Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Just re-read your cut and paste Reg and it is incomplete when compared to the paper that I have kept on file by the same authors. The predicted return to normal levels was 2010 on the study that you've partially shown, but the field test in this study showed normal levels restoring slightly more slowly overall predicting normal levels as late as 2050, although several test bores showed normal levels already restored in 2002.
Another study shows levels back at normal close to the predicted model in 2009-2011 and yet another study predicted normal levels on the basis of field testing in 2013-2015.
All the studies, however, show that the statement, posted on the Eythorne web site that you gave earlier in the thread, "drilling will cause irreversible damage to the aquifer" is demonstrably untrue. Where there is one provable untruth there are normally several others hiding behind complex BS.
To top it all, none of this is relevant in any meaningful way to the test drilling 3 bore holes. This stuff only becomes fully relevant if/when we start reducing water pressure in the coal seams to extract Methane.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
having been following this with some intrest,it seems to be degrading a fair bit,with claim and counter claim.so much so it sounds like this.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Peter.
My C&P on Flicks Law was just a bit of mischief.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Don't tell Reg.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,922
that's the problem
claim and counter claim#
who is right
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Brian I'm too busy thinking of the tens of thousands of deaths among the elderly every winter because they are forced into paying for useless wind and solar schemes not having the money to pay for food and their energy bill.
Just another view.
What sticks in my craw is the utter hypocrisy of the labour party producing films such as this (and labour party activists posing as representing the fuel poor) when the fault for the massive rise in our energy bills is down to them and the passing of the climate change act ( with the fullest support from the tories and liberals).
[URL][/URL]
Disgusting.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Neil,your getting close...........
# 261...``To top it all, none of this is relevant in any meaningful way to the test drilling 3 bore holes. This stuff only becomes fully relevant if/when we start reducing water pressure in the coal seams to extract Methane. ``
Now go one step further....What happens when the Oil & Petro=Chem Corporations evaluate the bore samples.?
Having spent 30 years in the industry I am in no doubt,they will extract the biggest pay load.
Why risk Kent`s water and turn our lovely villages into industrial waste land ?
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Due to our regulations in the UK, maybe something similar to Doe Green which is not an industrial waste land. Or maybe one of the hundreds of other onshore oil sites in the UK which have also not destroyed the local water supply or environment.
The core issue is the same, adequate protection of the ground water and avoidance of the same mistakes made in the Coal Mining era. If the industry can provide detailed assurances to satisfy the EA and other stakeholders, meeting all reasonable objections, that these matters are adequately dealt with, then why not proceed.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
maybe some form of fracking on the Goodwin sands might be a good idea.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,922
looks like quite a big debate to go,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 269.....You need to do much more research..........time will tell.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Reg, Doe Green is an active CBM extraction site and the area is not a desolate wasteland. I took a good look at 42 on shore extraction sites for oil in this country and none of them are surrounded by a desolate wasteland - how odd. I have outlined my views and concerns, which have changed and become more educated since I first started to look into it, on this thread in simple terms, people can take or leave them as they wish, but the publication of outright falsehoods and misleading scare stories really gets my goat.
The data already shows up at least three untruths in the material posted online with which you have associated yourself, perhaps we can let each person decide individually who has written fair unbiased research based opinion and who needs to do more research and be more honest.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,922
Neil
to be fair apart from a few teething issues you appear to be in favour of the drilling, and thats fine
just as it is for parish councils and reg to have an alternative view
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Keith - there is a difference between being in favour of something and not being opposed to it. I'm not exactly jumping for joy over the thought of having COAG here, but provided they satisfy all reasonable objections, I'm not against them either.
The Parish Councils and Reg (who is a member of one of them) have currently voted against and that is fine.
I do not like it though when demonstrable falsehoods are posted as fact and misleading assumptions are posted as inevitable consequences. When I see such things I feel the urge to post an entirely contrary point of view that is better supported by the available data, personal experience and observation of what has occurred elsewhere in our country under UK regulations.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Well, Neil, are you right to trust the regulations? Long experience in fields such as energy markets and pharmaceuticals has shown that the UK has the best regulators money can buy.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Peter, I trust them no further than I could throw all the members of the relevant department, hence my reliance on observation of what has actually happened in this country at the existing Coal Bed Methane extraction site plus the various onshore oil extraction sites that exist.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Good man.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 1094- Registered: 27 Oct 2013
- Posts: 15
Dover District Council Scrutiny Committee had planned to hold 3 meetings on the subject of the Test Bore Hole Applications....One for the Councillors, one for those against and one for those in favour. Reading through this long thread, it seems that thre are folk here who seriously believe this to be a safe and positive thing to do. The meeting 'for' is to be cancelled as no one who is an expert in the field could be found to speak in favour .Maybe one of those who support the proposal would care to put themselves forward?
DiJones
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
going by memory as the thread is too long to read through again, i don't remember anyone saying that they were "for" it, locally.
the majority seem against with the rest "not against" test drilling.