Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
correct lesley
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
The trouble is that there is so much money given by governments to those who produce filth which apparently supports the ridiculous premise that we are changing the climate that the cards are stacked against those who take a more sensible approach by showing that the climate does what it does without the hand of mankind.
Add to that the useful idiots who fall for the myth and we end up with a result that means higher fuel bills and early death to millions.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
PhilipP
Yes we have all heard that before about climate change but this thread is about methane gas.
What is your opinion on fracking at Wytch Farm in Dorset ?
"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 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
If its fracking, or the poor sat freezing in there homes frack away
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Agree with that. Frack away. The alternative is too painful to contemplate:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Think the questions on how much damage may it cause to surrounding houses/villages should be considered
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
After looking at Fracking from all sides and angles, I have decided that I am against it.
Its a very close decision for me because I believe we have to look at future energy and how it can affect and help our communities, with cost and employment etc. But why take the risk of polluting our water supply, which I believe could happen even with tight controls in place, when we have nearly 10 billion tons of coal beneath our feet.
The sums do not add up for me with fracking being too risky, when the odds are much better with extracting methane from UCG, over and above fracking.
"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 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Gary but there's more chance of me being elected pope than there is the likelyhood of further coal extraction. When you have a government lobbied left, right and centre by fiends of the earth or worldwide fund for nature and fraud who expressly forbid the burning of coal the idea of using this valuable resource is a total non-starter.
Indeed in the states, because of the restrictions the EPA are now putting on the design of new coal fired power stations, no new coal stations will be built.
The same can be said of current restrictions on further fracking. Although the government tell us that we should indeed drill more wells the regulations are so stringent that it is unlikely that many will end up producing gas or oil for that matter.
There is no risk with fracking. There has not been one single case where it has been proved that fracking has had any deleterious effects to people's health or the environment.
None.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
PhilipP.
You are such a pessimist, its not all doom & gloom
Have you put your name forward for pope?
Some good news.
PLANS are being drawn up to build a gas-fired power station at former Meaford site with the capacity to generate enough energy to supply every household in North Staffordshire.
Land owner St Modwen has teamed up with a property investment firm to form a new company - Meaford Energy Ltd - to take forward the plans.
It is estimated 800 construction jobs will be created, with an extra 30 workers needed to staff the Meaford Energy Centre once it is operational.
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Plans-revealed-gas-fired-power-station-Meaford/story-19790410-detail/story.html#axzz2enJ19I5Z"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 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
PhilipP.
Trouble free fracking at Wytch Farm in Dorset does not mean it would be trouble free in Kent.
Our aquifers are shallower here in Kent and any catastrophe event with fracking would be irreversible.
"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"
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
no risk with fracking????what do they say in the USA where it has already taken place???
It can contaminate water, risk to air quality, migration of gases could reach the surface,
could be problem of mishandling the waste.
Could be a risk around fracking drilling getting traces of scandium, gold,xenon.indium, danger of radioactive isotopes.
Other concerns in the USA;
Health around the Fracking area has seen;
sickening and killing of cows, horses,goats,chickens,dogs,cats,fish,and wildlife, and humans.
Stillborn and shunted calves after spills dumping fluid in streams
so there are alternative views
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
there is a risk with everything and fracking is no different, the risks have to be balanced against the rewards.
at the moment i don't see any rewards as the powers that be say there will be no saving on our energy bills.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
that's another view howard
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:there is a risk with everything and fracking
Somewhere on a bookshelf (but I can't be bothered to find it and some on here wouldn't believe it anyway) I've got the data showing a traditional coal power station gives out more radiation in its lifetime than is contained in a nuclear station - but this risk is considered acceptable as it's not all released at once.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
It would be good if someone could post verifiable proof of any damage to people or the environment. However the proviso is that it is verifiable and not hearsay put forward by green pressure groups or those who have seen the film gaslands.
Don't worry I'm willing to wait six months.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
philip
you have failed to make the argument of what benefit it is to us.
i can't carry on for ever by passing the meter, brutish gas will get suspicious eventually.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
GDP, jobs and energy security. Whether or not bills come down in price is a red herring pushed by opponents desperately seeking a way to dis the industry. Gas will be traded on the international market meaning that we would be selling gas abroad at prices which the markets dictate.
As it stands bills are set to increase massively because of the green obsession with fantastic subsidies going to wind and solar factories which we all know produce little energy - in fact in the main do quite the opposite because of the way the grid works.
For those still under the delusion that renewable energy is the answer once again I draw your attention to this. Take note of the wind meter on the right and check out this months output.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Personally I'd go for coal. A beautiful and God given rock without which we would still be rubbing sticks together.
I love it and would eat it for breakfast if it were edible.
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
Water bills set to rise by 8%, I wonder if the rise will cover the cost of additional testing once fracking begins or if we will pay for that too.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
likely to lesley
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS