PDA

View Full Version : Fracking


acbus1
23rd May 2014, 08:01
Huge oil reserves in southern England, report to say:

BBC News - Huge oil reserves in southern England, report to say (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27529175)

Fracking would no doubt be the extraction method of choice. Lots of adverse press. Earthquakes, poisonous emmisions etc. Oooooer! :uhoh:

vee-tail-1
23rd May 2014, 10:44
The frack dealers are getting desperate ... the truth about their vile 'industry' will frighten away investors and stop them making loads of money.

If Camerloon continues to push for fracking in the Tory heartlands he might destroy the Conservative party. Still he is trying to pass the poison chalice to local councils by bribing them with grants of £800,000 plus.

LowNSlow
23rd May 2014, 10:59
Know a lot about fracking and the oil & gas industry then do you vee tail 1? Obviously enough to justify the use of "vile". Strange how fraccing / fracking has been a standard drilling / production technique for decades in conventional wells as well as coal seam and shale gas wells yet has only relatively recently been denounced as "vile".

Have a look here for an even handed summation of fracking / gas industry in general / NY State's Marcellus drilling http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

felixflyer
23rd May 2014, 11:36
The way to make Fracking safer and less harmful to the environment is to embrace it and work towards improving the methods alongside the engineering companies involved. There are huge reserves that we need to start using in order to be less reliant on others. Especially a religious tinderbox like the middle east.

Of course the environmental crowd are not interested in actually improving methods or working with the engineers, it is much easier to just cry out that everything is banned whether its nuclear, coal, fracking etc. This then gives the usual attention seeking lefties another chance to act morally superior and along with the hugely ignorant media and the house price scaremongers, scares the politicians into rallying against it in order to secure future votes.

Capetonian
23rd May 2014, 11:37
I don't know enough about fracking to comment on much more than the aesthetic effect on the environment.

By coincidence, I spent yesterday driving around the South Downs National Park and, as always, was impressed by the peace and beauty of the area in both heavy rain and bright sunshine. I had lunch just north of Chichester and coming out of the pub, the rainy weather had turned to sunshine and the sight of the bright green hills against the clear blue sky was one to gladden the heart.

Fracking activity would spoil the sight as derricks and other equipment are used, would increase the amount of heavy traffic on the roads, and would change the character of the area for the worse.

For those, if no other, reasons, I'm against it. We have to preserve some areas of natural beauty.

(Why can't they 'frack' under Slough, Swindon, Bracknell, Newport, Luton, Reading ..........)

alicopter
23rd May 2014, 11:44
What I don't get is that people seem to be against fracking because of the consequences on and under the ground... which in itself (fracking) is bad enough and does not make sense but I think the consequences on the air and the pollution generated when this gas will be burnt are just as bad if not worst... When will people start thinking about our future generations and not make the immediate profit their main concern?????? Spend the investments for drilling and transporting this shale gas available for finding solutions like energy saving and alternatives to fossil fuel!!!.... All you think about is economic growth and competition... Time to think about "sharing" a good passage on this planet and enjoy good simple life in good health for f.mankind's sake.... not oil corps or bankers' sake.

felixflyer
23rd May 2014, 11:48
This is precisely what I am talking about. They can drill quite a long way horizontally as well as vertically. By working in conjunction with the fracking companies involved moves can be made to minimise the effect on the environment and not spoil those views.

We all want to be able to appreciate the beauty of our countryside but as that usually involves driving there using fuel and many of the countryside homes use oil for heating we do need to find a way to become at least partly self sufficient.

vee-tail-1
23rd May 2014, 11:59
Pathetic to try to make fracking a lefty huggy fluffy issue, it affects all of us.

This is ordinary mostly middle class people against, the worst kind of big business, amoral investors, and incompetent / corrupt politicians.

Shit stinks ... so does fracking ... wake up and smell the methane :*

OutlawPete
23rd May 2014, 12:39
So a new industry is opening up and as usual there are those who would rather live in the dark ages than confront new challenges. Fracking has had some issues sure, but with the right investment and safety culture we are on the verge of an energy boom again and huge opportunities exist for jobs and increased national wealth.

Everyone condemns the oil companies but if you really want to wake up and smell the fart, the energy industry (ie North Sea Oil & Gas) has been keeping UKPLC financially buoyant for decades now. It has a chance to continue to do so, making us less reliant on gas from counties who really have got us by the short and curlies.:ugh:

603DX
23rd May 2014, 13:02
I am fortunate to live in an area of Kent designated an "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty." So not surprisingly, I am rather wary concerning that huge area bounded by the thick purple lines, which appears to include my neighbourhood. Just as I was when various alternative routes for HS1, the high speed railway link from London to the Channel Tunnel, were being considered. One of those options passed in tunnel through the chalk downs on which my house is built, and the possibility of subterranean rumblings from Eurostars every 15 minutes or so seemed very real. Common sense and construction economics fortunately knocked that one into touch, and the line was actually built to keep close to existing motorway routes, already located to minimise noise nuisance to properties.

I don't know a lot about the technical details of infrastructure and methods required to extract several billion barrels of oil (not gas) from shale of the Wealden Basin. But the augurs are not exactly encouraging, on such a huge scale. And the political map of the areas concerned has been traditionally coloured blue for many years, but if Cameron insists in alienating such staunch supporters by encouraging major exploitation of this underlying oil "lake", then he shouldn't be surprised if the residents change loyalties in the 2015 election. Nigel Farage should be the least of his worries, by comparison ... :uhoh:

nomorecatering
23rd May 2014, 13:09
Just a sample of whats happening in Australia


Fracking nightmare-Lighting taps on fire from fracking is real - YouTube

60 Minutes Australia - Fracking - The Coal Seam Gas Land Grab - YouTube

Gas Leak! by Four Corners - YouTube

Alan Jones MUST SEE speech on CSG Part 1 - YouTube

Alan Jones MUST SEE speech on CSG Part 2 - YouTube

G-CPTN
23rd May 2014, 13:28
Fracking activity would spoil the sight as derricks and other equipment are used, would increase the amount of heavy traffic on the roads, and would change the character of the area for the worse.
when various alternative routes for HS1, the high speed railway link from London to the Channel Tunnel, were being considered. One of those options passed in tunnel through the chalk downs on which my house is built, and the possibility of subterranean rumblings from Eurostars every 15 minutes or so seemed very real. Common sense and construction economics fortunately knocked that one into touch, and the line was actually built to keep close to existing motorway routes, already located to minimise noise nuisance to properties.
Just think back to the 19th Century when the railways were being laid across the peaceful countryside - followed in the 20th Century by the ribbons of tarmac for the motorways.

Is there no end to this despoilment?

Matari
23rd May 2014, 13:53
Immoral, corrupt, incompetent? Good grief, man, do you know what you are talking about? Unlike moaning, pandering and self-serving politicians, here's the obituary of George Mitchell, the "Father of Horizontal Fracturing" and a guy who has actually accomplished something in life:

Mr. Mitchell’s roots reached back to Greece, where his father, Savvas Paraskevopoulos, tended goats before immigrating to the United States in 1901, arriving at Ellis Island at the age of 20. He worked for railroads, and gradually moved west. When a paymaster got tired of writing his long name and threatened to fire him, Mr. Paraskevopoulos took the paymaster’s name, Mike Mitchell.
Fracking and other unconventional techniques have doubled North American natural gas reserves to three quadrillion cubic feet — the rough equivalent of 500 billion barrels of oil, or almost double Saudi Arabia’s crude inventory. The increase came after four decades of declines. Gas is also being economically produced in northern states like New York, which had been considered barren of commercial hydrocarbons.
Partly motivated by a desire to solve urban problems, Mr. Mitchell visited the Bedford Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn and the Watts section of Los Angeles when planning the project. In 1997, he sold Mitchell Energy’s stake in The Woodlands for $543 million. He said in 2001 that it had not achieved the ethnic mix for which he hoped, but recommended that it be annexed by Houston to increase diversity.
In his early 20s, Mr. Mitchell met two twin sisters, Cynthia and Pamela Woods. He first dated Pamela but married Cynthia, with whom he created the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation. It has given more than $400 million to a variety of causes. Mrs. Mitchell died in 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/business/george-mitchell-a-pioneer-in-hydraulic-fracturing-dies-at-94.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

ZOOKER
23rd May 2014, 13:59
Let's look long-term, say beyond the next 9 or 10 general elections
What are we going to do when we've 'embraced' fracking, trashed 'England's green and pleasant land' and all the fracking gas has run out?
Let's get some serious insulation in our housing/business premises.
Let's get photovoltaic cell arrays on as many suitable existing sloping roofs as possible.
Let's look at "Solar Freaking Roadways".
Lets look at nuclear power and put a big, safe, nuclear power station close to London, to minimise transmission costs.
Let's look at reducing the amount of unnecessary 'commuting'/transportation the workforce has to do.
Let's have a multi-source sustainable energy plan that enables us to sell our energy to other countries in the long term, rather than buying 'energy' from them.
Let's make sure that we have enough safe, agricultural land to enable us to feed the country's growing population without the taps catching fire.
It's madness.

ZOOKER
23rd May 2014, 14:18
AND………Let's not forget Lycra-Loony Energy, (LLE).
Huge underground complexes, equipped with hundreds of 'rolling-roadways' (wired up to the national-grid), where hundreds of appropriately-attired, shell-hatted t*ss-pots could pedal away furiously, to their heart's content, in complete safety, for the benefit of the rest of us. :E

Yamagata ken
23rd May 2014, 14:19
People don't know they don't own the mineral rights under their property. There's no cure for willfull ignorance.

G-CPTN
23rd May 2014, 14:24
People don't know they don't own the mineral rights under their property.
Rather like when you have land with a right of way across it.

You might own the land, but you may not disturb the surface of the right-of-way or prevent access by the travelling public (though they may not tarry or dwell on your land - merely pass and repass).

sitigeltfel
23rd May 2014, 14:59
So a new industry is opening up and as usual there are those who would rather live in the dark ages than confront new challenges. Fracking has had some issues sure, but with the right investment and safety culture we are on the verge of an energy boom again and huge opportunities exist for jobs and increased national wealth.

Very true Pete. Who would be the first to scream when the lights and central heating boiler cut out because Putin decided to turn off the taps? I'll tell you who....the same Southerners who were able to keep warm courtesy of the North and Scotland whose landscapes were raped to provide coal for them. There are reckoned to be over 200 minor earth tremors caused by collapsing pit galleries. Time for the tables to turn and the South to take its share of living with the energy industry.

ZOOKER
23rd May 2014, 15:12
sitigeltfel, excellent post.
Prior to joining ATC, I did a degree in Geology/Physical Geography. Anything that causes rocks to fracture isn't usually good-news.
See the residents of California for more details. :ok:

Shaggy Sheep Driver
23rd May 2014, 15:24
Just think back to the 19th Century when the railways were being laid across the peaceful countryside - followed in the 20th Century by the ribbons of tarmac for the motorways.

Is there no end to this despoilment?

Don't go lumping railways in with motorways when you talk of despoiling the countryside. Take a trip up to the beautiful Lune Gorge in Cumbria where the West Coast Main Line has been in place since the early 1800s, and the M6 built beside it in recent times.

The railway is almost invisible and even before the M6 came you'd hardly know it's there. The motorway, in comparison, is a great ugly scar across the countryside dominating the view, and its noise is loud and constant!

Those Chiltern HS2 protesters should do that as well!

ZOOKER
23rd May 2014, 16:05
You'd hardly know it's there Shaggy Sheep because there's hardly any trains on it, (including 'Stobart Rail'). - Loads of available 'slots'.
HS2, a complete white-elephant, - Vote UKIP. :ok::E

Lon More
23rd May 2014, 16:12
For once I agree with sitigeltfel time for the South to take its share of living with the energy industry.

News last night was that there are large oil deposits under SE England which can probably only be released by fracking. BOHIC and say goodbye to England's green and pleasant land.

Mariner9
23rd May 2014, 18:02
I recall it being said that production of the Dorset oil shale field would ruin the landscape and wreck the heritage coast and the tourism industry there.

None of the fears have been realised despite production there from the mid 70's. I'd venture that a large proportion of the uK population would have no idea that oil and gas is being produced in Dorset.

BenThere
23rd May 2014, 18:16
The practical approach is to adopt standards of landscape and environmental preservation while allowing extraction of the resources. The mining and energy companies understand and generally support this.

What doesn't make sense is the hysterical aversion to anything a mining or energy company wants to do in the vicinity of where people live. These eco-people want the energy and resources that make their lives livable, but want the extraction to take place somewhere else. How effete is that?

Nuclear power, the safest and most environmentally benign source of energy, offered the most practical solution for large-scale energy production to date, yet was set back several decades by irrational fear-mongering and political gamesmanship. Only France saw through the whole charade.

So you can scream about fracking and whatever resource development technology arises all you want, but the fact is, you need the energy and the minerals. You can develop it yourself, or pay the guy who has it. But if he has you over a barrel, you can expect to pay a lot.

By the way, the tap water fire scenario is a fraud.

con-pilot
23rd May 2014, 18:32
By the way, the tap water fire scenario is a fraud.

Well it certainly was when it was used as propaganda against the fracing process. There was a full out investigation by the EPA on this event when it happened in the US. That was big news by all the major media.

The results of the investigation was not big news reported by the major media, in fact it was completely ignored, never mentioned and buried.

Why, the natural gas was from the natural leakage of gas, which occurs all over the world including from the bottom of lakes, seas and oceans, had not a thing to do with drilling nor fracing.

Those are the facts. Believe them or not, I really don’t care. Sit in the dark and be cold. :p

I’ve never seen a thread so full of hysteria, misinformation and out right nonsense than this one.

ZOOKER
23rd May 2014, 18:32
"By the way, the tap water fire scenario is a fraud".

Maybe...

But the recent occurrence of
methane bubbling up in the river looked pretty real to me.

BusyB
23rd May 2014, 18:50
LowNslow,

High Pressure tracking has only been used once before in the UK. This was Blackpool where 4 wells were bored and the results were earthquakes with broke 2 of the concrete casings . A 50% failure rate. The returned tracking fluid was then apparently dumped in the Manchester ship canal.

In Sussex the plan is to extract oil by fracking at 4000' depth. The Aquifer goes down to 3000' and apparently the shale is already fractured. What chance water pollution.

Con-Pilot,

Check your facts about Biogenic and Biothermic methane. Both can be forced up by pressurised tracking.

California has just declared that they can only recover a tiny proportion of the forecast return.

Don't just believe me, do your own research into tracking in Queensland, Philadelphia and other sites.:ok:

vee-tail-1
23rd May 2014, 18:51
BenThere This is going to be the final insult by the political class that will bring 'middle England' out to defend what is left of our homeland.
Remember England is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet, yet it still has beautiful countryside and you can drink the tap water.

The vote for UKIP is just one manifestation of our disgust at our rulers.

Tearing up that English land with heavy contractors machinery, pumping poison into the aquifer we drink from, destroying ancient and fragile buildings, spreading pollution all over our homes, villages and towns, we will resist.

This is serious stuff and some on here better choose which side they are on because it's going to get progressively nasty.

To see some of middle England in campaigning mode look at Sky TV News on CH4 at 7PM UK time.

Currently there are active anti-fracking groups in every county of Wales and England. They are getting well organised and have learned from the massive but failed Iraq war protests.

BigEndBob
23rd May 2014, 19:16
"The returned tracking fluid was then apparently dumped in the Manchester ship canal."

The dumped water was also apparently radioactive.

Krystal n chips
23rd May 2014, 19:24
" What doesn't make sense is the hysterical aversion to anything a mining or energy company wants to do in the vicinity of where people live. These eco-people want the energy and resources that make their lives livable, but want the extraction to take place somewhere else. How effete is that

Nice to see your grasp of reality extends to other fields....and the Pavlovian devotion to the corporations of this world.

The mining and indeed energy companies have a long and less than glorious tradition of being "economical with the truth", for obvious reasons.

You may have a point with nuclear energy, however, the little matter of profit over safety seems to have escaped you.

We all know we have finite fossil reserves, and alternatives are needed, but most of us are wholly aware this comes at a cost....to the environment and the peoples lives.

Since when has caring about life been classed as effete.

BenThere
23rd May 2014, 19:28
Tearing up that English land with heavy contractors machinery, pumping poison into the aquifer we drink from, destroying ancient and fragile buildings, spreading pollution all over our homes, villages and towns, we will resist.


As well you should. But I find it highly unlikely you'll find or be able to point the finger at anyone proposing that. What you are engaging in is hyperbole.

My suggestion was that stewards of the public weal (government) work with industry to find solutions that don't destroy the environment yet provide us with the materials we need to survive and live good and productive lives.

My perspective is that 'save the planet' types are blind to reality and see any sort of productive enterprise as evil, so long as they remain warm and fed.

con-pilot
23rd May 2014, 19:31
"The returned tracking fluid was then apparently dumped in the Manchester ship canal."

The dumped water was also apparently radioactive.

Really, the recycled waste water from a fracing operation was radioactive?

What the hell do you Brits use for a pressure generator, a nuclear reactor????? :eek:

If that waste water was radioactive, either the river water already was or you guys hit some uranium.

con-pilot
23rd May 2014, 19:33
K&C

We all know we have finite fossil reserves

Really, prove it.

flying lid
23rd May 2014, 19:39
Gen up on Fracking Fluids.

Halliburton - Fluids Disclosure (http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/hydraulic_fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html)

Not just sand and water, some of it is carciogenic.

The area in question gets most of it's drinking water from underground aquifers I believe.

We (well, everybody really) are scraping the bottom of the (energy) barrel when we have to resort to fracking. Ah well, when the land is fracked and the water supply is f***ed, our young today will, in their "golden" years be really pissed at our generation.

Lid

con-pilot
23rd May 2014, 19:51
Gen up on Fracking Fluids.

Well I suggest that you "gen up" on the depth where fracing takes place. The fracing process and then check up on the depth where underground aquifers are.

But, if you want to stick to hysteria and misinformation, be my guest.

BenThere
23rd May 2014, 19:52
Curious as to what you are doing in your life to eliminate your use of energy, seeing as how we are 'scraping the bottom of the barrel'.

How are you lighting your home, preparing your food, getting to work, etc.?

500N
23rd May 2014, 20:01
BenThere

Probably one of those Greenies like we have over here that

1. Ticks the box saying they want to use Green energy !
2. Even though it is subsidized by the gov't - and us.
3. Costs far more to produce than normal bulk load electricity
4. Destroys someone else's view / landscapes - but that's OK,
it doesn't affect me !

airship
23rd May 2014, 20:02
I'm not sure if the folks who have gas coming out of their water taps "for free" should really be complaining. They can always reuse the waste water in the garden, buy bottled water if they're really worried. Use the gas for free heating and cooking. Why not run their own private aluminium smelting plants and supply sheets for the new Range Rover? :8:ok:

BusyB
23rd May 2014, 20:04
con-pilot,

Most returned tracking fluid is radioactive from flushing Radon from the rocks it is pressured through.

To paraphrase your words "Well I suggest that you "gen up" on fracing ":ok:

Simplythebeast
23rd May 2014, 20:04
We should engage the help of the loony lycra brigade. Couple their bikes into a generator and let them generate power as they race the clock on a rolling road.
They would be much safer than on the roads and could be paid a couple of bob for every megawatt they push into the national grid. Keep em busy at weekends and make my road journey in my deisel smoker more comfortable at the same time.

TomJoad
23rd May 2014, 21:42
What with congestion, over population, extended commuting, lack of housing, HS2 and now fracking the south is paying a heavy price. Does make you wonder what will be left of our green and pleasant land. Then again we have an energy addiction to feed - no easy answers. Personally I'd like to see more investigation done on fracking to identify the risks and controls - maybe the government should commit to a controlled and measured 5 year trial.

Yamagata ken
24th May 2014, 02:46
What an extraordinary thread. What is it about "Big Oil" that turns peoples brains to porridge?


Hydraulic fracturing has been standard industry practice since about 1950. In combination with horizontal drilling (relatively new practice), it enables extraction of hydrocarbons from previously un-commercial (tight) reservoirs.


Drilling a hole goes like this. The first few (10's-100's) metres are drilled oversize. The drill string is removed and a steel casing dropped into the hole and grouted in to place. A blowout preventer (essentially a guillotine) is then bolted to the top of the casing. Drilling re-commences, with the bit and drill string being steered to the target. When the target is reached, the hole is lined with steel, the casing is perforated at the appropriate intervals. Then pressurised fluid (essentially water and sand) is pumped in to fracture the rock and stimulate recovery.


Drill fluid serves three main purposes. 1) It cools and lubricates the bit. In horizontal drilling it also powers the bit. The fluid is pumped down the drill string and returns up the hole outside the string. 2) The fluid carries the drill cuttings out of the hole where they are captured and filtered out, with the fluid being returned to the hole. This is where the "radioactivity" thing comes in. Anything with (e.g.) potassium in it will be radioactive. This includes most rocks, bananas, the soil in your garden where you grow your organic vegetables and the bricks of your home. 3) It supports the side of the hole, preventing it from closing in on and trapping the drill string.


Any fluid will do for drilling, but water is fairly useful. In order to support the hole, the fluid needs to be approximately the same density as the hole. This is achieved by adding powdered barite (barium sulphate), a naturally occurring mineral. To keep the barite in suspension, a thickener is needed. Flour works reasonably well, but it goes "off" after a few days, so a biocide is added, usually formaldehyde. "Commercial solutions of formaldehyde in water, commonly called formol were formerly used as disinfectants and for preservation of biological specimens. It is commonly used in nail hardeners and/or nail varnish." Formaldehyde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde)


My experience is offshore and out of date, but drilling to about 3,000 metres used to take about a month. I know that onshore drilling is easier than offshore, modern practice is much faster, and several holes can be splayed out from the same pad/entry. The holes are then cased, perforated and stimulated (see slickwater GoFrac Oil & Gas Hydraulic Fracturing (http://www.gofrac.com/services/slick-water.html)). The rig is removed and the hole terminated with a head that looks just like a pipe coming out of the ground, and which could be covered by a garden shed. Scary stuff.


Dumping drill fluid in the Manchester ship canal. Really? I don't know what industry you work in, or you simply heard (and believed) it in the school playground. Whatever, the oil and gas industry (UK/Oz) is much more professional and ethical than that. The industry is very heavily regulated, the regulations are enforced, and management takes elfinsafety and environmental regs very seriously. Stuffups cost a lot of time and money, cause headaches and paperwork for the bosses, and will cost you your job. No second chances, and no unions. You'll be offsite on the next plane/boat/truck.


When organic matter gets buried in sediments, it naturally converts to methane (methanogenesis). This is where the alarmists' flaming tapwater comes from. Methane forms naturally in some aquifers. The key point being they are aquifers and therefore permeable, otherwise you wouldn't be able to get the water out. Industry isn't targeting shallow aquifers, and the fracturing doesn't extend far from the hole. Flaming marsh gas makes great TV if you are an alarmist. Some people have problems differentiating between entertainment and reality.


Earthquakes/tremors. The UK is "aseismic". That is, free from the thrust and strike-slip faulting that causes major earthquakes around (e.g.) the Pacific rim. Like everywhere else it is prone to tremors and minor earthquakes due to crustal adjustment and stress relief. Injecting pressurised fluid into the crust will trigger tremors anywhere where the crust is stressed, but these are unlikely to be significant. It's worth noting that CCS (carbon capture and storage), geothermal energy recovery (injecting fluid into rock to fracture it and make it permeable Ha!) and building hydroelectric dams also precipitates earthquakes and tremors, but these are OK, because they are the correct sort of earthquakes. These wear green hats, whereas the bad sort are easily recognised. They wear black hats.

con-pilot
24th May 2014, 02:54
Nice try Ken. :ok:

But the naysayers will not pay a wit to your facts. God knows I've tried. :(

rh200
24th May 2014, 03:06
Very nicely done Ken, a couple of points though. You have used some naughty words in there which has most likely got particular people reaching for the Valium.

"Hydraulic fracturing, radioactivity, formaldehyde" These are all inherently evil things that should be banished from society, hence never repeated unless in media interview decrying, 1) conservatives, 2) Big business.:E

Got to go now, off for a cancer check because of all the bananas I eat and the brick house I live in.:p.

On a serious note, Yes the oil industry is one of the most regulated and professional industries around, but they do stuff up. Also there are a few small operators that need to have an eye kept on.

Lantern10
24th May 2014, 06:11
That Alan Jones makes a lot of sense, but I never thought I would say such a thing.

Surely this is not good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AeWYwBreEY

In Lismore NSW this last few weeks we have had a bit of a battle on.
A referendum taken at the last vote for council there was 87.5% of the electorate who said a big NO to CSG.

Emphatic 'NO' to CSG | Northern Star (http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/emphatic-no-to-coal-seam-gas-voters-lismore/1537645/)

We live on some of the most fertile lands in Australia.

The powers that be were ready to bring in around 800 riot police to shut down the blockade.

Hundreds of police to break Bentley blockade (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hundreds-of-police-to-break-bentley-blockade-20140514-zrcqi.html)

That's right, 800 police to try to force an industry that 87.5% did not want to happen here, and were prepared to go to extreme lengths to make sure the people were listened to.

The police, after visiting the blockade, realised that there was going to be some serious bad press when they started arresting, farmers, the elderly, business people, councillors, teachers, whole family's, clergy, and a number of radicals of course etc.etc. The blockade was also starting to get national interest.

When you can call over 3000 to attend a blockade at 5am at very short notice, it does say a lot about your community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtuQL4ZBWe0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0N7tkelw0

I'm proud to say I showed up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCDpOOV2daQ

Even our Mayor stayed at the camp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62PIfcXXOw8

It went beyond CSG this ended up as a battle for democracy.

A few days ago the gas co Metgasco had it's licence suspended, :D

Thanks for any who took the time to watch.

rh200
24th May 2014, 07:17
It went beyond CSG this ended up as a battle for democracy.

Its rather simple, make them pay for the cost of their existence. True cost of medicine, true cost of education, no benefits etc. We all want the good things, but arn't prepared to pay the price for it.

Reminds me of the old union saying, "what do we want, everything, what do we want to do for it, [email protected]#k all".

In all likely hood 95% of the people involved knows sweet stuff all about it, and relies on media and fruit loops for their information.

BusyB
24th May 2014, 07:21
Y/Ken,

Nice descriptions but incomplete. Omits all the nasty bits.

1. Your fluid for drilling includes Hydrolic acid and a number of other "soft drinks". Described by some "oil experts" as everyday items you have under your kitchen sink, bleaches, disinfectants and suchlike. I am sure you'd drink this mixture no matter how dilute, water animals with it and irrigate your farmland. Most of the constituents are now public knowledge.

2. Where I live they are planning to Frack at 4000 feet not metres.In the most densely populated part of the UK.

3. What percentage of bores leak? Minimum I have been told (by experts) is 10%. Blackpool 50%

4. High pressure 12000-15000psi fracking has not been done in the UK before but numerous accidents are on record elsewhere.

5. The UK regulations are not designed for HP fracking but mostly for offshore where there are limited neighbours to be polluted. In N.Dakota it is hardly the highest populate density and the open flares from the ground show that control is extremely lax. That is why Reagan binned the clean water Act.

vee-tail-1
24th May 2014, 09:35
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj71/vee-tail-1/fracking_zpsed71e347.jpg

Members of one of the many UK and Ireland anti-fracking groups posing for the media.

Groups like these are networking and getting good media publicity. They are lobbying politicians, trade unions, contractors, schools, local government, local and national newspapers, etc.

vee-tail-1
24th May 2014, 09:53
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj71/vee-tail-1/vanessavine_zps135c24a4.jpg

The police and the oil company worker behind this speaker are listening to her with respect. Truth is truth no matter who tells it.

Windy Militant
24th May 2014, 14:39
HS2 and fracking in the South couldn't happen to a nicer bunch!
COFIA TRYWERYN!:p

con-pilot
24th May 2014, 16:30
Smell the methane you say,

What is Methane?

Methane (CH4) is a colourless, odourless, non-toxic and flammable gas, and is the most simple of the hydrocarbons. Mixed with certain proportions of air, it can be dangerously explosive. Methane is a greenhouse gas that occurs naturally and its production has kept pace with the world's population growth.


You cannot smell methane.


Like I said Ken, nice try Ken. But facts are ignored by some here.


Smell the methane. :rolleyes:

flying lid
24th May 2014, 16:55
Con Pilot wrote


Quote:
Gen up on Fracking Fluids. Well I suggest that you "gen up" on the depth where fracing takes place. The fracing process and then check up on the depth where underground aquifers are.

But, if you want to stick to hysteria and misinformation, be my guest.

Con, I suggest YOU (and ALL who advocate fracking) obtain a selection of the chemicals (disclosed by Haliburton in my link on page 2) and put some in your kettle (or coffee maker), make a nice cuppa, relax and drink it. Also wash in it, cook with it, flush your loo with it, etc etc - for the rest of your life.

Yes, fracking takes place "at great depth", but these compounds (many lighter than water) WILL over time rise and mix with underground water supplies.

Don't forget a well fracture caused by the massive fluid pumping pressures used will cause more mixing problems.

Wake up - don't just smell the coffee, look at the oily scum on the surface - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lid

Flash2001
24th May 2014, 16:58
Con

Look up nuclear tests Rifle and Rulison for some ultimate fracking!

After an excellent landing etc...

BusyB
24th May 2014, 19:49
con-pilot,

Just for you, the types of methane.

Origin: Biogenic vs. Thermogenic

The origin of the encaged gas may be indicative of the distance of upward migration of the gas before it became a part of a clathrate hydrate. Biogenic hydrocarbon gases (which are overwhelmingly (≥ 99%) methane) are those produced as a direct consequence of bacterial activity and are usually generated a few ten's of meters below the seabed, although Parkes and others (Parkes and others, 1990) discovered such bacterial activity exists in sediment several hundred meters beneath the seabed. Typically, generation of biogenic gas is associated with fine-grained sediment due to its characteristically higher initial organic content. In contrast, the manufacture of thermogenic hydrocarbon gases usually occurs at subbottom depths exceeding 1,000 m (Floodgate and Judd, 1992) These hydrocarbon gases are produced under conditions of high temperature and great pressure from kerogens (which are derived from organic matter). With respect to methane as a thermogenic [7] gas, it is dominant only in the last stage (post mature or metagenesis stage) of hydrocarbon production. If identified in a hydrate, thermogenic methane may indicate considerable upward migration of the gas.:ok:

con-pilot
24th May 2014, 19:50
As I've posted here so many times I'm sick of it, we have been fracing in Oklahoma since 1947.

Our water is fine.

We're all still alive.

Personally I don't give a crap if you frac in the UK or not.

Sit in the dark and freeze to death for all I care.


I'm out of here.

Smell the methane, what ignorance. :rolleyes:

alicopter
24th May 2014, 20:14
Lantern10... thank you for your contribution. Going viral right now!..... Cheers and again thank you!!!
Someone sometimes will have to explain how releasing in 60 or 100 years in the atmosphere something that has needed millions of years underground can be a good idea?? I do not want my great-grand children to live in a fully concreted, 5 selected species of every living creature, monochrome, artificial, virtual world the Mad People in charge are projecting for me....... Time for a revolution before it's too late.... I can feel it coming.

BusyB
24th May 2014, 20:34
con-pilot,

Thanks for highlighting Oklahoma!!

Oklahoma’s Current Seismic Activity
A joint analysis conducted by the United States Geological Survey and the Oklahoma Geological Survey found that between January 2014 and May 2, 2014 (the date of the original press release) 109 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater occurred in the state – already more than the 103 recorded in all of 2013.
To further illustrate this trend, since May 2, only one day has passed (May 10) where an earthquake was not recorded in Oklahoma. Two earthquakes of M3.6 were just recorded on consecutive days in the area, May 20 and 21, in Choctaw and Guthrie, Oklahoma. According to the USGS website, both of these events were assigned a rating of IV on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale – although not severe enough to cause damage, the recent Oklahoma tremors were significant enough to be felt by many people in the area.
So what is behind this surge in seismic activity? Another USGS analysis shows recent earthquake rate changes are likely not due to normal fluctuations in natural seismicity rates. Instead, the most likely cause is from wastewater being injected into deep geologic formations and causing faults to fail in a process called injection-induced seismicity.
Injection-Induced Seismicity
Injecting fluids underground can induce seismic activity by affecting subterranean water pressure that acts on faults and fractures in the bedrock. This fluid pressure found within the pores and cracks of rocks is known as its pore pressure.
When low, pore pressure has little to no effect on faults. However, as fluids are added and pore pressure increases, stresses in the faults are exposed and weakened, creating an earthquake potential that did not previously exist.
Injection-induced seismicity has been occurring for the last half century – other states affected include, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas and Colorado.
A recently published USGS study has suggested that the state’s largest ever recorded Oklahoma earthquake – the M5.6 earthquake that struck near Prague, Oklahoma on November 5, 2011 – was the result of a 5.0 foreshock. That preliminary quake, set off by fluid injection, then likely triggered the mainshock of 5.6 and the subsequent aftershocks.
Future Large Earthquake Potential
How large of an earthquake is possible in Oklahoma in the future? When Decoded Science posed this question, Robert Williams, the Eastern and Central US Coordinator of the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, responded by stating,
“We do not know what the largest possible magnitude might be in this region. From the M5.6 that occurred in 2011 near Prague, OK, we certainly know that another quake of that size is possible … The 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map assumes a maximum magnitude 7.0. We cannot rule out an event of such magnitude. Considering uncertainties in this ‘maximum magnitude,’ there is even a finite chance that it could be exceeded.”

k3k3
25th May 2014, 00:04
Con-Pilot said:

As I've posted here so many times I'm sick of it, we have been fracing in Oklahoma since 1947.

Our water is fine

I've spent more time than I like to remember in OKC since the early eighties, the tap water is just a dilute chlorine solution, just about everybody buys bottled water for drinking and cooking.

rh200
25th May 2014, 01:11
Sit in the dark and freeze to death for all I care.

No they will just bend over and grit their teeth whilst being taken up the @rse by Putin.

I'm on the side of it needs more investigation, I think we don't know enough, hence we have the usual bullsh!t from those who think they know it all from both sides. I'm sure there's places that can be fracked, and others that most likely shouldn't be.

The fact is, you have a resource, sooner or later the imperative is going to be to great to grab it, no matter what the consequences. Hence your better off being in control of the situation.

What p!sses me really off, is all the wacko leftys. Its just another case of them loosing their utopian vision, so anti big business, anti nuclear etc. What this does is take away from any rational debate where sane people can actually work though all the issues and do a proper risk analysis.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th May 2014, 01:26
What this does is take away from any rational debate where sane people can actually work though all the issues and do a proper risk analysis.

Just a thought but

Deepwater Horizon oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)

Lantern10
25th May 2014, 03:01
Alicopter, thanks. Here is something else you may like. A bit more light hearted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTpMiCgVlnA

Thankfully these days of almost instant communication any message can get around the world in seconds. People are educating themselves and won't be fobbed off with lies and half truths coming from the mouths of people who want to profit from this business.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uokmsSi7LTY

Kefuddle
25th May 2014, 03:28
Thankfully these days of almost instant communication any message can get around the world in seconds.
And misinformation is particularly virulent!

vee-tail-1
25th May 2014, 04:20
And misinformation is particularly virulent!

Mainly it seems from the political class and their business cronies who inhabit London. :*

Lantern10
25th May 2014, 06:02
And misinformation is particularly virulent!

Very much agreed but with education you can sort out the chaff from the wheat.

Something that was a whole lot harder say twenty years ago.

I'm not saying there should be no CSG. There is still a lot to learn. I am saying there are places on this planet where it should never ever be considered.

rh200
25th May 2014, 06:48
Thankfully these days of almost instant communication any message can get around the world in seconds. People are educating themselves and won't be fobbed off with lies and half truths coming from the mouths of people who want to profit from this business.


Which should read

Unfortunately these days of almost instant communication, any message can get around the world in seconds. People are being brainwashed by every tom dick and harry who has an agenda, and can spin a yarn that reinforces their own delusions against (insert cause here), or has been crafted with just enough technicalities that it sounds right to a first order.

Bit like the moon landing and 911 conspiracy.

audioaviator
25th May 2014, 09:53
pic.twitter.com/60UEgTUKAV (http://t.co/60UEgTUKAV)

ORAC
25th May 2014, 10:02
The fact is, you have a resource, sooner or later the imperative is going to be to great to grab it, no matter what the consequences. Hence your better off being in control of the situation. North Sea Coal (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10518072/UKs-next-offshore-energy-fortune-lies-in-coal.html)

BusyB
26th May 2014, 14:11
Article about the wrong Californian estimates.

Write-down of two-thirds of US shale oil explodes fracking myth | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/22/two-thirds-write-down-us-shale-oil-gas-explodes-fracking-myth)

Apart from the errors this was also said

"The latest revelations follow a spate of bad news for industry reassurances about the fracking boom. New research published this month has found that measured methane leaks from fracking operations were three times larger than forecasted. The US Environment Protection Agency therefore "significantly underestimates" methane emissions from fracking, by as much as a 100 to a 1,000 times according to a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study published in April.

The Associated Press also reported, citing a Government Accountability Office investigation, that the US Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management had failed to adequately inspect thousands of oil and gas wells that are potentially high risk for water and environmental damage."

MagnusP
26th May 2014, 14:36
BusyB, thanks for quoting from the ever-reliable Guardian.

Fact is, without fracing which MIGHT release methane, the UK is hugely reliant on coal from East Europe. Guess what? It's primarily lignite, and the mining releases vast quantities of methane.

BusyB
26th May 2014, 21:05
MagnusP,

I'm actually more concerned about groundwater and aquifer pollution in the SE where I live as less than 1500ft between the shale layer and the aquifer.
Apparently the shale layer is already fractured but there is no way of knowing how close the fractures are to the water. The addition of tracking fluid will not do anything to help water supplies in this region.:sad:

ramble on
27th May 2014, 01:57
Humankind is like a plague of locusts on this planet.

Once it's all gone, so will we be too.

The demand for growth, profit, development ahead of quality and foresight is our downfall.

Matari
27th May 2014, 02:18
Or, as George Carlin says, how do we know the earth didn't want us to invent plastic?

rld0KDcan_w

BenThere
27th May 2014, 05:16
I think local jurisdictions that don't want to take the risks of resource development should be allowed to do so. They should also pay the price in the form of higher energy costs.

Maybe the one tax increase I could support would be a 'pristine' tax on California and other NIMBYs. If Texas, Louisiana and other states are willing to shoulder the environmental risk to provide our energy, they should enjoy the rewards.

I think it would be quite cool for the state governments of the energy producing states to impose an export tax on the energy leaving their territory. I'll be moving to Texas, after all, like everyone else.

vee-tail-1
27th May 2014, 08:03
Well as the old indian said "You can't eat money" ... Also You can't drink oil & gas poisoned water.

Maybe the un-fracked states can tax the pure water they just might supply to the rest :rolleyes:

BenThere
27th May 2014, 17:02
Maybe the un-fracked states can tax the pure water they just might supply to the rest

Should that condition occur, they would be completely within their right to do so. In fact, developing such a comparative advantage, and capitalizing on it, is fundamental free market economics.

G-CPTN
27th May 2014, 17:58
Kielder Water holds 200 billion litres (44 billion gallons, or 0.2 cubic km), making it the largest reservoir in the UK by capacity.From (and more at):- Kielder Water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielder_Water)
Kielder Water was built to supply water to the steel industries on Wearside and Teesside but they closed down before it was completed - just as Kielder Forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielder_Forest#History) was planted to provide timber for pit-props (the pits moved on to metal) and create work for men sawing the timber (then someone invented the chainsaw).

BusyB
27th May 2014, 19:13
I know there is plenty of water north of the thames. No way of getting it south at present.

The shortage is in the SouthEast due lack of rivers and reservoirs. Over 30% of SE water is from groundwater whereas the rest of the country is about 13%. 3 years ago the drought in the SE led to empty reservoirs and aquifers and a threat of standpipes (as well as an 18 month hosepipe ban).

With new housing developments and the enormous amount of water required for fracking there is a serious threat of shortages even before any is contaminated with fracking fluids:sad:

airwave45
28th May 2014, 16:56
I know there is plenty of water north of the thames. No way of getting it south at present.

The shortage is in the SouthEast due lack of rivers and reservoirs. Over 30% of SE water is from groundwater whereas the rest of the country is about 13%. 3 years ago the drought in the SE led to empty reservoirs and aquifers and a threat of standpipes (as well as an 18 month hosepipe ban).

With new housing developments and the enormous amount of water required for fracking there is a serious threat of shortages even before any is contaminated with fracking fluids

Enormous amounts of water required for fracking, rubbish, about 4 million gallons per well (assuming 4 medium sized, high rate water fracs per well)

Contaminated with frac fluids, Would you tree huggers do just a _little_ bit of research that doesn't involve reading the gruinard or wearing a fluffy hat . . . . :ugh:
Frac fluids _can_ be as simple as water, food gel, sand.
They _can_ be as complex as we want (tracers, usually radioactive, Acids, you name it, we can chuck it in there)
However, we _can_ just make it water, food gel, sand.
And the water gets produced back to surface inside a month (usually) . :ok:

BusyB
28th May 2014, 17:29
airwave 45,

"Frac fluids _can_ be as simple as water, food gel, sand.
They _can_ be as complex as we want (tracers, usually radioactive, Acids, you name it, we can chuck it in there)"

I'm sure you're correct but having seen the declared fluids at Balcombe (to the council) they ARE obviously complex and not something you'd want to drink.

About 4000 wells required to frack the Weald which is a lot of water.

Don't consider myself a "treehugger" but if I lived in the desert that might be how I'd describe all those that don't.:ok:

flying lid
28th May 2014, 18:32
Halliburton seem to chuck everything in, over in the US of A

Water sand and food gel my arse.

Halliburton - Fluids Disclosure (http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/hydraulic_fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html)

Lid

vulcanised
28th May 2014, 20:47
I have been a fence-sitter on this up till now but if Halliburton are in any way involved then I'm strongly agin it.

rh200
29th May 2014, 01:00
You need to keep in context what is declared that can be used and is generally used. You also need to keep in context the relative volumes as such.

For example I eat sometimes and extra 4 bananas a day, that increase by radiation exposure by 4 BED's, another words sweat stuff all. :p

Sorry for taking the p!ss, but you really need to look at volumes, there is a lot of nasty stuff already in nature, generally in trace amounts.

If they are stuffing up, which they do, you need to come forward with facts. Another's words ground water was X ppm million before with this, and now its y ppm. frackings been going for long enough now to build up a statistical model of the dangers.

Matari
29th May 2014, 13:14
Mexico has recently liberalized their energy laws, opening their O&G industry to foreign competition and technology. Given 40 years of Pemex stagnation and dwindling production, they are set for an economic renaissance.

The average Mexican citizen will benefit from great, world-class companies like Halliburton and Kinder Morgan helping develop their huge energy reserves.

Message: buy Mexico, sell Europe.

ramble on
29th May 2014, 14:08
"Message: buy Mexico, sell Europe. "

And driven by short term greed and profit the human population dived over the ecological cliff. As stated previously, we are all f....cked.

I have never forgotten an article about 20 years ago in a Bulletin, Time, or some other unremembered current affairs magazine carried an article labelled "Brown Out" with a photo on the cover of what was happening to our planets breathable air with the increasing concentration of CO2.

Over the years that I have flown I have looked out the window at the physical brown layer getting higher and higher. I no longer look at a golden sunrise or sunset and think "isnt that beautiful" because I know that that sun colour is generally now caused by man made CO2 pollution.

I have desperately longed for a new form of propulsion to be developed by those smart people that are working in science behind the scenes so that we can pull the carbon fuel drip out of our veins forever.

I get the feeling that by putting all of this oil/gas/coal energy back into the atmosphere we are turning our atmosphere back into a form of its primordiel prehistoric state - back into chaos.

DC10RealMan
29th May 2014, 14:19
Fracking has been going on for a number of years in Lancashire and other parts of the north of England with no reports on the national press and yet suddenly because of the fracking in West Sussex and other parts of south-eastern England you would think that the world was coming to an end!

Matari
29th May 2014, 14:28
Modern, western and democratic capitalism has done more to improve the general health, longevity and quality of life on this planet than any other economic system. We need more of it, not less.

Do you really want to return to the days of indoor cooking fires, slaughtering whales for heating oil, using drinking water as your toilet, and dying at the ripe age of 35?

This western democracy stuff ain't perfect, and it sure isn't easy, but it beats anything else tried so far.

MagnusP
29th May 2014, 14:44
ramble on, you may ramble all you wish, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it's absolutely essential for life on earth. A little less hyperbole and a few more facts would bring more to the debate.

LowNSlow
29th May 2014, 14:49
to add to rh200's comment, when the Queensland Gas Company (aka British Gas) were developing their Coal Seam Gas fields in Australia they either sampled farmer's existing water bores or drilled new ones to establish water quality before drilling and fracking the coal seams. Surprise, surprise, lots of farmers had illegal water bores that were producing polluted water cos they hadn't been drilled properly and there was methane in the water BEFORE the CSG drilling started.

There was a lot of hoo hah about CSG and fracking but, because most of it was caused by the city Green's who only ever went into the country to protest, it wasn't really surprising that over 90% of landowners signed up for having wells / pipelines on their land. Most of the ones who didn't weren't the local farmers but people who had made a conscious choice to move to an isolated part of the country and understandably opposed anything that brought noise and disturbance near them even if it was only for a week or two as the pipeline was ploughed in. On the other hand a lot of people saw it as an opportunity to generate a lump sum plus an ongoing income from scrub land that would benefit them and their families for a decade or more to come.

Dr Jekyll
29th May 2014, 14:57
Over the years that I have flown I have looked out the window at the physical brown layer getting higher and higher. I no longer look at a golden sunrise or sunset and think "isnt that beautiful" because I know that that sun colour is generally now caused by man made CO2 pollution.

C02 concentration in the atmosphere is about 400 parts per million, most of that naturally occurring.

BenThere
29th May 2014, 16:00
Much is made of the number of tons of C02 and the various particulate matters exhausted into the atmosphere. Little is said about the fact that virtually all of it returns to the soil or ocean from whence it came via precipitation and gravity, where it is reprocessed naturally back into its various elemental molecules.

If you really wanted to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, you would want a warmer global climate which would encourage the growth in vegetation that absorbs it.

Of course, that's an inconvenient truth.

tdracer
29th May 2014, 18:03
To elaborate a bit on BenThere's post...

Depending on who's numbers you chose to believe, human activity is responsible for somewhere between 1% and 2% of the annual exchange of CO2 to the atmosphere - the other 98-99% is from nature. A surprising amount of the CO2 in nature is resident in the oceans as dissolved gas (which feeds oceanic plant life).

Now, can that 1-2%, when integrated over many decades, make a meaningful difference to the climate? Perhaps. But the overall affect is not the slam dunk that the alarmists would like you to believe.

BusyB
29th May 2014, 22:03
DC10RealMan,

No, High pressure tracking has only been used once in the UK in Blackpool. 2 of the 4 bores leaked due to the earth tremors caused by the fracking.

Don't know where you get your info from?:confused:

rh200
30th May 2014, 01:30
Do you really want to return to the days of indoor cooking fires, slaughtering whales for heating oil, using drinking water as your toilet, and dying at the ripe age of 35?

Yea, and basically knocking what ever woman you want over the haed and dragging them back into a cave.:ok: I wonder if thats the sort of Progess that the lefty's where thinking of.:ugh:

BenThere
30th May 2014, 02:31
Not to mention modern dentistry.

probes
30th May 2014, 07:01
Maybe modern obesity should be mentioned, too?

Tom Joad
29th Jun 2015, 18:25
So Lancashire county council reject fracking and the battle of Little Plumpton has sent Quadrilla straight to the court of appeal. Will we see similar rejections now?

Council blocks Little Plumpton fracking application - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-33313084)

Tom

G-CPTN
29th Jun 2015, 19:21
So Lancashire county council reject fracking and the battle of Little Plumpton has sent Quadrilla straight to the court of appeal. Will we see similar rejections now?

First of all, it isn't a court of appeal, but second, Quadrilla will have the basis of a good case if the planning officers recommended approval and the elected members rejected their recommendation (based on planning matters).

Incidentally, only the applicant can appeal - those who might be affected cannot appeal against an application that is approved.

We had a controversial planning application that was reluctantly approved by the elected members despite all of them wanting to refuse - as the officers had recommended approval the progress to a successful appeal would have cost the council money - the villagers have no right of appeal.

Tom Joad
29th Jun 2015, 20:17
Not the Court of Appeal of course rather more simply "appeal", indeed Quadrilla are considering their "appeal" options now. The BBC article states the grounds on which the application was rejected as:

"unacceptable noise impact" and the "adverse urbanising effect on the landscape".

Good news for those opposed to fracking elsewhere and fighting similar applications and little comfort to Quadrillia.

Tom

Peter-RB
29th Jun 2015, 20:32
Lancashire CC are a set of soft bastards, and have started to take notice of the hairy armpit sisters who shout and caterwaul that the earth will end with fracking.....:=

Get real LUDDITES, next week in Parliament the stupid refusal will make the LCC look like the tossers they are, it will be appealed and given the Green light, its too valuable to miss out on such a simple, and from what I have read about it reasonable risk free way to unlimited fuel resources, at a small cost compared with NOrth Sea or Saudi imported..:ok:

Fareastdriver
29th Jun 2015, 21:22
Gas from fracking powers gas fired power stations that produce electricity for emission free trains and eventually cars. Importing gas requires very large ships that burn heavy oil and punch Godknowswhat into the atmosphere.

I wouldn't have thought that environmentalists would have hesitated.

BusyB
29th Jun 2015, 22:40
P & FED,

Always nice to hear such well researched opinions!!!:ugh:

There may well be places where Fracking might be achievable without damaging the environment but without a trustworthy review of each site its no wonder that objectors appear. Even the British Geological report said that only with proper checks and balances should fracking be allowed. Unfortunately all the UK regs are based almost entirely on undersea drilling where checks are limited.:(

con-pilot
29th Jun 2015, 23:04
P & FED,

Always nice to hear such well researched opinions!!!:ugh:

There may well be places where Fracking might be achievable without damaging the environment but without a trustworthy review of each site its no wonder that objectors appear. Even the British Geological report said that only with proper checks and balances should fracking be allowed. Unfortunately all the UK regs are based almost entirely on undersea drilling where checks are limited.:(

Really, okay then, just how many wells have been frac(k)ed worldwide? After all, you seem to be impressed with well researched opinions, so I know that you have that information right at your fingertips.

No wait a minute, I'll give you a break, just tell me how many only in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana? Just three US States out of 50, none worldwide.

Then after you tell me that, you can tell me how environmental disasters there have been in those states due to frac(k)ing. Again, nothing worldwide.

Okay?

c-p

Tankertrashnav
29th Jun 2015, 23:09
I understand that the Blackpool earthquake which may have been associated with fracking measured 2.2 on the Richter scale. The one in Kent which was responsible for knocking a wheely bin over measured 3.7!

My God if these people had been around 250 years ago when the industrial revolution was just getting going in Lancashire going they'd have put a stop to coalmining and still all be living on turnips and mangelwurzels and going everywhere on horseback :*

con-pilot
29th Jun 2015, 23:29
BusyB

I'll tell you what partner, I'll make this even easier, you can round them off to the nearest 100th. As frac(K)ing started in 1860.

tdracer
29th Jun 2015, 23:39
I've long been of the opinion that Fracking is largely a victim of it's unfortunate acronym (there was even a popular Science Fiction TV series a few years ago where they used "Frack" as a substitute for the F-bomb :E.


They need to come up with a process name that works out to "Loving" or something similar. :ok:

con-pilot
29th Jun 2015, 23:58
No 'k' in the word fracture. :E

G-CPTN
30th Jun 2015, 00:00
They need to come up with a process name that works out to "Loving" or something similar. :ok:

Sweet-squeezing.

Flushing.

Hydraulic persuasion.

Hydraulic pressure extraction.

BusyB
30th Jun 2015, 08:44
Con-P,

I really couldn't care how many holes you have in the USA, not even in "Blackburn Lancashire" as the song goes.

High Pressure Fracking did not start in the 1860's (tossing a stick of dynamite down a hole is not the same).

More important questions on one of the states you mentioned, Oklahoma,
are "How many earthquakes have there been since Fracking started compared to pre-fracking" and "what percentage of homes can drink the tap water?":ok:

Peter-RB
30th Jun 2015, 12:53
Hey Busy B,

its in the name Great Britain...was made Great because engineers and men of vision did things that others had not thought off or were feared to do.

"He who stands back is never first" said my old teacher, are you advocating to do "Nowt" (good Lancashire expression) or are you saying we should hang back until some one else comes up with a system that wont harm the Green Flies or rats or Moles or Frogs( not French) or Newts ( amphibians not "Drunk as") ...or..... until all the Arabs kiss and hug each other and need the petro dollar to get back to buying up all the bullets bombs and such gear...then they will start again, quiet frankly I would not trust any Arab, even if they stood on a stack of the Quran measured in miles high..

Frankly Fracking will make the UK an independent producer of Oils and gasses, so our dependance on making and selling arms for the Arabs to kill us all with ..will not really exist ... so with that its even attractive to the Greens, for they don't like nasty Bullets and bombs and Atoms.

You have to live in reality...not some foam covered protective life, with little tweeties singing every day of your life, no nasty wasps to sting you, or mossies to bite you whilst you are sipping your sundowner.. Get Real,.... time to come into the real outside world , they can frack on my land any day..!:ok:;)

BusyB
30th Jun 2015, 15:26
Peter-RB,

As I said I'm sure some places are suitable for fracking. Where I live we use 30% (rest of the country about 15%) Artesian water down to 3000' and the shale layer is 4000'. HP Fracking is highly likely to pollute the water supply.

Talking about GB we've had the Titanic, Gallipoli and the charge of the Light Brigade. I wouldn't want to see the Charge of the Fracking Brigade to match with those.

I would recommend that everyone faces reality and investigates all the Con's as well as the Pro's.

Cheers:ok:

con-pilot
30th Jun 2015, 19:22
BusyB

Nice dodge there in trying to ignore my questions and not answer, then proving you do not have the slightest clue, that you are just parroting left wing environmentalist websites and cannot answer my questions correctly.

Once more here is my questions, the first part anyway.

Really, okay then, just how many wells have been frac(k)ed worldwide? After all, you seem to be impressed with well researched opinions, so I know that you have that information right at your fingertips.

No wait a minute, I'll give you a break, just tell me how many only in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana? Just three US States out of 50, none worldwide.


Your refused to answer, which is okay, because I'm no going to waste my time looking for the correct answer.

So we'll just drop that question for now and move to the important bit, that you claim will happen. That is a question taken from one of your posts.

The replacement question from me:

Can you tell me how environmental disasters there have been in those states due to frac(k)ing. Again, nothing worldwide. Or, just in Oklahoma, your choice.


From Your post:

There may well be places where Fracking might be achievable without damaging the environment but without a trustworthy review of each site its no wonder that objectors appear. Even the British Geological report said that only with proper checks and balances should fracking be allowed. Unfortunately all the UK regs are based almost entirely on undersea drilling where checks are limited

So I'll make it simpler, what damage to the environment? Where did this supposed damage to the environment occur?

And to answer your question of:

“More important questions on one of the states you mentioned, Oklahoma,
are "How many earthquakes have there been since Fracking started compared to pre-fracking" and "what percentage of homes can drink the tap water?"



As for the first question, I will ignore that has you have my questions. How's that?

As for the second part;

100% and if any cannot, none from frac(K)ing. I can only figure that if I’m wrong that you have your answer to opposite ready to post?

Please do the proper thing, first answer at least one of my questions, the simplest is fine, before you ask me anymore questions. That is the proper thing to do you know.

But I'll give you another break as I must go out shopping for my wife. However, I’ll tell you what, I’ll keep my eyes open for any environmental disasters. :p

You being wrong is nothing personal you understand. :ok:

Oh, by the way, natural gas does seep naturally from the ground and that has been used to blame frac(k)ing for a natural occurrences. One state in particular, Pennsylvania, first frac(k)ing was blamed without any research, the EPA decided to make it official. One problem, they couldn’t, the natural gas getting into the potable water was from natural seeping of the underground sources of natural gas.

But they keep trying, lots of accusations, but nothing positive from a official research origination, such as the EPA, universities or any governmental proof positive. Just unproven accusations.

In fact an entire African village was wiped out one night by the natural seepage of 'sour' (deadly) natural gas. Very sad and tragic.

You can look that up as well.

BusyB
1st Jul 2015, 10:59
con-pilot,

I research items and areas that directly affect me. Frequently this gives links to other areas affected.

Your facts about methane are partly true as it is created near the surface by decay but can be identified from that which comes from deeper under the surface.

Your links of interest for your home state I list below.

Inhofe on Fracking, Water Contamination (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/inhofe-on-fracking-water-contamination/)
Induced Earthquakes (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/oklahoma-acknowledges-wastewater-from-oil-and-gas-wells-as-major-cause-of-quakes.html?_r=0
Oil companies can be sued by earthquake victim, Oklahoma court rules - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/oil-companies-can-be-sued-by-earthquake-victim-oklahoma-court-rules-1.3134155)
Why Oklahoma City Won?t Tap Water From the Aquifer Under Its Own Feet | StateImpact Oklahoma (http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/10/31/why-oklahoma-city-wont-tap-water-from-the-aquifer-under-its-own-feet/)

and finally if you believe the EPA isn't instructed by the government on what to find (remember the "Safe Drinking Water Law" being repealed to allow fracking)

EPA: No widespread harm to drinking water from fracking | News OK (http://newsok.com/epa-no-widespread-harm-to-drinking-water-from-fracking/article/feed/847940)

Enjoy your reading.

I am only interested in trying to see both sides of this. The Pro's are obvious and powerfully backed which means the Con's are not given a fair, unbiased investigation.

con-pilot
1st Jul 2015, 16:54
My goodness BusyB, you certainly have been busy. Too busy to read the links you posted, which more proves my point rather than yours.

Let's take the one closest to home, the link to the article about the Drinking water in Oklahoma City. This one; Why Oklahoma City Won't Tap Water From the Aquifer Under Its Own Feet | StateImpact Oklahoma

Not a single word about frac(k)ing. None. In fact this is the only comment about any industrial effect to the Oklahoma City area (Garber-Wellington) Aquifer;

“There’s issues with the aquifer, too,” Komiske says. “It’s not from pollution. It’s not from contamination or industrial uses, but it’s a heavy metal aquifer. So, just in the rocks are a lot of minerals like arsenic, chromium, cadmium, vanadium.”

You didn't read the link you posted to prove me wrong, did you? :=


Sorry, that earns you a F. But, you do get an E for Effort even though you lost.


Now for this;

and finally if you believe the EPA isn't instructed by the government on what to find (remember the "Safe Drinking Water Law" being repealed to allow fracking)


As you have been completely wrong so far, I will presume that you do not work in the Oil and Gas Industry in the production area. The Obama Administration and by Obama's direction, literally hate the Oil and Gas Industry. That is fact, just look up the new EPA rules and regulations that have come into effect since President Obama took office.

Sorry, but you and your conspiracy buddies down at the Pub are wrong when it comes to frac(k)ing in the US. Outside the US, I really don't care, it can be done correctly or done cheaply the wrong way.

That is up to you, if you want to sit in the dark and freeze because you would rather believe the conspiracy lies instead of the truth, fine with me, trust Putin not to shutoff the pipelines that is just fine with me as well.

Nice chatting with you. :ok:

Lonewolf_50
1st Jul 2015, 22:04
I understand that the Blackpool earthquake which may have been associated with fracking measured 2.2 on the Richter scale. The one in Kent which was responsible for knocking a wheely bin over measured 3.7!
That's not an earthquake, it's a tremor.

Turbine D
1st Jul 2015, 23:29
I will let con-pilot, et.al., provide the industry viewpoint on this, but it should be an interesting jury trial with lots of testimony from"experts" on both sides.
Oklahoma Woman Blaming Fracking Wastewater for Quake Can Sue

(Bloomberg) –- Oklahoma’s Supreme Court said New Dominion LLC can be sued for damage caused by an earthquake that a woman blames on disposal wells tied to fracking, in what may be the first such case to head to a jury trial.

Sandra Ladra sued New Dominion and Spess Oil Co. for injuries suffered to her knees and legs in November 2011, when a 5.0 magnitude earthquake struck near her home in central Oklahoma. She said the tremor caused the rock facing on her two-story fireplace and chimney to fall into the living room, where she was watching television with her family.

Oklahoma, a region not known for seismic activity, has experienced a rash of earthquakes since 2009, the same year area oil companies began using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to shatter deep rock layers to extract oil and gas. Fracked wells produce large quantities of wastewater, which drilling companies inject into ultra-deep disposal wells, which critics blame for causing earthquakes.

Richard Andrews, Oklahoma’s state geologist, published a study in April concluding it’s “very likely” the 600-fold increase in earthquake activity experienced in some parts of the state was triggered by the injection of wastewater in disposal wells rather than by the fracking activity itself.

Oklahoma’s earthquake rate has increased from 1.5 temblors a year before 2008 to an average rate of 2.5 a day, Andrews said in the April 21 report.

G-CPTN
1st Jul 2015, 23:34
Oklahoma, a region not known for seismic activity, has experienced a rash of earthquakes since 2009, the same year area oil companies began using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to shatter deep rock layers to extract oil and gas.
I find it incredible that fracking was first commenced in Oklahoma in 2009.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oklahoma_and_fracking#Earthquakes

con-pilot
1st Jul 2015, 23:51
That doesn't mean she will win Turbine D.

A lot of people have tried, mostly in the New England area, none have won or settled out court to my knowledge.

There is a reason for that.

Now, serious question, very sincere, what do you know about frac(k)ing?

Thank you.

con-pilot
2nd Jul 2015, 00:07
I find it incredible that fracking was first commenced in Oklahoma in 2009.



Especially seeing frac(k)ing was first used in 1860. :ooh:

Okay, I'll be serious now.

Okay, where did you see that? Because the company I retired from was using hydraulic frac(k)ing years before 2009.

Besides that the link you posted was talking about injection wells, not frac(k)ing.


Here, where I live, injection wells is pretty well established as the cause of these earthquakes.

And the Oil/Gas production industry needs to do something about that, pure and simple.

If you folks don’t want to have hydraulic frac(k)ing in your country or where you live, fine, pay more or go without it. I really don’t care.

rh200
2nd Jul 2015, 01:00
I will let con-pilot, et.al., provide the industry viewpoint on this, but it should be an interesting jury trial with lots of testimony from"experts" on both sides.

Sadely in todays society the court system is a bit of a joke. Sadely its also still the best we have.

In effect the system has become nothing more than a political/finacial tool for various parties. The end effect is, in a lot of cases it isn't about right or wrong, its about a war of attrition.

It is a classic example of who has most to loose and more often than not the outcome is decided depending on, who has most to loose, or is prepared to pay the most.

con-pilot
2nd Jul 2015, 01:11
G-C

You made me go look it up, the first oil/gas well hydraulically frac(k)ed in Oklahoma was in 1949.




rh

It's pretty simple defense, the ground water is checked and if there is no pollution, there is no case.

Turbine D
2nd Jul 2015, 01:39
con-pilot,
That doesn't mean she will win Turbine D.

A lot of people have tried, mostly in the New England area, none have won or settled out court to my knowledge.

There is a reason for that.

Now, serious question, very sincere, what do you know about frac(k)ing?
Get out your reading glasses and read my post again. I made no mention of who should win, just said it would be interesting. As a former pilot, what are your credentials as the apparent PPRuNe frac(k)ing expert?

con-pilot
2nd Jul 2015, 03:16
As a former pilot, what are your credentials as the apparent PPRuNe frac(k)ing expert?


That is a good question, a bit personal as I know nothing about you, not even if you are a pilot or not. After all, this is a Professional Pilot's website.

But I'll give you a hint, oil/gas companies do own aircraft you know.

Back to you.

BusyB
2nd Jul 2015, 08:05
con-pilot,

I think you proved my point actually.

A link that said Oklahoma water was polluted due fracking was probably incorrect as the later link claimed heavy metals. Being one who looks at all sides I gave the latest link. Anyway, you drink that do you?

I notice you ignored the other links as they don't suit you. Shows to me you don't want to face information that doesn't suit you.


NO PERSONAL INSULTS

Turbine D
2nd Jul 2015, 14:04
con-pilot,
That is a good question, a bit personal as I know nothing about you, not even if you are a pilot or not. After all, this is a Professional Pilot's website.

But I'll give you a hint, oil/gas companies do own aircraft you know.

I make no secret about myself if you read my listed background, not a pilot, just an engineer who worked 38 years in the jet engine business. Even some companies that make jet engines are in the oil/gas business and own lots of aircraft.
I was hoping with your knowledge of frac(k)ing you could explain to the peanut gallery why Oklahoma experiences so many recent earthquakes, tremors, perhaps not directly related to the frac(k)ing drilling process, but subsequent processes. This doesn't seem to be such a problem in other areas of the country (Pennsylvania, for instance) where frac(k)ing has gone on. So why is it different in Oklahoma?

Update: Just looked at the USGS earthquake site, two more yesterday in Oklahoma, a 3.5 near Stillwater and a 3.0 near Crescent.

Yamagata ken
2nd Jul 2015, 14:31
My understanding (I've been out of the business for a long time) is the tremors are related to waste water disposal. That is, when you produce gas/oil from a well, there is commonly water produced in addition. This water is separated from the hydrocarbon stream, and disposed of by high pressure re-injection into the reservoir.

Look at it this way. When hot rocks are fracked to extract geothermal energy it precpitates earth tremors. Similarly, when rivers are dammed for hydro power, you also get earth tremors caused by crustal loading. These tremors are good tremors because they wear white hats. Evil neo-con oil industry earth tremors are easily identified by their black hats.

con-pilot
2nd Jul 2015, 20:52
Well, I see the fangs came out overnight, no problem I’ve been treated worse and survived.

Mr. D I’ll answer your questions, without revealing too much. I am a retire pilot, medically due to post-polio syndrome. Managed to have a 42 plus year career amassing over 21,000 hours. During that period I mainly flew for one company and the United States Government.

The company I flew the most for was a natural gas production company whose owner was the pioneer of deep well drilling. The company drilled and completed the deepest and highest pressure exploratory ever drilled. The depth we reached was a little over 24,453 feet, which was unheard of depth at the time. In fact most of the experts in oil and gas drilling said it was impossible to drill a well that deep. Today of course 25,000 feet and deeper is an everyday occurrence.

The company developed deep well drilling and production for natural gas, natural gas the government and the major oil companies said was not there. They were wrong. We produced trillions of feet of natural gas and millions of barrels of oil.

I’m not one of those pilots that ‘just flew the aircraft’, I took interest in what the people I flew for did. I have lost count on how many active drilling units I have been on, some during fraccing* procedures, which was very interesting. I have spent hours (sometimes over a beer or two) talking to my former company’s geologists and petroleum engineers about the Earthquakes and the fraccing of wells. In fact I talked to a retired geologist last night that just retired from the company I had flown for, the subject of course was the ongoing fraccing causing all these Earthquakes.

His answer was still no, fraccing is not causing any earthquakes. He and the company are convinced that the injection wells are causing these, well tremors really, only one was a proper earthquake, 5.7.

So that is where I am getting my information, from people I have worked for and trust that know what in the hell they are talking about.

Not off the internet.


* Also found out last night that the proper way to spell frac(k)ing is; fraccing. But I'm not a English teacher so spell it anyway you want. ;)



Okay, that's it I'm not going to type one more word about fraccing, believe what you want to believe.

Cheers :ok:

Turbine D
2nd Jul 2015, 23:09
con-pilot,
If you read my original post, the reason given was the wells used to dispose of the fluid used is probably the cause of the tremors, that according to Oklahoma's State geologist. You questioned my knowledge of fracking, so I questioned yours, fair I think. So I am wondering why this tremor phenomena doesn't seem to happen in the areas fracking has taken place in the Northeastern United States? That's all, I haven't been against fracking except for some operators that have taken liberties with the fracking process leading to undesirable consequences. The information I receive on fracking details comes from a relative in Southwestern Pennsylvania who is deciding on permitting fracking on his property.

On a separate note, I am sorry to hear of the medical condition that forced your to retire from piloting. My next oldest brother died of polio, didn't make the transition from the iron lung to the rocking bed. It was a terrible disease and it changed my family forever…

Turbine D
2nd Jul 2015, 23:17
Yamagata Ken,

Thanks for your post. That was what I was looking for. I suppose there is a difference in the geological makeup of the land in Oklahoma verses the land in the Northeastern United States. I guess it is my engineering background that makes me curious about this. thanks again,

TD

rh200
3rd Jul 2015, 01:21
Look at it this way. When hot rocks are fracked to extract geothermal energy it precpitates earth tremors. Similarly, when rivers are dammed for hydro power, you also get earth tremors caused by crustal loading.

Interesting, was discussing the geothermal issue with someone from CSIRO the other day, and wondering about long term effects in regards to to much energy extraction in a small area. I like the idea of a little bit over a large area.

Didn't know we had measurable records on small tremors with regards to geothermal and hydro.

These tremors are good tremors because they wear white hats. Evil neo-con oil industry earth tremors are easily identified by their black hats.

Most likely the best description of the subject ever.:ok:

India Four Two
3rd Jul 2015, 02:30
My understanding (I've been out of the business for a long time) is the tremors are related to waste water disposal. That is, when you produce gas/oil from a well, there is commonly water produced in addition. This water is separated from the hydrocarbon stream, and disposed of by high pressure re-injection into the reservoir.

YK,

My understanding too. Here's a USGS paper on minor tremors apparently caused by injection in the Rangely field in Colorado:

Earthquakes in the Oil Field at Rangely, Colorado (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1972/0130/)

As has been mentioned above, there is a long history of fraccing (hydraulic fracturing) in the oil industry, but until relatively recently, it was only used on low-permeability conventional sandstone or carbonate reservoirs, and while a common procedure, was only used on a small percentage of wells.

With the development of the exploration for oil and gas in shale, which has essentially zero permeability, all wells need to be fracced, in order to create some effective permeability, which allows the oil or gas to be produced.

Disclosure: I'm an oil and gas geophysicist.

Yamagata ken
3rd Jul 2015, 12:19
Thanks I42. I had a squiz at the abstract and was surprised by a couple of things.

Firstly they were reporting magnitudes as Richter Scale. The Richter Scale was superseded by the Magnitude Moment Scale (by of all people the USGS) in the 1970s. Sometimes news is a bit slow to catch up.

Secondly they report Magnitude 1 as an earthquake. FWIW, the Richter and MMS scales are estimates of the energy released at the hypocentre of an event. This may be of interest if you are a seismologist or standing right above the event at the time. It tells you nothing about the effects where you are actually located. For this you need the Japanese Shindo Scale.

Shindo Magnitude 1 (equivalent of being at the epicentre of an MMS 1 earthquake). ''Felt by some people indoors. Objects may swing/rattle gently. Upper sections of multi-story buildings may feel the earthquake.'' MMS magnitude 1 is about the equivalent of a truck driving past. Be very afraid.

India Four Two
3rd Jul 2015, 16:15
YK,

To be fair to the USGS, the paper was published in 1972. As far as I know, this was the first investigation into this phenomenon.

MMS magnitude 1 is about the equivalent of a truck driving past. Be very afraid.

Yes, that is why I avoided the use of the word "earthquake";)

In my experience of earthquakes, mostly in Indonesia, it takes a MMS 4 to make me notice it. However, I did experience one of unknown magnitude on the 50th floor of a building in Shinjuku. That was interesting! :eek: