Oil Drilling in Leith Hill petition

[mercalia]

"We call on the Environment Agency (EA) to reject the environmental permit applications for Leith Hill in Surrey related to oil drilling. We think the potential water contamination risks are unacceptable"

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/protect-leith-hill-in-surrey-from-the-risk-of-water-contamination-from-planned-oil-drilling-1?utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast&utm_campaign=23_11_2017_blast_local_23nov&bucket=email-blast-23_11_2017_blast_local_23nov&utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blast2017-11-28

[rjb]

I would rather put my faith in the regulatory authorities to assess the application than a group of Nimbys.

[flat tyre]

I would rather put my faith in the regulatory authorities to assess the application than a group of Nimbys.

The problem with that attitude is that the "regulatory authorities" are not given enough budget or resources to do a proper independent assessment. In a couple recent cases near to where I live the applicant appointed the assessor and paid for the report, which calls into question the validity and impartiality of the assessment. We therefore rely on local objections to hold the applicants to account.

[rjb]

I would rather put my faith in the regulatory authorities to assess the application than a group of Nimbys.

The problem with that attitude is that the "regulatory authorities" are not given enough budget or resources to do a proper independent assessment. In a couple recent cases near to where I live the applicant appointed the assessor and paid for the report, which calls into question the validity and impartiality of the assessment. We therefore rely on local objections to hold the applicants to account.

Thinking the potential water contamination is unacceptable is not worth the paper it's not written on without evidence from the protestors, were is the evidence!

That's the attitude that's holding the country back and why growth is so sluggish. We should be embracing new developments and capitalising on it for the benefit of everyone.

[flat tyre]

We don't need to provide evidence, it's up to the fracking operators to demonstrate that their operation is safe. There is the risk that contaminated products from the drilling and fracking operation, if not handled correctly, will reach local water supplies. We need to be convinced that the regulatory bodies are in place, given the right resources and are doing their job, so that the oil drilling companies can be held to account, something that so far seems to be lacking.

[landsurfer]

"We call on the Environment Agency (EA) to reject the environmental permit applications for Leith Hill in Surrey related to oil drilling. We think the potential water contamination risks are unacceptable"

But we are still happy to turn on our gas central heating, drive our cars and watch television and use computers powered by gas and oil as long as it comes from somewhere else ...
NIMBYS.

You want to imagine living in South Yorkshire when the mines where active. ...

[Tangled Metal]

We don't need to provide evidence, it's up to the fracking operators to demonstrate that their operation is safe.

Your earlier comment.

I would rather put my faith in the regulatory authorities to assess the application than a group of Nimbys.

The problem with that attitude is that the "regulatory authorities" are not given enough budget or resources to do a proper independent assessment. In a couple recent cases near to where I live the applicant appointed the assessor and paid for the report, which calls into question the validity and impartiality of the assessment. We therefore rely on local objections to hold the applicants to account.

So you want the applicants to prove their plans are safe but won't accept their reports.

Hmmm! Have you ever read Joseph Helen's classic novel "Catch 22"? I can't remember the exact quote that the phrase came from but it's something like this.

In the book (about American long range bomber crews who had a life expectancy of less that the length of b their tours) there were attempts to get out of their tour by claiming insanity. A senior officer came up with the catch 22 clause to stop this. To get out of your tour you had to be assessed mad. However you had to be mad to want to be there. So that means of you think you're mad then here is the right place for you.

Something like that. Basically a circular argument that you cannot argue against. This is often the case with green antis. They don't argue on merit and evidence. They argue on emotion. If you're evidence disagrees with their emotional view then it's plain wrong.

Now I don't know about this case. The evidence I've not seen. Has anyone on here seen evidence before signing this petition? Has the ppl setting this up seen any evidence?

This petition is not worth anything at all. The only thing the authorities should look at is evidence. If it only comes from the applicants then that is down to those opposing it. The opposition should fund their own, independent assessment to back or oppose the independent report of the applicants. The planning committee then reviews all presented evidence.

Whinging about independence of the only specific assessment on the application is pathetic. Put your money into evidence. Make a real difference. Do something positive about it. This petition is pointless.

[horizon]

That's the attitude that's holding the country back and why growth is so sluggish. We should be embracing new developments and capitalising on it for the benefit of everyone.

rjb: there is so much in what you have written in those two lines that requires a response. But for a quick response it's the standard one:

"When the last tree Is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money"

... if indeed it were for the benefit of everyone.

[Psamathe]

We don't need to provide evidence, it's up to the fracking operators to demonstrate that their operation is safe......

And it's up to our government to scrutinise that evidence rather than acting as cheerleaders for the industry.

Ian

[Psamathe]

That's the attitude that's holding the country back and why growth is so sluggish. We should be embracing new developments and capitalising on it for the benefit of everyone.

And none of that means we need to keep taking ever more carbon based fuels out of the ground e.g. we could invest in/embrace energy storage technology.

Ian

[pete75]

"We call on the Environment Agency (EA) to reject the environmental permit applications for Leith Hill in Surrey related to oil drilling. We think the potential water contamination risks are unacceptable"

But we are still happy to turn on our gas central heating, drive our cars and watch television and use computers powered by gas and oil as long as it comes from somewhere else ...
NIMBYS.

You want to imagine living in South Yorkshire when the mines where active. ...

Quite agree .Think what the buggers would have said if they had to live near Manvers Main coking plant

[Vorpal]

I would rather put my faith in the regulatory authorities to assess the application than a group of Nimbys.

The problem with that attitude is that the "regulatory authorities" are not given enough budget or resources to do a proper independent assessment. In a couple recent cases near to where I live the applicant appointed the assessor and paid for the report, which calls into question the validity and impartiality of the assessment. We therefore rely on local objections to hold the applicants to account.

Thinking the potential water contamination is unacceptable is not worth the paper it's not written on without evidence from the protestors, were is the evidence!

That's the attitude that's holding the country back and why growth is so sluggish. We should be embracing new developments and capitalising on it for the benefit of everyone.

Growth depends upon the destruction of natural resources. Why is that good?

[Tangled Metal]

If you didn't recover those resources for use then what good would they do in the ground? If you could extract them without significant risk to environment and use them similarly then it's a question of balance. If the positive outweighs the negative then should it go ahead. I'm asking that because I want to understand whether the antis are against it no matter what or whether they'll be open to evidence based decision making?

If the answer is they are open to evidence then that is what is needed. Not petitions. IMHO money is best served going towards funding impartial and independent assessments. IMHO no matter how biased applicant assessments might be the assessments produced by antis tend to be more biased. IMHO their research is often less assessments and evidence than attempts to use science / research to make a political statement or propaganda.

Examples of this I've seen ppl on forums quoting links to house of commons pages showing such "evidence" that they purport to be from HoC committees. Only when you look deeper they're just submissions to the committee with no view taken by the committee as to their weight or significance. Indeed it doesn't even mean the committee has actually read it.

However the one I am thinking of I did read. I'm not a climate or environmental expert. I have read a little but I'm not really any more knowledgeable than say a typical guardian reader. However I am university educated with a reasonable ability to be critical and to detect illogical arguments. That report I'm thinking of had major inconsistencies throughout. Actual quoted research that was proving one thing they reported as showing the opposite in the report. I even looked up the referenced research and it did conclude the opposite within the writeup.

This is all a digression from my main point that the petition instigators should spend more time and effort getting real and verifiable evidence supporting their views. Opinions we all have, evidence is less common and more needed with these matters.

[Psamathe]

If you didn't recover those resources for use then what good would they do in the ground? If you could extract them without significant risk to environment and use them similarly then it's a question of balance. If the positive outweighs the negative then should it go ahead. I'm asking that because I want to understand whether the antis are against it no matter what or whether they'll be open to evidence based decision making?......

With regard to fracking (I'm an anti) I have many concerns about the potential risks in particular the concoction of chemicals they inject into the ground which I believe over time will probably not remain where they are put. I don't trust the fracking companies to provide unbiased information and I don't trust the Government given how hard they are pushing for this (plus their links through donations and shareholders to the companies seeking to profit from the resource).

I think when considering a limited resource that causes pollution it should be more than "If the positive outweighs the negative then should it go ahead" but rather we should be thinking longer term. Where there are potential major risks the "positive vs negative" is not something that has a real solution as there is no accurate way to factor in if those risks come to pass and to what degree. And should those risks come to pass you can be sure the company concerned will already have paid it's execs vast bonuses and be in liquidation or have gone bust.

I would suspect that at some point in the future we will have the capability to extract the resource safely and then probably utilise it more efficiently and with less pollution.

I am concerned how the government is focusing on carbon based fuels rather than renewables and seems to be ignoring energy efficiency improvements.

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

What else is there other than evidence based decision making? You gather all available evidence and decide based on it all. It's available evidence that you use to decide on the risks and benefits. Not unknown risks that the future may or may not hold.

Often the antis use potential or possible risks. Or risks that theoretically it could be proven that something is very dangerous some time in the future. I have no doubt that a lot of our current drugs could be proven to have greater risks once knowledge and medical science has been advanced by a generation. Do we decide not to treat now because in 10 years time evidence could come out or not. It's a difficult one this scientific clairvoyance.

Renewable energy isn't completely benign neither evidence based approach should be used there too.

For example there's been a few tidal schemes proposed around the country. There was once one proposed across morecambe bay. It was a mooted scheme for a road bridge linking Barrow with I think Heysham. In the spans (or a few of them) a tidal generation capability was planned. Trouble is the whole route was over relatively shallow, tidal seas that was environmentally important to marine life and wading birds IIRC. This same issue has been a problem with inshore wind turbines in places. It never got far thank goodness. Not least because we don't want to make it any easier for Barrovians to escape from that backwater!