Re: Fracking revisited : Sun Jan 19, 2014 9:10 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Hmmm, now I've looked it up three of them were even deeper than that, the old museum of recollections was influenced by the idea that Gascoigne Wood didn't need a shaft as such and initially back in the 70s it was suggested that they could surface mine it - I've been to Gascoigne Wood some years ago as a bio-tech company of some description had moved in and led us a merry dance on some equipment they wanted to buy from us, they disappeared a few months later, we also had some business with RJB there too when they were running the place AND at Hatfield where I got a tour of the pithead structures, nothing ever came of those enquiries either

You're welcome.
They drifted Gascoigne Wood not because the coal was near the surface, but for the sheer volume of coal that could come up it on conveyors vs shaft winding and all the coal from the entire coalfield would exit near the rail connection.

Re: Fracking revisited : Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:52 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Do you mean the M62 ?

I was involved in a very small way in establishing the first buildings on what became Whitemoor Pit on the Selby coalfield back in 1978-ish (or so) and the size of that development with five or six individual pitheads in the area meant that it attracted miners from all over the country, and large new build housing estates followed - no problems in building on what were technically quite shallow mines, the problem with coal mining has never really been subsidence which when it happens is usually very localised, its the waste produced over decades that left a problem but even that has been dealt with - take a look at what was the mountain of slag left by the Prince of Wales pit for instance after it was re-mined for coal that had been considered too "dirty" to collect previously.

The environmental concerns over fracking are totally different to that of underground coal mining and even the companies doing the fracking don't really know what will happen until it happens - read the article that I linked to previously and the quotes from the company who caused the problems.

If coal mining was such an exact science then tunnel collapses wouldn't happen - but they do. As I said before any mineral extraction has its dangers as we seen in mining, oil extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, Piper Alpha in the North Sea. Is Fracking more dangerous than oil/coal extraction?

Re: Fracking revisited : Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:11 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Is Fracking more dangerous than oil/coal extraction?

No-one knows, and that is the issue.

When you try it and something like earth tremors happen and the company responsible admit their responsibility and then go on to say that if they continue then they "don't think" it will happen again then it doesn't fill you with confidence does it - when they then shut down the site admitting that there were too many environmental clauses attached to their licence to drill on that site then again it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in their assurances that its does no damage to the environment.

Re: Fracking revisited : Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:47 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Possible - that is the case

That's cleared up, then. I wouldn't know the first thing about that sort of stuff.

As Coddy says, you've confused us! ~shivers~

Re: Fracking revisited : Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:13 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

No-one knows, and that is the issue.

When you try it and something like earth tremors happen and the company responsible admit their responsibility and then go on to say that if they continue then they "don't think" it will happen again then it doesn't fill you with confidence does it - when they then shut down the site admitting that there were too many environmental clauses attached to their licence to drill on that site then again it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in their assurances that its does no damage to the environment.

Succinctly put and spot on.

Re: Fracking revisited : Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:08 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I don't suppose they expected that the geology around Blackpool was going to mean that mining resulted in tremors, do you?

No, but then the only way people wouldn't be up in arms anyway would be if as they broke ground butterflies and candy floss escaped and made everyone smile. Then Mary Poppins sang a song.

And I don't suppose that anywhere else it's caused problems they looked at the geology and thought: 'wow, this could cause problems but let's go ahead anyway', do you?

Actually, they probably did, figuring the risks were worth it.

You're talking about taking risks that could have major consequences that are extremely difficult and costly (for the taxpayer, of course) to deal with. And for what? As has been discussed, it's unlikely to be in order to bring down prices to UK customers, which also means that it isn't going to do anything for energy security, so that only leaves one thing: private profit.
Now I'm not against profit per se, but private profit on the basis of major risk to communities and the environment? Really? You consider that to be acceptable and somehow positive?

This isn't Victorian times when "to hell with the consequences" was the mantra, when we polluted and destroyed for the sheer hell of it "Look, there's the last Cape Lion, shoot it, put it in a glass box so people can look at it!"
Contrary to what you may think, someone can't simply rock up with a load of gear and start digging. I've seen newts lengthen the time taken to extend a motorway, bloody newts! I watch our environmental officer have kittens when the environmental agency give us the date of their annual inspection. The environment has never been more looked after in this country.
The environment will recover, better than it would have done if we'd embarked on it 150 years ago, look at Chernobyl, it's deserted and radioactive but life has returned.
We shouldn't do this for profit, though that'd be a nice bonus, we should do it because we can. A potential new form of energy? It's a no brainer.

Re: Fracking revisited : Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:54 am  

BobbyD wrote: ... Contrary to what you may think, someone can't simply rock up with a load of gear and start digging. I've seen newts lengthen the time taken to extend a motorway, bloody newts! I watch our environmental officer have kittens when the environmental agency give us the date of their annual inspection. The environment has never been more looked after in this country. .... At the moment they can't. But wait ... HM Gov has now brazenly announced that it is going to reverse the law which currently (of course) states that a landowner has to give permission for fracking or anything else on their land, to, er, remove this little obstacle. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 86650.html Following the now de rigueur bogus "consultation" charade, the law will be revesed, and the smart word seems to be that from as now having every legal right to challenge them, you won't have a right to say a single word. But you will get an automatic payout of a predicted £100. Whatever, the decisions have already been made.

BobbyD wrote: ... Contrary to what you may think, someone can't simply rock up with a load of gear and start digging. I've seen newts lengthen the time taken to extend a motorway, bloody newts! I watch our environmental officer have kittens when the environmental agency give us the date of their annual inspection. The environment has never been more looked after in this country. .... At the moment they can't. But wait ... HM Gov has now brazenly announced that it is going to reverse the law which currently (of course) states that a landowner has to give permission for fracking or anything else on their land, to, er, remove this little obstacle. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 86650.html Following the now de rigueur bogus "consultation" charade, the law will be revesed, and the smart word seems to be that from as now having every legal right to challenge them, you won't have a right to say a single word. But you will get an automatic payout of a predicted £100. Whatever, the decisions have already been made.

Re: Fracking revisited : Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:23 pm  

Given "unprecedented" ground water levels in the South, one wonders what could have happened if fracking had been happening on a widespread basis?

Re: Fracking revisited : Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:58 am  

Dally wrote:

Given "unprecedented" ground water levels in the South, one wonders what could have happened if fracking had been happening on a widespread basis?

The water would probably have soaked into the fractured shale deep below ground - expect to see this in a government press office release in the near future, repeated immediately by a compliant media.

Re: Fracking revisited : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:41 am  

Dally wrote:

Given "unprecedented" ground water levels in the South, one wonders what could have happened if fracking had been happening on a widespread basis?

And there is a very good question.