This is fracking unbelievable, restart the gravy train, Leitrim to the rescue

Millicent

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"Earthquakes in Ohio and the UK are linked to hydraulic fracturing for unconventional gas, worrying residents".

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/201212320420444446.html

I have no dog in this fight (I'm neither for nor against fracking at the moment) but just for balance:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/01/10/should-we-freak-out-about-fracking-induced-earthquakes/

http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/news/uk_scientists_dismiss_dangers_of_fracking_induced_earthquakes/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-fracking-for-natural-gas-cause-earthquakes/2012/01/06/gIQAw2SfhP_story.html

pcworldisajoke

dlofnep wrote: »

Any fracking should be resisted with physical violence. It's simply not worth the money to pollute the environment in the way that this does.

im willing to go to jail. Ive never seen a more worthy cause of incarceration and loss of liberty than saving the land and soil our ancestors fought and died for over centuries from the lying scum that propose to secure a quick dollar, based on our desperation as a result of the similar scum of international banking. I'd include any of our politicians that accede to this too.

Im willing to go to jail so future generations can have what we have. And f*ck me, i'm sure a hell of alot of other people are too. And it won't be in vain.

Recent fracking incident!

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Fracking+suspected+Innisfail+blowout/6006761/story.html
Provincial energy regulators are investigating the possibility that hydraulic fracturing - or fracking - on one well could have caused the rupture of an adjacent oil well after a spill was reported late Friday near the town of Innisfail.
The Energy Resource Conservation Board said hydraulic fracturing on a well owned by Calgary-based Midway Energy could have affected a producing oil well owned by Wild Stream Exploration, which was operating a few hundred metres away.
"We don't know the details yet so it is premature to comment on the process, but my understanding is that it appears the fracturing process affected the other well," said Cara Tobin, board spokeswoman.
Fluid collected at the site included fracturing oil, nitrogen and sand, Tobin said.
The regulator was alerted early Friday evening after a landowner saw black fluid spraying from a pumpjack located on a hill in a neighbour's field.

Pump it in too hard and it'll pop out somewhere!

pcworldisajoke

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/01/416360/gasland-filmmaker-josh-fox-arrested-for-trying-to-film-fracking-hearing/?mobile=nc

gasland film director Josh Fox just arrested at the behest of US republican lawmakers for trying to film them talking about fracking contamination. Wonder what they had to hide.

Related to this, in recent weeks, THe potentially devastating keystone tar sands pipeline that Obama has blocked, but republicans are trying to push through, is backed only by senators that took a total of 23 million in contributions from big oil companies.

Dirty energy companies are sucking the planet dry, and have hugely corrupted american democracy (legally). No reason why it wont happen here re; fracking.

http://www.facebook.com/TarSandsAction/posts/272316176168758

pcworldisajoke

pcworldisajoke wrote: »

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/01/416360/gasland-filmmaker-josh-fox-arrested-for-trying-to-film-fracking-hearing/?mobile=nc

gasland film director Josh Fox just arrested at the behest of US republican lawmakers for trying to film them talking about fracking contamination. Wonder what they had to hide.

Related to this, in recent weeks, THe potentially devastating keystone tar sands pipeline that Obama has blocked, but republicans are trying to push through, is backed only by senators that took a total of 23 million in contributions from big oil companies.

Dirty energy companies are sucking the planet dry, and have hugely corrupted american democracy (legally). No reason why it wont happen here re; fracking.

http://www.facebook.com/TarSandsAction/posts/272316176168758

There's more to that keystone pipeline than meets the eye!
Oil refiners & producers in the American mid-west are also opposed to the pipeline because it means that the Canadian tar-sands effectively have a captive market thus the WTI price of oil is 10-15 dollars cheaper than Brent. They buy the oil cheap and sell it expensive, open the pipeline and their easy profit goes west (to China).

OwaynOTT

I dunno why but all this talk of freaking fracking has reminded me of the milkshake scene in There Will Be Blood.

pcworldisajoke

dolanbaker, dont forget its the dirtiest fossil fuel extraction process imaginable. Many canadians also say their government has been bought by corporations in favour of opening another 12 huge (mindboggling scale) tar sands pits, in pristine environmental areas in canada. The canadians are the third worst polluter in the world because of this ****. Many canadians have been put on an enemy of canada list for speaking out about it there. Its gotten that bad- its like energy corporations are taking over the planet. Someone somewhere is gonna say enough is enough one of these days.

Anyway, on keystone- so many people ignore that the 44 senators involve have all received fortunes form big oil. THe fact that this is allowed is the saddest thing of all. Surely the sensible thing is to say- if you get money from one source, you cant vote on anything related. I realise they wouldnt getmoney then but you get me.....

the yanks have no democracy, neither do we really.

JupiterKid

It's very sad to see Canada, a country I always used to hold in high regard in terms of environmental and human rights issues, effectively sell out to big energy over the Athabasca tar sands reserves. Huge parts of the province of Alberta are being destroyed by the tar extraction industry.:(

Even if the proposed fracking in the Lough Allen basin involved no chemicals (which I don't believe for a second) there is the issue of radioactive materials in the waste water coming back up from the wells (uranuim and radium) and the earthquakes caused by fracking process.

Why is it, when I think of fracking, my mind turns of the small town of Hinkley in California that featured in the Hollywood film Erin Brockovitch?

Run_to_da_hills

JupiterKid wrote: »

Why is it, when I think of fracking, my mind turns of the small town of Hinkley in California that featured in the Hollywood film Erin Brockovitch?

We could see an influx of solicitors relocating to Co Lietrim.

pcworldisajoke

pcworldisajoke wrote: »

dolanbaker, dont forget its the dirtiest fossil fuel extraction process imaginable.

the yanks have no democracy, neither do we really.

I'm more than aware of just how dirty the process it, it's also very energy intensive as well.

the yanks will do what it takes to get oil, no holds barred!

K-9

This thread has finally got me interested in looking up about it. Some great points raised.

Must go to Youtube and swallow the agenda of the first video I see.

RobbingBandit

Given that the Vikings were in Leitrim how long until Norway stakes a claim.

howwedoin

Sounds like the usual! If it profits...its privatised, but if its debt...it's nationalised.

Voodoo_rasher

dlofnep wrote: »

Any fracking should be resisted with physical violence. It's simply not worth the money to pollute the environment in the way that this does.

You can be sure that local lackeys will be employed as security guards, and
gardaí enforcement is never far away. Sounds familiar??

We're not the Fighting Irish for nothing..so easy to divide and conquer Paddy.

Noreen1

Hmm.

I don't have the necessary expertise to make an informed judgement on fracking, though I've read enough to make me concerned.

One thing that doers occur to me though, is that this Company is (allegedly) inexperienced.

If that is the case - then they are going to have to employ people with the necessary experience.
That being the case - what on earth is to stop the Irish Government hiring the same people, and keeping the extra profit for the Irish people?
(assuming they decide to allow fracking, in the first place)

Cantona's Collars

tony007 wrote: »

They wanted to buy all of coillte, not just certain parts of the forests.

It'd be a bit suspect to just buy the bits over the gas reserves,actually the whole thing was a bit suspect.

humanji

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

You can be sure that local lackeys will be employed as security guards, and
gardaí enforcement is never far away. Sounds familiar??

We're not the Fighting Irish for nothing..so easy to divide and conquer Paddy.

Millicent probably lives on the east coast so thinks this will never affect her. In years to come how will she like it if her drinking water is piped from the Shannon water system, newly tainted with uranium, radium226 , who knows mercury not to mention whatever random chemical T*mboran chose to chuck in.

If you have to get personal, then you've already lost the argument.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Hmm.

I don't have the necessary expertise to make an informed judgement on fracking, though I've read enough to make me concerned.

One thing that doers occur to me though, is that this Company is (allegedly) inexperienced.

If that is the case - then they are going to have to employ people with the necessary experience.
That being the case - what on earth is to stop the Irish Government hiring the same people, and keeping the extra profit for the Irish people?
(assuming they decide to allow fracking, in the first place)

The inexperience wouldn't bother me, as once regulations are followed, it'd be a standard affair. The problem is that Ireland seems completely unwilling to follow regulations in anything, so the copany would most likely be allowed to do anything they want.

Also, I'd say that it'd be far too expensive for Ireland to hire people to do it. Plus, if it goes wrong, the government wouldn't have a scapegoat.

Still, I'd like to see an actual unbiased report on the fracking system that's planned, rather than conspiracy theory videos and reports made by the companies that profit from it all. Can't imagine the government asking for anything like that, though.

GetWithIt

The inexperience doesn't matter. Not because our fine regulatory system will be enforcing good practice, but because these guys will never be extracting anything.

That's the business model. They're not in the business of extracting. They're in the business of identifying areas of geological interest, sorting all planning issues, and then selling on the Play to bigger operators. They may retain a small interest as part of the deal.

That's just the way it works.

Knowing that, knowing how accelerants are NEEDED for the liberation of hydrocarbons and witnessing the interview given by Tamboran's CEO last night on the news, I would want to see an independent analysis of all their data so far.

SEPT 23 1989

This could turn Leitrim into an uninhabited wasteland........

mickydoomsux

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

This could turn Leitrim into an uninhabited wasteland........

So, an improvement then?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

WHAT???

Would it not be more beneficial to us if we set a match to the gas under Leitrim and got rid of that county once and for all.

Where the frack is Leitrim anyway, do they even have a football team?

Jaysus christ on a bike.

Crazy Horse 6

Fracking company: We'll offer you 50% of the profits Enda
Enda : Not at all i would'nt want to upset our European partners. We'll take 10%.

Park Royal

But if we brought Ray Burke back to negotiate ........

everything would be just grand......

even thirty grand......:mad:

Run_to_da_hills

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

This could turn Leitrim into an uninhabited wasteland........

And the whole River Shannon as most of this river originates in Co Leitrim. We would see widespread fish kills, salmon and trout stocks wiped out down as far as the Shannon Estuary in Limerick / Clare..

Voodoo_rasher

and don't forget Mr RTTHills, Leitrim has famed salmon rivers. Often, the New Years first salmon catch is on a Leitrim river. Wonder what foreign anglers will think when there is nothing alive to fish for.

Mr Humanji, I've since edited my previous posting.

Another Fracking boards link, phew!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056306383

Genghiz Cohen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

And the whole River Shannon as most of this river originates in Co Leitrim. We would see widespread fish kills, salmon and trout stocks wiped out down as far as the Shannon Estuary in Limerick / Clare..

Would or could or probably wouldn't?
Are you fear mongering again?! You know what the doctor said about that!

Nothingbetter2d

frack leitrim its only a craphole anyways, lets get the gas out ourselves and use the money to bail our country out of debt

Run_to_da_hills

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Would or could or probably wouldn't?
Are you fear mongering again?! You know what the doctor said about that!

You poison a river by polluting its basin.

It's as simple as that.

Genghiz Cohen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You poison a river by polluting its basin.

It's as simple as that.

And Fracking will do that?

Run_to_da_hills

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And Fracking will do that?

Of course, one of the main catalysts used in the fracking process is copious amounts of raw diesel. We all know what damage that can do on the environment.

Genghiz Cohen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Of course, one of the main catalysts used in the fracking process is copious amounts of raw diesel. We all know what damage that can do on the environment.

I thought the fluids used were to be stored in concrete containers.
Also, isn't 'copious' a wee bit of a lie? Water makes up 98% of the fluids used and the rest isn't just Diesel.
Also, didn't the company pledge not to use any chemicals? Which I find a bit silly, since everything is chemical of some description.

Run_to_da_hills

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I thought the fluids used were to be stored in concrete containers.
Also, isn't 'copious' a wee bit of a lie? Water makes up 98% of the fluids used and the rest isn't just Diesel.
Also, didn't the company pledge not to use any chemicals? Which I find a bit silly, since everything is chemical of some description.

Stored in concrete containers above ground until it is pumped down a deep hydraulic pipe to the fracturing site and then high pressure released along with other toxic chemicals.

More on it here.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/11/29/how-could-you-possibly-have-a-problem-with-diesel-based-gas-fracking/

Genghiz Cohen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Stored in concrete containers above ground until it is pumped down a deep hydraulic pipe to the fracturing site and then high pressure released along with other toxic chemicals.

More on it here.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/11/29/how-could-you-possibly-have-a-problem-with-diesel-based-gas-fracking/

I kinda dismissed that article as a guy who is all like "If you disagree with me you are wrong." Even though he is trying to say using Diesel is OK.

Isn't the fracking mixture pumped way below the water table anyway?

Run_to_da_hills

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I kinda dismissed that article as a guy who is all like "If you disagree with me you are wrong." Even though he is trying to say using Diesel is OK.

Isn't the fracking mixture pumped way below the water table anyway?

The surrounding shale is going to be fractured in the process and will let fracturing fluid and god knows whet ever else work its way up through the ground and straight into the water table.

This gives you a good insight into the fracking process.

Genghiz Cohen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The surrounding shale is going to be fractured in the process and will let fracturing fluid and god knows whet ever else work its way up through the ground and straight into the water table.

This gives you a good insight into the fracking process.

500,000
Active gas wells in the US
X

8 million
Gallons of water per fracking
X

18
Times a well can be fracked

Do all these use fracking?

There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water.

General drilling or from sites that actually use fracking? Even then that's 1000 cases from the 500,000 drilling locations.

That page references seemingly bias sources. Bringing trust levels down.

I have a rule that whenever someone presents something as fact, I instantly Google: [subject] debunked
Doing so for one of the references, Gasland, the movie, pulled up this. There is quite a few complaints in there, will have a look later.

This is getting a bit long winded.

ScumLord

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The surrounding shale is going to be fractured in the process and will let fracturing fluid and god knows whet ever else.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTwH5nqRvOo

Noreen1

humanji wrote: »

The inexperience wouldn't bother me, as once regulations are followed, it'd be a standard affair. The problem is that Ireland seems completely unwilling to follow regulations in anything, so the copany would most likely be allowed to do anything they want.

The inexperience wouldn't bother me either, as such.
The thing is, if Tamboran can hire the necessary expertise, then so can the Irish Government, hence eliminating one of the reasons Ray Burke used as justification for the Shell explorations.

humanji wrote: »

Also, I'd say that it'd be far too expensive for Ireland to hire people to do it. Plus, if it goes wrong, the government wouldn't have a scapegoat.

Maybe. If Tamboran can hire people and make a profit, then surely one of our very well-paid advisors could locate similar expertise?

humanji wrote: »

Still, I'd like to see an actual unbiased report on the fracking system that's planned, rather than conspiracy theory videos and reports made by the companies that profit from it all. Can't imagine the government asking for anything like that, though.

Agreed, 100%

GetWithIt wrote: »

The inexperience doesn't matter. Not because our fine regulatory system will be enforcing good practice, but because these guys will never be extracting anything.

That's the business model. They're not in the business of extracting. They're in the business of identifying areas of geological interest, sorting all planning issues, and then selling on the Play to bigger operators. They may retain a small interest as part of the deal.

That's just the way it works.

Knowing that, knowing how accelerants are NEEDED for the liberation of hydrocarbons and witnessing the interview given by Tamboran's CEO last night on the news, I would want to see an independent analysis of all their data so far.

Aah, the penny drops!

Millicent

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

You can be sure that local lackeys will be employed as security guards, and
gardaí enforcement is never far away. Sounds familiar??

We're not the Fighting Irish for nothing..so easy to divide and conquer Paddy.

Nice dig there before you edited it out. Way to totally disregard any point I made. I have no bias in this argument and simply said there needs to be greater study into the process. Why does that necessitate you trying to discredit my opinion based on where I live?

k.p.h

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And Fracking will do that?

Let's say it's 99% safe, would you go for it then...?

How about 99.99% would you go for it then ..?

How about 99.99999% safe ..?

I don't know about you, but I would not let it happen if there was a 1 in a billion chance of any of out rivers getting polluted in any way.

Also I don't know when the general consensus changed from conservation and environmental conservation. I don't give a rats if they are pumping purified spring water down there, is it meant to be there. Do we need to do it... No..

Saying we need the money is not a valid justification either, in my opinion it's akin to robbing a pensioner and explaining yourself by saying "Huh I needed the money".

Just about every scientist in the world agrees that fossil fuels are not the forward and Ireland is just about to pimp it's hole out for a pittance.

humanji

k.p.h wrote: »

Let's say it's 99% safe, would you go for it then...?

How about 99.99% would you go for it then ..?

How about 99.99999% safe ..?

I don't know about you, but I would not let it happen if there was a 1 in a billion chance of any of out rivers getting polluted in any way.

You've roughly a 1 in 576000 of being struck by lightning, so you're going to spend the rest of your life indoors?

At the moment, all we have to go on is a load of propaganda from both sides and very little facts about what is actually going to be done, how it's going to be done or any environmental impact statements. To automatically dismiss the idea based on a lack of knowledge and sheer scaremongering is just plain silly.

Also I don't know when the general consensus changed from conservation and environmental conservation. I don't give a rats if they are pumping purified spring water down there, is it meant to be there. Do we need to do it... No..

Yes we do need it, actually.

Saying we need the money is not a valid justification either, in my opinion it's akin to robbing a pensioner and explaining yourself by saying "Huh I needed the money".

No, it's like finding out that there's a money buried in the ground in front of you. You don't exactly know how much is there, and you don't know what the impact of digging it up will be.

Your analogy is just a terrible attempt at shocking people into agreeing with you.

Just about every scientist in the world agrees that fossil fuels are not the forward and Ireland is just about to pimp it's hole out for a pittance.

And when there's a solidly reliable alternative to fossil fuels available to us, we can go for that, but right now there's a fuel source that could benefit the people both in it's use and through it's monetary value.

It is needed and if it can be extracted safely, then it should be. If it can't be, then it should be left there until a safe means of extraction can be found.

dj jarvis

this following paragraph is taken from a story about crime in a Indian reservation in the US - the story has nothing to do with fracking , not biased in any way anti or pro - and this is why i would be against frackin based on this ONE paragraph


On one section of the reservation, people must boil drinking water because chemicals, possibly the result of the oil and natural gas drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, have contaminated the water supply. And fearing that the chemicals might explode in a home, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered residents to run fans and otherwise ensure ventilation while bathing or washing clothes.

full story here ( not thread related but will show NO bias in the above comment ) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/us/wind-river-indian-reservation-where-brutality-is-banal.html?_r=1&hp


that ends the debate for me

k.p.h

humanji wrote: »

At the moment, all we have to go on is a load of propaganda from both sides and very little facts about what is actually going to be done, how it's going to be done or any environmental impact statements. To automatically dismiss the idea based on a lack of knowledge and sheer scaremongering is just plain silly.

News reports, EPA announcement, the fact that the French Government banned it can hardly be called propaganda. Generally the people who oppose fracking have nothing to gain, those who support it do. You are obviously pretty intelligent so I think you see the logic here.

humanji wrote: »

No, it's like finding out that there's a money buried in the ground in front of you. You don't exactly know how much is there, and you don't know what the impact of digging it up will be.

We have a very good idea of the risks involved in fracking are as it has been done elsewhere. There is enough evidence currently to convince me and plenty of other people that it is too risky.Bulgaria have banned it. The EPA are currently investigating and it has been banned in some states in America,the most fossil fuel hungry country in the world.

humanji wrote: »

Your analogy is just a terrible attempt at shocking people into agreeing with you.

Yup, pretty much. We don't want this going anywhere near a debate or getting into any politicians hands. The Irish public and government have a bit of a history of making stupid decisions. If you consider the current economic climate in this country and general state of the nation it slightly reduces the likelihood of the right thing been done here as it involves money.

Money is the prime motivator here from both perspectives, the prospectors because they want more of it and Ireland as a nation because we don't have enough of it.

I'm not saying the right thing will not be done, but if it's nipped in the bud we will never run the risk. You are the one who mentioned propaganda, if it did turn into a propaganda war with so much money on the line who do you think will win..?

Despite what people may think it is actually black and white, and with so much at stake it would be silly consider it anything else.

The best thing for all here is to just completely remove any possibility of fracking by making it illegal in this country as it is in others.

Yahew

The "risks" involved in tracking are non-existent or miniscule. The faucets which lit in Gasland were because of natural gas deposits in the ares, and has happened for generations, prior to drilling ( in fact drilling removes the gas).

The gas is way below the normal water table, and in most case Ireland gets it's water from running water, rivers and reservoirs. If we drilled deep we wouldn't have to have hose pipe bans after 6 weeks of "drought".

The US is coming our of it's recession partly because of Quantative Easing, partly because of cheap energy, because of fracking.

This will continue. The muppets who run Europe- and Europe has never been run by such muppets in its history - will depend on the middle east, and Russia for oil and gas, and start to run down the successful nuclear industry in France because of a Japanese once in a lifetime tsunami which didn't cause any nuclear catastrophe in any real sense, and the rest of world moves on. The Chinese would drill and frack to bejesus if they had gas underneath.

Money is the prime motivator here from both perspectives, the prospectors because they want more of it and Ireland as a nation because we don't have enough of it.

You mean the vast amount of money spent by Putin and Gazprom to keep Europe in thrall to the Russians? Or the existing energy companies who have little interest in massive reserves which will, short to medium term, reduce profits.
in..?

Despite what people may think it is actually black and white

Yeah, we have gas. It is harmless to drill it, as the US has shown, do drill the damned gas.

Stop listening to non-scientific idiocy, and the innumerate caterwauling of marxtards, republicans, greenists, rosary bead clasping octogenarians, and unwashed crusties.

Kerrigooney

Yahew wrote: »

The Chinese would drill and frack to bejesus if they had gas underneath.

So because the Chinese might do it so should we? Strange logic.
They also have a 2 child policy...should we bring that in as well?

humanji

k.p.h wrote: »

We don't want this going anywhere near a debate or getting into any politicians hands.

So you decide. Nobody else, just you. My freedom is stolen away because you believe you are right and refuse to investigate alternatives. Nobody should have an opinion. Nobody should be allowed to decide for themselves.

You're as bad as the government.

k.p.h

humanji wrote: »

So you decide. Nobody else, just you. My freedom is stolen away because you believe you are right and refuse to investigate alternatives. Nobody should have an opinion. Nobody should be allowed to decide for themselves.

You're as bad as the government.

Oh right sorry, probably stating my position with a little bit too much conviction there.

That's taken a bit out of context all the same, I would be open to investigate alternatives just not fracking.

I just don't think there should be a public debate opened on fracking for the reasons stated previously. I still don't think it would make much difference if it was, I believe people would make the right decisions. I would just be a little apprehensive of that one in a million chance of a sequence of events happening that somehow the public got swung in favor of it.

Don't want to infringe on anyone's freedoms, people have the right to be pro fracking if they want. I still reserve the right to think that anyone who believes that any significant amount chemicals can be pumped into the ground safely is a bit deluded.

Millicent

k.p.h wrote: »

Oh right sorry, probably stating my position with a little bit too much conviction there.

That's taken a bit out of context all the same, I would be open to investigate alternatives just not fracking.

I just don't think there should be a public debate opened on fracking for the reasons stated previously. I still don't think it would make much difference if it was, I believe people would make the right decisions. I would just be a little apprehensive of that one in a million chance of a sequence of events happening that somehow the public got swung in favor of it.

Don't want to infringe on anyone's freedoms, people have the right to be pro fracking if they want. I still reserve the right to think that anyone who believes that any significant amount chemicals can be pumped into the ground safely is a bit deluded.

You can't say you don't want to infringe on people's freedoms or opinions while in the paragraph before saying there shouldn't be a public debate. That's a contradiction.

Suryavarman

k.p.h wrote: »

Let's say it's 99% safe, would you go for it then...?

How about 99.99% would you go for it then ..?

How about 99.99999% safe ..?

I don't know about you, but I would not let it happen if there was a 1 in a billion chance of any of out rivers getting polluted in any way.

What a load of rubbish. Your opinions on this subject are officially meaningless now. To show how ridiculous your statement is think about this; you have a one in a million chance of being killed by a dog, does this mean that all dogs should be put down? 13 people are killed by vending machines each year, should they be banned?

NinjaK

Rabidlamb wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0201/1224311046794.html?via=mr

The good.



The seemingly good but on second read, not so much.



Summary:
Private firm find €55 billion woth of gas in Leitrim.
Irish government only gets 10%, if we're lucky.

Our government are traitors and our people are dumb so we wont see s**t of that money unfortunately

Kev.OC

dj jarvis wrote: »

this following paragraph is taken from a story about crime in a Indian reservation in the US - the story has nothing to do with fracking , not biased in any way anti or pro - and this is why i would be against frackin based on this ONE paragraph


On one section of the reservation, people must boil drinking water because chemicals, possibly the result of the oil and natural gas drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, have contaminated the water supply. And fearing that the chemicals might explode in a home, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered residents to run fans and otherwise ensure ventilation while bathing or washing clothes.

full story here ( not thread related but will show NO bias in the above comment ) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/us/wind-river-indian-reservation-where-brutality-is-banal.html?_r=1&hp


that ends the debate for me

Sorry now to be pedantic, but "fracking" is the common term used for the process of hydraulic fracturing, so to state that the story has nothing to do with fracking leads me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you're not that terribly familiar with the process.

The paragraph you quoted though does state that the chemicals are "possibly" the result of fracking. I don't believe this is enough to just ban it outright. There needs to be proper investigations done, along with EPA risk assessments and perhaps even a second opinion on the estimated size of the gas reserve. If an independent study proves, as a process, that fracking is inherently flawed, fine, outlaw it. Leave the gas there until it can be extracted in a safer manner. But there are very few rewards in this world that don't involve initial risk, and if the incidence rates for pollution occurring directly as a result from fracking are below an acceptable threshold, I would be in favour of it.