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

zeupater

Somniac wrote: »

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.


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



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.

Hi

:wall: .... Have a think about the above and when you've done a little research, let us all know which products you've decided never to use again because they've used ethylene oxide in an industrial process ... then again, you could also write a letter to your nearest hospital and demand that they stop using it too ...

I really do start to wonder what the source of all of this worry really is ... possibly a 'facebook' campaign of misinformation ?? ... ( https://www.facebook.com/britainandirelandfrackfree/posts/715746308451397 ) ... well excellent, now how about checking whether the majority of this informed 'scare' was original thought, or just selectively lifted directly from elsewhere ... hint - try paragraph 3 here .. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_oxide ) .. but whilst checking, read the full entry as it gives a more balanced view.

HCL being used at a 15% concentration would be immediately diluted, unless being used in concentrated form away from the main 'fracking' process. Actually, I'm surprised that it would be used at a concentration anywhere near that low as the higher the concentration, the lower the transport & storage costs ... I would have expected at least double ... anyway, no matter what concentration they add, transport or store, they are limited by license to 0.125%(max) when diluted, not 15% ...

There's a little quandary of your own making here ... how are you to survive over the next few days without in someway needing 'all' of these 'dangerous chemicals ? (that's 2 for the 'bored-by-now' types ) ... you can't drink tap-water because it's been treated by HCL and carried in plastic pipes, pumped by pumps with glycol cooling systems ... and you can't drink bottles of pure mineral water because the bottles are made of plastic, are shipped around the country by vehicles using glycol cooling systems ... and when you get ill, you'll refuse to seek medical assistance because they need sterile environments, using ?? .... and washed bedding/clothing using ?? ... and the clothing is made of polyester inclusive materials using ?? ...

It really is a scare tactic, yes, in concentrated form for storage & bulk transport these are hazardous .... but something as innocuous as milk is also classified as hazardous when transported in bulk.

The next chemical you'll have us believe they will use, and shouldn't, is dihydrogen-monoxide ....

HTH
Z

zeupater

Hi

Regarding dihydrogen-monoxide, here's some further technical reading .... http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Those who don't understand will understandably have initial concerns, whilst those who do understand will simply have a laugh ....

Have fun with the link, it really does highlight, through use of parody, exactly the emotive approach currently being employed in the 'fracking' debate ... don't know about the commercial aspects though, so it's probably better to be wary & treat your security as you normally would ....

Declaration of interest - I always have a stock of dihydrogen-monoxide available for personal use, however, I do not trade this product in bulk on any form of commercial basis.


Z

Somniac

goonarmy wrote: »

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

Must be great to be perfect

Somniac

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

:wall: .... Have a think about the above and when you've done a little research, let us all know which products you've decided never to use again because they've used ethylene oxide in an industrial process ... then again, you could also write a letter to your nearest hospital and demand that they stop using it too ...

I really do start to wonder what the source of all of this worry really is ... possibly a 'facebook' campaign of misinformation ?? ... ( https://www.facebook.com/britainandirelandfrackfree/posts/715746308451397 ) ... well excellent, now how about checking whether the majority of this informed 'scare' was original thought, or just selectively lifted directly from elsewhere ... hint - try paragraph 3 here .. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_oxide ) .. but whilst checking, read the full entry as it gives a more balanced view.

HCL being used at a 15% concentration would be immediately diluted, unless being used in concentrated form away from the main 'fracking' process. Actually, I'm surprised that it would be used at a concentration anywhere near that low as the higher the concentration, the lower the transport & storage costs ... I would have expected at least double ... anyway, no matter what concentration they add, transport or store, they are limited by license to 0.125%(max) when diluted, not 15% ...

There's a little quandary of your own making here ... how are you to survive over the next few days without in someway needing 'all' of these 'dangerous chemicals ? (that's 2 for the 'bored-by-now' types ) ... you can't drink tap-water because it's been treated by HCL and carried in plastic pipes, pumped by pumps with glycol cooling systems ... and you can't drink bottles of pure mineral water because the bottles are made of plastic, are shipped around the country by vehicles using glycol cooling systems ... and when you get ill, you'll refuse to seek medical assistance because they need sterile environments, using ?? .... and washed bedding/clothing using ?? ... and the clothing is made of polyester inclusive materials using ?? ...

It really is a scare tactic, yes, in concentrated form for storage & bulk transport these are hazardous .... but something as innocuous as milk is also classified as hazardous when transported in bulk.

The next chemical you'll have us believe they will use, and shouldn't, is dihydrogen-monoxide ....

HTH
Z

Oh yeh right. As long as we're already being poisoned, why not accept another source.

Great to see reasoned and logical debate is alive and well on this site.
Good also to see no one resort to personal slights or p!!s taking.

When fracking starts in a field near you, you will be able to tell me how wrong i am.

You've obviously decided not to see the dangers so any further discussion is not only pointless but really rather unpleasant.

goonarmy

Somniac wrote: »

Must be great to be perfect

Well thats your assessment so thanks for the compliment.:j

zeupater

Somniac wrote: »

Oh yeh right. As long as we're already being poisoned, why not accept another source. [*1]

Great to see reasoned and logical debate is alive and well on this site. [*2]
Good also to see no one resort to personal slights or p!!s taking. [*3]

When fracking starts in a field near you, you will be able to tell me how wrong i am. [*4]

You've obviously decided not to see the dangers so any further discussion is not only pointless but really rather unpleasant. [*5]

Hi

In order ....

*1 - The issue here is that the only two chemicals which have been licensed to use in the UK as direct additives to the hydro-fracturing process are in common use elsewhere and don't raise the same levels of concern. It has been highlighted that the only additive used to date is used to produce soft contact lenses, something which really does need to be recognised as an indicator of it's relative level of toxicity. The other licensed chemical, HCL, is a naturally occurring acid and is present in the human stomach at higher concentration than allowable in the drill-rig backflow water. Remember, the license defines the maximum allowable concentrations, not the average or normal levels. Reference was made to "Cuadrilla were licensed to use Ethylene oxide at Balcombe", however, I've searched the relevant Environment Agency (EA) documents ...

EA Decision Document (Balcombe) - https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/file/2585024
EA Permit (Balcombe) - https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/file/2585025

.... and can see no direct reference to this being the case. It is possible that ethylene oxide is/was present on site in a processed form, it's unavoidable. Liquid chemicals which could be classified as being a watercourse pollutant need to be stored in a secure bunded area in order to avoid spillage issues, and that's the case for any industrial site ... I would suspect that someone along the line has simply made a link between glycol coolant stored on site for use in the mechanical equipment as containing eo and therefore eo is used as an additive in the drilling & preparation process.

*2 - When looking into such issues I agree ... logic & reasoning is a far more preferable approach than a entrenched position based purely on unfounded emotion, ideology, or simply 'NIMBYism' ...

*3 - By this I conclude that you don't agree with the quandary raised. It was not intended to offend or belittle, however, I would maintain that it is an extremely relevant point for consideration, especially so when so much has been made of the particular chemicals in question without due consideration of where they are more commonly found.

*4 - On the contrary, there are significant drinking water supply boreholes no more than 3 miles away, and the nearest 'private' supply one is within a 10 minute walk ... I have no reason to believe that the drilling process would be significantly different when developing these every-day resources to what would be used in exploration for deep gas reserves ... especially so when it seems that the fuss about 'fracking' is being focussed at sites where no hydro-fracturing consent has been either sought or granted ...

*5 - Again, on the contrary. I approached the issue from a purely neutral viewpoint and have researched many claims and found them to have extremely shaky foundations (far more shaky than the earth-tremors which have been blamed on the process .... we experience similar scale events around the country on a regular basis, there have been 11 in the past month - http://quakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html and, as usual, hardly anyone noticed because they didn't suit a particular agenda). If I really thought that the process was significantly more hazardous than accepted practices elsewhere I would have come to a different conclusion, however, other than poorly researched & emotive 'scare tactics' which are commonly used to support a weak counterpoint, I've seen absolutely nothing to date which would lead me to change my position.

It's not that I've "obviously decided not to see the dangers ", it's simply a case that having actually been bothered to look, what I see doesn't comply with what others are telling me and the general population to see. I'm sorry if you believe that actually using logic and reasoning is pointless, and even more so when providing supporting evidence & analogous context is considered unpleasant ....

HTH
Z