Thousands of Ineos fracking protesters expected at Tour de Yorkshire next weekend

Rick_Rude wrote:

You know who the real eco bastard is? Bono. Imagine the carbon footprint from U2 gigs and everything attatched to them. Boycott U2!

And he owns a significant stake in Facebook. Running a website as big as FB requires an absolutely huge amount of electricity.

ktache wrote:

Odd that those crazy Dutch have banned it.

Because of earthquakes and fears of pollution.

But hey, what do they know, and Germany, Scotland, Wales, and from the look of it quite a bit of the good ol hydrocarbon addicted US of A.

We're BP being regulated when they were drilling for oil?

 

Well thank god we'll soon be out of reach of those sensible Europeans and their rules and regulations that keep us safe.

kingleo wrote:

I wonder how many of the fracking protesters will go to and from the protest using their cars.

Ad Hynkel wrote:

So, Ineos. Based in that beautiful (relatively) un-spoiled country of Switzerland, where I believe fracking is banned. Not only is INEOS UK tax-shy but seems scared of a bit of plucky Brit free speech too. Where do you get the masks from?

You are out of date.  INEOS was based in Switzerland for a while, but no longer.  It came back to the UK.

The owner lives in Monaco.

Sniffer wrote:

The owner lives in Monaco.

Just like Geraint Thomas, Chris Froome, Peter Sagan, Richie Porte, Lizzie Deignan and many other pro cyclists.

watlina wrote:

Sniffer wrote:

The owner lives in Monaco.

Just like Geraint Thomas, Chris Froome, Peter Sagan, Richie Porte, Lizzie Deignan and many other pro cyclists.

I am sure it is just for proximity to their favourite alpine climbs.

Organon wrote:

watlina wrote:

Sniffer wrote:

The owner lives in Monaco.

Just like Geraint Thomas, Chris Froome, Peter Sagan, Richie Porte, Lizzie Deignan and many other pro cyclists.

I am sure it is just for proximity to their favourite alpine climbs.

And not to get out of paying a tax bill of 4 billion pounds, unlike the directors of INEOS:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/17/brexiter-jim-ratcliffe-...

ktache wrote:

There are trains.

Some will get there by bicycle, I've always seen a lot of race spectators dressed in lycra with their bicycles by the side of the road.

And I don't know if you know much about bicycle road races, but the Tour de Yorkshire will actually come to them.  The good people of Yorkshire as a whole aren't particularly keen on fracking and it's potential for causing earthquakes in God's own Country.  As I understand it their democratically elected local authorities have consistently opposed it.

Oh, and contaminating their ground water.

You keep on mentioning these "earthquakes", the ones generated by fracking require sophisticated and delicate equipment to detect.

Fracking of one form or another has been taking place for over a century, sensibly regulated it has very minor effects certainly nowhere near those sensationalist ones claimed by protestors or documented (made up) in gas lands.

The actual effects on the surface of the area will be neglible (less than 1% of the area of the deposit), the surface structures are minimal and easily hid and the whole point around directional drilling is that the drill site can be a long way from the actual deposit.

Contamination of ground water is not an inherent property of fracking as the fracking location is normally kilometers deeper than actual ground water deposites. Provided the well is properly sealed it will pass throught he ground water layer without any effects. Fracking in the UK is highly (some would say excessively) regulated.

Whether we frack or not within about 10 year all new cars will be electric, about another 10 years and virtually all new transport will be carbon free, there will be about a 20 year long tail as industry and heating gradually phase out virtually everything which emits carbon. The reason will be cost (it will be cheaper) and the hard work of technologists, not hippies protesting.

Even when everything is carbon free we will still need virtually everything Ineos produces because they are a petrochemicals company not an energy company.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Have there been similar protests about the Total Direct Energy team?

The differences are that Direct Energie are not trying to frack Yorkshire, so far as I know; they're not a British team; and they are not funded by a Brexiter living in Europe.

In any case, your argument is based on the fallacy that if you don't protest about every single thing that is wrong in this world, you're not allowed to object to anything at all.

well it would be nice if there was consistency in these protests, not just against the easy 15mins of fame of instagram targets. Ineos have been involved in pro cycling since Team Sky started using Pinarello bikes,they produce the carbon fibre "nanotechnology" that makes the bike theyve been riding for years, how do you think Brailsford had their number on speed dial in the first place ?

ktache wrote:

Are Total fracking and causing earthquakes in Yorkshire too?

From the Article:

“I don’t think fossil fuels should be included in sport,” said Steve Mason from Frack Free United

JimD666 wrote:

From the Article: “I don’t think fossil fuels should be included in sport,” said Steve Mason from Frack Free United

He's in for a shock when he sees the hundreds of vehicles involved then and the tens of thousands of miles collectively driven by them over the course of 4 days.

Road cycle racing is up there with Formlua 1 in terms of emissions and pollution which is kind of ironic when you look at cycling as a means of transport!

crazy-legs wrote:

JimD666 wrote:

From the Article: “I don’t think fossil fuels should be included in sport,” said Steve Mason from Frack Free United

He's in for a shock when he sees the hundreds of vehicles involved then and the tens of thousands of miles collectively driven by them over the course of 4 days.

Road cycle racing is up there with Formlua 1 in terms of emissions and pollution which is kind of ironic when you look at cycling as a means of transport!

Have you got some figures on that so we can make our own judgement on it?

When you say F1, you do actually mean motorsport as a whole don't you, because you can't compare just one tiny aspect of motorsport (albeit it the pinnacle of such) and compare it to all of professional road racing can you?

Just to give you an idea, on any given F1 weekend alone they will use between 20 cars approx 4000 litres of petrol, that's based on 105kg for race day, the three free practises - were drivers will drive sometimes around 30 laps a session, the Chinese GP has already seen 13 out of 20 doing more than 25 laps a session (so well in excess of race distance over the three sessions), plus qualifying. This isn't based on all cars finishing either because it would be around 5000-5500l

4000l is 880 gallons give or take, @40mpg that is 35,195 miles worth of fuel used by F1 cars every weekend. That's just the cars, that's not even close to the fuel/pollution used getting to and from with all the kit, you've seen the modules that arrive at each track right, these make the SKY deathstar bus look like a tie fighter! Then there's the fuel at testing in the winter, then there's the fuel for engine testing at the factories, and that is just one tiny fraction of motorsport.

So, show us the data so we can see the numbers.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

JimD666 wrote:

From the Article: “I don’t think fossil fuels should be included in sport,” said Steve Mason from Frack Free United

He's in for a shock when he sees the hundreds of vehicles involved then and the tens of thousands of miles collectively driven by them over the course of 4 days.

Road cycle racing is up there with Formlua 1 in terms of emissions and pollution which is kind of ironic when you look at cycling as a means of transport!

Have you got some figures on that so we can make our own judgement on it?

When you say F1, you do actually mean motorsport as a whole don't you, because you can't compare just one tiny aspect of motorsport (albeit it the pinnacle of such) and compare it to all of professional road racing can you?

Just to give you an idea, on any given F1 weekend alone they will use between 20 cars approx 4000 litres of petrol, that's based on 105kg for race day, the three free practises - were drivers will drive sometimes around 30 laps a session, the Chinese GP has already seen 13 out of 20 doing more than 25 laps a session (so well in excess of race distance over the three sessions), plus qualifying. This isn't based on all cars finishing either because it would be around 5000-5500l

4000l is 880 gallons give or take, @40mpg that is 35,195 miles worth of fuel used by F1 cars every weekend. That's just the cars, that's not even close to the fuel/pollution used getting to and from with all the kit, you've seen the modules that arrive at each track right, these make the SKY deathstar bus look like a tie fighter! Then there's the fuel at testing in the winter, then there's the fuel for engine testing at the factories, and that is just one tiny fraction of motorsport.

So, show us the data so we can see the numbers.

I bet they don't exist, as I bet that no one has the time to do a study. And I also bet it'd be difficult to do a like for like comparison for your satisfaction. I'd aslo bet that the statement isn't asking for a comparison.

Which, of course, doesn't mean the statement is wrong. Which I guess that you can prove.

don simon fbpe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

JimD666 wrote:

From the Article: “I don’t think fossil fuels should be included in sport,” said Steve Mason from Frack Free United

He's in for a shock when he sees the hundreds of vehicles involved then and the tens of thousands of miles collectively driven by them over the course of 4 days.

Road cycle racing is up there with Formlua 1 in terms of emissions and pollution which is kind of ironic when you look at cycling as a means of transport!

Have you got some figures on that so we can make our own judgement on it?

When you say F1, you do actually mean motorsport as a whole don't you, because you can't compare just one tiny aspect of motorsport (albeit it the pinnacle of such) and compare it to all of professional road racing can you?

Just to give you an idea, on any given F1 weekend alone they will use between 20 cars approx 4000 litres of petrol, that's based on 105kg for race day, the three free practises - were drivers will drive sometimes around 30 laps a session, the Chinese GP has already seen 13 out of 20 doing more than 25 laps a session (so well in excess of race distance over the three sessions), plus qualifying. This isn't based on all cars finishing either because it would be around 5000-5500l

4000l is 880 gallons give or take, @40mpg that is 35,195 miles worth of fuel used by F1 cars every weekend. That's just the cars, that's not even close to the fuel/pollution used getting to and from with all the kit, you've seen the modules that arrive at each track right, these make the SKY deathstar bus look like a tie fighter! Then there's the fuel at testing in the winter, then there's the fuel for engine testing at the factories, and that is just one tiny fraction of motorsport.

So, show us the data so we can see the numbers.

I bet they don't exist, as I bet that no one has the time to do a study. And I also bet it'd be difficult to do a like for like comparison for your satisfaction. I'd aslo bet that the statement isn't asking for a comparison.

Which, of course, doesn't mean the statement is wrong. Which I guess that you can prove.

Nor does it make it correct/accurate either, people making a statement as fact really need to back that up instead of making massive guesses and then making a massive  boob in comparison terms.

You can't go making a comparison pollution wise between one fraction of one sport and then compare it to the whole of another can you, or did my point re that evade you?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

JimD666 wrote:

From the Article: “I don’t think fossil fuels should be included in sport,” said Steve Mason from Frack Free United

He's in for a shock when he sees the hundreds of vehicles involved then and the tens of thousands of miles collectively driven by them over the course of 4 days.

Road cycle racing is up there with Formlua 1 in terms of emissions and pollution which is kind of ironic when you look at cycling as a means of transport!

Have you got some figures on that so we can make our own judgement on it?

When you say F1, you do actually mean motorsport as a whole don't you, because you can't compare just one tiny aspect of motorsport (albeit it the pinnacle of such) and compare it to all of professional road racing can you?

Just to give you an idea, on any given F1 weekend alone they will use between 20 cars approx 4000 litres of petrol, that's based on 105kg for race day, the three free practises - were drivers will drive sometimes around 30 laps a session, the Chinese GP has already seen 13 out of 20 doing more than 25 laps a session (so well in excess of race distance over the three sessions), plus qualifying. This isn't based on all cars finishing either because it would be around 5000-5500l

4000l is 880 gallons give or take, @40mpg that is 35,195 miles worth of fuel used by F1 cars every weekend. That's just the cars, that's not even close to the fuel/pollution used getting to and from with all the kit, you've seen the modules that arrive at each track right, these make the SKY deathstar bus look like a tie fighter! Then there's the fuel at testing in the winter, then there's the fuel for engine testing at the factories, and that is just one tiny fraction of motorsport.

So, show us the data so we can see the numbers.

I bet they don't exist, as I bet that no one has the time to do a study. And I also bet it'd be difficult to do a like for like comparison for your satisfaction. I'd aslo bet that the statement isn't asking for a comparison.

Which, of course, doesn't mean the statement is wrong. Which I guess that you can prove.

Nor does it make it correct/accurate either, people making a statement as fact really need to back that up instead of making massive guesses and then making a massive  boob in comparison terms.

You can't go making a comparison pollution wise between one fraction of one sport and then compare it to the whole of another can you, or did my point re that evade you?

Sounds like it would be a mind-bogglingly complicated process to compare the two.  I mean, would you not also have to include the effect of whatever mode-of-transport all the spectators use to travel to the venue, and all the effects of all the associated media people covering the events, and maybe a share of the pollution caused by the production of all the equipment used in for both those things...as well as taking into account counter-factuals about what every one and everything involved would be doing if not engaged in this activity...

And then I would wonder, how much pollution is caused by the work involved in doing the calculation/study in order to work out how much pollution the two activities cause, eh?

In the absence of any such calculation and evidence, I'm going to go with the instinctive idea that crazy-legs is probably wrong and that in any case the original point is probably more about the symbolic significance of putting fossil-fuel use at centre-stage in a sport, than the actual fuel usage.