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?

You say we've had the debate but my question really asks do we really want 1000s of wells spread anything between 2 and 5 miles apart in the pink areas highlighted on the DECC map?

If you are pro-fracking then you are saying "yes" to this potentially happening. Regardless of all the other perceived risks of fracking - IMO this alone makes fracking is one of the worst options available to us.

The pink areas are on this map here:

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

Energy demand is only going to go up and up;
Energy prices are only going to go up and up;
Fracking will not change the trends but might temper them;
Too few new energy generation schemes WILL make the price skyrocket and demand will still soar;
So we have to make painful choices.

I want a diversified energy generation policy. To spread our exposure to all the bads. So Fracking wells every 3km no thanks, but Fracking as part of the diversified mix, yes, tolerable, which might mean one every 30km on avg, and thus a total in the high 100s. I like civilisation. I'd like a gas-fired electricity station on the edge of our town centre, too (we already have the gas storage facilities right next door to my proposed site). And I'd like 1-3 large wind turbines on edge of town (but UKIP chased that out last yr, so no chance :-( ).

Or the lights can go out, if you prefer. You can make that choice for yourself but it won't be popular.

But lljkk to quote from the article the lowest prediction of wells is 380 per year..

"In the "high activity" scenario used in the Amec assessment, 2,880 wells would be drilled a year from 120 well pad locations at the industry's peak, with the wells operating for 20 years....... But under a "low activity" scenario, with 380 wells drilled a year from 30 sites, just 2,500-5,000 jobs would be created.

In August, the prime minister, David Cameron, said 74,000 jobs could be created, quoting a report from the Institute of Directors that envisaged 4,000 wells."

I don't think you can extract enough hydrocarbon from having a well pad every 30km - it wouldn't be viable or productive enough. And you have to drill more once they stop producing.

It's a threat to livestock.

It's a threat to drinking water.

Is it really worth the cost of even further polluting our environment just to enrich a few already rich people? As for creating 74000 jobs, what a crock. Investing in renewables is the way forward. Put solar panels on as many rooftops as possible and redesign wind turbines so smaller ones can be placed in as many gardens as possible. Then share ownership between homeowner and state.

DoctorTwoTurtleDoves

Is it really worth the cost of even further polluting our environment just to enrich a few already rich people?

Best not build any wind turbines or solar panels then. Or did you think that they were made from moonbeams and hemp?

The thing is flipflop. If not fracking then what do you want to see replace it instead?

More nuclear? More coal? More gas imports from Russia? More renewables?

The latter of course always sounds great until people realise that with current technology wind turbines and solar panels fall woefully short of providing the energy we need today, let alone in 40-50 years time.

Plus those who have invested in green energy much more than we have like Germany have seen their energy bills rise significantly more than ours have. And judging from recent press if Joe Public had to choose between lower gas/electric/petrol bills or green energy then they'd choose lower bills.

Quite simply put there is no energy source we can tap that doesn't cause environmental damage or cause a section of the community to go up in arms over it.

So yes, object against fracking if you feel you must. Because others are also objecting against wind turbines, nuclear power plants etc. But we all still want energy. So how would you provide energy?

My Niceguy - as I answered to Strix: 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 - in particular - thorium based power as there is less waste, but also as suggested elsewhere importing LNG from the states.

Just leave fracking out of the energy mix completely. The cost of carving up the countryside, and the as yet unknown long term risks of fracking IMO makes it a complete non starter. The government is being short sighted in pushing this through and is ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence regarding the dangers to public health and the environment.

flipflop21

My Niceguy - as I answered to Strix: 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 - in particular - thorium based power as there is less waste, but also as suggested elsewhere importing LNG from the states.

There are a couple of issues with your preferred options. Renewables, as you know, won't deliver the necessary baseload and all you're doing is outsourcing the pollution to China. Thorium doesn't really exist yet as an option - I think we're at least a decade away from it commercially. Importing LNG costs money.

Just leave fracking out of the energy mix completely. The cost of carving up the countryside, and the as yet unknown long term risks of fracking IMO makes it a complete non starter. The government is being short sighted in pushing this through and is ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence regarding the dangers to public health and the environment.

Nuclear takes a decade to come online. We need power now. Fracking will fill the gap. And it'll have to do, since Labour failed to do what any decent government would have done, and plan over a decade ago for new power stations. In 2003 the Labour government put off the plan to replace the nuclear power stations. We have an energy gap that will exist until about 2026.

Fracking is dirty, but it's profitable and it'll give us power. It'll bring jobs, particularly highly-paid and highly skilled jobs. It'll bring taxes. Money, jobs and power and the price is pollution.

Fracking will not fill that 10 year gap - it is not an immediate solution. It will be the 2020s before any "benefits" from fracking will be seen. See the link below and download the parliamentary briefing paper to see what the sec of state says about that:

www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06073/shale-gas-and-fracking

The paper also describes the tax breaks being given to fracking companies - who's paying for that? It's going to cost tax payer's money long before any tax revenues are received. Also Cuadrilla is jointly owned by Riverstone Holdings an American company and AJ lucas an Australian company. Not sure how much tax revenue they'll be feeding into the UK coffers.

Also, the chairman of Cuadrilla is the government advisor for energy. If the drilling companies are that confident about the profitability of fracking and its cleanliness, let's remove all subsidies and make them liable for any environmental issues. That, after all, is the capitalist way as opposed to the corporatist way things are heading.

Currently there are fracking proposals in Southeast, Barton Moss and now coming to Wigan...

www.wigantoday.net/news/local/borough-highlighted-in-fracking-plan-map-1-6349603