|
|
Recent articles by Frack Free Somerset
Public Meeting in Midsomer Norton Jan 20 13 "Extreme gas" project proposal gets heated response in Wells Oct 01 12 Occupy Bristol & Bath Updates Nov 15 11 Somerset - Event Notice Wednesday February 13 2013 Start Time: 07:00 PM Public Meeting: Is Shepton Mallet at Risk from Fracking? somerset |
community |
event notice
 Sunday January 20, 2013 21:01 by Frack Free Somerset info at frackfreesomerset dot org
 Wednesday 13th February 2013 7 – 9pm Mendip District Council Chambers, Cannards Grave Rd, BA4 5BT Speakers and a Question & Answer session
Shepton Mallet is an area covered by a Petroleum Exploration and Development License. PEDL licenses are sold by the Government to companies wishing to drill for unconventional gas. This puts our local area at risk of water and air pollution. There are also dangers to human and animal health. You are invited to come along to find out more about the science, the drilling methods and the possible impacts of unconventional gas drilling on your family and community. Organised by Frack Free Somerset and Transition Shepton. For more information about how to get involved with Transition Shepton, contact them via the transition network website: http://www.transitionnetwork.org/initiatives/shepton or call 01749 347690
|
printable version
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (57 of 57)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57Those against the very idea of Fracking seem to have an "Alarmist" Agenda. Burning natural gas emits CO2 just like other fossil fuels, but it emits a lot less CO2 for the same amount of energy because it is less carbon-dense. (Hydrocarbons, like natural gas and oil, store energy in hydrogen-carbon bonds. When they combust with oxygen, the hydrogen becomes water and the carbon becomes CO2. Methane is CH4, (four hydrogens per carbon) compared to oil which can be between 2 and 3 hydrogens per carbon, compared to coal which is even worse– some coal is more carbon than anything else.
But the bottom line is the same- in the current market, natural gas trades off with coal, and emits a lot less CO2.
If you look at the US, the US is looking at at least 45 years of energy independence. Energy prices in the US have fallen dramatically and CO2 emissions fallen equally as dramatically. So don't you think we should question the motives of those who seem to want us NOT to benefit from Fracking in the UK to reduce our CO2 emissions as well as providing hard pressed families with cheaper fuel bills?
Comparing the number of chemicals in something without looking at the amount of chemicals and the harmful "doses" is not a scientific or otherwise useful comparison. (The quintessential example is vaccines– they contain a lot of chemicals that might harm you if you encountered them in large quantities, but are actually fine in the levels in the vaccine.)
Nor, as the anti Fracking brigade likes to make out, are there any documented cases of water catching fire, other than a handful of hoaxes and cases where the culprit was actually naturally leaking methane.
The ridiculous film "Gasland" has been proved to be poorly organised hoax - just google it if you want to find out the truth of that monumental bit of spin.
Fracking may not be perfect and it needs to be done correctly but it’s certainly worth considering - so do not accept scare stories as gospel truth. Research the info yourself.
Yes of course it is, just like every other fracking place
'It is estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given to organisations devoted to undermining the science of climate change'
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change....html
And he is being honest.
"I am an environmentalist and founder member ofthe Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.
James Lovelock"
Unless of course the Watermelons actually WANT civilisation to fail as they are closet or even overt misanthropes.
James Lovelock has also said "it is too late to try and save the planet."
I have to say his views on climate change have made me think.
Perhaps we are wrong. After all it has ben over 16 years now and CO2 has risen but global temperatures are static. I feel a bit silly to be honest. Wikipedia cover his views well I think
'Statements from 2012 portray Lovelock as continuing his concern over global warming while at the same time criticizing extremism and suggesting alternatives to oil, coal and the green solutions he does not support.[32]
In an April 2012 interview, aired on MSNBC, Lovelock stated that he had been "alarmist", using the words “All right, I made a mistake,” about the timing of climate change and noted the documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the book The Weather Makers as examples of the same kind of alarmism. Lovelock still believes the climate to be warming although the rate of change is not as he once thought, he admitted that he had been “extrapolating too far." He believes that climate change is still happening, but it will be felt farther in the future.[32] Of the claims “the science is settled” on global warming he states:[33]
"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it."[33]
He criticizes environmentalists for treating global warming like a religion.[33]
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed
“I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”[33]
In the MSNBC article Lovelock is quoted as proclaiming:[32]
"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened;" he continues
"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said
The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time ... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that", he added.[32]
In a follow up interview Lovelock stated his support for natural gas; he now favors fracking (which environmentalists oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.[13][33] He opposes the concept of "sustainable development", where modern economies might be powered by wind turbines, calling it meaningless drivel.[33] He keeps a poster of a wind turbine to remind himself how much he detests them.[13]'
Poor James L. lost his marbles years ago
by sad Sat Jan 26, 2013 18:30
James Lovelock has also said "it is too late to try and save the planet."
He also said that democracy should be suspended such was the threat of Global Warming. Now he admits that he got it all wrong.
Some of the other alarmist predictions he came up with was the Sahara being up to Paris in a couple of years time.
It takes a brave wo/man to admit he was wrong.
It takes a weak and foolish wo/man to elevate a belief into dogma.
It takes a particular brand of individual to state that a recognised authority has "lost his marbles" just because he decides that in light of overwhelming evidence he was wrong.
What state that "consensus" now?
Is that all you denialists have left?
The Koch brothers and EXXON alone have spent a billions dollars plus in an attempt to discredit Climate Change science, and all you can come up with is ONE 94 YEAR OLD MAN who has... changed his mind?
I was so disappointed the Met Office tried to hide the new results they came up with.
The downgrade of temperature prediction really makes me think we got it wrong.
And to try to bury it on a good bad news day!
'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'.
Author of 2006 review Nicholas Stern speaks out on danger to economies as planet absorbs less carbon and is 'on track' for 4 degrees C rise.
In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Stern, who is now a crossbench peer, said: "Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicho...davos
The Met Office seem to have made it quite clear - their has been little warming for the past sixteen years yet CO2 has risen. All the models predicted that CO2 was the cause of warming. These actual results should make us question that link. certainly the Met Office have changed their tune.
The reality is that global warming just isn’t happening. In truth, it hasn’t been happening for these past sixteen years.
Just last year, the UK Met Office Hadley Center confidently predicted the average global temperature must rise incrementally by around 0.2degC decade by decade driven by CO2 rises. No small incremental rise. Then, on Christmas Eve, something curious happened. The UK Met Office posted a note on its website announcing it was downgrading its assessment.
Now we should remember that the Met Office white coats had long derided those who questioned their assessment and their call for immediate government action.
All of which helps explain why they tried to bury the news of their ‘revised’ downgrade by publishing it on Christmas Eve.
The Stern report was produced for then Prime Minister Tony Blair who just loved his dodgy dossiers - just remember the ones he took us to war on?
When the Stern report was reviewed and analysed by his peers - Prof Richard Tol stated of Sterns report
"If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6295021.stm
Since then Stern has been a spent force.
Seems to me Lovelock has a better grip on reality - whatever his age.
G A S L A N D :
When filmmaker Josh Fox is asked to lease his land for drilling, he embarks on a cross-country odyssey uncovering a trail of secrets, lies and contamination.
Watch G A S L A N D here: http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/gasland_2010/
There is an old saying that often proves reliable - "follow the money"
There are millions of jobs, grants, research funding opportunities and careers at stake here if the human driven climate change theory is shown to be false.
Go speak to climatologists who don't have their funding linked to the theory and you get a very different set of views.
Facts on fracking were skewed by Fox in his film. Just google it to see how it was a scam
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303936704....html
Thanks for the link to 'Gasland' Frack OFF - a great bit of award winning campaigning video-making - and thanks again for putting this thread back on topic mate!
A Fracking Industry Public Relations campaign-person, s/he must be on a pretty good whack to be working here on a Sunday!!!!!
Indeed you do.
A recent analysis of Michael Mann's grant and donations show that the total so far adds up to over $13Million!
Nice work if you can get it - follow the money indeed.
Meanwhile if you want to balance the hype and spin that is Gasland, have a look at
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/General/gasland-directo....html
Wednesday 13th February 2013 7 – 9pm
Should be a good turnout on the night :)
Lots of jobs at stake hahahahaha!
Lots of money at stake more like!
Fossil fuel companies wanna exploit the environment for resources, to make loadsa money.
Damage will be done to the land and to the drinking water below the surface, the FF companies will employ PR companies to lie & spin their 'facts', the PR companies will make loadsa money.
Some land-owners who don't give a shit about future generations will make loadsa money.
The Gas company wants the gas to sell to customers, the Gas companies will make loadsa money.
The local residents will see their environment degraded, their children, their animals, livestock and pets will get sick, they will pay every which way for this so gas, it will not be cheap, remeber what they said about nuclear power?
The nuclear people made loadsa money, we pay loads for electricity, we get loadsa nuclear waste for free!
The PR company active on this thread are the scum of our Mendips earth, they get loadsa money just for lying, spinning, deceiving, misinforming, and hiding the facts while spreading doubt and disinformation.
Denialists were to be found at places like Aushwitz and Belsen saying to the inmates "nice hot showers are this way ladies and gentlemen, move along please"
And "ignore the chimneys and the smoke, nothing for you to be concerned about"
At last the true and very nasty side of the Clone Troll My Little Stalker.
And an admission of the reason why people like them coined the phrase "Denialist"
Amazing!
And I doubt they see anything wrong with what they do.
Such is their blind hatred of anyone that not only disagrees with their "faith" who puts forward hard evidence that they label people who disagree with them Nazi's.
And whilst they can get away with it just by using the term "Denialist" with its Holocaust overtones My Little Stalker Clone Troll gets so frustrated he goes the whole hog.
On today of all days.
I suspect they do not even KNOW WHAT DAY THIS IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Such is their a) arrogance and b) ignorance.
The two things required for absolute faith in your own opinion.
Thank you for proving my point in spades.
Members of the European Parliament demonstrating against fracking in Strasbourg on 21st Nov 2012
Applause!
There will be NO fracking on our Mendips!!!
Another reason why the stupid selfish conservatives don't like Europe lol
So you think a picture of a small number of grinning gravy train politicians wanting to keep the status quo so they can continue to milk it for all its worth is great news do you?
Anything these bozos support I would suggest is highly suspect.
We have rising demand for clean water, fracking pollutes all waters.
Pollution of our drinking water is nothing less than Ecocide, and there will be a law against it.
Pollution of our drinking water Is a crime against humanity, and polluters will be prosecuted... TO THE MAXIMUM!
FRACK OFF!
let our water be!
Antony Benham, Business Development Manager at the British Geological Survey, could smell trouble brewing. As he displayed a map at the Shale Gas World Europe conference in Warsaw, Poland, last November showing sites in Britain earmarked for future gas exploration, he warned his audience: ‘Activists are keen to stir up trouble wherever they can. It’s important that we communicate better with the general public and address their concerns, outline the pluses and the minuses, because if you don’t give them information they’ll be against it from the start.’
According to its website, the Shale Gas World Europe conference ‘was born out of extensive research with key players in the industry, who have expressed an urgent need to formulate strategies, understand technologies and foster relationships that will result in development of this new sector’.
But shale gas has become extremely controversial in Canada and the US where it was first developed. The industry is planning to go global quickly before the controversy spreads.
As conventional natural gas supplies dwindle, resource companies are going after ‘unconventional’ sources that depend on the new technologies of hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) and horizontal drilling to get the gas out of shale rock and coal-bed seams. The number of countries and regions that have been targeted for ‘unconventional’ natural gas development (shale gas, tight gas, and coal-bed methane) reads like a world atlas. Companies are already moving into these countries to buy or lease land where there is shale gas potential.
Tony Hayward – the ex-CEO of BP who fumbled last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster – has been a big supporter of unconventional gas production. In a November 2009 op-ed for The Washington Post, Hayward opined: ‘We can’t afford to wait… BP believes there is the potential to find and develop tight gas and shale gas in North Africa and the Middle East, Europe, China and in the southern cone of Latin America. There’s also potentially high-quality coal-bed methane in Australia and Southeast Asia.’
This January, however, scientists at the Tyndall Centre of the University of Manchester called for the British government to impose an immediate moratorium on shale gas development to allow ‘the wider environmental concerns to be fully exposed and addressed’. In France, where at least 10 companies are vying to drill for shale gas and oil beneath the rich farmland of the Paris Basin, the government has said it will delay test drilling until it has determined the environmental impacts.
Caution: flammable water
In North America, shale gas has become increasingly controversial because of fracking. Huge volumes of water are mixed with sand and dozens of toxic chemicals like benzene, toluene and xylene, and then injected under extreme pressure to shatter the underground rock reservoir and release gas trapped in the rock pores. Each ‘slick-water frack’ uses nearly 20 million litres of freshwater. The toxic chemicals mixed in the water endanger groundwater aquifers and threaten to pollute nearby water-wells. With horizontal drilling, a well can be fracked more than a dozen times, making the fractures extend several kilometres.
The little town of Rosebud, Alberta, knows a lot about the dangers of fracking. At least 15 water-wells in the community have gone bad since EnCana Corporation fracked into their aquifer in search of shale gas in 2004. Says Rosebud resident Jessica Ernst: ‘EnCana told us they would never fracture near our aquifer.’ By 2005, she says, ‘my water began going bad. I was getting horrible burns and rashes from taking a shower and then my dogs refused to drink the water. That’s when I began to pay attention.’
In 2006, Ernst decided to go public, showing reporters how she could set fire to her tap water, and speaking out about the industry. Ernst says she heard from ‘at least 50 other landowners the first year’ and she continues to get calls. Groundwater contamination from fracking ‘is pretty widespread’ in Alberta, she says, ‘but they’re trying to keep it hidden’.
Filmmaker Josh Fox found the same thing happening across the US in many of the 34 states where fracking is taking place. His feature-length documentary, Gasland, won a Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival and was nominated for an Academy Award this year.
Gasland shows a man setting his water alight and people in 10 different states talking about how their communities were ruined by hydraulic fracturing. One gas company recently bought out the town of Dimock, Pennsylvania, for $4.1 million because fracking made the water completely undrinkable. Fox calls his documentary ‘a public health story’ because ‘health problems throughout these regions are really rampant’.
Little earthquakes
The US federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just begun a comprehensive two-year study of the risks associated with fracking. Much of the concern relates to contaminated water supplies. Other issues include air pollution, wastewater disposal, industrialization of farmland, increased carbon dioxide emissions and destruction of wildlife habitat.
But there’s another problem that is less well known – earthquakes.
In June 2009, the Wall Street Journal called earthquakes ‘the natural gas industry’s big fracking problem’.
In New York State, thousands of gas wells are being planned for both urban and rural areas. ‘They’re drilling all over Buffalo,’ says activist Pat Carson, ‘and there’s been a steady increase in local quakes in western New York since drilling began in this area.’ On 8 February this year Buffalo City Council banned fracking and wastewater disposal within city limits and is warning all Great Lakes cities to do the same.
Lawyer Rachel Treichler claims: ‘We’ve had two earthquakes in upstate New York that are associated with disposal wells. No community is a proper site for a deep injection well disposing of toxic fluids.’
In Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and West Virginia over the past two years, almost 1,000 small-to-medium-sized earthquakes are being investigated as ‘induced earthquakes’ caused by nearby fracking and wastewater disposal wells.
Meanwhile, the reputation of shale gas – as a clean fossil fuel that could last for a century – is rapidly deteriorating. In January, new research by the EPA found that greenhouse gas emissions from fracking are almost 9,000 times higher than previously calculated, because of methane emissions. And some petroleum geologists are now saying that because the wells deplete so quickly shale gas represents only about seven years’ supply in North America.
Given the consequences it’s no wonder the industry is fretting about its public image. As Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the University of Manchester’s Tyndall Centre, puts it: ‘The only safe place for shale gas is in the ground.’
How cool would it be if you could set your tap water alight? Think of what you’d save on heating bills alone… This is one of the wonderful things that the hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ process can bring to your local community – along with river contamination, air pollution and minor earthquakes.
The process involves drilling big holes in the countryside and then pumping large quantities of water and toxic chemicals down into the rocks below. This breaks the rocks apart, releasing the shale gas trapped inside that can then be used as a fossil fuel. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, quite a lot, which is why communities living close to drilling sites have been a little reluctant to embrace the idea. A protest camp took place over the weekend at Hesketh Bank near Southport, just a few kilometres from the most recent drilling site in the UK. The camp involved workshops and talks on the science of fracking and culminated in a protest march to the site of the rig.
‘The main aim of this camp is to try to nip fracking in the bud before it starts,’ says Mark Lloyd, one of the protesters at the event. ‘This is a big organic growing area and if word gets out that there’s a fracking site nearby no one will want to buy products from this region.’
Although this is only the third fracking site in the UK, with the other two located just outside Blackpool, concerns have been raised by the terrible reputation fracking has gained across the Atlantic.
Massive contamination
‘The effects of fracking have stirred up a hornets’ nest in the USA,’ says Phil Thornhill, National Coordinator for the Campaign Against Climate Change. ‘There’s been massive contamination of ground waters and aquifers, toxic wastewater being carried hither and thither causing pollution in any place there are spills; there have been instances of air pollution and in some places water has even become flammable because there is so much methane in it.’
There have been applications made all over the UK to develop further fracking sites and campaigners worry that the process runs the risk of industrializing the countryside.
‘You need a grid of hundreds, potentially thousands, of wells for fracking to be effective,’ says Thornhill. ‘It’s bad enough in wide open spaces like Colorado in the US but in a small crowded island like the UK the effects could be devastating.’
This is not to mention the physical presence of the drilling rigs themselves as well as the traffic and pollution which would affect local communities.
‘The decisions to put these rigs in place has gone right over the heads of the local residents,’ says Mark Lloyd. ‘Such decisions are mainly taken at the county level and all of a sudden people have this huge rig appearing on their doorstep, which undermines any work that people are doing on sustainability or local environmental planning.’
As well as problems at the local level, fracking raises larger questions within the big picture of climate change. The natural gas that fracking releases may produce less carbon than coal or oil but it is still a fossil fuel, releasing heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.
Double whammy
‘We need to be finding alternatives to fossil fuels, not trying to exploit new ones,’ says Phil Thornhill. ‘Using natural gas would only reduce carbon emissions if you were using it as an alternative to coal but all the evidence shows it’s being used as well as coal, which means you’re simply messing the planet up twice over.’
Yet anti-fracking campaigners remain upbeat. There’s a feeling among activists that demonstrations like the one held over the weekend at Hesketh Bank are beginning to light the touchpaper of local resistance as well as to alert the wider activist community that fracking is a real and present concern.
‘Fracking seems to have passed under the radar somewhat but now people are starting to wake up to it,’ says Thornhill. ‘People are realizing it is happening, it is serious and it’s something that needs to be fought as the potential consequences could be cataclysmic.’
The scientific analysis that is supposed to provide our Government with the facts and information they need to make a crucial decision was crafted with the guidance of the gas industry, not of the nations scientists.
The Fracking song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v...UwUI#!
“The much-popularised link between fracking and contamination of water supplies remains unproven and our research at Durham University shows the chances of it ever happening can be dramatically reduced if the fracking is carried out at vertical distances greater than 600m below the drinking water aquifer.”
Prof Richard Davies, Durham University.
Still what on earth is the point of all that research into trying to reduce fuel bills for hard pressed families when a few cartoons is all you can come up with.
Yawn.
Predictable or what.
Meanwhile people read sensible coverage about the pro’s AND the con’s – and make their own mind up.
After Youtube allowed the hoax that is Fox’s “Gasland” bollocks to go viral – people have a greater respect for “truth” and are not so easily bemused by the same old doom and gloom scenarios.
Still they are like buses these “scenarios” just when one disappears, you can get all excited about the next one.
I wonder what that will be?
It can’t be an asteroid hitting the earth because the misanthropes would actually want that disaster.
Just like they wanted the world to fry – when it has done no such thing for 16 years now – the UK Met Office confirms that and even now predicts significantly less warming for the next five years.
I reckon it could be Cloning – and I reckon we have one here already!
Bullshit
Like it?
Drink this?
Fox is a conman and you have been conned!
Methane is the Will of the Wisp of History.
Fracking can hardly be the cause if this happened BEFORE Fracking!!!!!
a balance to Gasland is the film Truthland - suggest you have alook at that.
TRUTH LAND?
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING LOL!
Putting silly cartoons and pictures aside for a moment let's look at the facts:
There is no evidence that fracking causes methane in water
There is no evidence of contamination of the water table
Fracking has already resulted in the US becoming nearly energy independent with regard to gas
The UK will become energy independent within five years if large scales fracking begins
The US experience was that consumers saw a 27% reduction in gas costs.
Remind me again why we should not do this ?
And Fox and his film have been shown to be a conman and a con respectively.
See the other side - remember those with the loudest voices, the most vitriol and anger against anyone who dares to ask a question or has a differing view, usually are working to some sort of agenda and the last thing they want is for people to make up their own minds.
They want to tell you what to think.
I have seen both films, I suggest we all keep an open mind and question those whose minds seem to be made up. Their motivation is often hidden.
Truthland
A teacher from rural northeast Pennsylvania, Shelly lives with her husband, four children and granddaughter on a farm that’s been part of her husband’s family since 1890. Of course, that farm also happens to sit atop the Marcellus Shale, one of the largest natural gas fields in the world. If accessing those resources wasn’t safe, she thought, then neither was her family. She owed it to them — and to herself — to find out the truth. After all, wells were being considered for her property.
http://www.truthlandmovie.com
So, like the good teacher she is, Shelly began by making a list, running through some of the scarier claims made in the film and pulling together a couple of questions specific to each. Questions like:
What’s the deal with this dramatic “fire on water” scene in “Gasland”? If a gas well is drilled near your property, is that what happens to your faucet?
How about the film’s claim that chemicals are getting into our water supply — and secret ones to boot? That doesn’t sound right.
What about this town called Dimock, Pennsylvania? Gasland depicts it as an absolute wasteland, something straight out of the “Lord of the Rings.” What’s the real story out there? And what do the people who actually live there have to say about this whole thing?
http://www.truthlandmovie.com/the-experts/
Over 700 people have objected, that's the essential 'Reality' for the Mendips.
Evidently those 700+ citizens do not believe a word you or the fracking industry has to say.
My boss's PR firm has the contract to 'represent' the Fracking companies wanting to drill on the Mendips and elsewhere, he is your troll on this thread., he is the one with a truly massive vested interest in fracking going ahead, be aware!
Well of course it does, it gives the Fracking industry's view DUH
It was commissioned and funded by the Frackers for pitys sake!
And Gasland was produced by an entirely honest and independent non biased individual!
Yeah Right!
Just review EVERYTHING people and look to see where the bias comes from.
Oh right, and I guess next you will be telling us that the 700 plus objectors are on Moscows payroll eh?
We don't want you embarrassing yourself again by losing it like you did yesterday do we!
"700+ objectors @ Duh Duh Duh
by tut tut Mon Jan 28, 2013 20:49
Oh right, and I guess next you will be telling us that the 700 plus objectors are on Moscows payroll eh?"
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Hardly!!! LMAO!! :0)
Moscow wants the UK to buy its gas via the pipeline they have built from Russia to the UK with BP.
The anti fracking brigade are strange bedfellows with BP - but in bed with them they are!!!
Hello Actionlines whistle-blower, thanks for the heads up regarding your boss!
Would you say your boss was a moral and ethical person?
I mean, does s/he actually care about 'community' and 'environment'?
Or is s/he just another greedy ecociding psychopathic capitalist in it for the money and likely too abuse the BIM readership with lies and bullshit?
My boss is over the moon at the latest data as it is indicating a "buoyant and growing investment outlook for the gas industry".
93% of all conversations about investment in gas are positive!, the highest rating for any gas-related topic. Likewise, overall sentiment towards the global gas industry is overwhelmingly positive with 83% of all conversation online classed as healthy.
The Energy Census on gas, conducted over a six month period (March-September 2012), was created using the MeaningMine platform that turns big data about the world's online energy conversation into intelligence. It ingests millions of pieces of online content every day, ranging from online news to social media, to create strategic in-depth insights.
In total, there were over 780,000 articles and social media posts about the gas industry over the last six months, at an average of 130,000 per month indicating huge global interest in the gas industry. The US is the dominant nation cited in 11% of postings ahead of Canada (8%), China (7%) and the UK (7%).
Her friend, Bronwyn Kunhardt, Managing Director & Co-Founder,Polecat, said: "How the world keeps up on the supply and demand of our energy needs has never been such a crucial and global conversation. The inaugural Energy Census turns its sights on gas to reveal fracking as the sector amassing the most interest from an investment and environmental perspective that reaffirms the perceived economic benefits of accessing gas formerly inaccessible."
And Pat Butler, Partner, Resolution, said: "There are over 4,300 articles and social media posts online about gas every single day, the inaugural Energy Census from Polecat tells us. That's an impressively large and extensive conversation, and the focus of the discussions on the topics of investment in the industry and fracking is noteworthy. On the investment issues in particular, the tone of the conversations are 93% positive, and the growing appreciation of how gas investment could impact the economics of many other industries is striking."
It is all very depressing - I sometimes wonder what I am doing here in this job.
It almost seems like I do not exist at all.
I feel i am just a figment of someones imagination.
There wouldn't be any connection between all those 'statistics' and the amounts of money the KOCH brothers, EXXON, BP and SHELL etc. etc. have been throwing at politicians and the media generally to blind the 'consumer' would there?
No of course not, capitalism does'nt work like that does it lol.
He fell for it LOL!
At last we have the proof that there is at least one Oil / Gas Industry PR man trolling Bristol Indymedia on a daily basis.
In the future every anti-environment, every anti-greeny, every anti-activist, every pro capitalist business as usual comment posted here will be attributable to... well we all know who now, if we did not know before!
"My boss is over the moon at the latest data as it is indicating a buoyant and growing investment outlook for the gas industry."
Good video on the Fracking, enjoy.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/01/25/new-...king/
I feel strongly that the mods should take note and act accordingly, clearly we have professional parasites in our midst.
Seriously - You could not make it up!