Friday Funny: Fracking protestors and their petro-sourced belongings

There’s been a lot of hullabaloo in the UK over the Balcombe fracking protests. WUWT reader Eric Worrall writes in with this comparison photo.

Original picture source: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-08-16/anti-fracking-activists-camp-without-permission/

Here is a tagged version of the same picture of all the plastic high tech synthetics used by anti fracking protestors in England, captured in a single photograph.

frackpic[1]

It really makes you wonder – do anti-fracking protestors think nylon tents, PVC groundsheets, and plastics grow on trees? No doubt the tents also contain high tech synthetic fibre sleeping bags, and gas powered camp cookers.

Do these hypocrites actually think about what sort of world they would have to endure, without the cheap hydrocarbons, and cheap plastic synthetics, the petroleum source of which they oppose?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Fracking, Humor, Ridiculae, Satire and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

253 Responses to Friday Funny: Fracking protestors and their petro-sourced belongings

  1. Steve B says:

    short answer – NO

  2. Kevin Schurig says:

    For them to see the hypocrisy would mean that they have an open mind. Their minds are as closed as a rusted trap.

  3. Trevor H says:

    You missed the sign. It was written on using a marker. Every marker I’ve ever seen is made of plastic.

  4. RockyRoad says:

    We really shouldn’t be surprised–as a society we enjoy plastic Christmas trees, plastic fruit baskets, and plastic foilage through office buildings and many municipal settings.

    With so much plastic foilage and the undeniable evidence they produce fruit, it wouldn’t be surprising to expect nylon trees that bear nylon fruit, and metal trees that bear metal fruit.

    Just pick a lot of the appropriate fruit off the tree (plastic, nylon, aluminum, steel, etc.), get some factory to form it into a useful item, and voila`!–we get all the useful “environmental” items seen in the picture above!

    Sad thing is, that’s the current state of our educational system–and trying to convince these people otherwise is probably a lost cause. Just show them where a carton of milk actually comes from, and they practically swear off the beverage. Can you imagine how they’d react if they found out how highly carcinogenic crude oil can be? Any bets they’d swear off plastics and nylon forever?

    Hmmmm…. I sense a Josh cartoon in the making…

  5. Ack says:

    Dont make hippies like they used to

  6. Lets posterize these people for all to see. Nicely done.

  7. Max Hugoson says:

    As I told the “Bobbies” protecting Stonehenge on June 21st, 1989…from the “hippies” who wanted to perform some ritual ceremony there, “Why not simply put up Hippie repellant?” They asked, “What would THAT be Yank?”

    I said, “Simple, soap on a rope strung up all around the monument!” The usually staid Brit Coppers, actually cracked a smile and said: “That’s a good one Yank.”

    Same here, only I’d use water cannons with Dove or New Dawn (dish soaps)…probably the first time these protesters would “come clean” in all their lives!

  8. OssQss says:

    Ha,,, don’t forget the poncho, and nail polish, and other required,,,,,, you know what I mean. Let alone the bug spray and ,,,,,nough said.

    How about the components of the necessary smartphone, and how did she get there, or find out about the whole thing anyhow?

    Oh the horror of hypocricy!

  9. Kajajuk says:

    Consumers of plastics have their concerns with fracking mute by their consumption? Cool.
    So as a meat eater i can have no objections to the way animals are grown and harvested for food. That’s brilliant!
    As i use electricity, likely generated by nuclear power stations, mum is the word…shhhh

  10. cynical_scientist says:

    As an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonyn, I really liked the quotation from Oscar Wilde.

  11. Eric Worrall says:

    Trevor H says:
    You missed the sign. It was written on using a marker. Every marker I’ve ever seen is made of plastic.

    Good point, thanks – and the sign itself looks like plastic coated cardboard.

  12. Hockeystickler says:

    You might almost think that this protest is a form of satire, but the humor would be lost on them.

  13. Pat says:

    97% certain she has an iPhone under that poncho, too.

  14. OldWeirdHarold says:

  15. And they probably got there in a car made in and shipped from a factory halfway around the planet.

  16. Colorado Wellington says:

    Nothing is as it used to be, not even plastic people.

    In the good old days The Plastic People of the Universe were an anti-totalitarian dissident Czech rock band.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_People_of_the_Universe

    http://havel.columbia.edu/glossary/plastic_people_of_the_universe.html

    These newfangled anti-something-or-other protesters seem to be just a bunch of cheap plastic collectivists.

  17. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    Yep, their protesting would take on more meaning if they lugged a moldy canvas Coleman bell tent out to their dung-fired steam wagon for the trip, purposely avoiding all paved roads.

  18. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    ….not to mention, that there is always more protest when hypcrisy is pinned on the protest donkey. “we had no CHOICE! I mean, like, where can you even GET a bell tent these days?”

  19. Jeff Condon says:

    We shouldn’t apply names like hypocrite inappropriately. Hypocrite implies basic knowledge of the surrounding materials, the more accurate term is idiot. You might say that ignorant is a better word, however, these people truly “feel” they are qualified to lecture to the rest of the world on how to behave.

  20. Patrick B says:

    Odds are some or all of their clothes include fabric derived from petroleum.

  21. Kajajuk says:

    Ha, that’s not a protest…

  22. Gail Combs says:

    Lovely!

    At a science fiction convention many years ago I happened upon one of these hypocrites spouting off about the evils of plastic. This was just after the anti-polystyrene campaign had shut down five factories in my state and I had been ‘let-go’ the week before. Needless to say I was not in a good mood. So here stands this overweight hypocrite dressed in polyester and nylon with her expensive running shoes made of various co-polymers. I asked her for her house and car keys stopping her in mid tirade. She sputtered HUH? I said put your money where your mouth is, your car and your house are made of plastics and so for that matter are your clothes, Take them off. While she stood there sputtering her rapt audience sniggered as they slunk off.

    Nothing like pointing out their hypocrisy to take the air out of the wind bags. Too bad it has never worked as well on the Goricle. You would thing his large carbon foot print and his beach side home would penetrate the thick skulls of his worshipers, and even some of his detractors.

  23. higley7 says:

    A person in a mask will tell you what they want unfettered by morals; that is not the truth, that is immature and irresponsible thinking.

    It is the unmasked person who has to mediate what they say with morals and ethics, as they will be identified with what they say.

    The masked persons are the ones most likely to throw stones, not those without masks. As long as protesters in the Mideast wear masks, they have absolutely no credibility except as targets.

  24. Eric Worrall says:

    Kajajuk
    Consumers of plastics have their concerns with fracking mute by their consumption? Cool.

    I see, your assertion is the group in the photo are pro fossil fuel climate skeptic anti fracking protestors…

  25. Taphonomic says:

    A little bit of old Frank Zappa:

    A fine little girl she waits for me
    She’s as plastic as she can be
    She paints her face with plastic goo
    And wrecks her hair with some shampoo

    Plastic people
    Oh, baby, now you’re such a drag

  26. Skiphil says:

    “one word: PLASTICS”

    (famous scene from “The Graduate”)

  27. Colorado Wellington says:

    Skiphil says:
    August 23, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    If Ben listened to Mr. McGuire he would have made money on every anti-fracking protest out there.

  28. GlynnMhor says:

    So, is it hypocrisy, or ignorance? (or stupidity?)

  29. In Oscar Wilde’s case, telling the truth may have been inconvenient.
    I never needed a mask to tell the truth as I know it.
    Maybe that’s why I am “welcome to leave” is some places.
    So what? It’s better to be welcome to leave than to be welcome to lie.
    Friends who admire you for what you are not will be the first to stab you in the back.

  30. jones says:

    Is she wearing shades?

  31. SJB says:

    Reminds me of a lady we talked to while on vacation in Costa Rica. I was discussing windmills and how they kill birds with a fellow at the pool. A lady overheard me and came over to state that my comments were a BIG OIL statistic, how she knew better because she is a member of the Sierra Club. She is anti oil, anti gas, anti nuclear, anti coal and anti fracking. We asked her how she got to Costa Rica and she murmured something about Virgin Airlines developing or buying more fuel efficient planes.

    We later discovered she flies to Costa Rica from New England 6 times a year, is building a monster house in Costa Rica with a pool and imported Italian marble. Her and her husband drive big SUV’s and we’re not sure if everything they do is powered by fossil fuel or magical fairy farts. A good example of ‘Do as I say”, not “Do as I do.”

  32. Greg says:

    Eric Worrall writes “Do these hypocrites actually think about what sort of world they would have to endure, without the cheap hydrocarbons, and cheap plastic synthetics, the petroleum source of which they oppose?”

    If they were protesting about drilling for oil your comments might make sense.

    Since they are protesting about injecting chemicals into the ground to extract gas ( not commonly used for making plastics) your whole article is pretty STUPID and you allegations of “hypocracy” totally unfounded.

    Looks like fracking debate is going to be a mindless left/right polarised issue devoid of facts just like climate.

    In fact, deliberately confounding oil extraction with gas extraction in order to make a false criticism of hypocracy is pretty hypocritical in itself.

    This is called projection. Nice work Eric.

  33. En Passant says:

    I have lived the green energy free dream – and it was a nightmare, I would attach the link if I knew how!

  34. Leo Morgan says:

    I would add the picture at this link as well.

    Can anyone tell me how to post images on WordPress? I tried the tag with both angle and square brackets, but couldn’t see it on the preview.

  35. Leo Morgan says:

    @ en passant

    to insert a link, just copy and paste it.
    I’d be interested to see what you’re referring to.

  36. Phillip Bratby says:

    “Do these hypocrites actually think”? Answer is a resounding “No”.

  37. Other_Andy says:

    @Greg

    “If they were protesting about drilling for oil your comments might make sense.”

    They are drilling for oil.
    Balcombe is a oil drilling test site.
    It seems you are as uninformed as they are.

  38. Greg says:

    If they were protesting about drilling for oil your comments might make sense.

    Greg. you do know that is exactly what Quadrilla are doing, don’t yoou? Drilling for oil, not gas?

  39. This misses the mark, badly.

    Is the host hypocritical when he both advocates reducing electricity usage and uses some electricity?

    REPLY: Oh puhleeze, does the host go camp on neighbors lawns, chant, protest, hold up signs, and demand the power poles be shut down? I really grow tired of your high minded concern trolling. Don’t make this thread about you again. The post is labeled humor/satire, get over it.- Anthony

  40. tobias says:

    And can please , PLEASE ask them how they can afford to show up all over, England Holland, Germany, the rest of the EU, now Canada, the USA and for that matter all over the place in their tents waving their pla(stic)cards?? all of you have said this as well but I wonder ?? WHAT do they use to brush their teeth!

  41. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Mr. Dollis,

    Does A-th-y advocate reducing electricity usage per se, or simply because it is too expensive? Where does our host decry the use of electricity per se as you say he does? Please provide a cite to back up your insult. He would gladly, I believe, use MORE electricity, but he cannot afford it.

    A grateful guest of A-th-y’s,

    Janice

  42. Ann in L.A. says:

    What’s amazing that there is almost nothing in that picture that is *not* a petro-product.

  43. Janice Moore says:

    Okay, Greg, have it your way. The lady in the green poncho who heated her shower water this morning with natural gas, turned up the NG furnace to take the morning chill off the house, cooked her morning serving of algae stew with NG, phoned her boss in the NG-heated building where she usually works to say she had to attend her mother’s funeral today, and whose retirement fund has significant investments in companies with NG holdings, is sitting beside the road until it gets dark when she will drive to an NG-heated restaurant for dinner.

    GREAT SATIRE, Eric Worrall! Thanks for the laughter with a point.

  44. I apologise, Anthony. It was humour, and that very spoil-sport over me over something so trivial.

    And Janice, while I’m not going to search archives at this hour, I’m certain Anthony has said he believes in conservation for conservation’s sake, not just to save money. That’s to his credit, of course.

  45. Margaret Smith says:

    Never mind everything else, think basic. They all have water bottles. With no plastic then what…glass (expensive,energy-hungry)? leather (requires cattle business)? ceramic (energy-hungry)? The water will require boiling needing…wood? peat? Multiply the problem by sixty million and that alone collapses everything.

  46. Simon says:

    Don’t forget the iphones they use, charged by fossil fuels, & the telecoms networks that would collapse if run entirely from renewables. Also the media coverage they so desparately craved, also powered by fossil fuels, no doubt watched by people on their wooden TVs, and recorded using tablets of stone or papyrus. Also, how did they get there & home again? Horse and cart?

  47. Butch says:

    Hey all! I visit WUWT multiple times a day and I enjoy this site very much. I am very much concerned with the state of affairs in our “Once Great Country” and for the life of me I can’t figure out how we let the Nuts take control of the Asylum! On a serious note though; I have decided to make it my goal to become more environmentally friendly and do my part to curb emissions. Can some one point me to a site where I can purchase a small cheap carbon capture unit? I have decided that I will pull as much of the poisonous gas out of the atmosphere as I possibly can and put it in my Beer Kegs!

    Thanks in Advance!
    Butch

  48. Man Bearpig says:

    I think next time they have a protest, why not join them? bring your own 4×4 only one person per vehicle. Then we can make them really look like hypocrites and will be so obvious that the press will pick up on it next time. Good plan ?

  49. Peter Miller says:

    And, of course, you have to ask the question: “Who, or what, will be the greatest beneficiaries if these Ecoloons are successful in stopping fracking in the UK and the rest of Europe?”

    Answer: Step forward Gazprom and Big Oil.

    Fracking will be Europe’s economic salvation, so not surprisingly the goofy and clueless are against it.

  50. George Lawson says:

    An excellent way to express the hypocrisy that these people display. Is it worth sending the picture to the Press Association in London who might be interested in circulating it to all the British press, or perhaps just sending it to the Editor of one of the more friendly dailies? To get it into the press would be a wonderful coup for we, the sane minded of this world..

  51. Reminded me of a years ago protest of Greenpeace with one of their ships against a local PVC plant in Italy (PVC is made by chlorine, the “element of the devil” according them). Someone of the factory visited the ship and did take pictures of all items made of PVC at their ship: from water hoses to a self-made chair from PVC pipe to the lifeboats, all PVC…

    One word indeed: hypocrites.

  52. Robin Hewitt says:

    I don’t think they get into this because they actually care about the environment. There are a lot of people in this world who do not really fit in anywhere, they drift about until they find a niche that gives them meaning, something they can belong to. They say we plan our life’s course age 7; if you reach age 8 and find you sole ambition is to own Malibu Barbie or a new pair of Nike trainers you may find yourself at a loose end later in life.

  53. David, UK says:

    Steve B says:
    August 23, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    short answer – NO

    Mate, when you have a second: look up the word rhetorical.

  54. David, UK says:

    Kajajuk says:
    August 23, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    Consumers of plastics have their concerns with fracking mute by their consumption? Cool.
    So as a meat eater i can have no objections to the way animals are grown and harvested for food. That’s brilliant!
    As i use electricity, likely generated by nuclear power stations, mum is the word…shhhh

    You missed the point, possibly because you’re too close to it to be objective. You can use all those products and object to them at the same time, of course. That includes eating meat and objecting to the way animals are reared. The point is: it’s HYPOCRISY.

  55. It’s ignorance.

    Sometimes I want to weep at how spectacularly ignorant many people I meet are. These are people that have been through higher education, but are so ignorant of the basics of science and engineering that the equivalent would be me not knowing who Shakespeare was.

    P.S. I now have a blog of my own. Thanks to WUWT for inspiring me to get on with it.

  56. Nick Laurie says:

    Plastic protesters?

  57. Neil says:

    I’ve never seen so many stupid comments, most claiming hypocracy. Fracking is frought with problems known and as it is a new technique, some no doubt unknown – unpleasant suprises in store? All those items identified in the picture were made without the fracking gas from balcombe.
    Let me see the frackers turn up on the doorstep of those who cry ‘hypocrite’ to do some fracking under their houses – see who the term hypocrite really applies to. There are ways to do things and ways not to do things – why are you a hypocrite if you protest against the ways not to do something? All those crying HYPOCRACY here are the ones needing to inform themselves and stop their nonsense comments, they are like sheep who think they know…
    Caroline Lucas MP is seen in the centre wearing a red scarf surrounded by police
    MP among 29 arrested at anti-fracking rally in Balcombe

    Green MP Caroline Lucas was among those arrested at a sit-in aimed at halting plans to drill for shale gas in a West Sussex village

  58. gareth says:

    David, UK says: … “That includes eating meat and objecting to the way animals are reared. The point is: it’s HYPOCRISY.”
    Not so: Hypocrisy is the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess. See Google, Wikipedia, etc.
    The points that Kajajuk makes are fair. I may eat meat yet recognize that some animals are raised in ways that I don’t approve of. I might drive a car while regretting the use of resources. I can use electricity but not agree with subsidized wind farms or solar arrays.
    Let’s cut the hippies a bit of slack and just get on with the drilling ;-)

  59. While it is true that it’s very hypocrite of these protestors, at the same time you are doing yourself a thin favor, because the first accusation globalwarmingologists always use against their critics such as you is precisely that skeptics are paid by the oil companies.
    And in this post you are indirectly defending the oil companies.
    I say it because each time I try to refute something, using or referring to you or NOAA data or whatever questions their “truth”, they basically say anyone who questions the warm side of climate change is paid by or works for the oil companies.
    Cheap accusation denoting they don’t give a damn about investigating and bothering to collate information, but still, it’s a block.

  60. Greg says:

    Worrel: “… the petroleum source of which they oppose?”

    Ann in L.A. says:
    August 23, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    What’s amazing that there is almost nothing in that picture that is *not* a petro-product.

    ===

    What even more amazing is the plethora of venemous attacks on these people here, all based on the totally false pretence that they are protesting agains petroleum.

    Reality check: nylon tents are not made from natural gas. ;)

    Still , don’t lets facts get in the way. If they don’t agree with your selfish desire for cheap energy whatever the consequences (in someone else’s town) , they must be hypocrits, right?

  61. Les Johnson says:

    Greg: your

    Since they are protesting about injecting chemicals into the ground to extract gas ( not commonly used for making plastics) your whole article is pretty STUPID and you (sic) allegations of “hypocracy”(sic) totally unfounded.

    Natural gas is generally used to make polyethylene, which is the basis for the most common plastics.

    That fact makes your comment incredibly stupid.

    Speaking of related hypocrisy, Dow Chemical is against the export of LNG from the US. They say that it will increase prices for US consumers. What they are really saying is that it will increase the cost of its NG feedstock. They are against the export of LNG, so that they can continue to export cheap plastic feedstock. Sadly, they have Markey and anti-fracing liberals as allies. Strange bedfellows.

  62. rishi says:

    so, basically, i cannot protest against anything, because i have been made into a hypocrite…i cannot protest against gmo food, because i eat it; i cannot protest against the bad air, because i am breathing it; i cannot protest against any chemicals, because i am using them and i cannot protest against bad land use, because i am part of the problem.

  63. Les Johnson says:

    Neil: your
    I’ve never seen so many stupid comments, most claiming hypocracy. Fracking is frought with problems known and as it is a new technique, some no doubt unknown – unpleasant suprises in store? All those items identified in the picture were made without the fracking gas from balcombe.

    Fracing is not new. The first variation was patented in 1864. Hydraulic fracturing has been done since 1949. Since then, it’s been done in millions of treatments in North America alone.
    It is almost certain that some of those plastics were sourced from fractured oil or gas wells.

  64. Jimbo says:

    Not long ago at the Guardian I brought up a very similar issue. I pointed out the thousands of products derived from oil and coal and asked other commenters how easy is it going to be to live modern life without fossil fuels? (HERE). The Guardian article is titled:

    “It’s time to stop investing in the fossil fuel industry” by Bill McKibben.

    On Bill McKibben’s website called 350.org they boast about visiting different countries in the fight against the weather climate change.

    “Now the tour is going global — first to Australia, then to New Zealand, Fiji, and beyond!”
    maths.350.org

  65. Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 2:00 am

    Fracking is frought with problems known and as it is a new technique, some no doubt unknown – unpleasant suprises in store? All those items identified in the picture were made without the fracking gas from balcombe.

    Neil, fracking is not a new technique, but recent developments in horizontal drilling allowed to expand the technique to near unlimited area’s.
    Do you know how many fracking wells were drilled in the US and how many of them until now did give unpleasant surprises?
    There are at least as many unpleasant surprises from so called “conventional” gas exploration: the northern part of The Netherlands is sinking, including (small) earthquakes, because of the huge removal of natural gas from the underground, despite lots of water pumped in the wells.
    And as natural gas is currently the main feedstock for the production of ethylene in the US, the main raw material for near all plastics, it is highly probable that the plastics were made by fracked gas, if the plastics were made in the US…

  66. Jimbo says:

    A few months back there were articles about Green groups investments in fossil fuel industries. They really are a bunch of hypocrites. Al Gore being the very worst of the lot.

    May 2013
    The Guardian
    The giants of the green world that profit from the planet’s destruction

    The Nation
    Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free

    The Nation
    Why Aren’t Environmental Groups Divesting from Fossil Fuels?

  67. Alan the Brit says:

    Jonathan Castle got their before me!

    Greg says:
    August 23, 2013 at 10:30 pm

    They are drilling for oil, not gas!!!! A small but highly relevant point!

    As to the comments about selfish desire for cheap energy, one may not be alone. Apart from the neo-feudalists & eco-Stalinists, I have a sneaky feeling the rest of us desire cheap energy, it’s what got the world out of poverty. That tends to put me & others in the MAJORITY! That’s why we tend to want every body to have it, no more guilt trips, but of course, then there’d b nothing left to protests about, would there?

    As to materials, it’s wasn’t so long ago that the vegetarians & vegans were still walking around in leather shoes, if they aren’t still? Ho hum.

  68. TerryS says:

    Re: Kajajuk

    So as a meat eater i can have no objections to the way animals are grown and harvested for food. That’s brilliant!

    If you have the choice between factory farmed meat and free range meat then for as long as you continue eating the factory farmed meat you can have no objection. As for electricity, if you have no choice in where your supply comes from then by all means complain.

    It is the availability of choice that renders your argument hypocritical. The tents, the shoes, the buckets, the paints, the ponchos are all available in other (renewable) materials. They made the choice to purchase the plastic versions. You might argue that they couldn’t afford the renewable versions, but all they would have to do is go without some luxuries to save the money. Fewer nights out, walking instead of driving, cheaper or no holiday etc.

  69. Neil says:

    Quote: Copyright, Texaco, 1990
    Polyethylene is made from ethane, which is found in natural gas. Natural gas is found deep under the surface of the earth, usually in pockets of crud oil. Before the process of making polyethylene can begin, the oil must be pumped up to the surface, and the natural gas must be separated from the oil. Several difficult engineering problems arise when transporting natural gas to the surface.
    Quote: After the oil has been transport up and out of the ground, the natural gas is separated from the liquid oil, into a gaseous component and a liquid component. This is done by flash distillation. …

    Fracking is frought with problems – especially relevant when that fracking is done near natural resources and/or homes. You cannot tell me it is not a new technology just because someone did something like it in 1864. In 1864 they did not have the (new) technology to do what is being done today – would that be a fair comment? So to claim as you do is (engelbeen, les) not appropriate.
    Fracking can be done well away from populated or even semipopulated areas, in remote areas, wastelands, etc, etc. They want to drill a mile from the village of Balcombe!. Can anyone here look me in the eye and say if they had a house in Balcombe, that they would not be concerned about fracking under their houses? If you think you can then I would advise you to go do some reading up on the subject…..

    Quote: Hannah Martin, at the Reclaim the Power camp at Balcombe, said: “The camp has been a fantastic success in fuelling a national debate about energy futures and community rights, but the real heroes of this story have been the people of Balcombe who represent all those everywhere who are standing in the way of undemocratic, invasive and exploitative fracking plans.”

    Hypocracy is the last term applicable to these protestors.

  70. rogerknights says:

    Greg says:
    August 23, 2013 at 10:30 pm

    They are protesting about injecting chemicals into the ground to extract gas . . . .

    How bad are those chemicals? I’ve read that they’re pretty innocuous, and that one pioneer claims to have developed a brew that is so innocuous he drank a glassful of it in front of a reporter.

    Also, how likely is it that they will leak upwards? I haven’t heard of any cases of that happening, just of methane leaking occasionally.

    Also, isn’t methane safe to drink in moderate quantities? It’s not “poisonous,” is it?

  71. Neal Asher says:

    Of course you wonder how they got to the protest in the first place, by horse?

  72. Neil says:

    Quote: In his first interview, Simon Greenwood, the owner of the Balcombe estate, where the site is located, said: “My extensive research has so far not found any reason, assuming the kind of safeguards that one expects to be put in place under UK law, not to consider [fracking] if an economic deposit of oil or gas is found and planning permission is granted.”

    Greenwood is both the landowner and a member of the parish council, which gave permission for Cuadrilla to drill at the site, about a mile from the village

    So to say they are drilling for oil not gas is….what? alan

  73. Les Johnson says:

    Rishi: your
    so, basically, i cannot protest against anything, because i have been made into a hypocrite…i cannot protest against gmo food, because i eat it; i cannot protest against the bad air, because i am breathing it; i cannot protest against any chemicals, because i am using them and i cannot protest against bad land use, because i am part of the problem.

    You should protest if you are given no choice. You do have a choice in GMO food. Buy organic.

    The air you are breathing is cleaner than it was 20 years ago. But by all means, protest that you
    want cleaner still. Just remember that probably means using natural gas or nuclear.

    You have a choice in using “chemicals”. By all means, stop using them.

    If you wish to protest against oil and gas development, then you need to do it in canvas running shoes, with natural rubber soles, while living in canvas tents, and wearing only hand grown and hand manufactured cotton clothes.

    Otherwise, you are indeed just a silly, ignorant hypocrite.

  74. Neil says:

    The massive tax breaks given to the shale gas industry by George Osborne – whose father-in-law is an oil and gas lobbyist – are a slap in the face to the millions of Britons now struggling to make ends met under his austerity drive.

    solar, wind, anyone?
    think about it…

  75. Les Johnson says:

    Solar and wind also recieve tax breaks. They also recieve feed in tariffs, that are 2-10 times the wholesale costs.

    Think about it.

  76. Patrick says:

    “rishi says:

    August 24, 2013 at 2:32 am

    …and i cannot protest against bad land use, because i am part of the problem.”

    In some countries if you protested about having your land taken for alternate use, such as food for fuel programs, by corrupt Govn’ts, you’d likely be shot. BTW, think about the computer and networks, transport/communications systems, petrochemicals you are currently able to use and have access to in large part due to energy derived from, oil, gas, coal etc.

  77. Neil says:

    What is wrong with complaining/protesting against a product whilst still using it oneself? (assuming you have no comparable alternative?) If you take the bigger picture over time, you can still see the benefit, the changes that you brought some influence to. Those crying ‘hypocracy’ with their accusations are small minded, nearsighted and ignorant. Its like they just want to fire off some verbal for their own ego inflation.
    There is always a bigger picture and if you are wise enough to see further, then the cry of ‘hypocracy’ should just make you smile, sadly, especially the way it has been used in this forum – astonishing…

  78. Neil says:

    les – that was said/written tongue in cheek. There is an irony there because of the solar wind opposition about tax breaks etc… you know the story…

  79. JB Goode says:

    Green poncho with matching teeth.

  80. Les Johnson says:

    For gods sake, at least learn to spell “hypocrisy” correctly….

  81. TerryS says:

    Re: Neil

    > Greenwood is both the landowner and a member of the parish council, which gave permission for Cuadrilla to drill at the site, about a mile from the village

    The planning permission is for drilling only. They have no permission to frack.

    Permission was only granted after the plans had been advertised in the local paper for 14 days and a number of environmental agencies had been contacted and asked for any comments. Nobody objected.

    Greenwood might be the landowner but he will not be the one making any decision. If an application for fracking is made it will again be publicised in the local paper and comments requested of the various environmental agencies. Any comments or objections made by anybody will have to be taken into account when reaching a decision.

    I am currently only aware of two sites in the UK that have been granted permission to frack. Both of these sites are in Cornwall. The first is located in Carharrack and the second is located at the Eden Project. I doubt that there will ever be any protests at these sites as the fracking will be done to create an underground reservoir for geothermal projects.

  82. ROM says:

    It would probably be interesting to find out if the organizers and some of the leading anti-fracking activists at these so called anti fracking demonstrations are getting a considerable supplementary income via the notorious brown paper bag route to very considerably bolster their meagre [ ? ] dole bludger’s income.
    Beats actually having to work for a living every time.

    The brown paper bag, if the increasing number of reports are anywhere near correct, would probably be filled with currency denominated in roubles. And lots thereof if it wasn’t for the questions bound to be asked at the currency exchange over the sizes of the transactions.
    So no doubt pounds or dollars or euro’s it is in those brown paper bags the anti fracking activists are so judiciously activitisting for in the hope of acquiring an even larger rouble / pound / dollar / euro filled brown paper bag.
    A nice little very smelly anti-fracking activist’s fox hole to be chased down by some keen reporter with a potentially juicy reward and some very red faces along with a huge loss of credibility by the anti-fracking activists and Putin and his oil and gas oligarchs.

    This below is only one example of a story that is getting ever harder for Putin and no doubt the anti- fracking activists to put to bed permanently

    “Experts Believe Russia Is Bankrolling A Plan To End Shale” Gashttp://www.businessinsider.com.au/russia-and-shale-gas-2012-10

  83. Les Johnson says:

    Neil: your

    You cannot tell me it is not a new technology just because someone did something like it in 1864. In 1864 they did not have the (new) technology to do what is being done today – would that be a fair comment?
    No, it would not be a fair comment. Fracturing today is much safer than 100 or 50 years ago. In 1864, it was done with nitroglycerine. In 1949, it was done with jellied gasoline (napalm). Today its done with water and the extract of the guar bean (which is also in your ice cream and salad dressing).

    Is flying safer now, or when the Wright brothers first took off?

    And yes, I would welcome fracturing under my property. And I actually have. For one thing, the extra income is nice. For another, I design such treatments, and know how safe and effective it is.

  84. Lars P says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 3:06 am
    Hypocracy is the last term applicable to these protestors.
    They were accused of hypocrisy not hypocracy, the hypocratic oath is something else.

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 3:19 am
    solar, wind, anyone?
    think about it…

    Oh Yes, the residents there will be really happy to get some nice wind turbines around the village to get some intermittent electrical current mostly when they do not need it and have solar on the roof that is so efficient during the rainy days, both been backed with inefficient gas power stations. The gas power stations that would have consumed the same amount of gas generating the electricity in efficient process without the disturbances from your named “energy sources”.
    think about it…

  85. Neil says:

    les, hypocrisy – thank you for correcting me
    was totally focused on the issue

  86. Other_Andy says:

    @ROM
    “Experts Believe Russia Is Bankrolling A Plan To End Shale”

    That doesn’t sound far fetched with the Saudis and Qataris trying to prevent the Keystone XL pipeline and financing anti-fracking movies.

  87. Les Johnson says:

    Neil: The vast majority of subsidies and tax breaks and subsidies are for wind and solar. In the US, these industries receive more than either coal or gas in tax breaks.

    In direct subsidies, they receive 4000 times more than gas. (1 million for gas, 4.178 BILLION for renewables)

    Counting both tax breaks and direct subsidies, renewable excluding hydro, get nearly 54% of all monies, and generate 6% of power. That means that solar and wind get 16 times the subsidies of gas or coal, per unit of electricity.

    http://world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/#.Uf_F0Kz_Tfk

    In the UK, you pay 2-3 times the rate for wind, vs gas or oil. And when the wind does ot blow, you wil pay 12 times that, for diesel generated power.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362762/The-dirty-secret-Britains-power-madness-Polluting-diesel-generators-built-secret-foreign-companies-kick-theres-wind-turbines–insane-true-eco-scandals.html

  88. Neil says:

    quote scientific american

    “In 10 to 100 years we are going to find out that most of our groundwater is polluted,” said Mario Salazar, an engineer who worked for 25 years as a technical expert with the EPA’s underground injection program in Washington. “A lot of people are going to get sick, and a lot of people may die.”

    “There is no certainty at all in any of this, and whoever tells you the opposite is not telling you the truth,’ said Stefan Finsterle, a leading hydrogeologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who specializes in understanding the properties of rock layers and modeling how fluid flows through them. “You have changed the system with pressure and temperature and fracturing, so you don’t know how it will behave.”

    A ProPublica review of well records, case histories and government summaries of more than 220,000 well inspections found that structural failures inside injection wells are routine. From late 2007 to late 2010, one well integrity violation was issued for every six deep injection wells examined — more than 17,000 violations nationally. More than 7,000 wells showed signs that their walls were leaking. Records also show wells are frequently operated in violation of safety regulations and under conditions that greatly increase the risk of fluid leakage and the threat of water contamination.

    les?

  89. TerryS says:

    Re: Neil

    The massive tax breaks given to the shale gas industry by George Osborne – whose father-in-law is an oil and gas lobbyist – are a slap in the face to the millions of Britons now struggling to make ends met under his austerity drive.

    Do you know what this “tax break” is?

    Oil and Gas exploration companies in the UK pay Corporation Tax (30%), Supplementary Corporation Tax (32%) and Petroleum Revenue Tax (50% of remaining profit). In addition to that, the profits are ring fenced which means if they make a loss in one field they can not offset it against profits in another. PRT was abolished in 1993 for new exploration so that won’t apply to shale.

    The “tax break” given to the shale gas industry is a reduction in Supplementary Tax that is only paid by the oil and gas industry. They will still pay corporation tax just like everybody, but, unlike everybody else, they will not be able to offset losses from one area against profits from another which will result in them still having a higher tax burden than other businesses.

  90. Neil says:

    les – flying is not a fair comparison, in this case we’re talking about an industry that will get away with what it can, with big legal teams, bullyboy tactics, brown envelopes of cash and no conscience – profit is the only name of the game. deaths don’t (usually) occur in such an instance as with a plane crash. Long term, consequences, unknowns, real and logical concerns…. now there is a muddy water that all sorts of wickedness can thrive in – and does.
    You supported fracking under your own home? really? I really am suprised.

    Also, tax breaks to petro companies? you serious? They have money coming out of their ears, robbing us at every turn and the government is giving them a tax break (of whatever size)? Something really really wrong there.

  91. Txomin says:

    My computer is made of cheese so, there.

  92. Jim says:

    Lets get this into perspective. Are they protesting against oil products or the fracking process that gets the oil. There are numerous ways of getting oil but fracking is controversial. Deep sea drilling is not at damaging (arguably) and provides significantly greater yields that go into making the products mentioned in the picture. So many of the arguments, including the picture are flawed in the claim that these people are hippocrites. Articles like this only serve to stir up trouble and add no value.

  93. Les Johnson says:

    Neil: according to the EPA, there are no confirmed reports of fracturing comtaminating ground water. I would add that this is in spite of millions of treatments.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/pa-environment-agency-debunks-fracking-water-claim/?page=all

    You mistaking the leaking of injection wells, with leaking of fractures. The vast majority of well leaks are from casing failure, or failure of the cement sheath. The leaks are localized, but still must be repaired.

    Should a well leak? No. But if it does, it is monitored and repaired. Leak rates over time are also decreasing. A study of 300,000 wells in Alberta found leak rates are declining; from nearly 20% a few decades ago, to less than 4% now.

    But its not the fractures leaking.

  94. Andy Wilkins says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 2:00 am

    “I’ve never seen so many stupid comments, most claiming hypocracy. Fracking . . is a new technique, some no doubt unknown – unpleasant suprises in store? All those items identified in the picture were made without the fracking gas from balcombe…Let me see the frackers turn up on the doorstep of those who cry ‘hypocrite’ to do some fracking under their houses – see who the term hypocrite really applies to. “

    Neil, they are not fracking at Balcombe. Cuadrilla have returned to a site that was originally drilled in the 1980s, as they want to look for anymore oil or gas reserves. There are plenty more wells in the county that don’t seem to have caused any bother, so why should this one?
    From Cuadrilla’s we page at http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/balcombe/

    “In 1986, energy company Conoco drilled an exploration well on the same site that Cuadrilla will use, situated half a mile from Balcombe village. According to the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) records, more than 50 oil and gas wells have already been drilled in the county.”

    Fracking is not a new technique as you claim, it’s been going on in various parts of the world for decades without you or the hippie rent-a-mob noticing. It’s just become the latest thing for the greenies to have a rant about.

    If Cuadrilla discover anymore reserves, then they may apply in future for a permit to begin fracking, which would be superb. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I’d quite happily have fracking take place under my house – the wells are dug so deep I’d never notice them. If it means my energy bills go down, then great!

    BTW ‘hypocrisy’ is the correct spelling

  95. Les Johnson says:

    Neil: your

    1. Also, tax breaks to petro companies? you serious? They have money coming out of their ears, robbing us at every turn and the government is giving them a tax break (of whatever size)? Something really really wrong there.

    The tax breaks that oil companies get, are usually on taxes that no other industry pays. On top of that, US oil companies pay an effective tax rate of over 40% (nearly 50% in some cases), and have net incomes of about 10%. Compare this to the tax rates of companies like Apple, at 26% Net, and a 25% tax rate. In 2011, Exxon paid 27.3 billion in income tax, and over 70 billion in other taxes.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps-pay-megataxes/

    Governments also don’t seem to learn that increasing taxes on oil companies actually reduces government revenue.
    UK oil production, and government revenue on that production, fell 18%, after the government raised taxes 12% in 2011.
    Dropping that tax will see a 13.5% increase in government revenues. Let me repeat that. Putting an extra 12% tax on cost the UK 1.5 billion. Dropping the tax will see an increase in government revenue.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/07/uk-britain-economy-northsea-idUKBRE88609Q20120907

    The top 10 companies pay nearly as much income tax, as the bottom 75% of tax payers, or 100 million people. Its also 5 times more tax paid than the bottom 50% (67 million people)

    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/04/americas-10-taxation-heroes-for-2012-their-income-taxes-were-about-the-same-as-the-bottom-75-of-us-taxpayers/#comments

  96. Andy Wilkins says:

    Neil,
    I’d give up now if I was you, as people on this thread have made you look like yet another knee-jerk reactionary.

    When you’ve bought a computer that doesn’t contain any plastic parts, then please get back in touch……

  97. Rajpal Tyagi says:

    It seems no one is taking Climate Change seriously. All this material are poison to the atmosphere. Even after so many protest like Greenpeace it has gone waste. All summits have on one point or other have failed. Every time the centre is Economy. Every leader of this world thinks without money they will loose power. They are ready to loose public health in place of money and power.

  98. Paul Carter says:

    They should be celebrating fracking if it serves local needs – it removes the energy (carbon footprint) that would otherwise be required to ship the gas or oil from distant locations. Judging by the plastics on show – there’s definitely a high local need.

  99. DirkH says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 4:18 am
    ” You supported fracking under your own home? really? I really am suprised.”

    Anti-fracker? Check.

    “Also, tax breaks to petro companies? you serious? They have money coming out of their ears, robbing us at every turn ”

    Normal people would call that selling a product; not robbery. Using the term robbery for an ordinary voluntary business transaction is a leninist tactic. So:

    Leninist? Check.

  100. Neil says:

    les point acknowledged. But. they somehow seem hand in hand. you can be sure no fracking no pollution this way – I know that is a bit ‘wrong’ logically if you tease out the detail and seperate oil/gas/frack/well from toxic waste/well/dump, to lose the oil/gas, but …. the nature of man and his habits/greed/record – elsewhere there have been serious problems, the like of which is being experienced now and the ultimate consequence of which we have yet to deal.

    Would you frack 1 mile from a village?
    I would not, no matter how much I thought I knew, all due respect. We just don’t know enough, especially long term, to risk homes and families and communities

  101. mike g says:

    Even the people in the photo are, themselves, petro-products. Society could not support numbers sufficient to have allowed their birth and survival had it not harnessed ever more energy unto its service.

  102. Bruce Cobb says:

    They are only there because the space between their ears tells them “fracking is bad”. Besides, camping out with their fellow idiots is fun. You can be sure they are also against all fossil fuels, which are “bad”, and in favor of “green energy” which is “good”. Besides, solar, wind, hydro, and geotherm energy is “free” energy. Peace, love, fairy dust, rainbows and unicorns are all we really need as human beings, and money is evil.

  103. Gary Pearse says:

    Greg says:
    August 23, 2013 at 10:30 pm

    “If they were protesting about drilling for oil your comments might make sense.

    Since they are protesting about injecting chemicals into the ground to extract gas ( not commonly used for making plastics) your whole article is pretty STUPID and you allegations of “hypocracy” totally unfounded.

    Looks like fracking debate is going to be a mindless left/right polarised issue devoid of facts just like climate.”

    No Greg, looks like the debate is going to be mindless because commenters like you are ignorant of the facts and don’t care about facts anyway. Here is a link to perhaps one of your most trusted sources. Scroll down to ‘uses’ – you will be surprised that a lot of what you wear, use and eat has had nat gas in its production:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

    Did you know that fracking is also used for oil – in approximately 60% of wells worldwide – gotcha! It will certainly also be news to you that fracking was invented in 1865 in the US and has been a mainstay of the oil industry ever since. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking that is) replaced explosives in the 1940s.

    The climate “debate” is precisely of this kind. At least it is very educational for those who do want to learn anything – few do in the anti-civilization cadre, sadly. I actually know a perennial protestor through one of my kids who had had horrible issues with her father (he was a real sob to be sure) and her omni-protesting had most to do with unresolved family issues like this. I think a fascinating exercise would be a survey of such a homely connection. On the climate debate: and where is that going these days? The same way that the movement protesting the coming anthropogenic deep-freeze in the 1970s.

  104. Neil says:

    Dirk – anti fracker?you just wade in with a comment like that after checking what? how mcuh did you read above?
    I clearly state I woudl not frack 1 mile from a village. I also state indirectly, earlier, that I would not see a problem fracking long ways away from humans/homes/communities.
    So what am I dirkh, just to be clear?

    voluntary transaction? If you get someone hooked into a technology and then hoik up the price beyond all reasonableness – yep I call that robbery, and especially when other, amazing technologies have been silenced so that bigoil can continue to rob us.
    Leninist?
    5,4,3,2,1, eyes open, wide awake feeling refreshed. Come back next week for another session;-)

  105. David says:

    Haven’t the protesters gone home yet..?
    And when they do, can we get some clear, untouched photos of the state which these – er – ‘environmentalists’ leave the ‘environment’ in..?

  106. Martin457 says:

    Apparently, those that don’t want any of this stuff to happen, can’t even take a joke about it.

    I use paper bags because trees come back faster than oil. I prefer cotton clothing over that synthetic crap that comes from oil and gas. I would very much like to be able to afford proper footwear that isn’t made from some form of synthesized oil and gas products but, when available, are outrageously priced due to the fact that they’re incredibly expensive to make. (I prefer pig and goat leather.) I have quizzed the meat managers of stores I shop at where their meat comes from and even though their stores are not aesthetically pleasing, I shop there anyway. (I don’t shop at Wallyworld.)

    Energy does need to be less expensive. I enjoy the fact that I have the ability to refrigerate the food I do have to keep it from spoiling before I can eat it. Yes, I wish for others to also have this ability but, this does not mean I like all the demonized big oil companies. ( I do like Marathon.)

    The free marketplace rules. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. If you do, your a hypocrite. Either that or, your too poor to do anything but that.

    I have a better word. Dumbasses.

  107. Les Johnson says:

    Neil: your
    Would you frack 1 mile from a village?
    I would not, no matter how much I thought I knew, all due respect. We just don’t know enough, especially long term, to risk homes and families and communities.

    Yes, I would. In Medicine Hat, Canada, they frac in the city. Many other towns and cities too, around the world. Dallas, Hassi Messaoud, Gasharon, Los Angeles, etc.

    We don’t know enough? We know more about geology than any other single area of human knowledge. Trillions of dollars have been spent studying this subject.

    If you are saying we should NOT exploit the most studied subject, you are also saying we should not engage in activity in all the other areas, because we know even less.

    Wow. That puts us back to before intelligence evolved.

  108. John Spencer says:

    Sadly I note in some quarters these people being associated with benefits.
    Where in fact I think a number of poor can ill afford to see their energy bills rise
    again and this fracking will help keep bills down. As would not being signed up
    to the EU rules and fines for not getting a percentage of your fuel from so called green energy.

    Of course while these people want to keep fossil fuels in the ground they forget that
    if they got their way then they’d send us all back to the caves, well those that survived.
    And of course they would have to kiss their plastic life style in bushes.
    I think the woman has plastic sun glasses.

  109. Steve Dove says:

    Hmmm, I am not suggesting this is the case, but just about everything I can see in that photo could have been made from bioplastic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic

  110. Gary Pearse says:

    Kajajuk says:
    August 23, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    “…So as a meat eater i can have no objections to the way animals are grown and harvested for food. That’s brilliant! As i use electricity, likely generated by nuclear power stations, mum is the word…shhhh”

    Any thoughts on alternatives that work? Com’on Kajajuk, we see you regularly on WUWT re climate issues and you are likely on dozens of others protesting farming, fishing, railways, gluten, flight, powerlines, pipelines… Fracking has been going on since 1865 with no demonstrable dangers to the public. In 60years, there have been only ~70 deaths due to nuclear power generation, only 11 outside of Chernobyl, a Soviet-built plant with no safety features. The 56 who died from Chernobyl were the workers who bravely worked to contain the damage. What about the 4000 deaths estimated by the UN and other alarmist agencies to result over time?

    https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/nuclear/chernobyl-25-years-laterhttps://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/nuclear/chernobyl-25-years-later

    Chernobyl’s Legacy: A Final Word

    “The ANS observed that “health effects and fallout distribution have been studied continuously since the accident, as they have been for atomic bomb survivors, and others who have received large radiation doses. The latest results show that the most important effect has been psychological, while physical effects are much less severe than originally estimated….”

    A landmark 2005 study by the Chernobyl forum, comprised of eight specialized UN agencies and the (post-Soviet) governments of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine found that poverty, mental health problems, alcoholism, and tobacco pose far greater threats to human beings than radiation exposure….

    In a poetic twist, the 1,660 square miles of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has become one of Europe’s largest wildlife preserves. Local residents report lynx, wild boar, wolves, elk, deer, brown bears, bison, badgers, foxes, eagle-owls, and even Przewalski’s horse, a species supposedly extinct in the wild for some time. Given that the area is now heavily wooded and free of human predators, such a flourishing of wildlife should continue.”

    To round it out, thousands die a year in coal, oil and gas and there have even been 4 deaths in California in solar installation.

  111. Philip Mulholland says:

    Ignorant and proud of it

  112. Neil says:

    geeze les, I feel ‘we don’t know enough to do it near homes/families/communities/villages’ (whose water comes from underground locally)
    To equate that with not wanting to use the technology at all? ! ?
    I even indirectly state earlier that fracking well away from populated areas would be acceptable, in my opinion.
    I am amazed that city and town areas are fracked below, if that is the right way to say it. But they don’t use local ground water (water under their city/town) for drinking.
    I would be suprised if there were no long term problems arising from this. I am sure I could find some actual cases if I dug around on the internet a bit.
    I would seriously challenge the claim that ‘we know more about geology than any other single area of human knowledge’ – that just cannot be true. Trillions of dollars notwithstanding.

    Geological time scales is a phrase use to identify the geological changes over long times, eons and millions and billions of years even.
    What can you tell me of the effects of fracking in 30 years time and longer timescales (people can live in a community area for hundreds of years) on subsidence, ground water pollution, radioactive gas seepage (radon), toxic substance migration along multiple fault lines, soil effects…
    there really is a lot we don’t know here – not worth the risk any where near a populated area, or area where we get a natural resource dependent on cleanliness of the ground below.

  113. alexwade says:

    Reminds me of an article I found looking at Joe Bastardi’s tweets.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/08/20130817-090033.html

    The first thing I learned is these protesters were clueless about the pipeline they were protesting, and about oil and economics in general.

    I asked one of the protesters, Mike Roy, why he is only protesting the pipeline now, even though it’s been operating without incident since the 1970s. He seemed genuinely surprised to learn this. I asked him why he only opposes the plan to put Alberta oil in it, but was fine with it pumping OPEC crude for decades.

    At first Roy simply refused to believe me. He was confused about how OPEC oil could be pumped from Alberta. He didn’t understand that the pipeline was operating now, with Saudi and Algerian oil now. The Alberta plan would be a change — that’s the “reverse” part that he was protesting. He didn’t know that.

    You must remember, these protestors are pawns! They are manipulated and as sheep following their shepherd, they trust their leader without reservation. (The difference is a shepherd cares about his sheep.)

    How could people who were so clueless about what they were protesting also be so passionate, too? That’s the second thing I learned. I did what many reporters simply don’t do — I Googled the names of a half dozen protesters there. Mike Roy was from London. So was Bailey Lamon. And Dan Beaudoin. Jeff Hanks was from out of town too.

    They’re professional protesters, who go from town to town on whatever the cause of the day is — Occupy, Idle No More, anti-GMO food, whatever. That’s why they didn’t know anything about the pipeline. They didn’t care. They just like protesting.

    It goes beyond just liking protesting. They are manipulating people for their own advantage.

  114. Patrick says:

    “Neil says:

    August 24, 2013 at 5:44 am

    What can you tell me of the effects of fracking in 30 years time and longer timescales (people can live in a community area for hundreds of years) on subsidence, ground water pollution, radioactive gas seepage (radon), toxic substance migration along multiple fault lines, soil effects…”

    WHOA! I assume you are talking about the UK, where is your evidence of radon gas seepage is due to fracking? If you look at real science, rather than propaganda, you will see almost all of the UK is affected.

  115. Neil says:

    Pearse, fracking since 1864? you know how twisted it is of you, your logic, to try to bring that into the present day context.
    And to claim what you claim about Chernobyl is outrageous. You either believe the bullsh*t in the papers or you somehow found this out? You make no mention of the birth defects, deformities, miscarriages, etc that the radioctive leak caused – to bring it down to death figures is so wrong of you and an insult to those sufferers. you know the saying: ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ well you’ll never know the actual truth about Chbyl.

    Thorium is the way to go. Was the way to go 60 years ago. Suppressed but gonna come back big.

  116. Patrick says:

    Posted too quickly…my last post should have read…

    WHOA! I assume you are talking about the UK, where is your evidence of radon gas seepage is due to fracking? If you look at real science, rather than propaganda, you will see almost all of the UK is affected by radon seepage in areas where fracking is not in operation.

  117. Patrick says:

    “Neil says:

    August 24, 2013 at 5:57 am

    And to claim what you claim about Chernobyl is outrageous. You either believe the bullsh*t in the papers or you somehow found this out? You make no mention of the birth defects, deformities, miscarriages, etc that the radioctive leak caused – to bring it down to death figures is so wrong of you and an insult to those sufferers.”

    Where is your proof? It sounds like you were not in the UK at the time and simply “believe” some media sources.

  118. Babsy says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 4:06 am

    You wrote:

    quote scientific american

    “In 10 to 100 years we are going to find out that most of our groundwater is polluted,” said Mario Salazar, an engineer who worked for 25 years as a technical expert with the EPA’s underground injection program in Washington. “A lot of people are going to get sick, and a lot of people may die.”

    [Self snip]

    “A ProPublica review of well records, case histories and government summaries of more than 220,000 well inspections found that structural failures inside injection wells are routine. From late 2007 to late 2010, one well integrity violation was issued for every six deep injection wells examined — more than 17,000 violations nationally. More than 7,000 wells showed signs that their walls were leaking. Records also show wells are frequently operated in violation of safety regulations and under conditions that greatly increase the risk of fluid leakage and the threat of water contamination.”

    Rotator cuff surgery has a success rate of about 85%. Should we stop this practice?

  119. Neil says:

    patrick, radon gas seeps thru the rock and soil as you know. I asked what effect fracking would have on that now, 30yrs time 100yrs time? Fracking releases gas, yes? so what would it do to the radon gas ‘issue’? I don’t know. I’ve seen no study, I don’t claim anything. But I will say that I think it will have an effect, on older places anyhow. New homes have radon barriers in areas affected by radon. What is possible is that radon is permitted through fractures to places it has not previously been found.

    Alex, isn’t it just the benign flip side to the reality of the other side where big money buys everyone and profit rules. People should have a say, voice their concerns. Just because you foiund one or two habitual protestors….. its a bit like people on this forum – armchair nitpicking around an otherwise serious and sensible debate

  120. Neil says:

    excuse should read ‘some people on this forum’

  121. Doug Huffman says:

    Their iconic Guy Fawkes mask is molded of plastic.

    Would they use Guido so, as he was known, if they knew his fate awaits them?

  122. Patrick says:

    “Neil says:

    August 24, 2013 at 6:06 am”

    If you live in the UK, don’t move to Cornwall! You will have a hard job stopping the granite from “polluting” your living!

  123. Solomon Green says:

    Every year Corfe Castle receives several hundred thousand visitors. None of those visitors, at least none of those that I know of, were aware of the fracking that has been taking place only a couple of miles away for more than twenty years. I doubt if many living near some of the several other fracking sites in Britain were aware of the fracking taking place near them.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10233955/The-town-where-fracking-is-already-happening.html

  124. Doug Huffman says:

    Thorium and radon; conventional ignorance magic. Believe nothing heard or read without verifying it oneself unless it fits ones preexisting worldview, a congruent Weltanschauung.

  125. Gail Combs says:

    Greg says: @ August 23, 2013 at 10:30 pm
    …If they were protesting about drilling for oil your comments might make sense.

    Since they are protesting about injecting chemicals into the ground to extract gas ( not commonly used for making plastics) your whole article is pretty STUPID and you allegations of “hypocracy” totally unfounded.

    ……In fact, deliberately confounding oil extraction with gas extraction in order to make a false criticism of hypocracy is pretty hypocritical in itself.

    This is called projection. Nice work Eric.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Greg your IGNORANCE is showing.

    The first patent for FRACKING was U.S. Patent No. 59,936 awarded in November 1866 to Civil War veteran Col. Edward A.L. Roberts. It was used to make OIL WELLS as well as natural gas wells more productive. The technology of ‘FRACKING’ has been used ever since with modifications along the way.

    The Roberts Torpedo was a an iron cylinder containing between fifteen to twenty pounds of black powder. It was exploded by means of a detonation cap connected to the top of the well by a wire. The borehole was filled with water, Roberts “fluid tamping,” to concentrate the concussion. By 1868 nitroglycerin was preferred to black powder, despite the fact nitro is very very touchy and frequently detonated accidentally with fatal consequences.

    On March 17, 1949, the first commercial application of modern hydraulic fracturing was made.

    There is nothing NEW about this technique except the hysterics.

    Which are these chemical ‘poisons’ in the fracking fluid?
    Ian H answered that question back on June 24, 2013 at 3:59 am

    Which chemicals in particular? About 97% of fracking fluid consists of water and quartz sand. Those are in fact the active ingredients – water to fracture the rock – and sand to prop open the cracks which have been opened. The rest typically consists of additives to keep the sand in suspension, make it easily pumpable etc. Typical additives include

    1. A bactericide to prevent bacterial action underground causing corrosion of the well casing.
    2. A gel (often guar gum) to thicken the fracking fluid and keep the sand in suspension.
    3. A cross-linker (borate) to maintain the viscosity of the gel
    4. A clay stabiliser to prevent clay minerals from clogging the well.
    5. A gel breaker to prevent the gel from coagulating.
    6. pH buffers to keep everything at the required pH.
    7. A surfactant (detergent) to increase the slipperiness of the fracking fluid for ease of pumping.

    A variety of different additives could be used to do these jobs. The exact composition is a commercial secret. But there is no real need to resort to toxic chemicals as all these things can be done with non-toxic additives. Indeed you can do it all with a combination of food additives and common household cleaning materials….

    Remember that all this happens very deep down in the rocks where the petrochemicals come from – far away from the surface and the green living stuff – and well below ground water level. That deep down things generally tend to stay put. There is oil down there which hasn’t moved for millions of years (ergo fracking). The only way the fracking fluid has of getting out of that trap is generally by coming back up the well with the oil and gas – which is usually what happens.

    As to the toxic chemicals leaching into water supplies – got an example? I have yet to see a real one…..

    Since fracking has been used for over a hundred years WITH fracking fluid I would expect to have seen plenty of data showing ground water contamination by now.

    As I said HYSTERICS without a shred of intelligence or curiosity showing. Just Sheeple following their pied piper. I am sitting in an area where the protesters are saying fracking will contaminate my well and the city water supply so I got off my duff and researched it before opening my mouth.

  126. Old'un says:

    The green activists and fellow travellers demonstrating at Balcombe live in a strange parallel universe when it comes to economics. They seem to think that money grows on trees to pay for the State Benefits that many of them live on, fund their education, provide free NHS health care and, when they get older, their State Pensions. They are not prepared to recognise that in the real world these luxuries (for that’s what they are to the majority of the world’s inhabitants) have received massive funding over the past forty years from North Sea oil and gas tax revenues.

    This vital revenue stream is now diminishing but fortunately for all of us, we have discovered that we are sitting on a replacment source of considerable national wealth, with the technology to exploit it. It will also help us to keep our lights on despite the hapless green energy policies of succesive goverments. Shale gas and oil needs to be extracted in a controlled manner but we simply cannot afford not to do so, and quickly too.

  127. Neil says:

    babsy: – ?????????????????

    patrick – you need to look into the Chnbyl issue to get some facts – the whole world got dosed! Literally. I’ve seen documentaries on the deformities, post accident effects, etc and they are not pretty. It is interesting how the way you p;ut it seemed to make it sound almost ok with only a few deaths and that not too bad compare to other deaths from energy stuff. I’m sure you should not do that. and I’m sure it was sooooo much worse than you imagine.

  128. Les Johnson says:

    Neil: radon will not be released by fracturing. The danger from radon is most acute in dry, permeable formations or soils, and which already have a high concentration of Uranium. Oil and gas usually occurs in a waterwet environment. Granite is the most common source of radon. Oil and gas is not not found in these formations.

    And, as I have said, the EPA has stated that no cases are known of shallow water contamination via fracturing. You have to get throught the water to get to the surface.

  129. DonS says:

    If a Neil did not exist it would be necessary to invent one. This is beyond hilarious.

  130. Gail Combs says:

    Butch says: @ August 24, 2013 at 12:30 am
    ……On a serious note though; I have decided to make it my goal to become more environmentally friendly and do my part to curb emissions. Can some one point me to a site where I can purchase a small cheap carbon capture unit…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here is my favorite site for small cheap carbon capture units: Edible Landscaping, the original since 1979
    my favorites are:
    Triple Crown Blackberry
    Caroline Everbearing Raspberry
    Tristar Everbearing Strawberry
    Tifblue Blueberry – Vaccinum ashei
    Joy Bush Cherry – Prunus jacquemonti x japonica
    Adams Elderberry – Sambucus canadensis
    Chocolate Mint…. YUMMMmmmmm

  131. Neil says:

    old’un – this vital revenue stream is diminishing? really? really? where are you?

    gail, tell me what did you want to believe before you got off your duff and researched it? The truth is hard to discover – I would have so little confidence in the stuff you read that said go ahead.

    doug thorium, radon? what point you trying to make doug? Show me.

  132. SMS says:

    I’m always gobsmacked at the ignorance and complete cognitive dissonance of the green mentality.

    There have been millions of fracs performed in the US and the rest of the word. No aquifers have been contaminated by fracing. Oil companies do not want to frac aquifers for several reasons. They know the political fallout would hurt their industry and they don’t want to waste their money fracing a formation that gives them no return on their money.

    If, Neil, above could show how a frac can contaminate an aquifer from thousands of feet below the surface; please show the math.

    To show you how ridiculous many of these claims are; lets go back about 40+ years when the US government was trying to figure out how to exploit the Williams Fork formation in the Piceance Basin of Western Colorado. They tried using atomic bombs. These bombs fraced the Williams Fork formation at an instantaneous rate of energy input millions of times greater than the fracs these greenie bozos are complaining about.

    In the areas around Rulison and Rio Blanco there is continuing testing of the aquifers to monitor any possible contamination. What has this testing shown? NOTHING!!! Nada!

    Reading this thread, I am amazed at the patience of Les Johnson in dealing with Neil. My hat is off to you Les for your patience but I think Neil made up his mind a long time ago and your arguments, as good as they are, are not going to break through the closed minded, brain washed people like Neil who have convinced themselves that fracing is bad.

    Like An Inconvenient Truth, the movie Gasland is a compete fabrication. Both movies meant to appeal to those around us in need of a cause to rally ’round. If not fracing, there would be the World Bank, Multi-National Corporations, GMO’s, nuclear plants, a herd of farting cows; and so many more “perceived” evil causes. There is an expansive list of scare-of-the-month club causes these people take up. Led into battle with little idea of what they are protesting. Ignorance leading ignorance.

  133. Patrick says:

    “Neil says:

    August 24, 2013 at 6:28 am

    patrick – you need to look into the Chnbyl issue to get some facts – the whole world got dosed! Literally. I’ve seen documentaries on the deformities, post accident effects, etc and they are not pretty.”

    Evidence to support your claim would assist your view. So far, you are…funny! No, I retract that. You are, errm, uninformed, and maybe 12?

  134. Gail Combs says:

    George Lawson says:
    August 24, 2013 at 12:48 am

    An excellent way to express the hypocrisy that these people display. Is it worth sending the picture to the Press Association in London….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Just send it to James Delingpole….

  135. SandyInLimousin says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    Surely Northern Holland is sinking for the same reason southern England is, namely up lift in northern Europe after the last lot of ice sheets retreated?

    http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=555&cookieConsent=A

  136. Neil says:

    DonS – I ask about the effect of fracking on radon and you think it hilarious?
    les – thanks for that.

  137. Doug Huffman says:

    Neil, radiation is invisible, same as your witch doctor’s magic. If it was easy then everyone would do it.

  138. David L. Hagen says:

    Rapidly growing coal use – in China
    Robert Rapier eloquently graphs the exploding growth of coal in China compared to the small decline in the USA: King Coal gets fatter while the US goes on a diet
    Making it difficult to use coal in the USA or UK will move American & British jobs to China while shipping US coal to China to use.
    (Part of the US coal decline is recent temporarily cheaper US fracked gas.)

    Reducing coal use in the UK by importing wood from the US is similarly perverse – it would be better for the UK to buy carbon credits from US companies to use wood in coal plants and avoid the shipping.

  139. Gail Combs says:

    David, UK says: @ August 24, 2013 at 1:03 am
    …..That includes eating meat and objecting to the way animals are reared. The point is: it’s HYPOCRISY.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Bad example. You can object to certain practices in an intelligent manner. Such as inbreeding in commercial livestock and the resulting loss of the genetic diversity that makes a breed ‘Robust’ (I really hate that word)

    ….Purdue University animal sciences professor Bill Muir was part of an international research team that analyzed the genetic lines of commercial chickens used to produce meat and eggs around the world. Researchers found that commercial birds are missing more than half of the genetic diversity native to the species, possibly leaving them vulnerable to new diseases and raising questions about their long-term sustainability.

    “Just what is missing is hard to determine,” Muir said. “But recent concerns over avian flu point to the need to ensure that even rare traits, such as those associated with disease resistance, are not totally missing in commercial flocks.”

    He said it’s also important to preserve non-commercial breeds and wild birds for the purpose of safeguarding genetic diversity and that interbreeding additional species with commercial lines might help protect the industry…..

    https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008b/081103Muirdiversity.html

    I also have a problem with the indiscriminate feeding of antibiotics again because of disease resistance problems.

  140. Old'un says:

    Neil 6.38am – ‘Old’un – this vital revenue stream is diminishing?, really?, really?, where are you?’

    Yes Neil, the revenue stream from the UK’s North Sea fields really, really, is diminishing. I know that, because although you haven’t been able to work it out from my comments, I live in the UK.

  141. Gail Combs says:

    Neil says: @ August 24, 2013 at 2:00 am

    I’ve never seen so many stupid comments, most claiming hypocracy. Fracking is frought with problems known and as it is a new technique, some no doubt unknown – unpleasant suprises in store? ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Your ignorance is showing the technique is over 100 years old. See my comment above

  142. Neil says:

    old’un, the tax revenue on the price of fuel alone is huge compared to only a few years ago, so I don’t see how it is diminishing. The governments have hit the motorist rather hard – I would have said they feel they have hit the jackpot with the revenue from fuel.

    SMS – if you think I made up my mind a long time ago, then you should read carefully what I have written. I’m not sure you did that. I don’t consider myself a ‘green’, just someone who wants to take care about his choices, avoid long term consequences of things so ‘big’, widespread and long term in their effects. I would frac but not near town/village/people/natural resources – e.g. 1 mile from Balcombe, if that deserves the criticism you wrote then so be it…
    I’m afraid you look rather foolish in your poorly informed comment.
    Les made it clear that contamination of water is from toxic waste injection into the well – I took this point and made a reply. Why do you ask me to prove otherwise?
    Did you really read this thread?

  143. Gail Combs says:

    rishi says:
    August 24, 2013 at 2:32 am

    so, basically, i cannot protest against anything, because i have been made into a hypocrite….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is known as putting your money where your mouth is.

    If I chose to show up at one of these protests I would make D@^N sure I took public transpo or car pooled, I would wear COTTON, LINEN and WOOL. My shoes would be made of natural fibers too like a Soft Star Shoe. I would use a cotton canvas tent and an eco-friendly sleeping bag.

    The fact that they do not bother makes them hypocrites. Heck back in the 1980s the Boston Globe had ads $10/hour paid for Nuclear protesters. I wonder how many of these people are PAID for their protest time. SEE: CalPIRG Astroturfing

    To put it bluntly I am less of a hypocrite then these guys are because my ‘Carbon foot print’ is small and I recycle, reuse, haunt thrift shops and flea markets and buy whatever food I do not grow locally as much as possible.

  144. Lars P says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 6:38 am
    doug thorium, radon? what point you trying to make doug? Show me.

    Its basic knowledge Neil:
    “Radon is a chemical element with symbol Rn and atomic number 86. It is a radioactive, colorless, odorless, tasteless[1] noble gas, occurring naturally as an indirect decay product of uranium or thorium. Its most stable isotope, 222Rn, has a half-life of 3.8 days.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon

  145. Neil says:

    gail: – the claim of hypocrisy is/was wrong. see my 1st couple of comments above

  146. Neil says:

    lars I have no idea why you mention this or doug(think doug is a computer designed t spit out conversaton pieces based on other comments) – what did I write to illicit this helpful response?

  147. Gail Combs says:

    ROM says: @ August 24, 2013 at 3:42 am

    It would probably be interesting to find out if the organizers and some of the leading anti-fracking activists at these so called anti fracking demonstrations are getting a considerable supplementary income via the notorious brown paper bag route…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not at all surprising. The Wall Street Journal had a back page article about Kremlin papers showing that the Activists in the USA were not only funded by but actually LEAD by KGB agents. (April 2004) Funny how that never made the front pages….

    My husband, a Bostonian, knew a fellow who ‘ran’ an extreme left newspaper. When the USSR went belly-up he had to close his newspaper and was moaning over his loss of funding.

  148. Lars P says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 7:28 am
    lars I have no idea why you mention this or doug

    sorry about that, I misunderstood the post you were referring to – Les had an explanation above that I though triggered your question.
    He explains why radon should not be the fear:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/friday-funny-fracking-protestors-and-their-petro-sourced-belongings/#comment-1398940

  149. Bernie McCune says:

    Life is a risky business and modern life might be more so if it weren’t for a host of safety methods used during the many production, manufacturing and labor saving processes carried out to make our life better and more healthy.

    The odd thing about this discussion of the dangers of minute quantities of fracking additives, no one discusses the large quantities of extremely toxic and dangerous fluids that come back out of the well in the form of hydrogen sulfide, oil, petroleum products and gas. Most of us safely handle extremely energy rich gasoline on a weekly basis (could I say explosive? the same can be said of NG).

    Is anyone advocating dropping these safety methods or (really?) getting rid of the benefits of these labor saving and enjoyable outcomes?

    Yes we should continue to try to eliminate the risk but we should look at the data and determine where the risk can really be found and focus on it. Mindlessly attacking proven low risk behavior is really ignorant. Politicizing your favorite demons is normal but we all need to pick our battles very carefully.

    Bernie

  150. Gail Combs says:

    Rajpal Tyagi says:
    August 24, 2013 at 4:44 am

    It seems no one is taking Climate Change seriously. All this material are poison to the atmosphere…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Tell that crap to someone who saw the Genesee River run various colors, the plants on the riverside dead or malformed and the air while sailing that river close to unbreathable in 1976. Tell that to someone whose Dad saw the Cuyahoga River catch fire in 1969. Tell that to a chemist who put anywhere but Buffalo NY (Hooker Chemical) on their job applications given to head hunters.

    The USA is a heck of a lot cleaner now than it has been in a hundred or more years. WHY? because oil energy gives us the LEISURE, the time, to be concerned about the environment instead of being concerned about where our next meal is coming from!

  151. Steve Oregon says:

    Of course these protesters are far worse than foolishly funny, trespassing hypocrites.
    They are also scurrilous liars.
    Many of them know full well there is no legitimacy to their claims about fracking.

    My Texas oil man brother produced a very good summary.

    “When we are drilling a well, we are required to protect ALL useable groundwater to a depth specified by the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality. This depth is specified during the permitting process. The depth typically is around 1200′. Protection is by way of cementing pipe in the shallow section of the well bore. This is called surface casing. We first drill a 12 3/4″ diameter hole to 1200 feet. Then we run 8 5/8″ heavy wall seamless steel pipe to that depth with centralizers to keep it in the center of the well bore. Now we pump a calculated volume of cement down the pipe displacing it with salt water back up the outside of the pipe (annular space) until it reaches the surface. Excess cement volume is calculated to ensure we reach surface while a small amount of cement remains inside the bottom of the pipe (usually 20 – 50 feet). If less washout has occurred during drilling of the surface hole than calculated we sometimes circulate as much as 35 barrels of excess cement to surface as we displace the cement down the pipe. After all we don’t want to leave too much cement inside the pipe. Once cementing is done we must wait a minimum of 8 hours for the fast setting cement slurry to harden. During the running and cementing of the surface casing a representative of the Oil & Gas Division of the Texas Railroad Commission usually comes by to witness the process….we are required to notice them when it will be done. The composition of the cement slurry including all all additives, strengtheners and drying agents as well as the number and placing of centralizers is submitted for approval during the permitting process.
    Now, and only now, that the surface hole has been properly cased can drilling continue to total depth. We go back into the cased hole with a 7 7/8″ bit and tag cement near the bottom of the surface casing and spend several hours drilling out cement until we get out of the pipe and start making open hole. The hole is then drilled to the permitted total depth, logged and cored. If it looks like it is going to be a producer the surface casing process is repeated with a string of production pipe. By this I mean we run 4 1/2″, 11.6 lb/ft steel pipe from total depth to surface, centralize and cement. Now we have 2 concentric strings of pipe protecting the groundwater and no hydrocarbon productive zone open into the well bore….that comes later during well completion operations.
    By the time we move into the completion phase the drilling rig and all other equipment has been moved off. A work-over-well servicing rig is moved on location and a perforating truck is rigged up. A gun is lowered into the hole by wire line and the pipe is perforated with say 4 shots a foot through several feet of the productive zone. Our completion depths (where we perforate) are fairly shallow and are typically 4000 – 5500 feet. The perforating truck is released and the “frac” company starts mobilizing and placing equipment for the hydraulic fracturing of the well. This usually entails about 18 – 20 eighteen wheelers that include pumps, hoppers, blenders, tanks and what not. The sand laden frac fluid is pumped down the 4 1/2″ production pipe and pressured up until the rock behind the pipe and cement at the perforations breaks down or “fractures”. That pressure point is referred to as the “breakdown pressure point”. Pumping continues until the allotted sand has been delivered into the fracturing rock through the perforations via the frac fluid. Keep in mind the “fracking” occurs at an isolated zone 4000 feet below the protected ground water. After the frac job the well is shut in, all equipment except the “frac tanks” is released and the flow back of the fluid commences. Flow back is controlled to recover the fluid into surface tanks for disposal and done at a rate to ensure the sand stays in the formation as a proppant to hold the artificially created fractures open. Frac designs and computer modeling of the rock lithology show fracturing reaches out from the well bore horizontally 250 – 700 feet depending on the size of the frac. Vertical growth during the frac job is usually limited to under 200 feet and can be controlled during the frac job by adjusting the injection rate.
    There you have it. Everything from depth of surface water to be protected, chemical composition of cement, number and placement of centralizers to the disposal of the recovered frac fluid is regulated. Gas in water wells from what we do? I don’t think so. Not if rules are followed. Sure there are accidents and certainly an occasional operator that gets away with not complying but all the regulations in the world won’t cure that. Nor will a ban on fracturing.”

  152. DirkH says:

    To the people who STILL think fracking is a new technology:
    Fracking has been used in Lower Saxony in Germany since ca. 1968 (e.g. in the Lüneburger Heide). And we didn’t invent it but it was an old technique even back then.

    It is the horizontal drilling that is a new development.

    Please inform yourself not only by reading Greenpeace flyers.

    Well maybe I should explain the horizontal drilling as well, as greens willfully understand anything when it’s useful for them. You START drilling vertically and only once you hit the target depth far below the aquifer you bend the drillhead’s direction (through some newfangled computer control technology).

    Sorry if that sounds like talking to children but when I read NOW that some people still claim that fracking is NEW I am just amazed at this level of willful ignorance.

    Go ahead protest your civilization into the ground, you deserve what you will get. (Life as a slave)

  153. SandyInLimousin says:
    August 24, 2013 at 6:42 am

    Surely Northern Holland is sinking for the same reason southern England is, namely up lift in northern Europe after the last lot of ice sheets retreated?

    Yes that is right, but the “conventional” gas extraction adds to that, so that part of The Netherlands (Slochteren / Groningen) is sinking faster than the rest… Not spectacular, but measurable: maximum 35 cm over the past 50 years over an area with a diameter of 60 km around the main wells.

  154. Bernie McCune says:

    Thanks Steve Oregon. All my research on fracturing confirms your brother’s comments. And there are numerous speculative discussions of escaping fluids but no data that I have found. Some minor liquid spills and of course the normal liquids found in the mud pits (that are contained). Opinions are great but data is “gold”.

    Bernie

  155. Gail Combs says:

    Neil says: @ August 24, 2013 at 4:51 am
    Would you frack 1 mile from a village?
    Heck I would frack under my own house and I have a well for water. Know of any companies looking for a farm for fracking NG???

  156. Gunga Din says:

    RockyRoad says:
    August 23, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    We really shouldn’t be surprised–as a society we enjoy plastic Christmas trees, plastic fruit baskets, and plastic foliage through office buildings and many municipal settings.

    With so much plastic foliage and the undeniable evidence they produce fruit, it wouldn’t be surprising to expect nylon trees that bear nylon fruit, and metal trees that bear metal fruit.

    ==========================================================
    Aluminum doesn’t come from metal trees that bear metal fruit. It comes from metal trees that have aluminum foil-age.

  157. Gail Combs says:

    Neil, more to the point is WWF, Geenpeace, Sierra Club willing to PAY ME NOT TO FRACK on MY LAND? If they are not they have STOLEN from me the value of the minerals they are not allowing me to develop.

    This is what this whole mess is about. Do people have the right to own property or not. The Communists say not but they are not about to show their hand so we get the soft sell under the guise of environmentalism. It is a sheepskin hiding the wolf and that is shown by the fact people will be worse off and their wealth will be moved to the elite and their rights removed.

    Heck the 2012 IMF report even shows that is what is happening.

    ….New convergence and strengthened interdependence coincide with a third trend, relating to income distribution. In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012)….

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/09/dervis.htm

    And another paper shows who is controlling the show.

    The Network of Global Corporate Control
    ABSTRACT
    The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025995

    These are the people actually running the show by providing the funding for the NGOs.

    …”Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” (The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.) …

    The Rockefeller foundations fund Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

  158. _Jim says:

    ROM says: @ August 24, 2013 at 3:42 am

    It would probably be interesting to find out if the organizers and some of the leading anti-fracking activists at these so called anti fracking demonstrations are getting a considerable supplementary income via the notorious brown paper bag route…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Gail Combs says August 24, 2013 at 7:30 am

    Not at all surprising. The Wall Street Journal had a back page article about Kremlin papers showing that the Activists in the USA were not only funded by but actually LEAD by KGB agents.

    Anecdotal; we need cites. There are some reading here who won’t believe you (i.e., take your word for it) until they read the (figurative) ‘ink on the page’ and THEN check the references cited there …

    .

  159. _Jim says:

    Neil says August 24, 2013 at 4:06 am
    quote scientific american

    “In 10 to 100 years we are going to find out that most of our groundwater is polluted,” said Mario Salazar, an engineer who worked for 25 years as a technical expert with the EPA’s underground injection program in Washington. “A lot of people are going to get sick, and a lot of people may die.”

    Fortunately, we in the big cities of Texas use surface water (so do ALL major cities). So, while we may be okay YMMV Neil. Best to start stocking up on ‘bottled’ water now, Neil.

    .
    .
    /mild sarc on some content

    .

  160. Babsy says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 6:28 am

    babsy: – ?????????????????

    Dear Neil,

    A lot of people suffer from shoulder problems which can be successfully treated with surgery. The success rate for rotator cuff surgery is about 85%. Should we as a society stop doing these procedures since they aren’t 100% successful? (Hint: The answer is NO!) The corollary is that fracking improves well productivity which benefits society as a whole, despite the fact that it isn’t a perfect technology, nor will it ever be. It is risk vs. reward. There will always be a failure rate associated with the process whether it’s surgerizing someone’s shoulder so they can raise their arm above their head where they couldn’t before, or enhancing a well to get more gas production from a single drill hole. Have a great weekend!

  161. Neil says:

    Wikipedia: A Pennsylvania family was forced to abandon because of fracking pollution of their 10-acre farm. The family was paid 750,000USD by Range Resources Corporation to depart from a more recently installed petroleum well plant, though the family was oddly required to sign an agreement which stated that they now nor ever will suffer any adverse medical effects from the toxic exposure.[94]

    gail : you don’t own the mineral rights on your property (in Uk) anyway. You only own the top two spits of soil I believe. If someone discovered gold say 3 feet down on your property it would not be yours to sell or benefit from – the way I understand uk landlaw. You’d have to bid for it somehow for rights to extract…

  162. Neil says:

    babsy… thank you for that bit of info. How it seriously relates to the issue is unclear. Do you use toxins? do you use explosives? do you risk damage to others/environment? Are you changing the geological structures beneath your own home? Do you know where toxic gases will permeate to?

  163. Frederick Davies says:

    “…do anti-fracking protestors think nylon tents, PVC groundsheets, and plastics grow on trees?”

    Well, actually, they did grow on trees… then the trees died, got buried, got compressed and cooked underground for millions of years, when someone dug them out and processed them into whatever was needed. Plastics did grow on trees, just very old ones!

    FD

    PS: Sorry, I could not resist the obvious pun on a pun.

  164. TerryS says:

    > A Pennsylvania family was forced to abandon …
    The Hallowich family claimed a waste water pond contaminated their water supply. The waste water pond was on a major industrial operation which included gas wells and compressor stations.

  165. Babsy says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 8:49 am

    Dear Neil,

    How it relates is very clear. There is risk and reward associated with life and it cannot be escaped. Whether it be surgery, fracking, or going to the grocery store.

  166. mogamboguru says:

    normally I can sign to everything A n t h o n y publishes on his gorgeous website.

    But concerning fracking I truly beg to differ.

    Hydraulic fracking for oil and gas in areas with aquifers amounts to absolute madness – like blowing up the ice you are crossing a frozem stream on with dynamite, because you are thirsty and want to get to the water underneath for a drink. You can imagine how that will end.

    Personally, I think that poisoning potable water with hydrocarbons and natural gas by destroying the layers of rock which are separating oil and gas from water so much, that you can set the water pouring from your kitchen’s water-tab on fire, is not a viable long-term solution for our energy-needs.

    BTW: In France, fracking is banned already and In Germany, banning of fracking is in the works.

    So for me it’s:
    Drilling – yes
    Tar sands – yes
    shale gas – yes
    coal-to-fuel (Fischer-Tropsch) – yes
    Methane clathrates – yes
    But on-shore hydraulic fracking – Hell, no.

  167. Gail Combs says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 7:24 am

    gail: – the claim of hypocrisy is/was wrong. see my 1st couple of comments above
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No Neil YOU are wrong.

    If you are not willing to live the lifestyle you wish to CONDEMN the rest of us to then you are a hypocrite. The biggest hypocrites are people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong who grow rich by scamming people like you.

    If you do not understand exactly what the consequences are of removing oil, natural gas and coal from the world’s energy mix and substituting grossly polluting and environmentally unfriendly bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes then you are criminally ignorant and should keep your mouth shut.

    I did my homework. We looked at wind mills, solar panels and geothermal as options and the only one that showed promise once you scratched the surface was replacing our heat pump with geothermal. The other was Biogas from Manure but it is not economically feasible for a small operation due to regulations and cost.

  168. spen says:

    Someone who lives near Balcombe had a major housebreak- in this week. Tremendous damage and loss. When they called the police they were told that the police could not attend as they were all occupied with Balcombe protestors. The thieves know this and think its Christmas.

  169. DR says:

    mogamboguru says:
    August 24, 2013 at 9:05 am

    Personally, I think that poisoning potable water with hydrocarbons and natural gas by destroying the layers of rock which are separating oil and gas from water so much, that you can set the water pouring from your kitchen’s water-tab on fire, is not a viable long-term solution for our energy-needs.

    Ah, you are a Gasland and Promised Land victim. Sorry to hear that. Qatar, UAE and other oil rich Arab countries though is pleased so many believed the lies.

  170. John M says:

    mogamboguru says:
    August 24, 2013 at 9:05 am
    Why is it OK with you to drill thorugh an aquifer but it’s not OK to fracture the rock thousands of feet below the aquifer with thousands of feet of impermeable rock and silt between the aquifer and the fracture zone?

  171. Steve Oregon says:

    Neil you need a BS detector big time. ,
    If you were simply a wee bit more curious and clicked further you would see how unrelated to fracking that family’s circumstance was.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_Resources

    Here’s a pic of fracking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HydroFrac2.svg

    They did not “abandon” their farm because of fracking.

  172. Silver Ralph says:

    All these anti-frackers should disconect their domestic gas supply, as I am sure they don’t want to become total hypocrites. Eco-greens being hypocrites, surely not ……… ;-)

    .

  173. Chris Schoneveld says:

    cynical_scientist says:
    August 23, 2013 at 8:33 pm
    As an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonyn, I really liked the quotation from Oscar Wilde.

    What’s your real name, cynical_scientist? :)

  174. Oakwood says:

    And most of that plastic camping gear is made by underpaid exploited workers in Asia. They buy it because its cheap.

  175. Gunga Din says:

    Fracking has been going on for over 50 years.
    Now it’s only “dangerous” because, done properly, it is productive and profitable.
    Is the perceived “danger” to the environment or to the “controlist” schemes?
    (I think I just invented a word. I couldn’t think of a substitute for the idea that didn’t have a political/ideological bent.)

  176. Ken Chapman says:

    That sadly misinformed person surrounded by petroleum based products is a tragic example of the hypocrisy of so-called “environmentalists” today. Why not recognize and encourage doable solutions instead of sitting there trashing up the countryside protesting? Most of them haven’t a clue, just catchy slogans to drum up donations for “the cause”.
    On May 30, 2012, I attended the California Department of Conservation workshop in Ventura. The CDC was seeking input on hydraulic fracturing seeking for the purpose of drafting new regulations. Attending were several well financed groups including the Environmental Defense Center (EDC).
    Towards the end of the workshop, I was given the opportunity to give my input. I turned to the audience and asked, “How many people in this room concerned with contaminated water have even heard of Ecosphere Technologies, Aquamost, Water Tectonics, or even GasFrac?” From the silence and blank faces, it was obvious that nobody in the room had, including representatives from the CDC. Since the Frac Workshop, several more companies such as Clean Wave, CLLEEN FRACK, Frac Pure and others have been added to the growing list of start-ups in competition for the frack water treatment business.
    By treating and re-using frac water, drillers are using up to 90% less water during hydraulic fracturing. That saves water. Drillers don’t have to use persistent chemicals to kill bacteria. Ecosphere, for example, uses ozone in a patented 4 step high energy cavitation process that eliminates the need for toxic bactericides. Transportation involved in disposing of toxic wastewater is eliminated. That reduces air pollution from trucks. These are not only environmentally sound solutions, they reduce the costs of fracking which has caught the driller’s attention. Today, billions of gallons of frack water has been treated and reused at somewhere around 1,000 wells.
    I repeat, that person protesting “fracking” surrounded by petro products is clueless.

  177. Bernie McCune says:

    @Ferdinand Engelbeen

    Seems like large portions of Holland are sinking with or without any sort of drilling.

    “Large areas of the Netherlands are sinking, often to below sea level. “The Netherlands is a bathtub that could fill up completely in case of flooding,” according to one researcher. But the authorities say there is no cause for alarm. Sea and river water is kept out by natural sand dunes and man-made dykes.”

    “In some parts of the Netherlands the ground level has sunk over the past millennium by as much as three metres, at a rate of 15mm a year. The subsidence is caused by the compression of ancient peat layers – weak soil consisting of dead vegetation. The weight of clay and sand on top is gradually compressing the peat layers.”

    http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/holland-sinking-no-cause-alarm

    WUWT?

    Bernie

  178. ralfellis says:

    Peter Miller says: August 24, 2013 at 12:40 am
    And, of course, you have to ask the question: “Who, or what, will be the greatest beneficiaries if these Ecoloons are successful in stopping fracking in the UK and the rest of Europe?”
    Answer: Step forward Gazprom

    _______________________________________

    And also the gas fields in Algeria.

    You have to wonder if these Eco-Goons ever see the big picture, or whether they are all simply myopic. What they want, is for Europe to be reliant on:

    a. Russia, who has already turned the gas taps off to Ukraine, to make a political point.
    or
    b. Algeria, which is a close cousin of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Stability is not their second name.

    One wonders if these Eco-Goons want to see the destruction of Europe as a wealthy technological region.

    .

  179. EternalOptimist says:

    Rishi says
    ‘so, basically, i cannot protest against anything, because i have been made into a hypocrite…i cannot protest against gmo food, because i eat it; i cannot protest against the bad air, because i am breathing it; i cannot protest against any chemicals, because i am using them and i cannot protest against bad land use, because i am part of the problem.’

    looks like you can’t protest against bad grammar and punctuation either

  180. Lars P says:

    mogamboguru says:
    August 24, 2013 at 9:05 am

    mogamboguru, Matt Ridley has an interesting blog post on fraking where it lists all the minerals used in the operation. It is worth a read:

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-five-myths-about-fracking-%281%29.aspx

    As several have already said, fraking is already an old technique, what is new is the possibility to turn the drill heads at a certain depth horizontally and drill in the respective strata.

    “Normal” oil/gas recovery was about 2-3 % of the total that was underground. That was al that was possible to extract. There have been needed many wells one near the other to be able to extract more of the oil there.
    Horizontal drilling allows the much better targeted drill and fraking exactly the area with oil, resulting thus in better productivity, & less drills as it would be needed before horizontal drilling was technically possible.

    As Matt says:
    “In the debate over shale gas – I refuse to call it the fracking debate since fracking has been happening in this country for decades – the opponents do seem to be astonishingly cavalier with the facts.
    And again from his post:
    “It was the American senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who once said: “You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts.” “

  181. MarkG says:

    “I’m always gobsmacked at the ignorance and complete cognitive dissonance of the green mentality.”

    You shouldn’t be. If they were smart, they wouldn’t be Greens.

    The Green movement may have been well-intentioned when it was formed, but today it’s just Communism by another name. Most of the ‘protestors’ are just typical Leninist ‘useful idiots’, and the only sad part is that anyone listens to them.

  182. Old'un says:

    Mogamboguru – You need to know that French Governments are the most protectionist of the advanced economies. They make Canada look laissez – faire. France has banned Fracking simply to protect its nuclear industry, which is part State owned.

  183. “You’re mistaking the leaking of injection wells, with leaking of fractures. The vast majority of well leaks are from casing failure, or failure of the cement sheath. The leaks are localized, but still must be repaired. ”

    and are routinely accomplished unless the envio-nazis have forced them to drill more than a mile underwater.

  184. Peter Miller says:

    Every so often we get a new troll on WUWT, today it is Neil, of the slightly hysterical ecoloon variety. Clearly someone without a shred of geological or engineering knowledge, but with the burning desire of the typical ecoloon to drive humanity back to the happier environment of when energy was either expensive or unavailable and life was brutish and short.

    For the record, fracking is a proven safe technology. There are certain caveats, such as fracking should not be allowed at depths of less than 1,000 metres, or in seismically active areas. Also, the safeguards learned the hard way in the USA should be rigorously enforced.

    The subject of global warming has now become boring to the general public and has been steadily discredited. So the ecoloon fraternity, best represented by the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, need a new scary source of revenue, so step forward fracking, a convenient alternative to Global Warming for the purveyors of bad science.

  185. Chad Wozniak says:

    I’d love to see what these anencephalics would do if you suddenly took away all the things pictured in the photo, and told them they could never have anything made from petroleum again.

    I think they would be like a clam out of its shell.

  186. Zeke says:

    ralfellis says, “One wonders if these Eco-Goons want to see the destruction of Europe as a wealthy technological region.”

    Perhaps you have revealed the meaning of the words on the plaque? The progressive eco-activists are modeling the glories of tentvilles and government “NGO” handout subsistence living.

    “Coming to a town near you soon.”

  187. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Gail Combs –
    You make so many excellent points with which I heartily agree, but I would point out the following:
    Geothermal also can have a dirty little secret. The installations at the Geysers in California are a case in point. The effluent that comes back up after injecting the steam into the wells is laden with toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, thallium and hexavalent chromium, and it is very difficult and expensive to remove them. I learned this while working for a municipal electric utility here in California that gets some power [from] the Geysers plant.

  188. mogamboguru says:

    Okay, it seems like I have some additional self-education to do regarding fracking.
    Allow an old man some slack to catch up with the 21st Century.

    Will you?

  189. TerryS says:

    Re: Chad Wozniak
    > Geothermal also can have a dirty little secret.

    Geothermal has to frack to create an underground reservoir for the pumped water to get the heat. The two projects in Cornwall I pointed to earlier intend to create this reservoir in granite formations and thus will release any radon in the granite.

    NOTE: I have no issue with them fracking for geothermal, neither do I have an issue with any radon released as result. I do have an issue with people objecting to fracking for oil or gas and giving geothermal a free pass.

  190. Neil says:

    Gail/Miller:-
    I’m often gobsmacked at the ignorance and complete cognitive dissonance of those willing to put down anyone who tries to debate an issue.
    It is clear that you gail and miller have not properly read the comments I have made along this thread and choose to criticise what you misperceive or assume I wrote? Seems so. Total lack of comprehension of those comments if read at all.
    Had to find someone to dis eh? Feel better now?
    I just cannot believe/stoop to your level of discernment. You are totally ignorant.

  191. Gunga Din says:

    mogamboguru says:
    August 24, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Okay, it seems like I have some additional self-education to do regarding fracking.
    Allow an old man some slack to catch up with the 21st Century.

    Will you?

    ======================================================================
    As Will Rogers said, “Everybody’s ignorant … only on different subjects.”
    Ignorance is common. The willingness to become less ignorant is not. Particularly after one has already made their opinion known.
    (One thing I’ve learned here on WUWT is that there is always somebody who knows more about a subject within site policy than I do.)

  192. Doug Huffman says:

    Just up from my nap, during which I realized the irony of an anti-technologist advocating for thorium and against radon. It is quite mind boggling, the toxicity of the most powerful entropy engine in the Universe – ignorance.

  193. John M says:

    Neil,

    So glad you’re smart enough to not put anyone down during a debate.

    I wouldn’t use gobsmacked in reference to your appearance here.

    Faceplant is more like it.

  194. Neil says:

    John – just reused/modified phrase of others here who don’t read what you write and then criticise you for a position you and others don’t hold, crying hypocrisy, etc, etc – mindless activity.
    Doug – still can’t fathom what you are on about… am sure you are comp generated regurgitator rehash program commentor – someone trying out their prog/AI skills?

  195. Lars P says:

    Neil says:
    August 24, 2013 at 12:42 pm
    Gail/Miller:-
    I’m often gobsmacked at the ….

    Stop going ad hominem Neil.
    Gail explained above what US patents are used for fracking and what chemicals are involved:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/friday-funny-fracking-protestors-and-their-petro-sourced-belongings/#comment-1398935

    I like reading her posts which are often well said, well documented and well argued.
    Neil If you have arguments post them. If you fail to convince is maybe because your arguments are weak, and maybe you are not right.
    Think about it.

  196. Andrew says:

    Many of that rent-a-mob crowd were recently protesting about a new road between Hastings and Bexhill. I expect they’ll find something else to fuss about soon. One of the lady protesters was quoted as saying (complaining about police tactics) “They crushed our meditation tent”.

  197. Robin Hewitt says:

    IIRC anyone in Balcombe can drill down in to the aquifer, but they are restricted to pumping 80 tons a day.

  198. john lord says:

    Organic gardeners and plastic tunnels seem to go hand in hand. They are against using ‘chemicals’ but advocate using plastic sheeting to control weeds.
    Just like in Soviet Russia when ideology often clashed with reality, as in special shops selling western goods, but only for party members.

  199. LiberalFrackingWife says:

    Lol. “They don’t make hippies like they used to” Actually, they do. And we’re here, doing research, knowing exactly what we speak out against, and trying to raise children with values that are outdated(Like it’s your social responsibility to pay pennies on the dollar in the form of taxes to keep the roads, and schools, and poor folk fed, and that if you want money or something new and fun, you work hard for it, and we don’t get a new version of something when the old one works perfectly well). I was also raised to smoke a bowl in gratitude with my dealer, use my boobs when the guys I’m playing poker with have a better hand, and to know that spreading my legs and getting pregnant to every guy that smiles at you is wrong.

  200. Neil says:

    Lars – my comments are there for all to read – what I object to, as in gail’s recent comments, is as in my last comment – that you respond as you do further illustrates my point. Some of the other pointss she made might be useful, but she undermines any credibility as far as I’m concerned by not seeming to have read the comments of others that she finds so much fault with – if you read this thread carefully you might see what I mean, as many here have done the same

  201. richardscourtney says:

    Neil:

    I have read the entire thread and made no comment until now. But I write to address your post at August 24, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/friday-funny-fracking-protestors-and-their-petro-sourced-belongings/#comment-1399313

    It says in total

    Lars – my comments are there for all to read – what I object to, as in gail’s recent comments, is as in my last comment – that you respond as you do further illustrates my point. Some of the other pointss she made might be useful, but she undermines any credibility as far as I’m concerned by not seeming to have read the comments of others that she finds so much fault with – if you read this thread carefully you might see what I mean, as many here have done the same

    Neil, that makes no sense (e.g. your first sentence is rambling nonsense).

    Nobody cares what you think about the credibility of anyone because you have destroyed your own credibility by your posts which only contain ill-informed, whinging, nonsense.

    And it is YOU who has demonstrated a complete disregard for the comments of everybody except your own.

    If you read this thread you will see what I mean for yourself because it is apparent to everybody else.

    Richard

  202. Billy Liar says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 24, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    +1

  203. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gail Combs on August 24, 2013 at 8:24 am:

    This is what this whole mess is about. Do people have the right to own property or not.

    No, we do not have the right to own land. When we are required to pay property taxes to the state or we shall be evicted by the state who will then assume control, we are clearly not owning. At best we are leasing from the state. The state can even kick us out with notice if they give us back the deposit with interest (eminent domain, fair market value) so someone else can have it.

    And although technically we normally have the mineral rights in the US, remember the state is more than eager to ratchet up those property tax valuations whenever possible. “Improve” the property with some gas wells, there goes the property taxes upwards. And just about the only thing that makes the state lower the valuations is a National or State Park declaration, since the state avoids overcharging itself. You may “own” the property and the rights, but the state will find a dozen ways to get its share of any money you make off of their property.

    Heck, we don’t even have the right to harvest the critters on our property, we have to beg the state for hunting and fishing licenses, while paying the state for the privilege although we are doing the work, and must follow their rules. I’m just grateful here in Pennsylvania we can still control our trees, cut them down and even sell them, usually. As long as the state doesn’t decree it to be farming, which they control.

    Crops, fish and game, such truly naturally renewable resources are regulated by the state, like it was the state that owned them.

    And others? Don’t even think about doing anything with hydro power without checking the regulations. Be prepared for nosy noisy “environmentalists” to demand “impact statements”, even if it’s just dipping a small open-bladed turbine into a fast-flowing stream. Wind and solar are protected darlings right now, but don’t expect carte blanche, they’ll get you there if they can. Check regulations, get permits and inspections, or else.

    People do not have the right to own property. But they are allowed to pretend they do.

    Isn’t involuntary serfdom fun?

  204. Tom in Texas says:

    _Jim says:
    August 24, 2013 at 8:41 am
    “Fortunately, we in the big cities of Texas use surface water…”

    Jim, San Antonio gets most of its water from the Edwards Aquifer (north of the city), and is very protective of it. Eagle Ford and other O&G drilling, is south of San Antonio, so no conflict there.

  205. Just Steve says:

    Neil, others (me included) have read your comments, and more importantly we have read most of what the “other” side have had to say. Their arguments are weak, their science weaker, their conclusions weaker still.

    For instance, 99% of what you write about fraking is wrong, period. How do I know? 2 years of actual boots on the ground experience. I currently work in the Eagle Ford oil field, and have also worked the Bakken as well as oil fields in Wyoming and Colorado. None of the environmental disasters you claim have happened anywhere I’ve been, just good modern technology working to help provide the nation with much needed hydrocarbons. I have talked to dozens of landowners, engineers and safety personnel, not to mention the fact my brother in law has lived in North Dakota for almost 40 years and not a single person I have talked to has seen nor heard of any environmental damage, less disaster.

    My suggestion is get off your as…….couch and go to these places you hear or “know” are hell on earth. Until then, you believe what you want but don’t ascribe ill intent on those who disagree with your pablum.

  206. Gail Combs says:

    Steve Oregon….
    Thank your brother for the excellent summary. The great thing about WUWT is you get people with hands on experience making comments.

  207. Gail Combs says:

    _Jim says:

    Anecdotal; we need cites. There are some reading here who won’t believe you…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Jim I have looked for that blasted article several times. Unfortunately we were in the middle of the move to NC and all the back issues of the WSJ got tossed. I haven’t steeled myself to go to a library and dig through several months of the WSJ to find that article again. (It is not on the net)

  208. Gail Combs says:

    Neil says: @ August 24, 2013 at 8:43 am

    gail : you don’t own the mineral rights on your property….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I am in the USA so I darn well DO own the rights. It was one of the things we had the lawyer check for when we paid cash for the land.

  209. Gail Combs says:

    ralfellis says: @ August 24, 2013 at 10:22 am

    …..One wonders if these Eco-Goons want to see the destruction of Europe as a wealthy technological region.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Unfortunately the answer is yes.

    I have a friend who is a professor at one of the NC colloges. He is always pushing global warming has a booth he sets up at various places…. I asked him if he wasn’t worried that his daughter would have a reduced lifestyle because of what he was advocating. He said yes he was aware his child would not have the advantages and life style he did but she was OK with that. A few minutes later his 10 year old grabbed my hand to take me over to look at Daddy’s brand new SUV and talk about when she grew up and could have a horse of her own.

  210. Gail Combs says:

    Chad Wozniak says:
    August 24, 2013 at 11:45 am

    @Gail Combs –
    You make so many excellent points with which I heartily agree, but I would point out the following:
    Geothermal also can have a dirty little secret…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Chad I was talking of the home heating variety. Pipes laid ~ 6 to 10 feet down and air/liquid circulating through a heat exchanger to cool/heat a home. Here is a link talking about what I mean: http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/geothermal-heat-pumps

    In the USA they could knock a big chunk off the cost of heating and A/C for an initial investment of an extra $4,000 when building. (I wish I had been aware of the option)

  211. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Terry S –

    I agree it is hypocritical of the greens to give geothermal a pass for fracking, while opposing doing it for hydrocarbons.

    I brought up the issue of geothermal as a “renewable” because it too can have environmental issues that the greens ignore. It is definitely not free energy, and could well be dirtier than hydrocarbon fracking.

  212. Gail Combs says:

    john lord says:
    August 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Organic gardeners and plastic tunnels seem to go hand in hand. They are against using ‘chemicals’ but advocate using plastic sheeting to control weeds….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Now, Now be nice to the organic gardeners, some of the stuff they come up with is quite useful. Being lazy and poor I use a modified organic approach. Use organic methods where possible and chemicals (sparingly) as needed. Why dump lots of expensive chemicals into your animals or onto the ground if there is something else that works as well? For example I worm and place animals in a holding pen for 72 hours before turning out to a new pasture and I rotate pastures weekly. I have been able to cut my worming medication AND my feed by 75% by doing my homework. (Idea was from NZ shepherds)

  213. Gail Combs says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: @ August 24, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    ….People do not have the right to own property. But they are allowed to pretend they do.

    Isn’t involuntary serfdom fun?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    SIGHhh, you are correct. (I just try not to notice I am a free range slave.)

    2009– Year of the Slave
    You are a slave.
    You probably do not realize it, but you are….

  214. Ox AO says:

    Kajajuk

    Problem with your argument is that the population of western civilizations are on the decline. Third world population is still claiming. The western civilization to compensate for the decline has brought in tons of their world countries population as they come in even their population is on a gradual decline relative to the counties of origin.

    In other words the trend is as industry grows the population declines

  215. phlogiston says:

    These protesters are rich kids who think that high energy prices and supply security cannot threaten them. This coming winter may educate them otherwise.

  216. george e. smith says:

    “”””””……Gail Combs says:

    August 24, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    john lord says:
    August 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Organic gardeners and plastic tunnels seem to go hand in hand. They are against using ‘chemicals’ but advocate using plastic sheeting to control weeds….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Now, Now be nice to the organic gardeners, some of the stuff they come up with is quite useful. Being lazy and poor I use a modified organic approach. Use organic methods where possible and chemicals (sparingly) as needed. Why dump lots of expensive chemicals into your animals or onto the ground if there is something else that works as well? For example I worm and place animals in a holding pen for 72 hours before turning out to a new pasture and I rotate pastures weekly. I have been able to cut my worming medication AND my feed by 75% by doing my homework. (Idea was from NZ shepherds)……”””””

    Well with 4 million people, and 75 million sheep, we have to take care of our sheep properly; the people can just fend for themselves.

    But as to that other thing; organic gardening, it is good if you like to have animal protein along with your fruit. I happen to know quite a few Armenian ancestry farmers in California’s central valley, who grow a lot of table grapes, stone fruit, and citrus (oranges). They don’t do organic, so that people can afford their produce. And it costs them money if they have to spray any sort of chemical on the ground, or their trees/vines, or perish the thought, on the fruit itself. And they certainly can’t afford to waste expensive chemicals by spraying it on their farm workers, so they don’t do that. Now they do do a good bit of crop variety selection to get types that will tolerate their environment better, with less need for chemical intervention. Once fruit budding has begun, they virtually never put any chemicals anywhere near the crops; but I think they might dust the stone fruit trees with yellow sulphur dust, sometimes, if they get a freak unexpected rain storm, just before the picking starts. If they don’t, they lose the entire crop to brown rot. I would have to ask them exactly how that works. As far as I know, nothing ever goes on citrus trees once they are in flower.

    Real farmers are quite often greener, than those who simply certify that their crops contain carbon.

  217. george e. smith says:

    By the way, what I hear about what sort of sewage materials some organic gardeners use on their crops, I would be hard pressed to buy organic produce.

  218. AdrianB says:

    I think you can have concerns about the way something is produced, but still use the products (maybe).

  219. Brian H says:

    For years I’ve posted on the Tesla Motors* Forum, mostly (not entirely) populated by world-saving oil-haters. Periodically I accuse them of being spoiled juveniles, loftily denigrating the petroleum wealth to which one and all they owe their lifestyles and their very diet. I’ve had no comebacks.
    (*The company and its cars are marvels, notwithstanding the underlying “Escape From Fossil Fuels” nonsense.)

  220. benfrommo says:

    Gail, I too was like you and believed geothermal was the way of the future. But I think I should correct you on this score. (this is long and only about geothermal, so for anyone else not interested in my off-topic reply to Gail, please don’t feel bad at all about skipping the rest of this.)

    I moved into a house that already has the geothermal set-up installed. (open loop system and when researching this home I was all excited about this high efficiency set-up.) Than the truth came home. The units which were older, did not pump out their nameplate capacity, they used globs of electricity to run, and to make matters worse they did not adequatly heat or cool the home where I live currently in humid Florida. So yes, about 15K later we have new units that keep our power bills 1/2 of what we used to have. So no, geothermal is not the way to go. I know the general argument is that “well technology has progressed since than.” Yes, the geothermal units today are better than the ones I had, but they have not even remotely improved as much as your typical forced air heat pump. In other words, spending that extra 4000 bucks will not save you money in the end as the cost of forced air units is the same as geothermal units today plus maybe 500 bucks. That is for the units that are the EXACT same efficiency wise. I know because last month I was shopping for new systems and have already gone SANS geothermal. You don’t save money anywhere. And the kicker on the install was this: They had to run electrical wires and add a sub-panel on our breaker just to get the forced air unit electricity. They also had to run lines all under our house which for a geo set-up would not be required. Now the funny part: they get rid of certain issues with maintenance today by installing the closed loop system that as you state costs about 4k. but a closed loop system is typically 2 SEER less efficient than the open looped systems. 2 SEER = ~2.5 EER in case you wanted the actual math.

    Since efficiency is a bust for modern geothermal, what about maintenance? Let me tell you something about having large quantities of water flowing through your residence. Its not a good idea in the best of times, and for me I found out that one small error in the adjustments of the unit resulted in a ruined wooden floor. So not only do you have your normal maintenance, you also have your issues with build-up (if you use an open cycle) and you have issues with pipes that generally with that high of water flow tend to have serious issues. We are not talking small potatoes on the amount of water, most of these units use 5 gallons per minute while they are operating. So you have normal issues with typical forced air units, and you combine that with issues with plumbing making it just a nightmare unless you just pay someone to do it for you in which case you are going to be paying more anyway. So where are the savings?

    Now in the interest of full disclosure: We looked at geothermal units when replacing both of these units. The first quote was $1000 higher for the same EER/SEER rating (you have to convert them to the same metric because your normal forced air heat pump uses EER and the geothermal units all use SEER). So basically, with all of the pipes in place, and all of the electrical already in place, to get the same efficiency rating would have required spending $1000 more for a new 4 Ton unit. The second quote was higher on both, but the geothermal was only $500 higher.

    So no, people won’t save a dime by installing those pipes. And the only way it even became remotely economical was the 30% tax credit that geo units have on them. In essence, without the tax breaks, no one would even consider this today. The efficiency savings are just too small to even consider. And think of it like this: A poor person who pays no taxes would never install one of these things because its a tax break. So once again, like tax breaks elsewhere

    And that does not take into consideration the costs of either running the well or running the pumps that is required to move water through your unit. (depending on whether you use a closed or open loop.) Because one way or another, you have to run a pump of some type. And that cost is not factored into the cost of the unit. (small things you learn when researching these things.)

    Now I will say this: the theory is that geothermal units last longer. But judging by how far efficiency has come in the last 10 years on normal forced air units its probably more economical to install a forced air unit and just plan on replacing it in 15 years versus being stuck with a dinosaur in 30 years that got you just one lousy tax break. I am only writing this to give you information and perhaps correct a wrong belief.

    Now there is something that I think is relevant to this discussion (on heating and cooling basically). 120 EER is the theoritical maximum efficiency you can achieve. Most new units today are 15 EER. If you think about that in reality you might

    Note to Anthony: I have lost 3 posts in the last 2 days here after posting here for about 4 years now and not once ever losing a post. I normally used to use IE on this site. But I guess I am going to have to use firefox or chrome, because IE everytime locks up when I click on that little box to post something.. (latest IE on vista) And before that I lost two posts when I hit post comment and yes IE locked up forcing me to close it. Copy and paste is your friend huh? I was on my phone for one of those losses so I figure maybe safari has issues too at the moment. Is it an issue with word-press accounts inside of IE posting here perhaps? Chrome seems to work fine because Not even a hiccup as I post.

  221. RockyRoad says:

    Gail Combs says:
    August 24, 2013 at 5:25 pm


    A few minutes later his 10 year old grabbed my hand to take me over to look at Daddy’s brand new SUV and talk about when she grew up and could have a horse of her own.

    Exactly! And somebody needs to tell the lady in the picture at the top of this post that these represent her new home–and she needs to select one now before they’re all gone!

    Then her sign needs to say: “Becoming a town near you soon!”

    Or perhaps she’s a Government Realtor, and showing the latest model homes.

    People won’t wake up until they find these are their only affordable housing options.

  222. Thorsten says:

    @ rishi
    “so, basically, i cannot protest against anything, because i have been made into a hypocrite…i cannot protest against gmo food, because i eat it; i cannot protest against the bad air, because i am breathing it; i cannot protest against any chemicals, because i am using them and i cannot protest against bad land use, because i am part of the problem.”

    Of course you can protest about all these things. But wouldn’t it be better if you accept your way of life, and the condition of your surroundings, as perfectly normal and natural? You cannot honestly call land use “bad” if it’s you who’s using the land, you cannot reject the chemicals that you put to a good use to ease and improve your daily work, the air cannot be bad if you are breathing it, and gmo food evidently is tasty and nourishing, or you wouldn’t live and flourish eating it. That’s a sensible way to look at things – if you feel everything around you is only worth protesting against, maybe YOU are the problem and should either seriously rethink your POV or bow out of the gene-pool voluntarily….

  223. Mark says:

    Patrick B says:

    Odds are some or all of their clothes include fabric derived from petroleum.

    Just about all buttons appear to be made from plastic now, along with many zips. Even cotton often requires petroleum derived fertilizer and no modern farmer would be without the internal combustion engine invented by Rudolf Diesel.

  224. Mark says:

    Greg says:

    If they were protesting about drilling for oil your comments might make sense.

    That’s exactly what the company concerned are drilling for.

  225. Mark says:

    Neil says:
    They want to drill a mile from the village of Balcombe!. Can anyone here look me in the eye and say if they had a house in Balcombe, that they would not be concerned about fracking under their houses?

    How many of these protestors actually come from Balcombe? Some of them have come from as far away as The Netherlands.
    These appear to be far more “professional protestors” than NIMBYs.

  226. Mark says:

    Lars P says:

    Oh Yes, the residents there will be really happy to get some nice wind turbines around the village to get some intermittent electrical current mostly when they do not need it and have solar on the roof that is so efficient during the rainy days,

    IIRC there have been NIMBY objections to wind turbines. Including on the basis of environmental damage. Yet these havn’t attracted “protest camps”.
    Even though oil and gas extraction is, in practice, typically far less disruptive than wind turbines.

  227. Mark says:

    Les Johnson says:

    If you wish to protest against oil and gas development, then you need to do it in canvas running shoes, with natural rubber soles, while living in canvas tents, and wearing only hand grown and hand manufactured cotton clothes.

    Best avoid getting to the protest using vehicles which are made from and fueled by petroleum products too :)
    I don’t recall seeing any stables at Balcombe or even any diesel cars with all the plastic parts replaced…

  228. Rich Lambert says:

    I live in an area where a lot of horizontal drilling is going on. Fracking takes a lot of water so some have been well paid for water. Additionally, royality owneres have been paid well and some have been paid very well for the products produced from the wells. Here the well spacing is typically 640 acres (1 square mile) so well sites are usually two miles apart. I’d much prefer to have a low profile well site every two miles rather than high profile windmills every 1,000 yards or less. Thirteen miles away is a coal fired power station. It provides not only power, but a nice lake for fishing. I prefer it to a windmill farm. They drilled a horizontal well a mile away. It is a lot less of a nuisance than the nearby railroad. By the way there haven’t been an earth quakes, well contamination, or other problems.

  229. Babsy says:

    Rich Lambert says:
    August 25, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    Do you by chance live in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area?

  230. Rich Lambert says:

    Babsy
    No, north central OK. Apologies for misspelling owners.

  231. Gail Combs says:

    benfrommo says: @ August 25, 2013 at 6:38 am

    Gail, I too was like you and believed geothermal was the way of the future. But I think I should correct you on this score…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thank you very much for the information. You just saved me a lot of money and aggravation.

    So it looks like all of the various ‘Green’ options are money pits. Why am I not surprised.

  232. tobias says:

    What are bike frames made out of ? I get the rubber tyres but, the wheels ? the handle bars? and if Neil is still functioning ? have you ever figured out yet how they make a beer? and get into glass??

  233. Neil says:

    richardscourtney – just steve:-

    final comment from me as I find (willful?) ignorance of what I actually wrote/commented, coupled with criticisms of what I didn’t say, don’t subscribe to and actually ask about because I stated I don’t know. Les was helpful/informative. There were ( a few) others who did actually ‘get’ the hypocrisy arguement.
    To sum up – 1 My main gripe is at those crying ‘hypocrisy’ – the arguement is clear
    2 I’m not satisfied that the effects of fracking are all known, specifically say a hundred years or more from now – no-one knows – the more knowlegeable comments/experience expressed here notwithstanding. Esp with regard to subtle point below. I would not frack in my own back yard but would in a remote area.

    one e.g. – ‘just steve’ says ‘none of the environmental disasters you claim have happened’ what/where claimed environmental disasters???

    Another point, subtle, but interesting and mentioned earlier (and clarified by les) is the filling of such fracked areas with highly toxic waste. Some of these wells are damaged and leaking. How do you clean that up?! Where will that stuff go over the next decades? Can you trust humans where profit rules? NO

    One last point on real hypocrisy that not many of you will ‘get’ – the bigger picture, even hypocrisy can drive an issue the right way.
    I object to the “Holier-than-thou” attitude.

  234. Patrick says:

    “Neil says:

    August 26, 2013 at 3:11 am

    I object to the “Holier-than-thou” attitude.”

    And so do I. Don’t go near Cornwall for fear of “radiation”.

  235. RACookPE1978 says:

    tobias says:
    August 25, 2013 at 11:53 pm

    What are bike frames made out of ? I get the rubber tyres but, the wheels ? the handle bars?

    All “commercial rubber” today is man-made from oil and petroleum feedstocks. “Natural” tree-sap rubber is rare and not used in bicycle tires because it is (1) too expensive and (2) not refined (commercially and statistically) “stable” enough to be drawn into the ultra-fine fibers needed to make the bike tires. Particularly because high-end bike tires are made very lightweight and with very fine tire treads to reduce rolling resistance. Natural rubber is not wanted by the tire manufacturers.

    The “metal” parts of all high-end bicycles are today made from exotic alloys and alloy blends to be as light weight as possible and to resistant corrosion while retaining high strength and get acceptable fatigue resistance against vibration. (Only ultra-cheap China-knockoff kid’s bikes use “steel” anywhere nowdays.) Carbon fiber resins and filaments are often used in frames, but seldom in handlebars, seat posts, wheel rims, pedals, etc. ALL require natural gas and coal products (coke) for the furnaces and melting and forging process; and commercial electricity grids for the “commercial” power to make the bicycles, forge them, weld them, paint them, light up the assembly floor and the shops and warehouses for the parts,etc, etc,etc,etc,

    You cannot make today’s bicycles in a horse-and-buggy energy environment. You “can” make bicycles in the 1890’s energy environment, but then they’d ride like a 1890’s bicycle. And be as reliable as an 1890’s bicycle. And would be as expensive (in hourly-wages) as an 1890’s bicycle. And would have to be shipped by horse-buggies and sailing ships to get the where they’d be unloaded by hand labor and carried to a horse-and-buggy to get to the ……

  236. Steve Dove says:

    Remember Deepwater Horizon??

    “By 22 June, the Facebook page “Boycott BP,” started by Lee Perkins,[54] had over 688,500 “likes” from Facebook users, and generated media stories.[55][56] By 3 July, the online petition “Boycott BP” posted by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen had over 22,000 pledges from people who pledge not to buy any BP products for three months.[57] Across the US, thousands of people participated in dozens of protests at BP gas stations and other locations.[58][59][60]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

    I guess they were all hypocrites.

    It could be true that if the rules are followed there is no unsafe system of manufacturing energy. But do you really trust the energy companies to follow the rules??
    I am guessing the girl in the photo does not!

  237. tobias says:

    @RACook, In my reply to Neil I was trying to be kind of sarcastic not even sure about that, as in that even riding a bike it might be just as detrimental to the environment , adding in the actual factory production of said mode of transportation, again , I think (and not being up on the english language) It may have been misunderstood, sorry if I am not clear , but being very serious here, can we carry on the conversation?, This web site is really startung to teach me I have been following for a while but I am learning. The up to date Artic Ice site is great and connections to everywhere other web sites are astounding , A big thanks to AW and all off you.

  238. tobias says:

    Not sure, the pinnacle thing? and what does it take and the sacrifices it takes. Frankly it will forever take sacrifices to get to the top in my humble opinion , I am in my 60’s and remember the moon landing and today there is a new telescope in Chile, we should never stop, sorry if I am a bit all over the place tonight

  239. I love material things but the time has come to admit we are not in control of nature and our abuse of it in our continued growth and mining. Fossil fuels and their byproducts in chemicals and plastics are the enemy we need to address no matter how hard it would be without them. If we loose this battle, we loose it all….if we keep fracking, our water could be so messed up on day that living in a cave and living off the land won’t even be an option…water=life. If we can’t guarantee the casings won’t leak over time..then we are cutting off plan b which is no more mining and manufacturing. Isn’t plan B to live off the land like our ancestors did? Fracking=killing plan B.

  240. Babsy says:

    Would you have any suggestions to share on neo-sophisticate cave wall decoration?

  241. Gunga Din says:

    Babsy says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    Would you have any suggestions to share on neo-sophisticate cave wall decoration?

    ==============================================================
    Use organic paint.

  242. Janice Moore says:

    @ Kim Feil —

    1) Apparently, you did not read the posts above yours on this thread. If you had, you would not be as ignorant as you are of the LOW risk fracking poses to anyone’s water supply.

    2) How in the WORLD are petroleum products “the enemy”? Unless you back up your generalities with some facts and data, your post might as well have never been written.

    3) No. Living off the land like our ancestors did is not “Plan B;” it is simply what happens when society completely breaks down. For real life experiments with real data see: The Cuba Experiment and The Zimbabwe Experiment.

  243. Janice Moore says:

    (re: Babsy’s Q) “Use organic paint.” (Gunga Din)

    LOL, good one. And LOTS of mirrors (most of those protestors are just look-at-me narcissists; protesting is their theater).

  244. Gunga Din says:

    Kim Triolo Feil says:
    August 27, 2013 at 10:42 am

    I love material things but the time has come to admit we are not in control of nature and our abuse of it in our continued growth and mining. Fossil fuels and their byproducts in chemicals and plastics are the enemy we need to address no matter how hard it would be without them.If we loose this battle, we loose it all….if we keep fracking, our water could be so messed up on day that living in a cave and living off the land won’t even be an option…water=life. If we can’t guarantee the casings won’t leak over time..then we are cutting off plan b which is no more mining and manufacturing. Isn’t plan B to live off the land like our ancestors did? Fracking=killing plan B.

    ======================================================================
    So a fuel is only evil if it’s in “fossil” form? If we get rid of kerosene is it OK to go back to sperm whale oil for oil lamps?
    Oh, as far as water goes, there is this thing called “rain”, nature’s “distilled” water. Build more dams.

  245. Andyj says:

    I’m fully a believer of choice. They don’t want people to have something then do not allow them to have it.

    If they want the gas imported then bill them the loss of currency value through trade imbalances.
    If they do not want natural gas then simply ban them from having it.
    If they want energy from sources that result in our present wars for control of other countries resources and money, then I suggest they sign up for it. The consequence is they signed to join join the army.

  246. Babsy says:

    Janice Moore says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    Since we’re all soon to be living in caves, I thought it would be good to get a sneak preview of decorating tips from the first issue of “Better Caves and Gardens”.

  247. Gunga Din says:

    Babsy says:
    August 28, 2013 at 4:54 am

    Janice Moore says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    Since we’re all soon to be living in caves, I thought it would be good to get a sneak preview of decorating tips from the first issue of “Better Caves and Gardens”.

    ===========================================================================
    Hmmm….I’m not sure gardens would be allowed. I’ve only ever heard of one that wasn’t man-made.

  248. Steve Dove says:

    Here in Spain there is quite a tradition of turning caves into homes and some of them are quite beautiful! There are two within a 1/4 mile of me .

    Some examples of cave homes –

    http://tryingtobalancethemadness.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/fascinating-cave-houses-from-around-the-world/

  249. Babsy says:

    Anything ‘for the children’, you know…

Comments are closed.