FAULT LINES

There are significant omissions from Matt Ridley’s article (“The Plot Against Fracking”, December) that would have balanced his over-positive portrayal of the fracking industry and criticism of objectors, such as renewable energy promoters, as having vested interests.

In 2016, the UK government’s committee on climate change reported: “The implications for greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas exploitation are subject to considerable uncertainties . . . The UK regulatory regime has the potential to be world-leading but this is not yet assured . . . Our assessment is that exploiting shale gas by fracking on a significant scale is not compatible with UK climate targets unless three tests are met . . . Well development, production and decommissioning emissions must be strictly limited.” Such caution is justified. Despite improvements since fracking’s early days, the following chemicals are still required: scale inhibitor, acid, biocide to kill bacteria, friction reducer, and surfactant. Some chemicals will return to the surface and must be made safe.

Some will remain underground, but to where will they seep? What is their long-term impact?

Mr Ridley claims that the water that comes out of the well isn’t radioactive. But many of the rocks involved are naturally radioactive and, given the nature of radioactivity, something somewhere is going to be contaminated because of fracking. Rachael Webb

Dunton, Bucks