Using one's own resources (the ability to subjectively research the scientific data on the climate and health impacts), to the benefit of the British public's health can result in a win win. Only if we realize it is another significant source of greenhouse gas and climate change emissions and the ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is approaching 400 ppm. Lose lose when compared to low carbon renewables that do not emit heat, pollution or forever deplete our potable water, cement and steel.

Response to UK official fracturing guidance. Dr. Ingraffea: "Neither additional well casing, nor any other technology or practice currently known, can “prevent” gas migration. Even an initially perfect cement job in all annuli can, over time, fail in one of the manners previously described herein. Some technologies, like certain additives to the cement, can decrease the rate of occurrence and/or the intensity of leakage, but the word “prevent” implies “no possibility”, and that is “impossible”.

Hi Tina, why does being honest about what the current state of geological knowledge not instil confidence? The point of Mike's talk was to provide a basic scientific underpinning to where we currently are, and how to move forward with risk assessments, background data collection etc. Much of what he mentions is discussed in much greater depth in the other non-introductory talks.

Regulation can not prevent or even reduce the risk to an acceptable level. SEPA Regulatory Guidance: 17. Borehole construction is particularly important to prevent the release of fugitive emissions or cross contamination of groundwater of different quality (salinity invariably increases with depth from the surface). Correct construction methods also prevents leakage of fracturing fluid, flow-back water, or gas, any of which could pollute water supplies.

Industry produced data show that the expected rate of failure of containment of migration by cement is on the order of 5% (1 well in 20) initially. They also show that failure rate increases, as expected with age of a well. See page 6 Figure 2. Schematic of details of possible fluid/methane migration paths (SGEIS Scientific Failings Ingraffea Jan 2012). Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy vetted scientific information on issues unconventional o&g production.

UNEP 2012 Report on Unconventional Gas including Shale Gas .”It is unsuitable to achieving the +2°C global temperature target, CO2 emissions from energy and industry must be reduced on average by 3.2 to 3.6% per year between 2020 and 2050 (i.e. -48 or -54% reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions) (UNEP, 2010). Even with large investments and developments and under best practices, unconventional gas production may lead to only 1.3% reduction of GHG emissions by 2035 (IEA, 2012).

Audio is ok.

Thanks conservative leaders Maggie & Ronnie for this.

Using one's own resources is a win/win....

Wow... this does NOt instill confidence - get to the questions from about 30 minutes in and finding an honest answer is challenging.

What a missed opportunity to educate the public - can we please get some decent audiovisual technicians involved in these GS lectures?

“Our data show the importance of including air pollution in the national dialogue on natural gas development that has focused largely on water exposures to hydraulic fracturing” Lisa McKenzie, Ph.D.MPG,“results: non-cancer health impacts from air emissions due to natural gas development is greater for residents living closer to wells/greatest health impact corresponds to well completion period. higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells compared to residing further away.

Well, we will see...The UK/Europe from the outside looking in ,seems almost Hell bent on decline....It would make perfect sense to create jobs/tax revenues/decrease imports from other nations.... If UK/Europe decides not to use this resource,America is building LNG terminals as we speak...Good day..

This guy said chi...na, before Trump.