Fracking

[Againstfracking]

Lancashire voted NO to Fracking but it's been forced on us by the Government. We don't want it! What can we do?

Late breakfast. Really? I'd rather be next to a wind farm. They won't flare gas or store toxic flow back on site. They won't use hundreds of gallons of precious water, or be visited up to 30 times a day by lorries (some carrying chemicals or waste).
They won't cause earthquakes either.
Fracking won't reduce our energy prices. So the poorer will be no better off at all.

MissingMySleep.. keep reading.
The actual Frack takes less than half a second. Uses very little water and a bit of sand.

I don't know where you get carcinogens and house prices from, although according to the Daily Mail almost everything is carinogenic and is affecting house prices.

FYI there have been zero related cancers in the USA and in the areas where fracking is common, house prices have gone up.

What happens, In Colorado, for example. The house price declines a litte (1%) due to fear, then when employment picks up due to the benefits, prices rise, a little, due to demand. Not dramatically, but that's not what fracking is all about in the first place.

Yes really. I have lived near to turbines and they are noisy the whole time they are turning. I also believe (but can't prove) that the larger ones generate infrasound which has an unknown, but believed to be detrimental effect on human mental health. There's no way I'd ever want to live near them again.

I would hate to live next to a windfarm. The thought of all that subsidy money going to rich landowners would do my head in.
At least the Fracking companies are using and risking their own money.

Fracking may not reduce your energy bill, but wind has put 100 pounds a year on it.

Under, do you live in a proposed fracking area? If you are and you are happy with it, good for you. Other pesky locals may not be convinced. But they are Neanderthals whose views don't count.

Undercrackers
Tiny amounts?

"All of Cuadrilla’s water is sourced from a major utilities provider and is sourced from the mains. So far, our water has been provided by United Utilities in Lancashire.
Water is used in both the drilling and hydraulic fracturing phases.
During Cuadrilla’s operations at Preese Hall, 8,400 cubic metres of water were used for the fracture treatments. Drilling at each site uses around 900 cubic metres, some of which is recycled water. During exploration, most fracturing water is not recycled. However, during the production phase, it is more practical to recycle the water across our sites."
Cuadrilla web site

Hi Raindrips.
I do live in such an area. And I have my view, others have theirs. They are not Neanderthals, do no be silly and insulting.

but the op was talking about we.. as if there were no other opposing views. and there are.

Under
Fracking gets subsidies in the form of tax breaks... same thing different name. And Cuadrilla will be raking in the profits at tax payers expense.
As well as inflicting all that other stuff that you are now aware of .. on us..

Under.
And I am interested in your view. I'm still not sure how or why you remain so doggedly stuck to it in the face of such overwhelming evidence to disprove your beliefs... But I have been and still am curious. I'm going to watch your posts with continued interest :)

I'm with under crackers here. I don't think fracking is the best thing ever, but I don't think it's going to cause environmental Armageddon. I think we will continue to need gas for many years and I think it is best to extract it from our own rocks rather than pay someone else to extract it for us. I think gas companies and regulators are continually learning, which is good. Sometimes things may not go as expected - but that is the case in any industry and enough checks are in place to minimise any impacts should it go wrong.

But often I think us "cautiously favourable" don't state that. Particularly online where we are told (if we don't know very much) that we are ignorant, or (if we do) that we are paid. The "debate" has got very nasty, and for most it just isn't worth the effort of attracting the accusations.

Surely the best thing for anti frackers would be to let the first few sites go ahead. They will either show there is nothing worth having in the rocks, in which case it will all go away, or it will show it can be done safely (a good thing, surely) or it will show it cannot be done safely ( in which case the companies will have to stop under the terms of their licences, and you may have been proved right. Well done you).

Cue ire for me expressing an opinion.

Undercrackers you are indeed that,crackers to put it politely!! I LIVE HERE and trust me it was an earthquake it woke me from sleep and the whole house shook and I'm not even in Blackpool I'm in PR4!

We could let the first few sites go ahead. We could watch for the economic effects and see if the scares come to pass.

But what would be an agreeable number ? 10? 20?

how about a million , like they have in the USA.

Munchey, I have no doubt that you live there. I have no doubt that something shook you and woke you up. And I have no doubt that you are anti fracking.

One site caused 2 earthquakes and millions of gallons of flowback water to get rid of.
What if the next one does indeed cause a major spill or problem? You can't suck all that stuff out of the ground? We have no idea where it will end up? In our rivers? Groundwater?
Is it really worth gambling with our environment?
I personally don't think it's a risk worth taking. Not under any circumstances.

AgainstFracking, not sure if you are referring to the US or UK.
The USA did have/ does have, problems with disposal of drilling waters. A few unscrupulous drillers dumped it, often in old mine shafts.
That has never been a problem in the UK, where it is illegal and it is vigorously policed.

I agree, it is a shame that the debate has become so heated. I guess that everyone is telling everyone else what they think and no one is listening.

Everyone seems to have picked an opinion and they are going to stick with that opinion, regardless.

I don't have a view on windfarms, it is not something I have researched. I would have to do some research before I determined an opinion on them.

I am afraid I think that there will be fracking, there will be huge problems and we will learn from our mistakes - but to me that seems so sad, when we could and should take a precautionary approach.

I feel that we have an obligation to protect the people and the ecology of every area in this country, not just where we live.

I think that for the people who live in the area that fracking is about to start, they must be terrified, as I would be. If something goes wrong, there is actually no way to fix it. If the water table becomes contaminated, what happens then? No one will be happy saying "told you so".

If fracking is safe, then we should have the evidence before us, before any extraction takes place. Unfortunately we do not have that evidence. I see lots of reports from scientifically trained people saying it is bad, and then blurb from the companies in question saying it is good - and that is what I based my views on. I could be wrong. I hope so as they are planning to acidisation (similar but not fracking) near to my home, and over the aquifer that supplies my family with water. I am really worried about this as the company involved refuses to tell us what chemicals they want to use, and has confirmed they have no insurance to cover for any contamination costs. They also are the ones who provide the "independent" studies to confirm that their operation will be safe.

We have confirmed that the safety regulations to be applied to this application are the regulations for conventional drilling, so that is of no use to man nor beast. It cannot be assumed to be a suitable regulation so I have no comfort that gold standard ha ha ha regulations are in place.

And don't forget that both shale gas and renewables require significant public investment and subsidy, the difference is that investment in renewables is strategic – it will continue to benefit us for many years to come. Global subsidies for fossil fuels are 6 times more than that for renewables. That got stuck on your gas bill, or somewhere else, but no one told you.

It is all just so very depressing, and also I feel unnecessary. There are other options. I truly believe that this is being pushed through for profits, not for any other reason. It is not the only way to create energy for this country. It is not the most efficient, it is definitely not the safest. Obviously other people have different opinions to this, but surely if there is doubt, then the safest thing to do is more research?

UK obvs.
Two million gallons! Radioactive waste... they classed it as 'waste water' ... whatever it's classed as or called it sure as hell isn't nice.
Are you really happy to give these cowboys the opportunity to ruin our environment... Just so they can earn billions?

BBC
"Energy company Cuadrilla has withdrawn applications for permits to frack in Lancashire after issues with radioactive waste.
Fracking produces large volumes of water contaminated with low level naturally-occurring radiation.
The Environment Agency (EA) said it would not grant a radioactive substances permit until it was sure the water will be disposed of safely.
Cuadrilla said it was preparing new permits to meet revised guidelines.
Fracking - or hydraulic fracturingg* - is a technique in which water and chemicals are pumped into shale rock at high pressure to extract gas.
When Cuadrilla Resources fracked at Preese Hall, Weeton the agency found traces of naturally-occurring uranium and thorium.
It also found levels of radium 90 times higher than naturally occurs in drinking water.
Cuadrilla pulled out of Preese Hall in December last year after fracking at the site was linked to two earth tremorss*.
Previous regulations classed the waste water as industrial effluent and Cuadrilla was legally authorised to discharge two million gallons into the Manchester Ship Canal after being processed at the Davyhulme treatment works in Trafford."

AgainstFracking. Ref your comment that tax breaks are the same as subsidies. absolute nonsense.

A tax break allows you to keep more of your own money.

A subsidy is forcing other people to give you some of their money.

Given the speed of planning consent for the past few wells, I don't think a million is happening ;-)

As to the question of how many, my feeling is that it will probably depend on the sites that come forward and how the development proposed works within the area. As I understand, companies wouldn't be consented to drill a site that would cause unacceptable noise levels, or unacceptable traffic and so on...including effects that are taken in combination with other developments. It could be that the cumulative issues are what prevents shale gas being economic in the UK? Just as it is getting harder and harder to find "good" places for wind farms.

I'm not too sure at what stage companies decide there is enough evidence that they want to go "commercial" with the development and scale it up. But they will still need planning and environmental consent for every well, so every well needs to be OK.

Under - the fracking companies themselves have confirmed that they do not know where most of the waste water goes. It is not policed in the UK as we only fracked once in 2011.....where do you think it goes?

Missing I agree with you.
Maybe it's just that whole mummy sheep peepy becoming a sabre tooth tiger when she instinctively feels her family is threatened.
I've never felt so threatened in my 56 years as I do now :(

And at the same time the Tory government has given the solar panel companies a massive tax hike.

It's like the actively WANT to wreck as much of our small and already environmentally impoverished country as possible.

AgainstFracking. Anyone who has a celler, or a granite floor knows its radioactive.
even my watch is radioactive.
enough with the scare stories . please

Crackers it wasn't my scare story. And it wasn't a story. It's a fact.
It was the BBC. But also covered in telegraph, daily bile and others.
I don't make this stuff up.
We Obv just have different views on what's acceptable to do to our planet and our community and what constitutes as democracy.
I'm scared and threatened. I'm scared for my 7 grand children.
You aren't. That's your prerogative.

Apparently eight large tidal lagoons round the coast (and I am using the word "apparently" as I can't cite a specific paper) would be enough to power large sections of the country. The tide goes in and out twice a day, every day, we have the second highest tidal range in the world in the Bristol Channel. The kind of investment it would need is not as much as Hinckley C. However one of the problems with the Swansea lagoon is sourcing the rocks needed to build the breakwater. The local Cornish residents on the Lizard are against the quarry reopening which would supply the stone. But perhaps they'd prefer fracking or a nuclear power station nearby?

At some point, some long term, best fit energy decisions are going to have to be made, and compromises are going to have to be made. I don't think fracking can be part of this.