Regulation

Surface water from Cuadrilla fracking site to go into nearby brook

pnr 171025 Alan Finney - Copy

Preston New Road, 25 October 2017. Photo: Alan Finney

Cuadrilla has got the go-ahead to pipe rain water falling on its fracking site near Blackpool into a local brook.

The Environment Agency (EA) said today it had approved a study by the company about the effects of discharging water from the Preston New Road site into the Car Bridge Brook and Ribble Main Drain.

The EA said the study, required by the company’s environmental permit, aimed to prevent flooding.

Cuadrilla applied in December 2017 for a change to its permit conditions. Previously, the company had to send the water by tanker to an offsite treatment facility.

The EA approved the change in April 2018, allowing Cuadrilla to process the water on site before it was piped to the brook.

The decision was opposed by local campaigners. Frack Free Lancashire said Cuadrilla “appears to be able to move the regulatory goal posts at will”.

Preston New Road was photographed in 2017 and 2018 with surface water flooding. In 2017, the EA told Cuadrilla to improve its surface water management after breaching permit conditions.

Modelling by the company showed that flooding was likely to happen first upstream of a culvert under Moss House Lane, the EA said.

The regulator said Cuadrilla had established protocols to monitor the water levels in this area. It would discharge into Carr Bridge Brook only when water levels were low enough to prevent flooding.

The protocol also set a flow rate for discharging surface water from the site, the EA added.

 

68 replies »

  1. As for regulation, it is true that the US is much worse that way, but politicians are notorious for practicing the thin edge of the wedge.Once fracking is firmly established they will find excuses to keep it going.

    I agree with John Price and others- when the people who are making money off of this have to face the consequences, they will change their tune. Otherwise they will game the system.

    In the US it is being discovered that the only way fracking actually makes money is when it is subsidized by the government. Even with the subsidies many of the smaller companies are failing, right and left. Do you really want your government to pay for something that in the end will diminish your quality of life, ie health, considerably? Why not go with wind, solar or water power, clean sources of energy.

    • Shiningbearheart – unfortunately with the pro-frackers, and fossil fuel pedlars, they won’t take their own advice on any evidence and facts you produce. They will find any excuse to attack you, sow doubt and find a hole that isn’t there. The industry can do no wrong, even when you have people being gagged with legal orders and having their contaminated water supplies replaced with water buffaloes by fracking companies. Because there may be little in the way of scientific papers on this, they basically call all these victims liars. They will do anything to defend the oil and gas [edited by moderator], which has almost every government round the world in their pockets, undermining democracy.

      Of course, the obvious thing to do is focus on reducing fossil fuel consumption through energy efficiency programmes and the wide diversity of renewable tech ready for investment and development. There is no need to conduct fracking or increase onshore oil and gas production in the UK, especially in the face of catastrophic climate change; we obviously need to prioritise reducing its consumption. You are right, we don’t need what’s left of our already fragmented UK countryside, industrialised by the onshore oil and gas industry, when we have a golden opportunity to transform our economy to a cleaner, greener one.

      The UK is currently one of the worst positioned in Europe to reach a zero-carbon economy by 2050, published by the European Climate Foundation (ECF), ranked 21st out of 28 EU countries.The UK National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), presents a lot of info, but omits essential elements, including the UK’s 2030 non-ETS (Emissions Trading Sector) target and the 2030 energy efficiency contribution where existing and planned policies are missing. These current UK energy efficiency results are described as “even worse than for renewables” when it should be prioritised above renewables in my opinion. It is also scathing about the level of subsidies still available for fossil fuels and the “absence of any plans for a phase-out schedule”, except that of coal use by 2025.

      By the end of June, the EC must formally submit its recommendations on countries NECPs and issue publicly its recommendations to ensure agreed EU targets are met and national governments have to justify why they many not have taken them on board. And this utter shambles fo a conservative government wants to leave the EU with NO DEAL or the crap deal negotiated already. The lunatics are about to take over the “little Englander” asylum!

      • DPNP – I’ve just sat in a meeting with several of the worlds leading experts on energy including several climate scientists who helped write the last two IPCC reports. There wasn’t a single person present who didn’t think that gas would be a significant part of our energy mix in 2050. So the UK definitely does need gas so we have a choice of buying it from other countries or producing our own. In terms of the former we will need to produce good and sell them abroad to buy the gas – what goods are you proposing that we produce? Or are you just another person who believes in Jeremy’s little money tree?

        • JG, I hope some of your “leading world experts” aren’t those impartial bods from the British Geological Survey (BGS) “BGS Board member Olivier Peyret, the executive of oil services group Schlumberger…” or ..” the BGS Director of Science and Technology Mike Stephenson has written such bedtime classics as ‘Unconventional Fossil Fuels: The Next Hydrocarbon Revolution’ and ‘Frack responsibly and risks and quakes are small’… or ‘BGS consultant James Verdon, who actually works for Horse Hill Developments (chairing their ‘Working Group on Microseismic Monitoring and Hydraulic Fracture Mappin’)… you know the ones who say there is no connection between the cluster of earthquakes and Horse Hill Developments apparently.

          So how are tonnes of subsidised fracking rigs/onshore gas fields going to give us a zero-carbon economy by 2050, along with other countries? I certainly believe that if we don’t reach this, Jeremy’s supposed “magic money tree” will be pittance to the costs of catastrophic climate change, global species extinctions, and crop failures. As the name suggests I’m not a huge supporter of centralised, top-down concentrations of power being done to the people, but I do think the opposition’s proposals for investment in the greener transition would be better than Bojo the Clown.

          [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

          • DPNP – I don’t think the people from BGS helped write the IPCC report did they? The people I was meeting with were mainly climate scientists. It’s amazing how you seem to know my than they do. I actually know James and Mike also – they seem totally impartial to me. The main this is that they know a lot more about the subject than you do – especially James. They have come to their conclusions via a solid grasp of the subject rather a PhD for the university of google

            • JG, duh! sarcasm detection failure. You are very quick to erroneously judge people, with no knowledge of their background, from just 1 post, and you have no idea if I have a specialism in climate, energy efficiency or anything else, so don’t try to assume.

              How can you be impartial when working for Horse Hill Developments (HHD)? Of course you don’t want to associate HHD with causing a cluster of ‘quakes, it’s not good PR is it, for HHD nor the government regulator? But common sense would tell you they are related. How you and others tried to smear Professor Stuart Hazeldine (who may know more than you on the subject?), as a member of the BGS/ OGA working group, dares to question the working group’s assumption that no earthquakes were connected to HHD’s activities. BGS and the OGA are hardly impartial when packed full of oil and gas representatives lobbying away. The regulator’s claim that the earthquakes are not connected to the Horse Hill site because there was no work going on at the time of the first earthquake is, according to some, “frankly fraudulent”.

              ‘On 4th May the British Geological Survey (BGS) received more than 100 reports of an earthquake near Gatwick Airport. Measuring 2.5 on the Richter Scale, the tremor is the latest of 34 earthquakes in the area in the last 12 months.

              HHD has been drilling wells close to (and possibly through) a nearby geological fault about 3 miles north of the airport. But because HHD were allegedly not working on their wells at the time of the first earthquake, on April 1st 2018, the BGS (in cahoots with the industry regulator, the Oil and Gas Authority, OGA) maintain that the subsequent 33 earthquake can have no connection to their activities, and that they are ‘natural’.

              In reality, the regulator doesn’t know whether work was going on or not (or if they do they are not saying).

              There has been plenty of work on the well before the events of 1st April 2018, a flow test having taken place in 2016, amongst other operations. Then, on the 5-6 April 2018, the BGS/OGA say HHD carried out pressure tests. The company reported that it found no pressure. But – crucially – the BGS/OGA are not required to monitor this type of pressure-related activity. So if HHD was working on the well before 5th April, they would not have been required to report it.

              Indeed, the fact that there was no pressure in the well – which had previously had to vent to reduce pressure – indicates that something had indeed happened before the 5th April.

              But while authorities and various academics pronounce “no connection” between the earthquakes and Horse Hill Developments, the key point is that they are not actually looking. They exonerate HHD by examining only part of what they do.’

              Interesting, ‘the BGS has released no annual accounts for five years and its website shows various ‘sponsorships’ (by the oil and gas industry)…’

              So since the Surrey meeting, end of last May, has the oil company released the drilling data the district councillors were demanding?

              Out of curiosity, how many at this energy meeting you attended were climate scientists and how many were what…..??? fill in the blanks please?

              • RPNP – it is easy to be impartial when working for industry – the fact you don’t believe that’s possible says more about you than it does about those of us who do such work. Industry does not want repeats of disasters such as MACONDO and they pay people like me to give them a truthful assessment when we peer review their work. You seem to see big conspiracies everywhere but that’s solely because you don’t work in this environment and know the real situation.

                Common sense is a good thing that is generally obtained by massive amounts of experience. As you’ve clearly got no experience in this area I don’t see how your common sense is relevant. My common sense, gained through experience in this area, is that one would need many orders of magnitude more fluid to have been injected or removed from the ground to have caused a fault to reactive 3 kms away from the well bore. You need to think about the compressibility of the fluid and surrounding wall rock, the volume of the flow conduits and seepage rates into adjacent formations. We have loads of experience in similar situations (i.e. water injection for oil recovery, hydraulic fracturing and medium enthalpy geothermal) that tells us the sort of volume/fluid pressure changes that are needed to invoke seismicity close to the well bore and these are far below those that have occurred at HH-1 which far further away from the hypocentre of the seismic events.

                What myself and others have written about Haszledine isn’t an attempt to smear – it’s just asking you to look at his qualifications in this area and his track record and asking yourself whether you think he’s someone worth listening to. If you understand much about this subject you will realize that his team haven’t been able to explain the timing of seismicity and have certainly not provided a model to explain the seismicity that has any physical basis.

                In terms of the meeting that I attended, it was hosted by a sustainability research think tank and was discussing pathways to net zero. There were probably three climate scientists and the others had experience in a wide range of subjects including social and engineering challenges to reducing consumption, decentralized energy systems, energy storage, renewable technology, low carbon transport, agriculture etc etc. I was invited along to discuss issues related to carbon storage that haven’t been widely recognized in the academic community.

                It seems that the anti’s are keen to listen to climate scientists when they are highlighting the need for rapid action to limit climate change but then ignore such experts when the solutions that they offer don’t agree with their preconceived and poorly thought through idea.

                • I’m sorry JG, but I am not convinced by oil and gas lobbyists being impartial, just like you are not convinced by the victims of fracking in the USA. I would wager that the majority of the victims are telling the truth, and even have some evidence to back it up, unfortunately on the oil and gas industry, there is absolutely no evidence for impartiality. However, there is plenty of evidence of corruption, collusion and cover-ups, particularly with fossil fuel companies like Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP, etc and their disingenous denial of the reality of anthropogenic climate change over the decades, lobbying against climate change measures, etc has come to light.

                  There are many other experts involved in climate change and energy efficiency who do not see the continued reliance on any fossil fuels as the answer. Only recently, in May this year in fact, the Head of Sustainability at Mitsubishi has said the continued reliance on fossil fuels makes no sense if we are to hit our vital carbon reduction targets. He was working with the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to support low carbon heating of UK homes to accelerate the decarbonisation of the current natural gas network and end fossil-fuel based heating and dismissed hydrogen. Few people realise that the creation of hydrogen is an extremely carbon-intensive process and the future grid is electric. Existing power stations using gas would need to be converted into steam methane reforming facilities, continuing the unnecessary and fatal need for fossil fuel usage. Also the need to add several chemicals to the fuel to make it safe adds to the complexity and expense, thereby reducing the overall efficiency of the fuel. The grid itself would then need to be able to convey hydrogen to where it is needed and devices at the point of use would either need to be replaced or modified. Whist the electric gird also needs to be modified to a more versatile smart one the electric grid is the driver for change and the direction that must be taken to mitigate against catastrophic climate change. And as we have seen for solar power projects in Sussex and Cardiff, it can easily be fed into the national rail network to power trains, with little modification. The CCC has concluded that heat pumps are the leading low-carbon option for buildings not connected to the gas grid also and can reduce carbon emissions by 90% over the lifetime of the building compared to one using gas as its main heating source. By installing low-carbon heating from the outset in new homes, the cost of connecting to the gas grid is avoided. It was stated there is no need to retain fossil fuels for any longer than is absolutely necessary when there are array of proven and viable alternatives out there.

  2. Back in the real world, we have our first test hydrogen train. Long time coming but that’s Grayling for you! Hope they push it forward and see how only mainline high speed needs electrifying and other lines can save that cost and shift to hydrogen. And then hydrogen buses.

    Wonder how long it will take for it to penetrate a few skulls where that hydrogen will come from, plus the hydrogen for the heating?

    • Interestingly, solar powered trains in the real world: work progressing in Sussex and Cardiff: https://1010uk.org/articles/taking-solar-railways-off-the-drawing-board-onto-the-tracks

      And also in the real world, in this country in fact: a Passivhaus standard house built on reusable waste, it produces 30% more energy than it consumes: Waste House at the University of Brighton: https://bbm-architects.co.uk/portfolio/waste-house/

      http://www.designcurial.com/news/the-waste-house-4740787

      During a tour, the architect lamented the amount of waste in the building industry and continual use of new raw materials. There is no need to go to the trouble and expense of mining for materials anymore, it is already above ground in materials that are disposed of above ground. All the gold, copper, etc we need can be recycled from disposed of products, such as old mobile phones, etc, at a much cheaper cost. If only VAT was reduced to enable sustainable, energy efficient buildings. In fact some of the materials used to build it came from the start of a conventional new build which had more and more VAT slapped onto it, the builder had to pull out due to ridiculous, mounting costs. He ended up donating the material to the Waste House project which would have, otherwise, gone into landfill. A contingent from the EU’s, European Regional Development Fund were also present at the tour and 1 member from Belgium said that in his country it is just 6% VAT on sustainable building materials to encourage them. Why can’t it be done here? This is happening now and can be applied to all new builds if there is the political will.

  3. Also, in the same real world:

    “Long term demand for the Tesla Model 3 will be about half of what the company is projecting, Goldman Sachs warned yesterday.”

    Share price target cut from $200 to $158, with a sell recommendation.

    Looking very sound, Jack! LOL

    But, then this is the pattern for many “alternatives” A lot of hype but the reality is somewhat different.

    If I was a betting man I would pop down the bookies and put a few pennies on electric cars being a “bridge” to hydrogen ones, not least because existing service stations could easily be converted and the huge infrastructure costs of a separate electric system could be avoided..

  4. Well then MARTIN TARBOSAURUS…

    May I first start out by thanking the Dinosaur of the fossil fuel industry for thinking of me.

    Your friend Jack is going to help you, so please do not do your usual , ignoring any evidence that’s put your way, that contradicts your narrow Pro-fossil fuel stance (( as YOU have previously said that you do ))……. Endless repeating and spouting of false opinions without showing one shred of evidence will only serve to give forum members a burst of amusement at your expense….. Therefore MARTIN , PLEASE take note

    TESLA POSTS LARGEST EVER PROFIT AS MODEL 3 SALES SOAR

    https://www.driving.co.uk/news/business/tesla-posts-largest-ever-profit-model-3-sales-soar/

    I’M AWARE of the current drop in TESLA share price this week MARTIN , but let’s face it , there’s a lot more competition in this GROWING industry ……. If forum members REALLY want to be SHOCKED and reminded as to what NOT TO INVEST THEIR MONEY IN TO , may I suggest they take a look a the ENORMOUS share price crash of such companies like IGAS , UKOG and Angus Energy to name but a few .

    I take note of your deep seated hatred of TESLA , because they make electric vehicles, which is why you keep on trying to rubbish them …….. It is though very STRANGE and trully laughable that YOU never try and pick on leading well known brands of car manufactures, who are now FULLY embracing the ELECTRIC VEHICLE future

    Here is the new VW range

    https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/electric/new-electric-cars

    The new Peugeot range

    https://www.peugeot.co.uk/electric-cars/

    The new BMW range

    https://www.bmw.co.uk/model-types/electric

    TO NAME BUT A FEW ……..

    MARTIN TARBOSAURUS, electric vehicles are the FUTURE , NOT THE PAST .

  5. Oh dear Jack, I thought you were getting a new script not trying to rehash twaddle.

    It may have missed your deep scrutiny (lol) that Igas, Angus and UKOG are all predominantly exploration companies, currently.

    I think I will allow my IFA to keep some funds in Shell Jack. You know the Shell that recently announced a 5 year plan of $125 billion in DIVIDENDS. What dividend might I enjoy from Tesla???? (No dividend and a falling share price-for many weeks.) Thanks for your advice but I want to resist the chance of dying from a medical condition produced from fuel poverty, and pop off thinking, “I really should have understood that is what is meant by Jacking it in!”

    Have you tried an electric or hybrid Jack? I have. (two) Not my cup of tea. Seems that most in UK are yet to be convinced as well.

    • OH dear MARTIN ,

      Dont worry , your friend Jack is only ever a message away and will always be there to help guide you . I will be delighted to change my repetitive script when you stop repeating the same old tiresome twaddle .

      With sincerity, I’m pleased with your windfall from Shell, whatever it may be ……. Especially when a big player in the Energy market like Shell is striving forward with GREEN ENERGY .

      https://www.shellenergy.co.uk/?&promo=GOOGLEBRAND&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4t3Zn9D-4gIVw7ztCh1y4AesEAAYASAAEgKwVvD_BwE

      AS far as TESLA go , they to are on the brink of great things , remember for the pioneers of new technologies the start is always difficult ……. With destructive Climate Change starting to take a hold….. People are increasingly becoming more receptive to ALL green initiatives.

      Electric vehicles are the future , you know it , I know it, every man and his dog knows it …. MY ADVICE to you MARTIN is, get in early with your green investment to reap the maximum rewards .

      AHH, so the main occupation of IGAS, ANGUS ENERGY and UKOG is exploratory then is it ????? When you take note that UKOG was founded in 2013 , that’s a lot of time LOOKING ……. Plump wages for company bosses, empty promises and SWEET NOTHING for shareholders.

      Yes, I am aware that you currently own an electric car , BUT that’s only part right isn’t it, as the vehicle you own is a hybrid which still has a traditional combustion engine . Well done though for part making the crossover to electric.

      AS far as dying from fuel poverty goes , you life will be cut a lot shorter, if you were to depend on costly Fracking for energy..

      Enjoy the rest of your weekend MARTIN .

      Regards , Jack

  6. So, Jack, you are unable to read the links you post whilst claiming they represent something they do not-ref. Tesla “profitability”. The “start”??? 15 years!

    Equally, who said I own a hybrid? Not me Jack. (I DID LEASE two.) If you are so unaware of what simple words indicate, you will have a problem convincing anyone that your “research” represents anything of any substance.

    Yes, somewhere within my pensions I will have an investment in Shell as that features in many funds, as it pays a high dividend. You might like to specify that your pension should be allocated elsewhere. You have that choice, but it is not mine. Based upon your lack of awareness of what is likely to pay a decent income-good luck. A Shell dividend is not a “windfall” Jack, it is annual income. Not guaranteed, but pretty much secured.

    Tesla on the brink? Well, a few analysts agree with you Jack, but I suspect they will continue to make false projections and raise more funds for some time to come.

    • MARTIN ;

      YOU have stated on this very website that your vehicle is a hybrid ……. That I am 100% certain about .

      It would appear that that you are forgetting your past lines ……… That’s a common problem when you make them up as you go along .

      NOW MARTIN , shall we talk about TESLA and the othet world leading car manufacturers that are embracing the FULLY electric vehicle future ????? ( not just the semi electric hybrid )

      I am very pleased for UK SHELL investors and I wish the company every success in its drive for a renewable energy future …..

      • MARTIN ,

        Just for the record, whether you own or lease them, the point which is applicable to the above comments is that it, or they are hybrid and therefore still have a combustion engine. ( You haven’t fully embraced the electric future yet , but it is a good start. )

        In the interest of ” splitting hairs ” for you MARTIN, to clarify the matter more clearly ……. My use of the word ” windfall ” is not time specific to any one singular event …… It also could be used and taken in the context as a ” windfall ” of cash or other objects/ items on monthly or annual event .

  7. I stated that my vehicle WAS a hybrid, Jack. Tempus fugit and that was then, and is no longer. All been posted on here over recent months-try and keep up.

    But, if you can not understand the reality of past v present please excuse me if I avoid your speculation regarding the future.

    I was careful enough to make sure I was not tied in long term, and glad that I did so. But, at least I made the effort. Seems some of your anti grouping are not even willing to do that.

    And why would I embrace electric cars which currently have an EXTRA problem in the UK of not having a fossil fuel engine to make sure you can get to the next charge point and then find it is out of action, or there is a queue and it takes longer than the journey to charge the car?

    “Windfall-a piece of UNEXPECTED good fortune”-OED. When Shell announces $125 billion plan for dividends over 5 years that is not then unexpected, is it. DOH. If you think income from pension investments are windfalls you will not enjoy a very secure old age. No wonder the antis are so casual with their recommendation for pensioners to divest from certain investments.

    Now, a dividend from Tesla-yes, that certainly would be a windfall! But, I suspect the lottery will be a better bet.

  8. MARTIN ,

    Here we go again , your friend Jack having to pick up the pieces of your forgetfull memory.

    As your above post of the 22/06/2019 , 5:18 pm says, quote, ” Have you tried an electric or hybrid Jack? I have. (two) ” This does NOT make clear as to which type you have .

    I therefore thought, it was important for the benefit of new forum members that we had some clarity on the matter…… Your vehicles are hybrids that have internal combustion engines..

    We wouldn’t want you trying to present yourself as being GREENER that what you are and what would your fossil fuel buddies think if they thought you were jumping of the great ship, Fossil Fuel Titanic ????

    • MARTIN ,

      Let me help you again.

      To look at it your way, it’s still classed as a ” windfall ” because unless you had inside information at SHELL ENERGY , you would not of known about the announcement ……. You may have withdrawn your investment only to find that the share price jumped up when they made the statement concerning the 5 year dividend plan.

      In leaving your investment in SHELL , on the back of the good news , you have received an unexpected ” windfall “

      • MARTIN ,

        To reduce the risk of you splitting hairs , I will refrase part of my above text ………. You may have been expecting an announcement from SHELL , but you would not of been privy to the figures within that statement ……

        Therefore the unexpected numbers concerning the dividend payments was indeed a great ” windfall ” to you .

        • MARTIN ,

          In this day and age we are constantly made aware that ……….. Income from pensions can go UP or DOWN …… To have a strong idea as to what you can expect from your pension over the next 5 years is truly an unexpected ” windfall “

  9. Oh dear Jack!

    That new script is even worse than the last. I was expecting some improvement.

    Interesting that when challenged you really do not have too much of substance to offer. But, let me help fill that void:

    Electric/hybrid cars in UK:

    1. Terrible depreciation.
    2. Insurance costs much higher than petrol or diesel.
    3. Purchase price up to £10k more than equivalent petrol/diesel.

    And that is before you start on issues regarding range and utility!

    Glorified and tweeked golf buggies/milk floats, that achieve self righteousness and not much more. But, I did my bit and found a way to test the water, and finding it was not my cup of tea, removed myself pretty quick. Unfortunately, friends who did their bit are lumbered with “the worst investment we ever made” sat on their roofs (solar panels.) Now, air sourced heat pumps a different matter completely and mine is economical and reliable.

    So, DYOR is again key, rather than Giggle and find a “link” that tells you very little about the overall issue.

    • MARTIN TARBOSAURUS,

      The Fossill Fuel dinosaur.

      If you are having difficulty understanding English or the words are to complicated for you , please let Jack know …. I did try and make my above posts very simple to understand.

      WELL MARTIN , that anti electric vehicle rant has laid bare your true feelings towards a greener future , or should I say anything that reduces fossil fuel consumption ….

      As you seem to like the bullet point method , here are a few for you .

      REASONS to embrace electric vehicles.

      ( 1 ) Electric vehicles will give people cleaner air to breath . ( a ) how much in £100 BILLIONS will that save the NHS ?????? …… ( b ) how much more in £1000s will work work productivity go UP for companies if they had a more healthy workforce ?????

      ( 2 ) If people did not have heavily polluted air to breath , they would be more active …… How much more money could they potentially earn as a result of that, in £1000s per year please ???????

      ( 3 ) CLEAN AIR would stop the suffering of 10s of thousands of children in the UK ……..How much is that worth MARTIN ??????

      ( 4 ) CLEAN AIR would increase life spans and the quality of life for 1000s of adults…… How much is that worth MARTIN ???????

      ( 5 ) A reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would prevent runaway climate change ……… How much in £100 BILLIONS would that save MARTIN ?????

      ( 6 ) Sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions would protect ALL life on planet earth ……….. In £ TRILLIONS how much is that worth ?????

      ( 7 ) Fossil fuel exploration activities like FRACKING, greatly reduce home property values within the immediate sacrifice zone …… MARTIN , how much in £100s thousands of house value depreciation will some residents suffer??????

      ( 8 ) What will the cost in £1000s be for people in Fracking zones who now find their homes unmortgageable as a result of finding their homes difficult to insure ?????

      MARTIN , the financial case for ELECTRIC VEHICLES (( cleaner air and a reduction in carbon emissions )) is strong, clear and unquestionable…….. If we are to help cut greenhouse gas emissions, we must embrace an electric vehicle future, powered by renewable sources…….. That will in turn protect our health, our children’s health and THEIR FUTURE ON THIS PLANET.

      Electric vehicles may well be more expensive AT THE MOMENT , but wouldn’t it make more sense ,taking note of the above points for governments to subsidise electric vehicles and green projects/technologies for the people, instead of wasting £100s BILLIONS on wars and other white elephant projects ??????

      • MARTIN ,

        JUST ONE MORE to add to the above……….

        When these Fracking companies have LONG GONE ..

        ( 9 ) WHAT will be the financial cost for future generations in £ 100 BILLIONS ,regarding the ON GOING maintenance cost of orphaned/abandoned wells ???????

        MARTIN , The case for HYBRID vehicles is STRONG as they are a step in the right direction……. They DO greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption in vehicles , a financial saving which users will see in their pockets ………. BUT we do need to go further with ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

        YOU have made some valid points against HYBRID vehicles, but their benefits although not as good as ALL electric vehicles, still greatly outweigh the cost of continuing to use traditional diesal and petrol cars/lorries when we factor in the cost to our health , our children’s health, climate change and the future of our planet .

        • Well, of course no one noticed your avoidance of my question about YOUR experience of an electric/hybrid car Jack!

          OH, YES THEY DID.

          Posting “links” about what some on Giggle think is not showing that the antis are committed to what they preach.

          Seems it is not just delayed reaction who likes to tell others but not willing to make the commitment.

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.