Tempus Fugit Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 earthquake damage reported Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Lxxx, on 29 May 2013 - 09:00, said: Chinahand, on 29 May 2013 - 08:42, said: Why not coal mining? It causes far more subsidence with all its Ill effects ... and CO2 emissions too. Ah the fear of the new! It's not fear it's just acknowledging the fact that feacking causes all sorts of geological problems, earthquakes being one of them. Fracking causes all sorts of geographical problems compared to what though ... doing nothing? Well sure. But compared to coal mining it causes fewer problems. It is a fear of the new - you want an absolutist view of fracking, compared to nothing - but that is very simplistic - it ignores the benefits of lower energy prices, energy independence and reduced use of coal or tar sands. We are back to lesser evils. Do you continue strip or deep mining, importing Saudi oil and Russian gas, or do you reduce dependence on these things by fracking? By choosing not to frack you are in fact choosing to (continue) to do things which are just as politically, geographically and ecologically problematic. Simplistic rejectionism - fracking causes (really minor) earthquakes therefore we shouldn't do it - ignores the bigger picture that it is highly likely to cause less disruption than the existing technologies it will (partially) replace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Lxxx, on 29 May 2013 - 09:00, said: Chinahand, on 29 May 2013 - 08:42, said: Why not coal mining? It causes far more subsidence with all its Ill effects ... and CO2 emissions too. Ah the fear of the new! It's not fear it's just acknowledging the fact that feacking causes all sorts of geological problems, earthquakes being one of them. Fracking causes all sorts of geographical problems compared to what though ... doing nothing? Well sure. But compared to coal mining it causes fewer problems. It is a fear of the new - you want an absolutist view of fracking, compared to nothing - but that is very simplistic - it ignores the benefits of lower energy prices, energy independence and reduced use of coal or tar sands. We are back to lesser evils. Do you continue strip or deep mining, importing Saudi oil and Russian gas, or do you reduce dependence on these things by fracking? By choosing not to frack you are in fact choosing to (continue) to do things which are just as politically, geographically and ecologically problematic. Simplistic rejectionism - fracking causes (really minor) earthquakes therefore we shouldn't do it - ignores the bigger picture that it is highly likely to cause less disruption than the existing technologies it will (partially) replace. In addition, a high percentage of fracturing (well stimulation) already occurs in producing wells worldwide but because the majority of the action is away from human habitation (ie.offshore) nobody is aware or it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Lxxx, on 29 May 2013 - 09:00, said: Chinahand, on 29 May 2013 - 08:42, said: Why not coal mining? It causes far more subsidence with all its Ill effects ... and CO2 emissions too. Ah the fear of the new! It's not fear it's just acknowledging the fact that feacking causes all sorts of geological problems, earthquakes being one of them. Fracking causes all sorts of geographical problems compared to what though ... doing nothing? Well sure. But compared to coal mining it causes fewer problems. It is a fear of the new - you want an absolutist view of fracking, compared to nothing - but that is very simplistic - it ignores the benefits of lower energy prices, energy independence and reduced use of coal or tar sands. We are back to lesser evils. Do you continue strip or deep mining, importing Saudi oil and Russian gas, or do you reduce dependence on these things by fracking? By choosing not to frack you are in fact choosing to (continue) to do things which are just as politically, geographically and ecologically problematic. Simplistic rejectionism - fracking causes (really minor) earthquakes therefore we shouldn't do it - ignores the bigger picture that it is highly likely to cause less disruption than the existing technologies it will (partially) replace. Minor earthquakes are the least of the issues with fracking, I was merely pointing out that they are a by product of it. We've now come so far along the search for cheap energy we're now taking what was done in the middle of the sea into people's back garden and bringing with it the contamination of the delicate ecosystem, that accompanies firing chemicals mixed with water into the ground in order to open up new avenues for extraction. Those chemicals don't disappear, they seep through and enter the water table and affect everything around it. It's only because humans are within that vicinity people are now starting to notice, but we need cheap energy so it's an unfortunate by product. But we digress, my point was about about fracking and earthquakes. This one may or may not have been caused by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminal Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 I've been at the top of Snaefell in my undies all night waiting for the tsunami to hit. Is it safe to come down yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted May 29, 2013 Author Share Posted May 29, 2013 Would have been safer in your Speedos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 It's stuck in traffic at the mo, wait a week, it could be safer then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 I've been at the top of Snaefell in my undies all night waiting for the tsunami to hit. Is it safe to come down yet? It's waiting for the Ben to get out of the way so it may be a while yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peelmanx Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 No need to panic! Turns out it was just JCK moving all their wagons at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 No need to panic! Turns out it was just JCK moving all their wagons at once. I heard it was Bonnie Tyler returning home and slamming the door Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 IOM Government to invest in £8million in an earthquake early warning system plus another £3million in consultation fees. Allan Bell says after the Sefton deal was nearly an 'Earthquake' and now this happens. Imagine an earthquake... it would be like an earthquake for the Manx economy, so this money is justified and will be taken from children's saving accounts under the new legislation 'Eddie's Law'. http://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/sefton-failure-would-have-been-earthquake-for-economy/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Earthquake was terrifying says local woman - http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=65458 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxman2000 Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Only fracking in North Wales is with the sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I've been at the top of Snaefell in my undies all night waiting for the tsunami to hit. Is it safe to come down yet? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.