The economy's magic bullet?

[Stewart]

An energy firm has found £1,000bn worth of gas right underneath our feet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-14990573

There is likely even more in north-east England and under the North Sea. If Osborne lets this chance slip he'll be condemning us to a decade or two of depression when we could otherwise take advantage of the bounty nature provides.

What do you think our chances are of him doing the right thing

 

[Schnellzug]

I rather fear, though, that any attempt to extract it will be shot down the the Media and the way that people seem automatically suspicious and fearful of anything. You can just see the people with their banners marching up and down with their "We don't want it here!"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
** Told you, even before they started

A small protest, organised by Campaign Against Climate Change, was held outside The Imperial Hotel in Blackpool on Wednesday, where Cuadrilla met to announce its findings.

:roll:

 

[Stewart]

I rather fear, though, that any attempt to extract it will be shot down the the Media and the way that people seem automatically suspicious and fearful of anything. You can just see the people with their banners marching up and down with their "We don't want it here!"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
** Told you, even before they started

:roll:

Yep, we can't make this country a success can we. I expect the BBC will be first in line to start churning out the propaganda against economic gas exploration.

 

[SS4]

Whereas Cuadrilla Resources (that's a gas firm by the way) are a competent and neutral source :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Besides do you really think this country will see a penny with private companies in charge? Or even a noticeable reduction in energy bills?

 

[Stewart]

Whereas Shale gas are a competent and neutral source :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Besides do you really think this country we see a penny with private companies in charge?

We got a fair chunk of the North Sea oil value (but it was mainly frittered away on expanding the welfare state rather than investing in infrastructure - better luck this time?)

 

[Yew]

Whereas Shale gas are a competent and neutral source :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Besides do you really think this country we see a penny with private companies in charge?

Companies pay tax, Their workers pay tax, their suppliers pay tax, their customers pay tax. And a new close to home reserve will push down energy prices. Meaning more luxury items with tax on them can be bought. Which are made by companies that pay tax, etc......

 

[SS4]

We got a fair chunk of the North Sea oil value (but it was mainly frittered away on expanding the welfare state rather than investing in infrastructure - better luck this time?)

Here's hoping that everyone, instead of the rich few, will see some benefit if it goes ahead.

IIRC shale gas is not as efficient as crude oil and I would be interested to see how they deal with the gaping hole that extracting it would produce.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Companies pay tax, Their workers pay tax, their suppliers pay tax, their customers pay tax. And a new close to home reserve will push down energy prices. Meaning more luxury items with tax on them can be bought. Which are made by companies that pay tax, etc......

I can't see energy prices falling with the way current suppliers are behaving. After all the price of wholesale gas has plummeted but energy prices have not.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

This isn't the normal gas extraction, this is the rather controversial method of "fracking".

 

[Stewart]

This isn't the normal gas extraction, this is the rather controversial method of "fracking".

It's only "controversial" because of propaganda films made by anti-progress types.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It's only "controversial" because of propaganda films made by anti-progress types.

:roll: No, it's controversial because of the impact on drinking water supplies, uses some dangerous chemicals, and has been proven to cause earthquakes.

 

[SS4]

It's only "controversial" because of propaganda films made by anti-progress types.

Fracking weakens the surround rock. How do you stop leaching of chemicals into the air or the water? Let alone subsidence.

In addition you would need a lot of water (or another fluid) to create the fracture in the first place
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

:roll: No, it's controversial because of the impact on drinking water supplies, uses some dangerous chemicals, and has been proven to cause earthquakes.

Everyone knows earthquakes are left wing propaganda :roll:

 

[Stewart]

:roll: No, it's controversial because of the impact on drinking water supplies, uses some dangerous chemicals, and has been proven to cause earthquakes.

At least it's not as dangerous as electricity pylons and mobile phones

 

[Seacook]

It's only "controversial" because of propaganda films made by anti-progress types.

No. It is controversial because there are people who disagree with the propaganda produced by the oil and gas companies.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

At least it's not as dangerous as electricity pylons and mobile phones

Yes, because mobile phones cause earthquakes :roll:

 

[Stewart]

Yes, because mobile phones cause earthquakes :roll:

What earthquakes were caused anyway? I don't want speculation but proof.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

What earthquakes were caused anyway? I don't want speculation but proof.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=1&faqID=1Q:

Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations in the United States, Japan, and Canada.

The largest and most widely known resulted from fluid injection at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. In 1967, an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 followed a series of smaller earthquakes. Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established. (Nicholson, Craig and Wesson, R.L., 1990, Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection--A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1951, 74 p.)

Other human activities, even nuclear detonations, have not been linked to earthquake activity.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquakes/blackpoolMay2011.html

We understand that fluid injection, between depths of 2–3 km, was ongoing at the Preese Hall site shortly before both earthquakes occurred.
The timing of the two events in conjunction with the fluid injection suggests that they may be related.
It is well-established that fluid injection can induce small earthquakes. Typically, these are too small to be felt.

(That was a 3 EMS quake near Blackpool)

 

[Stewart]

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=1&faqID=1Q:



http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquakes/blackpoolMay2011.html

(That was a 3 EMS quake near Blackpool)

So they are just coincidence, a bit like the MMR jab and autism link then.

Still, I think most countries would accept a few magnitude 5 quakes if it meant unearthing £1,000bn of economic resources beneath their feet.

 

[SS4]

So they are just coincidence, a bit like the MMR jab and autism link then.

Kindly come up with your own facts to prove your hypothesis that this is no doubt dangerous. As mentioned in the climate change thread, the burden of proof falls upon you to prove that drilling is safe

Still, I think most countries would accept a few magnitude 5 quakes if it meant unearthing £1,000bn of economic resources beneath their feet.

I disagree, earthquake damage is expensive let alone the political fallout

 

[Stewart]

Kindly come up with your own facts to prove your hypothesis that this is no doubt dangerous. As mentioned in the climate change thread, the burden of proof falls upon you to prove that drilling is safe



I disagree, earthquake damage is expensive let alone the political fallout

Earthquake damage from magnitude 5 quakes tends to be inconsequential for modern economies :roll:

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So they are just coincidence, a bit like the MMR jab and autism link then..

How can you honestly say that when the United States Geological Survey say, straight out, that fluid injection caused the earthquake?!! I am dumbfounded.

 

[Schnellzug]

This is just the kind of thing that I love. The way people always start marching with banners about "it causes Earthquakes! And probably tsunamis too! It might destroy Sellafield, and we'll all die from Nuclear Fallout!" Exactly the same arguments that are always used whenever anyone suggests anything at all. I'd really like to see a Government trying to push through a programme of expansion of nuclear capacity.
There was, round our way, recently a proposal to built a power station using diesel generators running on vegetable oil. Honestly, you should've seen the WDWIH*. People marching with Banners, going on about how how No one will Ever come here Again because of the Noise and the Pollution ... People never seem to discuss practical matters about the economics of anything, it's always just WDWIH.

* We Don't Want It Here

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Earthquake damage from magnitude 5 quakes tends to be inconsequential for modern economies :roll:

Your attitude is unbelievable. If something risks the stability of the ground, and can threaten the stability of buildings over a wide area then the sensible thing is to consider very carefully if such an activity should be done, what mitigating factors can be done, and whether it is worthwhile to put people and property at risk.

 

[Stewart]

How can you honestly say that when the United States Geological Survey say, straight out, that fluid injection caused the earthquake?!! I am dumbfounded.

And a medical journal said the MMR jab causes autism.

Magnitude 5 quakes don't cause much damage to modern economies like ours.

 

[SS4]

Earthquake damage from magnitude 5 quakes tends to be inconsequential for modern economies :roll:

Nonetheless there is still political fallout - the government is letting earthquakes happen to make a quick buck; remember that the people affected are likely to be poor and not see a penny of the benefits

 

[ralphchadkirk]

And a medical journal said the MMR jab causes autism.

Magnitude 5 quakes don't cause much damage to modern economies like ours.

Why just think about the economy? Think about the people living in the region that will be put at risk, not just the lining in your pocket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And a medical journal said the MMR jab causes autism.

Yes it did. Well done for noticing. That doesn't mean that the USGS' views are any less valid.

If you are just going to ignore plain evidence, then I have no time for you. If you actually want to debate the issue properly, then do so.

 

[Schnellzug]

So should anything at all be allowed to be done? Doing anything at all runs some theoretical risk of some risk attending on it. What would the preferred choice be? What energy resources would people like, that wouldn't have any theoretical risk attached to it? If a company proposes wind turbines, out come the banners. They're visual pollution, they'll chop birds to pieces. etc. Should we just continue to import coal from Pomerania and China and Australia, then, since we can't try using anything else in case it causes a disaster, or we just don't want them spoiling our view?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So should anything at all be allowed to be done? Doing anything at all runs some theoretical risk of some risk attending on it.

Yes, everything does. But when you have a proven link between an activity and earthquakes, dangerous chemicals and an impact on the local water supply you should think very carefully indeed about it.

 

[SS4]

So should anything at all be allowed to be done? Doing anything at all runs some theoretical risk of some risk attending on it. What would the preferred choice be? What energy resources would people like, that wouldn't have any theoretical risk attached to it? If a company proposes wind turbines, out come the banners. They're visual pollution, they'll chop birds to pieces. etc. Should we just continue to import coal from Pomerania and China and Australia, then, since we can't try using anything else in case it causes a disaster, or we just don't want them spoiling our view?

The idea is that there is a balanced risk assessment done and the least worst option picked. People are short sighted and NIMBYism raises it's ugly head.

The issue here is that the OP is implying that this fracking is inconsequential and that there will be no bad consequences from drilling.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A point or two here:

That £1,000bn worth is the value of 100% of the ( estimated! ) reserve at the current market prices.

Even the most advanced and controversial techniques currently available would not be able to recover 100% of the reserve; even if it could you'd have to deduct the cost of extraction, transporting, storing etc from the headline value.

On top of that, once a new large source like this comes on stream commercially the sheer volume would be enough to lower the price in the market for the product.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Have any of the major political parties made any detailed comment upon this matter? It is Party Conference season at present.

The more immediate worry that concerns people in this area is the decision that will be made by BAE Systems and the actual number of Fylde job losses at the Warton facility to be announced in that industry.