AGL seeks permission to begin fracking CSG pilot wells near Gloucester in the NSW Hunter

If the State Government approves the application it will be the first time fracture stimulation, known as fracking, has been allowed since a moratorium was imposed in 2011.


Greens mining spokesman Jeremy Buckingham says the application should be rejected.

"This fracking will occur within 600 metres of residential areas in Gloucester - that's outrageous," he said.

"The people of New South Wales need to be protected from coal seam gas and Barry O'Farrell has to deliver on his promise to create exclusion zones that apply for everyone.

"The Greens believe that approval of this fracking would break Barry O'Farrell's clear promise to keep CSG away from people's homes."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/agl-seeks-permission-to-frack-hunter-valley-wells/4993280

"This is the biggest threat to our community since World War Two."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7C4ousqB4E

I don't agree with CSG mining near homes, agricultural land or sources of drinking water, but nowhere does it say "under homes". Grow up!  ::)

Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes

And the lefts has a sexual obsession ????

Quote:

Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes

A touch untruthful Greenone....

Oh look......the article also says


Quote:

The state's Office of Coal Seam Gas says AGL's application will be assessed on its merits. Its Director Rachel Connell says the application will be subject to a series of benchmarks to assess its impact on the surrounding area. "There are very well-defined benchmarks in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which have to be assessed and in the code of practice for fracture stimulation," she said. "So one of the issues that will be examined closely is potential impacts on ground water."

And


Quote:

The [LIBERAL NSW STATE] government released a new code of practice for the procedure in September last year and strengthened it in February to include a two-kilometre buffer zone around residential areas.

If as Jeremy Buckingham says it is 600m from residential areas (and has proof) then it's within the buffer and all the 'whoo howling' from the Greens is just political spin.


Quote:

The people of New South Wales need to be protected from coal seam gas

That from Buckingham is an outright lie.

CSG has it's place and can provide abundant energy, reduced CO2 emissions,  increased wealth and tax revenues and jobs for the people of NSW.  Ruling it out entirely is just typical of the stupid and radical policy platforms of the Green party.

Swagman wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:41am:

Quote: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes A touch untruthful Greenone....

You've been a touch untruthful yourself, methinks.



Quote:

[quote]The [LIBERAL NSW STATE] government released a new code of practice for the procedure in September last year and strengthened it in February to include a two-kilometre buffer zone around residential areas.

If as Jeremy Buckingham says it is 600m from residential areas (and has proof) then it's within the buffer and all the 'whoo howling' from the Greens is just political spin.[/quote]
Wait, what? Too close to homes and it's just political spin? I think you need to explain this.


Quote:

[quote]The people of New South Wales need to be protected from coal seam gas

That from Buckingham is an outright lie.[/quote]
That, from you, is an outright lie.

Buckingham is stating an OPINION.


Quote:

CSG has it's place

That is debatable.


Quote:

and can provide abundant energy,

So can many other cheaper and/or less controversial energy generation techniques.


Quote:

reduced CO2 emissions,

False. It increases CO₂ emissions because it turns fossil C into CO₂. Do try to keep up.


Quote:

increased wealth

To whose profit? The government of Singapore?


Quote:

and tax revenues

I thought you were against the carbon tax?  :-/


Quote:

and jobs for the people of NSW.

So can other energy generation techniques - geothermal, solar, coal ...


Quote:

Ruling it out entirely is just typical of the stupid and radical policy platforms of the Green party.

Again, incorrect. This is one of those rare areas of policy where the National Party and the Greens find common ground.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:15am:

I don't agree with CSG mining near homes, agricultural land or sources of drinking water, but nowhere does it say "under homes". Grow up!  ::)

Yes, "Under" is a bit misleading. "Too close to" would be more accurate, given that 600m is less than the 2000m exclusion zone.

Yet can we confirm that none of the effects of the CSG process ever spreads 600 metres from the site of the well? If we cannot, then "under" is in fact a possibility.

guess it'd be ok if the application was a great cluster of bird choppers - the real industrialised shame of farm land and parks across the globe.

How can the fracking companies guarantee that subterranean water aquifers
which have existed for millions of years and act  in many cases
as a source of pure drinking & stock & agricultural water won't  be ruined forever?

e.g. contaminated with radioactivity from uranium or
some other poisonous mineral?

Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

You've been a touch untruthful yourself, methinks

Really, how?


Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

Wait, what? Too close to homes and it's just political spin? I think you need to explain this.

If the process mentioned is within 600m of residential properties then it is within the buffer zone and should not be approved.  Carrying on like a pork chop about something that has not even been assessed yet is political spin.....savvy?


Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

Buckingham is stating an OPINION.

That's a good one... ;D  Julia was just staing an opinion when she said there'd be "no carbon tax" was she? ;D


Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

That is debatable.

So debate it.


Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

So can many other cheaper and/or less controversial energy generation techniques.

Bring them on then, it's a free country.  If these 'lone ranger' energy sources are indeed cheaper and less controversial then they will be more competitive won't they Bam?


Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

False. It increases CO2 emissions because it turns fossil C into CO2. Do try to keep up.

If the use of natural gas replaces the use of other 'dirtier' fosil fuels it will reduce emmissions?  Do try to keep up. :-?


Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

To whose profit? The government of Singapore?

As I said...the tax payers of NSW.  Royalties, jobs, infrastructure, income taxes, investment, consumption = wealth and prosperity.

It is also a buffer for rural communities against drought.  Mining royalties and the cash investment and jobs created in rural communities will fund rural commerce and regenerate rural communities and provide diversified income sources in times of drought.


Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

I thought you were against the carbon tax?

I'm against all taxes but they are a necessary evil in a civilised society.

My point is that the natural gas industry creates jobs, people with those jobs spend their incomes and create more jobs and generate profits for local business which creates jobs.  Profits and taxes rec'd from individuals and business fund the bloodsucking Govt.


Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

So can other energy generation techniques - geothermal, solar, coal ...

Yes they can but do you see me advocating the ban on these energy sources?  Go for it I say.  If they can be cheaper and more efficient than natural gas bring them on. :)


Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

Again, incorrect. This is one of those rare areas of policy where the National Party and the Greens find common ground.

Show me where the NATS want to rule CSG out entirely?

why would anyone even consider taking a chance with our water supply and farmland when there are much better alternatives out there ...

if just proves that level of stupidity by the posters on this forum

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:57am:

why would anyone even consider taking a chance with our water supply and farmland

You know the really stupid thing about current fracking laws? The only two industries that can get an exemption for fracking on their lands are horse studs and wineries. Yup thats right - screw prime farming land - who needs food? Much more important to protect our precious horse studs and wine  :P

And where are the nationals in all this? You know, the party thats supposed to represent farmers? Oh thats right, they're backing the liberals to the hilt on this fracking madness.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:09am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:57am: why would anyone even consider taking a chance with our water supply and farmland You know the really stupid thing about current fracking laws? The only two industries that can get an exemption for fracking on their lands are horse studs and wineries. Yup thats right - screw prime farming land - who needs food? Much more important to protect our precious horse studs and wine  :P And where are the nationals in all this? You know, the party thats supposed to represent farmers? Oh thats right, they're backing the liberals to the hilt on this fracking madness.

Very true.
What are the dangerous chemicals that they pump into our aquifers?
It's crazy to even consider damaging our aquifers.

Here we are - the driest continent on earth & idiots want to
risk ruining our sometimes only source of water forever!

The USA has fracced its way to energy security  (quite amazing).
with the litigious nature of the yanks, if there were major problmes, some erin brockovich type drama -queen would be all over it.
seems it is probably reasonably safe.
then , again, i like nuclear. ;) ;)

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:57am:

why would anyone even consider taking a chance with our water supply and farmland when there are much better alternatives out there ...

Geezuz I keep hearing about these "better alternatives"?

WTF are they?

If they are "better" they would be being used NOW.



John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:57am:

if just proves that level of stupidity by the posters on this forum

Such as yourself, Yes.  ;D

Look at what has happened in the USA:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/fracking-us-toxic-waste-water-washington

Friday 4 October 2013 21.01 AEST      

Quote:

Fracking produces annual toxic waste water enough to flood Washington DC Growing concerns over radiation risks as report finds widespread environmental damage on an unimaginable scale in the US. Fracking in America generated 280bn US gallons of toxic waste water last year – enough to flood all of Washington DC beneath a 22ft deep toxic lagoon, a new report out on Thursday found. The report from campaign group Environment America said America's transformation into an energy superpower was exacting growing costs on the environment. "Our analysis shows that damage from fracking is widespread and occurs on a scale unimagined just a few years ago," the report, Fracking by the Numbers, said. The full extent of the damage posed by fracking to air and water quality had yet to emerge, the report said. But it concluded: "Even the limited data that are currently available, however, paint an increasingly clear picture of the damage that fracking has done to our environment and health." A number of recent studies have highlighted the negative consequences of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which have unlocked vast reservoirs of oil and natural gas from rock formations. There have been instances of contaminated wells and streams, as well as evidence of methane releases along the production chain. The Environment America report highlights another growing area of concern – the safe disposal of the billions of gallons of waste water that are returned to the surface along with oil and gas when walls are fracked. The authors said they relied on data from industry and state environmental regulators to compile their report. More than 80,000 wells have been drilled or permitted in 17 states since 2005. It can take 2m to 9m gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to frack a single well. The report said the drilling industry had used 250bn gallons of fresh water since 2005. Much of that returns to the surface, however, along with naturally occurring radium and bromides, and concerns are growing about those effects on the environment. A study published this week by researchers at Duke University found new evidence of radiation risks from drilling waste water. The researchers said sediment samples collected downstream from a treatment plant in western Pennsylvania showed radium concentrations 200 times above normal. The Environment America study said waste water pits have been known to fail, such as in New Mexico where there were more than 420 instances of contamination, and that treatment plants were not entirely effective. "Fracking waste-water discharged at treatment plants can cause a different problem for drinking water: when bromide in the wastewater mixes with chlorine (often used at drinking water treatment plants), it produces trihalomethanes, chemicals that cause cancer and increase the risk of reproductive or developmental health problems," the report said. Other consequences of fracking highlighted in the report included: 450,000 tons of air pollution a year and 100m metric tons of global warming pollution since 2005.

     

Bump.

Do we really want more fracking in Australia?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:24am:

Bump. Do we really want more fracking in Australia?

The Australian people certainly don't.

The mining industry and the governments do. It's called Greed Inc. and will most certainly sacrifice any decent lifestyle for our future generations.

Don't let that worry you though, as long as we get a surplus today, we can buy water from Kenya tomorrow.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:31am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:24am: Bump. Do we really want more fracking in Australia? The Australian people certainly don't. The mining industry and the governments do. It's called Greed Inc. and will most certainly sacrifice any decent lifestyle for our future generations. Don't let that worry you though, as long as we get a surplus today, we can buy water from Kenya tomorrow.

Yes Panis,
I think fracking is shocking.
mankind has damaged the air, the sea, the ground &
now we're on a course to damage places that are underground.

We seem to be intent on destroying everything on our planet.

What will farmers use for water in the next 10,000 years?
It will all be contaminated with uranium & other poisons.

Science & technology is destroying our planet.
It would have been better if we hadn't "advanced" so much in the last 200 years.

Any Govt. that gives a license to perform fracking is criminal in my opinion.

No one has the right to destroy our environment forever
for a few petro dollars now.
None of that money goes into my pocket anyway -
only into someone else's greedy pocket who couldn't care less.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:40am:

None of that money goes into my pocket anyway - only into someone else's greedy pocket who couldn't care less.

That's why I wonder at the naivety of those ordinary people who  claim to back CSG exploration. The disadvantages and drawbacks far outweigh any benefits or perceived benefits.

We can't sit back on this one, if there's a rally near you, try to attend, then at least you can say you tried. I'm leaving a written record for my grandkids, they won't be blaming their grandma for the wreckage.

Once the underground aquifers are polluted, it will be too late to go back.


FRACKING HELL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtDtAX97qJU

Hi Panzi,
I watched that video - both parts 1 & 2.
It is very disturbing.

I hope Tony Abbott will stop it here in Australia but I doubt it.

double post

Swagman wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:57am:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: You've been a touch untruthful yourself, methinks Really, how?

Pay attention and I will show you.


Quote:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: Wait, what? Too close to homes and it's just political spin? I think you need to explain this. If the process mentioned is within 600m of residential properties then it is within the buffer zone and should not be approved.  Carrying on like a pork chop about something that has not even been assessed yet is political spin.....savvy?

It is NOT political spin to point out that it is within the exclusion zone. This is one place where you have been untruthful.

If they are being forceful with their opposition to the proposal on reasonable grounds, so what?


Quote:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: Buckingham is stating an OPINION. That's a good one... ;D  Julia was just staing an opinion when she said there'd be "no carbon tax" was she? ;D

This is another place where you have lied. Buckingham stated an opinion, not a fact. Do learn the difference.

As for Gillard's alleged "lie", it is comparable to Howard's lie of August 13, 1998 when he said "The price of petrol will not increase for the average motorist" in relation to the GST. According to the ABS, when the GST was introduced, the price of petrol went up 10%.


Quote:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: That is debatable. So debate it.

Debate what? Where's the context?


Quote:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: So can many other cheaper and/or less controversial energy generation techniques. Bring them on then, it's a free country.  If these 'lone ranger' energy sources are indeed cheaper and less controversial then they will be more competitive won't they Bam?

Not when we have a bunch of forkwits in Canberra, beholden to vested interests who are actively and forcefully discouraging investment in renewables just so their fossil fuel donor mates can keep making donations to the Party.


Quote:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: False. It increases CO2 emissions because it turns fossil C into CO2. Do try to keep up. If the use of natural gas replaces the use of other 'dirtier' fosil fuels it will reduce emmissions?  Do try to keep up. :-?

There are plenty of energy generation techniques that do not have net emissions of CO₂. Why are you being wilfully misleading over this point by only presenting comparisons among fossil fuels?


Quote:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: To whose profit? The government of Singapore? As I said...the tax payers of NSW.  Royalties, jobs, infrastructure, income taxes, investment, consumption = wealth and prosperity.

The Government of Singapore stands to make a lot more out of this than the Government of NSW.


Quote:

It is also a buffer for rural communities against drought.  Mining royalties and the cash investment and jobs created in rural communities will fund rural commerce and regenerate rural communities and provide diversified income sources in times of drought.

These same rural communities may have difficulty using their bore water due to contamination from CSG. And if anyone is proposing to put CSG wells anywhere near the source aquifers for the Great Artesian Basin they deserve the most severe condemnation.


Quote:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: I thought you were against the carbon tax? I'm against all taxes but they are a necessary evil in a civilised society. My point is that the natural gas industry creates jobs, people with those jobs spend their incomes and create more jobs and generate profits for local business which creates jobs.  Profits and taxes rec'd from individuals and business fund the bloodsucking Govt.

Creating jobs is not the exclusive domain of CSG. All other forms of energy generation also create jobs.


Quote:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: So can other energy generation techniques - geothermal, solar, coal ... Yes they can but do you see me advocating the ban on these energy sources?  Go for it I say.  If they can be cheaper and more efficient than natural gas bring them on. :)

How about less controversial? About the only source of energy that is more controversial than CSG is nuclear power.


Quote:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: Again, incorrect. This is one of those rare areas of policy where the National Party and the Greens find common ground. Show me where the NATS want to rule CSG out entirely?

Stop moving the goalposts. I never said that.

Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes

Libs are Fracking dangerous!

Swagman wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:51am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:57am: why would anyone even consider taking a chance with our water supply and farmland when there are much better alternatives out there ... Geezuz I keep hearing about these "better alternatives"? WTF are they? If they are "better" they would be being used NOW. how about solar, geo thermal and wind for starters .... why don't we subsidies these companies to the same level we subsidies mining companies? Afraid of the competition? John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:57am: if just proves that level of stupidity by the posters on this forum Such as yourself, Yes.  ;D

nope, are you trying to volunteer?

I assume all you frackin Pinkos don't use frackin natural gas as it's frackin against your frackin principles? ;D

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

I assume all you frackin Pinkos don't use frackin natural gas as it's frackin against your frackin principles? ;D

exactly! I occasionally use LPG for my BBQ, but I'm happy to stop using that if necessary

John Smith wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:05am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:59am: I assume all you frackin Pinkos don't use frackin natural gas as it's frackin against your frackin principles? ;D exactly! I occasionally use LPG for my BBQ, but I'm happy to stop using that if necessary

Just use CO2, apparently it's good at heating.... :D

Why resort to fracking while we are sitting on a gold mine of gas which will be worth a lot more money when everyone else exhausts their own resources?
We have plenty of natural gas for now so why not sit on our vast reserves?
In short...whats the fracking rush?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:09am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:40am: None of that money goes into my pocket anyway - only into someone else's greedy pocket who couldn't care less. That's why I wonder at the naivety of those ordinary people who  claim to back CSG exploration. The disadvantages and drawbacks far outweigh any benefits or perceived benefits. We can't sit back on this one, if there's a rally near you, try to attend, then at least you can say you tried. I'm leaving a written record for my grandkids, they won't be blaming their grandma for the wreckage. Once the underground aquifers are polluted, it will be too late to go back. FRACKING HELL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtDtAX97qJU

It seems the full story is over 17 minutes long, you may be interested in the info after the 9 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEB_Wwe-uBM

Fracking as bad as Coal, Water supply stuffed with dangerous chemicals, Radioactive elements involved in Fracking & THEN THERE'S THE POLITICAL & RELATED PAY OFFS.

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:05am: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:59am: I assume all you frackin Pinkos don't use frackin natural gas as it's frackin against your frackin principles? ;D exactly! I occasionally use LPG for my BBQ, but I'm happy to stop using that if necessary Just use CO2, apparently it's good at heating.... :D

and apparently apart from a few snide remarks, you've got nothing to offer ... who'd a thunk it.  ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:52am: John Smith wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:05am: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:59am: I assume all you frackin Pinkos don't use frackin natural gas as it's frackin against your frackin principles? ;D exactly! I occasionally use LPG for my BBQ, but I'm happy to stop using that if necessary Just use CO2, apparently it's good at heating.... :D and apparently apart from a few snide remarks, you've got nothing to offer ... who'd a thunk it.  ::) ::)

I've been chipping away at this thread Smithy and none of you pinks have yet to prove that Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes

All I've seen are lame attempts to discredit a legitimate industry.  :(

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 11:37am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 11:22am: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:52am: John Smith wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:05am: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:59am: I assume all you frackin Pinkos don't use frackin natural gas as it's frackin against your frackin principles? ;D exactly! I occasionally use LPG for my BBQ, but I'm happy to stop using that if necessary Just use CO2, apparently it's good at heating.... :D and apparently apart from a few snide remarks, you've got nothing to offer ... who'd a thunk it.  ::) ::) I've been chipping away at this thread Smithy and none have you have yet to prove that Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes All I've seen are lame attempts to discredit a legitimate industry.

do you selectively ignore the comments you don't agree with or are you in denial??? It has been pointed out that some of the fracking will occur within 600m of homes .... well inside the 2000m exclusion zone that should be in place. Given the nature of gas, it is not unreasonable to assume that it may in certain areas indeed spread under the homes.' Sure, it's a guess, but would you take that chance if it was your house?

You have in the past accused Greg of focusing on one word whilst ignoring the meaning behind the thread

why don't you take your own advice?

John Smith wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

It has been pointed out that some of the fracking will occur within 600m of homes

If it within the buffer it won't be approved.  As I pointed out earlier it's just an application and it hasn't even been assessed.

The thread title is a bull schitt lie and any attempt to defend it is just defending a bull schitt lie.  If you want to defend lies like this and the carbon tax then go for it.

The regulation is there to protect the public but still exploit the economic advantages of the industry.  Blind arrogant objection that the Green Party and its hippy supporters have to the industry is just ludicrous.

This clouds over any credible arguments the Greens come up with and why most of the normal public think the Greens are just a bunch of unwashed commie hippies with effall credibility. :(

Green doesn't read, listen to or watch any news other than what comes out on bark paintings, otherwise he wouldn't bore us so frequently with his scrambled thoughts.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:24am:

Bump. Do we really want more fracking in Australia?

It's greed incorporated up to their old tricks of raping and pillaging the planet  for the sake of a fist full of dollars :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:24am: Bump. Do we really want more fracking in Australia? It's greed incorporated up to their old tricks of raping and pillaging the planet  for the sake of a fist full of dollars :(

You'd be still swinging in the trees and lunch for a prey animal but for them (if not extinct)

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 11:33pm:

Look at what has happened in the USA: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/fracking-us-toxic-waste-water-washington Friday 4 October 2013 21.01 AEST       Quote: Fracking produces annual toxic waste water enough to flood Washington DC Growing concerns over radiation risks as report finds widespread environmental damage on an unimaginable scale in the US. Fracking in America generated 280bn US gallons of toxic waste water last year – enough to flood all of Washington DC beneath a 22ft deep toxic lagoon, a new report out on Thursday found. The report from campaign group Environment America said America's transformation into an energy superpower was exacting growing costs on the environment. "Our analysis shows that damage from fracking is widespread and occurs on a scale unimagined just a few years ago," the report, Fracking by the Numbers, said. The full extent of the damage posed by fracking to air and water quality had yet to emerge, the report said. But it concluded: "Even the limited data that are currently available, however, paint an increasingly clear picture of the damage that fracking has done to our environment and health." A number of recent studies have highlighted the negative consequences of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which have unlocked vast reservoirs of oil and natural gas from rock formations. There have been instances of contaminated wells and streams, as well as evidence of methane releases along the production chain. The Environment America report highlights another growing area of concern – the safe disposal of the billions of gallons of waste water that are returned to the surface along with oil and gas when walls are fracked. The authors said they relied on data from industry and state environmental regulators to compile their report. More than 80,000 wells have been drilled or permitted in 17 states since 2005. It can take 2m to 9m gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to frack a single well. The report said the drilling industry had used 250bn gallons of fresh water since 2005. Much of that returns to the surface, however, along with naturally occurring radium and bromides, and concerns are growing about those effects on the environment. A study published this week by researchers at Duke University found new evidence of radiation risks from drilling waste water. The researchers said sediment samples collected downstream from a treatment plant in western Pennsylvania showed radium concentrations 200 times above normal. The Environment America study said waste water pits have been known to fail, such as in New Mexico where there were more than 420 instances of contamination, and that treatment plants were not entirely effective. "Fracking waste-water discharged at treatment plants can cause a different problem for drinking water: when bromide in the wastewater mixes with chlorine (often used at drinking water treatment plants), it produces trihalomethanes, chemicals that cause cancer and increase the risk of reproductive or developmental health problems," the report said. Other consequences of fracking highlighted in the report included: 450,000 tons of air pollution a year and 100m metric tons of global warming pollution since 2005.

This is another asbestos ticking time bomb except we all know in advance what the outcome will be :(

F.cking idiots and their stinken dirty fossil fools :(

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:18pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:24am: Bump. Do we really want more fracking in Australia? It's greed incorporated up to their old tricks of raping and pillaging the planet  for the sake of a fist full of dollars :( You'd be still swinging in the trees and lunch for a prey animal but for them (if not extinct)

well you lot are doing a pretty good job of making us extinct :( How long before your fracked up gas runs out or do you think it will magically renew itself ?

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:09am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:40am: None of that money goes into my pocket anyway - only into someone else's greedy pocket who couldn't care less. That's why I wonder at the naivety of those ordinary people who  claim to back CSG exploration. The disadvantages and drawbacks far outweigh any benefits or perceived benefits. We can't sit back on this one, if there's a rally near you, try to attend, then at least you can say you tried. I'm leaving a written record for my grandkids, they won't be blaming their grandma for the wreckage. Once the underground aquifers are polluted, it will be too late to go back. FRACKING HELL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtDtAX97qJU It seems the full story is over 17 minutes long, you may be interested in the info after the 9 minute mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEB_Wwe-uBM Fracking as bad as Coal, Water supply stuffed with dangerous chemicals, Radioactive elements involved in Fracking & THEN THERE'S THE POLITICAL & RELATED PAY OFFS.

It's the Liberal conservative mentality that will destroy this planet.

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

well you lot are doing a pretty good job of making us extinct  How long before your fracked up gas runs out or do you think it will magically renew itself

My lot now is it? I bet that you and the rest of 'your' lot regularly use petrol and gas and just about everything you and your lot use daily has been produced with a fossil fuel including whatever it is you are using to post.

If you are against the exploitation of the environment why use its produce and accept the advantages that are derived from them?

The gas will last for a 'frackin' long time?  Long enough to find a credible alternative. :D

The reason humans are not extinct is because they long ago found out the competitive advantage of exploiting the environment.

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:21pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:18pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:24am: Bump. Do we really want more fracking in Australia? It's greed incorporated up to their old tricks of raping and pillaging the planet  for the sake of a fist full of dollars :( You'd be still swinging in the trees and lunch for a prey animal but for them (if not extinct) well you lot are doing a pretty good job of making us extinct :( How long before your fracked up gas runs out or do you think it will magically renew itself ?

Hear hear Nail,
People will have spent the money but who will pay
for the environmental cleanup?

..as always those that make the money and pay the tax

aquascoot wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:36am:

The USA has fracced its way to energy security  (quite amazing). with the litigious nature of the yanks, if there were major problmes, some erin brockovich type drama -queen would be all over it. seems it is probably reasonably safe. then , again, i like nuclear. ;) ;)

yes it must be ok if BP and Shell say it is :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEB_Wwe-uBM

How can all the radioactive water be cleaned up?

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:35pm:

The reason humans are not extinct is because they long ago found out the competitive advantage of exploiting the environment.

yes until there was nothing left to exploit :(

Humans are the only living species capable of destroying the environment they live in :( Actually humans are just vermin  !!

If we had to, we would go back, at least some way back, we just went consumer crazy in the last 20 years.

It wasn't that long ago that we didn't have all this stuff. We wouldn't like it at first, but we might warm to the idea after a while.

Post capitalism.....maybe?


Hazardous Fracking - Is it Time for Civil Disobedience?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-chtv_iWFM8


comment

We'er brainwashed into thinking that owning a fossil fuel automobile is a requirement for happiness. Take public transportation, meet new friends, get great exercise. Feel freer and lighter with less worries. No longer be a slave to cars, banks, insurance and gas companies. Yes it is an adjustment, but absolutely necessary to save our planet.

What will stop radioactivity getting into our food?
We are talking about water to be used for agriculture that will ruined.
Will our food glow in the dark?

Will we all need to buy Geiger counters to check our food & water?

Who will pay for the cleanup?

Is it possible to clean up radioactive water?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

What will stop radioactivity getting into our food? We are talking about water to be used for agriculture that will ruined. Will our food glow in the dark? Will we all need to buy Geiger counters to check our food & water? Who will pay for the cleanup? Is it possible to clean up radioactive water?

don't be silly, food and water is not important !!

as long as you can fill up your polluting gas guzzling car at the fool bowser and put money in the pocket of greed incorporated then the quality of food and water no longer matters :(

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:24pm: well you lot are doing a pretty good job of making us extinct  How long before your fracked up gas runs out or do you think it will magically renew itself My lot now is it? I bet that you and the rest of 'your' lot regularly use petrol and gas and just about everything you and your lot use daily has been produced with a fossil fuel including whatever it is you are using to post. If you are against the exploitation of the environment why use its produce and accept the advantages that are derived from them? The gas will last for a 'frackin' long time?  Long enough to find a credible alternative. :D

Then give us electric cars instead of destroying them or pricing them out of existence !!


Quote:

If you are squeamish, look away NOW!  Below are some pictures of EV1s just before and just after the crusher. First, the cars on death row (notice how high they ride in the second picture (no batteries).  But don't get used to how "tall" these cars are...

http://www.evnut.com/images/ev1/ev1_grave/ev1_crush1.jpg

http://www.evnut.com/ev1_crushed.htm

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

If we had to, we would go back, at least some way back, we just went consumer crazy in the last 20 years. It wasn't that long ago that we didn't have all this stuff. We wouldn't like it at first, but we might warm to the idea after a while. Post capitalism.....maybe? Hazardous Fracking - Is it Time for Civil Disobedience? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-chtv_iWFM8 comment We'er brainwashed into thinking that owning a fossil fuel automobile is a requirement for happiness. Take public transportation, meet new friends, get great exercise. Feel freer and lighter with less worries. No longer be a slave to cars, banks, insurance and gas companies. Yes it is an adjustment, but absolutely necessary to save our planet.

There is a case in the USA where a farmer sued a Corporate fracking operator for making his family ill. Both the young children in the family began suffering from certain illness via the contaminated ground water.

The company settled in the end, but only on the agreement that the family, including the children did NOT speak about the case or anything about fracking in public, (for the rest of their lives)

This is why they like settling these litigations out of court. They don't have to make the details public and they can sign specific confidentiality agreements and caveats etc. This prevents other people form getting any smart ideas about suing.

Fracking uses numerous chemicals to assist with the fracturing of the rock and substrates under the ground which contain a small volume of gas of relatively low quality.

Some of these chemical agents are toxic and even carcinogenic. The process contaminates the ground water table which is a mobile natural water stream. So a contaminated ground water site on one farm can migrate to neighbouring properties or collect in low points creating serious health and environmental issues.

Even if the process only used pressurised hot pure water or steam to create the fractures, environmental damage is still created by destroying natural systems and also releasing stable chemicals and minerals that are in the solid substrate, directly into the moving water table.

An insane practice which has creeped into Australia via stealth. A disgraceful pathway considering the rich solar, geothermal, wind etc resources Australia has.

Australia is a laughing stock internationally. When I travel overseas, especially in countries such as Spain and Germany, they simply cant understand why solar energy isn't rampantly rolled out in Australia. they are envious of our abundance of solar and other natural resources.

We are falling behind when we should be world leaders in alternative energy options

But then again, we are perhaps the dumbest group of illegal settlers and invaders the worlds has seen

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 1:38pm: What will stop radioactivity getting into our food? We are talking about water to be used for agriculture that will ruined. Will our food glow in the dark? Will we all need to buy Geiger counters to check our food & water? Who will pay for the cleanup? Is it possible to clean up radioactive water? don't be silly, food and water is not important !! as long as you can fill up your polluting gas guzzling car at the fool bowser and put money in the pocket of greed incorporated then the quality of food and water no longer matters :(

Yes Nail,
it's time to buy a Geiger counter on Ebay.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

What will stop radioactivity getting into our food? We are talking about water to be used for agriculture that will ruined. Will our food glow in the dark? Will we all need to buy Geiger counters to check our food & water? Who will pay for the cleanup? Is it possible to clean up radioactive water?

Radionuclides are already in the ecosystem. The northern hemisphere for example is about twice as radioactive as the southern hemisphere purely due to the nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents.

Cancer rate is higher in the northern hemisphere per capita as a result of this contamination.

Removing radioactive contaminants from water isn't really a big technically problem - there are numerous methods including membrane filtration which will filter out every atom or molecule larger than a water molecule.

The problem is what to do with the radioactive filters and materials that come into contact with the contaminants. No known solution yet to this waste except for hiding it in the ground etc.

One, note however, nuclear power plants routinely release Tritium (an isotope of Hydrogen - H3) which has a half life of about 12 years and can linger in the environment for between 10 to 20 half lifes. That is about 120 to 240 years.

Its smaller than a water molecule and so passes through a membrane type sieve that is designed to filter water.

(also watch for routine emissions of radioactive active nobel gases from nuclear power plants - very dangerous to public health and the environment)

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 1:45pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 1:38pm: What will stop radioactivity getting into our food? We are talking about water to be used for agriculture that will ruined. Will our food glow in the dark? Will we all need to buy Geiger counters to check our food & water? Who will pay for the cleanup? Is it possible to clean up radioactive water? don't be silly, food and water is not important !! as long as you can fill up your polluting gas guzzling car at the fool bowser and put money in the pocket of greed incorporated then the quality of food and water no longer matters :( Yes Nail, it's time to buy a Geiger counter on Ebay.

Most of the Geiger counters on the market don't detect alpha particles. So Plutonium in your food and water wont be picked up.

Some don't even pick up beta particles (although most do) which will mean that you will miss detecting the very serious radionuclides such as Cs137 and Sr90 etc.

There is only one Geiger counter or Dosimeter that I know of that can detect alpha, beta, gamma etc and is under $500. Normally you will need to buy a very expensive device (>$1800) to get accurate and meaningful results from food and water samples.

most professionals and labs use dedicated detectors for alpha emitters, such as scintillation pan cake probes and other devices for beta and gamma emitters

don't worry about it - world is ***ked big time.

Its a statistical cancer Russian roulette now

Yes Chimp,
we may already be eating radioactive food & not know even about it.

My only consolation is that all those Libbo children will be eating it too.

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:35pm: The reason humans are not extinct is because they long ago found out the competitive advantage of exploiting the environment. yes until there was nothing left to exploit :( Humans are the only living species capable of destroying the environment they live in :( Actually humans are just vermin  !!

Speak for yourself... ;D

Life is about exploiting the environment.  The best exploiters survive and evolve.

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 2:52pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 1:35pm: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:35pm: The reason humans are not extinct is because they long ago found out the competitive advantage of exploiting the environment. yes until there was nothing left to exploit :( Humans are the only living species capable of destroying the environment they live in :( Actually humans are just vermin  !! Speak for yourself... ;D Life is about exploiting the environment.  The best exploiters survive and evolve.

I'm sure your children & grand children, will thank you - NOT!

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 3:22pm:

Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 2:52pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 1:35pm: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:35pm: The reason humans are not extinct is because they long ago found out the competitive advantage of exploiting the environment. yes until there was nothing left to exploit :( Humans are the only living species capable of destroying the environment they live in :( Actually humans are just vermin  !! Speak for yourself... ;D Life is about exploiting the environment.  The best exploiters survive and evolve. I'm sure your children & grand children, will thank you - NOT!

You are exploiting the environment right now.  You are breathing in oxygen and breathing out CO2.  If you stop you will croak.  ALL LIFE exploits the environment.  ALL LIFE is an environmental parasite.

Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:16am:

Quote: reduced CO2 emissions, False. It increases CO2 emissions because it turns fossil C into CO2. Do try to keep up.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/switch-to-gasfired-power-reduces-summer-emissions-20100321-qo6t.html


Quote:

GREENHOUSE gas emissions in NSW fell this summer compared with the previous year, despite higher than usual average temperatures. A report by The Climate Group released yesterday found that emissions from energy use in the state were down 5.7 per cent on the previous summer, a saving of more than 1.5 million tonnes and the equivalent of taking about 360,000 cars off the road for a year. The main reason for the decrease was a greater use of gas-generated electricity following the commissioning of two new gas power plants in Uranquity and Tallawarra. Gas, while still a fossil fuel, emits fewer harmful pollutants than burning coal.

:o

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 4:18pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am: Quote: reduced CO2 emissions, False. It increases CO2 emissions because it turns fossil C into CO2. Do try to keep up. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/switch-to-gasfired-power-reduces-summer-emissions-20100321-qo6t.html [quote]GREENHOUSE gas emissions in NSW fell this summer compared with the previous year, despite higher than usual average temperatures. A report by The Climate Group released yesterday found that emissions from energy use in the state were down 5.7 per cent on the previous summer, a saving of more than 1.5 million tonnes and the equivalent of taking about 360,000 cars off the road for a year. The main reason for the decrease was a greater use of gas-generated electricity following the commissioning of two new gas power plants in Uranquity and Tallawarra. Gas, while still a fossil fuel, emits fewer harmful pollutants than burning coal.

:o[/quote]


Haven't you forgotten something?
Did you even read the thread?

What about radioactive pollution?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 5:14pm:

What about radioactive pollution

What about it?

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:14pm: What about radioactive pollution What about it?

If you would have read the thread you'd have found out
that that radioactive elements will end up in the food chain.
Happy eating.

Ok do me a favour and ID the relevant post Bobby.... :-?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:09am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:40am: None of that money goes into my pocket anyway - only into someone else's greedy pocket who couldn't care less. That's why I wonder at the naivety of those ordinary people who  claim to back CSG exploration. The disadvantages and drawbacks far outweigh any benefits or perceived benefits. We can't sit back on this one, if there's a rally near you, try to attend, then at least you can say you tried. I'm leaving a written record for my grandkids, they won't be blaming their grandma for the wreckage. Once the underground aquifers are polluted, it will be too late to go back. FRACKING HELL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtDtAX97qJU

Watch the 2 part video Swagman.

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 11:43am: It has been pointed out that some of the fracking will occur within 600m of homes If it within the buffer it won't be approved.  As I pointed out earlier it's just an application and it hasn't even been assessed. Are you sure about that? Normal practice for libs is to simply change the buffer ... I guess you'll simply have to wait and see. The regulation is there to protect the public but still exploit the economic advantages of the industry.  Blind arrogant objection that the Green Party and its hippy supporters have to the industry is just ludicrous. This clouds over any credible arguments the Greens come up with and why most of the normal public think the Greens are just a bunch of unwashed commie hippies with effall credibility. :(

don't assume all the arguments are coming from greenies.

There are lots of video's of people with flames coming out of their taps in the USA to make the concerns of Aussies genuine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTJaaeiuzSU

‘Alarming’ presence of radioactivity found by Pennsylvania fracking wastewater study

Researchers have found high levels of radioactivity, salts, and metals in water and sediment located downstream from a treatment facility which processes fracking wastewater from oil and gas production sites in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale formation.

A Duke University team analyzed water and sediment samples from the Josephine Brine Treatment Facility in Indiana County, Pennsylvania, finding radium levels 200 times greater than samples taken upstream from the plant and far higher than what’s allowed under the Clean Water Act.

Radium is a radioactive metal that can cause diseases like leukemia and other ill-health effects if one is exposed to large amounts over time.

The treatment facility processes flowback water - highly saline and radioactive wastewater that resurfaces from underground after being injected into rocks in the fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, process.

For two years, the Duke team monitored sediment and river water above and below the treatment plant, as well as discharge coming directly from the plant, for various contaminants and levels of radioactivity. In the discharge and downstream water, researchers also found high levels of chloride, sulphate, and bromide, which can interact with chlorine and ozone - used to disinfect river water for drinking -to create a toxic byproduct.

"The occurrence of radium is alarming - this is a radioactive constituent that is likely to increase rates of genetic mutation" and can be "a significant radioactive health hazard for humans," said William Schlesinger, a researcher and president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, who wasn't involved in the study.

http://rt.com/usa/fracking-radioactivity-contaminants-study-661/

Just added a poll -

Do you want fracking stopped?

Swagman wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 3:37pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 3:22pm: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 2:52pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 1:35pm: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:35pm: The reason humans are not extinct is because they long ago found out the competitive advantage of exploiting the environment. yes until there was nothing left to exploit :( Humans are the only living species capable of destroying the environment they live in :( Actually humans are just vermin  !! Speak for yourself... ;D Life is about exploiting the environment.  The best exploiters survive and evolve. I'm sure your children & grand children, will thank you - NOT! You are exploiting the environment right now.  You are breathing in oxygen and breathing out CO2.  If you stop you will croak.  ALL LIFE exploits the environment.  ALL LIFE is an environmental parasite.

Not all life, BUT there are certainly some who fit that criteria, some because they think they are so smart & others simply because they are so dumb!

An example of those that don't have brains, are the Bacteria that Professor Bartlet talks about in the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=player_embedded

There are also plenty of examples in the human race, of people who THINK that we are smart enough to avoid the worst of some of the apparent environmental problems, although that thinking is not backed up by history!

Btw, if you take away the bacteria in the video & replace them with humans, then ARE WE CURRENTLY ONE MINUTE TO HIGH NOON!

In saying that, let me ask those who "know better", what is an acceptable level of growth, is it -
A) 10%
B) 7%   
C) 3.5%
D) 1.5%
E) 1.0% 
F) Break even
G) Something less than Break even

The vote is 5 to 0.

No one wants this fracking.

Tony Abbott must make it illegal now before more damage is done.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

The vote is 5 to 0. No one wants this fracking. Tony Abbott must make it illegal now before more damage is done.

5 - 1 now.

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 3:37pm: perceptions_now wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 3:22pm: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 2:52pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 1:35pm: Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:35pm: The reason humans are not extinct is because they long ago found out the competitive advantage of exploiting the environment. yes until there was nothing left to exploit :( Humans are the only living species capable of destroying the environment they live in :( Actually humans are just vermin  !! Speak for yourself... ;D Life is about exploiting the environment.  The best exploiters survive and evolve. I'm sure your children & grand children, will thank you - NOT! You are exploiting the environment right now.  You are breathing in oxygen and breathing out CO2.  If you stop you will croak.  ALL LIFE exploits the environment.  ALL LIFE is an environmental parasite. Not all life, BUT there are certainly some who fit that criteria, some because they think they are so smart & others simply because they are so dumb! An example of those that don't have brains, are the Bacteria that Professor Bartlet talks about in the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=player_embedded There are also plenty of examples in the human race, of people who THINK that we are smart enough to avoid the worst of some of the apparent environmental problems, although that thinking is not backed up by history! Btw, if you take away the bacteria in the video & replace them with humans, then ARE WE CURRENTLY ONE MINUTE TO HIGH NOON! In saying that, let me ask those who "know better", what is an acceptable level of growth, is it - A) 10% B) 7%    C) 3.5% D) 1.5% E) 1.0%  F) Break even G) Something less than Break even

It seems that the likes of Swaggy, Longy & Maqqy don't think they know better?

Swagman wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 9:34am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 1:38pm: The vote is 5 to 0. No one wants this fracking. Tony Abbott must make it illegal now before more damage is done. 5 - 1 now.

The "1" would have been Longweekend.

The French constitutional court has rejected fracking:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/11/france-fracking-ban-shale-gas



Quote:

France's constitutional court has upheld a ban on hydraulic fracturing, ruling that the law against the energy exploration technique known as "fracking" is a valid means of protecting the environment. The court in Paris said on its website on Friday that the 2011 law "conforms to the constitution" and is not "disproportionate". France banned fracking in 2011 and cancelled exploration licences held by companies including Schuepbach and Total SA, the country's biggest oil company, after protests by environmental groups. Schuepbach Energy LLC, a Dallas-based explorer, complained to the court that the law was unfair after having two exploration permits revoked because of the ban. President François Hollande has said France won't allow exploration of shale gas energy even as the country seeks to reduce its reliance on nuclear energy and keep down costs for consumers. "It's a judicial victory but also an environmental and political victory," French environment minister, Philippe Martin, said today after the ruling. "With this decision the ban on hydraulic fracturing is absolute." The technique, which involves blasting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals underground to release oil and gas from shale rock, has raised the ire of environmental groups who fear groundwater contamination.

Kinda like Paint Your Wagon and No Name City... which finally collapsed into the ground from all the mines underneath it.  Or maybe that song from My Fair Lady in the event of a serious mishap.....

"I have often walked on this street before,
But the pavement always stayed beneath my feet before,
All at once am I
Several storeys high,
Knowing I'm on the street you've just blitzed".....

:D                                :D                              :D

Kinda like Paint Your Wagon and No Name City... which finally collapsed into the ground from all the mines underneath it.  Or maybe that song from My Fair Lady in the event of a serious mishap.....

"I have often walked on this street before,
But the pavement always stayed beneath my feet before,
All at once am I
Several storeys high,
Knowing I'm on the street you've just blitzed".....

:D                                :D                              :D

WELL, THERE YA GO - EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE THE SYSTEM GIVES A LURCH DUE TO FRACKING OF THE SUBSTRATA OF OZPOL, YOU REPOST, AND IT'S NOW THERE TWICE!  TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!

FRACK IT!

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

The vote is 5 to 0. No one wants this fracking. Tony Abbott must make it illegal now before more damage is done.

As we speak Abbott may be trading away our right to to place a moratorium on fracking without having to pay international energy companies millions of dollars in compensation.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2013 at 12:32am:

The French constitutional court has rejected fracking: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/11/france-fracking-ban-shale-gas Quote: France's constitutional court has upheld a ban on hydraulic fracturing, ruling that the law against the energy exploration technique known as "fracking" is a valid means of protecting the environment. The court in Paris said on its website on Friday that the 2011 law "conforms to the constitution" and is not "disproportionate". France banned fracking in 2011 and cancelled exploration licences held by companies including Schuepbach and Total SA, the country's biggest oil company, after protests by environmental groups. Schuepbach Energy LLC, a Dallas-based explorer, complained to the court that the law was unfair after having two exploration permits revoked because of the ban. President François Hollande has said France won't allow exploration of shale gas energy even as the country seeks to reduce its reliance on nuclear energy and keep down costs for consumers. "It's a judicial victory but also an environmental and political victory," French environment minister, Philippe Martin, said today after the ruling. "With this decision the ban on hydraulic fracturing is absolute." The technique, which involves blasting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals underground to release oil and gas from shale rock, has raised the ire of environmental groups who fear groundwater contamination.

If the French reject it then why don't we?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

If the French reject it then why don't we?

We don't have a schitt load of nuclear power stations... :(

Swagman wrote on Oct 12^th, 2013 at 8:43am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 8:38am: If the French reject it then why don't we? We don't have a schitt load of nuclear power stations... :(

But don't we have enormous amounts of gas offshore in WA
that we sell for 4 cents a liter to the Chinese?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2013 at 8:47am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 8:43am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 8:38am: If the French reject it then why don't we? We don't have a schitt load of nuclear power stations... :( But don't we have enormous amounts of gas offshore in WA that we sell for 4 cents a liter to the Chinese?

Don't you want reduced CO2 emissions to save us all from the Global Warming Boogieman?

Responsible fracking will do this.

As will nuke power plants.

France has the nukes we have the gas.  Now Greenies, if you want to save the planet you have to drop the socialist agenda comrades.

All that killing off capitalism bull crap justs gets in the way of your supposed environmental priorities.

.....but we know that the environmentalism is just a cover for the real objective.  Yes green on the outside but commie red in the middle.....

Swagman wrote on Oct 12^th, 2013 at 9:01am:

Don't you want reduced CO2 emissions to save us all from the Global Warming Boogieman?Responsible fracking will do this.

what a trade off ... clean the air but poison the water .... fvcken genius!!!! :D :D

John Smith wrote on Oct 12^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 9:01am: Don't you want reduced CO2 emissions to save us all from the Global Warming Boogieman?Responsible fracking will do this. what a trade off ... clean the air but poison the water .... fvcken genius!!!! :D :D

Drink beer

Swagman wrote on Oct 12^th, 2013 at 9:06am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 9:04am: Swagman wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 9:01am: Don't you want reduced CO2 emissions to save us all from the Global Warming Boogieman?Responsible fracking will do this. what a trade off ... clean the air but poison the water .... fvcken genius!!!! :D :D Drink beer

I'll let you in on a secret ... they use water to make beer  :o .... poison the waterways and you'll have no beer either  :'( :'( ... unless you like Corona! [smiley=beer.gif]

John Smith wrote on Oct 12^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 9:06am: John Smith wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 9:04am: Swagman wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 9:01am: Don't you want reduced CO2 emissions to save us all from the Global Warming Boogieman?Responsible fracking will do this. what a trade off ... clean the air but poison the water .... fvcken genius!!!! :D :D Drink beer I'll let you in on a secret ... they use water to make beer  :o .... poison the waterways and you'll have no beer either  :'( :'( ... unless you like Corona! [smiley=beer.gif]

Tow an ice berg from Antartica

____ wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 6:10am:

AGL seeks permission to begin fracking CSG pilot wells near Gloucester in the NSW Hunter If the State Government approves the application it will be the first time fracture stimulation, known as fracking, has been allowed since a moratorium was imposed in 2011. Greens mining spokesman Jeremy Buckingham says the application should be rejected. "This fracking will occur within 600 metres of residential areas in Gloucester - that's outrageous," he said. "The people of New South Wales need to be protected from coal seam gas and Barry O'Farrell has to deliver on his promise to create exclusion zones that apply for everyone. "The Greens believe that approval of this fracking would break Barry O'Farrell's clear promise to keep CSG away from people's homes." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/agl-seeks-permission-to-frack-hunter-valley-wells/4993280

How does "If the state government approves the application" become "Libs want dangerous fracking under homes"?
Your way off the mark once again Green.
Keep off the hootchy kootch.
Your brain is scrambled.

Swagman wrote on Oct 12^th, 2013 at 9:01am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 8:47am: Swagman wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 8:43am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 8:38am: If the French reject it then why don't we? We don't have a schitt load of nuclear power stations... :( But don't we have enormous amounts of gas offshore in WA that we sell for 4 cents a liter to the Chinese? Don't you want reduced CO2 emissions to save us all from the Global Warming Boogieman? Responsible fracking will do this. As will nuke power plants. France has the nukes we have the gas.  Now Greenies, if you want to save the planet you have to drop the socialist agenda comrades. All that killing off capitalism bull crap justs gets in the way of your supposed environmental priorities. .....but we know that the environmentalism is just a cover for the real objective.  Yes green on the outside but commie red in the middle.....

Swagman,
There is no such thing as responsible fracking.
It destroys underground aquifers that will poison the
water for God knows how long -
maybe for the next 1,000  years.

That is why the French have banned it.

Get involved, send your MP an email. It's the least you can do for your grandkids.

Something like this will do:

Dear Member of Parliament,

Fracking for oil and gas is inherently unsafe and the harms of this industry cannot be fully mitigated by regulation. We reject the multi-million dollar public relations campaign by big oil and gas companies and urge our local, state, and national officials to reject fracking. We stand united as a global movement in calling on governmental officials at all levels to pursue a renewable energy future and not allow fracking or any of the associated infrastructure in our communities or any communities. We are fighting fracking, frac sand mining, pipelines, compressor stations, LNG terminals, exports of natural gas, coal seam gas, coal bed methane and more. Fracking is not part of our vision for a clean energy future and should be banned.

signed

from this website

https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=234


Global Frackdown: World prepares for protest against shale gas production

Thousands of people worldwide are expected to join the Global Frackdown protest on October 19. ‘Fracktivists’ from over 20 countries will gather to demand an end to fracking and “dangerous” shale gas drillings.

Numerous events are scheduled to take place mainly across the US and Europe. The global movement will be also joined by activists from Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and Indonesia. So far, a total 26 countries are listed to be taking part in the protest.

Fracking a single well can require between two and nine million gallons of water combined with sand and chemicals. Much of the used water returns to the earth’s surface, but contains radium and bromides - cancer-causing, radioactive substances. The toxic chemicals can then float into lakes and rivers or contaminate the ground.

On Saturday, Fracktivists in all participating countries will call on elected officials to open their eyes to the consequences of fracking, which they say is a risky technique. They will demand action to protect the public.

“It is critical that our elected officials hear the truth from their constituents,” the organizers said.

http://rt.com/news/global-frackdown-gas-protest-391/

____ wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 6:10am:

AGL seeks permission to begin fracking CSG pilot wells near Gloucester in the NSW Hunter If the State Government approves the application it will be the first time fracture stimulation, known as fracking, has been allowed since a moratorium was imposed in 2011. Greens mining spokesman Jeremy Buckingham says the application should be rejected. "This fracking will occur within 600 metres of residential areas in Gloucester - that's outrageous," he said. "The people of New South Wales need to be protected from coal seam gas and Barry O'Farrell has to deliver on his promise to create exclusion zones that apply for everyone. "The Greens believe that approval of this fracking would break Barry O'Farrell's clear promise to keep CSG away from people's homes." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/agl-seeks-permission-to-frack-hunter-valley-wells/4993280

Could you please explain how this equates to your topic title which states "Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes"?

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

____ wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 6:10am: AGL seeks permission to begin fracking CSG pilot wells near Gloucester in the NSW Hunter If the State Government approves the application it will be the first time fracture stimulation, known as fracking, has been allowed since a moratorium was imposed in 2011. Greens mining spokesman Jeremy Buckingham says the application should be rejected. "This fracking will occur within 600 metres of residential areas in Gloucester - that's outrageous," he said. "The people of New South Wales need to be protected from coal seam gas and Barry O'Farrell has to deliver on his promise to create exclusion zones that apply for everyone. "The Greens believe that approval of this fracking would break Barry O'Farrell's clear promise to keep CSG away from people's homes." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/agl-seeks-permission-to-frack-hunter-valley-wells/4993280 Could you please explain how this equates to your topic title which states "Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes"?

Hi Lisa,
The aquifers join up for hundreds of miles  & may very well be under homes.

Fracking?

Only in ALP electorates!

aquascoot wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:36am:

The USA has fracced its way to energy security  (quite amazing). ;)

Yes the very long term environmental risks lost out completely to the very short term benefit for very great financial rewards for very few.

Sometimes the way the Rights brains don't work is amazing.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:18pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 3:11pm: ____ wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 6:10am: AGL seeks permission to begin fracking CSG pilot wells near Gloucester in the NSW Hunter If the State Government approves the application it will be the first time fracture stimulation, known as fracking, has been allowed since a moratorium was imposed in 2011. Greens mining spokesman Jeremy Buckingham says the application should be rejected. "This fracking will occur within 600 metres of residential areas in Gloucester - that's outrageous," he said. "The people of New South Wales need to be protected from coal seam gas and Barry O'Farrell has to deliver on his promise to create exclusion zones that apply for everyone. "The Greens believe that approval of this fracking would break Barry O'Farrell's clear promise to keep CSG away from people's homes." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/agl-seeks-permission-to-frack-hunter-valley-wells/4993280 Could you please explain how this equates to your topic title which states "Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes"? Hi Lisa, The aquifers join up for hundreds of miles  & may very well be under homes.

Really?

If this is indeed the case, then it's a definite worry as far as I'm concerned.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 3:18pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 3:11pm: ____ wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 6:10am: AGL seeks permission to begin fracking CSG pilot wells near Gloucester in the NSW Hunter If the State Government approves the application it will be the first time fracture stimulation, known as fracking, has been allowed since a moratorium was imposed in 2011. Greens mining spokesman Jeremy Buckingham says the application should be rejected. "This fracking will occur within 600 metres of residential areas in Gloucester - that's outrageous," he said. "The people of New South Wales need to be protected from coal seam gas and Barry O'Farrell has to deliver on his promise to create exclusion zones that apply for everyone. "The Greens believe that approval of this fracking would break Barry O'Farrell's clear promise to keep CSG away from people's homes." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/agl-seeks-permission-to-frack-hunter-valley-wells/4993280 Could you please explain how this equates to your topic title which states "Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes"? Hi Lisa, The aquifers join up for hundreds of miles  & may very well be under homes. Really? If this is indeed the case, then it's a definite worry as far as I'm concerned.

Yes Lisa,
a great worry to be polluting aquifers that have supplied spring water
for drinking for millions of years.

The hysteria about hydraulic fracturing mirrors that of anthropogenic global warming.  It's just anti-corporatism in the guise of environmentalism.  AKA Eco-socialism

It's a commie cult.   >:(

Spain had to halt fracking after numerous minor earthquakes --- and their fracking facility is 18 miles off the coast

UK had to halt fracking after numerous minor earthquakes.  Only two or three quakes was enough to have the people up in arms.  The fracking corporations are putting the heavies on the UK govt. but the people aren't in the mood

Canada - same.  And now the orchestrators of the nefarious trade-agreements are suing the Canadian govt. for billions

US -- everyone already knows the damage fracking has done

Australia -- fracking murderers are making threats to farmers who complain by flying low-level over farms prior, one supposes, to making complainants suicide themselves via six broken arms before ripping out their own tongues and shooting themselves multiple times in back of head

Campbelltown Sydney: Landcom sold land then it was learned deals had already been done to frack the area

The reality is this:  it doesn't matter what Abbott and the Libs promise.  Their promises are cynical and worthless in the extreme.  Because once Abbott the Jesuit has signed Australia up to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, it will all be undone and the Libs will stand there pretending to wring their hands and whining that it's not their fault - they were overruled by Malaysia and US and Chile and other members of the TPPA

Only 5 of the 27 clauses in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement relate to trade.  All the rest are agreements for the TPPA to ride roughshod over Aussie legislation and any politician who pokes his head above the parapet.  In effect, Australia will be ruled by and subject to laws imposed by the members of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement


Abbott to Sign Highly Secretive TPP This Month
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/business/abbott-set-to-sign-secretive-tpp-agreement-this-month/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

http://occupytppa.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-TPPA-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Agreement/171742532857103

http://www.exposethetpp.org/

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17472-stopping-the-tpp-a-victory-in-the-global-revolt-against-corporate-domination

http://interoccupy.net/stoptpp/

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/4/a_corporate_trojan_horse_obama_pushes

PZ547 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

Abbott to Sign Highly Secretive TPP This Month

If its a secret just how do all these commie sites know about it? :-?

Swagman wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

PZ547 wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 1:21pm: Abbott to Sign Highly Secretive TPP This Month If its a secret just how do all these commie sites know about it? :-?

Guess it all flew by you, huh ?

You don't partake of international news?  You prefer Big Brother and free porn?

Too bad brother.  There are millions out there right now, alerting the world to this traitorous Agreement which Abbott is determined to sell us out to

It's all over the place, except, apparently, for your little closeted world


So why don't you grab a free education right now and browse the sites I've put up for you

After all, the free porn will be gone under the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

Gone will be freedom of speech

Gone will be an open internet

Gone will be Aussie laws

Gone will be current prices for medicines

Gone will be all the rights you currently enjoy

and you'll be subject to arbitrary 'decisions' imposed by Chile, Japan, Malaysia, the US and all the rest, who will have the power to override all Aussie laws and legislation

you'll be a number

a number without rights, without a voice, without access to anything other than what Chile, Malaysia, the US and the other 'partners' permit you

and the Aussie government will be less than a lapdog

less than a figure of speech

The Aussie government will not protect you -- will not be able to protect you

if you cross one of the many lines in the sand Malaysia or any of the other tyrants decide to impose

You could even be extradited to face random charges levied against you by some puissant 'member' of the TPPA

and all the solicitors and AGs in Australia will not lift a finger to help, because they won't have ANY power to do so


So go on -- do yourself a favour and take a little peek at the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement -- if not for your own sake, then do it for those kids you might have out there somewhere, and their kids, and theirs

Abbott to Sign Highly Secretive TPP This Month
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/business/abbott-set-to-sign-secretive-tpp-agreement-this-month/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

http://occupytppa.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-TPPA-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Agreement/171742532857103

http://www.exposethetpp.org/

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17472-stopping-the-tpp-a-victory-in-the-global-revolt-against-corporate-domination

http://interoccupy.net/stoptpp/

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/4/a_corporate_trojan_horse_obama_pushes


Plenty more sources out there if these aren't to your taste.  They were plucked at random

Go to Facebook or just Google it


Abbott you bastard traitor.  Begone !

Quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/federal-intervention-to-kickstart-nsw-csg-sector/4982316 The Federal Government says it is intervening to fast-track coal seam gas (CSG) projects in New South Wales in response to the state's "gas crisis". Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane has warned that thousands of jobs could be lost and gas prices could spike in the state if moves are not taken to unlock CSG reserves. Speaking at an "energy security summit" of gas industry stakeholders in Sydney on Thursday, he said he wanted to see more CSG rigs in place "by Christmas". He said he had spoken to Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell about ways to overcome resistance to CSG drilling from farmers and other landowners.

The different approach between CSG and wind turbines says a lot about the Coalition OMO!!!


Quote:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/insight-australias-wind-energy-setback-tracing-origins-of-2km-rule-26731 Under a policy brought in as an election promise in Victoria, turbines are banned from being constructed within 2km of residences, unless there is a written agreement with the relevant landowners. The Clean Energy Council, which was not consulted on Victoria’s setback law, has never seen any evidence of why a 2km zone was chosen. “We have not seen any scientific evidence – other than the Victoria government saying it wants to re-balance the planning system – of why a 2km setback has been imposed,” Russell Marsh, policy director at the Clean Energy Council, told RenewEconomy. Ken McAlpine, Asia-Pacific director of policy and government relations at Vestas, said the company does not support arbitrary limits. “Projects should be judged on their merits. There’s a big difference between a kilometre away on dead flat land and a kilometre away from turbine sitting on a hill,” he said. NSW is also proposing to ban the construction of wind turbines within 2km of residences unless there is written agreement from relevant landowners or unless permitted via a “gateway process”.

So for CSG landowners have no say what happens on their land but for wind turbines a resident can have it stopped within 2km.....WTF???

>:( >:( >:(

PZ547 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:42pm:

There are millions out there right now, alerting the world to this traitorous Agreement which Abbott is determined to sell us out to

TPP

Your own link reports that the socalled secret TPP has been in negotiation by Australia since 2008 :o

WTF has Abbott got to do with it?

Seepage of non corrosive waste through fracking processes has decreased by over 80% in the last 2 years.
It's not 100% safe but nothing in life is.

Fracking of gas however gives a ready energy source at a far cheaper gross margin to Australians than solar power and will help provide further power for decades.

Australia will see further fracking, certainly from my employer and you won't even notice the change.

Let's not let common sense get in the way of hysteria.

Swagman wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

The hysteria about hydraulic fracturing mirrors that of anthropogenic global warming.  It's just anti-corporatism in the guise of environmentalism.  AKA Eco-socialism It's a commie cult.   >:(

make sure to keep one eye open when you sleep Swagman. The commies are under your bed.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

Swagman wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 10:31am: The hysteria about hydraulic fracturing mirrors that of anthropogenic global warming.  It's just anti-corporatism in the guise of environmentalism.  AKA Eco-socialism It's a commie cult.   >:( make sure to keep one eye open when you sleep Swagman. The commies are under your bed.

...I'll have to throw a bit of ratsak under there then... ;D

http://www2.woolworthsonline.com.au/Content/ProductImages/big/001999.jpg

Let me reiterate :


How we  be sure that radioactivity & chemical poisons won't end up in our food?

Fracking is a crazy idea.

flip page

We are going to frack for gas.

Thats that.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

Let me reiterate : How we  be sure that radioactivity & chemical poisons won't end up in our food? Fracking is a crazy idea.

It is a crazy idea

but it can and probably will be stopped

just as it's being stopped overseas


Not without a fight, grant you

But the effect of fracking on even the most apathetic Aussie will result in open warfare resulting in the corporate frackers having to fold their carpet bags and pizz off

PZ547 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 9:57am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 9:47pm: Let me reiterate : How we  be sure that radioactivity & chemical poisons won't end up in our food? Fracking is a crazy idea. It is a crazy idea but it can and probably will be stopped just as it's being stopped overseas Not without a fight, grant you But the effect of fracking on even the most apathetic Aussie will result in open warfare resulting in the corporate frackers having to fold their carpet bags and pizz off

The French have banned it & I hope other smart countries will follow suit.

Swagman wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:41am:

Quote: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes A touch untruthful Greenone.... Oh look......the article also says [quote]The state's Office of Coal Seam Gas says AGL's application will be assessed on its merits. Its Director Rachel Connell says the application will be subject to a series of benchmarks to assess its impact on the surrounding area. "There are very well-defined benchmarks in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which have to be assessed and in the code of practice for fracture stimulation," she said. "So one of the issues that will be examined closely is potential impacts on ground water."

And


Quote:

The [LIBERAL NSW STATE] government released a new code of practice for the procedure in September last year and strengthened it in February to include a two-kilometre buffer zone around residential areas.

If as Jeremy Buckingham says it is 600m from residential areas (and has proof) then it's within the buffer and all the 'whoo howling' from the Greens is just political spin.


Quote:

The people of New South Wales need to be protected from coal seam gas

That from Buckingham is an outright lie.

CSG has it's place and can provide abundant energy, reduced CO2 emissions,  increased wealth and tax revenues and jobs for the people of NSW.  Ruling it out entirely is just typical of the stupid and radical policy platforms of the Green party. [/quote]

Don't be so fickle !! That just means a brown paper bag with some cash in it  handed under the table will get the paper work done quicker.  Why do the fiberals pretend to be innocent when it comes to corrupt business practices ?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

Let me reiterate : How we  be sure that radioactivity & chemical poisons won't end up in our food? .

By reasonable responsible regulation of the production methods to ensure adequate protection for the environment and produce as much energy as possible. :-?

Swagman wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:26am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 9:47pm: Let me reiterate : How we  be sure that radioactivity & chemical poisons won't end up in our food? . By reasonable responsible regulation of the production methods to ensure adequate protection for the environment and produce as much energy as possible. :-?

LOL ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Swagman wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:26am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 9:47pm: Let me reiterate : How we  be sure that radioactivity & chemical poisons won't end up in our food? . By reasonable responsible regulation of the production methods to ensure adequate protection for the environment and produce as much energy as possible. :-?

We'll need to buy a Geiger counter to check our food.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Geiger-Counter-ionized-radiation-detector-Radalert-100-/121162146423?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item1c35d3a277

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:17am:

PZ547 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 9:57am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 9:47pm: Let me reiterate : How we  be sure that radioactivity & chemical poisons won't end up in our food? Fracking is a crazy idea. It is a crazy idea but it can and probably will be stopped just as it's being stopped overseas Not without a fight, grant you But the effect of fracking on even the most apathetic Aussie will result in open warfare resulting in the corporate frackers having to fold their carpet bags and pizz off The French have banned it & I hope other smart countries will follow suit.

Yes, they're all banning it, Bobby


Fracking has caused demonstrable and alarming damage wherever it's been allowed

Spain, the UK, Canada (right now), the US and more have given it the thumbs-down and rightly so.  Fracking is insane, short-term greed and wanton destruction

Alan Jones has an audio up concerning gas-fracking scum using light planes to terrorise farmers who've stood up to them.  Imagine that -- they're using light planes on farmers because those farmers went on tv and showed how their tap water has been rendered flammable by gas fracking

Youtube has plenty of evidence

People in Canada right now are being arrested and beaten for standing against gas-fracking

Soon, it will be Aussies' turn.  And I hope a lot of us are there, voicing our opposition

PZ547 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:17am: PZ547 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 9:57am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 9:47pm: Let me reiterate : How can we  be sure that radioactivity & chemical poisons won't end up in our food? Fracking is a crazy idea. It is a crazy idea but it can and probably will be stopped just as it's being stopped overseas Not without a fight, grant you But the effect of fracking on even the most apathetic Aussie will result in open warfare resulting in the corporate frackers having to fold their carpet bags and pizz off The French have banned it & I hope other smart countries will follow suit. Yes, they're all banning it, Bobby Fracking has caused demonstrable and alarming damage wherever it's been allowed Spain, the UK, Canada (right now), the US and more have given it the thumbs-down and rightly so.  Fracking is insane, short-term greed and wanton destruction Alan Jones has an audio up concerning gas-fracking scum using light planes to terrorise farmers who've stood up to them.  Imagine that -- they're using light planes on farmers because those farmers went on tv and showed how their tap water has been rendered flammable by gas fracking Youtube has plenty of evidence People in Canada right now are being arrested and beaten for standing against gas-fracking Soon, it will be Aussies' turn.  And I hope a lot of us are there, voicing our opposition

It's as bad as in a war where troops poison the water wells of their enemies.

How would you like a radioactive beverage which glows in the dark?

.

I can tell you now, Bobby

the only stuff that glows in the dark which I'm prepared to drink

is Tonic Water



I'm on your side

Fracking stinks


It shatters the ground, for one thing.  Once shattered, there's no putting it back together again

Fracking causes earthquakes.  Proven

What they pump into the ground to shatter it, emerges as poisons in water supplies and kills or maims everything in sight

by which time, the fracking demons have shot through, giggling all the way to the bank

It's so serious an issue, I'm in favour of killing gas frackers

because they're murderers guilty of premeditated murder


Should I say more

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 1:22pm:

How would you like a radioactive beverage which glows in the dark?

Nuka-Cola Quantum? :)

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:26am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 9:47pm: Let me reiterate : How we  be sure that radioactivity & chemical poisons won't end up in our food? . By reasonable responsible regulation of the production methods to ensure adequate protection for the environment and produce as much energy as possible. :-? We'll need to buy a Geiger counter to check our food. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Geiger-Counter-ionized-radiation-detector-Radalert-100-/121162146423?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item1c35d3a277

Get one and make sure you test that pork chop you are carry on like....

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.4802704.0990/sticker,375x360.png

We have $300m revenue earmarked in 2014 from gas out of Australia.

Regulations and safeguards ensure environment concerns remain a part of the process.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 5:32pm:

We have $300m revenue earmarked in 2014 from gas out of Australia. Regulations and safeguards ensure environment concerns remain a part of the process.

Really Andrei?.

Tell me how you can fix a damaged underground aquifer that
is now supplying radioactive & chemically polluted water?

flip page

It is a total lie to call any gas derived from Hydraulic Coal Seam Gas extraction as "NATURAL". This is an industry that ai all about quick export profits at the expense of private property rights & the environment. There is no scientific procedure known to man that can control the movement of gas & the water contaminated with toxic chemicals from moving through the earth once the fracture is made. These wells have a 1 in 5 failure rate from new & have greater failure rates as they age .... up to 25 %. Do some research on what's going on in the US. It's an environmental catastrophe ...... look what has happened in Colorado with the flooding of gas wells(1000's of them) built on flood plains. We will definitely know what living in an arid country is if the Great Artesian Basin is compromised/contaminated by this stupid process. Fracking should not be allowed to happen anywhere near Gloucester nor in what's left of any agricultural land in the Hunter Valley. What agricultural land we are not selling to the Indonesians, Indians, Chinese & Arabs for their food security(not ours) we are setting up for destruction from CSG exploitation. Short term gain = long term pain. Fracking is not & never will be green energy. It is a far bigger polluter than coal mining & produces far far more emissions of green house & other dangerous colourless & odourless gases.

The latest testing results carried out on what we can upstream seepage of corrosive liquids as part of the fracking and catchment of gas have shown that the reduction rate is 180% on the inital tests 3 years ago.

Essentially we are now only likely to see seepage in less than 0.0001% of the catchment of the gas and even then it is less likely to go into water sourcing to urban areas.

The tests that we did - along with Texaco, Exxon, Shell and BP all confirmed like-for-like results if you follow the new protocol of installing outlet piping at every other stage of the upstream processing.

The AU Government is also looking at re-installing the 25% tax credit to energy companies on fracking if we can prove that the gas will provide AU jobs and sourcing for the region.
Something the last Government removed without any consultation with industry.

Australians want energy, they want cheaper energy and they want safety. We are getting close to providing all three with fracking within Australian waters.

..It is a total lie to call any gas derived from Hydraulic Coal Seam Gas extraction as "NATURAL".


_____________________________________


Nothing is natural.
Deep sea drilling and extraction is also not natural - we still do it.

You want energy?

Then we have to go and get it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 11:24pm:

The latest testing results carried out on what we can upstream seepage of corrosive liquids as part of the fracking and catchment of gas have shown that the reduction rate is 180% on the inital tests 3 years ago. Essentially we are now only likely to see seepage in less than 0.0001% of the catchment of the gas and even then it is less likely to go into water sourcing to urban areas. The tests that we did - along with Texaco, Exxon, Shell and BP all confirmed like-for-like results if you follow the new protocol of installing outlet piping at every other stage of the upstream processing. The AU Government is also looking at re-installing the 25% tax credit to energy companies on fracking if we can prove that the gas will provide AU jobs and sourcing for the region. Something the last Government removed without any consultation with industry. Australians want energy, they want cheaper energy and they want safety. We are getting close to providing all three with fracking within Australian waters.

what do you think most Australians will say if you asked them if they wanted fracking?

Why don't you try asking them what they want, and work towards that,  instead of telling them?

Its not the job of us as a company to ask Australians what they want.

We're not the Government and we don't answer to the people. We answer to laws and we answer to our shareholders.

We work WITH the AU Government who set down regulations that we need to fulfill and which we do.

Don't think for a moment, safety and the envionrment is not at the forefront of our concern. They are posters in our offices reminding us of the job we have to do to leave the planet in the way we should.

Australians though want cheaper energy - fracking is a way to get that.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 11:31pm:

Its not the job of us as a company to ask Australians what they want. then why did you say we want it? We're not the Government and we don't answer to the people. We answer to laws and we answer to our shareholders. We work WITH the AU Government who set down regulations that we need to fulfill and which we do. Don't think for a moment, safety and the envionrment is not at the forefront of our concern. They are posters in our offices reminding us of the job we have to do to leave the planet in the way we should. Australians though want cheaper energy - fracking is a way to get that. there you are telling them what they want again

We didn't say they want it.

If you asked Australians if they want deep-sea drilling off the shores off Australia - which we are doing right now - reckon they will say yes?

If you asked Aussies if they want us to drill anywhere near them - reckon they say yes?

However listen to the nation scream and squeal with they try and turn on the lights or start their cars and they dont work because you have no fricken power....

Let me guess - its alright to do it elsewhere though?

You want gas? You want cheap energy? Then STFU and let us drill for it and we'll get it.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 6:16pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 5:32pm: We have $300m revenue earmarked in 2014 from gas out of Australia. Regulations and safeguards ensure environment concerns remain a part of the process. Really Andrei?. Tell me how you can fix a damaged underground aquifer that is now supplying radioactive & chemically polluted water?

The answer is that neither Andrei, nor those involved in Fracking have any interest in those issues, their interest is purely in making Money, NOW!

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 12:11am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 6:16pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 5:32pm: We have $300m revenue earmarked in 2014 from gas out of Australia. Regulations and safeguards ensure environment concerns remain a part of the process. Really Andrei?. Tell me how you can fix a damaged underground aquifer that is now supplying radioactive & chemically polluted water? The answer is that neither Andrei, nor those involved in Fracking have any interest in those issues, their interest is purely in making Money, NOW!

Andrei doesn't care if the water supply from aquifers is ruined
for the next 10,000 years as long as money goes into his pocket now.

Greed is good - or so they say.

Quote:

The USA has fracced its way to energy security  (quite amazing). with the litigious nature of the yanks, if there were major problmes, some erin brockovich type drama -queen would be all over it. seems it is probably reasonably safe.

Totally delusional.... they are destroying their environment. Besides that this gas is not for domestic use, especially here in Australia .... it's totally for export to Asia for SFA a litre. It is all about quick profits... the jobs are only short term in the construction phase ....

Quote:

The tests that we did - along with Texaco, Exxon, Shell and BP all confirmed like-for-like results if you follow the new protocol of installing outlet piping at every other stage of the upstream processing.

Who is "we"? as for Texaco, Exxon, Shell & BP doing tesing... nothing like industry self regulation for open, honest & transparent research ;D .... BP's record in the last decade is appalling ..& Exxons credibility is impeccable just like Shell ey? What a load of toss. Fracking is lunacy.

I'm not sure about other places in Australia but the Victorian Liberal government will not approve any fracking at the moment.

I'd have to say that I totally agree with Bobby and Gnads that it looks like these greedy international companies are prepared to poison our water supplies just to take a quick buck out of our country then leave us with the mess which will end up costing us Billion.

We'd have to be insane to let this happen in our country.

It's insanity, we will have to end up importing our water from Kenya or some other place.

It's a short term, get rich quick scam that will have long lasting consequences.

Lock the Gate Alliance is a huge social movement against coal seam gas exploration.

They have been successful in stopping three major projects in their tracks in northern NSW. People from all walks of life have joined the march against CSG, there's no left or right here, politics doesn't enter into it, it's about the future of our country.

To date 18,000 wells have been approved in Qld with tens of thousands more to come.

Who will benefit from this rape of scenic, agricultural and heritage land? The destruction of our underground and above ground water? The destruction of farming land, our cattle industry? Who will benefit?

Very few. The gas is exported, Australians will continue to pay high prices for gas.

All the mining in Australia employs 2% of the workforce, so there's few jobs coming out of it.

The CSG and other mining industries will occupy 53% of Australia within the next few decades, that's 17 times the size of Great Britain.

This is Greed Inc. gone mad.

Watch this video if you have children or grand children growing up in this country. You will be shocked at the sheer enormity of CSG operations in Australia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KRB_MrVgjQ

http://www.activityireland.com/wp-content/uploads/cartoon-fracking-explained.jpg

Hush, then - it can come in twice:-   (see if I care!)


http://www.activityireland.com/wp-content/uploads/cartoon-fracking-explained.jpg

Frack this system sometimes - says it's posted and it goes into the ether...

We need more energy, fracking (which is much improved on extraction processing) is a solution to this.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 9:48pm:

We need more energy, fracking (which is much improved on extraction processing) is a solution to this.

Why?  We are running dry on energy - the fracked energy is for transportation for the term of its natural life - why not let the Gypos frack their own backyard?

This isn't going to be much benefit to the Australian economy unless WE use it and allow them the leftovers.

Do you see the Saudis gouging their own people to send revenue gathering petrol overseas? 

http://www.mytravelcost.com/Saudi-Arabia/gas-prices/

So - what is the issue here?  ARE we getting first bite at the cherry, like the Saudis, and eat as much as we want and need here in Oz at lower prices than we pay now for natural gas, since all that extra volume will lower unit price? 

Or is it going overseas for profit for the few - again?  Same old story - Australians will pay through the nose for their own resources while fifty exporters make their dollars.

This is all sounding remarkably like the good old 'Australia produces 92% of its own petrol' - while the price soared and we paid 'world parity prices' to suit government tax levels, as well as the North West Shelf - 2c a litre to Japan - yond motorist here pays 90c a litre to pump it in his car.

Based on the figures shown about 2% employment created by this ripping of the earth without direct benefit to us in lower prices and distribution of cheap energy and materials to US  - what possible reason would we have to agree to it?

No wonder the Australian people have never been asked.

More on fracking



Fracking to blame? Texas rocked by 16 earthquakes in last 3 weeks

Northern Texas towns are experiencing an intense string of earthquakes – the last of which was one of the most powerful in 5 years. As unusual tremors have been going on for over 3 weeks now, many suspect fracking might be to blame.

On Thursday, the region experienced two tremors, with one of them registering 3.6 magnitude, 55 km west of the town of Azle at 07:58:36 GMT, as recorded by the US Geological Service, and the other 2.8 at 08:41:07 GMT, with the epicenter not far from the first one. USGS records show that the 3.6 tremor was one of the strongest earthquakes to hit the region in 5 years.

On Thursday, the region experienced two tremors, with one of them registering 3.6 magnitude, 55 km west of the town of Azle at 07:58:36 GMT, as recorded by the US Geological Service, and the other 2.8 at 08:41:07 GMT, with the epicenter not far from the first one. USGS records show that the 3.6 tremor was one of the strongest earthquakes to hit the region in 5 years.

“It sounded like a sonic boom, and then the house started shaking,” Keith Krayer, a local resident who felt the effects of the quake, told RT.

Krayer said he had no doubt the quake was sparked by fracking. “When they frack, they inject all that water and chemicals into the ground, then they pump it back up and separate the gas from the water, then they have to dispose of that water 13,000 feet down. It causes the plates to slip, the lubrication from the water.”

Residents like Krayer are having their nerves put to the test as the region chalked up its 16th this month. In the last four days, there have been six recorded quakes.

Between 1970 and 2007, the area around the Texas town of Azle (pop. 10,000) experienced just two earthquakes. The peace and quiet began to change, however, at the start of 2008, when 74 minor quakes were reported in the region.

Now an increasing number of people, including scientists, are speculating that natural gas production by fracking - a process that forces high pressure water and chemicals into rock in order to extract natural gas reserves - is the culprit. The problem, however, is proving the claims.

Cliff Frolich, earthquake researcher at the University of Texas, said waste water injection wells from fracking could be responsible for the recent spate of earthquake activity.

"I'd say it certainly looks very possible that the earthquakes are related to injection wells," he said in an interview with KHOU television.

Frolich left room for doubt when he said thousands of such wells have operated in Texas for decades with no quakes anywhere near them.

Frolich co-authored a 2009 study on earthquake activity near Cleburne, just south of Azle, which concluded: "The possibility exists that earthquakes may be related to fluid injection."
A recent government study lent credence to Frolich’s findings.

The use of underground storage wells to get rid of waste water produced by fracking is “almost certainly” to blame for the jump in earthquakes in Midwestern states in recent years, a recent Geological Survey study has found.

The report said the number of magnitude-3 earthquakes or greater occurring in the mid-region of North America surged from 29 in 2008 to 134 last year.

The USGS study pointed to an unusual surge in tremors near wastewater wells in many US states, including Arkansas, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma and Ohio.

http://rt.com/usa/texas-fracking-earthquakes-azle-445/

STOP FRACKING AROUND NOW!

Massachusetts seeks 10-yr ban on gas fracking after series of Texas quakes

An environmental committee at Massachusetts Statehouse has approved a bill, imposing a 10-year ban on fracking for natural gas. The move comes as a wave of earthquakes in Texas has raised new concerns over the controversial drilling technique.

The Massachusetts fracking moratorium bill is designed to protect the state’s drinking water from possible contamination and thus "ensure that the health and prosperity of our communities is maintained," according to one of the legislation's sponsors, Northampton Democratic state Rep. Peter Kocot, cited by AP.

Anti-fracking sentiment grows among Texans


The smell of chemicals preceded the series of Texas tremors, according to Rebecca Williams, a resident in the town of Azle, which was affected by the most powerful earthquake so far in the series.

“We could not figure out where the chemicals were coming from,” Williams told RT. “Then we started having the earthquakes. The earthquakes seemed to be getting stronger. When the 3.6 one happened I tried to get up and run downstairs and my house was shaking so bad, I could not even run.”

http://rt.com/usa/fracking-texas-activists-concerned-510/

Fracking process refinement and causative losses have improved by over 90% in less than 2 years.
This isn't anymore dangerous than offshore deepdive drill techniques.

Don't believe the usual scare stories from the usual sources.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 6:34am:

Fracking process refinement and causative losses have improved by over 90% in less than 2 years. This isn't anymore dangerous than offshore deepdive drill techniques. Don't believe the usual scare stories from the usual sources.

Ok, I'll just believe the hard evidence, which is freaking disastrous.