Quote from: class37025 on July 30, 2013, 10:46:56 PM

Quote from: Claude Dreyfus on July 30, 2013, 10:00:13 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23504883

Okay, not fracking for gas, but a similar process...

off topic probably,

but I wonder 1. how many of these protesters actualy live in or near Balcombe ?

and 2. is it me, or do they look mostly like the usual rent-a-mob that turn up at any by-pass / dual carriageway / etc ?

certainly any genuine concerns won't be helped by 'protestors' cutting lorry brake pipes etc as reported a couple of days ago.

Quite possibly. I certainly agree that any protests are immediately undermined by criminal damage...

Balcombe is quite a rural area, and I think that was what Lord Howell was driving at when he made his comments (however clumsily put) was that if shale gas extraction needs to happen (and the government(s) say it does), then it would be better to do it in areas where there will be no impact to people living there...

...and no, I don't just mean the rich or those in the south east (which, incidentally, has deposits of its own that will no doubt be extracted (or at least have investigative drilling)).

When he made his comments, I don't think he was suggesting someone set up an extraction site right in the middle of Darlington or Newcastle!

Just as a quantifier about my comment about being offended. Howell's comments were thoughtless, and yes, perhaps out of touch, but offensive? I'm sure it would take far more than suggesting parts of the north east are 'desolate' to offend the locals, and somehow I don't think his comments reflect a genuine government policy to centre all fracking activities in the north (from wherever the arbitrary line now seems to exist that delineates the two 'halves' of the country).

Is fracking a bad thing? There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that could go either way - the link between fracking and earthquakes (tremors) has (apparently) been officially ruled out, so we're back to the usual subsidence, pollution and increased traffic arguments that accompany any mineral or fuel extraction. The bottom line is that we all use the energy in one way, shape or form...

Quote from: Claude Dreyfus on July 30, 2013, 11:11:03 PM
Is fracking a bad thing? There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that could go either way - the link between fracking and earthquakes (tremors)
has (apparently) been officially ruled out, so we're back to the usual

Actually thats not true - in fact the reverse is true. The fact water injection causes earthquakes is considered proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The fracking industry tries to pretend otherwise (like the coal industry and climate denial) but it's been well known since the 1960s when it was observed with geothermal power and with oil injection wastewater (another quite foul process used in the USA). US fracking and earthquake frequency analysis has confirmed the existing evidence comprehensively. It also showed that the US has gone from 21 earthquakes of magnitude 3+ average consistently from 1967-2000 to 300/year in 2010-2012....

The most recent major study backing this up is the USGS study (ie the US government).

(outside of fracking this btw is considered terribly *good* news because it validates theories from the 1970s that it ought to be possible to use a mix of water injection and water removal to stage "controlled" earthquakes along major faultlines and swap the enormous city levelling quakes for 5 or 6's in stages).

Quote
subsidence, pollution and increased traffic arguments that accompany any mineral or fuel extraction. The bottom line is that we all use the energy in one way, shape or form...

We also all user water and water is a more precious resource. Fracking uses enormous quantities of water and even if it is successfully pumped deep down and isolated from the supply after fracking occurs, its *gone*. In the US its led to serious water pollution problems.

You really don't want to pollute the water in the North East - its relatively short supply and its rather important to the industry and the agriculture.

The earthquake problem is also more serious for the UK - not only is it population dense but our natural earthquakes are few and weak. Our building codes are basically devoid of earthquake considerations. A lot of US fracking areas have earthquake codes which have limited damage done.

A lot of our railway network for example is vulnerable to earthquake damage. The tunnels and embankments are not built for it, all the huge brick station buildings are not earthquake safe at all and certainly wouldn't stand a 5.6 quake (which is the largest observed US quake fairly firmly linked to wastewater disposal - although in this case not from a well used in fracking)

It'll do wonders for your house insurance costs too!

Alan

Quote from: scotsoft on July 30, 2013, 06:51:44 PM
Although I cannot be 100% sure, I doubt very much whether there are any fracking experts on NGF,

I doubt that will have any influence on posts.
Never has before.

Colin

Alan is right that the link between fracking and earthquakes is known, though the real question is whether those earthquakes are serious enough to worry about (there is a heck of a difference between 3 and 5.6 on the Richter scale!). Parts of the UK are not as seismically inactive as might be imagined, but they are just very low on the scale events.

On the water pollution aspect there are various points to it:
- water scarcity, as Alan points out the UK does have problems in some parts of the UK with water availability
- failures of the well linings letting gas into the aquifers - could be a problem particularly (as in the USA) if the linings are poor quality.
- water pollution from the fracking mixture into the aquifers. Depends on the fracking chemicals used (trade secret in the USA, but public data in the UK/EU) and the concentrations used.  If you put a reasonably small amount of a toxic chemical into lots of water you essentially still have lots of water (depending on the chemical in question)

Cheers, Mike

Not just the chemicals pumped in but also stuff naturally coming out of the rock. In some areas that is heavy metals like lead.

Quoteso we're back to the usual subsidence, pollution and increased traffic arguments that accompany any mineral or fuel extraction.

Weren't the same sort of arguments used against coal-mining? (And where would we kettle-lovers be without that?)
Come to the 'desolate' North East and see if you can point out where the mines used to be! They're nearly all landscaped now.

QuoteYou really don't want to pollute the water in the North East - its relatively short supply

What about Kielder, the largest reservoir in the UK?

And still subsiding and polluting. Same in Wales although some of the spoil heaps are now themselves being reprocessed for all the crap coal nobody wanted then but now is ideal for power stations.

Quote from: oscar on July 31, 2013, 11:28:40 AM

Quoteso we're back to the usual subsidence, pollution and increased traffic arguments that accompany any mineral or fuel extraction.

Weren't the same sort of arguments used against coal-mining? (And where would we kettle-lovers be without that?)
Come to the 'desolate' North East and see if you can point out where the mines used to be! They're nearly all landscaped now.

QuoteYou really don't want to pollute the water in the North East - its relatively short supply

What about Kielder, the largest reservoir in the UK?

Hi Pete
To be fair, we don't have many coal mines in Teesside! And from what I can gather, it isn't really about the aesthetic effect on the environment, more to do with being poisoned by chemicals and whatever te fracking forces from the rock.

BTW are you coming to the exhibition, Saturday or Sunday? If you are, say hello, Im on the dcc demo stand.
Kirky

Quote from: NinOz on July 31, 2013, 10:31:48 AM

Quote from: scotsoft on July 30, 2013, 06:51:44 PM
Although I cannot be 100% sure, I doubt very much whether there are any fracking experts on NGF,
Colin

Sounds like script from Father Ted!

Quote from: kirky on July 31, 2013, 01:06:31 PM

Quote from: oscar on July 31, 2013, 11:28:40 AM

Quoteso we're back to the usual subsidence, pollution and increased traffic arguments that accompany any mineral or fuel extraction.

Weren't the same sort of arguments used against coal-mining? (And where would we kettle-lovers be without that?)
Come to the 'desolate' North East and see if you can point out where the mines used to be! They're nearly all landscaped now.

QuoteYou really don't want to pollute the water in the North East - its relatively short supply

What about Kielder, the largest reservoir in the UK?

Hi Pete
To be fair, we don't have many coal mines in Teesside! And from what I can gather, it isn't really about the aesthetic effect on the environment, more to do with being poisoned by chemicals and whatever te fracking forces from the rock.

BTW are you coming to the exhibition, Saturday or Sunday? If you are, say hello, Im on the dcc demo stand.
Kirky

Aye, Kirky, but he didn't say Teesside just the North in general.There were similar fears about 'disappearing into the earth' with the coal mines.
And my house is built over an ironstone mine!
I'm going to try for the weekend if I don't forget! I'll buy you a cuppa!

Pete

Things falling into old mine workings like this story http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/collapsing_mines_still_a_threat_report_1_695831 

Model that!!!!

I work in oil/gas drilling, but not specifically in fraccing (yes, that's how we spell it).

Fraccing has been happening for decades, and there have been very few problems, the most famous being:
> Some folks in USA have managed to set light to "gas" coming out of their taps, and stick it on youtube.
> A very minor earthquake in Blackpool (where there was already a geological fault which could/should have been avoided).

We frac when we have drilled a well, found oil/gas, but it won't flow due to lack of permeability. The objective of fraccing is to create permeability in non-permeable reservoirs by applying pressure to create fractures through which the gas can flow.
We might then inject chemicals to wash out the rocks' cement, or proppant to prop the fractures open.

We'd rather not frac as it's expensive, not because it's harmful.
It's low risk unless there are already faults in the area, or if it's close to surface. (Typically it's 2000-3000m, but recent cases have been shallower).

Quote from: mereman on July 31, 2013, 04:25:10 PM
Things falling into old mine workings like this story http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/collapsing_mines_still_a_threat_report_1_695831 

That must have been more like a big pothole rather than a proper mine!