People power has shut the doors on fracking in the UK

cells

Generali wrote: »

What they discovered was that once the gas was no longer held under pressure in the rock it could find its way to the surface via small cracks and faults in the rocks.

I understand this but my argument is

1. The vast majority maybe 99.9999% of the gas is likely to take the path of least resistance which is up the hole you just drilled rather than go through 2km of dense rock

2. So what? Have you ever stood next to a 100,000 ton pole of coal? Coal is actually a combination of thousands of chemicals many of them highly toxic. The coal gives off those chemicals slowly into the air (but vs a shale leak its probably 1000s of x more rapid) and you can smell it and taste it. Thats deemed safe enough to work near with no breathing safety gear. So why is the certainty of being exposed to the chemicals of coal not an issue but the prospect of being exposed to some chemicals probably at billions of trillions less concentration a terrible life ending risk? Clearly the people who fear chemicals have little to no understanding if chemistry.



Edit: just to add this isn't a criticism of you its a general statement that we as a society have turned chemistry and chemicals into an evil thing to be feared. Organic = good natural. Chemical = bad risk evil. Of course the reality is that chemistry and chemicals isn't evil its a branch of science that is beautiful and well understood and studied

kabayiri

Fracking has the potential to bring investment and jobs to a place like the NW / Fylde coast.

To those who oppose fracking I have one question. Take a trip to somewhere like Blackpool; look at a rundown town back from the front; then tell me how we bring jobs back to somewhere like this?

A report today shows job creation in NW is at a rate 1/6th of that in London.

Do the people of London want to have to fund the rest of the country forever?

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

Fracking has the potential to bring investment and jobs to a place like the NW / Fylde coast.

To those who oppose fracking I have one question. Take a trip to somewhere like Blackpool; look at a rundown town back from the front; then tell me how we bring jobs back to somewhere like this?

A report today shows job creation in NW is at a rate 1/6th of that in London.

Do the people of London want to have to fund the rest of the country forever?

All jobs and business are important but business that export (or reduce imports) are that bit more important because they enrich us all even if we are not part of that industry.

Frackig for oil and gas could be an important contributor to the trade balance for 50-100 years it would be stupid not to go ahead. Also as far aa industry is concerned its probably one of the least intrusive as the majority of the process is 2km underground.

also its important to be first at something as it enables you to set up and pay down costs and hopefully become the leader. The UK could become the service and gooda exporter to the shale industry elsewhere in Europe too but that depends on gearing up the industry here first

zeupater

cells wrote: »

Your fear of chemistry is misplaced

chemicals almost always break down into inert chemicals or get diluted to the point of being totally harmless

Not long ago the worlds major cities rivers acted as the chemical dumps for all the factories nearby. Chemicals thousands of times worse in quantities billions of times greater and in concentrations trillions of times greater were dumped into the thames river every minute of every hour of every day and life didn't end.

even if you intentially wanted to make an area bad you wouldn't use chemicals as the quantity needed would be ridiculous and the effect gone so soon.


even our own bodies regulate its own chemistry.
If you drink three pints of beer you are not drunk forever
if you take coke you are not high forever
if you take antibiotics you are not immune from bacteria for ever
The chemicals break down fairly rapidly in your body

so overall mostly the fear of chemicals is one big fear over nothing.

Hi

Regarding the 'fear of chemicals', I agree. Very similar positions were taken regarding chemicals in order to instil fear in a debate from 2013 - If anyone's really interested in the subject have a look through the thread, if not just take a quick scan through the referenced post below ...

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Interesting .... that report effectively says that water extracted from deep rock strata around Manchester contains the concentrated contents of a dried-up seabed ... how totally unexpected ... salt from the salt-beds in the Cheshire basin being extracted by pumping water underground ... next thing someone will complain about is that they'll likely refine & crystallise the contents of the process, put it into a plastic container, print a best before date on it, then sell it in supermarkets !!

Okay then, natural by-product considered, so let's now look at the 'toxic' additive used. Appendix2 (P3) of the referenced report above contains an entry labelled "Acrylamide" with a concentration of 0.05μg/l (that's 5 parts per hundred billion for the uninitiated) ... this reflects the additive used as a lubricant in the 'fracking' process (#1) which is actually 'Polyacrylamide', which is a relatively non-toxic variant, not basic 'acrylamide'. If you use soft contact lenses, chances are that they are Polyacrylamide based, therefore if you were to consider that a pair of contact lenses would likely contain ~2g of Acrylamide, the wearer would need to weigh 40000tonnes to achieve the same level of concentration ... that's around half-a-million average sized adults at 12stone (~76kg) each ... leaving contact lenses aside, even at a basic acrylamide (toxic variant) concentration of 0.05μg/l, to match the lower estimate of current food based average intakes for the general population (0.3μg of acrylamide intake per kilogram of body weight per day) (#2), the average 76kg person would need to ingest 22.8μg/day(0.3*76) ... that's the equivalent of drinking over 450litres (22.8/0.05) of the undiluted flowback water from the referenced report, every day .... that's drinking 6 times the average persons bodyweight, or, somewhere between 200 & 300 times the recommended average fluid intake for a healthy adult in a climate similar to the UK.

In principle, the argument made in the referenced post is correct, however, in when considering context, it's probably just the result of someone, somewhere employing 'scare tactics' ...

HTH
Z

Sources
(#1) - 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
(#2) - http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/chem/en/acrylamide_summary.pdf

... anyone with intent to argue with the conclusions in the post should not only read the supporting links provided, but review the entire thread ...

I find it pretty sad that the argument just hasn't moved on with much of the same old 'poor science' and anecdotal 'evidence' still being provided in the 'same old way' ....

HTH
Z

System

tberry6686 wrote: »

Why are we even bothering to listen to people who have done so little research into this that they can't even spell fracing (derived from the word fracture, No K).
.

It's a made-up word anyway, so we can spell it any way we like.

In English useage it ought to be fraccing, to give a hard rather than a soft "c".

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Any ideas as to how the UK can keep it's lights on?

Let me guess, you don't live anywhere near a proposed fracking site

padington

StevieJ wrote: »

Let me guess, you don't live anywhere near a proposed fracking site

That's the problem, how do you incentivise local people to want to frack ?

If it was going to make a killing, the oil companies would be talking about possible large sums of compensation. The fact they aren't yet, makes me think the figures involved aren't as game changing as we are led to believe.

ess0two

Wells and infrastructure are a major issue.


Morecambe bay field is the size of Manchester,theres 8 platforms spread over this area,each containing numerous wells,some feeding back on shore direct.The others feeding into an off-shore platform which compresses and send the gas ashore.


For many they seem its just as issue of drilling 1 well in an area and that's it, the pipe work offshore is in excess of 30".


Imagine this spread over a large area, numerous wells to exploit the gas / field, miles of pipework, throw in some gas processing kit,a flare boom to burn gas in an upset or over-pressurisation situation.


Many think its just an issue of popping a small pipe in the ground.

padington

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13371361.Fracking_will_hurt_house_prices__Defra/

Mistermeaner

http://www.ineos.com/ineos-shale/