Film tells story of fracking upheaval

Film tells story of fracking upheaval

Film tells story of fracking upheaval

First published in Letters by

FOR anyone who is considering shale gas as an answer to high energy prices or councils that think the bribe they have been offered by David Cameron this week is just too good to pass up, I would urge them to watch the film Gasland.

This tells the story of big corporations poisoning water tables and causing earthquakes for profit by ordinary Americans who have had their lives turned upside down by fracking.

Of course the corporations also have the means to make the people trying to highlight these issues stay quiet.

It is also known that this procedure was halted in Lancashire after it was linked to earthquakes there, but still councils are being urged to ignore this and take the money.

I know government cuts have put huge pressures on local councils, but I hope they will consider the long-term implications of damage to the local area and health risks to the people they are accountable to.

It’s not even English companies that will benefit from this, so far it is French and American firms that are doing the explorations here.

Tina Duke, Jute Road, Acomb, York.
 

• THE Prime Minister’s fracking announcement has been dubbed as a bribe by certain persons.

Yet it is only a little different to the financial support given to ‘green’ energy which originates from tax in our energy bills, as well as other government subsidies to wind farms and solar panels.

The anti frackers have begun their protests. The objections are based on historical evidence accrued during the development of thousands of fracking sites in America, where a comparatively small of complaints arose from the thousands of drillings.

The overall benefit of plentiful supplies of natural gas, reducing the cost of energy, far outweighed allegations from the few.

The question of countryside pollution by drilling can be little different to the peppering of the countryside with subsidised wind farms. It might be possible to drill for fracking in the same area that has already been polluted by wind farms.

It is certain that the regulations imposed on the companies will be much more restrictive than in America.

The main problem would seem to be the need for enormous amounts of water supplies in the areas developed.

J Beisly, Osprey Close, York.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:40pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Mulgrave says...

Everything depicted in the film Gasland should not be assumed to be a representation of what would occur here. For example, the flames from a water tap are the result of a water supply drawn directly from a bore hole and relate to pockets of methane gas near the surface.
Everything depicted in the film Gasland should not be assumed to be a representation of what would occur here. For example, the flames from a water tap are the result of a water supply drawn directly from a bore hole and relate to pockets of methane gas near the surface. Mulgrave
  • Score: 8

1:05pm Thu 16 Jan 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

It's a bit like using Algore's powerpoint propaganda, sent to all Secondary school's as the gospel. The children will be a softer touch.
The truth is we need this energy, the population is exploding in line with planned housing and they will all need heating, no matter what Algore thinks!
It's a bit like using Algore's powerpoint propaganda, sent to all Secondary school's as the gospel. The children will be a softer touch. The truth is we need this energy, the population is exploding in line with planned housing and they will all need heating, no matter what Algore thinks! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Thu 16 Jan 14

York Fox says...

Excellent post Mulgrave.

The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking.
Excellent post Mulgrave. The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking. York Fox
  • Score: 6

7:45pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Bigwood says...

Fossil fuels are actually subsidised more than renewables in this country.
Fossil fuels are actually subsidised more than renewables in this country. Bigwood
  • Score: 2

12:46am Fri 17 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Everything depicted in the film Gasland should not be assumed to be a representation of what would occur here. For example, the flames from a water tap are the result of a water supply drawn directly from a bore hole and relate to pockets of methane gas near the surface.
Almost word for word what I was going to say. Over here where things are more civilised, our water is brought to us from treatment plants which filter out impurities.

In one week we have had two letters stating that people should take their views of environmental-based matters from hollywood films... films which are not only hugely overblown and laden with special effects to make people go 'oooh, ahhh', but films which can also have been 'sponsored' by certain parties trying to get a message across; be it "all carbon is bad and if you don't want to suddenly freeze to death you'll be happy with us taxing the hell out of you for burning carbon", or "shale gas doesn't coincide with our 'all non-green fuels are evil' policy so this film will make you think that drilling for it causes nothing but trouble"....
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: Everything depicted in the film Gasland should not be assumed to be a representation of what would occur here. For example, the flames from a water tap are the result of a water supply drawn directly from a bore hole and relate to pockets of methane gas near the surface.[/p][/quote]Almost word for word what I was going to say. Over here where things are more civilised, our water is brought to us from treatment plants which filter out impurities. In one week we have had two letters stating that people should take their views of environmental-based matters from hollywood films... films which are not only hugely overblown and laden with special effects to make people go 'oooh, ahhh', but films which can also have been 'sponsored' by certain parties trying to get a message across; be it "all carbon is bad and if you don't want to suddenly freeze to death you'll be happy with us taxing the hell out of you for burning carbon", or "shale gas doesn't coincide with our 'all non-green fuels are evil' policy so this film will make you think that drilling for it causes nothing but trouble".... Magicman!
  • Score: 4

6:25pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Gicksy says...

Never mind Hollywood, never mind America, now let's just think this through.
1) 'Fracking' involves needing masses of water - almost every summer we are told there is a water shortage, but thousands of gallons can be found for fracking? How?

2) 'Fracking also involves thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals added to that water - that has to go somewhere. Is purposely adding to the toxic load of our environment really a good idea?

3) 'Fracking' wells have a very limited life span of usefulness, after which they have to be capped. There isn't a great incentive for any company, especially foreign ones, to keep the capping safe and reliable for generations to come, money is everything, remember?

4) The toxins involved in the fracking process are so very poisonous that environmental law dictates they have to be safely contained. Now, with the propensity for flooding here, contrary to say, Texas, can anyone explain to me how you can contain thousands of gallons of toxic water, introduced into the ground and encouraged to come back up to be collected, when we have flash floods saturating the earth? Controlling water is incredibly difficult, as anyone knows who ever had even a small leak from a pipe in their house somewhere, does anyone really believe that the danger from thousands and thousands of poisonous water can just be ignored?

5) It's very easy for Mr Cameron and Co 'to go all out' for fracking, as he will be long gone when the consequences of the environmental damage and health issues will literally 'bubble up'. He will be gaining short term from the benefits from the industry, but the people will suffer in the long run, let alone wild life and our eco system in general.

6) We are in an incredibly fortunate position to be an island surrounded by potentials for wind, sun and wave energy. Who else has such massive and relatively close by wave energy at their disposal? The technology for safe and renewable energy is there, the costs spend on environmentally damaging energy production could easily put into the development of safe energy production, even if it just entailed equipping our houses with solar panels and small individual wind turbines. It's not that it can't be done, it's that the willingness isn't there.

7) Fracking is not a long term solution, even Cameron's own advisors from the industry are disputing the claims for cheaper prices and no risk claims for the environment. Compared to the US we are a tiny country, we cannot afford to poison it for 20years or so of fracking energy benefits, after which we will have to start again looking for solutions, by which time the environment for us, our children and grandchildren, etc, will be ruined. We are still reasonably cosy now in our comfortable surroundings, but make no mistake, the move towards fracking and ignoring the dangers, together with the financial troubles of the banking systems timebomb and the slow destruction of the NHS could herald a very very poor life quality in this country. We have this trust that everything will be ok, but you can't undo poison in the ground, and we need a healthy environment more than might be apparent now - humans cannot separate themselves from the needs of a healthy eco-system, we are part of it.

Remember: Short term gain = long term pain. Don't fall for it.
Never mind Hollywood, never mind America, now let's just think this through. 1) 'Fracking' involves needing masses of water - almost every summer we are told there is a water shortage, but thousands of gallons can be found for fracking? How? 2) 'Fracking also involves thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals added to that water - that has to go somewhere. Is purposely adding to the toxic load of our environment really a good idea? 3) 'Fracking' wells have a very limited life span of usefulness, after which they have to be capped. There isn't a great incentive for any company, especially foreign ones, to keep the capping safe and reliable for generations to come, money is everything, remember? 4) The toxins involved in the fracking process are so very poisonous that environmental law dictates they have to be safely contained. Now, with the propensity for flooding here, contrary to say, Texas, can anyone explain to me how you can contain thousands of gallons of toxic water, introduced into the ground and encouraged to come back up to be collected, when we have flash floods saturating the earth? Controlling water is incredibly difficult, as anyone knows who ever had even a small leak from a pipe in their house somewhere, does anyone really believe that the danger from thousands and thousands of poisonous water can just be ignored? 5) It's very easy for Mr Cameron and Co 'to go all out' for fracking, as he will be long gone when the consequences of the environmental damage and health issues will literally 'bubble up'. He will be gaining short term from the benefits from the industry, but the people will suffer in the long run, let alone wild life and our eco system in general. 6) We are in an incredibly fortunate position to be an island surrounded by potentials for wind, sun and wave energy. Who else has such massive and relatively close by wave energy at their disposal? The technology for safe and renewable energy is there, the costs spend on environmentally damaging energy production could easily put into the development of safe energy production, even if it just entailed equipping our houses with solar panels and small individual wind turbines. It's not that it can't be done, it's that the willingness isn't there. 7) Fracking is not a long term solution, even Cameron's own advisors from the industry are disputing the claims for cheaper prices and no risk claims for the environment. Compared to the US we are a tiny country, we cannot afford to poison it for 20years or so of fracking energy benefits, after which we will have to start again looking for solutions, by which time the environment for us, our children and grandchildren, etc, will be ruined. We are still reasonably cosy now in our comfortable surroundings, but make no mistake, the move towards fracking and ignoring the dangers, together with the financial troubles of the banking systems timebomb and the slow destruction of the NHS could herald a very very poor life quality in this country. We have this trust that everything will be ok, but you can't undo poison in the ground, and we need a healthy environment more than might be apparent now - humans cannot separate themselves from the needs of a healthy eco-system, we are part of it. Remember: Short term gain = long term pain. Don't fall for it. Gicksy
  • Score: 3

8:21pm Fri 17 Jan 14

York Fox says...

Gicksy wrote:
Never mind Hollywood, never mind America, now let's just think this through.
1) 'Fracking' involves needing masses of water - almost every summer we are told there is a water shortage, but thousands of gallons can be found for fracking? How?

2) 'Fracking also involves thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals added to that water - that has to go somewhere. Is purposely adding to the toxic load of our environment really a good idea?

3) 'Fracking' wells have a very limited life span of usefulness, after which they have to be capped. There isn't a great incentive for any company, especially foreign ones, to keep the capping safe and reliable for generations to come, money is everything, remember?

4) The toxins involved in the fracking process are so very poisonous that environmental law dictates they have to be safely contained. Now, with the propensity for flooding here, contrary to say, Texas, can anyone explain to me how you can contain thousands of gallons of toxic water, introduced into the ground and encouraged to come back up to be collected, when we have flash floods saturating the earth? Controlling water is incredibly difficult, as anyone knows who ever had even a small leak from a pipe in their house somewhere, does anyone really believe that the danger from thousands and thousands of poisonous water can just be ignored?

5) It's very easy for Mr Cameron and Co 'to go all out' for fracking, as he will be long gone when the consequences of the environmental damage and health issues will literally 'bubble up'. He will be gaining short term from the benefits from the industry, but the people will suffer in the long run, let alone wild life and our eco system in general.

6) We are in an incredibly fortunate position to be an island surrounded by potentials for wind, sun and wave energy. Who else has such massive and relatively close by wave energy at their disposal? The technology for safe and renewable energy is there, the costs spend on environmentally damaging energy production could easily put into the development of safe energy production, even if it just entailed equipping our houses with solar panels and small individual wind turbines. It's not that it can't be done, it's that the willingness isn't there.

7) Fracking is not a long term solution, even Cameron's own advisors from the industry are disputing the claims for cheaper prices and no risk claims for the environment. Compared to the US we are a tiny country, we cannot afford to poison it for 20years or so of fracking energy benefits, after which we will have to start again looking for solutions, by which time the environment for us, our children and grandchildren, etc, will be ruined. We are still reasonably cosy now in our comfortable surroundings, but make no mistake, the move towards fracking and ignoring the dangers, together with the financial troubles of the banking systems timebomb and the slow destruction of the NHS could herald a very very poor life quality in this country. We have this trust that everything will be ok, but you can't undo poison in the ground, and we need a healthy environment more than might be apparent now - humans cannot separate themselves from the needs of a healthy eco-system, we are part of it.

Remember: Short term gain = long term pain. Don't fall for it.
At last an intelligent and thoughtful comment on fracking. I salute you, Gicksy. Mostly.

I will say though, that wind, sun and wave energy would not be enough to power the UK even if we covered every possible inch, which I hope you will agree is a terrible idea anyway. For every bank of wind, sun and wave generators we will need a fossil or nuclear power station as a back up. That isn't a negotiable thing, it's an essential.

Personally I think the future is individual houses and many businesses supplying a good chunk of their own power via renewables with an all nuclear back up, but in say 100 years, as technology advances renewable energy may be able to handle the whole lot. Of course if in that time we succeed in creating nuclear fusion reactors, the whole thing becomes an irrelevance anyway, as we will have more power than could ever need.
[quote][p][bold]Gicksy[/bold] wrote: Never mind Hollywood, never mind America, now let's just think this through. 1) 'Fracking' involves needing masses of water - almost every summer we are told there is a water shortage, but thousands of gallons can be found for fracking? How? 2) 'Fracking also involves thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals added to that water - that has to go somewhere. Is purposely adding to the toxic load of our environment really a good idea? 3) 'Fracking' wells have a very limited life span of usefulness, after which they have to be capped. There isn't a great incentive for any company, especially foreign ones, to keep the capping safe and reliable for generations to come, money is everything, remember? 4) The toxins involved in the fracking process are so very poisonous that environmental law dictates they have to be safely contained. Now, with the propensity for flooding here, contrary to say, Texas, can anyone explain to me how you can contain thousands of gallons of toxic water, introduced into the ground and encouraged to come back up to be collected, when we have flash floods saturating the earth? Controlling water is incredibly difficult, as anyone knows who ever had even a small leak from a pipe in their house somewhere, does anyone really believe that the danger from thousands and thousands of poisonous water can just be ignored? 5) It's very easy for Mr Cameron and Co 'to go all out' for fracking, as he will be long gone when the consequences of the environmental damage and health issues will literally 'bubble up'. He will be gaining short term from the benefits from the industry, but the people will suffer in the long run, let alone wild life and our eco system in general. 6) We are in an incredibly fortunate position to be an island surrounded by potentials for wind, sun and wave energy. Who else has such massive and relatively close by wave energy at their disposal? The technology for safe and renewable energy is there, the costs spend on environmentally damaging energy production could easily put into the development of safe energy production, even if it just entailed equipping our houses with solar panels and small individual wind turbines. It's not that it can't be done, it's that the willingness isn't there. 7) Fracking is not a long term solution, even Cameron's own advisors from the industry are disputing the claims for cheaper prices and no risk claims for the environment. Compared to the US we are a tiny country, we cannot afford to poison it for 20years or so of fracking energy benefits, after which we will have to start again looking for solutions, by which time the environment for us, our children and grandchildren, etc, will be ruined. We are still reasonably cosy now in our comfortable surroundings, but make no mistake, the move towards fracking and ignoring the dangers, together with the financial troubles of the banking systems timebomb and the slow destruction of the NHS could herald a very very poor life quality in this country. We have this trust that everything will be ok, but you can't undo poison in the ground, and we need a healthy environment more than might be apparent now - humans cannot separate themselves from the needs of a healthy eco-system, we are part of it. Remember: Short term gain = long term pain. Don't fall for it.[/p][/quote]At last an intelligent and thoughtful comment on fracking. I salute you, Gicksy. Mostly. I will say though, that wind, sun and wave energy would not be enough to power the UK even if we covered every possible inch, which I hope you will agree is a terrible idea anyway. For every bank of wind, sun and wave generators we will need a fossil or nuclear power station as a back up. That isn't a negotiable thing, it's an essential. Personally I think the future is individual houses and many businesses supplying a good chunk of their own power via renewables with an all nuclear back up, but in say 100 years, as technology advances renewable energy may be able to handle the whole lot. Of course if in that time we succeed in creating nuclear fusion reactors, the whole thing becomes an irrelevance anyway, as we will have more power than could ever need. York Fox
  • Score: 3

11:27pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Gicksy says...

York Fox wrote:
Gicksy wrote:
Never mind Hollywood, never mind America, now let's just think this through.
1) 'Fracking' involves needing masses of water - almost every summer we are told there is a water shortage, but thousands of gallons can be found for fracking? How?

2) 'Fracking also involves thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals added to that water - that has to go somewhere. Is purposely adding to the toxic load of our environment really a good idea?

3) 'Fracking' wells have a very limited life span of usefulness, after which they have to be capped. There isn't a great incentive for any company, especially foreign ones, to keep the capping safe and reliable for generations to come, money is everything, remember?

4) The toxins involved in the fracking process are so very poisonous that environmental law dictates they have to be safely contained. Now, with the propensity for flooding here, contrary to say, Texas, can anyone explain to me how you can contain thousands of gallons of toxic water, introduced into the ground and encouraged to come back up to be collected, when we have flash floods saturating the earth? Controlling water is incredibly difficult, as anyone knows who ever had even a small leak from a pipe in their house somewhere, does anyone really believe that the danger from thousands and thousands of poisonous water can just be ignored?

5) It's very easy for Mr Cameron and Co 'to go all out' for fracking, as he will be long gone when the consequences of the environmental damage and health issues will literally 'bubble up'. He will be gaining short term from the benefits from the industry, but the people will suffer in the long run, let alone wild life and our eco system in general.

6) We are in an incredibly fortunate position to be an island surrounded by potentials for wind, sun and wave energy. Who else has such massive and relatively close by wave energy at their disposal? The technology for safe and renewable energy is there, the costs spend on environmentally damaging energy production could easily put into the development of safe energy production, even if it just entailed equipping our houses with solar panels and small individual wind turbines. It's not that it can't be done, it's that the willingness isn't there.

7) Fracking is not a long term solution, even Cameron's own advisors from the industry are disputing the claims for cheaper prices and no risk claims for the environment. Compared to the US we are a tiny country, we cannot afford to poison it for 20years or so of fracking energy benefits, after which we will have to start again looking for solutions, by which time the environment for us, our children and grandchildren, etc, will be ruined. We are still reasonably cosy now in our comfortable surroundings, but make no mistake, the move towards fracking and ignoring the dangers, together with the financial troubles of the banking systems timebomb and the slow destruction of the NHS could herald a very very poor life quality in this country. We have this trust that everything will be ok, but you can't undo poison in the ground, and we need a healthy environment more than might be apparent now - humans cannot separate themselves from the needs of a healthy eco-system, we are part of it.

Remember: Short term gain = long term pain. Don't fall for it.
At last an intelligent and thoughtful comment on fracking. I salute you, Gicksy. Mostly.

I will say though, that wind, sun and wave energy would not be enough to power the UK even if we covered every possible inch, which I hope you will agree is a terrible idea anyway. For every bank of wind, sun and wave generators we will need a fossil or nuclear power station as a back up. That isn't a negotiable thing, it's an essential.

Personally I think the future is individual houses and many businesses supplying a good chunk of their own power via renewables with an all nuclear back up, but in say 100 years, as technology advances renewable energy may be able to handle the whole lot. Of course if in that time we succeed in creating nuclear fusion reactors, the whole thing becomes an irrelevance anyway, as we will have more power than could ever need.
Thank you, York Fox. Fukushima scares me, so I'm not crazy about the idea of nuclear power, - the argument about covering every inch of the country with various generators, yes, I can see your point, but surely investing in making them more efficient is the way forward, rather than taking the focus away from them and creating more pollution, both below and above ground? Already there is a surplus of energy created by some windfarms the grid can't cope with, so obviously something is amiss, in the same way as there are water shortages in one of Europe's rainiest countries, due to leaking pipes etc. It's those kind of issues that could and should be adressed. The basic argument I don't think is, do we have the capability of generating energy from renewables? But the point is, is the commitment towards a safe and healthy and rather exciting future stronger than a short term financial escape plan. Councils are in effect tempted to sell their cash strapped soul to the devil, just so that the illusion can be spread of financial recovery. Remember, it is the banking system that got us into the financial mess in the first place, and it is that same banking system trying to claw back their self-inflicted losses via the public. Private gains, public losses. And energy companies from all over the world with financial promises to prop up that rather corrupt system through 'investment' - oh how tempting that must be, for any government under pressure, especially if private rewards are tempting, too. So it will not only be private gains, public losses, but short term private gains and long term, probably permanent environmental losses, too. Do the global energy companies, banks and governments really deserve such a sacrifice on our part? I think not.
[quote][p][bold]York Fox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gicksy[/bold] wrote: Never mind Hollywood, never mind America, now let's just think this through. 1) 'Fracking' involves needing masses of water - almost every summer we are told there is a water shortage, but thousands of gallons can be found for fracking? How? 2) 'Fracking also involves thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals added to that water - that has to go somewhere. Is purposely adding to the toxic load of our environment really a good idea? 3) 'Fracking' wells have a very limited life span of usefulness, after which they have to be capped. There isn't a great incentive for any company, especially foreign ones, to keep the capping safe and reliable for generations to come, money is everything, remember? 4) The toxins involved in the fracking process are so very poisonous that environmental law dictates they have to be safely contained. Now, with the propensity for flooding here, contrary to say, Texas, can anyone explain to me how you can contain thousands of gallons of toxic water, introduced into the ground and encouraged to come back up to be collected, when we have flash floods saturating the earth? Controlling water is incredibly difficult, as anyone knows who ever had even a small leak from a pipe in their house somewhere, does anyone really believe that the danger from thousands and thousands of poisonous water can just be ignored? 5) It's very easy for Mr Cameron and Co 'to go all out' for fracking, as he will be long gone when the consequences of the environmental damage and health issues will literally 'bubble up'. He will be gaining short term from the benefits from the industry, but the people will suffer in the long run, let alone wild life and our eco system in general. 6) We are in an incredibly fortunate position to be an island surrounded by potentials for wind, sun and wave energy. Who else has such massive and relatively close by wave energy at their disposal? The technology for safe and renewable energy is there, the costs spend on environmentally damaging energy production could easily put into the development of safe energy production, even if it just entailed equipping our houses with solar panels and small individual wind turbines. It's not that it can't be done, it's that the willingness isn't there. 7) Fracking is not a long term solution, even Cameron's own advisors from the industry are disputing the claims for cheaper prices and no risk claims for the environment. Compared to the US we are a tiny country, we cannot afford to poison it for 20years or so of fracking energy benefits, after which we will have to start again looking for solutions, by which time the environment for us, our children and grandchildren, etc, will be ruined. We are still reasonably cosy now in our comfortable surroundings, but make no mistake, the move towards fracking and ignoring the dangers, together with the financial troubles of the banking systems timebomb and the slow destruction of the NHS could herald a very very poor life quality in this country. We have this trust that everything will be ok, but you can't undo poison in the ground, and we need a healthy environment more than might be apparent now - humans cannot separate themselves from the needs of a healthy eco-system, we are part of it. Remember: Short term gain = long term pain. Don't fall for it.[/p][/quote]At last an intelligent and thoughtful comment on fracking. I salute you, Gicksy. Mostly. I will say though, that wind, sun and wave energy would not be enough to power the UK even if we covered every possible inch, which I hope you will agree is a terrible idea anyway. For every bank of wind, sun and wave generators we will need a fossil or nuclear power station as a back up. That isn't a negotiable thing, it's an essential. Personally I think the future is individual houses and many businesses supplying a good chunk of their own power via renewables with an all nuclear back up, but in say 100 years, as technology advances renewable energy may be able to handle the whole lot. Of course if in that time we succeed in creating nuclear fusion reactors, the whole thing becomes an irrelevance anyway, as we will have more power than could ever need.[/p][/quote]Thank you, York Fox. Fukushima scares me, so I'm not crazy about the idea of nuclear power, - the argument about covering every inch of the country with various generators, yes, I can see your point, but surely investing in making them more efficient is the way forward, rather than taking the focus away from them and creating more pollution, both below and above ground? Already there is a surplus of energy created by some windfarms the grid can't cope with, so obviously something is amiss, in the same way as there are water shortages in one of Europe's rainiest countries, due to leaking pipes etc. It's those kind of issues that could and should be adressed. The basic argument I don't think is, do we have the capability of generating energy from renewables? But the point is, is the commitment towards a safe and healthy and rather exciting future stronger than a short term financial escape plan. Councils are in effect tempted to sell their cash strapped soul to the devil, just so that the illusion can be spread of financial recovery. Remember, it is the banking system that got us into the financial mess in the first place, and it is that same banking system trying to claw back their self-inflicted losses via the public. Private gains, public losses. And energy companies from all over the world with financial promises to prop up that rather corrupt system through 'investment' - oh how tempting that must be, for any government under pressure, especially if private rewards are tempting, too. So it will not only be private gains, public losses, but short term private gains and long term, probably permanent environmental losses, too. Do the global energy companies, banks and governments really deserve such a sacrifice on our part? I think not. Gicksy
  • Score: 3

9:08pm Sat 18 Jan 14

John Cossham says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Everything depicted in the film Gasland should not be assumed to be a representation of what would occur here. For example, the flames from a water tap are the result of a water supply drawn directly from a bore hole and relate to pockets of methane gas near the surface.
You're right, Mulgrave, that most urban properties in the UK do not use borehole water, and thus we wouldn't be at risk of getting methane coming out of our taps as has happened in rural US near unconventional gas extraction. However, some UK communities DO get water from aquifers, and therefore any pollution into them would be a bad thing.

However, plenty of farms DO use borehole water for livestock and irrigation. Let's not screw up our agricultural production with polluted groundwater, eh?
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: Everything depicted in the film Gasland should not be assumed to be a representation of what would occur here. For example, the flames from a water tap are the result of a water supply drawn directly from a bore hole and relate to pockets of methane gas near the surface.[/p][/quote]You're right, Mulgrave, that most urban properties in the UK do not use borehole water, and thus we wouldn't be at risk of getting methane coming out of our taps as has happened in rural US near unconventional gas extraction. However, some UK communities DO get water from aquifers, and therefore any pollution into them would be a bad thing. However, plenty of farms DO use borehole water for livestock and irrigation. Let's not screw up our agricultural production with polluted groundwater, eh? John Cossham
  • Score: 2

9:13pm Sat 18 Jan 14

John Cossham says...

York Fox wrote:
Excellent post Mulgrave.

The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking.
Oh dear York Fox. You haven't seen 'Gasland' have you?

It is NOTHING to do with Hollywood! Josh Fox (almost certainly no relation to you, lol) was approached by a fracking company to sell the rights to drill under his land and he then went on a singleminded odyssey to find out more about the industry. Most of the film is made with camcorder, handheld, and films people who've had their lives blighted by this technology. It is well worth a watch! You may find it online if you search for it.

So, NO special effects, NO big bucks paying for their point of view, just a part-time film-maker doing some research. An excellent and truthful view of the worst effects of fracking in the US.
[quote][p][bold]York Fox[/bold] wrote: Excellent post Mulgrave. The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking.[/p][/quote]Oh dear York Fox. You haven't seen 'Gasland' have you? It is NOTHING to do with Hollywood! Josh Fox (almost certainly no relation to you, lol) was approached by a fracking company to sell the rights to drill under his land and he then went on a singleminded odyssey to find out more about the industry. Most of the film is made with camcorder, handheld, and films people who've had their lives blighted by this technology. It is well worth a watch! You may find it online if you search for it. So, NO special effects, NO big bucks paying for their point of view, just a part-time film-maker doing some research. An excellent and truthful view of the worst effects of fracking in the US. John Cossham
  • Score: 2

9:43pm Sat 18 Jan 14

York Fox says...

John Cossham wrote:
York Fox wrote:
Excellent post Mulgrave.

The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking.
Oh dear York Fox. You haven't seen 'Gasland' have you?

It is NOTHING to do with Hollywood! Josh Fox (almost certainly no relation to you, lol) was approached by a fracking company to sell the rights to drill under his land and he then went on a singleminded odyssey to find out more about the industry. Most of the film is made with camcorder, handheld, and films people who've had their lives blighted by this technology. It is well worth a watch! You may find it online if you search for it.

So, NO special effects, NO big bucks paying for their point of view, just a part-time film-maker doing some research. An excellent and truthful view of the worst effects of fracking in the US.
John, you need to be a little less naive.

The film is by a man who stands to make his fortune by exaggerating and manipulating the truth for profit. This is no different to say SuperSizeMe. Catfish or hundreds of other films.

Most importantly, there are scenes in this film and the sequel where either facts are concealed or cherry picked to agree with his story (the taps igniting scene is in an area where dangerously high methane levels have been found in water since 1978), or simply made up (scene in the sequel where a man ignites a hosepipe, which he had rigged to falsely ignite to aid his own case). The fact that Fox new both of these things and chose not to present the facts tells me all I need to know about the honesty of this filmaker.

This is not to say that elements won't be true, but that we should all rely on a sturdier source of evidence that Gasland to form our opinions.
[quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York Fox[/bold] wrote: Excellent post Mulgrave. The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking.[/p][/quote]Oh dear York Fox. You haven't seen 'Gasland' have you? It is NOTHING to do with Hollywood! Josh Fox (almost certainly no relation to you, lol) was approached by a fracking company to sell the rights to drill under his land and he then went on a singleminded odyssey to find out more about the industry. Most of the film is made with camcorder, handheld, and films people who've had their lives blighted by this technology. It is well worth a watch! You may find it online if you search for it. So, NO special effects, NO big bucks paying for their point of view, just a part-time film-maker doing some research. An excellent and truthful view of the worst effects of fracking in the US.[/p][/quote]John, you need to be a little less naive. The film is by a man who stands to make his fortune by exaggerating and manipulating the truth for profit. This is no different to say SuperSizeMe. Catfish or hundreds of other films. Most importantly, there are scenes in this film and the sequel where either facts are concealed or cherry picked to agree with his story (the taps igniting scene is in an area where dangerously high methane levels have been found in water since 1978), or simply made up (scene in the sequel where a man ignites a hosepipe, which he had rigged to falsely ignite to aid his own case). The fact that Fox new both of these things and chose not to present the facts tells me all I need to know about the honesty of this filmaker. This is not to say that elements won't be true, but that we should all rely on a sturdier source of evidence that Gasland to form our opinions. York Fox
  • Score: 1

12:42am Sun 19 Jan 14

Gicksy says...

York Fox wrote:
John Cossham wrote:
York Fox wrote:
Excellent post Mulgrave.

The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking.
Oh dear York Fox. You haven't seen 'Gasland' have you?

It is NOTHING to do with Hollywood! Josh Fox (almost certainly no relation to you, lol) was approached by a fracking company to sell the rights to drill under his land and he then went on a singleminded odyssey to find out more about the industry. Most of the film is made with camcorder, handheld, and films people who've had their lives blighted by this technology. It is well worth a watch! You may find it online if you search for it.

So, NO special effects, NO big bucks paying for their point of view, just a part-time film-maker doing some research. An excellent and truthful view of the worst effects of fracking in the US.
John, you need to be a little less naive.

The film is by a man who stands to make his fortune by exaggerating and manipulating the truth for profit. This is no different to say SuperSizeMe. Catfish or hundreds of other films.

Most importantly, there are scenes in this film and the sequel where either facts are concealed or cherry picked to agree with his story (the taps igniting scene is in an area where dangerously high methane levels have been found in water since 1978), or simply made up (scene in the sequel where a man ignites a hosepipe, which he had rigged to falsely ignite to aid his own case). The fact that Fox new both of these things and chose not to present the facts tells me all I need to know about the honesty of this filmaker.

This is not to say that elements won't be true, but that we should all rely on a sturdier source of evidence that Gasland to form our opinions.
York Fox, you made me laugh here, did you just call John naive, and the 'facts tell you all you need to know about the film-maker's honesty? I saw the movie Gasland, and find whatever exaggerations you are referring to a lot less grievous than the exaggeration of our government of promised profits, benefits, safety measures, environmental protections, etc. etc.

It's absolutely naive to think the same technology will leave our little country unharmed, when so much damage has already been done, not just in the US but in other countries, too - I am not sure how much you follow the more hidden news, rather than our mainstream media. I find it astonishing that anyone can believe that for some miraculous reason our country is more protected than any other, safer somehow, where does that belief come from? France has made fracking illegal in France itself, but wants to frack here. International trade agreements mean that any country is almost a free for all foreign countries to do very much as they please in another country. As we speak, TransPacific Partnership laws are being pushed through in Congress, which will leave everyone wide open for exploitation, - this isn't sensationalistic scare mongery, this can be checked online easily enough.
What the Gasland movie does show, even if taken just as an outside metaphor, is the power of companies to leave the population absolutely in the lurch when the chips are down, that if there is no active protection by the government we will not have any protection at all. The real Erin Brokovich (not the movie pretend one) has a facebook page and website where you can be kept updated about happenings in America, do not think this cannot happen here, that would be truly naive. West Virginia has just suffered a toxic leak which has left no less than 300 000!!!! people with unsafe water, have a look: http://www.nytimes.c
om/2014/01/11/us/wes
t-virginia-chemical-
spill.html?_r=0 . All that was to blame was a frozen pipe that burst under a storage tank causing a leak. Accidents happen. There is NO way that we can be all smug and say it won't happen to us. Great we don't have well water, but is it only us that counts? What about the safety to wildlife, farming, rivers, lakes? We have a beautiful green country. Let's put our energy into protecting it, not tittle tattle if some details in a movie speaking against the practice is entirely accurate or not. You can bet your last pound that the reassurances given to us here are much much more dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]York Fox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York Fox[/bold] wrote: Excellent post Mulgrave. The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking.[/p][/quote]Oh dear York Fox. You haven't seen 'Gasland' have you? It is NOTHING to do with Hollywood! Josh Fox (almost certainly no relation to you, lol) was approached by a fracking company to sell the rights to drill under his land and he then went on a singleminded odyssey to find out more about the industry. Most of the film is made with camcorder, handheld, and films people who've had their lives blighted by this technology. It is well worth a watch! You may find it online if you search for it. So, NO special effects, NO big bucks paying for their point of view, just a part-time film-maker doing some research. An excellent and truthful view of the worst effects of fracking in the US.[/p][/quote]John, you need to be a little less naive. The film is by a man who stands to make his fortune by exaggerating and manipulating the truth for profit. This is no different to say SuperSizeMe. Catfish or hundreds of other films. Most importantly, there are scenes in this film and the sequel where either facts are concealed or cherry picked to agree with his story (the taps igniting scene is in an area where dangerously high methane levels have been found in water since 1978), or simply made up (scene in the sequel where a man ignites a hosepipe, which he had rigged to falsely ignite to aid his own case). The fact that Fox new both of these things and chose not to present the facts tells me all I need to know about the honesty of this filmaker. This is not to say that elements won't be true, but that we should all rely on a sturdier source of evidence that Gasland to form our opinions.[/p][/quote]York Fox, you made me laugh here, did you just call John naive, and the 'facts tell you all you need to know about the film-maker's honesty? I saw the movie Gasland, and find whatever exaggerations you are referring to a lot less grievous than the exaggeration of our government of promised profits, benefits, safety measures, environmental protections, etc. etc. It's absolutely naive to think the same technology will leave our little country unharmed, when so much damage has already been done, not just in the US but in other countries, too - I am not sure how much you follow the more hidden news, rather than our mainstream media. I find it astonishing that anyone can believe that for some miraculous reason our country is more protected than any other, safer somehow, where does that belief come from? France has made fracking illegal in France itself, but wants to frack here. International trade agreements mean that any country is almost a free for all foreign countries to do very much as they please in another country. As we speak, TransPacific Partnership laws are being pushed through in Congress, which will leave everyone wide open for exploitation, - this isn't sensationalistic scare mongery, this can be checked online easily enough. What the Gasland movie does show, even if taken just as an outside metaphor, is the power of companies to leave the population absolutely in the lurch when the chips are down, that if there is no active protection by the government we will not have any protection at all. The real Erin Brokovich (not the movie pretend one) has a facebook page and website where you can be kept updated about happenings in America, do not think this cannot happen here, that would be truly naive. West Virginia has just suffered a toxic leak which has left no less than 300 000!!!! people with unsafe water, have a look: http://www.nytimes.c om/2014/01/11/us/wes t-virginia-chemical- spill.html?_r=0 . All that was to blame was a frozen pipe that burst under a storage tank causing a leak. Accidents happen. There is NO way that we can be all smug and say it won't happen to us. Great we don't have well water, but is it only us that counts? What about the safety to wildlife, farming, rivers, lakes? We have a beautiful green country. Let's put our energy into protecting it, not tittle tattle if some details in a movie speaking against the practice is entirely accurate or not. You can bet your last pound that the reassurances given to us here are much much more dangerous. Gicksy
  • Score: 1

1:20am Sun 19 Jan 14

John Cossham says...

York Fox wrote:
John Cossham wrote:
York Fox wrote:
Excellent post Mulgrave.

The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking.
Oh dear York Fox. You haven't seen 'Gasland' have you?

It is NOTHING to do with Hollywood! Josh Fox (almost certainly no relation to you, lol) was approached by a fracking company to sell the rights to drill under his land and he then went on a singleminded odyssey to find out more about the industry. Most of the film is made with camcorder, handheld, and films people who've had their lives blighted by this technology. It is well worth a watch! You may find it online if you search for it.

So, NO special effects, NO big bucks paying for their point of view, just a part-time film-maker doing some research. An excellent and truthful view of the worst effects of fracking in the US.
John, you need to be a little less naive.

The film is by a man who stands to make his fortune by exaggerating and manipulating the truth for profit. This is no different to say SuperSizeMe. Catfish or hundreds of other films.

Most importantly, there are scenes in this film and the sequel where either facts are concealed or cherry picked to agree with his story (the taps igniting scene is in an area where dangerously high methane levels have been found in water since 1978), or simply made up (scene in the sequel where a man ignites a hosepipe, which he had rigged to falsely ignite to aid his own case). The fact that Fox new both of these things and chose not to present the facts tells me all I need to know about the honesty of this filmaker.

This is not to say that elements won't be true, but that we should all rely on a sturdier source of evidence that Gasland to form our opinions.
Thanks York Fox. I didn't know the criticism of Gasland, I wonder if you'd be so good to post a link so I can copy and paste and see where you've got your evidence from.

However, Josh Fox would have made far more money if he'd just taken the petrodollars and let them use his land. I don't think he's made a lot of money with his film, it's hardly a blockbuster. It's certainly not a 'feelgood film', anyway, and it hasn't been shown in mainstream cinemas. We have a small cinema in York which put on a special showing in conjunction with the Transition Group. But that was one showing. He won't have got rich from that sort of audience.

Thank you Gicksy for your observations. You are obviously very passionate!
[quote][p][bold]York Fox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York Fox[/bold] wrote: Excellent post Mulgrave. The last place I would go for a fair representation of a subject is Hollywood. Especially a subject that has been shown to have propaganda from both the pro-fracking companies and other anti-fracking energy companies who are threatened by fracking.[/p][/quote]Oh dear York Fox. You haven't seen 'Gasland' have you? It is NOTHING to do with Hollywood! Josh Fox (almost certainly no relation to you, lol) was approached by a fracking company to sell the rights to drill under his land and he then went on a singleminded odyssey to find out more about the industry. Most of the film is made with camcorder, handheld, and films people who've had their lives blighted by this technology. It is well worth a watch! You may find it online if you search for it. So, NO special effects, NO big bucks paying for their point of view, just a part-time film-maker doing some research. An excellent and truthful view of the worst effects of fracking in the US.[/p][/quote]John, you need to be a little less naive. The film is by a man who stands to make his fortune by exaggerating and manipulating the truth for profit. This is no different to say SuperSizeMe. Catfish or hundreds of other films. Most importantly, there are scenes in this film and the sequel where either facts are concealed or cherry picked to agree with his story (the taps igniting scene is in an area where dangerously high methane levels have been found in water since 1978), or simply made up (scene in the sequel where a man ignites a hosepipe, which he had rigged to falsely ignite to aid his own case). The fact that Fox new both of these things and chose not to present the facts tells me all I need to know about the honesty of this filmaker. This is not to say that elements won't be true, but that we should all rely on a sturdier source of evidence that Gasland to form our opinions.[/p][/quote]Thanks York Fox. I didn't know the criticism of Gasland, I wonder if you'd be so good to post a link so I can copy and paste and see where you've got your evidence from. However, Josh Fox would have made far more money if he'd just taken the petrodollars and let them use his land. I don't think he's made a lot of money with his film, it's hardly a blockbuster. It's certainly not a 'feelgood film', anyway, and it hasn't been shown in mainstream cinemas. We have a small cinema in York which put on a special showing in conjunction with the Transition Group. But that was one showing. He won't have got rich from that sort of audience. Thank you Gicksy for your observations. You are obviously very passionate! John Cossham
  • Score: 2

10:01pm Mon 20 Jan 14

George Appleby says...

If Dave likes it, I'm my alarm system kicks in!

By the way, we keep getting messages on our tv that the power will be cut off to save electricity and it goes off for a while on BBC ???

Anybody else???
If Dave likes it, I'm my alarm system kicks in! By the way, we keep getting messages on our tv that the power will be cut off to save electricity and it goes off for a while on BBC ??? Anybody else??? George Appleby
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree