I did some reading a few years back about having a tidal barrage at the Severn estuary, would have cost less than it it did to host the 2012 olympics but Brown turned it down as have the tories fairly recently apparently on the back of no evidence of benefit/funding/environmental issues...www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news ... -4088.aspx So 5% of the UKs total electricity requirements for the next 125 years wasn't going to cut the mustard..That HS2 and indeed the fracking projects will undoubtly cause far more damage and provide far less benefit (probably negative) underlines that it's down to certain people not getting fat brown envelopes from it. Seemingly doesn't matter what lot are in charge they all want backhanders at the expense of everyone else. Shale gas is just another sell out (that would have happened under Labour too let's not disillusion ourselves) that will not benefit joe public in any measureable way.

I did some reading a few years back about having a tidal barrage at the Severn estuary, would have cost less than it it did to host the 2012 olympics but Brown turned it down as have the tories fairly recently apparently on the back of no evidence of benefit/funding/environmental issues...www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news ... -4088.aspx So 5% of the UKs total electricity requirements for the next 125 years wasn't going to cut the mustard..That HS2 and indeed the fracking projects will undoubtly cause far more damage and provide far less benefit (probably negative) underlines that it's down to certain people not getting fat brown envelopes from it. Seemingly doesn't matter what lot are in charge they all want backhanders at the expense of everyone else. Shale gas is just another sell out (that would have happened under Labour too let's not disillusion ourselves) that will not benefit joe public in any measureable way.

You have supported mining and think we should still be mining. That has had significant downsides: death to thousands who dig the coal out of the ground, subsidence all over northern England. Vast areas of land cannot built on because of the threat of subsidence from old mining activity. Impact on public services - the train line between Sheffield and Hull was closed for months due to slippage from Hatfield Colliery, the school in Aberfan etc.

Extracting raw material from the land will have impacts, why are you so against Fracking yet so supportive of mining?

Strange but I just don't see "vast areas of land that cannot be built on because of the threat of subsidence", instead I see landscaped areas where slag heaps used to be and lots of new housing estates where collieries used to be located - take a look at the landscape in a five mile radius of Xscape and you'll see the same.

I lived in two locations that were built above former colliery workings, a simple "coal" survey is now the norm for conveyancing and if the mortgage provider is still nervous then an indemnity policy is all that is required,

Take a further drive down the M1 and you will see large areas that are the opposite. Especially where the Selby Coal Seam reaches near the surface.

My point is simple, many of those suggesting we should still be mining are opposed to Fracking - why? I think we both know the answer to that.

You're most fond of claiming to be misquoted yourself, so quotes please as support for these claims, because I'm struggling to remember when I have been "so supportive of mining".

To help, I'll point out that noting that energy security was not thought through when the mines were closed on the basis of political ideology, or pointing out entire communities were thrown on the scrap heap because of the same ideology, is not the same as being "so supportive of mining".

I only claim when I know its not correct - and many times no evidence has been produced to the contrary - so even you would accept that is fair?

If I have misunderstood your postings then I apologise - maybe my recollections are wrong but I am sure you have suggested we should still be mining as the coal is more energy efficient than the imported stuff we use to fuel our power stations?

You may be misquoting me there

Possible - that is the case

Do you mean the M62 ?

I was involved in a very small way in establishing the first buildings on what became Whitemoor Pit on the Selby coalfield back in 1978-ish (or so) and the size of that development with five or six individual pitheads in the area meant that it attracted miners from all over the country, and large new build housing estates followed - no problems in building on what were technically quite shallow mines, the problem with coal mining has never really been subsidence which when it happens is usually very localised, its the waste produced over decades that left a problem but even that has been dealt with - take a look at what was the mountain of slag left by the Prince of Wales pit for instance after it was re-mined for coal that had been considered too "dirty" to collect previously.

The environmental concerns over fracking are totally different to that of underground coal mining and even the companies doing the fracking don't really know what will happen until it happens - read the article that I linked to previously and the quotes from the company who caused the problems.

I wouldn't describe the Selby coalfield as technically quite shallow, they were deep mines.
Even though Gascoigne Wood was a drift mine, it went deep to the Barnsley seam, which incidentally gets deeper the farther east one goes. 550 to 600m deep on average.
The strata had to be frozen to sink the shafts and drifts.

Hmmm, now I've looked it up three of them were even deeper than that, the old museum of recollections was influenced by the idea that Gascoigne Wood didn't need a shaft as such and initially back in the 70s it was suggested that they could surface mine it - I've been to Gascoigne Wood some years ago as a bio-tech company of some description had moved in and led us a merry dance on some equipment they wanted to buy from us, they disappeared a few months later, we also had some business with RJB there too when they were running the place AND at Hatfield where I got a tour of the pithead structures, nothing ever came of those enquiries either

So of course you've got me curious now as to what the pit was like that one of my brother in laws worked at until its closure during the 1985 strike and while the info isn't the actual shaft that he worked down its part of the overall complex of Cowpen colliery which became known as Bates, some of those seams that are named on the chart are ones that he worked on although by the 1980's they were working well out under the sea, he used to tell us that the face workers had a journey of at least an hour to get to their place of work - anyway here is the geology of a 700 foot coal mine ... [urlhttp://www.dmm.org.uk/shafts/c031-01.htm[/url

In 1985 Bates employed 1735 men, 1454 of them below ground.

You're welcome.
They drifted Gascoigne Wood not because the coal was near the surface, but for the sheer volume of coal that could come up it on conveyors vs shaft winding and all the coal from the entire coalfield would exit near the rail connection.

If coal mining was such an exact science then tunnel collapses wouldn't happen - but they do. As I said before any mineral extraction has its dangers as we seen in mining, oil extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, Piper Alpha in the North Sea. Is Fracking more dangerous than oil/coal extraction?

No-one knows, and that is the issue.

When you try it and something like earth tremors happen and the company responsible admit their responsibility and then go on to say that if they continue then they "don't think" it will happen again then it doesn't fill you with confidence does it - when they then shut down the site admitting that there were too many environmental clauses attached to their licence to drill on that site then again it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in their assurances that its does no damage to the environment.

That's cleared up, then. I wouldn't know the first thing about that sort of stuff.

As Coddy says, you've confused us! ~shivers~

Succinctly put and spot on.

No, but then the only way people wouldn't be up in arms anyway would be if as they broke ground butterflies and candy floss escaped and made everyone smile. Then Mary Poppins sang a song.
Actually, they probably did, figuring the risks were worth it.


This isn't Victorian times when "to hell with the consequences" was the mantra, when we polluted and destroyed for the sheer hell of it "Look, there's the last Cape Lion, shoot it, put it in a glass box so people can look at it!"
Contrary to what you may think, someone can't simply rock up with a load of gear and start digging. I've seen newts lengthen the time taken to extend a motorway, bloody newts! I watch our environmental officer have kittens when the environmental agency give us the date of their annual inspection. The environment has never been more looked after in this country.
The environment will recover, better than it would have done if we'd embarked on it 150 years ago, look at Chernobyl, it's deserted and radioactive but life has returned.
We shouldn't do this for profit, though that'd be a nice bonus, we should do it because we can. A potential new form of energy? It's a no brainer.

Quote ="BobbyD"... Contrary to what you may think, someone can't simply rock up with a load of gear and start digging. I've seen newts lengthen the time taken to extend a motorway, bloody newts! I watch our environmental officer have kittens when the environmental agency give us the date of their annual inspection. The environment has never been more looked after in this country. ....'" At the moment they can't. But wait ... HM Gov has now brazenly announced that it is going to reverse the law which currently (of course) states that a landowner has to give permission for fracking or anything else on their land, to, er, remove this little obstacle. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 86650.html Following the now [ide rigueur[/i bogus "consultation" charade, the law will be revesed, and the smart word seems to be that from as now having every legal right to challenge them, you won't have a right to say a single word. But you will get an automatic payout of a predicted £100. Whatever, the decisions have already been made.

Quote ="BobbyD"... Contrary to what you may think, someone can't simply rock up with a load of gear and start digging. I've seen newts lengthen the time taken to extend a motorway, bloody newts! I watch our environmental officer have kittens when the environmental agency give us the date of their annual inspection. The environment has never been more looked after in this country. ....'" At the moment they can't. But wait ... HM Gov has now brazenly announced that it is going to reverse the law which currently (of course) states that a landowner has to give permission for fracking or anything else on their land, to, er, remove this little obstacle. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 86650.html Following the now [ide rigueur[/i bogus "consultation" charade, the law will be revesed, and the smart word seems to be that from as now having every legal right to challenge them, you won't have a right to say a single word. But you will get an automatic payout of a predicted £100. Whatever, the decisions have already been made.

Given "unprecedented" ground water levels in the South, one wonders what could have happened if fracking had been happening on a widespread basis?

The water would probably have soaked into the fractured shale deep below ground - expect to see this in a government press office release in the near future, repeated immediately by a compliant media.

And there is a very good question.

So, fracking will help flood control. Brilliant!

The only flaw in such a political comment would be that for many years ground water levels have been dangerously low and would fracking therefore make it worse!!

We'll basically lose any ground water deep inside the earth where it will turn to steam and come back through fissures as geysers - the whoel of the UK will then be declared a National Park along the lines of Yellowstone and we'll all have free hot water for life - but we'll have to catch rainwater to drink.

I can't really see a downside actually.

Geothermal power!