To Hell and Frack: UK Shale Gas Reserves

[Seth]

If you thought your electric rates are high now, just wait till coal is banned...as Obama is trying to do right this minute in the US.

the usual drivel - downstream costs of using coal for power makes it completely untenable
http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-co ... power.html
and here's a libby supporting lack of responsibility. The hypocrisy is precious
Coal is not and never has been cheap when it's accounted for. Get over it - coal is at the end.

Horseshit. Your "downstream costs" are just envirowhacko's way of larding up the actual cost of providing electricity by hanging a bunch of global warming bullshit on coal without addressing the "downstream costs" of NOT using coal, which are enormous and immediate.

and electricity prices are NOT high in the least - solar is now cheaper than coal without subsidies

More horseshit. This one simple concept ought to dispose of this fallacy: Coal (and gas) generates electricity at night. Solar does not.

yet your fellow traveller Repuglies keep subsidizing fossil fools....wonder why that is....a bought government??

Fracking in a responsible manner buys time to move to lower carbon and gas is quick on and off so is a load leveler
The US is moving there quite admirably thanks to gas use replacing coal with emissions now down to 1990 levels and individual states are doing even better.
Obama's executive action on coal plants will push this further along.

...by driving the cost of electricity through the roof so that poor people will freeze in the dark.

The US can do more to reduce it's carbon footprint when the entire rest of the fucking planet has caught up to us. Until then, get stuffed.

[Seth]

Nice strawman.

I just get alarm bells when I see people simply dismissing concerns about fracking. Not when it's Seth, of course. But that's different.

The concerns are only valid if there is scientific evidence supporting the hysterical public opinion that fracking is likely to contaminate water supplies.

Problem is it hasn't happened but once.

That militates for strict regulation, including requiring companies to reveal the chemical makeup of their fracking fluids so proper testing can be done, but it doesn't militate for banning fracking. The whole anti-fracking campaign was set off by a piece of green propaganda called "Frack Nation" which purveyed tons of false and misleading information and it's been supported by a small cadre of anti-energy Luddite zealots who have also been lying through their teeth about the actual practice of fracking to forward their anti-human Luddite philosophy.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Well, not really. If the "political will" is not there it's the political will of the people who evidently are saying "fracking is not a big deal and a few loony strident voices purveying misinformation should not force us to pay more for our energy needs."

I love how the gummint is all wonderful and everything when it's supporting your favorite socialist cause, but when it's not, it's corrupt legislators to blame.

Ever think maybe it's democracy at work and your opinion doesn't reflect the will of the people?

Not always corrupt, but sometimes lazy and short-sighted legislators, easily persuaded that relaxing environmental standards to allow cheap fracking has more benefits than perils.

And I agree with Macdoc earlier that fracking is not automatically an environmental issue if it is done properly, with strict guidelines on the levels of harmful chemicals allowed in underground aquifers. Often, companies will attempt to avoid such restrictions because it benefits their bottom line. Political will is needed by governments to resist the call for relaxed standards, to protect the vital common good which is underground water.

But yes, in the end, it does depend on people making it clear to their representatives that environmental concerns will affect their voting intentions. If they are persuaded otherwise, perhaps by arguments for cheaper energy, then so be it. We will have to see whether environmental consequences down the line will make voters regret such decisions...

[pErvinalia]

Nice strawman.

I just get alarm bells when I see people simply dismissing concerns about fracking. Not when it's Seth, of course. But that's different.

The concerns are only valid if there is scientific evidence supporting the hysterical public opinion that fracking is likely to contaminate water supplies.

Problem is it hasn't happened but once.

That militates for strict regulation, including requiring companies to reveal the chemical makeup of their fracking fluids so proper testing can be done, but it doesn't militate for banning fracking. The whole anti-fracking campaign was set off by a piece of green propaganda called "Frack Nation" which purveyed tons of false and misleading information and it's been supported by a small cadre of anti-energy Luddite zealots who have also been lying through their teeth about the actual practice of fracking to forward their anti-human Luddite philosophy.

You're likely to have a whole host of problems in the US, given you are a corporatocracy. In Australia, one major problem is, as I said, the State governments are giving specific exemptions for coal seam gas companies in regards to meeting environmental regulations. One of the most shocking is that they are not required to collect baseline data before beginning the process. That means that it's impossible to know what effect it is or isn't having on water resources (and other things). And there are a number of scientific studies that have been done here. One fantastic one (although the methodology needs to be improved and the results duplicated) has found that there are extremely high levels of methane leaking out of the wells. That is, they have a LARGER carbon footprint than coal.

But I don't expect you to address any of this properly. Anything which stands in the way of capital doing it's thing is bad in your limited world. Been there done that with you. It's a fools game to try and get you to broaden your view.

[pErvinalia]

But yes, in the end, it does depend on people making it clear to their representatives that environmental concerns will affect their voting intentions. If they are persuaded otherwise, perhaps by arguments for cheaper energy, then so be it. We will have to see whether environmental consequences down the line will make voters regret such decisions...

In Seth's simplistic world of "democracy" we vote for specific issues. In the real world, people have to make a choice on the whole package. The public is overwhelmingly against fracking in Australia. However, that's not the only issue that have to vote on, and as can be expected both major business parties are pro-CSG. So the choice is between fracking party 1 and fracking party 2. But in Seth's SimpleWorld, where rhetoric takes precedence over the reality, none of that shit matters. You're a fucking dumbass Seth. Just be fucking honest and say that you back capital no matter what. Stop trying to make arguments to support your ideology. It's a belief in an ideology. Reasons for the belief are a far second to your dogmatic adherence to anarcho-capitalism.

[Jason]

Start developing it now so when the next oil crunch comes you'll have the infrastructure set up. It takes like 15 years minimum to build these things.

[pErvinalia]

That's nuclear power stations. It take no time at all to build these things. The only factor to consider is the infrastructure regarding how you will transport and deal with the gas. Once that's in place, the wells take no time at all to find and tap.

[Jason]

Yes. The infrastructure. That includes more than just the simple logistics, which is a large undertaking by itself.

[pErvinalia]

If you've already got natural gas, like we do in Oz, then you will already have most of the infrastructure.

[Jason]

I don't know the situation in Australia, but is propane and/or natural gas available at every fuel station? Is the infrastructure in place for a major shift in fuel type? Filling up your natural gas vehicle is nothing like pumping petroleum in the tank. Everything from delivery to storage to distribution is different.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, we have LPG (which is natural gas, I think) at most stations in the built up areas. In the outback it is more sparse. CSG is not used in cars. It's used for heating and electricity generation I think. We export most of our gas to China anyway. That requires specialised port setups to handle the gas and get it onto giant gas ships.

[Jason]

Hmm.. I remember when I made a killing updating service stations be able charge 5 digit prices.

The good old days. Course I have like $2000 cash in my wallet now, but there's something to be said for that feeling you're part of the economic zeitgeist that I miss.

[rainbow]

Nice strawman.

I just get alarm bells when I see people simply dismissing concerns about fracking. Not when it's Seth, of course. But that's different.

The concerns are only valid if there is scientific evidence supporting the hysterical public opinion that fracking is likely to contaminate water supplies.

I've looked at the evidence, and there is very little of substance to indicate that it would contaminate the water. If there was, I'd be opposed to fracking.
Like any other industry, if it isn't held up to a high standard of environmental responsibility - there can be problems.

Your local petrol station probably contaminates the groundwater as much as a fracking rig.

[rainbow]

Nice strawman.

I just get alarm bells when I see people simply dismissing concerns about fracking. Not when it's Seth, of course. But that's different.

I get alarm bells when I see people dismissing fracking without examining the evidence and the alternatives. No technology can claim to be perfectly clean, if it is not applied with concern to the environment.

[pErvinalia]

you didn't read anything I wrote, did you?