Dec McSweeney (letters, September 17) accuses me of being an advocate for fracking. That is not so. I simply wish to understand the risks and the potential gains of this technology.

My problem is that many of those who oppose fracking make such wild claims as to the dangers to our quality of life and our health that the scientific facts are being buried by what, at times, seems perilously close to hysteria.

This problem is amply illustrated by Mr McSweeney’s dismissal of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s report as a “whitewash”: thereby revealing his belief that the US citizen is being deliberately tricked by its government. He then goes on make plain that, in his opinion, the UK government is “tarred with the same brush”. Holding these views, he will inevitably dismiss any facts in favour of fracking as government indoctrination.

The only documented fact given by Mr McSweeney is the statement from Lord Browne that he did not believe the price of energy would be greatly affected by fracking. Had he read on, he would have seen that Lord Browne also said that there was no evidence that fracking itself had caused water pollution in the US, but rather "issues to do with the leaking of gas into aquifers as a result of imperfect operations, mainly to do with the cementing of well casings”.

I am at a loss to know how he can claim that the only people to benefit financially would be the energy companies. The fact is that companies undertaking fracking will pay 30 per cent corporation tax, considerably more than other businesses, albeit lower than with North Sea Operations. Local communities stand to do well too. 100 per cent of the business rate paid on these wells will go to the local council, estimated at £1.5 million per site. Local communities will get £100,000 for the test drilling and an estimated £5 to £10 million over the life of a well. With our council struggling to maintain essential services, this is money not to be sniffed at.

We were encouraged to check Wikipedia to understand the dangers of fracking. I did that and learned that the US Federal Environmental Protection Agency issued new regulations in 2012 that “include the first federal air standards for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured. These are expected to yield a nearly 95 per cent reduction in volatile organic compound emissions from more than 11,000 new hydraulically fractured gas wells each year”. What that tells us is that the US is learning from its mistakes and, with rigorous regulations and controls, we can avoid the vast majority of the problems they have experienced.

What I wish to see is the decision to frack or not to frack being made after carefully weighing the benefits to the community against the potential damage to the environment and public health.

That involves a thorough examination of the experiences of fracking to date and the effectiveness of the measures now being put in place. I am very much afraid the conspiracy theories have no place in such an examination.

TONY SEDGWICK, Newman Road, Devizes