Do you believe fracking in the UK will bring lower consumer energy costs?

lstar337

PollySouthend wrote: »

What is your evidence that fracking is "shining beacon of environmental responsibility and low impact""?

Do you read? His wife is his source, she works in the industry.

PollySouthend wrote: »

Maybe you should try to provide a reply to them rather than just dismissing me as having no logical or critical thinking.

:rotfl:

PollySouthend wrote: »

Also the virtually "free" energy from nucular that was promised and that never materialised.

What's nucular?

PollySouthend

Cardew wrote: »

I wouldn't mind so much if the OP was part of the 'anti everything' brigade with some deeply held convictions.

However I get the distinct impression that the threads he/she has started are purely for his/her amusement and it matters not on which side of the argument they choose to contribute.

i.e. if the majority of posts on this thread were anti-fracking, then the OP would have contributed in favour of the process.

Why do you even care that I'm worried about long term impacts of energy generation in the UK and suspicious of the motives behind smart meters (and the fact the end user is subsidising the private energy companies to increase profits)? That makes me anti EVERYTHING?

The way people talk around here, sounds like its a sin to question big businesses and their motives.

lstar337

PollySouthend wrote: »

Why do you even care that I'm worried about long term impacts of energy generation in the UK and suspicious of the motives behind smart meters (and the fact the end user is subsidising the private energy companies to increase profits)? That makes me anti EVERYTHING?

The way people talk around here, sounds like its a sin to question big businesses and their motives.

Its not what you dislike, its the way you go about your posts.

You are against all these things, but you start up a debate armed with virtually no valid evidence. You are happy to ignore everyone with a counter argument, especially if it's fully backed up with evidence, and your mind will not accept anything other than what you already 'know' to be 'fact'.

It's tiresome.

Yet you keep starting new threads to push your point of view.

Weird_Nev

PollySouthend wrote: »

Did you read the argument against fracking I posted? Maybe you should try to provide a reply to them rather than just dismissing me as having no logical or critical thinking.

Yes, I have. It's nothing but propaganda. My notes in Bold.

1. So what do YOU suggest instead of gas?

The argument is not against gas. Nor is it against fracking as such if it can be proved that the process does not lead to the contamination of ground water, cause earthquakes or other damage to the environment, leech radioactive gas into the air and water supply, reduce property values, increase traffic, noise and pollution and put all the profit in the hands of already unbelievably wealthy and powerful individuals. that's a bit emotive isn't it? what's wrong with making money anyway?

We are against the method in use at the moment. waht moment? there are thousands of fracing sites globally that cause minimal environmental impact This was developed by Halliburton in the very special circumstances which prevail in the US – namely the exemption enjoyed by the US natural gas industry from all federal environmental legislation.
The principal objection is the use of the toxic chemicals all chemicals are toxic. You just need enough of them which will poison and pollute the environment. The oil and gas companies claim that their chemicals are the sort used in domestic cleaners and cosmetics, and they may be right. But history shows that the technique as developed in the USA cannot make enough profit using ‘clean’ technology. History also shows quite clearly that the industry has not been honest about the techniques used. Once the concept of hydraulic fracturing is accepted, there will be a vast array of vested interests in making it more profitable. They have friends in high places. They have billions to spend on protecting their interests. They are the same people who have brought about the present financial crisis. You what? Linking fracing to the global financial crisis? that's a new one

The campaign also objects to many other elements of the method which are dangerous and the unsustainable. These include the high volumes of water which are required, it is not a high volume the amount of transport, noise and disturbance to neighbours it is like any industrial site until it is in production, when it is very much quieter, and the inevitable effect this will have on areas of natural beauty which rely on tourism for income and employment.there are fracking sites in the UK within areas of outstanding natural beauty which people do not even realise are there And property values near fracking sites have never been known to do anything but sink – often to the point where they cannot even be given away as homes, let alone sold.citation needed
There is the wider question of the inhabitants of the planet putting their efforts into reducing the need for energy rather than simply accepting that demand will rise. Many of these topics are aired below. But that is another campaign and probably one with a much longer timescale. we need A local, reliable energy resource. We currently pay france to import electricity, and energy costs are ever rising. We are doing what we can to reduce energy needs, but our nation is an industrialised one, we need fuel, heat and electricity to function. We may as well get it at home

2. It is cheap gas.
It is only cheap because the US gas companies who invented, and thus costed, the process do not have to clear up after themselves. Shale gas production produces vast quantities as before, it's not vasy volumes. of contaminated water. Some of it will stay underground, no one knows where it will go, but it will surface somewhere, sometime. The contaminated water that they do pump out has to go somewhere. The real cost of the gas on our health may only become apparent in a decade of two – probably to our grandchildren. nice emotive language. What actually happens is that most of the water remains undergraound, and forces the product out of the ground. you are talking 5 million litres within a billion litres.

Even if the cost of the gas which is extracted is lower, it will not be cheaper for consumers. The energy companies are well known for sticking together to keep prices high. Under normal circumstances this would be a cartel but is not called a cartel because cartels are illegal. So it must be a coincidence, but as long as they are allowed to continue, there will be no downward pressure on prices. They will sell their ‘cheap’ gas at the same price as all the other gas and simply pocket the profit. I agree, I don't believe that gas prices will fall. Big companies WILL profit. they WILL make money. I simply ask: what is wrong with that? We all need energy. Someone has to provide it. End of story.

3. It is our natural resource and we need security of supply as these pesky foreigners (Russians, Arabs, Algerians – you choose) cannot be trusted and will cut off our gas supply at the drop of a hat.
Security of supply is only a valid argument if there is a serious threat to supply (as there was in the second world war) and if there is enough gas to recoup the initial investment to extract the gas safely and cleanly. We also have to consider the desirability of untold quantities of cheap gas and its effect on the climate. The UK is currently in energy crisis even without foreign upsets.

The amount of shale gas the UK has depends on who you ask. There appear to be two types of company involved in the sharp end of shale gas exploitation. Obviously there are gas companies who wear hard hats and do the drilling. And then there are the Armani-suited carpet-baggers nice emotive language looking to make a killing by obtaining permits to prospect for gas and selling them on to gas companies in future. It is in their interests to talk up the quantities of gas in any given area. These estimates are often in the billions and trillions of cubic metres. Such large quantities will increase the value of the permits. So it is in the interests of the carpet baggers to talk it up. The gas companies want shale gas production to go ahead so they are saying there is a lot of gas as well. But they also say they have no idea how much they can actually get out. So in effect they do not know the usable size of the UK reserves.

The Fifth Report from the [UK] Energy and Climate Change Committee* says:
“…shale gas resources in the UK could be considerable. However, while they could be sufficient to help the UK increase its security of supply, it is unlikely shale gas will be a ‘game changer’ in the UK to the same extent as it has been in the US.”
Not really much use as regards security of supply then.
The report goes on to say:
The British Geological Survey’s estimate that UK shale gas reserve potential could be as large as 150 billion cubic metres was the most up to date at that time. For comparison purposes, in 2009, UK total demand for natural gas was approximately 100 billion cubic metres.

Claims about how long the gas will last, and therefore how long our security of supply will last are pure speculation. In the first sentence relating the British Geological Survey’s view on the quantity available includes ‘estimate’, ‘potential’ and ‘could be‘ and that is just a single sentence. you need to understand the definitions of those words in terms of resource estimation. You cannot imply that they mean "Uncertain" Close inspection reveals that all projections of gas production are littered with such conditional phrases: ‘could be x billion cubic meters’, ‘may last for decades’, ‘if we can extract it’ and the like. In short, no one can tell how much there is or long the gas will last . Of course they can't, it's underground and it's very hard to know the extent of resources. But I counter with this: North Sea Oil was expected to last until the 90's. It didn't. As extraction techniques improve, and geological surveying improves, the yields increase with time. Investors do not invest if they sense getting ripped off.

The BGS appears to be saying that there is enough to supply us for eighteen months at the 2009 rate of consumption. But even if it turns out that there is enough to keep up supplied with gas for decades or centuries, we still have to consider climate change. Ahh, that old chestnut Giving an alcoholic a lifetime’s supply of booze may solve the problem of supply but fails to address the more serious, underlying problem.
The only people who stand to gain from this are the oil companies and money men who do not care about the mess they leave behind, and the politicians who cannot think more than five or ten years into the future. This is not true. We all have a vested interest in exploiting the UK's natural resources to the best possible effect.

There is precious little in it for the rest of us.Apart from people in the UK who need energy, or jobs. I.e. Everyone

4. It will provide jobs
One of the claims of the industry is that after a few weeks spent setting up a ‘frack pad’ (a collection of bore holes radiating from a central point) which involve drilling equipment and hundreds of trucks driving back and forth, there will just be a few bits of equipment sitting quietly in a field pumping gas into the distribution network. They paint a picture of a mostly automatic and untended process. The majority of jobs will be in the setting up and will be low skill, low pay and short term. The well paid, skilled jobs will go to oil and gas industry specialists brought in from the US and elsewhere. The only thing the local workforce are likely to get is poisoned from inadequate protection from the cocktail of noxious substances which will be used in the process and left lying around. Nice emotive language.
The process off surveying, quantifying, assessing, designing and implementing an extraction well takes years. It is not a "Drill a hole, frac, pump" process. My wife, for example, tends to be involved in an early conceptual stage which takes around a year of data gathering, processing, modelling, analysis and reporting. Then engineers begin to do the actual work of installing equipment. Then there is frac'ing, and the pumping. this is an ongoing process and requires close monitoring throughout extraction - this could be for many years. The infrastructure to be installed needs skilled labor, plus the equipment and lorries, all needing drivers. Health and safety, environmental work (Which is considered throughout life of the site and in closing) all needs huge numbers of people from a vast array of trades and disciplines.
These are major infrastructure projects. You don't just stick a hose in the ground and let the gas flow.
And of course theres the resultant industries: energy, power generation, and yes, people in banks and investors get richer. That's business. IT's part of the wealth of the UK. They spend their money perhaps on services you provide.

5. The local authorities will benefit from extra taxes
True, but the income it is unlikely to be anything like the costs for additional repairs to roads, dealing with the environmental damage, and a hundred other ‘unintended consequences’ of drilling and the establishment of hundreds of ‘frac pads’. Pure conjecture
Tourist areas are also likely to lose many times the amount they gain in taxes as the tourist trade drops off.Citation needed People come to UK to see our green and pleasant land, to experience locally produced meats, cheeses, fruits, beers and other produce of the countryside. ah, the beautiful british countryside, not an inch of which is untouched by industry. They do not want to come here and have to drink bottled water because the sources are contaminated or eat food from other regions because the cows, sheep, pigs, ducks and chickens, vegetables and fruit are all this will not happen suspect. The long term cost for the rest of us is incalculable and likely to be very high. Pure conjecture

6. There is no need to transport water to the site as the UK has lots of sea, big rivers and bountiful natural springs etc.
Fracking uses millions of gallons of water for each and every well. It sounds a lot when you say millions. We pump billions of litres a day.Much of England is already suffering from serious water shortages in the summer, and it is starting to become a year-round problem. Water conservation is a priority for central government. Local authorities also have water saving high on their stated list of priorities. To contaminate untold millions of gallons of wholesome water under these circumstances is simply unjustifiable. And then to return it to the aquifers is doubly irresponsible. As for using sea water, salt water is simply no good for fracking. This is plain lies.

7. We will dispose of our waste water with no threat or cost to the public
Getting rid of millions of gallons of contaminated waste water is not a simple matter. One thing is clear from the US experience, domestic water treatment works simply cannot handle it. They do not have the capacity or the technology to deal with industrial waste. There is no reason to believe that UK water treatment facilities are any better equipped. Why would "industrial waste end up in domestic water treatment plants?
This just leaves burying it elsewhere. Cuadrilla (who have started fracking on the Fylde coast in Lancashire) has suggested that they will pour it down holes on private land. The question then is where will it go? It certainly will not respect the boundaries drawn on a map at the Land Registry office. We will see it again, somewhere, sometime. Ok, well, it's non toxic, it's just water, you pump it out of the ground, use it to frac, and then anything you need to get rid of, goes back to ground water, where you pumped it out of in the first place.

8.We need an alternative to nuclear, look at what has just happened in Japan. Nuclear energy is safe. Japan proved that, incredibly well
One of the things that has made nuclear so dangerous is that no one really thought about what they were going to do with the waste. Does that ring a bell? What both these technologies have in common is that they have not been thought through with any clarity. Horseshit We now know the downside of nuclear. From de-commissioning old reactors and disposal of used fuels, through the physical threat of earthquakes and terrorists stealing radioactive materials or buying it from unstable governments. Then there are the ‘human factors’ such as the power that derives from having ‘the bomb’ and the more common human characteristics of laziness and greed which lead to cutting safety corners to save money, a tendency the oil and gas industry have demonstrated time and again. We know the immediate downside of fracking but have not had enough experience to know the longer term effects We do, we've been fracing in this country for over 3 decades - without notable downsides – but we can be sure they will not be good. And, as ever it will be the private sector that takes the profit. Profit is such a dirty word these days The public sector will cover the cost of failure and of cleaning up the mess later as we are doing with nuclear. You what? The gas fracking industry is little more than an exercise in greed. And providing energy every person in the land relies on If the gas companies in the US had to comply with the same standards as the rest of industry when it comes to disposing of its toxic waste the price of the gas would be extortionate, and would not make a healthy profit for the shareholders. This is why George W Bush’s vice president, !!!!!! Cheney (one time CEO and Chairman of Halliburton who invented gas fracking) explicitly exempted the natural gas industry from the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water act and a whole bunch of other US federal laws designed to protect the environment. Unleash Bush the bogeyman.

This is why it is profitable in the US. The only way they can make it profitable here is by lying and cheating or by cutting corners. No, not true. Generally speaking, producing something that is in demand and selling it is profitable business. Especially when you're looking at the volumes of gas available. The easiest corners to cut are those whose effects will not show up for decades. To argue that we should go for gas because nuclear has proved to be unsafe is like saying ‘I got bitten by a shark, think I’ll get a tiger instead’ – stupid and short sighted.

9. The technology is proven and safe and they have been doing it in the US And UK! for years.
It is true that there has been a very limited amount of vertical hydraulic fracturing for many years. Against this background, horizontal fracking, which is the only system that will make a profit, is a recent development. The difference is similar to a cricket groundsman who walks the hallowed pitch with a fork aerating the grass. The vertical technique involves sticking the fork straight onto the ground and pulling it out again letting in the air and laving miniscule holes in the turf. The horizontal method is like sticking the fork in as far as it will go and then pulling back on the handle – and then doing it again, and again over the entire pitch. This is a terrible analogy

The longer term effects of gas fracking technology are unknown. Worse even, all the evidence coming from the US points towards it being devastating to man, beast, air, water and the land itself. For the UK to embrace gas fracking as it is carried out at the moment is simply reckless.

The gas companies claim that there is no ‘evidence’ that their processes have caused any contamination, environmental damage or illness to local populations. They then go on to say that there are no records of successful claims in the courts.

Not being found guilty in court is not the same as being innocent. Err, isn't it innocent until proven guilty? The gas companies, supported by the Bush-Cheyney regime, claim commercial confidentiality in the ingredients used to make the cocktail of toxic chemicals used in fracking fluid and do not have to disclose them. This makes it almost impossible to test for the substances. If toxic and harmful chemicals are found, it is difficult to prove that they came from the fracking fluid, despite this being the obvious conclusion. This lack of success in the courts is not the same as giving the industry a clean bill of health.

10. The gas companies will pay me good money for the right to drill on my land.
They are paying you peanuts compared with what they will earn. We're back to profit being a dirty word, aren't we? They can pump your land full of toxic chemicals and when they are done they go away leaving you with a toxic environment, possibly including radioactive Radon gas which has leeched into the water and will have been liberally spread around your land. This is laugh out loud. You live in a granite area, your house is laced with radon anyway. Get over it!

Your source may be contaminated. Flammable gases are known to leak into water sources, and if you or your community get their water from a bore holeyou may be able to set fire to your tap water. Fantastic emotive language - citation needed . If you have an organic farm or smallholding your produce is unlikely to be accepted as organic and any farm produce may simply not be saleable once the public know you have fracking on or near the premises. Is this a threat?

There is evidence of livestock suffering ill health and of course you will have to pay vets bills, or replace you animals or give up having animals all together. Thing is, you won’t know until it is too late. And the chances of selling your property are likely to be greatly reduced, but you won’t want to because no one will pay you what it was worth before you allowed the frackers in.

Oh yes, and it may maim or kill your family. Apart from that it’s worth every penny. Emotive language

11. Gas is a low ‘green house gas’ fuel
The greenhouse effect is a layer of ‘green house gases’ (GHGs) in the upper atmosphere, the most significant of which are produced by our use of fossil fuels. This layer prevents heat escaping from the surface of the planet and thus contributes to global warming.
It is true that gas produces less CO2 than coal and oil equivalents. But fracking is not like conventional natural gas.

A Cornell University report** has assessed the Greenhouse Gas footprint of Shale Gas over a 20- and 100-year lifetime. Compared with conventional gas and coal, unconventional (shale) gas releases more methane into the atmosphere – it is estimated that 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane escapes in venting and leaks. “Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over time periods of a couple of decades following emission.” Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is 1.2- to 2.1-fold greater on the 20-year timeframe. In short Shale gas is simply not a ‘green’ fuel.

12. It is a bridging fuel to low carbon technology.

The gas industry presents shale gas as a ‘bridging fuel’ to low carbon technology. Shale gas is so profitable and fits in with existing infrastructure so closely that it relieves the pressure to find new systems or sources of energy. It is more likely to slow research into low-carbon alternatives such as wind and wave power, solar energy, geo-thermal heatpumps etc.)

13. Unlucky for some… We’ve run out of fuel
No, but we are. The UK is perilously close to brown outs, and relies on the import of energy from our neighbours. That's not good for the deficit, the economy, jobs or our future.

alanwsg

Looks like people have read the scare stories and made their own minds up .....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/03/frackfriendly_uk_unmoved_by_balcombe/

PollySouthend

Nuclear energy is safe. Japan proved that, incredibly well

Im not even sure if you are a genuine person or just here to talk junk.

Today there is more news of the Japan leak even in the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24377520

Japan has a huge ongoing problem with nuclear that even the Japanese are admitting is out of control. Its was only last year that restrictions for meat in wales were lifted from the Chernobyl disaster.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17472698

Weird_Nev wrote: »

Yes, I have. It's nothing but propaganda. My notes in Bold.

I appreciate your reply, but to just state all concerns over fracking are nothing but propaganda is naive at best. Interesting read but I think your way off the mark on many of them, but seams little point discussing it here as I have my beliefs and you have yours. People don't seam to like it if you have an opinion around here that isn't the same as theirs.

There is something wrong with making money if its at the expense of destroying things.

sheffield_lad

PollySouthend wrote: »

Wealth to whom?

The UK is so very very different to the US.

Well us of course the public of the UK. Think about the tax revenues brought in already via the North sea BILLIONS of ££ what do you think paid for schools, hospitals, new roads, the list goes on.

Fracking could have the same effect on the national purse. It amazes me how lefty groups like 38 deg can demonstrate against fracking and moan about cuts DOH!!

zeupater

PollySouthend wrote: »

zeupater - it can not be proved that fracking will not contaminate water and there is genuine concern it will cause water shortages in local areas. I don't have a scientific background, I just like to air with cation. You are obviously knowledgeable.

What do you think to these?

Hi

Apologies for the late reply, I had a long post almost ready ... then had a power-cut ... weather related, but it (conveniently!) just shows that these events are really frustrating ... I've quickly reconstructed the basic gist of the post, but it never feels the same the second time around ....

Anyway, in a nutshell, I 'think' that they say exactly what I would expect them to say, considering the sources !!

Don't worry about the word 'contamination', you do that to water every day (at far higher concentrations than the measured acrylamide in the report you referenced) by simply adding coffee, tea & milk - two of which are relatively toxic and the other classified as a biohazard.

No matter what you may have read, overheard, or been told - hydraulic fracturing of rock in order to recover gas or oil isn't new to the UK - either on-shore or off ... all that's new is the recovery of energy deposits from deep shale, not porous rock ...

Give the eco-warriors the choice of gas or coal and they choose renewables ... explain that renewables cannot cope with peak demand they add nuclear to the mix ... decide to build nuclear and they choose not to agree based on storage ... it just goes 'round ... and 'round ... and 'round like a spinning wheel. The sad thing is that it's usually the same people encouraging others to actually turn the wheel ...

Basically, you can break any argument such as this into three camps ... the 'movers', the 'realists' and the 'naysayers' ... without 'movers' nothing would ever get done, without 'realists' the movers might plough ahead regardless of the cost & outcome, and without 'naysayers' there would be simply be logical progression ....

... see, told you it wasn't as good as the original, which went off and explained about pollution, lights going out and people dying as a result of indecision driven by the 'eco-this' and 'NIMBY-that' negative input groups and was supported in places by references which I can't be bothered to find again (doesn't a powercut make some people bitter ) ... so to conclude this abridged post, here's how I planned to end the original ...

Some of my generation campaigned to 'save the whale' because there was an imminent threat of species extinction ... these days groups have latched on and perverted the causes for which they claim to 'fly the banner' .... you mentioned wave-power earlier & I countered with a much more suitable and predictable energy source, the Severn Barrage ... why haven't we got the Severn Barrage ? - very likely because of all of the campaigns to save the 'ickle birdies and fishies' which are nothing whatsoever to do with the survival of a whole species, just group self-interest to prevent a massive construction project in the neighbourhood, and at the head of these groups, someone wearing a knowing smile whilst leaning on a shepherd's crook ....

HTH
Z

Weird_Nev

PollySouthend wrote: »

I appreciate your reply, but to just state all concerns over fracking are nothing but propaganda is naive at best. Interesting read but I think your way off the mark on many of them, but seams little point discussing it here as I have my beliefs and you have yours.

I don't have "beliefs". I have opinions based on my assessment of factual information. My assessments are made with some degree of background knowledge and a grounding in the subject, since I have a Geology degree and a wife who works in the industry. She doesn't exclusively work on fracing, it's one of her many talents.

As for shining beacon of environmental responsibility, let me talk you through another one of the projects which she is working on.

A mining company are going to dig gold out of river deposits that stretch out to sea. TO ddo this, they are going to divert the river, pile drive curved concrete retaining wall to a depth of 300m into the sea bed about 1km out to sea. Then they are going to pump that section of sea dry to gain access to the deposits. Then it gets FUN: The area is so geothermally active, that when you remove the overburden, the depressurisation allows superheated water within the rock beneath to boil instantaneously. This results in spontaneous explosion of the ground, unless you control it very carefully. People will be operating machinery in this site. If the sea wall fails, they will die. If the water in the rock beneath them is hotter than calculated, or the depressurisation boreholes don't work properly, they will die. If the water used to refine and sort the product escapes either into the river or the sea, pretty much everything around will die (They use arsenic and cyanide in the processing plants, and the deposits tend to be full of them too).

THAT is an environmental disaster waiting to happen (Or happening, really, since it's huge changes to the environment). It's my wife's job to ensure that the disaster does NOT occur, by keeping the various water related hazards as known quantities, and separate from one another. In that area of the world, it will be done with or without the likes of my wife. The country itself simply don't care if they pump the water table dry, or pump cyanide into it. They don't even care if they kill mine workers since jobs are scarce and life is cheap. And yet, the company doing this work are doing it to globally accepted first world standards: not because they have to, but because they can.

Don't worry, It's no-where near Southend.

PollySouthend wrote: »

There is something wrong with making money if its at the expense of destroying things.

You are aware that the UK has a landscape utterly defined by half a millenia of industrialisation. Farming, Mining (pop to cornwall and look a the tin mines), deforestation to build boats.... There's not a scrap of land in the UK that hasn't been trodden and retrodden by some punter wondering how he can turn a buck out of it.

And now they've worked out a way of pulling resources out of the ground without even disturbing the surface, everyone goes nuts!

Anyway, I tire of you now. You can either educate yourself form reliable sources, or you can continue with your blinkered "NIMBY" approach which refuses to acknowledge information from sources outside your comfort zone.

You want wave power? OK, I hope you enjoy your single lamp on a timeshare. And it will COST you!

PollySouthend

Weird_Nev wrote: »

I don't have "beliefs". I have opinions based on my assessment of factual information. My assessments are made with some degree of background knowledge and a grounding in the subject, since I have a Geology degree and a wife who works in the industry. She doesn't exclusively work on fracing, it's one of her many talents.

As for shining beacon of environmental responsibility, let me talk you through another one of the projects which she is working on.

A mining company are going to dig gold out of river deposits that stretch out to sea. TO ddo this, they are going to divert the river, pile drive curved concrete retaining wall to a depth of 300m into the sea bed about 1km out to sea. Then they are going to pump that section of sea dry to gain access to the deposits. Then it gets FUN: The area is so geothermally active, that when you remove the overburden, the depressurisation allows superheated water within the rock beneath to boil instantaneously. This results in spontaneous explosion of the ground, unless you control it very carefully. People will be operating machinery in this site. If the sea wall fails, they will die. If the water in the rock beneath them is hotter than calculated, or the depressurisation boreholes don't work properly, they will die. If the water used to refine and sort the product escapes either into the river or the sea, pretty much everything around will die (They use arsenic and cyanide in the processing plants, and the deposits tend to be full of them too).

THAT is an environmental disaster waiting to happen (Or happening, really, since it's huge changes to the environment). It's my wife's job to ensure that the disaster does NOT occur, by keeping the various water related hazards as known quantities, and separate from one another. In that area of the world, it will be done with or without the likes of my wife. The country itself simply don't care if they pump the water table dry, or pump cyanide into it. They don't even care if they kill mine workers since jobs are scarce and life is cheap. And yet, the company doing this work are doing it to globally accepted first world standards: not because they have to, but because they can.

Don't worry, It's no-where near Southend.

Other countries do indeed have appalling human rights records that are exploited by multinationals. I don't think that should be used as benchmarks for other countries.

You are aware that the UK has a landscape utterly defined by half a millenia of industrialisation. Farming, Mining (pop to cornwall and look a the tin mines), deforestation to build boats.... There's not a scrap of land in the UK that hasn't been trodden and retrodden by some punter wondering how he can turn a buck out of it.

And now they've worked out a way of pulling resources out of the ground without even disturbing the surface, everyone goes nuts!

Anyway, I tire of you now. You can either educate yourself form reliable sources, or you can continue with your blinkered "NIMBY" approach which refuses to acknowledge information from sources outside your comfort zone.

You want wave power? OK, I hope you enjoy your single lamp on a timeshare. And it will COST you!

What you do have is a I'm right, I know more, no one can question me attitude. Anyone that thinks they know it all and know it better than everyone else that doesn't share their viewpoint, is someone I take with a pinch of salt. "I have a degree in rocks so shut up I know more than you and all your concerns are dogs..."

Someone that says this; is delusional.

Nuclear energy is safe. Japan proved that, incredibly well