To Hell and Frack: UK Shale Gas Reserves

[Bella Fortuna]

rEv, this is a reminder for this post - please refrain from personal attacks and stay within the forum rules.

[mistermack]

I'm all for fracking. If the gas is there, go for it. Our import/export balance needs a bit of a boost.

It's a bit confusing though. The articles that I've read say that the US has about enough fracking reserves for about one year's consumption. But the talk in the UK is of ten to 20 years reserves. It doesn't seem to compare.

As far as water goes, I would be more wary, in areas where the domestic water is got from bore holes. But there isn't much of that in the UK. Most of it is from shallow depths, or surface run-off.

And as far as earthquakes go, if fracking sets one off, it's because it was there, waiting to happen.
Fracking could MINIMISE the damage from earthquakes, by making them happen earlier, and more often, instead of letting the stress build up to a bigger quake.

[Seth]

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.

Evidently not. If they were they would elect no-frack candidates and fracking would be illegal. It's not, so you're wrong. I say it's a vocal minority that you WISH were the majority.

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.

Hardly. If there were credible evidence that fracking activities were actually doing the harm that's claimed I'd be all for strict regulations, just as I'm for strict deep-well drilling regulations to prevent blowouts like the one in the Gulf of Mexico.

Problem is there's no actual evidence that fracking poses anything but a minimal risk, and that risk can be easily handled with regulations that make it more expensive to contaminate a water supply by drilling than the value of the gas.

Just tell drilling companies there is a zero tolerance regulation and that if they fuck up and contaminate a water supply (or anything else) with their fracking activities, their entire company and all its assets will be forfeit. Period.

I'm all for holding people completely and absolutely responsible for initiating force or fraud on others.

[pErvinalia]

fucking rhetoric. You don't even fucking understand how voting works.

[Seth]

fucking rhetoric. You don't even fucking understand how voting works.

Actually, you don't. People vote for a candidate and elect that person to represent their interests in the legislature. That's why it's called "representative democracy" as opposed to "democracy."

One of the important points in favor of representative democracy is that by vesting plenary legislative power in the hands of elected officials, some of the ills of the tyranny of the majority that occurs in "pure" democracy are prevented or at least slowed down and mitigated in order to avoid direct democratic decision making by the majority that can change quickly as the political and social winds shift.

It is precisely to PREVENT tyranny of the majority that we elect representatives and vest in them the power to make legislative decisions that cannot be easily overturned by the public. A legislator, once elected is utterly free to propose or vote for absolutely anything they believe is in the best interests of the people they represent...or not. The "or not" part is important because no legislator enjoys 100% approval from every constituent and thus a legislator will always be voting for things some constituents want and against others.

The check and balance involved is that if the legislator fails to please the majority of constitutents over the period of his tenure, the people can then vote him OUT of office and replace him with someone who better reflects the will of the majority.

Thus, it is simple logic that if the fracking rules favor gas exploration and extraction, this represents the best judgment of the legislature which made the rules, based on their collective decisions as to the best course of action considering ALL points of view...or not.

If you don't like the rules, then unelect the legislator who voted against your interests and install someone else.

Until then, suck it up buttercup, this is "democracy."

[MrJonno]

All for fracking, if it is is clean and safe then great, if it goes all wrong and pollutes the entire area its mainly going to be Conservative rural voters who will get pissed off

[JimC]

To this thread and all who post in it...

Frack off!

[Jason]

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

No, I never do. I have the amazingly useful aptitude for understanding sentence structure, context, and responding in coherent manner, but I do not absorb the contents.

[rainbow]

All for fracking, if it is is clean and safe then great, if it goes all wrong and pollutes the entire area its mainly going to be Conservative rural voters who will get pissed off

More likely get very rich, and move into your neighbourhood.
Then you'll be sorry.

[pErvinalia]

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

No, I never do. I have the amazingly useful aptitude for understanding sentence structure, context, and responding in coherent manner, but I do not absorb the contents.

I was talking to rAINBOW.

[rainbow]

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

No, I never do. I have the amazingly useful aptitude for understanding sentence structure, context, and responding in coherent manner, but I do not absorb the contents.

I was talking to rAINBOW.

The problem is you've not actually read up enough on fracking to make an informed decision on it.
...when you have, please continue the discussion.

Do not however, assume that anyone not having a kneejerk anti-fracking prejudice, is in the payment of the oil industry.

[pErvinalia]

I most likely know a fuckload more about fracking that you do, given I worked in the mining industry and attended numerous presentations regarding fracking. Dolt.

[Clinton Huxley]

Ratz really will argue about anything.....

[rainbow]

I most likely know a fuckload more about fracking that you do, given I worked in the mining industry and attended numerous presentations regarding fracking. Dolt.

I hadn't realised you were the expert.

Then please explain your objections to fracking.

[pErvinalia]

I and other in this thread already have. FUck off and troll someone else.