Join the ever growing number of households who have signed up to the Wrongmove campaign!

Tell Cuadrilla and the Government that your house is "Not for Shale"


Mailing List

Join our mailing list to keep up to date with our campaigns

Follow us on Twitter


An Open Letter to David Cameron From A Concerned Local Resident

The open letter below is from concerned local resident Kate Styles and is published with her permission.

“Dear David Cameron

I would like to talk to you about fracking. I know that you think it is ” the right thing to do” ( see, having listened to what you say, .. you do say this a lot. Oh, I get it, it’s a catchphrase.), but I, and many, many people here in Britain disagree.

I know you probably think you know all you need to know about fracking – all those advisers and industry representatives, and lobbyists and DECC, and Defra, and the Environment Agency and UKOOG. But, and I don’t mean this disrespectfully, I think you are like most of us. We know a little about a lot of things and a lot about a little.

Now, this may surprise you, but I and many, many others who live in this beautiful land have spent hours, days, weeks and months researching fracking.Some, but not me, have spent years. From building the well pad, transporting the equipment, the rig, the compressors , the water and the pipelines to understanding the drilling process, the fracking process ( yes, we do understand that actually fracturing the shale is just a part of the process), flow testing, and full scale production.

We have read about the Marcellus shale, the Utica shale, the Fayetteville shale, the Eagleford shale and the Bakken shale. We have learned about the Halliburton loophole, the EPA, the API and IPAA.

We have seen evidence of water contamination from fracking in Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. We have read the EPA draft report whose conclusions have been challenged at peer review stage by its own scientists. We have the latest analysis of more than 1,000 chemicals in fluids used in and created by hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Yale School of Public Health researchers found that many of the substances in fracking wastewater have been linked to reproductive and developmental health problems, and the majority had undetermined toxicity due to insufficient information.

We have read myriad reports regarding adverse public health impacts on those who live within 5 miles of a fracking site. High risk pregnancies, low birth weight babies, increases in respiratory complaints and chest and heart conditions. We have watched infra red cameras recording toxic gases released through venting and flaring gas and learnt about VOC’s. These volatile organic compounds are nasty – Health effects include eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of coordination, nausea; and damage to the liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some organics can cause cancer in animals; some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans.

We have read of livestock suffering from unidentifiable illnesses, and high incidences of stillbirth in cattle and horses. We hear of nosebleeds, rashes, nausea and headaches in children . All of this near fracking operations. Could it be the VOC’s? You know, when you keep seeing the same symptoms, and the only common denominator is fracking…well. My mother used to say if it looks like a pig and it oinks like a pig, then it probably is a pig. Sorry, in retrospect that was probably not the best analogy to use, but you get my drift

And despite this and the earthquakes ( so many earthquakes – more than 30 in Oklahoma yesterday, and 900 in 2015, in a state that historically had one or two per year) that are linked to fracking, it is just business as usual. Despite all the regulators, there doesn’t appear to be changes… No fines, no STOP, no one does anything except talk, and talk is cheap. .In a way, the fact that nothing is done, nothing changes , is as shocking as all the events I have mentioned. To feel so powerless, so impotent against an industry that just keeps rolling along would fill me with despair.

We hear that fracking is seen as a bridge to renewables, that it is cleaner than coal, yet we read of rogue methane emissions far more damaging than Co2. Satellite observations of huge oil and gas basins in East Texas and North Dakota confirm staggering 9 and 10 percent leakage rates of heat-trapping methane.Natural gas as an energy source for electricity production is less of a contributor to global warming than coal only if less than 3.2 percent of methane escapes during production. Recent measurements estimate that between 2.3 percent and 17.3 percent of gas escapes.

We hear you and your ministers keep talking about “gold standards ” of regulations, yet there are NO fracking specific regulations and there are massive cuts to the very agencies that you tell us will uphold these first class operations. Do you actually know what regulations you refer to Mr Cameron, or is this just a handy soundbite? I will be frank, I sometimes get the feeling you think if you say it often enough we will just take your word for it. Mind the Gaps is a research piece into this very subject that I would suggest is a good place to start.

The PHE Report ( superseded by about 350 new peer reviewed studies on fracking and its impacts) gave me a bit of pause for thought.. Anyway, PHE seemed to say that that direct application of the North American research to the UK situation is impossible because of the wide differences between the two countries. Now, studies I have read regarding negative air impacts found NMHCs ( non-methane hydrocarbons ) that surface with the raw natural gas. The USEPA estimates that on average the mass composition of unprocessed natural gas is 78.3% methane, 17.8% NMHCs, – there are other things but I don’t want to get too technical.A literature search of the health effects of the NMHCs revealed that many had multiple health effects, including 30 that affect the endocrine system, which is susceptible to chemical impacts at very low concentrations, far less than government safety standards. You see, the thing that confounded me about what PHE stated is that we are talking about gas here. Do we have different gas in the UK?

Anyway Dave. You don’t mind me calling you Dave? I seem to recall you saying “Call me Dave ,” We heard you proudly proclaim to be the ” greenest Government” and yet you have cut subsidies for renewables and under your stewardship Britain has fallen from 8th to 11th place in the REIAI, causing the authors to comment that a plethora of policy related announcements …has sentenced the UK’s renewables sector to death by a thousand cuts. OUCH

We listened to you telling us that we would have more power…that local councils would have more power and more responsibility…that localism was absolutely essential to our economic, social and political future. Then, double whammy. Gas storage which had been turned down by the Government previously was suddenly approved after 12 years of being denied planning, AND we were told that decisions about fracking in our local area were going to be decided by Central Government. That the decision of our County Council ( and by definition the people of Lancashire) to not allow fracking was to be taken out of our local hands.

I have heard that law abiding citizens like me, who having read and researched and watched and listened and come to the conclusion that fracking poses unacceptable risks to our air and water and public health are labelled as domestic extremists. People like me, a hard working British mother of two hard working children, and my opposition to fracking is somehow a threat to security? I must have misheard that one.

And then there was Paris. A true consensus on the need to keep global warming below 2 degrees. A recognition that we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. We breathed a sigh of relief because IF we are serious about climate change, we have to keep our fossil fuels in the ground. Therefore, fracking and the rogue methane leaks ( you may remember I mentioned these earlier and if taken into account make fracked gas no cleaner than coal) make it incompatible with our climate change commitments. How do you square that one Mr Cameron? Is it a case of saying one thing and doing another, or is it that you haven’t taken the methane into account?

The floods. Terrible scenes of what used to be once in a Century events but that have been occurring much more regularly. Three times in the past 5 years. That’s Global warming for you!

I do think we should spend more on flood defences, but don’t let me get off topic. The floods. Yorkshire and Lancashire were particularly badly hit, and this may come as a surprise to you, but 20% of fracking licences are situated on flood plains. Flooding is terrible, but can you imagine consequences of flooding AND toxic wastewater ( there is also NORM in there- naturally occurring radioactive material.It comes up from underground with the 60% of the millions of gallons of fresh water used to frack a well that returns to the surface. Strangely, no one seems to know what happens to the 40% of water that stays underground, not even the fracking companies. One of life’s mysteries!).

Not to put too fine a point on it, I am REALLY opposed to fracking. All the things I have mentioned are not the legacy I wish to leave for my children and grandchildren…. jumping the gun a bit here, no grandchildren yet, but I am sure I will get some eventually. I cannot in all conscience justify fracking to anyone, for any reason. And, those of us who are opposed just want a healthy life for those we love. Fresh air, clean water and a future. A future not threatened by fracking or Climate Change and its consequences..

We live with uncertainty. With the threat of fracking in our communities.With the very real risks of fracking pollution. With constant changes to the law that appear to be attempts to hasten the process of fracking and impose it upon those who don’t want it regardless of £100,00 community bribes – ok, community incentives then. Bribes,well, that is just how I see it. We don’t oppose fracking because we are intransigent.. and believe me, we all have so many other things we could be spending time on rather than this protracted battle. We just believe that having seen the evidence, fracking is not the right thing to do.

So, Mr Cameron, here we are. I have said what I think and If I had one wish, it would be this. Go and find out for yourself about fracking. Not from the Treasury who may be swayed by the thought of tax revenues. Not from the industry who may be swayed by the thought of profit. Not from anyone who has anything to gain. Just research it and hear the stories of ordinary hard working families who have been impacted by this industry. Read of those who would like to move but cannot as their homes have no value…. of families who have no rest due to noise and light pollution 24 hours a day. Listen to people who have to rely on bottled water deliveries, not just for drinking, but for bathing and showering. See the misery and stolen years that I have seen and look at the scars on the landscape that will be there forever . Imagine these impacts on the hardworking British public and this industrialised landscape transported to the beautiful Yorkshire Dales and Lancashire’s verdant fields and …

Then Mr Cameron, tell me the dash for gas is the right thing to do.”

Defend Lytham Urges Mark Menzies to vote against the Statutory Instrument legislation

Defend Lytham has today sent the following open letter to Mark Menzies, MP for Fylde.

Dear Mr Menzies

You have consistently argued that fracking can go ahead, provided there are robust regulations in place.

Those robust regulations must surely start with a commitment to ban fracking from areas that have already been officially designated by law as having high intrinsic value, either because they provide us with drinking water, are important wildlife reserves, and have important landscape value for wildlife, the general public and the local economy.

We are therefore writing to you, on behalf of the members of Defend Lytham and the wider community, regarding secondary legislation on fracking that is to be discussed, and then voted on, in Parliament this week.

Specifically, we would be grateful if you could answer the following questions before the Committee hearing takes place tomorrow.

  1. Will you attend the Delegated Legislation Committee hearing on Tuesday and speak against these flawed proposals?
  1. Will you shout ‘No’! to force a division when a motion to approve the Statutory Instrument is announced in the House of Commons?
  1. Will you vote against the Statutory Instrument legislation when it returns to the Commons for a full vote?
  1. Will you ask for new regulations to be brought forward to ban fracking both in and under SSSIs, National Parks and AONBs and all groundwater SPZs, including a ban on surface works within these protected areas, and a ban on drilling horizontally under these areas from wells situated just outside their borders?

We have prepared the following short briefing on the background, wording and implications of the Statutory Instrument that is to be debated on Tuesday for your information. We would be grateful if you could take the time to read it before letting us know the answers to the above questions.


Background Briefing

In January this year, the Government accepted an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill (now Act) that would have banned fracking in all groundwater source protection zones (SPZs), which are the areas that are designated to protect the aquifers that provide our drinking water.

Further to this, during the House of Commons debate on the Infrastructure Bill on 26th January, the then Energy Secretary Amber Rudd also made the following commitment on the floor of the House of Commons: “We have agreed an outright ban on fracking in national parks, sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty.” Please see the relevant page in Hansard for the above quote.

These specific commitments were not, however, included in the text of the Infrastructure Act when it was passed, despite promises to do so on the floor of the House.

Section 50, Point 4A of the Infrastructure Act includes the following text:

(5) The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within protected groundwater source areas

(6) The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within other protected areas

However, what would constitute a ‘protected groundwater source area’ and ‘other protected areas’ as related to this particular piece of legislation was postponed until after the General Election by the following sections (Section 50, Point 4B) in the Infrastructure Bill, which states:

(4) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, specify—

     (a) the descriptions of areas which are “protected groundwater source areas”, and

   (b) the descriptions of areas which are “other protected areas”,

(6) The Secretary of State must lay a draft of the first such regulations before each House of Parliament on or before 31 July 2015.

On 16th July, just two days before the summer recess, Amber Rudd announced the content of the aforementioned Statutory Instrument (or SI), which, as you know, is a method of introducing secondary legislation on Bills that have already been passed). However, the content of this Statutory Instrument broke promises that had been made by the Government to the British public earlier in the year. Amber Rudd’s broken promises were widely reported in the press, as you can see in these articles in The Guardian.

Protected Groundwater Source Areas

As set out by the Environment Agency, Groundwater Source Protection Zones 1, 2 and 3 are areas around aquifers used for drinking water. The water protected by these areas provides a third of our drinking water.

The type of SPZ is defined by the travel time it would take for water to filter from the SPZ area to the aquifer:

  • SPZ 1 is defined as the total areas in which water would get back to the drinking water source within 50 days, and has a minimum radius of 50 metres.
  • SPZ 2 is where this would take just over a year – 400 days, and has a minimum radius of 250 metres
  • SPZ 3 designates the full catchment area where water would travel back to the drinking water source.

The amendment, as accepted by the Government in January, prohibited fracking in any and all SPZs without exception. However, the text of the SI to define which SPZs are protected is as follows:

Definition of ‘protected groundwater source areas’

2.–(1) This regulation defines ‘protected groundwater source areas” for the purposes of Section 4A of the (Infrastructure) Act.

(2) A ‘protected groundwater source area” is any land at a depth of 1200 metres beneath a relevant surface area.

(3) For the purpose of Paragraph 2, “relevant surface area” means any land at the surface that is –

(a)   within 50 metres of a point at the surface at which water is abstracted from underground strata and is used to supply water for domestic or food production purposes, or

(b)   within or above a zone defined by a 50-day travel time for groundwater to reach a groundwater abstraction point that is used to supply water for domestic or food production purposes.

The regulations as described above in the SI therefore only relate to SPZ1s – which are defined by a 50-day travel time and within 50 metres, as in 3a and b above – where fracking would be permitted below 1,200m (which is only 200m more than the depth allowed in any piece of unprotected land).

However, there are no restrictions on drilling in SPZ 1, 2 or 3, which would create pathways for possible contamination. Under these regulations companies would be allowed to drill through any aquifer in any SPZ. There are also no restrictions on surface activity in any SPZs. This means there are risks of surface and groundwater contamination: if there is a surface spill this could contaminate the surface water and groundwater.

All SPZs (1,2, and 3) feed aquifers used for drinking water and should be protected from the high risks of fracking.

Other Protected Areas

As mentioned above, Amber Rudd had promised the British public during the debate in the House in January that: “We have agreed an outright ban on fracking in national parks, sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty.”

However, the relevant text defining ‘other protected areas’ in the Statutory Instrument is as follows:

Definition of ‘other protected areas’.

3. – (1) This regulation defines “other protected areas” for the purpose of section 4A of the (Infrastructure) Act.

(2) “Other protected areas are areas of land at a depth of less than 1,200 metres beneath –

a)     a National Park;

b)     The Broads;

c)     an area of outstanding natural beauty: or

d)     a World Heritage site

There are a number of points to make about the above definition of ‘other protected areas’ as defined in the Statutory Instrument.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

Firstly, it is clear that SSSIs are not included as ‘protected areas’ under the terms of the Statutory Instrument, which means that fracking would be allowed in any SSSI below a depth of 1,000m (the minimum depth of any fracking operation, as defined elsewhere in the Infrastructure Act).

Therefore in SSSIs, which are the most ecologically sensitive of these sites, fracking companies would also be permitted to drill from the surface and frack below 1000m.

On this point, the RSPB said on 16th July that “The government has reneged on its commitment to rule out fracking in some of our most important wildlife sites. Despite promising in January to exclude fracking from SSSIs, today’s announcement ignores any such commitment, leaving some of the UK’s most valuable wildlife sites exposed to risk from future fracking.”

The omission of SSSIs from this legislation has also been strongly criticised by Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB has pointed out that nearly 300 SSSI have been included in the 14th Round of PEDL licences, and has again called for fracking in these areas to be banned.

National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)

While the text in the Statutory Instrument appears to ban fracking in National Parks and AONBs, it is very important to note that the Statutory Instrument specifically defines these areas as areas of land at a depth of less than 1,200 metres from the surface.

This means, in effect, that the National Park stops at a depth of 1,200 metres and becomes ‘Crown land’, thus available for potential fracking.

At this point it is important to note that the definition of ‘hydraulic fracturing’ in the context of the Infrastructure Act is very limited, and refers only to the actual process of fracturing rock underground, not the whole process of drilling and production. This is specified in Section 4A, Point 1 of the Infrastructure Act, where ‘hydraulic fracturing’ is defined as ‘fracturing of shale or strata encased in shale’ – ie the underground fracturing of shale rock only – not the surface works that would inevitably accompany such hydraulic fracturing.

It is therefore significant that there is nothing contained in the Statutory Instrument or the Infrastructure Act itself to limit any surface works, such as establishing of well-sites or drilling of wells, including within the boundaries of National Parks and AONBs. So, given that the National Park or AONB only extends 1,200m below the surface, the scenario of a fracking company drilling through the park to fracture the rock underneath would not be prohibited under this legislation.

This means that there is nothing within the Infrastructure Act to prevent fracking companies from being allowed to drill from the surface in National Parks and AONBs, as long as they frack below 1,200m (which they would have to anyway, as the Bowland Shale is about 2-3,000m below the surface).

Fracking companies would also be allowed to set up their drilling rigs around the edges of these areas and drill horizontally underneath them.

The Delegated Legislation Committee meeting and subsequent vote

This Statutory Instrument legislation is to be debated at a Delegated Legislation Committee on Tuesday, October 27th, at 2.30 pm – Committee Room 9. The committee is made up of 18 MPs, only one of whom has the threat of fracking in his or her own constituency.

Any MP is allowed to attend the DL Committee meeting and speak in favour or against the legislation, although only those on the committee can vote.

After the DL Committee has met, the SI needs to be formally approved by the Commons. This means that on the next day, or soon after that, a motion for its approval will appear as one of the final items of business on the daily Agenda (or Order Paper).

If enough MPs shout ‘No!’ when this motion to approve SI is announced, it will force a division and there will need to be a full vote in the house (although sadly not a debate). This vote will not be on the same day, but would normally be deferred until the next Wednesday (4th November).

Four questions that your constituents would like answered

Having read our briefing, we would be grateful if you could answer the following questions and either email your responses or post them on your website before the Committee hearing on Tuesday.

1 Will you attend the Delegated Legislation Committee hearing on Tuesday and speak against these flawed proposals?

2 Will you shout ‘No’! to force a division when a motion to approve the Statutory Instrument is announced in the House of Commons?

3 Will you vote against the Statutory Instrument legislation when it returns to the Commons for a full vote?

4 Will you ask for new regulations to be brought forward to ban fracking both in and under SSSIs, National Parks and AONBs and all groundwater SPZs, including a ban on surface works within these protected areas, and a ban on drilling horizontally under these areas from wells situated just outside their borders?

You have been clear that if shale gas extraction is to go ahead it can only do so with robust regulation and strict environmental controls in place.. We ask you to demonstrate a visible commitment to this position by voting against this secondary legislation and asking the government to draft comprehensive legislation to ban fracking in and under legally protected areas.

Thank you for taking the time to read our letter, and we look forward to hearing your response as a matter of urgency.

Kind regards

The Defend Lytham Committee

LCC planners recommend refusal for Cuadrilla Permits

Today planning officers at Lancashire County Council published their long awaited recommendations on Cuadrilla’s applications to extract shale gas at their proposed sites at Roseacre and Preston New Road, Little Plumpton.

The planners cited unacceptable noise and traffic impacts as the reasons for their recommendations

Edward Cook from Defend Lytham commented: “We are delighted that the council’s officers have seen sense and recommended these developments for refusal, although we are more than a little surprised that the other serious concerns expressed by the more than 27,000 people who wrote in to object, appear to have been dismissed.

These concerns are around impacts on air quality, archaeology and cultural heritage, greenhouse gas emissions, community and socio economics, ecology, hydrogeology and ground gas, induced seismicity and subsidence, land use, landscape and visual amenity, lighting, resources and waste, water resources ad public health.

Defend Lytham welcome this decision and trust that political pressure from central government will not be brought to bear on LCC councillors to vote against the recommendations of their own officers next week”

Government announce massive tax breaks for fracking

The government today released further details of the most generous tax breaks package in the world, to encourage investment in this financially high risk area. The new shale gas allowance will more than halve the tax due.

Defend Lytham is concerned that Mr Osborne has pressed ahead with this needless subsidy, even against the advice of shale gas advocates like Peter Lilley MP and the industry itself. Mr Lilley, reiterated in parliament yesterday his view that these tax breaks are “completely unnecessary”. And Francis Egan is on record as saying that his company is “not asking for a special regime”

We are equally concerned that the government has failed to provide details of the new planning guidance which we were assured would be published by yesterday at the latest.

A government which ensures that a controversial industry is subsidised before it sorts out the associated planning environment, and which spends more time publicising cash incentives for local communities that it does in ensuring we have effective regulation in place to protect those communities has its priorities very, very wrong.

Defend Lytham believes that this subsidy to the fracking industry is totally unnecessary.

Defend Lytham spokesman and industry expert, Mike Hill, comments “We are being told by the Chancellor that fracking is some sort of economic miracle but it seems that it also needs five times as many incentives (tax breaks/subsidies) as the renewable alternatives. It is now common knowledge that the USA will export cheap gas to the UK – cheaper than we can get it ourselves from our closest ally – so the energy security and financial case for subsidising fracking with taxpayers’ money is just not there. We have to ask why does Osborne carry on wasting our money and what part those with vested interests – Lord Browne and Lord Howell (Mr Osborne’s father in law) who both have huge stakes in oil and gas might have had in this decision? The government needs to get its story straight and its priorities right.”

Defend Lytham on NOS Nieuwsuur

This week Defend Lytham were delighted to host Arjen van der Horst, the UK correspondent for NOS, the Dutch national TV station. He contacted us after hearing about our public meeting and we were able to take him on a tour of the local area and introduce him to local people for interview.

A lot of the very interesting material he filmed inevitably didn’t make it into the final 7 minute film that went out on Friday night. Various interviews with local residents remain on the cutting room floor, as does the visit they made at Cuadrilla’s invitation to Elswick to see a “representative” well, but we think that the end result is very interesting.

Here is what the trailer for the segment said

The absolutely enormous reserves of shale gas beneath Great Britain are twice as large as has been thought until now. That is good news for the industry but, as in the USA and in the Netherlands, opposition in Great Britain is on the rise. Or are we on the verge of a new gas and oil bonanza in Western Europe?

New reserves

The reserves of shale gas beneath Great Britain are twice as large as has been thought until now, states a study by the British Geological Survey conducted on behalf of the British government. That is good news for British industry, which is facing the depletion of gas and oil reserves in the North Sea.

Above all, that is good news for Cuadrilla, the only company engaged in trial drilling in Great Britain. Cuadrilla hopes to start fracking operations in the Netherlands and it has already obtained permits for two exploratory drilling operations. But the company’s operations in England are certainly controversial.

Peace and calm shattered

Lytham is an idyllic village in Lancashire, a coastal area in the north-west of England. On the outskirts of the village, there is a large agricultural and nature area, where the peace and calm was shattered when the Cuadrilla rigs arrived. According to the company, sites like this can supply the United Kingdom with gas for decades to come.

Ecological impact.

But the local inhabitants in Lytham are more concerned about their safety than about high energy bills. In 2011, trial drilling by Cuadrilla resulted in two earthquakes. Experts in the gas industry believe that the implications are far-reaching.

To recover shale gas, Cuadrilla have to pump millions of litres of water into the ground under high pressure and cattle farmers like Andy Pemberton are very concerned about the possible impact on groundwater. Particularly in marshy Lancashire.

We think that local farmer Andy Pemberton’s obviously heartfelt comments sum up the situation really well.

We couldn’t help being struck though by the comments made by Mr Egan on camera

“The ground water issue is really about the well construction , how well.. , well integrity as it’s called, well construction. There have been over 2,000 wells built onshore in the UK and a well drilled for conventional oil and gas is no different than a well drilled for shale oil and gas. It’s the same techniques that you use. Now of those 2000 wells I don’t think there is a single case of water contamination in the UK. If it’s done properly in a properly regulated environment we can do this in the UK and I’m sure it can be done in Holland. We have the experience from the North Sea and the Dutch sector of the North Sea to do it.”

Did he really say “a well drilled for conventional oil and gas is no different from a well drilled for shale”? He did didn’t he?

Is he really suggesting that the 2,000 conventional wells he refers to are a valid comparison with multi-lateral horizontal High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing when it comes to the possibility of water contamination? He is isn’t he?


Public Meeting on Fracking – Tuesday June 25th – 7pm

There will be a public meeting at  Lytham Assembly Rooms on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 7:00 pm organised by Defend Lytham

We have called it “Fracking – Asking the Questions”

At this meeting there will be a series of short presentations on the background to fracking, the issues that may concern us all, and the current state of regulation around the activity.

After these you will have the opportunity to ask any questions that you may have about fracking.

We think it should be a lively and interesting evening.

We hope you will be able to attend. Please be share this information with anyone else you think might be interested.

Defend Lytham to launch campaign for a fracking moratorium

Defend Lytham will be launching a campaign, calling for a moratorium on fracking in the local area, in Lytham Square on Saturday, 18th May at 12pm.

We shall have a stall with our supporters ready to answer your questions on fracking and we have asked the local press to be there to report on the event.

Lytham Square

Lytham Square

We look forward to seeing you there!

Frack Free Lancashire

Fracking In the UK

Fracking The UK

If you want to learn about fracking this book comes highly recommended!

"Untrustworthy, unbalanced and potentially brain washing." - Amazon Review - Yes the industry hates this book that much :-)