I see there is some village in Sussex where they are demostrating about
fracking.
(Some of them professional whingers).

Same lot of NIMBYs as don't want wind turbines I expect.

Pity there isn't any coal there to dig up. or maybe nuclear waste could be
buried there instead.

On 07/28/2013 05:56 AM, harryagain wrote:
I see there is some village in Sussex where they are demostrating about
fracking.
(Some of them professional whingers).

Same lot of NIMBYs as don't want wind turbines I expect.

Pity there isn't any coal there to dig up. or maybe nuclear waste could be
buried there instead.



Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors or contaminate water-courses?
Mining companies don't have great record on environmental responsibility
do they?

And no I don't want a massive wind farm off of the Sussex coast and I'm
entitled to that view in both sense of the word!

The fundamental issue is unbridled population growth but doing something
about that doesn't earn subsidies or profits.

Andy C

On 28/07/13 05:56, harryagain wrote:
I see there is some village in Sussex where they are demostrating about
fracking.
(Some of them professional whingers).

Same lot of NIMBYs as don't want wind turbines I expect.
No harry. they are the same lot of green rent-a-mob that want to ram
wind power down every rural communities throat.

Fracking might make people ask 'why do we have to have windmills' and
come up with the startling answer 'actually we dont'

Pity there isn't any coal there to dig up. or maybe nuclear waste could be
buried there instead.
No problems with them burying nuclear waste anywhere round here.

After all that's what the whole planet is made of anyway.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

So who got out of the wrong side of the bed today then?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
I see there is some village in Sussex where they are demostrating about
fracking.
(Some of them professional whingers).

Same lot of NIMBYs as don't want wind turbines I expect.

Pity there isn't any coal there to dig up. or maybe nuclear waste could be
buried there instead.

On 07/28/2013 10:28 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors

Gosh a massive 2.0 on the Richter scale. About the same as a lorry going
past your house. Or an old coal mine workings collapsing.

That's simply isn't true. Blackpool wouldn't notice a lorry going down a
single street !

Note: I've been in a 7.1 so I know what I'm talking about.

I've also been in a shaking building and it not enjoyable or structually
a good idea.

or contaminate water-courses?

Suggest you read up about the Oklo natural reactor.

Not sure of the relevance but I'll have a look.

Mining companies don't have great record on environmental
responsibility do they?

Bit like nature then. I dunno, there I was in Pompeii minding my own
business, and then bloody nature plugged Vesuvius in without checking it
was sealed properly. Result: bloody dust everywhere. Feet of it. Really,
you just can't get the staff these days can you.

So because nature causes disasters, it's OK for man to do it
deliberately! Strange logic.

Andy C

On 07/28/2013 10:28 AM, Tim Streater wrote:


or contaminate water-courses?

Suggest you read up about the Oklo natural reactor.


What is the connection between an ancient nuclear reaction in Africa and
a company pumping chemicals in the ground around Balcombe now?

Andy C

Andy Cap wrote:

The fundamental issue is unbridled population growth but doing something
about that doesn't earn subsidies or profits.


The fundamental issue in the UK is immigration.

Bill

On 28/07/2013 06:41, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 05:56 AM, harryagain wrote:
I see there is some village in Sussex where they are demostrating about
fracking.
(Some of them professional whingers).

From the broadcast interviews, they seem to be in the majority.

Same lot of NIMBYs as don't want wind turbines I expect.

Pity there isn't any coal there to dig up. or maybe nuclear waste
could be
buried there instead.



Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors

Yes. Injecting water may release a tremor that was going to happen
anyway, but it won't cause one that wasn't going to happen. Indeed,
selective water injection has been suggested as a technique for the
controlled release of stresses in major faults, such as the San Andreas
fault, in the expectation that a series of small earthquakes would be
better than one big one.

or contaminate water-courses?...

Not if the geology has been done correctly and the reason for the bore
hole at Balcombe is to check the geology. It is not going to involve any
fracking.

Colin Bignell

On 07/28/2013 11:37 AM, Bill Wright wrote:


The fundamental issue in the UK is immigration.

Bill

Caused mainly by burgeoning world population. 1+ 7 billion in 200
years and all quite reasonably wanting a much better standard of living.
Apparently we're now creating meat from stem cells because we're running
out of protein.

Andy C

On 07/28/2013 11:37 AM, Nightjar wrote:

Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors

Yes. Injecting water may release a tremor that was going to happen
anyway, but it won't cause one that wasn't going to happen. Indeed,
selective water injection has been suggested as a technique for the
controlled release of stresses in major faults, such as the San Andreas
fault, in the expectation that a series of small earthquakes would be
better than one big one.

Ok, that makes sense as long as there's compensation for structural
damage caused.

or contaminate water-courses?...

Not if the geology has been done correctly and the reason for the bore
hole at Balcombe is to check the geology. It is not going to involve any
fracking.

No I realise that, but things progress and there's a serious lack of
trust with such operations. Perhaps there should be better and more
imformed public consultation to ease people's inevitable fears.

Andy C

On 07/28/2013 11:37 AM, Nightjar wrote:
Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors

Yes. Injecting water may release a tremor that was going to happen
anyway, but it won't cause one that wasn't going to happen. Indeed,
selective water injection has been suggested as a technique for the
controlled release of stresses in major faults, such as the San Andreas
fault, in the expectation that a series of small earthquakes would be
better than one big one.

Ok, that makes sense as long as there's compensation for structural
damage caused.

or contaminate water-courses?...

Not if the geology has been done correctly and the reason for the bore
hole at Balcombe is to check the geology. It is not going to involve any
fracking.

No I realise that, but things progress and there's a serious lack of
trust with such operations. Perhaps there should be better and more
imformed public consultation to ease people's inevitable fears.

Andy C

On 28/07/2013 11:49, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 11:37 AM, Nightjar wrote:

Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors

Yes. Injecting water may release a tremor that was going to happen
anyway, but it won't cause one that wasn't going to happen. Indeed,
selective water injection has been suggested as a technique for the
controlled release of stresses in major faults, such as the San Andreas
fault, in the expectation that a series of small earthquakes would be
better than one big one.

Ok, that makes sense as long as there's compensation for structural
damage caused.

From whom and why? The earthquake is going to happen whether there is
fracking or not.

or contaminate water-courses?...

Not if the geology has been done correctly and the reason for the bore
hole at Balcombe is to check the geology. It is not going to involve any
fracking.

No I realise that, but things progress and there's a serious lack of
trust with such operations. Perhaps there should be better and more
imformed public consultation to ease people's inevitable fears.

Some people are going to object whatever level of public consultation
takes place - just look at the Bexhill to Hastings link road - there
couldn't have been much more public consultation about that.

Colin Bignell

On 07/28/2013 12:37 PM, Nightjar wrote:


Ok, that makes sense as long as there's compensation for structural
damage caused.

From whom and why? The earthquake is going to happen whether there is
fracking or not.


From the industry because it might not have happened during any given
occupancy or even for centuries hence.

And on the subject of pumping in water to relieve pressure, that's not
the same as the chemicals I understand they use for fracking.

Andy C

On 28/07/2013 13:20, Tim Streater wrote:

It's a bit like the hypocrisy shown in the Fukushima business. Let's not
worry about the 20,000 killed or missing in the tsunami, lets worry
about the 1 or so killed (perhaps) by the reactors).

None killed so far - there was one death of an emergency worker, but
IIRC that was a cardiac related incident and nothing to do with ionising
radiation exposure.

They are now excluding people from an area less radioactive than
Dartmoor, and insisting that it is cleaned up to a state of lower
radioactivity than its natural state before the accident!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/07/2013 11:37, Bill Wright wrote:
Andy Cap wrote:

The fundamental issue is unbridled population growth but doing
something about that doesn't earn subsidies or profits.


The fundamental issue in the UK is immigration.

Bill

Not according to the statistics.
They show a net economic benefit.

On 28/07/2013 12:49, Andy Cap wrote:



And on the subject of pumping in water to relieve pressure, that's not
the same as the chemicals I understand they use for fracking.



What chemicals do you think they use?

On 28/07/13 10:53, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 10:28 AM, Tim Streater wrote:


or contaminate water-courses?

Suggest you read up about the Oklo natural reactor.


What is the connection between an ancient nuclear reaction in Africa
and a company pumping chemicals in the ground around Balcombe now?

Andy C
Well one relevant thing is it is so far underground that no radioactive
stuff has ever escaped. They know that becaysuse all teh various
isotopes are in the proportions they should be since the original reaction.

In other words, no water got in and no isotopes got out. And its
millions of years old.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 28/07/13 11:50, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 11:37 AM, Nightjar wrote:
Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors

Yes. Injecting water may release a tremor that was going to happen
anyway, but it won't cause one that wasn't going to happen. Indeed,
selective water injection has been suggested as a technique for the
controlled release of stresses in major faults, such as the San Andreas
fault, in the expectation that a series of small earthquakes would be
better than one big one.

Ok, that makes sense as long as there's compensation for structural
damage caused.

or contaminate water-courses?...

Not if the geology has been done correctly and the reason for the bore
hole at Balcombe is to check the geology. It is not going to involve
any
fracking.

No I realise that, but things progress and there's a serious lack of
trust with such operations. Perhaps there should be better and more
imformed public consultation to ease people's inevitable fears.

Andy C


The problem is that such public consultations become showcases for
propaganda.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 07/28/2013 02:49 PM, dennis@home wrote:

And on the subject of pumping in water to relieve pressure, that's not
the same as the chemicals I understand they use for fracking.



What chemicals do you think they use?

IANAE. There is plenty of information on the interweb !
Yes of course some of it will be anti-propaganda but there does seem to
be a lot of concern over contamination and where huge profits and
subsidies are concerned, I think it's natural to have suspicions.

On 07/28/2013 12:59 PM, Tim Streater wrote:


What structural damage?


Well in the building I was in, the ceilings vibrated and the items on
the desks moved about. Fortunately it was an industrial style build with
loose slat ceilings, but had it been of more rigid construction or the
tremors a little more vigorous, there would definitely been cracking at
the very least.

On 07/28/2013 03:18 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well one relevant thing is it is so far underground that no radioactive
stuff has ever escaped. They know that becaysuse all teh various
isotopes are in the proportions they should be since the original reaction.

In other words, no water got in and no isotopes got out. And its
millions of years old.

I honestly can't see the comparison between a geological event millions
of years ago and someone drilling a hole today and pumping a mixture of
chemicals down it. Clearly I'm missing something.

On 28/07/2013 12:49, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 12:37 PM, Nightjar wrote:


Ok, that makes sense as long as there's compensation for structural
damage caused.

From whom and why? The earthquake is going to happen whether there is
fracking or not.


From the industry because it might not have happened during any given
occupancy or even for centuries hence.

There is no realistic chance of structural damage from the magnitudes of
earthquake likely to result from fracking. The Richter scale is
logarithmic and structural damage is unlikely under magnitude 4, as
compared to the 2.0 that has been associated with a fracking operation.

And on the subject of pumping in water to relieve pressure, that's not
the same as the chemicals I understand they use for fracking.

It is fairly irrelevant what is injected, although the bulk of what is
injected will still be water. It is the lubrication of the fault that is
the release mechanism.

Colin Bignell

On 28/07/13 15:27, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 12:59 PM, Tim Streater wrote:


What structural damage?


Well in the building I was in, the ceilings vibrated and the items on
the desks moved about. Fortunately it was an industrial style build
with loose slat ceilings, but had it been of more rigid construction
or the tremors a little more vigorous, there would definitely been
cracking at the very least.

and what caused that? lorries on the main road 50 yards away? The
underground train running underneath?

The WORST earth tremors I have experienced were in a flat over the
central line. The next worst were on Johannesburg when they were
blasting in the gold mines a couple of miles away, the third worst was a
routemaster odling at a bustop under the window of a flay I lived in for
a mercifully short time. the fourth worst was the UK's largest
earthquake for 30 years.

All were 100 times worse than fracking would ever cause.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 28/07/13 15:32, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 03:18 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well one relevant thing is it is so far underground that no radioactive
stuff has ever escaped. They know that becaysuse all teh various
isotopes are in the proportions they should be since the original
reaction.

In other words, no water got in and no isotopes got out. And its
millions of years old.

I honestly can't see the comparison between a geological event
millions of years ago and someone drilling a hole today and pumping a
mixture of chemicals down it. Clearly I'm missing something.
No comment...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/07/2013 11:37, Bill Wright wrote:
Andy Cap wrote:

The fundamental issue is unbridled population growth but doing
something about that doesn't earn subsidies or profits.


The fundamental issue in the UK is immigration.

Bill

Not according to the statistics.
They show a net economic benefit.


There is no economic benefit when they make houses unaffordable.
Also health, education, employment all suffer.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
So who got out of the wrong side of the bed today then?

Just about everybody by the looks.



Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
I see there is some village in Sussex where they are demostrating about
fracking.
(Some of them professional whingers).

Same lot of NIMBYs as don't want wind turbines I expect.

Pity there isn't any coal there to dig up. or maybe nuclear waste could
be buried there instead.

On 07/28/2013 03:46 PM, Tim Streater wrote:

We're saying that here was a (long lasting event) where the "waste"
materials haven't moved in the environment, so the automatic assumption
that pollution is inevitable is a foolish one. But then perhaps you work
for Health & Safety.

One of the purposes of the drilling at Balcombe is to determine the
geology, from which an assessment can be made as to the level of risk of
such pollution.


Ok, time will tell but I'm not convinced there is any comparison between
a material laid down millennia ago and relatively stable, with drilling
a hole, pumping down chemicals and then extracting from the same well.
We obtain much of our water from aquifers so I hope their testing is
sufficiently robust.

On 07/28/2013 04:19 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well in the building I was in, the ceilings vibrated and the items on
the desks moved about. Fortunately it was an industrial style build
with loose slat ceilings, but had it been of more rigid construction
or the tremors a little more vigorous, there would definitely been
cracking at the very least.

and what caused that? lorries on the main road 50 yards away? The
underground train running underneath?

The WORST earth tremors I have experienced were in a flat over the
central line. The next worst were on Johannesburg when they were
blasting in the gold mines a couple of miles away, the third worst was a
routemaster odling at a bustop under the window of a flay I lived in for
a mercifully short time. the fourth worst was the UK's largest
earthquake for 30 years.

All were 100 times worse than fracking would ever cause.

I was in a training block at the BT Training school, Stone,
Staffordshire. I had a feeling it was centered in North Wales but the
only one I can find about that time is this...

9 August 1970 Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria, England 4.1

If you're right about the tremors produced by fracking, then perhaps the
concerns are indeed unwarranted.

On 07/28/2013 04:20 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I honestly can't see the comparison between a geological event
millions of years ago and someone drilling a hole today and pumping a
mixture of chemicals down it. Clearly I'm missing something.
No comment...


Makes no difference whether you comment or not. The fact remains they're
disturbing the geology with a new technique which is relatively
untested. If you'd be happy for them to drill behind your home, all well
and good.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 28/07/2013 12:49, Andy Cap wrote:



And on the subject of pumping in water to relieve pressure, that's not
the same as the chemicals I understand they use for fracking.



What chemicals do you think they use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraul...Health_impacts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...lic_fracturing

On 28/07/13 16:36, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 04:19 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well in the building I was in, the ceilings vibrated and the items on
the desks moved about. Fortunately it was an industrial style build
with loose slat ceilings, but had it been of more rigid construction
or the tremors a little more vigorous, there would definitely been
cracking at the very least.

and what caused that? lorries on the main road 50 yards away? The
underground train running underneath?

The WORST earth tremors I have experienced were in a flat over the
central line. The next worst were on Johannesburg when they were
blasting in the gold mines a couple of miles away, the third worst was a
routemaster odling at a bustop under the window of a flay I lived in for
a mercifully short time. the fourth worst was the UK's largest
earthquake for 30 years.

All were 100 times worse than fracking would ever cause.

I was in a training block at the BT Training school, Stone,
Staffordshire. I had a feeling it was centered in North Wales but the
only one I can find about that time is this...

9 August 1970 Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria, England 4.1

If you're right about the tremors produced by fracking, then perhaps
the concerns are indeed unwarranted.
I think the regulatory limit is set at Richter 2. Remember this is all
deep underground.


Now look at how many earthquakes over Richter 2 are recorded in the UK
every year.

http://www.quakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthqua...uk_events.html

No one complains that these are causing structural damage.

And there is no fracking going on at all.

This is the one I felt

http://www.quakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthqua...l#page=summary

Richter 5.8. That did cause minor structural damage.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On 07/28/2013 04:19 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well in the building I was in, the ceilings vibrated and the items on
the desks moved about. Fortunately it was an industrial style build
with loose slat ceilings, but had it been of more rigid construction
or the tremors a little more vigorous, there would definitely been
cracking at the very least.

and what caused that? lorries on the main road 50 yards away? The
underground train running underneath?

The WORST earth tremors I have experienced were in a flat over the
central line. The next worst were on Johannesburg when they were
blasting in the gold mines a couple of miles away, the third worst was a
routemaster odling at a bustop under the window of a flay I lived in for
a mercifully short time. the fourth worst was the UK's largest
earthquake for 30 years.

All were 100 times worse than fracking would ever cause.

I was in a training block at the BT Training school, Stone, Staffordshire.
I had a feeling it was centered in North Wales but the only one I can find
about that time is this...

9 August 1970 Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria, England 4.1

If you're right about the tremors produced by fracking, then perhaps the
concerns are indeed unwarranted.


Or maybe not.
http://rt.com/usa/fracking-earthquak...ia-dc-817-061/

On 28/07/13 16:40, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 04:20 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I honestly can't see the comparison between a geological event
millions of years ago and someone drilling a hole today and pumping a
mixture of chemicals down it. Clearly I'm missing something.
No comment...


Makes no difference whether you comment or not. The fact remains
they're disturbing the geology with a new technique which is
relatively untested. If you'd be happy for them to drill behind your
home, all well and good.
a tried and tested technology that's been around at least 50years.

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

"The relationship between well performance and treatment pressures was
studied by Floyd Farris of Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation. This study
became a basis of the first hydraulic fracturing experiment, which was
conducted in 1947 at the Hugoton gas field in Grant County of
southwestern Kansas by Stanolind."


You really do talk some crap sometimes

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 28/07/13 16:48, harryagain wrote:
"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On 07/28/2013 04:19 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well in the building I was in, the ceilings vibrated and the items on
the desks moved about. Fortunately it was an industrial style build
with loose slat ceilings, but had it been of more rigid construction
or the tremors a little more vigorous, there would definitely been
cracking at the very least.

and what caused that? lorries on the main road 50 yards away? The
underground train running underneath?

The WORST earth tremors I have experienced were in a flat over the
central line. The next worst were on Johannesburg when they were
blasting in the gold mines a couple of miles away, the third worst was a
routemaster odling at a bustop under the window of a flay I lived in for
a mercifully short time. the fourth worst was the UK's largest
earthquake for 30 years.

All were 100 times worse than fracking would ever cause.
I was in a training block at the BT Training school, Stone, Staffordshire.
I had a feeling it was centered in North Wales but the only one I can find
about that time is this...

9 August 1970 Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria, England 4.1

If you're right about the tremors produced by fracking, then perhaps the
concerns are indeed unwarranted.

Or maybe not.
http://rt.com/usa/fracking-earthquak...ia-dc-817-061/


Note the headline

"Fracking could have caused"

Not did, could have. And as we well know, magbnitude 5.8 earthquakes
occur in the UK every 30 years and more frequently elsewhere.

Nowhere in the article is there ANY evidence that this was caused by
fracking.

Tyipcal alarmist crap from DumbHarry.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 28/07/2013 15:24, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/28/2013 02:49 PM, dennis@home wrote:

And on the subject of pumping in water to relieve pressure, that's not
the same as the chemicals I understand they use for fracking.



What chemicals do you think they use?

IANAE. There is plenty of information on the interweb !
Yes of course some of it will be anti-propaganda but there does seem to
be a lot of concern over contamination and where huge profits and
subsidies are concerned, I think it's natural to have suspicions.


So what chemicals do *you* think they use?

On 28/07/2013 16:21, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/07/2013 11:37, Bill Wright wrote:
Andy Cap wrote:

The fundamental issue is unbridled population growth but doing
something about that doesn't earn subsidies or profits.


The fundamental issue in the UK is immigration.

Bill

Not according to the statistics.
They show a net economic benefit.


There is no economic benefit when they make houses unaffordable.
Also health, education, employment all suffer.



The migrants have a net positive effect on the economy.
The government may not distribute the positive bit to where it should go.
That is nothing to do with the immigrants.

On 28/07/2013 17:32, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/07/2013 16:21, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/07/2013 11:37, Bill Wright wrote:
Andy Cap wrote:

The fundamental issue is unbridled population growth but doing
something about that doesn't earn subsidies or profits.


The fundamental issue in the UK is immigration.

Bill

Not according to the statistics.
They show a net economic benefit.


There is no economic benefit when they make houses unaffordable.
Also health, education, employment all suffer.



The migrants have a net positive effect on the economy.
The government may not distribute the positive bit to where it should go.
That is nothing to do with the immigrants.

What about the obvious negative - overcrowded towns and roads. Adding
more people will always make this worse.

SteveW

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:

On 07/28/2013 11:37 AM, Nightjar wrote:
Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors

Yes. Injecting water may release a tremor that was going to happen
anyway, but it won't cause one that wasn't going to happen. Indeed,
selective water injection has been suggested as a technique for the
controlled release of stresses in major faults, such as the San
Andreas
fault, in the expectation that a series of small earthquakes would be
better than one big one.

Ok, that makes sense as long as there's compensation for structural
damage caused.

What structural damage?

or contaminate water-courses?...

Not if the geology has been done correctly and the reason for the bore
hole at Balcombe is to check the geology. It is not going to involve
any
fracking.

No I realise that, but things progress and there's a serious lack of
trust with such operations.

Largely because people get lied to by the professional protest industry.

but they also get lied to by the lobbyists on the other side of the argument

tim

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:

On 07/28/2013 05:56 AM, harryagain wrote:
I see there is some village in Sussex where they are demostrating
about fracking.
(Some of them professional whingers).

Same lot of NIMBYs as don't want wind turbines I expect.

Pity there isn't any coal there to dig up. or maybe nuclear waste
could be buried there instead.

Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors

Gosh a massive 2.0 on the Richter scale. About the same as a lorry
going past your house. Or an old coal mine workings collapsing.

Note: I've been in a 7.1 so I know what I'm talking about.

I'll bet that she said her name was Snow White.

--
Adam

On 07/28/2013 04:55 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


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

"The relationship between well performance and treatment pressures was
studied by Floyd Farris of Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation. This study
became a basis of the first hydraulic fracturing experiment, which was
conducted in 1947 at the Hugoton gas field in Grant County of
southwestern Kansas by Stanolind."


You really do talk some crap sometimes

No doubt and it's clear you think it's a non-controversial issue and
that the 'Environmental impact' section is a nonsense. We'll have to
wait and see who's right.