The government claims its "cautious but balanced" approach to fracking shale remains unchanged.
The caution arises partly because the production prospects are "simply unknown at this stage".
Hm. The prospects for production can remain unknown for ever. Just ignore Cuadrilla's projections and hold back licences so that no one can prospect and produce.
This is not a "balanced" approach, it is deliberate obstruction designed to keep the price of gas high.
David Morris, the MP who initiated the Westminster Hall debate, welcomed suggestions that shale gas might halve the rise in gas bills over the next 20 years. Look at the US! The thick Bowland shale alone may well do far more than that.
Meanwhile, the Press Association continues to refer to "concerns ... raised [in the US] that the liquid used for fracking, or the gas itself, can pollute water supplies" - an outdated scare story which need have no relevance to the water supply system in Britain anyway - while ignoring the economic benefits the US has seen. This shows the need to shift the debate from the negative to the positive.
Down in Balcombe, the parish council has published an analysis of the environmental impact of Cuadrilla's proposal there - not much, as Nick Grealy explains.