Fracking – hydraulic fracturing
- This topic has 52 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:12 years for the Bloody Sunday inquiry5 years for the Chilcot Iraq inquiryA year for fracking…is it too much of a rush to judgement?
You forgot to mention Hillsborough which far longer than those two combined!
To nit pick Brian i was meaning actual inquiries. The Taylor Report took only a year.But as with the Bloody Sunday other inquiries sprung up since the original ones were not accurate for various reasons. Bloody Sunday was 1972 and the first inquiry was the Widgery Report and the last inquiry being the Saville Report which i was inferring to .The Taylor Report was superceded by the Hillsborough Independent Panel. Also with Iraq, we had the Hutton , the Butler, and various parliamentary committee inquiries.We are all acquanted with Yes Minister…to cover up a misdeed, create an inquiry…just ensure its remit and powers are limited and the chairman hand picked . In Scotland we had Donald Trump trumping local government regulations when setting up his golf course by resorting to central government powers and courting Alex Salmond, before they fell out over wind turbines.
The panacea that may not be.http://rt.com/business/shale-benefits-us-europe-037/
That's easy to explain. RT is the organ of the Russian government and Russia is a leading producer of ordinarily-produced natural gas, The US and Europe want to develop domestic sources of natural gas so as to become less dependent on overseas suppliers who could hold them to ransom (as Russia has done to Ukraine on a number of occasions) and believe (rightly or wrongly, that's another issue) that fracking on their territory is a way of doing this.RT is thrashing fracking because the Russian government sees it as a threat to their gas exports and the strategic power they derive from this.It's like the GM crops issue. Europe (and Russia) are encouraging objections to them as a pretext for keeping out GM imports from America and elsewhere to protect their own agriculture businesses.Unfortunately under capitalism even apparently scientific issues get contaminated by vested capitalist interests. In socialism we will be able to deal with issues like fracking and GM crops rationally and scientifically.
But the report is from a FRENCH research centre, not a Russian source. You explain the reason why a Russian media site would take pains to report it but equally it can be argued there is also a reason why other media, in the UK and the US, failed to highlight it – as it is counter to prevailing government and energy business interests. (The French may have a reason for publicising this report because it confirms their own anti-fracking policy)The report does refer to the Russian market situation as a political/economic reason some will be pro-fracking. "Shale gas could potentially be a complement to this for some countries heavily dependent on coal or Russian gas…"The report is herehttp://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Syntheses/PB0514.pdfIt reinforces those who have already declared that the ordinary consumer will not receive any benefit and it is no cure for fuel poverty. Nor is there much of a benefit for the capitalist class as a whole from any rise in GDP.
Buy them off with free pizza – that's the answer !! http://rt.com/usa/chevron-fracking-fire-pizza-coupons-622/
NIMBY CEO of ExxonMobil – the top producer of natural gas in the US – has joined a lawsuit that challenges the construction of a water tower connected to hydraulic fracturing operations near his Texas home, given that it may reduce the property value.CEO Rex Tillerson claims the hydraulic fracturing – or fracking – project will cause unwanted noise and traffic associated with trucking water from the 160-foot tower to the drilling site that may result in the possible depreciation of his $5 million property. Tillerson himself described fracking regulations as "dysfunctional" and "holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness.” http://rt.com/usa/exxon-ceo-fracking-lawsuit-180/
Fracking good post, Alan. It clearly demonstrates how fracking is environmentaly polluting and injourous to human health, therefore, socially unacceptable. The risks to our water supply, the environment and public health are all well documented and yet, still, the British Govt. iskeen to endors fracking. Sociopath ( dictionary. com); a person with a psychopathic personality, whose behavour is anti-social, often criminal and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility, or social conscience. The mad- man has the keys to the asylum !
Another item, from yesterday's Times, to put in the folder:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4021157.eceSee also:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10332505/Viscount-Cowdrays-home-under-threat-from-fracking.htmlLord Nimby paying Greenpeace to oppose fracking.
There was also one report about Lord Cowdray from February 15 in the Timeshttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/naturalresources/article4006067.eceRemember the claim that fracking is not a class issue? Well it looks like I've been reading the wrong rag because the Times article (and the business section no less) begins as follows;
Quote:Anybody ready to fight the class war? Geoff Davies is. The chief executive of Celtique Energie wants to frack in the South Downs National Park, even if it makes him the most unpopular man in West Sussex.The straight-talking Lancastrian has no time for the wealthy nimbies trying to sabotage his plans. Hostile local landowners, led by Lord Cowdray, have blocked the shale gas explorer at its drilling site near the sleepy village of Fernhurst. Such opponents are “selfish and unpatriotic”, he says, for wanting to deprive the country of the economic boon that shale gas could provide.The landed gentry should remember the class issue that the Times alludes to here. The capitalists, both industrial and financial are the ruling class now, the time when landowning aristocracy were in charge has long gone.This doesn't mean (as might be characterised) socialists claiming that individual workers can't gain from fracking or that individual capitalists can't suffer from fracking but this analysis is one of society as individuals. As a whole class, ruling classes will gain and the rest will come second. This is their criteria for introducing and using technology. For socialists, the most important division in society is not between those supporting technology (safe or otherwise) and all the rest. Socialists have a very specific attitude to the means of production and its not that technology fixes the problem. Nor even is it that nimbys are the obstacle, as one book review states
Quote:'Proudhon came to fame in 1840 through a pamphlet What is Property? in which he declared that “property is theft”. Actually, this wasn’t as radical it might seem since what he was criticising was the private ownership of land.'Book Reviews: “Property is Theft!”, “Marxism and World Politics”
i think there was a general consensus that we could not trust those resposnsible for fracking to tell the truth even if we disagreed on whether it is safe or not technology. This news item is evidence of the government rushing though pro-fracking policies.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/26/george-osborne-ministers-fast-track-frackingIt could be simply bad grammar but a bit in the letter appears to predetermine the safety issues."to implement the development of 3-4 exemplar drilling sites to prove the concept of safe shale gas exploration, including locations"…i would have thought it should have read "to prove or disprove" but i am sure someone will correct my basic English interpretation.
Here's the view of GMB trade union on fracking:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmpublic/infrastructure/memo/ib36.htm
I think we have already acknowledged the difficulty in acquiring a non-bias source of information within capitalism. The TUC highlight this in May 2014.
Quote:"Contamination of groundwater supplies As yet, there are no producing shale gas wells in the UK, so comparisons have to be sought elsewhere. Unfortunately much of the evidence is not available. In the US, where fracking had increased massively in the past 10 years, there is a lack of publicly available baseline data for the condition of groundwater prior to any drilling and fracking. That data is collected, often by the gas companies themselves, but not shared due to privacy issues. The problem was recognised in May 2014 in a report by Environment Canada, a governmental body. It had been asked to consider the pollution impacts of the exploration and extraction of Canada’s shale gas resources and concluded that there is too little scientific information on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on the environment and human health. The report warns that: “data about potential environmental impacts are neither sufficient nor conclusive.” Despite this, the study found that there were potentially serious impacts on surface water, groundwater, greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative land disturbance and human health."http://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/energy/union-issues/workplace-issues/tuc-shale-gas-briefingfracking-and-workers%E2%80%99Returning to the leaked letter, i think it is clear we cannot expect a Tory government to be a reliable source of data being more supportive of the industry than the public at large, particularly in the fracking areas.Again the TUC highlight a problem
Quote:Even the best regulations are of little use unless they are enforced and there is a need for a strong inspection regime with the threat of enforcement action where there are breaches.I don't have the confidence that safety or health will be the primary concern of either the industry or the regulatory bodies, and again the leaked letter is evidence of the close cooperation of the frackers and the legislators.
From Parliamentary watchdogs Environmental Audit Committee makes some pertinent observations to the debate
Quote:Shale gas, like 'conventional gas', is not low carbon, and the objective of government policy should be to reduce the carbon intensity of energy whatever its source. Shale gas cannot be regarded as a 'transitional' or 'bridging' fuel. Any large scale extraction of shale gas in the UK is likely to be at least 10-15 years away, and therefore cannot drive dirtier coal from the energy system because by that time it is likely that unabated coal-fired power generation will have been phased out to meet EU emissions directives. It is also unlikely to be commercially viable unless developed at a significant scale, to be able to compete against a growing renewable energy sector, but large-scale fracking will not be able to be accommodated within still tightening carbon budgets. There is in any case little evidence to suggest that fracking could be undertaken at the scale needed to be commercially viable in the UK or that it will bring gas prices down significantly.Despite the assurances from some that environmental risks can be safely accommodated by existing regulatory systems, an extensive range of uncertainties remains over particular hazards—to groundwater quality and water supplies, from waste and air emissions, to our health and to biodiversity, to the geological integrity of the areas involved, and from noise and disruption. Uncertainty about their significance is in part a reflection of the fact that fracking operations have yet to move beyond the exploratory stage in the UK. It is imperative that the environment is protected from potentially irreversible damage.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenvaud/856/85603.htmSo this committee recommends "A moratorium on the extraction of unconventional gas through fracking is needed to avoid both the inconsistency with our climate change obligations and to allow the uncertainty surrounding environmental risks to be fully resolved."MPs think otherwise, 308 votes to 52, albeit adding a few more safe-guards…but why should a national park be deemed special and protected but residential areas not…Hmmmmmm?…Risk people' but not trees?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.