Bishop Hill Balcombe heats up
Aug 4, 2013 Energy: gas Greens With test drilling now under way in Balcombe, the war of words is heating up. As one would expect, the Luddites at the Guardian are stirring any pot they can find, and Damian Carrington's story focuses on allegations that Cuadrilla trespassed on private land while undertaking geophysical surveys. Mountains and molehills are words that spring to mind, and one is left with the overwhelming impression that there is another side to the story too.
Meanwhile, Twitter also remains dominated by greens, with barely a squawk from anyone in favour, but at least Cuadrilla have now made themselves heard - CEO Francis Egan is interviewed in the Mail on Sunday (scroll down here) and does a pretty good job of relaying the facts.
However, any benefits from Egan's intervention are entirely undone by Energy Minister Michael Fallon, who is reported (at the same URL) as follows:
The Tory Minister responsible for fracking has conjured up a chilling image of swathes of rural England shaking with the sound of drills as a result of the drive for shale gas.
Referring to people living in the countryside who have supported fracking, Energy Minister Michael Fallon said at a private meeting in Westminster: ‘We are going to see how thick their rectory walls are, whether they like the flaring at the end of the drive!’
While it is fair to say that there are going to be some impacts, the remarks about rectory walls are absurd - I wonder whether the story is being embellished by the journalists who have reported the story (it appears elsewhere too) or by their source. It is nevertheless a complete own goal in PR terms.
Facing down the greens and their Luddite friends in the press is going to be pivotal for the government. Failure will have appalling consequences for the country.
It's a pity then that nobody on our side of the debate seems geared up for the fight.
Reader Comments (169)
To patronisingly call protesters 'Luddites' is to completely misunderstand them. They are, in fact, advocates of different technologies which are far more sustainable than drilling for fossil fuels in densely-populated areas. They are also rightly concerned at the potential impact of a clearly pretty risky form of extraction on their own environment.
I think you'll find that no-one on the fracking side is 'up for the fight' because now the debate has properly started, the vast majority (85% in Balcombe itself) realise that this energy policy is psychotic.
Be interesting to see how many pro and anti comments this thread gets.
We also have Tim Farron ingratiating himself with Lib Dem activists for an expected run at the party leadership by opposing fracking. "Mr Farron, a respected figure within the party tipped by many to succeed Mr Clegg, said he opposed shale-gas mining because it would industrialise unspoilt areas, could cause seismic activity, and maintains Britain’s reliance on fossil fuels." He's - ahem - opening up a split with Clegg & Davey.
The Mail on Sunday's comment seems to assume that Balcombe is about fracking. It seems to be suggesting One strike and you're out.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2384273/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Fracking-test-decide-Britains-future.html
If the oil there turns out to need stimulation, one can see Cuadrilla claiming the data doesn't justify fracking there and backing off to fight another day in North
EastWest England.Maybe Mr Farron could be persuaded to explain the costs involved in his policy position to Andrew Neil. Hopefully we shall not be hearing any more from Lord Howell of the fracked brain.
Are they all idiots?
Anon
So if NIMBYISM ("85% in Balcombe itself") aligns with your political view it becomes perfectly valid, yes?
Gixxerboy:
So if, in a fictitious dystopian future, an extreme government decided to erect a concentration camp in your town, should we dismiss your (presumably anti-concentration camp) views as NIMBYISM too? It's the same principle.
I'd already spotted the interview with the CEO of Cuadrilla in the Mail and thought he'd done a good job in PR terms. Twitter is a two-edged sword on the day Caitlin Moran has called for #twittersilence because of rape and death threats.
More inspirational to me as a protest which has highlighted something of real importance is the Berbers drawing attention to the encroaching threats to their freedom in Algerians eat lunch in Ramadan protest. That's true courage and canny PR at the same time, given the BBC has chosen to cover it.
I don't know what the equivalent is for shale gas and more broadly a sane energy policy for the UK but I'm sure there is a way.
Let's assume the Balcombe survey (a) stands close examination of its survey methods, and (b) leads to a local ban on such drilling. The precedent is then set for refusal of all windmill projects and other (supposedly) renewable projects.
So if, in a fictitious dystopian future, an extreme government decided to erect a concentration camp in your town, should we dismiss your (presumably anti-concentration camp) views as NIMBYISM too? It's the same principle.
What about when the government wants to build a current prison? People fight like fury to prevent one being near them, yet few are opposed to prisons on principle.
I would fight against a concentration camp anywhere. It's ridiculous to suggest we would only do so if it were close! (Many USians oppose Guantamano, and it's not even on US soil!)
I agree with Anon's concerns about the use of the word "Luddites".
Neo-Luddites is more accurate.
Anon:
To quote Rod Liddle in today's Sunday Times:
Anon
You are clearly quite adept at and intent on spreading misinformation. 85% of the population of Balcome did not oppose the fracking. If you are referring to the survey carried out by the community council/parish council where only around half voted then only around 40% of the population of Balcome voted against fracking.
In fact from what I have seen of the coverage by the local media most true local residents, as opposed to the eco lunatics from outside the area, who want to control the agenda are more worried about the disruption and nuisance from the eco taliban than actual fracking. One who was interviewed on radio said that most locals had been disgusted by the behaviour of protestors urinating and defecating in gardens.
Anon, whilst not wanting to take ownership of his/her views, makes the mistake of assuming that their favoured alternatives are inefficient and equally intrusive to the countryside. Clearly the vote in Balcombe was fixed, a 17 strong army of results collectors going door to door with no doubt a biased set of questions according to the shill on BBC news last night who was presented as a 'resident'.
It's this simple. All the short term alternatives need significant stand by capacity (short term being 20years) and it makes far more sense for us to be burning our own oil and gas in this period than to be contributing to another national economy. I guess Anon is not too bothered by this detail, assuming we are funding their lifestyle choices through our taxes or music purchases.
Anon, please state where your source is for the vast majority who realise the energy policy is psychotic, presumably as it relates to shale gas?
I'm in the north, I'd be happy for fracking to come here because it brings real jobs and all of the evidence suggests thatscaremongering is just that. Plus the many windmills that have cropped up here are spoiling the landscape fore miles around. It's worth remembering that coal brought many many risks and damage to the countryside, and oil extraction is very risky too. But then so are windmills when considered dust to dust, or is that ok as long as the damage is in a far off country?
The fact remains all energy has risks, so called renewable as well. But it's not about energy, it's about ideology isn't it?
The problem with all of this is that 'Luddites' and 'NIMBYISM' is pretty much just name-calling, and not addressing what's at the heart of the issue: what sort of energy future do we want for our country and at what cost?
I'd like to hear the pro-fracking side address the questions of environmental impact properly. I want to hear a proper debate. Which is why I am bothering to post here.
But what Cuadrilla say is:
- that they're not fracking in Balcombe (true perhaps, but that's surely part of the plan for the area);
- that they go through the proper planning and regulatory procedures (that may be the case, but I don't have any confidence in senior government officials to manage these processes because I think there are too many vested interests involved, including the Chancellor and the local MP Francis Maude, both of whom have links to the shale gas industry which are too close for my liking);
- that they are taking adequate measures to mitigate risk (I have heard so many examples of this process causing immediate environmental damage, as well as public health damage, that I simply don't think they can be sure the risks are truly being mitigated)
We live 10 miles from Balcombe, and we have experienced earth tremors in the past year. They were real, and they were scary. We rang the council who told us it was likely drilling companies were testing in our area, but they said they didn't know where the tests were taking place. They suggested talking to Surrey County Council (we're near the border) and they told us exactly the same thing.
I'm not an 'environmentalist' and I'm not a 'Luddite' or a 'NIMBY'. I'd be very happy having a wind farm in my back yard.
I'm concerned that we're about to go down a very dangerous road, and some people stand to get very rich, but we simply don't know what the impact could be. But we have genuine and legitimate reasons to be concerned.
So yes, please, get your PR act together and let's have this out properly. But I just don't believe there are any adequate counters to the arguments against.
Anon
Another Mugabesque poll supporting a green agenda. 97% of people don't believe them.
How can the LibDems, or at least some of them, be so stupid as to preach against their country's only real hope of a stable, long term source of energy?
I went down with my 'Keep on Fracking' sign and was told to 'Frack off'
Anon,
"some people stand to get very rich"
We all do, compared to the medieval peasant lifestyle that survivors of a "renewables" energy policy would endure.
If all of the UK's energy demand could be supplied using home-produced shale gas, then 15 square km of the UK total land area of 240,000 square km would be occupied by drilling rigs.
If, on the other hand, all of the UK's energy demand could be supplied by on-shore wind turbines, then 130,000 square km would be occupied by the turbines.
With this perspective, put me down as pro-fracking and anti-wind.
Anon
You are clearly quite adept at and intent on spreading misinformation. 85% of the population of Balcome did not oppose the fracking. If you are referring to the survey carried out by the community council/parish council where only around half voted then only around 40% of the population of Balcome voted against fracking.
In fact from what I have seen of the coverage by the local media most true local residents, as opposed to the eco lunatics from outside the area, who want to control the agenda are more worried about the disruption and nuisance from the eco taliban than actual fracking. One who was interviewed on radio said that most locals had been disgusted by the behaviour of protestors urinating and defecating in gardens.
Wytch farm, oil field and processing facility is the largest oil field in Western Europe according to wiki.
No one, outside of the industry really knows about it.
Balcombe, is yet a test drill site, if oil is found in large quantities - the whole nation will benefit.
"realise that this energy policy is psychotic."
Agreed that, because energy policy has been hijacked and dominated then written*, through a political infiltration by psychotic eco-warriors, thus 'it' called "UK energy policy" is in crisis. Energy policy, a wreck doing untold damage to the economy.
Petrochemicals and energy derived from fossil fuels indubitably have enabled Western nations to enter into the light, it surely follows that to wish it all away - must be some sort of psychosis. Indisputably, only irrational men who would go about smashing machines - would desire to snub out enlightenment.
*politicians who have capitulated to the green psychotics, enacted the 2008 CCA - a prime piece of "psychotic" legislation with its 'renewable' agenda, emissions limitations and colossal costs, will turn an already failing economy, back to an era of pre-industrialised hardship and worse.
Tom Heap, the BBC's chief environmental alarmist, is covering the "controversial" subject of fracking on Countryfile this evening. I shan't be watching. When the BBC says that wind farms are "controversial", then maybe I'll watch the BBC again.
The opposition to fracking does not surprise me -- cheap available energy for all is the Left/Greens worst nightmare made real.
Demos won't be the end of it -- there'll be sabotage, plus gormless eco-loons chaining themselves to bits of machinery
Really? Scary earth tremors, likely to be drilling companies testing, and no-one knows who and where they were. I'm not surprised you have little confidence in the planning a regulatory process. Have you checked in the Yellow Pages for Macavity Drilling? Why not ask them?
All these posts, yet still no-one addresses the risks.
Anon, some people stand to get very rich indeed from providing power backup when unreliable renewables fail, and with far less good reason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10220083/We-could-soon-be-paying-billions-for-this-wind-back-up.html
To adapt your formulation, "I just don't believe there are any adequate counters to the arguments against" expensive, unreliable, unsightly, noisy, bird killing wind turbines. Now, do you see how a closed mind is never going to convince anyone?
By the way, isn't there some earthquake monitoring station that could confirm the existence of your unusual detectable earthquakes and maybe point to possible causes? Did this make the local press? Or did only people with no name feel them?
Why are you anonymous, by the way? I think it's a cop-out. You're not likely to get threats from people here!
Have you seen the size of the Balcombe viaduct? The noise and vibrations from the trains must propagate some distance.
Balcombe (Ardingly) reservoir probably makes less noise, but must have consumed a lot more land when created in the 1970's.
How many of the useful idiots have read (if any of them can read) the DECC paper "About shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking)"? It's 36 pages long, so even if they can read, I doubt they'd get to the end or understand it.
John B:
A poll with 50% response rate is pretty good, no? I wonder what proportion of the electorate voted for the Council who wave through the planning for these things?
The comments on the Mail piece are inane. Looks like the fanatics are getting moving.
Anon:
Look at the difference here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/21/energy-impact.html
Pretty picture the windmills make, eh!
Anon: How many have read the DECC paper I referenced above and understand anything about fracking?
Here's the link to the shale paper
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225826/About_Shale_gas_and_hydraulic_fracking.pdf
The parish should have polled whether the Balcome residents approve of the "rent-a-crowd" which has come to infest the village.
Perhaps if those who opposed the extraction of energy resources refused to use such energy, they wouldn't be classed as Hypocrites.
Anon "what sort of energy future do we want for our country and at what cost?"
I'd like one with energy in it and at a price I can afford.
Those who oppose gas/coal/nuclear can band together and ask their energy suppliers for renewables only tariffs. Remember to ask for a smart meter that cuts you off whenever the renewable energy runs short.
Those who are scared of CO2 can do likewise but they can also reduce their CO2 footprint to the 2 tonnes needed to park CO2 levels. They don't have to wait for the rest of us, they can embrace poverty and misery now.
I'm waiting... no takers?
John Page:
Thank you - you're one of the only posters on here engaging in debate.
My name's Andrew and I don't want to put any more personal information on the Internet because I value my privacy.
Re wind turbines:
'Expensive' - if shale drilling is so much cheaper, why do we need tax breaks for exploratory work?
'Unreliable' - I don't know about reliability, but I'd rather we invested in these sorts of technologies to make them reliable. Given the state we're in, it doesn't look like fossil fuels are too reliable either does it?
'Unsightly' - that's a matter of opinion - I actually happen to think they're quite beautiful representations of human engineering
'Noisy' - yes - I suspect all industrial energy generation is noisy
'Bird-killing' - I suspect this is a red herring, but it's a risk I'd rather take than injecting chemicals 2.5km into the earth's crust.
Aug 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterAnon
All these posts, yet still no-one addresses the risks.
Why not do your own homework, and give one verifiable instance, form all the experience of fracking in the US over decades, of the 'risks' causing real damage.
And I don't mean fake films like 'Gasland.'
Farrons comments are clearly a pub guide to tongue in cheek throwaway wit, but on paper those comments can be taken out of context and twisted to suit nefarious ends.
If shale is accessible it would be a gross deriliction of duty to not access it.
Damien Carrington? Is there a more soaking wet hand-wringing Eco-liberal than he? In a target-rich environment he stands unchalleged. Some achievement.
Mind you that Nafeez Ahmed is earning a deserved reputation as a stark raving bonkers climate scaremonger in chief, with a series of absurd, utterly ludicrous articles.
A recent offering 'projects' Hansens views centuries ahead...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming
I'm also happy to debate this with you, Andrew. My question for you - If we don't permit the extraction of shale gas and oil then how will we (the UK) satisfy our energy requirements over the next 10-30 years?
@ Anon
To say that no one has assessed the risks is absurd. Extraction of shale gas has been carried out successfully in the US. Thus the methodology is tried and tested and the risks have been properly addressed. Consequently the knowledge gained there will be used here. The spread of engineering knowledge occurs on a word wide basis and as done so since the industrial revolution. We took trains to the US and they were the first country to adopt steel framed buildings which we copied circa 1908.
So to you Anon I say anon.
It's brilliant tactics by Egan, Focus all the faux-green nutters in the home counties where all the commentariat live and do the real work elsewhere undisturbed.
Anon: You haven't read the DECC paper have you? Otherwise you wouldn't ask about addressing the risks. It's all covered in the DECC paper. I also suspect you don't understand anything about risk or reliability. Wind power is inherently unreliable and can never be made reliable (unless you can invent a process to store wind).
“Why do we need tax breaks for exploratory work?” I’m not really in favour of that but it’s probably to help overcome the cost of endless opposition.
“I'd rather we invested in these sorts of technologies to make them reliable. Given the state we're in, it doesn't look like fossil fuels are too reliable either does it?” I’d also like a teleport and a pill that lets me eat anything and not put weight on. Unfortunately we could both be disappointed.
“I actually happen to think they're quite beautiful representations of human engineering.” I’d rather have a fracking site near me than a windmill. Do your personal preferences outweigh anyone else’s?
“I suspect all industrial energy generation is noisy.” The distance affected is much greater for windmills but for much lower energy returns.
“Bird-killing' - I suspect this is a red herring, but it's a risk I'd rather take than injecting chemicals 2.5km into the earth's crust.” Not a red herring. If a very rare bird can be killed within days of arriving on our shores you can guarantee that countless native birds and bats are falling prey to windmills too.
Anon's question about environmental impact has been comprehensively answered byPhilip R.
Anon says:
Re wind turbines:
'Expensive' - if shale drilling is so much cheaper, why do we need tax breaks for exploratory work?"
We don't. But it would be short sighted to choke off exploratory work and promising developments by excessive taxation
"'Unreliable' - I don't know about reliability, but I'd rather we invested in these sorts of technologies to make them reliable. Given the state we're in, it doesn't look like fossil fuels are too reliable either does it?"
Fossil fuels are reliable - they have proven that. There are also resources for years ahead. Wind and indeed solar seem to be showing up problems already and for instance at sea there must be questions over maintenance etc. I recall Philip showed that their useful life was far shorter than predicted.
"'Unsightly' - that's a matter of opinion - I actually happen to think they're quite beautiful representations of human engineering"
Fair enough. The problem is you need so many (especially on land) that they become an eyesore.
"'Noisy' - yes - I suspect all industrial energy generation is noisy"
Again, you are right, but the problem is that every wind turbine generates noise and possibly harmful sub sonic noise and they are widespread so that anybody nearby is likely to be affected and the numbers affected can only grow.
"'Bird-killing' - I suspect this is a red herring, but it's a risk I'd rather take than injecting chemicals 2.5km into the earth's crust."
I was quite surprised at the numbers of birds killed. Look at figures from the US. (Sorry I can't post a link just a recollection of what I have read.) I am afraid your comments about chemicals and potential risks indicate an unscientific ignorance. Which of course has been fed by the pernicious nonsense from green groups.
By the way, I have been to Balcombe and know a couple who used to live there. It is a lovely spot and if the work would cause severe damage I would not support it.
Also "it doesn't look like fossil fuels are too reliable either does it?"
What, you mean the substances that have allowed our modern culture to develop with all the benefits is unreliable? So you don't use powered transport or fossil fueled energy?
Anon @ 10:25 AM
Wind is 'Unreliable' - As in Unpredictable Intermittentcy.
BTW do you have transport and/or depend upon goods/services transported to your home?
Do you have gas-or oil-fired heating? [Or even biomass, transported from forest to your home]
Do you use any electricity sourced from anything other than wind/solar?
Don't be a hypocrite.
@ Anon: "Given the state we're in, it doesn't look like fossil fuels are too reliable either does it?"
Hi Andrew. In the past, I have worked at a coal fired plant, CCGT/CHP and to a much lesser extent, wind (this involved monitoring a wind farm via an online website). Could you tell me in what way are fossil fuels not reliable?
Anon:
'Expensive' - if shale drilling is so much cheaper, why do we need tax breaks for exploratory work? Good qn, arguably we don't. But taxpayers won't have to pay out cash to subsidise them.
'Unreliable' - I don't know about reliability, but I'd rather we invested in these sorts of technologies to make them reliable. Given the state we're in, it doesn't look like fossil fuels are too reliable either does it? If you don't know about the reliability of your renewables, get some facts before forming an opinion! See e.g. http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scots-face-world-s-biggest-energy-bills-from-wind-power-1-3029517 Why do you consider fossil fuels unreliable?
'Unsightly' - that's a matter of opinion - I actually happen to think they're quite beautiful representations of human engineering But you'll accept that many disagree, frack pads have far smaller footprints, and they don't require power lines.
'Noisy' - yes - I suspect all industrial energy generation is noisy Gas extraction noisy after the brief drilling? I hardly think so!
'Bird-killing' - I suspect this is a red herring, but it's a risk I'd rather take than injecting chemicals 2.5km into the earth's crust. The crust's made up of chemicals of course. The injected chemicals are hardly heroic - see the 36 page document referenced above.
Sorry anon, the protesters are Luddites. But then these people protest at anything since they have the time to do it not having a real job.
Your comment about ''injecting chemicals'' into the earth's crust shows a complete ignorance as to what constitutes a chemical. Water is a chemical. The additives to the inject are sand and environmentally permitted lubricants similar to washing up liquid. 98% is water, over 1% sand which leaves little left for ''chemicals''
Get real anon we need the gas more than we need wind power.
Anon
Let's pick up on a couple of points from your 9.37 posting and see if we can understand each other.
1. Cuadrilla are not fracking in Balcombe. Fact. Why not leave it at that and stop looking into a murky crystal ball for excuses for being paranoid?
When they do start fracking, or plan to start fracking, is the time to worry.
One thing at a time, eh?
2. Planning and regulatory procedures.
May I suggest you go away and learn exactly what the planning and regulatory procedures are before you prattle on about "senior government officials" and "vested interests" and MPs (who are not "senior government officials, by the way) who you claim, without quoting any evidence, to have (1) links to the shale gas industry which are (2) too close for your liking.
More paranoia?
3. Let me re-phrase slightly here:
"I have heard so many
examples ofmyths about this process causing immediate environmental damage, as well as public health damage, that I simply don't think they can be sure the risks are truly being mitigated."Instead of lapping up the propaganda being put about by those for whom, as Rick Bradford says (9.58 am), cheap available energy for all is their "worst nightmare made real", try researching a few facts from industry sources?
I know your reaction to that will be "why should I trust industry sources?" and the answer is because, unlike the eco-activists/luddites, they know what they are talking about.
[As witness the fact that the Balcombe protest started because the activists reacted to the word 'Cuadrilla' like a dog reacts to the word 'walkies' — and got it wrong! Cuadrilla, as we are agreed, are not fracking at Balcombe.]
You go on to talk about earth tremors. Again, I suggest you follow the advice you had from Hector Pascal and John Page. Instead of assuming that any tremors you may have felt must caused by fracking (probably because you want that to be the case, no?) why not assume they are natural? Or even check to see whether they actually happened at all?
The British Geological Survey lists no earthquakes in the last 50 days that would have been felt in Sussex.
You might also like to look at this link on Bishop Hill a few days ago which shows the difference between inefficient wind turbines and efficient gas extraction sites. It's all very well you saying that you would be happy to have a wind farm in your backyard but do you know how many windmills you would need to produce the same amount of energy that you would get from one drilling rig — even assuming your windmill is producing this energy 100% of the time, which it wouldn't be.
Think about it