We're too hungry for cheap energy not to do it and too risk/headline adverse to do it badly. I think it's going to happen, and it's probably going to be okay. If I had to choose between an opencast mine, a nuclear plant and a fracked well with a couple of miles I know what I'd go for...
why does it follow we will be an importer. If sold on the open market it will have to be exported
Cos we aint got all that much of it - it would have no effect on global gas proces and the gas everyone else extracts from non-fracking wells costs significantly less to produce. If the French and and bulgarians started pumping it then they, with their greater reserves, could have an impact on gas prices but our paltry contribution would be just a drop in the gassy ocean thing
i appreciate the points about regulatory control being tighter in the uk but im sure we can all agree that accidents can and do happen? what framework is in place to deal with this? who pays etc?
see environmental damage regulations
Oh ,yeah, OP, The reason Camerons pushing it is the chaps down at the club have sunk a bundle in it and Bunty and Toppers will be whizz bang furious if they don't get their money back.
Can someone explain to me why there's such a kerfuffle about (alleged) earthquake risk from underground explosions used in fracking, as compared to coal mining which has been blasting underground for decades?
i appreciate the points about regulatory control being tighter in the uk but im sure we can all agree that accidents can and do happen? what framework is in place to deal with this?
Generaly the non-governmental regulations are far stricter than any mandatory requirements. For example a lot of oil and gas equipment is built to American Petroleum Institute Standards, a lot of pipe/vessels to ASME, etc. The government generaly says that any risk has to be "As Low As Reasnobly Practicable", and there are guidelines as to how often incidents can be 'allowed' to occour. E.g. a minor release of non-toxic chemicals onto a non pourous surface such as spilling some waste water might be tolerated once a year, a release of flamable gas once every hundred, if the risk of ignition is also one in ten, and the risk of anyone being nearby one in 10 (so the risk of an actual accident might be one in 10,000 years, which would be deemed acceptable, if it wasnt you could add a safety system with a 90% sucess rate, making it 1in100,000, or two making it 1in1,000,000). Basicaly the industry is largely self regulating as a (likely)shutdown will cost you a lot more than any safety system.
who pays etc?
If you polute something you have to pay for the cleanup.
while the drill head is small im expecting that traffic to and from will be a fair bit more disturbing than that of say a pylon?
The largest onshore oil field in Europe is in Surrey. I don't think I've ever seen a lorry except on the news when some crusty is protesting.
Can someone explain to me why there's such a kerfuffle about (alleged) earthquake risk from underground explosions used in fracking, as compared to coal mining which has been blasting underground for decades?
Exploding stuff is old-skool. Fracking is doing the same job with high pressure water. The earthquake risk is often the result of re-injecting waste water into the well to displace more gas, or even deeper if you just want rid of it.
chairman of Cuadrilla Resources, Lord Browne has why to much power and influence
this film covers all the issues very well, if you trust the oil and Gas companies to do the right thing your in cloud cuckoo land, get educated and take action, contact your MP or you might loose all the value of your house, loose your drinking water.
The Truth Behind The Dash For Gas 2014
A more light hearted! look at fracking in the UK...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1qtO6rXXh8
Definitely ugly but not necessarily bad. I wouldn't want to buy a house anywhere near a likely fracking area though.
btw fracking is just one alternative gas technology of many which we'll see developing in onshore UK, just seems to be the most fashionable one.
Can someone explain to me why there's such a kerfuffle about (alleged) earthquake risk from underground explosions used in fracking, as compared to coal mining which has been blasting underground for decades?
When they started coal mining the common peasantry knew their place, and had to do what they were bally well told!!! Since then they've been getting uppity and demanding the same rights as their superiors. The nerve of it!
Luckily, we're putting a stop to all that nonsense, and things will be restored to the nirvana of the victorian age. Huzzah!!!
ok so i have looked at the environmental regulations. but they seem pretty vague, and petrochemical companies have huge legal teams who specialise in squirming out of liability. im not convinced. can someone post a link to an example of a 'happy ending' story for environmental damage being rectified in the oil and gas industry please?
again i am interested not being purposefully awkward
edit; thanks notaspoon, missed that post
I presume the landowners are handsomely rewarded?
The government generaly says that any risk has to be "As Low As Reasnobly Practicable"
Which (and I'm sure you're aware of this) is usually translated in the Industry to 'As Little As Regulator Permits' 😉
Anyhoo, everything else you've said is exactly why I'm in favour of it too, especially as the US regulation on everything varies wildly on a state-by-state basis, so we can't really compare fracking here to there anyways.
Energy security, until renewables catches up with demand - Yes please.
ok so i have looked at the environmental regulations. but they seem pretty vague, and petrochemical companies have huge legal teams who specialise in squirming out of liability. im not convinced. can someone post a link to an example of a 'happy ending' story for environmental damage being rectified in the oil and gas industry please?
again i am interested not being purposefully awkward
BP Horizon?
1) BP paid out millions/billions, even before they were fined. And that's inspite fo the fact it wasn't actualy their equipment that blew up. Analogous to getting in a Taxi to a business meeting, the taxi crashing and you being liable for what it crashed into.
2) the gulf marine life is now thriving as the bacteria at the bototm of the food chain that eat the oil have attracted everythign else to the area.
scotroutes - Member
I presume the landowners are handsomely rewarded?
If I remember rightly, landowners and those that own the mineral rights are two separate things, generally I think minerals are considered property of the crown, unless post-dated by manorial rights or other purchase? Much in the same way you don't own the coal in a coal seam 200m beneath your house.
[quote=honeybadgerx ]
scotroutes - Member
I presume the landowners are handsomely rewarded?
If I remember rightly, landowners and those that own the mineral rights are two separate things, generally I think minerals are considered property of the crown, unless post-dated by manorial rights or other purchase? Much in the same way you don't own the coal in a coal seam 200m beneath your house.
But there must at least be some "compensation" for the use of your land [i]above ground[/i], for access rights etc?
Luckily, we're putting a stop to all that nonsense,
I know - look at the way that the NCB launched war on the Fitzwilliams under Manny Shillwell - gave orders to quarry right up to the back door of Wentworth Woodhouse to get back at the toffs
After the family finally got the house back, the taxpayer got handed a nice hundred million pound bill for subsidence repairs 😐
and causing subsidence to huge amount of houses. A hole appeared a few years ago a woman fell down it and died..thepurist - Member
Can someone explain to me why there's such a kerfuffle about (alleged) earthquake risk from underground explosions used in fracking, as compared to coal mining which has been blasting underground for decades?
BP paid out millions/billions, even before they were fined. And that's inspite fo the fact it wasn't actualy their equipment that blew up. Analogous to getting in a Taxi to a business meeting, the taxi crashing and you being liable for what it crashed into.
I'll defend the O&G industry on most things, but that's rubbish, BP were the operator and hence, the buck stops with them, end of.
BP paid out millions/billions, even before they were fined. And that's inspite fo the fact it wasn't actualy their equipment that blew up. Analogous to getting in a Taxi to a business meeting, the taxi crashing and you being liable for what it crashed into.
more analagous to hiring a car and then crashing it into a crowd of people shirley?
indeed, but id say they're the ones with the money and therefore contracts pass the risk onto them. Just as in the taxi analogy the driver stood to make £10 fare and the passenger a lot more.I'll defend the O&G industry on most things, but that's rubbish, BP were the operator and hence, the buck stops with them, end of.
errrr, isn't that we want, jobs and all that good stuff.
Apparently not - there's this Magic Money Tree, see, and....
bring it on I say! We need to carry on using power, being on the interweb, consuming goods, eating more and have expanding lifestyle choices. Anything that gets in the way is just tosh.
Want to stop fracking? Then we need a collective change in lifestyle and the way we use and generate power. I'm happy to wrong about this but are you?
Maybe the taxi analogy works better if you told him to drive really quickly and that is what caused the crash.
What no one seems to realise...is this: most of the operations being permitted at present are EXPLORATORY. We simply do not have most productive (in terms of shale gas) geology that other places do.
We may as well all get hot under the collar about onshore oil drilling in the UK..... Not many people know that exists now do they.
Fracking? Bring it on. Better we produce as much as possible of our own energy rather than be dependent on imports.
Unlike wind fracking is not being subsidised. If the drilling companies can't produce gas at an economic price then they will stop drilling.
Like it or not we need fossil fuels.
[img] 
[/img]
http://euanmearns.com/shale-gas-myths-and-reality-part-1/
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels ]Wind and renewable subsidies are lower than the tax breaks enjoyed by traditional fossil fuels[/url]...
and Gideon Osborne, who has multiple links to the industry, including his father in law, [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-reveals-50-tax-break-for-fracking-firms-8718711.html ]ensured the UK enjoys the most generous tax breaks in the world for fracking[/url]
Yep I'm gonna post this picture again:
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/musings/2013/20130725-behind_every_picture_lies_a_story.html ]and the background to it[/url]
Wowsers, taking just one of those nasty big bold arrows pointing at Call me Dave, who would have thought that someone who used to work at Centrica is now a government advisory on energy. I mean employing people who used to be employed in the industry to advise on it? Really? that's terrible, what could they possibly know about it? And whats more the company they used to work for (an energy distribution company) invested in an upstream company who supply them with energy! The scandal!
And Gideon and Hague get the biggest baddest nastiest bold arrows of all, links with Dave, this kind of thing needs to be in the public knowledge!
I appreciate it may SPARK debate , but CURRENTLY, I think you'll find Vince CABLE has GENERATED a bigger bolder arrow!!
Now, explain to me the role of a lobbyist...
Wind and renewable subsidies are lower than the tax breaks enjoyed by traditional fossil fuels...
False.
i appreciate the points about regulatory control being tighter in the uk
I'm sure that will reassure all the relatives of the victims of Piper Alpha...
And yes things were tightened up afterward, but we were claiming they were tight enough before as well....
SD-253 - Member
European Parliament? They are bunch of loons with nothing better to do.
I would argue, based on the legislation they have passed and current action against multinationals that they put the citizen before profit. They gave us the Working Time Directive (pro employee legislation), the European Charter of Human Rights (we have no fundamental rights under UK law), they are happy to take on Google / Microsoft over privacy / monopolistic behaviour. Whereas in the UK, we have politicians who see companies as their masters and the workers to be exploited. I'd vote for European legislation over domestic stuff any day.
So what does everyone think about clean drinking water and the abundant supply thereof?
Its brilliant, but not much to do with fracking, that oppinion is fairly valid as I work in petrochemicals and my brothers a hydrologist. Annoyingly I was looking foreward to an argument over it.So what does everyone think about clean drinking water and the abundant supply thereof?
Lord browne is involved, considering what happened at BP, then this is going to go to hell in a handcart.
who would have thought that someone who used to work at Centrica is now a government advisory on energy.
Advise for policy is one thing, dictate policy is something else. These people, the politicians, the CEO's the lobbyist's etc are all of the same ilk, the same club, all connected, like the chipping norton set. But they are the ones who will get richer, and you, the ones that are agreeing to this are the ones who will pay.
I would argue, based on the legislation they have passed and current action against multinationals that they put the citizen before profit. They gave us the Working Time Directive (pro employee legislation), the European Charter of Human Rights (we have no fundamental rights under UK law), they are happy to take on Google / Microsoft over privacy / monopolistic behaviour. Whereas in the UK, we have politicians who see companies as their masters and the workers to be exploited. I'd vote for European legislation over domestic stuff any day.
The EU is right and we in the UK still brainwashed by those at the top with promises of riches and "trickle down effect" are wrong.
It is better than nuclear, no worse than North Sea oil n gas IMO.
But it does divert the focus away from the real solution - using less energy and stuff.
The real fuss is because it is suddenly in middle England's back yard, and once again the gain of the rich is going to be at the expense of mr working class and the environment.
I haven't read the rest, but I hope someone has posted up the Norway vs UK approach to gas n oil reserves. Maggie,eh?
thisisnotaspoon - MemberWowsers, taking just one of those nasty big bold arrows pointing at Call me Dave, who would have thought that someone who used to work at Centrica is now a government advisory on energy. I mean employing people who used to be employed in the industry to advise on it? Really?
As much as I'm uneasy about the level of influence industry people have within government, one of the criticisms you hear over and over of the useless * Michael Gove is that he's never taught. (the other is that he's a useless *) And it does seem like sometimes it's the same people saying both...
But still, anyone who doesn't believe the current government and associates has suspicious links with some parts of business is very, very trusting. (see: Peter Davies)
Re fracking, I'm dubious about how well we're going to do it. But mostly, I'm seeing an extension of the carbon-based economy which we already know is going to **** us, even with just the amount of hydrocarbons we already have on hand. So releasing and burning even more just seems incredibly moronic.
I've just watched the 1944 Pressburger/Powell film [i]A Canterbury Tale[/i], for which the Kent Weald forms an almost-mythical backdrop.
How cheaply we sell this country's landscape. Shame on us.
Re fracking, I'm dubious about how well we're going to do it. But mostly, I'm seeing an extension of the carbon-based economy which we already know is going to **** us, even with just the amount of hydrocarbons we already have on hand. So releasing and burning even more just seems incredibly moronic.
makes you wonder why the YES campaign in Scotland is based on selling lots of oil and keeping the tax revenues 😉
im sorry thisisnotaspoon, i am trying to remain open minded but if you think deepwater horizon is an example of a 'happy ending' from the self regulated industry of petrochemical accidents then you are putting me firmly in the NO camp.
.....not that my opinion means much in this country of course
big_n_daft - Membermakes you wonder why the YES campaign in Scotland is based on selling lots of oil and keeping the tax revenues
Just being realistic- genie's out of the bottle, we're going to burn oil til it runs out, and then mourn the waste of it as a feedstock.
But it's much easier to avoid addiction than it is to kick it. We know we have a problem, but we're investing money and energy and intelligence into making it worse in ever more ingenious ways, and not doing enough to look at better options.
Which takes us nicely back to Scotland with her 40% of all power provided by renewables, more than any other production method 😉
This kind of activity is not a solution to the problems facing us.
It is only a further waste and while it can be argued it does little damage it does damage.
we should be using less energy not more. blah blah blah..
someone earlier asked a question about the danger of causing earthquakes, and why people are so concerned.
if i have this right, the concern is that while the tremors are tiny, and so dont have consequences for buildings etc, they do pose a risk to the cement casing of the rig. as a casing failure would allow the stuff we are pumping down and pulling up, from below the water table to leak out people are concerned that increasing earth tremors increase the risk of a pollution event
Definitely ugly but not necessarily bad. I wouldn't want to buy a house anywhere near a likely fracking area though.
Wouldn't bother me, any more than living near the oil pumping plant mentioned earlier. High tension power cables, on the other hand, not a fracking chance!
the European Charter of Human Rights (we have no fundamental rights under UK law)
Of course we do! What we don't have is a written Constitution.
We have the Magna Carta, which is enshrined in law, and is basically what the Charter of Human Rights is based on, with bells and whistles. We also have a Bill of Rights, from the 17th C, IIRC. That I'd have to look up, but Magna Carta is what pretty much all human rights legislation is based on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Reopen the pits and sort out clean coal power generation.
I am being lazy and haven't read the whole thread so apologies if my question has already been answered. I feel pretty ignorant about fracking. I have tried to read the gov documentation. Any other suggestions of reliable sources that give a decent attempt at a balanced view?
Links appreciated!