The ArgusSecret emails reveal the risk to water in Sussex from fracking was known by officials (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Secret emails reveal the risk to water in Sussex from fracking was known by officials

The Argus: Secret emails reveal the risk to water in Sussex from fracking was known by officials Secret emails reveal the risk to water in Sussex from fracking was known by officials

The risk that drinking water in Sussex could be contaminated by fracking chemicals was known by the Government more than a year ago, previously secret documents reveal.

Ministers were privately briefed by the Environment Agency (EA) that fracking near aquifers – underground rocks which contain water – should not be permitted.

But the EA’s head of climate change later changed the wording on a public statement related to the issue so as not to create “too stark a message” about shale gas drilling.

The revelations – which could have major implications for the future of fracking in Sussex – were made the day after Prime Minister David Cameron said residents must accept the controversial practice in their communities and dismiss safety concerns.

Mr Cameron wrote: “There is no reason why fracking should cause contamination of water supplies or other environmental damage if properly regulated.”

The EA revealed the guidance to Charles Hendry, former Energy Minister and MP for Wealden, after he asked for help responding to a correspondent’s concerns about fracking in Balcombe, West Sussex.

Residents of the village are worried Cuadrilla, which is currently testing for oil and shale gas at the site, could later switch to fracking, contaminating the water supply.

The EA yesterday told The Argus the aquifer near Balcombe is poor and not suitable for public drinking, although campaigners remain concerned about how the drill site could pollute the River Ouse, which is just half a mile away, and the nearby Ardingly reservoir.

But across Sussex, 75% of drinking water comes from these underground supplies, raising fears of widespread contamination if the county’s huge shale gas reserve is exploited.

In a private memo, revealed by Greenpeace through Freedom of Information requests to Number Ten, a senior EA official writes: “The Environment Agency would not allow hydraulic fracking to take place in an area where there are aquifers used to supply drinking water.

“If there were sensitive ground waters present in an area where a company wanted to carry out hydraulic fracturing, we would object during the company’s planning application and refuse to grant an environmental permit.”

But the guidance was not released to the public and the EA’s head of climate change suggested the wording should be changed.

The Argus:

Responding to Mr Hendry’s request for information, the head of climate change says the initial guidance “provided a too stark view of our position of where we would or would not be happy with shale gas developments in relation to potable ground water aquifers”.

The official adds: “Can I ask that you [Mr Hendry] do not use the two sentences from …[redacted]..... while we finesse them.”

Campaign group Frack Off estimate 6,700 drill wells would be needed to extract just 10% of the county’s shale gas reserves.

Leila Deen, of Greenpeace, said: “Water is an ongoing issue in the south, and locals would be right to be concerned about fracking companies using vast quantities of it for shale gas extraction, and the risk of contamination.

“Just this week, the Government’s former chief scientific advisor said people’s fears about contaminated water from fracking were entirely rationale.”

An Environment Agency spokesman refused to respond to claims it had water down the public statements on the dangers of fracking.

He said: “The UK regulatory regime ensures that hazardous substances must not be allowed to enter groundwater.

“A permit, under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (EPR), from the Environment Agency is required where fluids containing pollutants are injected into ground, where they may enter groundwater.

“This may also be needed if the activity poses a risk of mobilising natural substances that could then cause pollution.

“The permit will specify any necessary limits on the activity, any requirements for monitoring, the chemicals which may be used and any appropriate limits on permissible concentrations.

“If the activity poses an unacceptable risk to the environment the activity will not be permitted.”

Last night Cuadrilla bosses has said its exploration site at Balcombe in West Sussex is "unlikely" to become a full production location. They refuse to rule out fracking at the site in the future.

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (96)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:22am Wed 14 Aug 13

Hoarder12345444 says...

Yeah the facts don't lie. People power won this. Well done. It's made Balcombe famous!
Yeah the facts don't lie. People power won this. Well done. It's made Balcombe famous! Hoarder12345444
  • Score: 22

10:28am Wed 14 Aug 13

Somedude12345 says...

Just proves that the government care only about keeping big business happy they couldn't give a monkeys balls about the people, absolutely disgusting they should be concentrating on renewable fuels not fossil fuel such as giving massive subsidies to the car industry to those manufacturers who develop efficient electric vehicles and making it financially cheaper to go electric by either massively taxing car manufacturers who don't produce electric cars and by banning the import of petro chemical cars this government is a joke
Just proves that the government care only about keeping big business happy they couldn't give a monkeys balls about the people, absolutely disgusting they should be concentrating on renewable fuels not fossil fuel such as giving massive subsidies to the car industry to those manufacturers who develop efficient electric vehicles and making it financially cheaper to go electric by either massively taxing car manufacturers who don't produce electric cars and by banning the import of petro chemical cars this government is a joke Somedude12345
  • Score: 73

10:34am Wed 14 Aug 13

Take it Personally says...

Take a look at the long list of countries, provinces and states that have banned fracking: http://keeptapwaters
afe.org/global-bans-
on-fracking/

Even states within the US and provinces in Canada, have banned it after seeing what it has done to their neighbours

All the critics of the people who protest for all of us, can't deny these facts.
Take a look at the long list of countries, provinces and states that have banned fracking: http://keeptapwaters afe.org/global-bans- on-fracking/ Even states within the US and provinces in Canada, have banned it after seeing what it has done to their neighbours All the critics of the people who protest for all of us, can't deny these facts. Take it Personally
  • Score: 58

10:56am Wed 14 Aug 13

rasmus says...

Lesson learned? Many of those elected to serve your interests, or working for them, don't care about you and have absolutely no qualms in doing you over for their own ideological or financial interests. Take note, people!
Lesson learned? Many of those elected to serve your interests, or working for them, don't care about you and have absolutely no qualms in doing you over for their own ideological or financial interests. Take note, people! rasmus
  • Score: 62

11:05am Wed 14 Aug 13

Ballroom Blitz says...

The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.
The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see. Ballroom Blitz
  • Score: 53

11:06am Wed 14 Aug 13

B-Rite-On says...

I was speechless after hearing our PM basically bribe people with the 'how much money could be made' rather than actually answering the question about the safety of Fracking and then going further to state that the US folk welcomed Fracking ...which is basically the biggest lie ever!!

Here are two videos worth watching on the subject of Fracking and just how much not just people in the US but also Australia are against it and are suffering because of it.

If people really want to know the dangers of Fracking then watch these ...as it shows the truth about Fracking.

http://viooz.co/movi
es/5239-gasland-2010
.html

http://viooz.co/movi
es/20372-gasland-par
t-ii-2013.html
I was speechless after hearing our PM basically bribe people with the 'how much money could be made' rather than actually answering the question about the safety of Fracking and then going further to state that the US folk welcomed Fracking ...which is basically the biggest lie ever!! Here are two videos worth watching on the subject of Fracking and just how much not just people in the US but also Australia are against it and are suffering because of it. If people really want to know the dangers of Fracking then watch these ...as it shows the truth about Fracking. http://viooz.co/movi es/5239-gasland-2010 .html http://viooz.co/movi es/20372-gasland-par t-ii-2013.html B-Rite-On
  • Score: 52

11:27am Wed 14 Aug 13

Valerie Paynter says...

1. We do not have sufficient supply of water to be able to 'donate' any to fracking works. And what we have is hostage to weather patterns. Before this summer heat after months and months of rain, our reservoirs were so low that permission to drain a Kent river even more was given.

2. Once a fracture is achieved, how far can it be reliably PREDICTED to travel? 10 metres, half a mile, maybe? How far - before what is put into the ground travels to a seriously vulnerable water source?

3. Ships have accidents that pollute seafronts and kill wildlife and people's incomes. Oil wells have accidents that pollute the seas and kill fish and livelihoods and desecrate shorelines. But in theory: they are safe! Just like a fracked site is 'safe'. It is not good enough when the danger of subsidence, earthquakes, altered water courses and contamination are possible. Human error and failed machinery HAPPEN.

Thank you Finn Scott-Delaney for this 2nd of two cracking articles providing us with much needed information.

Cameron is so irresponsibly out of order on fracking that he should be removed as party leader and Prime Minister ASAP.
1. We do not have sufficient supply of water to be able to 'donate' any to fracking works. And what we have is hostage to weather patterns. Before this summer heat after months and months of rain, our reservoirs were so low that permission to drain a Kent river even more was given. 2. Once a fracture is achieved, how far can it be reliably PREDICTED to travel? 10 metres, half a mile, maybe? How far - before what is put into the ground travels to a seriously vulnerable water source? 3. Ships have accidents that pollute seafronts and kill wildlife and people's incomes. Oil wells have accidents that pollute the seas and kill fish and livelihoods and desecrate shorelines. But in theory: they are safe! Just like a fracked site is 'safe'. It is not good enough when the danger of subsidence, earthquakes, altered water courses and contamination are possible. Human error and failed machinery HAPPEN. Thank you Finn Scott-Delaney for this 2nd of two cracking articles providing us with much needed information. Cameron is so irresponsibly out of order on fracking that he should be removed as party leader and Prime Minister ASAP. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 66

11:53am Wed 14 Aug 13

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

Mr Cameron wrote: “There is no reason why fracking should cause contamination of water supplies or other environmental damage if properly regulated.”

So, given our record of regulating Newspapers, MP's expenses, Banks, Hospital safety, Corporations paying taxes, pension funds, planning rules and just about everything else- things are going to be just fine?!

Phew, for a while I thought Fracking would purely be of benefit to Cuadrilla and this corrupt government at the expense of the environment but now I know that it is going to be properly regulated, my fears have been allayed. Thanks Dave!
Mr Cameron wrote: “There is no reason why fracking should cause contamination of water supplies or other environmental damage if properly regulated.” So, given our record of regulating Newspapers, MP's expenses, Banks, Hospital safety, Corporations paying taxes, pension funds, planning rules and just about everything else- things are going to be just fine?! Phew, for a while I thought Fracking would purely be of benefit to Cuadrilla and this corrupt government at the expense of the environment but now I know that it is going to be properly regulated, my fears have been allayed. Thanks Dave! uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: 61

12:30pm Wed 14 Aug 13

kopite_rob says...

Every other year we suffer hose pipe bans and the water system is heavily underinvested and overstretched to demand in the South East.
Not only could our water supply become contaminated, but doesn't the fracking process itself also require high use of such water.
I've read that in Texas & Nevada which have serious water shortages anyway, public water is being used by fracking companies.

I can survive without cheap energy.I can't last 3 days without water.
Every other year we suffer hose pipe bans and the water system is heavily underinvested and overstretched to demand in the South East. Not only could our water supply become contaminated, but doesn't the fracking process itself also require high use of such water. I've read that in Texas & Nevada which have serious water shortages anyway, public water is being used by fracking companies. I can survive without cheap energy.I can't last 3 days without water. kopite_rob
  • Score: 46

1:11pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Daniel Mirante says...

"Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components.16 Overall, these companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products in their fluids between 2005 and 2009. This volume does not include water that the companies added to the fluids at the well site before injection. The products are comprised of a wide range of chemicals. Some are seemingly harmless like sodium chloride (salt), gelatin, and citric acid. Others could pose a severe risk to human health or the environment." - United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 2011, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing .
"Any risk to the environment and human health posed by fracturing fluids depends in large part on their contents. Federal law, however, contains no public disclosure requirements for oil and gas producers or service companies involved in hydraulic fracturing,"
And here is a lovely gem from The Environmental Protection Agency Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (Mar. 2010) at 4.
"Hydraulic fracturing companies used 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE) as a foaming agent or surfactant in 126 products. According to EPA scientists, 2-BE is easily absorbed and rapidly distributed in humans following inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure. Studies have shown that exposure to 2-BE can cause hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells) and damage to the spleen, liver, and bone marrow.17 The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 21.9 million gallons of products containing 2-BE between 2005 and 2009. They used the highest volume of products containing 2-BE in Texas, which accounted for more than half of the volume used. EPA recently found this chemical in drinking water wells tested in Pavillion, Wyoming."
"Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components.16 Overall, these companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products in their fluids between 2005 and 2009. This volume does not include water that the companies added to the fluids at the well site before injection. The products are comprised of a wide range of chemicals. Some are seemingly harmless like sodium chloride (salt), gelatin, and citric acid. Others could pose a severe risk to human health or the environment." - United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 2011, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing . "Any risk to the environment and human health posed by fracturing fluids depends in large part on their contents. Federal law, however, contains no public disclosure requirements for oil and gas producers or service companies involved in hydraulic fracturing," And here is a lovely gem from The Environmental Protection Agency Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (Mar. 2010) at 4. "Hydraulic fracturing companies used 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE) as a foaming agent or surfactant in 126 products. According to EPA scientists, 2-BE is easily absorbed and rapidly distributed in humans following inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure. Studies have shown that exposure to 2-BE can cause hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells) and damage to the spleen, liver, and bone marrow.17 The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 21.9 million gallons of products containing 2-BE between 2005 and 2009. They used the highest volume of products containing 2-BE in Texas, which accounted for more than half of the volume used. EPA recently found this chemical in drinking water wells tested in Pavillion, Wyoming." Daniel Mirante
  • Score: 31

1:25pm Wed 14 Aug 13

pachallis says...

To put a bit of perspective on this - the EA said they would review all fracking requests and “If the activity poses an unacceptable risk to the environment the activity will not be permitted.” and the EA "would not allow hydraulic fracking to take place in an area where there are aquifers used to supply drinking water".

So if the EA reviews a plan and it is acceptable it would go ahead. This sounds like good regulation to me.

However, such "exposures" are great news for nimbys, conspiracy theorists and eco-activists. It's the corrupt government and big business lying about the dangers again and the only solution to our energy needs is to stop all drilling and mining and shut down all current oil wells just in case.

BTW - I do not work for the energy industry, nor do I have no shares in Cuadrilla or nay other energy company.
To put a bit of perspective on this - the EA said they would review all fracking requests and “If the activity poses an unacceptable risk to the environment the activity will not be permitted.” and the EA "would not allow hydraulic fracking to take place in an area where there are aquifers used to supply drinking water". So if the EA reviews a plan and it is acceptable it would go ahead. This sounds like good regulation to me. However, such "exposures" are great news for nimbys, conspiracy theorists and eco-activists. It's the corrupt government and big business lying about the dangers again and the only solution to our energy needs is to stop all drilling and mining and shut down all current oil wells just in case. BTW - I do not work for the energy industry, nor do I have no shares in Cuadrilla or nay other energy company. pachallis
  • Score: -44

1:26pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Plantpot says...

The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss? Plantpot
  • Score: -39

1:30pm Wed 14 Aug 13

pachallis says...

Daniel Mirante wrote:
"Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components.16 Overall, these companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products in their fluids between 2005 and 2009. This volume does not include water that the companies added to the fluids at the well site before injection. The products are comprised of a wide range of chemicals. Some are seemingly harmless like sodium chloride (salt), gelatin, and citric acid. Others could pose a severe risk to human health or the environment." - United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 2011, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing .
"Any risk to the environment and human health posed by fracturing fluids depends in large part on their contents. Federal law, however, contains no public disclosure requirements for oil and gas producers or service companies involved in hydraulic fracturing,"
And here is a lovely gem from The Environmental Protection Agency Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (Mar. 2010) at 4.
"Hydraulic fracturing companies used 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE) as a foaming agent or surfactant in 126 products. According to EPA scientists, 2-BE is easily absorbed and rapidly distributed in humans following inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure. Studies have shown that exposure to 2-BE can cause hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells) and damage to the spleen, liver, and bone marrow.17 The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 21.9 million gallons of products containing 2-BE between 2005 and 2009. They used the highest volume of products containing 2-BE in Texas, which accounted for more than half of the volume used. EPA recently found this chemical in drinking water wells tested in Pavillion, Wyoming."
Daniel,

That may be the case in the US, but in Europe the composition of all fracking liquids has to be publically disclosed. BE is not a component of the fracking liquid to be used in the UK - according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use:

● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer )
● Sodium salt (for tracing fracturing fluid)
● Hydrochloric acid (diluted with water)
● Glutaraldehyde biocide (used to cleanse water and remove bacteria)

See http://www.cuadrilla
resources.com/what-w
e-do/hydraulic-fract
uring/fracturing-flu
id/

Nice try though!
[quote][p][bold]Daniel Mirante[/bold] wrote: "Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components.16 Overall, these companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products in their fluids between 2005 and 2009. This volume does not include water that the companies added to the fluids at the well site before injection. The products are comprised of a wide range of chemicals. Some are seemingly harmless like sodium chloride (salt), gelatin, and citric acid. Others could pose a severe risk to human health or the environment." - United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 2011, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing . "Any risk to the environment and human health posed by fracturing fluids depends in large part on their contents. Federal law, however, contains no public disclosure requirements for oil and gas producers or service companies involved in hydraulic fracturing," And here is a lovely gem from The Environmental Protection Agency Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (Mar. 2010) at 4. "Hydraulic fracturing companies used 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE) as a foaming agent or surfactant in 126 products. According to EPA scientists, 2-BE is easily absorbed and rapidly distributed in humans following inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure. Studies have shown that exposure to 2-BE can cause hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells) and damage to the spleen, liver, and bone marrow.17 The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 21.9 million gallons of products containing 2-BE between 2005 and 2009. They used the highest volume of products containing 2-BE in Texas, which accounted for more than half of the volume used. EPA recently found this chemical in drinking water wells tested in Pavillion, Wyoming."[/p][/quote]Daniel, That may be the case in the US, but in Europe the composition of all fracking liquids has to be publically disclosed. BE is not a component of the fracking liquid to be used in the UK - according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use: ● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer ) ● Sodium salt (for tracing fracturing fluid) ● Hydrochloric acid (diluted with water) ● Glutaraldehyde biocide (used to cleanse water and remove bacteria) See http://www.cuadrilla resources.com/what-w e-do/hydraulic-fract uring/fracturing-flu id/ Nice try though! pachallis
  • Score: -9

1:46pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Morpheus says...

My understanding is that the shales are well below the water aquifers. It is a pity that the EA used a climate scientist and not a geologist to report about fracking.
My understanding is that the shales are well below the water aquifers. It is a pity that the EA used a climate scientist and not a geologist to report about fracking. Morpheus
  • Score: -17

1:58pm Wed 14 Aug 13

PeteBax says...

According to the government when all the huge wind farms are built around Britain they will provide 30% of our Energy needs and this will match our promise to the world on clean energy.

According to the think tank on cycle lanes once these are built it will also reduce our needs for energy by 30%

According to companies like warm front we can save up to 30% of our energy needs by using insulation and we are investing in this.

According to the suppliers of solar panels we can get over 10% of our needs from them.

According to my mathematics that’s all the energy we need.

So why are we in a panic over fossil fuels?

David Cameron is representing the OIl and gas companies instead of looking after little Britain.
According to the government when all the huge wind farms are built around Britain they will provide 30% of our Energy needs and this will match our promise to the world on clean energy. According to the think tank on cycle lanes once these are built it will also reduce our needs for energy by 30% According to companies like warm front we can save up to 30% of our energy needs by using insulation and we are investing in this. According to the suppliers of solar panels we can get over 10% of our needs from them. According to my mathematics that’s all the energy we need. So why are we in a panic over fossil fuels? David Cameron is representing the OIl and gas companies instead of looking after little Britain. PeteBax
  • Score: 33

1:59pm Wed 14 Aug 13

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=jqxENMKae
CU I suggest everyone watch this video. Although it is a little "preachy", it provides some truly amazing images to highlight the damage we are causing to the planet and the effect it is having. (watch in HD)

Anyone who watches this and still isn't concerned about our future is a problem. Fracking is just another example of a short sighted step in the wrong direction.

I'm not saying we should all live in huts and not use any fuels but continuing on our current path will be disastrous and we need to consider green alternatives.
http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=jqxENMKae CU I suggest everyone watch this video. Although it is a little "preachy", it provides some truly amazing images to highlight the damage we are causing to the planet and the effect it is having. (watch in HD) Anyone who watches this and still isn't concerned about our future is a problem. Fracking is just another example of a short sighted step in the wrong direction. I'm not saying we should all live in huts and not use any fuels but continuing on our current path will be disastrous and we need to consider green alternatives. uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: 11

2:05pm Wed 14 Aug 13

pachallis says...

PeteBax wrote:
According to the government when all the huge wind farms are built around Britain they will provide 30% of our Energy needs and this will match our promise to the world on clean energy.

According to the think tank on cycle lanes once these are built it will also reduce our needs for energy by 30%

According to companies like warm front we can save up to 30% of our energy needs by using insulation and we are investing in this.

According to the suppliers of solar panels we can get over 10% of our needs from them.

According to my mathematics that’s all the energy we need.

So why are we in a panic over fossil fuels?

David Cameron is representing the OIl and gas companies instead of looking after little Britain.
Most amusing calculation - ROFL!
[quote][p][bold]PeteBax[/bold] wrote: According to the government when all the huge wind farms are built around Britain they will provide 30% of our Energy needs and this will match our promise to the world on clean energy. According to the think tank on cycle lanes once these are built it will also reduce our needs for energy by 30% According to companies like warm front we can save up to 30% of our energy needs by using insulation and we are investing in this. According to the suppliers of solar panels we can get over 10% of our needs from them. According to my mathematics that’s all the energy we need. So why are we in a panic over fossil fuels? David Cameron is representing the OIl and gas companies instead of looking after little Britain.[/p][/quote]Most amusing calculation - ROFL! pachallis
  • Score: -1

2:08pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Valerie Paynter says...

Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway! Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 20

2:13pm Wed 14 Aug 13

pachallis says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"? pachallis
  • Score: -10

2:24pm Wed 14 Aug 13

PorkBoat says...

Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Most heavy industries are regulated, most manage to bypass regulations at some stage, or just simply lie through their teeth, via their spokespersons, corrupt politicians. What planet are you from. Uranus? Bribery, corruption and greed make this inevitable.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Most heavy industries are regulated, most manage to bypass regulations at some stage, or just simply lie through their teeth, via their spokespersons, corrupt politicians. What planet are you from. Uranus? Bribery, corruption and greed make this inevitable. PorkBoat
  • Score: 25

2:26pm Wed 14 Aug 13

PorkBoat says...

pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
How about not starting yet another process that will inevitably cause pollution and environmental damage in the first place?
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]How about not starting yet another process that will inevitably cause pollution and environmental damage in the first place? PorkBoat
  • Score: 20

2:27pm Wed 14 Aug 13

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?"

We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?" We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction. uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: 16

2:34pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Hoveres2013 says...

pachallis wrote:
PeteBax wrote:
According to the government when all the huge wind farms are built around Britain they will provide 30% of our Energy needs and this will match our promise to the world on clean energy.

According to the think tank on cycle lanes once these are built it will also reduce our needs for energy by 30%

According to companies like warm front we can save up to 30% of our energy needs by using insulation and we are investing in this.

According to the suppliers of solar panels we can get over 10% of our needs from them.

According to my mathematics that’s all the energy we need.

So why are we in a panic over fossil fuels?

David Cameron is representing the OIl and gas companies instead of looking after little Britain.
Most amusing calculation - ROFL!
Haha thats genius! You should be PM not Dave!!
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PeteBax[/bold] wrote: According to the government when all the huge wind farms are built around Britain they will provide 30% of our Energy needs and this will match our promise to the world on clean energy. According to the think tank on cycle lanes once these are built it will also reduce our needs for energy by 30% According to companies like warm front we can save up to 30% of our energy needs by using insulation and we are investing in this. According to the suppliers of solar panels we can get over 10% of our needs from them. According to my mathematics that’s all the energy we need. So why are we in a panic over fossil fuels? David Cameron is representing the OIl and gas companies instead of looking after little Britain.[/p][/quote]Most amusing calculation - ROFL![/p][/quote]Haha thats genius! You should be PM not Dave!! Hoveres2013
  • Score: 5

3:21pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Number Six says...

I feel very privileged to be surrounded by so many fracking experts.
I've got n idea. How about we abandon this fracking and instead we dig big tunnels underground. Then we can send men down there to dig the fossil fuels out. |That would be nice and safe, wouldn't it. It might even start its own industry
I feel very privileged to be surrounded by so many fracking experts. I've got n idea. How about we abandon this fracking and instead we dig big tunnels underground. Then we can send men down there to dig the fossil fuels out. |That would be nice and safe, wouldn't it. It might even start its own industry Number Six
  • Score: -7

4:04pm Wed 14 Aug 13

William Armitage says...

Under the Greenwood family tree
Balcombe under siege, Issue 1346
balcombe.jpg
OIL’S WELL? Cuadrilla’s test drilling in Balcombe has proved less than popular. But the firm won its planning permission with… no debate, no vote and no objections.
AFTER two weeks of protests in the village of Balcombe, West Sussex, villagers keep asking themselves: who allowed Cuadrilla to drill on our doorstep?

Planning permission for the US firm’s test on the Balcombe estate – owned by Simon Greenwood, a great grandson of the first Lord Cowdray – was granted by West Sussex county council (WSCC) in 2010 and expires at the end of September. If Cuadrilla had waited any longer to start work it would have had to reapply, and this time round it could have expected strong opposition to a revised planning application. So why was the original one waved through? Because almost nobody knew about it.

Shome mishtake, shurely?
The WSCC planning officer wrote to Balcombe parish council in January 2010 drawing attention to the application, saying that if no comments were received by 18 February “it will be assumed that the parish council has no objection”. In March, after a reminder, the parish council clerk confirmed that “the matter was discussed at the last regular meeting” and there was “no objection”.

Shome mishtake? There is no record of any “discussion” in the minutes of the Balcombe parish council meeting in February 2010. The only fleeting reference comes after a debate on an application for a carport, in a brief sentence noting that Simon Greenwood, who is a parish councillor, “mentioned” a recent application at a site off London Road.

Irate fellow-villagers
And, er, that’s it. No debate, no vote and no declaration of interest from Greenwood, who stood to earn tens of thousands from Cuadrilla. WSCC then approved the application using delegated powers, rather than committee, precisely because of the lack of public objection. As the exploratory drilling begins, Greenwood and parish clerk Richard Greig have some explaining to do to irate fellow-villagers.

PS: Simon Greenwood’s mother, Anne, was given Balcombe by the Cowdray estate as a dowry. But his cousin Lord Cowdray is on the other side of the barricades: he supports protesters at another West Sussex site, Fernhurst, and recently revealed that he refused to let Cowdray land in Fernhurst be used for drilling because of “the environmental impact”.
Under the Greenwood family tree Balcombe under siege, Issue 1346 balcombe.jpg OIL’S WELL? Cuadrilla’s test drilling in Balcombe has proved less than popular. But the firm won its planning permission with… no debate, no vote and no objections. AFTER two weeks of protests in the village of Balcombe, West Sussex, villagers keep asking themselves: who allowed Cuadrilla to drill on our doorstep? Planning permission for the US firm’s test on the Balcombe estate – owned by Simon Greenwood, a great grandson of the first Lord Cowdray – was granted by West Sussex county council (WSCC) in 2010 and expires at the end of September. If Cuadrilla had waited any longer to start work it would have had to reapply, and this time round it could have expected strong opposition to a revised planning application. So why was the original one waved through? Because almost nobody knew about it. Shome mishtake, shurely? The WSCC planning officer wrote to Balcombe parish council in January 2010 drawing attention to the application, saying that if no comments were received by 18 February “it will be assumed that the parish council has no objection”. In March, after a reminder, the parish council clerk confirmed that “the matter was discussed at the last regular meeting” and there was “no objection”. Shome mishtake? There is no record of any “discussion” in the minutes of the Balcombe parish council meeting in February 2010. The only fleeting reference comes after a debate on an application for a carport, in a brief sentence noting that Simon Greenwood, who is a parish councillor, “mentioned” a recent application at a site off London Road. Irate fellow-villagers And, er, that’s it. No debate, no vote and no declaration of interest from Greenwood, who stood to earn tens of thousands from Cuadrilla. WSCC then approved the application using delegated powers, rather than committee, precisely because of the lack of public objection. As the exploratory drilling begins, Greenwood and parish clerk Richard Greig have some explaining to do to irate fellow-villagers. PS: Simon Greenwood’s mother, Anne, was given Balcombe by the Cowdray estate as a dowry. But his cousin Lord Cowdray is on the other side of the barricades: he supports protesters at another West Sussex site, Fernhurst, and recently revealed that he refused to let Cowdray land in Fernhurst be used for drilling because of “the environmental impact”. William Armitage
  • Score: 24

4:28pm Wed 14 Aug 13

pachallis says...

uniteagainstparkingc
harges
wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?"

We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.
No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK.

If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route.

In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else.

You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed).

Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe.

Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless.

BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart.

Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions.
[quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?" We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.[/p][/quote]No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK. If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route. In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else. You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed). Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe. Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless. BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart. Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions. pachallis
  • Score: -1

4:29pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Mel@cityclean says...

David Cameron mean David scumeron. Biggest liar out there, get this dick out of number 10. Only cares if he makes money for his friends. And does nothing about all the Animal abuse, I have made him aware of, dislike this vile little man so much!!!
David Cameron mean David scumeron. Biggest liar out there, get this dick out of number 10. Only cares if he makes money for his friends. And does nothing about all the Animal abuse, I have made him aware of, dislike this vile little man so much!!! Mel@cityclean
  • Score: 3

4:32pm Wed 14 Aug 13

322 Mason says...

Somedude12345 wrote:
Just proves that the government care only about keeping big business happy they couldn't give a monkeys balls about the people, absolutely disgusting they should be concentrating on renewable fuels not fossil fuel such as giving massive subsidies to the car industry to those manufacturers who develop efficient electric vehicles and making it financially cheaper to go electric by either massively taxing car manufacturers who don't produce electric cars and by banning the import of petro chemical cars this government is a joke
The country is really run by big business and not the goverment.They are just the face puppets to sell the lies to the nation.Its all run by 322 masons and that group the illuma.They have a de-population plan in place and food and water is their best way.Its time to wake up people.
[quote][p][bold]Somedude12345[/bold] wrote: Just proves that the government care only about keeping big business happy they couldn't give a monkeys balls about the people, absolutely disgusting they should be concentrating on renewable fuels not fossil fuel such as giving massive subsidies to the car industry to those manufacturers who develop efficient electric vehicles and making it financially cheaper to go electric by either massively taxing car manufacturers who don't produce electric cars and by banning the import of petro chemical cars this government is a joke[/p][/quote]The country is really run by big business and not the goverment.They are just the face puppets to sell the lies to the nation.Its all run by 322 masons and that group the illuma.They have a de-population plan in place and food and water is their best way.Its time to wake up people. 322 Mason
  • Score: 1

4:38pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Fercri Sakes says...

On these Argus comment areas I've been called an eco-nutter, a tree-hugger, a NIMBY, a hippy and a Green Party marxist for suggesting that drinking water supplies may be contaminated by the drilling at Balcombe. I've also been called a number of names because I said we should not believe all of Caudrilla's PR.

Now I know that the Environmental Agency also shares these concerns maybe I should take the tin foil hat I was told I was wearing back to the shops and get a refund. Or maybe I should donate it to Plantpot, Pachallis or one of the other corporate shills that have been telling me I'm making things up?
On these Argus comment areas I've been called an eco-nutter, a tree-hugger, a NIMBY, a hippy and a Green Party marxist for suggesting that drinking water supplies may be contaminated by the drilling at Balcombe. I've also been called a number of names because I said we should not believe all of Caudrilla's PR. Now I know that the Environmental Agency also shares these concerns maybe I should take the tin foil hat I was told I was wearing back to the shops and get a refund. Or maybe I should donate it to Plantpot, Pachallis or one of the other corporate shills that have been telling me I'm making things up? Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 15

4:50pm Wed 14 Aug 13

twonk says...

Ballroom Blitz wrote:
The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.
So what is this evidence? This was always just a test bore, it was never going to be for fracking, they were hoping to find OIL.
[quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.[/p][/quote]So what is this evidence? This was always just a test bore, it was never going to be for fracking, they were hoping to find OIL. twonk
  • Score: -5

4:55pm Wed 14 Aug 13

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

pachallis wrote:
uniteagainstparkingc

harges
wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?"

We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.
No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK.

If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route.

In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else.

You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed).

Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe.

Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless.

BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart.

Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions.
We should be working to reduce our usage through greater efficiency savings. At the moment we are hugely wasteful and this is a huge contribution to the environmental problem. I am not anti-progress and understand the need for fuels, however there are huge benefits that can be made from a change in our culture.

Currently almost every aspect of western lifestyle is driven by consumerism and corporate profits with little consideration for environmental impact. Travel, food, industry, farming, technology and pretty much everything you can think of uses largely dated and inefficient technology in terms of its energy usage.

Many already have taken steps to help reduce this (insulated houses, cleaner cars, supporting green initiatives). However companies, who create far more Carbon emissions, need to take more responsibility to lower their environmental impact. The problem is that it is often expensive to introduce these measures and many shareholders are only interested in profits.

There is already the technology in place to reduce this wasted energy but companies are not investing as it is currently too expensive. Whilst some of these "green technologies" are dubious in terms of the actual savings in real terms, there are many that can significantly reduce our collective carbon footprint.

It is estimated we can reduce our overall carbon usage by more than 30% in the UK alone by looking to these efficiency savings and in less developed countries where there is even fewer measures in place we could reduce usage by more than 50% (in turn reducing reliance on fossil fuels).

Shouldn't David Cameron and future governments be forcing companies to make these type of positive changes to reduce usage rather than promoting Fracking and continuing the path we are currently headed to environmental disaster?
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?" We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.[/p][/quote]No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK. If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route. In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else. You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed). Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe. Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless. BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart. Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions.[/p][/quote]We should be working to reduce our usage through greater efficiency savings. At the moment we are hugely wasteful and this is a huge contribution to the environmental problem. I am not anti-progress and understand the need for fuels, however there are huge benefits that can be made from a change in our culture. Currently almost every aspect of western lifestyle is driven by consumerism and corporate profits with little consideration for environmental impact. Travel, food, industry, farming, technology and pretty much everything you can think of uses largely dated and inefficient technology in terms of its energy usage. Many already have taken steps to help reduce this (insulated houses, cleaner cars, supporting green initiatives). However companies, who create far more Carbon emissions, need to take more responsibility to lower their environmental impact. The problem is that it is often expensive to introduce these measures and many shareholders are only interested in profits. There is already the technology in place to reduce this wasted energy but companies are not investing as it is currently too expensive. Whilst some of these "green technologies" are dubious in terms of the actual savings in real terms, there are many that can significantly reduce our collective carbon footprint. It is estimated we can reduce our overall carbon usage by more than 30% in the UK alone by looking to these efficiency savings and in less developed countries where there is even fewer measures in place we could reduce usage by more than 50% (in turn reducing reliance on fossil fuels). Shouldn't David Cameron and future governments be forcing companies to make these type of positive changes to reduce usage rather than promoting Fracking and continuing the path we are currently headed to environmental disaster? uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: 4

5:26pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Plantpot says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
On these Argus comment areas I've been called an eco-nutter, a tree-hugger, a NIMBY, a hippy and a Green Party marxist for suggesting that drinking water supplies may be contaminated by the drilling at Balcombe. I've also been called a number of names because I said we should not believe all of Caudrilla's PR.

Now I know that the Environmental Agency also shares these concerns maybe I should take the tin foil hat I was told I was wearing back to the shops and get a refund. Or maybe I should donate it to Plantpot, Pachallis or one of the other corporate shills that have been telling me I'm making things up?
If a govt. of any colour determines that fracking should take place in Balcombe, (or anywhere else for that matter) for the good of the wider population, then it will.

But fracking will take place according to the rules and regulations specified by the licensing authority properly appointed. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Fracking was never going to take place at Balcombe, and if it were, it would have been done following the proper rules and regulations.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: On these Argus comment areas I've been called an eco-nutter, a tree-hugger, a NIMBY, a hippy and a Green Party marxist for suggesting that drinking water supplies may be contaminated by the drilling at Balcombe. I've also been called a number of names because I said we should not believe all of Caudrilla's PR. Now I know that the Environmental Agency also shares these concerns maybe I should take the tin foil hat I was told I was wearing back to the shops and get a refund. Or maybe I should donate it to Plantpot, Pachallis or one of the other corporate shills that have been telling me I'm making things up?[/p][/quote]If a govt. of any colour determines that fracking should take place in Balcombe, (or anywhere else for that matter) for the good of the wider population, then it will. But fracking will take place according to the rules and regulations specified by the licensing authority properly appointed. Why is this so difficult to understand? Fracking was never going to take place at Balcombe, and if it were, it would have been done following the proper rules and regulations. Plantpot
  • Score: -6

5:28pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Plantpot says...

322 Mason wrote:
Somedude12345 wrote:
Just proves that the government care only about keeping big business happy they couldn't give a monkeys balls about the people, absolutely disgusting they should be concentrating on renewable fuels not fossil fuel such as giving massive subsidies to the car industry to those manufacturers who develop efficient electric vehicles and making it financially cheaper to go electric by either massively taxing car manufacturers who don't produce electric cars and by banning the import of petro chemical cars this government is a joke
The country is really run by big business and not the goverment.They are just the face puppets to sell the lies to the nation.Its all run by 322 masons and that group the illuma.They have a de-population plan in place and food and water is their best way.Its time to wake up people.
Without big business and large scale social organisation the UK would be a disaster.
[quote][p][bold]322 Mason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Somedude12345[/bold] wrote: Just proves that the government care only about keeping big business happy they couldn't give a monkeys balls about the people, absolutely disgusting they should be concentrating on renewable fuels not fossil fuel such as giving massive subsidies to the car industry to those manufacturers who develop efficient electric vehicles and making it financially cheaper to go electric by either massively taxing car manufacturers who don't produce electric cars and by banning the import of petro chemical cars this government is a joke[/p][/quote]The country is really run by big business and not the goverment.They are just the face puppets to sell the lies to the nation.Its all run by 322 masons and that group the illuma.They have a de-population plan in place and food and water is their best way.Its time to wake up people.[/p][/quote]Without big business and large scale social organisation the UK would be a disaster. Plantpot
  • Score: -4

5:43pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Dear Plantpot,

The fuss is because, unfortunately, as shown in the article, it appears that those doing the regulation and those who decide about the revealing of vital relevant facts, cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth. The effects upon Aquafers are difficult to hold any certainty about in regards to exploration. There is no certainty about the effects on structural damage or on the leaking of toxins into the hidden water systems - only educated, or in this case uneducated, estimates can be made.

Really, I mean, quite apart from any ideological or economic positions (which aren't favourable either), the fact that a local reservoir is just 3/4 of a mile away - JUST 1200 YARDS!!!! should be enough for anyone to think - hmm perhaps we won't risk it.

But this is really the case in regards to the whole project - the UK is too short of water as it is to make it economically viable, too heavily populated to ensure safety in regards to people, environment, or road safety. Cuadrilla itself said yesterday that Balcombe isn't suitable because of it's road systems. They and David C have constantly contradicted themselves in an effort to push it through.

I do understand that it's difficult to have to question institutions like government that we should be entitled to trust, but how certain facts are being hidden and then seeping out, shouldn't fill you with such confidence, surely?

Sorry for keep calling you Shirley and take a look at this German government website - 26% is just the start, they are phasing out nuclear and are planning realistically for the future, now, not just taking a money-driven leap into the unknown.

http://energytransit
ion.de/2012/10/key-f
indings/
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Dear Plantpot, The fuss is because, unfortunately, as shown in the article, it appears that those doing the regulation and those who decide about the revealing of vital relevant facts, cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth. The effects upon Aquafers are difficult to hold any certainty about in regards to exploration. There is no certainty about the effects on structural damage or on the leaking of toxins into the hidden water systems - only educated, or in this case uneducated, estimates can be made. Really, I mean, quite apart from any ideological or economic positions (which aren't favourable either), the fact that a local reservoir is just 3/4 of a mile away - JUST 1200 YARDS!!!! should be enough for anyone to think - hmm perhaps we won't risk it. But this is really the case in regards to the whole project - the UK is too short of water as it is to make it economically viable, too heavily populated to ensure safety in regards to people, environment, or road safety. Cuadrilla itself said yesterday that Balcombe isn't suitable because of it's road systems. They and David C have constantly contradicted themselves in an effort to push it through. I do understand that it's difficult to have to question institutions like government that we should be entitled to trust, but how certain facts are being hidden and then seeping out, shouldn't fill you with such confidence, surely? Sorry for keep calling you Shirley and take a look at this German government website - 26% is just the start, they are phasing out nuclear and are planning realistically for the future, now, not just taking a money-driven leap into the unknown. http://energytransit ion.de/2012/10/key-f indings/ Royy Batty
  • Score: 7

5:46pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

pachallis wrote:
To put a bit of perspective on this - the EA said they would review all fracking requests and “If the activity poses an unacceptable risk to the environment the activity will not be permitted.” and the EA "would not allow hydraulic fracking to take place in an area where there are aquifers used to supply drinking water".

So if the EA reviews a plan and it is acceptable it would go ahead. This sounds like good regulation to me.

However, such "exposures" are great news for nimbys, conspiracy theorists and eco-activists. It's the corrupt government and big business lying about the dangers again and the only solution to our energy needs is to stop all drilling and mining and shut down all current oil wells just in case.

BTW - I do not work for the energy industry, nor do I have no shares in Cuadrilla or nay other energy company.
Dear pachallis,

As i said to plantpot - the concern is because, unfortunately, as shown in the article, it appears that those doing the regulation and those who decide about the revealing of vital relevant facts, cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth. The effects upon Aquafers are difficult to hold any certainty about in regards to exploration. There is no certainty about the effects on structural damage or on the leaking of toxins into the hidden water systems - only educated, or in this case uneducated, estimates can be made.

Really, I mean, quite apart from any ideological or economic positions (which aren't favourable either), the fact that a local reservoir is just 3/4 of a mile away - JUST 1200 YARDS!!!! should be enough for anyone to think - hmm perhaps we won't risk it.

But this is really the case in regards to the whole project - the UK is too short of water as it is to make it economically viable, too heavily populated to ensure safety in regards to people, environment, or road safety. Cuadrilla itself said yesterday that Balcombe isn't suitable because of it's road systems. They and David C have constantly contradicted themselves in an effort to push it through.

I do understand that it's difficult to have to question institutions like government that we should be entitled to trust, but how certain facts are being hidden and then seeping out, shouldn't fill you with such confidence, surely?

Sorry for keep calling you Shirley and take a look at this German government website - 26% is just the start, they are phasing out nuclear and are planning realistically for the future, now, not just taking a money-driven leap into the unknown.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: To put a bit of perspective on this - the EA said they would review all fracking requests and “If the activity poses an unacceptable risk to the environment the activity will not be permitted.” and the EA "would not allow hydraulic fracking to take place in an area where there are aquifers used to supply drinking water". So if the EA reviews a plan and it is acceptable it would go ahead. This sounds like good regulation to me. However, such "exposures" are great news for nimbys, conspiracy theorists and eco-activists. It's the corrupt government and big business lying about the dangers again and the only solution to our energy needs is to stop all drilling and mining and shut down all current oil wells just in case. BTW - I do not work for the energy industry, nor do I have no shares in Cuadrilla or nay other energy company.[/p][/quote]Dear pachallis, As i said to plantpot - the concern is because, unfortunately, as shown in the article, it appears that those doing the regulation and those who decide about the revealing of vital relevant facts, cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth. The effects upon Aquafers are difficult to hold any certainty about in regards to exploration. There is no certainty about the effects on structural damage or on the leaking of toxins into the hidden water systems - only educated, or in this case uneducated, estimates can be made. Really, I mean, quite apart from any ideological or economic positions (which aren't favourable either), the fact that a local reservoir is just 3/4 of a mile away - JUST 1200 YARDS!!!! should be enough for anyone to think - hmm perhaps we won't risk it. But this is really the case in regards to the whole project - the UK is too short of water as it is to make it economically viable, too heavily populated to ensure safety in regards to people, environment, or road safety. Cuadrilla itself said yesterday that Balcombe isn't suitable because of it's road systems. They and David C have constantly contradicted themselves in an effort to push it through. I do understand that it's difficult to have to question institutions like government that we should be entitled to trust, but how certain facts are being hidden and then seeping out, shouldn't fill you with such confidence, surely? Sorry for keep calling you Shirley and take a look at this German government website - 26% is just the start, they are phasing out nuclear and are planning realistically for the future, now, not just taking a money-driven leap into the unknown. Royy Batty
  • Score: 3

6:10pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
pachallis - Eventually, yes! Even looking at it from a non tree-hugging, anthropocentric perspective, that is what the world has to do in order to compensate against climate change. Unfortunately, this might even require a re-think on nuclear at some stage (bit contentious and to be avoided if at all possible), but all carbon-based fossil fuels must be phased out absolutely ASAP. Of these, the newer land-based oil and gas industries are THE most harmful to human environment and the damage is almost impossible to undo.

Don't worry, I love my car and my electronic gadgets, but it is a case of having to implement change and it must begin now. It doesn't even have to be that painful. Humans are inventive and adaptive and this is what we need to do - shale oil and gas is not the way forward or even a necessary one - it is simply a lazy and greedy opportunity 'fuelled' (see what I did there), by the individuals and companies that stand to profit.

It doesn't look like you're gonna change your mind on this, but don't get sold an old kipper by a government that changes its stance every five minutes (they were all about the environment 3 years ago, remember), they can and do say whatever suits them regardless of facts or consequences to themselves or others. Can't say Egg millymollyomelette is any better, but I do generally trust the Green party on environmental issues, as am doing related academic research in this area.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]pachallis - Eventually, yes! Even looking at it from a non tree-hugging, anthropocentric perspective, that is what the world has to do in order to compensate against climate change. Unfortunately, this might even require a re-think on nuclear at some stage (bit contentious and to be avoided if at all possible), but all carbon-based fossil fuels must be phased out absolutely ASAP. Of these, the newer land-based oil and gas industries are THE most harmful to human environment and the damage is almost impossible to undo. Don't worry, I love my car and my electronic gadgets, but it is a case of having to implement change and it must begin now. It doesn't even have to be that painful. Humans are inventive and adaptive and this is what we need to do - shale oil and gas is not the way forward or even a necessary one - it is simply a lazy and greedy opportunity 'fuelled' (see what I did there), by the individuals and companies that stand to profit. It doesn't look like you're gonna change your mind on this, but don't get sold an old kipper by a government that changes its stance every five minutes (they were all about the environment 3 years ago, remember), they can and do say whatever suits them regardless of facts or consequences to themselves or others. Can't say Egg millymollyomelette is any better, but I do generally trust the Green party on environmental issues, as am doing related academic research in this area. Royy Batty
  • Score: 5

6:23pm Wed 14 Aug 13

PorkBoat says...

Plantpot wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
On these Argus comment areas I've been called an eco-nutter, a tree-hugger, a NIMBY, a hippy and a Green Party marxist for suggesting that drinking water supplies may be contaminated by the drilling at Balcombe. I've also been called a number of names because I said we should not believe all of Caudrilla's PR.

Now I know that the Environmental Agency also shares these concerns maybe I should take the tin foil hat I was told I was wearing back to the shops and get a refund. Or maybe I should donate it to Plantpot, Pachallis or one of the other corporate shills that have been telling me I'm making things up?
If a govt. of any colour determines that fracking should take place in Balcombe, (or anywhere else for that matter) for the good of the wider population, then it will.

But fracking will take place according to the rules and regulations specified by the licensing authority properly appointed. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Fracking was never going to take place at Balcombe, and if it were, it would have been done following the proper rules and regulations.
Effendi, did I tell you about ski lodge for sale in mountains of Norwich? Or beachfront villa in Northampton? Bargain for you Effendi, £1 million each, £3 million for pair! Much cheapness!
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: On these Argus comment areas I've been called an eco-nutter, a tree-hugger, a NIMBY, a hippy and a Green Party marxist for suggesting that drinking water supplies may be contaminated by the drilling at Balcombe. I've also been called a number of names because I said we should not believe all of Caudrilla's PR. Now I know that the Environmental Agency also shares these concerns maybe I should take the tin foil hat I was told I was wearing back to the shops and get a refund. Or maybe I should donate it to Plantpot, Pachallis or one of the other corporate shills that have been telling me I'm making things up?[/p][/quote]If a govt. of any colour determines that fracking should take place in Balcombe, (or anywhere else for that matter) for the good of the wider population, then it will. But fracking will take place according to the rules and regulations specified by the licensing authority properly appointed. Why is this so difficult to understand? Fracking was never going to take place at Balcombe, and if it were, it would have been done following the proper rules and regulations.[/p][/quote]Effendi, did I tell you about ski lodge for sale in mountains of Norwich? Or beachfront villa in Northampton? Bargain for you Effendi, £1 million each, £3 million for pair! Much cheapness! PorkBoat
  • Score: 2

6:42pm Wed 14 Aug 13

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
uniteagainstparkingc harges wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?" We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.
No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK. If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route. In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else. You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed). Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe. Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless. BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart. Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions.
I recommend you read the peer reviewed Zero Carbon Britain Report by CAT , http://www.zcb2030.o
rg/, similar to Germany's Energiewende program. Now your turn, please provide a peer reviewed report that demonstrates we can meet out climate commitments by using fossil fuels.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?" We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.[/p][/quote]No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK. If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route. In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else. You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed). Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe. Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless. BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart. Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions.[/p][/quote]I recommend you read the peer reviewed Zero Carbon Britain Report by CAT , http://www.zcb2030.o rg/, similar to Germany's Energiewende program. Now your turn, please provide a peer reviewed report that demonstrates we can meet out climate commitments by using fossil fuels. HJarrs
  • Score: 3

7:23pm Wed 14 Aug 13

pachallis says...

HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
uniteagainstparkingc harges wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?" We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.
No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK. If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route. In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else. You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed). Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe. Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless. BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart. Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions.
I recommend you read the peer reviewed Zero Carbon Britain Report by CAT , http://www.zcb2030.o

rg/, similar to Germany's Energiewende program. Now your turn, please provide a peer reviewed report that demonstrates we can meet out climate commitments by using fossil fuels.
Thanks. HJarrs - bit late tonight - will try to have a look tomorrow...
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?" We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.[/p][/quote]No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK. If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route. In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else. You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed). Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe. Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless. BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart. Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions.[/p][/quote]I recommend you read the peer reviewed Zero Carbon Britain Report by CAT , http://www.zcb2030.o rg/, similar to Germany's Energiewende program. Now your turn, please provide a peer reviewed report that demonstrates we can meet out climate commitments by using fossil fuels.[/p][/quote]Thanks. HJarrs - bit late tonight - will try to have a look tomorrow... pachallis
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Trojan Horus says...

" if properly regulated.” Said David Cameron. The debate in the State of New York where the same argument about "best practice" was deployed by the pro lobby resulted in push-back from the industry saying that "best practice" would be too costly and make fracking uneconomic. Add to this the assertion from the anti-facking lobby that well failures are a systemic problem the industry has no solution for and that 5% of all wells drilled will deliver fractured cement casings and leak and you begin to smell the methane with the bland assertions of Lord Browne's friends
" if properly regulated.” Said David Cameron. The debate in the State of New York where the same argument about "best practice" was deployed by the pro lobby resulted in push-back from the industry saying that "best practice" would be too costly and make fracking uneconomic. Add to this the assertion from the anti-facking lobby that well failures are a systemic problem the industry has no solution for and that 5% of all wells drilled will deliver fractured cement casings and leak and you begin to smell the methane with the bland assertions of Lord Browne's friends Trojan Horus
  • Score: 9

8:31pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Dougee says...

pachallis wrote:
uniteagainstparkingc

harges
wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?"

We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.
No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK.

If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route.

In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else.

You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed).

Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe.

Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless.

BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart.

Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions.
You wanted an alternative well while the rest of the world races ahead with solar energy this dead loss government refuses to encourage building company’s to incorporate this source of real cheap energy. See: http://www.bloomberg
.com/news/2013-08-01
/brazil-rooftop-sola
r-power-seen-reachin
g-1-400-megawatts-by
-2022.html
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]Are you blind to the irreversible damage the processes you have listed are causing or do you sit in climate change denial camp and think the science and research that proves the damage is just "hippy nonsense?" We need to act now and stop this mindless pursuit of profits at the expense of our future. Fracking is yet another step in the wrong direction.[/p][/quote]No - the point is that there are many things that could cause a disaster. A judgement call has to be made on what the effect of the disaster is, and the likelihood of it happening, and the benefits to the country. We also need to consider things like the financial and security issues for the UK. If you are really worried about any fracking in the UK then you must, IMHO, put a stop on any further activities that might cause a disaster - just in case. So no more coal mining, no more oil wells, no more new roads, no more chemical plants, no more nuclear reactors, no more power stations, no more airports, no more shipping, etc must be the proposed route. In fact you should, really, be putting in place plans to remove those processes that could cause a disaster and replace them with something else. You are stating that fracking will lead to a disaster based upon certain conjectures (most of which seem to be technically flawed) - others are stating that it is perfectly safe as long as regulations are followed. Someone has to make the judgement call (which may also be flawed). Some say that bio-fuel power stations are dangerous (i.e. Jason Kitkat with the Shoreham Power Station) and should not be built - others within the green movement say that bio-fuel is the way forward - I do not know who to believe. Just dealing with one potential issue (as defined by the eco-activists, and supported by nimbys), whilst leaving greater problems untouched is, IMHO, even more mindless. BTW - I am not in denial - I count myself as inherently sceptical of all claims from both sides of the argument and a realist at heart. Please come up with an alternative, cost effective, peer reviewable plan for UK Energy that deals with the needs for, say, the next 20 years, rather than just being anti-everything with no real alternative solutions.[/p][/quote]You wanted an alternative well while the rest of the world races ahead with solar energy this dead loss government refuses to encourage building company’s to incorporate this source of real cheap energy. See: http://www.bloomberg .com/news/2013-08-01 /brazil-rooftop-sola r-power-seen-reachin g-1-400-megawatts-by -2022.html Dougee
  • Score: 6

9:11pm Wed 14 Aug 13

B Chudrun says...

The 'right to know' is a human right. The Department of Energy and Climate Change have abused that right, and they should be held accountable for that.
Its a shame the Argus headline didn't read "Fracking Dangers exposed.." instead of "Fracking Fears are exposed.."
Most people have no idea of the whole picture.. for example a part of the fracking process involves the deliberate killing of micro-bacteria down in the earth's crust which scientists are now realising play a part in our planetary eco-system.. If anyone doesn't think that's a problem, remember it wasn't many years ago that people didn't realise how important some intestinal bacteria were for our health.. Nor did people understand that if we cut down too many forests.... We simply CANNOT fell every tree and mine all the fossil fuels known of - even if it reduces our energy bills!!! One would have hoped that the head of our Climate Change department would have taken the main point of his job seriously. Instead it's been about maximising possible revenues from selling PEDLs - the licence to extract fossil fuels. What is a Climate Change department doing selling those licences?! Conflict of interest it has certainly proven to be. Well done The Argus!
The 'right to know' is a human right. The Department of Energy and Climate Change have abused that right, and they should be held accountable for that. Its a shame the Argus headline didn't read "Fracking Dangers exposed.." instead of "Fracking Fears are exposed.." Most people have no idea of the whole picture.. for example a part of the fracking process involves the deliberate killing of micro-bacteria down in the earth's crust which scientists are now realising play a part in our planetary eco-system.. If anyone doesn't think that's a problem, remember it wasn't many years ago that people didn't realise how important some intestinal bacteria were for our health.. Nor did people understand that if we cut down too many forests.... We simply CANNOT fell every tree and mine all the fossil fuels known of - even if it reduces our energy bills!!! One would have hoped that the head of our Climate Change department would have taken the main point of his job seriously. Instead it's been about maximising possible revenues from selling PEDLs - the licence to extract fossil fuels. What is a Climate Change department doing selling those licences?! Conflict of interest it has certainly proven to be. Well done The Argus! B Chudrun
  • Score: 8

9:14pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Morpheus says...

Ballroom Blitz wrote:
The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.
Where? You and others choose to ignore the experts and they don't come better than The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. They jointly published a report on fracking in 2012. Look up the report for yourselves but the conclusion is "Fracking can be undertaken safely if best practice and effective regulation are enforced". Live in ignorance but please don't spread it about.
[quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.[/p][/quote]Where? You and others choose to ignore the experts and they don't come better than The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. They jointly published a report on fracking in 2012. Look up the report for yourselves but the conclusion is "Fracking can be undertaken safely if best practice and effective regulation are enforced". Live in ignorance but please don't spread it about. Morpheus
  • Score: -12

9:20pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Morpheus says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Do you suggest that we all sit at home doing nothing but contemplating our navels? Humans got where we are today by taking risks.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Do you suggest that we all sit at home doing nothing but contemplating our navels? Humans got where we are today by taking risks. Morpheus
  • Score: -12

9:22pm Wed 14 Aug 13

To baldly go says...

What a bunch of tree huggers, frack off and get a job then us tax payers who feed,clothe and put a roof over your heads will have more money to spend on big gas guzzling cars, fly to sunnier climates have a nice cruise and come home to our homes we have bought by getting off our backsides and WORKING!!!!!!!
What a bunch of tree huggers, frack off and get a job then us tax payers who feed,clothe and put a roof over your heads will have more money to spend on big gas guzzling cars, fly to sunnier climates have a nice cruise and come home to our homes we have bought by getting off our backsides and WORKING!!!!!!! To baldly go
  • Score: -14

9:25pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Morpheus says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
1. We do not have sufficient supply of water to be able to 'donate' any to fracking works. And what we have is hostage to weather patterns. Before this summer heat after months and months of rain, our reservoirs were so low that permission to drain a Kent river even more was given.

2. Once a fracture is achieved, how far can it be reliably PREDICTED to travel? 10 metres, half a mile, maybe? How far - before what is put into the ground travels to a seriously vulnerable water source?

3. Ships have accidents that pollute seafronts and kill wildlife and people's incomes. Oil wells have accidents that pollute the seas and kill fish and livelihoods and desecrate shorelines. But in theory: they are safe! Just like a fracked site is 'safe'. It is not good enough when the danger of subsidence, earthquakes, altered water courses and contamination are possible. Human error and failed machinery HAPPEN.

Thank you Finn Scott-Delaney for this 2nd of two cracking articles providing us with much needed information.

Cameron is so irresponsibly out of order on fracking that he should be removed as party leader and Prime Minister ASAP.
So what do we do then, please tell us:

1 We do not have enough water, so do we stop all industrial processes that use it? Which one will get the priority for water?

2 You apparently have no faith in science, but I bet if you get any illness you will take any help available without question.

3 Do you suggest transport and travel by ship should now be closed down?

Try reading up on the science before you spread scare stories about fracking causing earthquakes and subsidence.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: 1. We do not have sufficient supply of water to be able to 'donate' any to fracking works. And what we have is hostage to weather patterns. Before this summer heat after months and months of rain, our reservoirs were so low that permission to drain a Kent river even more was given. 2. Once a fracture is achieved, how far can it be reliably PREDICTED to travel? 10 metres, half a mile, maybe? How far - before what is put into the ground travels to a seriously vulnerable water source? 3. Ships have accidents that pollute seafronts and kill wildlife and people's incomes. Oil wells have accidents that pollute the seas and kill fish and livelihoods and desecrate shorelines. But in theory: they are safe! Just like a fracked site is 'safe'. It is not good enough when the danger of subsidence, earthquakes, altered water courses and contamination are possible. Human error and failed machinery HAPPEN. Thank you Finn Scott-Delaney for this 2nd of two cracking articles providing us with much needed information. Cameron is so irresponsibly out of order on fracking that he should be removed as party leader and Prime Minister ASAP.[/p][/quote]So what do we do then, please tell us: 1 We do not have enough water, so do we stop all industrial processes that use it? Which one will get the priority for water? 2 You apparently have no faith in science, but I bet if you get any illness you will take any help available without question. 3 Do you suggest transport and travel by ship should now be closed down? Try reading up on the science before you spread scare stories about fracking causing earthquakes and subsidence. Morpheus
  • Score: -11

9:28pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Morpheus says...

PorkBoat wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
How about not starting yet another process that will inevitably cause pollution and environmental damage in the first place?
Why don't we all become lemmings and jump over the cliff? That would solve everything.
[quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]How about not starting yet another process that will inevitably cause pollution and environmental damage in the first place?[/p][/quote]Why don't we all become lemmings and jump over the cliff? That would solve everything. Morpheus
  • Score: -8

10:33pm Wed 14 Aug 13

lorrie1 says...

Dave aint happy just taxing the hell out of us, Now he wants OUR island!!
Dave aint happy just taxing the hell out of us, Now he wants OUR island!! lorrie1
  • Score: 6

11:12pm Wed 14 Aug 13

ThereisnoplanetB says...

Morpheus said 'Try reading up on the science before you spread scare stories about fracking causing earthquakes and subsidence'

Why don't you try reading up on the actual facts from people on the ground that have already been harmed including infants ....gag orders on doctors and disclosure notices to boot! There are many scientists, geologists and experts in the field that are also against fracking onshore!
Oh and go ask the residents in Lancashire how they felt when the tremors caused cracks in their walls, I can assure you that it was far worse than the effects of 'jumping off a ladder' ! Every government where fracking is taking place have told their people that they have the most rigorous regulations in the world in place ....so much for that line! It is people like you that are in denial of the truth that hold us back from moving toward a sustainable future,It is people like you that will keep us on fossil fuels for the next 20 years risking the one thing that we cant do without and that is water, if feeds everything and then what?
Morpheus said 'Try reading up on the science before you spread scare stories about fracking causing earthquakes and subsidence' Why don't you try reading up on the actual facts from people on the ground that have already been harmed including infants ....gag orders on doctors and disclosure notices to boot! There are many scientists, geologists and experts in the field that are also against fracking onshore! Oh and go ask the residents in Lancashire how they felt when the tremors caused cracks in their walls, I can assure you that it was far worse than the effects of 'jumping off a ladder' ! Every government where fracking is taking place have told their people that they have the most rigorous regulations in the world in place ....so much for that line! It is people like you that are in denial of the truth that hold us back from moving toward a sustainable future,It is people like you that will keep us on fossil fuels for the next 20 years risking the one thing that we cant do without and that is water, if feeds everything and then what? ThereisnoplanetB
  • Score: 12

11:16pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

Morpheus wrote:
Ballroom Blitz wrote:
The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.
Where? You and others choose to ignore the experts and they don't come better than The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. They jointly published a report on fracking in 2012. Look up the report for yourselves but the conclusion is "Fracking can be undertaken safely if best practice and effective regulation are enforced". Live in ignorance but please don't spread it about.
Dear Morpheus, actually, the experts do apparently come better than the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering - it seems as though the Environment Agency (EA) have employed them and come up with the conclusion that 'that fracking near aquifers – underground rocks which contain water – should not be permitted' or are you simply 'ignoring' the above article about how information that should be in the public domain was wrongfully suppressed to support a political decision made by the government.

While I agree that the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering are experts in their field that should be respected, their are also lashings of equally respected opinion in the new scientist et al that completely disagree with their stance (do some research). The FACT is that this IS a relatively new method of extracting gas from shale and there is still a lot we don't know about the process. The esteemed Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, like any other body worth its salt, constantly update and change their opinions in the light of new research and knowledge - what's so scary about waiting and debating?

The FACT's are that there have been problems with these processes elsewhere, not everywhere, but surely enough to show some sense and caution when proceeding with what Cameron himself describes as a 'new industry'. Why were these facts from the EA suppressed? If there are no worries about this golden 'new industry', why is everyone so jumpy and sneaking things through (re Simon Greenwood at the BPC meeting) without a proper and informed public (or even parliamentary for that matter FFS) debate? There's a lot of money to be made in this new gold rush, if you're prepared to rest possible damage to the health and environment of this country on the decisions of mere humans prone to mistakes and human greed, you are either very naive, stand to gain yourself, are scared of facing the truth about the historical corrupting nature of money, or a **** moron! Which is it?
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.[/p][/quote]Where? You and others choose to ignore the experts and they don't come better than The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. They jointly published a report on fracking in 2012. Look up the report for yourselves but the conclusion is "Fracking can be undertaken safely if best practice and effective regulation are enforced". Live in ignorance but please don't spread it about.[/p][/quote]Dear Morpheus, actually, the experts do apparently come better than the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering - it seems as though the Environment Agency (EA) have employed them and come up with the conclusion that 'that fracking near aquifers – underground rocks which contain water – should not be permitted' or are you simply 'ignoring' the above article about how information that should be in the public domain was wrongfully suppressed to support a political decision made by the government. While I agree that the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering are experts in their field that should be respected, their are also lashings of equally respected opinion in the new scientist et al that completely disagree with their stance (do some research). The FACT is that this IS a relatively new method of extracting gas from shale and there is still a lot we don't know about the process. The esteemed Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, like any other body worth its salt, constantly update and change their opinions in the light of new research and knowledge - what's so scary about waiting and debating? The FACT's are that there have been problems with these processes elsewhere, not everywhere, but surely enough to show some sense and caution when proceeding with what Cameron himself describes as a 'new industry'. Why were these facts from the EA suppressed? If there are no worries about this golden 'new industry', why is everyone so jumpy and sneaking things through (re Simon Greenwood at the BPC meeting) without a proper and informed public (or even parliamentary for that matter FFS) debate? There's a lot of money to be made in this new gold rush, if you're prepared to rest possible damage to the health and environment of this country on the decisions of mere humans prone to mistakes and human greed, you are either very naive, stand to gain yourself, are scared of facing the truth about the historical corrupting nature of money, or a **** moron! Which is it? Royy Batty
  • Score: 9

11:23pm Wed 14 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

Royy Batty wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
Ballroom Blitz wrote:
The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.
Where? You and others choose to ignore the experts and they don't come better than The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. They jointly published a report on fracking in 2012. Look up the report for yourselves but the conclusion is "Fracking can be undertaken safely if best practice and effective regulation are enforced". Live in ignorance but please don't spread it about.
Dear Morpheus, actually, the experts do apparently come better than the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering - it seems as though the Environment Agency (EA) have employed them and come up with the conclusion that 'that fracking near aquifers – underground rocks which contain water – should not be permitted' or are you simply 'ignoring' the above article about how information that should be in the public domain was wrongfully suppressed to support a political decision made by the government.

While I agree that the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering are experts in their field that should be respected, their are also lashings of equally respected opinion in the new scientist et al that completely disagree with their stance (do some research). The FACT is that this IS a relatively new method of extracting gas from shale and there is still a lot we don't know about the process. The esteemed Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, like any other body worth its salt, constantly update and change their opinions in the light of new research and knowledge - what's so scary about waiting and debating?

The FACT's are that there have been problems with these processes elsewhere, not everywhere, but surely enough to show some sense and caution when proceeding with what Cameron himself describes as a 'new industry'. Why were these facts from the EA suppressed? If there are no worries about this golden 'new industry', why is everyone so jumpy and sneaking things through (re Simon Greenwood at the BPC meeting) without a proper and informed public (or even parliamentary for that matter FFS) debate? There's a lot of money to be made in this new gold rush, if you're prepared to rest possible damage to the health and environment of this country on the decisions of mere humans prone to mistakes and human greed, you are either very naive, stand to gain yourself, are scared of facing the truth about the historical corrupting nature of money, or a **** moron! Which is it?
Dear Morpheus, I sincerely apologise for my over zealous description of your mental capabilities and reasoning. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but no-one on any side of this argument should be making assumptions - that is the whole point - caution, sensible reasoning and discussion should be happening - but democratic process is being circumnavigated and suppressed, and that is wrong, no matter who you support, or what you believe!
[quote][p][bold]Royy Batty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.[/p][/quote]Where? You and others choose to ignore the experts and they don't come better than The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. They jointly published a report on fracking in 2012. Look up the report for yourselves but the conclusion is "Fracking can be undertaken safely if best practice and effective regulation are enforced". Live in ignorance but please don't spread it about.[/p][/quote]Dear Morpheus, actually, the experts do apparently come better than the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering - it seems as though the Environment Agency (EA) have employed them and come up with the conclusion that 'that fracking near aquifers – underground rocks which contain water – should not be permitted' or are you simply 'ignoring' the above article about how information that should be in the public domain was wrongfully suppressed to support a political decision made by the government. While I agree that the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering are experts in their field that should be respected, their are also lashings of equally respected opinion in the new scientist et al that completely disagree with their stance (do some research). The FACT is that this IS a relatively new method of extracting gas from shale and there is still a lot we don't know about the process. The esteemed Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, like any other body worth its salt, constantly update and change their opinions in the light of new research and knowledge - what's so scary about waiting and debating? The FACT's are that there have been problems with these processes elsewhere, not everywhere, but surely enough to show some sense and caution when proceeding with what Cameron himself describes as a 'new industry'. Why were these facts from the EA suppressed? If there are no worries about this golden 'new industry', why is everyone so jumpy and sneaking things through (re Simon Greenwood at the BPC meeting) without a proper and informed public (or even parliamentary for that matter FFS) debate? There's a lot of money to be made in this new gold rush, if you're prepared to rest possible damage to the health and environment of this country on the decisions of mere humans prone to mistakes and human greed, you are either very naive, stand to gain yourself, are scared of facing the truth about the historical corrupting nature of money, or a **** moron! Which is it?[/p][/quote]Dear Morpheus, I sincerely apologise for my over zealous description of your mental capabilities and reasoning. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but no-one on any side of this argument should be making assumptions - that is the whole point - caution, sensible reasoning and discussion should be happening - but democratic process is being circumnavigated and suppressed, and that is wrong, no matter who you support, or what you believe! Royy Batty
  • Score: 9

11:27pm Wed 14 Aug 13

ThereisnoplanetB says...

To baldly go wrote:
What a bunch of tree huggers, frack off and get a job then us tax payers who feed,clothe and put a roof over your heads will have more money to spend on big gas guzzling cars, fly to sunnier climates have a nice cruise and come home to our homes we have bought by getting off our backsides and WORKING!!!!!!!
I can assure you Baldy that a vast majority of the people against this are working or self employed paying their taxes and keeping their own roof over their heads without your help thank you! You might want to ask yourself if it is in fact people with your mindset that are propelling us toward disaster with your gas guzzling ways! We are at peak energy and so it is the responsibility of us all to look at ways in which we can cut back somewhat while we figure out a way to head toward a sustainable future! If you have looked at all at the thousands of people that have already been affected by this industry both onshore and offshore then you are truly in denial of the facts! Do some research instead of listening to the rigged news, the government and the industry.
[quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: What a bunch of tree huggers, frack off and get a job then us tax payers who feed,clothe and put a roof over your heads will have more money to spend on big gas guzzling cars, fly to sunnier climates have a nice cruise and come home to our homes we have bought by getting off our backsides and WORKING!!!!!!![/p][/quote]I can assure you Baldy that a vast majority of the people against this are working or self employed paying their taxes and keeping their own roof over their heads without your help thank you! You might want to ask yourself if it is in fact people with your mindset that are propelling us toward disaster with your gas guzzling ways! We are at peak energy and so it is the responsibility of us all to look at ways in which we can cut back somewhat while we figure out a way to head toward a sustainable future! If you have looked at all at the thousands of people that have already been affected by this industry both onshore and offshore then you are truly in denial of the facts! Do some research instead of listening to the rigged news, the government and the industry. ThereisnoplanetB
  • Score: 11

12:00am Thu 15 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

Number Six wrote:
I feel very privileged to be surrounded by so many fracking experts.
I've got n idea. How about we abandon this fracking and instead we dig big tunnels underground. Then we can send men down there to dig the fossil fuels out. |That would be nice and safe, wouldn't it. It might even start its own industry
How about you make the effort to write a response when you have something constructive and reasonable to contribute instead of just taking the ****.

Talking of experts - a small fact for you - did you know that the 'experts' Caudrilla employ to monitor the radioactivity levels in their samples are proudly in possession of a 'certficate' gained on a course that took 2 whole days hard study to complete - it holds the academic equivalence of a GCSE Grade 2 - if that's good enough for you - fair enough - you're a more trusting fellow than I.

I'm quite amazed by how such apparently cynical commentators have invested so much innocent and childlike trust in people they don't know, after so little research, and yet are prepared to disrespect others who are showing concern for matters that affect all of us.

And what's the point in calling someone a tree-hugger FFS? What **** century is this? Should everyone be walking around wearing an Armani suit? I'm not a hippie, I probably pay more tax than you. But what has that got to do with the worth of anyone's opinion?

This government isn't allowing proper public debate on this subject and is trying to bulldoze through people's concerns. Even if drilling for oil / shale gas extraction in densely populated areas was the best thing ever, there should be proper debate because of the nature of the potential risks - this is one process that cannot be cleaned up afterwards.
[quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: I feel very privileged to be surrounded by so many fracking experts. I've got n idea. How about we abandon this fracking and instead we dig big tunnels underground. Then we can send men down there to dig the fossil fuels out. |That would be nice and safe, wouldn't it. It might even start its own industry[/p][/quote]How about you make the effort to write a response when you have something constructive and reasonable to contribute instead of just taking the ****. Talking of experts - a small fact for you - did you know that the 'experts' Caudrilla employ to monitor the radioactivity levels in their samples are proudly in possession of a 'certficate' gained on a course that took 2 whole days hard study to complete - it holds the academic equivalence of a GCSE Grade 2 - if that's good enough for you - fair enough - you're a more trusting fellow than I. I'm quite amazed by how such apparently cynical commentators have invested so much innocent and childlike trust in people they don't know, after so little research, and yet are prepared to disrespect others who are showing concern for matters that affect all of us. And what's the point in calling someone a tree-hugger FFS? What **** century is this? Should everyone be walking around wearing an Armani suit? I'm not a hippie, I probably pay more tax than you. But what has that got to do with the worth of anyone's opinion? This government isn't allowing proper public debate on this subject and is trying to bulldoze through people's concerns. Even if drilling for oil / shale gas extraction in densely populated areas was the best thing ever, there should be proper debate because of the nature of the potential risks - this is one process that cannot be cleaned up afterwards. Royy Batty
  • Score: 10

12:21am Thu 15 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

Morpheus wrote:
PorkBoat wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
How about not starting yet another process that will inevitably cause pollution and environmental damage in the first place?
Why don't we all become lemmings and jump over the cliff? That would solve everything.
Only if you go first ;0)
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]How about not starting yet another process that will inevitably cause pollution and environmental damage in the first place?[/p][/quote]Why don't we all become lemmings and jump over the cliff? That would solve everything.[/p][/quote]Only if you go first ;0) Royy Batty
  • Score: 9

12:22am Thu 15 Aug 13

ThereisnoplanetB says...

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=jqxENMKae
CU
http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=jqxENMKae CU ThereisnoplanetB
  • Score: 1

7:01am Thu 15 Aug 13

To baldly go says...

ThereisnoplanetB wrote:
To baldly go wrote: What a bunch of tree huggers, frack off and get a job then us tax payers who feed,clothe and put a roof over your heads will have more money to spend on big gas guzzling cars, fly to sunnier climates have a nice cruise and come home to our homes we have bought by getting off our backsides and WORKING!!!!!!!
I can assure you Baldy that a vast majority of the people against this are working or self employed paying their taxes and keeping their own roof over their heads without your help thank you! You might want to ask yourself if it is in fact people with your mindset that are propelling us toward disaster with your gas guzzling ways! We are at peak energy and so it is the responsibility of us all to look at ways in which we can cut back somewhat while we figure out a way to head toward a sustainable future! If you have looked at all at the thousands of people that have already been affected by this industry both onshore and offshore then you are truly in denial of the facts! Do some research instead of listening to the rigged news, the government and the industry.
have looked at whats on here and it seems most of you dont know what you are on about, contradicting each other all the time so i thought i might aswell join in, granted some of you work and pay tax (to much we all know) but most that are demonstrating do not have jobs, moan about the government but are first in line to get their benefits, of those locals that are protesting if it wasnt in their back yard they would be on here moaning like me because they know what i am writing is probably nearer the truth of what they think. if it was to happen near my home i would not be happy but that is life you have to get use to it because you aint gonna change it, life is to short so have those holidays, cars, bikes and other nice things it will all sort itself out long after we have gone, live long and prosper!
[quote][p][bold]ThereisnoplanetB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: What a bunch of tree huggers, frack off and get a job then us tax payers who feed,clothe and put a roof over your heads will have more money to spend on big gas guzzling cars, fly to sunnier climates have a nice cruise and come home to our homes we have bought by getting off our backsides and WORKING!!!!!!![/p][/quote]I can assure you Baldy that a vast majority of the people against this are working or self employed paying their taxes and keeping their own roof over their heads without your help thank you! You might want to ask yourself if it is in fact people with your mindset that are propelling us toward disaster with your gas guzzling ways! We are at peak energy and so it is the responsibility of us all to look at ways in which we can cut back somewhat while we figure out a way to head toward a sustainable future! If you have looked at all at the thousands of people that have already been affected by this industry both onshore and offshore then you are truly in denial of the facts! Do some research instead of listening to the rigged news, the government and the industry.[/p][/quote]have looked at whats on here and it seems most of you dont know what you are on about, contradicting each other all the time so i thought i might aswell join in, granted some of you work and pay tax (to much we all know) but most that are demonstrating do not have jobs, moan about the government but are first in line to get their benefits, of those locals that are protesting if it wasnt in their back yard they would be on here moaning like me because they know what i am writing is probably nearer the truth of what they think. if it was to happen near my home i would not be happy but that is life you have to get use to it because you aint gonna change it, life is to short so have those holidays, cars, bikes and other nice things it will all sort itself out long after we have gone, live long and prosper! To baldly go
  • Score: -10

7:38am Thu 15 Aug 13

William Armitage says...

After four weeks of protests in the village of Balcombe, West Sussex, villagers keep asking themselves; who allowed Cuadrilla to drill on our doorstep?
Planning permission for the US firm’s test on the Balcombe estate – owned by Simon Greenwood, a great grandson of the first Lord Cowdray – was granted by West Sussex county council (WSCC) in 2010 and expires at the end of September. If Caudrilla had waited any longer to start work it would have had to reapply, and this time round it could have expected strong opposition to a revised planning application.
So why was the original one waved through? Because almost nobody knew about it. The WSCC planning officer wrote to Balcombe parish council in January 2010 drawing attention to the application, saying that if no comments were received by 18th February “it will be assumed that the parish council has no objections”. In March, after a reminder, the parish clerk confirmed that “the matter was discussed at the last regular meeting” and there was “no Objection”.
Shome mistake? There is no record of any “discussion” in the minutes of the Balcombe parish council meeting in February 2010. The only fleeting reference comes after a debate on an application for a carport, in a brief sentence noting that Simon Greenwood, who is a parish councillor, “mentioned” a recent application at a site of London Road.
And, er, that’s it. No debate, no vote and no declaration of interest from Greenwood, who stands to earn tens of thousands from Caudrilla. WSCC then approved the application using delegated powers, precisely because of the lack of public objection. As the exploratory drilling begins, Greenwood and parish clerk, Richard Greig, have some explaining to do to irate villagers.
PS: Simon Greenwood’s mother, Anne, was given Balcombe by the Cowdray estate as a dowry. But his cousin Lord Cowdray is on the other side of the barricades; he supports protesters at another West Sussex site, Fernhurst, and recently revealed that he had refused to let Cowdray land in Fernhurst be used for drilling because of “the environmental impact on the area”.
After four weeks of protests in the village of Balcombe, West Sussex, villagers keep asking themselves; who allowed Cuadrilla to drill on our doorstep? Planning permission for the US firm’s test on the Balcombe estate – owned by Simon Greenwood, a great grandson of the first Lord Cowdray – was granted by West Sussex county council (WSCC) in 2010 and expires at the end of September. If Caudrilla had waited any longer to start work it would have had to reapply, and this time round it could have expected strong opposition to a revised planning application. So why was the original one waved through? Because almost nobody knew about it. The WSCC planning officer wrote to Balcombe parish council in January 2010 drawing attention to the application, saying that if no comments were received by 18th February “it will be assumed that the parish council has no objections”. In March, after a reminder, the parish clerk confirmed that “the matter was discussed at the last regular meeting” and there was “no Objection”. Shome mistake? There is no record of any “discussion” in the minutes of the Balcombe parish council meeting in February 2010. The only fleeting reference comes after a debate on an application for a carport, in a brief sentence noting that Simon Greenwood, who is a parish councillor, “mentioned” a recent application at a site of London Road. And, er, that’s it. No debate, no vote and no declaration of interest from Greenwood, who stands to earn tens of thousands from Caudrilla. WSCC then approved the application using delegated powers, precisely because of the lack of public objection. As the exploratory drilling begins, Greenwood and parish clerk, Richard Greig, have some explaining to do to irate villagers. PS: Simon Greenwood’s mother, Anne, was given Balcombe by the Cowdray estate as a dowry. But his cousin Lord Cowdray is on the other side of the barricades; he supports protesters at another West Sussex site, Fernhurst, and recently revealed that he had refused to let Cowdray land in Fernhurst be used for drilling because of “the environmental impact on the area”. William Armitage
  • Score: 8

9:11am Thu 15 Aug 13

Plantpot says...

This whole debate is a complete waste of time. It's like the Guardian lite in here.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not want to believe, no proof could ever be sufficient."

Bye.
This whole debate is a complete waste of time. It's like the Guardian lite in here. "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not want to believe, no proof could ever be sufficient." Bye. Plantpot
  • Score: -7

9:12am Thu 15 Aug 13

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

ThereisnoplanetB wrote:
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=jqxENMKae

CU
A video everyone should watch as it shows the extent of the damage we have done and are continuing to do.

We need to start making major changes before it is too late.
[quote][p][bold]ThereisnoplanetB[/bold] wrote: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=jqxENMKae CU[/p][/quote]A video everyone should watch as it shows the extent of the damage we have done and are continuing to do. We need to start making major changes before it is too late. uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: 7

10:00am Thu 15 Aug 13

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

Also, read up on the methane permafrost release which many esteemed researchers agree is yet another likely threat to humanity in the coming years. Some scientific predictions point to a catastrophic event before 2020.

Some climate change deniers will consider this to be 'sensationalist' and 'unproven' but In truth and due to inaction we're probably going to have to find out the hard way, as we are with climate sensitivity; only in retrospect will we ever be certain.

It isn't as if we're short of dire prognostications. One warning might be insufficient to galvanise action. We have dozens, from water shortages to rising seas, agricultural failure to economic distress, mass migration through droughts and floods, extreme weather...and all the rest.

What we absolutely should not do is take the equivocal nature of scientific scepticism as the basis for us to wait until the science is indeed settled. If we wait until all the answers are in, it will be too late to do anything at all about it. Do we really want to risk a catastrophe hastened by methane release. Is anything worth such an irresponsible gamble, considering how high the stakes might be? (gpwayne)
Also, read up on the methane permafrost release which many esteemed researchers agree is yet another likely threat to humanity in the coming years. Some scientific predictions point to a catastrophic event before 2020. Some climate change deniers will consider this to be 'sensationalist' and 'unproven' but In truth and due to inaction we're probably going to have to find out the hard way, as we are with climate sensitivity; only in retrospect will we ever be certain. It isn't as if we're short of dire prognostications. One warning might be insufficient to galvanise action. We have dozens, from water shortages to rising seas, agricultural failure to economic distress, mass migration through droughts and floods, extreme weather...and all the rest. What we absolutely should not do is take the equivocal nature of scientific scepticism as the basis for us to wait until the science is indeed settled. If we wait until all the answers are in, it will be too late to do anything at all about it. Do we really want to risk a catastrophe hastened by methane release. Is anything worth such an irresponsible gamble, considering how high the stakes might be? (gpwayne) uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: 6

10:10am Thu 15 Aug 13

Morpheus says...

If you want the truth about fracking and not propaganda from protesters and others who have no knowledge of the process what so ever, then turn to The Times of 15 August and read the article by Matt Ridley. If the protesters think he is wrong then let them give a scientific response rather than the emotional crap that they believe in.
If you want the truth about fracking and not propaganda from protesters and others who have no knowledge of the process what so ever, then turn to The Times of 15 August and read the article by Matt Ridley. If the protesters think he is wrong then let them give a scientific response rather than the emotional crap that they believe in. Morpheus
  • Score: -7

11:24am Thu 15 Aug 13

pachallis says...

HJarrs et al - I saw I had 34 email from updates to Argus comments this morning - decided I have better things to do with my life than trying to search for some "truth" between what the pro and anti frackers are saying.

The pro-frackers imply the anti-frackers are emotional tree huggers. The anti-frackers imply the pro-frackers are lethal capitalists.

As in the New Scientist I think we need a proper independent review of all our energy needs. The German approach sounds possible but this needs to be reviewed to see applicability for the UK.

I did see a reference to a review by the Royal Institution and found it at http://royalsociety.
org/policy/projects/
shale-gas-extraction
/report/ - of course the same comments and views will continue as both sides ignore and mistrust what the other sides say.

pachallis is going offline - I may return in a while with a different "pen name" when something worth commenting on returns - I'm torn between Biro and Papermate
HJarrs et al - I saw I had 34 email from updates to Argus comments this morning - decided I have better things to do with my life than trying to search for some "truth" between what the pro and anti frackers are saying. The pro-frackers imply the anti-frackers are emotional tree huggers. The anti-frackers imply the pro-frackers are lethal capitalists. As in the New Scientist I think we need a proper independent review of all our energy needs. The German approach sounds possible but this needs to be reviewed to see applicability for the UK. I did see a reference to a review by the Royal Institution and found it at http://royalsociety. org/policy/projects/ shale-gas-extraction /report/ - of course the same comments and views will continue as both sides ignore and mistrust what the other sides say. pachallis is going offline - I may return in a while with a different "pen name" when something worth commenting on returns - I'm torn between Biro and Papermate pachallis
  • Score: -3

12:05pm Thu 15 Aug 13

PorkBoat says...

Morpheus wrote:
PorkBoat wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?
Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway!
Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?
How about not starting yet another process that will inevitably cause pollution and environmental damage in the first place?
Why don't we all become lemmings and jump over the cliff? That would solve everything.
Tell you what. Why don't you just go and **** yourself you obnoxious, self righteous ****?
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The process moving forward will be suitably regulated. What's the fuss?[/p][/quote]Shipping and oil wells are "suitably regulated" too, aren't they? But just look at the oil spill disasters on record that happen anyway![/p][/quote]Valerie - so should we stop all shipping and seal off all oil wells just in case? Should we stop mining anything - especially coal? Should we shut down all nuclear reactors and chemical plants just in case? Should we stop all transport and agriculture just in case? So must we stop anything that could lead to a "disaster"?[/p][/quote]How about not starting yet another process that will inevitably cause pollution and environmental damage in the first place?[/p][/quote]Why don't we all become lemmings and jump over the cliff? That would solve everything.[/p][/quote]Tell you what. Why don't you just go and **** yourself you obnoxious, self righteous ****? PorkBoat
  • Score: 3

12:29pm Thu 15 Aug 13

Hoveres2013 says...

322 Mason wrote:
Somedude12345 wrote:
Just proves that the government care only about keeping big business happy they couldn't give a monkeys balls about the people, absolutely disgusting they should be concentrating on renewable fuels not fossil fuel such as giving massive subsidies to the car industry to those manufacturers who develop efficient electric vehicles and making it financially cheaper to go electric by either massively taxing car manufacturers who don't produce electric cars and by banning the import of petro chemical cars this government is a joke
The country is really run by big business and not the goverment.They are just the face puppets to sell the lies to the nation.Its all run by 322 masons and that group the illuma.They have a de-population plan in place and food and water is their best way.Its time to wake up people.
Wow, Think you need to go roll another reefer my friend, Before the Illuminati come get you
[quote][p][bold]322 Mason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Somedude12345[/bold] wrote: Just proves that the government care only about keeping big business happy they couldn't give a monkeys balls about the people, absolutely disgusting they should be concentrating on renewable fuels not fossil fuel such as giving massive subsidies to the car industry to those manufacturers who develop efficient electric vehicles and making it financially cheaper to go electric by either massively taxing car manufacturers who don't produce electric cars and by banning the import of petro chemical cars this government is a joke[/p][/quote]The country is really run by big business and not the goverment.They are just the face puppets to sell the lies to the nation.Its all run by 322 masons and that group the illuma.They have a de-population plan in place and food and water is their best way.Its time to wake up people.[/p][/quote]Wow, Think you need to go roll another reefer my friend, Before the Illuminati come get you Hoveres2013
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Thu 15 Aug 13

Number Six says...

Royy Batty wrote:
Number Six wrote:
I feel very privileged to be surrounded by so many fracking experts.
I've got n idea. How about we abandon this fracking and instead we dig big tunnels underground. Then we can send men down there to dig the fossil fuels out. |That would be nice and safe, wouldn't it. It might even start its own industryHow about you make the effort to write a response when you have something constructive and reasonable to contribute instead of just taking the ****.

Talking of experts - a small fact for you - did you know that the 'experts' Caudrilla employ to monitor the radioactivity levels in their samples are proudly in possession of a 'certficate' gained on a course that took 2 whole days hard study to complete - it holds the academic equivalence of a GCSE Grade 2 - if that's good enough for you - fair enough - you're a more trusting fellow than I.

I'm quite amazed by how such apparently cynical commentators have invested so much innocent and childlike trust in people they don't know, after so little research, and yet are prepared to disrespect others who are showing concern for matters that affect all of us.

And what's the point in calling someone a tree-hugger FFS? What **** century is this? Should everyone be walking around wearing an Armani suit? I'm not a hippie, I probably pay more tax than you. But what has that got to do with the worth of anyone's opinion?

This government isn't allowing proper public debate on this subject and is trying to bulldoze through people's concerns. Even if drilling for oil / shale gas extraction in densely populated areas was the best thing ever, there should be proper debate because of the nature of the potential risks - this is one process that cannot be cleaned up afterwards.How about you make the effort to write a response when you have something constructive and reasonable to contribute instead of just taking the ****.

It's not for you to tell other people what to post. You're not qualified. You don't like it, ignore it.



Care to provide proof of that?

And what's the point in calling someone a tree-hugger

And where did I call you that, exactly?

I probably pay more tax than you . Really, how exactly do you know how much tax I pay. I thought that was between me, my employer and HMRC

there should be proper debate Now there we agree. I'm just not seeing any of it on here.
[quote][p][bold]Royy Batty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: I feel very privileged to be surrounded by so many fracking experts. I've got n idea. How about we abandon this fracking and instead we dig big tunnels underground. Then we can send men down there to dig the fossil fuels out. |That would be nice and safe, wouldn't it. It might even start its own industry[/p][/quote]How about you make the effort to write a response when you have something constructive and reasonable to contribute instead of just taking the ****. Talking of experts - a small fact for you - did you know that the 'experts' Caudrilla employ to monitor the radioactivity levels in their samples are proudly in possession of a 'certficate' gained on a course that took 2 whole days hard study to complete - it holds the academic equivalence of a GCSE Grade 2 - if that's good enough for you - fair enough - you're a more trusting fellow than I. I'm quite amazed by how such apparently cynical commentators have invested so much innocent and childlike trust in people they don't know, after so little research, and yet are prepared to disrespect others who are showing concern for matters that affect all of us. And what's the point in calling someone a tree-hugger FFS? What **** century is this? Should everyone be walking around wearing an Armani suit? I'm not a hippie, I probably pay more tax than you. But what has that got to do with the worth of anyone's opinion? This government isn't allowing proper public debate on this subject and is trying to bulldoze through people's concerns. Even if drilling for oil / shale gas extraction in densely populated areas was the best thing ever, there should be proper debate because of the nature of the potential risks - this is one process that cannot be cleaned up afterwards.[/p][/quote][quote]How about you make the effort to write a response when you have something constructive and reasonable to contribute instead of just taking the ****. [/quote] It's not for you to tell other people what to post. You're not qualified. You don't like it, ignore it. [quote}did you know that the 'experts' Caudrilla employ to monitor the radioactivity levels in their samples are proudly in possession of a 'certficate' gained on a course that took 2 whole days hard study to complete - it holds the academic equivalence of a GCSE Grade 2 [/quote] Care to provide proof of that? [quote] And what's the point in calling someone a tree-hugger[/quote] And where did I call you that, exactly? [quote] I probably pay more tax than you [/quote]. Really, how exactly do you know how much tax I pay. I thought that was between me, my employer and HMRC [quote]there should be proper debate [/quote] Now there we agree. I'm just not seeing any of it on here. Number Six
  • Score: 4

2:49pm Thu 15 Aug 13

mr_gee says...

@pachallis

"... according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use:
● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer ) ..."

A university study has shown that degradation of polyacrylamide can release acrylamide, a carcinogenic neurotoxin.

Also, in the chemical composition information that Cuadrilla has released the other component of their friction reducer is "hydrocarbon oil".

http://www.cuadrilla
resources.com/wp-con
tent/uploads/2012/02
/Chemical-Disclosure
-PH-1.jpg

This is a generic term for a group of chemicals. This can include benzene, a known component of fracking fluid which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. The fact they have listed it as simply "hydrocarbon oil" appears to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal potentially hazardous information from their so-called "chemical disclosure".

Why anyone would trust this company and its PR is baffling.
@pachallis "... according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use: ● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer ) ..." A university study has shown that degradation of polyacrylamide can release acrylamide, a carcinogenic neurotoxin. Also, in the chemical composition information that Cuadrilla has released the other component of their friction reducer is "hydrocarbon oil". http://www.cuadrilla resources.com/wp-con tent/uploads/2012/02 /Chemical-Disclosure -PH-1.jpg This is a generic term for a group of chemicals. This can include benzene, a known component of fracking fluid which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. The fact they have listed it as simply "hydrocarbon oil" appears to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal potentially hazardous information from their so-called "chemical disclosure". Why anyone would trust this company and its PR is baffling. mr_gee
  • Score: 4

4:11pm Thu 15 Aug 13

Ballroom Blitz says...

twonk wrote:
Ballroom Blitz wrote:
The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.
So what is this evidence? This was always just a test bore, it was never going to be for fracking, they were hoping to find OIL.
If you believe that you must be incredibly naive, or been living in a jungle out in Borneo or somewhere!
Don't be daft. Even Caudrilla are quite open about the fact that they are test drinking to see if fracking is viable. And our esteemed leader Camoron has never denied it either.
[quote][p][bold]twonk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: The fact that our government is allowing this is a total disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see.[/p][/quote]So what is this evidence? This was always just a test bore, it was never going to be for fracking, they were hoping to find OIL.[/p][/quote]If you believe that you must be incredibly naive, or been living in a jungle out in Borneo or somewhere! Don't be daft. Even Caudrilla are quite open about the fact that they are test drinking to see if fracking is viable. And our esteemed leader Camoron has never denied it either. Ballroom Blitz
  • Score: -4

10:24am Fri 16 Aug 13

pachallis says...

mr_gee wrote:
@pachallis

"... according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use:
● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer ) ..."

A university study has shown that degradation of polyacrylamide can release acrylamide, a carcinogenic neurotoxin.

Also, in the chemical composition information that Cuadrilla has released the other component of their friction reducer is "hydrocarbon oil".

http://www.cuadrilla

resources.com/wp-con

tent/uploads/2012/02

/Chemical-Disclosure

-PH-1.jpg

This is a generic term for a group of chemicals. This can include benzene, a known component of fracking fluid which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. The fact they have listed it as simply "hydrocarbon oil" appears to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal potentially hazardous information from their so-called "chemical disclosure".

Why anyone would trust this company and its PR is baffling.
@mr-gee,

Sorry had to comeback on this one - more dis-information from the anti-frackers.

Like common salt is made from sodium (explosive) and chorine (poisonous gas) you can, using electrolysis convert salt back into sodium and chlorine. So should we ban any use of salt (and I'm not talking about the food "salt police")?

Polyacrymalide (inert) is similarly made by the polymerisation of acrylamide (carcinogenic). Admittedly some of the acrylamide can remain in the final product, but polyacrymalide is apparently also used for making soft contact lenses and is used for "aesthetic facial surgery".

Apparently acrylamide is a naturally occurring chemical found in a wide variety of foods, such as potatoes.

If you look at the 1995 study by Kansas State University you find this was widely debated at the time and it was only in certain circumstances that acrylamide was released.

You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK?

Hydrocarbons are chemicals made of carbon and hydrogen - oils can be mineral or organic including paraffin, waxes sunflower oil and butte.

Please can you stop spreading "bad science" in the name of "eco-activism" - it just shows the lack of any real scientific basis to your claims - but is likely to be cherry-picked up by those who do not understand scientific principles but are looking for backup to their claims.
[quote][p][bold]mr_gee[/bold] wrote: @pachallis "... according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use: ● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer ) ..." A university study has shown that degradation of polyacrylamide can release acrylamide, a carcinogenic neurotoxin. Also, in the chemical composition information that Cuadrilla has released the other component of their friction reducer is "hydrocarbon oil". http://www.cuadrilla resources.com/wp-con tent/uploads/2012/02 /Chemical-Disclosure -PH-1.jpg This is a generic term for a group of chemicals. This can include benzene, a known component of fracking fluid which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. The fact they have listed it as simply "hydrocarbon oil" appears to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal potentially hazardous information from their so-called "chemical disclosure". Why anyone would trust this company and its PR is baffling.[/p][/quote]@mr-gee, Sorry had to comeback on this one - more dis-information from the anti-frackers. Like common salt is made from sodium (explosive) and chorine (poisonous gas) you can, using electrolysis convert salt back into sodium and chlorine. So should we ban any use of salt (and I'm not talking about the food "salt police")? Polyacrymalide (inert) is similarly made by the polymerisation of acrylamide (carcinogenic). Admittedly some of the acrylamide can remain in the final product, but polyacrymalide is apparently also used for making soft contact lenses and is used for "aesthetic facial surgery". Apparently acrylamide is a naturally occurring chemical found in a wide variety of foods, such as potatoes. If you look at the 1995 study by Kansas State University you find this was widely debated at the time and it was only in certain circumstances that acrylamide was released. You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK? Hydrocarbons are chemicals made of carbon and hydrogen - oils can be mineral or organic including paraffin, waxes sunflower oil and butte. Please can you stop spreading "bad science" in the name of "eco-activism" - it just shows the lack of any real scientific basis to your claims - but is likely to be cherry-picked up by those who do not understand scientific principles but are looking for backup to their claims. pachallis
  • Score: -2

12:35pm Fri 16 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

pachallis wrote:
mr_gee wrote:
@pachallis

"... according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use:
● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer ) ..."

A university study has shown that degradation of polyacrylamide can release acrylamide, a carcinogenic neurotoxin.

Also, in the chemical composition information that Cuadrilla has released the other component of their friction reducer is "hydrocarbon oil".

http://www.cuadrilla


resources.com/wp-con


tent/uploads/2012/02


/Chemical-Disclosure


-PH-1.jpg

This is a generic term for a group of chemicals. This can include benzene, a known component of fracking fluid which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. The fact they have listed it as simply "hydrocarbon oil" appears to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal potentially hazardous information from their so-called "chemical disclosure".

Why anyone would trust this company and its PR is baffling.
@mr-gee,

Sorry had to comeback on this one - more dis-information from the anti-frackers.

Like common salt is made from sodium (explosive) and chorine (poisonous gas) you can, using electrolysis convert salt back into sodium and chlorine. So should we ban any use of salt (and I'm not talking about the food "salt police")?

Polyacrymalide (inert) is similarly made by the polymerisation of acrylamide (carcinogenic). Admittedly some of the acrylamide can remain in the final product, but polyacrymalide is apparently also used for making soft contact lenses and is used for "aesthetic facial surgery".

Apparently acrylamide is a naturally occurring chemical found in a wide variety of foods, such as potatoes.

If you look at the 1995 study by Kansas State University you find this was widely debated at the time and it was only in certain circumstances that acrylamide was released.

You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK?

Hydrocarbons are chemicals made of carbon and hydrogen - oils can be mineral or organic including paraffin, waxes sunflower oil and butte.

Please can you stop spreading "bad science" in the name of "eco-activism" - it just shows the lack of any real scientific basis to your claims - but is likely to be cherry-picked up by those who do not understand scientific principles but are looking for backup to their claims.
On regards to 'cherry-picking quotes' unless you upload whole studies to support your assertions - that is exactly what you're doing (and what any political/academic practice does in making its case) Similarly, if we're discussing principles - science, although vital of course in this issue, is not the only ingredient in this cherry pudding - a pinch of integrity is needed to back up any scientific claims are to be made and if the integrity isn't there, what Cuadrilla claim they use cannot be trusted. Initial drilling companies in the US 'claimed to be using just 'sand and water' before the BENZENE HYDROCHLORIC ACID etc were discovered. This industry has NO integrity.

What Cuadrilla et al say and do are unfortunately, not the same.

I suppose it largely boils down to whether or you want to trust them or dip your head in their sand and water mixtures. Here's some more shiny ripe red fruit for you -

Cuadrilla a long established and trusted British company.

(owned by Australian engineering group AJ Lucas Group Limited (ASX:AJL) and private US equity group Riverstone Holdings LLC) have been questioned in their ability to adequately police their own methodology and practices (A Decc spokesman said: "As part of our investigation, which included Cuadrilla's report, it became clear there was an issue with Cuadrilla's internal reporting procedures.)

On and remember Conservative MP Charles Hendry Government Minister for Energy and Climate Change - he seemed to actually be doing his job -what happened to him shortly after this? I wonder -

(Cuadrilla has been warned by Ministers over its "performance as a licensee" at one of its Lancashire sites. It "failed to recognise the significance" of damage to a gas fracking well in 2011 and did not report it to Government officials for six months, leading to a stern reprimand by the Energy Minister, papers released under the Freedom of Information Act show.

In a letter to the company over a year after the incident, the then Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, expressed concern that it had not been reported to his officials at the time. He said the "failure" had exposed "weaknesses in Cuadrilla's performance as a licensee".)

Oh, yes. I remember he sort of got re-shuffled or sort of s.s.s....s.. dare I say SACKED! shortly after expressing his concern about Cuadrilla's procedure.

6 MONTHS without disclosing damage! You want to trust them? Be my guest. I'm afraid I can't.

There's plenty more on the tree, too! But that'll have to wait for now..
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mr_gee[/bold] wrote: @pachallis "... according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use: ● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer ) ..." A university study has shown that degradation of polyacrylamide can release acrylamide, a carcinogenic neurotoxin. Also, in the chemical composition information that Cuadrilla has released the other component of their friction reducer is "hydrocarbon oil". http://www.cuadrilla resources.com/wp-con tent/uploads/2012/02 /Chemical-Disclosure -PH-1.jpg This is a generic term for a group of chemicals. This can include benzene, a known component of fracking fluid which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. The fact they have listed it as simply "hydrocarbon oil" appears to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal potentially hazardous information from their so-called "chemical disclosure". Why anyone would trust this company and its PR is baffling.[/p][/quote]@mr-gee, Sorry had to comeback on this one - more dis-information from the anti-frackers. Like common salt is made from sodium (explosive) and chorine (poisonous gas) you can, using electrolysis convert salt back into sodium and chlorine. So should we ban any use of salt (and I'm not talking about the food "salt police")? Polyacrymalide (inert) is similarly made by the polymerisation of acrylamide (carcinogenic). Admittedly some of the acrylamide can remain in the final product, but polyacrymalide is apparently also used for making soft contact lenses and is used for "aesthetic facial surgery". Apparently acrylamide is a naturally occurring chemical found in a wide variety of foods, such as potatoes. If you look at the 1995 study by Kansas State University you find this was widely debated at the time and it was only in certain circumstances that acrylamide was released. You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK? Hydrocarbons are chemicals made of carbon and hydrogen - oils can be mineral or organic including paraffin, waxes sunflower oil and butte. Please can you stop spreading "bad science" in the name of "eco-activism" - it just shows the lack of any real scientific basis to your claims - but is likely to be cherry-picked up by those who do not understand scientific principles but are looking for backup to their claims.[/p][/quote]On regards to 'cherry-picking quotes' unless you upload whole studies to support your assertions - that is exactly what you're doing (and what any political/academic practice does in making its case) Similarly, if we're discussing principles - science, although vital of course in this issue, is not the only ingredient in this cherry pudding - a pinch of integrity is needed to back up any scientific claims are to be made and if the integrity isn't there, what Cuadrilla claim they use cannot be trusted. Initial drilling companies in the US 'claimed to be using just 'sand and water' before the BENZENE HYDROCHLORIC ACID etc were discovered. This industry has NO integrity. What Cuadrilla et al say and do are unfortunately, not the same. I suppose it largely boils down to whether or you want to trust them or dip your head in their sand and water mixtures. Here's some more shiny ripe red fruit for you - Cuadrilla a long established and trusted British company. (owned by Australian engineering group AJ Lucas Group Limited (ASX:AJL) and private US equity group Riverstone Holdings LLC) have been questioned in their ability to adequately police their own methodology and practices (A Decc spokesman said: "As part of our investigation, which included Cuadrilla's report, it became clear there was an issue with Cuadrilla's internal reporting procedures.) On and remember Conservative MP Charles Hendry Government Minister for Energy and Climate Change - he seemed to actually be doing his job -what happened to him shortly after this? I wonder - (Cuadrilla has been warned by Ministers over its "performance as a licensee" at one of its Lancashire sites. It "failed to recognise the significance" of damage to a gas fracking well in 2011 and did not report it to Government officials for six months, leading to a stern reprimand by the Energy Minister, papers released under the Freedom of Information Act show. In a letter to the company over a year after the incident, the then Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, expressed concern that it had not been reported to his officials at the time. He said the "failure" had exposed "weaknesses in Cuadrilla's performance as a licensee".) Oh, yes. I remember he sort of got re-shuffled or sort of s.s.s....s.. dare I say SACKED! shortly after expressing his concern about Cuadrilla's procedure. 6 MONTHS without disclosing damage! You want to trust them? Be my guest. I'm afraid I can't. There's plenty more on the tree, too! But that'll have to wait for now.. Royy Batty
  • Score: 1

12:55pm Fri 16 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

Royy Batty wrote:
pachallis wrote:
mr_gee wrote:
@pachallis

"... according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use:
● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer ) ..."

A university study has shown that degradation of polyacrylamide can release acrylamide, a carcinogenic neurotoxin.

Also, in the chemical composition information that Cuadrilla has released the other component of their friction reducer is "hydrocarbon oil".

http://www.cuadrilla



resources.com/wp-con



tent/uploads/2012/02



/Chemical-Disclosure



-PH-1.jpg

This is a generic term for a group of chemicals. This can include benzene, a known component of fracking fluid which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. The fact they have listed it as simply "hydrocarbon oil" appears to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal potentially hazardous information from their so-called "chemical disclosure".

Why anyone would trust this company and its PR is baffling.
@mr-gee,

Sorry had to comeback on this one - more dis-information from the anti-frackers.

Like common salt is made from sodium (explosive) and chorine (poisonous gas) you can, using electrolysis convert salt back into sodium and chlorine. So should we ban any use of salt (and I'm not talking about the food "salt police")?

Polyacrymalide (inert) is similarly made by the polymerisation of acrylamide (carcinogenic). Admittedly some of the acrylamide can remain in the final product, but polyacrymalide is apparently also used for making soft contact lenses and is used for "aesthetic facial surgery".

Apparently acrylamide is a naturally occurring chemical found in a wide variety of foods, such as potatoes.

If you look at the 1995 study by Kansas State University you find this was widely debated at the time and it was only in certain circumstances that acrylamide was released.

You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK?

Hydrocarbons are chemicals made of carbon and hydrogen - oils can be mineral or organic including paraffin, waxes sunflower oil and butte.

Please can you stop spreading "bad science" in the name of "eco-activism" - it just shows the lack of any real scientific basis to your claims - but is likely to be cherry-picked up by those who do not understand scientific principles but are looking for backup to their claims.
On regards to 'cherry-picking quotes' unless you upload whole studies to support your assertions - that is exactly what you're doing (and what any political/academic practice does in making its case) Similarly, if we're discussing principles - science, although vital of course in this issue, is not the only ingredient in this cherry pudding - a pinch of integrity is needed to back up any scientific claims are to be made and if the integrity isn't there, what Cuadrilla claim they use cannot be trusted. Initial drilling companies in the US 'claimed to be using just 'sand and water' before the BENZENE HYDROCHLORIC ACID etc were discovered. This industry has NO integrity.

What Cuadrilla et al say and do are unfortunately, not the same.

I suppose it largely boils down to whether or you want to trust them or dip your head in their sand and water mixtures. Here's some more shiny ripe red fruit for you -

Cuadrilla a long established and trusted British company.

(owned by Australian engineering group AJ Lucas Group Limited (ASX:AJL) and private US equity group Riverstone Holdings LLC) have been questioned in their ability to adequately police their own methodology and practices (A Decc spokesman said: "As part of our investigation, which included Cuadrilla's report, it became clear there was an issue with Cuadrilla's internal reporting procedures.)

On and remember Conservative MP Charles Hendry Government Minister for Energy and Climate Change - he seemed to actually be doing his job -what happened to him shortly after this? I wonder -

(Cuadrilla has been warned by Ministers over its "performance as a licensee" at one of its Lancashire sites. It "failed to recognise the significance" of damage to a gas fracking well in 2011 and did not report it to Government officials for six months, leading to a stern reprimand by the Energy Minister, papers released under the Freedom of Information Act show.

In a letter to the company over a year after the incident, the then Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, expressed concern that it had not been reported to his officials at the time. He said the "failure" had exposed "weaknesses in Cuadrilla's performance as a licensee".)

Oh, yes. I remember he sort of got re-shuffled or sort of s.s.s....s.. dare I say SACKED! shortly after expressing his concern about Cuadrilla's procedure.

6 MONTHS without disclosing damage! You want to trust them? Be my guest. I'm afraid I can't.

There's plenty more on the tree, too! But that'll have to wait for now..
I just realised - bit slow - Even Hendry sat on it for a further 6 months - a whole year passed before any action was taken. But you go on - a trusting nature is actually something I admire very much.
[quote][p][bold]Royy Batty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mr_gee[/bold] wrote: @pachallis "... according the Cuadrilla's web site they would use: ● Polyacrylamide (friction reducer ) ..." A university study has shown that degradation of polyacrylamide can release acrylamide, a carcinogenic neurotoxin. Also, in the chemical composition information that Cuadrilla has released the other component of their friction reducer is "hydrocarbon oil". http://www.cuadrilla resources.com/wp-con tent/uploads/2012/02 /Chemical-Disclosure -PH-1.jpg This is a generic term for a group of chemicals. This can include benzene, a known component of fracking fluid which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. The fact they have listed it as simply "hydrocarbon oil" appears to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal potentially hazardous information from their so-called "chemical disclosure". Why anyone would trust this company and its PR is baffling.[/p][/quote]@mr-gee, Sorry had to comeback on this one - more dis-information from the anti-frackers. Like common salt is made from sodium (explosive) and chorine (poisonous gas) you can, using electrolysis convert salt back into sodium and chlorine. So should we ban any use of salt (and I'm not talking about the food "salt police")? Polyacrymalide (inert) is similarly made by the polymerisation of acrylamide (carcinogenic). Admittedly some of the acrylamide can remain in the final product, but polyacrymalide is apparently also used for making soft contact lenses and is used for "aesthetic facial surgery". Apparently acrylamide is a naturally occurring chemical found in a wide variety of foods, such as potatoes. If you look at the 1995 study by Kansas State University you find this was widely debated at the time and it was only in certain circumstances that acrylamide was released. You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK? Hydrocarbons are chemicals made of carbon and hydrogen - oils can be mineral or organic including paraffin, waxes sunflower oil and butte. Please can you stop spreading "bad science" in the name of "eco-activism" - it just shows the lack of any real scientific basis to your claims - but is likely to be cherry-picked up by those who do not understand scientific principles but are looking for backup to their claims.[/p][/quote]On regards to 'cherry-picking quotes' unless you upload whole studies to support your assertions - that is exactly what you're doing (and what any political/academic practice does in making its case) Similarly, if we're discussing principles - science, although vital of course in this issue, is not the only ingredient in this cherry pudding - a pinch of integrity is needed to back up any scientific claims are to be made and if the integrity isn't there, what Cuadrilla claim they use cannot be trusted. Initial drilling companies in the US 'claimed to be using just 'sand and water' before the BENZENE HYDROCHLORIC ACID etc were discovered. This industry has NO integrity. What Cuadrilla et al say and do are unfortunately, not the same. I suppose it largely boils down to whether or you want to trust them or dip your head in their sand and water mixtures. Here's some more shiny ripe red fruit for you - Cuadrilla a long established and trusted British company. (owned by Australian engineering group AJ Lucas Group Limited (ASX:AJL) and private US equity group Riverstone Holdings LLC) have been questioned in their ability to adequately police their own methodology and practices (A Decc spokesman said: "As part of our investigation, which included Cuadrilla's report, it became clear there was an issue with Cuadrilla's internal reporting procedures.) On and remember Conservative MP Charles Hendry Government Minister for Energy and Climate Change - he seemed to actually be doing his job -what happened to him shortly after this? I wonder - (Cuadrilla has been warned by Ministers over its "performance as a licensee" at one of its Lancashire sites. It "failed to recognise the significance" of damage to a gas fracking well in 2011 and did not report it to Government officials for six months, leading to a stern reprimand by the Energy Minister, papers released under the Freedom of Information Act show. In a letter to the company over a year after the incident, the then Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, expressed concern that it had not been reported to his officials at the time. He said the "failure" had exposed "weaknesses in Cuadrilla's performance as a licensee".) Oh, yes. I remember he sort of got re-shuffled or sort of s.s.s....s.. dare I say SACKED! shortly after expressing his concern about Cuadrilla's procedure. 6 MONTHS without disclosing damage! You want to trust them? Be my guest. I'm afraid I can't. There's plenty more on the tree, too! But that'll have to wait for now..[/p][/quote]I just realised - bit slow - Even Hendry sat on it for a further 6 months - a whole year passed before any action was taken. But you go on - a trusting nature is actually something I admire very much. Royy Batty
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Fri 16 Aug 13

pachallis says...

@Royy Batty - so you admit their is no actual scientific reason against fracking - it is all because you don't trust Cuadrilla or Government or any big business. Who would you trust with UK energy?

Similarly, the No Dash for Gas group taking over Balcombe have nothing technically against fracking - they are just against burning ANY fossil fuels.
@Royy Batty - so you admit their is no actual scientific reason against fracking - it is all because you don't trust Cuadrilla or Government or any big business. Who would you trust with UK energy? Similarly, the No Dash for Gas group taking over Balcombe have nothing technically against fracking - they are just against burning ANY fossil fuels. pachallis
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Fri 16 Aug 13

mr_gee says...

@pachallis

Salt requires specific chemical processing (electrolysis) to break it down into constituent parts. Conversely " polyacrylamide polymers are susceptible to chemical, thermal, and mechanical degradation" under which conditions they can release acrylamide, which if far more problematic than sodium and chlorine. So to draw a parallel between the two is somewhat of a straw-man argument.

"You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK?"

I didn't *assume* it will contain benzene. I simply said that benzene is classified under the term hydrocarbon oil and has been used in fracking fluid. I did not positively state that the specific fluid that Cuadrilla are using does in fact contain benzene, I merely pointed out their lack of transparency in their so-called "chemical disclosure". The current classification allows them to hide chemicals such as benzene, for example. If they are not trying to hide the chemicals they generically labelled as "hydrocarbon oil" then why not include this information in their disclosure? Your charge of disinformation is ironic considering the way you have misrepresented my argument.
@pachallis Salt requires specific chemical processing (electrolysis) to break it down into constituent parts. Conversely " polyacrylamide polymers are susceptible to chemical, thermal, and mechanical degradation" under which conditions they can release acrylamide, which if far more problematic than sodium and chlorine. So to draw a parallel between the two is somewhat of a straw-man argument. "You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK?" I didn't *assume* it will contain benzene. I simply said that benzene is classified under the term hydrocarbon oil and has been used in fracking fluid. I did not positively state that the specific fluid that Cuadrilla are using does in fact contain benzene, I merely pointed out their lack of transparency in their so-called "chemical disclosure". The current classification allows them to hide chemicals such as benzene, for example. If they are not trying to hide the chemicals they generically labelled as "hydrocarbon oil" then why not include this information in their disclosure? Your charge of disinformation is ironic considering the way you have misrepresented my argument. mr_gee
  • Score: 2

2:51pm Fri 16 Aug 13

pachallis says...

mr_gee wrote:
@pachallis

Salt requires specific chemical processing (electrolysis) to break it down into constituent parts. Conversely " polyacrylamide polymers are susceptible to chemical, thermal, and mechanical degradation" under which conditions they can release acrylamide, which if far more problematic than sodium and chlorine. So to draw a parallel between the two is somewhat of a straw-man argument.

"You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK?"

I didn't *assume* it will contain benzene. I simply said that benzene is classified under the term hydrocarbon oil and has been used in fracking fluid. I did not positively state that the specific fluid that Cuadrilla are using does in fact contain benzene, I merely pointed out their lack of transparency in their so-called "chemical disclosure". The current classification allows them to hide chemicals such as benzene, for example. If they are not trying to hide the chemicals they generically labelled as "hydrocarbon oil" then why not include this information in their disclosure? Your charge of disinformation is ironic considering the way you have misrepresented my argument.
@mr-gee - so why did you imply Benzene was going to be an issue when it has never been mentioned? I call this misinformation.

Why didn't you list some more hydrocarbon oils that are safe as well for balance?

Similarly, will the conditions that cause polyacrylamide to decompose into acylramide occur as art of the fracking process and if so would the likely yields be sufficient to cause any real dangers? Potential issues are not the same as realistic issues.

Again, please stop raising hypothetical problems that may or may not really exist but are designed to generate paranoia with terms like "carcinogenic". I call this misinformation - information designed to mislead the reader.

If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the detail report at http://royalsociety.
org/policy/projects/
shale-gas-extraction
/report/
for a more reasonable, independent, view (including for and against arguments and proposed safeguards).
[quote][p][bold]mr_gee[/bold] wrote: @pachallis Salt requires specific chemical processing (electrolysis) to break it down into constituent parts. Conversely " polyacrylamide polymers are susceptible to chemical, thermal, and mechanical degradation" under which conditions they can release acrylamide, which if far more problematic than sodium and chlorine. So to draw a parallel between the two is somewhat of a straw-man argument. "You are similarly extrapolating the term "hydrocarbon oil" to assume it will contain benzene based on what? Where does it say that benzene will be a component of fracking liquid in the UK?" I didn't *assume* it will contain benzene. I simply said that benzene is classified under the term hydrocarbon oil and has been used in fracking fluid. I did not positively state that the specific fluid that Cuadrilla are using does in fact contain benzene, I merely pointed out their lack of transparency in their so-called "chemical disclosure". The current classification allows them to hide chemicals such as benzene, for example. If they are not trying to hide the chemicals they generically labelled as "hydrocarbon oil" then why not include this information in their disclosure? Your charge of disinformation is ironic considering the way you have misrepresented my argument.[/p][/quote]@mr-gee - so why did you imply Benzene was going to be an issue when it has never been mentioned? I call this misinformation. Why didn't you list some more hydrocarbon oils that are safe as well for balance? Similarly, will the conditions that cause polyacrylamide to decompose into acylramide occur as art of the fracking process and if so would the likely yields be sufficient to cause any real dangers? Potential issues are not the same as realistic issues. Again, please stop raising hypothetical problems that may or may not really exist but are designed to generate paranoia with terms like "carcinogenic". I call this misinformation - information designed to mislead the reader. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the detail report at http://royalsociety. org/policy/projects/ shale-gas-extraction /report/ for a more reasonable, independent, view (including for and against arguments and proposed safeguards). pachallis
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Fri 16 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

pachallis wrote:
@Royy Batty - so you admit their is no actual scientific reason against fracking - it is all because you don't trust Cuadrilla or Government or any big business. Who would you trust with UK energy?

Similarly, the No Dash for Gas group taking over Balcombe have nothing technically against fracking - they are just against burning ANY fossil fuels.
No, I don't admit to that - in fact I disagree. There are plenty of scientific arguments against fracking - some of which I'll try and post links to when I've finished work and have time.

While you seem to be keen to discuss the minutiae of the chemical process, I would say look beyond that and say that it's moot to discuss what Cuadrilla say they using, because they are untrustworthy as is shown in the quotes - government quotes not mine -

(A Decc spokesman said: "As part of our investigation, which included Cuadrilla's report, it became clear there was an issue with Cuadrilla's internal reporting procedures.)

(Cuadrilla has been warned by Ministers over its "performance as a licensee" at one of its Lancashire sites. It "failed to recognise the significance" of damage to a gas fracking well in 2011 and did not report it to Government officials for six months, leading to a stern reprimand by the Energy Minister, papers released under the Freedom of Information Act show.

In a letter to the company over a year after the incident, the then Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, expressed concern that it had not been reported to his officials at the time. He said the "failure" had exposed "weaknesses in Cuadrilla's performance as a licensee".)

Who would I trust with UK energy - well I trusted the Tories because they said they were keen to implement an environmentally sound program - that doesn't seem to have been a very good idea.

As this is such an important issue I would eventually perhaps trust a cross-party body set up to commit to an environmentally sound program that would be followed through. I would recommend that they should seriously consider looking at some of the German Energiewende program and look to improve upon it. This is not my area of research and I don't profess to be an expert in this area, BUT I can see how its efficiency increases hugely in proportion to what is invested, not only in terms of money and technology, but in terms of industrial and economic adaption, but most crucially in terms of cultural change - this change IS happening worldwide (attitudes have seriously changed over the last 2 decades in Britain), but is also being slowed by the fossils in the fossil brigade. Sad thing is these pills aren't so painful to swallow if you don't faff around and fail to commit in the way the current Gov has. The polemic attitudes are staggering and a result of pandering to media politics - things don't always have to be either or, except when the safeguard of where we live is concerned.

I can't speak for No Dash for Gas - I don't really believe its the Sandinista moving in, do you? - good for an inflammatory polemic news story - which I'm sure you can see through. As for 'for 'taking over' - that comment does you an injustice - they aren't putting razor wire up round THEIR camp are they et la Cuadrilla. I hope there's no trouble - on my visit to Lower Stumble to take the of the land, the only violence I witnessed was unfortunately a legalised kind which involved a 14 year old Balcombe girl being dragged around by the leg and then handcuffed - actually, not so legal - a complaint has been logged. Stil, I digress...

I should imagine NDFG are ultimately very much against burning ANY fossil fuels, I know I am and although that's in a distant future - civilisations that lack foresight (or reason in this instance) tend to pay the price.

I imagine it's only US creationists seeking an early Armageddon that might still be hitching their wagons to the dying star of Carbon. Even the oil companies pay lip service to evolution in this regard and do actually invest substantially in other clean Green technologies - which kind of makes me open my eyes about them squeezing the shale sponge in this way. The oil industry, like any other, puts profit first - often with no regard for the consequences - and this current dash for gas fits that scenario. It is you and I who will be picking up a very big, and sadly unnecessary bill.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @Royy Batty - so you admit their is no actual scientific reason against fracking - it is all because you don't trust Cuadrilla or Government or any big business. Who would you trust with UK energy? Similarly, the No Dash for Gas group taking over Balcombe have nothing technically against fracking - they are just against burning ANY fossil fuels.[/p][/quote]No, I don't admit to that - in fact I disagree. There are plenty of scientific arguments against fracking - some of which I'll try and post links to when I've finished work and have time. While you seem to be keen to discuss the minutiae of the chemical process, I would say look beyond that and say that it's moot to discuss what Cuadrilla say they using, because they are untrustworthy as is shown in the quotes - government quotes not mine - (A Decc spokesman said: "As part of our investigation, which included Cuadrilla's report, it became clear there was an issue with Cuadrilla's internal reporting procedures.) (Cuadrilla has been warned by Ministers over its "performance as a licensee" at one of its Lancashire sites. It "failed to recognise the significance" of damage to a gas fracking well in 2011 and did not report it to Government officials for six months, leading to a stern reprimand by the Energy Minister, papers released under the Freedom of Information Act show. In a letter to the company over a year after the incident, the then Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, expressed concern that it had not been reported to his officials at the time. He said the "failure" had exposed "weaknesses in Cuadrilla's performance as a licensee".) Who would I trust with UK energy - well I trusted the Tories because they said they were keen to implement an environmentally sound program - that doesn't seem to have been a very good idea. As this is such an important issue I would eventually perhaps trust a cross-party body set up to commit to an environmentally sound program that would be followed through. I would recommend that they should seriously consider looking at some of the German Energiewende program and look to improve upon it. This is not my area of research and I don't profess to be an expert in this area, BUT I can see how its efficiency increases hugely in proportion to what is invested, not only in terms of money and technology, but in terms of industrial and economic adaption, but most crucially in terms of cultural change - this change IS happening worldwide (attitudes have seriously changed over the last 2 decades in Britain), but is also being slowed by the fossils in the fossil brigade. Sad thing is these pills aren't so painful to swallow if you don't faff around and fail to commit in the way the current Gov has. The polemic attitudes are staggering and a result of pandering to media politics - things don't always have to be either or, except when the safeguard of where we live is concerned. I can't speak for No Dash for Gas - I don't really believe its the Sandinista moving in, do you? - good for an inflammatory polemic news story - which I'm sure you can see through. As for 'for 'taking over' - that comment does you an injustice - they aren't putting razor wire up round THEIR camp are they et la Cuadrilla. I hope there's no trouble - on my visit to Lower Stumble to take the [Lie] of the land, the only violence I witnessed was unfortunately a legalised kind which involved a 14 year old Balcombe girl being dragged around by the leg and then handcuffed - actually, not so legal - a complaint has been logged. Stil, I digress... I should imagine NDFG are ultimately very much against burning ANY fossil fuels, I know I am and although that's in a distant future - civilisations that lack foresight (or reason in this instance) tend to pay the price. I imagine it's only US creationists seeking an early Armageddon that might still be hitching their wagons to the dying star of Carbon. Even the oil companies pay lip service to evolution in this regard and do actually invest substantially in other clean Green technologies - which kind of makes me open my eyes about them squeezing the shale sponge in this way. The oil industry, like any other, puts profit first - often with no regard for the consequences - and this current dash for gas fits that scenario. It is you and I who will be picking up a very big, and sadly unnecessary bill. Royy Batty
  • Score: 2

3:01pm Fri 16 Aug 13

pachallis says...

Royy Batty wrote:
pachallis wrote:
@Royy Batty - so you admit their is no actual scientific reason against fracking - it is all because you don't trust Cuadrilla or Government or any big business. Who would you trust with UK energy?

Similarly, the No Dash for Gas group taking over Balcombe have nothing technically against fracking - they are just against burning ANY fossil fuels.
No, I don't admit to that - in fact I disagree. There are plenty of scientific arguments against fracking - some of which I'll try and post links to when I've finished work and have time.

While you seem to be keen to discuss the minutiae of the chemical process, I would say look beyond that and say that it's moot to discuss what Cuadrilla say they using, because they are untrustworthy as is shown in the quotes - government quotes not mine -

(A Decc spokesman said: "As part of our investigation, which included Cuadrilla's report, it became clear there was an issue with Cuadrilla's internal reporting procedures.)

(Cuadrilla has been warned by Ministers over its "performance as a licensee" at one of its Lancashire sites. It "failed to recognise the significance" of damage to a gas fracking well in 2011 and did not report it to Government officials for six months, leading to a stern reprimand by the Energy Minister, papers released under the Freedom of Information Act show.

In a letter to the company over a year after the incident, the then Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, expressed concern that it had not been reported to his officials at the time. He said the "failure" had exposed "weaknesses in Cuadrilla's performance as a licensee".)

Who would I trust with UK energy - well I trusted the Tories because they said they were keen to implement an environmentally sound program - that doesn't seem to have been a very good idea.

As this is such an important issue I would eventually perhaps trust a cross-party body set up to commit to an environmentally sound program that would be followed through. I would recommend that they should seriously consider looking at some of the German Energiewende program and look to improve upon it. This is not my area of research and I don't profess to be an expert in this area, BUT I can see how its efficiency increases hugely in proportion to what is invested, not only in terms of money and technology, but in terms of industrial and economic adaption, but most crucially in terms of cultural change - this change IS happening worldwide (attitudes have seriously changed over the last 2 decades in Britain), but is also being slowed by the fossils in the fossil brigade. Sad thing is these pills aren't so painful to swallow if you don't faff around and fail to commit in the way the current Gov has. The polemic attitudes are staggering and a result of pandering to media politics - things don't always have to be either or, except when the safeguard of where we live is concerned.

I can't speak for No Dash for Gas - I don't really believe its the Sandinista moving in, do you? - good for an inflammatory polemic news story - which I'm sure you can see through. As for 'for 'taking over' - that comment does you an injustice - they aren't putting razor wire up round THEIR camp are they et la Cuadrilla. I hope there's no trouble - on my visit to Lower Stumble to take the of the land, the only violence I witnessed was unfortunately a legalised kind which involved a 14 year old Balcombe girl being dragged around by the leg and then handcuffed - actually, not so legal - a complaint has been logged. Stil, I digress...

I should imagine NDFG are ultimately very much against burning ANY fossil fuels, I know I am and although that's in a distant future - civilisations that lack foresight (or reason in this instance) tend to pay the price.

I imagine it's only US creationists seeking an early Armageddon that might still be hitching their wagons to the dying star of Carbon. Even the oil companies pay lip service to evolution in this regard and do actually invest substantially in other clean Green technologies - which kind of makes me open my eyes about them squeezing the shale sponge in this way. The oil industry, like any other, puts profit first - often with no regard for the consequences - and this current dash for gas fits that scenario. It is you and I who will be picking up a very big, and sadly unnecessary bill.
@Royy Batty - I do agree with your final comments - yes - we do need to sort out where we are going in the future. But this needs to be done as a planned migration from where we are now to the new future (may be similar to Energiewende if it works for the UK).

However this needs to be done without creating paranoia about the dangers of fracking or NDFG (AFAIK) threatening civil disobedience to get their own way.

We need a proper migration plan with all sides involved to make sure that we know where we are going and have a safe path to get us there.

Perhaps we do indeed, need fracking as part of this route? If so let's do it in the safest way possible, being aware of all the dangers - as per the Royal Society report.
[quote][p][bold]Royy Batty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @Royy Batty - so you admit their is no actual scientific reason against fracking - it is all because you don't trust Cuadrilla or Government or any big business. Who would you trust with UK energy? Similarly, the No Dash for Gas group taking over Balcombe have nothing technically against fracking - they are just against burning ANY fossil fuels.[/p][/quote]No, I don't admit to that - in fact I disagree. There are plenty of scientific arguments against fracking - some of which I'll try and post links to when I've finished work and have time. While you seem to be keen to discuss the minutiae of the chemical process, I would say look beyond that and say that it's moot to discuss what Cuadrilla say they using, because they are untrustworthy as is shown in the quotes - government quotes not mine - (A Decc spokesman said: "As part of our investigation, which included Cuadrilla's report, it became clear there was an issue with Cuadrilla's internal reporting procedures.) (Cuadrilla has been warned by Ministers over its "performance as a licensee" at one of its Lancashire sites. It "failed to recognise the significance" of damage to a gas fracking well in 2011 and did not report it to Government officials for six months, leading to a stern reprimand by the Energy Minister, papers released under the Freedom of Information Act show. In a letter to the company over a year after the incident, the then Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, expressed concern that it had not been reported to his officials at the time. He said the "failure" had exposed "weaknesses in Cuadrilla's performance as a licensee".) Who would I trust with UK energy - well I trusted the Tories because they said they were keen to implement an environmentally sound program - that doesn't seem to have been a very good idea. As this is such an important issue I would eventually perhaps trust a cross-party body set up to commit to an environmentally sound program that would be followed through. I would recommend that they should seriously consider looking at some of the German Energiewende program and look to improve upon it. This is not my area of research and I don't profess to be an expert in this area, BUT I can see how its efficiency increases hugely in proportion to what is invested, not only in terms of money and technology, but in terms of industrial and economic adaption, but most crucially in terms of cultural change - this change IS happening worldwide (attitudes have seriously changed over the last 2 decades in Britain), but is also being slowed by the fossils in the fossil brigade. Sad thing is these pills aren't so painful to swallow if you don't faff around and fail to commit in the way the current Gov has. The polemic attitudes are staggering and a result of pandering to media politics - things don't always have to be either or, except when the safeguard of where we live is concerned. I can't speak for No Dash for Gas - I don't really believe its the Sandinista moving in, do you? - good for an inflammatory polemic news story - which I'm sure you can see through. As for 'for 'taking over' - that comment does you an injustice - they aren't putting razor wire up round THEIR camp are they et la Cuadrilla. I hope there's no trouble - on my visit to Lower Stumble to take the [Lie] of the land, the only violence I witnessed was unfortunately a legalised kind which involved a 14 year old Balcombe girl being dragged around by the leg and then handcuffed - actually, not so legal - a complaint has been logged. Stil, I digress... I should imagine NDFG are ultimately very much against burning ANY fossil fuels, I know I am and although that's in a distant future - civilisations that lack foresight (or reason in this instance) tend to pay the price. I imagine it's only US creationists seeking an early Armageddon that might still be hitching their wagons to the dying star of Carbon. Even the oil companies pay lip service to evolution in this regard and do actually invest substantially in other clean Green technologies - which kind of makes me open my eyes about them squeezing the shale sponge in this way. The oil industry, like any other, puts profit first - often with no regard for the consequences - and this current dash for gas fits that scenario. It is you and I who will be picking up a very big, and sadly unnecessary bill.[/p][/quote]@Royy Batty - I do agree with your final comments - yes - we do need to sort out where we are going in the future. But this needs to be done as a planned migration from where we are now to the new future (may be similar to Energiewende if it works for the UK). However this needs to be done without creating paranoia about the dangers of fracking or NDFG (AFAIK) threatening civil disobedience to get their own way. We need a proper migration plan with all sides involved to make sure that we know where we are going and have a safe path to get us there. Perhaps we do indeed, need fracking as part of this route? If so let's do it in the safest way possible, being aware of all the dangers - as per the Royal Society report. pachallis
  • Score: 1

10:23pm Sat 17 Aug 13

pebble counter says...

The people of Balcombe do not want this operation to continue. They've tried peaceful protest, direct action will now follow. This includes tunneling into the area where the drilling head is. Going over the fence too obvious, and those Gurkhas are tough, so must use the element of surprise. The drill will then be extracted using the worlds biggest chuck key, and the point ground off. Other tactics include smiling, laughing and hope. Good luck to the protesters, and get lost the greedy money grabbing Earth raping cretins at Cuadrilla.
The people of Balcombe do not want this operation to continue. They've tried peaceful protest, direct action will now follow. This includes tunneling into the area where the drilling head is. Going over the fence too obvious, and those Gurkhas are tough, so must use the element of surprise. The drill will then be extracted using the worlds biggest chuck key, and the point ground off. Other tactics include smiling, laughing and hope. Good luck to the protesters, and get lost the greedy money grabbing Earth raping cretins at Cuadrilla. pebble counter
  • Score: 2

1:30am Sun 18 Aug 13

mr_gee says...

@pachallis

"why did you imply Benzene was going to be an issue when it has never been mentioned? I call this misinformation."

I call this misrepresentation again, something you have a propensity for. I didn't imply it was "going" to be an issue, I pointed out that it has been an issue in US fracking, Cuadrilla's "disclosure" did not rule it out as a potential problem. It is in fact is highly suspicious, given the similar behaviour of US counterparts who have attempted to hide chemicals behind bogus PR and "trade secret" legislation. You seem to have a real problem with reading words and understanding their intent. "Misinformation" becomes misunderstanding and misrepresentation on your part.

"Why didn't you list some more hydrocarbon oils that are safe as well for balance?"

I pointed out a toxic chemical that is known to have been used in fracking fluid since that is what I was discussing and what I have knowledge of. Safe is a relative term in this context anyway, there has not been sufficient study into the long term effects of many of the chemicals used in fracturing to confidently say they are truly safe for this purpose. Until that work has been done, the willingness some people have to pump untold gallons of these into our eco-systems should be of massive concern to anybody.

"Similarly, will the conditions that cause polyacrylamide to decompose into acylramide occur as art of the fracking process"

Quite possibly. Since mechanical and heat degradation can occur due to the high sheer rates at close proximity to well bores and chemical degradation occurs in reaction to iron oxidisation (rust) which is a factor when industrial machinery is exposed to water. The longer such effects continue, the higher the concentration of acrylamide as it accumulates and is distributed throughout the area by the fracking process.

"Again, please stop raising hypothetical problems that may or may not really exist"

I have raised problems which either, do exist (in US fracking) or have a pretty fair likelihood of existing generally. So no, I will not desist. Either way, it should be up to environmental scientists (not linked to lobby groups) to conclusively rule out these problems *before* any fracking is given the go-ahead. In the rush to cash in, this is not happening in many cases. If problems are discovered after the fact, then it is too late to undo the damage.

Polyacrylimide and harmful "hydrocarbon oils" are not even the only issues. The glutaraldehyde used in the biocide is also moderately toxic and has been shown to cause serious allergic reaction at low concentrations. And these are just two of the chemicals Cuadrilla has admitted to have used at one specific drill site. Other *commonly used* chemicals have a deleterious effect on wildlife, such as kerosene (another "hydrocarbon oil") which is dangerous to aquatic life. In short a littany of toxic chemicals whose long-term safety in the context of hydraulic fracturing has either been brought into serious question or lacks sufficient study to be ruled safe for this use.
@pachallis "why did you imply Benzene was going to be an issue when it has never been mentioned? I call this misinformation." I call this misrepresentation again, something you have a propensity for. I didn't imply it was "going" to be an issue, I pointed out that it has been an issue in US fracking, Cuadrilla's "disclosure" did not rule it out as a potential problem. It is in fact is highly suspicious, given the similar behaviour of US counterparts who have attempted to hide chemicals behind bogus PR and "trade secret" legislation. You seem to have a real problem with reading words and understanding their intent. "Misinformation" becomes misunderstanding and misrepresentation on your part. "Why didn't you list some more hydrocarbon oils that are safe as well for balance?" I pointed out a toxic chemical that is known to have been used in fracking fluid since that is what I was discussing and what I have knowledge of. Safe is a relative term in this context anyway, there has not been sufficient study into the long term effects of many of the chemicals used in fracturing to confidently say they are truly safe for this purpose. Until that work has been done, the willingness some people have to pump untold gallons of these into our eco-systems should be of massive concern to anybody. "Similarly, will the conditions that cause polyacrylamide to decompose into acylramide occur as art of the fracking process" Quite possibly. Since mechanical and heat degradation can occur due to the high sheer rates at close proximity to well bores and chemical degradation occurs in reaction to iron oxidisation (rust) which is a factor when industrial machinery is exposed to water. The longer such effects continue, the higher the concentration of acrylamide as it accumulates and is distributed throughout the area by the fracking process. "Again, please stop raising hypothetical problems that may or may not really exist" I have raised problems which either, do exist (in US fracking) or have a pretty fair likelihood of existing generally. So no, I will not desist. Either way, it should be up to environmental scientists (not linked to lobby groups) to conclusively rule out these problems *before* any fracking is given the go-ahead. In the rush to cash in, this is not happening in many cases. If problems are discovered after the fact, then it is too late to undo the damage. Polyacrylimide and harmful "hydrocarbon oils" are not even the only issues. The glutaraldehyde used in the biocide is also moderately toxic and has been shown to cause serious allergic reaction at low concentrations. And these are just two of the chemicals Cuadrilla has admitted to have used at one specific drill site. Other *commonly used* chemicals have a deleterious effect on wildlife, such as kerosene (another "hydrocarbon oil") which is dangerous to aquatic life. In short a littany of toxic chemicals whose long-term safety in the context of hydraulic fracturing has either been brought into serious question or lacks sufficient study to be ruled safe for this use. mr_gee
  • Score: 2

10:46am Sun 18 Aug 13

pachallis says...

@mr_gee - fercrisake - how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue, so you then just go on and find something else.

Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets?
@mr_gee - fercrisake - how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue, so you then just go on and find something else. Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets? pachallis
  • Score: -5

10:51am Sun 18 Aug 13

pachallis says...

pebble counter wrote:
The people of Balcombe do not want this operation to continue. They've tried peaceful protest, direct action will now follow. This includes tunneling into the area where the drilling head is. Going over the fence too obvious, and those Gurkhas are tough, so must use the element of surprise. The drill will then be extracted using the worlds biggest chuck key, and the point ground off. Other tactics include smiling, laughing and hope. Good luck to the protesters, and get lost the greedy money grabbing Earth raping cretins at Cuadrilla.
@pebble counter - so a survey was conducted by the Parish Council some months ago, at the bequest of some locals who were spreading fear about the dangers of fracking. And of those who responded to the survey over 80% were against fracking for various reasons. What did those who did not respond think?

So if another, open, survey was held now, and that said the villagers were overall in favour of fracking and/or of the protestors leaving, would the eco-activists then leave?
[quote][p][bold]pebble counter[/bold] wrote: The people of Balcombe do not want this operation to continue. They've tried peaceful protest, direct action will now follow. This includes tunneling into the area where the drilling head is. Going over the fence too obvious, and those Gurkhas are tough, so must use the element of surprise. The drill will then be extracted using the worlds biggest chuck key, and the point ground off. Other tactics include smiling, laughing and hope. Good luck to the protesters, and get lost the greedy money grabbing Earth raping cretins at Cuadrilla.[/p][/quote]@pebble counter - so a survey was conducted by the Parish Council some months ago, at the bequest of some locals who were spreading fear about the dangers of fracking. And of those who responded to the survey over 80% were against fracking for various reasons. What did those who did not respond think? So if another, open, survey was held now, and that said the villagers were overall in favour of fracking and/or of the protestors leaving, would the eco-activists then leave? pachallis
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Sun 18 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

pachallis wrote:
pebble counter wrote:
The people of Balcombe do not want this operation to continue. They've tried peaceful protest, direct action will now follow. This includes tunneling into the area where the drilling head is. Going over the fence too obvious, and those Gurkhas are tough, so must use the element of surprise. The drill will then be extracted using the worlds biggest chuck key, and the point ground off. Other tactics include smiling, laughing and hope. Good luck to the protesters, and get lost the greedy money grabbing Earth raping cretins at Cuadrilla.
@pebble counter - so a survey was conducted by the Parish Council some months ago, at the bequest of some locals who were spreading fear about the dangers of fracking. And of those who responded to the survey over 80% were against fracking for various reasons. What did those who did not respond think?

So if another, open, survey was held now, and that said the villagers were overall in favour of fracking and/or of the protestors leaving, would the eco-activists then leave?
Just time for a quickie - The result according to Charles Metcalfe was 85% Against 6% For 14% Unsure. But he does emphasise that some people were unavailable.

Nice bunch up there in Balcombe -

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=zXTVz5JVa
MM
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pebble counter[/bold] wrote: The people of Balcombe do not want this operation to continue. They've tried peaceful protest, direct action will now follow. This includes tunneling into the area where the drilling head is. Going over the fence too obvious, and those Gurkhas are tough, so must use the element of surprise. The drill will then be extracted using the worlds biggest chuck key, and the point ground off. Other tactics include smiling, laughing and hope. Good luck to the protesters, and get lost the greedy money grabbing Earth raping cretins at Cuadrilla.[/p][/quote]@pebble counter - so a survey was conducted by the Parish Council some months ago, at the bequest of some locals who were spreading fear about the dangers of fracking. And of those who responded to the survey over 80% were against fracking for various reasons. What did those who did not respond think? So if another, open, survey was held now, and that said the villagers were overall in favour of fracking and/or of the protestors leaving, would the eco-activists then leave?[/p][/quote]Just time for a quickie - The result according to Charles Metcalfe was 85% Against 6% For 14% Unsure. But he does emphasise that some people were unavailable. Nice bunch up there in Balcombe - http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=zXTVz5JVa MM Royy Batty
  • Score: 1

12:18pm Sun 18 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

Royy Batty wrote:
pachallis wrote:
pebble counter wrote:
The people of Balcombe do not want this operation to continue. They've tried peaceful protest, direct action will now follow. This includes tunneling into the area where the drilling head is. Going over the fence too obvious, and those Gurkhas are tough, so must use the element of surprise. The drill will then be extracted using the worlds biggest chuck key, and the point ground off. Other tactics include smiling, laughing and hope. Good luck to the protesters, and get lost the greedy money grabbing Earth raping cretins at Cuadrilla.
@pebble counter - so a survey was conducted by the Parish Council some months ago, at the bequest of some locals who were spreading fear about the dangers of fracking. And of those who responded to the survey over 80% were against fracking for various reasons. What did those who did not respond think?

So if another, open, survey was held now, and that said the villagers were overall in favour of fracking and/or of the protestors leaving, would the eco-activists then leave?
Just time for a quickie - The result according to Charles Metcalfe was 85% Against 6% For 14% Unsure. But he does emphasise that some people were unavailable.

Nice bunch up there in Balcombe -

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=zXTVz5JVa

MM
I must emphasise that's the more recent poll. As for BPC - ???? Don't get me start... Rimski Korsakov and Phwwtttmontezuma!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Royy Batty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pebble counter[/bold] wrote: The people of Balcombe do not want this operation to continue. They've tried peaceful protest, direct action will now follow. This includes tunneling into the area where the drilling head is. Going over the fence too obvious, and those Gurkhas are tough, so must use the element of surprise. The drill will then be extracted using the worlds biggest chuck key, and the point ground off. Other tactics include smiling, laughing and hope. Good luck to the protesters, and get lost the greedy money grabbing Earth raping cretins at Cuadrilla.[/p][/quote]@pebble counter - so a survey was conducted by the Parish Council some months ago, at the bequest of some locals who were spreading fear about the dangers of fracking. And of those who responded to the survey over 80% were against fracking for various reasons. What did those who did not respond think? So if another, open, survey was held now, and that said the villagers were overall in favour of fracking and/or of the protestors leaving, would the eco-activists then leave?[/p][/quote]Just time for a quickie - The result according to Charles Metcalfe was 85% Against 6% For 14% Unsure. But he does emphasise that some people were unavailable. Nice bunch up there in Balcombe - http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=zXTVz5JVa MM[/p][/quote]I must emphasise that's the more recent poll. As for BPC - ???? Don't get me start... Rimski Korsakov and Phwwtttmontezuma!!!! Royy Batty
  • Score: 1

4:12pm Sun 18 Aug 13

Royy Batty says...

In reference to the oft quoted Royal Society report - it seems that it mostly talks about the level of seismic activity involved rather than its consequences. Correct me if I'm wrong - I haven't time to trawl it at present.

Anyway Prof Lawrence Dunne - Balcombe resident, doesn't find it convincing apparently -

We just spoke with Balcombe resident and physics professor, Lawrence Dunne, on the dangers of Cuadrilla's plans to flare gas in his town:

"There has been no environmental assessment of the health consequences of the flaring of gas emissions over populations anywhere in the world. Contrary to what is put out by the government, no serious environmental assessment of fracking operations in Britain has occurred. The widely-quoted Royal Society report refers very largely to seismicity consequences but says almost nothing about the consequences of fracking for air pollution. In my view, flaring emissions over populations with a high density of flares would be disastrous. The government has done no publicly-scrutinisab
le work on this. It is a disgrace to pretend otherwise."

From - http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom
e-news/balcombe-frac
king-protest-widens-
second-campsite-open
s-as-activists-prepa
re-to-step-up-their-
campaign-against-sha
le-gas-exploration-i
n-sussex-8772721.htm
l
In reference to the oft quoted Royal Society report - it seems that it mostly talks about the level of seismic activity involved rather than its consequences. Correct me if I'm wrong - I haven't time to trawl it at present. Anyway Prof Lawrence Dunne - Balcombe resident, doesn't find it convincing apparently - We just spoke with Balcombe resident and physics professor, Lawrence Dunne, on the dangers of Cuadrilla's plans to flare gas in his town: "There has been no environmental assessment of the health consequences of the flaring of gas emissions over populations anywhere in the world. Contrary to what is put out by the government, no serious environmental assessment of fracking operations in Britain has occurred. The widely-quoted Royal Society report refers very largely to seismicity consequences but says almost nothing about the consequences of fracking for air pollution. In my view, flaring emissions over populations with a high density of flares would be disastrous. The government has done no publicly-scrutinisab le work on this. It is a disgrace to pretend otherwise." From - http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom e-news/balcombe-frac king-protest-widens- second-campsite-open s-as-activists-prepa re-to-step-up-their- campaign-against-sha le-gas-exploration-i n-sussex-8772721.htm l Royy Batty
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Sun 18 Aug 13

pachallis says...

Royy Batty wrote:
In reference to the oft quoted Royal Society report - it seems that it mostly talks about the level of seismic activity involved rather than its consequences. Correct me if I'm wrong - I haven't time to trawl it at present.

Anyway Prof Lawrence Dunne - Balcombe resident, doesn't find it convincing apparently -

We just spoke with Balcombe resident and physics professor, Lawrence Dunne, on the dangers of Cuadrilla's plans to flare gas in his town:

"There has been no environmental assessment of the health consequences of the flaring of gas emissions over populations anywhere in the world. Contrary to what is put out by the government, no serious environmental assessment of fracking operations in Britain has occurred. The widely-quoted Royal Society report refers very largely to seismicity consequences but says almost nothing about the consequences of fracking for air pollution. In my view, flaring emissions over populations with a high density of flares would be disastrous. The government has done no publicly-scrutinisab

le work on this. It is a disgrace to pretend otherwise."

From - http://www.independe

nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom

e-news/balcombe-frac

king-protest-widens-

second-campsite-open

s-as-activists-prepa

re-to-step-up-their-

campaign-against-sha

le-gas-exploration-i

n-sussex-8772721.htm

l
@Royy Batty - perhaps you should read the article properly - there are pages and pages about handling methane and water and solid wastes. In particular the flaring is only an issue for test drilling - for live workings the paper suggests the use of Green Completion Technologies to collect the methane (and carbo dioxide).

Perhaps if the anti-fracking professor is is worried, he (or one of his teams) should perform an analysis of the actual dangers and do some measurements himself rather than raising alarmist fears of the dangers of flaring.

According to the article he is actually a chemistry professor, rather than a physics professor, so IMHO should be able to identify the resultant chemicals from flaring the gases (mainly methane) quite easily.

@Lawrence Dunne - if it helps, the resultant gases would probably be the same as produced from your central heating boiler - mainly water and carbon dioxide! If you are a professor, I think you are just raising this as a nimby issue, and you are the real disgrace!
[quote][p][bold]Royy Batty[/bold] wrote: In reference to the oft quoted Royal Society report - it seems that it mostly talks about the level of seismic activity involved rather than its consequences. Correct me if I'm wrong - I haven't time to trawl it at present. Anyway Prof Lawrence Dunne - Balcombe resident, doesn't find it convincing apparently - We just spoke with Balcombe resident and physics professor, Lawrence Dunne, on the dangers of Cuadrilla's plans to flare gas in his town: "There has been no environmental assessment of the health consequences of the flaring of gas emissions over populations anywhere in the world. Contrary to what is put out by the government, no serious environmental assessment of fracking operations in Britain has occurred. The widely-quoted Royal Society report refers very largely to seismicity consequences but says almost nothing about the consequences of fracking for air pollution. In my view, flaring emissions over populations with a high density of flares would be disastrous. The government has done no publicly-scrutinisab le work on this. It is a disgrace to pretend otherwise." From - http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom e-news/balcombe-frac king-protest-widens- second-campsite-open s-as-activists-prepa re-to-step-up-their- campaign-against-sha le-gas-exploration-i n-sussex-8772721.htm l[/p][/quote]@Royy Batty - perhaps you should read the article properly - there are pages and pages about handling methane and water and solid wastes. In particular the flaring is only an issue for test drilling - for live workings the paper suggests the use of Green Completion Technologies to collect the methane (and carbo dioxide). Perhaps if the anti-fracking professor is is worried, he (or one of his teams) should perform an analysis of the actual dangers and do some measurements himself rather than raising alarmist fears of the dangers of flaring. According to the article he is actually a chemistry professor, rather than a physics professor, so IMHO should be able to identify the resultant chemicals from flaring the gases (mainly methane) quite easily. @Lawrence Dunne - if it helps, the resultant gases would probably be the same as produced from your central heating boiler - mainly water and carbon dioxide! If you are a professor, I think you are just raising this as a nimby issue, and you are the real disgrace! pachallis
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Sun 18 Aug 13

mr_gee says...

pachallis wrote:
@mr_gee - fercrisake - how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue, so you then just go on and find something else.

Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets?
"how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue"

No, they *are* in fracking fluid and they have measurable negative health effects. The two I identified are an issue, despite your assertion to the contrary. Cuadrilla's lack of complete transparency, the general lack of rigorous and independent long-term study, and the health problems raised in US fracking regions is of great concern.

"Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets?"

Again with a straw man argument. Using a ridiculous analogy which has no bearing on the subject at hand. Why I have to point out such obviously fallacious reasoning is beyond me, but here goes. Firstly, it is pretty easy to avoid peanuts since food must be labelled as containing such by law. The same goes for other things in supermarkets. So exposure is a choice. Secondly, supermarkets sell *food* which is necessary for living. Fracking is not as there are alternatives. Last but not least, the health effect is not like peanut oil where you are either allergic or there's no problem. Glutaraldehyde is a known toxin, leading to conditions such as skin allergies, asthma, liver and nervous system damage with prolonged exposure in previously healthy people. One doesn't have to have specific genes for it to have a seriously bad effect.

If this is the calibre of your arguments then I don't really see the point in continuing the discussion with you. I doubt many people are reading these comments now, and having a personal debate with you is going nowhere so I'm going to leave it at that.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @mr_gee - fercrisake - how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue, so you then just go on and find something else. Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets?[/p][/quote]"how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue" No, they *are* in fracking fluid and they have measurable negative health effects. The two I identified are an issue, despite your assertion to the contrary. Cuadrilla's lack of complete transparency, the general lack of rigorous and independent long-term study, and the health problems raised in US fracking regions is of great concern. "Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets?" Again with a straw man argument. Using a ridiculous analogy which has no bearing on the subject at hand. Why I have to point out such obviously fallacious reasoning is beyond me, but here goes. Firstly, it is pretty easy to avoid peanuts since food must be labelled as containing such by law. The same goes for other things in supermarkets. So exposure is a choice. Secondly, supermarkets sell *food* which is necessary for living. Fracking is not as there are alternatives. Last but not least, the health effect is not like peanut oil where you are either allergic or there's no problem. Glutaraldehyde is a known toxin, leading to conditions such as skin allergies, asthma, liver and nervous system damage with prolonged exposure in previously healthy people. One doesn't have to have specific genes for it to have a seriously bad effect. If this is the calibre of your arguments then I don't really see the point in continuing the discussion with you. I doubt many people are reading these comments now, and having a personal debate with you is going nowhere so I'm going to leave it at that. mr_gee
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Sun 18 Aug 13

pachallis says...

mr_gee wrote:
pachallis wrote:
@mr_gee - fercrisake - how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue, so you then just go on and find something else.

Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets?
"how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue"

No, they *are* in fracking fluid and they have measurable negative health effects. The two I identified are an issue, despite your assertion to the contrary. Cuadrilla's lack of complete transparency, the general lack of rigorous and independent long-term study, and the health problems raised in US fracking regions is of great concern.

"Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets?"

Again with a straw man argument. Using a ridiculous analogy which has no bearing on the subject at hand. Why I have to point out such obviously fallacious reasoning is beyond me, but here goes. Firstly, it is pretty easy to avoid peanuts since food must be labelled as containing such by law. The same goes for other things in supermarkets. So exposure is a choice. Secondly, supermarkets sell *food* which is necessary for living. Fracking is not as there are alternatives. Last but not least, the health effect is not like peanut oil where you are either allergic or there's no problem. Glutaraldehyde is a known toxin, leading to conditions such as skin allergies, asthma, liver and nervous system damage with prolonged exposure in previously healthy people. One doesn't have to have specific genes for it to have a seriously bad effect.

If this is the calibre of your arguments then I don't really see the point in continuing the discussion with you. I doubt many people are reading these comments now, and having a personal debate with you is going nowhere so I'm going to leave it at that.
@mr_gee,

If you start making scientifically valid claims about energy issues rather than just scaremongering then I will stop responding.

If you carry on with scientifically dubious hypothetical arguments designed to worry people unnecessarily then I will carry on.

As an example Glutaraldehyde is, according to Wikipedia, a strong disinfectant, is toxic and a strong irritant. There is no evidence of carcinogenic activity...it is also used for wart removal and as a biocide in the fracking industry.

According to California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) the Ceiling Limit for glutaraldehyde is 0.2 parts of glutaraldehyde in each million parts of air (0.2 "parts per million," or 0.2 "ppm"). This is about equal to 0.8 milligrams of glutaraldehyde per
cubic meter of air (0.8 mg/m3).

Yes - it is linked to asthma for levels as low as 0.05 ppm, but there is no such restriction on water bound glutaraldehyde.

So at what level will glutaraldehyde be vented into the atmosphere?

You question the calibre of my arguments - I question your technical/scientific ability to investigate real levels of danger rather than just scaremongering to backup your anti-fracking views.

BTW - if no one else is interested then that doesn't bother me.
[quote][p][bold]mr_gee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @mr_gee - fercrisake - how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue, so you then just go on and find something else. Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets?[/p][/quote]"how many different chemicals are you going to dig up as being POSSIBLY in fracking liquid and are POSSIBLY dangerous. You've identified 2 that are not really an issue" No, they *are* in fracking fluid and they have measurable negative health effects. The two I identified are an issue, despite your assertion to the contrary. Cuadrilla's lack of complete transparency, the general lack of rigorous and independent long-term study, and the health problems raised in US fracking regions is of great concern. "Your concerns could equally apply to anything done by anyone in any situation - how about all the chemicals that exist in a supermarket? They sell peanuts and this can cause a serious allergic reaction in some people so do we ban all supermarkets?" Again with a straw man argument. Using a ridiculous analogy which has no bearing on the subject at hand. Why I have to point out such obviously fallacious reasoning is beyond me, but here goes. Firstly, it is pretty easy to avoid peanuts since food must be labelled as containing such by law. The same goes for other things in supermarkets. So exposure is a choice. Secondly, supermarkets sell *food* which is necessary for living. Fracking is not as there are alternatives. Last but not least, the health effect is not like peanut oil where you are either allergic or there's no problem. Glutaraldehyde is a known toxin, leading to conditions such as skin allergies, asthma, liver and nervous system damage with prolonged exposure in previously healthy people. One doesn't have to have specific genes for it to have a seriously bad effect. If this is the calibre of your arguments then I don't really see the point in continuing the discussion with you. I doubt many people are reading these comments now, and having a personal debate with you is going nowhere so I'm going to leave it at that.[/p][/quote]@mr_gee, If you start making scientifically valid claims about energy issues rather than just scaremongering then I will stop responding. If you carry on with scientifically dubious hypothetical arguments designed to worry people unnecessarily then I will carry on. As an example Glutaraldehyde is, according to Wikipedia, a strong disinfectant, is toxic and a strong irritant. There is no evidence of carcinogenic activity...it is also used for wart removal and as a biocide in the fracking industry. According to California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) the Ceiling Limit for glutaraldehyde is 0.2 parts of glutaraldehyde in each million parts of air (0.2 "parts per million," or 0.2 "ppm"). This is about equal to 0.8 milligrams of glutaraldehyde per cubic meter of air (0.8 mg/m3). Yes - it is linked to asthma for levels as low as 0.05 ppm, but there is no such restriction on water bound glutaraldehyde. So at what level will glutaraldehyde be vented into the atmosphere? You question the calibre of my arguments - I question your technical/scientific ability to investigate real levels of danger rather than just scaremongering to backup your anti-fracking views. BTW - if no one else is interested then that doesn't bother me. pachallis
  • Score: 2

11:46pm Sun 18 Aug 13

Sprintervan says...

I love the fact that the Environment Agency "watered down " their report on the effects of fracking on the...err...water supply. Absolutely superb, you couldn't make it up.....the sooner the loony left protestors clear off the better, they are attracting too many plod to the area.
I love the fact that the Environment Agency "watered down " their report on the effects of fracking on the...err...water supply. Absolutely superb, you couldn't make it up.....the sooner the loony left protestors clear off the better, they are attracting too many plod to the area. Sprintervan
  • Score: -1

11:08pm Sat 24 Aug 13

whereisthe...? says...

So some TRUTH FINALLY COMES OUT and the Tory bully boys have once again been revealed to be money grabbing liars, and the Lib Dems as their complicit, silent poodles.

TORIES OUT 2015, LABOUR IN.
So some TRUTH FINALLY COMES OUT and the Tory bully boys have once again been revealed to be money grabbing liars, and the Lib Dems as their complicit, silent poodles. TORIES OUT 2015, LABOUR IN. whereisthe...?
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Sun 25 Aug 13

Poem58 says...

This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water.

Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues.

And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land.

A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking....

http://viooz.co/movi

es/5239-gasland-2010

.html

http://viooz.co/movi

es/20372-gasland-par

t-ii-2013.html
This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water. Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues. And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land. A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking.... http://viooz.co/movi es/5239-gasland-2010 .html http://viooz.co/movi es/20372-gasland-par t-ii-2013.html Poem58
  • Score: -1

7:12pm Sun 25 Aug 13

pachallis says...

Poem58 wrote:
This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water.

Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues.

And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land.

A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking....

http://viooz.co/movi


es/5239-gasland-2010


.html

http://viooz.co/movi


es/20372-gasland-par


t-ii-2013.html
@Poem58 - haven't seen the film but have read the Wikipedia entry.

Looks like the only concern from fracking in the US was the release of methane (which is not poisonous).

Apparently the worry was over "burning springs" where methane gas mixed with the water could be ignited. What was allegedly omitted from the film was that methane has been present in many wells long before fracking started.

Have I missed something? Was it just making claims that methane is poisonous?

Should I watch the film? Does the sequel (Gasland Part II) make any different claims?
[quote][p][bold]Poem58[/bold] wrote: This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water. Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues. And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land. A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking.... http://viooz.co/movi es/5239-gasland-2010 .html http://viooz.co/movi es/20372-gasland-par t-ii-2013.html[/p][/quote]@Poem58 - haven't seen the film but have read the Wikipedia entry. Looks like the only concern from fracking in the US was the release of methane (which is not poisonous). Apparently the worry was over "burning springs" where methane gas mixed with the water could be ignited. What was allegedly omitted from the film was that methane has been present in many wells long before fracking started. Have I missed something? Was it just making claims that methane is poisonous? Should I watch the film? Does the sequel (Gasland Part II) make any different claims? pachallis
  • Score: 2

1:46pm Tue 3 Sep 13

PeteBax says...

LPG Fracturing

LPG fracturing is one of those rare technology breakthroughs in the oil and gas industry that can deliver both economic and environmental benefits for producers.
As much as 80% of the water that's used in conventional methods stays in the well and most of the water that does flow back has to be disposed of safely this is radioactive due to natural uranium in the ground and becomes radioactive waste.
Using LPG allows operators to use hydrocarbons already being produced to extract more hydrocarbons while also eliminating the need for biocides required in conventional fracturing.
LPG provides a consistent viscosity, does not require the costly use of CO2 or N2, nor does it require any special cool down or venting of equipment. LPG—an abundant by-product of the natural gas industry—it is stored at ambient temperatures.
Using LPG also reduces the need to flare after production this reduces CO2 emissions.
Because propane liquid is half the specific gravity of water, there is reduced trucking to the site and No trucking after obtaining the gas, reducing truck traffic by up to 90%.
The yield of each well is improved by about 30%
Like many things in life what appears the cheapest usually isn’t and this is true of fracking with fresh water. This is because we destroy fresh water when we hydraulically frack.
With over 1,000,000 wells in USA using fresh water no wonder parts of USA are turning into dust bowls.
Hydraulic Fracking as proposed by the government and the BBC is Penny wise and Pound foolish.
We must do what benefits Britain not the MP's pockets
LPG Fracturing LPG fracturing is one of those rare technology breakthroughs in the oil and gas industry that can deliver both economic and environmental benefits for producers. As much as 80% of the water that's used in conventional methods stays in the well and most of the water that does flow back has to be disposed of safely this is radioactive due to natural uranium in the ground and becomes radioactive waste. Using LPG allows operators to use hydrocarbons already being produced to extract more hydrocarbons while also eliminating the need for biocides required in conventional fracturing. LPG provides a consistent viscosity, does not require the costly use of CO2 or N2, nor does it require any special cool down or venting of equipment. LPG—an abundant by-product of the natural gas industry—it is stored at ambient temperatures. Using LPG also reduces the need to flare after production this reduces CO2 emissions. Because propane liquid is half the specific gravity of water, there is reduced trucking to the site and No trucking after obtaining the gas, reducing truck traffic by up to 90%. The yield of each well is improved by about 30% Like many things in life what appears the cheapest usually isn’t and this is true of fracking with fresh water. This is because we destroy fresh water when we hydraulically frack. With over 1,000,000 wells in USA using fresh water no wonder parts of USA are turning into dust bowls. Hydraulic Fracking as proposed by the government and the BBC is Penny wise and Pound foolish. We must do what benefits Britain not the MP's pockets PeteBax
  • Score: 4

6:55pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Royy Batty says...

pachallis wrote:
Poem58 wrote:
This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water.

Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues.

And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land.

A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking....

http://viooz.co/movi



es/5239-gasland-2010



.html

http://viooz.co/movi



es/20372-gasland-par



t-ii-2013.html
@Poem58 - haven't seen the film but have read the Wikipedia entry.

Looks like the only concern from fracking in the US was the release of methane (which is not poisonous).

Apparently the worry was over "burning springs" where methane gas mixed with the water could be ignited. What was allegedly omitted from the film was that methane has been present in many wells long before fracking started.

Have I missed something? Was it just making claims that methane is poisonous?

Should I watch the film? Does the sequel (Gasland Part II) make any different claims?
You need to do a lot more research, my friend. I've had my eyes opened since this little investment project began. A starting point might be - http://gasdrillingin
balcombe.wordpress.c
om/

Methane gas is but a tiny issue in this non-economic, anti-environmental process, bankrolled by short-sighted unconscionable corporations, prepared to ignore democratic process and pay mere lip service to community consultation. Frankly, I despair at some of the support for shale gas exploration and doubly so at the irresponsible support for a government policy that ignores wider public debate and democratic process.

Water usage and traffic CO2/ road damage alone make this ridiculous project uneconomic and harmful (outside already over-lax emission targets).

Non of this waste of human energy was necessary - plenty of other options - we could be brainstorming other ways to utilise green energy.

As for the misguided people who keep quoting the Royal society report - I really haven't got the time - already been shown up to miss the point in several other and more 'independent studies'.

As for the policing of this situation - this country fought a world war against fascism and I never thought I'd see the day when 50 grown men in full riot squad gear were deployed to forcibly evict a handful of well-meaning teenagers (some not even 16) from a wood. Laughable overkill - laughable if it wasn't true - the people of this country need to wake up -

'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poem58[/bold] wrote: This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water. Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues. And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land. A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking.... http://viooz.co/movi es/5239-gasland-2010 .html http://viooz.co/movi es/20372-gasland-par t-ii-2013.html[/p][/quote]@Poem58 - haven't seen the film but have read the Wikipedia entry. Looks like the only concern from fracking in the US was the release of methane (which is not poisonous). Apparently the worry was over "burning springs" where methane gas mixed with the water could be ignited. What was allegedly omitted from the film was that methane has been present in many wells long before fracking started. Have I missed something? Was it just making claims that methane is poisonous? Should I watch the film? Does the sequel (Gasland Part II) make any different claims?[/p][/quote]You need to do a lot more research, my friend. I've had my eyes opened since this little investment project began. A starting point might be - http://gasdrillingin balcombe.wordpress.c om/ Methane gas is but a tiny issue in this non-economic, anti-environmental process, bankrolled by short-sighted unconscionable corporations, prepared to ignore democratic process and pay mere lip service to community consultation. Frankly, I despair at some of the support for shale gas exploration and doubly so at the irresponsible support for a government policy that ignores wider public debate and democratic process. Water usage and traffic CO2/ road damage alone make this ridiculous project uneconomic and harmful (outside already over-lax emission targets). Non of this waste of human energy was necessary - plenty of other options - we could be brainstorming other ways to utilise green energy. As for the misguided people who keep quoting the Royal society report - I really haven't got the time - already been shown up to miss the point in several other and more 'independent studies'. As for the policing of this situation - this country fought a world war against fascism and I never thought I'd see the day when 50 grown men in full riot squad gear were deployed to forcibly evict a handful of well-meaning teenagers (some not even 16) from a wood. Laughable overkill - laughable if it wasn't true - the people of this country need to wake up - 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty' Royy Batty
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Wed 4 Sep 13

pachallis says...

Royy Batty wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Poem58 wrote:
This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water.

Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues.

And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land.

A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking....

http://viooz.co/movi




es/5239-gasland-2010




.html

http://viooz.co/movi




es/20372-gasland-par




t-ii-2013.html
@Poem58 - haven't seen the film but have read the Wikipedia entry.

Looks like the only concern from fracking in the US was the release of methane (which is not poisonous).

Apparently the worry was over "burning springs" where methane gas mixed with the water could be ignited. What was allegedly omitted from the film was that methane has been present in many wells long before fracking started.

Have I missed something? Was it just making claims that methane is poisonous?

Should I watch the film? Does the sequel (Gasland Part II) make any different claims?
You need to do a lot more research, my friend. I've had my eyes opened since this little investment project began. A starting point might be - http://gasdrillingin

balcombe.wordpress.c

om/

Methane gas is but a tiny issue in this non-economic, anti-environmental process, bankrolled by short-sighted unconscionable corporations, prepared to ignore democratic process and pay mere lip service to community consultation. Frankly, I despair at some of the support for shale gas exploration and doubly so at the irresponsible support for a government policy that ignores wider public debate and democratic process.

Water usage and traffic CO2/ road damage alone make this ridiculous project uneconomic and harmful (outside already over-lax emission targets).

Non of this waste of human energy was necessary - plenty of other options - we could be brainstorming other ways to utilise green energy.

As for the misguided people who keep quoting the Royal society report - I really haven't got the time - already been shown up to miss the point in several other and more 'independent studies'.

As for the policing of this situation - this country fought a world war against fascism and I never thought I'd see the day when 50 grown men in full riot squad gear were deployed to forcibly evict a handful of well-meaning teenagers (some not even 16) from a wood. Laughable overkill - laughable if it wasn't true - the people of this country need to wake up -

'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'
@Royy Batty - I've read http://gasdrillingin
balcombe.wordpress.c
om/ but all it does is repeat the anti-fracking views and misinformation that is spread over other sites and slander anyone that doesn't "believe".

IMHO the various protest groups are the misguided ones - only too keen to believe and regurgitate any anti-fracking stories without checking them for scientific/technical validity or whether they apply to the UK.

Come on - YOU and your band of eco-activists - YOU go and produce a plan to use green energy (whatever that is?). Does it include biofuels? Does is include nuclear? How do you store energy for when the wind drops and/or night time? How do you fuel vehicles? Do we need to stop all CO2 emissions now or are we aiming for a particular reduction target?

It needs to be a realistic, technically valid, economic plan to get us from where we are now to the target point in the future. So plans like the Green Party to invest £1.5m to save £6000 per annum (as 250 year payback) and solar power the Volk's Railway are no-no's.

And why did the Balcombe protestors need diesel generators on site?

I won't bother repeating other articles either but switching from oil and coal to methane gas (North Sea gas is methane as well, as is the gas liquefied and shipped from the Middle East to the UK) is an excellent way of reducing CO2 emissions.

Regarding the policing, I thought it quite pathetic how the various protestors brought children along to act as a "human shield". Well - it saved them paying for child-minders and it gave them something to do during the school holidays.

Perhaps if the protestors should have been more responsible and left their little darlings at home? But it did make good source for propaganda on all the associated Facebook pages.
[quote][p][bold]Royy Batty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poem58[/bold] wrote: This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water. Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues. And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land. A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking.... http://viooz.co/movi es/5239-gasland-2010 .html http://viooz.co/movi es/20372-gasland-par t-ii-2013.html[/p][/quote]@Poem58 - haven't seen the film but have read the Wikipedia entry. Looks like the only concern from fracking in the US was the release of methane (which is not poisonous). Apparently the worry was over "burning springs" where methane gas mixed with the water could be ignited. What was allegedly omitted from the film was that methane has been present in many wells long before fracking started. Have I missed something? Was it just making claims that methane is poisonous? Should I watch the film? Does the sequel (Gasland Part II) make any different claims?[/p][/quote]You need to do a lot more research, my friend. I've had my eyes opened since this little investment project began. A starting point might be - http://gasdrillingin balcombe.wordpress.c om/ Methane gas is but a tiny issue in this non-economic, anti-environmental process, bankrolled by short-sighted unconscionable corporations, prepared to ignore democratic process and pay mere lip service to community consultation. Frankly, I despair at some of the support for shale gas exploration and doubly so at the irresponsible support for a government policy that ignores wider public debate and democratic process. Water usage and traffic CO2/ road damage alone make this ridiculous project uneconomic and harmful (outside already over-lax emission targets). Non of this waste of human energy was necessary - plenty of other options - we could be brainstorming other ways to utilise green energy. As for the misguided people who keep quoting the Royal society report - I really haven't got the time - already been shown up to miss the point in several other and more 'independent studies'. As for the policing of this situation - this country fought a world war against fascism and I never thought I'd see the day when 50 grown men in full riot squad gear were deployed to forcibly evict a handful of well-meaning teenagers (some not even 16) from a wood. Laughable overkill - laughable if it wasn't true - the people of this country need to wake up - 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'[/p][/quote]@Royy Batty - I've read http://gasdrillingin balcombe.wordpress.c om/ but all it does is repeat the anti-fracking views and misinformation that is spread over other sites and slander anyone that doesn't "believe". IMHO the various protest groups are the misguided ones - only too keen to believe and regurgitate any anti-fracking stories without checking them for scientific/technical validity or whether they apply to the UK. Come on - YOU and your band of eco-activists - YOU go and produce a plan to use green energy (whatever that is?). Does it include biofuels? Does is include nuclear? How do you store energy for when the wind drops and/or night time? How do you fuel vehicles? Do we need to stop all CO2 emissions now or are we aiming for a particular reduction target? It needs to be a realistic, technically valid, economic plan to get us from where we are now to the target point in the future. So plans like the Green Party to invest £1.5m to save £6000 per annum (as 250 year payback) and solar power the Volk's Railway are no-no's. And why did the Balcombe protestors need diesel generators on site? I won't bother repeating other articles either but switching from oil and coal to methane gas (North Sea gas is methane as well, as is the gas liquefied and shipped from the Middle East to the UK) is an excellent way of reducing CO2 emissions. Regarding the policing, I thought it quite pathetic how the various protestors brought children along to act as a "human shield". Well - it saved them paying for child-minders and it gave them something to do during the school holidays. Perhaps if the protestors should have been more responsible and left their little darlings at home? But it did make good source for propaganda on all the associated Facebook pages. pachallis
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Wed 4 Sep 13

Royy Batty says...

pachallis wrote:
Royy Batty wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Poem58 wrote:
This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water.

Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues.

And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land.

A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking....

http://viooz.co/movi





es/5239-gasland-2010





.html

http://viooz.co/movi





es/20372-gasland-par





t-ii-2013.html
@Poem58 - haven't seen the film but have read the Wikipedia entry.

Looks like the only concern from fracking in the US was the release of methane (which is not poisonous).

Apparently the worry was over "burning springs" where methane gas mixed with the water could be ignited. What was allegedly omitted from the film was that methane has been present in many wells long before fracking started.

Have I missed something? Was it just making claims that methane is poisonous?

Should I watch the film? Does the sequel (Gasland Part II) make any different claims?
You need to do a lot more research, my friend. I've had my eyes opened since this little investment project began. A starting point might be - http://gasdrillingin


balcombe.wordpress.c


om/

Methane gas is but a tiny issue in this non-economic, anti-environmental process, bankrolled by short-sighted unconscionable corporations, prepared to ignore democratic process and pay mere lip service to community consultation. Frankly, I despair at some of the support for shale gas exploration and doubly so at the irresponsible support for a government policy that ignores wider public debate and democratic process.

Water usage and traffic CO2/ road damage alone make this ridiculous project uneconomic and harmful (outside already over-lax emission targets).

Non of this waste of human energy was necessary - plenty of other options - we could be brainstorming other ways to utilise green energy.

As for the misguided people who keep quoting the Royal society report - I really haven't got the time - already been shown up to miss the point in several other and more 'independent studies'.

As for the policing of this situation - this country fought a world war against fascism and I never thought I'd see the day when 50 grown men in full riot squad gear were deployed to forcibly evict a handful of well-meaning teenagers (some not even 16) from a wood. Laughable overkill - laughable if it wasn't true - the people of this country need to wake up -

'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'
@Royy Batty - I've read http://gasdrillingin

balcombe.wordpress.c

om/ but all it does is repeat the anti-fracking views and misinformation that is spread over other sites and slander anyone that doesn't "believe".

IMHO the various protest groups are the misguided ones - only too keen to believe and regurgitate any anti-fracking stories without checking them for scientific/technical validity or whether they apply to the UK.

Come on - YOU and your band of eco-activists - YOU go and produce a plan to use green energy (whatever that is?). Does it include biofuels? Does is include nuclear? How do you store energy for when the wind drops and/or night time? How do you fuel vehicles? Do we need to stop all CO2 emissions now or are we aiming for a particular reduction target?

It needs to be a realistic, technically valid, economic plan to get us from where we are now to the target point in the future. So plans like the Green Party to invest £1.5m to save £6000 per annum (as 250 year payback) and solar power the Volk's Railway are no-no's.

And why did the Balcombe protestors need diesel generators on site?

I won't bother repeating other articles either but switching from oil and coal to methane gas (North Sea gas is methane as well, as is the gas liquefied and shipped from the Middle East to the UK) is an excellent way of reducing CO2 emissions.

Regarding the policing, I thought it quite pathetic how the various protestors brought children along to act as a "human shield". Well - it saved them paying for child-minders and it gave them something to do during the school holidays.

Perhaps if the protestors should have been more responsible and left their little darlings at home? But it did make good source for propaganda on all the associated Facebook pages.
Me and MY band? - 85% of the Balcombe population ware against drilling and most of them voted Tory at the last election, when this project wasn't in the manifesto. How about you respond to the points I made about traffic and water consumption before regurgitating your own biased viewpoint based on the spin you're lapping up like poison.

How about you respond to my point about 50 riot troops bullying teenagers as an accurate parallel to behaviour by a past Fascist state. This isn't the miners strike - there's local old ladies and mothers up at the site - Riot troops are not needed - it's purely intimidation and if you can't see that - get back in your time machine and go and vote for Moseley or emigrate and vote National Socialist so you can attempt to bully anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint. Cuadrilla should be paying for the policing of this fiasco, not taxpayers like you and me!

If we're talking propaganda I think you'd better be more concerned with the millions of pounds the oil corporations spend on selling themselves - and successfully convincing YOU that shale gas is the only way forward. The same goes for the way the govt. has skirted past local community consultation and proper democratic process and is planning to GAG lobbying by any small public group in the run in to the election (passed the bill yesterday). The only people who will profit from this are those who own or whose relatives have shares in the corps involved (Cameron and Osborne surprisingly). Cuadrilla themselves have stated that it is unlikely that gas prices will fall as a result of this project.

I would love it if shale gas was the way forward, but it's not - I've already posted links on here to German alternatives which are the way forward to be built upon (not the only solution). I personally wouldn't rule out nuclear because of the seriousness of the situation, but am unsure at present.

The local children (whose parents voted tory) you mention live just up the road, so I think it's pretty apt that they're considered in this - sorry if that disturbs your sensibilities and shakes you out of your complacent essentialist armchair.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Royy Batty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poem58[/bold] wrote: This is simply too small a country to allow fracking, it is obvious the water table WILL be poisoned and future generations will be increasingly reliant on bottled water. Donations from the likes of energy companies to Libs, Cons, Labour, etc has corrupted the political system so that our so called representatives cannot be trusted any more on these issues. And a strong pro-fracking media PR blitz is doing it's job in bending public opinion in favour of drilling thousands of wells in this (still for a while anyway) green and pleasant land. A previous commentator posted the following links which should be compulsory viewing for those that are still unaware of the dangers of fracking.... http://viooz.co/movi es/5239-gasland-2010 .html http://viooz.co/movi es/20372-gasland-par t-ii-2013.html[/p][/quote]@Poem58 - haven't seen the film but have read the Wikipedia entry. Looks like the only concern from fracking in the US was the release of methane (which is not poisonous). Apparently the worry was over "burning springs" where methane gas mixed with the water could be ignited. What was allegedly omitted from the film was that methane has been present in many wells long before fracking started. Have I missed something? Was it just making claims that methane is poisonous? Should I watch the film? Does the sequel (Gasland Part II) make any different claims?[/p][/quote]You need to do a lot more research, my friend. I've had my eyes opened since this little investment project began. A starting point might be - http://gasdrillingin balcombe.wordpress.c om/ Methane gas is but a tiny issue in this non-economic, anti-environmental process, bankrolled by short-sighted unconscionable corporations, prepared to ignore democratic process and pay mere lip service to community consultation. Frankly, I despair at some of the support for shale gas exploration and doubly so at the irresponsible support for a government policy that ignores wider public debate and democratic process. Water usage and traffic CO2/ road damage alone make this ridiculous project uneconomic and harmful (outside already over-lax emission targets). Non of this waste of human energy was necessary - plenty of other options - we could be brainstorming other ways to utilise green energy. As for the misguided people who keep quoting the Royal society report - I really haven't got the time - already been shown up to miss the point in several other and more 'independent studies'. As for the policing of this situation - this country fought a world war against fascism and I never thought I'd see the day when 50 grown men in full riot squad gear were deployed to forcibly evict a handful of well-meaning teenagers (some not even 16) from a wood. Laughable overkill - laughable if it wasn't true - the people of this country need to wake up - 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'[/p][/quote]@Royy Batty - I've read http://gasdrillingin balcombe.wordpress.c om/ but all it does is repeat the anti-fracking views and misinformation that is spread over other sites and slander anyone that doesn't "believe". IMHO the various protest groups are the misguided ones - only too keen to believe and regurgitate any anti-fracking stories without checking them for scientific/technical validity or whether they apply to the UK. Come on - YOU and your band of eco-activists - YOU go and produce a plan to use green energy (whatever that is?). Does it include biofuels? Does is include nuclear? How do you store energy for when the wind drops and/or night time? How do you fuel vehicles? Do we need to stop all CO2 emissions now or are we aiming for a particular reduction target? It needs to be a realistic, technically valid, economic plan to get us from where we are now to the target point in the future. So plans like the Green Party to invest £1.5m to save £6000 per annum (as 250 year payback) and solar power the Volk's Railway are no-no's. And why did the Balcombe protestors need diesel generators on site? I won't bother repeating other articles either but switching from oil and coal to methane gas (North Sea gas is methane as well, as is the gas liquefied and shipped from the Middle East to the UK) is an excellent way of reducing CO2 emissions. Regarding the policing, I thought it quite pathetic how the various protestors brought children along to act as a "human shield". Well - it saved them paying for child-minders and it gave them something to do during the school holidays. Perhaps if the protestors should have been more responsible and left their little darlings at home? But it did make good source for propaganda on all the associated Facebook pages.[/p][/quote]Me and MY band? - 85% of the Balcombe population ware against drilling and most of them voted Tory at the last election, when this project wasn't in the manifesto. How about you respond to the points I made about traffic and water consumption before regurgitating your own biased viewpoint based on the spin you're lapping up like poison. How about you respond to my point about 50 riot troops bullying teenagers as an accurate parallel to behaviour by a past Fascist state. This isn't the miners strike - there's local old ladies and mothers up at the site - Riot troops are not needed - it's purely intimidation and if you can't see that - get back in your time machine and go and vote for Moseley or emigrate and vote National Socialist so you can attempt to bully anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint. Cuadrilla should be paying for the policing of this fiasco, not taxpayers like you and me! If we're talking propaganda I think you'd better be more concerned with the millions of pounds the oil corporations spend on selling themselves - and successfully convincing YOU that shale gas is the only way forward. The same goes for the way the govt. has skirted past local community consultation and proper democratic process and is planning to GAG lobbying by any small public group in the run in to the election (passed the bill yesterday). The only people who will profit from this are those who own or whose relatives have shares in the corps involved (Cameron and Osborne surprisingly). Cuadrilla themselves have stated that it is unlikely that gas prices will fall as a result of this project. I would love it if shale gas was the way forward, but it's not - I've already posted links on here to German alternatives which are the way forward to be built upon (not the only solution). I personally wouldn't rule out nuclear because of the seriousness of the situation, but am unsure at present. The local children (whose parents voted tory) you mention live just up the road, so I think it's pretty apt that they're considered in this - sorry if that disturbs your sensibilities and shakes you out of your complacent essentialist armchair. Royy Batty
  • Score: 1

4:19pm Wed 4 Sep 13

pachallis says...

@Royy Batty - it was 82% and not 85% and then only of those who responded to the survey, not of the total population. Perhaps we need another survey now to see what the locals think?

Of the protesters at the site, how many were locals and their children; and how many from outside the area? How many were the "professional protestors" and their children from all the other groups that latched onto the protest?

Various press statements said there was just a few locals involved in the protests - probably those who started spreading misinformation and paranoia about fracking in Balcombe in the first place.

To quote the Times' reporter at the Balcombe protest saying it "risked becoming a re-run of Monty Python's battle between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front". He found climate change activists, anti-fracking protesters, trade unionists, anti-capitalists and Greens all vying to get their messages across.

These are the "you and your band" that I suggested in the "Fracking firm withdraws Balcombe application" comments - perhaps the various groups can get together and provide a coherent voice of what they actually propose as the energy plan for the UK and what they actually want to happen instead of fracking. Oh - and the plan has to work economically and scientifically as well as ideologically.

If you think the German plan is so great and applicable to the UK why don't YOU do something more than stirring up trouble with your conspiracy theories.

For "riot troups" you mean those police in protective gear needed to get the remove the protestors who threatened police and Cuadrilla staff, and stopped Cuadrilla's legal right to access the site and motorists to use the road. If there had been a truly peaceful protest then the police would not have had to respond as they did.

Because of the way they behaved, they have lost any sympathy I had.
@Royy Batty - it was 82% and not 85% and then only of those who responded to the survey, not of the total population. Perhaps we need another survey now to see what the locals think? Of the protesters at the site, how many were locals and their children; and how many from outside the area? How many were the "professional protestors" and their children from all the other groups that latched onto the protest? Various press statements said there was just a few locals involved in the protests - probably those who started spreading misinformation and paranoia about fracking in Balcombe in the first place. To quote the Times' reporter at the Balcombe protest saying it "risked becoming a re-run of Monty Python's battle between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front". He found climate change activists, anti-fracking protesters, trade unionists, anti-capitalists and Greens all vying to get their messages across. These are the "you and your band" that I suggested in the "Fracking firm withdraws Balcombe application" comments - perhaps the various groups can get together and provide a coherent voice of what they actually propose as the energy plan for the UK and what they actually want to happen instead of fracking. Oh - and the plan has to work economically and scientifically as well as ideologically. If you think the German plan is so great and applicable to the UK why don't YOU do something more than stirring up trouble with your conspiracy theories. For "riot troups" you mean those police in protective gear needed to get the remove the protestors who threatened police and Cuadrilla staff, and stopped Cuadrilla's legal right to access the site and motorists to use the road. If there had been a truly peaceful protest then the police would not have had to respond as they did. Because of the way they behaved, they have lost any sympathy I had. pachallis
  • Score: 1

4:51pm Wed 4 Sep 13

Royy Batty says...

pachallis wrote:
@Royy Batty - it was 82% and not 85% and then only of those who responded to the survey, not of the total population. Perhaps we need another survey now to see what the locals think?

Of the protesters at the site, how many were locals and their children; and how many from outside the area? How many were the "professional protestors" and their children from all the other groups that latched onto the protest?

Various press statements said there was just a few locals involved in the protests - probably those who started spreading misinformation and paranoia about fracking in Balcombe in the first place.

To quote the Times' reporter at the Balcombe protest saying it "risked becoming a re-run of Monty Python's battle between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front". He found climate change activists, anti-fracking protesters, trade unionists, anti-capitalists and Greens all vying to get their messages across.

These are the "you and your band" that I suggested in the "Fracking firm withdraws Balcombe application" comments - perhaps the various groups can get together and provide a coherent voice of what they actually propose as the energy plan for the UK and what they actually want to happen instead of fracking. Oh - and the plan has to work economically and scientifically as well as ideologically.

If you think the German plan is so great and applicable to the UK why don't YOU do something more than stirring up trouble with your conspiracy theories.

For "riot troups" you mean those police in protective gear needed to get the remove the protestors who threatened police and Cuadrilla staff, and stopped Cuadrilla's legal right to access the site and motorists to use the road. If there had been a truly peaceful protest then the police would not have had to respond as they did.

Because of the way they behaved, they have lost any sympathy I had.
The records got stuck with you hasn't it? I haven't witnessed anyone threatening on either side - I have seen intimidation and violence on occasion, however, from police. Conspiracy theories? No - FACTS that Cameron and Osborne have relatives who have invested in the companies behind this charade. FACTS - that Simon Greenwood whose land the site is on failed to bring the license application to the attention of the BPC (whose own cousin Lord Cowdray is opposed to shale gas exploration at Fernhurst). FACTS - that the local MP has a vested interested and failed to disclose his connection when voting Lord Browne in as a government advisor. FACTS - that upwards of 300 villagers join the camp every Sunday. FACTS - that the second poll was 85% - wtf does that 3% buy you anyway? And for your information I DO a lot more stirring up 'trouble' through my research and teaching in an associated Discipline, you seem to define trouble as a mixed group of people standing up for themselves who have something more important on their minds than your tender reductionist sensibilities - incoherent they may be at times - democracy tends to be in its nature - but you're not really interested in either FACTS or DEMOCRACY are you? More interested in maintaining a blind and corrupt status quo than getting off your arse and doing something - your lazy complacent masquerade as a keyboard warrior will catch up with you - and I and a growing number of people are waking up and will be more than happy to keep causing 'trouble' for the likes of you!
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @Royy Batty - it was 82% and not 85% and then only of those who responded to the survey, not of the total population. Perhaps we need another survey now to see what the locals think? Of the protesters at the site, how many were locals and their children; and how many from outside the area? How many were the "professional protestors" and their children from all the other groups that latched onto the protest? Various press statements said there was just a few locals involved in the protests - probably those who started spreading misinformation and paranoia about fracking in Balcombe in the first place. To quote the Times' reporter at the Balcombe protest saying it "risked becoming a re-run of Monty Python's battle between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front". He found climate change activists, anti-fracking protesters, trade unionists, anti-capitalists and Greens all vying to get their messages across. These are the "you and your band" that I suggested in the "Fracking firm withdraws Balcombe application" comments - perhaps the various groups can get together and provide a coherent voice of what they actually propose as the energy plan for the UK and what they actually want to happen instead of fracking. Oh - and the plan has to work economically and scientifically as well as ideologically. If you think the German plan is so great and applicable to the UK why don't YOU do something more than stirring up trouble with your conspiracy theories. For "riot troups" you mean those police in protective gear needed to get the remove the protestors who threatened police and Cuadrilla staff, and stopped Cuadrilla's legal right to access the site and motorists to use the road. If there had been a truly peaceful protest then the police would not have had to respond as they did. Because of the way they behaved, they have lost any sympathy I had.[/p][/quote]The records got stuck with you hasn't it? I haven't witnessed anyone threatening on either side - I have seen intimidation and violence on occasion, however, from police. Conspiracy theories? No - FACTS that Cameron and Osborne have relatives who have invested in the companies behind this charade. FACTS - that Simon Greenwood whose land the site is on failed to bring the license application to the attention of the BPC (whose own cousin Lord Cowdray is opposed to shale gas exploration at Fernhurst). FACTS - that the local MP has a vested interested and failed to disclose his connection when voting Lord Browne in as a government advisor. FACTS - that upwards of 300 villagers join the camp every Sunday. FACTS - that the second poll was 85% - wtf does that 3% buy you anyway? And for your information I DO a lot more stirring up 'trouble' through my research and teaching in an associated Discipline, you seem to define trouble as a mixed group of people standing up for themselves who have something more important on their minds than your tender reductionist sensibilities - incoherent they may be at times - democracy tends to be in its nature - but you're not really interested in either FACTS or DEMOCRACY are you? More interested in maintaining a blind and corrupt status quo than getting off your arse and doing something - your lazy complacent masquerade as a keyboard warrior will catch up with you - and I and a growing number of people are waking up and will be more than happy to keep causing 'trouble' for the likes of you! Royy Batty
  • Score: -4

8:35am Thu 5 Sep 13

pachallis says...

@Royy Batty - thank you for your charming response to my comment - I guess I must have "hit a nerve".

So according to yesterday's BBC exclusive http://goo.gl/Lwvze1 where the Parish Council admitted that the planning application "went unnoticed". In this item Simon Greenwood says:

"In any case, as it referred to an application on my land, I drew my fellow councillors' attention to the letter from the county council, and indicated that Caudrilla wanted to repeat the test well drilled by Conoco , which is exactly what has been permitted."

There was nothing for the activists to get wound up about anyway - there was to be no fracking - just exploration - and that has been all the Cuadrilla did.

Anyway Cuadrilla are removing their rig and will be raising another planning application. Hopefully this time the Parish Council will take more notice and it will give the locals a chance to discuss the matter.

So various MPs and councillors have an interest in exploration - welcome to the real world! Does having a financial interest imply wrongdoing? I have a pension and I'm sure the pension provider invests in the FTSE100 and may well have shares in Shell (they couldn't have shares in Cuadrilla as it is a private company).

Yes - re WTF - your claim that 85% of the villagers were against fracking was wrong - just reinforces your use of misinformation. So 300 villagers allegedly come to the site at the weekend - can you prove they were from Balcombe and not from outside the area? Your statement doesn't match those shown in any of the press reports or TV news items.

And I'm sorry - an elected democracy means voting for representative councillors and MPs and any individual or group may not agree with the decisions taken by the winning group. If you don't like it you can vote for someone else at the next election.

You can also make a peaceful protest - you can not cause "Civil Disobedience" just because you disagree. If you do then you have to accept the rule of law, and IMHO the protestors should be paying for the cost of policing the site.

We'll see if it was a truly "peaceful protest" if any of those arrested get charged.

Anyway you had no real response to my points; can offer no positive alternatives; and have to resort to a tirade of insults and threats - just goes to show the calibre of your "band of protestors".

And I have every right to be a "keyboard warrior" and use these columns for questioning the claims of the pro- and anti-frackers; as you and your "band of protestors" do for using them for spreading paranoia and misinformation about the dangers of fracking; and generating "conspiracy theories" to support your claims. .

Looking forward to your next response. BTW - you mention "your research and teaching in an associated Discipline" - would you care to elucidate on what this actually is?
@Royy Batty - thank you for your charming response to my comment - I guess I must have "hit a nerve". So according to yesterday's BBC exclusive http://goo.gl/Lwvze1 where the Parish Council admitted that the planning application "went unnoticed". In this item Simon Greenwood says: "In any case, as it referred to an application on my land, I drew my fellow councillors' attention to the letter from the county council, and indicated that Caudrilla wanted to repeat the test well drilled by Conoco [in 1986], which is exactly what has been permitted." There was nothing for the activists to get wound up about anyway - there was to be no fracking - just exploration - and that has been all the Cuadrilla did. Anyway Cuadrilla are removing their rig and will be raising another planning application. Hopefully this time the Parish Council will take more notice and it will give the locals a chance to discuss the matter. So various MPs and councillors have an interest in exploration - welcome to the real world! Does having a financial interest imply wrongdoing? I have a pension and I'm sure the pension provider invests in the FTSE100 and may well have shares in Shell (they couldn't have shares in Cuadrilla as it is a private company). Yes - re WTF - your claim that 85% of the villagers were against fracking was wrong - just reinforces your use of misinformation. So 300 villagers allegedly come to the site at the weekend - can you prove they were from Balcombe and not from outside the area? Your statement doesn't match those shown in any of the press reports or TV news items. And I'm sorry - an elected democracy means voting for representative councillors and MPs and any individual or group may not agree with the decisions taken by the winning group. If you don't like it you can vote for someone else at the next election. You can also make a peaceful protest - you can not cause "Civil Disobedience" just because you disagree. If you do then you have to accept the rule of law, and IMHO the protestors should be paying for the cost of policing the site. We'll see if it was a truly "peaceful protest" if any of those arrested get charged. Anyway you had no real response to my points; can offer no positive alternatives; and have to resort to a tirade of insults and threats - just goes to show the calibre of your "band of protestors". And I have every right to be a "keyboard warrior" and use these columns for questioning the claims of the pro- and anti-frackers; as you and your "band of protestors" do for using them for spreading paranoia and misinformation about the dangers of fracking; and generating "conspiracy theories" to support your claims. . Looking forward to your next response. BTW - you mention "your research and teaching in an associated Discipline" - would you care to elucidate on what this actually is? pachallis
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree