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

Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes

And the lefts has a sexual obsession ????

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

You've been a touch untruthful yourself, methinks.


Quote:

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

Quote:

That, from you, is an outright lie.

Buckingham is stating an OPINION.

Quote:

That is debatable.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

To whose profit? The government of Singapore?

Quote:

I thought you were against the carbon tax? 

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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.

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


Really, how?

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


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:


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

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


So debate it.

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


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:


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:


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'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:


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:


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

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


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 

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.

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.