Frack Off! Fracturing Rocks To Release Underground Gas Coming To UK.

There is a problem with water contamination. Yet that doesn’t stop gas companies after a quick buck.

Hi Tap

This is an extract from a feed I got today from Frack Off.

This is the first I have heard of Fracking coming to UK. Possibly the gas extraction is a cover story for generating earthquakes, or testing the equipment to do so? Any one else know anything? Here’s the extract:

I don’t know if you have heard much about Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking)? It is a massively destructive form of natural gas extraction, which is coming to the Southwest. It has had a devastating impact in America where it has been rolled out extensively, and has already been linked with earthquakes in Blackpool where it is being tested in the UK. (See our website for more info).
UK Methane have several license blocks in the South West and may start trying to use them this year.

Julia

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

6 Responses to “Frack Off! Fracturing Rocks To Release Underground Gas Coming To UK.”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Is the captain of the Costa Concordia being set up and given a media smear job?

    //Captain: “Captain, I want to get on board the ship but the other life boat has stopped its engine and it is drifting and I called other rescuers.”//

    //A Coast Guard official on Giglio, the island where the ship hit a rock, said he could not confirm the authenticity of the tape and said the Coast Guard did not give it to the newspaper. There was no comment available from the captain’s lawyer.

    A lawyer for Mr Schettino said: “The captain defended his role on the direction of the ship after the collision, which in the captain’s opinion saved hundreds if not thousands of lives,” Bruno Leporatti said. “The captain specified that he did not abandon ship.”//

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9020679/Costa-Concordia-coast-guard-to-captain-Get-back-on-board-the-ship.html

    In an ABC news transcript we get

    //Captain: I didn’t abandon any ship… because the ship turned on its side quickly and we were catapulted into the water.//

    Which could be a lame excuse or outright lie from a playboy captain hired for his social skills who was inept and cowardly in a crisis…

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/transcript-italian-cruise-captain-ordered-back-boat/story?id=15376951#.TxXIj2_mw41

    … however, the early reports said an officer was on command deck when the ship hit the rock and the captain was in the bar.

    Aslo, we know that the ship took a glancing blow to the back of the hull. This indicates that whoever was in charge of the ship steered away from the rock – otherwise they’d have hit is head on. That person could not have been Capt. Schettino unless he pre-programmed the route via computer.

    Here are three more strange anomalies not reported in the media.

    Satellite track (image from BBC) shows the vessel didn’t go that close to the island. Some reports claim the Costa Concordia was 150 yards from the shore – if you view the second chart, that appears to be wrong.
    http://i40.tinypic.com/1zyy5uw.png

    We know from other reports the “Le Scole” reef was hit. Here it is. Extends 300m from the coast. Very deep water right next to it. Presumably the captain took over after this reef was hit(suggested route in yellow), then parked the vessel on the sandbank so that the ship would not entirely sink beneath the waves (saving lives)..

    http://i43.tinypic.com/23ldoup.png

    Finally, look at this picture then compare the position of the afloat ship to the jetty and the final position of the ship next to the rocks. Is the ship in the middle of the harbour?
    http://i44.tinypic.com/20pu9w4.png

    Why doesn’t the satellite image show the vessel has reversed onto the shallower sandbank? Did this happen or does this photo have a misleading perspective? Why, if true, is this not mentioned in reports? There were 4000 people – where are the mobile phone videos on youtube of the event?

  2. Woodsy42 says:

    Actually I have to take the opposite view on gas fracking. It’s a well tried process and could release vast amounts of useful clean practical energy which could free us from the scurge of useless windmills and all the attendant costs and restrictions on society and its beterment.
    It’s strongly opposed by all the same now mostly-discredited environmental businneses who brought us global warming alarmism, population growth alarmism, growing food plants to make petrol, and much of the nonsense being used to take our freedoms and liberty under the carbon banner. That should tell you something about the honesty of ‘frack off’.
    Of course there need to be safety rules, as with any industrial process. None are perfect and years ago we used to get occassional small strength 2 earthquakes round here, everyone knew they were caused by coal mining activity – they provided a talking point in the pub but nobody was ever hurt. Plus they were relieving natural stresses that could have built up worse. Small quakes are not a bad thing to have.
    As for being a decision by those out to get us – just the opposite, the PTB are trying to stop it because it kills off their plans to hold us all to ransome over fuel shortages.
    But OK, it’s not an ideal senario, I would rather we didn’t have to do it, but I think it’s better than the alternatives.

  3. Anonymous says:

    @Woodsy42

    You do not seem to address the chief concern about fracking which, as I understand it, is water contamination – in particular of aquifers. If these concerns are correct and accurate, personally I think the anti-frackers are sensible.

  4. Julia says:

    It also sounds like an extraordinary amount of effort to get a small amount of gas, even ignoring any environmental concerns (which i do think are important). How profitable can it be? Is it government subsidised?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Apologies it’s off topic – this remains strange event.

    Costa Concordia questions

    – where is the youtube footage? there appears to be only one amateur video from RT, on the jetty
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcrBboNWVZ8

    – why does a photo of the ship (and the video) show it next to the jetty, 400m from where it eventually capsized. it if reversed backwards to that spot why aren’t we told by media?

    – we are told the craft was not sailing on autopilot because it was switched off. was the captain actually in the bar as reports first said, and the officer at the command deck? if so why does media keep implying the captain steered too close.

    – why were they both initially arrested – was the officer let go, why?

    – how did the captain leave the ship. did he fall off – “catapulted” as he claimed – when the ship tilted suddenly or is that a lame excuse he hopes he can get away with because it was dark? did anyone pull him out of the water into a lifeboat?

    – is the satellite tracking of the vessel accurate? It shows the Costa Concordia much further out than 300 metres (the distance le Scole reef stretches away from the coast). The captain said they were 400m out. some news reports say they were as close as 150m. Something is in error.

    – ships frequently passed closed by the island. this was not an unusual event in that respect.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,809580,00.html

    //’In the Last Lifeboat’

    Beppe Tievoli also confirmed to SPIEGEL ONLINE that it was not uncommon for cruise ships to approach the island at close quarters to greet the inhabitants with their foghorns. “It’s a nice tradition, normalissima,” he said — absolutely normal. His son worked for the Costa line for more than 10 years, and had been assigned to the Costa Concordia for the last four months.

    Almost every week, whenever the ship passed his home island, Antonello contacted his family to tell them what time it would happen. “When a ship is approaching the coast at 400 meters, there is usually no risk,” said Beppe, a former sailor. But to sail so close to the cliffs — it was extremely dangerous, he said.//

  6. Woodsy42 says:

    “It also sounds like an extraordinary amount of effort to get a small amount of gas,”

    No it isn’t. Just the opposite. There is very little above ground structure, far less intrusive than mining or windmills, and the amount of available gas just in the Blackpool area is absolutely enormous.

    The whole point is that it doesn’t require subsidies, it’s cheap energy. Look at the gas price in the USA compared to here in Europe now that Canada has started shale gas extraction and fracking to become a gas exporter.

    I don’t know much about water aquifer contamination but believe the liquid pumped down is basically water under pressure?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.