What do you think? Warning over fracking impact on Norfolk, Suffolk and Fens wildlife

The Pink Footed Geese fly over Snettisham RSPB reserve at as the sunrises. The Pink Footed Geese fly over Snettisham RSPB reserve at as the sunrises.

Friday, March 14, 2014
11:44 AM

Conservation groups have issued a stark warning that Norfolk, Suffolk and the Fens’ wildlife-rich nature reserves and landscape should be deemed “frack-free zones”, or vulnerable species like the pink-footed geese could be disturbed.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Geese and the ten recommendations

Pink-footed geese – which draw many visitors to the Norfolk coast each year – have been cited as a species which is “particularly vulnerable to human disturbance” by the charities.

A case study in today’s report said the geese – of which 85pc of the global population spend the winter here – were particularly vulnerable to human disturbance and preferred large, open areas to feed in; areas that were not protected.

The report said: “There are still considerable uncertainties about the potential disturbance levels, but evidence suggests it could be significant.”

It said that in the Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado, 64 compressors (associated with shale gas extraction) resulted in a 56.8 decibel rise above typical ambient sounds in some areas.

The report said heavy goods vehicle movements and light pollution from sites, with a proposal for exploratory drilling for shale gas in the Weald Basin in southern England including a 45-metre tower, lit up 24 hours a day, could have an adverse effect on vulnerable species.

1. Avoid sensitive areas for wildlife and water resources by creating shale gas extraction exclusion zones.

2. Make Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) mandatory for shale gas extraction proposals.

3. Require shale gas operators to pay for a world-class regulatory regime.

4. Prevent taxpayers from bearing the costs of accidental pollution.

5. Make water companies statutory consultees during the process of planning.

6. Require all hydraulic fracturing operations to operate under a Groundwater Permit.

7. Make sure Best Available Techniques (BAT) for mine waste management are rigorously defined and regularly reviewed.

8. Ensure full transparency of the shale gas industry and its

environmental impact.

9. Ensure monitoring and testing of shale gas operations is rigorous and independent.

10. Minimise and monitor methane emissions.

As the government’s shale gas revolution gathers pace, organisations, including the National Trust and the RSPB, have also warned that drilling for energy could add even more pressure to water-stressed areas, including many parts of our region,

But MPs and experts suggest this region is unlikely to be top of the list for energy companies, with many other areas of Britain hosting more obvious sites.

Cuadrilla, one of the energy firms hoping to exploit the UK’s shale gas resources, has already carried out exploratory drilling near Blackpool, angering campaigners concerned about its impact on the environment.

Firms can now apply to the Department of Energy and Climate Change for fracking licences in areas such as the wildlife rich North Norfolk coast, The Wash and West Suffolk.

Water concerns

Fracking would place a significant burden on our existing wastewater treatment infrastructure, the charities warn.

It cites a recent AMEC report for the government which estimated that the UK shale gas industry could require up to 25,000 cubic metres of water per well, which would translate to as much as 108 million cubic metres of wastewater requiring treatment over a 20-year period.

Overall, rainfall per person in the UK is on a par with that of Spain and significantly less than Greece or Portugal, with the east of England receiving, on average, as little as 700mm of rain a year – about the same as Ethiopia.

Martin Spray, chief executive of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, which has a site in Welney, pictured, said: “A single frack can use more water than 1,000 people use in a year and if it goes wrong it could contaminate drinking water and ruin wetland habitats. That’s a big burden on communities and it’s a risk we want managed.”

In a new report - Are We Fit to Frack? - the groups have called for full environmental assessments to be carried out for each drilling proposal, and the shale gas industry to pay the costs of any pollution clean-ups.

It also warns that a lack of regulation could have an adverse impact on a range of wildlife, including the pink-footed geese.

Simon Pryor, National Trust Natural Environment Director, said: “Whilst the Government is keen to see rapid roll out of fracking, there’s a real danger that the regulatory system simply isn’t keeping pace. The Government should rule out fracking in the most sensitive areas and ensure that the regulations offer sufficient protection to our treasured natural and historic environment.”

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said the government should be “extremely cautious”, adding: “I have not been someone who has said we have to go for fracking at all costs, but I do not philosophically have a problem with fracking, if it can be cost effective and not destructive of the natural environment.”

The geologist view

This is not the first time that our part of the world has been an area of interest for a potential new source of energy.

During the First World War, in the search for petroleum, the government allowed a search for oil shale to be undertaken in King’s Lynn. A search borehole was dug and a plant was started, but the project was abandoned in the 1920s.

But Kimmeridge Clay – one of the main source rocks for North Sea oil and gas – which is evident in our area is of interest to potential shale gas investors, according to geologist Julian Andrews, head of school for environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia. He said that for shale gas to exist you needed a rock with oil and gas in it, but it also needed to have been buried far enough to have been “cooked” to create the right sort of gas.

Kimmeridge Clay is exposed on the land surface between Ely and King’s Lynn, but gradually gets buried underneath the chalk as you head east into Norfolk. Professor Andrews said that it was likely that it was present from The Wash through to Fakenham, but disappearing by the time you get to Norwich.

He said: “If you know the type of rock, and how warm it is likely to be, then you can make a guess as to whether there will be shale gas there or not. My guess is there is a chance there is something there, otherwise nobody is going to be interested in going there,” he added.

He said there were other areas where there was a more well-known potential source rock and conditions which were perfect to generate the gas.

“My guess is the Norfolk stuff is not very deeply buried so it may never have got warm enough to produce much gas. I would guess that is the scenario,” he added. He said that it would not be that expensive to create a test borehole to find out if there was shale gas in a rock. “In the First World War the government allowed a search for oil shale in the King’s Lynn area. It was abandoned in the 1920s, which suggests they did not find anything worth following up. They did not go very far with it, so it suggests it was not economically viable.”

North-West Norfolk MP Henry Bellingham said he wouldn’t completely rule out fracking in East Anglia in sites away from people’s homes and areas of outstanding natural beauty, but said he could not think of too many that would be suitable.

“There is going to a conflict with what we have got along the coast, which is a very unique and beautiful environment.

He added that Norfolk was “well down the list of potential sites” and was more likely to affect this generation’s great, great grandchildren.

Norfolk County Council has a new working party on fracking, which published a report this week.

Potential licence areas for fracking in the EastPotential licence areas for fracking in the East

Andrew Boswell, Green Party councillor who is leading the fracking group, said: “Developing a whole, new fossil fuel industry is a dangerous distraction from making the necessary investment into renewables and a thriving low carbon energy economy in the East.”

He said the group wanted to work closely with the district councils, particularly in North Norfolk and West Norfolk which were the most likely areas for any fracking applications in Norfolk.

A DECC spokesperson said local councils were best placed to decide if fracking was suitable in their local area, and an environmental impact assessment was likely to be required in designated areas.

She added: “Rather than having a blanket ban on certain areas, planning authorities will assess each application on a case by case basis, including those parts of the country where there is a general presumption against development.”

“We also have regulations in place to ensure on-site safety, prevent water contamination, mitigate seismic activity and air pollution and we have been successfully regulating for gas and oil drilling for over 50 years.”

What do you think about fracking? Write (giving your full contact details) to: The Letters Editor, EDP, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE or email EDPLetters@archant.co.uk

38 comments

  • I wish the DP would stop letting people refer to fracking as new technology, i have worked offshore around Norfolk for 30 years and it has been going on for all of those years. The large frack boats are seen in Yarmouth harbour regularly and there has not been one single environmental incident involving fracking on and around the UK. Whereas every single wind turbine built onshore is an affront to the beautiful environment that we live in.

    Report this comment

    DaveG

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • I wonder how many frac jobs you've been on? Stop perpetrating nonsense gained from American scare stories and educate yourself. We have been fraccing in this country for years, with many proven results just off the Easington coast for example, this gas still feeds your central heating to this day. As for 700 chemicals - wrong!

    Report this comment

    Norfolk abroad

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • Let us all hope that there is no one within County Hall who has a vested interest in this technology or, as we have seen across Norfolk, unbiased consideration of all pros and cons will be out of the window and whatever proposal is put to the planners it will be steamrollered through post haste probably with compensation clauses that would bankrupt Norfolk if opponents prove that it was not viable!!! The incinerator aside RAF coltishall is known to be heavily contaminated, I have the engineering reports as have NCC, and yet because it is a pet project of Cllr Jor.dan all official contamination reports have been ignored during the screening opinion and an application accepted which makes the declaration that there is no known or suspected contamination on site!!! Daisy the EA are not reliable at all as anyone who looks at environmental breach reports and considers the time the EA take to actually respond to breaches knows. While the practise in the US of buying your way out of trouble with multi million dollar settlements is totally wrong their actual Environmental Protection Agency keeps excellent records, which anyone can view much to CWs detriment, and has stringent standards. Hence Wheelabrator are looking to build in the UK where monitoring is virtually left up to the operator and any breach is left to the operator to report.

    Report this comment

    Canary Boy

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • Why does Archant keep blocking my comments?

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • I wonder how many frac jobs you've been on? Stop perpetrating nonsense gained from American scare stories and educate yourself. We have been fraccing in this country for years, with many proven results just off the Easington coast for example, this gas still feeds your central heating to this day. As for 700 chemicals - wrong!

    Report this comment

    Norfolk abroad

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • I agree about the blocked comment You probably pointed out that the NT and RSPB are a bunch of membership chasing hypocrites not above over developing sensitive sites if it suits them and that their close relationship with the EA contributed to some of the failures in dealing with the wet weather. I endorse the comments about the industry's record of dealing with drilling, the strict regulation of all processes ( this is not the USA) and the record of the UK petrocarbons industry on and offshore since the Sixties. We should be listening to people like the British Geological Society, petrocarbons engineers and hydrologist engineers, not those whose main line is gift shops, firework displays and concerts in quiet rural locations, or buying up farmland to build more hides for members to sit in.

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • The RSPB has over 2 million members, a lot of clout. Just as they could stop a storm surge and tifdal energy barrier in the Wash and send developers packing, their anti fracking campaign will galvanise many. Let them frack the future of Norfolks best assets to bits, i.e its sustainable tourismn appeal, for nothing more but money and riches for the rich and powerful. Energy prices will not go down and the comapnies undfertaking this tax free operations are all well connected off shore.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Sunday, March 16, 2014

  • Firstly, BGS studies have Norfol low down the list of potential shale gas and most likely the active areas will be the midlands and north west. Norfolk should be really disappointed that they do not have a high potential resource - what an opportunity this would be. Fracking is tried and tested over many years and as long as good procedures are used - is perfectly safe with no risk to the groundwater. This is from another veteran of 40 years in the oilfield drilling industry. The impact of drilling can be minimised by proper site selection and environmental procedures - look at how much land drilling has been done to date with very little public awareness. If the NIMBYs went back to a horse and cart and did not make use of any oil or gas products or derivatives I could totally see their side of the argument. The fact is we use our natural resources to greatly improve our lifestyle and we should take advantage of any opportunity to do so. If the benefits were only confined to the area of production then the NIMBYs would soon be shouting that they should have a share as it should be to the benefit of all. They should maybe try doing without for a while to get a better sense of perspective.

    Report this comment

    David D

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • Based on the American experience fracking can be an environmental and social disaster, but based on the industry's own research there appears to be limited scope for fracking in East Anglia, we hope.. We should be more concerned about the loss of greenbelt, unabated development in AONB, incinerators, degradation of protected wildlife sites, fields full of highly subsidised energy devices and numerous other poorly planned development in this area.

    Report this comment

    Master_Mates

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • Sad that our government, among others, is dependent on dirty fossil fuels and, instead of investing in a sustainable energy mix, is applying all the technical skills at their disposal to finding new and more destructive ways of eking out the last of the planet's non-renewable resources. Bellingham may not care about our great, great grandchildren but I do.

    Report this comment

    Thoreauwasright

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • I seldom agree with Green Party statements but on this occasion Andrew Boswell is correct. We need to concentrate our efforts on developing (and not opposing) solar and wind power.

    Report this comment

    blue tractor

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • I wonder how many frac jobs you've been on? Stop perpetrating nonsense gained from American scare stories and educate yourself. We have been fraccing in this country for years, with many proven results just off the Easington coast for example, this gas still feeds your central heating to this day. As for 700 chemicals - wrong!

    Report this comment

    Norfolk abroad

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • I seldom agree with Green Party statements but on this occasion Andrew Boswell is correct. We need to concentrate our efforts on developing (and not opposing) solar and wind power.

    Report this comment

    blue tractor

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • What a lot of emotional diatribe. I would expect anyone with a vested interest in the petrochemical industry to favour this, for the moment, last ditch attempt to feed our dependency on hydrocarbons - after all, the western economy would surely collapse without coal oil and gas. Face the facts, the clue is in the term 'non-renewable'. Of course we have the technology to extract fossil fuels and, no doubt, technology will find newer and more destructive ways of exploiting what is left of our planet after fracking has done its worst. It's sad that so many in the industry will lose their jobs but the only way forward is a massive investment in renewables without which we have no future. Sorry guys but when it's gone it's gone.

    Report this comment

    Thoreauwasright

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • I can't see why you go on about the costly renewables. According to the climate scaremongers we are doomed and only have about 50years left. But we have probably 200years worth of hydrocarbons. So why both with wind turbines? You cant scaremonger staying we only have a short time left but want people to invest in long term projects.

    Report this comment

    Tony

    Saturday, March 15, 2014

  • There are over 700 chemicals used in the fracking process, some of them very nasty substances indeed, to use them in county that is almost totally reliant on ground water would be nothing short of ludicrous.

    Report this comment

    John L Norton

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • This is a good discussion point and there will always be for for and against tribes. Now the RSPB have jumped onto the green bandwagon to fight the case, which I do not have a problem with as we need to protect our wild life. The question is: When will the RSPB actually try and do something about the cat population that destroys in excess of 50 million wild birds annually? Or is this number so insignificant it is not worth worrying about? Cats should be forced to wear collars and bells by law, and be nuetered. So come on RSPB, let's see you do something to reduce these numbers, then you will gain some credibility when calling to protect smaller numbers of wild birds.

    Report this comment

    Mr T

    Saturday, March 15, 2014

  • Tony, you must be reading the wrong website. The process does used chemicals and vast quantities of water (see www.refracktion.com). I am not convinced how dangerous it is to peoplewildlife, but regardless of this 100s of these wells all over NorfolkSuffolk will associated construction and traffic will blight the landscape.

    Report this comment

    Master_Mates

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • Without the efforts of the various wildlife charities and a few individuals we would see nearly all of our countryside dominated by industrial , profit-motivated agronomy, building and any other exploitation that would provide profit for individuals or institutions. The western economy is dependent on fossil fuels and, like any other addict, instead of seeking a better and more healthy solution is desperately grubbing for whatever non-renewable resources the planet can provide with no thought nor care for the damage this will leave as a legacy to future generations. The government should invest more in renewables and spare a thought for the inheritance it will leave.

    Report this comment

    Thoreauwasright

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • This story, and people's reactions to it, highlight one of the major problems today. Everyone wants cheap energy - to drive their vehicles, heat their homes, cook their food, run all their gadgets, watch TV, read news on the internet, watch videos of cute cats, etc. However, nobody seems to want what goes with the generation of collection of that energy. Nuclear produces radioactive waste that will turn us all into brain-eating zombies, gas and oil use up scarce resources, fracking will cause earthquakes and water-table contamination, burning rubbish will release toxins into the atmosphere, windmills blight the landscape and kill birds, tidal barriers stop fish migration and cause flooding, dams flood usable land ...

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • So many armchair warriors commenting on subjects they know nothing about. There are many in the Norfolk and Suffolk area that work in the Drilling industry that know rules and regulation dominate our every working day. "Fracking" was first carried out in the USA in the 1940's. As previously stated in the 7080's there were to large " Frack boats based in GY. As for 200 chemicals get real, it's high pressure water that's used to create micro fractures in the rock (invisible to the naked eye) that allow improves the permeability of the rock. Sometimes micro beads or sized solids are pumped to keep the micro fractures open. When the well starts to flow the water is captured in tanks for re-use or treatment to remove pollutants before disposal (at very high cost). This is happening +- 5000ft below the surface nowhere near the water table. For there to be any oil or gas at all, the shale would have to have a suitable impermeable cap rock to allow it to build up, isolating it from coming to surface. There have been many Wells drilled in the UK with no problems. Just because you don't understand it, dose not make it bad.

    Report this comment

    Tony

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • Thanks to Blue tractor, Thoureuwasright and Norman Hall for some sense here. I also agree with canary boy that we can't trust that our elected representatives are not having vested interests in this new way of adding to the CO2 menace we already have here. About time that 'benign alternatives' mean exactly that. The tax freedoms dished out to the frackers by Osborne, are just like the solar and wind subsidies that are enriching alredy rich landowners with our taxes. Fracking will not bring energy prices down, or change our life's to the better, so why should we do it at all. Further, the latent power in our estuaries, should we ever want to do anything about sea protection, is so great that fracking is not needed. Buld a wash tidal energy system with a lock and scrap two dangerous nuclear power stations.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • I rarely take anything the NT or the RSPB say seriously, they always have their eye on the membership fees and are not above being cavalier with the countryside or old buildings themselves. I would listen to the chap reported on the BBC website who points out exactly what regulations the petrocarbons industry has to abide by and the hoops they have to jump through in this country. We are not slackly regulated like the USA,lots of current industrial processes use a lot of water and chemicals and contain the waste. Fracking has been going on under the North Sea for some time, and onshore extraction has not caused the problems protestors feared when it started.Without looking at a BGS map I have no idea which parts of East Anglia would be in the frackers sights-the Kimmeridge in the west of the region ? Maybe the EDP could ask the question so readers know.

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • Mr T Wasright, this western economy which you seem to dislike so much provides a very comfortable life for most people within its catchment. Without the fossil fuels which you seem to dislike with even greater fervour than the west itself we would all be fighting over the best cave.

    Report this comment

    John Bridge

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • Well the Fens must rate as one of the ugliest landscapes in the world so fracking would at least put it to some good use.

    Report this comment

    Del Boy

    Sunday, March 16, 2014

  • Yet another scare story that has little basis in truth. The evidence for actual problems is very scant indeed. The harm caused by many of our other activities including so called conservation activities by the RSPB and so called green energy is every bit as bad. All of the renewable 'sources' of energy require back up by gas generators so where is that gas coming from. Russia?? Get real, we need reliable sources of energy so speed up the building of nuclear plants and lets get ourselves the gas we need from within our shores if at all possible.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • I wonder how many frac jobs you've been on? Stop perpetrating nonsense gained from American scare stories and educate yourself. We have been fraccing in this country for years, with many proven results just off the Easington coast for example, this gas still feeds your central heating to this day. As for 700 chemicals - wrong!

    Report this comment

    Norfolk abroad

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • I wonder how many of these tree huggers and so called environmentalists are the same people who clogs the roads outside schools every day and pack supermarket car parks at weekends? Do they drive cars and use gas or electricity at home. Or buy good transported across the UK and the world? Never go on a holiday abroad by leaving the UK by air or boat? Live in a tent perhaps working a couple of acres and slaughtering the family pig to use the fat for cradles at night while the family meal is cooked on the wood gathered during the day. If they can moan here they are on the internet and using energy that has not come from a windmill. In a word...hypocrites.

    Report this comment

    Michael Clintergate

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • I assume that these charities will be paying extra to the energy companies to keep our prices low ?. Wildlife, like humans learn to adapt but this is convieniently forgotten by these charities, who keep using the old sob stories. DaveG I agree but not in the outer disaster though ?

    Report this comment

    "V"

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • Fracking has been presented by this government as a wonderful source of fuel that will save our futures. Firstly , it may be a new source of fuel but it will be owned by the same greedy cartel that is profiteering all the way to the bank. There will be no lowering of prices for the consumer. It has also been presented as an underground operation with little or no impact on the environment. Total lies. Exploding and fracturing rocks deep underground and then forcing in millions of chemically tainted water to extract the gas is hardly enviornmentally sound. Once on the surface this gas must go somewhere. So expect many gas refineries to appear and all the infrastructure that goes with it. This a very small island, vastly overpopulated and it a terrible risk to allow such fracking. What damage will happen to the water table,nobody knows. The damage is irreversable as it actually destroys the bed rock of this country.

    Report this comment

    norman hall

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • I can't see why you go on about the costly renewables. According to the climate scaremongers we are doomed and only have about 50years left. But we have probably 200years worth of hydrocarbons. So why both with wind turbines? You cant scaremonger staying we only have a short time left but want people to invest in long term projects.

    Report this comment

    Tony

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • Cracks and subsidence in buildings were common in areas affected by undergound coal mining. Mining caused very many deaths.Yet was at times a necessity for our national survival. Is fracking going to cause anything like it? I doubt it. Current opposition can be compared to the Luddites, who fought change in the Industrial Revolution. If we are to compete in the world we cannot reject cheaper energy sources which other nations have used successfully for years.

    Report this comment

    TP

    Saturday, March 15, 2014

  • This story, and people's reactions to it, highlight one of the major problems today. Everyone wants cheap energy - to drive their vehicles, heat their homes, cook their food, run all their gadgets, watch TV, read news on the internet, watch videos of cute cats, etc. However, nobody seems to want what goes with the generation of collection of that energy. Nuclear produces radioactive waste that will turn us all into brain-eating zombies, gas and oil use up scarce resources, fracking will cause earthquakes and water-table contamination, burning rubbish will release toxins into the atmosphere, windmills blight the landscape and kill birds, tidal barriers stop fish migration and cause flooding, dams flood usable land ... So, how do people WANT their enegry and fuel to be provided? Given that we don't have magic fairy dust to scatter everywhere, how do we generate electricity? How do we run vehicles - not only private, but public transport, delivery vehicles and farming? How to we run our factories? The knee-jerk reaction to condemn every new way of generating energy must be tempered with the thought that we have an energyfuel hungry society that must be fed somehow.

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • This story, and people's reactions to it, highlight one of the major problems today. Everyone wants cheap energy - to drive their vehicles, heat their homes, cook their food, run all their gadgets, watch TV, read news on the internet, watch videos of cute cats, etc. However, nobody seems to want what goes with the generation of collection of that energy. Nuclear produces radioactive waste that will turn us all into brain-eating zombies, gas and oil use up scarce resources, fracking will cause earthquakes and water-table contamination, burning rubbish will release toxins into the atmosphere, windmills blight the landscape and kill birds, tidal barriers stop fish migration and cause flooding, dams flood usable land ... So, how do people WANT their enegry and fuel to be provided? Given that we don't have magic fairy dust to scatter everywhere, how do we generate electricity? How do we run vehicles - not only private, but public transport, delivery vehicles and farming? How to we run our factories? The knee-jerk reaction to condemn every new way of generating energy must be tempered with the thought that we have an energyfuel hungry society that must be fed somehow.

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • Where are the huge quantities of water needed for the process going to come and where is the water,contaminated after with all sorts of nasties,going to go at the finish of the process?Why has the government agreed not to inform householders of fracking applications in their vicinity of their homes?

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • Let's have a look at everything before we start jumping to conclusions, but don't let NCC have anything to do with it as it will be underhanded from the start.

    Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Thursday, March 13, 2014

  • Tony, without the long term renewables there really is no future. I can understand your vested interest but can you not see the bigger picture? Are you only interested in your own selfish greed at the expense of your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren who will, one day, have to pick up the tab (if they're still alive).

    Report this comment

    Thoreauwasright

    Friday, March 14, 2014

  • Mr T the RSPB has no power to ban cats, I agree there are too many of these creatures, but again no organisation can control their population. I also think there are too many human beings on this planet, as we primates screw the world up. Perhaps homo sapiens should be neutered. As for fracking, I think it reasonably safe my only question is, will the water used to replace the gas pockets underground have a detrimental effect for wildlife?

    Report this comment

    NorthStarRaven

    Wednesday, March 19, 2014

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 18°C

min temp: 11°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT