Cost of energy and the cost of living crisis.

[Thomas]

No expertise necessary.  (You may not be aware the only two gas fracking wells in Britain has just been capped off with concrete,)
Announcement accompanied by the usual factually inaccurate propaganda:-

https://cuadrillaresources.uk/government-orders-plugging-and-abandonment-of-britains-shale-wells-in-midst-of-energy-crisis/

I thought you said they ony had enough for five years?

From your link pappy...


It means the 37.6 trillion cubic metres located in the northern Bowland Shale gas formation will continue to sit unused – when just 10% of this volume could meet UK gas needs for 50 years.

[Barry]

The government do not appear to be having second thoughts at all, a few rebel Tories are complaining.

You've figured out that it hasn't been done yet. Good.

[Thomas]

I bet you they haven't been plugged just yet. By the way, your own link says that gas would be good for 50 years.
Maybe you don't trust your link or didn't read it all.

just about to say that barry. Pappy smurf posts link and doesnt read content shocker yet again.

[Thomas]

Without having looked deeply into the arguments for and against fracking, I will not comment for or against it and am open to persuasion either way.

But whilst having not really found the time to look at what either of those two sources has to say about it, I can state with reasonable confidence that whatever the British Geological survey has to say about it is going to be far more reliable and factually accurate than anything said in the Daily Mail. And that's because the former is a reasonably reliable fact checking source whilst the latter is notoriously unreliable, often putting political agendas above factual accuracy. The Mail has been successfully sued for damages numerous times in it's history. This has not yet happened to the British geological survey.

So those hoping to persuade me are best advised to link to facts from reliable sources, and avoid relying on links to the Daily Mail. Because if the latter is the best they can do it will only cast more doubt upon the veracity of their argument rather than reinforcing it.

Im not here to convince you either for or against fracking steve , for two main reasons.

1. I couldnt really care less wether you support or are against fracking.

2. I strongly suspect this is another deabte that would throw common sense and reasoned debate out the windae in favour of ideological blinkers.

Some poor bugger struggling to afford to heat his house doesnt really care wether he gets his energy from a windfarm , fracking for shale gas in lancashire or vladimir putin.

As for the daily mail article , and andrew neil , if you can put your prejudice against neil and the mail to the side for a moment as i have done( neil is no friend to my politics nor is his paper) and actually read his argument in the article rather than dismissing him out of hand , i think you will see he makes a reasonable point.

I simply linked his article on this thread to show that yet again pappy is talking out his arse , nothing new there  , regarding only five years supply of shale gas .

The british geological survey say this on estimates of shale gas

The Bowland Shale Formation is not restricted to the onshore environment; the basins extend offshore beneath the Southern North Sea and the East Irish Sea.

Andrews (2013) estimated a total gas-in-place estimate for the Bowland Shale Formation and Hodder Mudstone Formation between 822 and 2281 trillion cubic feet (tcf). As a comparison, the total gas consumption in 2018 in the UK was 2.98 tcf. Since then, other estimates have suggested the total gas-in-place volume could be considerably less (around 140 tcf; Whitelaw et al., 2019).
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/geology-projects/shale-gas/shale-gas-in-the-uk/

For comparison , neil says this in his article..

. The Bowland Field in Lancashire harbours 37.6 trillion cubic metres of the stuff. Even if we were to extract only 10 per cent of it — through a process called fracking — we'd have enough gas to be self-sufficient for 50 years.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10503839/ANDREW-NEIL-madness-ignore-answer-energy-crisis-thats-lying-feet.html

Neils estimate is even more modest than the surveys reported by the BGS , and as you can see , they all far exceed the 5 years supply of gas pappy is waffling about.

[papasmurf]

Typical.
Read your own link. It has not been done yet, and would be very stupid considering that the government are having second thoughts.

The government do not appear to be having second thoughts at all, a few rebel Tories are complaining.

[Barry]

Already posted.

Typical.
Read your own link. It has not been done yet, and would be very stupid considering that the government are having second thoughts.

[papasmurf]

Proof with a link?

Already posted.

[Barry]

 The wells have been plugged with concrete.

Proof with a link? 

[papasmurf]

I bet you they haven't been plugged just yet. By the way, your own link says that gas would be good for 50 years.
Maybe you don't trust your link or didn't read it all.

That 50 years is propaganda from the fracking company.  The wells have been plugged with concrete.

[Barry]

No expertise necessary.  (You may not be aware the only two gas fracking wells in Britain has just been capped off with concrete,)
Announcement accompanied by the usual factually inaccurate propaganda:-

https://cuadrillaresources.uk/government-orders-plugging-and-abandonment-of-britains-shale-wells-in-midst-of-energy-crisis/

I bet you they haven't been plugged just yet. By the way, your own link says that gas would be good for 50 years.
Maybe you don't trust your link or didn't read it all.

[cromwell]

No they haven't or the worries about the damage to rural roads and rural areas and the cost to taxpayers of cleaning up when the companies fail. (The so called "orphan wells" problem.)

So you have told us why it's all the tories fault (it is partly) do you have any solutions?

[Sheepy]

Well as this crisis has deepened and so many more find out the harsh reality between Heating and Eating somebody is going to have to get it right for once. 

[papasmurf]

So your worries about <2M earthquakes in the North of England have evaporated, have they.

No they haven't or the worries about the damage to rural roads and rural areas and the cost to taxpayers of cleaning up when the companies fail. (The so called "orphan wells" problem.)

[Barry]

The elephant in the room with fracking in Britain is to guarantee any gas produced is used to supply the domestic market would require it to be nationalised.

So your worries about <2M earthquakes in the North of England have evaporated, have they. It never was a good argument. Even if the gas was only good for 5 years, it would give us some breathing space until we can get more nuclear or alternative technologies, (fusion?) online.
Land would have to be landscaped afterwards.

[papasmurf]

Without having looked deeply into the arguments for and against fracking, I will not comment for or against it and am open to persuasion either way.

The elephant in the room with fracking in Britain is to guarantee any gas produced is used to supply the domestic market would require it to be nationalised.