Is this really a good idea?

[flipflop21]

www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/17/fracking-huge-impact-uk-shale-gas-industry-revealed

Why is it ok to turn two thirds of the UK into what is effectively an oil/gas field? Do people really want this?

Perhaps not but we could really use the energy, the jobs and the wealth it creates.

Of course we don't. But at the same time do we want to kowtow to Russia for our gas and rely more & more on oil imports especially as North Sea oil has already start to decline?

Politics aside do we want to keep seeing energy bills rise to dampen demand? Do we want to see our lights go off?

It's all well and good saying we don't want to turn large parts of the UK into fracking sites but then if not here then where? We all want cheap energy. Just NIMBY

From what I've read it won't make energy cheaper - it will be sold to the highest bidder on the European market. There's been a lot of hype about this and it seems to have been proven to be spin. As for supplies - we can import from Norway and possibly the states. We can also invest in other energy sources which don't have the same drastic impact on the whole of the country. Two thirds of the UK potentially to be drilled. It just can't be the best option.

If we go heavily into commercial production of shale gas then our countryside will be slowly but surely eroded.

The number of jobs it will create has been somewhat overstated too according to some sources.

Surely the true costs of fracking the UK outweigh the perceived benefits?

Turns out that Ed Davey 'invited' comment from the ecomentalist pressure groups which meant the areas supposedly under threat from fracking miraculously doubled in size.

He didn't ask any of the fracking companies about their point of view, because, well, why would you ask them if you wanted to know where they planned to drill?

But don't worry, the ecomentalist pressure groups have just been handed millions of pounds of taxpayers money by the EU Commission to lobby for an EU-wide ban on fracking. Fuckers.

I think the only other option to supply enough energy in the future is nuclear. We'll probably have to do both anyway.

I think the areas on the map are not from the "ecomentalists" - it's from the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Perhaps the fracking companies are keeping quiet about their plans as they think they might not be popular.

Click the link and scroll down to see the map from DECC - the pink areas are potential shale gas/ oil extraction areas

www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/how-much-shale-gas-has-the-uk-go

It's not ecomentalist scaremongering it's where the next round of onshore drilling licenses may be granted.

flipflop21

^I think the areas on the map are not from the "ecomentalists" - it's from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Which allowed ecomentalists to lobby and denied a view to the fracking companies.

Perhaps the fracking companies are keeping quiet about their plans as they think they might not be popular.

Perhaps they weren't asked. As I clearly pointed out.

Those poor hard done by fracking companies. Powerless to put over their perspective.

I think the only other option to supply enough energy in the future is nuclear.

Yep and people queue up to object about that too.

Doesn't matter if it is nuclear, coal, wind, solar power. There will be people who object loudly about it.

Yet we all want energy don't we?

As I said before, it's NIMBY.

Niceguy, I agree. Utterly NIMBY. I do think nuclear is inevitable, and I wish they'd just get on with it, instead of wasting millions on pissing in the wind, playing with pretend alternative sources which simply aren't up to the job.

flipflop21

Those poor hard done by fracking companies. Powerless to put over their perspective.

So you don't care that a consultation is rigged to achieve a particular goal, because it suits your personal political interests. What a magnificent advocate for a corrupt government you are.

Presumably you will remain mute the next time there's a story in the gruaniad saying "EVIL CORPS BUY FAVOURS FROM POLITICIANS". Because anything else would make you the most appalling hypocrite.

If Ed Davey invited comment from Green pressure groups surely he is just opening up dialogue? Not "rigging" a consultation. Are you advocating that DECC shouldn't have put the map in the public arena?
As for corrupt government - do you know who is CEO of Cuadrilla?

Niceguy -so if you're against fracking you're automatically a NIMBY?

flipflop21

If Ed Davey invited comment from Green pressure groups surely he is just opening up dialogue?

Would you invite NAMBLA to advise on altering the age of consent? Of course not. The same applies here. I see no reason to involve the country's most reactionary, ill-informed bigots in any kind of discussion about our long term power needs and generation programme.

Not "rigging" a consultation. Are you advocating that DECC shouldn't have put the map in the public arena?

You seem to be unclear on the timeline. The map went up AFTER the beardy wierdies had their input. The fracking companies have still not had their input. So the groups who want to frighten everyone about fracking got their say. And the groups who will actually be doing the fracking didn't.

What part of the definition of 'rigging a consultation' does that situation NOT meet?

Are YOU advocating that DECC shouldn't consult the people doing the drilling and should only consult the lentil-weavers?

As for corrupt government - do you know who is CEO of Cuadrilla?

How interesting that you refuse to comment on your own tolerance for corruption so long as it meets your interests. But it was ever thus amongst the ecomentalists, who are quite shameless in their attempts to smear anyone who disagrees with them.

It's you flatty who are unclear of the timeline . The map was published eons ago. It is the proposed 14th licence round for onshore oil and gas exploration developed in conjunction with the BGS, DECC and most probably with some input from oil and gas companies themselves.

I don't know what an ecomentalist or a lentil weaver is. I've never met one.

Just realised that didn't work earlier - this was dated Dec 2012. And this is not the original.
www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/how-much-shale-gas-has-the-uk-got/

Fair enough, let's frack the UK. But get the drilling companies to pay for all clean ups, all the contaminated water, and if they're that confident about making a profit remove all subsidies and tax breaks.

There are a fair few mentions on this thread to "fracking companies". I wonder to whom the various posters are referring? The operator (i.e. Oil company)? The drilling contractor? There are many contracted companies involved in the production/processing of oil and gas.

Flipflop21, regarding your 18 Dec. 18:39:51 post, what other energy sources do you have in mind? We need existing technology which is financially viable.

Strix - I suppose I am referring to the likes of IGAS and Cuadrilla who describe themselves as unconventional oil hydrocarbon exploration companies. If they find what they are looking for they may sell their licences to production companies. We have yet to see how things will play out.

Regarding other energy sources - I don't have the perfect solution - who does? If is say renewables then I'm regarded as some kind of green idealist if I say nuclear I'm hypocritical, if I say coal then it's a step back in terms of carbon emissions...

In answer to your question - what's my preferred option - I guess if renwables won't deliver what we need then nuclear is the next best option. The risks of nuclear power are fully understood and as such can be reduced effectively. In my opinion the risks of fracking are not yet fully known and as such cannot be reduced to an acceptable level.

Fracking is only economically viable at the current very high level of energy prices. When prices fall, which they will for sure, then these companies will all go away and the drilling will stop.

It will for many many years to come be far better for our environment and far cheaper to satisfy our gas needs with giant ships full of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) from a diverse set of sources around the world than drill up our countryside with expensive and unsustainable fracking.

And as MoreBeta says importing LNG.

I am really uncomfortable with dependence on fossil fuels and finding more and more involved, complicated ways of going after them and much nearer to people's homes etc rather than looking forward to cleaner better ways of generating and distributing energy.

You can frack all you want but the fossil fuels are going to run out someday. It's so backwards thinking.

I am also a bit concerned about fucking around with the structure of the ground under / near where people live but I'm no geologist.

There was a report by the Tyndall Centre that was reviewed in parliament which states that from an environmental perspective "This stuff (shale gas) really must stay in the ground" - or words to that effect - even as a "bridging" source of energy. Yet that piece of research seems to have been overlooked.

Nice Tabard - the underground structure concerns me - in particular the effect of drilling across pre-existing faults.

Regarding drilling under your land - currently they need permission to drill under your home, however I believe there is a motion to change this law - I need to check my fact on this one.

Haven't we had the Fracking debate, already?
Oh let's see:
Scary waste product terrorist magnet dependent on dodgy parts of world for raw materials nuclear,
Heaved around by world market price & dependent on Russian oligarchs gas,
Ugly (if you think so) rows of unreliable turbines that can't get thru planning permission anyway,
Massive waste of prime agricultural land solar farms,
Nightmare when it leaks GHG-explosive world market price dependent oil,
CO2 churning and dirty coal --

I dunno, I don't like any of it. Fracking is no worse than the others.

thorium might be okay. We could seriously use thorium reactor technology.