OT Fracking

[dennis]

The migrants have a net positive effect on the economy. The government may not distribute the positive bit to where it should go. That is nothing to do with the immigrants.

[SteveW]

What about the obvious negative - overcrowded towns and roads. Adding more people will always make this worse.

SteveW

[tim.....]

but they also get lied to by the lobbyists on the other side of the argument

tim

[ARW]

I'll bet that she said her name was Snow White.

[Tim Streater]

Well it is, really. I'm not interested in whether immigrants give a net economic benefit. OK, if that's true, let's start by doubling the population. Then double it again. Gosh, look at the GDP!

What I'm interested in is whether there's enough *room*. And don't give me any guff about all these green fields and forests we could build on, where do you put the infrastructure? Roads, railways, airports, factories, sewage treatment works, the list is endless. Any time any proposal for such comes up, no one can figure out where to put it.

Meanwhile the French, with twice our land area per person, can build a TGV line from one end of the country to the other with little effect because they have the room.

Bugger the GDP, we should be looking to get the population down to 25 million.

[Tim Streater]

Actually they aren't. These are test drills to examine the geology.

[Andy Cap]

No doubt and it's clear you think it's a non-controversial issue and that the 'Environmental impact' section is a nonsense. We'll have to wait and see who's right.

[Andy Cap]

See harryagains thread... OT Chemicals used in fracking

then

'Environmental imapct' section

Perhaps it's all made up. Bit late though if they are proved right. What we need then is a couple of sites to go ahead and gain some practical experience of the impact.

[bert]

In message , Tim Streater writes

At long last we are beginning to see the odd comment that perhaps GDP isn't necessarily a very valid way to measure an economy.

[Fredxx]

I have heard of GDP per person a much better indicator of wellbeing and state of the economy.

[dennis]

It is only worse if the resources are spent elsewhere.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On the contrary I think that environmental impact should be debated and discussed, but from a rational not emotional standpoint, using facts rather than propaganda.

Fracking is an old technology,that is very well understood. the gas is by definition in a relatively sealed container, or after a few million years it would have gone. Drilling through that conainer to get at the gas does not imply the gas will therefore end up somewhere else, or that the injected fluids will.

The fracking is not a continuous process either. Once the rock layers have been split, there's an end to that particular water injection phase.

Ergo with the deep wells likely in the UK there is very little chance of aquifer contamination. what goes into the gas container will stay in the gas container forever..

earth tremors as faults stresses are relieved is more likely, BUT they represent things that would have happened anyway, eventually. The actual ENERGY of a fracking rig is not great. Certainly not in the hundred kiloton range required to CREATE a serious earth tremor.

The UK consists of old and deeply faulted strata. It is not on a tectonic plate margin. That's why earthquakes are rare, they have so to speak, already happened millions of years ago, and there is little potential left for them to happen. Nonetheless, as the ice retreated post the last ice age, crust movement did occur and is still occurring. So we get the odd tremor now and again, and every 30 years or so, a small earthquake sufficient to cause minor structural damage.

In fact fracking could be argued to actually be beneficial, as any small tremors it might set off would lessen the chance of a bigger earthquake.

Those are broadly the facts.

Issues exist, but they are massively outweighed by the benefits.

This is completely the opposite case to say wind farms, where there is almost no benefit whatsoever, and the issues are right there on the earth's surface.

In short fracking (and nuclear power) represent a large amount of beneficial energy for a very low environmental risk, whereas windmills and solar panels represent almost no useful energy for a guaranteed environmental degradation.

That the former are totally opposed by the Green Unwashed, and the latter an object of adulation, speaks volumes for the sophistication and intelligence of the aforementioned, and a considerable amount about who is funding and driving the propaganda machine that informs their opinions.

[Huge]

Hear, hear.

[Huge]

No they aren't, and no it isn't.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

[dennis]

Well do something about it, go and live in France!

[SteveW]

No it's worse by the simple fact that there are more people and therefore existing places get busier. Yes you can build more roads, railways, houses, etc., but geography dictactes that you will still have bottlenecks and more people trying to get through them.

SteveW

[bert]

In message , Arfa Daily writes

+1

[bert]

And building more roads etc causes the economy to grow so you need more people (immigrants) to service that growth and so you build more roads etc to accommodate those people and so the economy grows and you need more people to support that growth and........

[bert]

In message , Arfa Daily writes

Well how else can you fill a 24hour news channel? You can't have a royal baby every day you know.

[polygonum]

How big a royal family would you need to average one new royal baby every day?