Fracking gets green light

[Nagel]

This just looks incredibly dangerous in densely populated areas, and I'm not convinced the coalition has the drive to regulate this effectively. It'll end in tears.

 

What are the dangers? The shale is deep enough that the operations won't contaminate groundwater and the two seismic events recorded were so tiny that they were under the level of human perception. Coal mining has caused larger seismic events and still continues to as old mines collapse and no one mentions that.

 

So where's the danger in densely populated areas?

[wellyman]

Isn't it odd that the folk who are bleating on about the dangers of fracking are the same ones who lament that we haven't got 100,000 miners digging the holes beneath our houses that led to Arkwright Town having to be demolished.

As I understand it the operations in Cardiff bay are several miles out to sea and many thousands of feet beneath the sea bed.

[I1L2T3]

What are the dangers? The shale is deep enough that the operations won't contaminate groundwater and the two seismic events recorded were so small that they were under the level of human perception.

 

So where's the danger in densely populated areas?

 

Don't play dumb.

 

For each one million litres of water several thousand gallons of thickening chemicals are added. The chemicals are usually toxic industrial solvents. These have to be transported to, stored and mixed with water on site before use. During the fracking process some of the mix returns to the surface then has to be stored in tanks or ponds before it can be transported off site for safe disposal and treatment.

 

The earthquakes are a red herring. The arguments that the shale is too deep to contaminate groundwater a red herring too.

 

The real danger is the spillage of chemicals on the surface. Tens of thousands of gallons of toxic solvents transported to and stored at 800 most likely previously non-industrial sites.

 

You asked. Those are the dangers. There have been multiple surface spills and contamination of lakes and groundwater in the US. The thought of hundreds of these sites in one county in England is pretty chilling.

[I1L2T3]

Isn't it odd that the folk who are bleating on about the dangers of fracking are the same ones who lament that we haven't got 100,000 miners digging the holes beneath our houses that led to Arkwright Town having to be demolished.

As I understand it the operations in Cardiff bay are several miles out to sea and many thousands of feet beneath the sea bed.

 

So you won't be complaining if a fracking operation starts up near your property?

[Tony]

That really is "There be Dragon's" territory though. I'm undecided on fracking, mainly because I reckon we should be doing other things first, but surface contamination isn't even on the list of realistic considerations.*

 

 

 

*caveat: proper processes and procedures accepted.

[Tony]

So you won't be complaining if a fracking operation starts up near your property?

I'd happily have a teeny tiny nuclear reactor under my desk.

 

A quick check on the EA website would terrify most people, as would a look in the store room of the average factory in Sheffield. It doesn't mean that there is any tangible danger though.

[I1L2T3]

That really is "There be Dragon's" territory though. I'm undecided on fracking, mainly because I reckon we should be doing other things first, but surface contamination isn't even on the list of realistic considerations.*

 

 

 

*caveat: proper processes and procedures accepted.

 

The caveat is all well and good but based on what has happened in the US it is a realistic consideration, and most probably the greatest risk posed by fracking.

 

University of Texas sudy mentioned here:

 

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/02/ut_fracking_study_pursuit_of_s.php

[Tony]

Well, as I said, proper processes and procedures accepted. ISTR that Deepwater Horizon was an American problem too, one that IIUI is not likely to repeat in the UK.

 

I'm sure that there is a fossil fuel cowboy present that might be able to correct me, and my caveats still in place.

[Nagel]

Am I the fossil fuel cowboy?

 

We're much more regulated here in Europe than in the USA. The oil and gas companies definitely need supervising and regulating, which is something that the USA has always lagged behind on. Today's government report stresses that future developments will need supervision and regulation and I believe that shale gas can be produced safely with the correct procedures.

 

I can't see that there's any special case against shale gas other than that against fossil fuels in general, which is another argument altogether.

[Nagel]

Don't play dumb.

The earthquakes are a red herring. The arguments that the shale is too deep to contaminate groundwater a red herring too.

 

I'm not playing dumb at all. I'm the only person on this thread who knows anything about drilling a well.

 

You say things are red herrings. What's the meaning of that phrase in this context?

 

The real danger is the spillage of chemicals on the surface. Tens of thousands of gallons of toxic solvents transported to and stored at 800 most likely previously non-industrial sites.

 

You asked. Those are the dangers. There have been multiple surface spills and contamination of lakes and groundwater in the US. The thought of hundreds of these sites in one county in England is pretty chilling.

 

I've worked on onshore drilling sites in Texas and in Germany/Holland. The difference in environmental management and waste disposal between Europe and the USA is staggering. The Americans are dinosaurs when it comes to anything to do with health, safety and the environment in oil and gas drilling.