UKC

A piano restorer, a teacher and a soil scientist have received almost 4 years jail time between them for peacefully protesting against fracking in Lancashire.

It is the judge, who should be doing the time. The company concerned have caused earthquakes. This is before you consider other environmental impacts such as climate change and water and air pollution.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/nem7qm/three-men-just-became-the-first-e...

While I live a few miles from the Fracking site and I am against Fracking, I must sat that I was not impressed with the people demonstrating. 

Some of the stunts pulled off were dangerous.  This is a first-hand observation.

Quite a long thread on this yesterday 

It turns out the judge has family links to the oil and gas industry in some form. I'll find the details. 

Edit: I have too much to do currently to find the sources, but this is from a person more intimately connected with the protesting/people involved.

''Altham Ship Stores and Offshore Supplies Ltd (family business of Robert Altham), supplies the oil & gas industry in the Irish Sea, and appears to supply businesses using the port of Immingham ~ from which the convoy of trucks carrying drilling equipment stopped in the protest had set off.''

Edit 2: There may be/are probably more details googleable on the internet, but don't ask me about any of this, because I haven't a clue, and have things to get on with for the next while. 

If they had less middle class sounding jobs would it be more okay? 

The fact is they repeatedly broke the law and refused to do as they were told by authorities. Law breaking doesn't magically become okay because you feel it's for a good cause.

Misleading innit.  16 months is not 4 years.  Probably serve a fraction of that too.   But nice of them (Vice) to add the terms up together to make a headline.

You have a good point but if it wasn't for these people bringing the actions of these harmful businesses to our attention we'd all be blindly going about our lives in blissful ignorance.

Maybe they should have been more imaginative and less confrontational in their approach. A humorous blimp perhaps? I admit, I haven't researched the protesters actions thoroughly (only read the Vice article) which could be one sided judging by the contributions to this thread. It seems to me that the frackers could also be accused of violence (to our environment in this case) but they are being protected by the establishment.

BAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH 

Altham Ship Stores and Offshore Supplies Ltd

Wrong.

A company that supplies ships and offshore could be put out of business by fracking. So would be against , not for.

Perhaps they are now moving into the uncertain market of fracking equipment. But the name is all you are going on. You might as well claim DMM was probably moving into fracking equipment.

You can pills for that, or alternatively, go and see a speech therapist

Most of the fracking practices are dangerous. I think people have been particularly keen to protest because of the Conservative government overruling local democracy and after saying how green a government they would be.  

Without the Kinder Trespass you'd have a lot less crags to climb on and moorland to roam on. If the law is wrong then breaking it is sometimes the best thing to do.

The law is wrong?  I'm guessing its not quite what you meant, perhaps it would read better to say - If fracking is wrong then breaking the law to highlight it, is sometimes the best thing to do.

Not quite the same as the Kinder Trespass.

Which ones? I read up on a lot of this a few years ago and discovered most of the hype was in response to US bad practice and had little relation to UK practice or UK geology.

My only concern is over fugitive emissions but even then I'm not sure they're greater than emissions from conventional gas extraction.

Yes, it's curious that these sorts of media outlets are always quick to accuse the " MSM" of bias but turn out to be bigger liars than anyone else.

I wonder if it's because most mainstream journalists are attracted to their proffession because they love writing while these sorts of publications are intended mainly to tell us what we should be thinking.

Scan read these sort of headlines and you might have easily be fooled into believing they had each got sentences of 4 years.  Then the chain of misinformation starts. 

And from which entirely neutral channel do you get your news?

What do you mean by this? Where has it happened, what magnitudes of earthquake, what consequences were there?

Interpreted loosely, earthquakes are caused by everyone who ever blows anything up, knocks anything down, digs a hole which later collapses, or extracts e.g. water then has the ground later settle irregularly. Most of these are completely harmless, of course.

But the trespassers didn't think they had the right damage property, assault people, cost businesses lost working days and cost the local police a huge number of hours/wages. The only law they broke was the one they objected too. 

Where did I say I did?

I was just making the observation that if you want to read some total shite you're best checking out those outlets that claim to tell the "real" story or the story "the MSM don't want you to tea about".

If I do tea something in Vice or Red Robin or The Canary I always cross check in the expectation that it's partisan bollocks.

There were some very minor tremors in the Blackpool area (2.3 and 1.4 on Richter) that were attributed to the fracking, and they had zero impact on the area. The fact is that the area has had earthquakes bigger than that for many many years, certainly from well before the fracking started. 

I think that we need to separate the issue of fracking as a concept, which is what many protestors are objecting to, and the practice of fracking in the U.K., which is almost certainly the real environmental issue. Fracking in the U.K. is dirty, noisy and bright ( it’s floodlit). All of these factors have serious environmental and wildlife protection implications, and its these factors that are the ones fracking companies have been playing fast and loose with. Limits are often ignored or exceeded and unlike in this case, courts and enforcement officials have very little leverage  or resources to ensure limits and planning restrictions are complied with. It is very much a case of one set of laws for the frackers and another for the protestors, even if, ironically, the protestors are sometimes protesting about the wrong thing

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/fracking-south-korean-e...

i think people have greater concerns than the quakes tho..

And what is the enviromental cost of shipping LPG into the country from say Saudi Arabia against getting it locally?

If you had a choice between nuclear and fracking for power, which would you choose?

Local well paid jobs versus poorly paid ones in the tourist spot of say Blackpool.

Cash into a local hard up council?

These issues are not simple.

The nuclear and conventional coal/gas generators have much better regulatory oversight. My point is not that fracking per se is bad (though it is )but that the regulatory framework surrounding fracking, and more importantly, the enforcement of it, is shocking!! And probably intentionally so

Unrelated aside. I live in Nottm. Its a county with a rich history of local well paid jobs in hydrocarbons. It's not exactly a story with a happy ending

I would just rather live in a green and pleasant land, with efforts and research put into sustainable energy. I'm no scientist, but the lorry and traffic movements it generates, the number of wells needed, the amount of water needed, the stuff that will be put down the wells, the fact that it is a fossil fuel, the fact that local people don't want it, the motivations behind those providing the money, etc. I'm only a punter, but fracking doesn't seem the answer to me. I accept that there are many on here that think the opposite. 

Unfortunately there is no easy source of information that a lay person can go to to find balanced information, to allow them to come to an educated position.  This is compounded by the Tory government (rightly IMHO) being seen to be in favour 'of the money' irrespective of local democratic, or environmental concerns. 

You only have to look at the last OGA onshore licencing round awards given out (note: under Tory administration).  You will find (many but not all) companies that meet neither, from my view, the pre-requiste geological knowledge, O&G operational experience, or financial criteria to be regarded as appropriate 'licence holders'.  Yes companies can 'contract in'  these skills, but if at board level there is a dearth of this knowledge there a is vacuum.

The British Geology Survey, as public servants, would be the best placed body to furnish the public with unbiased information, but they sadly won't be seen by protesters as being unbiased, and have been lamentably quiet. Furthermore their most likely conclusion would be if appropriately sited there is limited geological risk with UK onshore shale gas extraction. The risk being mainly operational related to well integrity and formation isolation (which brings us back to the licence holders experience)......obviously this wouldn't please anti-frac campaigners.

The whole start to onshore UK shale gas has been a ****-up, the operators so far have been 'seen' by the public as small 'cow-boy' players, due to the lack of any majors with reputations to lose being 'up front' and visible,  the Lancashire exploration site was was sub-optimal as the area has a history of seismicity, indicating the presence of critically stressed faults at risk of remobilisation, the operator didn't consider this, and crucially didn't do any Geomechanics modelling......till after they induced minor earth tremors at Prease Hall-1.   A really good confidence building start to an embryonic industry................. 

The Tory government then followed this up by 'wanting' the last onshore round to be a success, so I suspect 'insisted' that licence awards were made to several companies with no appropriate background, and made (IMHO) the OGA look like fools in the process (there not and have some very talented staff at the moment).

No wonder the public have concerns, they don't trust the Tories to provide appropriate governance to the industry, and their only frame of reference is from a poorly regulated American industry, often adopting a low-cost devil may care approach, and operating in a different geological setting.

A classic British 'we'll just muddle along and see what happens'.............approach.

Ultimately we live in a democratic society, so any onshore shale gas, or shale oil extraction has to happen with the 'consent' of the population. Both the government (of any colour) and the smaller operators need to remember this.

When I used to live in the Fylde there were frequent minor earthquakes, long before the Fracking trials.  Please could you point me to the source of your information that fracking actually caused the more recent tremors?

The move from coal to gas in the UK has achieved a massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.  Please can you explain how fracking increases climate change and air pollution (apart from possible fugitive emissions)?  In practice the expansion of rapid response gas fired power stations (which emit 50% of the CO2 emissions of coal fired electricity) has made it possible to achieve the excellent roll out of solar and wind power (by filling the gaps on windless nights)

Poorly engineered fracking has undoubtedly caused some water polluting problems in the US.  AFAIK there are no such problems in the UK because the engineering is more stringent to comply with permits 

Having said that I'm not a fan of fracking, but I DO believe in sound fact based arguments not hysteria.

The irony is that low-cost mass fracking in the US where the much more uniform geology has released a lot of gas onto the world market reducing the price to such an extent that fracking can't be an economically viable means of long term gas supply in the UK

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquake...

I'm not posting this from an anti-fraccing standpoint, but for information......................for balance & to put it in perspective, overall induced tremors have been very rare; even in the USA ( I can't be bothered to find a reference to back that assertion up just now; off home for a beer, but if you want i'll dig out the scientific paper later).

An interesting follow on question from that is, if lubricating fault lines is triggering small earthquakes, to what extent are those allowing the fault slippage to occur earlier than it otherwise would, at lower forces, rather than having it save up for bigger earthquakes later.

(I'm not trying to suggest anything here beyond that it seems like something worth further study, but any such study would have to be over a fairly significant time span to mean much.)

Yes, it's been badly handled PR wise, those opposing fracking got their arguments established first and the government has been cack handed in selling it.

A pity as we spend £8 billion a year on importing the stuff from Russia and the Middle East. Money that could stay at home.

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that - I stand corrected on the tremors, but stand by my other points.  Enjoy your beer.

What I find mind blowing is that Viable Gas fields of the South coast are being decommissioned and the wells plugged and platforms removed all in favour of fracking.

As for the Police acting like a private security firm for private business you just have to look at South Yorkshire Polices shocking behaviour supporting Amey in Sheffield.

As far as water contamination goes In Lancashire I would be a lot more concerned with what was dumped there at Fleetwood during ICIs Nerve Gas production earlier last century !!!

My on view is its too late now for a mature debate, and the industry will slowly die. The public see the process as a 'baby eating monster', protesters result in significant project delays, associated costs and ironically HSE risk; thus very few companies have a the 'stomach' to fund and get involved. 

Technically we import hardly any gas from Russia, they do sell a lot of gas into the European network (eg Italy), but most of the gas piped to us comes from Scandinavia.  We do import more and more LNG in tankers from Qatar

Is that what is happening?  My understanding is that the viable gas fields can't compete with cheap imported gas.  There is no commercially viable fracking in the UK.  AFAIK all of the current effort is trying to find if fracking in the UK is firstly technically viable and secondly commercially viable - now or in the future.  I think they are going to get their fingers burnt

The Loggs and Viking Complex were doing quite well especially since there was a huge Late Life expectancy project a couple of years ago. They were all running at a profit but not as much as the big boys would like I suspect and they are off to pastures cheaper and less regulated. Hence most of the north sea being flogged off to the scratty smaller companies that will stiff the taxpayer for the decommissioning bill.

I haven't worked S gas basin for20 years, but you do need a minimum rate of return that's at least reasonably profitable.  You would be brave I imagine to try and make money on tight Rotliegend sands

Knowing of one of the protesters who have just been jailed (in the way of Sheffield, they're a friend of a friend {of a friend}), I'd suggest you be careful about what you insinuate about assaults and criminal damage - or else you're not being fair.  They haven't been charged and jailed for assault, nor have the lorries been damaged while 'being surfed' or camped upon. 

Whether you approve or not, their perspective is as valid as your's, and they deserve that people are truthful in what is posted about them just like anybody else.  Peace and all that.  

It turns out the judge has family links to the oil and gas industry in some form.

Hmmmmmm. Pot? Kettle?

''Altham Ship Stores and Offshore Supplies Ltd (family business of Robert Altham), supplies the oil & gas industry in the Irish Sea''

I'm not sure in what way, but I'll readily admit to double standards or casting unwarranted aspersions when pointed out. 

http://altham.biz/products/ The list below seems like a very useful list for the offshore oil and gas industry, with these being products supplied the the family business of the judge, I was factually correct in what I posted. I should probably do the 'Private Eye thing' of saying there's no suggestion of the judge having a financial conflict of interest while deciding the sentences.

Deck, engine and cabin supplies

Cloth and linen products

Tableware and galley utensils

Clothing

Ropes and hawsers

Rigging equipment and general deck equipment

Marine paint

Painting equipment

Safety protective gear

Safety equipment

Hose and couplings

Nautical equipment

Medicines

Petroleum products

Stationery

Hardware

Brushes and Mats

Lavatory equipment

Cleaning materials and chemicals

Pneumatic and electrical tools

Hand tools

Cutting tools

Measuring tools

Metal sheets, bars etc

Screws and nuts

Pipes and tubes

Pipe and tube fittings

Valves and cocks

Bearings

Electrical equipment

Packing and jointing

Welding equipment

Machinery equipment

Well, yes. Ok. In some form I'll give you.

Roughly how much fracking do you think takes place in the Irish Sea?

So there.

Good list you've got there Timmy boy.
I used to refit Royal Navy ships and worked on most of those items.

As far as I know, non of those vessels were involved in mining for gas.  They just sailed around the oceans of the world.

I think you're just trying to be 'hip' and jumping on the anti-fracking bandwagon.

Give me concrete facts that back up all these fanatical trendy hippy hyperbolic crap trap and people might take you seriously.

If you are genuinely concerned about the police wage bill in your neck of the woods you might want to look at football matches,

????? I didn't say any of them had been causing damage or assaulting anyone.. I was talking about how many protestors do and how the kinder trespassers only broke the law they disliked. If they are innocent they can appeal.

Even peaceful protesters do cost the tax payer money though in terms of policing or their removal from other people's property.

I'd rather fact driven science won the day, not a bunch of posh hippies leaving their gas centrally heated homes, wearing many clothes derived from oil, travelling in their petroleum driven vehicle, eating their fair trade humus baguette whose produce came to the UK on a ship..... to then chant about protecting environment and not extracting gas. It smacks of not in my back yard. 

Ps. I'm on the fence with fracking. With correct regulation I don't see why it can't be safe in all respects. The people to harass are MPs to ensure those regs, not the people trying to drill the hole.

I just pressed "like" on a Lemming post.  

I think I need to lie down.

- "Earthquakes" - yes, but so what? As noted below by Caswebb, these have been seen to have Richter magnitudes topping out at c2. So, comparing that to something you might feel (e.g. Richter 4), we're talking about a energy release difference of a factor of c1,000x. If we compare a Richter 1 "earthquake" resulting from fracking (?) to something that might begin to do damage (e.g. Richter 5) then we're talking about a difference of 1,000,000x in energy terms. So, not sure we need to worry just yet...

- Speaking as a geologist/geophysicist (by training), I am not worried by fracking from a quake perspective, nor are any suitably qualified research geologists / professors that I have spoken with about it (including some of the world's foremost structural geologists).

- I think the transfer of chemicals through the ground/water is a much less well understood topic and one that could do with more research. That said, I think some teams are getting there a bit on this front - there's obviously some crossover with research associated with underground nuclear waste repositories.

I just liked a summo post, and I'm completely sober!
Time for the pub.

Are you completely ignorant of all history? I think it's fair to say your statement is entirely incorrect. In case you need any hints, women's votes, gay marriage, anti-apartheid, US war of independence.

But I think it is fair to say that the actions of those who were prosecuted for those things were actually against the law of the time.  And, as such, people were found guilty.  And, unfortunately, rightly so.

What you need to rail against are the laws that constrain the decisions that judges make.  In this instance a judge has ruled that the law was broken and determined a sentence.  So either change the law or appeal against the sentence.

Or get yourselves over to Blackpool and really make them sit up!

Sorry, I don't get it. Are you saying that because their jobs sound a bit middle class we don't need to worry if  completely disproportionate prison sentences  are being handed out  in order to push the fracking agenda through ?