Fracking in Sheffield?

[Nagel]

Dangers of what? I read on one site that fracking has been going on since the 1940s.

 

http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/shale-opponents-misrepresent-risks-3719

 

Where were the protesters back then? How much death and destruction has there been in Elswick?

 

Not for the police:

 

Flare 'fired at police helicopter' near Salford protest camp

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-25622863

 

 

Unconventional? Its been going on since the 1940s.

 

How about Elswick, that's had a fracking site since 1993 and has a Conservative MP - Mark Menzies.

 

And sites in the Wirral which may be fracked have Tory Esther McVey as their MP.

 

I get tired of explaining this. What is commonly called fracking means the new technology of hydraulically fracturing shale to get gas out of it.

 

Another term for it is Unconventional Gas. It's the term that the industry itself prefers as it's more accurate, and also includes other new technologies for producing gas from unconventional reservoirs such as coal bed methane.

 

The gas is produced from impermeable reservoirs. In other words if you drilled into the reservoir nothing at all would flow out of it. The fracking process breaks down the shale and releases the trapped gas inside it so that it can be produced.

 

The fracking that has gone on since the 1940s refers to hydraulic fracturing of conventional (permeable) reservoirs such as sandtone where the gas and oil is held in the pore spaces in the rock and can also flow out like from a sponge. It's done to enhance the recovery of gas and oil from standard reservoirs. If you can enhance the recovery by just 10% it's an awful lot of extra gas or oil that can be produced from one well.

 

Almost every well I drilled was hydraulically fractured to increase recovery.

 

I've never worked in unconventional gas drilling so can't offer a definitive opinion on the desirability or not, but so long as it doesn't form a blot on the landscape I can't see any other objection.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Nagel

[tzijlstra]

I get tired of explaining this. What is commonly called fracking means the new technology of hydraulically fracturing shale to get gas out of it.

 

Another term for it is Unconventional Gas. It's the term that the industry itself prefers as it's more accurate, and also includes other new technologies for producing gas from unconventional reservoirs such as coal bed methane.

 

The gas is produced from impermeable reservoirs. In other words if you drilled into the reservoir nothing at all would flow out of it. The fracking process breaks down the shale and releases the trapped gas inside it so that it can be produced.

 

The fracking that has gone on since the 1940s refers to hydraulic fracturing of conventional (permeable) reservoirs. It's done to enhance the recovery of gas and oil from standard reservoirs. If you can enhance the recovery by just 10% it's an awful lot of extra gas or oil that can be produced from one well.

 

Almost every well I drilled was hydraulically fractured to increase recovery.

 

I've never worked in unconventional gas drilling so can't offer a definitive opinion on the desirability or not, but so long as it doesn't form a blot on the landscape I can't see any other objection.

 

Finally, someone with knowledge on at least part of the topic.

 

The key-thing that worries me about fracking (the new one) is that it uses lots of chemicals that are unproven in terms of not having a massive negative impact on nature, in particular ground-water. Being Dutch I was raised to always be aware of ground-water, I realise most people here don't have the same urgent understanding of it, but screwing with it too much has the potential to really unbalance a lot of things in nature, from our drinking water to trees and other vegetation rotting away on the spot.

 

Where I grew up there was an old shipyard, nothing grew there for decades. They cleaned it all out and built new houses on it. Three years on plants still died on-site because the surrounding ground-water had such high levels of polution in it, not just oil-based but all sorts of different chemicals used to clean and work with.

[dawny1970]

thats surface pollution, fracking hapoenscabout a mile underground, that's a lot different to the horrors of surface contamination

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[tzijlstra]

thats surface pollution, fracking hapoenscabout a mile underground, that's a lot different to the horrors of surface contamination

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

Whatever they are putting in will come back up, the whole point of fracking is to release stuff that is under ground, the chemicals they use find ways to reach the surface, just as the gas they release will.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

HMG should compulsorily purchase objectors' land and get fracking pdq.

(Pref. using UK companies and not Total [French]).

[poppet2]

HMG should compulsorily purchase objectors' land and get fracking pdq.

(Pref. using UK companies and not Total [French]).

 

Then HMG should make a worthwhile offer, way above the asking price for the land and house, as compensation, if what is underneath the land and property of the home-owner is so precious.

Edited January 14, 2014 by poppet2

[alchresearch]

I wonder if its to try and convince the French to change their ban on fracking.

 

I noticed this in the news the other day:

 

France struggles to cut down on nuclear power

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25674581

[Nagel]

Then HMG should make a worthwhile offer, way above the asking price for the land and house, as compensation, if what is underneath the land and property of the home-owner is so precious.

 

You don't own the mineral rights to what is under your own home. The government does.

[I1L2T3]

Or instead of politicising everything, why don't some actual scientists do some research and pick the best or safest sites and we can crack on.

 

We're going "all out" supertramp. If you read Private Eye you will have some understanding what compromises have been made to make that happen. Stuff like fast track planning, fracking companies basically regulating themselves, pay offs to communities etc... Best and dsafest does not come into it and sites will be selected politically - the wrong sites will lose votes

 

---------- Post added 14-01-2014 at 20:49 ----------

 

Dangers of what? I read on one site that fracking has been going on since the 1940s.

 

 

 

http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/shale-opponents-misrepresent-risks-3719

 

Where were the protesters back then? How much death and destruction has there been in Elswick?

 

 

 

Not for the police:

 

Flare 'fired at police helicopter' near Salford protest camp

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-25622863

 

 

 

Unconventional? Its been going on since the 1940s.

 

How about Elswick, that's had a fracking site since 1993 and has a Conservative MP - Mark Menzies.

 

And sites in the Wirral which may be fracked have Tory Esther McVey as their MP.

 

It's being looked after by a new government office: OUGO

 

Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/policy-teams/office-of-unconventional-gas-and-oil-ougo

 

I guess that's what is unconventional about it.

Edited January 14, 2014 by I1L2T3

[taxman]

So 50% of UK has shale gas,even if they got 10% out, it would still give us 150 years worth of gas without having to import any more!!

 

??

 

Who is "they" and who is "us"?

 

Gas is not a nationalised industry so no matter how much gas is produced from under British soil it may not go to British consumers and it certainly won't lower your bills. A French company like Total may buy it all and sell it to the European market, your energy company will then pay the market rate for it and you will end up paying just as much as you do now.

 

If shale gas was produced we'd still have to import it from the French firms we've sold the fracking rights to.