• This topic has 37 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by Kit.
Viewing 38 posts - 1 through 38 (of 38 total)
  • Fracking?!?
  • Ferris-Beuller
    Free Member

    Well there is a proposed site not a million miles from where we live and of course it is a natural concern as we’ve all heard the ‘horror stories’.

    I went down to the camp this weekend hoping to find out a bit more, but the people i spoke to could only rant on and offer opinion and facts that i cant seem to find anywhere on the web…..

    So, as far as im concerned i cant see how it can be a good idea to pump chemicals into the earth and not expect it to enter the water table somewhere / somehow! I cant find anything that either supports it factually or decries it factually.

    I have yet to witness a balanced argument for or against it.

    I was hoping you guys could provide some more info and provide a balanced argument……oh wait, its STW!!! 😉

    bearnecessities
    Full Member
    JCL
    Free Member

    More and more groundwater contamination issues in the US.

    midlifecrashes
    Full Member

    I laugh when the lefty protestors seem determined to stop fracking while moaning about the closing of the mines. I know which is more dangerous, both to the environment and the workers involved. However, we need the energy from somewhere, would you like to rely on Russia for our gas?

    sugdenr
    Free Member

    Since the reason the gas is there in the first place is impermeable shales, in theory there is no reason for it to reach the surface, presume problems arises when the fracturing goes awry and tracks up to create a leak path or macondo style the well pipe isnt secureed/sealed properly?

    JCL
    Free Member

    Yep or they have a spill at surface of the toxic liquid they pump in to fracture the shale.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    It’s not just groundwater that gets contaminated. Normal drilling produces small amounts of mud with low levels of hydrocarbons to be treated, fracking produces high volumes of highly contaminated mud. Getting the hydrocarbons (benzine ring nasties etc.) out isn’t easy so “dilute and disperse” is what the Canadians and septics have done thus polluting long stretches of river and forcing the closure of water treatment plants that used the river for drinking water.

    I’d rather reduce my personal gas use to zero and have others do the same thus eliminating the need for fracking and gas in general.

    Spud
    Full Member

    Quite a lot of info out there, from the for and against camps and the independents, Google is your friend:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shale-gas-extraction-emissions-are-a-low-risk-to-public-health

    https://www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-onshore-exploration-and-production

    http://www.bgs.ac.uk/shalegas/#ad-image-0

    I shan’t make a case either way as it wouldn’t be professional of me, seeing as I work for one of the organisations above. The majority of sites are purely test drills, only one site so far has actually ‘fracked’ and that’s the one in Lancs.

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    nd tracks up to create a leak path or macondo style the well pipe isnt secureed/sealed properly?

    AAAArrrrrggggghhhhh!

    A Macondo style issue is simply not possible with fracking. The whole reason for tracking in the first place is because it is difficult/impossible for the gas to flow without it. This was not the case for Macondo.

    As for comments like “toxic liquid they pump into the ground” it’s mostly water. Now granted I wouldn’t want to drink it or take a bath in it but it’s not like we are talking about concentrated sulphuric acid or pure ammonia!

    So, as far as im concerned i cant see how it can be a good idea to pump chemicals into the earth and not expect it to enter the water table somewhere / somehow!

    In that case learn some geology. If it were that easy to contaminate the water table with the contents of the shale then the water would already be contaminated by the contents of the shale.

    Speaking personally I would have no more problem living close to one of these sites than I would any other industrial site.

    Kit
    Free Member

    Last time I read this blog it seemed to offer a reasonably pragmatic approach to shale gas:

    http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/

    If done properly, it shouldn’t ever be an issue, but I think the bigger issue is as Edukator says i.e. the reliance on gas for our energy needs.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    It would be nice if one of you documents gave at least a hint as to what the “flowback and produced waters” contain and how they intend to deal with the quantities produced in commercial exploitation, Spud. No other country has managed to deal with them in a satisfactory manner yet.

    The debate has nothing to do with right or left. It’s a question of how much surface and groundwater pollution with benzine ring hydrocarbons you think is acceptable. IMO zero should be the limit.

    TurnerGuy
    Free Member

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfo0hpVrtrs[/video]

    EdwardH
    Full Member

    Contamination from fracking fluid once the formation has been opened for production is highly unlikely, especially of ground water.Most reservoirs are far deeper than the groundwater supplies and mixing of fluids between the two is highly unlikely.
    What is of concern for contamination is leaky casings, and this is what has been the issue in the USA and Canada. Poorly set production strings and leaking casings can lead to gas / hydrocarbon contamination closer to the surface. Due to tighter regulations in the UK, this is much less likely to happen here than in the US. The main concern I would have would be for surface spills of the fracking propant, due to poor procedure during transport, injection and removal from the location once production has started up. In Canada the main problems have been linked to illegal dumping of used propants.
    Depending on the number of wells the rig is likely to be on location for a few months, the main impact on the local area is most likely to be noise from all the trucks accessing the site.
    As an aside, did you know one of the largest onshore oil fields in the UK is nicely hidden in the middle of a nature reserve, not far from Purbeck Southampton, it has been in operation for more than 30 years and hardly anyone knows about it!

    Edukator
    Free Member

    Gonefishin, I’m a geologist and suggest that you are not. The hydrocarbons in the shale are trapped within the shale and fracking fissures the rock thus releasing them. You then hope they will all flow up the riser but experience says that they can also follow fissures through trap structures and up the outside of the riser if cementing is anything less than perfect, thus entering groundwater in rocks above the shales.

    You might pump down water and drilling mud but you get back hydrocarbon contaminated water, mud and cuttings. Benzine ring chemicals give people cancer so you really don’t want them in ground or surface water.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    In Canada the main problems have been linked to illegal dumping of used propants.

    In Canada the main problems are the inability to treat the fluids. They started just using normal sewage treatment works which nothing to reduce the benzine rings. They’ve moved onto plants that reduce but don’t eliminate the benzine rings. The result is rivers that are unsafe to use for potable water. If you’ve contaminate groundwater too then you’re going to end up trucking in drinking water and in some places this is what they do.

    Kit
    Free Member

    Benzine ring chemicals give people cancer so you really don’t want them in ground or surface water.

    They also occur in/on anything charred or burnt, so you’re **** if you eat any toast…

    http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/benzo.htm

    Edukator
    Free Member

    That’s a bit like saying there is cyanide in apple pips to convince people KGB cyanide pills are safe, Kit.

    iolo
    Free Member

    Ohh, a fracking post

    anyone seen this?[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2oymHHyV1M[/video]

    london_lady
    Free Member

    Some interesting articles…
    http://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2014/02/unlocking-the-earth-a-short-history-of-hydraulic-fracturing

    Thankfully napalm isn’t used any more!

    In the 1940s, Floyd Farris of Stanolind Oil proposed that fracturing a rock formation through hydraulic pressure might increase well productivity. This was followed in 1947 by the first application of the ‘Hydrafrac’ process at the No.1 Klepper well in the Hugoton Field, Kansas. One thousand gallons of naphthenic acid and palm oil (napalm) were combined with gasoline and sand to stimulate the flow of natural gas from a limestone formation.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

    http://www.energyfromshale.org/hydraulic-fracturing

    Kit
    Free Member

    That’s a bit like saying there is cyanide in apple pips to convince people KGB cyanide pills are safe, Kit.

    I was, of course, being facetious. But the point is, as you’ve also demonstrated WRT cyanide, is that it’s all about how much of the stuff is consumed, by whom, and how regularly i.e. the risk of exposure and the impact of that exposure. You were calling for zero tolerance of benzene rings in groundwater, but I’ve pointed out that we are exposed to this risk all the time. Are you advocating measures to reduce camp fires, kebabs, etc.? There are already rules and regs based on toxicity of these chemicals in the environment, to which shale gas companies in the UK must strictly adhere. Also, groundwater will naturally contain these chemicals, so we can’t possibly have zero concentrations of organic molecules.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    regs… to which shale gas companies in the UK must strictly adhere

    If they remain within limits they’ll succeed where failure is the norm.

    We could have another safe limit debate, because once again we’re talking about chemicals that present a danger at low levels. When I worked in the water industry there were a host of chemicals that our machines could only pick up at levels that were already of concern. I’m calling for zero tolerance of benzene ring discharges to surface and ground water, yes.

    Camp fires are banned in some cities along with open fires because they produce large quantities of fine particles that are indeed a health risk, just like diesel engines (petrol engines too but that’s more the unburnt hydrocarbons – the Germans call petrol Benzin). There are figures published for the excess deaths caused by motor vehicle pollution. People drive vehicles and seem to accept the risks, I’m not so sure they’d accept drinking water they knew to be toxic.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    From research I’ve seen, it appears there is certainly cause for concern~ whether problems can be overcome, who is to know, but given the inherent risk, it appears the authorities are perhaps being a touch hasty… which makes you wonder their motives, especially given the family ties of the Chancellor:

    Anyhow, here is another thread to consider:

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/fracking-good-bad-or-ugly

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    Edukator, you are right I’m not a geologist but I do work in oil and gas so I know what comes back up from wells.

    Kit has said everything about your comments about “zero contamination” that needs to be said so I’ll not add anything to that.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    So you know that it is contaminated with hydrocarbons, requires storage, treatment, recycling as far as possible and for some of it, disposal. I am against any project that includes “dilute and disperse” in the disposal strategy.

    Where there is an insufficient thickness of suitable impermeable rock above the fracked rock there are documented cases of hydrocarbons rising to contaminate aquifers. A few hundred metres isn’t enough as fracking produces cracks hundreds of metres long. Where there is any risk of such contamination I’m against fracking.

    Insulation is the answer, not fracking.

    hexhamstu
    Free Member

    So we are gambling with the water table. Let’s say for arguments sake that it’s unlikely to be contaminated but has a chance of happening.

    For this gamble what are we going to see as the pay off? From what I’ve read so far, a few privately owned companies are going to make a lot of money but energy bills will stay the same and the general public will see very little, only job creation. Possibly see some of the tax from the earnings (maybe).

    Doesn’t seem like a smart move for the British public, but does if you happen to profit from one of the energy companies involved.

    It seems mad to argue that the Gas is trapped and will therefore not contaminate anything. Even though the whole point of fracking is to release said gas by fracturing it’s confines.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    Contamination of groundwater from leaking wells seems like it should be a problem, but experience from the US, where there are zillions of wells, is that it is rather hard to provide concrete examples of where it has happened. Contamination from induced fractures just doesn’t happen – the biggest frac would be about 100m long, whereas the water table is thousands of m shallower. In terms of footprint, per unit of energy, fracking is 100’s of times less intrusive than wind.

    Having said that … I dunno ….

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Ohhhhhhh a fracking thread 😀

    I predict 5 pages off ill-informed bovine pooop.

    From what I’ve read so far, a few privately owned companies are going to make a lot of money but energy bills will stay the same and the general public will see very little, only job creation. Possibly see some of the tax from the earnings (maybe).

    Yea, so little benifit that in North Dakota there’s stories of MacDonalds shift workers earning six figure salaries and house prices rising higher than Manhattan (not bad for what was a redneck backwater 10 years ago).

    Edukator
    Free Member

    Google “September 22, 2011, Crew Energy Inc canadian government”, for a concrete example among many, DrJ.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    Edukator : that is a case where the operator clearly made a number of big mistakes, rather than an inevitable result of normal operations. Not saying that makes it OK, but we need to be clear what we’re legislating for.

    woody74
    Full Member

    See what I don’t get with fracking and the ground water argument is that in the UK all water (well nearly all before some says they have a bore hole) is supplied by water companies. Therefore it is their job to supply me with fresh water. Why should I worry about how they do it. Do you not think that the water companies as both profit making companies and legally bound to supply fresh clean water will not be up in arms if they think the ground water is going to be polluted. They have all the geologists and scientists to argue if fracking should go ahead and if it will pollute the ground water so why as individuals with no real facts and backing behind our argument are we make a fuss about this.

    Why would government listen to us and not he experts from the water companies.

    Now pollution from the hundreds of lorries needing to go to site is a different argument. Then again this is never put in context. They have identified a fracking site in the village of my parents in Somerset and as you can imagine there are people up in arms. But there is a bloody big Yeo Valley yoghurt farm just down the road and all day and night lorries trundle through the village. So how many extra lorries will the franking need. Are we talking a 10% increase in heavy traffic or a 200% increase? No one seems to know or will say which just leads to concern.

    I agree that we all need to help reduce our energy usage, but is this really going to happen on a grand scale when the population is rising. People wont reduce their energy usage when there are new gadgets galore unless they are either forced to or their is some new revolutionary technology that changes the whole playing field.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    woody74 – Member

    See what I don’t get with fracking and the ground water argument is that in the UK all water (well nearly all before some says they have a bore hole) is supplied by water companies. Therefore it is their job to supply me with fresh water. Why should I worry about how they do it.

    Because you’ll have to pay for it if the price goes up. And ya know, even if drinking water can be purified and made fit for drinking, or imported (from independent Scotland 😉 ) then that’s only a small part of the bigger concern.

    Not that I’m saying that there will be groundwater contamination; it seems feasible, i don’t know if it’s likely.

    grum
    Free Member

    Don’t really know enough about it but the thing that concerns me is that we will just use it as yet another excuse not to bother trying to reduce consumption.

    I predict 5 pages off ill-informed bovine pooop.

    Yup:

    Yea, so little benifit that in North Dakota there’s stories of MacDonalds shift workers earning six figure salaries and house prices rising higher than Manhattan (not bad for what was a redneck backwater 10 years ago).

    Sounds amazing.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    grum – Member

    Don’t really know enough about it but the thing that concerns me is that we will just use it as yet another excuse not to bother trying to reduce consumption.

    Yep, same here- cheap carbon-based energy is pretty much exactly the opposite of what we need

    Edukator
    Free Member

    Legislating for an industry that is so rich that it can pollute hundreds of miles of coast, devastate ecosystems, and contaminate important natural resources and pay for all that out of petty cash, Drj. It’s also an industry with a long record promising one thing and doing another. The legislator needs a zero tolerance attitude.

    Kit
    Free Member

    Should the legislator have a zero tolerance attitude to “heavy metals” as well? And, as I think you’ve pointed out, how can you set the limit to zero when the analytical detection limits will always be >0?

    Edukator
    Free Member

    I’ll stick to hydrocarbons for this thread Kit but heavy metals are easier to measure and set limits for.

    If you think water companies will protect your interests don’t forget they are owned by the very same investment groups that own the oil and gas companies. Anglian Water is owned by Osprey, Osprey is 32.9% owned by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board.

    When I was at ***** Water my boss presented a pollution case to the legal department following severe pollution of several miles of river (as far as the sea, thousands of dead fish). The legal department wouldn’t prosecute. A bit of digging revealed that one of ***** Water directors was also one of the top men at the polluters. “An arrangement” was found that didn’t involve prosecution.

    Edit: the other major investor at Anglian doesn’t allow linking anything other than its home page, I’m sure you’ll soon find what their major interests in global resources are.

    Kit
    Free Member

    I’ll stick to hydrocarbons for this thread Kit but heavy metals are easier to measure and set limits for.

    Why are they easier to set limits for? And metals are also a component of hydrocarbon production so why not talk about with respect to fracking? I’m curious because my area of research is water pollution from the oil and gas industry in the UK.

Viewing 38 posts - 1 through 38 (of 38 total)

The topic ‘Fracking?!?’ is closed to new replies.