Tony Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Cheers, I thought it was a bit odd for you to be following any hysteria. The chemicals issue is fair point but ISTR that there is some overreaction on this one from what I've read before. Will have to re-research it. We store industrial chemicals all over the place without any passing concern so that's not an issue. If Joe Public knew that there are vats of arsenic and radioactive materials stored all over Sheffield they would be fleeing to the hills. Water will be subject to license / agreement with the EA / WaterCo's. I've not heard of any supply / abstraction issues and I'm happy to trust them unless I hear otherwise. (It's nice to have a grown up exchange on this ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 Cheers, I thought it was a bit odd for you to be following any hysteria. The chemicals issue is fair point but ISTR that there is some overreaction on this one from what I've read before. Will have to re-research it. We store industrial chemicals all over the place without any passing concern so that's not an issue. If Joe Public knew that there are vats of arsenic and radioactive materials stored all over Sheffield they would be fleeing to the hills. Water will be subject to license / agreement with the EA / WaterCo's. I've not heard of any supply / abstraction issues and I'm happy to trust them unless I hear otherwise. (It's nice to have a grown up exchange on this ) I've read up a bit on it. I know the industry spins a picture of a high level of safety but there are plenty of examples of issues in the USA. We have to hope that it will be better controlled here because the margin for error just isn't there due to the proximity of the proposed sites to population centres. The bottom line for me is that if the fracking liquid is safe then why is such an eleborate system of control needed? The exploration companies know that 1-2% of the liquid is highly toxic. They also know that the seismic and water table arguments are a gift to them - those arguments can be won easily and they deflect attention away from the potentially highly polluting surface operations at fracking sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Are people implying it will lead to cheaper gas prices for consumers? I don't think so, all it will lead to is profit for those extracting and selling the stuff. And more tax income for whichever government is in power..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Lots of industries are potentially highly polluting. We put in controls and measures to ensure that it doesn't happen, and if an accident does occur we deal with it and the company pays for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I've read up a bit on it. I know the industry spins a picture of a high level of safety but there are plenty of examples of issues in the USA. We have to hope that it will be better controlled here because the margin for error just isn't there due to the proximity of the proposed sites to population centres. The bottom line for me is that if the fracking liquid is safe then why is such an eleborate system of control needed? The exploration companies know that 1-2% of the liquid is highly toxic. They also know that the seismic and water table arguments are a gift to them - those arguments can be won easily and they deflect attention away from the potentially highly polluting surface operations at fracking sites. There is enough chemical pollution to worry about in the toxic tanks at Parkwood landfill, perhaps you should concentrate your fretting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 There is enough chemical pollution to worry about in the toxic tanks at Parkwood landfill, perhaps you should concentrate your fretting there. That's not a very good argument for introducing more pollution risks ---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 10:46 ---------- Lots of industries are potentially highly polluting. We put in controls and measures to ensure that it doesn't happen, and if an accident does occur we deal with it and the company pays for it. Indeed. And we should be grateful we don't have more accidents. But there needs to be some perspective on the scale of what is proposed with fracking. 800 sites planned by Cuadrilla for fracking well heads in Lancashire. That's a fairly rapid introduction of potentially hazardous industrial sites on a scale not seen for decades in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsTrophy Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 This could help fuel bills of the future with bills going up £500 per year if we have to import gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 That's not a very good argument for introducing more pollution risks ---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 10:46 ---------- Indeed. And we should be grateful we don't have more accidents. But there needs to be some perspective on the scale of what is proposed with fracking. 800 sites planned by Cuadrilla for fracking well heads in Lancashire. That's a fairly rapid introduction of potentially hazardous industrial sites on a scale not seen for decades in this country. In which case turn your computer off the power source is polluting the planet, you can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 In which case turn your computer off the power source is polluting the planet, you can't have it both ways. Having a computer switched on is the worst argument I've heard in favour of fracking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Having a computer switched on is the worst argument I've heard in favour of fracking. Having the power to run the computer is the best argument made for the development of power sources, where is the hand wringing for the pollution caused by wind farms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.