Media enquiries- Please contact Lorraine Allanson on 07760752165.

   Lorraine Allanson Bio jpeg

Lorraine Allanson, is passionate about shale gas, campaigning fervently in favour of the industry developing in the UK. Lorraine looks at the bigger picture and the benefits the industry could bring, not just to the local communities but to the whole country. Lorraine takes a sensible approach to our energy requirements and recognises that, as a country we will be using gas for several decades.

Lorraine says "Renewables need to be part of our energy mix but it is sensible to realise they are a long way from being able to power our country 100%, if ever. This is mainly due to most renewables relying on the wind and sun, which are not available 24/7. Gas is the perfect back up when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Why would we wish to import our gas requirements? In 2018 the UK spent almost £7 billion importing gas from Norway, the EU (who import around 40% of their gas from Russia) Qatar, who support ISIS and yes, direct from Russia. Can we trust Putin not to turn off the tap to the West? He flexed his muscles against the Ukraine a few years ago and turned off their gas tap. Why should we trust other nations for our energy security when we have gas under our feet? Our own gas is far more environmentally friendly than transporting gas as LNG and via pipelines from across the world. If people really did care about the environement they would accept that we need to use gas that creates lower carbon emissions and thats gas that we produce oursleves and not transport across the globe ."

Lorraine believes that producing our own gas would bring economic benefits, help combat fuel poverty and be a step towards providing energy security in a volitile world.  

Lorraine, who is just an ordinary citizen, running a small tourism business in North Yorkshire, challenges the anti-fracking protest groups, environmental NGO's and politically motivated activists, exposing their scaremongering propaganda and hypocrisy.  Having previously lived through several anti-gas campaigns in the Vale of Pickering, Lorraine felt that her community should not be overrun, yet again, by professional protesters. A small group of activists bully and intimidate the locals into silence whilst they court the media claiming to speak on behalf of the community. Lorraine could not stand by and watch this censorship of the local residents. It is worth noting Lorraine is independent of the gas industry.

Through her campaigning, Lorraine has had published numerous opinion pieces and featured on a variety of TV and Radio channels both local and nationally. Lorraine has given presentations on the shale gas industry at national and international conferences as well as lecturing to university engineering students.

Since January 2018 Lorraine has had a seat on the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative committee, the EITI.

Lorraine: "I work to give businesses and communities the courage to stand up for themselves and the knowledge to rocognise the misinformation and negative propaganda used by the opponents. I campaign with integrity, using the truth and good humour. I encourage the shale gas companies to be transparent, honest and approachable to the local communities affected by their plans. It is important that people with genuine concerns can have their questions answered and to be able to speak freely, they have a right to be heard and not drowned out by anti fracking activists. I am helped by a network of knowledgeable and committed ordinary people to campaign in favour of an essential resource. Many who oppose shale gas also oppose the use of all fossil fuels completely. It beggars belief that they make broad sweeping claims that we should not use fossil fuels at all anymore. They purposely use the words 'dirty fossil fuels', emphasising the word 'dirty' yet they still use fossil fuels themselves. They do not abandon their comfortable and healthy lives nor do they give up any of these; mobile phones, computers, medicines and fertilizers that help boost food production to feed us all. No, they blindly condemn the very cheap and abundant energy that has allowed the human race to flourish."

Below are artcles, press releases and updates

Industry March 2019 vision & benefits of a UK shale gas industry Click on the link to view data released by UKOOG.

11th of February 2019

Last week 49 Geoscientists called on the UK government to review the Traffic Light System in a letter published in THe Times. The 0.5 level is considered to be stifling the shale gas industry and our countrys economic prospects.

Whilst the opponents are desperate to stop a UK shale gas industry developing we continue to import gas costing almost £5billion per annum. This accounts for 50% of our gas usage which is set to rise to 80% by 2050. Russian gas is being pumped into the EU accounting for almost 40% of the EUs requirements. That same gas flows through to the UK.

Which country would allow Putin to poison people on their shores, one of which died, and then think nothing of relying on Putin to supply our gas needs? Only a country led by weak politicians who are failing to ensure our energy secuity. It is a governments first priority to ensure affordable, plentiful and reliable energy and not to pander to a few environmentalists who do not use sound science or information to support their ridiculous claims against the shale gas industry.


Click here to read the article


Click here to read the article

Cuadrilla Cuadrilla benefits is the company which has been developing the Preston New Road well site in Lancashire. They have have a 'Commitments Tracker' which is independently verified.

Up to December 2018 they have created 26 Full Time Employees and 10 Apprenticeships and 45 Contractor or temporary jobs based in Lancashire.

Direct spend has been £10.4 million so far and £1.1m indirect spend.

£240,000 Local community benefit payments have been made, £220,000 Local Community Sponsorships and £16,000 in Local Community Donations.



How much have the opponents to shale gas contributed to our local and national economies? The answer is ZERO. There is no magic money tree. We need big business who create opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs. These are the people and companies who are willing to take financial risks but by their work ethic we ALL benefit. If we continue to reject essential industries, we will essentially fail at providing energy for the 65 million people who live in the UK.



December 2018 A new group has been formed in the UK claiming to be health professionals against shale gas. The propaganda used does not compare to the scientific views of Larry Wolk who was the Chief Medical Officer in Colorado and is one the most highly respected medical professionals in the USA.  Colorado, has around 50,000 producing oil & gas wells. Larry Wolks professional experience is certainly not to be ignored.

Colorado’s top medical official Dr. Larry Wolk told a local newspaper that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, doesn’t have any adverse health effects, as it doesn’t expose people to enough toxins to be harmful.
Larry Wolk, a practicing physician once voted Colorado’s pediatrician of the year, cited Colorado State health data to The Tribune that found the areas of Colorado with the most fracking don’t have higher rates of health conditions. In some cases, rates of health conditions are actually even lower than those reported where little or no fracking occurs.
Read more: Daily Record article

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH LIED ABOUT SHALE GAS: A week the charity would rather forget. FoE campaign to stop rural communities developing industry in their area which could help improve their lives with more jobs, higher salaries and business opportunities. The average wage in our area is around £16,000, employment is often partime, seasonal and only paid the minimum wage. Contrast that gto the average wage of the 'environmental campaigner' whose salaries are often on average £40,000. That applies to Friends of the Earth and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. This is a disgrace, it is a forced inequality and adds further to rural poverty. 

Click here to read The Times article



Friends of the Earth has been accused of exploiting a legal loophole to avoid sanctions by the charity regulator over misleading claims it made about fracfoeking.

The Charity Commission dropped an investigation into the claims made by FoE after the environmental group told the regulator that they had been made by its non-charitable arm.

The Advertising Standards Authority investigated the claims that fracking could cause cancer, contaminate water supplies, increase asthma rates and send house prices plummeting. It found that they were misleading and told FoE not to repeat them.

However, FoE faced no action by the commission, which has much tougher powers than the ASA, including the ability to freeze bank accounts.

Cuadrilla, which plans to start fracking in Lancashire this year, has written to the commission urging it to reopen its investigation into FoE.

FoE claimed to the commission a year ago that the leaflet was published by its non-charitable arm, Friends of the Earth Limited. However, the company shares staff and premises with the charity Friends of the Earth Trust.

FoE also told the commission that since June 2015 its fracking campaign had been carried out “solely by Friends of the Earth Limited”. It said that its trustees had decided the charity should withdraw from all campaigning on fracking because it was too politically sensitive. Charities are forbidden under charity law from having a political purpose. The commission accepted FoE’s assurances and dropped its investigation into the leaflet. However, it has emerged that a few months after the commission stopped investigating, the FoE’s charitable arm resumed its campaign against fracking.

Craig Bennett, Friends of the Earth chief executive, said: “The Charity Commission is well aware that Friends of the Earth is campaigning on fracking and was informed in early August 2016 that the charity would be leading the campaign to oppose fracking, as ending all forms of fossil fuel extraction is critical in reducing climate change.”

He accused Cuadrilla of seeking to silence opposition to fracking.

FoE published an appeal last month for donations to its charity for its anti-fracking campaign and stated its intention to claim gift aid, meaning revenues would be boosted by taxpayers’ money.

In the letter to the commission, Francis Egan, Cuadrilla’s chief executive, said: “On the face of it Friends of the Earth charitable Trust has sought to exploit a loophole in your rules to avoid regulation and sanction, in the first place by misleading you and then by assuring you of a suspension of campaigning by the charity on the politically sensitive topic of fracking.

“It appears that Friends of the Earth regard the Charity Commission as being a toothless watchdog that rarely barks and never bites.”

The commission said it had received “a complaint about a leaflet published by the Friends of the Earth Trust Limited regarding fracking and is assessing the information provided to determine whether there are any regulatory concerns”. A spokeswoman added: “Whilst charities must be politically neutral, they may engage in campaigning and politically-sensitive activity where this activity supports the delivery of their charitable purposes and provided that they follow our guidance.”

After being exposed as totally misleadinbg the whole population of the United Kingdom FoE went on the defensive and claimed that the ASA had 'dropped' the case against them. In an unprecendeted move the CEO of the ASA released this statement:

The ASA felt compelled to issue a statement in a rare rebuttle after Friends of the Earth tried to deny the outcome of the ASA's investigation: A fractious debate but a clear outcome- ASA

5 January 2017

Environmental iconsOne week into 2017 and the action we’ve taken to stop potentially misleading ad claims about fracking by Friends of the Earth has hit the national media and prompted widespread debate and commentary.  But amidst the reports, the public comments by the parties involved and the social media chatter, there’s a risk that the facts become obscured.

So let me be clear. We told Friends of the Earth that based on the evidence we’d seen, specific claims it made in its anti-fracking leaflet about the effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water or property prices, or claims with the same meaning, cannot be repeated.  We asked for an assurance that they wouldn’t be.  Friends of the Earth gave us an assurance to that effect.  Unless the evidence changes, that means it mustn’t repeat those claims in ads.

Friends of the Earth has said we “dropped the case”. That’s not an accurate reflection of what’s happened.  We thoroughly investigated the complaints we received and closed the case on receipt of the above assurance.  Because of that, we decided against publishing a formal ruling, but plainly that’s not the same thing as “dropping the case”.  Crucially, the claims under the microscope mustn’t reappear in ads, unless the evidence changes.  Dropped cases don’t have that outcome.

Resolving cases informally, usually following our receipt of an assurance that claims won’t be repeated, is an important tool in our toolkit, allowing us to be proportionate and targeted in how we tackle problems.  No-one should be under any illusion that the process of looking into these matters is anything other than rigorous.

Advertisers of all kinds, be they commercial companies, charities or even government departments, sometimes fight tooth and nail to defend their right to promote their products, services or policies or to raise awareness of their causes or ideas.  That’s perfectly legitimate.  But when advertising claims aren’t properly supported by evidence and people are likely to be misled, we’ll step in to make sure they don’t reappear.  What matters is advertisers are held to account when they need to be.

Fracking is clearly a highly contentious issue that polarises opinion.  Both sides of the debate want to get their views across; want to win hearts and minds.  Again, there’s nothing wrong with that. As an even-handed regulator, we don’t take sides.  Friends of the Earth got it wrong on this occasion, but the businesses behind the fracking that it opposes also have to follow the advertising rules.  Indeed, we’ve taken action before against the fracking industry for its own ad claims, when they haven’t stood up to scrutiny.

Debates between parties with polar opposite views can become highly fractious.  But that won’t get in the way of us taking action to stop ads that we think are likely to mislead people from reappearing.

Foe Times rebuke
Foe Times rebuke 2nd part


EARTHQUAKES IN OKLAHOMA are they really caused by fracking? This expert say's not. View this short video for an explanation,


People from the dark green community are openly terrified of fossil fuels and make extremely dramatic claims that our existance is about to end. You would think they would be leading by example, wouldnt you? If you were so terrifed of what fracking may bring to our country in relation to health impacts, climate change and industrialisation, would you smoke? Several leading players in the local anti fracking group do.....are they not concerned for their own health? Even worse, their family and friends health from passive smoking? After all the official Government warning is proven by science and not just scare stories..SMOKING KILLS. Many of those campaigners also are alarmed about climate change and big gas guzzling cars......We know, they arrive in them to protest against fossil fuels and fracking. ONE WORD SPRINGS TO MIND HYPOCRITES. Champagne planet savers.

US fossil fuel benefits from 1900

ASTHMA:If you live near a shale gas area you are actually less affected by asthma than if you live in an area with no fracking

Oh dear, fractivists seem to believe that most people will believe their beliefs.....and if you don't then the name calling begins and you are classed as not being capable of having, or forming your own opinion. Asthma rates is the latest of their poor attempts to condemn shale gas using health issues. It is always worth reading the whole article that they refer to as there is usually a disclaimer in the small print. The media and fractivists fail to read those and create scary headlines to do just that, scare people. If you live near a shale gas area you are actually less affected by asthma than if you live in an area with no fracking. Read more on this here:  Click here to read the full newspaper article

AMA's Attempt to Link Asthma with Fracking Is Flawed, States the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

There has been much propaganda lately by the opponents to shale gas that fracking will cause higher rates of asthma in communities living close to well sites. As usual the study used to produce their scare story is highly flawed. See the link below:

Click here to read the full article


  A previous cancer study that has been used against planning permissions and is still up on Frack Off (etc) was retracted last month.
  The re-released study is now out.
  Firstly the initial study put the cancer risk within 1 mile of a mile at 2.9 in 10000, which is above EPA safety levels (hence why the anti fracking lobby jumped on it).
  The re-calculated data (the researchers made mistakes in their Excel spreadsheet) now puts the actual risk at 0.04 in 1,000,000.
  So the original study was out by 725,000%.
  Given the 'Fracking causes Cancer' meme used by anti fracking groups the data error and recalculation should have been bigger news in the UK, but the media has decided it isnt worth publicising. Biased media?
  The paper was re-released July 11th. A quick check at DrillOrDrop finds no mention - in line with previous science that states very low risk or no effect - or even the EPA 5 year fracking study, none of which seemed to warrant a headline at DrillOrDrop, the 'independent' web site on fracking......

11th of July 2016

The sinister side of the anti fracking movement:

From The Times newspaper on the 11th of July. The article reveals the more sinister side of the anti fracking movement. To this date Lorraine Allanson still has no broadband service due to the very rural position of her business it makes it very difficult to receive a high speed service. Beeline Broadband cut off the service to her business on the 1st of June. Beeline are an operator which is supposed to serve more difficult rural properties and it is believed that they receive some funding from  BT and the EU to do so. 

Broadband companies cannot just terminate a service and infact legally should be signed up to the ADR which will help resolve any disputes when neither party can agree. Beeline Broadband is not aligned to this service as it should be. A broadband company cannot just terminate anyones contract without enetering into discussions. It must be noted that Glenn Garrett the director of Beeline Broadband has failed to enter into any discussions whatsover and ignores all communications from Miss Allanson.

The actions of Glenn Garrett has had a hugely negative affect on Miss Allansons ability to run her business and the effect has been that many challenging situations have arisen due to the loss of broadband. There has been significant financial losses involved too. This of course was the object of Glenn Garretts actions, to cause as much disruption to a rural business soley for political reasons. When the reporter asked Glenn Garrett what evidence he had to support his accusations against Miss Allanson he was unable to produce anything nor could even recall whether he had ever read  what the complaint against her was by a third party and what he had supposidly based his decision upon.

Here is the text from The Times:

When Lorraine Allanson spoke out in favour of fracking, she expected resistance from neighbours worried about the disturbance or impact on house prices. She did not expect to become a victim of what she believes to be a campaign of bullying and intimidation that threatens her bed and breakfast and holiday cottage business.

While she was giving evidence in May in support of an application to frack near her home in North Yorkshire, an opponent of fracking who supplies her broadband wrote to her stating that he was going to cut off her service.

The application for Kirby Misperton was approved later that day by North Yorkshire county council and Third Energy plans to start fracking at the end of this year or early next.

Miss Allanson had decided to speak out because she believed that unfounded fears were being spread about fracking. She had heard similar scare stories more than 20 years ago when conventional gas extraction began in the area and they had been proved incorrect. She believes that fracking would be good for the local economy and be safely regulated.

Her intervention infuriated campaigners from Frack Free Ryedale, some of whom circulated an image comparing her to Jabba the Hutt, the slug-like alien from the Star Wars films.

On May 23, as she was giving evidence at the council’s planning meeting, Glenn Garrett, director of Beeline Broadband, a local rural broadband supplier, wrote her a letter giving her seven days’ notice that her broadband service would be terminated. It stated: “This decision is final and no discussion will be entered into.”

Mr Garrett claimed to have received a complaint that Miss Allanson’s broadband service had been used to send abusive messages. She denied this and asked for details of the complaint.

She wrote: “As you well know, I run a rural business which is highly dependent upon access to broadband . . . You are heavily involved with the Frack Free Ryedale movement. I am confident that this is the driving force in your actions.”

Mr Garrett ignored her request and cut her off. He has since failed to respond to a solicitor’s letter accusing him of breaching his contract with Miss Allanson for political reasons. He denied that he had cut her off because of her support for fracking.

Councillors who voted in favour of Third Energy’s application have received anonymous abusive messages. One of them, Peter Sowray, said: “I had a few nasty letters and the odd nasty phone call. It was a bit of a shock. [They were] calling me names.”

Janet Sanderson, a North Yorkshire Conservative county councillor, issued a statement in support of Miss Allanson, saying it was sad day when people were “unable to express their views freely without fear of retribution”

The Shetlands have prospered from the oil and gas industry

Back in the early 1970's the Shetland Isles seemed to be under threat from the oil and gas industry in the North Sea. See how the doomsayers have been proven wrong from then and how the Shetlands has prospered. Click on the link for a short informative video.

3rd June 2016

After all the scare stories the anti fracking campaign have used this article reveals the truth and is NOT in favour of their scaremongering campaign.

From the USA the environmental regulators dispel the fears about fracking.Click on the link to read the full article.


Fracking: 'Yorkshire has the chance to be  the centre of European industry' Click on the lick to read the full article. We would like Yorkshire's rural areas open for business all year and not just seasonal. Young people able to have long term employment and an end to winters on the dole. Yorkshire and Britain open for business and not cowed by the minority who campaihgn against the Shale Gas industry whilst using myths and scare stories to support their far fetched claims of 'devastation, destruction and even death'

YORKSHIRE leading the way with the Shale Gas industry just as we have led the way with many other industries. OPEN FOR BUSINESS!

Sir Mark Walport


Sir Mark Walport from an article in the Times newspaper:

The government’s chief scientific adviser has urged politicians to embrace fracking as part of a mixed energy policy, alongside renewables technology, conventional gas and nuclear power.

After the Paris conference on climate change, Sir Mark Walport insisted it would be essential for Britain to embrace a range of energy options, if tough carbon emissions targets were to be achieved without incurring huge costs.


“We need a mix of power solutions,” Sir Mark said. “Decarbonisation is a journey, not a single event. Wind investment makes sense, but is it a question of wind or gas? No.

“We need multiple solutions, including nuclear. We inevitably focus on supply, but we need to think about demand reductions as well.”

Fracking — non-conventional gas extraction — was potentially a viable part of the energy supply mix, he argued.

A report by the Royal Society had analysed issues of earth tremors, groundwater pollution and methane leaks and found “from an engineering perspective this is something that is a safe thing to do.”

At an event at the Glasgow Science Centre, Sir Mark said: “Their conclusion said, if you engineer [fracking] and regulate it properly, while no drilling technology is absolutely safe, if this is well done then there is no significant issue with seismicity at all.

“The drilling is deep under the water table, so there should be no contamination; and, as long as you manage the valves properly, then there will be no leak of methane.

Critics of fracking, he added, had focused on other areas. Some of its opponents simply disliked fossil fuels, some did not like the companies involved in fracking and a third group were unhappy about having large-scale engineering works close to their own community.

18th March 2016

The recent court case in Scanton Pennsylvania regarding the case by two families in Dimock claiming their water was contaminated by the Cabot Oil and Gas company finally came to court after 8 years. The first statement by their lawyer admitted the case was not about toxic water. They had no evidence and neither did their 'experts' Dimock has been the cenre of attention for years after Josh Fox made a film claiming that reisdents could ignite their tap water. Yes they could, but they have been able to do that long before Cabot came into the area. During the trial it was revealed that the Ely family camplained about their contaminated water several months before Cabot drilled the first well. They claimed their children had been made sick but they had never taken them to see a doctor. Scott Ely owed the tax office $90,000. He built a $1 million home on a lot he claimed was contaminated. The case against Cabot collapsed except the jury decided they would teach 'big business' a lesson and awarded the two families over $4 million dollars between them for 'nuisance' Dimock has suffered as a town for years becaus of this and local residents fed up with the whole issue of fracking destroying the image of their town made this video, click on the link to view.

Dimock proud Dimock locals fight back against the opponents to shale gas.





Horrizontal drilling saves our environment

horrizontal drilling




 How amazing is horrizontal drilling and how it allows for fewer well pads.

 Click on the link for more information

9th December 2015

Shown below is a copy of the letter written by Malcolm Smith, Chairman of Scarborough Probus Club following their Club visit to Third Energy at Knapton Generating Station and which was published in The Scarborough News. 

“Fracking is very much in the news at the moment. We all know our energy requirements are increasing rapidly and power stations are being closed far quicker than replacements are coming on stream. One source of power, of course, is natural gas. However, the normal wells, quite a few of which are in our area, are starting to become exhausted.

As chairman of Scarborough Probus Club, I arranged a visit to West Knapton Power Station which utilises natural gas to power the generator. The site (which I’m sure few people even know exists) is owned by Third Energy, one of the companies which wants to ‘frack’ to produce gas that is trapped in the rock formations below us.

The site is very well hidden off the main A64 road and surrounded by trees. The company has taken great pains to make the site as unobtrusive as possible. The actual generator is driven by an industrialised version of a 747 jet engine which produces in the region of 80,000 hp – an amazing level of power – and we were told it is capable of providing all the household requirements of York if the industrial areas were discounted.

We had a number of our members who have experience in civil engineering and other areas, which meant we put some deep and probing questions to the company rep after our tour of the site and during the company presentation. At last some real facts were learned and the scare stories we realised were just that!

The difference here from the American sites is that Third Energy are going to drill much, much, deeper than the American ones, as far down as 7,000 feet. This is way below our water table, which everyone was concerned might be contaminated. The actual ‘frack’ will only be a fraction of an inch in depth and it will only be done once or twice for each well.

We were all impressed by the presentation and many of our fears were allayed. The degree of regulation is far greater than the American model. We came away feeling the worries are minimal and this could be a real source of energy in future years.

Malcolm Smith, Chairman, Scarborough Probus Club”

3rd December

flamingo zooFLAMINGO LAND ZOO, the 5th most popular tourist attraction in the UK has made a statement and concludes that the ANTI-FRACKING campaign is:
In a departure from the opposition to Third Energy's scheme by some businesses a Flamingo Land spokesman said it was supportive of any initiatives which result in job creation, especially local employment.
He said following meetings with the energy firm and residents to get a feel for the arguments on both sides, the resorts' owners had concluded the anti-fracking campaign was "lacking in tangible evidence" and "most of the provided information is subjective and emotional".
**Taken from the York Press article which, as with most media, used the headline grabbing 'Flamingo Land describes possible fracking sites as "massive concern"  When reading the full article what is truly damning is that Flamingo Land is not convinced at all by the very weak on supportive evidence of the anti-fracking campaign**

1st December 2015

EA logo Another positive step closer towards Third Energys application to Hydraulically Fracture the KM8 well at Kirby Misperton.

The Environment Agency press release states:

'The Environment Agency is launching a second period of consultation on Third Energy’s application for permits to carry out fracking at a site in North Yorkshire.
Local residents and interested groups are invited to submit any new relevant information on the draft permits for Third Energy UK Gas Ltd’s proposals for shale gas exploration and production at Kirby Misperton, before a final decision is made on whether the permits are issued.
The Environment Agency is minded to issue the permits following a rigorous environmental assessment of the proposed activities, taking into account all of the comments made in the first consultation that closed in August.'
The info then goes on to say the following:
  'We will only issue a permit if we believe that harm to the environment, people and wildlife will be minimised and that the operator has the ability to meet the conditions of the permit. Providing a business can prove that the proposed activities meets all the legal requirements, including environmental, technological and health requirements, then we are legally obliged to issue a permit, even if some people do not approve of the decision'

27th November 2015

BRITAIN’S green energy barons are getting huge taxpayer subsidies to build diesel generator energy farms which are exactly the kind of polluting energy source their wind and solar farms are meant to replace.

The need for demand to meet peaks in power has become more acute because old coal and nuclear power stations have been retired and fewer than expected new gas-fired generating stations built. Wind and solar power firms are being encouraged to install the generators, which pour out carbon dioxide (CO2) a greenhouse gas, and toxic nitrogen dioxide (NO2), on their sites in order to provide standby generating capacity and prevent the lights going out during periods of peak demand. Diesel farms close to wind and solar farms are favoured because they have connections to the national grid.

The surge in diesel farms is directly linked to Britain’s decision to try and rely more on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. These switch off when the wind drops or when the sky is cloudy or dark. The Department of Energy & Climate Change (Decc) is offering consumer-funded subsidies to companies that install short term operating reserve. Decc created the capacity market under which companies are paid to keep fossil-fuel power stations on standby, civil servants not realising that this would lead to a bonanza in generators that burn diesel oil, second only to coal in CO2 and pollution emissions.

About 1,000 such diesel units were installed in the past 18 months, with a similar number being planned, making diesel farms among the fastest-growing energy sectors. The incentive lies in a lucrative subsidy system, which includes:

Standby subsidies: energy firms can get up to £83,000 a year for each 2MW diesel generator they put on the grid, simply for making it available even if is not switched on .

Operating subsidies: when it is switched on, diesel farm owners get up to £360 per megawatt hour, nine times the normal rate, as they can charge premium rates in peak times.

A Treasury “cashback” scheme: investors building diesel farms can claim 30% of the cost from taxpayers, plus exemption from capital gains tax when diesel farms are sold.

City investors have been quick to spot the multiple subsidies and about 95 companies have submitted more than 150 planning applications and a few companies have confirmed that they have taken advantage of contracts under which they can be paid for diesel plant generation even when it is not used.

Due to the two main renewables available in the UK, wind and solar being unable to produce a reliable consistent source of energy we find ourselves in this ludicrous position. It should be noted that opponents to Shale Gas often claim that the companies involved are money grabbing capitalists. These Green companies involved with renewables have been very keen to do a cash grab of tax payers money to help boost their profits and earning capacity.....Capitalists too?


Here again is the positive side of the shale gas industry in Pennsylvania and what it can do for communities. Follow the link below:



This video talks of how the gas industry has helped in Weld County, Colorado. This what the anti's don't want you to know. Follow the link below:



To see a video on Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing produced by the Governments Department of Energy and Climate Change then follow the link below:




News Flash! Channel 4 News 12th Aug 2015 click on this link below to view their piece on Fracking.

Click on the link below to view an article in the Yorkshire Post Newspaper dated the 5th of August 2015 made by John Dewar the operations manager at Third Energy who propose to test frack an existing well at Kirbymisperton.


YP image JD articleClick here to read John Dewars opinion piece


Ryedale and its involvement with the gas industry. 

Ryedale is at a significant crossroads. In the coming months we in Ryedale will have the opportunity to open a new chapter in the continued safe development of a natural resource that lies beneath our feet. Gas has been safely and discretely exploited here for several decades, supplying power to 40 000 homes in Yorkshire and co-existing very happily with the traditional local industries of tourism and farming.

Under government regulation, hydraulic fracturing can ensure that this supply continues safely for the local area and for the nation, jobs can be created, economic growth can continue and Ryedale can portray itself as a vibrant, forward-looking area, open to investment and innovation.

Please read our webpages, get to know the facts about fracking and the history of gas in Ryedale, and add your support to the cause.

 Please sign this government petition " to facilitate and accelerate the onshore fraccing for shale gas" . To vote, follow link



View video: Gas, who needs it?


0 # Victor Walker 2017-04-12 19:34
Lets get cracking with fracking. Please sign the Parliamentary petition below
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Victor Walker 2017-04-12 19:33
Lets get cracking with fracking
please sign the Parliamentary petition below... thanks
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Bill Butterworeth 2015-11-23 17:36
The anti-fracking groups in the UK are surprisingly well funded. Leaflets, posters, travel organised meetings and all the activity takes funding. Just try putting “Funding of ant-fracking groups” into your search engine. There are dozens of hits. There are significant and repeated rumours, with some evidence, that Russia (led by a man who understands energy politics on a different level compared to our amateurish mutterings) is funding anti-shale groups. Further, that he has been doing so for a long time and intends to keep doing so. There are also rumours of another, large, oil-producing state, is similarly funding anti-shale groups.
Very little of the anti-shale arguments are fact-based and there is a saying which is relevant; “Distort the truth far enough and it becomes a lie.” One thing is at least questionable; these anti-fracking people, are they really pro-British and pro-environment? It appears not.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Bill Butterworeth 2015-11-23 14:08
I find something suspicious about the anti-fracking groups in the UK. They are well organised, very vocal, lots of supporting paperwork and signs, much spent on travel and communications - all very well funded. I suggest, dear reader, that you put "Funding of anti-fracking groups* into your search engine. Interesting isn't it?
There is often something in what these groups say. The difficulty I have is that (and here I quote) "If the truth is distorted far enough, it becomes a lie." Much of the anti-fracking rhetoric is not science-based, distorted and hysterical. Whose jobs are they protecting? Not British.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # John Hand 2015-10-30 17:21
The anti-fracking lobby are polluting the countryside in Ryedale with their dreadful signage everywhere. Its jolly good to see somebody talking sense about the real issues instead of scaremongering. Lets have some FORGE signs displayed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # Tommy Burgess 2015-09-15 09:42
Good To hear someone talking sense and standing up for the local community and the benefits it will bring
I worked at Ebberstone Moor and at Kirby Misperton as H&S advisor and every effort was made to protect the environment, but one thing needs addressing and that's the way we get water to the site. The biggest disruption to the local community is the quantity and size of water tankers used in the drilling process,water relays using hi volume pumps could be the answer. The fire service use this system all the time.
I don't know how the costs stack up but it would go a long way to limiting the disruption to the local community.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Lorraine Allanson 2015-09-15 20:33
Thank you Tommy for your comment. I can reassure regarding the truck movements to get the water required on site. There is an existing pipeline from Knapton Generating Station to the well site. The water will be sent via that route and not by trucks.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Gavin Humphreys 2015-09-17 09:51
how do you deal with the contaminated water that is produced with the gas after the shale has been fracked. I guess that will have to be trucked to a suitable site for de-contamination prior to dumping it in a river?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Lorraine Allanson 2015-09-17 11:40
Thank you for your question which I put directly to Third Energy. They tell me that the answer is clearly stated in the planning application. For your edification, all the flow back water that comes to surface will be contained in special holding tanks and at a convenient time will be sent by truck to a permitted waste disposal company. The disposal company will have to be qualified, approved, permitted and experienced in dealing with such waste products. The disposal company will then separate the fluids from the solids. The solids will go to specially approved sites and the liquid will then be sent to a sewage company which will treat the water till it meets a very high quality level where it can be put back into the mains water supply or into rivers. Some containers will remain on site to handle any slugs of flow back water that the well could push out, even after the initial clean up.
Due to the extreme tightness of the various hybrid formations in the Bowland shale, plus the results of the logs and core analysis that was taken by Third Energy during the drilling of the well, they do not anticipate any, natural water coming back from the well, but just in case it does, some containers will be kept on site during the production phase and once a suitable volume has been accumulated, it will be handled in the same way as above.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # David Donaldson 2015-09-15 06:51
Good website and good initiative. Shale gas offers the opportunity to exploite a (potentially) significant natural resource within the UK. The economic and social benifits to both the local community and the country are considerable. Oil and gas production is one of the most responsible and regulated industries in the UK. Gas is one of the cleanest energy sources available. What's not to like?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # John Beswick 2015-09-15 06:22
Lorraine, it is really good to see some sense in this hysterical debate, which has been hijacked by people who have no real knowledge or idea of the process, safeguards and benefits. Congratulations on your efforts to restore some realism and sanity into the case for indigenous gas. Well done. Keep up the good work.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Richard Cowley 2015-08-21 13:13
Keep up the good work folks, lets hope it all turns int a success and see prosperity in our country.
Take care all
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # Alison Wear 2015-08-15 17:29
You make some very good points in your excellent reply to what was a mildly aggressive posting. Most people listening to FFR can't fail to suspect that they are being fed a line, but most of us don't have the perseverance to do the research to prove it. So thanks to you and your contributors here and on Facebook for some healthy challenging of the antis.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+7 # John Wilson 2015-08-14 14:23
You said last night on BBC Look North that if the Americans has had major problems with fracking we would have heard about it. But we have heard about it. A number of States in the USA have banned fracking on health grounds. If you haven't heard that you are either very ignorant or deliberately trying to mislead the public
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+10 # Lorraine Allanson 2015-08-15 13:28
When you say you have heard about it, I assume you mean the propaganda that is commonly spread by the anti frackers to scare the general public. With all the lies, scaremongering and also intimidation, I have a lot of sympathy for them. I’m quite sure they will swing round when the facts are on the table and the first fracking operation has been conducted at KM8 safely and without incident. If you have a look at the FORGE Facebook page, you will notice an article from the EPA in the US (Environmental Protection Agency) who have spent the last 5 years conducting the most comprehensive and scientific study on fracking that has ever been done. To spare you searching for it, I have highlighted the main findings at the end of my answer. The point I was trying to make on BBC Look North is that in a country like the US, which has such a free press, strong litigious culture and thousands of ambulance chasing lawyers, coupled to the millions of fracking operations that have been conducted in recent years, surely there would be much more factual evidence on fracking related problems. Why are the streets in Texas not full of sick and dead people ? Why are the courts in Houston not full of legal cases? I would be the first to admit that there are probably many cases of contamination in the US related to biogenic gas, old wells, bad practices, poor regulations and even other industries, but almost nothing has been directly related to the process of fracking. The EPA study backs this up. And of course the UK has much more stringent regulatory regime than the US.

The next point you make is why some States in the US have banned it. The simple answer is that you would really need to ask each State. But from what I know, the shale gas deposits do not extend across the whole of the US, so it is quite easy for some States to declare a ban for political point scoring when they have no incentive to pursue it. There are very few States with a history of oil and gas production and also significant shale gas deposits, that have banned it. New York State is possibly the exception where a very high profile anti fracking campaign pressurised the mayor into banning it. Of course New York has many other revenue sources and has the financial muscle to say No but we can expect that they will reverse this decision in the future, particularly with the results of the EPA study below.

Lastly, you say that I am either very ignorant or deliberately trying to mislead the public. I may well be the former but I am certainly not doing the latter. I would say that the anti frackers have been misleading the public, and that your understanding of the facts corroborates this. I am also prepared to admit that I am not an expert, but by simply picking up the telephone, (like you could do as well) I can get access to a team of industry experts to get the facts and not the fiction. If you would like, I can try to arrange a meeting for you with some real experts. But so far the anti frackers, including their leaders, have not shown any appetite to meet experts to learn the truth.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing its long awaited, five-year study, which finds “hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources.”

“It is the most complete compilation of scientific data to date, including over 950 sources of information, published papers, numerous technical reports, information from stakeholders and peer-reviewed EPA scientific reports.”

EPA’s study actually builds upon a long list of studies that show the fracking process poses an exceedingly low risk of impacting underground sources of drinking water. It corroborates a “landmark study” by the U.S. Department of Energy in which the researchers injected tracers into hydraulic fracturing fluid and found no groundwater contamination after twelve months of monitoring. It is also in line with reports by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Government Accountability Office, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Groundwater Protection Council, to name just a few.

The report contradicts the most prevalent claim from anti-fracking activists, which have made “water contamination” the very foundation of their campaign against hydraulic fracturing. As EID reported in March, after heralding the report at its inception, anti-fracking organizations like the NRDC and InsideClimate News (ICN) later went into damage control, downplaying the forthcoming report, likely due to what it would conclude.

Hydraulic fracturing has brought cleaner air, significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions, created millions of jobs, reduced energy prices, strengthened national security, and turned the American economy around.

With this new report, it couldn’t be clearer that shale development is occurring in conjunction with environmental protection — and the claims by anti-fracking activists have been thoroughly debunked.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+10 # Lisa Dennis 2015-08-18 16:30
I watched the film Fracknation, then did as you suggested and did some further research. Are you aware that Loren Salsman, the 'landowner' in the film who states he loves Cabot, did in fact have his water contaminated (there is a video on youtube of him getting water from his processing shed) Loren Salsman works for the industry. Craig & Julie Sautner's water was contaminated and Cabot eventually bought their house from them for £167,000 They flattened it and sold the land to his neighbour for $4000 with the condition that no domestic property could be built on it EVER.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+10 # Lorraine Allanson 2015-08-19 08:03
Dear Lisa
Thank you for your e mail. Yes I saw the videos. There are several things you didn't pick up. The first is that he said that he used to be happy with his water and that was even before they installed the water separation unit in his garden. He also said that they have always had methane in the water anyway which is a very common occurrence across the U.S. He also mentioned about sealing the annulus in the Baker well in 2010 which shows that it was bad drilling practices that caused it. He then said it had been fixed , which you can do with all wells , just like your car can be fixed, and the levels had been dropping ever since. With some more knowledge you would know that it was related to the cementation of the well and has nothing to do with fracking. If you do not understand this then it may help to explain your position. I can put you in touch with some real professionals if you want. They are only a phone call away. Show that you are not like the other antis who don't want to know the truth and take me up on my offer of getting you to meet them.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+7 # Lisa Dennis 2015-08-21 13:25
Thank you Lorraine, I do already understand that contamination is more often caused by well failure, surface spills, blowouts etc, and not the actual fracking part of the process, but I do not understand why the contamination that did occur wasn't acknowledged at all in Fracknation, or did I fail to pick up on that? I am very worried by this, as it seems like they are trying to give the impression that the contamination didn't happen at all, and it matters very little to me exactly which part of the process caused the contamination as it is not entirely unrelated? This does not give me confidence that it couldn't happen here with more complicated geology to deal with than in the U.S, so I am very grateful for your offer to meet with real professionals. That will be an honour, so I shall take some time to do some further research and formulate some questions and get back to you. Thank you very much
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+8 # Peter Teasdale 2015-08-10 13:41
Hi Lorraine, I have studied your site which mainly targets people's concerns about the safety of fracking, but doesn't address what is to me a much more serious concern, climate change.
I originally thought that energy from gas would be so much better than coal, which is a dirty polluter releasing so much CO2, but I am saddened to learn that up to 10% losses are expected from our gas grid, and as methane is a 20 times worse greenhouse gas than CO2, gas actually accelerates climate change, which will soon be irreversible when the peat bogs in northern Canada start to thaw, with catastrophic consequences and cost. I often wish it was visible plastic bags coming out the chimney at Drax, and not an invisible pollutant gas, then people could see the damage being done to our very fragile atmosphere and even though we get cheap energy at the meter, the true cost of carbon pollution added up to 8% of our planets GDP last year, and it is only going to get worse.
with fracking
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+9 # Lorraine allanson 2015-08-15 15:27
I will use brackets around my answers as I go through the letter from Mr P Teasadale to answer his questions after consulting with my advisors.
Hi Lorraine, I have studied your site which mainly targets people's concerns about the safety of fracking, but doesn't address what is to me a much more serious concern, climate change.
I originally thought that energy from gas would be so much better than coal, (yes that is right for many reasons and not just because it is cleaner. Remember that coal can only be used for burning whereas gas can be used for thousands of things –simply google “ uses for gas” and you will be amazed), which is a dirty polluter releasing so much CO2 (We also need to understand that without large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere which were generated by volcanic activity, life on planet earth would never have started in the first place. Even now the rain forests in Brazil and elsewhere still need vast quantities of it), but I am saddened to learn that up to 10% losses are expected from our gas grid (who told you this nonsense? Gas is a very precious resource and for any company to sit back and just watch 10% of its resource leak away into the atmosphere without doing anything about would need its head examined. It would also be heavily fined and probably lose its License to Operate. Did you know that the gas has mecaptens in it to make it smell. Can you imagine the smell of 10% of the UKs gas going into the air. We would smell it all over the UK. And the other thing is that if all that gas leaked it would create clouds of gas that could form explosive mixtures. So why are explosions not going off all the time around the UK. Houses and villages would be getting blown up all the time. Please point me to the person that made this claim and I’ll show you an idiot or a liar!,) and as methane is a 20 times worse greenhouse gas than CO2, gas actually accelerates climate change (please tell me that you didn’t come to this conclusion yourself as it is completely false , which will soon be irreversible when the peat bogs in northern Canada start to thaw (you can’t be serious ), with catastrophic consequences and cost. I often wish it was visible plastic bags coming out the chimney at Drax, and not an invisible pollutant gas, then people could see the damage being done to our very fragile atmosphere and even though we get cheap energy at the meter, the true cost of carbon pollution added up to 8% of our planets GDP last year (Not another statistic that can’t be substantiated), and it is only going to get worse with fracking. ( No it will not. If you take gas out of your life, then throw away your furniture, your carpets, your clothes, your shoes, your sports stuff, your medicines, your TV, your children’s or grandchildren’s toys, your central heating, your gas cooker (assuming you have one) and thousands of other things. Just look around you. I am sure I can arrange for some experts to help you understand the science a bit more.

Alternatively, please look at this website and pass it on to your contacts who gave you the misleading information.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+10 # Ken Wilkinson 2015-08-10 09:55
Excellent that you are taking on the deliberate misinformation from ideologues, who understand little of drilling. Do they really think it will poison the land?? Well where has that happened? Hopefully this will allow proper debate of the minor inconvenience that will result from this development.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+9 # Andy Smith 2015-08-07 14:43
Well done keep up the good work ! As I'm an ex oil man out of work with caudrilla 6dgbv
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+13 # David Pasley 2015-08-07 12:00
I'm sure supporters of FORGE will find the link shown below of interest. This article first appeared almost a couple of months ago on the BBC website and is by Richard Anderson a BBC business reporter who has written many knowledgeable article on energy issues. Simply copy the link and paste it into your browser.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+16 # Michael Roberts 2015-08-06 08:50
Good stuff! I hope it will squash some of the nonsense
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+16 # DAVID SMITH 2015-08-05 18:24
Great to find a pro Fracking site. This country needs to get the gas out of the ground. It will provide jobs, energy security and make sure the gas heating will be there for the young and old in the winter. I have just started a government petition " to facilitate and accelerate the onshore fraccing for shale gas" . To vote, (Please go further up this Home page where a link to sign the petition has been added on behalf of David by Lorraine)
Good luck
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+19 # Mark Taylor 2015-08-05 15:43
Yes congratulations on your initiative. i'm sure once shale gets going in the UK it will be seen as the best thing to happen since the North Sea oil revolution.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+20 # Joe Public 2015-08-05 13:08
Well done for creating a counter to combat the misinformation and lies circulated by those with little idea of what fracking actually is or does.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+14 # Alison Wear 2015-08-05 13:00
A fantastic initiative. The anti-frackers have certainly met their match! Keep up the great work.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+13 # Howard Schmidt 2015-08-05 12:51
well done. so good to see some common sense.I live in Queensland and talk to farmers who work on drilling rigs ,they tell me many of these sites are fractured and of the hundreds of wells there has been no problems. I actually believe gas is much less invasive than wind turbines which totally take over the landscape permanently like here in Australia. good luck and God bless you.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+17 # David Pasley 2015-08-05 07:13
Well done Lorraine, congratulations on getting your web site up and running and every best wish for the future.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Add comment

Security code