http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/14/uk-to-allow-fracking-companies-to-use-any-substance-under-homes

Sounds like a great idea.

Having read the article it comes across as deliberate scaremongering by the environmental lobby. It’s changes to a trespass law, the fracking regulations are separate and are what would determine what is actually allowed to be injected.

Nothing good can come from fracking.

Ferris-Beuller – Member
Nothing good can come from fracking.

apart from gas, to cook our food and heat our homes during winter?

Nothing good can come from fracking.

What do we do them?

Coal mining – dangerous, unhealthy work, thousands have died. It has high carbon emissions.

Oil drilling – dangerous, unhealthy work, hundreds have died, if not thousands. The fuel causes pollution and makes an awful mess if you spill it.

Wind power – hazardous, a few people have died offshore, expensive, unreliable and insufficient capacity to fulfill demand.

Solar – expensive, ugly and insufficient capacity to fulfill demand.

Wave and current – no proven technology yet and too expensive at the moment.

Hydro – Destroys large areas of land, it would take a lot of dams to fulfill demand.

Nuclear – Seems to come out as the best bet. A lot less people have been hurt by nuclear power than by coal mining or oil drilling. Could provide sufficient power. Low carbon emissions. Expensive though.

So nuclear it is then?

Apperently fracking can mean lower prices for consumers.

I laughed at that. I really did. Did the Politician believe that? Capitalism means matching competitors pricing and colluding with a weak regulator standing by. Why offer oil and gas at basement prices when the market colludes to keep prices high.

I just wonder when we see the first stories on houses with no history of subsiding subsiding and water companies putting prices up to do with filtering costs…

tinfoil hat for me.

Apperently fracking can mean lower prices for consumers.

I laughed at that. I really did. Did the Politician believe that? Capitalism means matching competitors pricing and colluding with a weak regulator standing by. Why offer oil and gas at basement prices when the market colludes to keep prices high.

The market doesn collude to do anything, theres a supply and a demand. The North Sea supplies at x pence per tonne, Russia a bit more, LNG imports to S.Wales and bit more again, etc, then your supplier buy up a range of gas from a range of sources and you pay the average + their poffit.

Before you say fracking won’t affect gas prices, just have a look at what they’ve done in the USA. Natural gas prices have dropped 39%. Carbon Dioxide emissions dropping 2%/year between 2005 and 2012 as coal burning is reduced (energy use increaced about 15% over the same period) , there’s even talk of petrol dropping back below $3/gallon as GTL units are built.

Capitalism means matching competitors pricing and colluding with a weak regulator standing by. Why offer oil and gas at basement prices when the market colludes to keep prices high.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/global-oil-glut-sends-prices-plunging-1413334648

http://online.wsj.com/articles/crude-oil-slides-as-iea-warns-on-slack-demand-1413283612

U.S. oil prices tumbled Tuesday, posting their biggest one-day drop in two years on signs that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries was unlikely to cut production in response to lower forecast demand.

We tried it here [ Lancashire] and we have had one[ minor] earthquake so far in the testing phase.

They are going to let them continue and then do it under peoples houses. IMHO if they do this you should get some form of compensation for this – cheaper gas a one off payment…automatic insurance for the risk paid by the industry etc or a mixture thereof.

Either way the gas runs out and it is only a short term fix.
The govt are promoting it because it is a cheaper option rather than along term solution

O! M!! G!!! I agree with Nick Hora 😯

As JY pointed out, the fact they’ve been causing mini earthquakes already with what are test drills, it hardly bodes well for them doing it on an industrial scale.

I’m sure the corporate lawyers are busy drawing up contracts that make the taxpayer liable for any structural damage caused to property, and the costs of dealing with the pollution though. And the government ministers responsible for waving through the minuscule, ineffective, toothless regulation are already eying up their nice, highly paid ‘consultants’ positions with the companies involved.

it is not going to last forever andlooks like it will make quite a mess, safe or otherwise.
it will do absoloutely nothing to reduce our increasing dependancy on non sustainable energy sources.

sounds like a good thing to me 🙂

Like the U.S we MAY get lower prices….however the cynic in me thinks that any savings will be negated by ‘costs in research’ or ‘costs in product development’. Again like our friends over the pond i feel certain that we’ll suffer from all the conditions associated with after effects of fracking and the chemicals used. If we do get cheaper gas, the real cost of that is the pollution that it causes. Not great.

Think beyond your nose.

Real investment needs to be made into nuclear if we’re to consume the power we are currently doing. I was working on a data centre where the national grid had to rejig their set up as this one site alone draws as much power as Halifax!!!

Fracking is a very bad idea and doesn’t really fix the problem we’ve created.

……sorry.

All of the below contain restrictions that would affect the use chemicals in fracking and dela with the cost o remediation etc:
Water Resources Act
Groundwater Regulations
Environmental Damage Regulations
Control of Pollution Act

Lower prices? – no cos there isnt as much as the USA and it’s harder/more expensive to get to….and amore expensive regulatory system

Supply security? – marginally, see above

Is it a good idea – mariginally better carbon wise thatn coal – fills a gap until other generation methods are operational So yeah goodish enviro/energywise but critically it makes posh **** loads of money – i.e. it’s going to happen.

I’m sure we can sell all the fracking rights to overseas companies that can then flog our gas back to us at inflated prices.

If we do get cheaper gas, the real cost of that is the pollution that it causes. Not great.

The problem with arguing about this on the internet, is the only sources most people can come up with are generaly sensationalist nutjobs and conspiracy theorists, the Gassland documentary (see previous descriptors) or the Guardian (putting the mental in environmental since 1821). I’ve yet to see any actual polution that was the result of Fracking itself (as opposed to either being pre-existing, or the result of bad practice by the opperators/companies involved).

The a real and less well reported long term issue if Fracking takes off and replaces oil, is where are we going to get Sulphur from? Meeting the sulphur requirments in fuels is getting harder and harder from oil derived products, and as a result much easier from gas which has low sulphur to start with. But a lot of industries are dependant on the very cheap supply of sulphur from oil refining, to produce sulphuric acid, if we start Fracking, the price is Sulphur is going to rise substantialy as it moves from being a waste product to a comodity.

I’ve yet to see any actual polution that was the result of Fracking itself (as opposed to either being pre-existing, or the result of bad practice by the opperators/companies involved).

So apart from the pollution you have seen you have yet to seen any

The guardian, conspiracist nutjobs and myself are in awe on your ability to debate well.

Fracking won’t reduce prices

“We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price,” he said.

Who’s he?

the chairman of the UK’s leading shale gas company.

Oh.

What’s the answer?

Population control.

yeah I think that is some twisting of words by the guardian to be honest, not that i’m in any way in favour of fracking.

Wind power – hazardous

that made me laugh out loud in the office. If that is your classification of hazardous, don’t ever ride a bike or anything.

I need to be very careful what I say here being a civil servant, but suffice to say it’s a polarising subject BUT the situation in the UK is very different to that of the US and do you really think for one minute wide-ranging pollution will be allowed. Go and do some reading across the debate rather than just the Guardian. Note: personal opinion and not that of my employer.

Insulate. 22°C and no heating on (13°C outside this morning). R=3 floor, R=3 walls, R=lots roof, uw 1.3 triple glazed windows, double back door.

Fat cats can get fatter through fracking. Lots of small companies could make money through insulating (and lots of households could save money) but you know which organisations have the most to spend on lobbying. The most disturbing conversation I’ve had recently was with a nephew employed by a lobbying company who is also close to the Labour party.

So apart from the pollution you have seen you have yet to seen any

Theres a difference between polution caused by fracking, and polution caused by a company dumping waste chemicals on the surface (which was the example someone posted last time). Combining one and the other is like blaming the internal combusiton engine (not a blameless invention as far as polution goes) for fly tipping.

“We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price,” he said.

Well, there may be that. But, this time last year we were paying 1.35-1.40 a litre for petrol, today I filled up for 1.247 at an ESSO garrage, not even having to resort to ASDA. What’s happened in the meantime? The USA has become energy independant and even OPEC isn’t bothering to cut production to prop up prices anymore.

Apache are about to sell off all their North Sea infrastructure to go all in on Fracking in the USA. So as well as needing the energy we need the jobs, otherwise Oil and Gas engineering will be another industrial sector joining coal and manufacturing on the list of things we used to do.

It may not be the future, but it’ll keep the lights on for a few more years.

that made me laugh out loud in the office. If that is your classification of hazardous, don’t ever ride a bike or anything.

You ever worked on the construction of an offshore wind farm?

There have been fatalities and a lot of serious injuries.

in the office

Oh the ironing!

Edukator wins the thread, the implications go far beyond the here and now.

Insulate. 22°C and no heating on (13°C outside this morning). R=3 floor, R=3 walls, R=lots roof, uw 1.3 triple glazed windows, double back door.

Fat cats can get fatter through fracking. Lots of small companies could make money through insulating (and lots of households could save money) but you know which organisations have the most to spend on lobbying. The most disturbing conversation I’ve had recently was with a nephew employed by a lobbying company who is also close to the Labour party.

Future generations will curse the gullibility of their forefathers when it comes to fracking and the oil & gas industry in general.

Ironicly, where exactly do you think all that urethane and styrene comes from for that insulation?

All for and against arguments here.

Ironicly, where exactly do you think all that urethane and styrene comes from for that insulation?

What about wool, straw or hemp?

You ever worked on the construction of an offshore wind farm?

There have been fatalities and a lot of serious injuries.

Is there construction of anything without injury? Are you suggesting no one will ever get injured in fracking?

Is there construction of anything without injury? Are you suggesting no one will ever get injured in fracking?

Of course not.

All construction works involve risk and the chance of injury.

However, I was highlighting the fact that working in an offshore environment adds to the risks involved in the construction.

Where you simply dismissed this out of hand.

It would seem to suggest that you have no understanding of working offshore.

All energy sources come at a cost, a lot of people seem to forget some of the more obvious human ones.

Apperently fracking can mean lower prices for consumers.
I laughed at that. I really did.

When I were a lad all the annuals I got had a future vision section and I was promised by the year 2000:
1) Nuclear fission, aeroplanes that would use it
2) Free Energy
3) A 3 day week enabling more leisure time
I seem to have received the opposite. People wonder why I’m cynical.

Now they want to take away the rights under my house and allow it to be filled with a mix of Hydrofluoric acid and other lovely stuff. If they so choose.

Who will pay if it all goes horribly wrong… do you think they will make sure it’s the taxpayer (again)? Oh so that’s me as well…

I’d be totally down with the argument that fracking can produce cleaner power than coal and oil, if it weren’t for the fact that we’re still going to burn all the coal and oil. It’s not an alternative at all, it’s an additional carbon fuel.

Think you might mean Fusion Darc_L?

Fracking wise, the geology under the UK is never going to produce anything like the yields in the USA. It will stay relatively small-scale. Just like, for example the onshore oil fields in the UK.

See, how many of you knew that there were on-shore oil fields in the UK.

Exactly, the whole anti-fracking movement in the UK, concerning the UK land -mass is pure scaremongering without much substance, knowledge, or understanding behind it.

Think you might mean Fusion Darc_L?

😳 yes I did. I shall go home and have a long beer and a lie down.

I’m sure we can sell all the fracking rights to overseas companies that can then flog our gas back to us at inflated prices.

Well the greatest interest in fracking in the UK so far appears to come from France.

French oil giant Total to invest in UK shale gas

To be fair the ‘French oil giant’ could do with the work as the French won’t allow fracking in France.

Fracking ban upheld by French court

.

What makes the French fracking ban particularly interesting is that unlike the UK France doesn’t have vast reserves of gas and oil, but it does have “some of the largest shale gas deposits in Europe”.

And it isn’t a party political issue either, opposition to fracking is shared by the main political parties.

So what causes the fifth largest industrialised economy in the world with little domestic energy production and yet estimated shale gas reserves worth five trillion cubic metres to ban fracking ?

Perhaps the Guardian is widely read by French politicians ?

jivehoneyjive – Member

What about wool, straw or hemp?

http://www.diy.com
http://www.wickes.com
http://www.buildcenter.com

What about them? Yes they’re theoretical options, but they’re actualy hideously expensive, not that efficient, and not actualy available to buy from any of the big shops. Straw is only usefull if you build the house from it, and results in 2ft thick walls, not practical if you live in a flat or townhouse. Wool, how many hundreds of sheep, using acres of land, producing tones of methane would that take to do asingle house? Hemp I’ve never heard of as an option.

You missed off recycled paper which does overcome most of the above issues though.

So what causes the fifth largest industrialised economy in the world with little domestic energy production and yet estimated shale gas reserves worth five trillion cubic metres to ban fracking ?

The fact they’re not as squeemish when it comes to nuclear so aren’t facing the prospect of the lights going out in the next few years.

The fact that they don’t have such big oil, gas, refining and petrochemical industries employing people, which increacingly need cheep feedstocks sourced domesticaly to keep them viable.

Now they want to take away the rights under my house and allow it to be filled with a mix of Hydrofluoric acid and other lovely stuff. If they so choose.

Well acidization is a different technique to fracking, rather than pumping mud down at high pressures to fracture the rocks appart, the mud is acidified and the acid selectively disolves the rocks to open up the pores and let the gas/oil out.

You never had rights under your house. Oil, gas, water, coal, iron, potash, or even just water, whatever is down there isn’t yours in the UK.

The fact that they don’t have such big oil, gas, refining and petrochemical industries employing people, which increacingly need cheep feedstocks sourced domesticaly to keep them viable.

That must be the worse reason ever for banning fracking.

The fact they’re not as squeemish when it comes to nuclear so aren’t facing the prospect of the lights going out in the next few years.

No fracking means the lights going out in the next few years ? That sounds scarey. And unconvincing.

Nuclear energy does not generate profits**, it is expensive and has to be heavily subsided. There isn’t a country in the world where nuclear energy pays for itself. I think we can fairly assume that shale gas reserves worth five trillion cubic metres, some of the largest in Europe, would provide very substantial profits for France.

I reckon you are going to have to come up with a better explanation as to why the 12th biggest consumer of oil in the world, which has little domestic energy production, and sits on shale gas reserves worth five trillion cubic metres, has a ban on fracking which enjoys cross party support.

**unless the losses are all nationalised.

They banned fracking in france as the public was against it. I come from an area where a lot of demos took place. Any french government allowing fracking would face a lot of criticism and trouble.

They banned fracking in france as the public was against it.

That sounds like a much more plausible explanation.

fracking = lots of unadulterated chems in the water supply, great idea!

fracking = lots of unadulterated chems in the water supply, great idea!

What does this even mean??