Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think nobody here can support Unconventional Gas extraction (fracking, UCG, CBM etc)?

108 replies

deeedeee · 24/11/2014 16:45

Mumsnet has surprised me before though...

So surely none here can think that the Government removing homeowner's rights to object to fracking under their property, and it's support for the unconventional gas industry in general, is a good and justified thing?

OP posts:
deeedeee · 26/11/2014 13:25

"Residents’ comments on health impacts were enlightening. Parents particularly noted their children coming in from playing outside with nose bleeds. Often they had linked increased frequency of these occurrences with wind direction and some had stopped their children playing outside at these times. Some adolescents had had daily nose bleeds for three months at a time. These rural children now deliberately avoided going outdoors when possible. Adults who had lived in the bush all their life now found their lives restricted to indoors.

Children were noted to be constantly rubbing their fingers. Children complained of ants in their hands and one infant reportedly screams and dips his fingers in water in the middle of the night. Children were reported to be waking at night in distress wanting their mums to rub their limbs. The only child who has been sent for evaluation by a paediatrician for this complaint was reportedly told she was attention seeking. Children were reported to be waking out of their sleep with headaches.

For adults and children alike, eye irritation and skin irritation, particularly when outside, were said to be constant background complaints, with severe exacerbations linked to odour events. So extreme was the discomfort for some people, they described that they felt they could rip their skin. Some said that after the odours came through, their skin felt like it had been washed by acid and their skin peeled in the shower.

Infants, children and adults alike suffered from headaches. Some had been so intense that they had been investigated with CT scans and lumbar puncture.
Extreme fatigue, difficulty focusing and difficulty concentrating were new and debilitating symptoms for many residents. Symptoms were worse when odours came through. Some people could identify distinct individual odours at different times, variously described as:” rotten eggs, sickly sweet, like pine tarsal, acetone, creosote, after burn from cigarette lighter.” Many people noted the association between their symptoms, wind direction and the location of the CSG waste water/evaporation ponds. Some people commented on the link between road spraying and their symptoms.

Children and adults alike complained recurrently of a metallic taste which made them nauseous and anorexic. Undiagnosed cough, repeated diagnosis of ‘flu’, pneumonia, pleurisy and exacerbation of asthma were recurrent themes. Children were missing a lot of school. Sleep disturbance was endemic within the families surveyed. Many people related this directly to the noise associated with CSG activities: trucks moving, reversing, beeping, the noise and vibration from drilling, fracking and seismic testing. Some people were very clear that their sleep was disturbed by noise and vibration from the compressor station, at distances up to 15km away. Many other people’s sleep was disturbed by the constant strain of living with, and dealing with, the impact of CSG on their daily lives. Many expressed helplessness and hopelessness in the face of their children’s ill health and their inability to help and protect them. Some had the capacity to move away and did. Most found themselves trapped."

OP posts:
deeedeee · 26/11/2014 13:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 13:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 13:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 13:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 13:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 13:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 13:32

sorry for posting that three times, my internet connection is playing up . It's an excerpt anyway from the report I linked to. Read it. It's an independent study on the effect of a gas field on public health.

On this message board I frequently see people incensed about parking spaces, children in cafes, garden fences, weddings and all manner of things that have no impotence whatsoever when compared which the health of our communities and our children. read the excerpt above again. Imagine it was an AIBU and someone is asking whether they are being unreasonable to be angry that their government let this happen to them, and lied about the supposed "benefits" . Because this is what is happening here. The ill effects of tracking and associated Unconventional Gas extraction industries are well reported around the world. France, Germany and other countries have banned it. You need to research this issue thoroughly now, and answer this question to yourself "who will benefit and who will bear the burden of risk ?" if you allow this to go ahead in the UK. Because it could be your children , your community that is suffering the consequences.

OP posts:
Sallyingforth · 26/11/2014 13:47

I don't think we even need fracking at the moment. Let's leave the gas in the ground for the future, when we can't get gas from other sources.

At the moment, oil is so cheap on the world market that some North Sea oilfields are being shut down - they are too expensive to run. The US is starting to export LNG from their fracking, at very low prices.

Wind power of course is unreliable and uneconomic. We are all paying for the huge subsidies to its greedy operators.

What we really need is a new generation of nuclear power stations, but that won't be popular with many here!

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 14:22

The energy argument is a red herring, because the UG industry does not and should not have a part to play in that. Even if the industry was able to press ahead as fast as it wanted, there would not be any significant UK production until the next decade (and of course, there is a big IF it is proven to be viable). Cuadrilla have said they will have to drill 40 test wells over the next 5 years just to work out whether it is worth their while extracting shale gas.

The main uses of natural gas are in electricity generation and for heating. In both areas world wide policy is moving away from the use of fossil fuels, and rightly so, leaving little or no market for unconventional gas in the future. It's short term gain for a few, leaving the communities to bear the burden of the health risks and the tax payer to pay to try and clear up the inevitable pollution.

OP posts:
HaroldsBishop · 26/11/2014 14:49

Sallyingforth I agree with you about nuclear power!

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 17:44

Bump

OP posts:
deeedeee · 26/11/2014 19:38
this is worth a watch.
OP posts:
DrSnowman · 26/11/2014 19:50

Well DeeeDeee,

I think I know what "peer review" and "independance mean", I do not know your level of scientific education but I can tell you that I am both a journal referee and also an editor of a scientific journal.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid · 26/11/2014 20:08

I live near an old fracking site (exploratory). It was there for about 18 months.

Now it's possible that this site caused all sorts of pollution and has poisoned my family. But while it was there the only impact it made was that I could see it from one of the main roads.

Lots of my friends are very anti fracking. They won't be happy unless someone can guarantee it is 100% risk free - which of course no one can.

The debate is so polarised.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 20:28

Dr Snowman, apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs. Do you really think that that site is biased then? Please have a good look and give me your professional opinion.

WSWBSWH from some of the US industries own statistics 6-7 % of all new well casings fail and 60% fail over 20 years. Statistically so far you've been fortunate. But the longer you live next to that well and it's concrete casing ages and is exposed to environmental and industrial processes the more likely your fortune won't continue.

OP posts:
DrSnowman · 26/11/2014 20:34

Well nothing is perfectly 100 % safe, you might fall out of bed and hurt yourself.

While I am at it reading Mumsnet might stress somepeople, as mumsnet HQ can not provide evidence to prove that their site is unable to cause harm would the antifrackers want the mumsnet site to be closed down pending a review by experts ?

I suspect that after the experts have given mumsnet a clean bill of health then the "Mumsnet stress lobby group" (MSLG) will then say that the experts were biased and that a new review is needed.

If a technology which offers us a source of cheap fuel should have to prove it is perfectly safe, then we should also force the makers of contraceptives and the mumsnet site to prove that these products are equally harmless. It is unreasonable to apply "must be safe" rules in a selective way.

DrSnowman · 26/11/2014 20:41

Well Deeedeee,

I have not been able to devote the time required to go through all the papers on the site, I made my own literature review and one good paper which popped up was

Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas, Laurence Stamford and Adisa Azapagic, Applied Energy. Volume 134, 1 December 2014, Pages 506–518

This paper says that Fracking gas is better than normal natural gas but not as good as nuclear as a supply of clean energy.

Seems we are in a time warp as we are still in Nov 2014, but often you can read papers before the "release date".

When I get a chance I will look at the site in detail and give my thoughts.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 20:57

That is bonkers Dr Snowman. You are now patronising me and over simplifying risk management. For the second time in this thread, a poster is flying in the face of the precautionary principle. Contraceptives and mumsnet don't risk significant harm to the environment and public health. This is clean air, clean drinking water and climate change we're talking about. Not about falling out of bed ffs

As I said before, all this talking about the semantics of risk just closes down conversation and is a smoke screen.

Why has it been banned in France and Germany and bans and moratoriums in many other countries and areas?

and am astonished that an intelligent person would think "cheap fuel" is the overriding factor in this decision making. What is your definition of cheap here?

OP posts:
Sallyingforth · 26/11/2014 21:27

deeedeee
You obviously feel very strongly about this. You are entitled to have that opinion.
But others are equally entitled to feel differently, and that does not necessarily mean they are wrong.
It's something you will just have to get used to.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 21:33

Sally, you don't need to make this personal. It's not about me, or you and me's relationship from past threads. Please don't muddy this issue.

I agree with you that nuclear power is looking to be the best of a bad bunch in some respects at the moment.

I don't agree that wind power is not feasible.

Glad you agree that we don't need tracking.

There are many things where i'm happy to agree to disagree, contraceptives, mumsnet, methods of getting out of bed all included in that. But the unconventional gas industry this isn't one of them

OP posts:
DrSnowman · 26/11/2014 21:45

Well why is it reasonable to get excited about fracking but to then ignore other risks such as falling out of bed, the environmenal effects of some medicines or the effect on a person's state of mind caused by a stress inducing website.

Well I will say for the record that mumsnet does not stress me, but as I have not interviewed every person in the UK I can not say that it is unable to stress people. Well if we demand it is 100 % then if it stresses a single person then it is "not safe".

MoreBeta · 26/11/2014 21:53

Please stop worrying about oil fracking and shale gas.

Oil price is collapsing as we speak and will put paid to the entire oil fracking and shale gas industry. It is extraordinarily expensive and not at all economic to produce oil via fracking or gas from shale if oil prices of oil fall further.

There is no need to do any of this for long term UK energy security.

Natural gas can be brought in on giant LNG tankers at extremely low prices from around the world. We should be focussing on making sure we have enough regasification terminals to turn that LNG back into gas and pump into the grid.

Natural gas is available everywhere on the planet and will never run out. It is just rotting vegetables and that happens all the time. Truly natural gas is the fuel of the future, far cleaner than coal and now can be highly efficiently turned into electric in combined cycle gas turbine power stations.

Oil fracking and shale gas is a sideshow and will cease to exist as an industry in a few years when oil prices collapse. Oil produced by fracking requires continuous investment and output from such wells falls by 70% in the first year so is absolutely dependent on high oil prices. Gas from shale competes head to head with oil so falling oil rices hits both oil fracking and shale gas.

Incidentally falling oil prices will stop the mania over renewables as well - falling oil prices will make all these unconventional and alternative energy sources appear too ruinously expensive even for our Govt to subsidise.

Saudi can pull oil out of the ground at $10 per barrel and it costs another $5 to haul it across the ocean and refine it - no way UK fracking can compete with that kind of price level.

deeedeee · 26/11/2014 21:54

repeating what you said again doesn't make it any less bonkers Dr Snowman ;)

OP posts:
Sallyingforth · 26/11/2014 22:15

deeedeee I'm not making this personal.
I'm merely pointing out that you don't have a monopoly on the truth. Others have a right to their own views, just as you have.

And calling DrSnowman 'bonkers' IS personal and unacceptable.