Shale Gas - Mod note post#117

meenaghman · 18-09-2012 6:50pm

ShanePouch wrote: »

The problem is that all the while we are considering the pros and cons of the effects on agriculture and tourism, a decision is delayed.

The more time we take to weigh up the pros and cons (a process which often takes decades in Ireland and is often a euphemism for delaying a decision), the longer the time we all have to pay higher gas bills than necessary, higher electricity bills than necessary and the more Irish industry has to pay more for its inputs of energy, making it less competitive to those countries who have made a decision.

Ireland has all the time in the world to delay making a decision, and for every day it does so that’s costing every person in Ireland money in the form of higher than necessary energy bills.

We are experiencing a truly astonishing worldwide energy revolution, and while Ireland is in the depths of depression, with mass unemployment and poverty, to put off a decision which could help nearly everyone in the country with significantly lower energy bills, and offer more jobs as manufacturing and industry becomes more competitive, might seem to some, wicked.

Procrastination is not an energy policy.

Shane, sorry to disappoint you on the lower energy costs, but the current price of gas on the NBP in UK is $10/mcf and Tamboran's business model (which looks to have overestimated gas and underestimated costs) is based on selling gas at $11/mcf.
The current energy prices in the US are unsustainable. The selling of gas below the cost of production has seen companies effectively in default. eg I understand that even though interest rates in the US are effectively zero, that Chesapeake can't access refinancing for less than 10%.
http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2012/05/15/chesapeake-pays-steep-price-for-liquidity/
If Chesapeake goes into chapter11 who do you think will act as underwriter of last resort for clean up and other obligations.
The days of cheap energy are over..there's a reason Shale gas is called 'unconventional'. Shale Gas requires high energy prices to make it sustainable. We wouldn't be pursuing unconventional fossil fuel unless all the easy to get at stuff was gone.

ShanePouch · 19-09-2012 7:51am

NewVision wrote: »

What do you mean? Drill first and then deal with the consequences?

A study of the European Parliament comes to the following conclusion:
"Even an aggressive development of gas shales in Europe could only contribute to the European gas supplies at one-digit percentage share at best. It will not reverse the continuing trend of declining domestic production and rising import dependency. Its influence on the European greenhouse gas emissions will remain small if not negligible, or could even be negative if other more promising projects are skipped due to wrong incentives and signals."
So, fracking will have not really an impact on domestic gas prices. The reasons for that shale gas hype and the low gas prices in the US have other reasons.

=> Fracking - A Boom and Bust

As in most markets an increased supply leads to lower prices, then yes drill and deal with the consequent lower prices of gas for everyone.

The geologists tell us there are huge reserves of shale gas in the world. Enough to last centuries. Even if you disagree and think it might be a boom and bust, does that mean we should just ignore the gas that is there, because it may turn out to be a Boom and Bust?

Is your judgment that in the one country in the world which is most advanced with fracking, the USA that the price of gas has not halved since fracking began? Shale gas is not “hype”, it’s real gas, used to power real industries and real homes, and the halving of the price in the USA is not “hype” either, but reality.

meenaghman wrote: »

Shane, sorry to disappoint you on the lower energy costs, but the current price of gas on the NBP in UK is $10/mcf and Tamboran's business model (which looks to have overestimated gas and underestimated costs) is based on selling gas at $11/mcf.
The current energy prices in the US are unsustainable. The selling of gas below the cost of production has seen companies effectively in default. eg I understand that even though interest rates in the US are effectively zero, that Chesapeake can't access refinancing for less than 10%.
http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2012/05/15/chesapeake-pays-steep-price-for-liquidity/
If Chesapeake goes into chapter11 who do you think will act as underwriter of last resort for clean up and other obligations.
The days of cheap energy are over..there's a reason Shale gas is called 'unconventional'. Shale Gas requires high energy prices to make it sustainable. We wouldn't be pursuing unconventional fossil fuel unless all the easy to get at stuff was gone.

It doesn’t disappoint me at all, and if Tamboran go bust as a result of a poor business plan, they are a private company and that’s their issue. New technology has always had a learning curve, and if the gains of a plentiful supply of gas come at a price of some private companies going bust, then so be it.

Progress is never easy and if we look at the beginnings of any major industry, you’ll see progress was always difficult, harsh, and often even cost lives, but the ultimate benefits were worth it. Coal, airlines, railways, chemicals, electricity, cancer treatments….all have had enormous costs, and if someone had said at the outset “railways are unconventional” and called a halt, what a mistake that would have been.

If Chesapeak goes bust, by law they have to have insurance against the outcome you mention, so ultimately it will be reinsured through numerous insurance companies and Lloyds of London.

Currently, in Ireland we pay for Oil in $’s and for gas, from the north sea, in £’s. As the € is declining as a currency, that means we have to keep paying every more for oil and gas even if their price does not increase. That’s one reason why gas is more expensive that it might otherwise be.

If you are right and the price of shale gas is higher, no one will be forced to buy a more expensive supply of gas, and north sea gas will still be available!

Maybe the price of gas in the USA is “unsustainable”. Who knows. Maybe the price will reduce ever further as the new, cheaper and better technologies for extracting shale gas are discovered. Maybe not.

But to turn our backs on a reliable source of energy, which we pay for in Euro and which may be less expensive than other forms of energy, and which is produced here in Ireland, seems foolish. Even if it costs the same as gas from the north sea, then the benefit from employment in Ireland will be worth it.

No one is asking you to take any financial risk, or burden, or even have anything to do with any company who decides to do this, and yet you seem opposed to anyone even trying to get any benefits, such as increased employment, greater energy security, less risk of currency fluctuations and paying for energy in €, and lower energy prices for all.

Macha · 19-09-2012 3:07pm

ShanePouch wrote: »

The problem is that all the while we are considering the pros and cons of the effects on agriculture and tourism, a decision is delayed. .

As it should be. Rushing head-long into decisions when we have very little understanding of the implications is no way to run a national energy policy.

ShanePouch wrote: »

The more time we take to weigh up the pros and cons (a process which often takes decades in Ireland and is often a euphemism for delaying a decision), the longer the time we all have to pay higher gas bills than necessary, higher electricity bills than necessary and the more Irish industry has to pay more for its inputs of energy, making it less competitive to those countries who have made a decision.

You haven't even proved that this exploration will result in lower gas bills. As for decisions in other countries, so far this week France, Austria and the Czech Republic have announced moratoriums or bans.

ShanePouch wrote: »

Ireland has all the time in the world to delay making a decision, and for every day it does so that’s costing every person in Ireland money in the form of higher than necessary energy bills.

You haven't provided any evidence to back up this assertion.

ShanePouch wrote: »

We are experiencing a truly astonishing worldwide energy revolution, and while Ireland is in the depths of depression, with mass unemployment and poverty, to put off a decision which could help nearly everyone in the country with significantly lower energy bills, and offer more jobs as manufacturing and industry becomes more competitive, might seem to some, wicked.

The only astonishing worldwide energy revolution I'm seeing is the build-out of renewables. The European Commission's report clearly shows that shale gas resources are evenly distributed and will not significantly impact on the import dependency of the various regions, including Europe.

I'm still waiting for evidence of all these lovely things that will come as a result of shale exploration in Ireland. Your posts have so far painted it as some sort of panacea to a multitude of problems with very little detail of how.

ShanePouch wrote: »

Procrastination is not an energy policy.

It's not procrastination, it's the correct application of the laws and regulations of this country.

ShanePouch · 19-09-2012 4:22pm

Macha wrote: »

As it should be. Rushing head-long into decisions when we have very little understanding of the implications is no way to run a national energy policy.

Sure, that’s one point of view. You call it “rushing headlong” and I call it “making progress”.

Progress would never have been made on any issue had the nay sayers got their way. Space travel, medical progress, railways and so on.

If your argument is we most not make any attempt at progress until all the I’s have been dotted, all the t’s crossed, and untile everyone is happy to proceed, then no progress would ever be made.

We have quite a body of evidence now from the USA who has been doing this for some time. They were the country who “rushed headlong” into this, and as a consequence are reaping the rewards. We have an opportunity to learn form their mistakes, take the advances they have made and do some exploratory work here in Ireland.

Te potential benefits can be enormous, but you are right that they might not all be realised. However, that not all the benefits might be realised is not an argument not to try.

Macha wrote: »

You haven't even proved that this exploration will result in lower gas bills. As for decisions in other countries, so far this week France, Austria and the Czech Republic have announced moratoriums or bans.

You haven't provided any evidence to back up this assertion.

North Sea gas wil not go away, and anyone who wants to remain paying their prices can do so. Just because we explore the possibilities of shale gas (and by “we” I mean private companies which will not cost us anything). If those private companier are right, then they can offer us all gas as a cheaper price, and if not we can keep buyig North Sea Gas in sterling.

Macha wrote: »

The only astonishing worldwide energy revolution I'm seeing is the build-out of renewables..

It’s not a case of either/or, and why cant we do both? We need a supply of energy for installed capacity in addition to renewables.

I applaud and encourage both renewables and the cheapest and best source of energy to the back up to the renewables.

I am more than a little perplexed that you seem opposed to exploring Irelands ability to have its own source of energy, and seem to prefer to want to be 100% reliant instead on a foreign source of energy paid for in an increasingly expensive foreign currency. To say nothing of the Irish jobs which might be created, many of the high value jobs .

Macha wrote: »

I'm still waiting for evidence of all these lovely things that will come as a result of shale exploration in Ireland. Your posts have so far painted it as some sort of panacea to a multitude of problems with very little detail of how.

It's not procrastination, it's the correct application of the laws and regulations of this country.

And if you get your way you will be waiting for ever as the only evidence will come from application.

To claim I regard shale gas as a panacea to a multitude of problems is simplistic and misleading, and misrepresents my arguments.

I have stated simply that shale gas is:

1. Plentiful

2. Can be produced in Ireland

3. Can create jobs for irish people

4. Can be a substitute for imports

5. Will be paid for in €

6. Is a proven technology in the USA from which we can learn.

7. Can be explored at no cost to the irish State

8. Can generate much needed revenue for the Irish state

9. Can reduce energy bills for all

All the above are potential benefits to Ireland and to the Irish people.

Even if it doesn’t reduce energy bills for us all (I think it will, you disagree) it certainly is not going to increase energy bills as North Sea gas will not disappear as an option, and there is no cost to finding out.

For some reason, you seem implacably opposed to finding out, and seem instead to continue to prefer to rely on foreign & expensive gas and oil.

Macha · 19-09-2012 4:48pm

ShanePouch wrote: »

Sure, that’s one point of view. You call it “rushing headlong” and I call it “making progress”.

Progress would never have been made on any issue had the nay sayers got their way. Space travel, medical progress, railways and so on.

Sorry, but we're not talking about space travel. We're talking about the highly risky extraction of hydrocarbons.

ShanePouch wrote: »

If your argument is we most not make any attempt at progress until all the I’s have been dotted, all the t’s crossed, and untile everyone is happy to proceed, then no progress would ever be made.

A misrepresentation of what I said. I said the proper assessments need to be carried out. And if the proper assessments indicate that fracking shouldn't take place, then it shouldn't take place.

ShanePouch wrote: »

We have quite a body of evidence now from the USA who has been doing this for some time. They were the country who “rushed headlong” into this, and as a consequence are reaping the rewards. We have an opportunity to learn form their mistakes, take the advances they have made and do some exploratory work here in Ireland.

Te potential benefits can be enormous, but you are right that they might not all be realised. However, that not all the benefits might be realised is not an argument not to try.

We have quite a body of myths from the US. The idea that shale gas alone has brought down the gas price is incorrect. It has, instead, been a mix of demand management, renewables, a low carbon price in the EU and shale gas.

The other thing we have a body of is the evidence of serious problems. Try reading the Commission report I referred to earlier. They identify 8 high risk areas of environmental impacts, including water use, water contamination, and releases to air. There's no point talking about the benefits without considering the costs.

ShanePouch wrote: »

North Sea gas wil not go away, and anyone who wants to remain paying their prices can do so. Just because we explore the possibilities of shale gas (and by “we” I mean private companies which will not cost us anything). If those private companier are right, then they can offer us all gas as a cheaper price, and if not we can keep buyig North Sea Gas in sterling.

Not cost us a thing? Why do you keep ignoring the potentially very costly external impacts of such activities?

ShanePouch wrote: »

It’s not a case of either/or, and why cant we do both? We need a supply of energy for installed capacity in addition to renewables.

I applaud and encourage both renewables and the cheapest and best source of energy to the back up to the renewables.

The world has sufficient proven reserves of conventional gas to carry out the transition to a low carbon energy system. Gas is not a destination fuel.

ShanePouch wrote: »

I am more than a little perplexed that you seem opposed to exploring Irelands ability to have its own source of energy, and seem to prefer to want to be 100% reliant instead on a foreign source of energy paid for in an increasingly expensive foreign currency. To say nothing of the Irish jobs which might be created, many of the high value jobs .

I just don't know where you're getting this from..

ShanePouch wrote: »

And if you get your way you will be waiting for ever as the only evidence will come from application.

With this logic we would never so no to anything. Which is a completely illogical position to have.

ShanePouch wrote: »

To claim I regard shale gas as a panacea to a multitude of problems is simplistic and misleading, and misrepresents my arguments.

And yet you go onto list 9 fantastic results - none of which you back up. And no discussion of the negative impacts.

Is it that you just don't believe there are any negative impacts? I'm struggling to understand your position.

ShanePouch wrote: »

Even if it doesn’t reduce energy bills for us all (I think it will, you disagree) it certainly is not going to increase energy bills as North Sea gas will not disappear as an option, and there is no cost to finding out.

Did you read the economics paper? Please. Read it. Shale gas is called unconventional gas for a reason. It is not conventional gas. It does not operate under the same economics. The costs are not directly comparable to conventional gas. Notwithstanding the increased exploration and operation costs of shale, an IEA report identified additional costs of at least 7% to ensure minimal environmental and social impacts. That means shale gas will be at least 10% more expensive than conventional natural gas.

ShanePouch wrote: »

For some reason, you seem implacably opposed to finding out, and seem instead to continue to prefer to rely on foreign & expensive gas and oil.

Finding out? I don't believe we live in a society where we have to blow things up to understand how they work. I'd rather have an analysis and if the results say 'better not to do this', I like to follow those results.

As for the unfounded and strange accusation that I prefer Ireland to rely on foreign & expensive gas and oil: I don't actually. I prefer us to develop our renewables potential. At the same time, I don't support the production of shale gas in Ireland, particularly without any sort of impact assessment. And those two opinions are not incompatible.

meenaghman · 19-09-2012 7:31pm

I have stated simply that shale gas is:

1. Plentiful

I'm presuming you mean in Ireland. There's no economically proven Shale repository in Ireland.

2. Can be produced in Ireland

If it exists can it be done economically and in an environmentally sound manner with no public health impacts. Given health impacts will take 20 years to be evident the precautionary principle must apply

3. Can create jobs for irish people

Some but many will be non-Irish as we don't have the skill set

4. Can be a substitute for imports

Only some imports and only if economic

5. Will be paid for in €

But low Euro will also attract Tourism and would make agricultural exports cheaper. Shale gas would threaten both of those industries. Also most of costs in shale gas are foreign as patents and infrastructure and equipment is US or GB made. Diesel fuel is a significant cost in Shale gas.

6. Is a proven technology in the USA from which we can learn.

Yes but see above for Patents equipment etc.. We're a sales channel.

7. Can be explored at no cost to the irish State

Not true. Government officials will have to regulate the exploration. There will be lots of costs where the state will facilitate exploration. Those are costs which the state will bear.

8. Can generate much needed revenue for the Irish state

Only if proven economic and could potentially cost the irish state more. Eg fines with regards to not meeting air quality, emissions and other targets. The State gets fined, but rarely passes these on individual companies. The state can only fine an individual company if it can prove it was breaking terms of a licence. The cumulative effect of Shale Gas production will most likely mean Ireland breaking emission targets.

9. Can reduce energy bills for all

No. The easy to get at Gas is gone. It will not reduce energy bills. I've already explained why.
The Energy input has been calculated at the equivalent of 3.5 Kiloton nuclear bomb / square mile for Tamborans plans. The EROI of Shale is lower than that of renewables and of conventional gas. It cannot be cheaper.
My nuclear calculations came from here : http://frack-off.org.uk/fracking-nukes-counting-the-kilotons/
using 12000 psi, 2million us gals of water, 24 wells/pad which drain 1sq Mile (640 acres) of Shale/sandstone at 3 different levels. 120-375 pads would mean 420Ktons-1300ktons or 26-82 Hiroshima explosions energy equivalence.

NewVision · 20-09-2012 1:06am

ShanePouch.

Here is your "most advanced" fracking nation

=> https://vimeo.com/38843993

Also => https://sites.google.com/site/frackingireland/

Here our "2.2 trillion cubic feet"

Shale%20gas%20Europe.jpg

It's beyond being a joke.

=> Fracking - A Boom and Bust

Capt'n Midnight · 20-09-2012 11:15am

ShanePouch wrote: »

Since the introduction of shale gas, gas prices in the USA have halved. Forgetting the enormous benefits that has brought already to the USA's industry, imagine if your central heating bill this winter could be similarly halved!

Two other casualties are Nuclear power and New Coal technologies
From the Wall Street Journal

The U.S. nuclear industry seemed to be staging a comeback several years ago, with 15 power companies proposing as many as 29 new reactors. Today, only two projects are moving off the drawing board.

What killed the revival wasn't last year's nuclear accident in Japan, nor was it a soft economy that dented demand for electricity. Rather, a shale-gas boom flooded the U.S. market with cheap natural gas, offering utilities a cheaper, less risky alternative to nuclear technology.

"It's killed off new coal and now it's killing off new nuclear," says David Crane, chief executive of NRG Energy Inc., a ...

NewVision · 20-09-2012 9:32pm

ShanePouch wrote: »

I have stated simply that shale gas is:

1. Plentiful

Myth => Fracking - A Boom and Bust

2. Can be produced in Ireland

So what? We have to buy it for the international market prices

3. Can create jobs for irish people

Very few of them. But... One in five kilograms of baby milk powder sold on earth is coming from Ireland. Dairy products are one of our main exports. If Ireland is losing its reputation for its healthy farming, healthy cows eating proper grass from clean fields, we are putting into jeopardy tens of thousands of jobs. Farmers, and involved companies like Pfizer, are very concerned about hydraulic shale gas fracturing in Ireland.

4. Can be a substitute for imports

Insignificant. About 1% of our demand => Fracking - A Boom and Bust

5. Will be paid for in €

So what?

6. Is a proven technology in the USA from which we can learn.

Yeah! We can see that here.

7. Can be explored at no cost to the irish State

And no benefits either. The problem is, when there will be a major contamination Tamboran wouldn't have the money to repair that damage, or they will just be vanished.

Here some expenses of the Irish people.

8. Can generate much needed revenue for the Irish state

The same "revenue" as in the Corrib Gas Fields? Where Shell can write off expenses for many years, even expenses not made in the country/

9. Can reduce energy bills for all

Myth. => Fracking - A Boom and Bust

All the above are potential benefits to Ireland and to the Irish people.

Nope. I can only see problems

BTW. The carbon footprint of shale gas can be worse than coal. It is not a "clean bridge fuel" as the industry is trying to sell us. In fact, it is a dirty delaying fuel, delaying investments into clean renewable energy sources.

The Cornell Team Redux: Shale Gas a Disaster for Climate
Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations
Howarth Response)

Similar findings by by scientists from NOAA and the University of Colorado. Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field. Compare to other claims of the industry, about 4% of the gas is lost to the atmosphere.

NewVision · 20-09-2012 9:46pm

More fracking news:

Friends of the Earth have published a paper => Unconventional and unwanted: the case against shale gas

=====

MEPs divided on whether EU should regulate shale gas

=====

France Renews Bans on GMOs, Natural Gas Fracking, Shifts Toward Renewables

SustainableBusiness.com News

The new Socialist government in France is taking a strong stance on environmental protection.

Not only has it renewed the 2008 ban on genetically modified crops (GMOs) despite pressure to drop it from the EU, it has put its foot down (again) against fracking, and is committed to reducing dependence on nuclear power in favor of renewable energy.

...

=====

Hunt launched after Halliburton loses radioactive rod in Texas desert

=====

US: The Trillion-Gallon Loophole: Lax Rules for Drillers that Inject Pollutants Into the Earth (Pro Publica)

That's what we really don't want in Europe, do we?

NewVision · 20-09-2012 9:49pm

Last not least => Fracking causes serious health and environmental problems - report

garth-marenghi · 27-09-2012 11:41am

Bhopal, the leaks and the Legacy: Lessons for Leitrim?

A public meeting, organised by Afri in association with Love Leitrim and
featuring two survivors of the Bhopal disaster will take place in the Glen
Centre in Manorhamilton on Thursday, September 27th at 8pm. The meeting
will hear first-hand accounts of the world’s worst industrial disaster from
Balkrishna Namdev and Safreen Khan who have come to Ireland to highlight
the continuing effects of this catastrophic event.

The Bhopal disaster resulted from a leak at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal
which caused the deaths of 3,800 people instantly and at least 8,000 in the
longer term, while many people continue to suffer health affects until
today. The Company immediately tried to disassociate itself from legal
responsibility for the disaster.

Balkrishna Namdev was a Union organiser before the disaster and
subsequently set up the Gas-Affected Destitute Pensioner’s Front and
continues to work with Bhopal’s most vulnerable survivors.

Safreen Khan is 19 years old and inherited the disaster from her
gas-exposed parents and has lived with the effects of the disaster, which
Dow refuses to clean up.

The meeting will look at the on-going campaign by victims of the disaster
and will explore if Leitrim’s burgeoning anti-fracking campaign might learn
any lessons from Bhopal.

Further information:

Joe Murray

086 394689

nedzer2011 · 27-09-2012 1:47pm

garth-marenghi wrote: »

Bhopal, the leaks and the Legacy: Lessons for Leitrim?

A public meeting, organised by Afri in association with Love Leitrim and
featuring two survivors of the Bhopal disaster will take place in the Glen
Centre in Manorhamilton on Thursday, September 27th at 8pm. The meeting
will hear first-hand accounts of the world’s worst industrial disaster from
Balkrishna Namdev and Safreen Khan who have come to Ireland to highlight
the continuing effects of this catastrophic event.

The Bhopal disaster resulted from a leak at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal
which caused the deaths of 3,800 people instantly and at least 8,000 in the
longer term, while many people continue to suffer health affects until
today. The Company immediately tried to disassociate itself from legal
responsibility for the disaster.

Balkrishna Namdev was a Union organiser before the disaster and
subsequently set up the Gas-Affected Destitute Pensioner’s Front and
continues to work with Bhopal’s most vulnerable survivors.

Safreen Khan is 19 years old and inherited the disaster from her
gas-exposed parents and has lived with the effects of the disaster, which
Dow refuses to clean up.

The meeting will look at the on-going campaign by victims of the disaster
and will explore if Leitrim’s burgeoning anti-fracking campaign might learn
any lessons from Bhopal.

I could be completely in the wrong here..... but could someone please explain how the Bhopal disaster is relevant to this discussion? Trying to convince poeple that the risks are comparable?

NewVision · 28-09-2012 12:35pm

=> Bhopal disaster

Macha · 28-09-2012 1:45pm

NewVision wrote: »

=> Bhopal disaster

[mod]Please do more than just link to a story or wiki page. There should be a proper debate, not just link swapping. Thanks![/mod]

nedzer2011 · 28-09-2012 1:54pm

..and it doesn't actually answer the question!!

NewVision · 29-09-2012 10:39pm

US: Government Study Shows Evidence Of Fracking Contaminating Groundwater

Business Insider, 27 September 2012

The EPA has confirmed a new USGS report published today supports an earlier study that groundwater near a Wyoming town may contain chemicals associated with fracking.
It would be the first time a government report directly linked fracking to groundwater contamination.

EPA representative Alisha Johnson said the new findings are consistent with results that agency published in December that found contamination:

EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels.

Quite consistent with Josh Fox' findings as well.

Also => THE SKY IS PINK

tuppence · 01-10-2012 7:03pm

nedzer2011 wrote: »

I could be completely in the wrong here..... but could someone please explain how the Bhopal disaster is relevant to this discussion? Trying to convince poeple that the risks are comparable?

Yep I went to it. No one was saying it was directly comparable. However there are lessons to be learnt from what can be be described as the disaster of Bhopal. I think that was what Afri intended to draw on when approaching the antifracking movement on this talk.

Really the link is human rights/environmental rights and corporate responsibility. The surivivors have learnt that the company cared more about its profits rather than the people it impacted on with the leak. Up to 10,000 people died from the initial leak but the companies practices had been poor between the time it came in and hadnt been monitored, ie since the 1960's up to the disaster of 1984. Land and water supplies was been polluted by the company then and the residue is still there. There was mimimal compensation to the people by the company in 1984. The government too were complicit in not taking care of its people and putting company interest before citiizens interest . There was no compensation for the environemenal harm it caused including polluting the water supply and land, and none for the people its impacting on now. People are still being effected physically, either genetically through birth defects or chronic ill health though the polluted water supply that has not been properly cleaned up. Issues that came up were also the non disclosure by the company of its activities and its risks- the people living beside the plant belived it to be producing pesticide. (similar problems about non disclosure are apparent with fracking etc etc)

So broad brush strokes from above, the importance of vigilance, governement accountaibilty, corporate responsibility etc. And fundamentally the importance of people to show solidarity and get out of their chairs and do something and desist from fault finding those who are active cos thats too easy. (And it'l be too late if that tendency persists)

One of the survivors who was there and suffers chronic ill health daily said. "the lucky ones were the ones that died that night" How bad it must be for those who have not felt listened to, have felt powerless to the interests of those with money and political power. Plenty of lessons there alright.

tuppence · 18-10-2012 5:36pm

Sorry about the late notice about this but only informed about this event yesterday, so anyone near Athlone, please try to get to this event if interested:

AN INTRODUCTION TO HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (FRACKING) by HELMUT FEHR, German geoscientist &well-respected authority on HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ---Where: HODSON BAY HOTEL, ATHLONE---When: THURSDAY, 18th OCTOBER at 8:00 pm---AN INFORMATION ROOM WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM 7:00 pm

ambrose21 · 29-10-2012 10:34am

Last week the gas price in the USA was $3 per BTU, compared to almost $15 per BTU in Japan.

Gas prices in the USA are roughly one third of gas priced in Europe.

Dow Chemical is shutting operations in Belgium, Holland, Spain, the UK, and Japan, but pouring money into a propylene venture in Texas where natural gas prices are a fraction of world levels and likely to remain so for the life-cycle of Dow's investments. Some 50 new projects have been unveiled in the US petrochemical industry with a $30bn investment underway in ethelyne and fetilizer plants alone.

The American Chemistry Council said the shale gas bonanza has reversed the fortunes of the chemical, plastics, aluminium, iron and steel, rubber, coated metals, and glass industries. "This was virtually unthinkable five years ago," said the body’s president, Cal Dooley.

Machinery, electrical products, transport equipment, furniture, and other industries - are "re-shoring" back from from China to the US. PricewaterhouseCoopers calls it the "Homecoming".

The US energy department said last week that the country will produce 11.4m barrels a day (b/d) of oil, biofuels, and liquid hydrocarbons next year, almost as much as Saudi Arabia.

This is largely due to hydraulic fracturing - blasting rock with water jets - to extract shale gas and oil, though solar power and onshore wind are playing their part.

Europe is going in the opposite direction, drifting towards energy suicide with every higher energy bills.

The gas differential with Europe and Asia will narrow gradually over time but there is no genuine global market for gas. Prices are local, dictated by pipelines. In Europe’s case they are dictated by Gazprom. Germany imports 36pc of its gas, Poland 48pc for Poland, 60pc for Hungary, 98pc for Slovakia, and 100pc for the Baltics.

Shale has made the US self-sufficient in gas almost overnight. The new twist of course is shale oil. Output has jumped to 2m b/d from almost nothing eight years ago.

Macha · 29-10-2012 12:36pm

ambrose21 wrote: »

Europe is going in the opposite direction, drifting towards energy suicide with every higher energy bills.

Funnily enough, this is largely due to higher gas prices.

NewVision · 31-10-2012 8:08pm

Macha wrote: »

Funnily enough, this is largely due to higher gas prices.

Who says that?

NewVision · 31-10-2012 8:10pm

ambrose21 wrote: »

Last week the gas price in the USA was $3 per BTU, compared to almost $15 per BTU in Japan.

Gas prices in the USA are roughly one third of gas priced in Europe.

Dow Chemical is shutting operations in Belgium, Holland, Spain, the UK, and Japan, but pouring money into a propylene venture in Texas where natural gas prices are a fraction of world levels and likely to remain so for the life-cycle of Dow's investments. Some 50 new projects have been unveiled in the US petrochemical industry with a $30bn investment underway in ethelyne and fetilizer plants alone.

The American Chemistry Council said the shale gas bonanza has reversed the fortunes of the chemical, plastics, aluminium, iron and steel, rubber, coated metals, and glass industries. "This was virtually unthinkable five years ago," said the body’s president, Cal Dooley.

Machinery, electrical products, transport equipment, furniture, and other industries - are "re-shoring" back from from China to the US. PricewaterhouseCoopers calls it the "Homecoming".

The US energy department said last week that the country will produce 11.4m barrels a day (b/d) of oil, biofuels, and liquid hydrocarbons next year, almost as much as Saudi Arabia.

This is largely due to hydraulic fracturing - blasting rock with water jets - to extract shale gas and oil, though solar power and onshore wind are playing their part.

Europe is going in the opposite direction, drifting towards energy suicide with every higher energy bills.

The gas differential with Europe and Asia will narrow gradually over time but there is no genuine global market for gas. Prices are local, dictated by pipelines. In Europe’s case they are dictated by Gazprom. Germany imports 36pc of its gas, Poland 48pc for Poland, 60pc for Hungary, 98pc for Slovakia, and 100pc for the Baltics.

Shale has made the US self-sufficient in gas almost overnight. The new twist of course is shale oil. Output has jumped to 2m b/d from almost nothing eight years ago.

Calm down. That hype in the US won't last long => Fracking - A Boom and Bust

ambrose21 · 02-11-2012 9:06am

It's unusual now to see argument by cliched thinking, and I can't imagine many people here will be persuaded by sloganising.

NewVision · 03-11-2012 1:46am

ambrose21 wrote: »

It's unusual now to see argument by cliched thinking, and I can't imagine many people here will be persuaded by sloganising.

What do you mean with "sloganising"? Fracking - A Boom and Bust?

NewVision · 13-11-2012 10:10pm

Risk and Responsibility: Farming, Food, and Unconventional Gas Drilling (Independent Science News, 12 November 2012)

Extraction of hydrocarbon gas from tight shale formations using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has been advertised as a path toward energy independence for the United States and is being promoted worldwide. This is tempered by environmental and societal concerns that have led to banning the practice in some countries (e.g., France), at least one state in the U.S. (Vermont), and numerous towns and cities in the United States. In the United States, the process itself is largely regulated at the state level, with exemptions from federal laws regulating air, drinking water and hazardous waste disposal. Regulation at the state level varies considerably among states with significant shale deposits, as does the level of enforcement of regulations. The argument often given to suggest that the process is safe cites the fact that in the sixty years since the first gas well was hydraulically fractured, the industry has not found proof it finds acceptable that drinking water has been contaminated. This assertion is not universally accepted because of at least two factors.

First, it is based on a narrow definition of hydraulic fracturing, that is, solely the process of stimulation of the well; whereas, the public and many in academia are more concerned with the entire life-cycle of the drilling and extraction process with many possible routes of environmental contamination. The second issue is the burden of proof. Is it the public or the government that bears the burden of proving that environmental harm has occurred or should the industry be required to provide scientifically acceptable proof of the safety of the process? In this paper, we will discuss regulation briefly followed by a more detailed discussion of health effects of shale gas extraction, and possible impacts on food safety.

...

Conclusions

The unconventional gas-drilling boom has swept across the globe in recent years without evidence that environmental and public health can be protected. In the United States, the industry enjoys extensive subsidies, which include, among many others, exemptions from federal laws regulating clean air, clean water, and the disposal of toxic substances. A patchwork of state regulations allow secrecy rather than disclosure of substances used in all steps of the process, and nondisclosure agreements have been used to block access to information on specific cases that could provide meaningful public health information. Without complete transparency (disclosure of all chemicals used and outlawing nondisclosure agreements in cases involving public health) and complete testing, science cannot proceed unimpeded. Without careful science demonstrating, not the absence of proof of harm, but rather the clear absence of harm to public health, neither state nor federal regulations can assure that the food supply and the health of individuals living near gas drilling and processing operations will be protected.

Until we can protect public health with greater certainty, unconventional shale gas extraction should be severely limited or banned, using the subsidies currently provided to support this industry to instead develop and deploy renewable forms of energy.

NewVision · 15-11-2012 3:21am

What else than toxic chemicals can we find in the brine coming back with the fracking fluids?

Fracking – The Elephant in the Gas

Like the “elephant in the room” saying means something which needs to be addressed is in fact being ignored, the Elephant in the fracking room is in the Gas. Specifically – Radiation.

Radioactivity (NORM – Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials) exist in shale formations. When disturbed by human activity it becomes known as TENORM (Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials).TENORMS are found in the drill cuttings, returned Frackwater, Produced Brine, “re-cycled” frackwater, and the natural gas itself. Equipment, such as drills, drill bits and other equipment used over and over again to created gas wells may also become contaminated with radiation due to repeated exposure. Radiation has also been detected in water wells which have been contaminated by drilling activities.

See: The Elephant in the Gas for more information.

NewVision · 18-11-2012 5:33am

Food & Water Europe has published a report which shows that the industry's speaking point about a 100 year supply of natural gas for the US is bogus. This report questions the assumptions behind the 100 year claim.

=> U.S. Energy Insecurity: Why Fracking for Oil and Natural Gas Is a False Solution

NewVision · 18-11-2012 5:33am

WWF supports IEA conclusion: two thirds of fossil fuel reserves must be left underground

Two thirds of all proven fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground if the world is serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, according to the International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook 2012 report released today.

"The IEA's conclusion reflects sound science. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are destabilizing our climate. We cannot burn fuels like coal and oil indefinitely without paying the price in the form of climate instability, droughts, heat waves and super storms. The IEA has done the only responsible thing by prominently highlighting this in its report," says WWF's Global Climate and Energy lnitiative leader Samantha Smith.

"This scientific and blunt assessment should be clearly heard by all countries, investors and the fossil fuel industry itself. This is not only about stopping all new large-scale fossil fuel exploration, such as those in the Arctic; this is about retiring existing dirty energy infrastructure as well, and it is the price to pay to avoid global climate disaster. We quickly needed to transition our energy economies if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe," she says

NewVision · 19-11-2012 4:30pm

No fracking of shale gas in Luxembourg

NewVision · 20-11-2012 2:22am

$fracfuture_logo.gif$
How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health, and Climate

Download the PDF Version

NewVision · 21-11-2012 9:58pm

Why the War Against Fracking May Be Our Most Crucial Conflict, Fracking could ruin Ireland warn experts

Rural Ireland should be very wary of shale gas industry - Childers

NewVision · 30-11-2012 9:19pm

A Tour of Pennsylvania Hydrofracking Sites

NewVision · 09-12-2012 8:43pm

First Study of Its Kind Detects 44 Hazardous Air Pollutants at Gas Drilling Sites

According to a peer-reviewed study in the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, more than 50 NMHCs [non-methane hydrocarbons] were found near gas wells in rural Colorado, including 35 that affect the brain and nervous system. Some were detected at levels high enough to potentially harm children who are exposed to them before birth.

SiegfriedsMum · 10-12-2012 9:18am

NewVision wrote: »

First Study of Its Kind Detects 44 Hazardous Air Pollutants at Gas Drilling Sites
According to a peer-reviewed study in the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, more than 50 NMHCs [non-methane hydrocarbons] were found near gas wells in rural Colorado, including 35 that affect the brain and nervous system. Some were detected at levels high enough to potentially harm children who are exposed to them before birth.

From your contribution to this thread so far, I think we can all see that you are not unpartisan, and are coming here with an agenda. Hence there seems little point engaging with someone who seems to want to lecture everyone else as opposed to engage in any meaningful or interesting discussion.

Fracking is an interesting subject, and has the potential to have a good discussion here, but this thread has been, alas, hijacked by a cheerleader for one position.

NewVision · 11-12-2012 1:48am

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

From your contribution to this thread so far, I think we can all see that you are not unpartisan, and are coming here with an agenda. Hence there seems little point engaging with someone who seems to want to lecture everyone else as opposed to engage in any meaningful or interesting discussion.

Fracking is an interesting subject, and has the potential to have a good discussion here, but this thread has been, alas, hijacked by a cheerleader for one position.

What a reply to my post about Hazardous Air Pollutants at Gas Drilling Sites.

Feel free to challenge points made here. Be a "cheerleader" yourself...

Mycroft H · 11-12-2012 2:03am

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

From your contribution to this thread so far, I think we can all see that you are not unpartisan, and are coming here with an agenda. Hence there seems little point engaging with someone who seems to want to lecture everyone else as opposed to engage in any meaningful or interesting discussion.

Fracking is an interesting subject, and has the potential to have a good discussion here, but this thread has been, alas, hijacked by a cheerleader for one position.

It's hard to have balanced debate on this issue, believe me, I've tried and given up.

NewVision · 12-12-2012 1:19am

BX 19 wrote: »

It's hard to have balanced debate on this issue, believe me, I've tried and given up.

First you need information.

Macha · 12-12-2012 10:04am

[mod]Hi all, can we try to get a debate going about shale gas, rather than just information updates? Sharing links ≠ debate. thanks.[/mod]

NewVision · 13-12-2012 12:34pm

Britain is hitting for fracking. But it will be more expensive than renewables.

Gas 'will add more to energy bills than renewables' – government advisers

Finding by Committee for Climate Change contradicts coalition's line on energy, despite using government's own research.

Household energy bills will be about £600 higher per year in the coming decades if the UK relies increasingly on gas, the government's climate advisers warned on Thursday.

But the Committee on Climate Change found that bills would only be £100 higher than today's average dual fuel bill of about £1,300, if the country concentrated on renewable power generation, such as wind power.

The committee's findings rebuff the government's argument that gas will in future provide a cheap source of electricity and heating – and the findings are based on the government's own research.

nedzer2011 · 13-12-2012 11:49pm

NewVision wrote: »

Britain is hitting for fracking. But it will be more expensive than renewables.

Household energy bills will be about £600 higher per year in the coming decades if the UK relies increasingly on gas, the government's climate advisers warned on Thursday.

But the Committee on Climate Change found that bills would only be £100 higher than today's average dual fuel bill of about £1,300, if the country concentrated on renewable power generation, such as wind power.[/indent]

He said paying £100 more by 2020 for renewables was "a sensible insurance" against paying potentially £600 more for a reliance on gas.

Haven't read the report (correct if me if I'm out of line), but the statement/article seems suitably 'wooly'

Note the discrepancy between the "will" statements in the attention grabbing headlines Vs the "potential" in the text.

Focus on the quality rather than quantity with the posting,

Macha · 14-12-2012 8:42am

OK enough with the backseat modding. Let's keep this a debate about shale gas and fracking.

NewVision: please start debating or your posts will start being deleted.

SiegfriedsMum · 17-12-2012 1:21pm

It's all to easy to decide one is for, or against, fracking, and then rush to find lots of "evidence" to back up ones position, and ignore anything to the contrary.

One point worth noting is that this technology has moved on and improved greatly in recent years.

Another polint worth considering is the potential for jobs in Ireland.

A third point is the potential to reduce energy bills in Ireland, and all the benefits that gives not only to households, but also to enable industry to become more competitive.

Additionally, the revenue to the government is likely to be a significant contributor to the states finances.

Of course, we'd also not have to import as much energy from abroad, which would be great for our balance of payments, and might even be able to start exporting energy if the finds of gas are as large as some think.

If your opinion on the topic is based on scary youtube videos, be honest enough to say that the technology scares you, and then lets try to have an adult debate and try to find out the facts on how scary it really is in 2012/2013. To date, my impression is those who oppose fracking are often not open to discussion, or weighing up the pros and cons, but are only interested in shouthing down anyone who is interested in the facts. Lets hope on boards.ie that will not be the case.

Grudaire · 17-12-2012 2:42pm

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

It's all to easy to decide one is for, or against, fracking, and then rush to find lots of "evidence" to back up ones position, and ignore anything to the contrary.

One point worth noting is that this technology has moved on and improved greatly in recent years.

Another polint worth considering is the potential for jobs in Ireland.

A third point is the potential to reduce energy bills in Ireland, and all the benefits that gives not only to households, but also to enable industry to become more competitive.

Additionally, the revenue to the government is likely to be a significant contributor to the states finances.

Of course, we'd also not have to import as much energy from abroad, which would be great for our balance of payments, and might even be able to start exporting energy if the finds of gas are as large as some think.

A slight rewording and you could be advocating renewable energy sources! :pac:

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If your opinion on the topic is based on scary youtube videos, be honest enough to say that the technology scares you, and then lets try to have an adult debate and try to find out the facts on how scary it really is in 2012/2013. To date, my impression is those who oppose fracking are often not open to discussion, or weighing up the pros and cons, but are only interested in shouthing down anyone who is interested in the facts. Lets hope on boards.ie that will not be the case.

I can't claim to have researched this in any depth, but I have to say that I would not be very trusting of the technology as a base point.

I'm not going to claim that it can't be done safely, but it does seem like it needs a lot of care to be done in a safe manner.
Can we trust commercial interests to balance this safety with profitabilty? I don't know if we can.

Is there a need for fracking is the first question that needs to be considered?

CatFromHue · 17-12-2012 5:40pm

I have to say I don't know.

Since the English have given it the OK, or are about to, why not put it on the backburner and see how they get on?

Grudaire · 17-12-2012 5:45pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

I have to say I don't know.

Since the English have given it the OK, or are about to, why not put it on the backburner and see how they get on?

And it'll be worth more by the time we've seen what happens to the Brits

SiegfriedsMum · 17-12-2012 5:58pm

Cliste wrote: »

A slight rewording and you could be advocating renewable energy sources! :pac:

In fairness this thread is about fracking. Additionally, "renewable enery sources" sound wonderful, but when one begins to do a lilttle research they all have serious flaws. Windmills are no use when the wind doesn't blow, ethanol takes roughly one gallon of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol, tidal/wave power is wonderful but not when the tide is in the wrong place, and not when the sea is calm, and so and so on.

Ask yourself how much renewal energy sources have contributed to american energy prices less than halving in the last couple of years?

Cliste wrote: »

A slight rewording and you could be advocating renewable energy sources!

I can't claim to have researched this in any depth, but I have to say that I would not be very trusting of the technology as a base point.

This is exactly the issue I was talking abouit, the fear of the unknown. Your fear is based on fear, and not on facts about fracking. I dont think any one of us should have to trust one side or the other, and we should find out the facts for ourselves.

Grudaire · 17-12-2012 6:19pm

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

In fairness this thread is about fracking. Additionally, "renewable enery sources" sound wonderful, but when one begins to do a lilttle research they all have serious flaws. Windmills are no use when the wind doesn't blow, ethanol takes roughly one gallon of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol, tidal/wave power is wonderful but not when the tide is in the wrong place, and not when the sea is calm, and so and so on.

Well I don't want to get into a deep meaningful argument about renewables (thus derailing this thread) but I will say one thing:

Some of your opinions about renewables seem to be based more on fear, and not on facts about renewables. Tidal power is the single most predictable energy source (you can look up tidal tables for the forseeable future, this determines the heigth and flow and thus we know exactly how much and when we would be getting tidal power)

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

This is exactly the issue I was talking abouit, the fear of the unknown. Your fear is based on fear, and not on facts about fracking. I dont think any one of us should have to trust one side or the other, and we should find out the facts for ourselves.

I did go on to qualify some of my concerns, and reasons for distrust. Like any big industry with a vested interest I definitely pause before taking what is said at face value.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Ask yourself how much renewal energy sources have contributed to american energy prices less than halving in the last couple of years?

I assume that was meant as an answer to "Is there a need for fracking is the first question that needs to be considered?"

I've asked myself this question, and the truth is I haven't a clue.

The questions I personally would be asking are:

Is it bad for the environment (locally, but more importantly Globally)?
Can it be extracted economically?
Is it sustainable, or is it a crutch that can be used for a while before we have to worry about increasing fuel prices again?

SiegfriedsMum · 17-12-2012 6:58pm

Cliste wrote: »

Well I don't want to get into a deep meaningful argument about renewables (thus derailing this thread) but I will say one thing:

Some of your opinions about renewables seem to be based more on fear, and not on facts about renewables. Tidal power is the single most predictable energy source (you can look up tidal tables for the forseeable future, this determines the heigth and flow and thus we know exactly how much and when we would be getting tidal power)

Thats true except that tides (i) vary in height and (ii) harnessing the tide is not easy (iii) it's very expensive (iv) the most successful designs are static, and only produce energy when the tide is in the right place (ie they dont produce a constant source of power and (v) no business plan has ever been produced to make harnessing the tides, in normal circumstances, viable. (Places such as the Severn Estuary where there is a natural bore might be).

I am not in the least "afraid" of any source of power, and my arguments about tidal power, for example, are based on facts.

Cliste wrote: »

I assume that was meant as an answer to "Is there a need for fracking is the first question that needs to be considered?"

There is certainly a need to find (i) cheaper energy sources and (ii) new and reliable energy sources. The experience in the USA is that fracking has reduced energy prices by over half. They didn't "need" to do that, but that they have done means they are now much more competitive than, say Germany, on world markets. Thats good for jobs in the USA and not good for jobs in Germany.

So successful has the energy policy in the USA been that much of its industry is actually relocating back to the USA from China, almost wholly due to the reduced energy prices due to fracking. They didn't "need" to do that and could have continued paying higher prices for energy, thats true.

Do we "need" to find ways of trying to reduce household bills for energy in Ireland? The answer is no, we don't "need" to, but certainly if we were able to do that wouldn't it be wonderful?

I am not claiming that will happen to the same or a greater extent here, but I think we would be foolish to shut our minds to it, as it will mean Irish industry become less and less competitive, having to pay much more for energy than Irelands competitors.

Cliste wrote: »

The questions I personally would be asking are:
Is it bad for the environment (locally, but more importantly Globally)?

Can it be extracted economically?

Is it sustainable, or is it a crutch that can be used for a while before we have to worry about increasing fuel prices again?

Most industry is bad for the environment. Ireland's cattle industry, for example, is pretty rotten for the environment in that it produces huge quantities of methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). The Bord na Mona peat industry is bad for the environment, as is any industry which relies on fossil fuels for transportation. Fracking is a new industry and, like GM foods, it raises fears in some. thats understandable, but hardly a basis for an outright ban.

Certainly in the USA it is extracted very economically and thre is every reason to suppose that as we get better at it, the economics will look even more attractive.

That depends on what you mean by sustainable. Will it run out in 5 years? No. A recent report by KPMG identifies 6622 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. thats a lot of gas!

Fracking is not trouble free, and like every energy source it creates safety and environmental risks. Some countries, like France, have banned fracking in certain areas, and other countries like China and Argentina will probably not be so conservative as they see fracked gas as an important component in rising living standards for their countries.

Grudaire · 17-12-2012 10:06pm

Ok, firstly you need to begin backing your arguments up. Namely your claim that they have reduced prices by half. (a quick google has this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9747207/Do-not-be-seduced-by-a-fracking-gas-bonanza.html which says yeah prices have dropped - but by an artificial amount due to the barriers to export in the US - ie we won't get the same benefits)

I don't want this to get sidetracked by renewables chat - I do want to learn more about fracking. That said I agree that tidal isn't perfect, but it is 'predictable'.

So we've determined that lower energy prices are good - not that fracking in Ireland will create cheaper electricity

Environment? So it is bad but so are other industries?? Don't go trying to convince me using USA style whataboutery! You don't even compare it to other electricity options!
Economically? appears to be sucessful (although no figures produced)
Sustainable? Figures without context are as useful as a square wheel. How long would that last us at current levels? What about growth? What about the decrease in other fossil fuels?

Damn it give me something concrete to deal with!

Shale Gas - Mod note post#117

Comments