« MPs Bernard Jenkin and David Lammy join forces - in the Parliament Choir for Christmas |
| The Queen visits Downing Street to meet the Cabinet »
Posted at 07:35 AM in Energy, Environment | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61a053ef017d3ebf68ef970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The public's fears over fracking:
Nimbyism pure and simple. How many teacups were shattered in those Lancashire 'earthquakes'? Shale Gas is clean, safe and cheap. We need it and there's lots of it. It will wean us from our addiction to oil and save us from those frigging windmills. What's not to like? (And I live in rural Sussex. Cuadilla can sink a shaft in my garden any time).
December 13, 2012 at 09:02 AM
I have no objection to fracking other than the way it has been portrayed by some sections of the press, as some sort of cure all for Britain's energy problems. Also claims that 'Shale gas is clean, safe and cheap' are raising expectations that it will not be able to fulfill.
This country uses vast amounts of gas, for shale gas to even make a dent in demand would require a vast amount of exploitation. If you think that the objections to windfarms, (which polls show most people support) have been big, when they start erecting those rigs, watch out. What will be interesting is to watch those MP's who are such supporters now react when the rigs start going up in their constituency.
December 13, 2012 at 09:53 AM
I'm sure the protesters will be highlighting this sort of thing.
I'm not aware of the pressure within these wells, but it is unlikely to be high, so some form of compression will probably be required. If they intend to feed into the local system, less than 40 bar, then quite modest equipment will be required if however it is to be transmitted into the national system then you will require 80 bar plus. Then you will require something like a gas generator powered by a jet engine (RB211 that'll go down well with the locals.
I will be watching developments with some interest.
December 13, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Even if fracking leads to cheap energy at the wellhead by the time it gets to your factory / boiler / cooker etc it will not be any cheaper than the energy you are using now. Cameron & co will tax it so much that the only beneficiary will be his already bloated state which will squander the lot on pointless jobsworths, the EU, African dictators and all the usual rubbish they waste our money on.
December 13, 2012 at 11:02 AM
The propaganda broadcast by the BBC.
It doesn't add up... |
December 13, 2012 at 01:20 PM
The sites required to exploit shale gas are far less intrusive than windmills, because many wells can be drilled from the same site, fanning our to cover a wide area. Look at the development of Wytch Farm, which has wells that extend 10 km from the drilling site. Sites can be chosen with reduced intrusiveness in mind.
There are already compressor stations throughout the country. Again, location is not a fundamental problem, unlike for windmills, that need to occupy prominent sites to be effective.
It doesn't add up... |
December 13, 2012 at 01:30 PM
It doesn't add up.
I live near Wytch Farm not all sites will be as unobtrusive as that one, it only produces associated gas anyway and a very small amount, which goes into the local system.
The compressor equipment that already exists were planned to carry gas along the national transmission system. Where the well heads will be situated and whether or not they will require compression I don't know, but if they do, I don't think the residents of Little Snoring etc, will take too kindly to having them in the field next door.
Never underestimate the organisational ability of the articulate middle classes when it comes to protecting their own patch.
Trees & Badgers spring to mind. Seem to remember that the Tory Party is convinced of localism, (in fact there was an MP espousing its merits on this site only the other day ) so there shouldn't be a problem if a fracking site is proposed, they'll be able to vote it away, and that's it.
December 13, 2012 at 03:31 PM
The environmentalist movement is shrinking - only a few cranks and reactionaries are left. At the recent “National Climate March” there were only 250 activists - so climate never became a mass movement even though the sock puppet NGOs had millions £££ of our cash to spend via EU grants on all manner of propaganda stunts.
Not these useless green cranks use trivial and manageable risks in an attempt to stop a technology which can actually have a major benefit on reducing fuel poverty, increasing energy security and CO2 emissions with a shift from coal to gas. Mark Lynas in fact pointed out that:
“the UK the company Cuadrilla, which wants to drill in the Lancashire shale, uses only sand, water, a benign chemical called polyacrylamide (at 0.04% concentration) and trace amounts of salt. The fracking takes place 3km below the surface water table, and disposal of the resulting flowback water is strictly regulated by the Environment Agency.”
So I really don’t see a problem.
BTW You might like to sign my petition for repeal of the CCA here http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42784
December 13, 2012 at 09:44 PM
I see the Spectator thinks that the BBC is in AGITPROP mode too:
It doesn't add up... |
December 13, 2012 at 10:12 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address