Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

UKIP`s totally inconsistent environmental policy

On 28 Sep 2013 at 3:16am I don`t get it wrote:
UKIP Campaign to Protect British Greenbelt countryside and wildlife for future generations to enjoy
This page aims to campaign for the protection of greenbelt within the UK.
"UKIP aims to Introduce management of Green Belt land by elected ‘Green Belt Conservators’, like National Park managers, to vigorously conserve the environment while allowing appropriate economic activity, amenities and housing supply."
In UK town planning, a surrounding area of countryside or 'green belt' is used to control urban growth and building. This ensures that there is an 'open' area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be undertaken and enjoyed.
Under government policy of uncontrolled immigration, there is an ever-increasing need for housing due to overcrowding despite the infrastructure not being in place to cope. UKIP believe that this is unsustainable, and wish to build within the areas that are already urbanised in order to protect our countryside.
If you feel the same way, regardless of the party you support, please join us in preserving our countryside for future generations to come.
Donna Edmunds, UKIP It's UKIP policy to support fracking. I quote from our policy document, 'Keeping the Lights On':
"Shale Gas: America is reported to have reserves of shale gas for up to 500 years. Already gas prices in the USA have roughly
halved. America is looking forward to a new industrial renaissance based on cheap, indigenous natural gas. It will become increasingly difficult for the EU, with its expensive renewables, to compete with the US with shale gas, and India and China with cheap coal-fired electricity.
Shale Gas in Britain and Europe: It’s early days, but there are believed to be large commercial deposits of shale gas in the UK, especially in the North West, but also across the Midlands. So far the government is sounding equivocal on shale gas. It should be pressing for urgent development.
Fracking: The techniques for recovering shale gas have been developed largely in the US, and are well understood. Needless to say there have been scare stories and black propaganda from the green lobby, which seems to be opposed to just
about every viable energy technology. So we need to get the facts straight. We see lurid headlines about “earthquakes”. In fact fracking occasionally produces minor tremors, comparable to those caused by coal-mining, and almost indistinguishable from natural low-level seismic activity. We hear about possible pollution of aquifers and the water table.
But fracking takes place much deeper than the water table, and leakage risks are minimal. Meantime stories of gas igniting from bathroom taps are exaggerated, and cannot be definitely linked to fracking. Let’s be clear: no energy extraction technology is entirely risk-free, but the risks can and must be managed. They are trivial compared to the very real risk of running out of energy and electricity if we fail to adopt new technologies."
On 28 Sep 2013 at 7:08am Local person wrote:
Please don't feel the need to hype up how mad UKIP are. You can more easily present the disturbing self contradictory rubbish that they come out with, and they will do your job for you. Euro-sceptic, Anti-immigration, Donna Edmunds who boasts of her family's rather recent immigration from Russia, being a perfect example.
On 28 Sep 2013 at 12:13pm queequeg wrote:
There is no contradiction in these points of view unless you are unequivocally persuaded against fracking which most here are, in spite of all scientific evidence to the contrary and the fact that hydraulic fracturing has been used without harm in the UK for 40 years.
On 28 Sep 2013 at 2:38pm Deelite 2 wrote:
Don't talk rubbish queequeg. There has only been one frack of the ilk we are taking about here.

A modern frack is up to two (or even four) kilometres deep with multiple horizontal fracks to the same distance radiating outwards. Then 4-6 million gallons of water with (mainly) toxic chemicals to a concentration of 1.5% and sand is injected at an incredibly high pressure in to the well to fracture the shale rock.

All the fracks you are taking about have been a few 100 metres deep with a single short horizontal bore and nothing injected down them at extremely high pressure.

Your fracks and modern fracks are like chalk and cheese.

The only modern frack happened at Blackpool and caused earth tremors.

You then have to add to that that there has never been anything like the concentration of the quaint little fracks you are taking about as we are expecting in our densely populated Sussex (6,700 required to extract the estimates gas reserves).

34% of offshore capped wells have stability problems within the concrete caps. Fracking rigs are covered by the same safety regulations as the offshore rigs. There is no reason to expect that 34% of the inshore ones will not leak too. In fact there is reason to think that a higher percentage will leak as earth tremors are not good for 2-4km deep concrete well linings. The added danger with leaks to the fracked wells of course is not just (climate changing) methane leaking to the surface but the migration of the millions of gallons of toxic chemical solution that each rig leaves under the ground. Migration both to the surface and through the rock strata to the aquifier!

You do realise to that there are no resources to monitor these capped wells and that once the companies exhaust the well and leave they have no duty of care to return to sort out the leaking ones? The result of this will be of course large amounts of leaking wells that we will only know about once people start to get ill (as they have done in the States). This could be decades, even centuries into the future! And of course many more people here will get ill as Sussex is hundreds of times more densely populated than US states such as Pennsylvania.

If you really think that the fracking of the type that is about to descend upon Sussex has been going on for years you need to read up some more.
On 30 Sep 2013 at 11:29am queequeg wrote:
If that was really your only beef then you would be pressing for greater regulation and safety measures. But no. You are against it full stop. As if you never use or benefit from fossil fuel.
On 30 Sep 2013 at 3:22pm Deelite 2 wrote:
No apology for misrepresentation the facts or admission that you were wrong then?

It's not my only beef at all. How long do you have?

Whether I benefit form fossils is neither here nor there. It is time for us to move away from fossils and we can do it. All fracking offers us a speedier path to environmental destruction.

Remind me, what industry do you work in?

31 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



Lewes Arms Lads 55:132
Lewes Arms Lads

Lewes Priory Cricket Club (LPCC) is based at the Stanley Turner Ground, Kingston Road, Lewes (i.e. next to the rugby club). ... more
If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington