I must admit to being more than a little unhappy (even with the so-called 'safe-guards' for National Parks) about the giving of the green light to companies to apply licences to frack over many areas of the UK, whether the residents like it or not (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/28/fracking-expansion-uk-drilling-national-parks-safeguards). I suspect that this move was always on the cards, especially given the current arguments with Russia and our dependence on 'their' gas. The apparent boom in energy provision by fracking in a much larger as less populous USA must also have played a role. My objections broadly remain the same:-
1. I am not convinced that the process doesn't at least carry a risk of contaminating water courses.
2. If the hydrocarbons are removed, that certainly changes the nature of the underlying rocks and possibly their stability.
3. The product, when burned, exacerbates global warming and I would prefer a greater emphasis on solar energy and improved insulation.
4. I am certainly not convinced that the licences mean more jobs (always a selling point to politicians).