Advanced search

Would you mind fracking under your home?

(33 Posts)
flipflop21 Mon 27-Jan-14 22:11:58

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 - 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.

flatpackhamster Mon 03-Feb-14 15:13:18


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?

Freckletoes Fri 31-Jan-14 22:40:28

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.

TalkinPeace Fri 31-Jan-14 22:18:34

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) ?

flipflop21 Fri 31-Jan-14 22:12:49

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.

TalkinPeace Fri 31-Jan-14 21:30:19

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

flipflop21 Fri 31-Jan-14 21:26:20

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.

flipflop21 Fri 31-Jan-14 21:22:07

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.

TalkinPeace Fri 31-Jan-14 19:02:06

TalkinPeace Fri 31-Jan-14 18:58:23

Most of Bournemouth and Poole have had fracking under them for many years with no ill effects :
in fact they did not notice till last year the area covered by the fracking pipes and therefore that it ran under their houses and gardens and nature reserves

ThatBloodyWoman Fri 31-Jan-14 17:36:04

I certainly do not want fracking in my backyard or anyone else's.

yes,I feel a letter to my mp coming on.

Isitmebut Fri 31-Jan-14 17:33:49

SirChenjin…’profits’ I suspect do not float many boats here, but people should be concerned that they DO build power stations, explore for badly needed underground gas AND build homes.

So frankly I am VERY concerned that Mr Miliband, who went to Oxford and achieved a degree in P.P.E (the ‘E’ being Economics) and then went to the prestigious London School of Economic to get a Masters degree, then appears to have less knowledge of market forces than someone leaving a bolt standard Comprehensive, with an ‘ology in Business Studies.

When such a bright man leaves office responsible for the UK going bust and having severely mauled private pensions - and his party has such an abysmal record on energy and homebuilding, but desperately needs the Private Sector to rectify it – why on earth would such an economics guru like Ed, think that he can both attack the energy and house building sector into providing investment, (with the additional threat of State controlled profits), to correct Labour’s past mistakes?

Truly the man is in the economic world of the fairies, despite such an elitist education.

SirChenjin Fri 31-Jan-14 16:08:20

Yes, of course I still believe there's fairy dust. Absolutely. Without a shadow of a doubt. (I'm being facetious, in case you're in any doubt)

I'll leave you to rant to a completely disinterested audience - I'm afraid I nodded off round about 'profit making' but I'm sure that it's deeply fascinating, if that's what floats your boat.

Isitmebut Fri 31-Jan-14 15:51:13

S.C...What, you still believe that there is “fairy dust” under your home?

Back to ‘profit making companies’ and their shareholders, after Mr Miliband who as the last Labour Energy Minister KNEW how important it was for the UK to secure the private funding on energy generation companies to pay for our £150 bil nuclear power programme, STILL recently told THEM he wanted to control their prices, he wiped several £billion off of their share prices.

I would therefore suggest that those shareholders, including the public via their pension funds, are already acutely aware that there is little profit, or point, in investing in UK energy generation – with future P.M. Miliband running around the UK in 2015, issuing anti business/profit government dictates, with all the energy of the Duracell Bunny.

With no private sector energy investment in the UK, pension funds should be switching into company stocks that make candles and produce portable liquid gas, imported from Russia or Iran, as the countries with probably the largest known gas reserves in the world, but prone to turning the taps off to make a political point.

SirChenjin Fri 31-Jan-14 14:54:18

Actually - scrub profit making from my sentence. The rest remains.

Isitmebut Fri 31-Jan-14 14:14:43

SirChenjin...Who do you want to do it, a fairly land non profit organization that don't exist, or your near bankrupt government heading for £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) of National Debt - that in 2008 insisted for frofit organisations funded us - and now HAS to rely on the investment from the Private Sector and other dodgy governments i.e. France and China, to keep our lights on?

SirChenjin Fri 31-Jan-14 13:56:16

No, I don't want any drilling from a profit making energy company going on under my house, whether it's for shale gas or fairy dust.

bemybebe Fri 31-Jan-14 13:55:08

I have no problem

BelaLugosisShed Fri 31-Jan-14 13:53:52

I would have absolutely no problem with fracking in my area, it has far less enviromental impact than say, open cast mining, although I don't have a major problem with that either, I can see a former open cast site fom my upstairs window, it's now a beautiful country park with thriving wildlife and wetlands.
Something going on 10000 feet below my house using guar gum ( which is in a lot of food) doesn't worry me at all. I have a friend who is a very senior petrochemical engineer, I trust his knowledge more than the scaremongering papers etc.

Isitmebut Fri 31-Jan-14 13:14:06

Flipflop2…the UK government(s) and therefore ‘we the people’, in terms of energy affecting our daily lives, have run out of time. We can sit here worrying about “acid washing”, or drilling so deep we increase immigration, as thousands of slim Chinese people crawl up through the holes – we have a national energy emergency, government FINALLY has to make decisions TO DO SOMETHING about it.

The government believed a few years ago "The UK regulatory system is up to the job for the present very small scale exploration activities, but there would need to be strengthening of the regulators if the government decides to proceed with more shale gas extraction, particularly at the production stage,"

The UK government has only just ensured that ‘the mother’ of useless regulation, the EU, doesn’t cause more delays and puts off the private investment VITAL to answering the basic questions on the viability of shale gas etc in the UK – we need to answer those questions with existing regulations.

The UK will have third-world type (aptly named) ‘Brownouts’ at the first severe winter from now onwards, as predicted by Ofgem back in 2012.

As explained in the link below, Labour ministers dithered for 10-years authorising a new generation of nuclear power plants, when half of our ageing reactors were due to be decommissioned within several years - partly because they felt that the resistance to the 11 new reactors(that he realised may not have been enough) would be intense, both from environmental groups and local communities – and partly because they were incompetent in getting the private sector to contractually pay for a new type of reactor that have yet to be completed here, or anywhere else.

*In conclusion, unlike the likes of HS2 where we can debate ourselves silly IF the new money being spent on existing lines t’north will be sufficient to help rebalance the North-South economic divide – the UK has already left it too late to decide what energy will be ‘nice’, clean, or without minor risks, whether the country could afford it on not.

Governments inaction due to incompetence and/or electoral reasons has to end, and like everything else from 2010, tough decisions have to be made for ALL of the people, rather than just the environmentalists and local communities affected – as they will moan just as loud as the rest of the country, when their power goes out. IMO*.

flipflop21 Fri 31-Jan-14 09:25:07

They've changed the law anyway now...

"Homeowners will no longer be individually notified of plans to drill under their homes, as part of changes that Lords suggest received inadequate public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny"

flipflop21 Wed 29-Jan-14 16:59:24

Exploratory drilling and flow testing included fracking and other processes such acid washing. So, no. Get the regulation and the regulatory bodies in place . How can the industry develop safely without these things? If the government is so confident in the financial gains of the industry it should invest in this properly. I think the Royal Society report on shale gas and oil actually says this too.

Isitmebut Wed 29-Jan-14 16:20:24

Agreed, so lets find out if its all worth the bother, before we form a Godzilla sized Quango on 2-years six-figure contracts, to monitor major drilling that may not go ahead by, Cuadrilla.

I'm sure there were those that said drilling holes in the North Sea would be like making a giant plug hole for it to drain away, or no oil tankers should exist in case they sink and spill their oil into the sea - this is hardly a wild west frontier here.

flipflop21 Wed 29-Jan-14 15:57:16

Because the regulation is not yet in place.

The only regulations that exist are those that apply to offshore oil exploration and arguably they are not fit for purpose. There is no one set of rules or one single body responsible for monitoring and enforcing onshore oil and gas extraction. Also there are cut backs being made to the EA so how can they enforce regulation if onshore drilling expands rapidly.

Surely if Cuadrilla were concerned about getting lynched they would have tried harder to provide clear and accurate geological information? Surely they have a professional responsibility to do so?

The regulation that is in place assumes best practice by oil companies and effective self monitoring. The document I linked suggests that Cuadrilla are not committed to best practice and therefore they have lost public confidence. That is alongside fracking a damaged well in 2011 and not adhering to planning restrictions. The agencies responsible for monitoring did not pick up on these discrepancies, it has been down to the local people to do so.

It's quite simply not good enough.

Isitmebut Wed 29-Jan-14 14:50:40

Maybe Cuadrilla were more concerned about getting lynched trying to put in an exploratory well there, or anywhere else.

Seriously though, as that Paul Stevens article in the New York Times link explains, like the rest of the country, there was too much regulation in place, in an expensive quantity over quality basis – and that will change, we will have better safeguards in place than the U.S.

Exploratory wells are very unlikely to cause any UK earthquakes, when even in proven fault line Ohio, with over 100 quakes, they caused little damage.

I reiterate my earlier point, why not let them get ALL the exploratory wells out of the way to see if they are at least (individually) viable, before going into a mass defensive mode - as if companies have no interest drilling in certain areas, it will save a lot of anxious effort to find problems, before they even break ground to see if it’s worth their effort.

flipflop21 Wed 29-Jan-14 14:14:24

sorry that should read "from the environment agency".

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