unbeliever Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 It's been too successful in the US. They became the biggest oil producers in the world through fracking and ****** off Saudi Arabia. The Saudis then increased production to make a world glut of oil and drive down prices. The Saudis can still produce and make a profit at current prices, but fracking is expensive so no one is doing it much now. All those 'Bros of Fracking' who were earning vast amounts of money last year are all unemployed this year. Here's the Bros when times were good - This is temporary. As soon as OPEC try to raise the oil price again fracking will pick up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 And they're now on your doorstep. 50+ SSSI's and 3 nature reserves facing potential contamination. If you'd like to get organises to stop these monsters destroying our children's futures there's a new Facebook group that can help. Sheffield against fracking. Please show your support. Is there a 'Sheffield For Fracking' Facebook group? I work in oil drilling and I'd love to work this close to home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummonds Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) The minimum anticipated depth for fracking in Britain is a few hundred metres. All this fear-mongering is ridiculous and in the long term failing to frack will be very expensive for the UK people. it is probably safer than the mining that seems to have been popular round here at one time. places like wentworth woodhouse almost collapsing due to mining subsidence. the denonstrations and anti fracking protests today were over a conventional gas rig. not fracking at all. i suspect with the nimbies and nutters around no new mining or drilling industry could ever get off the ground in this country until the lights go out and folk eventually see sense. by the way. the coal mining industry pumped billions of gallons of contaminated water from down the coal mines. much of it went straight into the water supply. Edited August 20, 2015 by drummonds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 it is probably safer than the mining that seems to have been popular round here at one time. places like wentworth woodhouse almost collapsing due to mining subsidence. the denonstrations and anti fracking protests today were over a conventional gas rig. not fracking at all. i suspect with the nimbies and nutters around no new mining or drilling industry could ever get off the ground in this country until the lights go out and folk eventually see sense. They won't see sense. They're already paying well over the odds for energy and they don't understand why. They'll blame somebody or something else. They're trying to blame the energy companies and talking about nationalisation. Facts don't matter anymore. Green is good. Good people are therefore green. Whatever policy is greenest is therefore the correct one and to hell with anything else. Who defines what's green? They do. It's like dealing with a bunch of crazy religious zealots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrea Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 You don't do it in places where contaminated water could end up in the water supply. Besides, it's mostly water. The toxicity is pretty low compared to a lot of stuff already in circulation. What other cocktail of chemicals do we intentionally pump into the ground? Intentionally polluting millions of gallons of fresh water just because we have already polluted the earth isn't a good reason to cause more environmental damage. ---------- Post added 20-08-2015 at 20:00 ---------- There are lots of things that are not sensible by that definition but we don them anyway. Just because we don lots of things that were not sensible doesn't mean we should continue doing things that are not sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 The most sensible solution to this is to develop a single fracking complex to introduce it to the country properly. By this I mean a 40 well complex or similar number with associated infrastructure - roads, pipelines, pumping plant, storage etc... This would ensure the regulation works properly and reveal the true impact on a local community. Then people can decide. My gut feeling will be no widespread acceptance but still people really need to know what they are objecting to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrea Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 The most sensible solution to this is to develop a single fracking complex to introduce it to the country properly. By this I mean a 40 well complex or similar number with associated infrastructure - roads, pipelines, pumping plant, storage etc... This would ensure the regulation works properly and reveal the true impact on a local community. Then people can decide. My gut feeling will be no widespread acceptance but still people really need to know what they are objecting to. I would expect them to prove that its save before doing any fracking. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fracking-poses-significant-risk-to-humans-and-should-be-temporarily-banned-across-eu-says-new-report-10334080.html Fracking poses 'significant' risk to humans and should be temporarily banned across EU, says new report. Some of these toxic chemicals have been linked to breast, prostate and testicular cancer in humans as well as coronary heart disease, the report says. It outlines how 38 fracking chemicals are “acutely toxic for humans” and a further 20 are mutagenic, or known or possible carcinogens. The report gives specific examples of hazardous materials used in fracking, including chemicals “associated with leukaemia in humans” and “toxic to sperm production in males”. The trust warns it is “particularly concerned about the use of hormone-disrupting chemicals”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I would expect them to prove that its save before doing any fracking. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fracking-poses-significant-risk-to-humans-and-should-be-temporarily-banned-across-eu-says-new-report-10334080.html Fracking poses 'significant' risk to humans and should be temporarily banned across EU, says new report. Some of these toxic chemicals have been linked to breast, prostate and testicular cancer in humans as well as coronary heart disease, the report says. It outlines how 38 fracking chemicals are “acutely toxic for humans” and a further 20 are mutagenic, or known or possible carcinogens. The report gives specific examples of hazardous materials used in fracking, including chemicals “associated with leukaemia in humans” and “toxic to sperm production in males”. The trust warns it is “particularly concerned about the use of hormone-disrupting chemicals”. There's an opportunity for a community in the Tory heartland to accept the process and host the first full complex. They voted for it after all. Seems like a fair solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surly Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Perhaps we can move this to the Sheffield section now they are exploring in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Perhaps we can move this to the Sheffield section now they are exploring in this area. Didn't know that. What areas are they working in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now