|
|
Post by rowanberry on Dec 17, 2015 20:18:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by faith on Dec 18, 2015 12:56:37 GMT
This is terrible! Even if one was not against fracking, why bother to designate things as national parks (and SSSIs too) if it means nothing once big business gets its claws in? 38 Degrees should be attacking this as well
|
|
|
|
Post by shirl100 on Dec 18, 2015 17:37:56 GMT
It was reported on our local news channel too, the suggestion was that the drilling site equipment would not be sited on any protected land, but the shale gas would be extracted by using pipes laid underground to get to it. I doubt the exploration drilling site will do anything to complement the beautiful countryside views, another eyesore to put up with. I have my reservations about this whole process, there has to be some risk ( even if it's very low) when you are injecting those sort of materials underground to release the gas, what happens to the sand, chemicals and water then? Does it permeate the rock changing it's chemical composition, seep into water courses or add pollution to the atmosphere? Quite scary and all for the sake of getting our own gas (if it can be recovered)for the future - at what price? I was sent a petition to sign in January, being run by Greenpeace but I don't remember seeing anything from 38 Degrees separately. Added just found this, I assume it's still relevant? speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/fracking-keep-your-promise Just signed it and it was accepted. Shirl |
|
|
|
Post by alf1951 on Dec 19, 2015 8:37:24 GMT
For me, the jury is still out with regards to fracking. I'm not totally against the proposals but 38 Degrees is a revelation - never heard of it before, I obviously lead a very sheltered life! So thank you for that.
Alf
|
|
|
|
Post by faith on Dec 19, 2015 9:31:08 GMT
I agree with you, Shirl, about not having decided absolutely about the harm that might be done by fracking, but what does worry me is that it is yet more reliance on fossil fuels, when we are supposed to be committed to renewable energy. This is what makes me feel that big business is bound to be behind it. Thanks for alerting me to the petition – it's probable that I signed that one a while ago, but it needs to be said again. I have emailed them to say so. i also feel strongly that protected areas should stay protected.
Alf, I am so glad you have been alerted to 38 Degrees (and do you know Avaaz, for the international equivalent?). It is a way of getting the voice of sensible, reasonable, concerned people (that's us, of course!) heard, as opposed to the government and business (much the same thing, at the present time) having it all its own way.
|
|
|
|
Post by eeyore on Dec 20, 2015 22:15:05 GMT
I thought they said they wouldn't!!  They lied Are we suprised ? (outraged yes, but surprised, no) How do you know a politician is lying to you ? ... his lips are moving |
|
|
|
Post by faith on Dec 21, 2015 17:08:04 GMT
I have just read in New Scientist that senior environmentalists believe that fracking is the best option we have at the moment. Yes, it is a fossil fuel, but for reasons I don't pretend to understand, it is apparently far and away the best, until really effective solar power etc is produced. Here's an article in the Guardian about it www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/shale-gas-fracking-good-for-environment. But I'm still not at all sure that it should go on in national parks – they say that it produces quite an upheaval getting started. On the other hand, so do wind farms. No easy answers here. |
|
|
|
Post by alf1951 on Dec 22, 2015 6:43:00 GMT
The guardian article makes interesting reading and I have to say, the more I read, hear and think about this, the more accepting I am of fracking being a viable, and possibly the only, way forward given the demands of our society for energy. No body wants to see a drilling rig from their home any more than people wanted to see coal pits, slag heaps, gasometers, power stations, electricity pylons, etc in the past. There is a tremendous vitriolic outpouring around here whenever a farmer wants planning permission for a solitary wind turbine on his land so the opposition to fracking drilling rigs will be phenomenal! But, if we continue to demand the kind of lifestyles we enjoy now we need to learn to live with a few blots on the landscape especially if the blots provide the energy we crave along with a reduction in pollution and global warming. In the short term, fracking may be part of the answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayjay on Dec 22, 2015 13:29:22 GMT
Any predictions about the long-term effects of fracking on the geology? of the surrounding areas can be nothing more than guesses.
Both the sun and wind are fitful providers, the tides are constant,and can be used to provide power whether going in or out, that is where we should be looking.(imo)
|
|
|
|
Post by shirl100 on Dec 22, 2015 17:38:23 GMT
Any predictions about the long-term effects of fracking on the geology? of the surrounding areas can be nothing more than guesses. Looks like the regulator in this news item concluded that fracking operations did cause a magnitude 4.6 earthquake, but experts suggest that any fracking related future earthquakes are unlikely to cause any damage - are we confident in that statement or is it just that no damage has been seen to occur so far so that's evidence enough! Shirl www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/earthquake-northeastern-b-c-progress-energy-fracking-1.3367081 |
|
|
|
Post by faith on Dec 22, 2015 21:15:07 GMT
The latest thing I heard on the radio from a geology professor, who sounded a strong conservationist, was that damage had indeed been done by frackers in America but it was because they were cowboys after a quick buck and did things all wrong, and that sort of thing (earthquakes, contaminated water supplies etc.) was preventable if proper safeguards were in place. His opinion was that there is no way of getting energy that is without some drawback or other, but that fracking was a good candidate for being not as bad as most.
|
|
|
|
Post by kentyeti on Dec 26, 2015 14:57:56 GMT
The guardian article makes interesting reading and I have to say, the more I read, hear and think about this, the more accepting I am of fracking being a viable, and possibly the only, way forward given the demands of our society for energy. No body wants to see a drilling rig from their home any more than people wanted to see coal pits, slag heaps, gasometers, power stations, electricity pylons, etc in the past. There is a tremendous vitriolic outpouring around here whenever a farmer wants planning permission for a solitary wind turbine on his land so the opposition to fracking drilling rigs will be phenomenal! But, if we continue to demand the kind of lifestyles we enjoy now we need to learn to live with a few blots on the landscape especially if the blots provide the energy we crave along with a reduction in pollution and global warming. In the short term, fracking may be part of the answer. Very good and well made post Alf.
I am an energy user, as is everyone here on this Forum. I want far better sourced energy and in time, I think that will happen. But I feel it will take decades or even centuries to get to a true 100% renewable/green sources. In the meantime I cannot see us going forward as a civilisation without at least very, very carefully testing the viability and environmental impact of such as fracking as a "temporary" source of energy.
If it passes such tests and can be done under National Parks with minimal and very strictly controlled pollution etc on the edges/just outside of the Parks, then so be it.
And does that mean I would accept such as a drilling rig in the eye line looking up to the lovely North Downs, I live in sight of here in Kent? Not a National Park, but still very lovely, then the answer is a qualified Yes.
Cheers,
Bryan
|
|
|
|
Post by alf1951 on Feb 15, 2016 8:22:58 GMT
The latest thing I heard on the radio from a geology professor, who sounded a strong conservationist, was that damage had indeed been done by frackers in America but it was because they were cowboys after a quick buck and did things all wrong, and that sort of thing (earthquakes, contaminated water supplies etc.) was preventable if proper safeguards were in place. His opinion was that there is no way of getting energy that is without some drawback or other, but that fracking was a good candidate for being not as bad as most. Did anyone see the PBS America programme about fracking - it was shown a couple of times in the past week. Seems that there is little regulation for such activity in parts of US with result that well heads have been sited next to homes, schools and playgrounds - apparently allowed within 350ft (a study suggests it should be x7 that distance). There are 18,000 well heads in Colorado alone. Lots of companies have jumped on this bandwagon with no regard for the local population or environment. Earth tremors have been linked to inappropriate disposal of waste water underground and substandard lining of wells has allowed escape of gases into the environment. I'm still not totally against fracking but I sure hope it will be better controlled her than in the US. Alf |
|
I thought they said they wouldn't!! 
I thought they said they wouldn't!! 
