Fracking in Sheffield?

[SpikeMac]

Why does it reflect badly? I'm reinforcing the point about risks to our water supply.

 

 

No.

 

You were being arrogant and patronising. Anyone reading your post could see that.

Edited January 23, 2014 by SpikeMac

[I1L2T3]

No.

 

You were being arrogant and patronising.

 

No, I was reinforcing what the article says.

[SpikeMac]

No, I was reinforcing what the article says.

 

No you weren't.

 

You said "Do you know what inherent means?"

 

Clearly, you said that to try to belittle me. I'm not sure why you'd think you could do that, but hey, feel free to give it a go.

 

Onto the news articles about fracking and potential contamination of drinking water that you've posted. You'd do well to go back and re-read them critically. None of them state that fracking will contaminate drinking water. None have any substantial evidence of it having done so.

 

They are based upon worst case scenarios, supposition and hyperbole. The USA Today article and the Greenpeace article are almost laughably shallow. The Telegraph article has some merit, but it clearly states that the potential problems can be mitigated.

 

We live in a world where cars pollute air. That air pollution kills many people on a daily basis. Should we ban cars? Or should we accept that a high energy society creates some pollution and some of that pollution might affect the health of some people?

 

You can type your answer on your lcd screened laptop, powered by cheap electricity, from your centrally heated home. Have a cuppa whilst you are typing, if you like.

 

I'm off to bed, because I'm finding you rude and a touch hypocritical.

Edited January 23, 2014 by SpikeMac

[Nagel]

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

 

Thanks, but there's 239 documents to look through. Which part do you object to?

 

Is there an obligation on the comapny to restore the sites after they're finished with them? This is a condition in Germany and Holland where I've worked on onshore drilling projects, the site must be restored to farmland (or whatever it was before) once drilling/production ceases.

 

What I wouldn't want is for the sites to be considered 'brownfield' after gas production stopped allowing further development on the sites.

[I1L2T3]

Thanks, but there's 239 documents to look through. Which part do you object to?

 

Is there an obligation on the comapny to restore the sites after they're finished with them? This is a condition in Germany and Holland where I've worked on onshore drilling projects, the site must be restored to farmland (or whatever it was before) once drilling/production ceases.

 

What I wouldn't want is for the sites to be considered 'brownfield' after gas production stopped allowing further development on the sites.

 

I didn't say I objected to it. In my earlier posts I'm actually arguing for a complex like Airth to be established as a test. Maybe we actually need one test complex for each scenario - coal beds and shale.

 

I was questioning your assertion that the well head sites don't need to be near towns when the Airth plans show plans for them to be sited near a town and next to a motorway. The detailed drawings show the location of the well sites.

 

The residential study area (500m) drawing shows that the northern tip of Stenhousmuir is within 500m of a well site. The LVIA (2km) study drawing shows that a big chunk of the northern half of Stenhousmuir is within 2km of a well site.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2014 at 08:22 ----------

 

No you weren't.

 

You said "Do you know what inherent means?"

 

Clearly, you said that to try to belittle me. I'm not sure why you'd think you could do that, but hey, feel free to give it a go.

 

Onto the news articles about fracking and potential contamination of drinking water that you've posted. You'd do well to go back and re-read them critically. None of them state that fracking will contaminate drinking water. None have any substantial evidence of it having done so.

 

They are based upon worst case scenarios, supposition and hyperbole. The USA Today article and the Greenpeace article are almost laughably shallow. The Telegraph article has some merit, but it clearly states that the potential problems can be mitigated.

 

We live in a world where cars pollute air. That air pollution kills many people on a daily basis. Should we ban cars? Or should we accept that a high energy society creates some pollution and some of that pollution might affect the health of some people?

 

You can type your answer on your lcd screened laptop, powered by cheap electricity, from your centrally heated home. Have a cuppa whilst you are typing, if you like.

 

I'm off to bed, because I'm finding you rude and a touch hypocritical.

 

Sorry if you don't like the links.

 

When so much is at stake (for the industry as well as UK citizens) it would be wrong to plan for anything other than the worst case, and I think despite all your bleating you are fully aware of what the worst case is.

[Nagel]

I didn't say I objected to it. In my earlier posts I'm actually arguing for a complex like Airth to be established as a test. Maybe we actually need one test complex for each scenario - coal beds and shale.

 

I was questioning your assertion that the well head sites don't need to be near towns when the Airth plans show plans for them to be sited near a town and next to a motorway. The detailed drawings show the location of the well sites.

 

The residential study area (500m) drawing shows that the northern tip of Stenhousmuir is within 500m of a well site. The LVIA (2km) study drawing shows that a big chunk of the northern half of Stenhousmuir is within 2km of a well site.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with siting wells next to a motorway or within 500km of population. The last onshore project I did was right next to a motorway (autobahn) and on the outskirts of Wilhelmshavn in north Germany.

 

It was a clever project. We were drilling into solid rock salt which was then washed with fresh water to make big underground caverns in the salt. As salt is totally impervious these are used for the German strategic oil reserve. They fill the caverns with oil as a strategic buffer supply in case imports are ever restricted.

 

That's smart thinking. We dion't have a strategic supply in the UK so if supplies are ever disrupted we're in deep poo.

[I1L2T3]

I wouldn't have a problem with siting wells next to a motorway or within 500km of population. The last onshore project I did was right next to a motorway (autobahn) and on the outskirts of Wilhelmshavn in north Germany.

 

It was a clever project. We were drilling into solid rock salt which was then washed with fresh water to make big underground caverns in the salt. As salt is totally impervious these are used for the German strategic oil reserve. They fill the caverns with oil as a strategic buffer supply in case imports are ever restricted.

 

That's smart thinking. We dion't have a strategic supply in the UK so if supplies are ever disrupted we're in deep poo.

 

Sounds very interesting. As I stated my preference is for test complexes to be built, maybe one or two. They need to be generally representative of what could happen in the future, including proximity to housing.

 

If I'm honest I would rather that fracking wasn't being planned on such a vast scale here but the more I read and hear the more I realise there is huge momentum behind it both politically and economically. My argument about test complexes recognises the reality of that while stopping short of supporting an all out approach, which I genuinely think will end in tears.

[Nagel]

I'm in agreement with developing just one fracking complex to demonstrate the technology first.

 

The biggest problem is the protesters who will try every means they have to prevent this happening. They're completely blind to reasoning.

[Mecky]

I'm in agreement with developing just one fracking complex to demonstrate the technology first.

 

The biggest problem is the protesters who will try every means they have to prevent this happening. They're completely blind to reasoning.

 

Or maybe they have a different reasoning

[alchresearch]

No, they're blind.

 

When there were protests at Balcome they claimed that "82% of people were against fracking", they held up placards stating it. Here's a pic:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23547861

 

They even cited the exploding water as "fact" when it was found to be faked.

 

I'll let Truman take up the Balcombe story:

 

According to this

 

http://balcombeparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/121020-letter-to-wscc.pdf

 

850 households received the poll document and according to this

 

http://balcombeparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fracking-poll-results.pdf

 

only 284 polling cards had been returned..

 

If it's such an important issue to the people of Balcombe you'd have thought more than a third of the people would have responded..

 

And the top result for why people were against the Fracking was because of an "Increase in road traffic through the village".

 

 

Now lets move onto Barton Moss - they're protesting against fracking there.

 

But there is no fracking, just exploratory well digging.

 

I wouldn't mind if it was a beauty spot but its not.

 

As for the protesters, locals report littering and human waste dumped in the area by the protesters. They also fired a flare at a police helicopter and during a subsequent search by the police drugs were found.

 

 

And I'll leave you with this:

 

Anti-fracking protesters glue themselves to wrong petrol station

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/antifracking-protesters-glue-themselves-to-wrong-petrol-station-9079637.html