Glen; what effect could fracking have on that?
Fracking has been banned or suspended in Germany, Bulgaria, Romania and Texas.
I am sure the First Minster and her Cabinet are looking at these issues, and will come to a measured and informative decision.
But do we really need fracking at all when wind energy is now producing 50 per cent of our electricity, and there is no harmful by-product to be disposed of or stored?
Robert McCaw,
6 Hamilton Crescent, Renfrew.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel