Behind its paywall, the FT is reporting a new survey that finds that an overwhelming majority of the public opposes plans to let unconventional gas companies frack below private property without permission.
The survey comes as a coalition of environmental groups including the RSPB, Friends of the Earth and the Wildlife Trusts writes to David Cameron to criticise the plans.
They argue that under-house drilling should only occur with the permission of homeowners. “The rush to change property rights will further erode public trust in the government’s approach to fracking,” they say.
A Downing Street official insisted that any company looking to exploit shale gas would still need a licence from landowners at ground level or controlling access to a site.
It may well be that shale gas companies would already be paying residents for access to sites, so in many cases there would be no objection to the drilling. But with the horizontal "laterals" extending so far beyond the well pad, it's possible to imagine adjacent landowners being affected too (if you can use the term "affected" when someone drills a small hole a mile below your property"). Would the shale gas companies simply pay them off in order to have an easy life? Or would they simply present them with a fait-accompli? It's hard to say. You can certainly understand that people might be angry if it was the latter.
I still think repeal of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934, which nationalised onshore oil and gas assets, is the way forward. Then everyone who is "affected" has a stake.