Energy: The dash for cash FRACKING is a toxic subject in many parts of Britain. On January 13th David Cameron donned protective clothing to announce a bung for councils that support it. Touring a proposed drilling site in Lincolnshire, the prime minister promised they would be able to keep more of the taxes paid by firms that extract shale gas. Far from extinguishing opposition to fracking, though, his pledge reignited the debate. Under the new policy, councils will keep all the business rates paid by fracking firms on their patch, up from half at present; the other half goes to the Treasury. This matches the deal already offered to councils that approve renewable power generators such as wind turbines. Mr Cameron said this could be worth £2m-3m ($3m-5m) a year for each fracking site. Local bigwigs (and this newspaper) had lobbied for that change. Yet the proposal raised trickier questions about the money that frackers themselves have promised to local people. The industry says firms will pay £100,000 into funds for residents near each new exploration site, as well as 1% of revenues when wells start pumping gas. The Local Government Association wants frackers to hand over 5-10% of their cash. In a letter to Mr Cameron seven MPs from Lancashire, a county likely to see much shale-gas extraction, said the industry's offer "does not go nearly far enough." Though many greens are noisily opposed, a slim majority of Britons support fracking. In October a report from the Department of Health said risks are low, assuming proper regulation. More domestic gas production need not mean canning the government's legally-binding carbon-emissions targets and would boost the economy. But lots of wells would be a nuisance for locals. Dozens of trucks fill the roads during peak drilling periods. Handling anti-fracking protests in Balcombe last summer cost Sussex police £3m. In theory, the government can circumvent local planners who consistently shun shale gas. In practice, friction with council bosses will "put a stick in the spokes" of the industry, says Tim Pugh of Berwin Leighton Paisner, a law firm which advises oil and gas companies. In America, where shale deposits belong to landowners instead of to the state, royalties of 12-25% sweeten the deal. Glynn Williams of Epi-V, which invests in gas services, thinks Britain's fracking firms will eventually improve their offer, but are unlikely to stump up as much as 5% of their haul. A little more cash seems reasonable, even though frackers face tax rates of up to 62%. Yet both sides should be patient. Though plenty of gas lies beneath Britain's fields, it is not yet clear how much can be profitably retrieved. Commercial production is still years away. Analysts at Bloomberg, a research firm, think a lack of skills and machinery could help make fracking in Britain twice as costly as in America. This week Total, a big French oil company, announced that it plans to invest about £30m seeking shale gas in the east of England. But its fellow supermajors are hanging back until the risks and rewards are clearer. The 20 to 40 test wells expected over the next few years will supply a little more heat and light.