Farming and Gas Fracking

tuppence

reilig wrote: »

One of the most knowledgable comments came from a green party county councillor: "Just because an "anti" group are able to make the most noise, doesn't mean that they are always right. But they are usually the most listened to and if they can shout loud enough, they can almost always convince people that they are right even if they don't have the evidence to back themselves up. The majority of people will believe what they are told. Only a small minority will ever demand evidence. "

He described it as a NIMBY tactic and said that it was borrowed from Communist Dictatorships.

Its the only sensible thing I ever heard him say

Might it be the case the theres a sizeable noise out there because this is a largescale popular movement against a procedure which risks the very basis of our livlihoods (not to mention public health and visual landscape) and threatens our national exports that are actually thriving. Farming took in 8.9 billion last year, it makes economic sense not to do anything that threatens such a industry. We can be a model for farming, lets not be a model of greed and stupidity chasing teh short term buck for the detriment of those who come after us. And I had to emigrate and was able to come back. We are the guardians of this place til those we care about can get back to a real economy this time, built through lessons learnt.

It is true that scientific evidence is scarce on the ground thats because of political interference with no statutory monitoring and self regulation of the industry in place, But theres be overwhelming amounts of law cases instead. The American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is on a state of catch up and they will have their report out in 2014. Lets at least wait til then.


Firstly heres from farmers themselves speaking to others in America.
http://www.wfmj.com/story/16571719/farmers-listen-to-property-owners-who-regret-allowing-drilling-on-their-property

And here is some evidence coming through from recent water sampling by the EPA. This doesnt bode well. In Pavillion
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/13/epa-finds-fracking-chemical-and-other-pollutants-in-drinking-water-of-pavillion-wyoming/

And a couple of days ago in Dimick
http://www.wbng.com/news/local/EPA-Delivers-Water-to-Dimock-Residents-137792908.html

reilig

tuppence wrote: »

Might it be the case the theres a sizeable noise out there because this is a largescale popular movement against a procedure which risks the very basis of our livlihoods (not to mention public health and visual landscape) and threatens our national exports that are actually thriving.

It might.

But the point that he was trying to make is that many people use this tactic to further a personal NIMBY policy. I'm not suggesting that anyone in the Lough Allen Basin is doing this. But as a resident of the area, I know that a lot of my Family and neighbours had their minds made up for them by the publicity of the "anti" group. People who haven't got a third level education or good quality school of life education don't have internet and don't feel that public meetings apply to "ordinary" people are told what to think. They have no way of finding out if what they are told is the truth or just something that someone made up to oppose something (I'm not saying that what you are saying is made up) nor on the other side do the have the opportunity to find out what benefits gas exploration could bring to their area for themselves or their future generations.

I'm trying to highlight the lack of simple information available for the ordinary person. Local media are just interested in the hype stories as opposed to the reality for ordinary people.

tuppence

reilig wrote: »

It might.

But the point that he was trying to make is that many people use this tactic to further a personal NIMBY policy. I'm not suggesting that anyone in the Lough Allen Basin is doing this. But as a resident of the area, I know that a lot of my Family and neighbours had their minds made up for them by the publicity of the "anti" group. People who haven't got a third level education or good quality school of life education don't have internet and don't feel that public meetings apply to "ordinary" people are told what to think. They have no way of finding out if what they are told is the truth or just something that someone made up to oppose something (I'm not saying that what you are saying is made up) nor on the other side do the have the opportunity to find out what benefits gas exploration could bring to their area for themselves or their future generations.

I'm trying to highlight the lack of simple information available for the ordinary person. Local media are just interested in the hype stories as opposed to the reality for ordinary people.

I have to disagree with yu. I think put simply theres too many unknowns in this and folk dont need a degree to spot that its a risky deal. People have had a good schooling of been sold short and let down badly and if anything they dont accept things as lightly as before. Thats no harm
I dont think you give the good people of Leitrim a fair hearing. If anything its peer group educating each other. My mothers next door neighbour also a pensioner has been up in arms and getting on to her. I suppose your going to tell me we cajoled all the councillors too!
There a saying somewhere think its Australia that this int just 'about the fight of your lives, its the fight for your lives.' Perhaps that sums up the reason why there is so many people from all walks of life that are objecting about this, it touches a nerve, and we cant afford to get this wrong. Its the industry that has the money, and publcity machine: we just have each other, people power really.

reilig

tuppence wrote: »

. I suppose your going to tell me we cajoled all the councillors too!

Oh yea.

Just like they had to be cajoled into zoning all the land in our towns and villages for building during the building boom.

You're very naieve if you think one councillor in the whole county gives a dam about you or me. All they are interested in is getting their picture in the paper and securing your vote in the next election. They'll always side with whom they perceive to be in the majority!!!

Birdnuts

reilig wrote: »

Oh yea.

Just like they had to be cajoled into zoning all the land in our towns and villages for building during the building boom.

You're very naieve if you think one councillor in the whole county gives a dam about you or me. All they are interested in is getting their picture in the paper and securing your vote in the next election. They'll always side with whom they perceive to be in the majority!!!

True - the majority of them are a waste of time and money. Maybe the IMF will recommend a cull;)

MOSSAD

What are the unknowns? One fact not reported is that in coal mining the blasts to loosen the seams are stronger than the force used when rock is fractured for harvesting gas.
Also, as there's a difference between 10 degrees C and 35 deg C, there's an exponential difference between an earthquake of magnitude 2 and magnitude 3 on the richter scale.
I regularly hear the same lack of understanding about "trees being acid...."

tuppence

reilig wrote: »

Oh yea.

Just like they had to be cajoled into zoning all the land in our towns and villages for building during the building boom.

You're very naieve if you think one councillor in the whole county gives a dam about you or me. All they are interested in is getting their picture in the paper and securing your vote in the next election. They'll always side with whom they perceive to be in the majority!!!

Theres been abuse at all levels. We'r all aware of that. Too many decisions made behind closed doors. Too many into politics for the wrong reasons. And too many people voted the same crowd back time and again, out of self interest. Thats where the culpability lies.

Vigilance is the answer surely and we would have thought that we all should have learnt that lesson, and maybe (maybe just!)we're growing a bit more moral courage to do something about it. (i'd like to think we are less self centred).
Nobodies relying on the councillors to move this on their own. Now that would be naive. They arent able. It sets out a signal to central government though and a sense of solidarity badly needed, so definitely grateful. Nope we need to do together.
If councillors dont get a measure of their constituents issues and respond to them, they they aint doing their jobs. And if they response to a popular cause they are just doing so for a vote. There damned either way by the looks of it!

Johnboy1951

MOSSAD wrote: »

What are the unknowns? One fact not reported is that in coal mining the blasts to loosen the seams are stronger than the force used when rock is fractured for harvesting gas.
Also, as there's a difference between 10 degrees C and 35 deg C, there's an exponential difference between an earthquake of magnitude 2 and magnitude 3 on the richter scale.
I regularly hear the same lack of understanding about "trees being acid...."

I guess if we knew they wouldn't be unknown

MOSSAD

I guess if we knew they wouldn't be unknown
Sounds like Donald Rumsfeld territory

reilig

That's my point. People listen to those that make the most noise whether they are right or wrong. Councillors and TD's jump on the band wagon to be seen to look good.

I totally agree that vigilance is the answer. But Vigilance shouldn't be scare mongering. People should be allowed to have the information from all sides. In cases like this, there are more than 2 sides. But all we ever hear from are the pro and the anti groups. Both make good arguments.

But local media never provides unbiased stories. How are the ordinary people in the county supposed to make up their mind on the issue of fracking.

Months of reading articles lead me to Texas where, the oil and gas industry (the #1 industry in that state) has been fracking wells for the past 60 years. I find it interesting that Texas ranks #2 in total agricultural commodidies produced in the United States (and is #1 in livestock category).

If you'd like to have an unbiased accessment of the facts, you should take some time to watch a movie called spOILed(http://www.spoiledthemovie.com/) - It should open your eyes from someone with no agenda, unlike the people quoted by the anti-fracking group such as Ian Irbina (NYTimes), Josh Fox (Gas Land - The Movie), or Dr. Robert Horwath (Cornell professor).

I don't have an agenda. I'm not pro-fracking. I'm pro people getting proper and unbiased information for themselves and making a proper and informed decision based on this information.

So far, the information received by the majority of people living in the Lough Allen Basin has been biased. It has either been supplied by the company who are seeking to carry out the gas exploration or by the anti-fracking group. Both have an agenda. Both know how to use media to influence people. This is not how decisions as important as this one should be made!!!

tuppence wrote: »

Theres been abuse at all levels. We'r all aware of that. Too many decisions made behind closed doors. Too many into politics for the wrong reasons. And too many people voted the same crowd back time and again, out of self interest. Thats where the culpability lies.

Vigilance is the answer surely and we would have thought that we all should have learnt that lesson, and maybe (maybe just!)we're growing a bit more moral courage to do something about it. (i'd like to think we are less self centred).
Nobodies relying on the councillors to move this on their own. Now that would be naive. They arent able. It sets out a signal to central government though and a sense of solidarity badly needed, so definitely grateful. Nope we need to do together.
If councillors dont get a measure of their constituents issues and respond to them, they they aint doing their jobs. And if they response to a popular cause they are just doing so for a vote. There damned either way by the looks of it!

Birdnuts

Have the developers indicated exactly what chemicals they will be using in their operations?? - I remember alot of the critism of the industry in states like Pennsylvania and Idaho was that they were very secretive(even with relevant government agencies) as to the nature/toxicity of the fracking fluids they were using.

PS: The oil/gas industry in Texas benefits from a rather laissez-faire approach to regulations - the TV show Dallas wasn't far off the mark as regards the powerfull position of big oil in the state.;). The effect of fracking on ground water depends to a large extent on the geology of a region - can the geology of Texas be compared to Leitrim

reilig

Birdnuts wrote: »

Have the developers indicated exactly what chemicals they will be using in their operations??

As far as I can gather from the Media, the developers have indicated that they will not use chemicals at all in the fracturing process.

Birdnuts

reilig wrote: »

As far as I can gather from the Media, the developers have indicated that they will not use chemicals at all in the fracturing process.

I think that is true for the intial prospecting but I seem to remember reading in one of the broadsheets last year that at least one of the companies indicated that they will be using chemicals when it comes to commercial extraction of any gas.

PS: Anyway hopefully all the facts can be layed out for all concerned during any future oral hearings on license applications, planning etc.

reilig

Birdnuts wrote: »

I think that is true for the intial prospecting but I seem to remember reading in one of the broadsheets last year that at least one of the companies indicated that they will be using chemicals when it comes to commercial extraction of any gas.

No,

The company for the Lough Allen Basin has highlighted that they will not use chemicals when it comes to commercial extraction. They have said that they will use fracturing methods similar to those used in marine fracturing which do not use chemicals. This is clearly highlighted on the company's website and in a number of press releases that they made.

Oldtree

i wonder how quickly that company position would change if it turns out that using water without the chemicals turns out to be commercially unviable, as has been suggested in some of the reports that I have read.

Johnboy1951

spOILed ..... the movie

Mark Mathis (film maker) acknowledges that some of the film's funding came from individuals with interests in the oil and gas industry.

He claims to have held independence

"I told these investors they would have no input in the content of the film," he said. "Some of the content they would like, some they might not"…

Seems to me he told investors they definitely would like some of the content, and they might not like some content.

I don't know if all that means anything, but it does cause me to wonder about it.

The very fact that oil interests helped fund the film is sufficient for me to have doubts.

reilig

Remove your blinkers

Watch the documentary and you'll see that what you said below is just crap made up by someone in whom spOILed strikes a sour note. Then post your opinion on it. It will change the way that you view things in both fracking and oil drilling.

It isn't a pro or an anti documentary as i said above. Its just unbiased.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

spOILed ..... the movie

Mark Mathis (film maker) acknowledges that some of the film's funding came from individuals with interests in the oil and gas industry.

He claims to have held independence

"I told these investors they would have no input in the content of the film," he said. "Some of the content they would like, some they might not"…

Seems to me he told investors they definitely would like some of the content, and they might not like some content.

I don't know if all that means anything, but it does cause me to wonder about it.

The very fact that oils interests helped fund the film is sufficient for me to have doubts.

Johnboy1951

reilig wrote: »

Remove your blinkers

Watch the documentary and you'll see that what you said below is just crap made up by someone in whom spOILed strikes a sour note. Then post your opinion on it. It will change the way that you view things in both fracking and oil drilling.

It isn't a pro or an anti documentary as i said above. Its just unbiased.

I quoted what the film maker said himself.
I posted an opinion on what he said.

Get off your high horse and read and understand what is posted before posting such drivel!

Birdnuts

Oldtree wrote: »

i wonder how quickly that company position would change if it turns out that using water without the chemicals turns out to be commercially unviable, as has been suggested in some of the reports that I have read.

I assume this will become clearer when/if their IPC licence is granted

reilig

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I quoted what the film maker said himself.
I posted an opinion on what he said.

Get off your high horse and read and understand what is posted before posting such drivel!

You posted something that you read on google. You have no idea if its true or not.

The documentary isn't about pro oil drilling or pro fracking or anti fracking or anti oil drilling but because you read something that you looked up on google, you thought that it was.

Its simply about how organised groups can influence the views and opinions of ordinary people by only telling them what they want them to hear. It promotes ordinary people taking control and making decisions that aren't directed by large companies spouting money driven propaganda or directed by pro or anti groups with their own agendas.

I think its you who is on their high horse!!

reilig

Birdnuts wrote: »

I assume this will become clearer when/if their IPC licence is granted

Surely it should be one of the main conditions if a licence is granted at all??

Birdnuts

reilig wrote: »

Surely it should be one of the main conditions if a licence is granted at all??

Depends on whether the licence is for prospecting or for extraction - since we haven't got as far as extraction yet we won't know what info the company have submitted on the matter until any EPA oral hearing.

Johnboy1951

reilig wrote: »

You posted something that you read on google. You have no idea if its true or not.

The documentary isn't about pro oil drilling or pro fracking or anti fracking or anti oil drilling but because you read something that you looked up on google, you thought that it was.

Its simply about how organised groups can influence the views and opinions of ordinary people by only telling them what they want them to hear. It promotes ordinary people taking control and making decisions that aren't directed by large companies spouting money driven propaganda or directed by pro or anti groups with their own agendas.

I think its you who is on their high horse!!

Are you for real?
I quoted the film maker himself.
Call him a liar if you wish!

I posted an opinion on what he wrote.

You, amongst other things, said

what you said below is just crap

If you cannot address what I write then please do not respond to it.

I do not wish to waste my time pointing out how stupid your responses are and how they do not at all address what I wrote.

.... I wish some people would actually read what is written and not what they think might be written ....

reilig

You responded to me.

See post number 167.

You went off on a tangent about having doubts about oil interests funding a film when it had nothing to do with what I was saying.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Are you for real?
I quoted the film maker himself.
Call him a liar if you wish!

I posted an opinion on what he wrote.

You, amongst other things, said



If you cannot address what I write then please do not respond to it.

I do not wish to waste my time pointing out how stupid your responses are and how they do not at all address what I wrote.

.... I wish some people would actually read what is written and not what they think might be written ....

Johnboy1951

reilig wrote: »

You responded to me.

See post number 167.

You went off on a tangent about having doubts about oil interests funding a film when it had nothing to do with what I was saying.

There ye go again!

I referred to a movie you linked to in one of your posts.

I neither quoted you nor referred to anything you wrote about that movie.

In other words I did NOT respond to YOU or any comment you made.

.... I wish some people would actually read what is written and not what they think might be written ....

reilig

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There ye go again!

I referred to a movie you linked to in one of your posts.

I neither quoted you nor referred to anything you wrote about that movie.

In other words I did NOT respond to YOU or any comment you made.

.... I wish some people would actually read what is written and not what they think might be written ....

So you just posted it for the sake of getting your daily post count up.

Cool!!

Johnboy1951

reilig wrote: »

So you just posted it for the sake of getting your daily post count up.

Cool!!

That about sums up the level of you posts.

Nice one!

MOSSAD

tuppence wrote: »

Might it be the case the theres a sizeable noise out there because this is a largescale popular movement against a procedure which risks the very basis of our livlihoods (not to mention public health and visual landscape) and threatens our national exports that are actually thriving. Farming took in 8.9 billion last year, it makes economic sense not to do anything that threatens such a industry. We can be a model for farming, lets not be a model of greed and stupidity chasing teh short term buck for the detriment of those who come after us. And I had to emigrate and was able to come back. We are the guardians of this place til those we care about can get back to a real economy this time, built through lessons learnt.

It is true that scientific evidence is scarce on the ground thats because of political interference with no statutory monitoring and self regulation of the industry in place, But theres be overwhelming amounts of law cases instead. The American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is on a state of catch up and they will have their report out in 2014. Lets at least wait til then.


Firstly heres from farmers themselves speaking to others in America.
http://www.wfmj.com/story/16571719/farmers-listen-to-property-owners-who-regret-allowing-drilling-on-their-property

And here is some evidence coming through from recent water sampling by the EPA. This doesnt bode well. In Pavillion
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/13/epa-finds-fracking-chemical-and-other-pollutants-in-drinking-water-of-pavillion-wyoming/

And a couple of days ago in Dimick
http://www.wbng.com/news/local/EPA-Delivers-Water-to-Dimock-Residents-137792908.html

What is "visusl landscape"? How objective is it? If it's my land, and you happen to want it undisturbed, make me an offer to sell it to you.
As for 8.9 billion € from farming, how much was direct subsidy, because some of the farming practices are simply not economically sustainable?
Again I say, let's investigate all ways to fracture rock and see if there is a way to do it in a non-polluting manner. IF not, well and good, but let's not miss the boat because of the selfstyled environmentalists.

colrow

I'm going to get the DVD of the movie. So There

reilig

What bugs me about this who Gas thing is that the experts have estimated that there is potentially billions of cubis meters of gas that could be extracted in North leitrim. Dangers, pros and anti's aside, are we just going to give this away to an American Company who can reap all the profits on this?

Our country is close to €100 billion in debt, and we have enough gas reserves in one small place to ensure that we don't need to import gas to this country for the next 25 years. If our government extracted it themselves, wouldn't the profits go some way to funding this country of ours?

They already signed the Corrib gas field of to shell. Surely someone needs to wake up and see reality?