Re: If You Worry About Immigration.. . . . . . : Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:12 pm
|
JerryChicken wrote: Clearly you missed the discussions within government that were reported in January of this year, they basically revolve around the fact as confirmed by Ed Davey that the UK will have no control over the retail pricing of its own shale gas as it has to be touted on the european gas wholesale market, Cameron didnt like to promote this fact but he did warn other european countries not to put legal challenges in the way of fracking or no-one in europe would benefit, in other words the whole of the european market has to get involved or the UK contribution will be negligible on the retail markets - many european governments arent quite so keen as Cameron is. Meanwhile the report from Cuadrilla Resources in 2011 is available for all to view on the internet in which they freely admit that their activities in Bowland Lancs concluded that it was "highly probable" that their operations caused at least two local earth tremors and they later closed down their site there at significant cost, not really the actions of a company who think they are innocent, dont forget this was their report quoting their own seismic engineers. Lord Browne is at least very honest about the risks and benefits associated with fracking, which is more than can be said for some This link is to an article reporting Lorde Browne's views - the same Lord Brown that had to resign from BP for lying in court! This article says Lord B's views were opposite to those of Prime Minister and George Osborne. I asked you for the link to the quotes from the government and while your at it the prime minister too as you said he had hinted at prices being no lower. It is true government does not control retail prices and that we are currently tied up with European gas wholesale markets as a major importer. However if the shale gas can be extracted in the huge volumes predicted then this will have an effect on the wholesale markets which should reduce the price because it will be much cheaper to produce. Again if we become a major producer we may wish to renegotiate any European deals because we will be a net exporter. Government can also choose to have a lower tax on gas if needs be. And by the time the gas comes on-line (or is it on-pipe?) we could well be out of the EU and free to make decisions in the best interests of the UK. I have dealt with the risk of earth tremors and I repeat "Durham University’s definitive survey of all induced earthquakes over many decades concluded that “almost all of the resultant seismic activity [from fracking] was on such a small scale that only geoscientists would be able to detect it” and that mining, geothermal activity or reservoir water storage causes more and bigger tremors. Professor Ray Davies of the University of Durham thinks that fracking “causes as much seismic activity as falling off a ladder”. Conventional mining has a significantly greater potential to cause problems. "The main reason behind objections to fracking is almost certainly the argument that exploiting more fossil fuel reserves simply prolongs the effort to reduce emissions. However, the evidence in America is that gas has displaced coal and given real benefits in terms of air pollution as well as reducing carbon dioxide output. The conflict is really between a fundamentalist view that a complete change to renewable energy is needed as soon as possible and a more realistic position that a secure, affordable energy supply is vital for modern societies. Gas is surely going to be an important part of the mix for many years to come, and a domestic source cannot be ignored. The effect on energy costs may be modest, but security of supply and tax benefits are not to be sniffed at. There is really no reason why properly regulated fracking should not proceed |
|
JerryChicken wrote: Clearly you missed the discussions within government that were reported in January of this year, they basically revolve around the fact as confirmed by Ed Davey that the UK will have no control over the retail pricing of its own shale gas as it has to be touted on the european gas wholesale market, Cameron didnt like to promote this fact but he did warn other european countries not to put legal challenges in the way of fracking or no-one in europe would benefit, in other words the whole of the european market has to get involved or the UK contribution will be negligible on the retail markets - many european governments arent quite so keen as Cameron is. Meanwhile the report from Cuadrilla Resources in 2011 is available for all to view on the internet in which they freely admit that their activities in Bowland Lancs concluded that it was "highly probable" that their operations caused at least two local earth tremors and they later closed down their site there at significant cost, not really the actions of a company who think they are innocent, dont forget this was their report quoting their own seismic engineers. Lord Browne is at least very honest about the risks and benefits associated with fracking, which is more than can be said for some This link is to an article reporting Lorde Browne's views - the same Lord Brown that had to resign from BP for lying in court! This article says Lord B's views were opposite to those of Prime Minister and George Osborne. I asked you for the link to the quotes from the government and while your at it the prime minister too as you said he had hinted at prices being no lower. It is true government does not control retail prices and that we are currently tied up with European gas wholesale markets as a major importer. However if the shale gas can be extracted in the huge volumes predicted then this will have an effect on the wholesale markets which should reduce the price because it will be much cheaper to produce. Again if we become a major producer we may wish to renegotiate any European deals because we will be a net exporter. Government can also choose to have a lower tax on gas if needs be. And by the time the gas comes on-line (or is it on-pipe?) we could well be out of the EU and free to make decisions in the best interests of the UK. I have dealt with the risk of earth tremors and I repeat "Durham University’s definitive survey of all induced earthquakes over many decades concluded that “almost all of the resultant seismic activity [from fracking] was on such a small scale that only geoscientists would be able to detect it” and that mining, geothermal activity or reservoir water storage causes more and bigger tremors. Professor Ray Davies of the University of Durham thinks that fracking “causes as much seismic activity as falling off a ladder”. Conventional mining has a significantly greater potential to cause problems. "The main reason behind objections to fracking is almost certainly the argument that exploiting more fossil fuel reserves simply prolongs the effort to reduce emissions. However, the evidence in America is that gas has displaced coal and given real benefits in terms of air pollution as well as reducing carbon dioxide output. The conflict is really between a fundamentalist view that a complete change to renewable energy is needed as soon as possible and a more realistic position that a secure, affordable energy supply is vital for modern societies. Gas is surely going to be an important part of the mix for many years to come, and a domestic source cannot be ignored. The effect on energy costs may be modest, but security of supply and tax benefits are not to be sniffed at. There is really no reason why properly regulated fracking should not proceed |
|
|
