fracking

[thebish]

lots of people seem to be against this in a way that makes it look as if I should find it obvious that we should be against this - but when those people at the sussex site were interviewed i didn't hear anything much that sounded like a convincing body of evidence..

i'm inclined to be against it because Cameron is for it - and that's a pretty good barometer - but I have not looked at any evidence seriously either way...

has anyone on here actually looked into it clearly and thoroughly?

if so - would anyone be willing to offer me key points as to why i should be against it (or for it)?

thanks in advance!

[Beefheart]

lots of people seem to be against this in a way that makes it look as if I should find it obvious that we should be against this - but when those people at the sussex site were interviewed i didn't hear anything much that sounded like a convincing body of evidence..

i'm inclined to be against it because Cameron is for it - and that's a pretty good barometer - but I have not looked at any evidence seriously either way...

has anyone on here actually looked into it clearly and thoroughly?

if so - would anyone be willing to offer me key points as to why i should be against it (or for it)?

thanks in advance!

When I was in college for my last exam they had a member from the institute come and give a talk. This guy was adamant that fracking will 'change the world' and that all concerns are completely unfounded.

The obvious pro is that if estimates are correct there's a potentially huge domestic gas supply.

However I believe the 2 current methods of extraction are either blowing shit up, or shit to do with chemicals.

It's quite obvious that I am not an expert on the subject.

[Lord Kangana]

More short-termisim. It seems a bit f*cked up that we'll invest/give tax breaks to/you know the score (unless you're naive) to anything that digs up huge swathes of our land, is a diminishing resource etc etc etc.

We're surrounded by the seas. On all sides. Literally, theres f*cking loads of it everywhere you look. Why are we not investing money into the technology that could harvest that (pretty inexhaustible I would presume) source of energy? Lets be clear, I think you're an idiot if you think that if we can't do it now there's no point. Why aren't we?

Why, whilst we're at it, do wind turbines have to turn off when its windy? From what I've read, its nothing to do with it being windy (cue much Daily Mail hilarity) its because the electricity system we have in place can't handle the surge. Do I need to point out the weak link in the chain here. And what needs fixing?

Anyway, in short, it just seems stupid when, if we actually put our minds and money to it, we could do something that would provide abundant and lasting energy. Rather than this.

[a1]

nuclear power is pretty infinite.

harnessing the tide might mess with the wildlife or the siderial day or something. imagine the swampys losing their shit over that.

nuclear only ballzes up if the russians are pissing about with it.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The main reasons to be against it are
1. Nobody knows if it causes earthquakes or not, but there are reasons to believe it does
2. The chemicals used can, and do, leach into the water table.
3. A vast amount of water is required to provide the fracking pressure, this is usually taken from the surrounding site - wells, rivers etc and is highly detrimental to wildlife, the water table, springs, drinking water, and trees.
4. Due to 3 the local weather is affected with mini deserts capable of being created
5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.
6. Some of those chemicals in 5 are quite stable and nobody has a clue where and when they'll emerge back into the world again.
7. A few 'wells' in America have run amok with explosions and uncontrolled gas escapes. Not funny if you live near one, and every site in this country, believe me, somebody'll be living near one.

[clapton is god]

The main reasons to be against it are
1. Nobody knows if it causes earthquakes or not, but there are reasons to believe it does
2. The chemicals used can, and do, leach into the water table.
3. A vast amount of water is required to provide the fracking pressure, this is usually taken from the surrounding site - wells, rivers etc and is highly detrimental to wildlife, the water table, springs, drinking water, and trees.
4. Due to 3 the local weather is affected with mini deserts capable of being created
5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.
6. Some of those chemicals in 5 are quite stable and nobody has a clue where and when they'll emerge back into the world again.
7. A few 'wells' in America have run amok with explosions and uncontrolled gas escapes. Not funny if you live near one, and every site in this country, believe me, somebody'll be living near one.

Yep, Me. The Barton Moss site is not too far distant from me with us both in the Trafford area.

I come down just about on the 'opposed' side of the fence but I feel I should be somehow more decidedly against. I struggle to stir the bothered bone though, even though i know I should.

[thebish]

The main reasons to be against it are
1. Nobody knows if it causes earthquakes or not, but there are reasons to believe it does
2. The chemicals used can, and do, leach into the water table.
3. A vast amount of water is required to provide the fracking pressure, this is usually taken from the surrounding site - wells, rivers etc and is highly detrimental to wildlife, the water table, springs, drinking water, and trees.
4. Due to 3 the local weather is affected with mini deserts capable of being created
5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.
6. Some of those chemicals in 5 are quite stable and nobody has a clue where and when they'll emerge back into the world again.
7. A few 'wells' in America have run amok with explosions and uncontrolled gas escapes. Not funny if you live near one, and every site in this country, believe me, somebody'll be living near one.

cheers... are there credible UK scientists who confirm this list?

I found this today - which suggests that several of those points are at least contested...

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/th ... 81%29.aspx

[Lord Kangana]

The only scientist I've heard on air debunking them with gusto had to admit that he in fact did consultancy work for the fracking industry.

Find any "fact" and you'll find an opposition to it.

[thebish]

The only scientist I've heard on air debunking them with gusto had to admit that he in fact did consultancy work for the fracking industry.

Find any "fact" and you'll find an opposition to it.

indeed - which is why I'm asking if anyone on here has looked into it properly and got beyond the opposing soundbites...

(are there really places that would deny the fact that benitez is a prick? )

[Beefheart]

The only scientist I've heard on air debunking them with gusto had to admit that he in fact did consultancy work for the fracking industry.

Find any "fact" and you'll find an opposition to it.

Yeah but then there is opposition to the fact that MMR vaccines don't cause autism, or that homeopathy is no more effective than a placebo. Doesn't mean the fact isn't true.

It would be good to get a balanced view on it though, debate seems to between the placard waving hippies and politicians/fracking companies with not much inbetween.

[bedwetter2]

As soon as I saw the great unwashed and associated dreadlocked rent-a-mob objectors at Balcombe and Barton Moss I knew what a noble cause it is.
Fracking, that is.
All the talk of polluted groundwater through the use of chemicals is unproven in the good ol' US of A. There has not been one court case never mind class action against the gas producers despite that society being the most litigious in the world.
The important thing to bear in mind is that fracking has been used in the UK before both for onshore oil, coal liquification/gasification schemes and natural gas without any of the claimed problems. The only difference being now that technology allows horizontal wells to be drilled.
Wind will never be viable in a million years, tidal unlikely to be allowed for environmental reasons, solar - chuckle, nuclear ok but with huge capital cost and very long lead in times and coal also very expensive for new power stations with the requisite discharge scrubbing and co2 sink technology.
So I vote for ignoring the dirty traveller type professional objectors. There aren't many active local protestors.

[Harry Genshaw]

i'm inclined to be against it because Cameron is for it -

Is all you need really.

nuclear only ballzes up if the russians are pissing about with it.

Somebody had better tell the residents of Fukushima

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The main reasons to be against it are
1. Nobody knows if it causes earthquakes or not, but there are reasons to believe it does
2. The chemicals used can, and do, leach into the water table.
3. A vast amount of water is required to provide the fracking pressure, this is usually taken from the surrounding site - wells, rivers etc and is highly detrimental to wildlife, the water table, springs, drinking water, and trees.
4. Due to 3 the local weather is affected with mini deserts capable of being created
5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.
6. Some of those chemicals in 5 are quite stable and nobody has a clue where and when they'll emerge back into the world again.
7. A few 'wells' in America have run amok with explosions and uncontrolled gas escapes. Not funny if you live near one, and every site in this country, believe me, somebody'll be living near one.

cheers... are there credible UK scientists who confirm this list?

I found this today - which suggests that several of those points are at least contested...

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/th ... 81%29.aspx

How on earth, if read correctly, can those points be contested?
Point 1 - I said nobody knows, who contests that?
Point 2 - the chemicals used can and do leach into the water table. That is incontestable. Anybody who contests it is either paid to, or a know nothing knob.Etc et fecking cetera

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I've just read that article. I have a friend ( another one I know) that 's been battling this country's governments (as a barrister) for as long as she's been a barrister, on behalf of people stationed on ships a couple of miles away from nuclear explosions. She represents Australia too. And do you know, she's had to battle 'facts' like them presented in that blog. Anti-factualism is the professional name of it. It's extremely In, and profitable, and consists mainly of wankers saying 'there is absolutely no evidence of yadda yadda yadda'

[Lost Leopard Spot]

...show me the evidence that there is no evidence.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Here's a little list of things that were claimed had no evidence:
Damage done by Agent Orange.
The release of chemicals at Bhopal.
PCBs.
CFCs in the ozone.

Not one single authority, once the damage has been done,would now contest any of those. My attitude is 'better safe than sorry'. Capitalists attitude is 'feck it, It makes me money'.

[a1]

nuclear only ballzes up if the russians are pissing about with it.

Somebody had better tell the residents of Fukushima

a tidial wave swamped it. it wouldve knocked a wind farm over.

and no one died .

get a dyson sphere built.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Here's another thought.
The wording is important: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT FRACKING USES VAST QUANTITIES OF WATER.
Why? Because it's a technology that uses hydrological pressure to crack gas bearing rocks. Why on Earth would any scientist conduct a study of that. It's known technology based on scientific principle. But proponents of tracking always state no scientist has ever shown evidence of vast amounts of water use. And probably none ever will, but it doesn't make it any less of a fact.

[Beefheart]

...show me the evidence that there is no evidence.

Cant prove a negative.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

...show me the evidence that there is no evidence.

Cant prove a negative.

So I'm right then.