Fracking in Sheffield?

[anywebsite]

Not proven in the UK. That is the point. The technology may be established in the US, fair enough. But whether the regulatory process here is right, we have enough water, people will accept the industry on their doorsteps and the impact on the environment, how it will affect land/house prices, whether it is even economically viable etc...is all hanging in the air.

 

That is why I suggested an initial test complex to get the answers. And is you read that last sentence carefully mine is not an objection to trying it out, but rather a common sense approach to determining whether it is viable. I don't see why we have to go all out right now.

 

There is certainly enough water, as we've discussed before, it doesn't need to be clean water, salt water is better & we're an island. They're probably not going to do it in the south east, which is the only area that ever really gets shortages of clean drinking water & it's not going to be using drinking water either. There is no shortage of dirty water in the UK, not ever, no matter how much they use.

 

The economics of it are simple & well proven. How can it lose money?

 

Do you think regulation, planning laws, etc aren't much stricter here than in the US?

 

There have already been tests in the UK, it's been done commercially offshore & in other countries for many years. Why more tests? Why not just drill as much as we can until it's all gone?

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2014 at 15:56 ----------

 

It's like debating a slice of toast this.... I give up. Revel in your mediocrity it's all you have.

 

It's called extraction, not generation. It isn't generating energy, it's extracting a fuel. It can be burned to generate heat (or rather convert some chemical energy into heat). There's no need to get into quantum physics, thermodynamics is enough.

Edited January 22, 2014 by anywebsite

[I1L2T3]

It's like debating a slice of toast this.... I give up. Revel in your mediocrity it's all you have.

 

Thank you

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2014 at 16:24 ----------

 

There is certainly enough water, as we've discussed before, it doesn't need to be clean water, salt water is better & we're an island. They're probably not going to do it in the south east, which is the only area that ever really gets shortages of clean drinking water & it's not going to be using drinking water either. There is no shortage of dirty water in the UK, not ever, no matter how much they use.

 

The economics of it are simple & well proven. How can it lose money?

 

Do you think regulation, planning laws, etc aren't much stricter here than in the US?

 

There have already been tests in the UK, it's been done commercially offshore & in other countries for many years. Why more tests? Why not just drill as much as we can until it's all gone?

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2014 at 15:56 ----------

 

 

It's called extraction, not generation. It isn't generating energy, it's extracting a fuel. It can be burned to generate heat (or rather convert some chemical energy into heat). There's no need to get into quantum physics, thermodynamics is enough.

 

The water companies have to provide the water. It can't just be taken from anywhere. They are still negotiating with drillers over unit cost. Suffice to say they will get the water cheaper than households do because it is an industrial process. How much cheaper is still uncertain. The government has weighed in to try and drive down water costs for the process.

 

The south east is a licenced area for fracking. And we have had droughts and water rationing up north anyway. I'm surprised you don't remember that.

 

I think the regulation here, from what I have read, is a disaster. Fast track planning, frackers self-regulating etc...

 

I don't think there is anywhere with such a high population density and limited water security and similar geology that has shale fracking on the scale proposed. I'm willing to be proven wrong if you can provide some evidence.

Edited January 22, 2014 by I1L2T3

[Nagel]

The reason I suggested a populated area is because even if proven to be safe and viable in a rural area once it comes to placing a complex close to or in and around a town then people will still resist. The whole process will have to be gone through again because there will then be concerns about house prices etc... The whole package has to be proven - environmentally and economically - and the first test complex is the time to do that. Of course the risk is that based on experience with that test complex people will not accept the industry being close to them. But then that would signal that the industry on the scale proposed is not right for the UK population.

 

There's no need to place the fracking sites close to centres of population. It's all done with directional drilling so an urban area could be drilled under from outside of the town.

 

Britain holds the world record for this sort of technology with the Wytch Farm field. The main part of the field is offshore, but instead of putting in an expensive offshore oil platform the wells are drilled from onshore.

 

It's in Dorset and the main drilling site is on Furzey Island, a nature reserve just off Sandybanks, the most expensive place to buy property in the UK. Both the nature reserve and the resident millionaires seem to get along with proximity to a drilling and production site just fine.

 

They drill out under the sea 13 km to reach the oil.

 

You can see a photo of the area here -

 

http://www.seaevents.co.uk/captains_log/poole-harbour-sandbanks-luxury-boat-charter/

 

"Furzey Island is the next biggest island at 31 acres and used to be occupied almost entirely by BP who first arrived there in 1984 but have since reduced there holding to 5 acres. Not just on Furzey Island but else where in that part of the harbour, oil exploration has continued ever since. Making it one of the largest “on shore” oil sites in western Europe. To this day oil is pumped from sites in Poole to Fawley near Southampton. Cleverly, much of this industry goes unnoticed to the tourist, shrouded in the natural beauty of its surrounding countryside."

Edited January 22, 2014 by Nagel

[RootsBooster]

My point is that methane is matter, not energy, but I concede the the table was a poor example.

 

Maybe a plastic table would have been a better example, its made of plastic and whilst plastic is made from oil, the table is no longer oil.

 

..so your comparison is that plastic came from oil, then made into a table, while matter is not energy?

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2014 at 16:41 ----------

 

It's like debating a slice of toast this.... I give up. Revel in your mediocrity it's all you have.

 

I agree, I think we all know the pattern which follows from here, with any discussion involving MrSmith/Maxmaximus/Angos/Ivanava.

It's not like we need to prove anything, he seems to have an issue with science rather than with us.

[I1L2T3]

There's no need to place the fracking sites close to centres of population. It's all done with directional drilling so an urban area could be drilled under from outside of the town.

 

Britain holds the world record for this sort of technology with the Wytch Farm field. The main part of the field is offshore, but instead of putting in an expensive offshore oil platform the wells are drilled from onshore.

 

It's in Dorset and the main drilling site is on Furzey Island, a nature reserve just off Sandybanks, the most expensive place to buy property in the UK. Both the nature reserve and the resident millionaires seem to get along with proximity to a drilling and production site just fine.

 

They drill out under the sea 13 km to reach the oil.

 

I understand what you are saying but the reality will be different.

 

I was looking at the detailed plans for the Airth site in Scotland. It's not shale there but coalbed methane, but anyway the planning applications clearly show well heads in close proximity to Stenhousmuir, easily within one mile of the northern parts of the town and adjacent to the M9.

 

The other interesting part about Airth is there has been some exploratory drilling for a while, including it is believed some attempts at fracking the wells. It appears this has been done without any baseline of water quality beforehand - a massive regulatory failure.

[Nagel]

I understand what you are saying but the reality will be different.

 

I was looking at the detailed plans for the Airth site in Scotland. It's not shale there but coalbed methane, but anyway the planning applications clearly show well heads in close proximity to Stenhousmuir, easily within one mile of the northern parts of the town and adjacent to the M9.

 

The other interesting part about Airth is there has been some exploratory drilling for a while, including it is believed some attempts at fracking the wells. It appears this has been done without any baseline of water quality beforehand - a massive regulatory failure.

 

Please post the link, I'd be interested to see and cast an expert eye over it.

[ivanava]

There is certainly enough water, as we've discussed before, it doesn't need to be clean water, salt water is better & we're an island. They're probably not going to do it in the south east, which is the only area that ever really gets shortages of clean drinking water & it's not going to be using drinking water either. There is no shortage of dirty water in the UK, not ever, no matter how much they use.

 

The economics of it are simple & well proven. How can it lose money?

 

 

How much water is needed and how would they get sea water or dirty water to the site. It could well be cheaper to use clean water because it is already piped allover the country.

[Solomon1]

Please post the link, I'd be interested to see and cast an expert eye over it.

 

My concern would be that it's like playing russian roulette. There can be no guarantees and once water is contaminated, that's it.

 

I just think it's completely bonkers.

 

Corporate greed at play once more, with no thought for local communities...

[dosxuk]

My concern would be that it's like playing russian roulette. There can be no guarantees and once water is contaminated, that's it.

 

I just think it's completely bonkers.

 

Corporate greed at play once more, with no thought for local communities...

 

Would you suggest that all activities which carry the risk of contaminating the water supply should be prohibited?

[I1L2T3]

Please post the link, I'd be interested to see and cast an expert eye over it.

 

Planning application for Airth

 

http://eplanning.falkirk.gov.uk/online/advancedSearchResults.do?action=firstPage&searchCriteria.description=inter-site&searchCriteria.applicantName=dart&searchType=Application

 

The seams are < 1000 metres down

 

This is the start of up to 500 planned wells in that area