Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
bring back the coking plants using kent coal.much safer than fracking,and it dosent polute the water tables.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I thought KKC would have learnt their lesson with their Iceland investment?
Did they ever get their money back?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
congrats to april and friends, took this one back in july when the eythorne silver band played in pencester gardens.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Call for Kent County Council to not rule on fracking future due to pension fund investments
"...Following a Freedom of Information request, the Kent Green Party says KCC holds £153 million of shares in eight companies actively or wholly involved in extracting shale oil and gas. .."
http://www.yourdover.co.uk/news/call_for_kent_county_council_to_not_rule_on_fracking_future_due_to_pension_fund_investments_1_2883881 Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
The shares are held by the KCC pension fund (not funds over which the KCC has any direct influence), so suitably arms length as not to engage any conflict of interest, none of the companies are wholly involved in extracting shale oil or gas (although all have a greater or smaller part of a minor proportion of their turn over from such activity) and KCC planning will not be making any rulings on fracking in East Kent anyway because no applications for activity that involves fracking have been made. Never let reality intrude on anything - Do the Greens secretly want test drilling for coal bed methane to proceed without proper safety measures? They are certainly doing their utmost to distract from the real issues and undermine objections/questions from opposition to drilling that concentrates on the reality of the applications made so far.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
spoke to someone who was at last night's meeting and he was not impressed with it.
apparently it was a stage managed event with little real constructive discussion over methane extraction.
no harm will be done to the kcc pension funds as things stand.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
It was truly awful. Preaching to the converted. A pointless exercise.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,919
of course had it been a pro fracking/ drilling meeting
everyone wouldbe saying how informative the meeting was
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I think that the same comments would be applicable - just coming from different people perhaps.
As I put earlier in this thread, tell us where the info is coming from so that we can all prepare an appropriately sized pinch of salt to take with said info.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,919
like you said neil
2 sides to this debate
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
The part where I finally left was where their "expert" holding forth to a wide-eyed audience told them that fracking led to the early onset of dementia in New Mexico or some such nonsense.
I made excuses to myself and left laughing under my breath.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
182
gary
i heard that they got most of it back courtesy of the extremely disgruntled icelandic taxpayers.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Keith Sansum1 wrote:like you said neil
2 sides to this debate
Move over, Keefy, I'd like to join you on the fence.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,919
your undecided then peter?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Like Neil, I've been sifting through various pieces of information consisting of facts, opinions, hysteria, lies, damned lies, statistics, and even Daily Mirror articles.
CBM extraction doesn't require fracking but I understand that it does require the release of huge quantities of water (from strata well below the aquifers from which we draw our water supplies) in order to release the trapped gas. The problem is that the aquifers are prone to potential contamination, firstly during the drilling process; secondly by the released water on the way up to the surface; and thirdly by the released water after it reaches the surface. We also need to know precisely what contaminants might exist in this water, and whether they are potentially harmful in the concentrations in which they might be found, and if so, what the drillers are going to do about it. The NCB just let the product of mine dewatering filter back down to the aquifers, and I don't see many people with two heads or seven toes around East Kent nowadays. Chalk is a pretty good filter medium.
The science is much better nowadays, so if we can have assurances from truly independent sources that the risk of harmful contamination can be eliminated, then I am in favour of CBM extraction locally. If not, then I'm against. Test drilling with a well-shielded bore should be no more dangerous than drilling for water.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,919
Have to say that sounds good peter
although im not so sure i would believe the company, who is to make dosh from it going ahead
they will of course tell you anything you want to hear
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Oh labour. What to do eh?
Are they for or against the exploration and exploitation of coal bed methane?
On the one hand we have some in the labour party totally opposed to the idea and yet, and yet on tonight's question time Tristram Hunt said:
"In Stoke on Trent We've got huge amounts of coal bed methane and we are going to exploit it to the full which is exactly the kind of long term strategy we need".
Such are the facts.
Guest 1057- Registered: 21 Sep 2013
- Posts: 25
Okay guys could I have your attention and more importantly your help please.....I'm no expert on all this just learning bits and bobs as I go! I have been looking at Coastal Oil & Gas's actual PEDL 251 Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (which I note also includes their parent company Eden who have since changed their trading name) it's under this link, onshore PEDL 251
www.og.decc.gov.uk/web_files/recent_licences/oglicences.htm
I am bringing your attention to 2 points from their licence:
1) under INTERPRETATION paragraph 'PETROLEUM' it states "petroleum includes any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas existing in its natural condition in strata BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE COAL OR BITUMINOUS SHALES or other stratified deposits from which oil can be extracted by destructive distillation" ........
Does this mean they are NOT licenced to enter the 7-14th kent strata layers...which I have also checked is not just the coal bed but is recorded on a geology map as our SHALE LAYERS. Why in the whole of their application does it not mention Shale layer and merely states coal beds, their diagrams 7.7 in their supporting statement on KCC website does not show the description of strata layers in detail, its a basic diagram! Compare it to a proper geology mapping of layers of kent strata and you can see the missing info.
2) right at the bottom of their licence under schedule clauses 4 and 12 FIRM COMMITMENT it states....." The licensee shall drill one well to a depth of 1000m" ".......why then do Guston have an application from CO&G to drill to 1200m??? Hence the extra 200m is the depths of the shale layer 7-14th kent strata......their licence does not cover them to drill this deep
Please tell me I'm not loosing the plot, I have spent what feels like an eternity trailing through documents and my brain feels like scrambled eggs!!!
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
On the face of it...
2) A licence is a licence, and if such sets the limit at 1000m a new/extra/additional licence would be needed to go the other 200m.**
Ah yes, "destructive distillation" (The Lurgi Process, as was;for the production of 'Town Gas'*). At last I feel the benefits of an education amidst the coal fields.
1) I take this to mean that no extraction of oil/gas-bearing solids is to be attempted.
*The modern Lurgi-Ruhrgas Process...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurgi_process
The Town Gas process...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_gas
**
Might there not be a separate licence for each site?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
They also have PDEL249 which can be viewed from the link in #198
This too limits drilling to 1000m
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
