Fracking in the West -

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 12:30PM

nesf wrote: »

Report the PMs. The Admins will deal with it.

when did this guy's word become golden? I sent a civilised private message and got the piss taken out of me back. Maybe i should report PM back? What you reckon? OR, we could all act like grown ups and get on with it.

oscarBravo · 26-08-2011 01:03PM

frackingishell wrote: »

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

Allow me to elucidate, then.

You said that you weren't being conspiratorial. You then espoused a conspiracy theory. If you have evidence that the government are dictating a policy for RTE to follow, please adduce that evidence. If you have no such evidence and are operating off a hunch, don't claim that you're not being conspiratorial.

sarkozy · 26-08-2011 01:15PM

frackingishell wrote: »

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.

Yes. Very clever. And not to be believed, either.

Scofflaw · 26-08-2011 01:36PM

frackingishell wrote: »

when did this guy's word become golden? I sent a civilised private message and got the piss taken out of me back. Maybe i should report PM back? What you reckon? OR, we could all act like grown ups and get on with it.

Then either do that, or report the PMs if you consider them abusive. Either way, enough about this.

moderately,
Scofflaw

nesf · 26-08-2011 02:00PM

frackingishell wrote: »

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

Unsolicited PMs are very dodgy territory. Sometimes they are absolutely fine, sometimes they constitute hassle. I would advise to think extremely carefully about whether you are stepping over this line before sending a PM.

ed2hands · 26-08-2011 02:07PM

frackingishell wrote: »

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?

He was obviously schooled by a slick PR guy in preparation for these types of interviews.

His smirking/giggling gestures were mostly in response to safety issues raised by the anti-fracking guest, and were a subtle but powerful way to give the audience the impression that these safety concerns and those who raised them were foolish and not to be taken seriously.

A slimy piece of work if i ever saw one judging by his performance and showed typical corporate arrogance and nonchalance in the face of genuine and proven environmental dangers.

EI_Flyboy · 26-08-2011 02:12PM

Can you guys plaese drop it. Enough is enough, none of you come across in anyway dignified by dragging this out. And nesf, don't you chime in either, you're just adding to the spam...(Whoops, didn't see that you're a mod! my apologies!!!) Could you all please delete every off topic post? You're just dragging the whole thing down.

nesf · 26-08-2011 02:14PM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Can you guys plaese drop it. Enough is enough, none of you come across in anyway dignified by dragging this out. And nesf, don't you chime in either, you're just adding to the spam...(Whoops, didn't see that you're a mod! my apologies!!!) Could you all please delete every off topic post? You're just dragging the whole thing down.

I'm a mod, a warning explanation was warranted.

EI_Flyboy · 26-08-2011 02:18PM

nesf wrote: »

I'm a mod, a warning explanation was warranted.

Yeah, I saw that and amended! Egg ALLLL over my face!!!

It'd be great if those guys removed their off topic posts though. It comes across as a squall in playschool...

nesf · 26-08-2011 02:23PM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

It comes across as a squall in playschool...

Yes and no. Part of the reason for leaving them is to show people what kinds of behaviour is not acceptable.

cavedave · 26-08-2011 02:38PM

sarkozy

I said the very real risk to Ireland's water supply, in my opinion, far outweighs the extraction of energy.

And if you present quantitative evidence of the risks you might persuade it to become other peoples opinion as well.

Every existing energy source kills people and pollutes the environment. If a new one has really bad effects it would be silly to use it, but some sort of measurement of those effects is needed.

It is worth looking at estimates of proposed shale gas. If like in America the amount suddenly changes "Geologists Sharply Cut Estimate of Shale Gas" to 1/5 of previous estimates it might really put a dent in any economic argument to allow fracking.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 03:09PM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Can you guys plaese drop it. Enough is enough, none of you come across in anyway dignified by dragging this out. And nesf, don't you chime in either, you're just adding to the spam...(Whoops, didn't see that you're a mod! my apologies!!!) Could you all please delete every off topic post? You're just dragging the whole thing down.

completely agree- delete everything off topic.

Unsolicited PMs are very dodgy territory. Sometimes they are absolutely fine, sometimes they constitute hassle. I would advise to think extremely carefully about whether you are stepping over this line before sending a PM.

Nesf, you're going on about PM's like they're inter spy-agency dead-drops and we're in the middle of the cold war. Boards isn't really that important. I don't think i've EVER thought 'extremely carefully' about anything on boards. I don't think this site would be even the little use that it is, if peole had to think extremely carefully about PM'ing someone and asking them if they're serious.

Delete all the twaddle, and keep the thread on topic....you don't need to give any lessons as you said, it's not like this is the first disagreement on boards......

nesf · 26-08-2011 03:30PM

frackingishell wrote: »

Nesf, you're going on about PM's like they're inter spy-agency dead-drops and we're in the middle of the cold war. Boards isn't really that important. I don't think i've EVER thought 'extremely carefully' about anything on boards. I don't think this site would be even the little use that it is, if peole had to think extremely carefully about PM'ing someone and asking them if they're serious.

Delete all the twaddle, and keep the thread on topic....you don't need to give any lessons as you said, it's not like this is the first disagreement on boards......

Quit arguing with me over this and just bloody listen. Next post arguing the point is a ban.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 04:00PM

Okey dokey. I'll agree with everything you say from now on.

karma_ · 26-08-2011 04:05PM

frackingishell wrote: »

Okey dokey. I'll agree with everything you say from now on.

Firstly, I am in complete agreement that fracking is bad news and would be opposed to it happening here, but you are not helping the argument at all with some of your posts.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 04:11PM

karma_ wrote: »

Firstly, I am in complete agreement that fracking is bad news and would be opposed to it happening here, but you are not helping the argument at all with some of your posts.

Christ, neither are you sir! How about, we all stop talking about anything other than fracking...rigggghhhhht....NOW, at the end of this sentence, at the full stop, now.

thebman · 26-08-2011 05:15PM

I thought the woman on Primetime was terrible and came across as having a, not as long as I have breath in my body and even if they could mathematically prove it was safe would I allow it type of mindset.

I think if they can do it without chemicals then we need to look at the other issues around it and we should ban the use of those chemicals in fracking if they are that sure they can do without them then this shouldn't be an issue.

Scofflaw · 26-08-2011 05:30PM

thebman wrote: »

I thought the woman on Primetime was terrible and came across as having a, not as long as I have breath in my body and even if they could mathematically prove it was safe would I allow it type of mindset.

I think if they can do it without chemicals then we need to look at the other issues around it and we should ban the use of those chemicals in fracking if they are that sure they can do without them then this shouldn't be an issue.

Did they explain how they could "do it without chemicals"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 05:41PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Did they explain how they could "do it without chemicals"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

No they didnt.

What essentially happened was, Leah Doherty was ambushed by them saying they could do it with only water and sand. This was seriously out of the blue, and it took the discussion away from the negative impacts of fracking, to the RTE presenter having a go at Ms. Doherty saying, 'well, would you accept it if there's no chemicals' in it.

I think Ms. Doherty was definitely put in an unprepared position at that point, as doing it without chemicals is completely new and unknown.

The excuse the smug tamoboran guy made(who by the way, was literally laughing right through the interview), was that it wasn't that deep in Ireland compared to anywhere else, so it could be done with sand and water, as they wouldnt need the chemicals for lubrication.

To me this was a bit bizarre, but taking it at face value (which i dont), the only way this could be monitored and acceptable is if every single injection into the ground was supervised.

NOT taking it at face value, i see this as a cynical way to get this through the planning process, use just water that won't work (if it was that easy we could reverse global warming!), and when the wells have been built, say 'look, water isn't working, sure we have the wells, we have to use the chemicals', and the Irish Government politicians are bought and we have your traditional fracking.

i fail to see how simply pumping water 2km under ground will fracture rock to a depth deep enough to unleash buried gas in seams, even if it is only shale. And water has NEVER been only used with sand as a means to Frack.

This was an exercise in bullsh*t by the Tamboran guy. The fact is, that he was probably laughing because he and his mates had been discussing off camera to see if they could get away with saying they'd do it with 'no chemicals at all' on Irish television. just to shut Leah Doherty up and dismiss the whole point of the interview. He probably had mates just behind the camera making faces at him,that REALLY looked like what was happening- i've done it myself loads of times. and the thick Irish presenter, who hadn't done his research , took it hook line and sinker without barely a whimper.

Saying out of the blue like he did, that it can be done with no water, is akin to NATO saying there'll definitely be no civilian casualties on their next bombing mission. Assuage public opinion at the beginning, knowing full well that once youre in, there aint a damn thing people will be able to do about it. Donald, Dick and George, eat your heart out

That Tamboran lad is evil incarnate, by his track record, and i just got the feeling he was last night. That's just me though.

cavedave · 26-08-2011 05:58PM

The prime Time piece is on rte player here. The claim about lack of chemicals is at 20 minutes and again at 25.15. The piece starts at 15 minutes

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 06:07PM

cavedave wrote: »

The prime Time piece is on rte player here. The claim about lack of chemicals is at 20 minutes and again at 25.15. The piece starts at 15 minutes

if anyone's watching it, can you note the times when he's laughing at the Irish people aswell, particularly at the end of when other people are speaking. He plainly wasn't paying ANY attention, until he was addressed each time, and had to stop goofing around with his mates. I haven't got time until tomorrow to sit through it. It ws a serious lack of respect and a display of contempt if ever i saw one.

if he can't show any respect on a TV interview about Fracking to a national audience In ireland, why would he show any respect to our environment, ecosystems, and water tables?

sarkozy · 26-08-2011 07:57PM

frackingishell wrote:

i see this as a cynical way to get this through the planning process, use just water that won't work (if it was that easy we could reverse global warming!), and when the wells have been built, say 'look, water isn't working, sure we have the wells, we have to use the chemicals', and the Irish Government politicians are bought and we have your traditional fracking.

Agreed.

While the interview may raise heckles, your other comments are unfair. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But if the campaign is to win supporters, makes sense not to make emotively-charged assumptions?

Irregardless of chemicals being used/not used, surely if a well were to go wrong, at the very least, methane, sulphur, etc. would leech into the water table, killing flora and fauna, destroying our habitat and main source of drinking water?

HellsAngel · 26-08-2011 08:02PM

feicim wrote: »

I emailed all 166 TD's re fracking (2 days ago) so far I have 6 replies.

Labour - are emailing everybody else about it.
Fine Gael - Are ignoring it.

Fianna Fail - Seem to have faith that the institutional bodies will keep Ireland safe from the perils of fracking. (Without being opposed to fracking itself - similar to Labours position).

Sinn Fein and Socialist Party - Actively opposing it.

The lack of response (so far) from Fine Gael is disappointing and hopefully not ominous.

I would have expected FG's reply to be the same as FF. Labour - god only knows. Funny to see Sinn Fein supporting the crusty's

thebman · 26-08-2011 08:21PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Did they explain how they could "do it without chemicals"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

No and I suspect like others that it is merely an excuse to try to get through planning as he also said it had never been done before and these were their top guys working on it but they have never done it in the US which seems odd considering the US is the most popular place for Fracking at the moment I think.

Even if it can be done without chemicals, there is no evidence that the process is safe still.

I'd really like to believe they could do it safely and relatively cleanly but it doesn't really seem like they can as they haven't explained how they hope to do it cleanly or if the gas could leak into the water table even using no chemicals which I imagine is the cause of the whole tap water flaming thing.

Anyway I don't think Irish politicians are stupid enough to just pass this TBH as the number of votes lost if they pollute the water table in the area would kill all their careers. Would have to be some pay off to go forward with the plans if they believed it was unsafe.

Scofflaw · 27-08-2011 01:16AM

Saying out of the blue like he did, that it can be done with no water, is akin to NATO saying there'll definitely be no civilian casualties on their next bombing mission.

I'd have said slightly more akin to saying they would be able to conduct the whole campaign without weaponry. You don't generally drill so much as a farm well without some use of chemicals.

cordially,
Scofflaw

frackingishell · 27-08-2011 01:16AM

sarkozy wrote: »

Agreed.

While the interview may raise heckles, your other comments are unfair. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But if the campaign is to win supporters, makes sense not to make emotively-charged assumptions?

I'll have as many emotively charged statements as i want. That's whats wrong with this country- people afraid to be emotive, and have a bit of passion for something. We're a nation of bystanders, watching ourselves taking it up the **** in the bathroom mirror and not even complaining. People like you are what's wrong with this nation, not the greedy scum that want to pollute the earth for their own greed.People like ei.sdraob or whatever his daft name is -at least they're honest about what they want. But there's millions of pathetic souls like like you- you believe in something, but youre afraid to be passionate, and you frown on others for being passionate? Or being passionate somehow makes someone's opinion less worthy? You're all afraid of your own shadow. I'm ashamed living in this country sometimes. At least the Greeks let their ire be known. We're a pathetic nation of subdued worms, like you...well i'll be passionate all I want pal.

PFFFT! sometimes i think why the f*ck do people bother trying to stand up for what's right. Then i realise, people bother not for people like you, afraid to look like a hair is out of place on your virtual and/or real head...but because it's for the environment, and ecosystems, and things we have a responsibility to protect, but that greed has blurred from our vision.

I don't want your support Sarkozy,so shove it.

frackingishell · 27-08-2011 01:20AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have said slightly more akin to saying they would be able to conduct the whole campaign without weaponry. You don't generally drill so much as a farm well without some use of chemicals.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed sir.

Matt Holck · 27-08-2011 01:26AM

It'd be like shooting depleted uranium bullets it our own back yard
sick but survivable
wouldn't have to kill anyone outright

sarkozy · 27-08-2011 03:36PM

frackingishell wrote: »

I'll have as many emotively charged statements as i want. That's whats wrong with this country- people afraid to be emotive, and have a bit of passion for something. We're a nation of bystanders, watching ourselves taking it up the **** in the bathroom mirror and not even complaining. People like you are what's wrong with this nation, not the greedy scum that want to pollute the earth for their own greed.People like ei.sdraob or whatever his daft name is -at least they're honest about what they want. But there's millions of pathetic souls like like you- you believe in something, but youre afraid to be passionate, and you frown on others for being passionate? Or being passionate somehow makes someone's opinion less worthy? You're all afraid of your own shadow. I'm ashamed living in this country sometimes. At least the Greeks let their ire be known. We're a pathetic nation of subdued worms, like you...well i'll be passionate all I want pal.

PFFFT! sometimes i think why the f*ck do people bother trying to stand up for what's right. Then i realise, people bother not for people like you, afraid to look like a hair is out of place on your virtual and/or real head...but because it's for the environment, and ecosystems, and things we have a responsibility to protect, but that greed has blurred from our vision.

I don't want your support Sarkozy,so shove it.

I'll reply to this simply by saying: you couldn't be more wrong about me. For nearly 10 years, I've worked passionately to do what I can to eliminate poverty in the developing world. I've recently returned from working in a least developed country.

Your immature response is precisely what I mean.

Passion is vital. Arrogance like this hurts everyone. It's tactically absurd to claim to build while simultaneously excluding potential allies. Some might accuse such people of elitism. How can anyone achieve their goals this way?

This issue is far more important than me getting involved in a petty ego-contest.

Scofflaw · 27-08-2011 04:18PM

And, to add to sarkozy's comment above - frackingishell, you clearly want to be able to use boards as a platform for speaking to people about the dangers of fracking, but your rudeness, intolerance of disagreement, and smart-aleck responses place you in clear and immediate danger of losing access to the forum entirely.

Being passionate about something isn't simply an excuse for being rude, as you appear to believe.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Fracking in the West -

Comments