Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Remember the poor - Josh 323 | Main | There's the science and there's the Vatican science »
Wednesday
Apr292015

Diary dates - here we go again edition

The BBC is going to look at fracking again today, with a programme by Scotland Environment Correspondent David Miller.

Scotland has a decision to make: to frack, or not to frack. The controversial technique could be used to release gas and oil from the shale rock which lies beneath central Scotland. Large energy companies are keen to do this, and say it is important for both our economic growth, and energy supply needs. But fracking has a bad reputation. Its opponents believe it is dangerous, with the potential to cause pollution and even earthquakes. The Scottish Government has announced a temporary ban, but for some that is just not enough. David Miller reports from the front line in the war over fracking, where the two sides are locked in a fierce battle for the hearts and minds of the nation. He sets out to find out whether shale gas extraction can be safe, and whether Scots can be convinced to give it the go ahead.

What's the betting we see the "flaming faucets" on screen again? There are some clips here to whet your appetites.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (23)

The BBC has remembered to include the phrase "controversial technique." We all know that when that phrase is used it will be in connection with fracking. It is a good job that there is nothing at all controversial about covering the countryside with wind turbines and their associated pylons, or fields full of solar panels. There is also nothing controversial about converting a power station sitting on top of a coal field to run on wood pellets imported from the United States where forests are cleared to satisfy the demand for "green" energy.

If there were anything controversial about other methods of energy production the public might get confused. The BBC continues to fulfil its public service role of "educating" the plebs.

Apr 29, 2015 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

The opponents of fracking have created its bad reputation, which they now reference.

The opponents of fracking have exhausted their reserves of common sense, and deserve their bad reputation.

The answer, is not, blowing in the wind. The solution is not a ray of sunshine either.

Apr 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

As the lady says: 'Its not tried; its not tested..'

Nope - its only been used for the last seventy years, and in the UK for thirty years....

Better give it a bit longer.....

Apr 29, 2015 at 12:58 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

Fine lets ignore the consensus of experts now and just ask a deluded, anti-industry, recent import living up the braes in California, nowhere near the proposed well-sites in the Forth valley. Sure let's just close down Grangemouth's industry because looking at it is clearly offensive, just never mind the jobs.......and we'll replace it with what exactly?

Once upon a time jobs were the most important thing on the councils agenda. Now it's cowtowing to enviro-loons!

Apr 29, 2015 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

I think you should start writing "Controversial broadcastor" in front of "the BBC".

Apr 29, 2015 at 1:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Dunford

More jaw-jaw. It's obvious the only way we will discover for certain whether fracking is viable and safe is to test drill. It's also equally obvious that environmentalists are desperate to stop any test drilling, precisely because they strongly suspect it will prove to be viable and safe. And once that happens it will make 'renewables' look seriously stupid. Hence they obstruct at every turn not because they fear it will fail, but because they fear fracking will be a runaway success.

Coming from the nation that gave the world the Industrial Revolution, our fretting and dithering is a complete embarrassment.

Apr 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered Commentercheshirered

I think flaming faucets ought to be a poster campaign highlighting how fraudulent environmental campaigners thought they were right to deliberately contaminate drinking water supplies with inflammable gas.

What next? Deliberately contaminating domestic electricty supplies with drinking water, to show how dangerous it is?

Apr 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

From today's BBC radio output it was clear that they had already decided how people should be voting. They were hyping up Nicola in Scotland and Ed for England.
... I hope the voters "stick it" to the BBC.

Yesterday I heard Steyn pointing out that Scotland 5.3m has a lower population than London 8.6m
..Hey but it is still around same popn as Denmark, Finland, Slovenia, Ireland
...only 8 EU countries are bigger that the 16m of London&SE )

Apr 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

shalegas extraction takes the methane OUT of water.This is what our BBC propagandists will not tell you.
It was always there..The Romans already had very stiff regulation not to approach water wells with torches..it had a reason.

WSJ has a very interesting nuclear industry article today
note china has officially 28 nukes in development BUT 200 on the board

We completely destroyed an industry to make leftists feel important and parasite a bit..just like the healthcare and education industries have been corrupted degenrated and turned into DISservices by corrupt leftists.

Apr 29, 2015 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterVenusNotWarmerDueToCO2

As the lady says: 'Its not tried; its not tested..'


2 million wells and counting...

Apr 29, 2015 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

A real journalist would investigate whether or not the accusations against fracking are credible. Instead it is framed as honest opponents vs. greedy big oil.

Apr 29, 2015 at 3:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

A real journalist would investigate whether or not the accusations against fracking are credible. Instead it is framed as honest opponents vs. greedy big oil.

It isn't as if they are dealing with some theoreical concept. Jump on a plane, go to the US and do some honest fact gathering.

Apr 29, 2015 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

Geckko
With the BBC's and their journalists' love of jetting off round the world with only a marginally related reason I'm surprised they haven't been several times already. Naturally they'd find earth tremors happening every half hour and flaming faucets in every home.

Apr 29, 2015 at 4:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Give the BBC some due – the interviewer did raise some valid questions with the lady. It would be interesting to see his response to her description of Grangemouth being a blighted community, not least quite what she meant by “blighted community”.

Mind you, her smug expression at the end of the clip is one that just demands a good slap.

Apr 29, 2015 at 4:52 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Gekko: they have already done that (can’t remember what programme it was, but I am sure it was the Bish that brought it to our attention). It was a radio programme, and the lady reporter sent to the USA did try very hard to find someone involved for whom fracking had caused problems, but failed abysmally – all she could get was people who could only tell her of the benefits. The frustration in her voice was quite tangible.

Apr 29, 2015 at 5:00 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Venus: the Romans were not so daft:

The Abbeystead disaster occurred on the evening of 23 May 1984 when a methane gas explosion destroyed a waterworks' valve house at Abbeystead, Lancashire, England. A group of 44 visitors were inside the underground building at the time attending a public presentation by North West Water Authority (NWWA) to demonstrate the operation of the station. Eight were killed instantly by the explosion, and the others were severely injured. The explosion also caused the concrete roof to fall down on to the group, destroying the steel mesh floor and throwing some of the victims into the water chambers below which rapidly filled with river water. Another eight people subsequently died of their injuries in hospital. An 11-year-old boy and his mother were among the dead. The official inquiry into the disaster concluded that the methane had seeped from coal deposits 3,937 feet (1,200 m) below ground and had built up in an empty pipeline. The gas was then ejected into the valve house by the sudden pressure of water as the pumps were switched on. The cause of ignition has never been determined.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbeystead_disaster

The gas was then ejected into the valve house by the sudden pressure of water as the pumps were switched on. The cause of ignition has never been determined.” However, quite why they could not link those two points is a mystery.

Apr 29, 2015 at 5:10 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Does Freedom of Information extend to the expenses of the BBC? It is taxpayer funded after all.

It would be nice to know how envionmentally friendly the BBC are, when they are not on camera, but spending the viewers money.

Apr 29, 2015 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The flaming faucet is falsely attributed to fracking. Water well was 530 feet deep. Well completion report shows it penetrated 4 shallow coal seams. Colorado's Oil and Gas Commission tested the well in 2008 and confirmed it was coal bed methane. The Niobrara shale in Weld County Colorado is at depths of 7000-8000 feet. Details in essay No Fracking Way.

Apr 29, 2015 at 6:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterRud Istvan

Polls and surveys show that the majority of the public don't give a s**t about fracking. Greens think it's the end of the world, the rest of the world think it's nothing of consequence.

Surveys ask if people would like a beautiful countryside and of course many will answer affirmatively. But I wonder how many would answer positively to the question about wanting cheap energy & fuel. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Apr 29, 2015 at 9:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterSadButMadLad

“The gas was then ejected into the valve house by the sudden pressure of water as the pumps were switched on. The cause of ignition has never been determined.” However, quite why they could not link those two points is a mystery.

One would think the cause of ignition would have been the electric motors running the pumps.

Apr 29, 2015 at 10:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Howerton

"One would think the cause of ignition would have been the electric motors running the pumps."

Extremely unlikely as they are 99.9% certain to have been induction motors which have nothing to create a spark, and there would have been evidence.
More likely to have been the control gear if it was in the valve house itself, but again there would have been evidence, covers blown off or damaged etc.

Apr 30, 2015 at 10:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterNW

Well thought! You figured it out with most imperative and helpful explanation here. Actually impress from you!

here

Apr 30, 2015 at 10:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterGuardians of the Galaxy Coat

About time we remembered to mention "the BBC, controversially funded by a compulsory licence fee".

Unfortunately my video stream stalled before I found out how long the sympathetically-presented "long term campaigner against fracking" had been campaigning but I bet it wasn't 22 years which is how long it's been since I first took part a frac job in the Forth Valley. I suspect it was less than five years, since nobody outside the industry had even heard the term until that dumb anti-shale propaganda film came out.

Apr 30, 2015 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterkellydown

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>