Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fracking in the West -

12467

Comments

  • #92
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And you appear to be in favour of anything they're opposed to simply because they're opposed to it. Unfortunately, the article you cite makes an good case for environmental legislation in China, rather than a case against green technology or environmental legislation here.

    Actually my point regarding that article as was made in a parallel thread/forum is that if all the externalities of green technologies were addressed via environmental legislation then green technology such as wind generators and electric cars would become prohibitively expensive. All the current Green policies are doing is outsourcing pollution to likes of China.

    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Heck, even I agree with him about some of those things, but they're being used here as an ad hominem argument that attempts to lump all "greenies" together as cranks in order to dismiss any argument against fracking as cranky, rather than addressing the issues in question.
    I'm not opposed to fracking on ideological grounds, but I find neither the "nothing to see here, totally safe" message from the corporate PR nor the gung-ho idiocy of free-market worshippers convincing.

    The green movement is splintered into many strands but one thing that is common to the lot is the use of politics of fear, the whole repent now or face Armageddon (erm global warming) and in the process doing damage
    I linked already do a report from a Global Warming Policy Foundation no less! which concludes that on balance "fracking" is not as bad as certain small groups are trying to make it.
    If you want to call the Professors, Doctors, Sir's and Lords who put their names to the above linked document as "free-market" worshippers then that's your choice, the conclusion to this report is "nothing to see move along".

    Scofflaw wrote: »
    There are real problems in fracking, particularly in poorly known lithologies close to poorly known karst aquifers.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Then more scientific research is required, but I am afraid all attempts at scientific research would be stifled by extremists from the Green movement,
    who practically killed all GM research in europe by their actions as an example.

    Or just look at all the ruckus over a certain gas pipe in Mayo, little hope of any balanced approach when you have guys like this complaining about a pipe, never mind actual drilling.

    800px-3527_greensdail31jan06web.jpg


  • #93
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    News:
    An Taisce Chairman, Charles Stanley Smith calls on the Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources, Labour Party‘s Pat Rabbitte, to organise public consultation to explain the current situation and possible future scenarios of hydraulic fracturing.


  • #94
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    One concern is that our EPA has no experience in licenses for fracking. What data and models will be used to carry out an EIA?


  • #95
    feicim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭feicim


    MadsL wrote: »
    News:
    An Taisce Chairman, Charles Stanley Smith calls on the Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources, Labour Party‘s Pat Rabbitte, to organise public consultation to explain the current situation and possible future scenarios of hydraulic fracturing.

    It looks like a done deal to me..

    According to page 5 of that report "many" of the problems in america could have been avoided with rigorous regulation.

    The writers seem to be of the view that "rigorous codes of practice" coupled with "equally robust (financial?) penalties" will do the trick.

    Expect Mr. Rabbitte / Labour / Fine Gael to trot out this line in a few months when their "consultations" are "finished".


  • #96
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,007 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Will be interesting to see if there are political pressures to become a test bed for this for other nations in Europe now we are being bailed out by them.

    I expect there to be accusations at least by the opponents of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I linked already do a report from a Global Warming Policy Foundation no less! which concludes that on balance "fracking" is not as bad as certain small groups are trying to make it.

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation is Nigel Lawson's anti-climate change 'think tank', supported by high-up Tories and the UK's golden circle of industry. It's not exactly an unbiased source, I'm afraid.
    If you want to call the Professors, Doctors, Sir's and Lords who put their names to the above linked document as "free-market" worshippers then that's your choice, the conclusion to this report is "nothing to see move along".

    Would it be unkind to point out that you quite happily dismiss the very much larger number of authorities who agree that climate change is happening? Or that calling Nigel Lawson a "free market worshipper" is hardly contentious?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #98
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Macha wrote: »
    One concern is that our EPA has no experience in licenses for fracking. What data and models will be used to carry out an EIA?

    Surely our regulatory bodies are completely competent to supervise the activities of a complex multinational industry's representatives in Ireland? What could possibly go wrong?

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • #99
    sarkozy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭sarkozy


    Having seen the 'Gasland' documentary in Donegal last month, I'm very concerned about the effect of fracking. I want to know more, but it is, as yet, unproven technology.

    What groups are out there currently engaging in the issue in a constructive way, particularly in Dublin and in Leitrim?


  • #100
    sarkozy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭sarkozy


    feicim wrote: »
    It looks like a done deal to me..

    According to page 5 of that report "many" of the problems in america could have been avoided with rigorous regulation.

    The writers seem to be of the view that "rigorous codes of practice" coupled with "equally robust (financial?) penalties" will do the trick.

    Expect Mr. Rabbitte / Labour / Fine Gael to trot out this line in a few months when their "consultations" are "finished".
    I fear your gratuitous use of quote marks may be right.

    Ireland has a poor record of licensing and enforcement, particularly in the natural resources sector. If fracking is still as destructive as it has been elsewhere, it will be all to easy to governments and corporations to play the blame-game until post-election amnesia wipes the slate clean.

    Irish citizens cannot sleepwalk into this potential catastrophe.


  • #101
    cavedave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Scofflaw

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation is Nigel Lawson's anti-climate change 'think tank', supported by high-up Tories and the UK's golden circle of industry. It's not exactly an unbiased source, I'm afraid.
    I quoted from the GWPF in post 32 where they argued that Howarth fracking results in 20% more co2 paper is flawed. So if they are biased it might be worth taking their 50% less figure with a pinch of salt.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,768 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    It is not in their interest to have any leaks, especially into the groundwater

    Intel which more than likely has a microchip powering your computer also uses a **** load of chemicals and Dublin water, once again it is not in their interest to feck up.

    On the other hand Moneypoint down Shannon and the like are quite literary dumping **** into the air including lead and mercury. All while all our "green" windmills are having a nap today with 30-50MW only > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/



    The question you should be asking is short of reverting to stone age existence and while ruling out nuclear power and while our windmills are scratching their rears what is the lesser of all evils, gas, oil, coal or turf to power our lives

    It's not in their interest for the public to find out. Quite simply if the risk were as benign as you make out, there is no way several US states would have banned this process.

    Also I don't think it would be of much solace to someone if they lost a close relative to cancer due to the fracking process, if someone said to them that it was the lesser of two evils. It seems as if those intent on making huge bucks always cite progress, and treat the health risks as trivial or non existence. I suspect these supposedly independent researchers, whose results conveniently chime with those seeking to carry out Fracking, wouldn't be keen to live long term in an area where Fracking is being carried out.


  • #103
    frackingishell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭frackingishell


    this ei. sdraob kid is nothing but a WUM. i tried pm'ing them about the gwpf background, and questioned their motivations, in a polite and constructive and succint way, and all i got back from ei.sfraob is 'i've no time for conspiracy theories', and 'drill baby drill wahoo'.

    I suggest people don't waste their time on this WUM anymore. Adding nothign to the discussion, and deliberately ignoring fact. Giving ei.sdraob any attention anymore is pointless.


  • #104
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,436 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Just a heads up, tonights Prime Time will have a section on fracking around Lough Allen.


  • #105
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Just a heads up, tonights Prime Time will have a section on fracking around Lough Allen.
    Was good to see the issue raised on primetime and also the documentary gasland showing on current TV. How anyone with even the slightest bit of intelligence can think that fracking is appropriate in this area is beyond me. There is a substantial bank of information available on this method of gas extraction and very little of it is positive.

    As pointed out, relying on state agencies to regulate an industry with such a poor track record in relation to this particular process, in an area with an important water table, is a disaster waiting to happen


  • #106
    frackingishell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭frackingishell


    All i saw was a piece by RTE that was very biased towards that smug get in Canada. The 'host' allowed him to ramble on for about 5 minutes, then Leah Doherty got about 40 seconds of railroaded under pressure time to speak at the end.

    What really bothered me was, why was the guy laughing (literally) before he spoke each time? Does he not realise this is serious stuff? he really can't be that trust worthy, if he's giggling away about something that has destroyed so many lives and environments in the US and elsewhere?

    These are facts, so i'm not being conspiratorial. Now i wonder why RTE gave him so much time, and her so very little to respond to his commercial presentation of 5 minutes? Someone (in government most likely- the people in control of the purse strings for RTE) is telling RTE what position to take on this. That host was NOT impartial.


  • #107
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    frackingishell wrote: »
    ...i'm not being conspiratorial.

    [...]

    Someone (in government most likely- the people in control of the purse strings for RTE) is telling RTE what position to take on this.
    Uh huh.


  • #108
    sarkozy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭sarkozy


    frackingishell wrote: »
    All i saw was a piece by RTE that was very biased towards that smug get in Canada. The 'host' allowed him to ramble on for about 5 minutes, then Leah Doherty got about 40 seconds of railroaded under pressure time to speak at the end.

    What really bothered me was, why was the guy laughing (literally) before he spoke each time? Does he not realise this is serious stuff? he really can't be that trust worthy, if he's giggling away about something that has destroyed so many lives and environments in the US and elsewhere?

    These are facts, so i'm not being conspiratorial. Now i wonder why RTE gave him so much time, and her so very little to respond to his commercial presentation of 5 minutes? Someone (in government most likely- the people in control of the purse strings for RTE) is telling RTE what position to take on this. That host was NOT impartial.
    I don't agree. The time given to both on Prime Time was equal enough. The Tamberlane slickster (their CEO) was simply a better communicator. Leah Doherty wasn't as good. She came across as angry, her messages weren't clear enough, even a little confusing. She needs more experence; if she's to be the public face of the movement, she could benefit from some PR training.

    I was disappointed because I'm very concerned about fracking in Ireland. I saw 'Gasland' in Donegal last June. I don't believe Tamberlane's 'no chemicals' whitewash; I also don't trust our government to regulate this. If there was even one accident, Ireland would be ruined. With no accident, Ireland would be scarred, pock-marked. Simply, the risk is too high. 'Energy companies' operate for one reason only - profit - and I don't trust them. We should ban it.

    But I was disappointed in how Doherty held her ground. Energy companies have budgets, and representatives of movements like this are easily demonised. This movement has to be above reproach and, in my opinion, there cannot be any clear association with the Rossport campaign.


  • #109
    cavedave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    sarkozy

    Simply, the risk is too high. 'Energy companies' operate for one reason only - profit - and I don't trust them. We should ban it.

    You want to ban energy*? 'Food companies' operate for one reason only - profit

    *edit this is a bit glib. My point is that we need the cleanest energy we can get. We are not going to change back to a lifestyle where we use significantly less energy in the short term


  • #110
    sarkozy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭sarkozy


    cavedave wrote: »
    You want to ban energy*? 'Food companies' operate for one reason only - profit

    *edit this is a bit glib. My point is that we need the cleanest energy we can get. We are not going to change back to a lifestyle where we use significantly less energy in the short term
    Did I say that? I said the very real risk to Ireland's water supply, in my opinion, far outweighs the extraction of energy.


  • #111
    ednwireland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,753 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    frackingishell wrote: »
    All i saw was a piece by RTE that was very biased towards that smug get in Canada. The 'host' allowed him to ramble on for about 5 minutes, then Leah Doherty got about 40 seconds of railroaded under pressure time to speak at the end.

    What really bothered me was, why was the guy laughing (literally) before he spoke each time? Does he not realise this is serious stuff? he really can't be that trust worthy, if he's giggling away about something that has destroyed so many lives and environments in the US and elsewhere?

    These are facts, so i'm not being conspiratorial. Now i wonder why RTE gave him so much time, and her so very little to respond to his commercial presentation of 5 minutes? Someone (in government most likely- the people in control of the purse strings for RTE) is telling RTE what position to take on this. That host was NOT impartial.

    i agree i watched this and thought that it was basically a platform for the exploration company, basically just the line we use water therefore its safe (honestly i dont know one way or the other whether its damaging or not BUT shattering rocks near aquifers cant be a good thing can it ?)

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • Advertisement
  • #112
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    R P McMurphy wrote: »
    Was good to see the issue raised on primetime and also the documentary gasland showing on current TV. How anyone with even the slightest bit of intelligence can think that fracking is appropriate in this area is beyond me. There is a substantial bank of information available on this method of gas extraction and very little of it is positive.

    As pointed out, relying on state agencies to regulate an industry with such a poor track record in relation to this particular process, in an area with an important water table, is a disaster waiting to happen

    So anyone who doesnt agree with you point of view is stupid? I believe that is the second time in this thread such an argument was made.


  • #113
    frackingishell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭frackingishell


    sarkozy wrote: »
    I don't agree. The time given to both on Prime Time was equal enough. The Tamberlane slickster (their CEO) was simply a better communicator. Leah Doherty wasn't as good. She came across as angry, her messages weren't clear enough, even a little confusing. She needs more experence; if she's to be the public face of the movement, she could benefit from some PR training.

    I was disappointed because I'm very concerned about fracking in Ireland. I saw 'Gasland' in Donegal last June. I don't believe Tamberlane's 'no chemicals' whitewash; I also don't trust our government to regulate this. If there was even one accident, Ireland would be ruined. With no accident, Ireland would be scarred, pock-marked. Simply, the risk is too high. 'Energy companies' operate for one reason only - profit - and I don't trust them. We should ban it.

    But I was disappointed in how Doherty held her ground. Energy companies have budgets, and representatives of movements like this are easily demonised. This movement has to be above reproach and, in my opinion, there cannot be any clear association with the Rossport campaign.

    You might be right there, but i have sympathy for her, as she was clearly ambushed by them claiming to be able to do it with no chemicals. That really came out of nowhere and the discussion then became about that, and not what has happened in the past in other countries.

    Brilliant tactic by your man, i think it basically made everything Leah would have had prepared irrelevant to this particular program.


  • #114
    frackingishell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭frackingishell


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    So anyone who doesnt agree with you point of view is stupid? I believe that is the second time in this thread such an argument was made.

    arent you the guy that pm'd me- 'i dont care, drill baby drill'? You continue to revel in taking the opposite viewpoint for the sake of it on alot of threads, anyone with sense can see what you're at. pretty sad really.


  • #115
    frackingishell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭frackingishell


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Uh huh.

    absolutely CRACKING contribution to the discussion. I'll be sure to put in writing the various sounds that *I* make in future too.


  • #116
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    frackingishell wrote: »
    arent you the guy that pm'd me- 'i dont care, drill baby drill'? You continue to revel in taking the opposite viewpoint for the sake of it on alot of threads, anyone with sense can see what you're at. pretty sad really.

    My PM reply was an attempt to get you to stop spamming my inbox with your ravings (you were the one to pm me)

    at no stage did I call anyone stupid neither private or public (if that the standard that the politics forum has fallen to...) tho i could not resist pulling the piss at you in reply to your pm to get you to stop pestering me


  • #117
    frackingishell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭frackingishell


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    My PM reply was an attempt to get you to stop spamming my inbox with your ravings (you were the one to pm me)

    at no stage did I call anyone stupid neither private or public (if that the standard that the politics forum has fallen to...) tho i could not resist pulling the piss at you in reply to your pm to get you to stop pestering me

    pestering you? all i asked was were you serious.

    Anyway, methinks though dost protest too much. You continue taking the opposite side everywhere for the attention it gives you. good man.


  • #118
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    My PM reply was an attempt to get you to stop spamming my inbox with your ravings (you were the one to pm me)

    at no stage did I call anyone stupid neither private or public (if that the standard that the politics forum has fallen to...) tho i could not resist pulling the piss at you in reply to your pm to get you to stop pestering me

    Report the PMs. The Admins will deal with it.


  • #119
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    frackingishell wrote: »
    pestering you? all i asked was were you serious.

    Anyway, methinks though dost protest too much. You continue taking the opposite side everywhere for the attention it gives you. good man.

    Hassling people over PM about arguments on here is not acceptable. Doing so will get you sitebanned. Is that clear?


  • #120
    frackingishell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭frackingishell


    i wasn't hassling anyone, i just wanted to ask was he serious in private, via Private Message. Is that allowed?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    EI_Flyboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭EI_Flyboy


    FYI: Gaslland has been playing on Current TV on Sky if anyone's interested. It' part of Morgan Spurlock's "50 Documentaries to see before you die" season.


Advertisement