• This topic has 66 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by DrJ.
Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 67 total)
  • Fracking-tastic
  • votchy
    Free Member

    fracking in the parks

    So, right decision or not?

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    so ****ing dumb.

    merely days after the world agrees that we might need to do something to mitigate the worst of climate change, we’re straight back to shagging the world for profit.

    WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND.

    ffs.

    At best, it’ll cost us a sodding fortune in money and energy to develop and build and run the carbon-capture technology that’ll be required to undo the damage done so that a few (and only a few) people can make some profit for a few years. At best.

    (worst case, CCS doesn’t work, and we’re all stuffed)

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    If there’s money to be made I can’t see a problem.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    cumberlanddan
    Free Member

    Not really but then, speaking as a geologist, I don’t think much will ever come of it anyway.

    Completely different situation in the UK to the US and fracking can only be viable with subsidy, Carbon Capture and Storage (subsidy by another name) or a very high oil price.

    The only one which looks likely with this rabble in charge is a direct subsidy, which even they wouldn’t go for!

    Stupid decision though as it makes a mockery of national park status. It would be foolish to expect better.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    The only one which looks likely with this rabble in charge is a direct subsidy, which even they wouldn’t go for!

    That would require special permission from the EU.

    Elected sovereign governments aren’t allowed to make those sort of decisions for themselves.

    mikey74
    Free Member

    No. Terrible decision. Not only is it a catastrophically bad technique, it perpetuates the use of fossil fuels we should be focusing on reducing and eventually eradicating.

    Trimix
    Free Member

    Enjoy it while it lasts then. It wont be here for long.

    DaRC_L
    Full Member

    Awhiles & mikey74 +1
    and done without debate by backdoor parliamentary tactics

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Enjoy it while it lasts then. It wont be here for long.

    What won’t be……..the national parks? A finely balanced and predictable climate? The Christmas pantomime season?

    Northwind
    Full Member

    Part of the trouble is that for years a lot of the fossil-reduction argument was based on scarcity- peak oil, all that stuff. And that was an argument that was pretty much won, but the conclusions people drew from it and actions taken were completely the opposite of what was needed- massive investment and innovation in new ways to extract fossil fuels, opening up deposits that wouldn’t have been viable or tolerated previously…

    TurnerGuy
    Free Member

    dump iron in the oceans, plankton bloom and remove carbon from atmosphere, job done.

    cumberlanddan
    Free Member

    Northwind makes a good point.

    Turnerguy is somewhere I dont want to follow. Seeing as we’ve **** up the air, lets **** up the water too? Strange logic.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Depends on your view.

    We need hydrocarbons, most people on this thread are doing so from a plastic keyboard, and will drive a car home tonight.

    Gas is far better for the environment than diesel.

    a few (and only a few) people can make some profit

    I think you’ll find that as an industry, the excrement is really hitting the fan with regards to a lack of work due to the low oil prices. We could do with a few jobs (and not getting left behind when it comes to developing expertise).

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    job done.

    What about harvesting and burning the plankton for our energy needs?

    SaxonRider
    Full Member

    merely days after the world agrees that we might need to do something to mitigate the worst of climate change, we’re straight back to shagging the world for profit.

    WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND.

    This, times a gazillion.

    I just caught the news, and feel utterly helpless.

    One of these days, some massive earthquake in some place like Lancashire is going to show us how wrong we were. We’ll pause for a moment, scratch our heads, then go right back to doing what we were doing.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    dump iron in the oceans, plankton bloom and remove carbon from atmosphere, job done.

    pretty sure there will be a downside to this but as I cba googling it I’ll go with the pH of the sea will plummet and you’ll need a hazmat suit when you’re on the beach.

    binners
    Full Member

    Well seeing as they took the decisions about fracking planning applications out of the hands of local authorities, as they didn’t share the enthusiasm as the balloon-faced inhabitant of fracking-free Whitney, Oxfordshire, I suppose this was the logical next step

    Hurray for democracy and localism

    mikey74
    Free Member

    and at the same time as the UK reduces it’s investment in renewable energies.

    Disgraceful.

    TurnerGuy
    Free Member

    Turnerguy is somewhere I dont want to follow. Seeing as we’ve **** up the air, lets **** up the water too? Strange logic.

    in the aftermath of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Environmental scientist Andrew Watson analyzed global data from that eruption and calculated that it deposited approximately 40,000 tons of iron dust into the oceans worldwide. This single fertilization event generated an easily observed global decline in atmospheric CO
    2 and a parallel pulsed increase in oxygen levels.[8]

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

    Northwind
    Full Member

    thisisnotaspoon – Member

    Depends on your view.

    We need hydrocarbons, most people on this thread are doing so from a plastic keyboard, and will drive a car home tonight.

    Gas is far better for the environment than diesel.

    Yep, if we were only going to burn one of them. But gas + diesel is worse.

    irc
    Full Member

    We’ll need gas for the next couple of decades at least. In an uncertain world I’d prefer a UK supply. Who is volunteering to stop using gas central heating?

    As for how viable UK fracking is? We won’t know until a few exploratory wells are done. The industry isn’t asking for subsidy. Just get they obstacles out their way, regulate, and let them see what they find.

    Better than the crazy world of green subsidy where a farmer can rent out his fields for subsidised solar or wind. After getting that he can get another subsidy to have diesel generators in another field for when the wind and solar are producing nothing.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/12/11/greens-lining-the-pockets-of-farmers.html

    rs
    Free Member

    And on the canadian news this morning > Earthquake in Northern B.C. caused by fracking, says regulator

    British Columbia’s energy regulator has confirmed that a 4.6 magnitude earthquake in northeast B.C. earlier this year was caused by a nearby fracking operation.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    Or coal.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    Must be a mistake. This is the greenest government ever. I know, cos Dave said so.

    thestabiliser
    Free Member

    As the guffawing bellends I went to school with stand to earn colossal amounts of filthy lucre from it surely it can only be a good idea. They probably need some new diamond encrusted cuff links or summet.

    Yours George Osborne

    sunnydaze310
    Free Member

    Money is so powerful…thats what drives things like fracking ….

    Until the leaders take a world view where decisions are based on upon impacts on the planet and what’s the best for a healthy planet…it’ll just keep getting worse….humans are easily the biggest pest to this ecosystem….

    DrJ
    Full Member

    Amber Rudd, the former parliamentary undersecretary of state for climate change, told MPs: “We have agreed an outright ban on fracking in national parks [and] sites of special scientific interest.”

    Shurely not another bunch of lying Tories?

    DrJ
    Full Member

    As a former earthquake seismologist I am looking forward to the possibility of a bit of extra consulting work. Carry on, chaps!!

    cumberlanddan
    Free Member

    Turnerguy – ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?

    Its just storing up more problems for later on.

    The people that were once ‘deniers’ seem to have changed tune in the face of growing evidence and now advocate climate engineering whilst simultaneously implying that there is no problem anyway. Ostriches sticking their heads in the sand and unfortunately we seem to have a government full of the bastards.

    Trimix
    Free Member

    The planet is really buggered then.

    I see no evidence of anyone or government or business changing this. The latest climate agreement wont change it.
    We will still carry on polluting.

    honeybadgerx
    Full Member

    I’m quite looking forward to more fracking for on-shore gas being tried out, we have a heck of a lot of environmental controls and legislation in the UK so the chances of significant environmental harm occurring (especially without an enforced clean-up) are very low. Yes, there may be the odd site that has an issue, but there’s a risk with any form of industrial development of environmental damage so we’d need to ban any kind of industry. Or transport. Or petrol stations. Etc, etc.

    bikebouy
    Free Member

    I’m up for it, my proviso is that the same amount of money put into extraction is put into renewables, unlikely as that proposal is.

    And yes, looks like the South Downs gets it too..

    ohnohesback
    Free Member

    Given the current falling oil price it will be uneconomic for the foreseeable future.

    Klunk
    Free Member

    if the shires don’t won’t it they should have voted green not blue, while there is little chance of that happening the government will carry on regardless.

    TurnerGuy
    Free Member

    Turnerguy – ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?

    Its just storing up more problems for later on.

    Except that natural events are doing this stuff all the time – volcanic eruptions for example.

    Or the massive fires in Indonesia which is chucking out loads of co/2 but it people don’t seem fussed about, a lot less fussed than about VW.

    It is almost certainly the greatest environmental disaster of the 21st century – so far.

    it is currently producing more carbon dioxide than the US economy. And in three weeks the fires have released more CO2 than the annual emissions of Germany.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia-fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35109393

    A little bit pointless having these global agreements but letting something like this happen.

    copa
    Free Member

    The isssue of fracking is a good example of how dysfunctional Britain is.

    In Wales, there was supposed to have been a ban on fracking. But nobody seems to know if there really is – or how exactly it would work.

    In theory, it’s because, while the UK Government controls mineral licensing, the Welsh Assembly has control over planning.

    But the Planning Inspectorate, who would deal with any appeals, is part of UK Governemnt.

    Should be a completely devolved matter.

    mikey74
    Free Member

    As a former earthquake seismologist

    We may have much to talk about (it’s something I’m interested in and considering as I progress my Geology studies). Would you mind the odd email exchange?

    DrJ
    Full Member

    @mikey74 ‘course not 🙂

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 67 total)

The topic ‘Fracking-tastic’ is closed to new replies.