To frack or not ?

[proactive]

Opposed - the environmental impacts and risks are too great.

What evidence do you have for this? If it's impartial, rather than the partial nonsense you often quote to 'back' your anti meat-eating argument, I would be very interested to read it.

 

[proactive]

has he any friends?

 

[Gramaisc]

What evidence do you have for this? If it's impartial, rather than the partial nonsense you often quote to 'back' your anti meat-eating argument, I would be very interested to read it.

There are people who worry about the possibility of contaminating ground waters - and there could also be a little less emphasis on carbonless energy sources as a result - perhaps.

And there seems likely to be a link between some small tremors around Blackpool and the initial fracking experiments there.

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

What evidence do you have for this? If it's impartial, rather than the partial nonsense you often quote to 'back' your anti meat-eating argument, I would be very interested to read it.

Best of luck with the "impartial" bit, especially from HC. There is very little true impartial evidence related to fracking out there, therein lies the problem.

I tried in my previous responses to give the environmental downsides of the process coupled with the economic upsides as a way of providing balance - I fear you'll get little balance from old Henry, just un-evidenced, un-peer reviewed all "development is evil" rantings.

Apparently in the US to plug up the spent fracking wells they stuff the carcasses and offal of surplus farm animals down there, it'll be right up Henry's street - in fact it would be hilarious if fracking was literally up his street.

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

There are people who worry about the possibility of contaminating ground waters - and there could also be a little less emphasis on carbonless energy sources as a result - perhaps.

And there seems likely to be a link between some small tremors around Blackpool and the initial fracking experiments there.

Also there have been studies linking Radon release from wells. Radon is a highly toxic gas that has been heavily linked to cancer. It is difficult though to pick through all the environmental advice on fracking out there to work out what is probable and what is just hysteria.

 

[Gramaisc]

Also there have been studies linking Radon release from wells. Radon is a highly toxic gas that has been heavily linked to cancer. It is difficult though to pick through all the environmental advice on fracking out there to work out what is probable and what is just hysteria.

Radon's not toxic in the sense of poisonous, it's mostly just the radioactivity that's the problem - it's fairly inert chemically. It's probably the major natural source of lung cancer - although that's still a small number. In some areas, people have extractor fans in basement areas to avoid radon build-up, as it's a very dense gas - and the NRPB will sometimes provide detectors to occupiers. It's more common in areas of granite bedrocks, I believe..

 

[Mikinton]

Opposed - the environmental impacts and risks are too great.

It is a sticking plaster for a flawed energy policy. Renewables can and should contribute far more. There is a lot more that can be done in terms of deriving gas from waste. The government continually prioritise cheap energy when the real problem is that as a nation we are hideously energy inefficient. The focus needs to be on reducing consumption in the first place.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

Where do you think we're underutilising the renewables? Coming from the place that has the second highest tides in the world, I've always fancied a Severn barrage myself, if they could sort out the wildlife issues.

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

Radon's not toxic in the sense of poisonous, it's mostly just the radioactivity that's the problem - it's fairly inert chemically. It's probably the major natural source of lung cancer - although that's still a small number. In some areas, people have extractor fans in basement areas to avoid radon build-up, as it's a very dense gas - and the NRPB will sometimes provide detectors to occupiers. It's more common in areas of granite bedrocks, I believe..

True, but then radiation is often perceived as pretty poisonous, especially by the lay person who is your average unwashed protester. I agree it is tenuous, but this shows the problem with fracking and much of the environmental argument - most of it is based around misunderstandings, hysteria and misinterpretations.

 

[db]

Not that he would accept an invite to my house anyway, but I am struggling to think of anyone I would welcome to a dinner party any less than HC. Or go for a pint with.

Does anyone know him outside of the forum - I mean, has he any friends?

yes (by proxy), and yes he does..

come on, i know he's annoying, but that's no reason to start going "nurr nurr na-nurr nurr you have no friends!" like schoolkids.. i mean, if being annoying on the internet was a crime, there would be nobody left on the internet before too long lol..

god knows i'd have been kicked off long ago


oh, and vis a vis the OP: i'm all for it.. anything for cheap power.. obv's i'd prefer it not to be in stafford, but if it was found to be a rich (throbbing hurf durf) vein then crack* on, i guess!

* or frack on, i suppose

 

[Withnail]

What evidence do you have for this?

I started reading this -
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking study.pdf
- the other day.

In summary...

General risk causes
In general, the main causes of risks and impacts from high-volume hydraulic fracturing
identified in the course of this study are as follows:
 The use of more significant volumes of water and chemicals compared to
conventional gas extraction
 The lower yield of unconventional gas wells compared to conventional gas wells
means that the impacts of HVHF processes can be greater than the impacts of
conventional gas exploration and production processes per unit of gas extracted.
 The challenge of ensuring the integrity of wells and other equipment throughout the
development, operational and post-abandonment lifetime of the plant (well pad) so as
to avoid the risk of surface and/or groundwater contamination
 The challenge of ensuring that spillages of chemicals and waste waters with potential
environmental consequences are avoided during the development and operational
lifetime of the plant (well pad)
 The challenge of ensuring a correct identification and selection of geological sites,
based on a risk assessment of specific geological features and of potential
uncertainties associated with the long-term presence of hydraulic fracturing fluid in
the underground
 The potential toxicity of chemical additives and the challenge to develop greener
alternatives
 The unavoidable requirement for transportation of equipment, materials and wastes to
and from the site, resulting in traffic impacts that can be mitigated but not entirely
avoided.
 The potential for development over a wider area than is typical of conventional gas
fields
 The unavoidable requirement for use of plant and equipment during well construction
and hydraulic fracturing, leading to emissions to air and noise impacts.

I am unsure as to its impartiality, i have been meaning to get some background on the author but have had a bout of the CBA's.

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

yes (by proxy), and yes he does..

come on, i know he's annoying, but that's no reason to start going "nurr nurr na-nurr nurr you have no friends!" like schoolkids.. i mean, if being annoying on the internet was a crime, there would be nobody left on the internet before too long lol..

god knows i'd have been kicked off long ago


oh, and vis a vis the OP: i'm all for it.. anything for cheap power.. obv's i'd prefer it not to be in stafford, but if it was found to be a rich (throbbing hurf durf) vein then crack* on, i guess!

* or frack on, i suppose

Agreed, there is little point de-basing things to the level of "you don't have any friends". I find myself pretty much disagreeing with everything HC says and thats usually because he has a set opinion about something and is either totally unwilling or unable to see anything from a different angle. This generally becomes quite boring as it is nye on impossible to reason with or debate on such embedded, often blinkered and highly rose tinted views. He can do as he likes though (within the rules of the Forum of course).

 

[John Marwood]

 

[Chick]

There was a Horizon program about fracking a few months ago. I'd not come across it before watching that but from that and the bits I've come across on the web it indicates it just being a short term solution, like fossil fuels. Claims of their being potentially enough gas to secure the UK's gas future for 50-100 years but then what?

The Horizon program mainly focussed on the impact to water supplies with reports of many people getting sick (ala the Erin Brockovich film)and in some cases the water coming from the taps being flammable!

There were also lots of weird NDA's being weilded by the gas companies surrounding the specific chemicals being used which meant any doctor that was treating someone who was experiencing symptoms thought to be caused by fracking had to sign an NDA before the gas companies would reveal the chemicals involved. If the patient then had to be referred no details could be provided as part of the referal and the next doctor would also have to sign the NDA. The program was focussing on American fracking so I don't know if they have different laws which could influence this process

I say more research and evidence is needed on the potential impacts but I'd prefer it if more renewal energy options were being pursued over fracking

 

[shoes]

Basically we need our current population of around 60+ year old to die off and then we can start to make progress. Whilst they're still around there will be bitter opposition to renewables because change is bad and progress is bad and they know best.

Give it 20 years and we'll be regretting not telling them bollocks and building all the wind turbines we liked now whilst we can still borrow to do it.

 

[proactive]

I started reading this -
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking study.pdf
- the other day.

Good start, thanks

 

[United57]

No, let them get on with it.

Not sure why you specifically want it in the home counties though?

For years the North and the Midlands had coal mining now let them have a bit of fracking. ( forgot Kent)

 

[United57]

Is there anywhere that offers an impartial view into the possible environmental impact of fracking? I feel, at the moment, that I don't really have enough independent information to form a view of whether I am fore or against it.

Listened to the Green MP on Radio 4 this morning. Really grilled by Humphreys and it was obvious that some of the so called problems are just that.

 

[United57]

Opposed - the environmental impacts and risks are too great.

It is a sticking plaster for a flawed energy policy. Renewables can and should contribute far more. There is a lot more that can be done in terms of deriving gas from waste. The government continually prioritise cheap energy when the real problem is that as a nation we are hideously energy inefficient. The focus needs to be on reducing consumption in the first place.

I disagree with the environmental impact and risk. We get earth tremors from mines around all the time. I believe that the environmental argument has been lost. In Balcombe its Nimbism with middle class eco warriors.

The gas that is extracted is methane type and more detrimental to ordinary natural gas. This could be a basis for your argument but this has to be weighed up against keeping people warm in winter at an affordable price. I agree our energy policy is flawed. The classic example is biomass.

We could argue because we have Europe wide energy market then our gas price may not come down but if we left the EU it may.

We could argue it will give us energy independence till we have new nuclear reactors or efficient renewables.

 

[henryscat]

I wouldn't disagree with that.

Where do you think we're underutilising the renewables? Coming from the place that has the second highest tides in the world, I've always fancied a Severn barrage myself, if they could sort out the wildlife issues.

Locally, the County Council have passed a motion to more or less oppose any wind power: http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/final-position-statemement.pdf

I can see that there are some parts of the County where turbines may not be desirable, but equally there are areas where the presence of turbines wouldn't be that detrimental to the landscape.

Severn Barrage is an interesting one - I did my A-level physics coursework on it! There are very few places in the world that are any good for tidal power, but the wildlife impact would be serious.

Going back to fracking... The presumption of those in favour of it is implicitly (or explicitly) that we have a right to cheap energy supplies. I would suggest that whilst energy is cheap, there is going to be a greater tendency to waste it. Whilst unit costs may be rising, we have an immensely long way to go in terms of improving energy efficiency, which is a much more sustainable way of reducing costs.

As for alternative sources of gas, perhaps development should focus more on anaerobic digestion such as this in Cannock:

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/compost/biffa-opens-uk2019s-largest-ad-plant

 

[Gramaisc]

I disagree with the environmental impact and risk. We get earth tremors from mines around all the time. I believe that the environmental argument has been lost. In Balcombe its Nimbism with middle class eco warriors.

The gas that is extracted is methane type and more detrimental to ordinary natural gas. This could be a basis for your argument but this has to be weighed up against keeping people warm in winter at an affordable price. I agree our energy policy is flawed. The classic example is biomass.

We could argue because we have Europe wide energy market then our gas price may not come down but if we left the EU it may.

We could argue it will give us energy independence till we have new nuclear reactors or efficient renewables.

Is fracking even actually proposed for Balcombe?

I thought that 'ordinary natural gas' was largely methane.

Why would 'our gas price' come down if we left the EU?