Forum menu
The government figures are tempting 70000 jobs etc and cmd says it won't ruin the countryside .A quick Google reveals that the technique has been used in the North Sea for roughly 30 years. Fracking at sea would be much more expensive than on land. However it also reveals that the technique needs vast amounts of water and growing opposition in the US.What does the stw hivemind think?
I don't think it's been used offshore like that? There's a few people making a lot of noise about offshore fracking now but I'd never heard of it being done, at least on a production scale.
There's 2 sides to it. First, is just whether or not you trust the tech. Second is whether it's actually a good idea, since it's all about extending carbon dependance when really we (mostly) want to be getting away from it.
Trouble is that there's been 2 messages on carbon dependance- 1) It'll set the world on fire and 2) We'll run out. Both pretty good reasons and different groups of people are receptive to different arguments, but overturning one doesn't mean you can ignore the other.
I see it as basically fossil fuel escalation, and all part of the problem of increasingly marginal/undesirable production- tar sands, antarctic drilling, dodgy exporting nations, oil wars etc. There's got to be a line somewhere. Maybe fracking helps reduce the pressures that would otherwise lead to less desirable routes. Or maybe it is a less desirable route. Not sure we know.
been going on since the 1950s .
the difference is that the chemicals we are using and the HHP has increased alot.
HAving seen the vessels requird to do a gravel pack offshore and the deck space given over to motors i wouldnt like to contemplate the size of vessels required to give the HHP to do a full on production fracking job in the north sea - nor would i like to find a weather window to do it.
Trail rat what's HHP? I was looking at the Wikipedia article on fracking in the UK and it doesn't make it clear what basis the fracking in the north sea was done on.
Northwind I accept your point about carbon dependency and I reckon that while job would be gained in fracking jobs would also be lost in the renewable energy sector.
Fracking offshore is done for the same reasons, to increase production from the formation. Some rocks aren’t very porous so the hydrocarbons only filter through fairly slowly (or not at all) into the well bore to be produced. Fracking increases the area of rock which can produce into the wellbore and increases production. Depending on the well in question it is sometimes done as a matter of course offshore on a new well and sometimes not done until production has dropped off at which point the well may be worked over and a frack job done to bring the production back up.
Is gravel packing comparable then? I thought it was more about well access, permeability and such, and increasing production from an operable well than about releasing an otherwise inaccessible reserve from scratch?
hydralic horse power.
They do do it already for sure , what im getting at is the power needed to fracture for shale gas is much more than whats required to open up the formation for normal production.
im neither for nor against it at the moment but i hope we learn from the mistakes the americans have made, having seen first hand fracking go wrong in bakersfield CA im not convinced yet.
to say gravel pack could mean many things but a comparible operation would be a frac pack
if its a frac pack then it opens the formation up and the proppant (sand) stops it closing up again , the proppants also sized to the formation to hold back the relevent sand particles that you dont want produced , used in conjunction with a sand screen thats sized to the proppant sand to stop the proppant being produced back up to the topside equipment with the Hydrocarbons. Requires alot of HHP just to get the proppant down the hole let alone using it to frack
meh Its just another technique or getting hydrocarbons out of the ground
would it actually produce enough to insulate us from dependency on russsian gas for a while?
would it create the same tax revenue NS oil did in the 90s?
maybe the real question should be whether we should be investing a lot more in something else
heres an emotive picture to illustrate my point
[img] 
[/img]
All you need to know to answer that question is the knowledge that David Cameron thinks it's a brilliant idea.
This means it's a short term win for him/the tories and a long term disaster that makes no real sense.
you reckon david cameron knows one end of a drill pipe from the other and folks would trust his judgement on fracking ?
id have more trust in an mfi kitchen sales man
Cheers Trail_rat, interesting stuff.
would it actually produce enough to insulate us from dependency on russian gas for a while?
We don't get gas from Russia, we get it from Norway. So it'll make naff all difference to our gas dependency, as the Norway supplies are pretty secure.
We don't get gas from Russia, we get it from Norway. So it'll make naff all difference to our gas dependency, as the Norway supplies are pretty secure.
I think you are a bit out of date there...
Biggest provider of gas to the UK from 2009 through to 2012 was Norway. We do get the majority of our coal from Russia mind.
as fuel becomes scarcer and more expensive, then newer /costlier technics will be used to extract it - we will only really move away from carbon fuels when the cost and convenience of alternative energy is lower than the carbon equivalent.
Fracking is just a way to get at gas that was previously uneconomical to extract.
So in effect, oil and gas wont ever really run out, it will just become more and more expensive compared to the alternatives, once the tipping point is reached the wells will close and it will be confined to history.
I am sceptical. CMD said it would not disfigure the countryside. I have seen pictures it does not look good..There'll be no guarantee of lower energy prices It will need ''Feersum Endjinns' to get it out of the ground( nod to Mr I M Banks) and huge amounts of water. It will provide jobs but will also cause job losses in renewables . We should make very careful and tightly regulated small steps to look at the use of this resource.It isn't an alternative to being more energy efficient and using renewable sources. .
I am sceptical. CMD said it would not disfigure the countryside. I have seen pictures it does not look good.
Hmm... I find it difficult to accept disfiguring the countryside as an argument regards energy sources (on either side of the hydrocarbons gap)
[img] 
[/img]
Oh yeah and communities are to receive 1per cent of the takings ..approx 10, 000, 000 over 25 years. Sorry no deal at that price. Successive governments of all colours wasted revenue from the North Sea so a much higher per centage should go to the local communities.
Ninfan windfarms are ugly and I reckon they should be more tightly regulated too they don't cause earth tremors though. 🙂
Biggest provider of gas to the UK from 2009 through to 2012 was Norway. We do get the majority of our coal from Russia mind.
Historically, but Qatar is the bigger provider now.
Ninfan windfarms are ugly and I reckon they should be more tightly regulated too they don't cause earth tremors though. 🙂
earth tremors or earthquakes are not the problem with fracking - the two tremors caused near Blackpool really were absolutely trivial - No the main problem with Fracking is that we simply shouldnt be burning more carbon-based fuels - its a completely immoral move principally by the US and now with support from the UK Govt who should know better, but only care about short term political goals
Sorry dp
[url= http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=BE&v=U01EK76Sy4A&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DU01EK76Sy4A%26gl%3DBE ]This clip[/url] tells me everything I need to decide whether fracking is a good idea. Google "fracking flammable water" to see what I mean. I certainly wouldn't want to live in an area where they're planning this stuff.
I am sceptical. CMD said it would not disfigure the countryside.
I think he just means his constituency. No one in Westminster cares what happens north of Watford.
All you need to know to answer that question is the knowledge that David Cameron thinks it's a brilliant idea.
Right up until enormous reserves are discovered under Chipping Norton I suspect.
steezysix - MemberThis clip tells me everything I need to decide whether fracking is a good idea. Google "fracking flammable water" to see what I mean. I certainly wouldn't want to live in an area where they're planning this stuff.
But alas that is not entirely truthful:
[url= http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/the-gasland-movie-a-fracking-shame-director-pulls-video-to-hide-inconvenient-truths/ ]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/the-gasland-movie-a-fracking-shame-director-pulls-video-to-hide-inconvenient-truths/[/url]
No the main problem with Fracking is that we simply shouldnt be burning more carbon-based fuels
Where else should we get fuel from? It's not like electric powered vehicles are 'there' yet (not sure if they will ever be!).
I am sceptical. CMD said it would not disfigure the countryside. I have seen pictures it does not look good.
looks just the same as any other wellhead, of which there are plenty all over Surrey quietly getting on with the job.
MS - Member
Where else should we get fuel from? It's not like electric powered vehicles are 'there' yet (not sure if they will ever be!).
I think thats the point if the government(s) invested in the technologies then who knows what we could achieve
Where else should we get fuel from? It's not like electric powered vehicles are 'there' yet (not sure if they will ever be!).
Which is why we should, and the govt should plough all of the profits from it into solar for every house/other renewables, so that when it's runs out, we're better prepared.
But they won't 🙁
But they won't
We're broke. Any profits should go to fixing that.
We're broke. Any profits should go to fixing that
This.
Renewable energy as a main source will come in time as the costs start to come down and the costs of oil & gas derived power go up. When the tipping point is reached the focus of all of the big energy companies and a lot of talented engineers currently working in oil & gas will shift and things will start to change pretty rapidly.
robinlaidlaw - Member
We're broke. Any profits should go to fixing thatThis.
Renewable energy as a main source will come in time as the costs start to come down and the costs of oil & gas derived power go up. When the tipping point is reached the focus of all of the big energy companies and a lot of talented engineers currently working in oil & gas will shift and things will start to change pretty rapidly.
the trouble is by then we'll have shagged most of the arcitic and antartic and global warming will mean we are all living in a few megacities surrounded by nothing but the cursed earh
let the hunger games begin.
the trouble is by then we'll have shagged most of the arcitic and antartic and global warming will mean we are all living in a few megacities surrounded by nothing but the cursed earh
No, it'll happen faster than that.
I work in O&G and have some interests in renewables too. It is coming but we can't force it along or the country really will go broke.
Where else should we get fuel from? It's not like electric powered vehicles are 'there' yet (not sure if they will ever be!).
Bit of a hippy thing to say, but do we really need to drive as much as we do? Half the problems people seem to be moaning about in the country, debt, obesity, fuel, pollution would all be much less of a pressing issue.
200 miles East in the Netherlands they've got the right idea, yet for some reason over here we're all running each other over and fighting.
energy use is only half the picture, we are still building crap houses, we are still wasting huge amounts of energy with a crap transport policy.
I would concern myself more with what is going to happen to food prices when oil prices rise. Have a google about the hydrocarbon need to produce food, Fertilizer, pesticides, not to mention transport. NOT GOOD!
Although I posted an anti-fracking thing above I'm quite excited about the other potential benefits it could bring.
[img] 
[/img]
200 miles East in the Netherlands they've got the right idea, yet for some reason over here we're all running each other over and fighting.
They aren't exactly scared of a bit of oil and gas over there, does the name Shell (or Royal Dutch Shell to give it it's full name) ring any bells?
As a geologist I have no issue with fracking. It is a reliable way of getting hydrocarbons out of the ground cheaply. he concerns about it are mostly nonsense. A lot of people complain about potential earthquakes, however it causes far fewer earthquakes than the coal mining that used to happen in the area, and of water contamination, which only occurs if you depend on water from a well or aquifer which most shale gas rich areas of the UK do not. There are concerns about safety in the US that are valid- there is more potential for "cowboy" companies to set up but the main issue is contamination of aquifers. There are studies which have shown elevated levels of methane in water sourced from wells (water extraction in this manner doesn't occur. much in the UK) and aquifers, which is dangerous to health and the environment. It occurs as trapped gas underground travels down fractures caused by the drilling process.
On the other hand, taking off my geology hat and putting on my "give a shit" hat, it's bad news. The biggest concern is that, really, it's the wrong source of energy- while it has the potential to produce cheap energy it's still energy from fossil fuels and we shouldn't be dependent on them. We just have a government that is tied in with the rich who run these companies, oil and gas and fuel powered cars and coal power stations are the money spinners, electric cars, green power and nuclear are not. For these reasons, I'm out.
as another Geologist I agree with munrobiker.
there other alternatives including renewables and nuclear and energy efficiency
They aren't exactly scared of a bit of oil and gas over there, does the name Shell (or Royal Dutch Shell to give it it's full name) ring any bells?
Well yes, and why do these companies exist? Is it because of all the chain oil they're using?
Or is it because the UK import and absolute stack of it to keep going, gathering oil isn't the issue, the crazy speed we're using it is.
As an aside, will it actually make energy cheap anyway. Prices are set on global markets, demand is rising, prices will rise. Fracking might let them rise less quickly but i strongly doubt the level of extraction the UK can achieve will actually have any meaningful impact.