That would stil leave him free to undermine the foundations of George Osborne's house with a bit of fracking further north in his Tatton constituency.



Who for? A Tory coincil which has Osborne's consituency in it coming out saying it won't be takIng the offer of 100% of the business rate by agreeing to fracking the day after Cameron anncounces the policy is a bit of a slap in the face for a Tory PM wouldn't you agree?

Indeed. My comment was very much tongue in cheek as it appears that Mr. Jones is now something of a minor environmental celebrity in these parts of South Cheshire. However it also appears that many of his new fans are totally unaware of the gas storage facilities and that permission for fracking would likely be refused anyway.

Still no links and answers from Ajw71?

I must say that I'm surprised.

It's particularly shocking since he's looking at this forum even as I post.

Without me trawling through his posts, can you tell me if he knows how to post a link.
It's unlikely I know, but.......

Well, he can manage to post a graphic.

Although even if the links were beyond him, one would think that he would be able to answer Sheldon's really quite straightforward questions.

He's here right now, so hopefully ...

In the meantime:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_StatesOh yes, the risks are very small.[/url

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10520735/Fracking-chemicals-could-cause-infertility-cancer-and-birth-defects.htmlThreats to health and fertility if there are leaks,[/url reports lefty mouthpiece the [iTelegraph[/i.

[url=http://science.time.com/2011/04/20/more-problems-with-fracking-and-some-solutions/A piece from [iTime[/i[/url.

[url=http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/06/22/frackings-biggest-problem-may-be-what-to-do-with-wastewater/[iScientific American[/i on the problem of all that contaminated water[/url.

I really must read the AUP some time and see if stalking is allowed, as there appears to be one or two obsessing over AJW's contributions.....

If they wish to start fracking in Yorkshire, then Bradford town centre is the obvious choice. There's been an enormous hole there for years, and with no real prospect of that changing anytime soon, and with half of the digging work already done, it must surely be an attractive engineering proposition?

Only if there's shale gas underneath though, surely.

Well it looks like we might well be getting it near to Doncaster in the Gainsborough trough.
I really can't see that fracking won't go ahead despite objections.
It's business.
I'm a scientist.
Business>Science.

The US experience of low-price shale gas will not be replicable in the UK. The reason the cost of gas has fallen through the floor there is that the US has experienced a glut of gas as more and more producers piled into the sector. Costs across the industry fell through the floor as drillers, pipeliners etc poured in and competed to get gas to market and buyers were able to push prices down due to oversupply.

It is almost impossible for the same dynamics to occur in the UK or elsewhere in Europe - environmental regulations and lack of a "small co" oil/gas sector mean it is much more likely to mirror the Australian unconventional gas industry - all investment and operations being run by a few multinationals, with projects underwritten by long-term contacts.

The rationale for seeking more gas is also different. In the US gas had an enormous ready-made domestic market, with limited import-export capability ensuring prices were not linked to international prices. The UK is part of a gas trading hub - so unless the government mandates that all shale gas has to go to domestic use, it will be priced at close to export parity. There is no driver for producers to sell at US prices.

The US has gone from a net importer of gas and (actually quite contrary to what some have said) is beginning to allow limited exports of gas. The simple reason is that gas sells for maybe $4/GJ in the US, vs $9+ in Europe and more like $14 in Asia. With shipping costs maybe $1-2 depending on the market, its an absolute no-brainer to export as much as possible, with Asia the preferred market (particularly as Asia already has significant regasification facilities).

US gas is so cheap that its even displaced coal for electricity generation. This has also had the effect of reducing CO2 emissions from electricity in a country with no carbon pricing. By contrast, Germany has accepted the fact that coal is much cheaper in Europe and is building significant coal generation capacity in recognition of excessive electricity prices, despite the hit on future CO2.

Whether fracking is environmentally safe is open to question, but the chances of it leading to falling gas prices for UK consumers is negligible.

Has Ajw71 provided those links and answered Sheldon's questions yet?

Get drilling. It's all guess work and conjecture at the minute, from all sides.

The only SLIGHT snag is that the last time they started drilling, this happened [urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15550458[/url

And the comment from the report that says that its highly likely that the fracking DID cause the tremours but that its highly unlikely to happen elsewhere is only SLIGHTLY offset by the fact that the company who caused the issue actually paid for the report too.

Did the "Big One" fall down? Or the tower? Just get on with it. Of course the fracking caused the tremors, and it probably will again, doesn't mean we shouldn't do something.

Well they won't be doing it on the original site as the company themselves had environmental concerns in connection to their licence to operate [urlhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/cuadrilla-close-lancashire-fracking-exploration-birds[/url and of course all the talk in the article about gas extraction "powering the UK for decades" is known to be nonsense as its clear that UK gas will powering the rest of Europe rather than being retained for domestic use, still, Blackpool could easily cope with a series of earthquakes, could even make some improvements...

Just a point especially for those who oppose fracking but drive a vehicle.

You are aware of how oil is removed from beneath the earths surface aren't you?

I'm curious: just how much risk of tremors, earthquakes, screwed-up water etc do you personally consider acceptable in the dash for gas?




No. It isn't.

The links I posted earlier are not about conjecture.

You're quite right, there's nothing else we can do. No chance of using renewable energy at all.

Who gives a what affect it has on the environment and safety, as long as someone can make a profit.

That's the point, we don't know until we've tried it, unless our geology is identical in every single respect to elsewhere in the world where others have tried.

We already do use renewables, this is just another potential source.

Do you drive? Do you use public transport? Believe it or not those great long stretches of tarmac didn't evolve with the dinosaurs. How much damage to the environment did building those things do? There was once a beautiful hill not far from me until roadbuilders decided it'd look better if they dug, drilled and blew their way through it, but hey, I can now get to work quicker.
Contrary to popular belief we're not some tin pot country who doesn't know how to tie it's own shoelaces let alone dig a sodding deep hole in search of fuel.

So why not wait till a full independent safety report can be done?

Profit over people again.

Because they take time, money and no-one actually knows what's going to happen until the drilling has started.

Do you have a mobile phone? Look into the mining of Coltan, then, when you've purged your life of all the things it's used in, come back and talk about profit over people.

Not money, we aren't going to waste money on making sure people are safe?

You do know I wasn't involved in mining Coltan. And I make sure the Coltan in my phone wasn't sourced in the Congo.

You don't have to be involved in the mining of it, just the using of it. Angry Birds over people.

I'm sure you do.

I'd like to eradicate everything from my life that causes the environment harm and puts people's safety at unnecessary risk, reducing my carbon footprint is something I'm working on. It doesn't mean I will succeed or do it over night.

All you're doing is highlighting the greed of these companies and showing the reasons I oppose fracking.

I don't suppose they expected that the geology around Blackpool was going to mean that mining resulted in tremors, do you?

And I don't suppose that anywhere else it's caused problems they looked at the geology and thought: 'wow, this could cause problems but let's go ahead anyway', do you?

You're talking about taking risks that could have major consequences that are extremely difficult and costly (for the taxpayer, of course) to deal with. And for what? As has been discussed, it's unlikely to be in order to bring down prices to UK customers, which also means that it isn't going to do anything for energy security, so that only leaves one thing: private profit.

Now I'm not against profit per se, but private profit on the basis of major risk to communities and the environment? Really? You consider that to be acceptable and somehow positive?

It reminds me of the old comment about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.