Fracking debate

I NOTICED with concern that fracking is slipping off media agenda. In order to satisfy their gas/petrol guzzling public with their huge cars, the Americans embrace fracking with open arms. Already there have been more than 150 recorded incidents involving contaminated water; many of the underground water tables are polluted, and the latest worrying incident occurred in a small village in Pennsylvania where a fracking well exploded with a huge fire, causing parts of the surrounding inhabitants to be evacuated.

Cameron and the Tories are joining the Americans in a headlong rush to make Britain the fracking capital of Europe. Some of the most eminent professors in this country and the US have tried to alert people to the dangers of fracking, but our governments are turning a blind eye and deaf ear to those concerns.

I am not a Luddite, and I don’t say no, never to fracking. But we must have an in-depth enquiry into fracking and look at all the scientific evidence that is available. And before we sink one fracking well, let’s make absolutely sure of the safety of the British people.

Ray Davies Bedwas Caerphilly

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:25pm Thu 27 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Can anyone confirm if there's already a licence granted for UCG in the wetlands area? I've seen mention of it but can't find any corroborating evidence. That's quite alarming if true!
Can anyone confirm if there's already a licence granted for UCG in the wetlands area? I've seen mention of it but can't find any corroborating evidence. That's quite alarming if true! GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -4

2:55pm Thu 27 Feb 14

welshannie says...

is nt it obvious why fracking has been allowed to slip off the media agenda,because of the floods,and the fact that fracking uses millions of gallons of water to. extract the gas. under pressure.the potential for serious flooding is bound to increase.they tory con men will just order their media lackeys to keep quiet for a while hoping it will slip peoples memories,then it will all be on the agenda again.in a few months time.say no to any fracking in wale s.let them do it in cleggs or camerons constituency.fat chance of that
is nt it obvious why fracking has been allowed to slip off the media agenda,because of the floods,and the fact that fracking uses millions of gallons of water to. extract the gas. under pressure.the potential for serious flooding is bound to increase.they tory con men will just order their media lackeys to keep quiet for a while hoping it will slip peoples memories,then it will all be on the agenda again.in a few months time.say no to any fracking in wale s.let them do it in cleggs or camerons constituency.fat chance of that welshannie
  • Score: -8

3:35pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Llanmartinangel says...

welshannie wrote:
is nt it obvious why fracking has been allowed to slip off the media agenda,because of the floods,and the fact that fracking uses millions of gallons of water to. extract the gas. under pressure.the potential for serious flooding is bound to increase.they tory con men will just order their media lackeys to keep quiet for a while hoping it will slip peoples memories,then it will all be on the agenda again.in a few months time.say no to any fracking in wale s.let them do it in cleggs or camerons constituency.fat chance of that
I've seen some loony conspiracy theories on here but that one is up there with the best.
[quote][p][bold]welshannie[/bold] wrote: is nt it obvious why fracking has been allowed to slip off the media agenda,because of the floods,and the fact that fracking uses millions of gallons of water to. extract the gas. under pressure.the potential for serious flooding is bound to increase.they tory con men will just order their media lackeys to keep quiet for a while hoping it will slip peoples memories,then it will all be on the agenda again.in a few months time.say no to any fracking in wale s.let them do it in cleggs or camerons constituency.fat chance of that[/p][/quote]I've seen some loony conspiracy theories on here but that one is up there with the best. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 8

4:40pm Thu 27 Feb 14

welshmen says...

If Fracking is allowed then let it be a British company doing the Business, no more foreigners milking the British for ever, all our utilities should be British owned not Johnny Foreigner owned....
If Fracking is allowed then let it be a British company doing the Business, no more foreigners milking the British for ever, all our utilities should be British owned not Johnny Foreigner owned.... welshmen
  • Score: 3

8:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Mervyn James says...

Fracking is mooted as the new 'north sea oil', it isn't. In America it has failed to prove a viable alternative, and Americans aren't bothered with the occasional earthquake or two so long as profit is in it ! Car owners are so desperate for oil and petrol they will go for anything so long as they can drive. If I was them I'd start learning to ride horses ! we ARE going to run out at some point, no matter what they do. The only way to conserve what the planet still has is to get 60% of car traffic OFF the road. We have Asia/China/S Americans all wanting cars and driving too,logic suggests we will all be walking pretty soon. That, or a world war.
Fracking is mooted as the new 'north sea oil', it isn't. In America it has failed to prove a viable alternative, and Americans aren't bothered with the occasional earthquake or two so long as profit is in it ! Car owners are so desperate for oil and petrol they will go for anything so long as they can drive. If I was them I'd start learning to ride horses ! we ARE going to run out at some point, no matter what they do. The only way to conserve what the planet still has is to get 60% of car traffic OFF the road. We have Asia/China/S Americans all wanting cars and driving too,logic suggests we will all be walking pretty soon. That, or a world war. Mervyn James
  • Score: -1

12:19am Fri 28 Feb 14

Spinflight says...

I have real concerns about fracking, though they aren't environmentally based. The process is fundamentally safe both environmentally and physically at ground level.

Frankly if the green nutjobs, who massively overstate the dangers of a process which has been used over a million times, are losing the media spotlight then I see that as a good thing.

They do more harm to the case against fracking than they could ever know.
I have real concerns about fracking, though they aren't environmentally based. The process is fundamentally safe both environmentally and physically at ground level. Frankly if the green nutjobs, who massively overstate the dangers of a process which has been used over a million times, are losing the media spotlight then I see that as a good thing. They do more harm to the case against fracking than they could ever know. Spinflight
  • Score: -3

7:10am Fri 28 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Spinflight wrote:
I have real concerns about fracking, though they aren't environmentally based. The process is fundamentally safe both environmentally and physically at ground level.

Frankly if the green nutjobs, who massively overstate the dangers of a process which has been used over a million times, are losing the media spotlight then I see that as a good thing.

They do more harm to the case against fracking than they could ever know.
Complete nonsense. Even the government know that it is not, in fact, fundamentally safe - hence why they say the process needs strict regulation.
[quote][p][bold]Spinflight[/bold] wrote: I have real concerns about fracking, though they aren't environmentally based. The process is fundamentally safe both environmentally and physically at ground level. Frankly if the green nutjobs, who massively overstate the dangers of a process which has been used over a million times, are losing the media spotlight then I see that as a good thing. They do more harm to the case against fracking than they could ever know.[/p][/quote]Complete nonsense. Even the government know that it is not, in fact, fundamentally safe - hence why they say the process needs strict regulation. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 3

9:11am Fri 28 Feb 14

Bobevans says...

These claims are usually based on some blogs and when investigated are found to be false

http://www.huffingto
npost.com/2012/03/16
/epa-dimock-pa_n_135
0446.html

http://www.huffingto
npost.com/2013/10/07
/anti-fracking-activ
ists_n_4058056.html
These claims are usually based on some blogs and when investigated are found to be false http://www.huffingto npost.com/2012/03/16 /epa-dimock-pa_n_135 0446.html http://www.huffingto npost.com/2013/10/07 /anti-fracking-activ ists_n_4058056.html Bobevans
  • Score: -2

9:31am Fri 28 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Bobevans wrote:
These claims are usually based on some blogs and when investigated are found to be false

http://www.huffingto

npost.com/2012/03/16

/epa-dimock-pa_n_135

0446.html

http://www.huffingto

npost.com/2013/10/07

/anti-fracking-activ

ists_n_4058056.html
Neither of those links are conclusive.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: These claims are usually based on some blogs and when investigated are found to be false http://www.huffingto npost.com/2012/03/16 /epa-dimock-pa_n_135 0446.html http://www.huffingto npost.com/2013/10/07 /anti-fracking-activ ists_n_4058056.html[/p][/quote]Neither of those links are conclusive. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 1

12:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Llanmartinangel says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Spinflight wrote:
I have real concerns about fracking, though they aren't environmentally based. The process is fundamentally safe both environmentally and physically at ground level.

Frankly if the green nutjobs, who massively overstate the dangers of a process which has been used over a million times, are losing the media spotlight then I see that as a good thing.

They do more harm to the case against fracking than they could ever know.
Complete nonsense. Even the government know that it is not, in fact, fundamentally safe - hence why they say the process needs strict regulation.
Semantics I realise but most complex processes need strict regulation and, even then, 100% safety is not guaranteed. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Coal mining is unsafe but still some people think we should be doing it. Nuclear power is relatively low risk yet has a groundswell of opponents. It's called 'life'.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spinflight[/bold] wrote: I have real concerns about fracking, though they aren't environmentally based. The process is fundamentally safe both environmentally and physically at ground level. Frankly if the green nutjobs, who massively overstate the dangers of a process which has been used over a million times, are losing the media spotlight then I see that as a good thing. They do more harm to the case against fracking than they could ever know.[/p][/quote]Complete nonsense. Even the government know that it is not, in fact, fundamentally safe - hence why they say the process needs strict regulation.[/p][/quote]Semantics I realise but most complex processes need strict regulation and, even then, 100% safety is not guaranteed. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Coal mining is unsafe but still some people think we should be doing it. Nuclear power is relatively low risk yet has a groundswell of opponents. It's called 'life'. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Fri 28 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
Spinflight wrote:
I have real concerns about fracking, though they aren't environmentally based. The process is fundamentally safe both environmentally and physically at ground level.

Frankly if the green nutjobs, who massively overstate the dangers of a process which has been used over a million times, are losing the media spotlight then I see that as a good thing.

They do more harm to the case against fracking than they could ever know.
Complete nonsense. Even the government know that it is not, in fact, fundamentally safe - hence why they say the process needs strict regulation.
Semantics I realise but most complex processes need strict regulation and, even then, 100% safety is not guaranteed. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Coal mining is unsafe but still some people think we should be doing it. Nuclear power is relatively low risk yet has a groundswell of opponents. It's called 'life'.
Industries, like fracking, that require strict controls to prevent potentially serious accidents from happening may well be 'relatively low risk' as long as everything is hunky dory. But I've spent half my working life managing risk in dangerous working environments and the law quite clearly acknowledges that you can't eliminate hte risk entirely, by stating that you're only culpable if you haven't taken all 'reasonable' precautions to prevent accidents from happening.

But, as you say, life is risk, and there is always going to be someone or something that interferes with the safety of any systems or procedures that are set up to minimise the risks - the BP oil spill and fukushima are two prime examples, that spring immediately to mind, of what can happen when those precautions fail.

Spinflight, and the governernment saying that 'fracking is safe' are clearly talking rubbish, and the scale proposed for the implementation of fracking in this country massively increase the chance of the chamber being loaded when you pull the trigger.

Personally I'm not convinced that the risk is worth it - instead of trying to find alternatives to reduce our reliance on such energy soiurces, we're being recklessly pushed into accepting dangerous ways of feeding our addiction for the sake of a little profit.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spinflight[/bold] wrote: I have real concerns about fracking, though they aren't environmentally based. The process is fundamentally safe both environmentally and physically at ground level. Frankly if the green nutjobs, who massively overstate the dangers of a process which has been used over a million times, are losing the media spotlight then I see that as a good thing. They do more harm to the case against fracking than they could ever know.[/p][/quote]Complete nonsense. Even the government know that it is not, in fact, fundamentally safe - hence why they say the process needs strict regulation.[/p][/quote]Semantics I realise but most complex processes need strict regulation and, even then, 100% safety is not guaranteed. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Coal mining is unsafe but still some people think we should be doing it. Nuclear power is relatively low risk yet has a groundswell of opponents. It's called 'life'.[/p][/quote]Industries, like fracking, that require strict controls to prevent potentially serious accidents from happening may well be 'relatively low risk' as long as everything is hunky dory. But I've spent half my working life managing risk in dangerous working environments and the law quite clearly acknowledges that you can't eliminate hte risk entirely, by stating that you're only culpable if you haven't taken all 'reasonable' precautions to prevent accidents from happening. But, as you say, life is risk, and there is always going to be someone or something that interferes with the safety of any systems or procedures that are set up to minimise the risks - the BP oil spill and fukushima are two prime examples, that spring immediately to mind, of what can happen when those precautions fail. Spinflight, and the governernment saying that 'fracking is safe' are clearly talking rubbish, and the scale proposed for the implementation of fracking in this country massively increase the chance of the chamber being loaded when you pull the trigger. Personally I'm not convinced that the risk is worth it - instead of trying to find alternatives to reduce our reliance on such energy soiurces, we're being recklessly pushed into accepting dangerous ways of feeding our addiction for the sake of a little profit. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -1

10:50am Sun 2 Mar 14

scraptheWAG says...

i hope they dont do it in newport and spoil the amazing look of the town
i hope they dont do it in newport and spoil the amazing look of the town scraptheWAG
  • Score: 2

8:03am Mon 3 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
i hope they dont do it in newport and spoil the amazing look of the town
Oh I dunno, might improve it....
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: i hope they dont do it in newport and spoil the amazing look of the town[/p][/quote]Oh I dunno, might improve it.... Mervyn James
  • Score: 1

1:59pm Thu 6 Mar 14

pwlldu says...

The other gas option is to keep importing it from mother Russia or some unstable mid Eastern country.
The other gas option is to keep importing it from mother Russia or some unstable mid Eastern country. pwlldu
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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