ChaoticMusings

Syl wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

The new PM has set out her policies re the energy crisis in todays PMQ'S.

Expect domestic usage prices to be doubled...not the huge rises as predicted, but enough to send millions of homes into deeper poverty, and force
businesses to close.

Rises in windfall taxes for these huge energy companies who are making huge multi billion pound profits, are not on her agenda.

---

 Our prices have dropped dramatically..

 

Of course we're not reliant on lunatics for our gas and oil. 

---

 Neither are we, but what has happened in Europe has had a knock on effect on the way our prices have soared...not to mention the huge profiteering by the energy companies.

---

 Sure you are. Maybe not lunatics completely, but you produce very little of your own gas and oil. 

 

You don't see crazy price increases in countries that produce their own oil, and I can assure you the level of greed isn't lower there.  

 

 

 

---

 You live inTexas, your land is full of bloody oil....(I remember the Beverly Hillbillies you know)

 

I know we have to be more self sufficient for the future,  wind farming needs to be  invested in, Fracking, IF it's safe and done fairly is something the PM is keen to start again. But apparently fracking isn't as safe here as it is in the US or Canada.

Maybe this was the kick up the bum we needed to get ourselves more self sufficient for the future.

 

---

 Fracking is as safe there as it is here. 

 

You have gas and oil. You don't harvest it for the same reason you don't mine for coal. 

 

It's considered dirty and something done in far flung former colonies.  

As late as 2004 Britain was a gas exporter, but as North Sea production declined it rapidly became a big net importer, dependent on Norway, Qatar or Russia. As Britain was paying far more for its gas than America, that meant that our huge chemical industry was gradually moving out.

Russia Today television ran endless anti-fracking stories, including one that “frackers are the moral equivalent of paedophiles”

Fortunately, it then emerged that Britain has one of the richest and thickest seams of shale: the Bowland shale across Lancashire and Yorkshire contains many decades of supply. Fracking it would mean drilling small holes down about one mile, then cracking the rocks with millimetre-wide fractures and catching the gas as it flowed out over the next few decades. Experience in America showed this could be done without any risk of contaminating ground water, which is near the surface, or threatening buildings. The seismic tremors that have caused all the trouble are so slight they could not possibly do damage and were generally far smaller than those from mining, construction or transport. The well pads would be hundreds of times smaller than the concrete bases of wind farms producing comparable amounts of energy.

Still, friends of the earth, which is effectively a multinational environmental business, spotted a chance to make hay. Despite being told by the Advertising Standards Authority to withdraw misleading claims about shale gas, it kept up a relentless campaign of misinformation, demanding more delay and red tape from all-too-willing civil servants. The industry, with Cuadrilla fated to play the part of Monsanto, agreed to ridiculously unrealistic limits on what kinds of tremors they were allowed after being promised by the government that the limits would be changed later — a promise since broken. Such limits would stop most other industries, even road haulage, in their tracks.

The Russians also lobbied behind the scenes against shale gas, worried about losing their grip on the world’s gas supplies. Unlike most conspiracy theories about Russian meddling in Western politics, this one is out there in plain sight. The head of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the Russians, as part of a sophisticated disinformation operation, “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations — environmental organisations working against shale gas — to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”.

The Centre for European Studies found that the Russian government has invested $95 million in NGOs campaigning against shale gas. Russia Today television ran endless anti-fracking stories, including one that “frackers are the moral equivalent of paedophiles”. The US Director of National Intelligence stated that “RT runs anti-fracking programming … reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.” Pro-Russian politicians such as Lord Truscott (married to a Russian army colonel’s daughter) made speeches in parliament against fracking.

Digger wrote:

---

As late as 2004 Britain was a gas exporter, but as North Sea production declined it rapidly became a big net importer, dependent on Norway, Qatar or Russia. As Britain was paying far more for its gas than America, that meant that our huge chemical industry was gradually moving out.

Russia Today television ran endless anti-fracking stories, including one that “frackers are the moral equivalent of paedophiles”

Fortunately, it then emerged that Britain has one of the richest and thickest seams of shale: the Bowland shale across Lancashire and Yorkshire contains many decades of supply. Fracking it would mean drilling small holes down about one mile, then cracking the rocks with millimetre-wide fractures and catching the gas as it flowed out over the next few decades. Experience in America showed this could be done without any risk of contaminating ground water, which is near the surface, or threatening buildings. The seismic tremors that have caused all the trouble are so slight they could not possibly do damage and were generally far smaller than those from mining, construction or transport. The well pads would be hundreds of times smaller than the concrete bases of wind farms producing comparable amounts of energy.

Still, friends of the earth, which is effectively a multinational environmental business, spotted a chance to make hay. Despite being told by the Advertising Standards Authority to withdraw misleading claims about shale gas, it kept up a relentless campaign of misinformation, demanding more delay and red tape from all-too-willing civil servants. The industry, with Cuadrilla fated to play the part of Monsanto, agreed to ridiculously unrealistic limits on what kinds of tremors they were allowed after being promised by the government that the limits would be changed later — a promise since broken. Such limits would stop most other industries, even road haulage, in their tracks.

The Russians also lobbied behind the scenes against shale gas, worried about losing their grip on the world’s gas supplies. Unlike most conspiracy theories about Russian meddling in Western politics, this one is out there in plain sight. The head of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the Russians, as part of a sophisticated disinformation operation, “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations — environmental organisations working against shale gas — to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”.

The Centre for European Studies found that the Russian government has invested $95 million in NGOs campaigning against shale gas. Russia Today television ran endless anti-fracking stories, including one that “frackers are the moral equivalent of paedophiles”. The US Director of National Intelligence stated that “RT runs anti-fracking programming … reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.” Pro-Russian politicians such as Lord Truscott (married to a Russian army colonel’s daughter) made speeches in parliament against fracking.

---

 ^

 

There have been all sorts of scare tactics thrown at our use of fracking too.  And yes, we have occasional tremors that cause no damage. I've never felt one and I am surrounded by it. 

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

https://inews.co.uk/news/fracking-why-controversial-uk-ban-tory-manifesto-liz-truss-plan-explained-1839911?ico=most_popular

---

 Biden flipped too when he saw gas prices double here and folks grabbing their pitchforks. 

 

He campaigned as an enemy of big oil. He turned into Sarah Palin when the shit hit the fan and he started begging the oil companies to start sinking holes in the ground. 

 

They obliged when he lifted restrictions  and gasoline has dropped from about 5 to 3 dollars per gallon in about 3 months. 

---

 I really dont know enough about the pros and cons of fracking in the UK, and I'm sure some have their own agenda on whether they encourage it or not.

Not everything is about money though, if there are indeed dangers here of earthquakes, if the fracking is done near established communities, it could cause more harm than good.

Alternatively, investing in building more wind farms, could seem a safer, and some say, a quicker solution for the UK.

 

Money is important, and so is the environment. The world we leave behind for our kids and our grandkids reflects on how this present generation moves forwards...the grab, grab, grab Thatcher attitude is hopefully fading in this country...maybe not so much in your part of the world.

Nothing is going to fix the energy crisis in a month, fracking would take years to produce the gas...if it ever did, ...so obviously it's a long term problem, which needs the government to step in and provide a short term answer right now...and tbf, a 100% rise is a lot more palatable than the predicted 500% rise

The more I read about fracking, the more I think people have agendas for either pushing it or banning it.
But like I say...I don't know enough about it to argue strongly either way.
It is recorded that many earth tremors were reported in an area local to me wher it was tried out ....which is why it was stopped.

Also, I don't know how your laws work in regards to mineral rights. But over here, you have to pay land owners for the minerals you extract from under their land.

That can pump a lot of money into a local economy..

I live in Tarrant County, one of 254 counties in Texas. We have almost 5000 well sites in this county alone. People continue to pour into this county at one of the fastest rates in the country.

That wouldn't be happening if fracking was damaging folks quality of life.

As for the "experts" they say what they get paid to say.

Experience and years of results tell you what you need to know.

15 years ago, one could say we didn't know all of the impacts from fracking. 15 years later we know. We were the canaries in the coal mine and are fine.

You're welcome.

Huh? It's the same technology.

Only difference is your trucks drive to the well site on the other side of the road..

Syl wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Huh? It's the same technology.

Only difference is your trucks drive to the well site on the other side of the road..

---

 The technology may be the same, but the land is different, different age, different climate, different stone and rock formation...and obviously our trucks are a lot smaller than yours.

---

 Fracking is done all over this planet. Except where the propaganda worked. 

 

Just drive on the other side of the road when approaching a well site and everything will be fine.