Nanas UK

Empowering communities to unite & protect from harms of polluting industries #BanFracking #NotHereNotAnywhere - Can you support?

[Nanas UK @UK_Nanas]

A little of our story - Frack Free Nanas https://t.co/fQFKKoMA1u via @YouTube

[Tina Louise 🍃💚🍃 @tinalouiseUK]

@Channel4News Wishing Jon well.. such a fair & kind man who listened when we raised issue of fracking in UK. On behalf of our group (@UK_Nanas) I had the honour of meeting him & sharing a stage twice.. London #TalkFracking debate he chaired & #Womad @stevemason2111 @simonpic78 @jon_bartley

[Knitting Nannas and Friends - Sydney @knitnannasSYD]

Join 🧶👵s at Australia’s Highest Court as it considers whether local #climate impacts of coal mining and the environment must be considered when assessing #fossilfuel projects.

This judgement will affect us all.

13 May, High Court of Australia, Parkes Place, Canberra. 🧵1/2

[Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire Coast News @GHRYorksCoast]

Councillors have rejected plans for a controversial 38m gas drilling rig near Scarborough.

Councillors spent five hours today in a meeting about the proposal for Burniston - and in the end said they are “minded to reject” it.

Chris Garforth is one of the campaigners ⬇️

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

Spot on from lady in green glasses #BBCQT

"The root of all this problem is the reliance on oil and gas"

"Is it not time to move towards cleaner energy rather than coming to the same realisation every time there is conflict and war in the middle east"

Fiona Bruce, "People in the audience say its costing jobs"

Lady in green glasses, "The solution is to put transition plans in place, build the skills. Take people in oil and gas, give them the skills"

"And a clear plan that this will be their job when they move into renewables"

[Kate, Florence and James @KateFantom]

Most won’t fact check a post like this, so I’ve done it for you. All the reasons why fracking didn’t work in the UK. You may think it’s because ‘they weren’t allowed’ but the main reasons are actually very different.

Please don’t believe everything you read 👀

Fracking in the UK has not been successful and is currently not a viable industry. Despite initial high hopes and the government lifting the ban briefly in September 2022, the industry never moved past the exploratory stage, failed to produce any commercial gas, and faced a re-imposed moratorium. 

Here is a breakdown of why fracking in the UK has been deemed a failure:

Geological Constraints: Experts, including Professor John Underhill from Heriot-Watt University, argue that the UK's shale deposits are 55 million years too old for successful extraction. Unlike the US, UK shale is "broken" and heavily faulted (like "shattered glass"), making it difficult to trap gas or drill horizontally.

Seismic Activity (Earthquakes):Operations at the only active site in Lancashire (Preston New Road) were halted multiple times because they caused small earthquakes, including a 2.9 magnitude tremor in 2019. A report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) concluded it was impossible to accurately predict or control these tremors.

Limited Resources: While initial estimates suggested vast resources, later reports from the British Geological Survey (BGS) indicated that the amount of recoverable gas is "considerably below 10 years' supply" and far less than previously thought.

Public and Political Opposition:Public opposition to fracking in the UK has consistently been high, reaching a peak where 45% opposed it, with only 17% in favor. This led to intense local protests and legal challenges.

Failed Business Model: The industry has failed to make commercial sense in the UK. The costs of drilling and the technical challenges, combined with strict regulations, have made it unviable, leading companies to eventually abandon their projects. 

Edinburgh Impact
The government has since re-imposed the moratorium, effectively killing any near-term future for the industry, and the Labour party has pledged to ban it for good.

[Bob Ward @ret_ward]

Poor @ClaireCoutinho seems determined not to understand how the energy system works. North Sea oil and gas is sold on international markets at the market price, not at a discount to British consumers. The only way to end our vulnerability is to move to clean domestic energy.

[Nanas UK @UK_Nanas]

Last thing our poor waterways need on top of sewage/agricultural waste etc, is #fracking. Simply looking at impact in US, Australia etc. is surely enough? Except for those who will see profit/gains from this mess (@reformparty_uk @andreajenkyns @TiceRichard) Very #DirtyBusiness

[Tina Louise 🍃💚🍃 @tinalouiseUK]

@julesdaniels @DavidWebbTweet @misterex65 @janemilnerbarry https://t.co/pBzZOE0XRX

[Tina Louise 🍃💚🍃 @tinalouiseUK]

@DavidWebbTweet @misterex65 @janemilnerbarry This offers further insights https://t.co/w19XvQO3t6

[Tina Louise 🍃💚🍃 @tinalouiseUK]

@_Shell_G @Iwontcalmdown @ScottBrerton They're not keen...

[Tina Louise 🍃💚🍃 @tinalouiseUK]

@DavidWebbTweet @misterex65 @janemilnerbarry 'We' didn't 'undertake fracking' in UK - foreign-owned companies looking to extract shale gas to sell on open market (not necessarily for UK use & not UK owned), briefly tested #fracking & got nowhere as our geology not suited & seismic events impossible to 'manage' or predict.

[Tina Louise 🍃💚🍃 @tinalouiseUK]

To @andreajenkyns @TiceRichard @reformparty_uk: there's every chance you've been misled about #fracking during your meetings with oil & gas industry, do dig a bit deeper & find truth of the risks please. If you STILL support after reading the facts - you are beyond help/hope.

[Tina Louise 🍃💚🍃 @tinalouiseUK]

Evidence from those already living with consequences + logic of NOT putting precious air/water/communities at risk, yet @TiceRichard @andreajenkyns cheerlead #fracking. @EnvAgency too under-funded, under-resourced & under-pressure to stand up to industry https://t.co/fqXXSIPKEU

[Natalie Bennett @natalieben]

"The Environment Agency said Yorkshire Water would not attend an interview for any of the three incidents."

How can it just ignore the so-called regulator?
https://t.co/amga91uRaN

[Thomas Reis @peakaustria]

Chemical companies called her "hysterical" and an "unmarried spinster." She was dying of cancer while they attacked her. Her book started the environmental movement. They tried to destroy her. She won.

Rachel Carson was 54 years old, already one of America's most celebrated nature writers. Her book The Sea Around Us had spent 86 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. With great Sketches! She was respected, successful, financially secure.
She could have retired comfortably, written more lyrical books about the ocean, enjoyed her success.
Instead, she wrote a book that would make her the most hated woman in corporate America.
Silent Spring hit bookstores in September 1962. Within months, it changed everything.
But the chemical industry—worth billions of dollars—decided to destroy her.
And Rachel Carson was dying. They just didn't know it yet.

Rachel had grown up loving nature. As a child in rural Pennsylvania, she'd explored forests and streams, collected specimens, dreamed of becoming a writer.
She'd become a marine biologist at a time when women in science faced constant discrimination. She'd worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, writing bulletins about conservation, studying ocean ecosystems.
In 1951, she published The Sea Around Us—a poetic exploration of ocean science that became a surprise bestseller. Suddenly, Rachel Carson was famous. She could write full-time.
She was happy. Her life was good.
Then, in 1958, she received a letter from a friend, Olga Huckins. Olga described how state officials had sprayed DDT pesticide over her private bird sanctuary. Afterward, birds died by the hundreds. The sanctuary was silent.
Rachel had been hearing similar stories. DDT—dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane—was being sprayed everywhere. On crops. On forests. On suburban neighborhoods to kill mosquitoes. Children played in yards where DDT had just been sprayed.
And birds were dying. Eagles. Falcons. Songbirds.
Their eggshells were thinning. Chicks couldn't survive. Entire species were declining.
Rachel started researching. What she found horrified her.

DDT and other synthetic pesticides were poison. Not just to insects—to everything.
They accumulated in soil, in water, in the bodies of animals and humans. They moved up the food chain, concentrating at higher levels. Birds of prey were especially vulnerable.
And nobody was regulating them. Chemical companies were making billions selling pesticides, claiming they were perfectly safe. Government agencies accepted the companies' safety claims without independent testing.
Rachel decided to write about it.
She knew it would be controversial. The chemical industry was powerful. But the truth needed to be told.
She spent four years researching. Reading scientific papers. Interviewing researchers. Documenting case after case of pesticide damage.
And then, in early 1960, she found a lump in her breast.
Cancer.

Rachel's doctors recommended aggressive treatment: surgery, radiation. The prognosis wasn't good. Breast cancer in 1960 was often fatal.
She could have stopped writing. Focused on her health. Told her publisher the book would be delayed indefinitely.
She didn't.
She had surgeries. She endured radiation treatments that left her weak and nauseated. She lost her hair.
And she kept writing.
She wrote in hospital beds. She wrote between treatments. She wrote through pain and exhaustion.
Because she knew: if she didn't finish this book, nobody would. And people needed to know the truth.
Silent Spring was completed in early 1962. It was published in September, first serialized in The New Yorker, then as a book.
The response was explosive.

Silent Spring opened with a haunting passage: a description of a town where spring came, but no birds sang. The orchards bloomed, but no bees pollinated. Children played in yards dusted with white powder, and then got sick.
It wasn't fiction. Rachel was describing what was already happening in towns across America.
Via A Solo Traveller

[Nanas UK @UK_Nanas]

@grok @Anjarkh60417279 @stats_feed Lovely thank you

[Nanas UK @UK_Nanas]

@grok @Anjarkh60417279 @stats_feed My take-aways from this (first) @grok conversation are:
-Methane emission measuring could be off by 4x - therefore negating 'gains' from fracking
-'Independent Auditors' depend on fees that can be paid by company they're auditing
What's your summary of our chat?

[Nanas UK @UK_Nanas]

@grok @Anjarkh60417279 @stats_feed Can you clarify what qualifies as an: 'independent audit' please. Seem to recall that some energy companies (being audited), were in fact responsible for paying the 'Independent Auditor'

[Nanas UK @UK_Nanas]

@grok @Anjarkh60417279 @stats_feed Thank you

[Nanas UK @UK_Nanas]

@grok @Anjarkh60417279 @stats_feed For clarity please: US methane emission measuring/monitoring has come under scrutiny in the past, can you provide more information about the certainty of the 10% decline figure and any new information about improved methane monitoring?

[Nanas UK @UK_Nanas]

@grok @Anjarkh60417279 @stats_feed 2 x questions:
-Was there a change in US emissions of methane when CO2 went down?
-When China's emissions grew (also predictions for future increases), is this due to an increase in production of goods for export to other countries?