Get the lies in early, eh?

Fracking is a disruptive process. There is no evidence that it can be done unobtrusively at scale.

It’s not like they install an entire sodding oil rig in your backyard you know. In production a site is smaller than one of those barns the bloody countryside is littered with.

25 thoughts on “Get the lies in early, eh?”

  1. Even so, is being “unobstructive” (whatever the fuck that means) the benchmark of energy generation nowadays? How unobstructive are windmills? And power stations?

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    I’ll bet that there’s more disruption to the lives of the people of Kirby Misperton from the protestors than setting up the fracking operation. And once it’s set up more disruption from farm vehicles and the like.

  3. Look on the bright side. These lies will be shown up, and the liars discredited, in a year or so.
    Unlike those predicting events 80 years hence, who will be dead before they are proved wrong.

  4. Society needs to be purged of leftist scum by getting them off the state/”third sector” tit that channels tax-thievery to their propaganda mills.

    Our tax-money is the green in the Greens. Time to put a stop to it.

  5. “Tim Newman
    May 25, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Even so, is being “unobstructive” (whatever the fuck that means) the benchmark of energy generation nowadays? How unobstructive are windmills? And power stations?”

    Exactly – how many people complained when a proposed off-shore wind-farm was going to ‘wreck their view’? How unobtrusive is a solar farm – which routinely cook birds alive? How unobtrusive is flooding large areas to form the gravity reservoir for hydro plants?

    if unobtrusiveness is *important* then these people should be praising fracking which is quite possibly the least obtrusive method of energy extraction we’ve got.

  6. As I farm right next to 3 neighbouring solar farms I can truthfully say they are indeed pretty visually obtrusive. They sit like a massive black blot on the landscape. A well head would be invisible by comparison.

  7. I agree with Jim. I live in Hampshire and I find it bizarre that acres and acres of fields are covered with solar panels now. I don’t hear the anti frackers complaining about the obtrusiveness of these. They’re also probably the same people who would complain if the same fields were to be covered with housing.

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    Well I guess fracking is pretty disruptive if you are the Saudi oil minister.

    So far it has been unobtrusive to ordinary people. Just lower, and not much lower, prices. But I am hoping ordinary people will notice when they started to get hit by falling French oil executives.

  9. @ Agammamon
    “how many people complained when a proposed off-shore wind-farm was going to ‘wreck their view’?
    Well, we know Donald Trump did and he had a well-publicised spat with the SNP over it.

  10. Unfortunately these people are never exposed, the media simply covers up the lies and let’s them tell new ones.

    It’s telling how the BBC reports these stories – 90% of the article is presenting the ‘activists’ in as good a light as possible, and the only balance is ALWAYS an industry spokesman, never a person or group without a financial interest. The BBC knows people can then dismiss opinions in favour as being motivated by ‘greed’.

  11. Fracking happens over a period of seconds several thousand feet underground. Hard to think of a method of energy generation that is less obtrusive. Impossible, even.

  12. But I am hoping ordinary people will notice when they started to get hit by falling French oil executives.

    Heh. First their companies will be propped up by taxpayers’ money, then they will be given cushy positions in the government.

  13. ‘the media simply covers up the lies and let’s them tell new ones.’

    The media, say Guardian, shops for people who agree with them. Guardian et al can’t editorialize on the front page, so they find people who say what they were wanting to say, and put them on the front page.

    It’s not readily apparent, but the press editorializes in EVERYTHING they publish, as the selection of what to publish and what not to publish is editorializing. In that sense, it is in fact the Guardian that is lying. “We didn’t say it, they did!” is a hollow defense.

  14. There’s about a dozen ordinary gas wells scattered across eastern North Yorkshire already. For most of the 1960s Whitby was entirely supplied by its own well just up the Esk Valley. They are so intrusive that I’ve only been able to track three of them down. 😉

  15. When I look at power plants in satellite images gas wins hands down. Of course the feather bed windmills sit on make them look much larger than they actually are.

  16. The really odd thing is that no report that I have seen comments that this is an existing well that was fracked 30 years ago and which has been supplying gas to a power station nearby during all those years. Why wasn’t swampy there 30 years ago?

  17. Intractable Potsherd

    I have to agree with most folk here. Where I live, we have dozens of bird-mincers cropping up all over the place, and a field of about 1.5 acres is being covered in solar panels (about half-way up Scotland!) Personally, I’d be happier with fracking and a nuclear plant nearby – at least they would be producing energy when it is actually needed (in the cold, dark winters), not when demand is at its lowest (not much air-con needed in Scotland even in the warmest summer).

  18. Solar panels in Scotland does sound like the height of optimism. If only there was a way of extracting energy from drizzle.

  19. Matthew,

    I, for one, don’t think fracking is the best idea in the world. The problem is that the only other reliable energy source we currently have is coal. That is the choice until we build nuclear or come up with better storage.

    Here is a good example of gas versus coal generation facilities. Hatfields Ferry, the 1700MW coal plant to the west(above with the rotation I used) of the Mon includes not only the plant itself but all of the grey areas around it. The lighter grey are fly ash dumps and the dark are coal reserves. Dynergy, the 650MW gas plant to the East of the Mon, is obviously far less damaging to the environment. Not pictured are the additional fly ash dumps and coal mines for coal as well as the fracking wells(not visible from space).

    I also have a side-by-side comparison of the worlds oldest commercial nuclear facility and a modernized coal plant.

  20. @ Matthew U
    “In South Florida, 20 of the nation’s most stringently regulated disposal wells failed in the early 1990s, releasing partly treated sewage into aquifers that may one day be needed to supply Miami’s drinking water.”
    So untreated sewage lingers for more than 20 years?
    The article tries to imply that EPA is incompetently hiding major leaks when it fails to keep account of problems that are too trivial for it to make a major study of them. It claims that a 1974 Act was a catch-up on a 1975 problem and the EPA in 1980 was trying to catch up on a 1984 problem. And dozens of “may” to suggest “will”.
    I used to be against fracking, but if the anti-frackers cannot write an honest argument

  21. Are Fracking Wastewater Wells Poisoning the Ground beneath Our Feet?

    ‘Read it or close your ears and hum a loud tune. Doesn’t matter to me.’

    Don’t need to read it. Betteridges Law of Headlines applies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *