Fracking in Sheffield?

[I1L2T3]

So in other words you cannot show me where I said that, because, surprise, I never actually said it.

 

Took long enough to get to but hey misdirection is always a valid tactic isn't it.

 

Nope, I never said you said it. You imagined it. I only asked you questions.

 

Check the thread. And lighten up. Life is too short mate.

 

---------- Post added 28-07-2013 at 01:40 ----------

 

Aerial photo of a fracked landscape on this link

 

http://ecowatch.com/2012/interior-department-fracking-proposal-doesnt-require-chemical-disclosure/

 

I wonder if the residents of Balcombe would rather keep the protesters onside.Or maybe they are suffering some kind of emotional paralysis based on their slavish devotion to the Tories versus the reality of what has just begun to happen on their doorstep.

[Nagel]

Aerial photo of a fracked landscape on this link

 

http://ecowatch.com/2012/interior-department-fracking-proposal-doesnt-require-chemical-disclosure/

 

I wonder if the residents of Balcombe would rather keep the protesters onside.Or maybe they are suffering some kind of emotional paralysis based on their slavish devotion to the Tories versus the reality of what has just begun to happen on their doorstep.

 

That is actually my only concern about fracking, the impact on the landscape if it's allowed to develop like that.

 

However, there's no need for it to develop like that if the government has the will to regulate the industry. It's a big if with this government which seems to have no respect for the countryside.

 

A field can be developed with a lot less drilling sites by the use of extended reach directional drilling, it just costs more.

 

The North Sea gas and oil fields have been developed like this simply because you only have a limited number of sites (platforms) to drill from. Also the offshore wells have been 'fracked' as standard for decades to increase hydrocarbon recovery.

[I1L2T3]

That is actually my only concern about fracking, the impact on the landscape if it's allowed to develop like that.

 

However, there's no need for it to develop like that if the government has the will to regulate the industry. It's a big if with this government which seems to have no respect for the countryside.

 

A field can be developed with a lot less drilling sites by the use of extended reach directional drilling, it just costs more.

 

The North Sea gas and oil fields have been developed like this simply because you only have a limited number of sites (platforms) to drill from. Also the offshore wells have been 'fracked' as standard for decades to increase hydrocarbon recovery.

 

Regulation is the key. But even with strict regulation the odds are that there will be incidents/accidents. I watched a rep for the oil and gas industry on TV last night and his choice of words was very interesting. He talked about minimising problems. At no point did he say there would't be problems.

[Nagel]

Regulation is the key. But even with strict regulation the odds are that there will be incidents/accidents. I watched a rep for the oil and gas industry on TV last night and his choice of words was very interesting. He talked about minimising problems. At no point did he say there would't be problems.

 

There'll always be incidents and accidents, so the oil company rep was just being honest. It'll happen with any industry.

 

A couple of years ago I was working for a Danish oil company that is now big in wind turbines. The health and safety statistics for the wind turbine side of their business were horrific. They'd killed six people in that year, whilst having no fatalities or serious accidents in the oil and gas side of their business.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

You can always 'buy' risk. If the British people decide that fracking is too risky, they can buy gas elsewhere and pay somebody else to take the risk involved in the fracking process.

 

If the risk is as big as they say it is, then the premium may be a bit high ... but who cares? If the gas costs £X per 1000 cu metres and the risk is assessed at £5X per 1000 cu metres, then the Brits pay 6 times as much for gas as anybody else does.

 

That wouldn't be a problem, would it? - After all, you could hardly expect somebody else to take the risk for nothing, could you?

[Cyclone]

That seems really poorly thought out Rupert. If we as a local society decide we don't want to take the risk then we don't have to. We continue to buy gas at the market rate, which will be slightly higher than if we had brought more production on line.

If another group of people elsewhere decide the risk is worth it, we will continue to buy gas at the market rate, as will they. The difference is that if the risk pays off, they will be benefiting from it, ie making a profit from selling us gas at the market rate. If the risk backfires then they will have to live with the consequences. Either way, we all buy gas at the market rate, the only difference is whether we can make a profit from the exploitation of our natural resources.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Do you really think you'll get it at the 'market rate'? - I think you might find (as I suggested in my last post) that the 'market rate' includes a very hefty risk premium.

 

If you tell the rest of the world "We're not prepared to take the risk. We don't want this in our back yard. We want you to take the risk" then I've no doubt somebody will take the risk ... but you will pay a very hefty premium to get them to do so.

 

yu can have whatever you like - if you are prepared to pay for it.

[Cyclone]

Given how the global gas market works, I don't think it would be possible for a single producer to sell at a premium to account for risk.

 

And it certainly isn't possible to make anyone buy from a single producer at any price.

 

The risk involved will be weighed against the potential profit, that profit being determined by the spot price of gas. You don't get to choose what rate you sell it for, your only option as a producer is to sell more or less at any given time (which itself affects the price, but not massively unless you are contributing a significant % of the world supply).

[I1L2T3]

Do you really think you'll get it at the 'market rate'? - I think you might find (as I suggested in my last post) that the 'market rate' includes a very hefty risk premium.

 

If you tell the rest of the world "We're not prepared to take the risk. We don't want this in our back yard. We want you to take the risk" then I've no doubt somebody will take the risk ... but you will pay a very hefty premium to get them to do so.

 

yu can have whatever you like - if you are prepared to pay for it.

 

I'm wondering whether the 30% tax rate offered by the government is a sweetener to tempt frackers on board, a recognition that extractors may be discouraged by the difficulties they will face every step of the way, not just from active protest but also from planners, local authorities and regulators. The UK is not an easy place to do something like this.

 

The flipside is that having attracted frackers on board what does the public get in return for the risk. Quite simply if you are going to tell consumers that energy bills will stay the same or may only fall slightly they are not going to buy in. Without any projection of how bills are likely to change it's a tough sell. Or can the public really be made to believe that without tracking the lights will go out?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Really? You appear to have a very short memory.

 

What price do the Russians charge the Lithuanians for gas? - How does that compare to the prices they charge other customers? july 8 2013

 

Russia told Ukraine their gas prices could triple.

 

ARC in Armenia is likely to come under Russian Control.

 

If Russia tells the UK (or anybody else) that that country will pay a premium price for gas, what are you going to do about it?