Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Skullzrulerz

Fracking Protests

Recommended Posts

With respect that isn't quite connected to fracking though - admittedly everyone has their own agendas, not least those who may well not be best pleased it is on their doorsteps etc.But hey, needn't worry about that - money talks today, people's voices are being lost somewhere amongst the mele and to the point sadly some go to longer lengths than just carrying a placard or two.This is the net result of crap policy enforcement indeed whether they're good or bad. Bribes eh?

Oh I see, I thought you was just referring to the Greens as a party/movement. Well on Fracking they are using unsubstantiated claims as evidence whilst there real agenda is against fossil fuels in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off course, all of the greens manifesto and stance of all things environmental and don't get me started on it's viewpoint on climate change and how the IPCC were using documented evidence from unscientific sources, i.e. Greenpeace and WWF.

 

Seeing this is off topic it might as well be correct.

 

Climate myth

 

 

IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests

 

"The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication." (EU Referendum)

 

The IPCC statement on Amazonian forests can be found in Section 13.4.1 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference being though that regulations here in the UK are far, far stricter than the US, and besides there are no viable alternatives on the table as wind farms are useless and destroy vast swathes of countryside and kill upland birds which leaves solar, which at this moment in time the technology isn't up to the demand. There are no easy solutions and we need a quick fix as well as investment in Nuclear, which will probably never happen now. As for our beloved fossil fuels, well if you dislike them that much then unplug your PC and stop wasting energy.Posted Image

 

They are stricter, but strict enough?

Will all the gas be kept for domestic use?

Will the profits help the ordinary citizen or the wealthy foreign investors?

 

We will disagree on wind farms, as we do on most things! If you want to talk about destroying landscapes, then intensive drilling really is the way to go. At least turbines can be removed without impact on the landscape, but drilling can leave a long lasting impression, especially should any inevitable accidents occur.

Fossil fuels have their place, and will continue to do so for decades to come. This shouldn't mean such vociferous opposition to any clean, and, lets be honest, longer lasting green energy investments.

 

For a relatively densely populated, beautiful and productive region such as the UK, it's a pity that successive governments have failed so miserably in creating an energy plan that now fracking, with such potential to damage the landscape and peoples health, appears to be necessary to maintain energy supplies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a relatively densely populated, beautiful and productive region such as the UK, it's a pity that successive governments have failed so miserably in creating an energy plan that now fracking, with such potential to damage the landscape and peoples health, appears to be necessary to maintain energy supplies.

 

Totally agree. As I posted some time ago in the other thread.

 

Unfortunately this is the result of the complete lack of a coherent energy policy for the last thirty years. The nuclear and Seven Barrage,fiasco and no investment in tidal powe etc and we find ourselves with a dwindling energy supply and huge price hikes. Successive governments through sheer incompetence have backed us into a corner. Funny how the wheel goe's full circle. Cameron supporting fracking and 30 years ago...................well I won't go there..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing this is off topic it might as well be correct.

 

Climate myth

 

 

The IPCC statement on Amazonian forests can be found in Section 13.4.1 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

'Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).'

 

The reference is Global review of forest fires (Rowell and Moore 2000), a non-peer-reviewed report by the WWF. The WWF report makes the following statement:

'Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left. [Nepstad et al. 1999]'

 

The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 - this figure comes from Nepstad 1999. However, the 40% figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement that 'Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall'.

 

Subsequent research has provided additional confirmation of the Amazonian forest's vulnerability to drought. Field measurements of the soil moisture critical threshold found that tree mortality rates increase dramatically during drought (Nepstad 2007). Another study measured the effect of the intense 2005 drought on Amazonian biomass (Phillips 2009). The drought caused massive tree mortality leading to a fall in biomass. This turned the region from a large carbon sink to a carbon producer. The paper concluded that 'such events appear capable of strongly altering the regional carbon balance and thereby accelerating climate change'.

 

An investigation into the peer-review scientific literature shows the information presented by the IPCC on Amazonian forests is correct. The error is that the WWF erroneously omitted the citations supporting the 'up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive...' statement. The lesson here is that the IPCC could have avoided this glitch if they'd quoted directly from the original peer-reviewed papers. Critics of the IPCC, if their goal is a clearer understanding of the science, would also do well to follow this advice.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-false-predictions-Amazon-rainforests-intermediate.htm

Errrr, I was referring to glaciers, which was well documented though all media outlets and not just a biased bloggers site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are stricter, but strict enough?Will all the gas be kept for domestic use?Will the profits help the ordinary citizen or the wealthy foreign investors?We will disagree on wind farms, as we do on most things! If you want to talk about destroying landscapes, then intensive drilling really is the way to go. At least turbines can be removed without impact on the landscape, but drilling can leave a long lasting impression, especially should any inevitable accidents occur.Fossil fuels have their place, and will continue to do so for decades to come. This shouldn't mean such vociferous opposition to any clean, and, lets be honest, longer lasting green energy investments.For a relatively densely populated, beautiful and productive region such as the UK, it's a pity that successive governments have failed so miserably in creating an energy plan that now fracking, with such potential to damage the landscape and peoples health, appears to be necessary to maintain energy supplies.

I think the points you raise are valid ones, but like all new projects we have to have faith in the legalisation in place that will oversee such work. It will need monitoring on a regular basis,as for the private investors coming before ordinary citizens, well I'm afraid that's the way of the world rightly or wrongly. Edited by Sceptical Inquirer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errrr, I was referring to glaciers, which was well documented though all media outlets and not just a biased bloggers site.

 

Nothing to do with Greenpeace or the WWF. Biased............well don't let facts get in the way.

 

"In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 1935..  

 

Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".

 

Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC Fourth Assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas."

 

They admitted this error.

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with Greenpeace or the WWF. Biased............well don't let facts get in the way. "In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 1935..   Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative". Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC Fourth Assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas."  They admitted this error.

No both Greenpeace and the WWF were involved as Greenpeace regularly contributes to some of the findings of the IPCC. I posted a link to this last year in the climate thread somewhere. The link between Greenpeace and the IPCC can be googled and the relevant links traced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No both Greenpeace and the WWF were involved

 

Not with your statement.

 

 

Errrr, I was referring to glaciers, which was well documented though all media outlets and not just a biased bloggers site.

 

Anyway I'm stopping this now as it's irrelevant and highjacking the thread and no doubt annoying everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... we have to have faith in the legalisation in place that will oversee such work...

No hope of any legislation protecting the environment in the face of profits to be made - just look what a shambles has been made of planning law vs protected areas/green belt/floodplains over the last decade or so, and even worse over the last couple of years with the reduced need for councils to take any notice of the locals where big developments are concerned (courtesy of that blot on the landscape Eric Pickles). While it's in the vested interests of those who bankroll political parties to ride roughshod over the wishes of the locals, that's just what will happen. If the Balcombe tests had proved positive, the AONB surrounding the site could have been severely impacted but no consideration of that seems to have been made in the government decision to allow the tests to begin.

 

SI, how do you feel about the possibility of fracking in the Ribble estuary?

 

Anyhow, has any study been made of whether fracking in this country might ever be cost effective, given how deep the shale gas reserves are vs how much gas might be retrievable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyhow, has any study been made of whether fracking in this country might ever be cost effective, given how deep the shale gas reserves are vs how much gas might be retrievable?

 

The only one I've seen from the BGS.

 

 

The latest exuberant shale gas news comes from a report by the British Geological Survey estimating enormous new shale gas resources in the central UK. On June 27, 2013, the British Geological Survey (BGS) released a natural gas resource assessment for the Bowland Shale in the United Kingdom stating that approximately 40 trillion cubic metres (1,300 trillion cubic feet (Tcf)) of shale gas exist in 11 counties in northern England (Exhibit 1). The BGS report, unfortunately, only addresses gas-in-place (total resources) and not extractable resources (technically recoverable resources) much less reserves (commercial supply). The most-likely reserve potential of the Bowland Shale is only about 42 Tcf (3% of gas-in-place) after applying methods used by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and Potential Gas Committee (PGC).

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10088

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only one I've seen from the BGS.

 

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10088

Good comments below that, after the usual silly rants:http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10088#comment-971866

 

 

[-] Hoover on July 26, 2013 - 4:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments topNick, I would go much further than that. If there is another developed country in the world that is as exposed to natural gas for its way of life I can not think of it, certainly not the US as a whole, execpt perhaps in certain states (Texas?). The vast majority of UK homes are heated by gas (about 82%) and we have almost reached the point where I seriously doubt the ability of the power grid to operate in a stable mode without gas generation - I'm not talking about controlled rolling power outages, I think large parts of our grid would not work at all, including (and especially) our capital city and main source of wealth. All of our South-Eastern coal plants are shutting or have just shut (Tilbury, Kingsnorth, Didcott), stable power flows into London are now absolutely dependent on the large amount of gas generation in the region. There is zero political will to turn back from this, indeed there may not be all that much we can actually do to turn back within a 5 - 10 year period.

The UK is not using all that much gas for industry (genuinely interruptible), and a major loss of gas supply would very quickly mean interruptions at our power stations. It is almost impossible to turn off domestic supply of gas, if that ever happened it would literally take years to re-connect (every house would have to be isolated manually and locked before re-pressurising the local network and then unlocking the houses), so interruptions to power stations would take almost all of the hit.

I suppose Japan may be in a similar boat given the nuclear shut-downs, I assume they would re-start their nukes if they really had to (it looks like they may re-start quite a few anyway).

I'm not saying it will happen, I don't think it will. The UK will simply have to pay any price for its LNG, and we may be lucky there, there is a lot of LNG export capacity in construction. But it is a good reason to incentivise production of shale gas for the medium term as much as is economically reasonable, while we figure what to do about the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, what about the protesters - don't they have jobs to go to? Maybe they could become frackers in the not-too-distant. I'll have some of that; probably better coin than I'm on right now, and the closer to my drum the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pro-fracking (well mining in general).

 

I love the environment and support the movement for green energy but i'm not willing to sacrifice profit, jobs and growth for it. If we need to frack we can simply use the extra tax revenue (they'll be paying a marginal rate of over 60%) to build green energy, eventually we could even export the gas.

 

In regards to the safety concerns all earthquakes have been minor and water contamination is something that could easily be sorted via regulation and historically EU regulation has been extremely effective so i'm sure they can come up with a few rules to prevent contamination (Poland is also going heavily for fracking).

 

All i can say is thank god Labour also support fracking, modern day NIMBY's would have prevented the industrial revolution if left to their own devices.

Edited by summer blizzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...