JIm Sillars trashes Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP

[jake]

Not a fan of the SNP.

But the decision to ban fracking was spot on.

Because of our geology it would prove to be an environmental disaster.

 

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Yawn.

 

You support importing frac gas from the US in the knowledge that it often comes from underneath populated areas?  So its OK in your view for American citizens to be exposed to risk so that Scotland can profit.

 

Some Socialist you.

 

 

I've never said I support that.  

[Peebo]

37 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Which suggests that it is on the agenda at the behest of companies like Ineos, lobbying Westminster (and no doubt Holyrood) for the opportunity.  Which in turn brings up the environmental issues.

 

I doubt it's been mooted, just so it can be banned so a govt looks good.

I doubt that, too. And I certainly haven’t suggested it.

 

I’m sure INEOS believes that there is enough potential in unconventional development that means it is worth pursuing commercially. They used to have exploration/development licenses across acreage in Scotland, but couldn’t do anything with them because of the moratorium. Of course they have argued against the bans. And very much on their own agenda.

 

Certainly not on Pioneer, Exxon, Range, Chevron et al’s agenda, though.

 

 

[Boris]

Just now, Peebo said:

I doubt that, too. And I certainly haven’t suggested it.

 

I’m sure INEOS believes that there is enough potential in unconventional development that means it is worth pursuing commercially. They used to have exploration/development licenses across acreage in Scotland, but couldn’t do anything with them because of the moratorium. Of course they have argued against the bans. And very much on their own agenda.

 

Certainly not on Pioneer, Exxon, Range, Chevron et al’s agenda, though.

 

 

 

Ah, ok, must've picked you up wrong! My mistake.  

[deesidejambo]

Just now, Boris said:

 

I've never said I support that.  

 

 

Are you supportive of Scotland importing frac gas to Grangemouth in the knowledge that it puts people in another Country in danger?

[jake]

2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Yawn.

 

You support importing frac gas from the US in the knowledge that it often comes from underneath populated areas?  So its OK in your view for American citizens to be exposed to risk so that Scotland can profit.

 

Some Socialist you.

 

The imported shale gas comes through grangemouth and is broken down to smaller pieces.

Its then distributed to hull amongst other places.

The Scottish government could be sued under EU law if it interfered.

This fracking isnt about socialism its about protecting the land on which future generations will live.

 

You're being very foolish.

 

 

[deesidejambo]

2 minutes ago, Peebo said:

I doubt that, too. And I certainly haven’t suggested it.

 

I’m sure INEOS believes that there is enough potential in unconventional development that means it is worth pursuing commercially. They used to have exploration/development licenses across acreage in Scotland, but couldn’t do anything with them because of the moratorium. Of course they have argued against the bans. And very much on their own agenda.

 

Certainly not on Pioneer, Exxon, Range, Chevron et al’s agenda, though.

 

 

Ineos have bought huge onshore Licence areas in north England, where fracking is currently ongoing.  In the event of success with the fracs they will be able to source Grangemouth directly with, you guessed it - frac gas.  From England.       Unless of course the Scottish Govt try to ban that also.

 

but I guess its OK to put English people at risk as well as Americans to keep Grangemouth going eh?

[deesidejambo]

4 minutes ago, jake said:

The imported shale gas comes through grangemouth and is broken down to smaller pieces.

Its then distributed to hull amongst other places.

The Scottish government could be sued under EU law if it interfered.

This fracking isnt about socialism its about protecting the land on which future generations will live.

 

You're being very foolish.

 

 

And you have just shown you don't know what you are talking about.  They dont import the shale itself - they can't "break it down into pieces".  

[Peebo]

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

Ineos have bought huge onshore Licence areas in north England, where fracking is currently ongoing.  In the event of success with the fracs they will be able to source Grangemouth directly with, you guessed it - frac gas.  From England.       Unless of course the Scottish Govt try to ban that also.

 

but I guess its OK to put English people at risk as well as Americans to keep Grangemouth going eh?

I reckon it’s OK to put people “at risk” if they, or their elected representatives are happy to accept that risk.

[jake]

4 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

And you have just shown you don't know what you are talking about.  They dont import the shale itself - they can't "break it down into pieces".  

Laymens terms of course.

But basically yes thats whats done.

And im happy to argue about why fracking on land in Scotland because of its geology would be at best foolish.

[Boris]

9 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

 

Are you supportive of Scotland importing frac gas to Grangemouth in the knowledge that it puts people in another Country in danger?

 

My opinion is hear nor there, that's not the point I was debating with you on.

 

You suggest that the whole thing is a ruse by the SNP to garner public support.  I disagree.

 

But, for the record, and from what I understand of it, I don't like fracking.

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Peebo said:

I reckon it’s OK to put people “at risk” if they, or their elected representatives are happy to accept that risk.

 

The point is the Scottish Govt have decided that fracking is dangerous.     Thats their prerogative.

 

But with that decision, the Scottish Govt, by continuing to support the importing of frac gas from elsewhere are by their own standards putting others at risk, noting that there are huge anti-frac lobbies in England and the US also.

 

But hey - who cares, let the English and American citizens get exposed to danger so that Grangemouth can continue making profit from......................frac gas!   

 

It will be interesting when the Scottish National Energy Company gets going - will they buy from frac gas Companies"?

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

My opinion is hear nor there, that's not the point I was debating with you on.

 

You suggest that the whole thing is a ruse by the SNP to garner public support.  I disagree.

 

But, for the record, and from what I understand of it, I don't like fracking.

 

 

So to be clear - you dont like fracking but you are OK for Scotland to import frac gas for corporate profit?

[jake]

3 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

The point is the Scottish Govt have decided that fracking is dangerous.     Thats their prerogative.

 

But with that decision, the Scottish Govt, by continuing to support the importing of frac gas from elsewhere are by their own standards putting others at risk, noting that there are huge anti-frac lobbies in England and the US also.

 

But hey - who cares, let the English and American citizens get exposed to danger so that Grangemouth can continue making profit from......................frac gas!   

 

It will be interesting when the Scottish National Energy Company gets going - will they buy from frac gas Companies"?

The Scottish government cannot stop the import of this as its then distributed throughout europe to other petrol chemical plants.

After of course being broken down at grangemouth.

They cannot do this as it would not be allowed under EU rules.

[Boris]

6 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

 

So to be clear - you dont like fracking but you are OK for Scotland to import frac gas for corporate profit?

 

No, I've never once said that, but you seem to think that I have, for some reason.

[jake]

4 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

 

So to be clear - you dont like fracking but you are OK for Scotland to import frac gas for corporate profit?

Are you aware of the geology of Scotland.

Fracking on land would be a disaster and create little employment.

But the decision by the SNP was imo and those they took advice from in the face of a very powerful lobby the right one.

[Boris]

8 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

 

So to be clear - you dont like fracking but you are OK for Scotland to import frac gas for corporate profit?

 

And when have I ever been a supporter of corporate profit?

 

I'd nationalise all the utilities, so to answer your question I am not in favour of importing frac gas for corporate profiteering.

[Captain Sausage]

1 minute ago, jake said:

The Scottish government cannot stop the import of this as its then distributed throughout europe to other petrol chemical plants.

After of course being broken down at grangemouth.

They cannot do this as it would not be allowed under EU rules.

 

I’m struggling to understand your point here. 

 

Scotland imports shall gas which is refined (broken down as you call it) into a variety of more useable products such as methane/propane/etc. 

 

It is then sent around Europe or Asia as it is purchased by governments/power companies or energy companies for further refining. 

 

That does not change the fact that Scotland (Ineos Grangemouth) is importing shale gas and oil. 

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

And when have I ever been a supporter of corporate profit?

 

I'd nationalise all the utilities, so to answer your question I am not in favour of importing frac gas for corporate profiteering.

 

Got it out of you eventually.

 

So what should the Scottish Govt do w.r.t Ineos importing frac gas, soon to be from England?

[Boris]

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

 

Got it out of you eventually.

 

So what should the Scottish Govt do w.r.t Ineos importing frac gas, soon to be from England?

 

Whatevers.  As I said, my debate was about you thinking the whole thing was a ruse to bolster support for the SNP.  Something you have manged to sidestep comletely by ignoring and going off at a tangent.

 

I've no idea.  By the time that happens we could well be independent.

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

Whatevers.  As I said, my debate was about you thinking the whole thing was a ruse to bolster support for the SNP.  Something you have manged to sidestep comletely by ignoring and going off at a tangent.

 

I've no idea.  By the time that happens we could well be independent.

 

I ignored nothing - I answered your comment directly on that by stating that yes it was a populist policy to which you posted your glib "its a conspiracy" gag.  You are good at the glib stuff but when after answering your question I asked one of my own, then you go slippery.

 

[jake]

34 minutes ago, houstonjambo said:

 

I’m struggling to understand your point here. 

 

Scotland imports shall gas which is refined (broken down as you call it) into a variety of more useable products such as methane/propane/etc. 

 

It is then sent around Europe or Asia as it is purchased by governments/power companies or energy companies for further refining. 

 

That does not change the fact that Scotland (Ineos Grangemouth) is importing shale gas and oil. 

Im saying that the Scottish government would be unable to stop inios from bringing the gas to grangemouth for treatment.

It would break EU rules. 

 

It was in response to deesides view about not allowing fracking here but still allowing its import.

 

[Peebo]

2 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

 

The point is the Scottish Govt have decided that fracking is dangerous.     Thats their prerogative.

 

But with that decision, the Scottish Govt, by continuing to support the importing of frac gas from elsewhere are by their own standards putting others at risk, noting that there are huge anti-frac lobbies in England and the US also.

 

But hey - who cares, let the English and American citizens get exposed to danger so that Grangemouth can continue making profit from......................frac gas!   

 

It will be interesting when the Scottish National Energy Company gets going - will they buy from frac gas Companies"?

Not sure the SNP ban oppose fracking because it’s dangerous, as such. More to do with environmental reason, as well as impact on the localities in which it could perhaps maybe one take place and public health (of course, “danger” plays a role there). 

 

Of course, hypocrisy does abound with all sorts of political decision making. However, I’m not sure anyone is suggesting that there is anything so inherently dangerous with the shale-sourced production of the ethane which INEOS imported to much fanfare that means such imports should be banned. Not sure if allowing that (assuming they could even stop it) is morally incompatible with banning fracking in Scotland. If other countries decide it’s OK, fine. Doesn’t mean this country has to allow it. And no reason industry here shouldn’t use the product from such practise elsewhere. 

 

If its about “danger”, then there are a lot more dangerous oil and gas production arenas than Pennsylvania- the North Sea, for example! 

[AlimOzturk]

Yeah let's just destroy our land for profit. 

 

Ffs

 

[Peebo]

6 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Yeah let's just destroy our land for profit. 

 

Crazy idea. It will never take off. The exploitation of natural resources would never be the bedrock of the economic plan  of any right-thinking political party. 

 

NB - not “right”, as in political leanings...

[Captain Sausage]

20 minutes ago, Peebo said:

Crazy idea. It will never take off. The exploitation of natural resources would never be the bedrock of the economic plan  of any right-thinking political party. 

 

NB - not “right”, as in political leanings...

 

[Thunderstruck]

22 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Yeah let's just destroy our land for profit. 

 

Ffs

 

 

Define “destroy”.

 

To many this is a blot on one of Scotland’s great resources - its natural beauty. There is no philanthropy involved - it is a lucrative  industry and a bounty for the receiver of ground rents.

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

Why are the snp/greens so against fracking but so in favour of (the pie in the sky) CCS (or carbon capture & storage)?

[jake]

9 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Why are the snp/greens so against fracking but so in favour of (the pie in the sky) CCS (or carbon capture & storage)?

Fracking on land in Scotland due to its geology is madness.

It would without doubt lead to the pollution of our water tables.

And water will be a far more valuable commodity in the coming decades.

Not that having a clean place to live and leave for future generations can ever be priced to highly.

 

[Peebo]

29 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Why are the snp/greens so against fracking but so in favour of (the pie in the sky) CCS (or carbon capture & storage)?

The Tory govt. scrapped a plan which could have seen about a billion quid invested in a CCS project in Scotland. Of course the SNP were going to come out against that decision (and thus in favour of CCS).

 

Banning fracking is an easy decision. It’s a vote winner, yet there is little opportunity cost, as large scale investment in fracking development is unlikely to ever happen in Scotland anyway. 

[JamboX2]

4 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

Yeah let's just destroy our land for profit. 

 

Ffs

 

 

 

Let's be honest, the future of energy production will be based around low carbon and no carbon.

 

So you'll have to frack or gassify something to assist with renewables. If not it's nuclear.

 

In my view, the energy debate up here and across the UK should be based on three pillars:

 

1. Phased decommissioning of North Sea oil - work to help the east coast of the UK reap the benefits of the work involved.

 

2. Green investment - offshore/onshore wind and investment in battery research.

 

3. (The elephant in the room) Nuclear base power. New reactors on existing sites to replace the old and new plants where necessary.

 

Nuclear is a bigger battle to come in Scotland and it is the one to watch.

[Unknown user]

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

7 hours ago, jake said:

Fracking on land in Scotland due to its geology is madness.

It would without doubt lead to the pollution of our water tables.

And water will be a far more valuable commodity in the coming decades.

Not that having a clean place to live and leave for future generations can ever be priced to highly.

 

 

I think Prof. Robert Mair would disagree with you. 

[Boris]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I think Prof. Robert Mair would disagree with you. 

 

I looked at a presentation he gave and as long as regulatory bodies properly enforce safety, then contamination shouldn't be an issue.

 

However...the onus is on the givernment to really hold these companies to the safety.  Why don't I trust them to be rigid enough?

[Pans Jambo]

Has there EVER been a clean energy extraction from deep within the earth?

Coal, Oil, Gas, Shale Gas?

No pollution?

Nothing for us to deal with for years after the extraction is completed?

 

Should the debate not be about green/alternative energy solutions and step back from fossil fuels?

ineos & Grangemouth should not be the driving force behing our energy policy. Its a corporate money making scheme that would close its doors in the blink of an eye if thought it would make more money elsewhere. 

 

The People of Scotland dont want fracking. There was a public consultation. The SNP listened & banned it. 

 

They did their job. Well done. 

[jake]

4 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I think Prof. Robert Mair would disagree with you. 

I can provide exhaustive evidence to contradict this.

 

[davemclaren]

11 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

 

Let's be honest, the future of energy production will be based around low carbon and no carbon.

 

So you'll have to frack or gassify something to assist with renewables. If not it's nuclear.

 

In my view, the energy debate up here and across the UK should be based on three pillars:

 

1. Phased decommissioning of North Sea oil - work to help the east coast of the UK reap the benefits of the work involved.

 

2. Green investment - offshore/onshore wind and investment in battery research.

 

3. (The elephant in the room) Nuclear base power. New reactors on existing sites to replace the old and new plants where necessary.

 

Nuclear is a bigger battle to come in Scotland and it is the one to watch.

Nuclear seems clean and easy on the face if it. What worries me are the decommissioning costs and the legacy of dangerous materials we leave to future generations to look after. I’ve never been convinced with the whole economic model around it. 

[jake]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

I looked at a presentation he gave and as long as regulatory bodies properly enforce safety, then contamination shouldn't be an issue.

 

However...the onus is on the givernment to really hold these companies to the safety.  Why don't I trust them to be rigid enough?

Exactly .

Just need to look at whats happened so far in regards to this in the US.

Water pollution in parts of that country that do not have the vulnerability of our geology.

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, jake said:

I can provide exhaustive evidence to contradict this.

 

 

Please do.

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Nuclear seems clean and easy on the face if it. What worries me are the decommissioning costs and the legacy of dangerous materials we leave to future generations to look after. I’ve never been convinced with the whole economic model around it. 

In comparison to the alternatives I think it must be part of the options and balance. They are getting cleaner and more efficient (less wasteful).

 

 

[davemclaren]

9 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

In comparison to the alternatives I think it must be part of the options and balance. They are getting cleaner and more efficient (less wasteful).

 

 

Possibly for  the moment. However, we need to make significant process with the storage of electricity to make renewables more  certain. 

[jb102]

3 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Nuclear seems clean and easy on the face if it. What worries me are the decommissioning costs and the legacy of dangerous materials we leave to future generations to look after. I’ve never been convinced with the whole economic model around it. 

There was and remains no real economic model.

Nuclear energy is the by-product of our bomb making program.The facility at Torness is on stand by and takes 5weeks to start production I have it on authority of someone who has worked there for decades.

There are forms of nuclear energy that are relatively safe compared to the industry we have now but will never even be considered by our current regime.

The promise in the 1950's of energy too cheap to meter was propaganda so the public would not associate it with the arms race.

From being at the forefront of this industry worldwide we have sadly let standards slip to the extent that Sellafield/Windscale is in the most dangerous condition of any facility in the world.

[jake]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Please do.

Sorry for delay.

At work.

Heres a couple of links.

Im on break at moment but i will provide evidence of water pollution thats already happened in the states and also from test drilling in Scotland.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062015/fracking-has-contaminated-drinking-water-epa-now-concludes

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23373618

 

Your professor came to his conclusion if all went well.

The experience so far is it hasnt.

[Thunderstruck]

16 minutes ago, jb102 said:

There was and remains no real economic model.

Nuclear energy is the by-product of our bomb making program.The facility at Torness is on stand by and takes 5weeks to start production I have it on authority of someone who has worked there for decades.

There are forms of nuclear energy that are relatively safe compared to the industry we have now but will never even be considered by our current regime.

The promise in the 1950's of energy too cheap to meter was propaganda so the public would not associate it with the arms race.

From being at the forefront of this industry worldwide we have sadly let standards slip to the extent that Sellafield/Windscale is in the most dangerous condition of any facility in the world.

 

Here is the the current output stats EDF’s Reactors:

 

https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuses

 

Far from being on standby, both reactors at Torness are producing electricity. It would be completely bonkers to keep Nuclear as a standby as it is virtually free at point of production. 

 

Any steam turbine going into a period of servicing requires a cool down and start up routine - these can be lengthy. All reactors have scheduled outages for maintenance - they are infrequent. You will see scheduled and unscheduled outages at other stations - e.g. Hunterston. 

 

Prof David MacKay has produced a very readable e-book looking at the advantages and disadvantages of various energy sources. It is unbiased and well worth a read. This is the chapter on Nuclear Energy:

 

https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml

[jb102]

36 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Here is the the current output stats EDF’s Reactors:

 

https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuses

 

Far from being on standby, both reactors at Torness are producing electricity. It would be completely bonkers to keep Nuclear as a standby as it is virtually free at point of production. 

 

Any steam turbine going into a period of servicing requires a cool down and start up routine - these can be lengthy. All reactors have scheduled outages for maintenance - they are infrequent. You will see scheduled and unscheduled outages at other stations - e.g. Hunterston. 

 

Prof David MacKay has produced a very readable e-book looking at the advantages and disadvantages of various energy sources. It is unbiased and well worth a read. This is the chapter on Nuclear Energy:

 

https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml

Sorry.I didn't mean the electrical production.I meant the facility that makes bomb fuel.My apologies if that wasn't clear.

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, jb102 said:

There was and remains no real economic model.

Nuclear energy is the by-product of our bomb making program.The facility at Torness is on stand by and takes 5weeks to start production I have it on authority of someone who has worked there for decades.

There are forms of nuclear energy that are relatively safe compared to the industry we have now but will never even be considered by our current regime.

The promise in the 1950's of energy too cheap to meter was propaganda so the public would not associate it with the arms race.

From being at the forefront of this industry worldwide we have sadly let standards slip to the extent that Sellafield/Windscale is in the most dangerous condition of any facility in the world.

Torness has been concreted over has it not? Decommissioned a few years back.

[jb102]

Just now, JamboX2 said:

Torness has been concreted over has it not? Decommissioned a few years back.

Dounreay I think you mean?

Or Chapelcross?

[Peebo]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

Torness has been concreted over has it not? Decommissioned a few years back.

No, it hasn’t. Operational at the moment, and will be there for years. I was there on a tour a couple of months ago. 

[redjambo]

22 minutes ago, Peebo said:

No, it hasn’t. Operational at the moment, and will be there for years. I was there on a tour a couple of months ago. 

 

Indeed. Expected to operate until 2030.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torness

[jake]

6 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Please do.

More links for you .

I dont want to spam thread as ive been warned .But there is a plethora of evidence that shows chemicals which are extremely hazardous to the water table are put there via fracking.

And thats the ones that are easily detected.

There are others which took years of study to identify.

Cancer in children is higher in ares affected etc etc.

Id say our natural resource of water is far more valuable.

Anyway here are 2 more links. 

 

https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/energy-and-climate-change-directorate/fracking-unconventional-oil-and-gas/consultation/view_respondent?_b_index=420&uuId=864652080

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/#

 

 

There are plenty more if you're not convinced.

From Australia America in fact anywhere this takes place.

And whats even more unsuitable from a Scottish perspective is that fracking in this country would be in a much more densely populated area.

Once again i think the SNP should take healthy praise for this decision in the face of a very powerful lobby.