Fracking – hydraulic fracturing

[alanjjohnstone]

There was an argument put that the fracking boom was just all a stock-market hype to gain investor money. This RT article seems to support the case reporting that BP is pessimistic about its development in the UK for decades to come (and by then we will be most likely deep into global warming effectsand there will be political pressure to restrict it…oil in the soil and cole in the hole) http://rt.com/uk/233519-fracking-not-economically-viable/

Quote:

BP’s forecast on the future of fracking in Britain and beyond surfaced in its most recent Energy Outlook Booklet. The oil giant’s leading economist, Spencer Dale, said: “We don’t see any shale production of any great significance in Europe and the UK by 2035.”

[Young Master Smeet]

Just to bring the discussion back here.  So, even if any of our candidtes are personally against fracking, they are of course pledged to vote for it is the party instructs them to do so after a democratic debate.A couple of drive by quotes from Wikipedia:

Public Health England wrote:

"An assessment of the currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction will be low if the operations are properly run and regulated. Most evidence suggests that contamination of groundwater, if it occurs, is most likely to be caused by leakage through the vertical borehole. Contamination of groundwater from the underground hydraulic fracturing process itself (ie the fracturing of the shale) is unlikely. However, surface spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids or wastewater may affect groundwater, and emissions to air also have the potential to impact on health. Where potential risks have been identified in the literature, the reported problems are typically a result of operational failure and a poor regulatory environment."

and

Quote:

Hydraulic fracturing fluids include proppants and other chemicals. These may include toxic chemicals;[3] In the United States they are allowed to be treated as trade secrets by companies who use them. Lack of knowledge about specific chemicals has complicated efforts to develop risk management policies and to study health effects.[4][5] In other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, these chemicals must be made public and are required to be non hazardous in their application

Now, my view is that fracking is probably no more harmful than any other extractive industry, per se, but that for AGW reasons that gas/oil should stay in the ground.  As a party member, if I wa given the choice between 5,000+ deaths from winter cold and fracking, I'd vote for fracking, and expect our delegates to abide by the vote.

[Young Master Smeet]

Put another way, we will need gold in socialism for electronics, etc. So, will we continue to use cyanide extraction is socialism?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining#Cyanide_processMy bet is almost certainly yes.

[jondwhite]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to bring the discussion back here.  So, even if any of our candidtes are personally against fracking, they are of course pledged to vote for it is the party instructs them to do so after a democratic debate.A couple of drive by quotes from Wikipedia:

Public Health England wrote:

"An assessment of the currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction will be low if the operations are properly run and regulated. Most evidence suggests that contamination of groundwater, if it occurs, is most likely to be caused by leakage through the vertical borehole. Contamination of groundwater from the underground hydraulic fracturing process itself (ie the fracturing of the shale) is unlikely. However, surface spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids or wastewater may affect groundwater, and emissions to air also have the potential to impact on health. Where potential risks have been identified in the literature, the reported problems are typically a result of operational failure and a poor regulatory environment."

and

Quote:

Hydraulic fracturing fluids include proppants and other chemicals. These may include toxic chemicals;[3] In the United States they are allowed to be treated as trade secrets by companies who use them. Lack of knowledge about specific chemicals has complicated efforts to develop risk management policies and to study health effects.[4][5] In other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, these chemicals must be made public and are required to be non hazardous in their application

Now, my view is that fracking is probably no more harmful than any other extractive industry, per se, but that for AGW reasons that gas/oil should stay in the ground.  As a party member, if I wa given the choice between 5,000+ deaths from winter cold and fracking, I'd vote for fracking, and expect our delegates to abide by the vote.

Would you expect our delegates to abide by the votes of conference resolutions and the case put in party pamphlets?

[Young Master Smeet]

Yes, I would, and the conference resolution you've cited, to my mind, is no barrier to fracking per se…

[jondwhite]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, I would, and the conference resolution you've cited, to my mind, is no barrier to fracking per se…

For the benefit of readers in this topic the resolution is from 1992

Quote:

That this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that the SSPC, the Publicity Committee, the Meetings Committee and all writers and speakers in the presentation and content of our case lay stress upon the positive aspects of it, i.e. they should ensure that we are understood to be advocates of a new world society,  where sound ecological values underlie productive activities, and where real democracy, local to global, exists.Furthermore, our message should not be confined to the exposition of our primary aims but should express the necessity to build a socialist movement in practical and realisable terms, i.e. the immediate need to build an active competent party before being able to have any significant influence among the majority of the working class. In addition, the subsequent political, economic, cultural and other problems of the transformation to Socialism should be given informed and imaginative treatment within the bounds of practical necessity.

[alanjjohnstone]

I think there has been several studies that show that fracking in the UK will not reduce energy bills for consumers so i think deaths of OAPs and fracking is a false dichotomy. I note you omit from your concerns to the safety of the public the increased risk of earthquakes, limiting it to water contamination. There are increasing evidence that fracking industry is a direct cause of themhttp://wichita.ogs.ou.edu/documents/OGS_Statement-Earthquakes-4-21-15.pdfThe jury is still out on fracking, imho. As far as cyanide and gold production is concerned, i think mining will be drastically reduced when all the gold bullion sitting in bank vaults is recycled for more useful purposes and this will offer a leeway so that alternatives to cyanide in the actual extractive process can be explored more fully. There's 177,200 tonnes of stocks in existence above ground. And there ample ways of recycling gold…(i've got the pliers here to get your gold filling, YMS ) Nearly one billion cell phones are produced each year and most of them contain about fifty cents worth of gold. Their average lifetime is under two years and very few are currently recycled. Although the amount of gold is small in each device, their enormous numbers translate into a lot of unrecycled gold. Not to mention all that jewellery…think if marriage fades in popularity worldwide…the gold wedding bands…the gold dowries…disappearing…And religion disappeaing…$1 trillion in gold is held by India's temples alone. http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/features/going-for-gold-alternative-processing-methodsWe could always switch to platinum

[alanjjohnstone]

Maybe the article is biased , but i think it reflects the real power struggle that exists about fracking and how the the power of the State is used to ensure any opposition to fracking is weakened. While anti-frackers are fighting in courts, they aren't available to engage elsewhere…http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/04/citizen-journalist-fined-for-telling-the-truth/#more-58093

[Author]

Posts