View Full Version : Blackpool Rock


ORAC
22nd Sep 2011, 07:19
Torygraph: Huge gas find in Blackpool could create 5,600 jobs
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8779981/Cuadrilla-Resources-huge-gas-find-in-Blackpool-could-create-5600-jobs.html)

A company backed by former BP chief Lord Browne claims to have found a gas field near Blackpool that could be the largest ever discovered in Britain.

Cuadrilla Resources believes there are 200 trillion cubic feet of "shale" gas in the Bowland basin, which could result in a Lancashire gas boom creating 5,600 jobs at peak production.

Shale is a type of onshore gas common in the US, which is extracted by blasting apart rock in a process called fracking.

More testing is needed, but the estimates suggest Britain could have more shale gas than Poland, which has been considered Europe's biggest holder of probable reserves.

Cuadrilla hopes to start work on more test wells this autumn. However, it is currently banned from drilling over fears this caused a tremor in Blackpool earlier this year. It is waiting for the Government to decide whether it can restart.

Its 200 trillion figure has not been independently verified and often only a small percentage of a probable reserve can be extracted. Current estimates for UK shale gas potential are just 4.2 trillion cubic feet.

Executive director Dennis Carlton said initial results show a basin five to 10 times thicker than America's Marcellus shale.

Discoveries of shale have tranformed the US gas industry – though, at some sites, there have been claims that fracking contaminates drinking water.

Cuadrilla is part owned by Riverstone, where Lord Browne is a partner, and engineering group Lucas.



ShyTorque
22nd Sep 2011, 07:22
So hopefully we can fracking well get rid of those awful windfarms. :ok:

Capetonian
22nd Sep 2011, 07:30
There is a lot of opposite globally to 'fracking'. There have been demonstrations against it in South Africa and in France recently, apparently for environmental reasons. I am not informed enough to comment, but it will be interesting to see what comes of this 'find' which apparently could supply Britain's gas needs for the next 5 years, as stated on the news last night.

tony draper
22nd Sep 2011, 07:33
We will probably spend lossa public money to develop it then allow some London spivs to sell it to the Chinese as per.
:rolleyes:

Slfsfu
22nd Sep 2011, 10:09
“Fraccing” is a well proven technology that has been used for years (at least 20 years in the UK North Sea to my knowledge). It is used to fracture “tight” oil/gas bearing rock to achieve better flow of the hydrocarbons.

I can’t address the specific faraccing issues that are occurring in the US but I can state that the means and controls by which they manage onshore drilling is significantly inferior to that employed in the UK/Europe.

In answer to Mr D – there is no public money going into the O & G industry and never has been :=.

It is the Oil/Gas companies that take the risk and make the investment. All the government do is take money (and a lot of money!!!:{) out of it. They then waste this money on various social programmes (rather than investment projects) whilst raging against the price of oil and gas, which has been largely driven up by the taxes they themselves impose.

I'll get my tin foil hat - bound to be some "incoming":(

sisemen
22nd Sep 2011, 10:10
Big push against fracking in Oz as well. Wonder how long the opposition will stand up when they can't get warm by any other means?

shedhead
22nd Sep 2011, 10:18
there is no public money going into the O & G industry and never has been
Are you sure about that? only I seem to remember the days when British Gas was a nationalised industry and the entire infrastructure for "natural gas" was funded by public money. maybe I imagined that though.

Storminnorm
22nd Sep 2011, 10:19
Good Morning all.

I hope they don't do that there "Fraccing" at night.
It will wake everyone up.

Slfsfu
22nd Sep 2011, 10:50
Shedhead – not quite.

British Gas was basically the onshore distribution and retail entity that “moved” into UKCS oil and gas, they were quite a small O&G “producer” – main claim to fame was the Nelson Field.

The producing ("Upstream") part of BG was sold off by HMG (1982 Gas Act, IIRC) and became Enterprise Oil (since bought by Shell). HMG received the proceeds of the share sale and made much money. So, all of that “public money” (which wasn't very much by O&G standards) was recovered by sale of shares. BG continued in the distribution/retail business

Only other entity that put "public money" into UK O&G was BNOC (British National Oil Company), became “Britoil” and, again was privatised so all investment recovered via sale of shares (to BP)

Hope that helps:ok:

Yamagata ken
22nd Sep 2011, 15:17
As Slfsu writes above, hydraulic fracturing has been standard industry practice for decades. In my experience (Australia) there have been no adverse environmental effects from fraccing.

I believe there have been problems in the US, but I have no knowledge of US standards or practice.

There is a documentary film made in the US "Gasland" which shows someone igniting gas coming through with their water supply. It is claimed that this contamination is due to fraccing. It has been established that the well is sunk into shale which is gas-prone at shallow depth, and this was a problem before the fraccing was carried out. The maker of the documentary knew this to be the case at the time the film was made but went ahead with the falsehood regardless.

The opposition to fraccing comes from an environmental lobby fearful of the possiblity that shale gas will be a cheap, plentiful and reliable source of energy. This has the potential to derail their intention to make energy expensive, rare and unreliable.

Storminnorm
22nd Sep 2011, 15:20
My Goodness Ken!! You're NOT trying to infer that they would
push the PRICE up if it was difficult are you??

El Grifo
22nd Sep 2011, 17:52
The opposition to fraccing comes from an environmental lobby fearful of the possiblity that shale gas will be a cheap, plentiful and reliable source of energy. This has the potential to derail their intention to make energy expensive, rare and unreliable.


Thats a joke right ?

ORAC
22nd Sep 2011, 17:58
No, those who want fossil fuels phased out and for a major move to renewables have a major problem as renewables are expensive and unreliable.

The dearer and more erratic the supply of fossil fuel, the easier it is to justify the change to an increasingly impoverished population.

El Grifo
22nd Sep 2011, 18:15
So hang on !!

Are we saying that the Environmental Lobby is conspiring to drive up fuel prices and thereby cripple industry and effectively the economy (as if they needed any help) ?

This is all a bit strange !

Sir George Cayley
22nd Sep 2011, 18:35
Can Fraccing be used to open up other tight things?

SGC

Craggenmore
22nd Sep 2011, 18:49
This thread is all hot air.

con-pilot
22nd Sep 2011, 18:50
I believe there have been problems in the US, but I have no knowledge of US standards or practice.



The only problem we have in the US about fracking, is 100 percent political. I know for a fact that fracking has been going on for over 50 years with no problems, until our progressive liberal Democrats discovered the practice. Now according to them, fracking is the same as setting off nuclear weapons underground every 30 minutes.

Oh, one more thing, fracking fluid is mostly water, just plain old water.

Now a funny thing happened about a year ago, my wife and I were watching an episode of CSI. In this episode a man was killed (what else is new) by an evil oil company because the murdered guy was going to go public about about this horrible new practice of fracking!

I looked at my wife and told her that I bet that within a month or so, the media, driven by outrage by liberals, would start raising hell about fracking. Sure enough in about two weeks a US Senator (D) from the New England area gave a speech about this new practice of fracking and how it would destroy life as we know it.

Sometimes I hate being right. :(

Akrotiri71
22nd Sep 2011, 19:47
Having been directly involved in frac ops in the North Sea for a number of years since the mid-80's, I can say that frac ops on on-shore wells does have it's risks. Especially when drilling shallow wells, due to the chemiclas used in frac ops, (especially biocides), can pose a threat to health if they enter the ground water.
The wells we drilled in the North Sea were usually normally pressurised and required very little stimulation. However, once the field becomes slightly depleted, water injection, frac jobs & acid jobs were a common practice. This resulted with an increase of H2S within the wells, which aint too good.

flying lid
22nd Sep 2011, 20:21
Gasland: Dangers of Natural Gas Extraction (Extended Trailer) - YouTube

Fracking Hell: The Untold Story - YouTube

Interesting.

Lid

G-CPTN
22nd Sep 2011, 20:44
Blackpool earthquake tremors may have been caused by gas drilling | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquake-tremors-gas-drilling)

OpEdNews - Article: Did Fracking Cause the Virginia Earthquake? (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Did-Fracking-Cause-the-Vir-by-Dr-Stuart-Jeanne-B-110823-993.html)

Tankertrashnav
22nd Sep 2011, 21:02
So one by-product of fracking is that it might reduce Blackpool to a pile of rubble. Not that that would take a lot judging by the state of the place.

ChristiaanJ
22nd Sep 2011, 21:14
Lid,
"Gasland" is a bit 'propaganda' style, even if it should be taken very seriously.
Thanks for the "Fracking Hell" link, which has more basic data.

Akrotiri71,
"Especially when drilling shallow wells, due to the chemicals used in frac ops, (especially biocides), can pose a threat to health if they enter the ground water."
Th snag is not only the fracking fluid getting directly into the ground water through leaking well liners, etc., but - even more so - the millions of gallons of fluid being 'blown', and pumped, back out of the wells, that are disposed of "any which way".

Unless the "cowboy techniques" used in the US, and the fracking technology, are seriously improved, I agree that here in Europe we should be mistrustful.....

CJ

con-pilot
22nd Sep 2011, 21:30
Having been directly involved in frac ops in the North Sea for a number of years since the mid-80's, I can say that frac ops on on-shore wells does have it's risks. Especially when drilling shallow wells, due to the chemiclas used in frac ops, (especially biocides), can pose a threat to health if they enter the ground water.



On shore fracking here, well inland, all the fracking procedures are well below the water table. Some by over ten thousand feet. As far as I know, none of the few chemicals in the fracking fluid has ever polluted any ground water. As the majority of the homes in the rural areas where most drilling takes place, use well water and are checked regularly, with no chemicals found with the exception of occasional traces of fertilizers.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but then again I could get hit on the head by a piece of the satellite that is reentering the atmosphere tomorrow.

ChristiaanJ
22nd Sep 2011, 22:03
CP,
The major issues appear to be
- leakage from the (pressurized) well lining into the acquafers that people get their drinking water from (I know the 'fracking' itself occurs lower down),
- spillage, in all forms, of chemicals,
- amateurish "recycling" (and storage) of the 'waste' water from the wells, polluting local surface water supplies, streams, ponds, water treatment plants, etc.,
- 'abuse' of limited local water supplies.

Since we don't trust any oil/gas companies over here to not try and do the job 'on the cheap' as much as possible, these all seem to be real issues.

CJ

El Grifo
22nd Sep 2011, 22:14
Never heard of " Fracking" until tonight !

From what I have read, I am not particularly keen !!

ChristiaanJ
22nd Sep 2011, 22:26
Never heard of " Fracking" until tonight !
From what I have read, I am not particularly keen !!We heard about it about a year ago, when there were rumours of "test wells" nearby. We weren't keen either.... so far it seems it has been 'disapproved'.

CJ

Yamagata ken
23rd Sep 2011, 02:30
ChristiaanJ. The issues you raise are all potentially significant, but have not been problematic over the past 5 decades or so. One of the reasons for fraccing is to release the gas from "tight" (i.e) impermeable reservoirs. Impermeable rocks are not acquifers by definition: they don't flow water.

Also: Since we don't trust any oil/gas companies over here to not try and do the job 'on the cheap' as much as possible, these all seem to be real issues.

Does not the same apply to, say, aviation in Europe? Potentially hazardous activity, done on the cheap, badly regulated etc. etc. Perhaps it should be stopped.

Yamagata ken
23rd Sep 2011, 02:37
Gasland director hides full facts - YouTube

HKPAX
23rd Sep 2011, 02:38
there is no public money going into the O & G industry and never has been

Iraq war no. 1 and 2??

Akrotiri71
23rd Sep 2011, 08:52
CP,
I agree, as 99% of the wells I have worked on have all been quite deep, (10-30,000'), and have been far offshore. (I was referring to on-shore shallow wells where natural pore pressure can be low).
The wells I have worked that required fraccing had poor permeability, and extended horizontal sections that required stimulation of some sort. Once the fraccing was completed, it was more often than not that a water-injection well be used to "pressure-up" the reservoir and produce the fracced zones. This where the problem lies with on-shore wells, what to do with the seperated injection fluid when it reaches surface. Off-shore it was dumped over the side, as we had an un-limited amount of injection fluid we were bobbing about on.
However, as ChristaanJ has pointed out there is a risk of pollution due to damaged/worn production strings.
I have work colleagues who have worked exstensively on land-drilling ops, and they have experienced production fall quite significantly due to damaged casing/liners, (a lot of sand is produced when flowing a well, and is very erosive), and the result is the produced fluid has migrated into formations further up the wellbore. Requiring the well to be "worked-over".

green granite
23rd Sep 2011, 09:08
Most of the opposition comes from NGOs sponsored by the alternative energy companies out of their ridiculously high subsidies and compensation for not generating. :rolleyes:

Yamagata ken
23rd Sep 2011, 11:20
A curious thing. Markets are crashing. The EU is imploding. The US dollar is worth nothing. China owns the USA. The developed nations (minus Japan and Korea) are collectively playing with their foreskins wrt renewable vs affordable energy. It's a slow motion train crash. Entertaining, I'm glad I live here

vulcanised
23rd Sep 2011, 14:26
Maybe it's just a load of hot air.........

Doubts raised about giant UK shale gas find - Yahoo! (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/doubts-raised-giant-uk-shale-gas-130024146.html)

ORAC
23rd Sep 2011, 16:01
Watermelons v the Shale Gas Miracle (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100106839/watermelons-v-the-shale-gas-miracle/)

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 16:51
So hang on !!

Are we saying that the Environmental Lobby is conspiring to drive up fuel prices and thereby cripple industry and effectively the economy (as if they needed any help) ?

This is all a bit strange !

It isn't, if you think about it.

How much has your 'leccy bill gone up because of the "subsidy" (tax) you pay towards "green energy"?

The tree huggers will not be happy until everyone is living like we did in the Medieval Period, but without the fires to cook on.

radeng
23rd Sep 2011, 17:09
not only that, but the landscape is covered with damed windmills that only produce about 7% of what they are supposed to, and are no use if there's a cold spell and no wind.

I reckon it's one of the biggest cons ever.

El Grifo
23rd Sep 2011, 17:10
Well firstly where I live we only have a small handful of smokestacks in a very small bit of real estate. A couple in the desalination plant and a couple more in the adjacent power station. The desalination plant is run by a mixture of wind generated electricity and diesel generated electricity from its neighibour.

We pay a shedload less than you guys for our water, electricity and road fuel, so I am not really one to complain !

The tree huggers will not be happy until everyone is living like we did in the Medieval Period, but without the fires to cook on.

A statment of that nature are hardly worth comment. It is just plain silly.

Tell me that is not really how you perceive things:ok:

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 17:14
Iraq war no. 1 and 2??

And, in Gulf War pt 1, taxpayers paid exactly how much money into the oil industry in Iraq (and Kuwait, come to think about it)?

And, in Gulf War part 2, taxpayers paid exactly how much money into the oil industry in Iraq (and Kuwait, come to think about it)?

And what does that have to do with the original point of how UK TAXPAYERS MONEY has been spent on the UK OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY.

Or are you just talking paardenstront to try and stir up more horsemanure?

El Grifo
23rd Sep 2011, 17:19
Probably rude to jump right in again but hey !!

Here is an extract from the World Nuclear Association website.
Hardly an impartial source !

Wind turbines of up to 5 MWe are now functioning in many countries, though most new ones are 1-2 MWe. The power output is a function of the cube of the wind speed, so doubling the wind speed gives eight times the energy potential. In operation such turbines require a wind in the range 4 to 25 metres per second (14 - 90 km/hr), with maximum output being at 12-25 m/s (the excess energy being spilled above 25 m/s). While relatively few areas have significant prevailing winds in this range, many have enough to be harnessed effectively and to give better than a 25% capacity utilisation. Alternative power sources allow the system to cope with calmer periods.

Where there is an economic back-up which can be called upon at very short notice (eg hydro), a significant proportion of electricity can be provided from wind. The most economical and practical size of commercial wind turbines is now up to 2 MWe, grouped into wind farms up to 200 MWe. Depending on site, most turbines operate at about 25% load factor over the course of a year (European average), but some reach 33%. The average size of new turbines in USA in 2007 was 1.6 GWe.

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 17:33
A statment of that nature are hardly worth comment. It is just plain silly.

Tell me that is not really how you perceive things

Prove otherwise.

Let's face it. Fossil fuel is a no-no. Nuclear is a no-no. Hydro is a no-no because it isn't good for the landscape and not everywhere has these silly things called mountains with a ready and regular water supply that can be dammed to provide the "head" for the turbines. "Green energy" (an oxymoron if I ever saw one), aka wind turbines/solar/tidal is good but costs too much and cannot supply enough 'leccy for the population.

So where will you get your 'leccy from, if these effwits get their way? How will you cook your food when "fire is bad"? After all, fire produces CO² (and other pollutants) so is hardly on the tree hugger agenda and means innocent trees die for fuel. So how will you cook food without something that is combustible, or is a result of an electromagnetic force generating an electrical supply using something that is combustible (available EVERYWHERE) or nuclear generated, without upsetting the tree huggers?

They want "No Nuke Stations", "No more coal stations" (and close the ones we have), "No gas powered stations" (and close the ones we have), etc, etc, etc.

So, El G, just look at what you said, look at what they say, and tell me I am wrong.

Oh, that's before we think about air travel (pax and cargo), before we think of people commuting using any form of transport, before we think of where we get the raw materials do do any kind of work, before we think about where everything in that damned Prius or wind turbine actually came from or what it was made of.

And you think I am being "silly", especially when you have all these "ecowarriors", aka tree huggers, using the things they say are causing the destruction of the planet to get to the latest protest wherever it is in the world.........

Live like they want, with no mains 'leccy, with no gas, with no heating oil, no car, nothing. Then use your wind-up generator to power your PC for 10s to tell us how good life is.........

El Grifo
23rd Sep 2011, 17:55
Let's turn that on it's head. You are the guy that is making daft statements about "treehuggers". I am not one, for point of reference.

Since you are armed with the knowledge, tell me what their long term energy plan is. How do "they" see thing working out ?

Really though, a proper explanation, none of the silly stuff. I am interested !

Not picking a fight here, just looking for answers like everyone else :ok:

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 19:33
Long term?

If you had followed things in other threads then the answer is nuclear. After all, how do you think Germany will get it's 'leccy after they close down their nuke plants.


Let me put it this way. If a quarter of the money spent on saying "Nuke is bad" was spent on getting things like the waste disposal done properly then there would be no problem with the "waste". The technology is there, encase it in glass (since glass won't break down or react with what is in it for a hell of a long time) and then dig a few caverns a few km under the surface where there's no real amount of water and you have an answer.

We're looking at something that is FAR more "carbon neutral" than a wind farm, something that is more "eco-friendly" than the transportation needed to create it.

Yet the tree huggers scream like homo hyenas whenever you mention "nuclear". I wonder why that is when it can meet every goal they wish? Or could it be that they are a bunch of arseholes, and of course they are left wingers, who believe that you should do what they say and "go primitive" while they fly from country to country trying to tell us people with jobs how to do them when they've never worked a frigging day in their lives.......

El Grifo
24th Sep 2011, 08:34
Yet the tree huggers scream like homo hyenas whenever you mention "nuclear". I wonder why that is when it can meet every goal they wish? Or could it be that they are a bunch of arseholes, and of course they are left wingers, who believe that you should do what they say and "go primitive" while they fly from country to country trying to tell us people with jobs how to do them when they've never worked a frigging day in their lives.......

Well that about covers it then !

radeng
24th Sep 2011, 10:51
Hellsbrink,

Having glassified the waste, it's still hot - hot enough to make it worthwhile using thermocouples to get more energy out of it. Probably, if you are clever, you can use one lot of waste to provide a cold surface for the thermocouples on another lot to work against, increasing their output.

Windpower seems awfully expensive for the amount of electricity it produces. I am not convinced that the amount of energy for building either the big windmills and the related electronics or the amount for producing photovoltaic generators and their electronics is actually negative i.e. over the lifetime you get more energy out than you put in to make it - in UK latitudes anyway. Further south, it's a different matter with PV.

On a winter's evening with no wind.......what then? So nuclear is the option we are leaving too late, while it's arguable that with the present economic situation, we just cannot afford the 'greenness'. Nobody goes bankrupt in the long term, and the same applies to ecology. In any case, there's more harm done by the chronic overpopulation which nobody, it seems, wants to address seriously.

El Grifo
24th Sep 2011, 11:08
Having been an opponent of Nuclear in the 80's, I realised some time ago that in fact,we are clean out of options until something better comes along.

Lets hope the guys at CERN got their sums right, though I doubt it !

Irrespective of the improving technology and the safety records of modern plants, the long term, secure storage of waste will continue to be a problem.

ORAC
24th Sep 2011, 11:15
Tim Worstall: Just how big is the Bowland Shale? (http://timworstall.com/2011/09/24/just-how-big-is-the-bowland-shale/)

Just how big is the Bowland Shale?

It’s not just Blackpool you know (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?pub=BSG):

Widespread in the Craven Basin, including the Lancaster,
Garstang, Settle, Clitheroe and Harrogate districts,
south Cumbria and the Isle of Man;
also in North Wales, Staffordshire and the East Midlands.

It is, to use a technical term, friggin’ huge mate.

I’ve also found out something interesting (well, at least I find it interesting) about it. The shale is really a “false coal”.

Apparently, coal only forms from terrestrial plants. The shales are from sea plants like seaweed: and I assume this means they were formed before terrestrial plants existed (that’s my assumption though, not knowledge).

However, if that’s true, then the implication is that there’s no shortage of this stuff at all. Should be beds of it all over the place even if at ever deeper depths. There were, after all, some hundreds of millions to billions of years for it to form.

No, I don’t know and would be happy to be corrected, but given the above my working assumption would be that just about everywhere has some of this stuff: just depends on how deep you can drill.

Slfsfu
24th Sep 2011, 11:36
Now that we’re back on thread

ORAC – you’re not far off the mark. Very large reservoirs with the potential for being gas bearing have been identified. The size of the fields dwarfs current gas field sizes - except perhaps, South Pars. These have been identified in the GoM – and of course that famous gas basin, Blackpool!!

The issue has always been the depth and the need to get enough “hole length” within the formation. Being tight gas you need to expose as much of the well surface area to the gas as you possibly can.

Modern drilling, the ability to drill considerable lengths of “horizontal” well through the reservoir (in excess of 3 kms), then, if needs be, fraccing is making development of this deep gas more feasible:ok:

radeng
24th Sep 2011, 13:01
Is it just gas or is there oil there too? Back in early 1900s, there was quite a lot of oil obtined from shale in the Wolgan Valley in the Blue Mountains in Australia.

Slfsfu
24th Sep 2011, 13:38
Radeng – believed to be gas and discoveries to date confirm this.

“Shale Oil”, rather like “tars sands”, is more mining than drilling. Dig the b##dy stuff up, crush it and heat it. Mind you even that is still more efficient than wind farms :ugh:

Hat, coat... before the tree huggers come knocking :E

G-CPTN
24th Sep 2011, 14:04
There are (were?) coalmines on the north-east coast of England that stretched under the sea, but I suspect that the deposits off Blackpool might be a tad too far from the coast.

Yamagata ken
27th Sep 2011, 12:11
An industry infomercial, so not neutral, but this is how its done. Fracturing has been used since the 1950s at least. Horizontal drilling probably for 30 years.

Hydraulic Fracturing - YouTube

It's worth checking out BP Wytch Farm to see what a modern onshore horizontally drilled oilfield looks like.

BP NSI | Wytch Farm (http://www.bpnsi.com/index.asp?id=7369643D312669643D313531)

tony draper
27th Sep 2011, 13:09
Fascinating stuff,how the hell do they get a drill thousands of feet long to turn through 90 degrees?:confused:

Yamagata ken
27th Sep 2011, 13:17
Well Tony, if you listen to the naysayers, it's all done by luck. If OTOH, you accept that the oil industry has a reasonable track record in finding and producing hydrocarbons, its because there are lots of very clever and constructive professionals on the job. Edit. The drill head is powered (by mud) and stearable, the drill string doesn't have to turn.

Slfsfu
27th Sep 2011, 14:11
Mr D – it’s not just through 90°. It can be “cork-screw” and controlled so that you are keeping the bit just below the top of the reservoir, to maximise oil/gas recovery and reduce “water breakthrough”.

We use “Measurement Whilst Drilling (“MWD”) tools that provide real time data on exactly where the drill bit is and you steer it from there, against a 3D image of the reservoir. All clever stuff but with offshore wells (UK) costing £30+ million a pop every little helps:ok:

Back to fraccing liquid - water plus chemicals - much of this comes back when the well is tied into production facilities and starts producing. The biocides prevents algae (introduced into the reservoir with the fraccing water) from growing in the reservoir. When the water is re-produced it is cleaned up (<30ppm oil in water) and dumped overboard. Given the quantity of natural algae in the North Sea and teh dillution effect of the north Sea itself the biocide isn't a problem. For onshore, again the water is cleaned but it is subject to stringent controls (via EPA) before it is disposed of into any natural water courses.

If you’re interested a good w/site is for Oil terminology is Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary (http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/)

vulcanised
27th Sep 2011, 14:35
If you're worried about pollution, I read that half a million cubic metres of sewage was released into the Thames a couple of weeks ago.

Didn't receive much attention from the meeja though.

Slfsfu
27th Sep 2011, 14:52
Vulcanised - its the normal double standards, if Big Bad Oil does it everyone is told (and the tree huggers make sure everybody knows!!) but if it’s not Big Bad Oil nobody gives a ****:(.

We’re not good at PR and never have been:sad:. That’s a shame because there’s lot of very exciting and very clever stuff gets done.

MagnusP
27th Sep 2011, 14:57
half a million cubic metres of sewage was released into the Thames a couple of weeks ago

vulcanised: was that the cause of or the result of David Walliams' tummy bug?

tony draper
27th Sep 2011, 15:14
Good stuff is poo,too good to just chuck away,I remember one red hot summer day,getting stuck behind a poo spraying tank on the back of a tractor going about 5mph on the narrow road betwixt Wetherby and York,not a experience one would wish on anyone.
:uhoh:

G-CPTN
27th Sep 2011, 16:37
Most UK sewage retrieval and treatment systems will surcharge into rivers when 'overloaded'.We have recently had screens installed to prevent the solids from entering the river.

I have no doubt that David Walliams' tummy upset was as a direct result of ingesting sewage, albeit diluted by the main river flow.

I think that the odour from vehicles that collect 'fallen livestock' and waste from butchers' shops is worse than mere sewage.

ChristiaanJ
27th Sep 2011, 21:40
For onshore, again the water is cleaned but it is subject to stringent controls (via EPA) before it is disposed of into any natural water courses.If you believe that, you believe anything.....
No need for me to quote "Gasland"...
Here in France we know only too well about the amount of industrial and agricultural pollutants that end up in the 'natural water courses'....
To believe the 'gas industry' would do any better... is just a pipe dream (no pun intended).

CJ

tony draper
27th Sep 2011, 21:46
the way I see it we either start to build nuclear power stations or go back to a horse drawn whale oil lighted economy,we cant all go back to nature and live a green life in the woods there are 70,000,000 of us wandering round this island now,we couldn't grow enough turnips to feed us all.
:uhoh:

ChristiaanJ
27th Sep 2011, 21:57
Mr Draper,
As a bluddy furriner, I'm not really well informed about the history of the Irish potato famine.
But... an English turnip famine would maybe solve a lot of problems?

CJ

tony draper
27th Sep 2011, 22:03
Indeed, that or a outbreak of Captain Trips,something drastic has to reduce the numbers of we talking monkeys wandering the Earth,or we are all headed for the fossil record a millon years before nature intended.
:uhoh:

Slfsfu
28th Sep 2011, 08:52
ChristiaanJ - “To believe the 'gas industry' would do any better... is just a pipe dream”

I shall put your observation down to a complete lack of understanding/knowledge:sad:

I’ve worked in the O&G industry for over 40 years and know, first hand, the stringent controls that are in place to monitor environmental issues. The company that I worked for was the first to transport all drill cuttings ashore for re-processing and I, personally, negotiated for the installation of an uneconomic gas pipeline to avoid flaring gas, the cost to the project was over £30 million and we gave (yes, gave) the gas to an nearby platform, for transportation to shore.

As I’ve said previously, our industry does not do “PR” very well so you never get to her about what is actually done, the technology is really impressive as are the accomplishments, often in very extreme environments. All you ever hear is the negative side peddled by so called “greens” and politicians who like to find a cause for the masses to complain about – it detracts the masses from the really looking at what the politicians are doing to win votes (like running the country into massive debt):(

Go look at the record of the O&G industry in the whole of the North Sea (UK, Norwegian, Netherlands). Yes, there have been incidents but put them into the context of a 24/7 operation for the last 30+ years and then see how they compare with any other industry (including agriculture). When you’ve done that I’d be happy to discuss the subject with you:ok:

Akrotiri71
28th Sep 2011, 09:13
As I’ve said previously, our industry does not do “PR” very well so you never get to her about what is actually done, the technology is really impressive as are the accomplishments, often in very extreme environments. All you ever hear is the negative side peddled by so called “greens” and politicians who like to find a cause for the masses to complain about – it detracts the masses from the really looking at what the politicians are doing to win votes (like running the country into massive debt)
Being directly involved in the drilling industry since 1983, and know a bit about it, I can only concur. :D

ORAC
9th Jan 2013, 13:29
Fracknation: An Elegant Antidote to Media Disinformation (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337024/ifracknationi-elegant-antidote-media-misinformation-mark-p-mills)

ChristiaanJ
9th Jan 2013, 15:52
ORAC,
Thanks !
I'll keep an eye out for it, but if you can post an alert when it makes it to the 'net, that would be useful.
So far, here in France,we seem to be getting nowhere.

CJ

ORAC
9th Jan 2013, 15:57
Home site (http://fracknation.com), sign up to get updates.

2cKhY2Edt2Q#!

Milo Minderbinder
9th Jan 2013, 17:23
Anyone seen anywhere any details of just how big an area they intend to extract from?
All the literature I've seent ends to just discuss the low ground around Blackpool and the Fylde, but the actual area of Bowland shale which holds the gas is huge: under Morecambe Bay, under the Bowland Forest and much of the southern Lake District. Environmentally very sensitive areas, and if they wanted to extract from the upland areas would need quite extensive drilling, which I can see causing a real ruckus.

ORAC
9th Feb 2013, 12:12
The Times: Britain Has Shale Gas for 1,500 Years......

Britain could have enough shale gas to heat every home for 1,500 years, according to new estimates that suggest reserves are 200 times greater than experts previously believed. The British Geological Survey is understood to have increased dramatically its official estimate of the amount of shale gas to between 1,300 trillion and 1,700 trillion cubic feet, dwarfing its previous estimate of of 5.3 trillion cubic feet.

According to industry sources, the revised estimates will be published by the Government next month, fuelling hopes that new "fracking" techniques to capture trapped reserves will result in cheaper energy bills.

It is thought that it will be technically possible to recover up to a fifth of this gas, making Britain's shale rocks potentially as bountiful as those in the US........

El Grifo
9th Feb 2013, 12:42
According to industry sources, the revised estimates will be published by the Government next month, fuelling hopes that new "fracking" techniques to capture trapped reserves will result in cheaper energy bills.



It was also said that when Nuclear Power came on-stream we could chuck away our meters :ugh:

ORAC
9th Feb 2013, 13:40
It was also said that when Nuclear Power came on-stream we could chuck away our meters Didn't think it was relevant to the point of the size of the reserves, but from later in the article:

.....In an interview with the Times today, Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, tries to downplay hopes of a shale gas glut in the UK pushing down household heating bills, which are at record highs. "It is not the golden goose. The experts are clear that they do not expect this to have a major impact on the gas price"......

Mr Davey admitted that there are "people in the Government - though not the Chancellor, he stressed - who think "if only we allowed shale gas to let rip, which we are doing, if only we didn't have carbon budgets, the price of gas would go down and energy would be cheaper".

My personal view is that which ever party is in government, they won't be able to resist exploiting the gas in the same way they did North Sea oil. Heavy taxes on production and most going for export. The gas pipelines into the UK from Europe and coastal refineries will end up pumping in the opposite direction, as they are in the US.

G&T ice n slice
9th Feb 2013, 14:02
The gas pipelines into the UK from Europe and coastal refineries will end up pumping in the opposite direction, as they are in the US.

- Sorry, being a trifle dim, but could you just run that past me again, slowly, please?

ORAC
9th Feb 2013, 14:16
- Sorry, being a trifle dim, but could you just run that past me again, slowly, please?

A Pipeline Reversal in the North American Oil & Gas Markets (http://oilandgas-investments.com/2012/oil-and-gas-financial/pipeline-reversals-oil-market/)

SASless
9th Feb 2013, 14:33
Drapes,

Perhaps ya'll need to get back into the Colonization business again....plenty of blank areas still left on the World Map. Some of them might be a bit rough to live in but that could be said about Manchester, Liverpool, and parts of London as well. Granted you might have to put up with some Non-Talking Monkeys if you do....not that would necessarily be a bad thing compared to some of the Talkers you deal with now.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/World_population_density_1994.png/800px-World_population_density_1994.png

G&T ice n slice
9th Feb 2013, 16:01
Good Grief Charlie Brown, that's a bigger change than I imagined, thanks for the link!

Sunnyjohn
9th Feb 2013, 17:23
Right - here's what we do. The government issues everyone with two shetland jumpers and passes a law that says that we all have to go to bed when it gets dark and not to get up until it's light. Problem solved (I wish!). However, in the real world we cannot (apologies for the cliche) turn back the clock. We are where we are and we need energy to sustain our human population. Tinkering about with supposed green energy has achieved little except put money in the pockets of the fat cats and proved that the amounts actually produced by green energy will not do. There are a number of interesting experiments currently going on, not the least the idea by the EU that a large part of the Sahara is rented and planted with solar power stations (powered by focusing the sun onto boilers to produce steam which then turns a conventional power station turbine - we have such a one here in Spain). In the meantime, and I don't like this any more than you do (I've just finished reading the definitive book about the Chernobyl disaster by Piers Paul Read), we have to continue to use Nuclear and other Carbons. Cleaning of coal station effluent and storing of Nuclear waste is way ahead of what it was even twenty years ago and will continue to get better. As for fracking - well, the jury's still out on that but are you watching the fat cats lining up . . . ?

Milo Minderbinder
9th Feb 2013, 18:28
the map on this page delinates the area covered by the shale formations in Great Britain. As you can see, theres a large area of scenic countryside potentially involved, much of it in National Parks
Bowland Basin May Hold 1,000 Trillion Cubic Feet Of Shale Gas | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) (http://www.thegwpf.org/bowland-basin-hold-1000-trillion-cubic-feet-shale-gas/)
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59703000/gif/_59703158_shale_deposits_v3_464.gif

as to the area covered by the Bowland deposits currently being explored, this page shows its a big big area
BGS Lexicon of Named Rock Units - Result Details (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?pub=BSG)

ORAC
9th Feb 2013, 20:18
As you can see, theres a large area of scenic countryside potentially involved, much of it in National Parks Sorry, can't see it...

tony draper
9th Feb 2013, 20:25
Way things are headed our scenic countryside and national parks will be covered in corrugated iron and cardboard shanty towns ere long anyway.
:uhoh:

con-pilot
9th Feb 2013, 20:37
Tell me about low natural gas prices in the US. Our royalty checks of these days, would not cover the taxes on what we were getting a few years ago. :{

SASless
9th Feb 2013, 21:25
Drapes....is yer pondering a move of household are ya?

ORAC
14th Feb 2013, 11:09
Green lobby isolated as shale kicks on (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2696/green_lobby_isolated_as_shale_kicks_on)

El Grifo
14th Feb 2013, 11:36
Milo,
The map appears to illustrate that the deposit only exist in a line south of say Dundee and Oban.

Is this accurate, illiustrative, or political ?

El G.

ORAC
16th May 2013, 07:40
UK shale gas programme to 'accelerate', say ministers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10060075/UK-shale-gas-programme-to-accelerate-say-ministers.html)

Britain is on track to "accelerate” its shale gas programme, according to Michael Fallon, the energy minister, as he confirmed a new licensing round for oil and gas explorers will take place next year.

G&T ice n slice
16th May 2013, 14:32
This is what enrages me about our leaders of all political colour..

"accelerated"
"new licensing round for oil and gas explorers will take place next year"

So maybe in 10 year's time we might be seeing some production?

FFS accelerate to me would mean that we're going to get the first stuff out by next year and within 5 years have enough production to replace north sea production and provide enough to run 20 powerstations to replace all the failing nukes we've got.

Why oh why (continued on page 94)