More anti-science from the Greens

February 22nd, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Jared Smith at Stuff reports:

Opponents of the oil drilling practice of are unmoved by a report showing the controversial process does not cause earthquakes.

The GNS Science study – commissioned by Taranaki Regional Council – was released yesterday in response to growing public and media scrutiny of fracking.

“There is no evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities in Taranaki between 2000 and mid-2011 have triggered, or have had any observable effect on, natural earthquake activity,” the conclusion states.

Neither would there be any earthquake caused by long-term deep injection activities.

The earthquake study follows TRC’s report last year stating fracking posed no meaningful risk of contaminating Taranaki fresh water.

However, Gareth Hughes, Green Party spokesman on energy and fracking, said the process should be halted “in the interests of caution”, including an investigation by the parliamentary commissioner for the environment.

Once the decide something is bad, no amount of science can convince them otherwise.

TRC’s director of environment quality Gary Bedford said fracking is a slow process and being 4km underground the rock creates a “back pressure”.

“You can’t get a runaway fracking activity,” he said.

Fracking causes a “shift trigger” in the earth of a few millimetres, whereas an earthquake along a fault line would travel hundreds and thousands of miles, Mr Bedford said.

“There’s no sensible comparison between the two.

But plenty of unsensible comparisons.

GNS studied 3300 earthquakes in Taranaki from 2000-2011, focusing on areas within 10km of any fracking location and occurring within three months of fracking activity. Only one quake – at Kaimiro near Inglewood – happened right on the 10km boundary and it happened three months later.

Mr Bedford said Kaimiro was an active fault line and earthquakes had happened before fracking took place there.

Who needs GNS with their scientific witchcraft? How dare they actually do a scientific study? The Greens have spoken and said fracking is bad. It must be stopped immediately, because they know best.

Tags: ,

84 Responses to “More anti-science from the Greens”

  1. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    “Once the Greens decide something is bad, no amount of science can convince them otherwise.”

    So no matter how much logic Magpie includes in his future comments he will never get back on Frogblog.

    How sad. Never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Deniers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Sadu (123 comments) says:

    The statement “there is no evidence that…” is something to be careful with. Just because there is no evidence of my wife cheating, this is not proof that my wife is faithful.

    I don’t think a little bit of caution is an unwise thing. I wouldn’t want it happening in my back yard. Even if fracking is 100% safe, it’s still going to fuck over people’s property values. And that in itself is a reasonable cause for concern by the people it affects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tom hunter (4,004 comments) says:

    It’s time the Greens got some really good scientists on to this.

    By “good” I mean the opposite of “bad” scientists; you know who they are, people undoubtedly on the payroll of Big Oil, or Big Pharma – or maybe even Big Hamburger.

    Once some “good” science has been done it can be released into “peer reviewed” journals from which all the “bad” scientists will have been excluded via the good old process of demonisation. Finally, summaries of these studies can be released to if-it-bleeds-it-leads journalists to be shrink-wrapped further into screaming headlines such SCIENTISTS UNCOVER SECRETS OF OIL EARTHQUAKES!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    I think according to the Gareth Hughes Greens the world should be halted “in the interests of caution”.

    If there is any doubts about the safety of anything it should be banned. Except biking and grandstanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. hj (5,677 comments) says:

    More anti science..

    So what is your point with the Patrick Moore’s environmental beliefs post, since your posts are a bellwether for National Party leaderships aims and ambitions?

    • There is no cause for alarm about climate change. The climate is always changing. Some of the proposed “solutions” would be far worse than any imaginable consequence of global warming, which will likely be mostly positive. Cooling is what we should fear.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/02/patrick_moores_environmental_beliefs.html

    [DPF: I don't agree with Moore that the consequences are mostly positive. I don't think climate change poses a threat to the planet's existence, but I do think that it is in our interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    And you will go (more) insane if you really think my posts are linked to national leadership aims and ambitions]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    The evidence for damage to the environment is at best slim
    Care however needs to be taken that any evidence either way is not miss represented
    green piece is a lefty lobby group these days. I cancelled my membership in the eighties due to this becoming apparent
    We still need to be careful that the corporate spin machine does not do the same to this topic that it has done to climate science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. alex Masterley (1,438 comments) says:

    The child MP would only be interested in science if it supported his viewpoint. As it doesn’t it is ignored.
    Oh and Sadu just because there is fracking in a locality how is that going to affect property values? now or in the future. What is the basis for that statement?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. cha (3,533 comments) says:

    From the
    Oklahoma Geological Survey
    :

    Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes occurred within a 24 hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations had ceased. There have been previous cases where seismologists have suggested a link between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes, but data was limited, so drawing a definitive conclusion was not possible for these cases

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ben (2,386 comments) says:

    They actually had to commission a study on this? For money? Oh dear lord.

    If Gareth wants to cite the precautionary principle then point it at arbitrary government interference in the means of production. The number of people killed by fracking is about 0 but the number of people killed by green policy in the last 50 years is somewhere around 30 million and by all government interference in the last 100 years somewhere around 130 million. Gareth Hughes poses far more danger to the world than fracking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Paulus (2,295 comments) says:

    The Greens only like the word “fracking” because it reminds them of a similar word for copulating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (12,622 comments) says:

    The Greens only dislike the word “fracking” because it reminds them of a similar word for copulating.
    There are too many humans already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Steve (4,318 comments) says:

    Garreth Hughes must have put the Green followers onto this:
    http://www.zapatopi.net/afdb/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tom hunter (4,004 comments) says:

    Just because there is no evidence of my wife cheating, this is not proof that my wife is faithful.

    I suggest you try out that line of argument face to face with your wife – preferably in a public place close to the A&E clinic.

    I think this could become a “teachable moment” for the Greens and “Sadu”, in terms of PR and convincing people of ones case, whatever it may be.

    Best of luck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    As long as Sadu doesn’t catch his wife fracking some one else he shouldn’t be too worried then Paulus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Peter (1,468 comments) says:

    Hughes should go back to being Ronald McDonald. That appears to be his intellectual level.

    Science is for grown ups.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Can somebody hypnotise Gore and get his to say the science is settled and fracking has no effect on earthquakes… Then fracking will be fine…..

    But seriously… no impact… so we shunt the earths crust around in unusual ways but there is no consequences… Yeah… lets buy that !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. cha (3,533 comments) says:

    This too.

    http://phase.geophysik.fu-berlin.de/en/working-groups/seismics-seismology/projects-research/microseismicity.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    For all we know about the true physics of the planet – the Christchurch earthquakes are a ripple from the underground nuclear testing in the pacific 20 years ago …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    steve
    http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/
    Scientific study on tinfoil hats points out that they actually attenuate signals in corporate and government owned frequency’s
    The nutters are all controlled by big capitalists and the usa government

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. MarkF (89 comments) says:

    Going on from what Cha @ 12.29pm says.

    “From the
    Oklahoma Geological Survey:

    Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes occurred within a 24 hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations had ceased. There have been previous cases where seismologists have suggested a link between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes, but data was limited, so drawing a definitive conclusion was not possible for these cases.”

    It is logical to assume that fracturing the earth will cause small earthquakes as you are disturbing the geological structure but I would propose that this is a good thing as destructive earthquakes are formed by massive amounts of pent up energy in the structures and if a byproduct of fracking is small earthquakes the surely this is relieving the pent up pressures and reducing the likelihood of much larger destructive events.

    A point worth pondering no science just logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tom hunter (4,004 comments) says:

    Cha – that word micro, it’s rather important – unless your writing a banner headline or protest sign.

    P.S. Thanks for the ups for my comment on the Bain thread the other day. I found the way the thread degenerated from it’s original purpose to be bloody distasteful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    MarkF

    Absolutely, the preasure release valve if you like. That seems like physics 101 to me … but lets not assume that we understand enough to be sure that these little ‘releases’ are a good thing…. that’s just a conclusion that sells easily if you ask me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    Sadu, you must be a very happy man, your wife gives great head!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    For all we know about the true physics of the planet

    If one Green stamps his/her foot in anger, the whole world might crumble?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    tom hunter

    When the piles for Te Papa were being driven there were houses around Mt Vic that had cracks appear in their walls… Shit was rattling on shelves when the ‘thump thump thump’ of the pile drivers was going on…. But that was just one pile at a time so “very micro”…. nothing to see here – move on !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Pete George

    Yeah…. I said that !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    There is a scientific debate about the potential adverse impacts of fracking:

    Although LDEO scientists are not saying that the pumping caused the quakes, injection fluids have been implicated in other strike-slip earthquakes close to deep-injection wells. In essence, the fluids can act as lubricants between two abutting rock faces, helping them to suddenly slip along the boundary. The scientists did say that subsequent quakes from the Youngstown injections, which had been underway for a year, could continue to occur for up to another year, even if no more fluids are added. Ohio lawmakers have asked Northstar to stop operations until a full investigation is complete; the company has agreed but is not talking publicly about the events.

    Just because there has been no apparent correlation between fracking and earthquakes in Taranaki (so far) doesn’t mean that will always be the case, or that there is no correlation elsewhere.

    The science is clearly not settled. All Gareth Hughes is suggesting is to exercise caution until we know more about the science. That is not anti-science at all.

    And I suspect that many of those who wrongly accuse the Greens of ignoring the science here are the same fossil fuel advocates who themselves ignore the science, which is settled, regarding anthropogenic climate change.

    [DPF: Gareth is not saying exercise caution. As with much of the Greens he is saying ban it for now.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tom hunter (4,004 comments) says:

    Were they being driven thousands of feet below the surface Burt?

    Oh – and edit has failed me again – unless you’re writing a banner headline or protest sign. Grrrrr

    Actually here’s one possible protest sign:

    NO EARTHQUAKES FOR OIL

    You’re welcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    tom hunter

    If they were being driven thousands of feet below the surface the effects may have popped up in …. Nelson … But we know that’s not possible eh…. We just know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    Perhaps the precautionary principle should be applied to wind farms. I hear many nearby residents are made ill and unable to sleep due to low frequency noise, but still they build them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. labrator (1,691 comments) says:

    Seems like Gareth Hughes has taken the precautionary principle to heart. If you take it too literally it’s very hard to achieve anything new and society grinds to a halt and as such you need to find a balance.

    Whilst this isn’t quite fracking it is related: a geothermal project in Switzerland was sued for damages after being found responsible for causing earthquakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    fluid re-injection causing microearthquakes is a common method of geothermal reservoir management.

    It’s done on an extensive basis in Indonesia where just about all of the fields are fault controlled. There’s been no issue with re-activating those faults.

    can’t wait for the geens to demand banning geothermal power

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    Maybe the precautionary principle should be applied for voting for Greens. The science isn’t settled on them being able to be a responsible part of government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. cha (3,533 comments) says:

    A news report on quakes in Blackpool and a link to the company-sponsored technical analysis.

    HTML version of the report

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Manolo (12,622 comments) says:

    ..Greeens of ignoring the science here are the same fossil fuel advocates who themselves ignore the science, which is settled, regarding anthropogenic climate change.

    That’s what you become after countless hours of listening to Al “Conman” Gore: brainwashed and one-eyed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    “And I suspect that many of those who wrongly accuse the Greens of ignoring the science here are the same fossil fuel advocates who themselves ignore the science, which is settled, regarding anthropogenic climate change.”

    Not at all Toadie. We are merely concerned chaps who will happily send our V8′s to the recyclers, while singing songs of praise to Gaia, once your party tells us how you will cope with the billions of tonnes of methane from the ox cart effluent your Luddite policies will generate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    toad

    The science is settled…. You just blew all your credibility… Only evangelists say it’s settled – not scientists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    toad

    The bible tells us the debate is settled – God is real…. You wouldn’t argue with “an opinion” on settled would you !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    Toadies mob are evangelists burt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    a quote from an NZ scientist from the article cha links to:

    This induced seismic activity [from fracking] will probably be minor compared to natural background seismicity. In New Zealand, for example, GeoNet records about 15,000 magnitude 2.5 and larger events in an average year. At the lower end of this scale, most people are unaware that anything is happening – a passing truck generates as much if not more vibration – so the effects of seismic activity that are typically induced by hydraulic fracturing would be hard to separate from the background level of seismicity.

    the other scientists quoted say much the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. cha (3,533 comments) says:

    Well deserved Tom, the DB supporters vilification of the old man was appalling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. nasska (9,501 comments) says:

    Just add it to the list. Ref: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_greens_banned_list.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Peter (1,468 comments) says:

    Just because there has been no apparent correlation between fracking and earthquakes in Taranaki (so far) doesn’t mean that will always be the case, or that there is no correlation elsewhere. The science is clearly not settled. All Gareth Hughes is suggesting is to exercise caution until we know more about the science. That is not anti-science at all.

    Just because there has been no apparent correlation between the Green Party and alien landings in Taranaki (so far) doesn’t mean that will always be the case, or that there is no correlation elsewhere.

    The science is clearly not settled. All Gareth Hughes is suggesting is to exercise caution until we know more about the science. That is not anti-science at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. swan (651 comments) says:

    Even before this study I couldn’t understand the precautionary principle being applied to fracking. The precautionary principle may be appropriate if there is a potential high consequence effect. What is the high consequence here? Magnitude 2 or 3 earthquakes are nowhere near the level required to cause effects of low to moderate consequence let along high consequence. Has anyone even postulated a mechanism in which fracking could lead to a high consequence earthquake? Note that the companies involved with this type of activity would be carrying substantial liability insurance in any case.

    The precautionary principle MAY be relevant when it comes to climate change, where there is uncertainty around non-linear effects such as the Greenland ice sheet arresting the gulf stream etc. But fracking? Society would utterly stagnate if this level of precaution was applied to human activity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    The potential to pollute ground water supply is there
    There are claims that this has already happened

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. insider (990 comments) says:

    @ cha

    If you go to the NZ science media centre there is a very good description of the earthquakes in Blackpool. Described as similar to a truck going past on the road.

    @ toad

    A million wells worldwide have been fracked. This is not some emerging unknown. The only thing that is new is the green’s current obsession with it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    swan – there’s more than a few suggesting that society would utterly stagnate if the Green level of precaution was applied to New Zealand activity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    >Once the Greens decide something is bad, no amount of science can convince them otherwise.

    Hang on… Just yesterday you were mocking Otago University and their carefully researched and peer reviewed scientific paper on smoking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Sadu (123 comments) says:

    “Oh and Sadu just because there is fracking in a locality how is that going to affect property values? now or in the future. What is the basis for that statement?”

    Fracking in the general locality is very much like having a power pylon or cellphone tower hanging over your house, although admittedly not so visible. Prospective house buyers don’t like having pylons in the back yard – even if the government swears black and blue that it’s safe. It’s true I don’t have any actual evidence to say that fracking reduces house values in an area, but I think we can all agree that real estate agents won’t exactly be advertising the fracking down the road as a benefit or feature of the property.

    Is everyone here saying they would be quite fine if the council announced that fracking was going to happen where they lived?

    I’m not a green fan-boy by the way, I just don’t see fracking as something I would like to have happening under my house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. insider (990 comments) says:

    @ griff

    You have to identify what that potential is for contamination, what is specific for fracking and how it differs from any other drilling activity.

    What you probably don’t realise is that the fracking process takes place usually many thousands of feet from any water supply and it is effectivley impossible for the forces from fracking to exert any influence on water aquifers, or for there to be cross contamination between the two DUE TO FRACKING.

    The biggest issue is the process of drilling through water tables, which is an issue with any drilling and casing process full stop. So why not just be honest and say it is the drilling of anything it is that you actually object to?

    @ Sadu

    So what you are actually saying is that fracking per se is inconsequential, it is the drilling that is the issue. That drill could be for water, for geothermal fluids or for prospecting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    there’s potential for groundwater contamination from geothermal development as well. It’s something that is understoood and managed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    The science is clearly not settled.

    No science is settled. Ever. Its the falsifiability that defines science.

    If you cannot entertain the idea of a theory being overturned, then you aren’t engaging in science.

    Requiring that the science be settled before allowing any action is setting the bar high enough to prevent all action. This seems to be SOP for the Greens. Just as with GM food and nuclear energy, they ridiculously demand 100% certainty of safety, and feel smug about their cleverness in doing so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. ben (2,386 comments) says:

    I rather suspect Greens dislike fracking because it is a solution to a problem (peak oil) which they need to remain relevant in order to keep winning votes. They lose votes when there is no problem to be solved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    cha quotes:- “Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified”

    I’d have thought that if there was a significant enough pressure imbalance in the earth’s crust for fracking activity to trigger an earthquake, then the earthquake would have been due to happen shortly anyway.

    One could theorize that triggering an inevitable earthquake prematurely results in a smaller earthquake because of less tectonic pressure differential build-up.

    Mind you, you can’t blame the Greens for soliciting the wacky-science vote. If they didn’t, Dunne or Peters would snaffle it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    I’m not a green fan-boy by the way, I just don’t see fracking as something I would like to have happening under my house.

    Or in your “backyard”?

    NIMBY

    Is that all your argument boils down to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Grendel (873 comments) says:

    Swan, Stagnation is what the greens want, if you stagnate society, less people are born (how many greens are also advocates of the Voluntary Human extinction movement – not for them of course but for the unenlightend), so the world goes back to Gaia.

    they use weasel words like ‘exercise caution’ and claim it does not mean they want to ban something. but if you exercise caution the way the comrades want then you don;t do the action they want caution on, so you get the same result as a ban.

    You see it in Toads lieing here, toad says that hughes is not wanting ban, but what hughes said was that fracking should be halted so as to exercise caution. exercising caution and halting something in order to exercise caution are not the same thing.

    Remember that Hughes is a master liar and manipulator. he stood up at a green rally and said the reason he wanted to be a green MP is so that his 3 year old son did not have to ask permission to have children when he was Gareths age. no one in the crowd questioned how he thought that was likely, but funnily enough the only part with a policy on population control was the greens (its gone from them site now btw).

    (edit)Damn my spelling has gone to crap today, apologies all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ben (2,386 comments) says:

    Property values is irrelevant to the question of whether fracking should be permitted or not. Give property owners the right to sue (class action, individually, whatever) for damages in court. And then let oil companies decide whether the cost is worth the benefit. Coasian bargain and all that. Dirty word in NZ but whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. alex Masterley (1,438 comments) says:

    Thanks for clarifying your thoughts Sadu.

    I would prefer to have hard data before making such a specific statement otherwise it is just an assumption that hasn’t been tested.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. tom hunter (4,004 comments) says:

    “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet,”

    That’s what leading environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin said some years ago.

    But he was not talking about increased oil supplies via fracking or anything to do with a fossil-fueled future.

    He was commenting on people’s speculations in the late 1990′s – based on uninformed reports about the prospects for commercial nuclear fusion – that, if it worked, it would be the cheapest, cleanest, most plentiful source of energy ever created.

    The true nature of “green” revealed and a reminder of what this “debate” on fracking is really all about. The logical “zero growth” conclusion of what is really meant by the claim of a world of “limited resources”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Once the Political Right decide something is good, no amount of science can convince them otherwise.

    There, fixed that for you.

    Aren’t generalized ad-homs an AWESOME way of debating something?

    This whole thread is a Pot-Kettle-Black Combo, upsized to large, with extra Hypocrisy and Coke for the drink.

    Meh…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. cha (3,533 comments) says:

    To me it’s not the earthquake risk that’s worrying, it’s chemical content of the fracking liquids and the risk of incidents like this one in Pennsylvania where a blowout resulted in the release of fracking liquids which may have contained carcinogens.

    The inquiry over hydrofracking, which was initiated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee when Mr. Waxman led it last year, also found that 14 of the nation’s most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products — not including water. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or are listed as hazardous air pollutants, the report said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    insider
    I did not say it was happening just that the potential was there
    all the talk of earthquakes is not necessarily going in the right direction I just added my knowledge of the potential problems to the mix
    Fraking is a new technology and as such should be studied carefully as to its effects I do not support a gween blanket ban on it
    The rest of your post tells me you no very little of the process I suggest you actually learn about fraking

    Do not polarize all environmental debate as coming from the Gween perspective

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. insider (990 comments) says:

    @ cha

    Compare the contents of the fracking fluid with the oil and gas they replace. Which is more carcinogenic?

    @ griff

    it is utter and total ignorance to say that fracking is a ‘new technology’. You need to go and hit the person that told you that over the head with large encyclopedia. That might help a few facts displace the fear of boogie monsters that inhabits that person’s brain. Fracking has been used in water wells for 150 years. It’s been used in oil and gas for over 50 years and in NZ for at least a decade. There are more than a million wells worldwide that have been fracked. You can look up the hundreds of thousands in the US online. Think about those facts before you try to lecture me about learning about fracking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    the incident cha is refering to is one where the fracking liquid spilled onto the surface. Which is a valid concern but it is very rare.

    Substantial amounts of dangerous chemicals are used to extract rare eath elements vital for solar power generation. Those chemical dangers have to be managed and on the whole they are. It’s no reason to shut down solar panel manufacturing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Sadu (123 comments) says:

    [quote=kimble]Or in your “backyard”?
    NIMBY
    Is that all your argument boils down to?[/quote]

    Yes. I’m saying that I would not be pleased if the government wanted to frack where I live, and if the Taranaki residents are complaining then I could see where they are coming from. Which is a fair point – are the Taranaki residents actually complaining, or just the Green Party? I mean if the people of Taranaki are ok about the idea, and the scientists have weighted the risk vs reward accordingly, then I don’t see the problem.

    I’ll ask again to all those who seem to think my “not in my backyard” opinion is a selfish one – Is everyone else here saying they would be perfectly fine with fracking in their area?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Peter (1,468 comments) says:

    Does anyone doubt this is anything more than the typical anti-fuel/mineral mining guff from The Greens? I’m guessing any method would likely be unacceptable to them.

    Mining = bad, don’t you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. cha (3,533 comments) says:

    The site layout is awful but here’s an account of a fracking operation.

    http://www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/sitemap.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. cha (3,533 comments) says:

    This too.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. cha (3,533 comments) says:

    More.

    http://coloradoindependent.com/84495/congressional-probe-finds-29-human-carcinogens-in-hydraulic-fracturing-fluids

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Keeping Stock (9,788 comments) says:

    However, Gareth Hughes, Green Party spokesman on energy and fracking, said the process should be halted “in the interests of caution”, including an investigation by the parliamentary commissioner for the environment.

    Is it possible that Gareth Hughes could be fracked; as a scientific experiment, of course ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    By Sadu’s wife perhaps KS! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    Sadu,

    Use the greater than and less than symbols with blockquote rather that quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. kowtow (6,690 comments) says:

    cha doing his best to discredit wealth creation in New Zealand.

    No mention of oil revenues in Venezuela where (cha)vez is using all that polluting hydrocarbon to advance el revolution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. insider (990 comments) says:

    @kowtow

    Oil production has about halved under Chavez’s nationalisation programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. kowtow (6,690 comments) says:

    insider
    Gotta love those lefties, they’ll ruin anything they touch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    Like Helen ruined marriage for us feral inbreeds kowtow? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. hj (5,677 comments) says:

    DPF says:
    And you will go (more) insane if you really think my posts are linked to national leadership aims and ambitions]
    …….

    I said a Bellwether ie testing the water, sounding out opinion, but generally views representing the thrust of what national wants to get away with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Viking2 (10,709 comments) says:

    Sadu (56) Says:
    February 22nd, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    The statement “there is no evidence that…” is something to be careful with. Just because there is no evidence of my wife cheating, this is not proof that my wife is faithful.

    Oh well who is going to tell this guy nothing is ever what it seems. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. wat dabney (3,439 comments) says:

    The Greens’ record of totally ignoring science is the plainest evidence that it was never about the environment, it was always about power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. germ161 (2 comments) says:

    I’m not sure how accurate it is or if I believe it all. But the website is pretty darn cool and its an interesting read :D
    http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Science Doesn’t Find Fracking A Drinking-Water Danger

    http://news.investors.com/article/601828/201202211837/fracking-does-not-contaminate-drinking-water.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Spam (586 comments) says:

    I’m not sure how accurate it is or if I believe it all. But the website is pretty darn cool and its an interesting read :D
    http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

    Its massively exagerated, and a lot of it is false. Their maths for example assumes that EVERY well in the US will be fracked, that every one will be fracked 18 times (only tight gas is fracked, and normally only once / zone, so maybe three or 4 times for a particularly stacked reservoir), and that each one uses 8 Million gallons of water (which is also bollocks, and is a factor of 10 high for most wells). The contamination thing is wrong (methane levels in drinking water), and even if true would be more likely to be a natural contamination issue, or due to drilling rather than fracking.

    I mean, it cites Gasland which is a fraud movie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Richard Prosser (3 comments) says:

    Insider is quite correct. Fracking is neither new nor unusual. Fracturing in one form or another is almost as old as oil exploration itself. In the 1860s drillers in the US used nirtroglycerine to crack underground rock formations to assist with oil extraction, in a process known as “shooting” a well.

    Hydraulic fracturing was first used in the late 1940s, patented in 1949, and today water remains by far the most common substance used in this method of opening up bearing strata to allow the release of hydrocarbons. The second most common material used is sand.

    Somewhere in the order of two-thirds of oil wells worldwide employ fracturing to one degree or another, including those in New Zealand.

    Bogeyman stories about earthquakes and groundwater contamination are largely the product of baseless scaremongering on the part of the poorly informed and those with agendas to push. Hydrocarbon bearing rock exists for the most part in the zone far deeper than water wells and aquifers, and far shallower than the zone where seismic activity begins. In nearly five years in the irrigation industry I had involvement with literally hundreds of clients’ water bores, not one of which ever struck oil.

    Fracking has been standard practice for more than two generations without causing any problems, and it isn’t about to make the sky fall just because the Greens have only just heard of it.

    This message has not been sponsored by the Fossil Fuels industry or Big Oil. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.