73 replies »

1. A conversation with an ex work colleague who referred to it, as I recall, well stimulation by means of hydraulic fracturing. That must have been around 2009 because he had returned to the US and married by then. Later that ungainly term got shortened to fracking when the process was modified to unconventional high pressure hydraulic fracturing, I think I became aware of accidents and contamination reports around 2010 and only then began to investigate the problems with the process.

   Reply

   • [Comment edited by moderator] Since the 1960’s high pressure hydraulic fracturing technology has been used to access resources in low permeability geologies. You try over and over again to pass fracking off as a new phenomenon, but it just ain’t. It’s new to you, and that is clearly apparent, but not new to most of us. ;0)

     Reply

   • Wow, how surprising that most of the people found out about fracking from anti-frack groups who have used hyperbole [comment edited by moderator] to “educate” the public as to why they should fear fracking. Then you want to tell us that we should pay attention to opinion polls and “social license.” A rigged game for sure! LOL

     Reply

     • From Business News
       George Mitchell began poking in shale in the early ’80s, in a picked-over spot in east Texas called the Barnett Shale. Shale is dense, tight rock that traps hydrocarbons inside. Back in the day, some even even pondered exploding atom bombs underground to get the energy out.
       Vertical=conventional.
       But what Mitchell discovered is that shale has naturally occurring cracks in it. If you can frack it where the cracks are, the gas comes out easy. Mitchell described it as taking a baseball bat to a windshield that already has cracks in it.
       The results were phenomenal — and the Barnett Shale quickly became a huge producing natural gas field.
       Companies then took that technology and applied it to the Bakken in North Dakota and Marcellus in Pennsylvania in the mid- to late 2000s.
       Horizontal=Unconventional=mid to late first decade of 2000’s (2000 to 2010)

       [Comment edited by moderator at poster’s request to clarify dates in final line]

       Reply

       • [Comment edited by moderator]

         We’ve been fracking for 50 years. Horizontal fracking since the 1980’s. For a reality check, Phil: “Horizontal oil or gas wells were unusual until the late 1980s. Then, operators in Texas began completing thousands of oil wells by drilling horizontally in the Austin Chalk, and giving massive slickwater hydraulic fracturing treatments to the wellbores. ” From Wiki.

         Of course whether it is horizontal or vertical shouldn’t matter one bit, should it Phil? Unless, that is, you can explain to me why the transmission mechanism that would endanger water supplies would change in a horizontal frack versus a vertical one.

         Reply

       • [Comment removed by moderator]

         Reply

       • Equating horizontal with unconventional is extremely lazy. I’ve worked on many horizontal conventional wells. It is more “misinformation”, as I had a Nana tell me once that the reason that fraccing wells leak is because they use horizontal drilling. I stood there just a bit gob-smacked.

         Reply

     • First achieved 1998, used commercially mid to late 2000.
       George Mitchell Energy achieved the first economical shale fracture in 1998 using slick-water fracturing.
       1/10 see teacher

       Reply

       • “On March 17, 1949, a team of petroleum production experts converges on an oil well about 12 miles east of Duncan, Oklahoma – to perform the first commercial application of hydraulic fracturing.
         Later that same day, Halliburton and Stanolind company personnel successfully fractured another oil well near Holliday, Texas.
         An experimental well fractured two years earlier in Hugoton, Kansas – home of a massive natural gas field – had proven the possibility of hydraulic fracturing for increased gas well productivity.
         By 1988, the technology will have been applied nearly one million times. The technique had been developed and patented by Stanolind (later known as Pan American Oil Company) and an exclusive license issued to Halliburton to perform the process. In 1953, the license was extended to all qualified service companies.”

         Reply

         • Peeny – the feeble attempts to equate minor vertical fracks into sandstone with modern horizontal high volume slickwater fracks into shale were knocked on the head by DECC some time ago. Do try to keep up poppet!

           Reply

           • You sound really smart and educated, Refracktion! Please explain to all of us then why fracking shale is so much more dangerous than fracking sandstone. While you’re at it, explain why a longer bore hole would be more dangerous when fracked than a shorter bore hole, given that the fracking takes place at the same depth and distance from the surface and water table.

             While you’re at it, you never were able to demonstrate evidence of systemic threats to health from fracking, were you Johnny Boy? Any luck on this front recently? LOL ;o)

             Reply

           • (Almost) All hydraulic fractures propagate parallel to the current day principal stress field. The fractures themselves are vertical planes, with a height and length, where the length is much more than the height. (Induced fractures are certainly not horizontal, as that implies you are lifting thousands of tons of rock above the fracture). The only reason to drill and do multi-stage fracs on a horizontal well is if this is cheaper and gives better production rates (or land access, etc) than drilling vertical wells and doing a frac job on each well.
             There are plenty of world wide examples of very large frac jobs being done on sandstones.

             Reply

           • Oh Peen – we’ve done this so many times before – please try not to be so tiresome and do your own research about the differences in scale and therefore of impacts. It’s not hard really. I suggest you start with water and a sand volumes. Then you can look at chemical volumes and emissions.

             Reply

           • Refracktion, then explain how the scale of fracking makes it more dangerous. What are the mechanisms of transmission in a large scale frack job, and why are they different than in a smaller frack job? Smaller frack jobs have shorter bore holes, but they can frack the same rock in the same manner at the same pressure with the same proppants at the same distance from the surface as larger frack jobs. And don’t tell me it’s about all the trucks and the amount of water used – I accept that those are going to be greater in a larger operation. Let’s just focus on the fracking. Let me know?

             Reply

           • Peeny – how many times do I have to keep telling you – you can’t frame the debate to suit your limited armoury. Setting up straw men may work with stupid people but you really are out of your depth here. Stop wasting my time please.

             Reply

           • Any anti-frackers care to comment on the latest meltdown in South Australia? Another massive blackout. Dangerous stuff. But don’t worry, they pay a lot for their inconsistent power and industry is fleeing the state and the country because of poor policy decisions that led to this. But who could’ve seen this coming? LOL. Certainly not you, Refraction. You argue for more unstable and expensive wind power, not less.

             From an article detailing the issues: “Mr Weatherill conceded there was a problem with the state’s energy mix. SA now gets more than 40 per cent of its power from wind, and does not have an operational coal station.

             He said it was due to national policies that incentivised certain types of power supply.

             “You’re squeezing out cleaner gas, which would solve all of the problems,” he said.

             “Gas is the transitional fuel. What we have is a national energy market which goes to wind first, coal second and squeezes gas out. In SA, where our coal-fired station has ceased to operate, it essentially punishes our cleaner gas-fired generators.

             “We’re using direct Victorian coal instead of cleaner SA gas.””

             What an utter disaster. And a sad time to live in a place where energy policy was run by popular opinion rather than by rational, energy experts. Now — utter chaos!

             http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-power-how-the-state-government-plans-to-fix-energy-crisis/news-story/b6d6bceb9d9c0203f0bc9bd9637e32f6

             Reply

     • That’s choice – “A rigged game”! This government isn’t “rigging” the game then? Don’t make me howl. It matters not what alerts you to do your own research on a subject, you get on and do it! You learn, then you can’t “un-know” it! Have respect for intelligence of people who don’t agree with you and their ability to see clearly the interests of the industry vs. the interests of threatened communities and the bigger picture not just profit for big business! And please don’t pontificate about rigging games unless you’re talking about this government!

       Reply

       • But I love it when you howl, Maureen. Do it one more time, so I can hear it!

         The government has a duty to honor the committment it made to the 11.3mn voters that put it in office. Am I right? Isn’t that how democracy works? Why do you think the government should go back on their word to their constituents? Is it simply because their agenda doesn’t match with what you want? Is that the way that democracy is supposed to work – ignore your constituents because Maureen says so? I don’t think so!

         Reply

         • I agree with you on this hbpeeny. The current government public stated its policy going into the election that it will make shale happen. It won the election whereas parties oppose fracking as their policy like labour the green Tina and Mike Hill lost the election at both local and national level. Democracy has spoken. Stop chewing up other democracy for your nimby democracy.

           Reply

           • Exactly, TW. The anti-frackers just want democracy when it suits their purpose.

             Reply

             • [Comments removed by moderator]

               Reply

         • You mention the word “Democracy”? Local democracy in Lancashire isn’t democracy then?

           Reply

           • Sure it is, Maureen! No problem with local democracy at all. But you must acknowledge that the system was engineered in a manner that enables national democracy to trump local democracy in certain cases. This is simply one of those cases where national interests are judged (thankfully) to be more important than local NIMBY interests. It’s all part of a well-functioning democracy and to suggest otherwise is to simply ignore the facts that 11.3mn people voted for shale gas exploitation and those votes are in power.

             Reply

   • I first heard about fracking at a local village hall meeting run by Cuadrilla. Mark Miller said that house prices near fracking sites would rise. You could hear a pin drop. I realised then that the industry was dominated by preposterous rationale. To suggest that people would pay more to live next to a fracking site in the countryside beggars belief.

     Reply

     • John Powney, You will have to excuse Mr. Egan for relying on facts and data. I know that this can make anti-frackers uncomfortable. https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2016/12/22/study-suggests-hydraulic-fracturing-boosts-local-economies

       Reply

       • That US article doesn’t support your argument at all! What is “net” benefit exactly? Money? Communities are not interested in cash, they are only interested in quality of life and health! You just don’t get it, do you?

         Reply

         • Try reading the article, Maureen. “The benefits include a six percent increase in average income, driven by rises in wages and royalty payments, a 10 percent increase in employment, and a six percent increase in housing prices.”

           Reply

   • Interesting origins of fracking, much earlier then you might think. The thought came to Lt. Col. Edward A. Roberts when he saw a canal breached by a gunpowder torpedo in the american civil war. The well shooter’s original tools of choice were gunpowder and, later, liquid nitroglycerin!! These were delivered down the well within an “exploding torpedo” which had then been patented by Lt. Col. Edward A. Roberts in 1865-1866. He first introduced his technique in the oil fields around the industry’s Titusville, PA, birthplace, and it quickly spread across the Appalachian oil producing region covering New York, West Virginia, Kentucky, and parts of Ohio.
     Inspired by the Civil War veteran’s observations of damage from artillery shelling on the battlefield, the torpedo was an iron shell packed with 15 to 20 pounds of gunpowder and topped off with an explosive cap. Shooters lowered it cautiously down the bore hole to the desired depth, and then dropped a weight down the well where it detonated the cap. Roberts pumped large amounts of water down the well to achieve what he called “superincumbent fluid tamping” to concentrate the power of the explosion as it sent cracks through the formations below.
     These were of course vertical and conventional, and relatively no water pressure, as gas became harder to extract and sandstone rock domes became few and far between and depleted. Low pressure water extraction technology had limitations, so new technology was required and high pressure pumps and slip chemicals and close control over horizontal computerised drilling became available, the modern high pressure process became available when George Mitchel developed the new process of unconventional high pressure hydraulic fracturing in shale which was first successfully tried in 1998 and then started to become largely commercially licensed and used in the first decade of the 2nd millenium. (2000+for those who don’t like figures).

     Reply

2. Interesing, perhaps starting with the “I met someone in a pub” story, or I saw something on Facebook.

   Myself I read newspapers, and not the U.K. sorry excuses for them. I read it in the New York Times.

   I discovered fracking in 2008, a time when everyone in the U.K. saw natural gas as running out and therefore so expensive that it would be so expensive that we would either have to pay through the nose to Russia, or that it would make renewables seem cheap in comparison.

   Here the original report. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/ng_supply_assessment_2.pdf

   Now I’m nobody’s fool. I don’t see something on Facebook and suspend belief. I tied to pick holes in it, and I still don’t think shale is perfect, because perfection doesn’t exist. But i’s the least worst option until so,etching else comes along. And the humbling lesson of shale is that something else, something equally anticipated will come along too

   I stole a line from what is now my good friend Rick Smead, one of the authors of the report, who said “I’ve been in the natural gas business for 30 years and it was really, really boring for the first 27.” I also had the pleasure of meeting Gordy Pickering, who told me in 2009: “There is enough natural gas worldwide that no one anywhere ever needs to burn coal or diesel again.. Since that includes China, climate change is solved. This is the magic bullet. It’s the best news for the planet since the light bulb.

   So some are sacred, misinformed or simply don’t have an idea of the impact of THEiR choices eveytime they flip a switch or put the hearing on. P

   I wrote a report on shale in 2010. You can find it here, http://www.reimaginegas.com/?p=4123#more-4123 What part was wrong?

   I visited Texas and Pennsylvania in search of Gasland destruction three times. I never saw any. I saw a Elk Lake school in Dimock, the Gasland town. next to four wells. kids are just fine. I visited Beaver Run Reservoir where over a hundred wells were drilled in 2007/09. I didn’t find any damage there either. So that’s kids and water covered. I also visited the Pampers factory in Lycoming Pennsylvania where Procter and Gamble, have made their factory using shale gas and water, the lowest carbon plant of over 200 worldwide. Lots of those Pampers are exported to the U.K. So most of the commenters have already subjected their children and grandchildren to fracking water and chemicals. They’re all thriving I guess.

   I met the lawyers who got billions in damages from ExxonValdez and the Deepwater Horison well too. They both said there was no provable case for any damages that was worth their while, despite them investing millions in discovery. Richest lawyers in the USA. They don’t get bothered by shale.

   And yes, I’ve met Josh Fox too. Found him to be a failed avant-garde playwright who pretty much exaggerated his way to a fe year in the sun. Today, evertything that movie predicted simply hasn’t happened. What has happened is the shale production grew by several orders of magnitude, transferred to oil and changed the world.

   Small people might get scared. Bigger people get inspired.

   Reply

   • [Comment removed by moderator]

     Reply

3. Early 1980’s working in the industry. Late 1980’s managing and executing what was then the world’s largest offshore acid stimulation. Lots of HP, very large volumes, 10,000 psi. The wells are still producing today, and the stimulations were once only, they have not been repeated. So they enhanced commercial productivity for around 30 years. Not shale but fractured limestones. Perhaps similar to the Gatwick area wells.

   Reply

   • Paul – I have to laugh – when your industry wants to claim acid stimulation isn’t fracking they do so shamelessly (as at Balcombe). When you want to claim acid stimulation IS fracking because it suits you today you do that as well. Make your minds up!

     Reply

     • It’s simple – acid stimulation is fracking when you exceed the fracture pressure of the rock and induce fractures. Basically similar to what you all don’t like but without the proppant (sand). No need for sand as the fractures in a carbonate don’t close when the pressure is taken off because the acid has etched the face of the fractures and they physically cannot close.

       Acid stimulation is not fracking when you do not exceed the fracture pressure of the rock e.g. in a mud acid wash, matrix acid treatment, acid perforation clean up (both sst and carbonate), all much smaller treatments and often undertaken rigless with only a small coiled tubing unit and a small pump.

       Balcombe was not an acid fracture stimulation?

       Still laughing or do you understand now?

       Reply

       • [Comments removed by moderator]

         Reply

       • Thanks for the explanation Paul – Sounds plausible – is that a definition enshrined in regulation somewhere?

         Is “Balcombe was not an acid fracture stimulation?” a statement or a question?

         Reply

         • From your website Refracktion, Peter Styles – Toni Harvey – August 23rd 2013:

           “You also asked if we have a formal definition of fraccing. We don’t. But generally speaking, we would recognise fraccing by the application of hydraulic pressure to the rock around a wellbore, with the intention of fracturing the rock or enlarging pre-existing fractures. For instance, there have been questions whether an acid wash procedure planned by Cuadrilla at Balcombe constitutes fraccing. We don’t think so, because no elevated pressures will be employed and there is no intention to fracture the rock, merely to clean up the mudcake and drilling debris around the wellbore.”

           You already have the answers John?

           The ? in my reply was because I didn’t follow what was going on at Balcombe so I didn’t know. But with Google it would appear that Lower Stumble was intended to be (or was) subjected to a small acid wash using coiled tubing. Was this actually done in the end? Did the well flow any oil? And someone kicked up a fuss about the lack of a CBL? I could spend hours discussing the usefulness of CBLs…..

           Reply

           • I wouldn’t take “We don’t think so” as a proper answer to the question ‘is that a definition enshrined in regulation somewhere” but maybe you are more easily satisfied than me? 🙂

             Reply

           • http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/w/well_stimulation.aspx

             Good enough John?

             Reply

           • No Paul – I am looking for a definition in a UK regulation – can you point me to something better that the “we don’t think so” I already have?

             Reply

           • Ask Toni Harvey – I believe she is still there? She might have updated the regs to include a definition after her none response of 2013. You should keep on the right side of her though as she is the main reason the regs got tougher – seismicity monitoring, fugitive emissions, waste fluid definitions…..

             Not sure why UK regs need a “definition”? A stimulation which uses pressure which exceeds the strength of the of the rock is a fracture stimulation. You know that. Every time a leak off test is undertaken after drilling out a new casing shoe it is a mini fracture process as you pump until the formation breaks down. It may only be 200 gallons of injected fluid.

             Presumably you don’t like the Government’s definition:

             http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/7/section/50/enacted

             I don’t either, but this is where we differ – as far as I am concerned a fracture stimulation with 50 cubic meters is no different to a fracture stimulation with over a 1,000 cubic meters. The risks are the same, the equipment is the same (but more of it for the bigger job), the surface pressure is the same, the fluid can be the same. But the anti industry groups have driven the Government to come up with something so we are stuck with a pretty large volume as a definition for shale fracking.

             Reply

   • My worry with all these statements – that kids are just fine etc is that no baseline health assessments were taken, indeed few environmental baselines were taken before fracking and often health impacts can be latent. Also in Pennsylvania they had dreadful laws passed like the notorious Act 13 – commonly known as the “Doctors gagging order”, which have further muddied the science.
     There is undoubtedly some worrying peer reviewed studies now coming out of the States that identify public health and environmental concerns but it takes time and a considerable amount of studies to be able to prove precise causation and disease.
     I have recently read, for example, in New Scientist that there is now a new reemergence of vCJD. As we all know the public were all told there was no risk, then people tragically went on to develop the disease, our beef industry was decimated and the worry is now, many years later, we may be facing a further wave of illness. This illustrates my point, and the point that Doctors are making in Pennsylvania in calling for a moratorium. We do not have all the facts, but the science is worrying. Yes we must deal in science and facts – but equally we should not be ruthlessly gambling with public health, particularly where children are concerned, and with climate change.

     https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118418-many-more-people-could-still-die-from-mad-cow-disease-in-the-uk/

     Reply

     • Well, KaTt, given that we’ve been fracking for over 50 years in the US, and we’ve been doing HVHF for 45+ years, and fracking with horizontal drilling for 30 years, it sure is taking a long time for all the science to prove how deadly the industry is! Tens of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of workers spent their entire career working on fracking rigs. Why are they not all dead? If fracking is so terrible that people miles away are getting sick, then these workers obviously should have all died from cancer at this point. Why hasn’t this happened? The problem with your argument is that as we have gained more and more experience with fracking, rather than see a trend in the empirical data that indicates problems, the opposite is happening. Fracking isn’t perfect and it entails risks, accidents happen, and precautionary measures need to be taken, but if it were as bad as you think it is the science would have revealed this long ago.

       Reply

       • “Fracking isn’t perfect and it entails risks, accidents happen”….. That’s not what the government is saying! That’s not what planning authorities have to assume when considering applications! You aren’t advancing the frackers’ argument!

         Reply

         • Really, Maureen? Can you show me where the government and the planning authorities claimed that gas operators never have accidents? Thanks!

           Reply

         • Maureen, have you seen how well the renewable transition has been doing in South Australia? ANOTHER full black out last week. The government says the situation is “unacceptable.” Who in the world could’ve seen this coming. ;0) Well, I know a few people! LOL

           You know what the government is now saying they’ll do to fix the problem, Maureen? Yes, they’ll build a big gas generation facility. The thing is, Maureen, that the gas generation facility needs feedstock. Gas can’t be created magically. Maybe like you, those in SA want gas but they just don’t want to extract it? Where should they source their gas, Maureen? Some far away place where they don’t have to see it be extracted? They’ll have to pay more. They’ll give up quite a bit of energy security. Sounds like a plan!

           Reply

4. Three common trends – Balcombe (conventional, no fracking), Gaslands (debunked rubbish), gas out of water taps being lit (not connected to fracking or shale gas). Interesting how easy it is to mislead people with social medai twitface etc.

   Reply

   • Paul the common trend is in fact that we all ended up doing our own research and questioning the PR pap put out by the huge number of PR agencies (Cuadrilla have used at least 7) that this industry is unsuccessfully using to try to acquire a social licence.

     Reply

     • So you don’t disagree with my trend comment above? Good to see. I don’t follow what Cuadrilla say or don’t say or what their PR oufits say or don’t say. But then I am fortunate in that I have direct experience of the industry which I try and share with you all. Some listen, some don’t.

       Reply

       • Er no 🙂

         And we all listen Paul – we even take notice when it is appropriate 🙂

         Reply

         • Fair enough.

           Reply

5. Two things stand out in my mind, talking to a friend who started to look into fracking after their house shook – following explosives being detonated during a seismic survey.

   Speaking to numerous industry experts and regulators.

   Watching the government amend and introduce planning regulations and laws to unfairly favour fracking and weaken the local democratic process.

   Seeing for myself unconventional gas extraction in Australia and the US.

   Reply

   • Can you supply some more details about this incident of “house shook following explosives being detonated during a seismic survey”?

     Reply

6. Reblogged this on keepeastlancashirefrackfreekelff.

   Reply

7. A little bird told me.

   Reply

   • [Comments removed by moderator]

     Reply

8. Ruth & Paul, Do you think that you have a duty to write a headline article about the energy crisis in South Australia? Don’t you owe it to your faithful, most of whom believe that a majority renewables energy system is attainable, safe, and smart, to educate them about what has befallen the most aggressive large renewables experiment in the world? Do you think you should point out the obvious dangers in the current system in South Australia, as well as the incredibly high energy prices and associated high mortality rates? If your aim is to help your readers understand energy news and policy from all angles, you may want to consider this as a headline story. It certainly is important enough to warrant it (probably more important than an eight year old boy’s sad-faced letter?). All the best!

   http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-power-how-the-state-government-plans-to-fix-energy-crisis/news-story/b6d6bceb9d9c0203f0bc9bd9637e32f6

   http://www.afr.com/business/energy/electricity/ludlow-evans-potter-on-the-electricity-market-of-sa-20170209-gu9ewp

   Reply

   • Hi Hball

     Thanks for your suggestion, which I will pass on to Ruth.

     There is a lot going on in the drilling world, and unfortunately we don’t have the person-power to cover it all. Another story which has caught our interest of late is the situation in Zharrez, Albania where villagers claim their houses have been severely damaged by drilling.
     http://www.exit.al/en/?s=zharrez.

     Reply

     • Thanks, Paul. Drilling causes earthquakes, huh? That’s a new one! We’ve drilled on the order of what 10 million wells around the world throughout the history of industry. That’s the first I’ve heard of this idea! ;0)

       Reply

       • This is an interesting piece from oroville.com regarding the present collapse of the oroville dam spillway collapse and major evacuation procedures happening as we speak.
         The danger of collapse of the oroville dam was actually mentioned as a potential hazard before it occurred today. The objection to fracking was part of the move for an outright ban of fracking in Butte County.

         “Garcia said a congressional report found that 29 of the chemicals used in fracking can cause cancer or are suspected of causing cancer. More than 1,000 chemicals are used in fracking but the long-term effects of two-thirds of them are unknown.

         “It’s crazy to be pumping toxic, dangerous, cancer-causing chemicals in our largest source of drinking water,” Garcia said. “We need to protect that.”

         Evidence is mounting that fracking is bad for air and water quality, as well as for humans.

         Many people have questioned the need for the measure when there is no fracking currently taking place in Butte County. The measure would also prohibit the disposal of fracking waste within the county, but the Board of Supervisors prohibited that practice last year.

         Garcia responded there is fracking in the nearby Sutter Buttes and two wastewater injection wells in Glenn County.

         Butte County has 10 active wells that don’t use fracking. Gracia said fracking opponents are more concerned about the 200 wells in the county that are abandoned, orphaned or plugged. When oil and gas prices go up, companies may use fracking to revive abandoned wells.

         In addition to the effects of the fracking chemicals, Gracia was also concerned about indications that the fracturing process can cause increased earthquakes. There are fault lines near Oroville Dam and a quake-caused breech could inflict considerable damage”
         It seems that has happened.

         [Spelling correction by moderator at poster’s request]

         Reply

         • [Comments removed by moderator]

           Reply

9. This is also interesting, arent we always told that all Americans are in love with fracking? No problems, all pals over there?

   This is from Monterey.

   Fracking ban: Environmentalists declare victory on Monterey Measure Z

   Measure Z (zed here, zee in US) is a complete ban on all types of O & G extraction and could spread to all of California and beyond.

   Curious I had the impression it was all hunky dory, apparently not?

   Reply

   • When has anything been “hunky dory” in Caifornia?

     Reply

     • I recall sitting cross legged on bare floorboards in the lounge of my then girlfriends sparsely furnished flat in Bristol in the 1970’s listening to David Bowie on a portable record player, ahhh vinyl, remember that? And thinking everything was hunky dory. I am sure for that moment even California was cool, but not as hunky dory as a flat in Bristol.
       Of course California has never been the same since the hippy days, and of course even less since the Porter Ranch incident.
       Where did we go wrong? Everything seemed possible then, even peace between humans. I feel sorry for kids these days, that possibility we could fix all the problems then has been reduced to how we deal with the present environmental disaster and how to prevent the next one.
       I would give them something better than as it was when I arrived here but there are some who want to make that increasingly unlikely.
       Do you have any memories of better times?

       Reply

       • So Phil C are you saying we should base our national policies and security and way of life on the hippy day mentality and principles?

         Reply

         • Ha ha! Wouldn’t hurt! Peace and Love man!

           Reply

           • Free love free grass free cult.

             Reply

           • Interesting tangent TW? I am not sure what you think to gain by this, i would guess you weren’t even around then, perhaps you had to be there to understand, it was not as you think, maybe in California it was, London maybe, not here though, not Bristol. Mostly it was an awakening after the austerity of the fifties and sixties. War had devastated not just buildings but people too. My generation was fortunate to live in times where the possibilities were endless a sort of freedom to be ourselves and hope for a better future. That was deliberately stamped on by the reactionaries and the hateful eighties saw that enshrined in government. Three sentences by Margaret Thatcher did more damage to England than carpet bombs and incendiaries and V1/V2’s from Hitler ever did.
             “greed is good” “its everyone for themselves” and “there is no such thing as society”
             Hope for a better world squandered in the name of profit and self interest, selling England by the pound. Don’t care for the planet or the poor or the starving, only look after yourself, everything is for sale, everyone else can go to hell. Reactionary backlash against those who wanted better for everyone.
             You live in that reactionary selfish legacy now, you have been brainwashed and you don’t know it.
             I consider myself fortunate to have seen something better, a place where fracking is put into its true perspective, a frack too far.
             Eventually I saw through all the lies and the manipulation of personal, social and financial greed, and so here I stand, still hopeful that my children and grandchildren will have something better than a fracked out devastated burnt out husk of a planet to live on.
             To answer your question, I propose free love of all future generations, free love of the planet and our fellow creatures, grass that is green and healthy and growing and free to all animals, not the narrow free sex and marijuana view that you think it was, all though you could do worse, it would be a start, that is what we found, it was just the first step to something better.

             Reply

10. Many of the 60s cult sect and groupie promise the same thing as you Phil but they never give detail how to achieve it or evidence to make it work.

    Reply

    • [Comment removed by moderator]

      Reply