Opposition

“It’s up to farmers to put a stop to fracking” – rally at N Yorks shale gas site

170926 KM rally EddieThornton4

Farmers Against Fracking rally, Kirby Misperton, 26 September 2017. Photo: Eddie Thornton

Farmers were urged at a rally in North Yorkshire this morning to deny fracking companies access to their land.

Sheep farmer, Matthew Trevelyan, told anti-fracking campaigners outside Third Energy’s shale gas site at Kirby Misperton:

“As farmers and growers, we are the guardians of this land and it is up to us to put a stop to this industry.

“Only us can not give the access to the frackers on our land.”

170926 KM rally EddieThornton5

Matthew Trevelyan speaking at the rally in Kirby Misperton, 26 September 2017. Photo: Eddie Thornton

About 100 people gathered for the Farmers Against Fracking event at the gate to the KM8 site.

Many carried placards with the messages “Farmers are eternal optimists. We hope Third Energy Frack Off! and “Farmers Feed the World. Frackers Destroy it”. A small convoy of tractors drove to the site from the neighbouring village of Great Barugh and blocked the entrance for about 30 minutes.

170926 KM rally EddieThornton2

Opponents of fracking at the rally outside Third Energy’s KM8 site, 26 September 2017. Photo: Eddie Thornton

Mr Trevelyan, who farms on the North Yorks Moors, told the gathering:

“Fracking is not just an environmental issue. It’s a livestock issue, it’s a food issue and it’s a livelihood issue.

“We live in the middle of a celebrated food producing area. Malton says it’s the food capital of Yorkshire and that’s quite right. If contamination or pollution were to occur from fracking-related activities then all this could be put at risk.”

He said the international legacy of fracking had been “permanent contamination of fertile land and critical water supplies”. He added:

“For farmers, there is potentially a lot of lose and very little to gain from fracking.”

170926 KM rally EddieThornton3

Matthew Trevelyan speaking at the rally at Kirby Misperton, 26 September 2017. Photo: Eddie Thornton

He said the farming lobby, when it mobilised, was “hugely powerful”. It had helped to secure a ban on fracking in Ireland and in shutting down the industry in parts of Australia, he said.

Mr Trevelyan added:

“Resistance to the fracking industry is uniting people from across the political spectrum.

“Being worried about fracking is not an extreme position. It is the position of every political party except the Tories, and the position of several countries, including Wales, Scotland and Ireland.”

Deliveries resumed to the KM8 site today, after a blockade by campaigners yesterday. North Yorkshire Police said two women, aged 56 and 66, were arrested at lunchtime and have been charged with obstructing the highway. They are due to appear at York Magistrates Court in November.

Link to video of Matthew Trevelyan’s speech

91 replies »

  1. Sadly the pollution of the water courses and pools around PNR seems to have already started even before the actual Fracking occurs, just the first attempts at vertical drilling. This has been reported to the various Agencies charged with safeguarding our local environment!
    [Edited by moderator]

  2. Unfortunately, our so-called caring famers/landowners only see ££££ before their eyes when selling out against the public.
    We should boycot all produce from – promoting fracking supporting greedy pollution of their land and produce gained there from

  3. The problem is that the anti frackers convert rumour into fact. They also convert minor mishaps into national mishaps. So if by accident a water table is polluted anywhere in the world, then that is trumpeted as every water table in the world will be polluted . In fact with over 2,000,000 wells fracked ( and some in the UK too) fracking has turned out to be one of the safest industries. In the collective mind of anti frack, a minor earth tremor (no more than the tremble felt when a heavy lorry passes a nearby house) then this becomes earth quakes . When you ask when, where, how. Invariable you get well in America………and it turns out to be as much speculative as it is fact . For example the famous case of the inflammable water on an American farm, turns out that when they dug their water well, they pierced a near surface level of gas . Same thing happened in Germany too, it was nothing to do with fracking

    • You’re the inventive one Vernon. Please do some real homework. It’s total nonsense to say there have been no water pollution (caused by fracking) incidents.

      Just a simple test for you… how many high volume hydraulicaally fracked shale (gas) wells have there been in the UK to date?

      • Philip, I would challenge you to find one single instance where fracking caused water pollution. Out of 2 million or so, this offers you plenty of chances. So, please name it. And don’t give us some example where there was a surface spill or poor well completion. As you know, these have absolutely zero to do with fracking and could just as easily happen in a conventional setting.

        If you are differentiating between high volume fracking operations and lower volume ones, please expound upon the mechanistic differences between the two which would make one safer than the other. Are you arguing that lower volume fracking work, with short laterals, is safer than long lateral work? If so, do you have any evidence to support your contention? It would seem that longer laterals would be both more efficient in terms of energy used in extraction and materials supply and would result in a smaller above ground footprint. Are you advocating for an approach that will be more industrializing to the countryside (although still 100s of times less industrializing than wind/solar)?

        Thanks!

        • Damn. I was going to say about that puddle next to that road in Texas that someone saw once, but you beat me to excluding it. Some person left a can of coke on the floor near a wellsite once. Activists reported it to the EPA, but they’re shills so did nothing, can you believe it.

          If you want really solid evidence then look no further. I’ve got it in my magic evidence satchel. In 2014 to the Lords Economics Affairs Select Committee on Shale Gas Dr Doug Parr gave you all the evidence you should ever need unless you’ve got a completely closed mind and are just a pro-fracking shill. He said:

          ‘on other issues such as groundwater contamination, there is no definitive study from an authoritative agency that says that there is a problem here. What we have is anecdotal, albeit rather a lot of it’.

          So there. Ner ner ner ner ner. Proved you definitively wrong. I mean, just read it again, just incase you read the ‘no definitive study’ bit and thought that means there isn’t a definitive study. Here, let me help you (since I’m so much clever than you and can use google and everything). ‘No definitive study means loads and loads of really great studies.

          P.S. Please don’t look up the word anecdotal. Just trust me. Anecdotal means that the evidence is just really really good and sound. Thats why it starts with the letter ‘A’, because its the first letter and so really really important.

          ———

          Oh God. I just read all that. Errr. MEDACT. Medact. Medact something or other. Errr. I think thats what I supposed to say now. Medact to the rescue. See. Look at the 2017 Medact report. Thats a hole in one that one. Prooves fracking will permanently completely destroy the entire galactic planet (which is why blessings are so important against fracking so that as your consciousness gets taller and your mind gets bigger you’ll see all the true things).

          Anyway. Yes. Medact. 2017. https://www.medact.org/2016/resources/reports/shale-gas-production-in-england/

          So take that.

          Medact clearly say (after 200,000 wells, over 2 million frack jobs, hundreds of research papers, datasets of tens of thousands of those wells):

          Here’s Medact…

          ‘Based on current evidence it is not possible to conclude that there is a strong association between shale gas related pollution and negative local health outcomes’.

          So. There you go. Loads of evidence from all the millions of times and its all perfectly clear. If you don’t understand all that then you must not be using Google right.

        • Refricktion. Please work your way through the settled and pending (Torts) records below. After that you could perhaps look at the 4000 (water related) complaints in PA alone… https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/01/31/data-trove-offers-new-details-on-complaints-to-dep-during-shale-boom/

          I would suggest for the purposes of debate just focussing on Ernst vs Encana – a single pollution case – which shows how if anyone tries to challenge the fracking companies who will, in league with the regulators, present you with an impossibly expensive knock-em-down, drag-em-out legal battle that would rather destroy the complainant than admit to any liability.

          2011 05-17 Tucker v. Southwestern Energy Co. settled AR
          2011 05-17 Berry v. Southwestern Energy Co. settled AR
          2011 05-17 Ginardi v. Frontier Gas Services settled AR
          2011 06-07 Hiser v. XTO Energy Inc. decided, affirmed AR
          2012 08-10 Hill v. Southwestern Energy Co.
          2013 01-31 Yanke v. Fayetteville Gathering settled AR
          2013 08-12 Ramsey v. DeSoto Gathering Co., LLC pending AR
          2013 08-23 Kay v. Peak Water Systems, LLC settled AR
          2014 04-24 Ramsey v. DeSoto Gathering Co., LLC pending AR
          2015 05-15 Gardiner Family LLC v. Crimson Resource Mngmt. pending CA
          2011 03-23 Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp. pending CO
          2011 04-15 Andre v. EXCO Resources, Inc. settled LA
          2011 04-18 Beckman v. EXCO Resources, Inc. settled
          2012 01-12 Teekell v. Chesapeake Operating, Inc. settled
          2009 08-27 Maring v. Nalbone pending NY
          2011 03-09 Baker v. Anschutz Exploration Corp.
          2009 08-13 Kartch v. EOG Resources settled ND
          2010 10-22 Armes v. Petro-Hunt LLC settled ND
          2008 07-22 Siers v. John D. Oil and Gas Co. settled OH
          2009 01-30 Payne v. Ohio Valley Energy Systems Corp. settled OH
          2010 10-22 Alford v. East Gas Ohio Co. jury verdict affirmed OH
          2012 03-12 Boggs v. Landmark 4 LLC settled OH
          2012 03-12 Mangan v. Landmark 4, LLC settled OH
          2016 03-18 Crothers v. Statoil USA Onshore Properties pending OH
          2011 10-06 Reece v. AES Corporation dismissal affirmed OK
          2014 08-04 Ladra v. New Dominion LLC pending earthquake OK
          2015 02-10 Cooper v. New Dominion LLC pending earthquake OK
          2016 01-11 Felts v. Devon Energy Corp. pending earthquake OK
          2016 02-18 West v. ABC Oil Company, Inc. pending earthquake OK
          2016 04-22 Almont Energy v. Newfield Exploration
          2016 11-17 Adams v. Eagle Road Oil, LLC pending earthquake OK
          2016 12-05 Reid v. White Star Petroluem, LLC pending earthquake OK
          2009 09-21 Zimmermann v. Atlas America, LLC settled PA
          2009 11-19 Fiorentino (Ely) v. Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. jury verdict/pending PA
          2010 05-27 Hallowich v. Range Resources Corp. settled PA
          2010 10-27 Armstrong v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC pending PA
          2010 12-17 Bidlack v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC c
          2010 12-17 Otis v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC pending PA
          2011 04-25 Phillips v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC settled PA
          2011 07-18 Becka v. Antero Resources settled PA
          2011 07-18 Dillon v. Antero Resources settled PA
          2011 08-03 Kamuck v. Shell Energy Holdings GP, LLC decided PA
          2012 03-12 Roth v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation settled PA
          2012 04-09 Manning v. WPX Energy Inc. settled PA
          2012 04-20 Kalp v. WPX Energy Appalachia, LLC settled PA
          2012 07-10 Butts v. Southwestern Energy Production Company settled PA
          2013 06-18 Bezjak v. Chevron Appalachia LLC pending PA
          2013 06-19 Leighton v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC settled PA
          2013 09-13 Brown v. WPX Appalachia LLC settled PA
          2013 12-27 Russell v. Chesapeake Appalachia pending PA
          2014 01-22 Arbitration between J. Place and Chesapeake decided PA
          2014 04-09 Chaffee v. Talisman Energy USA Inc. decided PA
          2014 07-21 Tiongco v. Southwestern Energy Production Co. pending PA
          2014 10-07 Lauff v. Range Resources – Appalachia LLC pending PA
          2015 04-21 Dubrasky v. Hilcorp Energy Company closed/settled? PA
          2015 03-29 Baumgardner v. Chesapeake Appalachia pending PA
          2017 08-04 Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation v. Speer pending PA
          2006 ——- Environmental Processing Systems v. FPL Farming decided TX
          2010 07-15 Scoma v. Chesapeake Energy Corp. settled TX
          2010 10-18 Ruggiero v. Aruba Petroleum, Inc. settled TX
          2010 10-22 Knoll v. Gulftex Operating, Inc. settled TX
          2010 11-03 Heinkel-Wolfe v. Williams Production Co., LLC settled TX
          2010 11-03 Sizelove v. Williams Production Co., LLC settled TX
          2010 12-15 Mitchell v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) settled TX
          2011 02-28 Eric Dow v. Atmos Energy Corp. pending TX
          2011 02-28 William Sciscoe v. Atmos Energy Corp. pending TX
          2011 03-08 Parr v. Aruba Petroleum, Inc. Plaintiff verdict appealed; affirmed TX
          2011 06-20 Lipsky v. Range Resources Corp. settled TX
          2011 11-07 Crowder v. Chesapeake Operating, Inc. jury verdict; settled TX
          2011 11-09 Anglim v. Chesapeake Operating, Inc. settled TX
          2011 11-10 Gutierrez v. Chesapeake Operating, Inc. settled TX
          2013 05-21 Cerny v. Marathon Oil Corp. dismissed/ affirmed TX
          2013 07-30 Finn v. EOG Resources, Inc. dismissed earthquake TX
          2013 10-10 Dueling v. Devon Energy Corp. settled TX
          2015 08-06 Murray v. EOG Resources, Inc. pending TX
          2010 02-24 Magers v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC settled WV
          2010 10-26 Hagy v. Equitable Production Co. dismissed; affirmed WV
          2010 12-08 Teel v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC dismissed; affirmed WV
          2011 02-07 Whiteman v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC decided; affirmed WV
          2011 04-10 Rine v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC settled WV
          2011 06-21 Cain v. XTO Energy Inc. settled WV
          2012 02-27 Dent v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC settled WV
          2014 09-30 Bertrand v. Gastar Exploration pending WV
          2014 —— In Re: Marcellus Shale Litigation pending WV
          2016 02-29 Easthom v. EQT Production Co. settled WV
          2014 05-21 Locker v. Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. pending WY
          2003 —— Ernst v. EnCana Corporation, et al. pending Canada
          2013 —— Daunheimer v. Angle Energy (2013) pending Canada

          • Philip,

            I’m sorry that you’re still struggling. Please go back and read my post. I asked you to provide a single example where fracking had contaminated water.

            In answer, you provide a list of complaints? C’mon, Philip, even you can distinguish between the two, right?

            As far as the case that you highlight, Ernst vs. Encana, a couple things to note:

            1) This was a coal bed methane project, so it is far different from what we are dealing with in the UK.
            2) More importantly, the authorities found that there was ZERO evidence of water contamination by fracking
            3) Here are a couple quotes from the responsible agencies “The Alberta Research Council’s overall of the evidence from the reviews of the AENV and AEUB files, along with a new review and evaluation of additional data and aspects, is that the energy development projects in the areas most likely have not adversely affected the complainant water wells.”
            4) And this, “In response to public concern from individuals in the Rosebud area, Alberta Environment retained the Alberta Research Council (ARC), now Alberta Innovates, to complete a groundwater investigation. Encana co-operated fully with both Alberta Environment and ARC and provided them with all available information. When the investigation was completed in January 2008, Alberta Environment released a report showing the water wells were not affected by CBM development. Rather, the quality issues were predominantly due to naturally occurring methane, poor water well construction and maintenance issues.”

            So, this has nothing to do with expensive defense lawyers and highly-resourced defendants. No, these are independent government agencies examining hard empirical data and concluding that most contamination was due to naturally occurring methane and poor water well construction.

            So, again, you can throw a lot of BS at the wall, but you have ZERO proof. We’ve been fracking for 60 years. We’ve been fracking at high volume for almost 30 years. We have millions of data points. And you cannot come up with ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of contamination. Just hot air, hype, and propaganda.

            But don’t feel too badly! The EPA had legions of scientists scrubbing the data and doing field work for a half decade and they couldn’t find anything either. You were on a fool’s errand laddie.

            • Wrong Refricktion. Many many cases there and you cannot prove they were not caused by fracking, which is the way the law should work (in terms of the burden of proof). Most cases of dismissal come about from the lack of baseline data or that the complainer had previously signed a contract which included clauses stipulating agreement not to raise such problems (gagging orders basically). With the proof-burden falling on the shoulders of the complainant the list is a brutal demonstration of how rigged the system is against those on the receiving end of the issues. I’m pleased that the cases demonstrate a lot of the problems people face (the full 70 page document can be found here: https://udayton.edu/directory/law/documents/watson/blake_watson_hydraulic_fracturing_primer.pdf ) and it shows the extent that individuals will go to, spending a lot of personal money in many cases, trying to get justice. We know increasingly how impossible it is, especially in the US to hold the perpetrators to account when it comes down to fighting fossil fuel interests.

              My hope is that some honest legal beagles in this country will be able to grasp the details and be ready to spot the stacking of laws and exemptions (e.g. from clean air and water protections that we have under EU laws) and how they will may get manipulated into shield for risky polluting operations in this country.

              I knew the EE case was coal-bed methane but it was pollution caused by fracking and it’s instructive to see how you guys work…. the evasions, the cover ups and the cast iron lid approach that would suppress any evidence, or simply call it inadmissible – evoking the exemptions from the clean air and water acts that have been built into US law (the so called Halliburton loophole). Jessica Ernst worked for many years for Oil and Gas but in discovering the pollution on her land she wanted to use the laws to try and highlight the real problems of the industry. Many aspects of her experience apply equally to the shale gas industry.

              Some related links:
              1/ an undercover recording – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKuCR3hHmf4
              2/ Jessica Ernst: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtKmzdRCWX8
              3/ ex EPA scientist Wes Wilson

            • So, you admit that you cannot come up with a single instance where water has been contaminated by fracking. Pointing to lawsuits that are dismissed or settled doesn’t even come close and any objective observer would agree. I understand that you feel that the system is unfairly “rigged” against anti-frackers, but that doesn’t constitute any form of proof that fracking is causing contamination. Nor does the fact that people will spend money to attack perceived deep pockets.

              And claiming that there is a massive conspiracy involving the corporate, government, regulatory, and judicial systems, doesn’t really help your cause, Philip. It just makes you look more desperate.

              Believe it or not, most people in the US and Canada, whether working for the government, regulatory agencies, and even for energy companies don’t want to poison or kill anyone. They often live in the same communities that they oversee and are guided by an abundance of caution. [Edited by moderator]
              Once again, can you provide any proof that fracking has caused a single instance of water supply contamination, Philip? I am just asking for a single instance of proof – not a list of legal cases and finger pointing without objective proof.

            • Philip, it is also highly ironic that your clip entitled “the truth about fracking” contains as its teaser graphic a lie about fracking. This is very rich don’t you think? There has not been a single proven case of fluid migration from fracking into an aquifer. Some truth you peddle!

            • Wrong again. You haven’t taken much in have you. If the boot was on the other foot legally you would hardly be able to prove any of those cases was not down to fracking and its related activities. Time and again the industry has been caught not filing necessary and accurate monitoring information and, without the ability for plaintiffs to travel backwards in time to establish full and accurate baseline data (which they couldn’t do for themselves anyway) they’re stuck with an impossible, and impossibly expensive, uphill fight. Lack of proof due to lack of (pre-existing) data is not disproof. And an industry that is profit driven is hardly going to file self incriminating data is it? There’s plenty of evidence of that happening i.e. misleading or manipulated data submissions.

              EPA scientists have not only seen evidence for themselves they have questioned why they have been pulled off investigations when they were getting very close to establishing clear and concrete proof. But they are politically hamstrung and their powers have been progressively removed.

            • The title graphic doesn’t lie but it does exaggerate — presumably to highlight the risk areas. Then again whenever do you see an OGA industry promo graphic that doesn’t simplify the strata of geological formations to make then look like perfect layers of a layer cake. The lowest risk is the bottom one depicting seepage from the low horizontals and surrounding strata up to the groundwater. Given that those depth are one to two miles down that risk is very small indeed. But it is not zero. Please show me any engineering or scientific conclusion that states that it is zero risk. All cracks and fissures underground can never be fully known in advance nor can the spreading of fissures and faults under the influence of high pressure fracking operations.

    • Hi Vernon, fact is no onshore shale gas well has been unconventionally fracked successfully ever! [Edited by moderator] Also the seismic events on the Fylde Peninsula have been described as earthquakes by no less an authority that Cuadrilla themselves, believe it or not!

        • Hi Dudes. Just to point out, but you cannot ‘unconventionally’ frack a well. You’re getting your geology all muddled up on that one.

      • Peter, do some more homework my man. Around 200 wells have been fracked in the UK. Some of them are still in operation. So, to say that no wells have been fracked successfully is just a blatant falsehoood.

        • Shhh. It wasn’t as large a volume of water so it doesn’t count. Ignore that it is still the same well and same construction and same geological principles. Ignore that the pressures need to be the same. So ignore that there is still alot of valid data in those UK wells that were fracked where the anti fracking lobby could judge if there was a major issue with other parts of the process or whether it was just the large scale fluid volumes that would cause the problems.

          I mean, its not like the anti fracking lobby has been making lots of claims about things like well failure rates that could be checked against the dataset of already fracked wellls to see whether the well construction standards and regulations / staff training are up to handling all of the many parts of the process the remain identical no matter the volume of fluid used – you know – that they might be able to check their claims against.

          • That’s right Garry. The issue at stake here is the HVHF practices that are proposed about to be rolled out on various UK sites. How many of these sites in the UK so far? – zero. Such are the plans at least – the permission requests and the PNR test drills make that perfectly clear. Those are the practices that are contentious in terms of risks.

            Having said that the proposal at KM8 to pilot a simple vertical drill with a five short perf zones looks to me like an attempt to show there’s recoverable gas or oil in the shale formation so the Barclay Brothers can sell off Third Energy for a decent return. That would lead however to a bigger OGA company wanting to snap it up for the said HVHF extraction.

        • There is ongoing confusion over the term “fracking”, with differing definitions for the process.

          In 2013 DECC stated that only 1 well had been fracked in the UK, at Preese Hall.

          See the discussion on DrillOrDrop https://drillordrop.com/2014/01/27/what-is-high-volume-hydraulic-fracturing-that-depends-on-who-you-ask-if-they-know-of-course/

          The Infrastructure Bill passed in 2015 established the following:

          Definition of fracking
          The Act includes this definition: hydraulic fracturing of shale or strata encased in shale in search for or extraction of petroleum. It would involve, or be expected to involve, the injection of more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage and more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total.

          https://drillordrop.com/2015/02/12/where-are-we-now-with-the-infrastructure-bill/

          So arguments over the number of wells fracked depend on the definition you use – on the UK government’s definition it’s only one.

          • That’s pure semantics, Paul, and you know it. 200 wells have used hydraulic fracturing technology in the UK and that’s a FACT that the DECC itself established years ago. Just because the government layers on a technical definition in order to keep up with the evolution of the technology doesn’t discount this fact.

  4. [Edited by moderator] how many protestors are there ? The population of Yorkshire is c.5.500.000. So 25 protestors can hardly be called a movement ! ?

      • Yeah, come on Vernon. Its a serious business this work stuff. You can’t expect any anti fracking event or rally to ever get more than 100 people you know. Give them some credit – the London anti fracking event got 13 people! Thats huge! Nationally events with 6 months advertising and free transport regularly get 250.

        Oh, I just checked. You remember when Jeremy Clarkson punched that guy. His petition got 1,063,543.

        My son’s 8th (joint) birthday party (which we cheated on compared to these anti frackers since we got.. a BOUNCY CASTLE!!!!!) got 290 folks. Yep – 290. Totally kicked the anti frackers bums. Go bouncy castle!

        • HA HA Garry,

          BLACKPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB.
          Expecting a large turnout were ya ??

          I can’t seem to find information on the next Pro-Fracking rally, but rumour has it , that it will be held in the telephone box just outside to grounds .

          Vernon ……. please remind us all how well your government petition went …. You know, the one in support of Fracking. After hammering out your message for all to sign it during the six months it ran, how many signatures did you get ????
          Less than 800 was it ???

  5. Ah the good ol poor farmers. Actually I’ve never come across a poor one come to think of it. Throw them a few quid and they’ll go away. I know quite a few personally, they are simply capitalists so nothing against them.

    • Hi Philop,
      I might have joined them if I was in an OIL patch with continuous flaring and the emissions from evaporating waste pits being easily measurable. I’d at least have demanded more regulation to keep a lid on leaks from waste ponds. Oh, and I’d have argued against spreading flowback fluid on roads too etc

      However, what with LIVING IN ANOTHER COUNTRY with none of those things and a completely different dataset to look at I would at least learned how the differing science affected things. Just like in other comments where you’ve referenced entirely different geology and made us actual geologists think you don’t know what you’re talking about. But, hay ho.

      • Also, as journalists in the US have pointed out when they did exactly this to test it the ‘list of the harmed’ is an open dataset. Its like having an anti-wind farm database where anyone who doesn’t like wind turbines can just ring up or write in saying anything and they’ll… add it to the list. Thats why when you read though it you’ve got lots of ‘I saw a puddle’ and ‘my cat got poorly’.

        You know, thats why science eventually dragged us out of the superstition of the medieval period. People couldn’t just go ‘I believe X did this’ and add it to a supposed list of evidence with which to lobby officials, but again, that’s just me being weird. You go right ahead and keep plugging it as if it were a high-quality peer-reviewed journal (you know, as opposed to all those times it turned out that the people peer-reviewing anti-fracking research were actually members of anti-fracking groups hiding their affiliations).

      • Hi Gary. Absurd how your argument gets trotted out without any brain cell intervention. Entirely different geology means no shale fracking will happen. Tell me how different shale chemistry is, how different the drill bits will be. How different pipe sizes and layouts will be. It’s an off pat industry line, everywhere they go… ‘it’s going to be different here’. Do you reckon they’ll come up with something other than the usual HVHF multistage frack process? Tell us about it.

        • Well. I’d say that it will be more round than before and at least a bit more blue. I did have a look at an electric car the other day and even though they said it was entirely different to a combustion engine I told, just like your logic, that I didn’t believe for a minute it was different as its still called ‘car’ in the advert. They looked at me funny, but I knew I was right. I mean, once a car, always a car right.

          I’m going to go with what you said. All rocks with the same name are exactly the same with completely identical compositions of everything. There’s absolutely no difference between any rock anywhere if its got the same name – I mean, that would just confuse college students. No difference in its primary mineral composition, definitely none in its secondary composition and absolutely none at all in any additional minerals. Every rock has exactly the same geological history, so nothing external will ever impact its composition and mineralogy; and certainly nothing that would ever affect any required engineering applied to it.

          Every single one needs exactly the same engineering to produce anything no matter what, because every one is exactly the same from here to Neverland.

          I’m also totally with you regarding the pipe layouts. I’m completely opposed to them ever being between at 45 degrees to the hedgerow. They should be straight and parallel always. Anything else is clearly unsafe.

  6. I just wonder if this farmer (N. Yorks Moors) will be in line for payments from Sirius Minerals for extracting material from below his land? If he isn’t, many of his neighbours will be and they will have a very large increase in their income to compensate for the British public not wanting to pay enough for their product. Maybe he is also outside of the area that will benefit from the community fund that is already paying out (£1m so far, I believe). Or, perhaps, he ignored the advice from his neighbours to buy some shares when they were at 6p for years during the planning process (around 26p now). Or his children could not take advantage of the apprentice scheme.
    If he missed out on all that, I can understand his stance! But many canny Yorkshire persons, farmers included, did not. You can spot them a long way off with permanent smiles fixed to their faces.

    In all seriousness, if fracking for gas does go forward, this is an area the industry needs to address to build local and national support. Not really practical during the test phase but easy to do as and when it develops.

  7. Equally, an unrequired journey in a tractor, fuelled by red diesel (ie. the tax payer subsidising fuel for agricultural use) is hardly a good bit of promotion against fossil fuel development! But good to see the clean wheels.

  8. so the water quality is monitored around some well sites but I observed on Saturday a farmer spraying his crops in the field next to a drilling site.
    What ever he was spraying I expect this will enter the water system and I hope this is taken into consideration when we are talking about environmental contamination. !!

  9. There is an irony that some farmers protest about fracking on environmental grounds – they should take note of their own industry’s environmental problems and deal with them. Especially when methane gas will beocome increasingly important in food production. “Humanity’s hunger for meat is not good for the planet. Every cow, pig and fish that farmers rear has an environmental cost – particularly in the land and water resources it takes to grow the food the animals eat. But one entrepreneur is developing a solution – create animal feed from methane gas. Using methane-eating bacteria, they have developed animal feed that uses a fraction of the land and water of plant-based animal feed.” See the BBC world service radio broadcast. It has some scary statistics about how agriculture is damaging the planet; plus part of the solution!
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csv3hr

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.