AIBU to think nobody here can support Unconventional Gas extraction (fracking, UCG, CBM etc)?

[deeedeee]

Mumsnet has surprised me before though...

So surely none here can think that the Government removing homeowner's rights to object to fracking under their property, and it's support for the unconventional gas industry in general, is a good and justified thing?

But of course it's a good thing! It allows much money to be made....

I understood that we only own the land our house is on 6ft down. I presume they wouldn't be that close?

I think it depends on the deeds.

Well, it could drastically reduce our energy dependency, bring down the cost of fuel (and hence living) for the entire nation and provide a huge boost to the economy. OTOH no-one really knows what the long-term environmental consequences are yet.

But doing the knee-jerk NIMBY thing is a bit unreasonable.

They're not removing any rights. You don't own that far down.

Scotland already produces more than enough energy via renewable means. We need to be moving away from carbon based energy sources.

Fracking etc has been going on in the US for a while, and there have been plenty of issues.

It also uses vast quantities water which cannot be decontaminated, my understanding is much of England already suffers from drought at times?

For landward exploration a licence is required, which grants exclusive rights to exploit for and develop oil and gas onshore within Great Britain. The rights granted by landward licences do not include any rights of access, and the licensees must also obtain any consent under current legislation, including planning permissions.
www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/planning/legislation/mineralOwnership.html

So they are removing the right of landowners to determine access under their property.

YANBU.

Fortunately I think our geology here in the uk is not particularly great for fracking. There's a lot of speculative selling of licences but I think there's a good chance it it not going to be economically viable to frack much. The (mostly American iirc) companies can frack off back to where they came from.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0002/amend/su002-VI-c.htm

In the USA, shale gas has helped cut gas prices, however it doesn’t follow that it could do the same here. For some years now economists and key commentators have been warning that for a variety of reasons, the UK, and indeed Europe, won’t see a repeat of the USA experience in this respect.

Leading economist Lord Stern has described the claim that shale gas will cut energy bills as “baseless economics”, and even Lord Brown – chair of fracking firm Cuadrilla – has admitted that it won’t have a “material impact” on household bills. Deutsche Bank lists a number of factors, including population density, uncertainties about recoverable resource, higher extraction costs and differences in mineral-rights that mean anyone expecting to see a USA-style shale gas revolution in Europe will be disappointed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30013668

It's spin

Yes the long term environmental consequences. Surely that sentence should ring alarm bells rather than provide comfort. There are No long term studies on the effect of tracking and other UG extraction techniques on public health. There is no way to determining it's safe. THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT"S SAFE TO HUMAN HEALTH. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

and it's not nimbyism to object to contaminated drinking water and air pollution. You'd prefer to risk the water you drink and the air you breathe and the health of the community you live in for a fiction of cheaper electricity bills?

I don't know enough about it to be on one side or the other. I can see that the envionmental consequences could be dire without proper regulation and constraints. But I also think it is early days and we are clever enough to get around seemingly unsurmountable problems if the rewards are big enough.

And a bit of me can't helping thinking if we could be independent of the Middle East and Russia for our energy needs and that they had a smaller portion of the global cake that generally would not be such a bad thing.

And what if the North of England became rich as a result? Even as a Southern softie, I can see that would be a glorious thing.

Do tell me the environmental stuff though..cos I do need to know.

It will not make us energy sufficient, it's not going to make the North rich, surely there are some northerners that will object to that insult. you are falling for the hype! It would be a short term gain for the private companies www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30013668

You fully admit you don't know much about it, so please investigate. and please tell me how it can be safe to leave water contaminated with toxic chemicals in the ground FOREVER only protected from entering ground water by concrete? Is concrete a magic impermeable substance that can withstand time, seismic activity, moisture, heat (it gets hot underground) and a myriad of other unknowable conditions deep underground. How can that ever be safe ?

there are three main points here

It will not make us energy sufficient, it's not going to make the North rich, surely there are some northerners that will object to that insult. you are falling for the hype! It would be a short term gain for the private companies www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30013668

You fully admit you don't know much about it, so please investigate. and please tell me how it can be safe to leave water contaminated with toxic chemicals in the ground FOREVER only protected from entering ground water by concrete? Is concrete a magic impermeable substance that can withstand time, seismic activity, moisture, heat (it gets hot underground) and a myriad of other unknowable conditions deep underground. How can that ever be safe ?

there are three main points here

I was on the fence but am now firmly in support of it after learning more about it. The whole 'they'll be drilling under your house' is a total red herring.

The water companies are possibly already extracting water from under your house, and the water table sits an awful lot higher than the seams where potential gas is.

And the technology that is used to extract the gas has already been proven safe for a very long time, so I have no concerns there either.

The scare mongering is totally baseless, usually by people who have very little knowledge about the methods beyond skimming some NIMBY websites.

there are three main points here that need knowing

1- The process is too inherently risky, the probability of accidental releases of contaminants into ground water and the atmosphere are too high

2 - There are NO STUDIES at all to prove that it is safe. The industry should be able to prove it is safe, not the public to prove that it is risky. and there is NO EVIDENCE ATALL it is safe

3 - climate change!!!!! we should not be extracting more fossil fuels full stop. It's lunacy!

please watch this for industry expert turned anti fracking campaigner discussing the problems.

Deedee, have a look at geology and see where the shale gas seams sit relative to the water table.
And have a think about what materials are currently used to bring oil and gas up from the ground... If these pipes were about to fail and start leaking their contents into the aquifers, they would already do that when gas and oil are pumped up from non-shale sources. And they don't. It is utterly ridiculous and groundless scaremongering.

The technology has been used in a different context and in different ways for years, the way it is used now is completely different! Please watch the video I linked to to see how wrong you are spare change, and realise that Dr Anthony Ingraffae is an expert, not a NIMBY scare site. psehealthyenergy.org/users/view/14193 This is his website full of peer reviewed science and research. You are totally wrong. Please research more

spare change, please watch that video, it answers your points. And then please provide independent peer reviewed evidence that this is a safe process.

psehealthyenergy.org/site/show_list/id/15 here are many scientific peer reviewed studies that show evidence of contamination to drinking water.

You are wrong. You really are.

Ok, to answer your points:

1. How are you calculating that risk? And what is it relative to? Coal mining? Deep sea extraction? Nuclear? Wind? And what have you calculated the probability to be?

Or do you mean 'possible likelihood' instead of probability?

1. Do you know what else there NO STUDIES to prove it is safe? Drinking orange juice. There isn't a single one that can prove to the public that drinking orange juice isn't without risk.
2. That is a very well-meaning end point, but not really related to the main point, unless you think that power shortages will somehow focus the collective brains of scientists to find that elusive new energy source we all need, because they aren't working efficiently enough in their heated buildings.

Oh bless you. Did you even read those links before you posted them?

The 'proof' of contaminated water is a study of 113 sites, where 8 were found to have levels of noble gases which were < 0.01 higher than other sites.
Do you actually understand what that means?

I don't know enough about it but in principle I am for it.

I

well mumsnet always comes up with the goods! bloody hell sparechange, you've really swallowed the hype hook line and sinker haven't you.

You seem to be trying to patronise and confuse with semantics rather than provide any evidence at all for your position. Please feel free to back up your position with evidence.

I'm on the fence.
Every form of energy comes with costs & govt subsidies & harm. Every single one has hazards & problems.

Do you want to continue your energy greedy lifestyle? If so, then you have to pay the price, somehow. Political & social will is completely lacking to avoid Fracking (& nuclear & oil & a host of other forms of energy I don't much like).

If you've been out this week and every other week in last 20 yrs massively campaigning for investments in lower-environmental-impact energy sources AND you live your life in every way possible to reduce-reuse-recycle etc., then maybe you've got the right to massively protest against fracking.

Rather few people in that last camp, so the rest of loud protesters are pretty obviously just NIMBYs.

I've got three points against it:

1. I am not sure if fracking causes any damage but until it is proved there is no risk I do not want it.
2. I feel strongly that if anything is taken from my land, (by that I mean the area of land I own and I feel that extends all the way down to the centre of the earth and as high as the stars) I should get paid for the gas or whatever is extracted.
3. The English political parties promised Scotland increased rights and control in the event of a no-vote in September. All they have given so far is a fracking licence for most of central Scotland (including my house). Not exactly what they promised (but as someone said; politicians and nappies should both be changed regularly - both for the same reason)

sparechange I very much doubt people would want traditional coal/gas/oil extraction near them either...