Fracking in Sussex? Fracking Firm Test Drilling in Balcombe

[glasfryn]

To what end? If it's not saving us any money

basically we would not be held to ransom by the Russians or the Arabs but against that some person here is going to make themselves filthy rich from it.

 

[CheeseRolls]

In amongst all of the biased commentary and propaganda from both sides in this debate (although as an observation we seem to be hearing more anti than pro at the moment) does anybody know of a credible source for an objective assessment of the pros and cons for the UK?

This might be a good place to start. British Geological Society Website

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/home.html#ad-image-0

 

[keaton]

basically we would not be held to ransom by the Russians or the Arabs but against that some person here is going to make themselves filthy rich from it.

I think i'd take being held to ransom but paying less (or the same) money, and not having the risks and the negatives affect us.

 

[dougdeep]

To what end? If it's not saving us any money

What isn't?

 

[Since1982]

This might be a good place to start. British Geological Society Website

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/home.html#ad-image-0

Looks interesting and warrants a detailed read. Thanks.

 

[Since1982]

I would suggest that this depends on who you trust. Are there any independent sources who the other side won't accuse of having an agenda?

I guess I am not too bothered about what either side thinks is the others agenda - that seems to be how we end up with such polarised opinions and, forgive me, such a fractious debate. I'm looking for, and may not find, information that comes from a source that does not stand to benefit from a decision either way.

 

[beorhthelm]

That is exactly what that sentence says



Not trying to hide the agenda just pointing out that we should stop burning oil and gas instead of finding expensive and potentially dangerous ways of finding more.

Where is the lie?

its deceptive. its pretending that by finding more we'll immediatly use more. the intention is to find a cheaper, cleaner source to replace another source. what Greenpeace want is neither. but of course that isnt a very popular message once the consequence, having little to no energy, is understood by the public so they fight these side issues. at the end of the day, either side has their vested interest and fight on discrete little battle grounds over this or that detail. we need to take a collective view, if the wider population want to charge their iPhone etc they need energy, it comes form one source or another and all have an opponent, we have to decide the least worst. fracking on balance seems better than shipping in coal or for that matter gas. if you want none of those, then lets have that solution please.

 

[BadFish]

its deceptive. its pretending that by finding more we'll immediatly use more. the intention is to find a cheaper, cleaner source to replace another source. what Greenpeace want is neither. but of course that isnt a very popular message once the consequence, having little to no energy, is understood by the public so they fight these side issues. at the end of the day, either side has their vested interest and fight on discrete little battle grounds over this or that detail. we need to take a collective view, if the wider population want to charge their iPhone etc they need energy, it comes form one source or another and all have an opponent, we have to decide the least worst. fracking on balance seems better than shipping in coal or for that matter gas. if you want none of those, then lets have that solution please.

I don't think it is deceptive at all.

But here is their solution as requested.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=greenpeace+energy+solution

 

[BadFish]

I guess I am not too bothered about what either side thinks is the others agenda - that seems to be how we end up with such polarised opinions and, forgive me, such a fractious debate. I'm looking for, and may not find, information that comes from a source that does not stand to benefit from a decision either way.

I personally hold a fair amount of sway in what Greenpeace have to say about this kind of stuff as I think their only agenda is to look after the planet and protect it from what they see as damaging.

I am not sure there is an independent body that would satisfy everybody's definition of independent. If there was then this thread would be much shorter.

 

[Since1982]

I personally hold a fair amount of sway in what Greenpeace have to say about this kind of stuff as I think their only agenda is to look after the planet and protect it from what they see as damaging.

I am not sure there is an independent body that would satisfy everybody's definition of independent. If there was then this thread would be much shorter.

I may be wrong but Greenpeace seem to me to start from a position that means their views on this will be focused in one particular direction. That is not to say they are wrong but you take my point.

As to the length of NSC threads - even what colour should the grass be at The Amex would probably run to 50 pages without even trying!

 

[BadFish]

I may be wrong but Greenpeace seem to me to start from a position that means their views on this will be focused in one particular direction. That is not to say they are wrong but you take my point.

As to the length of NSC threads - even what colour should the grass be at The Amex would probably run to 50 pages without even trying!

I take your point entirely. But if the process of fracking was good for the environment, and generating clean energy then Greenpeace would be behind it. I would prefer that investment was directed at clean energy options and risk not taken when no-one is sure what the ill effects will or won't be.

Like many things the burden of proof seems to be slanted the wrong way, surely before we begin these kinds of operations their should be substantial proof that what is being undertaken is safe. Instead we have a suck it and see and bugger the consequences approach. This is what really concerns me.

I take your point about the colour of grass too.

 

[glasfryn]

we lived fairly near the site(s) of the twin gas pipeline while we lived in Wales.
we lived in a small village where we saw very little road usage until the pipeline was started.
the pipeline went in and everything went back to normal, the countryside was put back to how it was before, the only thing was that the road through the village is now over used by traffic, its become a rat run even though there is a by-pass.
when we moved to the village there was silence, when we left it had become noisy because of the traffic at all times of the day.

just making this point to say that wherever there is so called progress there is always a price to pay, and I suppose that if that means using our own gas source then that is what has to happen
you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette

 

[CheeseRolls]

I take your point entirely. But if the process of fracking was good for the environment, and generating clean energy then Greenpeace would be behind it. I would prefer that investment was directed at clean energy options and risk not taken when no-one is sure what the ill effects will or won't be.

Like many things the burden of proof seems to be slanted the wrong way, surely before we begin these kinds of operations their should be substantial proof that what is being undertaken is safe. Instead we have a suck it and see and bugger the consequences approach. This is what really concerns me.

I take your point about the colour of grass too.

My perspective is that Greenpeace are a pressure group, who produce a raft of seriously important research and reports, all of which needs to be funded by ideologists. There is necessarily some PR guff around this, to ensure there is a consistent message. It is how you choose to separate the two which is key. No one likes politicians, but they are supposed to take the difficult and necessary decisions and explain why and how they got there. I am not sure there are many who can genuinely do this.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't think it is deceptive at all.

But here is their solution as requested.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=greenpeace+energy+solution

their solutions have opposition though, people dont want wind turbines, tidal barriers or biomass burners in their backyard. mandating efficieny is a sticky plaster, targets for renewables create market distortions, secondary effects (recall after EU mandating biodiesel, vast swaths of Malaysian forest were cut down to grow palms for oil) and increase prices. the one exit route from carbon emmissions that we know will work, nuclear, they are so opposed to that they dont even put forward alternative, safe types of technology. so we go back to square 1.

 

[BadFish]

their solutions have opposition though, people dont want wind turbines, tidal barriers or biomass burners in their backyard. mandating efficieny is a sticky plaster, targets for renewables create market distortions, secondary effects (recall after EU mandating biodiesel, vast swaths of Malaysian forest were cut down to grow palms for oil) and increase prices. the one exit route from carbon emmissions that we know will work, nuclear, they are so opposed to that they dont even put forward alternative, safe types of technology. so we go back to square 1.

Of course their solutions have opposition , every solution to the energy is going top have opposition. But the fact that the position they take is to protect the planet and our natural resources will win over the position of business to make money.

 

[keaton]

their solutions have opposition though, people dont want wind turbines, tidal barriers or biomass burners in their backyard. mandating efficieny is a sticky plaster, targets for renewables create market distortions, secondary effects (recall after EU mandating biodiesel, vast swaths of Malaysian forest were cut down to grow palms for oil) and increase prices. the one exit route from carbon emmissions that we know will work, nuclear, they are so opposed to that they dont even put forward alternative, safe types of technology. so we go back to square 1.

Thing is the this government let's you oppose a wind farm whereas you pretty much can't oppose a fracking site

 

[hybrid_x]

more popcorn required....

 

[Guinness Boy]

As coherent, logical and relevant as your other arguments on here. At least you are consistent I suppose.

It's entirely relevant. If there was a group of eminent Geology scientists picketing Balcombe and presenting empirical data to the cameras I'd probably be up there with them. The fact that it's the same old rent a mob with an agenda and a love of a good fight with the Old Bill, and that they organise using technology produced by vast corporations with terrible carbon footprints, suggests to me there might just be something in this fracking thing. It's you that needs to open your mind, not me.

 

[SI 4 BHA]

I don't think it is deceptive at all.

But here is their solution as requested.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=greenpeace+energy+solution

It would be great if energy could all come from the renewal sector, but even in Germany, where they have gone for wind energy in a big way, they seem to be recognising its limitations now.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/germanys-green-energy-bust/

"But statistics on Germany’s electricity sector for the whole of 2012 are now in, and when you look beyond the cherry-picked hype, the results are dismal and disquieting. Despite massive construction of new capacity, electricity output from renewables, especially from wind and solar, grew at a sluggish rate. Germany is indeed avoiding blackouts—by opening new coal- and gas-fired plants. Renewable electricity is proving so unreliable and chaotic that it is starting to undermine the stability of the European grid and provoke international incidents. The spiraling cost of the renewables surge has sparked a backlash, including government proposals to slash subsidies and deployment rates. Worst of all, the Energiewende made no progress at all in clearing the German grid of fossil fuels or abating greenhouse emissions—nor is it likely to for at least a decade longer."

 

[keaton]

It's entirely relevant. If there was a group of eminent Geology scientists picketing Balcombe and presenting empirical data to the cameras I'd probably be up there with them. The fact that it's the same old rent a mob with an agenda and a love of a good fight with the Old Bill, and that they organise using technology produced by vast corporations with terrible carbon footprints, suggests to me there might just be something in this fracking thing. It's you that needs to open your mind, not me.

Again, who is paying this rent a mob?
Also has anyone suggested the protesters fought would the police, as you'd imagine people "who love a good fight with the Old Bill" would do?

And the suggestion people who care about the environment shoudn't use phones or computers is a stupid as me arguing any capitalist who's anti-slavery is a hippocrite.