Would you mind fracking under your home?(33 Posts)
Because if you do you might want to write a letter to your MP (or take a trip to Barton Moss).
"Ministers admit they are looking at overhauling trespass laws to make it easier for energy companies to explore for shale gas"
"Under current law, companies need permission from all the landowners beneath whose land they drill. Case law shows they would otherwise be committing trespass. If a landowner refused permission, the company would have to take them to court, which would decide whether to award drilling rights and how much compensation should be paid."
In order to allow companies to drill horizontal laterals of up to 2 miles long from a single fracking well head the government is seeking to change the law. So if you are within a potential shale producing area then this maybe of interest to you.
Only one well has been fracked using high volume slick water fracking in the UK - see www.frackfreebalcombe.co.uk/page61.php - That was in 2011 at Preese Hall in Lancashire, It caused an earthquake which resulted in minor damage to property.
The map from the Department of Energy and Climate Change here shows the blue areas which are potential shale development areas:
Gas may or may not get cheaper (probably not) but your home certainly will.
Talkinpeace - that's s different kind of fracking this is a quote from the Wytch Farm (In Dorset) website:
"It is a conventional oilfield extracting oil (with some associated gas) from sandstone and limestone oil reservoirs. There is no known shale gas or coalbed methane in Perenco's licence blocks in Dorset (shown in orange) nor are there any plans to seek any such opportunities."
it is a conventional well not an unconventional shale well.
and then there's this letter from DECC explaining the difference.
Isitme - of course the government says its safe - Lord Browne - is the Chairman of the fracking company Cuadrilla, Baroness Hogg, Lord Howell, Lynton Crosby ...there's a long list - they all have interests in the oil industry. It is also seen as a panacea for the economy and the energy gap, so a short sighted view is being taken. When you read the parliamentary papers (as opposed to the news papers) you see how the government's approach to dealing with the public is not - "let's address the questions that the public are asking" they read more like a guide to "how to win friends and influence people". They are more concerned with presenting the spin required to win the public over rather than examining the emerging scientific evidence and listening to peoples' genuine concerns.
Rules seem to be
1. Say it's been going on for years (when actually it hasn't)
2. Overstate the number of jobs it will bring.
3. Say it will reduce energy prices (even though this has been proved unlikely by many experts)
4. Say it will prevent the energy crisis (even though it will take years and years and thousands of wells will have to be fracked before a significant amount of gas will be produced)
5. Polarise the debate by presenting anyone as anti-fracking as an irrational luddite.
6. Offer bribes to communities (which will probably actually take the form of funds to develop infrastructure to enable massive tankers to fit down country lanes)
BelaLugosisShed -there is an increasing body of scientific evidence which is highlighting the risks of fracking. The Public Health England report states that there is more research to be done into the potential harm fracking can do in the long term - it is still very much unknown and there are people withing the scientific community who accept this. If your friend is a scientist then he or she will be familiar with the "precautionary principle" - it is simply not being implemented rigorously with regard to fracking.
That bloodywoman - phew! Please do write - ask questions and then ask more questions.
is injecting water and sand into strata to open them up and allow the extraction of hydrocarbons ....
bear in mind that in the USA, whoever owns the surface owns everything under it and everything over it
in Europe, everything under it is owned by the state
until European land ownership rules are brought up to date
- germany will keep burning lignite rather than green nuclear
- the rest of us will keep importing gas from Putin
talkinpeace - fracking at Wytch Farm is different. At Wytch Farm they inject fluids into a sandstone reservoir, this serves to maintain pressure and force the oil into the production well. There is some "thermal fracturing" which is induced due to the temperature differential between the injected fluid and the rocks. The fluid is injected over many years
When fracking shale high volumes of fluid are pumped in at high pressure to crack the rock in order to release the hydrocarbon. This process takes a matter of hours not years and is repeated along the length of the well using 1000s of litres of water.
It is a different process due to the permeability of the rock. It has only taken place in one location in the UK - Preese Hall, Lancashire.
We can import gas from Norway and soon we will be able to import from the states too.
then why is Germany using high carbon Lignite rather than zero carbon nuclear at higher levels than it has in 30 years ?
and the USA is not exporting gas, its exporting coal : they are using the gas
Norway has no more than it ever had
why should the UK insist on being reliant on others when it has the chance of self sufficiency (as greens promote in things like food) ?
I doubt anyone who claims they are in support of fracking will quite happily move into a house under which fracking is taking place. No one will ignore it on the lists of pros and cons of a property, thus it will devalue houses in the areas. If fracking is all good as people are trying to claim, then why is everything being done in such a cloak and dagger way? We have discovered our village lies on the edge of an area that has already been licensed for oil and gas activities-but the residents in this area were completely oblivious to this before it was brought up by a concerned resident via a FB site. If there are no issues with fracking and nothing to worry about then surely the whole procedure from licensing onwards would be carried out in the public eye. The energy crisis needs to be addressed by primarily reducing energy consumption countrywide, and then funding more development into alternative energy sources that don't have the potential for devastating consequences on our environment. In answer to the OP question-yes I would mind.
I find your post interesting.
The energy crisis needs to be addressed by primarily reducing energy consumption countrywide,
How do you propose we achieve this? A 20% cut in energy consumption over a decade, for business and home users?
and then funding more development into alternative energy sources that don't have the potential for devastating consequences on our environment.
Which options are you thinking of that are so much better for the environment?
Join the discussion
Please login first.