To Hell and Frack: UK Shale Gas Reserves

[rainbow]

Why are you so keen to believe that fracking is safe? There's been so much anecdotal evidence (as well as mounting scientific evidence) to suggest that it is potentially not. If you don't work in the industry, I suspect you have a close friend or family member who does. You seem to show very little sceptical ability in regards to this topic.

Fuck off.

[pErvinalia]

Lol. As usual, you've got nothing. As you were.

[Seth]

Why are you so keen to believe that fracking is safe?

Because it is.

There's been so much anecdotal evidence (as well as mounting scientific evidence) to suggest that it is potentially not.

No there isn't. There is almost zero credible evidence of any kind demonstrating that fracking is dangerous. The US EPA just admitted that re fracking in Pennsylvania. Fracking has been going on for decades out west and no landowner has ever been able to prove beyond a scientific doubt that their well was contaminated by fracking. Lots of people THINK it happens, but wells get contaminated with natural gas all on their own in most cases. That's what you get when you drill a water well in proximity to natural gas reserves.

If you don't work in the industry, I suspect you have a close friend or family member who does. You seem to show very little sceptical ability in regards to this topic.

Probably has to do with the fact that all the hysterics who are complaining don't know shit from Shinola and are just drinking the econut Kool-Aid.

They keep trying to prove it, and they keep failing, so much so that the producer of "Gasland II" got caught falsifying a number of shots of "burning water" and was sued as a result.

[pErvinalia]

There's plenty of scientific evidence. The problem is that baseline studies weren't done as intense lobbying by the industry got them exemptions from the usual environmental regulations and requirements. So it's hard to definitively prove in the case of some chemicals. But there's plenty of evidence that can be proved. The simple fact is that the regulators and legislators are bought by the industry. Why anyone thinks this is strange, is beyond me. That's been the history of corporations and their interaction with governments. You supporting this, Seth, isn't strange in the slightest, as you always fall on the side of capital. You have no principles, despite your claims to libertarianism. But Rainbow is a bit of a mystery, as he is generally a pretty progressive chap. That's why I suspect he has close ties with someone working in the industry. His unwaivering support of fracking in the face of all the contrary evidence is not consistent with his usual progressive scepticism.

[Seth]

There's plenty of scientific evidence.

No there isn't.

The problem is that baseline studies weren't done as intense lobbying by the industry got them exemptions from the usual environmental regulations and requirements. So it's hard to definitively prove in the case of some chemicals. But there's plenty of evidence that can be proved.

Prove it. The EPA tried and failed.

The simple fact is that the regulators and legislators are bought by the industry.

Prove it. Scan the ledgers and receipts and post the evidence of bribery for all to see.

Why anyone thinks this is strange, is beyond me. That's been the history of corporations and their interaction with governments.

Gosh, you mean governments actually understand that supporting the economy requires taking care of the businesses that create wealth and employ people? Horrors!

You supporting this, Seth, isn't strange in the slightest, as you always fall on the side of capital.

Actually, I'm falling on the side of facts, or rather the lack of any credible facts showing that hydraulic fracking is dangerous.

You have no principles, despite your claims to libertarianism.

"Fuck you, asshole!" Arnold Schwarzenegger as "The Terminator."

Just because I don't mindlessly believe what some dope-head eco-nut spews without a scintilla of evidence to support his wild claims doesn't mean I don't have principles.

But Rainbow is a bit of a mystery, as he is generally a pretty progressive chap. That's why I suspect he has close ties with someone working in the industry. His unwaivering support of fracking in the face of all the contrary evidence is not consistent with his usual progressive scepticism.

Except as I keep saying, there is no credible evidence of fracking being a danger. Oh, and people want and need energy, so even if there were occasions of leakage or contamination the question would be whether or not the need for energy is greater than the damage actually caused by fracking. It's pretty simple really, if your well is provably contaminated by fracking, then the company involved should buy you out or supply you with purified water in perpetuity.

But rather than look at reasonable safety measures and mitigation plans, the eco-nuts demand that fracking be banned. Of course this has nothing to do with fracking per se, it's just a stalking horse for the anti-carbon zealots who want to turn the United States back into a pre-industrial, buffalo-roaming, human-hating utopia.

They simply don't want ANY exploration for or exploitation of ANY carbon-based fuel source, and they'll concoct lies about anything and malign anyone to forward that extremist agenda.

Thus the equally fuckwitted objectors to the pipeline to carry Canadian tar sands oil to refineries in Texas. The best they could do is some bullshit faux concern for the aquifer in the Sand Hills. So they re-routed the pipeline to address those concerns and Obama and his minions STILL won't approve it.

Jackasses.

[pErvinalia]

You forgot Marxists.

[rainbow]

But rather than look at reasonable safety measures and mitigation plans, the eco-nuts demand that fracking be banned. Of course this has nothing to do with fracking per se, it's just a stalking horse for the anti-carbon zealots who want to turn the United States back into a pre-industrial, buffalo-roaming, human-hating utopia.

Nothing wrong with that idea.

I'd just like the arguments to be honest and coherent.

[cronus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723

Fracking OK for 'desolate' North East, says Tory peer

Fracking should be carried out in the North East of England, where there are large, "desolate" areas, a former energy secretary has said.

Lord Howell of Guildford argued there was "plenty of room" for developments and less concern than was the case over "beautiful natural areas".

But the Archbishop of Canterbury disagreed, calling the North East "beautiful, rugged, welcoming".

Downing Street said Lord Howell did not speak for the government.

Fracking - short for "hydraulic fracturing" - involves drilling deep under ground and releasing a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hundreds of chemicals to crack rocks and release gas stored inside.

Water companies are worried the process could contaminate drinking water aquifers that lie above shale gas reserves. But supporters of fracking say it is safe and essential to making the UK more energy self-sufficient.

Widespread fracking has not started in the UK yet, but Cuadrilla began exploratory drilling in Lancashire in 2011 and many other possible sites have been identified.

(continued, grim up north)

[Clinton Huxley]

They should frack Hertfordshire until it falls into the abyss.

[Cormac]

But Rainbow is a bit of a mystery, as he is generally a pretty progressive chap. That's why I suspect he has close ties with someone working in the industry. His unwaivering support of fracking in the face of all the contrary evidence is not consistent with his usual progressive scepticism.

What do you mean by "progressive" here?

[klr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723

Fracking OK for 'desolate' North East, says Tory peer

Fracking should be carried out in the North East of England, where there are large, "desolate" areas, a former energy secretary has said.

Lord Howell of Guildford argued there was "plenty of room" for developments and less concern than was the case over "beautiful natural areas".

But the Archbishop of Canterbury disagreed, calling the North East "beautiful, rugged, welcoming".

Downing Street said Lord Howell did not speak for the government.

Fracking - short for "hydraulic fracturing" - involves drilling deep under ground and releasing a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hundreds of chemicals to crack rocks and release gas stored inside.

Water companies are worried the process could contaminate drinking water aquifers that lie above shale gas reserves. But supporters of fracking say it is safe and essential to making the UK more energy self-sufficient.

Widespread fracking has not started in the UK yet, but Cuadrilla began exploratory drilling in Lancashire in 2011 and many other possible sites have been identified.

(continued, grim up north)

Ah, the House of Lords ... a bottomless reservoir of bumbling fruitcakes.

His son-in-law is George Osborne. who will not be best pleased at this episode of foot in mouth.

[pErvinalia]

But Rainbow is a bit of a mystery, as he is generally a pretty progressive chap. That's why I suspect he has close ties with someone working in the industry. His unwaivering support of fracking in the face of all the contrary evidence is not consistent with his usual progressive scepticism.

What do you mean by "progressive" here?

I don't know. It's probably just a feeling. He doesn't actually write much, so it's hard to know definitively, I guess. But he's been a strong critic of Tyrannical and his racism.

[Cormac]

But Rainbow is a bit of a mystery, as he is generally a pretty progressive chap. That's why I suspect he has close ties with someone working in the industry. His unwaivering support of fracking in the face of all the contrary evidence is not consistent with his usual progressive scepticism.

What do you mean by "progressive" here?

I don't know. It's probably just a feeling. He doesn't actually write much, so it's hard to know definitively, I guess. But he's been a strong critic of Tyrannical and his racism.

But I was literally asking what you mean by "progressive" - the word itself.

[pErvinalia]

Not a conservative. Someone who values social progression and the policies that entails. His anti-racism alone makes him progressive on that front. But then, some regular conservatives are probably strongly anti-racist too.

I'm not sure that it matters. I might have misapplied the label. I'm working from a really broad brush: conservatives = more capitalist = more pro-business = less environmental regulation = limited understanding of corporate influence over legislation/regulation.... etc.

I could be totally wrong with rainbow. I'm just looking for reasons why a "skeptic" who I thought might have been not very conservative would so uncritically back CSG with all the anecdotal and now mounting scientific evidence against it.

I don't think it's worth making much of a big deal out of. Rainbow will never contribute more than a sentence or two to any discussion point, so we will never really know. His opinions on most things can be pretty easily dismissed as he never backs anything up with any reasoning or evidence. Indeed, he can't. It's impossible to do that when replying in one sentence sound bites.

[Cormac]

Not a conservative. Someone who values social progression and the policies that entails. His anti-racism alone makes him progressive on that front. But then, some regular conservatives are probably strongly anti-racist too.

I'm not sure that it matters. I might have misapplied the label. I'm working from a really broad brush: conservatives = more capitalist = more pro-business = less environmental regulation = limited understanding of corporate influence over legislation/regulation.... etc.

I could be totally wrong with rainbow. I'm just looking for reasons why a "skeptic" who I thought might have been not very conservative would so uncritically back CSG with all the anecdotal and now mounting scientific evidence against it.

I don't think it's worth making much of a big deal out of. Rainbow will never contribute more than a sentence or two to any discussion point, so we will never really know. His opinions on most things can be pretty easily dismissed as he never backs anything up with any reasoning or evidence. Indeed, he can't. It's impossible to do that when replying in one sentence sound bites.

I'm just interested in the interpretations people have of a value laden word like "progressive".