Mums Agains Fracking

(68 Posts)
SalisburyMummy Wed 06-Nov-13 21:49:34

So many people are unaware of the dangers, and the simple things they can do, like switching to a green energy supplier, Writing to your MPs & MEPs.

I am starting teddy bear picnic demonstrations in Salisbury town centre every Wednesday lunchtime, with nursery rhyme singing etc. to get out there and talk to people. Other info on my fb page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/249553771863223/

Im hoping other mums in other towns will follow suit.

It makes me so sad when I think about what could happen to our beautiful country. We need to act now before it is too late.

flatpackhamster Thu 07-Nov-13 06:39:57

Fracking happens 5 miles underground. What's prettier - a tiny drilling site or 400 wind turbines covering a hillside? Not to mention all the electric pylons to move the power for the turbines.

MrsPnut Thu 07-Nov-13 06:45:29

Fracking has been going on for years in this country, and we are still here.

BeckAndCall Thu 07-Nov-13 07:25:40

One might suggest that you look at the role of fracking in providing energy in the USA - and how it is reducing the reliance on truly dirty oil based energy - a comparison between the two extraction methods leaves me in no doubt that fracking has to have a serious place in our future energy mix.

And personally, the whole "mums against' approach I find patronising. 'Physics graduates' or 'energy economists' against fracking would get my attention. Mums on a teddy bears picnic, no.

aGnotherGnu Thu 07-Nov-13 07:37:00

Mums Against Fracking grin
Really, if you want anybody to think you are actually informed about this issue, you need a new name.

And since Fracking a) actually produces a decent energy return and b) is cleaner than fossil fuels, I think it has a role

NoComet Thu 07-Nov-13 07:55:19

"And personally, the whole "mums against' approach I find patronising. 'Physics graduates' or 'energy economists' against fracking would get my attention. Mums on a teddy bears picnic, no"

This times a thousand

I was a science graduate long before I was a 'mum' and getting PG hasn't addled my brain that much, I hope.

CarpeVinum Thu 07-Nov-13 08:06:37

And personally, the whole "mums against' approach I find patronising. 'Physics graduates' or 'energy economists' against fracking would get my attention. Mums on a teddy bears picnic, no

Thirded.

Minnieisthedevilmouse Thu 07-Nov-13 08:25:22

Fourth!

Makes you sound thick and 'herbal' when I take it by your interest you are likely neither. Wouldn't get me joining. Had it been just against fracking but had the added help of a picnic so dds were entertained while I asked questions if have been more keen. Put this way is rather off putting.....

Sorry. Don't mean to insult just point out....

Minnieisthedevilmouse Thu 07-Nov-13 08:25:53

I'd not if (damn phone)

Bobolbach Thu 07-Nov-13 08:36:26

Do you actually know anything about the drilling process? Or just read bits in the paper and don't want it going on near you? Are you against other drilling? North sea? Wytch Farm? Or just fracking? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on those.

flipflop21 Thu 07-Nov-13 22:19:42

Mum's can be against fracking. You don't need to be a scientist to have an opinion about it or be informed about it. And, if you understand fracking properly you would not cheerfully say how fine it is to have a single "tiny" drilling site as this is not how fracking works. Neither would you look to the price of gas and say well it happened there, the same will happen here. SalisburyMummy - go for it. The media has been very successful at creating the idea that people who are against fracking are luddites, eco-nutters or ill-informed ignorant people. There are actually rational and have valid reasons to oppose fracking.

flipflop21 Thu 07-Nov-13 22:20:32

price of gas in the US ....sorry

MinesAPintOfTea Thu 07-Nov-13 22:22:25

Flipflop "mums against" anything makes me go hmm Uniting around locations or beliefs, yes, but not about whether we ate mothers.

flipflop21 Thu 07-Nov-13 22:29:49

MinesAPint I understand that, but it might help some people to engage in a debate which they would otherwise not relate to at all.

Onesleeptillwembley Thu 07-Nov-13 22:40:58

A teddy bears picnic may be appropriate against, say, a nursery closure but it seems pretty damn puerile if you are against this. And agreed - 'mums against' is almost as bad. If you're trying to make an adult point, be an adult. Or better still, carry on - your point is ill thought out anyway.

flipflop21 Thu 07-Nov-13 22:51:11

Have to disagree with you there - get the message out however you want to because people need to fully understand fracking and the risks it poses.

MinesAPintOfTea Thu 07-Nov-13 22:56:07

So what risks does it pose? Up for adult discussion of the issues here

flipflop21 Thu 07-Nov-13 23:01:44

Firstly - ruining the countryside. To access the shale layer there would have to be drill pads every 2 miles or so. Each of these would need servicing with 1000s of tankers and lorries transporting rigs and chemicals and water.

MinesAPintOfTea Thu 07-Nov-13 23:05:54

The countryside in England is an industrial space already. It is nothing like it would be without mankind interfering with it.

flipflop21 Thu 07-Nov-13 23:17:23

Permission is being granted within areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and it's not just the countryside -it's close to people's homes too. And it's not just England it's the whole of the UK. I am not sure that you can honestly say that all areas in the UK are industrial space - that's not actually true (yet).

Secondly - water usage to carry out all fracturing operations on a six well pad takes between 54-174million litres of water, which is equivalent to about 22-69 Olympic size swimming pools of water. If the UK
were to produce 9bcm of shale gas each year for 20 years this would equate to an average annual water demand of 1300-5600million litres. Much of this water is lost - as it stays in the ground. The water that flows back is highly contaminated and needs to be stored and treated as industrial waste. In the southeast water shortages are frequent.

A point aside is that the demand for water will go up - so therefore so will its price. Who will pay for that?

utreas Thu 07-Nov-13 23:51:09

People moan about utility prices and then try to stop the one thing that could make a substantive difference to the wholesale price of gas and thus utility prices.

flatpackhamster Fri 08-Nov-13 06:41:22

flipflop21

Firstly - ruining the countryside. To access the shale layer there would have to be drill pads every 2 miles or so. Each of these would need servicing with 1000s of tankers and lorries transporting rigs and chemicals and water.

Is that likely to be more or less damaging than windmills every 250 yards, with massive concrete bases and pylons?

Permission is being granted within areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and it's not just the countryside -it's close to people's homes too. And it's not just England it's the whole of the UK. I am not sure that you can honestly say that all areas in the UK are industrial space - that's not actually true (yet).

There's plenty of open space to frack in.

^Secondly - water usage to carry out all fracturing operations on a six well pad takes between 54-174million litres of water, which is equivalent to about 22-69 Olympic size swimming pools of water. If the UK
were to produce 9bcm of shale gas each year for 20 years this would equate to an average annual water demand of 1300-5600million litres. Much of this water is lost - as it stays in the ground.^

It's not 'lost' at all.

The water that flows back is highly contaminated and needs to be stored and treated as industrial waste.

It is then treated and turned in to pure water again. So no water is 'lost'.

In the southeast water shortages are frequent.

Water shortages are a result solely of a failure by the water companies to build infrastructure and repair pipes. No reservoirs have been built in the SE in 40 years despite the population increasing by 30%. Something like half of the water treated by the water companies leaks out from the pipes. If the infrastructure was maintained there would be no shortage.

letsgomaths Fri 08-Nov-13 06:52:15

People moan about utility prices and then try to stop the one thing that could make a substantive difference to the wholesale price of gas and thus utility prices.

^
This.

flipflop21 Fri 08-Nov-13 09:36:30

Flatpack: "Is that likely to be more or less damaging than windmills every 250 yards with massive concrete bases and pylons?"

Firstly flatpack - each drill pad the size of a football pitch with roads large enough to service tankers and trucks, flares, 24 hour drilling, light pollution - having one of these in operation every 2 miles is hugely detrimental to the environment. Not to mention the potential damage being caused under the ground.

Secondly in relation to this point - you are assuming that the only alternative to fracking is turbines and pylons. What about alternative suppliers of gas: we get a considerable amount via the undersea gas interconnectors from the Norway and the Netherlands. The remaining imports are of liquid petroleum gas by tanker from the Middle East.
The US is now producing very large quantities of shale gas and is building gas liquefying plant and new gas ports on its eastern seaboard and plans to export it. China, another large country, is also planning to extract shale gas but is at present trying to overcome water supply difficulties. The US would of course be a very secure source of supply.

"There is plenty of open space to frack in" - well then why are they proposing it in AONB, within metres of residential homes and schools? Why are bore holes being drilled on the edge of villages and towns? The open spaces they are proposing are not remote. We do not have the open plains like they do in the States. In terms of surface area how many UKs can you fit into Texas alone? The oil and gas fields across there are massive - it is not feasible here.

"The water is not lost at all"

Up to 50% remains in the formations - I am surprised you are unaware of this fact - you are usually extremely well informed. This water IS lost.

Secondly water treatment facilities are ill equipped to deal with the waste water due to the nature of the chemicals the returned fluid contains. The EA (one of the regulatory bodies of onshore exploration in the UK) only recognised the need for mining waste permits after pressure from local community groups. The waste water needs in some cases to be treated for naturally occurring radioactive materials. Also, the acid used in the fracking process dissolves the minerals in the rocks under the ground - hence the returned fluid contains heavy metals and is highly saline. In New York it has been found that the water is not "pure" after treatment.

Furthermore the sludge left after treatment is highly concentrated in these chemicals - disposal of this is unregulated.

Currently the levels of water being used are not critical as only one well in the UK has been hydraulically fracked in this way. However should shale gas exploration move into production the volumes of waste water would be enormous. Although there are currently new technologies being developed to reduce water use or re-using fracking fluid it is not standard practice and adds cost to the oil companies.

Regarding your point re water companies - I would be happy for them to repair the pipes and leakages. Especially if the are going to be selling off gallons of water to oil companies - we need to conserve water not waste it.

letsgomaths - An average of several analysts views of the projected yield from the Lancashire shale gas field is that after 10 years of operation and the drilling of some 3000 wells the gas produced will be approximately one tenth of this country’s annual demand i.e 8 billion cubic metres per annum(bcm/a) compared with the annual demand of 80 bcm/a.This is insufficient to influence European gas prices or to provide any significant additional energy supply security.
Is it worth it?

flipflop21 Fri 08-Nov-13 09:41:19

Flatpack - meant to say that if the water infrastructure is not there, and there is no plan for where the additional water required for fracking will come from then wouldn't it be better to wait until the water infrastructure was there rather than plough ahead regardless?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now