To Frack, or Not To Frack...?

cepheus

What sort of useless biased poll is this? The energy companies themselves say fracking won't make bills cheaper

Cuadrilla accept that the impact of shale gas on bills will be basically insignificant, probably a difference of around 2 per cent compared to what would be the case otherwise.

so the choice for the consumer is:

Do you want fracking which could if successful generate profits for the oil companies and perhaps some revenue for the exchequer at the near certainty of gas leakage with the increased global and local environmental problems this creates

Do you wish to be committed to a sustainable clean future using a balance of sources including still plentiful Norwegian gas, but increasing conservation and renewables?

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

What sort of useless biased poll is this? The energy companies themselves say fracking won't make bills cheaper

so the choice for the consumer is:

Do you want fracking which could if successful generate profits for the oil companies and perhaps some revenue for the exchequer at the near certainty of gas leakage with the increased global and local environmental problems this creates

Do you wish to be committed to a sustainable clean future using a balance of sources including still plentiful Norwegian gas, but increasing conservation and renewables?

Your usual unbiased summary!

Don't delude yourself - fracking will happen big scale in UK - as of course it should.

The sandal brigade led by swampy will have 3 targets now - Nuclear power stations, fracking and keep a camp at Greenham Common in case the Americans return.

penrhyn

I'm camping out in Toton Sidings to stop the HS2, feeling lonely ATM.

Maybe there is an illegal traveller site to go and defend instead.

BTW Been fracking for oil and gas in Notts for years.

There is a dirty big layer of Bowland Shale right under my house, fracking hell!!

E.G.
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=+DN10+4PY&hl=en&ll=53.40153,-0.798649&spn=0.002587,0.004544&sll=53.330078,-0.951004&sspn=0.020734,0.036349&t=h&hnear=Beckingham+DN10+4PY,+United+Kingdom&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.401523,-0.799816&panoid=BmEI6wFiGxRCx5r1cXoLrg&cbp=12,331.2,,0,-7.92

Richie-from-the-Boro

- fracking areas are all in the desolate north and conservative voters all in the south
- Blair's New Labour, signed us up to the Kyoto Protocol for the jobs it will create boosting the economy
- the current coalition Green Deal is sod all to do with anything other than the economy and the jobs it will create
- right wing politicians want to pollute the planet for job gain, sandal wearing green nuts want to bankrupt the country
- either way they both want to part the taxpayer from his hard earned cash, and that's all too easily done
- when shale happens it will be sold into the spot market for treasury gains, individually we will see no benefit
- politicians lie for a living, cheaper bills with shale is just one more fracking lie from the lips of the political class

cepheus

Cardew wrote: »

Your usual unbiased summary!

Don't delude yourself - fracking will happen big scale in UK - as of course it should.

The sandal brigade led by swampy will have 3 targets now - Nuclear power stations, fracking and keep a camp at Greenham Common in case the Americans return.

Unlike the original question which is so deliberately? garbled to be nonsensical there is nothing biased about this one, it provides a choice between

assuming energy is unlimited and the environment can be used as a dump,

OR

being responsible, less wasteful and using our resources more wisely

Perhaps you can explain which part of the following statement you don't understand? It is not from 'swampy' or 'dirty women' and the other filthy memes the conservative press are so desperate to spread, but a greedy business desperate to succeed with shale.

Cuadrilla accept that the impact of shale gas on bills will be basically insignificant, probably a difference of around 2 per cent compared to what would be the case otherwise.

sheffield_lad

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- when shale happens it will be sold into the spot market for treasury gains, individually we will see no benefit
- politicians lie for a living, cheaper bills with shale is just one more fracking lie from the lips of the political class

Is that not a good thing given we still have a deficit so we are still adding to a 1.2 trillion pound debt?

I don't expect lower bills but I would expect lower future price rises.

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

Unlike the original question which is so deliberately? garbled to be nonsensical there is nothing biased about this one, it provides a choice between

assuming energy is unlimited and the environment can be used as a dump,

OR

being responsible, less wasteful and using our resources more wisely

You think your question is less biased?

Being less wasteful, using resources wisely, is laudable, but getting gas from a whole new source does not conflict with those aims.

UK consumers are already paying for the subsidies handed out to wind and solar production – the output of which is unpredictable. Actually solar is predictable – it produces nothing at night when the peak demand is placed on the National Grid.


Fits your agument also to bring in emotive terms like ' a greedy business'

Take the USA where fracking is now in full swing. They are now exporting natural gas as the market has collapsed.



http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/economy/natural-gas-exports/index.html



http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=natural-gas&months=60



http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_epg0_prs_dmcf_m.htm



The last of the 3 links is US government details of residential gas prices. Just look for any State and see the price reductions and see how prices have fallen over the last 5 years – and compare that to how muchprices have risen in UK in the same period.



Until recently everyone in UK was forecasting huge rises in gas/electricity prices in the years ahead. Fracking – when in full flow - gives the opportunity to at least stabilise prices.

cepheus

No-one believes gas prices will reduce to US levels. In fact even the Yanks aren't paying for carbon leakage. This could make the true price of fracking phenomenal even there if the long term externalities are priced in. There is just no evidence fracking methane emissions can be contained over time.

Richie-from-the-Boro

sheffield_lad wrote: »

Is that not a good thing given we still have a deficit so we are still adding to a 1.2 trillion pound debt?

I don't expect lower bills but I would expect lower future price rises.

HiYa Sheffield lad,

I suspect and expect neither will be the case. We will as I said in an earlier # in this thread improve the security of supply, the benefits of shale - none of them - will go to the utility user, including in the form of a lower than otherwise price rise as you suggest.

We only gain benefit in security because we will control our own 'tap' and can switch at will from [flogging it to burning it] foreign currency exchange to domestic supply. Oh there will be many many claims by each party in power but no actual action.

Here's my view, we the consumers carry on with the current status quo. 100% of all shale receipts go into building as as many wholly UK owned nuclear stations as are required to provide these islands with 120% of nett nett supply needs for the next 30 years. Then we can have a debate on what we do with the profits of shale. At that point two things can happen. We can (1) sell the 20% of our now surplus generation daily to the rest of Europe, from which we make enough money to build more carbon free generation and (2) mothball the remaining carbon shale for a rainy day in the fracking future.

cepheus

To Frack or not to Frack?

Opposing views on fracking

Ernest Rutter's argument is very misleading though. When he says

burning gas will actually lead to a decrease in CO2 emissions – as has been shown in the US -

he fails to mention it might increase net greenhouse gas warming, because methane has 25 times the warming potential of CO2, so around 2% leakage would put it on par with coal. Some measurements suggest maximum leakage rates of as much as of 12% over the long term!