Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cameron is Fracking Sick!

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Some of these world leaders absolutely disgust me


Russia have condemned Shale for their methods of extraction and kindly left them OUT of their new gas deals -

But never fear the Camerons' here!

Shale will have to pay JUST 30% Tax on it's production, compared to the previous 62% as the new gas 'revolution' sweeps into the UK.

Osborne - "I want Britain to be the leader of the Shale revolution".

Revolution? WTF?!

If the one thing we can learn from our US friends across the pond - It's that you have to be barking mad, and environmentally suicidal to sign up to these industrial systems!

How they can have complete disregard to obvious environmental and health defects is beyond me!

Fellow UKer's please be aware of what's happening - and DONT LET IT HAPPEN NEAR YOU!




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   
I'm not surprised in the slightest. that said I pity anyone who lives near one of these things, they are a serious health risk as-well as the earthquake risk and the horrific environmental damage.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
You need to remember that Cameron also asked the EU to accept GM foods.

What disgusts me about the Queen's cousin is that he professes to be a family man yet has no conscience about what he tries to get accepted for families to live with and eat.

Babychops is either desperately too nice and naive because of his sheltered, priviledged upbringing and life or he is an extremely devious manipulator. I admit to trouble in making up my mind as to this man's motives but see his rise to power as the backing of yet another pretty boy like Obama who is also absolutely lethal. To look at these men, they look so respectable and tick the boxes.

Where are they intending to carry out this fracking which, we should be well aware of it purely being set up not to keep gas prices low in this country, but to make a load of their backers very wealthy. I also expect our police thugs with their armour and trunctions will be there to thug away protesters should any dare to rise up.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
I wonder If the shale gas was underneath London it would go ahead...
Cam If this screws up the north the North will march down and duff him and his ilk up.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
He's a Coq....and a very bad boy. he and his like must be stopped.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloprotocol
He's a Coq....and a very bad boy. he and his like must be stopped.


They ALL need to be stopped.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
I wonder If the shale gas was underneath London it would go ahead...


I think it probably would because in very simple terms we need the energy and, bluntly, can't afford to keep importing it.

I am personally a bit on the fence with this issue in that the science has yet to be properly determined but on the flip side, geologically speaking, the UK is extremely stable ground (some of the oldest surface rocks on the planet). Many areas where this process is being currently carried out globally do not really make sense to me what with them being located in seismically unstable areas (or near to volcanoes). But if you take the geological instability out of the equation, it takes out a lot of the more immediate concerns. In fact in that sense, my main worry for the north of England (largest and most extensive reserves are under Yorkshire and Lancashire - by a long way) would be the collapsing of old mine shafts and therefore subsidence for properties.

Basically, geologically, we are better position to proceed with this type of process than most other nations. That said, longer term studies surely need to carried out in possible negative consequences. For example, i do not fancy being able to light my tap water!



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian

Originally posted by boymonkey74
I wonder If the shale gas was underneath London it would go ahead...


I think it probably would because in very simple terms we need the energy and, bluntly, can't afford to keep importing it.

I am personally a bit on the fence with this issue in that the science has yet to be properly determined but on the flip side, geologically speaking, the UK is extremely stable ground (some of the oldest surface rocks on the planet). Many areas where this process is being currently carried out globally do not really make sense to me what with them being located in seismically unstable areas (or near to volcanoes). But if you take the geological instability out of the equation, it takes out a lot of the more immediate concerns. In fact in that sense, my main worry for the north of England (largest and most extensive reserves are under Yorkshire and Lancashire - by a long way) would be the collapsing of old mine shafts and therefore subsidence for properties.

Basically, geologically, we are better position to proceed with this type of process than most other nations. That said, longer term studies surely need to carried out in possible negative consequences. For example, i do not fancy being able to light my tap water!


My main concern is ethically we should still be seeking alternative, sustainable, and environmentally friendly methods of creating energy.

Not taking ONE step forward and TWO steps back.

The cheek to tell us they are gonna tax us on Carbon whilst the openly poison our water supplys. Psshht.

In regards to Geology etc - Russia's huge to compared to the UK - I'm sure they have some 'Geological suitable' places they could whack these machines - but the fact is they said NO - just as they did with GMO's.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ObservingYou
 


Russia can afford to say no as they already possess huge reserves of both oil and gas - which they export to Europe at a huge mark up and which makes them billions. Do you honestly think that Russia said no on purely environmental / geological grounds? Of course not - look at other areas they are happy to pollute in a haphazard manner.

If Russia didn't have huge reserves of oil and natural gas then there would already be huge fracking operations all over the country.

I totally agree with you though about renewables and other options. Why we are not already generating most of our power through tidal options i will never understand - you would have thought that as an island nation surrounded by some of the strongest tidal currents, we were ideally suited...........



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ObservingYou
 


It's a bit ironic that you codemn the development of the shale oil industry while you are in fact part of the demand that requires it.

It would be nice to fill the tank of your automobiles with dreams and fairies, but at the end of the day, Britian and the majority of the planet currently rely on fossil fuels for their energy demands.

Our dependence on this natural resource makes it an inelastic commodity, or in other words, one we are unable to substitute at present. The develop of shale fields will be vital to keeping the planet going until alternative power sources are developed which are practical, as well as economical to produce.

Unfortunately, we must sleep in the bed we have made. We have build up this oil dependent global infrastructure that is completely integrated into our every day lives. It would be near impossible, dangerous and impractical to flip a switch and say "okay, no more oil and gas."

Further to your comment about the dangers of fracking, there is actual limited information on the negative effects of the process. I am not saying there isn't a negative impact, but what industry doesn't leave a stain on this planet? I can tell you that with all the regulation and laws surrounding the oil and gas industry, companies are investing in safe and reliable means of extraction and it is in their corporate interest to maintain as environmentally friendly an operation as possible, while extracting resources. It's just good business practice. Hard to get more returns and more investors when your rigs bleed oil into public neighbourhoods.

In any case, fracking is here to stay and I think it is wise of Cameron to take advantage of it before the nation suffers from a shortage which could have dire effects on the economy.
edit on 19-7-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 19-7-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I'm sickened at the tax break! I wonder who in the government now has shares in the Fracking Companies who have expressed interest in plundering the shale gas?

That tax deduction should be contributing towards our deficit.

I'm not too concerned at the environmental issues as the issues raised in terms of negative impact caused by fracking is down to bad practice and secrecy of the chemicals used in the flushing of the pipelines. Whilst in the US, contractors are allowed to keep secret the chemicals used, we in the UK won't allow that to happen. I have no doubt that it will be monitored.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Russia has one of the largest shale deposits in the world, called the Bahzenov formation, and Rosneft are pretty serious about exploring it.

To me this seems like a good opportunity, there's been over a million hydraulic fracturing operations drilled so far and only two small tremors have been linked to them. The North of England could definitely do with the jobs, although they've no doubt exagerrated the amount of jobs that can be created (how many people does it really take to manage a rig?).



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Tykonos
 


The initial set up costs of the extraction process (and generally establishing the industry) is what i suspect the tax breaks will be aimed at. Once it is up and running and firmly established, i would expect these tax breaks to be scaled back. This is fairly standard practice when trying to encourage investment into a new industry and something we have seen here in Britain in quite a few industries over the years. In this sense, it makes a lot of sense.

However, at the same time, how many of us would really be surprised if 10 years down the line it turns out loads of MP's had shares in shale gas companies during this time?



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   


To me this seems like a good opportunity, there's been over a million hydraulic fracturing operations drilled so far and only two small tremors have been linked to them. The North of England could definitely do with the jobs, although they've no doubt exagerrated the amount of jobs that can be created
reply to post by twfau
 


Indeed, people seem to forget that mining can cause tremors too, then there's subsidence. It seems like a reasonable risk to me.

I doubt very much people in the North will benefit in terms of an increase in employment to a significant degree as most people will be moved into the area with expertise.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I've tried to copy and paste this but just won't let me, but there is a New Scientist article that warns of the risk of a suffocating methane gas cloud escaping from fracking. It talks about the natural escape of methane gas from a Congo lake that killed thousands I believe.
People often talk of the earthquake risk and the british are completely ignorant of how active the UK could be seismically but we do have some fault lines running through the islands.
And the water companies have today unitedly warned against the potential pollution of the water supply.

But of course the government can only see £ signs.

The UK and US seem determined no matter what the long term cost to go for the quickest fix to energy crisis with the least possible investment leading potentially to the greatest harm possible.

The New Scientist article is from September 2009 by Shanta Barley and it is magazine issue 2725.

edit on 19-7-2013 by Elliot because: more info



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Tykonos
 


I would also add that communities where drilling occurs will be getting a 1% share of production revenues and are also expected to receive £100'000 in "community benefits".

Really, this is all a positive - unless the scientists turn up with terrifying reason not to proceed (which doesn't look likely from the data gleaned so far).



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Out of all the people that seek positions of great power in hundreds of years, I can count on one hand how many I believe did so out of altruistic reasoning. Power attracts sick disgusting people like flies to honey. Most good people want nothing to do with positions of power, they fear the damage they might inadvertantly do.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Search the New Scientist article above for a 'terrifying reason not to proceed'.
Theoretical it may be, but lets remember that in all the fracking operations so far nothing like this has happened and hopefully never will, still it is to be bourne in mind that there are many people who are concerned about this industry's meteoric rise.
edit on 19-7-2013 by Elliot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
There is a 1978 issue of National Geographic where the owners of coal mines were objecting to fracking because of the risk to miners from mine collapse. It is interesting to see how coal mining in the UK and US is gradually declining since the rise of the 'quick buck' fracking industry.





new topics




 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join