Fracking 'must go ahead soon' in Hampshire despite fears over water supply says report by Lords

Fracking 'must go ahead soon' despite fears over water supply

Fracking 'must go ahead soon' despite fears over water supply

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Parliamentary Correspondent

FRACKING must go ahead as quickly as possible, peers say today - despite fears that it could wreck Hampshire's water supply.

The Government is being urged to “get its act together” by pushing forward the exploitation of shale gas, to create jobs, hold down energy bills and reduce Britain's reliance on gas from Russia.

A report by an all-party Lords select committee demands a “streamlining” of regulation and alarm that no drilling applications have been approved yet.

And it specifically dismisses concerns that fracking will backfire in Hampshire, because the county relies on groundwater and extraction from rivers for its supplies.

Speaking from Westminster, committee chairman Lord MacGregor told the Echo: “We took a great deal of evidence from scientists and others. Those concerns can be dealt with.”

The former Tory Cabinet minister added: “Shale gas offers a remarkable opportunity. We believe the Government needs to get its act together.”

The Daily Echo revealed last year, that eight drilling licences for possible fracking had already been issued to gas companies, at sites across South Hampshire.

But the alarm was raised over groundwater contamination, particularly in the Hampshire Downs, where water is stored in chalk aquifers and pulled from rivers, wells and boreholes.

George Hollingbery, the Meon Valley MP, has previously warned the impact could be “disastrous” and suggested it meant fracking was “impossible” in the county.

Yesterday a spokeswoman for Mr Hollingbery said he had yet to see the report and was unable to comment.

But today's report, by the Lords economic affairs committee, finds that:

• The risk of pollution of aquifers is “hard to imagine”.

• Fears of water shortages have been “overplayed” - with the amounts used by fracking no greater than for other industries.

• Concerns are based on “past practice in the US” - but regulations would be tougher in the UK.

Next month's Queen's Speech is expected to include plans to change trespass laws, to allow shale gas companies to drill under homes without the owner's permission.

The report backs that controversial move - arguing the pipes would be three kilometres below ground.

Lord MacGregor said: “It's way, way down. We don't believe there would be any impact on landowners and it will enable the Government to get on with it.”

The eight Hampshire licences include locations in north Southampton, north and west of Winchester, east of Fareham and in the New Forest.

Communities have been offered “compensation” of £100,000 per exploration well and one per cent of the profits - worth several million pounds, say ministers.

However, it is unlikely that all the sites would be fracked - even if drilling went ahead - because many have the potential to generate conventional gas instead.

Where are the potential Hampshire locations?

LICENCES for exploratory drilling licences for possible fracking sites have already been issued to gas companies.

They are located in:

• North Southampton, stretching east from North Baddesley all the way to the Swanwick, including Eastleigh, Lakeside Country Park, Hedge End and Botley.

• North of Winchester, from Kings Worthy stretching west almost to Stockbridge.

• East of Winchester, underneath Hampage Wood.

• Further north, reaching from Chilbolton west to Amport.

• Stretching west from Hinton, in the New Forest.

• From east of Fareham, stretching further east.

• Two licences stretching east from the Hambledon area.

It is unlikely that all the sites would be fracked - even if drilling went ahead - because many have the potential to generate conventional gas instead.

Comments (49)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:49am Thu 8 May 14

SteveinTotton says...

Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim. SteveinTotton
  • Score: 18

7:31am Thu 8 May 14

skeptik says...

Do they care if it pollutes? No, we will have a clean up the water addition to our bills.
Do they care if it pollutes? No, we will have a clean up the water addition to our bills. skeptik
  • Score: 6

9:34am Thu 8 May 14

Kirsty666 says...

And it's us in Hampshire that have to deal with it when it fails!!
And it's us in Hampshire that have to deal with it when it fails!! Kirsty666
  • Score: 1

10:00am Thu 8 May 14

George4th says...

Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea......... George4th
  • Score: -4

10:02am Thu 8 May 14

good-gosh says...

This seems to be urgent now. No more time left to carry on playing **** foot – keep the sites secret but put up a couple of high profile dummy sites to keep the hippies busy – a cold wet windy place would be best.
This seems to be urgent now. No more time left to carry on playing **** foot – keep the sites secret but put up a couple of high profile dummy sites to keep the hippies busy – a cold wet windy place would be best. good-gosh
  • Score: -8

10:32am Thu 8 May 14

southy says...

There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking.
There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking. southy
  • Score: -2

11:40am Thu 8 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking.
Can you let everyone know which book you found this information in so that others can acquaint themselves with it?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking.[/p][/quote]Can you let everyone know which book you found this information in so that others can acquaint themselves with it? Torchie1
  • Score: 4

11:43am Thu 8 May 14

southy says...

There are over 600 different types of chemicals used in fracking, most are toxic, one is spent uranium (283 I think) I did have the full list of chemicals used. In the states (USA) states are now banning fracking because of the damage its doing to the environment, problems are now starting to appear in Australia where some local councils up in the blue mountains are with drawing licences to frack in there area just to safe guard drinking water after reports started to come in from the National park about animals being found dead and bare patches of plant life where contamination of water as reach the surface
There are over 600 different types of chemicals used in fracking, most are toxic, one is spent uranium (283 I think) I did have the full list of chemicals used. In the states (USA) states are now banning fracking because of the damage its doing to the environment, problems are now starting to appear in Australia where some local councils up in the blue mountains are with drawing licences to frack in there area just to safe guard drinking water after reports started to come in from the National park about animals being found dead and bare patches of plant life where contamination of water as reach the surface southy
  • Score: 8

11:51am Thu 8 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking.
Can you let everyone know which book you found this information in so that others can acquaint themselves with it?
Work it out for your self, contaminate the ground water and you will contaminate a very big area in the USA what should of been drinking water 500 miles away can no no longer be used, Ground water do not stay in one place it flows under ground, it will enter rivers and will end up in the sea causing more damage.
Facking will break pass the shell rock and into other layers pushing the 600 plus chemical c0cktail into these layers and will mix in with the water.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking.[/p][/quote]Can you let everyone know which book you found this information in so that others can acquaint themselves with it?[/p][/quote]Work it out for your self, contaminate the ground water and you will contaminate a very big area in the USA what should of been drinking water 500 miles away can no no longer be used, Ground water do not stay in one place it flows under ground, it will enter rivers and will end up in the sea causing more damage. Facking will break pass the shell rock and into other layers pushing the 600 plus chemical c0cktail into these layers and will mix in with the water. southy
  • Score: 6

12:06pm Thu 8 May 14

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking.
Can you let everyone know which book you found this information in so that others can acquaint themselves with it?
Work it out for your self, contaminate the ground water and you will contaminate a very big area in the USA what should of been drinking water 500 miles away can no no longer be used, Ground water do not stay in one place it flows under ground, it will enter rivers and will end up in the sea causing more damage.
Facking will break pass the shell rock and into other layers pushing the 600 plus chemical c0cktail into these layers and will mix in with the water.
No, that's not how life works Peter - if you state what you believe are facts then we need to see the source.

So let's just assume you spent 5 - 10 minutes on Wikipedia & Google to make yourself look clever.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking.[/p][/quote]Can you let everyone know which book you found this information in so that others can acquaint themselves with it?[/p][/quote]Work it out for your self, contaminate the ground water and you will contaminate a very big area in the USA what should of been drinking water 500 miles away can no no longer be used, Ground water do not stay in one place it flows under ground, it will enter rivers and will end up in the sea causing more damage. Facking will break pass the shell rock and into other layers pushing the 600 plus chemical c0cktail into these layers and will mix in with the water.[/p][/quote]No, that's not how life works Peter - if you state what you believe are facts then we need to see the source. So let's just assume you spent 5 - 10 minutes on Wikipedia & Google to make yourself look clever. Shoong
  • Score: -3

12:15pm Thu 8 May 14

Bagamn says...

George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
Typical Conservative attitude Mr. Smith. If it don't show a profit, shut it down, if it does show a profit, milk it forever. Go back to sleep Napoleon, until after the General Election.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]Typical Conservative attitude Mr. Smith. If it don't show a profit, shut it down, if it does show a profit, milk it forever. Go back to sleep Napoleon, until after the General Election. Bagamn
  • Score: -4

12:29pm Thu 8 May 14

The Wickham Man says...

SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
This is completely wrong and shows no understanding of science or even of risk . Firstly by your incorrect assessment of risk fracking has already been "proved to be safe" because there is no proof anywhere that properly conducted fracking has caused any harm at all, let alone injured or even killed anyone. There are only endlessly repeated (and refuted) scare stories from the USA. So how exactly do you propose that anyone can "prove" it is safe beyond what has happened already? Actually of course the real answer is that it is down to Greens to "prove" that fracking is unsafe - something that have continually failed to do - which is hardly surprising because fracking has been conducted safely for decades - even round here on Purbeck. Greens prefer to just repeat the same old scare stories in the media and the gullible continue to just swallow them. Fracking is just a technique used in mineral extraction. It is a lot less polluting than any form of mining or even quarrying but of course Greens would ban all that too and we can go back to living in wooden huts. Be careful what you wish for - Green policies will kill people.
[quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]This is completely wrong and shows no understanding of science or even of risk . Firstly by your incorrect assessment of risk fracking has already been "proved to be safe" because there is no proof anywhere that properly conducted fracking has caused any harm at all, let alone injured or even killed anyone. There are only endlessly repeated (and refuted) scare stories from the USA. So how exactly do you propose that anyone can "prove" it is safe beyond what has happened already? Actually of course the real answer is that it is down to Greens to "prove" that fracking is unsafe - something that have continually failed to do - which is hardly surprising because fracking has been conducted safely for decades - even round here on Purbeck. Greens prefer to just repeat the same old scare stories in the media and the gullible continue to just swallow them. Fracking is just a technique used in mineral extraction. It is a lot less polluting than any form of mining or even quarrying but of course Greens would ban all that too and we can go back to living in wooden huts. Be careful what you wish for - Green policies will kill people. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 1

12:53pm Thu 8 May 14

bigfella777 says...

I don't see that we have a choice, sky high bills or fracking unless someone comes up with a new energy source. We are energy dependent, sad but true.
I've always believed that somehow all the energy we need is in the sun but we just don't know how to harness it yet.
Even fossil fuels would not be here if it were not from the sun, it is the most powerful source of energy and the source of all life on the planet, I couldn't even be typing this comment if it were not for the sun.
Free energy is never going to be a priority until it is too late as fossil fuels and the primitive greed of mankind make the world go round.
I don't see that we have a choice, sky high bills or fracking unless someone comes up with a new energy source. We are energy dependent, sad but true. I've always believed that somehow all the energy we need is in the sun but we just don't know how to harness it yet. Even fossil fuels would not be here if it were not from the sun, it is the most powerful source of energy and the source of all life on the planet, I couldn't even be typing this comment if it were not for the sun. Free energy is never going to be a priority until it is too late as fossil fuels and the primitive greed of mankind make the world go round. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Thu 8 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking.
Can you let everyone know which book you found this information in so that others can acquaint themselves with it?
Work it out for your self, contaminate the ground water and you will contaminate a very big area in the USA what should of been drinking water 500 miles away can no no longer be used, Ground water do not stay in one place it flows under ground, it will enter rivers and will end up in the sea causing more damage.
Facking will break pass the shell rock and into other layers pushing the 600 plus chemical c0cktail into these layers and will mix in with the water.
And if I post that all members of Tusc are child molestors, can I assume that you won't expect me to back up my claim?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: There's a reason why these people want fracking to go ahead, it will pollute the water and water will become the new oil, people will end up having to pay 5 times as much for there water, it will also destroy the whole eco system. Just look at the chemicals that is used in fracking.[/p][/quote]Can you let everyone know which book you found this information in so that others can acquaint themselves with it?[/p][/quote]Work it out for your self, contaminate the ground water and you will contaminate a very big area in the USA what should of been drinking water 500 miles away can no no longer be used, Ground water do not stay in one place it flows under ground, it will enter rivers and will end up in the sea causing more damage. Facking will break pass the shell rock and into other layers pushing the 600 plus chemical c0cktail into these layers and will mix in with the water.[/p][/quote]And if I post that all members of Tusc are child molestors, can I assume that you won't expect me to back up my claim? Torchie1
  • Score: 5

1:28pm Thu 8 May 14

freefinker says...

.. I hate to find myself on the same side as southy, especially as his scientific illiteracy does the anti-fracking cause no good.

I object because all the evidence points to the conclusion we need to de-carbonise the world's economy if we are to prevent damaging climate change.

How seeking out and exploiting new sources of geologically sequestered carbon will help in achieving this is beyond me.

All the while we continue to look for and use new reserves of carbon there is little incentive to kick start the necessary research and development into alternative renewable energy sources.

The only result of such stupid short sightedness will be a devastated planet our grandchildren will have to inherit; all do to our inability to take the decisions that the science tells us are necessary as well as urgent.
.. I hate to find myself on the same side as southy, especially as his scientific illiteracy does the anti-fracking cause no good. I object because all the evidence points to the conclusion we need to de-carbonise the world's economy if we are to prevent damaging climate change. How seeking out and exploiting new sources of geologically sequestered carbon will help in achieving this is beyond me. All the while we continue to look for and use new reserves of carbon there is little incentive to kick start the necessary research and development into alternative renewable energy sources. The only result of such stupid short sightedness will be a devastated planet our grandchildren will have to inherit; all do to our inability to take the decisions that the science tells us are necessary as well as urgent. freefinker
  • Score: 4

1:44pm Thu 8 May 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes.

It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not.

Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations.

Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains.

In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers.

If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair.

Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA.

Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes. It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not. Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations. Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains. In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers. If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair. Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA. Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 3

1:56pm Thu 8 May 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

freefinker wrote:
.. I hate to find myself on the same side as southy, especially as his scientific illiteracy does the anti-fracking cause no good.

I object because all the evidence points to the conclusion we need to de-carbonise the world's economy if we are to prevent damaging climate change.

How seeking out and exploiting new sources of geologically sequestered carbon will help in achieving this is beyond me.

All the while we continue to look for and use new reserves of carbon there is little incentive to kick start the necessary research and development into alternative renewable energy sources.

The only result of such stupid short sightedness will be a devastated planet our grandchildren will have to inherit; all do to our inability to take the decisions that the science tells us are necessary as well as urgent.
Am I watching the pigs flying over Atlantic Ocean carrying love letters from leaders of Alweada to President Obama????

Former Communist Comrade Freefinker and Trotskyist Comrade Southy the Commmissar of REDbridge have fallen in love!!!!
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. I hate to find myself on the same side as southy, especially as his scientific illiteracy does the anti-fracking cause no good. I object because all the evidence points to the conclusion we need to de-carbonise the world's economy if we are to prevent damaging climate change. How seeking out and exploiting new sources of geologically sequestered carbon will help in achieving this is beyond me. All the while we continue to look for and use new reserves of carbon there is little incentive to kick start the necessary research and development into alternative renewable energy sources. The only result of such stupid short sightedness will be a devastated planet our grandchildren will have to inherit; all do to our inability to take the decisions that the science tells us are necessary as well as urgent.[/p][/quote]Am I watching the pigs flying over Atlantic Ocean carrying love letters from leaders of Alweada to President Obama???? Former Communist Comrade Freefinker and Trotskyist Comrade Southy the Commmissar of REDbridge have fallen in love!!!! Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 2

2:14pm Thu 8 May 14

southy says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
This is completely wrong and shows no understanding of science or even of risk . Firstly by your incorrect assessment of risk fracking has already been "proved to be safe" because there is no proof anywhere that properly conducted fracking has caused any harm at all, let alone injured or even killed anyone. There are only endlessly repeated (and refuted) scare stories from the USA. So how exactly do you propose that anyone can "prove" it is safe beyond what has happened already? Actually of course the real answer is that it is down to Greens to "prove" that fracking is unsafe - something that have continually failed to do - which is hardly surprising because fracking has been conducted safely for decades - even round here on Purbeck. Greens prefer to just repeat the same old scare stories in the media and the gullible continue to just swallow them. Fracking is just a technique used in mineral extraction. It is a lot less polluting than any form of mining or even quarrying but of course Greens would ban all that too and we can go back to living in wooden huts. Be careful what you wish for - Green policies will kill people.
Its not just the USA now, Australia also, the fracking on the Purbeck, is not the same as this low pressure extraction, the type of fracking that is causing problems is Hydraulic high pressure Fracking where you have chemicals to lubricate, chemicals to fracture and more chemicals to bring the gas to he surface, if the fracture was to be retain in the shell rock then it would not be a problem, but it don't it will cause fracture into the much softer rocks where the water table is and contaminate the ground water which will end up in our drinking water and into the Rivers and then into the sea, in the end you will have to buy your drinking water out of bottles that will be imported into the country, marine life will be effected as they have found out in the Colorado River and other rivers.
Suggestion watch some of American TV reports, and read California reports where parts of this state have all ready banned fracting and looks like it will be the whole state soon
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]This is completely wrong and shows no understanding of science or even of risk . Firstly by your incorrect assessment of risk fracking has already been "proved to be safe" because there is no proof anywhere that properly conducted fracking has caused any harm at all, let alone injured or even killed anyone. There are only endlessly repeated (and refuted) scare stories from the USA. So how exactly do you propose that anyone can "prove" it is safe beyond what has happened already? Actually of course the real answer is that it is down to Greens to "prove" that fracking is unsafe - something that have continually failed to do - which is hardly surprising because fracking has been conducted safely for decades - even round here on Purbeck. Greens prefer to just repeat the same old scare stories in the media and the gullible continue to just swallow them. Fracking is just a technique used in mineral extraction. It is a lot less polluting than any form of mining or even quarrying but of course Greens would ban all that too and we can go back to living in wooden huts. Be careful what you wish for - Green policies will kill people.[/p][/quote]Its not just the USA now, Australia also, the fracking on the Purbeck, is not the same as this low pressure extraction, the type of fracking that is causing problems is Hydraulic high pressure Fracking where you have chemicals to lubricate, chemicals to fracture and more chemicals to bring the gas to he surface, if the fracture was to be retain in the shell rock then it would not be a problem, but it don't it will cause fracture into the much softer rocks where the water table is and contaminate the ground water which will end up in our drinking water and into the Rivers and then into the sea, in the end you will have to buy your drinking water out of bottles that will be imported into the country, marine life will be effected as they have found out in the Colorado River and other rivers. Suggestion watch some of American TV reports, and read California reports where parts of this state have all ready banned fracting and looks like it will be the whole state soon southy
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Thu 8 May 14

George4th says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes.

It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not.

Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations.

Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains.

In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers.

If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair.

Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA.

Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option.
Come on Paramjit!

You picked the first sentence - my "guess" to base your whole comment on! And even then you turned cheaper into cheap which are two different things! By cheaper, I mean that the bills would be cheaper than otherwise the case if we do not have fracking!

Nothing on the other three comments?!

In truth we have not invented anything (other than nuclear) that is financially viable to take us into the future - most "Green" products are flawed or not technically of sufficiently efficient.
That said, I am ever hopeful that those dealing with technology will soon come up with better viable alternatives.

As for the "Green" / "Fracking" energy protesters why don't they campaign for the immediate global abolition of cattle and all road vehicles and airplanes and see what difference that makes to our carbon footprint and our energy needs!
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes. It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not. Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations. Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains. In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers. If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair. Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA. Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option.[/p][/quote]Come on Paramjit! You picked the first sentence - my "guess" to base your whole comment on! And even then you turned cheaper into cheap which are two different things! By cheaper, I mean that the bills would be cheaper than otherwise the case if we do not have fracking! Nothing on the other three comments?! In truth we have not invented anything (other than nuclear) that is financially viable to take us into the future - most "Green" products are flawed or not technically of sufficiently efficient. That said, I am ever hopeful that those dealing with technology will soon come up with better viable alternatives. As for the "Green" / "Fracking" energy protesters why don't they campaign for the immediate global abolition of cattle and all road vehicles and airplanes and see what difference that makes to our carbon footprint and our energy needs! George4th
  • Score: 4

5:28pm Thu 8 May 14

MisterGrimsdale says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes.

It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not.

Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations.

Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains.

In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers.

If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair.

Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA.

Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option.
I knew it - just a few days after you post a load of sentimental drivel about Gandhi you are back again with another barrowload of bigotted fascistic class hating tripe about "tory toffs" - and a load of allegations about which you have not one single ounce of evidence let alone proof. You like to style yourself as a politician and you come on here peddling petty class hatred. You are a failure because you deserve to be a failure. Take a long hard look at what actually motivates you Paramjit. Even when the political drivel is puhsed to one side everything you say about fracking is complete fiction. I suppose you think the natural gas that you and the rest of us use every day comes from some magical land where gas just comes out of the ground in little taps straight into big carbon free ships - you and the rest of this pinko green illiterati are a joke.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes. It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not. Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations. Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains. In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers. If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair. Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA. Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option.[/p][/quote]I knew it - just a few days after you post a load of sentimental drivel about Gandhi you are back again with another barrowload of bigotted fascistic class hating tripe about "tory toffs" - and a load of allegations about which you have not one single ounce of evidence let alone proof. You like to style yourself as a politician and you come on here peddling petty class hatred. You are a failure because you deserve to be a failure. Take a long hard look at what actually motivates you Paramjit. Even when the political drivel is puhsed to one side everything you say about fracking is complete fiction. I suppose you think the natural gas that you and the rest of us use every day comes from some magical land where gas just comes out of the ground in little taps straight into big carbon free ships - you and the rest of this pinko green illiterati are a joke. MisterGrimsdale
  • Score: 2

5:34pm Thu 8 May 14

SOULJACKER says...

Why, haven't you heard, 'Fracking' is the new asbestos!
No community will ever over rule the 'Fat cats' & untrustworthy & greedy councillors.
At the end of the day peoples love of money will always win & the remainder will suffer with a diminished quality of life & they & our planet will in turn come a very poor second.
I don't know why we even argue the toss anymore anyways, because dodgy deals will be done under the table & let's face it, they are going to do what they want despite our fears & concerns.
Why, haven't you heard, 'Fracking' is the new asbestos! No community will ever over rule the 'Fat cats' & untrustworthy & greedy councillors. At the end of the day peoples love of money will always win & the remainder will suffer with a diminished quality of life & they & our planet will in turn come a very poor second. I don't know why we even argue the toss anymore anyways, because dodgy deals will be done under the table & let's face it, they are going to do what they want despite our fears & concerns. SOULJACKER
  • Score: 3

6:39pm Thu 8 May 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

George4th wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes.

It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not.

Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations.

Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains.

In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers.

If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair.

Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA.

Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option.
Come on Paramjit!

You picked the first sentence - my "guess" to base your whole comment on! And even then you turned cheaper into cheap which are two different things! By cheaper, I mean that the bills would be cheaper than otherwise the case if we do not have fracking!

Nothing on the other three comments?!

In truth we have not invented anything (other than nuclear) that is financially viable to take us into the future - most "Green" products are flawed or not technically of sufficiently efficient.
That said, I am ever hopeful that those dealing with technology will soon come up with better viable alternatives.

As for the "Green" / "Fracking" energy protesters why don't they campaign for the immediate global abolition of cattle and all road vehicles and airplanes and see what difference that makes to our carbon footprint and our energy needs!
Hi, I dont want to shock you, but I agree with you that cattle release more gases which are harmful to the environment than many other sources the environmentalists admirably campaign against.

That was confirmed by a report, which I think came from some body of the UN; that cows alone release disturbing amount of harful gas through the same pipe as their other waste. I have forgotten which gas, it may be methane.

Yes I accept that, because it also suits my view that the cows which freely roam roads and streets of India, and often cause accidents, should be turned into beefburgers. But unfortunately certain sections of God Brigade will object because they think the cows to be sacred. Some of the same believer in flat earth colleagues of mine even here in the UK keep on moaning when I enjoy my favourite food!!!

Seriously, I am disappointed with environmental lobby, for keep on avoiding the issue of animals. I suspect that may be either due to political correctness, or because lack of guts to confront animal rights campaigners and certain religious people.

But in all fairness even holy cows lack Godly powers of starting mini earthquakes under our homes, but fracking is known to have done that, but then it's wealthy supporters with the help of likes of criminal Clifford spin the news to convince the guilable that it was due to some procedures that can be taken care of.

But I do not trust such arguments. Because similar clever Charlies had told the world that Savaso, Three Mile Island, Bhopal Chnobal and nuclear plant in Japan were also super safe.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes. It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not. Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations. Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains. In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers. If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair. Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA. Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option.[/p][/quote]Come on Paramjit! You picked the first sentence - my "guess" to base your whole comment on! And even then you turned cheaper into cheap which are two different things! By cheaper, I mean that the bills would be cheaper than otherwise the case if we do not have fracking! Nothing on the other three comments?! In truth we have not invented anything (other than nuclear) that is financially viable to take us into the future - most "Green" products are flawed or not technically of sufficiently efficient. That said, I am ever hopeful that those dealing with technology will soon come up with better viable alternatives. As for the "Green" / "Fracking" energy protesters why don't they campaign for the immediate global abolition of cattle and all road vehicles and airplanes and see what difference that makes to our carbon footprint and our energy needs![/p][/quote]Hi, I dont want to shock you, but I agree with you that cattle release more gases which are harmful to the environment than many other sources the environmentalists admirably campaign against. That was confirmed by a report, which I think came from some body of the UN; that cows alone release disturbing amount of harful gas through the same pipe as their other waste. I have forgotten which gas, it may be methane. Yes I accept that, because it also suits my view that the cows which freely roam roads and streets of India, and often cause accidents, should be turned into beefburgers. But unfortunately certain sections of God Brigade will object because they think the cows to be sacred. Some of the same believer in flat earth colleagues of mine even here in the UK keep on moaning when I enjoy my favourite food!!! Seriously, I am disappointed with environmental lobby, for keep on avoiding the issue of animals. I suspect that may be either due to political correctness, or because lack of guts to confront animal rights campaigners and certain religious people. But in all fairness even holy cows lack Godly powers of starting mini earthquakes under our homes, but fracking is known to have done that, but then it's wealthy supporters with the help of likes of criminal Clifford spin the news to convince the guilable that it was due to some procedures that can be taken care of. But I do not trust such arguments. Because similar clever Charlies had told the world that Savaso, Three Mile Island, Bhopal Chnobal and nuclear plant in Japan were also super safe. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 2

6:53pm Thu 8 May 14

Mad-Monk says...

George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
oh you mean like deep water horizon? or the Kolva River Oil Spill, or Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill.. yep no risk at all by sticking to regulations is there...
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]oh you mean like deep water horizon? or the Kolva River Oil Spill, or Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill.. yep no risk at all by sticking to regulations is there... Mad-Monk
  • Score: 2

6:54pm Thu 8 May 14

Mad-Monk says...

George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
oh you mean regulated like deep water horizon? or the Kolva River Oil Spill, or Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill.. yep no risk at all by sticking to regulations is there...
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]oh you mean regulated like deep water horizon? or the Kolva River Oil Spill, or Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill.. yep no risk at all by sticking to regulations is there... Mad-Monk
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Thu 8 May 14

The Wickham Man says...

Mad-Monk wrote:
George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
oh you mean regulated like deep water horizon? or the Kolva River Oil Spill, or Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill.. yep no risk at all by sticking to regulations is there...
But none of those are in the UK are they. So your solution is that we ban mineral extraction in the UK where it is regulated and safe and push it overseas to where it is unregulated and more likely to lead to accidents? The only fracking accidents in the world occurred due to poor regulation in the USA but you want to let them frack away then sell the gas to us? How is that a plan that benefits anyone? It seems there is an army of people in the UK who think it is ok to push all our wealth and prosperity overseas into the hands of unscrupulous foreign companies and industrialists and that this is somehow better for the world and for Britain?. And when all our lights go out and when inflation is running at 400% and when our jobless stand at 4 million you and Paramjit and SOuthy and all the Greens can declare a victory, right? right.
[quote][p][bold]Mad-Monk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]oh you mean regulated like deep water horizon? or the Kolva River Oil Spill, or Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill.. yep no risk at all by sticking to regulations is there...[/p][/quote]But none of those are in the UK are they. So your solution is that we ban mineral extraction in the UK where it is regulated and safe and push it overseas to where it is unregulated and more likely to lead to accidents? The only fracking accidents in the world occurred due to poor regulation in the USA but you want to let them frack away then sell the gas to us? How is that a plan that benefits anyone? It seems there is an army of people in the UK who think it is ok to push all our wealth and prosperity overseas into the hands of unscrupulous foreign companies and industrialists and that this is somehow better for the world and for Britain?. And when all our lights go out and when inflation is running at 400% and when our jobless stand at 4 million you and Paramjit and SOuthy and all the Greens can declare a victory, right? right. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 2

8:23pm Thu 8 May 14

SOULJACKER says...

It's about time we stop thinking of the money & start thinking of 'Mother Earth'.
FFS everything bad in this world now is either caused by bl00dy religion or bl00dy money, when are we going to stop being so dam greedy & think of the future & not the here & now all the time?
Wake up Planet Earth!
It's about time we stop thinking of the money & start thinking of 'Mother Earth'. FFS everything bad in this world now is either caused by bl00dy religion or bl00dy money, when are we going to stop being so dam greedy & think of the future & not the here & now all the time? Wake up Planet Earth! SOULJACKER
  • Score: -2

8:32pm Thu 8 May 14

forest hump says...

SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
[quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe forest hump
  • Score: 1

9:14pm Thu 8 May 14

good-gosh says...

forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct – absolutely safe. good-gosh
  • Score: 1

9:40pm Thu 8 May 14

SOULJACKER says...

good-gosh wrote:
forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.
So why should we believe the 'clever people' then?
Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was!
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.[/p][/quote]So why should we believe the 'clever people' then? Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was! SOULJACKER
  • Score: 1

10:18pm Thu 8 May 14

freefinker says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.
So why should we believe the 'clever people' then?
Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was!
.. yea, and 'beef is safe' - wasn't, though, was it?
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.[/p][/quote]So why should we believe the 'clever people' then? Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was![/p][/quote].. yea, and 'beef is safe' - wasn't, though, was it? freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Thu 8 May 14

The Wickham Man says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.
So why should we believe the 'clever people' then?
Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was!
...he says, forgettting the billion other things the "clever" people have done that make life better for him and his family than they have ever been in history.Tell you what, go and live in a hole in the ground for a year along with your family - avoid all medicine, food transport clothing, heat, cooking entertainment comfort and safety, and then let's hear your litle wisecracks about the clever people again shall we?
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.[/p][/quote]So why should we believe the 'clever people' then? Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was![/p][/quote]...he says, forgettting the billion other things the "clever" people have done that make life better for him and his family than they have ever been in history.Tell you what, go and live in a hole in the ground for a year along with your family - avoid all medicine, food transport clothing, heat, cooking entertainment comfort and safety, and then let's hear your litle wisecracks about the clever people again shall we? The Wickham Man
  • Score: 1

10:30pm Thu 8 May 14

southamptonadi says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
George4th wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes.

It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not.

Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations.

Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains.

In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers.

If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair.

Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA.

Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option.
Come on Paramjit!

You picked the first sentence - my "guess" to base your whole comment on! And even then you turned cheaper into cheap which are two different things! By cheaper, I mean that the bills would be cheaper than otherwise the case if we do not have fracking!

Nothing on the other three comments?!

In truth we have not invented anything (other than nuclear) that is financially viable to take us into the future - most "Green" products are flawed or not technically of sufficiently efficient.
That said, I am ever hopeful that those dealing with technology will soon come up with better viable alternatives.

As for the "Green" / "Fracking" energy protesters why don't they campaign for the immediate global abolition of cattle and all road vehicles and airplanes and see what difference that makes to our carbon footprint and our energy needs!
Hi, I dont want to shock you, but I agree with you that cattle release more gases which are harmful to the environment than many other sources the environmentalists admirably campaign against.

That was confirmed by a report, which I think came from some body of the UN; that cows alone release disturbing amount of harful gas through the same pipe as their other waste. I have forgotten which gas, it may be methane.

Yes I accept that, because it also suits my view that the cows which freely roam roads and streets of India, and often cause accidents, should be turned into beefburgers. But unfortunately certain sections of God Brigade will object because they think the cows to be sacred. Some of the same believer in flat earth colleagues of mine even here in the UK keep on moaning when I enjoy my favourite food!!!

Seriously, I am disappointed with environmental lobby, for keep on avoiding the issue of animals. I suspect that may be either due to political correctness, or because lack of guts to confront animal rights campaigners and certain religious people.

But in all fairness even holy cows lack Godly powers of starting mini earthquakes under our homes, but fracking is known to have done that, but then it's wealthy supporters with the help of likes of criminal Clifford spin the news to convince the guilable that it was due to some procedures that can be taken care of.

But I do not trust such arguments. Because similar clever Charlies had told the world that Savaso, Three Mile Island, Bhopal Chnobal and nuclear plant in Japan were also super safe.
I'm led to believe your some kind of councillor yet you use the term "God brigade", your meant to behave better than that and use more appropriate language.

What evidence have you actually seen that suggest this will be a dangerous thing to do.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]With greatest respect to you, your argument is flawed, because it is only your biased mind's "guess" that the majority in the street supports contamination of drinking water, look forward to water shortage, and will apperciate the risk of mini earthquakes under their homes. It may be a good idea if after a good day's enjoyment at Goodwood, you enjoy a nice walk in beautiful mostly Tory dominated villages in West Sussex and ask their views, and while at it also ask those Tory Toffs if they supported opposition to even trial drilling in their scenic backyards by so called lefties and environmentalist groups or not. Did you suggest cheap energy bills? I remember having read something very similar in some rag in early 1960s. That time the pie in the sky was nuclear power stations. Carrot of reduced bills always gets dangled in front of the public when the moral crooks we elect to run our nation want to promote the interests of their super greedy heros. They did it for water companies when handing over nations assets to the sharks. The same was the story about electric and gas industries and also when they denationalised trains. In every case prices have gone up not down. Only thing that has decreased is the spending power of middle and working class consumers. If out of touch with victims of his austerity Osborne stops reducing taxes for super rich and he can afford to reduce the tax rate for fracking industry, Cameron can't argue that encouraging or help for 'green energy' is unaffordable or unfair. Some snobs may not like wind turbines, which are just like old wind mills the same lot want to preserve, but wind turbines are not known to have triggered earthquakes, poisioned drinking water or created its shortage, as fracking has done in parts of USA. Solar wind and waves etc deserve full support, and fracking should not even be an option.[/p][/quote]Come on Paramjit! You picked the first sentence - my "guess" to base your whole comment on! And even then you turned cheaper into cheap which are two different things! By cheaper, I mean that the bills would be cheaper than otherwise the case if we do not have fracking! Nothing on the other three comments?! In truth we have not invented anything (other than nuclear) that is financially viable to take us into the future - most "Green" products are flawed or not technically of sufficiently efficient. That said, I am ever hopeful that those dealing with technology will soon come up with better viable alternatives. As for the "Green" / "Fracking" energy protesters why don't they campaign for the immediate global abolition of cattle and all road vehicles and airplanes and see what difference that makes to our carbon footprint and our energy needs![/p][/quote]Hi, I dont want to shock you, but I agree with you that cattle release more gases which are harmful to the environment than many other sources the environmentalists admirably campaign against. That was confirmed by a report, which I think came from some body of the UN; that cows alone release disturbing amount of harful gas through the same pipe as their other waste. I have forgotten which gas, it may be methane. Yes I accept that, because it also suits my view that the cows which freely roam roads and streets of India, and often cause accidents, should be turned into beefburgers. But unfortunately certain sections of God Brigade will object because they think the cows to be sacred. Some of the same believer in flat earth colleagues of mine even here in the UK keep on moaning when I enjoy my favourite food!!! Seriously, I am disappointed with environmental lobby, for keep on avoiding the issue of animals. I suspect that may be either due to political correctness, or because lack of guts to confront animal rights campaigners and certain religious people. But in all fairness even holy cows lack Godly powers of starting mini earthquakes under our homes, but fracking is known to have done that, but then it's wealthy supporters with the help of likes of criminal Clifford spin the news to convince the guilable that it was due to some procedures that can be taken care of. But I do not trust such arguments. Because similar clever Charlies had told the world that Savaso, Three Mile Island, Bhopal Chnobal and nuclear plant in Japan were also super safe.[/p][/quote]I'm led to believe your some kind of councillor yet you use the term "God brigade", your meant to behave better than that and use more appropriate language. What evidence have you actually seen that suggest this will be a dangerous thing to do. southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

1:29am Fri 9 May 14

southy says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Mad-Monk wrote:
George4th wrote:
Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy.

Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING!

It's all very well being green but not if you are poor!

I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........
oh you mean regulated like deep water horizon? or the Kolva River Oil Spill, or Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill.. yep no risk at all by sticking to regulations is there...
But none of those are in the UK are they. So your solution is that we ban mineral extraction in the UK where it is regulated and safe and push it overseas to where it is unregulated and more likely to lead to accidents? The only fracking accidents in the world occurred due to poor regulation in the USA but you want to let them frack away then sell the gas to us? How is that a plan that benefits anyone? It seems there is an army of people in the UK who think it is ok to push all our wealth and prosperity overseas into the hands of unscrupulous foreign companies and industrialists and that this is somehow better for the world and for Britain?. And when all our lights go out and when inflation is running at 400% and when our jobless stand at 4 million you and Paramjit and SOuthy and all the Greens can declare a victory, right? right.
Wrong these company's that do the Fracking in other country's are here also they are the same company's, your wrong again its not just the USA its happening in Australia also where the laws and rules are a lot tighter than in this country so less of your BS, every country that got or as done Fracking have had problems Romania it is totally banned now after water table in the north west of the country became contaminated.
And the only reason why our lights would go out is because greed in the Capitalist world, there is no need for our lights to go out we have over 400 years of coal reserves in this country that could produce enough power for 500 years, and if jobless got to 4 million that would make a 2 million drop at the present level
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad-Monk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Ask the man/woman in the street. My guess is the majority will choose fracking in order to have cheaper energy. Ask the young their opinion in a world that has seen their opportunities for a better life reduced significantly by the failure of the last Labour government to invest in ANYTHING! It's all very well being green but not if you are poor! I see no reason to block fracking as long as the regulations are followed in the same way they have been for Oil for 50 years or more, both on land and sea.........[/p][/quote]oh you mean regulated like deep water horizon? or the Kolva River Oil Spill, or Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill.. yep no risk at all by sticking to regulations is there...[/p][/quote]But none of those are in the UK are they. So your solution is that we ban mineral extraction in the UK where it is regulated and safe and push it overseas to where it is unregulated and more likely to lead to accidents? The only fracking accidents in the world occurred due to poor regulation in the USA but you want to let them frack away then sell the gas to us? How is that a plan that benefits anyone? It seems there is an army of people in the UK who think it is ok to push all our wealth and prosperity overseas into the hands of unscrupulous foreign companies and industrialists and that this is somehow better for the world and for Britain?. And when all our lights go out and when inflation is running at 400% and when our jobless stand at 4 million you and Paramjit and SOuthy and all the Greens can declare a victory, right? right.[/p][/quote]Wrong these company's that do the Fracking in other country's are here also they are the same company's, your wrong again its not just the USA its happening in Australia also where the laws and rules are a lot tighter than in this country so less of your BS, every country that got or as done Fracking have had problems Romania it is totally banned now after water table in the north west of the country became contaminated. And the only reason why our lights would go out is because greed in the Capitalist world, there is no need for our lights to go out we have over 400 years of coal reserves in this country that could produce enough power for 500 years, and if jobless got to 4 million that would make a 2 million drop at the present level southy
  • Score: -2

1:33am Fri 9 May 14

southy says...

forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper southy
  • Score: -2

4:51am Fri 9 May 14

good-gosh says...

Well, if its guarantees needed – here it is. It's as safe as getting out of bed – and that’s about as safe as your water pipe breaking uphill, just at a point where a nest of rats had curled up to die after being poisoned, and just at a time when you are finishing with watering the lawn in the blazing sun and drink a pint to cool down.
Well, if its guarantees needed – here it is. It's as safe as getting out of bed – and that’s about as safe as your water pipe breaking uphill, just at a point where a nest of rats had curled up to die after being poisoned, and just at a time when you are finishing with watering the lawn in the blazing sun and drink a pint to cool down. good-gosh
  • Score: -1

6:18am Fri 9 May 14

SOULJACKER says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.
So why should we believe the 'clever people' then?
Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was!
...he says, forgettting the billion other things the "clever" people have done that make life better for him and his family than they have ever been in history.Tell you what, go and live in a hole in the ground for a year along with your family - avoid all medicine, food transport clothing, heat, cooking entertainment comfort and safety, and then let's hear your litle wisecracks about the clever people again shall we?
You are typical of some of the morons on here aren't you.
If someone states a point of view that differs from yours then they are using wisecracks.
Grow up moron, the world ain't all about you!
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.[/p][/quote]So why should we believe the 'clever people' then? Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was![/p][/quote]...he says, forgettting the billion other things the "clever" people have done that make life better for him and his family than they have ever been in history.Tell you what, go and live in a hole in the ground for a year along with your family - avoid all medicine, food transport clothing, heat, cooking entertainment comfort and safety, and then let's hear your litle wisecracks about the clever people again shall we?[/p][/quote]You are typical of some of the morons on here aren't you. If someone states a point of view that differs from yours then they are using wisecracks. Grow up moron, the world ain't all about you! SOULJACKER
  • Score: -3

9:34am Fri 9 May 14

southy says...

The shell rocks in the UK are a lot thinner in depth than in the USA and Australia and if they are cracking though into the softer rocks then its going to be a lot easier to happen here in the UK
The shell rocks in the UK are a lot thinner in depth than in the USA and Australia and if they are cracking though into the softer rocks then its going to be a lot easier to happen here in the UK southy
  • Score: -2

10:05am Fri 9 May 14

forest hump says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.
So why should we believe the 'clever people' then?
Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was!
...he says, forgettting the billion other things the "clever" people have done that make life better for him and his family than they have ever been in history.Tell you what, go and live in a hole in the ground for a year along with your family - avoid all medicine, food transport clothing, heat, cooking entertainment comfort and safety, and then let's hear your litle wisecracks about the clever people again shall we?
You are typical of some of the morons on here aren't you.
If someone states a point of view that differs from yours then they are using wisecracks.
Grow up moron, the world ain't all about you!
All of you need to listen to mr Wickham....common sense if you want to believe. Or...if living by the precautionary principle is your choice, crawl back into your hole as WM suggests
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct – absolutely safe.[/p][/quote]So why should we believe the 'clever people' then? Wasn't it the 'clever people' that said how wonderful Asbestos was or how good thalidomide was![/p][/quote]...he says, forgettting the billion other things the "clever" people have done that make life better for him and his family than they have ever been in history.Tell you what, go and live in a hole in the ground for a year along with your family - avoid all medicine, food transport clothing, heat, cooking entertainment comfort and safety, and then let's hear your litle wisecracks about the clever people again shall we?[/p][/quote]You are typical of some of the morons on here aren't you. If someone states a point of view that differs from yours then they are using wisecracks. Grow up moron, the world ain't all about you![/p][/quote]All of you need to listen to mr Wickham....common sense if you want to believe. Or...if living by the precautionary principle is your choice, crawl back into your hole as WM suggests forest hump
  • Score: -1

10:57am Fri 9 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper
" there is your real proof not on some bit of paper"........ and the source of this information can be found where?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper[/p][/quote]" there is your real proof not on some bit of paper"........ and the source of this information can be found where? Torchie1
  • Score: 5

11:05am Fri 9 May 14

From the sidelines says...

We are facing a shortfall in energy, due to decades of inactivity. 'Fracking' will provide gas that can be used by the existing infrastructure to generate electricity.

This will tide us over until nuclear (fission) power stations can be built, which in turn will tide us over until nuclear fusion becomes a viable method of generating electricity.

The alternative is to get used to candlelight.
We are facing a shortfall in energy, due to decades of inactivity. 'Fracking' will provide gas that can be used by the existing infrastructure to generate electricity. This will tide us over until nuclear (fission) power stations can be built, which in turn will tide us over until nuclear fusion becomes a viable method of generating electricity. The alternative is to get used to candlelight. From the sidelines
  • Score: 0

11:07am Fri 9 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper
" there is your real proof not on some bit of paper"........ and the source of this information can be found where?
The source all round the world where fracking as all ready taken place Torchie, News reports, Government papers, testimonials from people who it as effected
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper[/p][/quote]" there is your real proof not on some bit of paper"........ and the source of this information can be found where?[/p][/quote]The source all round the world where fracking as all ready taken place Torchie, News reports, Government papers, testimonials from people who it as effected southy
  • Score: -2

11:17am Fri 9 May 14

southy says...

From the sidelines wrote:
We are facing a shortfall in energy, due to decades of inactivity. 'Fracking' will provide gas that can be used by the existing infrastructure to generate electricity.

This will tide us over until nuclear (fission) power stations can be built, which in turn will tide us over until nuclear fusion becomes a viable method of generating electricity.

The alternative is to get used to candlelight.
We are not short of energy we have over 400 years of coal reserves in the UK, which would amount to around 500 years of supply of energy.

you go back to the 60's and every home use to be supplied with coal gas, power stations a lot of them produce power by coal gas or burning coal or coke, the coke power stations use to produce more electric than the coal or gas power stations because it use to burn at a high temperature .and burn longer, it also produce the best steel in the world at the time, Sheffield was world famous for its steel and did not go down hill till they stop producing coke.

What we need to do is dig up all our coal and remove all the chemicals that is in coal for use in other things and use the gas to supply homes and the coke to power stations and steel industry.
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: We are facing a shortfall in energy, due to decades of inactivity. 'Fracking' will provide gas that can be used by the existing infrastructure to generate electricity. This will tide us over until nuclear (fission) power stations can be built, which in turn will tide us over until nuclear fusion becomes a viable method of generating electricity. The alternative is to get used to candlelight.[/p][/quote]We are not short of energy we have over 400 years of coal reserves in the UK, which would amount to around 500 years of supply of energy. you go back to the 60's and every home use to be supplied with coal gas, power stations a lot of them produce power by coal gas or burning coal or coke, the coke power stations use to produce more electric than the coal or gas power stations because it use to burn at a high temperature .and burn longer, it also produce the best steel in the world at the time, Sheffield was world famous for its steel and did not go down hill till they stop producing coke. What we need to do is dig up all our coal and remove all the chemicals that is in coal for use in other things and use the gas to supply homes and the coke to power stations and steel industry. southy
  • Score: -4

11:47am Fri 9 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper
" there is your real proof not on some bit of paper"........ and the source of this information can be found where?
The source all round the world where fracking as all ready taken place Torchie, News reports, Government papers, testimonials from people who it as effected
If you actually knew anything it would be easier to name a source rather than go to the extraordinary lengths you do in order to avoid doing so and revealing that you've headed straight for Google and made up the rest. It would be easy for me to name my source within Tusc who has let me know that you were dumped rather unceremoniously as it is believed you did more harm than good. As for your belief that Caroline Lucas put up a good show on Question Time, I think she did well for someone who knows she's on the Green Mile and that the residents of Brighton are almost certainly going to call a halt to the Green experiment at the next election. Brighton has served a useful purpose showing the country what can happen when the magnet of stupidity attracts the spectrum of lunatics that have now begun the usual in-fighting and have fractured in to the socialists through to the Greens with the Mangoes and the Water Melons in between.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper[/p][/quote]" there is your real proof not on some bit of paper"........ and the source of this information can be found where?[/p][/quote]The source all round the world where fracking as all ready taken place Torchie, News reports, Government papers, testimonials from people who it as effected[/p][/quote]If you actually knew anything it would be easier to name a source rather than go to the extraordinary lengths you do in order to avoid doing so and revealing that you've headed straight for Google and made up the rest. It would be easy for me to name my source within Tusc who has let me know that you were dumped rather unceremoniously as it is believed you did more harm than good. As for your belief that Caroline Lucas put up a good show on Question Time, I think she did well for someone who knows she's on the Green Mile and that the residents of Brighton are almost certainly going to call a halt to the Green experiment at the next election. Brighton has served a useful purpose showing the country what can happen when the magnet of stupidity attracts the spectrum of lunatics that have now begun the usual in-fighting and have fractured in to the socialists through to the Greens with the Mangoes and the Water Melons in between. Torchie1
  • Score: 6

2:48pm Fri 9 May 14

freefinker says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
forest hump wrote:
SteveinTotton wrote:
Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it.

Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then?

Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.
Yes, there is proof and it is safe
There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper
" there is your real proof not on some bit of paper"........ and the source of this information can be found where?
The source all round the world where fracking as all ready taken place Torchie, News reports, Government papers, testimonials from people who it as effected
If you actually knew anything it would be easier to name a source rather than go to the extraordinary lengths you do in order to avoid doing so and revealing that you've headed straight for Google and made up the rest. It would be easy for me to name my source within Tusc who has let me know that you were dumped rather unceremoniously as it is believed you did more harm than good. As for your belief that Caroline Lucas put up a good show on Question Time, I think she did well for someone who knows she's on the Green Mile and that the residents of Brighton are almost certainly going to call a halt to the Green experiment at the next election. Brighton has served a useful purpose showing the country what can happen when the magnet of stupidity attracts the spectrum of lunatics that have now begun the usual in-fighting and have fractured in to the socialists through to the Greens with the Mangoes and the Water Melons in between.
.. oh dear.
So southy, the only TUSC candidate to actually increase (minutely) his vote in Southampton in 2012 compared to 2011 has been dropped by the party from his beloved Redbridge ward. Presumably it was his pathetic performance on this website that had quite a lot to do with this decision.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteveinTotton[/bold] wrote: Isn't bit funny that the people who make these sessions and agree/argue that it needs to be done don't live anywhere near it. Just suppose it does pollute and destroy the water, what then? Their valid reasons for it so no better than the reasons against. Is there any scientific proof that this is 100% safe and will succeed in its aim.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is proof and it is safe[/p][/quote]There is no proof it is safe, all the proof is pointing in one direction it is not safe to do, You can have every scientific write up as you like that only works on paper, but when do it for real is where the real proof is and so far every where in the world where fracking as taking place it as contaminated the water supply, there is your real proof not on some bit of paper[/p][/quote]" there is your real proof not on some bit of paper"........ and the source of this information can be found where?[/p][/quote]The source all round the world where fracking as all ready taken place Torchie, News reports, Government papers, testimonials from people who it as effected[/p][/quote]If you actually knew anything it would be easier to name a source rather than go to the extraordinary lengths you do in order to avoid doing so and revealing that you've headed straight for Google and made up the rest. It would be easy for me to name my source within Tusc who has let me know that you were dumped rather unceremoniously as it is believed you did more harm than good. As for your belief that Caroline Lucas put up a good show on Question Time, I think she did well for someone who knows she's on the Green Mile and that the residents of Brighton are almost certainly going to call a halt to the Green experiment at the next election. Brighton has served a useful purpose showing the country what can happen when the magnet of stupidity attracts the spectrum of lunatics that have now begun the usual in-fighting and have fractured in to the socialists through to the Greens with the Mangoes and the Water Melons in between.[/p][/quote].. oh dear. So southy, the only TUSC candidate to actually increase (minutely) his vote in Southampton in 2012 compared to 2011 has been dropped by the party from his beloved Redbridge ward. Presumably it was his pathetic performance on this website that had quite a lot to do with this decision. freefinker
  • Score: 6

6:02am Fri 16 May 14

aldermoorboy says...

USA would not be doing it if there were a problem, end of.
USA would not be doing it if there were a problem, end of. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Wed 21 May 14

Major Ray Cist says...

I agree with aldermoorboy, if its good or the USA then its good for us !
Worry about the after affects later, s0d the greens and hippies we want Gas !
I agree with aldermoorboy, if its good or the USA then its good for us ! Worry about the after affects later, s0d the greens and hippies we want Gas ! Major Ray Cist
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Wed 21 May 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
USA would not be doing it if there were a problem, end of.
Oh yes they would.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: USA would not be doing it if there were a problem, end of.[/p][/quote]Oh yes they would. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Wed 21 May 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Major Ray Cist wrote:
I agree with aldermoorboy, if its good or the USA then its good for us !
Worry about the after affects later, s0d the greens and hippies we want Gas !
So it's ok to poison millions of people's water supply, land, rivers/streams/lakes and the air? Would it be ok to come and dump fracking fluid in every drink you have for the same length of time as a gas well is viable for? How about in your food, on your land or even dumped straight into the pipe that connects your home to the water mains?
[quote][p][bold]Major Ray Cist[/bold] wrote: I agree with aldermoorboy, if its good or the USA then its good for us ! Worry about the after affects later, s0d the greens and hippies we want Gas ![/p][/quote]So it's ok to poison millions of people's water supply, land, rivers/streams/lakes and the air? Would it be ok to come and dump fracking fluid in every drink you have for the same length of time as a gas well is viable for? How about in your food, on your land or even dumped straight into the pipe that connects your home to the water mains? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Thu 22 May 14

Major Ray Cist says...

Seriously why do you care ? I presume you know as much as me on this subject ?
Just let the next generation deal with it, when we started coal mining back in the 1700's [people like you moaned, when we built wind mills in the 1600's people like you moaned,. when we built off shore windfarms in the 2000's people like you moaned, move on !

Let the next generation deal with it
Seriously why do you care ? I presume you know as much as me on this subject ? Just let the next generation deal with it, when we started coal mining back in the 1700's [people like you moaned, when we built wind mills in the 1600's people like you moaned,. when we built off shore windfarms in the 2000's people like you moaned, move on ! Let the next generation deal with it Major Ray Cist
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree