Monday, May 23, 2011

UK PARLIAMENT STUDY: FRACKING POSES NO RISK; TIME TO MOVE FORWARD EXTRACTING SHALE GAS

The inquiry found no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process involved in shale gas extraction – known as ‘fracking’ - poses a direct risk to underground water aquifers provided the drilling well is constructed properly. The committee concluded that, on balance, a moratorium in the UK is not justified or necessary at present.

The MPs, nevertheless, urge the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to monitor drilling activity extremely closely in its early stages in order to assess its impact on air and water quality.

SENSIBLE. THE BRITS ALSO HAVE A VERY VERY ROBUST OFF-SHORE DRILLING BUSINESS - ION THE NORTH SEA. OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE NOT TIMID AND THEY WANT TO PRODUCE AS MUCH DOMESTIC ENERGY - FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION AND TO SELL OVERSEAS - AS THEY CAN.

I WISH THE POLITICIANS HERE WOULD DO THE SAME!

UPDATE: MEANWHILE IN THE USA (VIA HOT AIR):

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection last week levied the largest fine in state history against an oil or gas company — more than $1 million in penalties against Chesapeake Energy, the second largest natural gas producer in the country, partly because the Department claims Chesapeake contaminated water supplies in Bradford County, Pa., and partly because of an explosion at a Chesapeake well site in Washington County, Pa., in February.

The fine comes amid ongoing controversy about the development of the Marcellus Shale formation that stretches across the western part of the state. One of the largest reservoirs of natural gas in the world, the Marcellus Shale provides Pennsylvania with significant economic benefits, even as it offers the country important energy production possibilities. But to access the natural gas, oil and gas companies have to use a process known as hydraulic fracturing — a process that poses some environmental risk. About that, local opponents say: “Don’t frack with our water!

Opponents of the mining technique of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” fear the contamination of water supplies, worried it will forever ruin small communities in the stampede of billion-dollar outsider energy corporations to make a quick buck.

Industry experts say the environmental impact neither has been nor will be as severe as opponents like to claim.

IF WE WANT TO GROW THE ECONOMY WE NEED TO EXPLOIT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.

AND IF TH BRITS CAN DO IT - IN THE NORTH SEA AND BY FRACKING - THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO MORE OF IT, BOTH OFF-SHORE AND BY FRACKING, TOO!

3 comments:

  1. o yeah,...the Brits...BP....their Parliament...fracking FRACKING!!
    dream on you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  2. THE BP EXPLOSION WAS AN ACCIDENT.

    AND ONE NOT 1/10TH AS BAD AS LIBS PREDICTED.

    AND ER UM... ACCIDENTS HAPPEN.

    BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL OFF SHORE DRILLING MUST BE BANNED.

    BRAZIL AND BRITAIN AND NORWAY DO IT SAFELY. SO CAN WE.

    SO DO WE: WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF SAFE RIGS ALL THROUGHOUT THE GULF.

    DITTO FRACKING. WE CAN DO IT SAFELY.

    DITTO DRILLING IN THE GREAT FROZEN NORTH - WHERE CANADA DOES IT, BUT LIBS LIKE YOU THINK WE CANNOT.

    OR SHOULD NOT.

    THAT'S FUCKING IDIOITIC.

    YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shell can extract oil from Shale for $30 a barrel.

    http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002981.html

    ReplyDelete