Best Gareth stops using them and rides a bicycle instead (also not safe, but more amusing for the rest of us)

Quote:

The Environmental Defense Fund’s chief counsel has written a blog post detailing the non-profit’s support for hydraulic fracturing of natural gas.

The EDF is well known for pouring money into global warming, clean air and oil spill cleanup fights.

In the case of fracking, Brownstein says, it mainly comes down to eliminating coal.

“We fear that those who oppose all natural gas production everywhere are, in effect, making it harder for the U.S. economy to wean itself from dirty coal,” he said.

The fund’s Mark Brownstein lays out three reasons to back natgas:

Fracking is already a common, widespread practice
On balance, they’d rather see natural gas-powered electricity plans than coal-powered ones. “We are glad to see these coal plants go,” he says. Plus, natural gas is the feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals and fertilizer, and for direct heating and cooling
Any potential hazards can be regulated. “Effective oversight and enforcement with the necessary financial and human resources [can] make [regulations] real.

He closes thusly:

Natural gas production can never be made entirely safe; like any intensive industrial activity, it involves risks. But having studied the issue closely, we are convinced that if tough rules, oversight and penalties for noncompliance are put in place, these risks become manageable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/environmental-defense-fund-supports-fracking-2012-9#ixzz2DHHcxMkP

Your first two articles point to no issue at all except for the protests of three environmentalists. In the second the regional council is clear that no water sources have been contaminated – which was Ms Roberts’ complaint.

In the third, it points to some soil contamination. Not a problem with fracking itself, but pointing, perhaps, to different standards being advisable for chemical storage and sludge burn off.

And not a huge amount of contamination.

And not proven as a result of fracking. The article notes: “Under some circumstances some fracturing may have contributed,” Mr Bedford says. – which is to say that the majority of the limited contamination is not related in any way to fracking.

You’ll need some real evidence. And something more substantial

Alongside the money tree everyone’s familiar with there is now another tree, the clean green job tree. This tree has all branches at the same level, so from the ground you can pick one hundred thousand jobs – many of which are manufacturing jobs, in industries that don’t require any energy.

The danger of Hughes, Norman and economic terrorists of their ilk getting near political power should scare the hell out of any thinking New Zealander.

There has been fracking in Taranaki for some 20-odd years with no reported ill effects

Really?..

http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/7728854/Couple-appeal-oil-wells-consent

http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/editors-picks/5833938/well-well-well

http://www.3news.co.nz/Taranaki-gas-field-contaminates-soil/tabid/1160/articleID/269871/Default.aspx

He flew down to Dunedin in the weekend, I heard him talking at NetHui. It was acknowldeged he’s doing very good work on net related issues like copyright.

But he couldn’t help putting in a few off-topic plugs for his drilling and fracking ban agenda. It didn’t go down so well.

He also used his trip to Dunedin to push for more signatures to the PPIR (Political Party-Initiated Referendum) petition. It would not surprise at all had he then flown from Dunedin to Auckland yesterday to go and hassle the parents of children who just wanted to see Santa.

KS: as he flies up and down the land to preach the gospel of Gaia

He flew down to Dunedin in the weekend, I heard him talking at NetHui. It was acknowldeged he’s doing very good work on net related issues like copyright.

But he couldn’t help putting in a few off-topic plugs for his drilling and fracking ban agenda. It didn’t go down so well.

Hughes pre-empts fracking report with evolving ban demands.

He’s now calling for a ban regardless of the outcome of the inquiry. It was widely presumed he didn’t just want an inquiry, he wanted a ban and thought an inquiry would deliver for him.

What will Hughes do tomorrow, call for another inquiry? Is he about to claim there needs to be more data?

Gareth Hughes will try to squeeze every drop of media sympathy that he can out of this story, but once again he has cried wolf. And all the while, as he flies up and down the land to preach the gospel of Gaia his carbon footprint grows to something the size of Ronald McDonald’s shoe. And the media simply let it happen, without questioning his apparent hypocrisy.

he would call on the Government to order a moratorium on fracking until the procedure was proven safe.

There has been fracking in Taranaki for some 20-odd years with no reported ill effects. We can ‘tick the box’ on this requirement Gareth and move on to maximising growth for NZ.