OT On fracking (economics)

[harry]

Interesting one this.

[newshound]

I'd say Betteridge's law applies. In any case they seem to be combining oil and gas here. I thought the evidence from the States was that the gas dividend was one of the main things that had boosted their economy recently.

Also an interesting article in the Guardian a few days ago saying that Putin must be having a good laugh at the success of the anti shale gas campaign in the UK, as strongly promoted by Russia Today.

[Chris Hogg]

You're not seriously suggesting that Harry actually read the article, are you?

[harry]

Shale gas has the benefit of keeping the Russian's prices down.

[alan_m]

But by 2025 we won't need gas from any source!

As for the original article , its more likely that the next financial crisis will be when investors lose their money when the bubble bursts on the "social media" companies worth paper billions but rely on non-existant advertising revenue.

[Brian Gaff]

Apart from the terrible pun, who knows. I just think that despite all the assurances to the contrary the muck being pumped in is going to get into ground water and case an environmental incident or two as to whether the earth will tremor more than the stock market who knows? Brian

[Brian Gaff]

Well whatever Putins motives in this case I doo feel he is right to be sounding a warning from what I know and have seen over the years. This is not a new process and its only now being used due to there not being any other way to release the trapped hydrocarbons. Its more short term gain and later pain in my view. Brian

[Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp]

How long did the damage through coal mining take to show up in the UK cities.

One thing is for absolute certain however, is that when the damage does start and repairs and clean up's are needed the shareholders will either be long gone, or having their dividends replaced by the taxpayers cash.

Of course harry is true to form, what damage fracking does to te UK is immaterial as long as some other country suffers in the process. A bit like Brexit.

AB

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

~Steven Wright

[Chris Hogg]

But fracking for oil has been used offshore UK since the 1970's and onshore UK since the 1980's, with no problems. It's also been used experimentally in attempts to recover heat from 'hot rocks' at depth.

Bear in mind that the gas fracking that's causing so much controversy is in wells in the order of a mile or so deep, whereas water supplies are pumped up from wells only a few hundred feet deep, so the chances of contamination are small. Also, the water companies in the UK are responsible for supplying clean potable water, so it will be their job to clean up any contamination, if it occurs. This is not the case elsewhere, in America for example, where many small townships have their own local water supplies from private boreholes, and the water gets precious little treatment.

[Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp]

Not bad at all, and the water companies are paid by who?

Still, not to worry if they don't do a dammned good clean up the DWP will be levying pretty impressive fines.

And who's pocket does it come from?

And who gains from all this pollution and nuicance?

Answers on a postcard please :-)

AB

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

~Steven Wright

[Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp]

Yes, the gains are impressive. Pollution, traffic, subsidence, health problems, not to mention the removal of idecision on what to spend One's disposable income on.

AB

[The Natural Philosopher]

And there is no 'muvk' being [pumped in either.

its just water and a little lubricant and an antifungal.

Just like tap water is chlorinated (so you can wash your chickens)

I see thet despitre no fracking we had a 2.something earthquake yesterday.

Its more eco bollox - corporate marekting disguised as fears about the environment.

[newshound]

and sand

Plus one to both posts

[The Natural Philosopher]

What pollution and nusiance.

The consumer gains

Silly girl

[Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp]

Detergents cause a lot of problems. You pay to treat the stuff that you send through the sewers, why add to it?

You would have had a field day in Broad street a few years back, lynching Dr Snow.

Basically there is a common theme. All these Brexit morons that want light touch control and no interference to the greed that those that are already very well off exhibit, don't give a damn about the planet or the consequenses of their actions.

AB

[Chris Hogg]

OMG!! That's silica, isn't it? Silica is carcinogenic; it causes silicosis! Quick, ban it all! (thus spake an FoE spokesman at a planning enquiry into a fracking application in the North-West, reported in 2015, thus confirming the crass scientific ignorance or just plain dishonesty of the green fraternity).

[dennis]

There are huge vertical distances between where the ground water is and the place where they pump the water, detergent and sand.

There is virtually no evidence of the nasty detergents getting into the ground water.

The pollution from houses is far worse.

[Chris Hogg]

Explain it to Blenkinsopp; he's paranoid about absolutely everything.

[Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp]

It isn't a bizzare argument. It is fundamentally flawed and it ignores the bigger picture, but it isn't bizzare at all.

You see, ignoring facts that are not supportive of One's arguments is actually quite common.

Both left and right wing extremists peddle the facts that suit themselves.

There are indeed arguments for Fracking, but I am not convinced that the other options have been considered, The other options do not make vast quantities of cash for the very well to do currently.

The other options require a level of political awareness and action that Britain just hasn't got, and never will have if the public keep voting into power those who's primary interest is satisfying their own greed.

AB

[newshound]

Don't confuse him/her with facts, his mind is made up. I've been collecting examples of bizarre arguments in the current press for the past few days to use in a talk that I am giving later in the year.

I particularly liked this one from last Monday's Guardian:

Momentum said climate change was caused not by ordinary people but by elites, and Labour was right to push the government to recognise the urgency and scale of the impending environmental crisis.

?It?s disgraceful that Theresa May has sat on her hands, refused to meet the climate strikers and ignored the huge public outcry about the climate crisis,? said Laura Parker, a Momentum spokesperson. ?Climate change isn?t caused by ordinary people. It?s caused by elite politicians, oil executives and bankers who all profit from causing climate breakdown.?

She added: ?Only Labour can challenge this climate-wrecking elite and deliver a green industrial revolution, which will mitigate climate breakdown whilst transforming our economy and society in the interests of the many, not the few.?