Have to admit, I really feel sorry for the Councillors at Northallerton who have to announce on Monday whether Ryedale will be the first place to see fracking take place in Britain. They must feel like the weight of the world must be on on their shoulders.

I think there are parallels that can be drawn with Ched Evans. Wherever he wanted to play a petition would be organised and no doubt a sizeable minority would have been the same people voting on each successive petition.

I think that there is a silent majority who probably want fracking to take place for the economic benefits that it will bring, but sadly they are almost all silent. Sadly the very noisy minority give the impression that they are the majority. Unfortunately I can't make it to Northallerton on Monday, but if I could then I'd do a placard, saying that I support fracking!!

I'll support fracking when Cameron & Osborne agree to it in their back gardens.

_________________

I'd rather fracking going on up the road than the 4 x 433ft giant industrial wind turbines approved at Bullamoor near Northallerton - where were the protestors then? They will decimate the landscape and are inefficient. Shale gas will lower energy bills and provide jobs. Frack On. The bussed in urban protestors looked confused as I cycled past and said "Yes to fracking no to wind turbines" yesterday.

I wonder how the protestors would react in there was a counter demonstration from fracking supporters? It makes me laugh how the Green Party seems to be against all sorts of renewable energy or energy that doesn't create a carbon footprint.

Pete,how do you know there is a silent majority want fracking? Have you seen the damage its done in the usa? prehaps you should go to northallerton on monday so the protesters can hand,draw and quarter you at county hall.

I don't think a poll has been carried out, but most people I have talked too, think it is a good idea. Looking forward we have to get our energy from somewhere. Oil production is going to decrease, renewables at the moment are too expensive and environmentalists complain about them. 20 or 30 years from now we could have real energy problems, unless new sources of energy are found and utilised.

That's what you call the "hasty generalisation" logical fallacy: making broad conclusions based on insufficient evidence such as a small sample group which fails to represent the entire population.

Plus we do need new energy sources but it HAS to be renewables: we need to stop fucking the planet up.

We have two choices:

1. Invest in solar, wind, or another type of renewable power which doesn't emit any harmful gasses as a byproduct or;
2. Invest in nuclear fusion, not to be confused with nuclear fission, which is how the Sun gets its energy and it is 100% efficient (i.e. you get 100% energy without any byproducts, such as CO2).

Fracking is not the answer.

Darlo Pete bases overall public opinion on who is stood next to him at Heritage Park. this type of comment is not surprising. I feel I get conflicting messages about fracking. The incidents in America always seem to come with a 'not proven' warning but at the same time you question what else caused them.

I would like us to seek greener energies. There have been some cracking stories out of Portugal and Germany recently about them powering themselves using renewables. I just had a consultation through for a new wind farm near me - suspect some will complain but 4,000 homes for something that is so far in the distance that we need an abnormally clear day to see it feels worth it!

This is probably a really stupid question - but based on the premise you cannot create energy you can only convert it. Surely there is an environmental impact of solar, wind and wave energies being removed. Does the planet not need that energy?

No, because it all comes from the Sun (wind energy is converted solar energy), and not only is it constantly producing more but it produces way more than the Earth or we actually need.

This makes sense when you realise that the Sun comprises 99.8% of the entire mass of our Solar System.

The Sun will eventually run out of energy, which is why we can't stay on Earth forever, but this won't really start to seriously affect us for about another 1 billion years, and will be a slow process taking several more billion years, before the Sun eventually dies.

Wow, Pete. You've really excelled yourself with that comment.

_________________
Never argue with an idiot: The best possible outcome is that you win an argument with an idiot.

Great news, it's been approved! #FrackON

Yes I'm delighted as well, common sense has prevailed.

Lo is correct there is an impact on the environment from renewable energy sources.
Down stream of wind turbines the wind is more turbulent, with less power. The blades of turbines have interfered with people's reception for radio and/or TV.
On solar farms the grass/crops under solar panels dies.
Wave energy reduces swells in the ocean.
Most ways of generating energy from tidal power involves building concrete structures along the coast.
All of these have an impact on the environment but you could argue the positives out way the negatives (and I'd agree).

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

Can anyone explain why fracking is more dangerous than drilling a normal oil or gas well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

Hopefully the anti-fracking groups will accept the democratic decision and let the fracking start. No doubt they'll try and invade the fracking sight and the police and public of North Yorkshire will end up with a hefty policing bill.

Because it involves unconventional methods of high pressure water and chemicals to fracture the shale and release gas.
It caused earthquakes in Lancashire, and, in the US, has been linked to water contamination, methane emissions, respiratory problems in children and reproductive problems in animals (there are numerous research papers if anyone is interested).
Of course, there is also the ongoing problem of man-made climate change, for which the biggest ever agreement was signed in December to reduce CO2 emissions - already this government has turned it's back on it's obligations. We should be moving away from burning fossil fuels. But it keeps Darlo Pete happy, so frack on, I guess.

_________________
Never argue with an idiot: The best possible outcome is that you win an argument with an idiot.

How is favouring the interests of private business over the wishes of your constituents a "democratic decision"?
Were the people affected allowed a vote?
Once again, the people have been let down by the politicians. No doubt there will be an application to judicially review their decision.
Fracking doesn't become safe just because a Tory council declares it so.

_________________
Never argue with an idiot: The best possible outcome is that you win an argument with an idiot.

Can you explain this comment? Why is it common sense? Why are you so delighted? I'm genuinely interested in your thought process that led you to the conclusion that hydraulic fracturing is such a good idea.

_________________
Never argue with an idiot: The best possible outcome is that you win an argument with an idiot.

From The Independent.

"Vicky Perkin, a council planning officer, told the committee there had been 4,375 letters of objection and 36 of support for the application."

Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

Whether you like fossil fuels or not, the world as we know it wouldn't work without them, as nuclear and renewables are nowhere near meeting our energy demands. The gap is even more pronounced in underdeveloped countries. So sadly we are stuck with them. Fossil fuels are not infinite and we need to find new sources. Without fracking energy demands will very soon outstrip supplies, forcing prices up, which will cause widespread energy poverty. In America fracking has produced large amounts of gas, with only a few issues. As fracking develops around the world, more effective and safer ways of extraction will be developed.

At what environmental cost?
With suitable investment, we could switch to renewable clean energy in a very short space of time. The problem, however, is a political one - there is no desire from the current government to do so, because it requires investment and effort.

_________________
Never argue with an idiot: The best possible outcome is that you win an argument with an idiot.

The suitable investment would have to be massive and for the environment it would only be effective, if there is a political will throughout the world. Britain having clean energy will not make any difference to global warming, if there is no massive investments in renewable clean energy in other developed and undeveloped economies throughout the world.

Aye, and that's what we need: the entire world to use renewables.

So we're going to pump chemicals and water underground to fracture the earth beneath us just so we can get more fossil fuels to burn back into the atmosphere, rather than trying to develop sustainable, non-destructive, non-polluting alternatives that don't fuck the planet up.

...and yet Pete and the government don't see anything wrong with this?

I'm not going to get involved in this argument. That's partly because I don't know a whole lot about fracking and partly because I agree with Lawman3's signature, but if you fancy a long read about energy and the environment, I'd recommend this:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla ... -life.html

It's not about fracking - in fact it's about Tesla - but it does generally explain why what DOTU is saying makes sense, and also how part of the problem is the oil industry being dicks.

So good I seem to have posted it twice.

I should probably come clean, I threw out a hook and you took the bait. I have designed and project managed the drilling and fracking of numerous oil and gas wells in Britain and elsewhere. So I know a little about the subject.

The drilling of conventional wells requires water and chemicals to be pumped at high high pressure, so although it is termed as "unconventional", it's an everyday occurrence.

As far as I am aware the "earthquake" in Lancashire hasn't been confirmed as an actual earthquake (rock sliding past each other along a fault) as opposed to a shockwave/sound wave from the rock cracking traveling through the rock to a seismic monitoring station. The earthquake was estimated at 2.3 on the Richter scale, to put that in perspective I've slept though a 6.4 earthquake (OK, alcohol was involved), that's more than 10,000 times stronger than the Lancashire earthquake. A 2.3 earthquake is said to be 1/7th of the vibrations you encounter in your house when a truck drives past on the road outside. It's so negligible that it really shouldn't be a consideration in a country as seismically stagnant as the UK.

Some of the problems in the US have been proven to be fake (setting their tap water alight, for example). Any other issues they have faced, as far as I am aware, is to do with disposal of drilling, fracking and completion fluids in ways which would not be permitted in the UK (if there was no fracking similar problems could be encounter from disposing the drilling and completion fluids in this manner) or by not implementing safety measures that are classed as best practice and are required in the UK.

You have to understand that US land rigs are generally manned by "good old boys" with Cowboy boots and chewing tobacco, you can't compare that to the highly professional industry we have in the UK. We have the 2nd strictest legislation in the world (behind Norway), this reduces the potential environmental impact.

Man made climate change would not vary depending on if the hydrocarbons came from fracked or convention sources.
What has a greater negative impact on the environment, liquifying gas and transporting it around the world or using gas from a local fracked well?

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

Fracking is no more dangerous than drilling conventional wells.

(In the UK) prior to fracking, when the well has full integrity, a pressure test of at least 1,000 psi above the maximum pressure that the well will encounter during its life must be taken. This pressure test must be held for (if I recall correctly) 30 minutes. The pressure test must be recorded on certified equipment. The Operator's Supervisor must sign the test chart to say it is real and he finds the result acceptable. These charts must be kept for a minimum of 10 years, although most companies will keep it for the life of the well.

To give you an idea, the last well I fracked was pressure tested to around 5,000psi above hydrostatic pressure, to frack the reservoir required around 1300psi. How can the integrity of the well be questioned when it has already be proved competent at much higher pressures?

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

You'll always receive more objection letters than support letters irrespective of what the subject matter is. It doesn't prove anything. TBH I would have guessed there'd be more objection than that.

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

There's no reason why nuclear couldn't meet our energy needs.

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

You're majorly underestimating what's required. You can't just take out a power station and replace it with a renewable energy source of equivalent capacity. The national grid needs major upgrades first. You also need a significant increase in energy storage devices such as the Welsh "electric mountain" or compressed/liquified gas storage (still in development) to store energy when the renewable energy sources are producing for times when they're not.

You also need back up sources of energy that can quickly come online as required. Nuclear isn't really suitable for this, as nuclear power plants run best at stable capacities. Biomass or fossil fuels are the obvious choice for this.

Just to be clear I'm all for investment in modernising our energy systems but this will take significantly longer and more investment than you indicate.

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!