Bishop Hill More violence and intimidation from greens
Jan 24, 2014 BBC Energy: gas Greens The Mail is reporting that environmentalists are flocking to the iGas site at Barton Moss, where they are intimidating the locals, spitting at policemen and generally behaving badly.
[Chief Inspector] Roberts said the force had recorded offences of assault, damage, harassment of residents and workers, a flare fired at the police helicopter and threats to kill.
'I attended a residents’ meeting last week and people there were close to tears and have had enough of this daily disruption to their lives,' he continued.
'Locals, who initially supported the protesters, out walking their dogs and driving down Barton Moss Road have been approached by protesters in balaclavas and have been questioned by them, which has been extremely intimidating.
This is perhaps a good moment to ask ourselves whether the BBC has ever made a programme critical of environmentalism or environmentalists.
Reader Comments (72)
As far as I understand, environmentalists consider coal dirtier than gas, insofar as they ever think as deeply as that.
So please tell me about the times that they camped on the roads leading into coalmines and harassed the miners.
"..driving down Barton Moss Road have been approached by protesters in balaclavas and have been questioned by them.."
Oh, PLEASE try that on me......
Evil hateth the light.
This is the only time that rent-a-mob has ever been on the side of the establishment.
An adjective placed in front of a noun, modifies the meaning of that noun. A good example of this rule is "Greenpeace."
Kellydown, they have accepted a hand out of coal to keep their fires going. Hypocrites? Yeah.
It's just the Emerged Left in action. Follows in the footsteps of Hilter, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, et al. The "progressive" progression is argue, yell, name calling, shouting, march, demonstrate, disrupt, riot and destroy. They no mind to the destruction since it's all for the best in their end world.
Quote from the Times Fri 25th Jan:
"Unite society and the country", "to confront this great threat"
- is he [Thornton] talking about the impending UK unilateral industrial suicide all transported on the vehicle of the - green agenda?
No?
I thought not.
Anyone following the story of the first successfully fracked well near Gdansk in Poland? According to Bloomberg the well will potentially flow 200 mcfd - 400 mcfd or about 4 mmcfd/year equivalent to 0.03% of Poland's demand. On the same subject, the Global Warming Policy Foundation posts a report from The Times that this well will soon produce millions of cubic feet per day. Will the media just stop talking nonsense about shale gas (in the UK). As I have said many may times it ain't going to happen.
Vernon E
I wouldn't be so sure. Also from Bloomberg: "Shares in San Leon rose 8 percent to close at 4.3 pence (7 cents) in London, the biggest one-day gain in four months."
Is this the same Professor Kevin Anderson who said, "“I mean there are some things in science, you know, gravity will remain roughly the same, there will be lots of things in science that remain the same. And therefore we can say quite a lot about the physical makeup of the world. And if you know there’s 9 million billion people in there about how they may respond.”
http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/living-with-four-degrees.html
Alan Kennedy - good data. I think you have missed my earlier posts. My theme is that to produce shale gas in the UK on a scale to have any impact whatsoever - say equal to Morecombe Bay offshore field that peaked at around 7% of UK demand and based upon the current published USA well performances (surprisingly consistent with the Bloomberg data) will need over four hundred wells over thousands of acres, miles of surface laid gathering pipes and a processing plant the size of a small oil refinery: it just won't happen. I have no doubt at all that the Polish operation will be commercially profitable and may even eventually deliver significant (but probably marginal) quantities, hence the share value increase. I also believe that the same may happen here, though Poland has more than 30% more land than the whole UK, largely flat farmland and without political/planning impediments. But Cameron et al are talking about shale meeting all our needs. Its nonsense and it simply isn't going to happen. Why doesn't somebody publish a proper feasibility study for what it would take to produce my example of, say, 7% of demand?
3:02 PM Vernon E
The thing is ... even the threat of a clean energy source at a notionally lower price is a direct threat to the insane "renewables" scam. The geological hazards are provably trivial (not that that stops the liars) - what's wrong with letting Cuadrilla and all get on with it and have all the hiviz PPE'd EA clipboard wielders on site actually learning about it rather than sitting around dreaming obstructive sh*t up in plush offices hundreds of miles away.
Flexibility in the usage strategy has not really been addressed - why build all the STOR units and truck diesel in when gas turbine gensets are small, quiet, clean and efficient (and mobile)? - use the waste heat to raise soil temperature, fumigate plants with deadly CO2, power a few lights etc.,,,
It's clear enhanced methane (and other hydrocarbons) recovery is a threat to a whole raft of vested interests - stating the obvious I know, but when you line them up:
(1) Greens & eco NGO crew - their touted "renewables" start to look more obscene that ever.
(2) Mainstream UK Politicos - "we're greener than you" see (1)
(3) UK Public Servants - "we're greener than you" see (1)
(4) Mainstream Media (esp BBC) - "we're greener than you" see (1)
(5) UK Mainstream Academia - "we're greener than you" see (1)
(6) Eco subsidy freeloader contingent - (STOR crews, wind, biomass, solar etc., etc.)
(7) Existing gas exporters - protecting their margins/investment, as you do.
(8) Existing gas retailers - price fluctuations are unwelcome as is any transparency in pricing.
(9) Nuclear business - nothing to do with France "banning fracking" eh?
is it any real surprise that it's being done down?
I don't claim that it'll be a "miracle cure" because I've seen (100s ) $millions lost on geology gambles in oil, gold, bauxite, iron ore, diamonds - but it'll be a bit of a miracle if a few wells get drilled and treated with the massed overt and covert opposition in place. There are a few cracks beginning to appear (I'll get my coat...) but the opposition is well organised and lavishly funded (Lush funding even:-).
The obstruction emphasis is shifted onto far more subjective areas than geology (cue FUD mongers) . That threat - of a clean, relatively lower cost source of energy is enough to spur those with something to lose into action.
This is a disruptive technology and must be resisted / tamed / fashioned to our own ends... (even if that involves over-promising ... Mr. Cameron is a politician)
Locomotive Acts - anyone?
Info on the Poland shale find:
http://www.nohotair.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3120:sea-change-for-poland-shale-gas&catid=184&Itemid=566
Vernon, think positive....
OT but I see Professor Briffa (CRU) has a letter in "The Times" attacking Matt Ridley
Thanks Don. The Briffa letter is here for those who can penetrate the paywall. An attempt at a detailed rebuttal of Ridley's response to Briffa's earlier criticism of Matt's original article. Calling Steve McIntyre!
John wrote"
I also feel that 'movements' in general have the right to halt activity, as has been seen many times before in history. btw, I talking in general and not with this particular protest. I am an environmentalist but what that means is vastly different depending on who you talk to.
So, you would support direct action to prevent the building of "wind farms" then, would you?
Slightly off-topic (but only slightly), Watts Up With That has an article about how Greenpeace is trying to rewrite its own history by "disappearing" one of its founders.
Greenpeace disappears a founder, much like ‘The Commissar Vanishes’ in Soviet Russia
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/greenpeace-disappears-a-founder-much-like-the-commissar-vanishes-in-soviet-russia/#more-102146
The arrogant innumeracy and deception of the extremists opposing fracking is interesting to witness.
They suport windmills, an unreliable, anti-environmental assault on the power grid, and oppose gas- clean reliable and proven. And to denigrate the Polish test well, when it is stated up front to be a test well and in early development, is just ignorant.
Here is what informed observers are seeing:
"What does this mean in English? It means that this well looks set to produce anywhere from seven to thirty times that from the vertical bore. Using a mid range of theSIGMA3 (300,000 scfd) times 15, gives 4.5 million cubic feet of gas per day, a very respectable number at this stage of the game. Any US well over 2.5 mcfd a day is thought commercial and there are many which do far less. Kamlesh Parmar of 3 Legs mentioned 2.5 as the figure he was looking for in Poland at a conference in Warsaw late November. This could make a very significant contribution to Poland, and European, gas security if replicated in the rest of the Gdansk Basin. Again, back to the SLE release:
In the US, horizontal wells typically yield 7–30 times the production rate and recovery of vertical wells in the same formation, especially after optimisation and learning over time. It is also generally accepted that production rate and recovery of wells drilled later in the development learning curve significantly outperform early wells, suggesting further material upside."
h/t El Sabio and his very informative link.
Hunter: your claims are mendacious. The Bloomberg data clearly states that the future expected output of the first Gdansk well is 200 - 400 mcfd. This is wholly consistent with the vast array of published data from current US shale gas wells. Also in this context must be taken the fact that shale gas wells decay quickly - up to 70% in the first twelve months. I am not anti-fracking (my whole life has been spent in oil and gas), but I am firmly against a government that is willing to risk the economic future of this country on a pipe dream. My belief is thay the only way to bridge the gap between the perilous situation we are in now and the commercial advent of "new" nuclear is to stop closing our coal plants and refurbish/re-automate whatever we can of those already closed. No other options exist. Please try to be a bit more polite in your postings.
Al this "talking up" and "talking down" of shale gas is ignoring the simple point that favorable geology is pivotal and that unless you take the final step and drill / stimulate you don't know if it's viable - end of. Not progressing / obstructing the testing phase is near criminally negligent.
That the U.K.'s energy policy is presently in the hands of innumerate, ignorant berks (who it seems don't have to pay most of their own energy bills) on an ideological mission is another matter.
Having seen the transformers from Didcot trundling down the M4 festooned with strobes like some demented carnival float on their way to be fitted to a German coal power station I think it's safe to say the present parlous state of U.K. energy is just shameful and those perpetrating this are culpable and deserve sanction.