For me, the news that there might be a new and cheap source of fuel off the coasts of Britain is a major cause of celebration. North Sea oil generated billions of pounds in revenues and jacked up living standards for everyone in the land. Roger Harrabin, though, doesn’t give a stuff about that; in this piece about new moves to extract gas from the shale offshore from Blackpool, his only concern is to give a puff to an obscure (and no doubt highly delighted) local Green party zealot, who – in true Luddite fashion – tells us that we will all be engulfed with environmental poison if this nasty drilling goes ahead. As usual, there’s not a peep from anyone who can inform us about the potential benefits of the exercise, although Roger begrudingly tells us that the government wants the scheme to go ahead. That aside, it’s an open goal for Mr Harrabin to bellyache (again) about the perils of nuclear power and to allow his little green Hitler to claim that we are going to hell in a handcart:
Risks to human health; to ground water and drinking water; and to the environment due to the huge amounts of waste this produces and the huge amount of water it consumes. Also I think the impact of drilling rigs on the countryside will be totally unacceptable to the British people. I think this is something we’ll live to regret
.
That’ll be the same Green party that is so relentlessly cheering the erection of thousands of wind turbines. Oh, and the green cause is so popular in the Blakpool area that it did not even contest the seat in 2010. But never mind, the irony is lost on Mr Harrabin – don’t let the facts get in the way of another greenie sermon. And compare his approach to Channel 4’s Siobhan Kennedy – to her, it’s striking gold in Blackpool.
h/tip george R.
Perhaps the rationing of energy and fuel prices so high that no one but the rich elite can afford to drive will also be ‘unacceptable to the British people’?
As a mere blog commenter, one has to opine that anything that shoehorns ‘I think..’ twice into one para can hardly be deemed reporting.
That reads more like advocacy. Is that his, and his employer’s remit?
Yes, a fine example of opinion being broadcast as news.
What he, and some freak from the Monster Raving Green Party, ‘think’ should be of no consequence. They should be reporting the facts regarding the nation’s energy requirements and how inefficient these monstrous windmills really are.
Harrabin – founder member of the Plot Loser’s Club, and current joint holder of the BBC Stupid Person of the Year competition (the other being, of course, Mr. Black…). Members of the Today broadcasting “team” are merely runners-up.
BBC’s Greenie Harrabin seems to have missed a trick in his anti-Lancashire shale gas propaganda; about 5 miles from the shale gas exploration site is located Westinghouse’s Springfield nuclear fuel manufacturing site. Surely he should have told us of the ‘dangers’ of this, as his his wont?
http://www.nuclearsites.co.uk/page.php?pageID=519
But anyway, greenie ‘Newsnight’, scraping the barrel for a topic at the end of the week last night, we had Ms Flanders, telling us the apparent ‘facts’ about ‘climate change’ and coming up with its repetitive, lazy propaganda against all fuels except wind and solar. The range of opinion on ‘Newsnight’ was all the way from Guardian’s Monbiot (who has now shifted his view to say nuclear power is not so bad) to pro-solar advocate!
(For those with access, first 13 mins: 30 secs here):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mk25
There are a number of cases in the US presently where shale gas drilling has been blamed for poisoning the aquafer. The opposition is, of course, the usual suspects but that doesn’t mean that they are wrong, it just means that their ‘evidence’ needs to be closely checked.
Getting oil/gas out of shale involves pumping a chemical soup into the ground to force the goodies out. There are bound to be repercussions from this and poisoning drinking water is one possible outcome.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas if you are bored enough.
The BBC-Greenbie Harrabin presumption is that he knows that it is best for shale gas drilling to be STOPPED now in Britain, and he over-represents the opposition, in his own political interests as usual. Expect BBC-Greenie to make the case any time soon for ‘direct action’ to stop the drilling. As subsidised Greenies do in their occupation of coal fired power stations.
The only ‘cuts’ such people are in favour of are cuts to Britain’s power supply. Vote greenie. Vote Darkness.
The way the BBC works, and you must be aware of this, is that runs around with it’s Green headless chicken head firmly stuck up its arse. Reasonable objections are ignored in favour of doom and gloom – no attempt is ever made to find out what is really going on. The argument then becomes nothing more than a polarised slanging match, with one side getting all the coverage.
We won’t get a proper debate on shale gas with the BBC whipping up scare stories. If there is something wrong with the techniques used we’ll never get to know , which means we’ll never get to change them for the better. That’s what I object to – their reasons are irrelevant – whether they are sexing up a dull story or plotting the overthrow of the capaitalist world – it doesn’t matter. I still have to shell out hard earned cash to be treated like a child. And I don’t like it so there.
I’d like the BBC to live upto it’s charter and educate me. Shale gas extraction has it’s downside, but is it worth it in the end? I don’t expect this question to be answered honestly by the BBC.
Yes the damage the BBC does as a consequence of its pro-Left advocacy is less what is says (which of course is pretty bad – take for example its current “too much too soon” cuts narrative) and more what it refuses to discuss or investigate.
The BBC can be relied upon to ignore most serious issues. But this is not merely because the BBC is run by people who think in comic book Leftist terms, this immaturity (especially amongst older Beeboids) is usually little more than a thin disguise over naked self-interest.
The term ‘chemical soup’ is too vague and ‘loaded’ with the fear of ignorance to take seriously. The green objection is that the techniques of shale gas extraction is a threat to the zero-carbon industry with its huge subsidies pushed through by a range of fear inducing marketing.
The BBC loves to turn to the Tyndale Centre of Climate Change lobbying and this is what they have to say.
“The Tyndale Centre recently published a report warning that extracting shale gas could cause nearby water contamination, as well as increasing carbon emissions and discourage the development of zero-carbon technologies.”
There’s the rub.
An energy source 50% less CO2 per unit of energy (carbon emission cuts made attainable at a stroke), cheaper than dirty coal clean up, nuclear and way cheaper than wind or solar.
Plus the bonus of reduced dependency on unstable regions with two centuries of estimated availability.
All in all, a game changer.
The objections from the usual quarters are weak and they know it.
fear of ignorance should always be taken seriously. 😛
99.5% of the hydraulic liquid is water with the addition of sodium chloride, potassium chloride (salt) and a trace of weak acids.
The source strata are at great depth and the boreholes lined. The breakthrough in shale gas extraction was the technical feat of enabling horizontal drilling at great depths. Otherwise the technique of hydraulic fracture is well over half a century old.
A background at (better than wikipaedia):
Click to access Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Backgrounder%20%282%29.pdf
“99.5% of the hydraulic liquid is water with the addition of sodium chloride, potassium chloride (salt) and a trace of weak acids. “
But they’re NASTY CHEMICALS! Aaaaagghhhhrrrrrr!