FRACKING

Ok - so gas leaking in places where they expect it to would be burned off. What about the methane leaking through pre-exsiting faults along the length of the well - what will be done about this? Am odourless, colourless potent green house (and at high concentrations flammable) gas?

Also wouldn't fluids that have leaked move at a quicker rate if they were under pressure - say from a high pressure injection of fluid in the formation below them?

Also, who would require the company to close down the multi-million pound well to be closed? The company habving invested in it would not be quick to do so - as you say they would have invested millions.

Re the number of wells - you say - "lots" - what does that mean? To put it this way if each drilling pad is about the size of a football pitch and can have about 10 wells extending from that - how many football sized drilling pads do you think there would be at full production when the "astromical rewards" come into play?

Lots, the bowland shale is rather extensive. The rewards of course are astronomical.

As for leaky wells, yes it can happen, though it isn't the sort of thing a drilling company wants and could easily cause the multi-million dollar well to be plugged and abandoned.

"if fracturing fluids have been injected to a point outside of the well's capture zone, they will not be recovered through production pumping and, if mobile, may be available to migrate through an aquifer."

This caught my eye though, as migration of the sort they are describing here takes millenia not years. You'll find migration pathways that lead to natural leaks ( well documented and relatively common from before the days of drilling) tens of kilometres from the source.

Also an oil well leaking gas is very distinct from a gas well leaking gas, for obvious reasons. In the former case the gas might merely be burned off ( though there are limits on how much they can burn) until a solution is found, in the latter case you have a problem which has to be fixed or the site will be closed down.

Generally a leak such as those described would be fixed with a down hole pump, though somewhat dependant upon the economics of the well.

This explains leaky wells better than I can.
thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/09/Leaky-Fracked-Wells/
Food for thought really.

Spinflight - I do realise they drill down before they drill horizontally thank you very much. At the Balcombe site Cuadrilla drilled to a depth of approximately 800m and then drilled horizontally. At Preese hall, Lancashire it was approximately 3000m.

Well failures happen throughout the length of the well - so yes some of it is thousands of feet below the ground - but it also follows that it's joined to the bit at the top. Wells are drilled through sensitive formations such as aquifers and the fluid passes through the whole length of the well. If the well is damaged the seriousness of that depends upon whereabouts the damage is - near the top is a higher risk than at the deeper levels.

Shale fracking well production levels deplete at a faster rate than conventional wells. A shale well is not the same as a nodding donkey quietly pumping out oil for 20 years - as at Wytch Farm, Dorset for example.

Shale fracking requires lots of drilling pads across a given gas/oil producing basin. They need to be 2-5 miles apart in order to access the hydrocarbon trapped in the rock. So if Lancashire is to become a shale producing area how many well pads will be required in order to produce from the gas from the Bowland Shale?

Damage to the well integrity is ( usually ) several thousand feet beneath the surface and may lead to the well being plugged and abandoned, which is a realistic worst case scenario. Costly to drill another well but not that unusual and has also happened countless times. This is nothing new or exciting. With even the best prospects realising success rates of 20% there are millions of plugged and abandoned wells throughout the world.

As for horizontal drilling I believe you are taking the name somewhat too literally. As your article mentioned this is drilling vertically in a conventional manner and then horizontally, not as you appear to infer, drilling horizontally from ground level. (?!)

Again nothing terribly exciting, or for that matter uniquely different, from the way drilling has gone for well over 100 years.

Spinflight: this article here confirms that fracking has been going on since the 1940s. It also describes the difference between fracking porous rock and fracking shale.
www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opinion/global/the-facts-on-fracking.html?_r=0

It states that :
" Approximately one million American wells have been fracked since the 1940s. Most of these are vertical wells that tap into porous sandstone or limestone. Since the 1990s, however, gas companies have been able to harvest the gas still stuck in the original shale source. Fracking shale is accomplished by drilling horizontal wells that extend from their vertical well shafts along thin, horizontal shale layers.

This horizontal drilling has enabled engineers to inject millions of gallons of high-pressure water directly into layers of shale to create the fractures that release the gas. Chemicals added to the water dissolve minerals, kill bacteria that might plug up the well, and insert sand to prop open the fractures."

They are now fracking the source rock not the reservoir. It's very different. The horizontal drilling and the associated technology presents new risks which weren't there before.

With regards to your point about earthquakes so far have been minor but the signigicance is that they can, as at Preese hall where Cuadrilla fracked an existing geological fault, be strong enough to damage the well. This means that potentially the chemicals within the well (flowback fluid) can leach into the ground rather than stay in the well as intended. The problem with earthquakes is not so much the damage on the surface thats the problem, but the potential to damage the integrity of the well.

The risk of dismissing rational arguments as solely "green" scaremongering is that people stop looking at the actual details of what is actually being proposed. The devil is in the detail.

Flipflop,

It has been going on since the 50's worldwide, as I say on over 1 million occasions.

Generally at a depth of thousands of feet ( the source rock is likely to be immature otherwise ) though I'm sure there are examples of shallow fracks too. Some of the Bowland shale is shallow though I'm not sure what the target depth is in Cuadrilla's case as I have never been invested.

As for earthquakes, by the anti-fracking definition used of an earthquake I am assured that my snoring would be considered an extremely serious earthquake! At least 100 times more serious the missus tells me....

Oddly enough I knew a fair bit about fracking etc long before a chap in work, who is member of the Green party, turned up to work telling us all about the horrors. He had been to a meeting where someone gave a talk about this 'brand new evil'. Couldn't understand why I was laughing so much.

The only accidents that I'm aware of regarding fracking are when they deliberately use di-hydrogen oxide, which has been linked to hundreds of deaths every year in other uses. It is also used to cool nuclear power plants and the Fukashima nuclear disaster was a direct result of ingress of di-hydrogen oxide.

So whatever floats your boat, if you don't like it then I respect that. I wouldn't drown my sorrows if fracking were stopped, nor would I cry tears of joy if it proceeded.

It's all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned...

Isitmebut

"We NEED to trust parliament.."

Really?

This government is made up of a number of people who have vested interests in the oil industry so will gain personally from the development of the fracking. How can they protect the public interest objectively?

Other reasons why I don't trust the goverment with regard to this issue:

• It is is ignoring scientific research which highlight the risks of fracking

• It argues that people who oppose fracking are irrational luddites (who are afraid of digging holes for example - that message has made an impact on you isitmebut) - instead of addressing their concerns and responding

So no - I don't trust the government.

Spinflight:

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.

It has not been going on for years.

They use chemicals and pressure a peforation process similar to an explosion in high volume slickwater fracking.

I think you are misunderstanding the both the process and the risks.

Long term risks?

It's been going on since the 1950's. Oddly fracking only became an issue in this country a few years ago when Cuadrilla announced they had hit shale gas.

Over a million fracks since the 50's, it is afterall just a way of stimulating and otherwise tight well. The action takes place thousands of feet underground, so if you think of it as someone drilling through Mt Snowden horizontally and then blasting high pressure water out of the other end how much do you think you'd notice from your side?

There are far more invasive ways of stimulating a well, using steam, chemicals and even explosives. Again all with a long history behind them.

Nothing is completely safe though with fracking the risks are no different to operating heavy machinery at ground level.

Flipflop21…regarding your question “what do I know of the risks”, I’d answer from newspaper and magazine articles, I have never professed to being an expert – but I’m sure that if holes underground were successfully fought off by pressure groups, there would have not been a coal mine, or any oil exploration and we’d have had Fred Flinstone type powered cars – with few environmentally unfriendly motorways to drive on. lol

Seriously, my concern is the state of the State re energy, and although I should have figured that a Labour Party that used to march on every ‘Ban the (nuclear) Bomb’ would have been incompetent in building just one nuclear reactor in 13-years, never mind the double figures we need, we are where we are, under generating electricity, with over generated debts – that Fracking would help solve over time.

So as lame as this sounds, we NEED to trust parliament to make the right decisions on our behalf, which includes the safety issues in general, and put aside the fear that one day something MIGHT happen environmentally – stuff happened in coal mines, on oil rigs and oil tankers sunk – so if anything did happen, the government would have to be held to account.

Frankly I don’t know how many MP’s in parliament are up to it, most of them only seem to be able to shout ideological insults at PMQT, as speaking eloquently on anything is totally beyond them, BUT governments have to ‘know a man’ that has looked at the risks as far as they can do and get on with it – as they have in the U.S. for the past decade or so, where we can get additional information on longer term risks NOW.

Sinflight….Unfortunately since North Sea oil started coming ashore around 1976, the UK has never been in a position to start a Sovereign Wealth Fund like Norway and the governments in the Middle East – as they didn’t have our economic and social problems.

Don’t forget the 1970’s was probably our worst economic decade after the war, especially as around the time oil was piped, Labour had to call in the International Monetary Fund as we could not cover our outgoings and needed to borrow like some third world type nation.

Now I have no idea when Tony Benn suggested a SWF, but I do know he was around under the Labour government of 1978/9, when a decade of declining industrial output/problems culminated in the now famous UK “Winter of Discontent” – so quite when we had money to put by, rather than reduce debt, beats me.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

Unfortunately we currently have a Sovereign Wealth Hole, that until our annual Deficit is balanced, it will reach around £1,500,000,000,000 in 2015, so any Fracking help to reduce that, SHOULD mean from a responsible government LESS taxes to the masses to pay that bill for financial incompetence, down.

Until then, incentives for local communities to drill and 1% of the gas lifted proceeds, is currently about it.

"I can guarantee you that any profits will be siphoned off into the pockets of the rich and powerful, ordinary citizens will not benefit, we will just pay the price."

Shame there isn't someone willing to share the proceeds... Through the sort of Sovereign Wealth fund first promoted by Tony Benn maybe...

Isitmebut -I suppose my question to you then Isitmebut is if you are happy to have fracking in then energy mix, what is your understanding of the risks of fracking?

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,"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18611647

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.
networks.euskills.co.uk/news/uk-defeats-european-bid-fracking-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.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/1983467-UK-Energy-Policy-Price-scandal-outages-due

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.

Fracking will not keep our lights on over the next few years, but all energy pipelines need to be open now to give the UK options in energy availability, security and price, for the decades to come. IMO.

Hi itsmebut.
That article is actually very misleading and was published at the height of the protests at Balcombe I believe. There has been such a lot of misinformation and inaccurate journalism about fracking. The industry and the government is keen to persuade people to accept their word about the safety of the process.

This link here will take you to a copy of a letter from DECC, the Department of Energy and Climate Change -the body that permits fracking in the UK and it confirms that only one well has been high volume fracked. www.frackfreebalcombe.co.uk/page61.php

The difference is "high volume" fracking. At Nottinghamshire it is a conventional oil reservoir - ie like an enomous pool of oil underground that needed some stimulation to make it flow. Shale is oil or gas trapped in the rock. It requires much more "stimulation" and uses massive volumes of water,sand and hydrcholoric acid and other chemicals. It also results in a massive amount of waste. In addition the horizontal "arms" from the well head can extend 1000s of metres... I could go on.

If you are interested here's another link which explains it better than I can

Hi flipflop21….I apologise for not answering sooner, but it is hard getting links nowadays as so many sources are subscription only, but have a look at the following article and tell us what you think.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396378/50-year-old-fracking-site-makes-mockery-Balcombe-zealots-Its-nature-reserve--fracked-gas-oil-power-21-000-homes-day--complaints-locals.html

“Thanks in part to this original fracking process, allowing more oil and gas to be extracted, the oilfield is still yielding about 300 barrels of crude oil and one million cubic feet of natural gas daily.

The gas, piped under the reserve to a local power station, is now used to generate enough electricity to power 21,000 homes every day.”

Fracking for shale is very different to fracking that has gone on previously. Only ONE shale well has been fracked using high volume technology in the UK and that was at Preese Hall in Lancashire in 2011. Fracking for shale gas has absolutely not been going on for 50 years.

In my opinion the different regions should have their own say whether to frack, or not to frack, especially as the reserves are so huge, if we can recover around 10% of the shale gas etc, we could be self sufficient for 30-50-years.

The Uk’s energy policy, by both design and neglect, leaves us relying on Russia and Iran for Europe’s gas supply, an ever politically volatile Arab Gulf for our light crude oil, France for our nuclear electricity and the rest of the world for wind turbines – our supply crisis aside, the Uk has a crisis in energy SECURITY – neither of which more ideological regulation and taxes on ever dwindling supplies and suppliers, will solve.

In the U.S. fracking has been going on for nearly a decade, they will be energy sufficient and EXPORTING the stuff within a few years, the tax receipts have helped the government and the CHEAPER PRICES have made businesses more competitive/ more jobs AND the people’s bills cheaper.

In the UK, fracking has been going on for 50-years near a nature reserve in Beckingham Marshes, Nottinghamshire, apparently with no side affects and everyone around the site is ‘happy’ – so to my mind the benefits are huge IF, and I repeat IF, the process is safe.

The fact is, until we let companies try to lift the stuff, we don’t know if we have an option/problem of being energy self sufficient, or not.

It is totally shocking. Having seen the huge police presence at the protest site, protecting Cuadrilla's interests, having experienced how the EA have had to ignore local consultations, how planning permission was able to "slip through the net" - democracy is being quashed at so many levels.

This is a role within Government but also independent of it"
Ha ha ha ha
That sort of statement always makes me laugh.
By definition, there can literally be no such thing.

Actually that whole Lord Browne thing is shocking. Soooo shouldnt be allowed. Downright disgraceful.

Cuadrilla were looking for oil at Balcombe - but oil trapped in the rock. The fracking process is for oil and gas. There's money in oil - so not competition - Cuadrilla would make money out of either. I am not sure if they were hoping to find gas at a deeper level, their stated intent was oil exploration.

Yes re Balcombe.
Francis Maude gave him a job in the cabinet.
www.gov.uk/government/news/lord-browne-appointed-to-key-whitehall-role
" one of his first tasks will be to work with Secretaries of State to appoint Non-Executive Directors to the board of each government department."

I thought that they were trying to extract gas, which would be in competition with oil?

frazzled, you live at Balcombe?

And it was your MP that recruited Lord Browns? What exactly does recruited mean? Please excuse my ignorance.

Department of Energy and Climate Change. Three bodies monitor onshore oil and gas exploration DECC, the HSE and the Environmental Agency.

It is shocking - they are just doing what they like. Our local MP recruited Lord Browne as an advisor to the cabinet - he's the Director of Cuadrilla. That's just one of the connections of the government to the oil industry.