Guest 1103- Registered: 3 Nov 2013
- Posts: 759
#1
as with the latest announcements from the governement, fracking seems to be back on the shelfs again. Now reading and hearing about the latest scheme the government offers, seems like Bribary??? Or Am I wrong?
Share your views :)
Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud. Maya Angelou ☺🌈🌄🌌🌏🌍🌎
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
the government seem committed to fracking but admit it would not mean lower fuel bills for us. i looked briefly at the sweeteners on offer to councils but the money was not that vast.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#3
We have a Fracking Government and the big six ( Total etc. ) are investing billions in
UK Fracking projects.
Our District Councils are near extinction through lack of funds and government squeezing
them with every new policy introduced but with this latest financial offer from the government
will be a life saving bribery for them to be to hard to resist.
All this big money on offer will be too much for Joe Public to overcome.
Our only hope in Kent is to save our Water Supply.We must save our Aquifer from being Drilled
by what ever method.being proposed.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#4
Fracking incentives will give councils 'contradictory roles'
Campaigners and local MP say business rates for drilling operations will undermine trust in local government decisions
Government moves to persuade councils to support fracking have been condemned as giving them "contradictory roles" and undermining trust in local government decisions, according to anti-fracking campaigners and an MP whose constituency has a site that is being explored for drilling.
The prime minister, David Cameron, announced on a visit to a site close to Gainsborough in Lincolnshire on Monday that councils would be allowed to keep 100% of business rates from fracking operations rather than 50% as before, on top of other local incentives already announced. Cameron said that Britain is "going all out for shale" as the French oil major Total announced it was taking a 40% share in the drilling operations in the Gainsborough trough.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#5
When we had our Scrutiny meetings about fracking late last year, I believe we sent a pretty comprehensive report to the Council for it to decide whether the report should be sent to KCC as it was and it was (all bar 1) unanimously voted for it to go to KCC.
We had no one "for" fracking attend the meetings (various ones were invited but didn't attend) and as our area is dependant on the water aquifers not being compromised (over usage or pollution), I doubt very much we will have fracking here.
Roger
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#6
Roger, no one would come to speak in favour of fracking to the committee largely because recovery of coal bed methane gas in East Kent will not engage fracking
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
i cannot ever see it happening around here, reading various press reports most people agree with me that the cash incentives are derisory.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#8
Fracking wasn't going to happen round here anyway Howard. Had a chat with a coal mining safety engineer who used to work the Kent Coal Field the other week who confirmed to me the stuff that I've previously posted on this subject.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#9
Good news then Neil, that is that put to bed.
Audere est facere.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#10
Would that be a coal bed Martin?
Seams good to me.
"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"
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#11
dig it man.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#12
There's too many cons in our area for it to be done here, so hopefully, it will be put to bed and those wanting to frack, can take their business elsewhere.
If the location and geology is O.K. then that's fine, but it doesn't/won't work here for many reasons.
Roger
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#13
Increasing monetary offers is the sweetener !!!
But it doesn't lessen all the concerns, however much is offered.
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#14
Government and big six money will be to much to resist for strapped councils.
Kent has a unique situation,it has an Aquifer that supplies 70 % of Kent`s water.
Any sort of drilling will contaminate it for ever.
We must win the argument to save our water supply.
Please see ``Dover Rural Texas ``thread.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#15
So why didn't coal mining contaminate the aquifer, Reg? Or is it just that we aren't allowed to talk about that?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#16
It did Peter in 1900 and it took until 1977 to clear up.The difference today is they use chemicals
that make the contamination permanent.
eg....Contamination of a Chalk aquifer by mine drainage at Tilmanstone, East Kent, U.K.
H. G. Headworth*, S. Puri† and B. H. Rampling‡
+Author Affiliations
* Southern Water Authority, Directorate of Resource Planning, , Guildbourne House, Worthing, BN111LD.
† Binnie & Partners, Artillery House, Artillery Row, , Westminster, London, SW1P 1RX.
‡ Southern Water Authority, East Kent Water & Drainage Division, , Westwood Road, Broadstairs, Kent.
Summary
Arising from the discharge at the surface of minewater drainage pumped from a mine in the Kent Coalfield, which underlies the Chalk of East Kent, U.K., an area of some 27 km2 of the Chalk aquifer has become contaminated with saline water having concentrations of chloride between 200 and 5000 mg/l. Between 1907, when the first shaft was sunk, until 1974, when the discharge onto the Chalk ceased, it is estimated that 318 000 tonnes of chloride were discharged, and only about 15% has so far been dissipated by stream flows. An investigation has been carried out to determine the size and shape of the plume of contamination, and to examine possibilities for rehabilitation of the aquifer. The work has shown that the top 40-50 m of Chalk has become saturated with highly saline water, but at greater depths the contaminant is localized around well-developed fissures. The results of fifteen months pumping of a production borehole located near the centre of the pollution plume suggests that a long period would be required for the contamination to be cleared, and this has been supported by the results of a mathematical model.
© The Geological Society, London 1980
There is an enormous amount of other evidence of additional contamination that will occur.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#17
Hi Peter, as I'd posted on a previous thread, water pumped out of the coal seam to prevent flooding of the mine workings did lead to a contamination plume of higher salinity in the aquifer which reached a peak of concentration and distribution in the 1980's. Since that time and the end of coal mining, the contamination plume has reduced to the point where a number of recent studies indicate that it has reduced to more or less natural levels, only one of these studies gives a full set of recent dates for when the water data was gathered. There are 2 studies that indicate that the contamination is still there and will not reduce to natural levels until 2030-2050 but one of these is not based on recent ground water data but by extrapolation from water data gathered in the 1990's and the other does not provide a full recap of the dates of when the 'as is' water data was gathered.
Simply put, Coal Mining activity did lead to increased groundwater salinity, but the plume was not detectable until the mid 1970's (contamination took 70 years to build to detectable levels), no ordinary folks were even aware of it at the time of its peak and it has since reduced, probably to near normal background levels.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#18
Yes chaps I knew the answer, just thought I'd throw it into the mix, just to put things in perspective. From an anecdotal/observational viewpoint, I've noticed that water hardness in East Kent has reduced substantially over the last 30 years and I guess that's evidence of the aquifer healing since mining ceased.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#19
Peter with the system being proposed by Coastal.Oil& Gas and others our Aquifer will not heal.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#20
dont like it up em reg lol
so,,,,,you heard it here fracking won't happen in this district
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS