PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

UK Energy Crisis

EU targets €140bn from windfall taxes on energy companies​

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen outlines measures to ease impact of soaring prices

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday that, “in our social market economy, profits are good. But in these times it is wrong to receive extraordinary record profits benefiting from war and on the back of consumers.”
“Profits must be shared and channelled to those who need it the most,” she added. “Our proposal will raise more than €140bn for member states to cushion the blow directly.”



 
I’m not looking at newspaper stories, I get my info from the horses mouth. I was involved with the PNR project and know many people involved at all levels. I was there when they burned off the gas for the first time and saw the results for myself.

My company did an awful lot of work in Poland with the potential fracking industry and Russian pressure is not an excuse, it’s a fact.

My argument for fracking has always been that we should investigate it. If what you say is true, well fair enough, at least it was given a fair chance and we got as much data as possible. But they have not had the chance to do so.

AJ Lucas are not going to throw money at the project if they do not think there is a viable and positive outcome. Their next move will be telling.

I finally got round to binge-watching the documentary “Big Oil v The World”. Look it up on iPlayer if you haven’t seen it.

It seems that the arguments for fracking have already been fully investigated - and the results are dreadful. It’s just that these findings were buried by the oil industry and replaced by false, favourable ones. Unless that nasty BBC was making it up.
 
I finally got round to binge-watching the documentary “Big Oil v The World”. Look it up on iPlayer if you haven’t seen it.

It seems that the arguments for fracking have already been fully investigated - and the results are dreadful. It’s just that these findings were buried by the oil industry and replaced by false, favourable ones. Unless that nasty BBC was making it up.
The ones who are for it are the ones who stand to make an immediate profit from it, they have no regards for their own and especially other kids futures.
 
I finally got round to binge-watching the documentary “Big Oil v The World”. Look it up on iPlayer if you haven’t seen it.

It seems that the arguments for fracking have already been fully investigated - and the results are dreadful. It’s just that these findings were buried by the oil industry and replaced by false, favourable ones. Unless that nasty BBC was making it up.
You have numerous companies lining up to carry on onshore gas exploration work. These companies are not stupid, they have their reasons to look into the validity and viability of fracking.

Besides, Big Oil v The World" hardly screams impartiality, does it?
 
You have numerous companies lining up to carry on onshore gas exploration work. These companies are not stupid, they have their reasons to look into the validity and viability of fracking.

I bet these companies are indeed lining up.

I will just assume this post is a wind up.
 
Why would it be a wind up? You are saying there is no validity in fracking. I'm saying there are very good reasons to investigate its validity.

Seriously Snicky - look into that documentary. Financially, it's perhaps like 'free money' to fracking companies, so I'm sure you're right that companies are falling over themselves!.

But it's a disaster for the environment (evidence falsified by vested interests )... and of course, it won't be these companies that pay the price.
 
Seriously Snicky - look into that documentary. Financially, it's perhaps like 'free money' to fracking companies, so I'm sure you're right that companies are falling over themselves!.

But it's a disaster for the environment (evidence falsified by vested interests )... and of course, it won't be these companies that pay the price.
It is not a disaster for the environment at all. I spent many many days on-site at PNR and witnessed firsthand the extremely strict environmental protocols that are followed. All talk of aquifers being contaminated, harmful chemicals contaminating the water supply, setting fire to water, and excessive methane escape, are all untrue in the modern day industry. We already import LNG and huge environmental cost. If viable, locally produced gas will negate the need for that by some volume. If they do as they should and ringfence British sourced gas.

I'm not looking at the documentary because, to be honest, I have read enough professionally produced information, from both sides of the argument already.
 
Seriously Snicky - look into that documentary. Financially, it's perhaps like 'free money' to fracking companies, so I'm sure you're right that companies are falling over themselves!.

But it's a disaster for the environment (evidence falsified by vested interests )... and of course, it won't be these companies that pay the price.
As i say, all about profit, not a single thought about our kids future survival.
 
Seriously Snicky - look into that documentary. Financially, it's perhaps like 'free money' to fracking companies, so I'm sure you're right that companies are falling over themselves!.

But it's a disaster for the environment (evidence falsified by vested interests )... and of course, it won't be these companies that pay the price.
The government here keeps trying to sneak through laws to allow fracking.

An extremely stupid idea given the geology of the area.
 
It is not a disaster for the environment at all. I spent many many days on-site at PNR and witnessed firsthand the extremely strict environmental protocols that are followed. All talk of aquifers being contaminated, harmful chemicals contaminating the water supply, setting fire to water, and excessive methane escape, are all untrue in the modern day industry. We already import LNG and huge environmental cost. If viable, locally produced gas will negate the need for that by some volume. If they do as they should and ringfence British sourced gas.

I'm not looking at the documentary because, to be honest, I have read enough professionally produced information, from both sides of the argument already.

The "professionally produced" information on the pro-fracking lobby has had the backing of hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars over the last couple of decades... and it's propagated misinformation, and suppressed information. That's the point.
 
I'm not talking propaganda, I'm talking actual data.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this specific aspect of science. So I will read more in due course. In the meantime, I ask you to reflect on something.

As you presumably know well, the assessments of scientific data... particularly complex environmental assessments.. rely heavily on the conventions (or International Standards) that are agreed when determining what should be measured and very precisely how it should be measured. Lobbying can have a huge influence on what and how things are measured in order assess business cases and in order to obtain regulatory approvals. If the influence is duplicitous, then at a local site level, genuine scientists can be left slapping themselves on the back because their 'actual data' says all's good. The 'propaganda' is baked in and hidden in the mists of time.

I doubt that even you wouldn't deny that the fossil fuel industry has "track record" when it comes to lobbying and deception!
 
I'm not claiming to be an expert on this specific aspect of science. So I will read more in due course. In the meantime, I ask you to reflect on something.

As you presumably know well, the assessments of scientific data... particularly complex environmental assessments.. rely heavily on the conventions (or International Standards) that are agreed when determining what should be measured and very precisely how it should be measured. Lobbying can have a huge influence on what and how things are measured in order assess business cases and in order to obtain regulatory approvals. If the influence is duplicitous, then at a local site level, genuine scientists can be left slapping themselves on the back because their 'actual data' says all's good. The 'propaganda' is baked in and hidden in the mists of time.

I doubt that even you wouldn't deny that the fossil fuel industry has "track record" when it comes to lobbying and deception!
Yup - that is one of the elements of academic/technical writing. You are often asked to put a 'spin' on things by the client!

I read the literature produced by the group advocating fracking and it was very optimistic, taking the 'best case' scenario almost every time. Subsequent literature challenged many of their findings, especially the amount of gas, the ease of extraction, and the speed at which it can be rolled out. After reading and analysing the information, as described above, I believe that the economics and the practicality do not add up - even before we look at the environmental angle. The costs and risks far outweigh the benefits.

Time to move on and look somewhere else.
 
I was dealing with raw data, before it had the chance to be watered down or embellished.

What I am trying to say is that I'm only commenting on the facts that I know and that I have seen for myself.

As ever I have no comment on the guaranteed future and viability of fracking, only from my experience that it is far from a closed book, based on the evidence gathered from PNR. And we need to investigate it.
 
Last edited:
Top