Owen Paterson’s brother in law spouting the same lies

WelcomeImage

The second reason for our not having been able to benefit as much as we could from the shale gas revolution is that gas costs a lot to transport by sea, as my noble friend Lord Lawson said. Therefore, even if US gas prices fall, we will not see the full benefit over here—it is not like oil; it is not a fungible commodity with one world price. So we have to produce domestic gas to get the full benefit of lower gas prices. But we have twiddled our thumbs and listened to every discredited theory about environmental harm from shale, including fugitive emissions, flaming taps, aquifer pollution, damaging earthquakes, radioactivity and heavy water use. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, these have been greatly exaggerated.

TAP – After pages and pages hyping up the shale gas potential in Britain,  Matt Ridley has only one short paragraph denying the downside even exists.  Is this where Owen Paterson is getting it all from?  Text is from Matt Ridley’s House Of Lords speeches in Hansard.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/141104-0002.htm#14110462000317

I wrote to the UKIP candidate in our Constituency, Suzanne Evans, who was also playing the scaremongering line about the threat from fracking.   Here is my most recent email to her and her seemingly reasoned reply.  I wouldn’t bother sending anything to Matt Ridley or Owen Paterson.  They think they know it all already, and just want to tell you what you’re going to have to have whether you like it or not,  Paterson even saying that the local people meeting at the Village Hall to discuss a proposed drill site were ‘not real people’, a meeting which he refused to attend.  The Ridley/Paterson arrogance is beyond belief.  At least Suzanne Evans, the UKIP deputy chair, agrees to look into it.

Hi Suzanne,

Scaremongering?  Pointing out that water resources  are disappearing and being poisoned is in fact helpful, unless you’re in favour of water becoming the new oil.  Maybe you are.

We (UK) buy our gas from Norway and Qatar.  The price is very low.  The price charged to consumers bears no relation to the commodity price paid to producers.
If you want to help old people, renationalise the utilities, or control the retail prices through a powerful regulator limiting the permitted margin to 50%.
Ensure all buildings are lagged – walls and rooves, windows and doors.
Don’t destroy Britain’s clean water reserves, as people will be short of clean water, which is the basis of all life.  The health of everyone will be affected.
As for energy security we have vast coal reserves which can be exploited without destroying our environment.  The carbon can be captured more efficiently than is being done.  In fact coal can be burned much more cleanly than gas now, if only the government would permit the technology to be used. Carbon captured at the point of combustion works much better than the methods being employed at vast expense in the UK to capture carbon post-combustion.  The carbon shouldn’t be dumped into underground water etc as is being done incredibly wastefully, but mixed with hydrogen to produce methanol at very low cost.  This would be hugely profitable and make us independent for fuels, including road fuels, the thing you claim you desire.  Methanol from coal is commonplace around the world and is happening in South Africa and China, for instance.  Australia is looking at moving this way in the next few years.
Fuel independence is the very last thing desired by the British government and the fossil fuel corporations.  And apparently by UKIP also.  You really need a radical rethink about this.  Fracking is nothing other than the deliberate destruction of our water, with little fuel potential as is clear from the crashing share prices of fracking companies operating in Britain.  Shrewsbury is not yet awake on this issue, but when it is,you need to be ready to defend the destruction of our water supply.
Your sincerely,
Henry Curteis

​Dear Henry,

As you probably know, UKIP is still very much in favour of using our coal reserves and building new coal fired power stations, as they are in other sensible countries word wide that have not been saddled with our former Labour Government’s preposterous Climate Change Act, which we would scrap. And I certainly agree that we need to do more on ensuring our homes are secure and warm in terms of energy efficiency.

So it seems we can agree on some things. I will look into the fracking issue in more detail.

Best wishes,

Suzanne

http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling

ukcolumn.org

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

One Response to “Owen Paterson’s brother in law spouting the same lies”

  1. david turnbull says:

    Hi Henry,

    I really respect your intense commitment & the way you have initiated the campaign to stop fracking. I wholeheartedly agree with your summation of fracking itself and the real concealed objectives by the talking heads of our slime in parliament. BTW, i love the new format and now routinely share almost the entire content daily via twitter. Let’s keep the mass networking going and ultimately “we the People’ will win by consigning the criminal corrupt cabal in Uk to the dustbin of history!
    reiverdave

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.