The Open sees the launch of Frack Free Formby & Southport’s campaign GOLF NOT GAS. This aims to raise awareness of the threat of fracking to England's Golf Coast and especially to Southport’s golfing and tourism industry.

The government has divided the UK into blocks of Petroleum Exploration & Development Licence areas. Southport itself is within PEDL 165. The beautiful Sefton coast alongside the Royal Birkdale Golf Club is PEDL 261.

Cuadrilla's Fylde Coast site at Preston New Road is currently under development with the imminent arrival of the fracking rig. Less than 10 miles as the crow flies across the Ribble Estuary, air pollution from the fracking there will definitely affect us.

To the South is PEDL 164 which includes Formby, Halsall, Downholland and Haskayne, where seismic surveys for shale gas were done last year. Aurora has declared its intention to apply for planning permission for hydraulic fracturing in the Formby/Halsall area this year. To the north, Cuadrilla drilled a well at their Becconsall site in Banks. To the East is the threat of the industry in Skelmersdale, PEDL 262, with the additional danger of the hazardous toxic waste White Moss Landfill.

Southport is therefore completely surrounded by potential fracking sites. All major roads from these three areas lead into Southport, with heavy traffic already causing congestion at peak times. If fracking goes ahead on the coast, golfers, visitors and residents will find themselves in a pollution gasfield, with constant noise, flaring, and an endless succession of HGVs trucking out the contaminated radioactive waste water engendered by the process.

Sefton Council last year voted to oppose fracking, unless it can be proved to be safe. However, the government has the power to over-ride local council planning decisions, as was clearly demonstrated in West Lancashire. Should fracking go ahead locally, Sefton Council and the NHS will have to report and monitor any local changes to health.

A Frack Free Southport spokesperson said, “We are immensely concerned that Southport's popularity as a seaside and golfing resort and retirement destination with its many care homes would be threatened by the effects of fracking. We have adopted Southport's motto, For The Health of the People (Salus Populi). Even if you are unconcerned about the long-term prospect of fossil fuel shale gas driving Climate Change, or the more immediate threat of your house being devalued or becoming un-saleable due to proximity to local fracking sites, please bear in mind that nothing is more precious than your health. Do you want to live in a gasfield? We strongly urge all Southport residents to get informed."

There is an ever-growing mountain of evidence clearly demonstrating the many dangers to health caused by the fracking process, and it has been proven that it lowers air quality – children and pregnant women are therefore particularly at risk, as are people with respiratory problems such as asthma. Breast Cancer UK has produced a fact sheet outlining their strong concerns about the potential effects of increased exposure to harmful chemicals – these were handed out to attendees of the recent Council Area Committee by Frack Free Southport.




Medact, a group of UK public health doctors, have also produced a report on their concerns about fracking. New York State banned fracking on grounds of serious risk to public health, after a rigourous six-year study. Other places to ban fracking on similar grounds include Ireland, France, Holland, Bulgaria, Tasmania and Victoria, Australia.

https://www.medact.org/project/fracking/
https://youtu.be/3qsGcu9fOGQ
http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/
https://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/



Contact Frack Free Southport via www.frackfreesouthport.org.uk, Facebook and Twitter
Badges, car and window stickers are available for supporters.

bs

Misguided cave dwellers who would have everyone join them with their cow dung machine, to keep the lights on.

Do your own research and produce a cogent argument for fracking and explain how you will set aside money to return the surface to the state it was in before the extraction started.

The cost of cleaning up when a North Sea oil has run out will fall on the public purse.

Whether they are troglodytes or not the cost of energy from fracking is both an environmental and financial one.

In the sand dunes is an ideal place for a fracking site in Southport.
A relatively clean burning fuel on our doorstep is a great asset we should use.
Renewables do not keep the lights on consistently and they have a great impact on our environment.

The anti-frackers have lost the argument scientifically often due to specious science.

Originally Posted by FormbyHightown

Do your own research and produce a cogent argument for fracking and explain how you will set aside money to return the surface to the state it was in before the extraction started.

The cost of cleaning up when a North Sea oil has run out will fall on the public purse.

Are you quite sure about that? Because from my (admittedly limited) research that appears not to be the case.

From what I read "Oil companies are forecast to spend £53 billion from this year winding down their North Sea operation".

I'd prefer to have gas than golf, thank you very much. Bring on the fracking! A wonderful natural resource to give us a degree of energy stability and continue to improve our economy.

Originally Posted by prasnee

Are you quite sure about that? Because from my (admittedly limited) research that appears not to be the case.

From what I read "Oil companies are forecast to spend £53 billion from this year winding down their North Sea operation".

There is still a cost to the public purse.

There was interesting programme on the radio about it. The idea of leaving the rigs as reefs is interesting.

Originally Posted by FormbyHightown

There is still a cost to the public purse.

How so? Are you saying that when it is reported that oil companies are due to spend £53 billion winding down their North Sea operations that they are using public money to do it? I couldn't see any reference to that, apart from the obvious thing that they would pay less tax as a consequence of incurring that massive expenditure.

Originally Posted by prasnee

How so? Are you saying that when it is reported that oil companies are due to spend £53 billion winding down their North Sea operations that they are using public money to do it? I couldn't see any reference to that, apart from the obvious thing that they would pay less tax as a consequence of incurring that massive expenditure.

https://www.ft.com/content/b3255c92-...d-a96ab29e3c95

It is an interesting, if lengthy, read. At least £250 million pounds.