Does anyone know of any pro-fracking petition, either past or present? There doesn't seem to be one on the e-gov site (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/search?q=fracking) although there are several anti-fracking ones, alongside the loony chem trails and brain hacking ones.

I'm surprised that no-one has created a pro-fracking petition already...

Are there any petitions to repeal the Climate Change Act?

> I think that until the Climate Change Act is repealed there is no point because
> there will be no fracking until that happens.

Why, isn't the US the only country to have reduces its emissions from coal to gas conversion?

If cracking can make a mess like this, I do not want it anywhere near me!

Entropic man
Does posting the same link on two threads count as trolling?

I couldn't decide whether it should go in the blog or the discussion sections, so I did both.

If cracking can make a mess like this, I do not want it anywhere near me!

"Why, isn't the US the only country to have reduces its emissions from coal to gas conversion?"

The UK did when they switched from coal-derived "town gas" to natural gas for domestic usage in the 1970's. ["Now you're cooking on gas" also entered the British vernacular probably around that time due to advertising promoting it as an alternative to electricity for domestic cooking/heating.]

After the privatisation of the electricity industry there was also much talk of "the dash for gas" as happening at the expense of coal fired generation.

EM there was no explosion, the water was forced back up the well by pressure from gas below. This was noticed and team called in to fix the problem. The locals were asked if they wanted to be evacuated while the problem was fixed, evacuation was voluntary. The water was contained and did not enter the water supply. No houses were damaged, or flooded the water simply drained away, like a rain storm.

As for the continued use of the words "toxic chemicals" it's green speak, toxic chemicals include bleach, it is highly unlikely the water from a fracking well would contaminate anything given the highly diluted nature of the toxic chemicals. As per recent EPA report saying there were no instances of fracking water contaminating drinking water.

Bottom line, Greens are liars.

How about a UK Personal Mineral Rights Petition
As in the United States you don't just own the land you also own whats below it.

Well I've got a Mantelpiece jamspid, does that not count :-)

on the topic -
I've never understood why the companies involved never push against the anti-fracking green blob misinformation/scare stories.
what are the companies PR people doing, or do they not have any ?

bottom line - why are us joe public bloggers left to give some balance/reality check to the pols/public ?

Geronimo

As I asked Michael hart, if whatever came out of the well was harmless, what killed the vegetation downwind?

Entropic Man, seeing as you are in troll mode by posting the same material on more than one thread, I shall also post my answer on this thread.

Michael hart

"Mud, plus hydrocarbons isn't that damaging. And bulk fracking chemicals are chosen to be relatively innocuous."

Then what killed the vegetation in that brown fan spreading out from the site towards the camera?

Jun 13, 2015 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Probably mud and hydrocarbons, EM. That is, if the vegetation is actually dead and not just dirty due to being covered in mud and hydrocarbons, which seems more likely.

Also, you do know, don't you EM, that you can also kill grass by covering it with a tent or a plant pot for a few days?
That is not toxicity as I understand it.

Also, you do know, don't you EM, that you can also kill grass by covering it with a tent or a plant pot for a few days?
That is not toxicity as I understand it.

We must ban tents and plant pots then!

Michael hart,Steve Richards

You still end up with dead vegetation. This is directly relevant to me because I spend a lot of time in Fermanagh and there is an ongoing application to frack for gas in the county. Each incident like this makes me less willing to accept the risk.

If you look at my earlier posts, I was unhappy with fracking because it is uneconomic. Now I am becoming less keen as the companies fail to make the safety case.

EM, regarding safety, I am as keen as anyone else that appropriate environmental health and safety regulations are enforced. You get cowboys in any field, but that is not a reason to ban something. There wouldn't be any plumbers, decorators or car mechanics otherwise.

I objected to your use of the broad-brush scare term about toxic chemicals. Greenpeace tactics do this to obscure, confuse and scare, not to enlighten. You can kill vegetation with seawater that fish swim in, but that does not make it "toxic chemicals" by any reasonable definition. Bulk fracking chemicals are used in relatively small amounts and are chosen to be non-toxic water-soluble and biodegradable. There is no need for them to be toxic. Many of them are also found as food additives or in cosmetics and dental hygiene products. The worst parts of fracking ejecta are likely to be from what is already in the ground, not what humans add to aid the extraction process.

Considering number of things killed per Mwh - I expect wind (birds, bats, vegetation, etc.) solar (birds, vegetation) and tidal lagoon (seals, porpoises, salmon, vegetation) compare poorly with shale gas, especially if the cost of concrete manufacture and quarrying are accounted for.

Dung

"that well is an OLD well in the USA SO THE FRACKING FLUID COULD HAVE CONTAINED ANYTHING AT ALL."

Is that supposed to encourage me to accept local fracking?

Radical rodent. Dung

Thanks for the request for courtesy.

Brown usually means dead. I think you may be clutching at straws. The strip affected was more than 400m long and 100m wide. How much mud do you need to cover 40,000 square metres.? My estimate would be 4000 cubic metres minimum, sprayed high enough and in droplets small enough to be carried 400m downwind.

Nowhere in any company Environmental Impact Statements have I seen mention that one old well can spray thousands of tons of unspecified effluent like a fountain.

I have skin in the fracking game because an Australian company has been trying for years to get permission to prospect in Fermanagh, an area I sail and walk in. They have failed to make a convincing safety case to either the locals or the Assembly. Part of the problem is that the area depends heavily on tourist visitors fishing, boating and walking.The farmers depend on dairy and beef. Both would be badly affected by a spill like this polluting land or draining into the lake, not to mention the offputting nature of the publicity. Nobody is willing to bet the local economy on a potentially polluting technology.

I used to assume that the engineering would be competently done and that the problems were economic. With time more incidents like this have come to light and cast doubt on the engineering as well.

I also note that one advocate of fracking went to court to stop fracking taking place near his house. Another claimed that fracking fluid was safe enough to drink and then refused to even sip it on television. Whoever does PR for fracking is not earning their keep.

I would be quite happy to read a convincing safety case, but so far nobody has been able to refer me to one. Instead I see vaguely worded reassurances, media reports of problems like this and long lists of violation notices coming out of Pennsylvania