Do you believe fracking in the UK will bring lower consumer energy costs?

sheffield_lad

Somniac wrote: »

Can you tell me what chemicals are likely to be used in this country?
One of them is hydrochloric acid.
Another is Oxirane orEthylene oxide. A hazardous substance flammable at room temperature, a carcinogenic, mutagenic, irritating, and anaesthetic gas. Yes and if they do the job and do not come into contact with the environment which is the plan then what is the issue?
The idea that fewer chemicals will be used here is a theoretical one until they start doing it. They have a choice of 750. Do you really believe they will not sacrifice environmental concerns once they have invested their millions and it don't work fast or efficiently enough? I though another poster had given you a link showing only two types of chemicals are currently allowable in the UK?
If fracking is fracturing the rock, how can there be guarantees that the chems will not escape into the surrounding rocks and therefore the water table? The water table is way out of range your looking at a distance around the size of Ben Nevis and remember it would be uphill lol.
Especially if things do not go to plan.
The shale may be deep but an unplanned escape of chemicals could easily (not easy at all in fact the chance of this happening is minute), contaminate the water higher up. (it seems to me)
The amount of water needed is also an issue isn't it?
2 to 4 million gallons for one well. (a conservative estimate)
Any fracking in the SE of the UK is likely to be for oil anyway and not for gas, creating a whole load of other issues.
"The shale gas industry uses water: 1-5 million gallons per well. However, its needs are not great in comparison with those of other industries, such as the power generation industry, or even the quantity used in domestic appliances…. A single shale gas well uses in total about the same amount of water as a golf course uses in three weeks. " So not that much when you think of what other industries use.
Then there is the release of methane and other gases from the ground. WASHINGTON -- Drilling and fracking for natural gas don't seem to spew immense amounts of the greenhouse gas methane into the air, as has been feared, a new study says.
Contamination by methane is an issue in the US. What makes you think it won't be an issue here?

here's a Guardian article you might find interesting:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/fracking-us-toxic-waste-water-washington

Even Cuadrillas spokesman has said any lowering of bills would be insignificant. But what about having a secure supply and the tax take £££££ to build schools and hospitals?
One of the arguments used to justify fracking is the amount we import but we also export it. This is not a policy of need, but greed. Another exercise in pursuit of the quick buck.

We no longer export much at all and as I said in a previous post we heat 80% of all home with gas. Now as you can see from goggling there are different opinions depending on which side of the debate they sit on.

Not going forward with fracking is madness but I also want to see a safe method developed.

I believe there is middle ground, any drilling for energy involves risk but look at the excellent record in the north sea. If this was the 1970's we would have alarmists telling us that there would be no cod in 5yrs lol.

Somniac

Sorry I don't find your counter arguments convincing.
Chemicals not coming into contact may be the plan but no definite assurance has or can be given.
The two chemicals currently allowable are both dangerous and those goal posts could easily move.
As far as use of water goes, the consumption will be in addition to current use not instead of.
1000 sites by 2020. Pressure on a decreasing resource.
As for building new schools and hospitals with the tax...don't make me laugh.

sheffield_lad

Somniac wrote: »

Sorry I don't find your counter arguments convincing.
Chemicals not coming into contact may be the plan but no definite assurance has or can be given.
The two chemicals currently allowable are both dangerous and those goal posts could easily move.
As far as use of water goes, the consumption will be in addition to current use not instead of.
1000 sites by 2020. Pressure on a decreasing resource.
As for building new schools and hospitals with the tax...don't make me laugh.

Where do you think the money to build the schools & hospitals of the 1970's/80's came from? I will give you a clue the north sea in revenue circa £8 billion per year!

I don't expect fracking to generate that much but it will generate billions in tax. Given the current 1.3 trillion debt and we are adding a 100 billion per year to it any new tax would come in handy as I say for buildings and infrastructure.

Almost every professional who has written about fracking in the UK has concluded the chance of any effect on the water from the chemicals is almost nil.

The water used is for a short period of the life of the well. Once fracked the gas comes out with no need for water so it's hardly vast amounts in the grand scheme of things.

Road_Hog

Anyone that thinks that gas prices will go down if we get cheap gas from fracking needs to look at the wholesale price over the last seven years and see how it has remained roughly constant.

See graph in section 2.1

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04153.pdf‎

Then in the same document, look at the second graph in section 1.1, to see that the retail cost has risen 50%.

All these people who believe in green tax are just being deceived, it is nothing but wealth transfer through taxes and subsidies paid to the rich by the taxpayer and the general public through their energy bills.

sheffield_lad

Road_Hog wrote: »

Anyone that thinks that gas prices will go down if we get cheap gas from fracking needs to look at the wholesale price over the last seven years and see how it has remained roughly constant.

See graph in section 2.1

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04153.pdf‎

Then in the same document, look at the second graph in section 1.1, to see that the retail cost has risen 50%.

All these people who believe in green tax are just being deceived, it is nothing but wealth transfer through taxes and subsidies paid to the rich by the taxpayer and the general public through their energy bills.

But the wholesale price did go up and is up now. Look at 2008, a 40% caused by the threat of the Russian pipe being closed (same time petrol rose by 40%).

I don't expect prices to go down but I do expect the shocks like 2008 to be more limited given we have our own supply.

goonarmy

Somniac wrote: »

Sorry I don't find your counter arguments convincing.
Chemicals not coming into contact may be the plan but no definite assurance has or can be given.
The two chemicals currently allowable are both dangerous and those goal posts could easily move.
As far as use of water goes, the consumption will be in addition to current use not instead of.
1000 sites by 2020. Pressure on a decreasing resource.
As for building new schools and hospitals with the tax...don't make me laugh.

The risk of water contamination via boreholes exists each and every day in thousands possibly millions of existing boreholes right now. But that doesnt concern you does it?
And the fracking process will use water. There arent many industrial process of any nature that wont consume water so im not sure of your point there.

zeupater

Somniac wrote: »

Sorry I don't find your counter arguments convincing.
Chemicals not coming into contact may be the plan but no definite assurance has or can be given.
The two chemicals currently allowable are both dangerous and those goal posts could easily move.
As far as use of water goes, the consumption will be in addition to current use not instead of.
1000 sites by 2020. Pressure on a decreasing resource.
As for building new schools and hospitals with the tax...don't make me laugh.

Hi

Okay, we've moved from 600 chemicals to recognising that there are currently considerably fewer allowable, but now it's a worry that the allowable 2 are dangerous.

A few posts ago reference was made to a study of flow-back water which another member had posted in order to support a claim of toxicity through process chemical additives. There were traces of the only licensed additive (Polyacrylamide) which has been used to date, everything else really seems to stack up with what you would normally expect to find in a deep borehole and to place in context, the concentrations were compared to soft contact lenses which use Polyacrylamide and then to a relative level of toxicity of Acrylamide in food and water ... ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63333679&postcount=30 ) ...

Now, for the second approved chemical which you consider 'dangerous', HCL (hydrochloric acid), which hasn't been used in the hydro-fracturing process to date. According to DECC the allowable concentration and example everyday use is stated as being "Hydrochloric acid (0.125%), frequently found in swimming pools and used in developing drinking water wells," ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking#section-a-water-pollution-use-and-disposal-including-chemicals ). Maybe it would have been better for DECC to have placed this level of concentration and it's toxicity into context through stating that HCL is a gastric acid naturally found in the stomach ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stomach ) at a concentration of around 0.5% .... so you currently have this 'dangerous' chemical inside yourself at 4x the approved & licensed concentration allows ...

I do understand the concerns you raise, however, it's very likely that the sources of the information which you find disturbing are simply constructed to form an emotive response from their target audience .... I've found that it's far more reasonable to perform a basic check of the science behind such claims before taking a view on whether they're made on solid foundations ....

If the sources of such information are against burning fossil fuels of any form, they should simply state so and avoid using alternative, and often misleading, tactics. However, they should then consider that the only real short term alternative in the case of 'fracking' is the continued use of higher polluting energy sources such as coal & the continued import (via. pipe/ship) of natural gas from abroad ...

HTH
Z

Somniac

goonarmy wrote: »

The risk of water contamination via boreholes exists each and every day in thousands possibly millions of existing boreholes right now. But that doesnt concern you does it?

Wow! How did you find out it doesn't concern me?
Are you telepathic?

Somniac

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Okay, we've moved from 600 chemicals to recognising that there are currently considerably fewer allowable, but now it's a worry that the allowable 2 are dangerous.

This is an oversimplification of what I said. Yes I would worry about these two but the likelihood of these restrictions remaining is far from guaranteed.

A few posts ago reference was made to a study of flow-back water which another member had posted in order to support a claim of toxicity through process chemical additives. There were traces of the only licensed additive (Polyacrylamide) which has been used to date, everything else really seems to stack up with what you would normally expect to find in a deep borehole and to place in context, the concentrations were compared to soft contact lenses which use Polyacrylamide and then to a relative level of toxicity of Acrylamide in food and water ...

Cuadrilla were licensed to use Ethylene oxide at Balcombe. Is this the same chemical?

Now, for the second approved chemical which you consider 'dangerous', HCL (hydrochloric acid), which hasn't been used in the hydro-fracturing process to date. According to DECC the allowable concentration and example everyday use is stated as being "Hydrochloric acid (0.125%), frequently found in swimming pools and used in developing drinking water wells........ Maybe it would have been better for DECC to have placed this level of concentration and it's toxicity into context through stating that HCL is a gastric acid naturally found in the stomach ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stomach ) at a concentration of around 0.5% .... so you currently have this 'dangerous' chemical inside yourself at 4x the approved & licensed concentration allows ...

Along with many enzymes and other agents that mitigate its effect otherwise it would burn through your stomach and the clothes you are wearing.
These enzymes will not be present in fracking presumably.
HCL if used in fracking is introduced at 15%.
Swimming pools also contain Chlorine but many people feel it should not be added to drinking water. It is also corrosive in high concentration.

goonarmy

Somniac wrote: »

Wow! How did you find out it doesn't concern me?
Are you telepathic?

You told me by the lack of posts. Telepathy is not a service we offer here. But observation is.:j