Fracking in Sheffield?

[alchresearch]

Whatever the scale they caused two seismic events that wouldn't have happened naturally any time in the near future. Neither were expected.

 

Point is something potentially dangerous happened and they had no idea it could. Its now needing continual monitoring as they can't seem.to plug it successfully.

 

And they were clear on what happened:

 

In April, a tremor measuring 2.3 on the Richter scale was felt in the Lancashire seaside resort, followed by an event in May that measured 1.5 on the scale.

 

“It is highly probable that the hydraulic fracturing of Cuadrilla’s Preese Hall-1 well did trigger a number of minor seismic events,” Cuadrilla admitted. The report also said there was no threat to people and property in the local area caused by the drilling.

 

"The seismic events were due to an unusual combination of geology at the well site coupled with the pressure exerted by water injection as part of operations,” Cuadrilla added, saying that this combination of geological factors was extremely rare and would be unlikely to occur together again at future well sites.

 

In response, the company will modify the amount of fluid it use and have installed a seismic early warning system.

 

Who says they "can't seem.to plug it successfully"? From what I understand, its been left open for long term independent environmental monitoring. Here's the report: http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GGS222-01-Preese-Hall-Summary-Report-26-02-14.pdf

 

What about their other site nearby in Elswick? The one operating since 1993 (originally owned by British Gas) which hasn't caused earthquakes, death and destruction?

 

Earthquakes occur all the time in the UK, one as recently as last week:

 

http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html

Edited August 24, 2015 by alchresearch

[surly]

And they were clear on what happened:

 

What about their other site nearby in Elswick? The one operating since 1993 (originally owned by British Gas) which hasn't caused earthquakes, death and destruction.

 

That might be becsuse elswick is not a fracking site.

[alchresearch]

That might be becsuse elswick is not a fracking site.

 

Maybe someone should tell Cuadrilla then:

 

The site in Elswick is Cuadrilla’s only permanent site and was hydraulically fractured in 1993

 

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/locations/elswick/

[surly]

Maybe someone should tell Cuadrilla then:

 

 

 

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/locations/elswick/

 

 

Yes the ASA did tell them in 2013 that it is 'Misleading advertising' to use it as an example of safe fracking.

 

https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx#.Vdw5Ua1pa6Q

 

"15. Upheld

 

We acknowledged that the Elswick site had been producing natural gas since 1993, but understood that the well was vertically fracked, unlike the horizontal fracking techniques proposed for the Preese Hall site. The claim implied that the outcome of fracturing at Preese Hall was likely to be similar to the experience at Elswick, but, because the fracking techniques would be different, we considered that the effect on residents could not be so easily compared. We noted CRL believed that there were no material differences between the two techniques. However, we understood horizontal fracking was a more complicated process as it involved both drilling down and drilling across the rock and that it used more fracturing fluid. We therefore concluded that the comparison of the two sites gave a misleading impression of the possible outcome."

[Eric Arthur]

The Advertising Standards Agency isn't the arbiter or what is or isn't fracking. You might as well ask WH Smith for an opinion.

[Nagel]

Maybe someone should tell Cuadrilla then:

 

Quote:

The site in Elswick is Cuadrilla’s only permanent site and was hydraulically fractured in 1993

 

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/locations/elswick/

 

Almost all oil and gas wells are hydraulically fractured to increase production and have been for many decades.

 

This is why 'fracking' is a meaningless term. 'Shale gas' and 'shale oil' are what we're talking about which is the injection of water and chemicals to break down shale to release the oil and gas in it. Shale isn't naturally permeable and won't normally produce oil and gas.

 

It's new technology, also known as 'unconventional oil' / 'unconventional gas'.

[Peacock Lady]

UK fracking boom could harm climate and house prices, admits secret government report.

 

Unredacted version of controversial Defra report highlights environmental risks of shale gas.

 

An explosion of shale gas exploration in the UK could damage worldwide efforts to tackle climate change, despite ministers' promises it will lead to a low carbon future, a controversial and previously redacted government report revealed yesterday.

 

The report also acknowledged that waste fluids leaking from fracking operations in the US have resulted in environmental damage.

 

And it showed how properties could incur additional insurance premiums if they are within a five mile radius of fracking operations.

 

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2416015/uk-fracking-boom-could-harm-climate-and-house-prices-admits-secret-government-report

 

That link leads to an article hidden behind a paywall, so I can't read it. But it's a report of the report, not the report itself: do you have a link to anywhere else we can read the actual report?

 

 

And they were clear on what happened:

 

In April, a tremor measuring 2.3 on the Richter scale was felt in the Lancashire seaside resort, followed by an event in May that measured 1.5 on the scale.

 

“It is highly probable that the hydraulic fracturing of Cuadrilla’s Preese Hall-1 well did trigger a number of minor seismic events,” Cuadrilla admitted. The report also said there was no threat to people and property in the local area caused by the drilling.

 

They were clear. And if you look at the link Eric Arthur provided in an earlier post, you'll see just what tremors of those magnitudes are like:

 

What about it? It's a non-issue. What you melodramatically call an "earthquake" is what happened all the time around Yorkshire only a few years ago when we had old seams collapse where collapses has affected above ground.

 

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/protecting-our-environment/seismicity/

 

 

 

So you can understand what your "earthquake" was like, here's a description.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php

 

 

In other words, virtually nobody noticed. 10 people phoned it in and it had to be confirmed by the British Geological Survey as actually being an "earthquake".

 

On that link, you'll see descriptions of tremors as rated on the Abbreviated Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Anything up to 3 on the Richter scale comes in the first category. The maximum intensity of the tremors caused at the Cuadrilla site was 2.3, so they call come into this grouping. And this is what that first category is described as:

 

I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions.

 

I'd be interested to know where these tremors are measured, too. I might well be wrong here, but I think they're measured down at the face. So would they have been felt at the surface? I'm not sure.

 

Note that both mining and quarrying operations routinely use explosives to get at the stuff they're after, and that these produce tremors. The ones produced by coal mining are not usually felt above ground, and coal mining can work up to a minimum depth of 40m--much closer to the surface than fracking, which is, I think, 1500m or more below ground. As quarrying is on the surface the tremors produced here are felt throughout the surrounding area, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of complaints against it.

[sakho]

That link leads to an article hidden behind a paywall, so I can't read it. But it's a report of the report, not the report itself: do you have a link to anywhere else we can read the actual report?

 

 

This is the link from that website.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440791/draft-shale-gas-rural-economy-impact-report.pdf

 

 

The top link on google takes me to the article I posted and allows me to read it for free, if I post a link to the article on here and then open it it opens with the pay page.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=K+fracking+boom+could+harm+climate+and+house+prices,+admits+secret+government+report.++Unredacted+version+of+controversial+Defra+report+highlights+environmental+risks+of+shale+gas.++An+explosion+of+shale+gas+exploration+in+the+UK+could+damage+worldwide+eff&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=UsHeVaSJMeHd7QadsqO4Cw#q=Unredacted+version+of+controversial+Defra+report+highlights+environmental+risks+of+shale+gas.

Edited August 27, 2015 by sakho

[Peacock Lady]

UK fracking boom could harm climate and house prices, admits secret government report.

 

Unredacted version of controversial Defra report highlights environmental risks of shale gas.

 

An explosion of shale gas exploration in the UK could damage worldwide efforts to tackle climate change, despite ministers' promises it will lead to a low carbon future, a controversial and previously redacted government report revealed yesterday.

 

The report also acknowledged that waste fluids leaking from fracking operations in the US have resulted in environmental damage.

 

And it showed how properties could incur additional insurance premiums if they are within a five mile radius of fracking operations.

 

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2416015/uk-fracking-boom-could-harm-climate-and-house-prices-admits-secret-government-report

 

That link leads to an article hidden behind a paywall, so I can't read it. But it's a report of the report, not the report itself: do you have a link to anywhere else we can read the actual report?

 

This is the link from that website.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440791/draft-shale-gas-rural-economy-impact-report.pdf

 

 

The top link on google takes me to the article I posted and allows me to read it for free, if I post a link to the article on here and then open it it opens with the pay page.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=K+fracking+boom+could+harm+climate+and+house+prices,+admits+secret+government+report.++Unredacted+version+of+controversial+Defra+report+highlights+environmental+risks+of+shale+gas.++An+explosion+of+shale+gas+exploration+in+the+UK+could+damage+worldwide+eff&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=UsHeVaSJMeHd7QadsqO4Cw#q=Unredacted+version+of+controversial+Defra+report+highlights+environmental+risks+of+shale+gas.

 

Thanks for the new link: it worked fine.

 

If you open the PDF you'll see that on the very first page, the report states that it is not "analytically robust", that it "includes early, often vague, assumptions which are not supported by appropriate evidence", and that the report "refers to data from overseas studies which cannot be used to predict impacts in the UK with any degree of reliability. The author of the paper was not asked to consider, and did not have an in-depth knowledge of, the UK regulatory framework."

 

I don't think it's something we should rely on in making any decisions about fracking. It's obviously flawed. The writer of the article on BusinessGreen which you linked to should have made that clear, instead of using the misinformation it contains to write an anti-fracking piece.

 

---------- Post added 27-08-2015 at 19:30 ----------

 

Sorry to multiple-post but that BusinessGreen article is so poorly-written that it's making my teeth itch.

 

It misrepresents the report in all sorts of ways.

 

For example, from the BG article:

 

As well as highlighting a series of previously undisclosed environmental risks, the report also revealed people living near fracking sites could see their house prices fall by up to seven per cent.

 

The only part of the government report which mentions a fall in house prices of seven per cent is this:

 

A 2010 study in Texas (3) concluded that houses valued at more than $250,000 and within 1,000 feet of a well site saw their values decrease by 3 to 14 percent. Boxall et al. (2005) looked at the impact of property prices in Alberta Canada near sour gas wells and flaring oil batteries. They found a reduction in house prices of between 4% to 7% within 4 km of the wells. The results are statistically significant and robust. However, the use of a small dataset, sample of 532 observations, make disentangling impacts difficult in the presence of confounding variables and the study considered sour gas wells alongside other gas wells, which may not be comparable in a UK context.

 

That doesn't refer to house prices in the UK, it doesn't refer to the effect of fracking on house prices, and it doesn't use a decent amount of data to reach its conclusions. It has nothing to do with what might happen here. It does not suggest what BG said it did.

 

There are plenty of other examples of such misrepresentation of the facts in that article, but I'm sure you get the picture.

[Pugg]

One day the government signs an international agreement to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and within a few days they push through legislation to allow the exploitation of fossil fuels in national parks. Bad news for the planet, and bad news for our much-loved part of the planet - it appears that most of the permits are going to be granted for exploration in the north of England. Is anyone surprised that this development came just a few months after the election?

JohnE