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]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/frackpic1.jpg?quality=83)
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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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…
Solar and wind also recieve tax breaks. They also recieve feed in tariffs, that are 2-10 times the wholesale costs.
Think about it.
“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.
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…
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…
Green poncho with matching teeth.
For gods sake, at least learn to spell “hypocrisy” correctly….
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.
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
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.
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…
les, hypocrisy – thank you for correcting me
was totally focused on the issue
@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.
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
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?
Re: Neil
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.
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.
My computer is made of cheese so, there.
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.
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.
Neil says:
August 24, 2013 at 2:00 am
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/
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
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
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……
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.
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.