You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Tried a search and doesn't seem to be any recent threads on the issue, which is a surprise given the 'bribing' initiative in the news this week...
So, what are your thoughts on the process and the governments promotion of it?
It all stinks.
It has absolutely eff all to do with affordable power supplies, or any of that crap they're trying to feed us, and all about making yet more money for their usual greedy corporate paymasters
The pathetic attempt at bribery - you can keep a whole 1% of the profits (well whoop-de-****ing-dooooooo!!!) is an open admission that they've lost the argument already.
But Call me Daves unequivocal support is a sure sign that all decisions are already made, contracts exchanged, promises made, and any protest will not be tolerated. Expect things to start getting nasty pretty soon. According to people protesting I know, thats happening already
Im sure itll all be fine
just ask the residents of Sidoarjo in Indonesia 😳
[img] 
[/img]
would be nice if the money raised was used for the good of the many rather than the few
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund
Either way, I think it's unfair to ask the Police to step in against Replicants.
[img] 
[/img]
I think it's a good thing.
There, I said it.
they are hoping to capture (up to) 10% of the available gas. call me cynical if you like but im holding out for something better.
Certainly appears to be multiple conflicts of interest... how many scandals can Call me Dave be implicated in before the nation rises up and shanks his slimey ass?
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/musings/2013/20130725-behind_every_picture_lies_a_story.html ]Explanation of pic above[/url]
I don't know, but the govt's policies of "build as many houses as you can, wherever you can" and "frack as much as you can, wherever you can" look mutually exclusive to me. Either that or some pour souls are going to end up living on or very close to fracking sites in their nice new houses.
FWIW - my gut feeling is that fracking is a bad thing, as much as anything because it's another source of fossil fuels that we really need to get away from. And it sounds like another one of CMDs "get me mates rich" schemes.
care to elaborate honeybadger? i wont get screamy, im interested to hear why you're in favour
I'm all for a bit of frackin. You can stick a fracker in my back garden if you like.
And it sounds like another one of CMDs "get me mates rich" schemes.
I think you'll find that's the main aim of any Tory policy.....
I find the use of the term bribery interesting.
I find the use of the term bribery interesting.
Why? Its fairly simple. You know when the colonial powers went into the rain forests, and places like that? And offered the natives little shiny trinkets, while they plundered their natural resources, then cleared off leaving devastation in their wake?
Well.. that
jonah tonto - Member
care to elaborate honeybadger? i wont get screamy, im interested to hear why you're in favour
I just think it could be a very valuable resource. Environmental regulations are incredibly strict in the UK (I have to fill out pages of paperwork just to get permission to drill into an abandoned coal mine). Talk of pollution to aquifers, etc. I've never seen backed up by a reasonable scientific argument - the geology in which shale gas tends to exist isn't really used for drinking water supply in the UK, and if you ever do want to drill into an aquifer that does, again, there is a huge amount of regulation in place.
Once wells are set up I don't see it as being a huge blot on the landscape, no worse than wind turbines, pylons, etc. In terms of peoples houses being in the middle of fracking areas, I'm not particularly sure they know the difference, a high proportion of houses in the north east are sat above abandoned coal mines and would never know (bar the odd shallow mining exception not applicable to fracking). Plus there's the economic benefits of employment, tax income, etc.
[url= http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opinion/global/the-facts-on-fracking.html ]Can't think why not...[/url]
you can keep a whole 1% of the profits
Thought it was 1% of revenues? very different figure!
I just think it could be a very valuable resource. Environmental regulations are incredibly strict in the UK
Good point - better that energy is sourced here under strict regulations than in Russia, Africa, China etc where there is likely much more ecological damage caused.
I find the use of the term bribery interesting.
Give local councils a long list of services they are legally obliged to provide. Cut their funding so they can't afford to meet their legal obligations. Then offer them a lifeline, in exchange for storing vast quantities of carcinogenic chemicals all over the place (without proper regulatory control), they can have a pittance of a cut of the revenue from fracking and then find themselves paying billions to clean up the mess left behind....
I think fracking is an absolutely cracking idea!
As long as it is carried out a long way away from where I live, obviously.
I think they're putting all the wells in Chipping Norton, aren't they?
Oh, …. hang on a minute…. [url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/30/fracking-north-east-england-tory-peer ]Maybe not?[/url] 🙄
footflaps - Member'...storing vast quantities of carcinogenic chemicals all over the place (without proper regulatory control)...'
Curious, can you provide details on that one?
Good point - better that energy is sourced here under strict regulations than in Russia, Africa, China etc where there is likely much more ecological damage caused.
It'll be sold on the global market and we'll still be an importer of gas [from Norway, mainly] so it won't stop any gas extraction elsewhere, it might reduce some consumption of imported coal but not in any significant quantities
And another thing... until we get round to building more nuclear power stations we're going to have to burn something, and gas is more preferable than coal (especially when it's under your own control).
Curious, can you provide details on that one?
What do you think they use to extract it? Vimto and fairy wishes?
Why? Its fairly simple. You know when the colonial powers went into the rain forests, and places like that? And offered the natives little shiny trinkets, while they plundered their natural resources, then cleared off leaving devastation in their wake?
I would love to learn more about this, where did it happen, what resources were plundered and have the affected areas recovered yet ?
Give local councils a long list of services they are legally obliged to provide. Cut their funding so they can't afford to meet their legal obligations.
When they stop posting advertorial leaflets through my door and turn their office lights off at night, I'll believe that money rather than incompetence is the problem.
Edit:
vast quantities of carcinogenic chemicals
Lots of substances are Carcinogenic - have a look at the Daily Mail list for further details http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com
footflaps - Member'...storing vast quantities of carcinogenic chemicals all over the place (without proper regulatory control)...'
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAA
Oh, you were being serous?
Im sory you owe me a new keyboard and an explanation why my job is so hard if theres no [i]"proper regulatory control".[/i]
binners - MemberWhat do you think they use to extract it? Vimto and fairy wishes?
No, but there is regulatory control - yes, some of this will require updating and amending to better suit fracking, but you can't just drill holes and discharge waste water, drilling slurry, etc. everywhere without ensuring no impact to the environment, public health, etc.
All our carbon emissions requirements can be met by using gas alone as it is a very clean fuel. Gas prices have fallen by 75% in the US. All fuels extraction cause some negative effects on the environment, using that excuse not to frack is hypocrisy. There are people whose whole life revolves around being anti something. The worse argument is that wind power is free! Ignoring that there is always a gas turbine running inefficiently waiting for the constant stoppages in wind power they refuse to take into account the environmental (carbon emmisions) capital costs. Putting a wind turbine in the middle of nowhere. putting in pylons and the huge loss in transmission because they are a long way from the end user. Some say as much as 50% is lost on transmission. Until recently they were getting 43p feed in payments. If only half arrives with the end user then that works out at 86p a kilowatt. Then the grid charges it bit and the electric companies make 5%. You may be looking at £1 a kilowatt. My electric is 13p a kilowatt and my bill is £21 a month. Wind power is free? They the antis should be checked for drug use.
Why not, if done properly it leaves little mark. So some people get a bit richer, errrr, isn't that we want, jobs and all that good stuff. The UK has a really good Oil & Gas service industry, so why not put it to use here and then also sell it elsewhere.
Obviously there are some existing regulations, but the UK fracking industry has paid our government to reject any fracking specific regulations:
The UK has defeated European Union attempts to set legally binding environmental regulations for the continent's fledgling shale gas industry, the Guardian has learned.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/uk-defeats-european-bid-fracking-regulations
As for hazardous waste, there have been loads of problems in the US:
http://planetsave.com/2013/04/30/fracking-waste-too-toxic-even-for-a-hazardous-waste-site/
http://ecowatch.com/2013/01/22/cancer-causing-chemicals-fracking-operations/
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/drinking_water_systems_report.html
As for hazardous waste, there have been loads of problems in the US:
Also there was almost no regulation of the Coal Seam Gas market in the US.
Isn't fracking already being controlled through our existing environmental permitting system?
why does it follow we will be an importer. If sold on the open market it will have to be exported. It will be cheaper here as there is no transport costs. I think coal is or will be soon out of the electricity equation. We import gas from the gulf by liquefying and transporting vast distances. I would have thought that would stop? If the UK produces more gas then less gas will produced else where as supply has increased. Unless demand increases, not a unreasonable assumption if prices fall BUT at the expense of other fuels no doubt more polluting?. hestabiliser - Member
Good point - better that energy is sourced here under strict regulations than in Russia, Africa, China etc where there is likely much more ecological damage caused.
It'll be sold on the global market and we'll still be an importer of gas [from Norway, mainly] so it won't stop any gas extraction elsewhere, it might reduce some consumption of imported coal but not in any significant quantities
But we already have strict regulatory control? Adding a further set of European regulations just increases cost and bureaucracy for everyone involved for no meaningful gain.
Regarding the waste problems in the US, environmental control is completely different over there, in some cases a lot looser than in the UK. I prefer to stick to documents published by more independent and accredited scientific bodies rather than ones with mroe than a hint of bias, the article referring to rejection of waste at a landfill is exactly the same as what happens here - waste must be classified into certain 'bands' and then disposed of at correctly banded landfill sites. If they do intermittent testing (which they should), and waste doesn't meet the right criteria it must be disposed of apporpriately. The point is, there is a very good system in place to make sure all this happens properly.
I think you'll find that's the main aim of any Tory policy.....
I think you'll find that's the main aim of any [s]Tory[/s] politician's policy.....
some interesting points, thanks its food for thought.
i appreciate the points about regulatory control being tighter in the uk but im sure we can all agree that accidents can and do happen? what framework is in place to deal with this? who pays etc?
while the drill head is small im expecting that traffic to and from will be a fair bit more disturbing than that of say a pylon?
looking at the areas of america where fracking has gone on via google earth is a bit scary to me. we have a very different country in terms of space.
in terms of tax revenue generated, are these large multi nationals known for paying their fair share of tax?
hope im not coming across as arsey, im genuinely interested. i do see the need for energy generation but i am wary and its difficult to get info as it is a very emotive subject from both sides.
The EU is against fracking end of story. Where are these laws made. Am I right in saying the European Parliament? They are bunch of loons with nothing better to do.The UK has defeated European Union attempts to set legally binding environmental regulations for the continent's fledgling shale gas industry, the Guardian has learned.
i appreciate the points about regulatory control being tighter in the uk but im sure we can all agree that accidents can and do happen? what framework is in place to deal with this? who pays etc?
There are already oil wells on land, refineries, pipelines etc. so it'll be covered by DECC / HSE as appropriate.
in terms of tax revenue generated, are these large multi nationals known for paying their fair share of tax?
Simple answer is typically yes, although individual cases may vary.
Good, get it whilst you can and it's available. Cheap source of energy, if we don't use it the next generation surely will, can't understand what the fracking fuss is about.
Jonah - i'd hope that dealing with accidents, payments, local disturbance and even site closure will all be covered by conditions within the environmetal permits as with any other `heavy' industry.
SD-253 - Member
European Parliament? They are bunch of loons with nothing better to do.
indeed
[img] 
[/img]
As for hazardous waste, there have been loads of problems in the US:http://planetsave.com/2013/04/30/fracking-waste-too-toxic-even-for-a-hazardous-waste-site/
http://ecowatch.com/2013/01/22/cancer-causing-chemicals-fracking-operations/
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/drinking_water_systems_report.html
1) It was A (one, singular) truck turned away for containing radium 266 contaminated material. Radium 266 is mostly a beta emitter (that site says gamma, which is also true, maybe that sounds scarier?). Beta radiation is stopped by pretty much anything solid, so unless you pick it up with your bare hands or eat it, you'll be fine. Gamma radiation passes straight through human tissue with little effect.
2) Ever read the Daily Mail, EVERYTHING gives you cancer. Fracking chemicals maybe more than most, but they're going to be a lot further underground than for example the petrol tank in my car, or the paint thinners in my shed, which also contains carcinogens. And I bet a lot of people wash their used paintbrushes in the sink afterwards rather than hand them in at the dump don't they?
3) The number of contaminated wells is tiny in comparison to the number of fracking sites, and even smaller compared tot he number of wells in the USA. Woppits link http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opinion/global/the-facts-on-fracking.html puts it at 1 in 200 were worse after fracking, and lots were unsafe in the tests carried out before fracking!
We're too hungry for cheap energy not to do it and too risk/headline adverse to do it badly. I think it's going to happen, and it's probably going to be okay. If I had to choose between an opencast mine, a nuclear plant and a fracked well with a couple of miles I know what I'd go for...
why does it follow we will be an importer. If sold on the open market it will have to be exported
Cos we aint got all that much of it - it would have no effect on global gas proces and the gas everyone else extracts from non-fracking wells costs significantly less to produce. If the French and and bulgarians started pumping it then they, with their greater reserves, could have an impact on gas prices but our paltry contribution would be just a drop in the gassy ocean thing
i appreciate the points about regulatory control being tighter in the uk but im sure we can all agree that accidents can and do happen? what framework is in place to deal with this? who pays etc?
see environmental damage regulations
Oh ,yeah, OP, The reason Camerons pushing it is the chaps down at the club have sunk a bundle in it and Bunty and Toppers will be whizz bang furious if they don't get their money back.
Can someone explain to me why there's such a kerfuffle about (alleged) earthquake risk from underground explosions used in fracking, as compared to coal mining which has been blasting underground for decades?
i appreciate the points about regulatory control being tighter in the uk but im sure we can all agree that accidents can and do happen? what framework is in place to deal with this?
Generaly the non-governmental regulations are far stricter than any mandatory requirements. For example a lot of oil and gas equipment is built to American Petroleum Institute Standards, a lot of pipe/vessels to ASME, etc. The government generaly says that any risk has to be "As Low As Reasnobly Practicable", and there are guidelines as to how often incidents can be 'allowed' to occour. E.g. a minor release of non-toxic chemicals onto a non pourous surface such as spilling some waste water might be tolerated once a year, a release of flamable gas once every hundred, if the risk of ignition is also one in ten, and the risk of anyone being nearby one in 10 (so the risk of an actual accident might be one in 10,000 years, which would be deemed acceptable, if it wasnt you could add a safety system with a 90% sucess rate, making it 1in100,000, or two making it 1in1,000,000). Basicaly the industry is largely self regulating as a (likely)shutdown will cost you a lot more than any safety system.
who pays etc?
If you polute something you have to pay for the cleanup.
while the drill head is small im expecting that traffic to and from will be a fair bit more disturbing than that of say a pylon?
The largest onshore oil field in Europe is in Surrey. I don't think I've ever seen a lorry except on the news when some crusty is protesting.
Can someone explain to me why there's such a kerfuffle about (alleged) earthquake risk from underground explosions used in fracking, as compared to coal mining which has been blasting underground for decades?
Exploding stuff is old-skool. Fracking is doing the same job with high pressure water. The earthquake risk is often the result of re-injecting waste water into the well to displace more gas, or even deeper if you just want rid of it.
chairman of Cuadrilla Resources, Lord Browne has why to much power and influence
this film covers all the issues very well, if you trust the oil and Gas companies to do the right thing your in cloud cuckoo land, get educated and take action, contact your MP or you might loose all the value of your house, loose your drinking water.
The Truth Behind The Dash For Gas 2014
A more light hearted! look at fracking in the UK...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1qtO6rXXh8
Definitely ugly but not necessarily bad. I wouldn't want to buy a house anywhere near a likely fracking area though.
btw fracking is just one alternative gas technology of many which we'll see developing in onshore UK, just seems to be the most fashionable one.
Can someone explain to me why there's such a kerfuffle about (alleged) earthquake risk from underground explosions used in fracking, as compared to coal mining which has been blasting underground for decades?
When they started coal mining the common peasantry knew their place, and had to do what they were bally well told!!! Since then they've been getting uppity and demanding the same rights as their superiors. The nerve of it!
Luckily, we're putting a stop to all that nonsense, and things will be restored to the nirvana of the victorian age. Huzzah!!!
ok so i have looked at the environmental regulations. but they seem pretty vague, and petrochemical companies have huge legal teams who specialise in squirming out of liability. im not convinced. can someone post a link to an example of a 'happy ending' story for environmental damage being rectified in the oil and gas industry please?
again i am interested not being purposefully awkward
edit; thanks notaspoon, missed that post
I presume the landowners are handsomely rewarded?
The government generaly says that any risk has to be "As Low As Reasnobly Practicable"
Which (and I'm sure you're aware of this) is usually translated in the Industry to 'As Little As Regulator Permits' 😉
Anyhoo, everything else you've said is exactly why I'm in favour of it too, especially as the US regulation on everything varies wildly on a state-by-state basis, so we can't really compare fracking here to there anyways.
Energy security, until renewables catches up with demand - Yes please.
ok so i have looked at the environmental regulations. but they seem pretty vague, and petrochemical companies have huge legal teams who specialise in squirming out of liability. im not convinced. can someone post a link to an example of a 'happy ending' story for environmental damage being rectified in the oil and gas industry please?
again i am interested not being purposefully awkward
BP Horizon?
1) BP paid out millions/billions, even before they were fined. And that's inspite fo the fact it wasn't actualy their equipment that blew up. Analogous to getting in a Taxi to a business meeting, the taxi crashing and you being liable for what it crashed into.
2) the gulf marine life is now thriving as the bacteria at the bototm of the food chain that eat the oil have attracted everythign else to the area.
scotroutes - Member
I presume the landowners are handsomely rewarded?
If I remember rightly, landowners and those that own the mineral rights are two separate things, generally I think minerals are considered property of the crown, unless post-dated by manorial rights or other purchase? Much in the same way you don't own the coal in a coal seam 200m beneath your house.
[quote=honeybadgerx ]
scotroutes - Member
I presume the landowners are handsomely rewarded?
If I remember rightly, landowners and those that own the mineral rights are two separate things, generally I think minerals are considered property of the crown, unless post-dated by manorial rights or other purchase? Much in the same way you don't own the coal in a coal seam 200m beneath your house.
But there must at least be some "compensation" for the use of your land [i]above ground[/i], for access rights etc?
Luckily, we're putting a stop to all that nonsense,
I know - look at the way that the NCB launched war on the Fitzwilliams under Manny Shillwell - gave orders to quarry right up to the back door of Wentworth Woodhouse to get back at the toffs
After the family finally got the house back, the taxpayer got handed a nice hundred million pound bill for subsidence repairs 😐
and causing subsidence to huge amount of houses. A hole appeared a few years ago a woman fell down it and died..thepurist - Member
Can someone explain to me why there's such a kerfuffle about (alleged) earthquake risk from underground explosions used in fracking, as compared to coal mining which has been blasting underground for decades?
BP paid out millions/billions, even before they were fined. And that's inspite fo the fact it wasn't actualy their equipment that blew up. Analogous to getting in a Taxi to a business meeting, the taxi crashing and you being liable for what it crashed into.
I'll defend the O&G industry on most things, but that's rubbish, BP were the operator and hence, the buck stops with them, end of.
BP paid out millions/billions, even before they were fined. And that's inspite fo the fact it wasn't actualy their equipment that blew up. Analogous to getting in a Taxi to a business meeting, the taxi crashing and you being liable for what it crashed into.
more analagous to hiring a car and then crashing it into a crowd of people shirley?
indeed, but id say they're the ones with the money and therefore contracts pass the risk onto them. Just as in the taxi analogy the driver stood to make £10 fare and the passenger a lot more.I'll defend the O&G industry on most things, but that's rubbish, BP were the operator and hence, the buck stops with them, end of.
errrr, isn't that we want, jobs and all that good stuff.
Apparently not - there's this Magic Money Tree, see, and....
bring it on I say! We need to carry on using power, being on the interweb, consuming goods, eating more and have expanding lifestyle choices. Anything that gets in the way is just tosh.
Want to stop fracking? Then we need a collective change in lifestyle and the way we use and generate power. I'm happy to wrong about this but are you?
Maybe the taxi analogy works better if you told him to drive really quickly and that is what caused the crash.
What no one seems to realise...is this: most of the operations being permitted at present are EXPLORATORY. We simply do not have most productive (in terms of shale gas) geology that other places do.
We may as well all get hot under the collar about onshore oil drilling in the UK..... Not many people know that exists now do they.
Fracking? Bring it on. Better we produce as much as possible of our own energy rather than be dependent on imports.
Unlike wind fracking is not being subsidised. If the drilling companies can't produce gas at an economic price then they will stop drilling.
Like it or not we need fossil fuels.
[img] 
[/img]
http://euanmearns.com/shale-gas-myths-and-reality-part-1/
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels ]Wind and renewable subsidies are lower than the tax breaks enjoyed by traditional fossil fuels[/url]...
and Gideon Osborne, who has multiple links to the industry, including his father in law, [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-reveals-50-tax-break-for-fracking-firms-8718711.html ]ensured the UK enjoys the most generous tax breaks in the world for fracking[/url]
Yep I'm gonna post this picture again:
[img] [/img]
[url= http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/musings/2013/20130725-behind_every_picture_lies_a_story.html ]and the background to it[/url]
Wowsers, taking just one of those nasty big bold arrows pointing at Call me Dave, who would have thought that someone who used to work at Centrica is now a government advisory on energy. I mean employing people who used to be employed in the industry to advise on it? Really? that's terrible, what could they possibly know about it? And whats more the company they used to work for (an energy distribution company) invested in an upstream company who supply them with energy! The scandal!
And Gideon and Hague get the biggest baddest nastiest bold arrows of all, links with Dave, this kind of thing needs to be in the public knowledge!
I appreciate it may SPARK debate , but CURRENTLY, I think you'll find Vince CABLE has GENERATED a bigger bolder arrow!!
Now, explain to me the role of a lobbyist...
Wind and renewable subsidies are lower than the tax breaks enjoyed by traditional fossil fuels...
False.
i appreciate the points about regulatory control being tighter in the uk
I'm sure that will reassure all the relatives of the victims of Piper Alpha...
And yes things were tightened up afterward, but we were claiming they were tight enough before as well....
SD-253 - Member
European Parliament? They are bunch of loons with nothing better to do.
I would argue, based on the legislation they have passed and current action against multinationals that they put the citizen before profit. They gave us the Working Time Directive (pro employee legislation), the European Charter of Human Rights (we have no fundamental rights under UK law), they are happy to take on Google / Microsoft over privacy / monopolistic behaviour. Whereas in the UK, we have politicians who see companies as their masters and the workers to be exploited. I'd vote for European legislation over domestic stuff any day.
So what does everyone think about clean drinking water and the abundant supply thereof?
Its brilliant, but not much to do with fracking, that oppinion is fairly valid as I work in petrochemicals and my brothers a hydrologist. Annoyingly I was looking foreward to an argument over it.So what does everyone think about clean drinking water and the abundant supply thereof?
Lord browne is involved, considering what happened at BP, then this is going to go to hell in a handcart.
who would have thought that someone who used to work at Centrica is now a government advisory on energy.
Advise for policy is one thing, dictate policy is something else. These people, the politicians, the CEO's the lobbyist's etc are all of the same ilk, the same club, all connected, like the chipping norton set. But they are the ones who will get richer, and you, the ones that are agreeing to this are the ones who will pay.
I would argue, based on the legislation they have passed and current action against multinationals that they put the citizen before profit. They gave us the Working Time Directive (pro employee legislation), the European Charter of Human Rights (we have no fundamental rights under UK law), they are happy to take on Google / Microsoft over privacy / monopolistic behaviour. Whereas in the UK, we have politicians who see companies as their masters and the workers to be exploited. I'd vote for European legislation over domestic stuff any day.
The EU is right and we in the UK still brainwashed by those at the top with promises of riches and "trickle down effect" are wrong.
It is better than nuclear, no worse than North Sea oil n gas IMO.
But it does divert the focus away from the real solution - using less energy and stuff.
The real fuss is because it is suddenly in middle England's back yard, and once again the gain of the rich is going to be at the expense of mr working class and the environment.
I haven't read the rest, but I hope someone has posted up the Norway vs UK approach to gas n oil reserves. Maggie,eh?