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?

OMG. what on earth is a 'climate change denier' ?

You know what, if you've never heard this term, I think we can all safely ignore your opinion on anything environmental

Allow me to just add facts UnderCracker.
The fracking industry hopes to have at least 1,000 sites, each with up to 10 wells. Each well will be fracked more than once. Fracking one well can take 7 million gallons of water. Up to 2% of the liquid in fracking chemicals, including acid and benzene. That's 140,000 gallons of toxic chemicals for each frack. About 70% of this liquid returns to the surface and needs safe disposal. The rest leaks away underground and cannot be tracked.
Anyone living near a frack pad can therefore expect 22 articulated tankers full of frack fluid for each frack of each of the 10 wells on each pad. If water needs to be brought in the tanker deliveries go into the thousands. They can expect 49 million gallons of toxic fluid being disposed of (where?). The operation will run 24/7.
At the end of the day the shale gas will be piped away, or where no pipe network exists it will also need to leave in a constant convoy of tankers. It will then be sold to the highest bidder on the international market, doing little to affect our energy security or lower prices.
The people who deal with the noise, pollution, contaminated water, earthquakes, blocked roads etc will be the local residents. The people who make the money will be the fracking company shareholders.

I can cite sources for all these facts. The precise figures will depend on local geology. If you want to carry on arguing for fracking please tell me which of the explanation above you disagree with.

Dear undercrackers I had looked forward to hearing the facts that informed your opinions, but you haven't offered any. Facts.

You just keep making things up (you know the government and many scientific and economic bodies have clarified that fracking will not bring down energy prices, that was a lie put about by the fracking companies).

If I wanted a bed time story I would choose Tom Hardy on iplayer.

There is no Plan B for our water, and fracking uses enormous quantities, much of which cannot ever be safely returned to the water supply. The use of all that water, plus the risk of contaminating the existing water supply makes this a no brainer for me.

Thanks but no thanks.

You say you have checked your facts, but you have offered none. What is it that you have checked?

Ahhh of course, it must be that new thing that I have heard about - alternative facts.

I'll front up here, I work in the Exploration and Production (E&P) business and have done now for over two decades. So to a degree I have a vested interest in these wells going ahead as it keeps me and my peer group in work. I also firmly believe that it is the most efficient, clean (yes, that's what I said) and effective way of ensuring our countries energy security for the foreseeable future.

The entire industry from a PR perspective is onto an immediate loser due to many historic events - and quite rightly so that there is a healthy amount of cynicism around the activities of large corporations.

Unfortunately media and activist groups have conveniently seized on the term 'fracking' and delighted in the various puns that can be made around it - and it's been very useful to certain groups in whipping up hysteria over what is pretty mundane gas extraction and to correct the OP, hydraulic fracturing has been used frequently in the UK historically and within the industry is almost so routine and unremarkable to not warrant any comment.

Yes, the initial drilling phase is fairly unsightly for a short period if I'm honest but no more impact than road improvements or a construction site might cause in an area for a while. I'd certainly much prefer to live close to a completed well site than wind turbines or a solar farm. Unless you were to go looking for it you probably wouldn't know it was there once commissioned.

The protection of aquifers and general safety for the general public is paramount, I don't have the space here to go into well casing design, down hole safety valves and and other safety features but as for pollution and radiation I would wager that farming and quarrying contribute far more in terms of chemical pollution and NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) than these gas developments ever will. There won't be scorched earth, birth defects, catastrophic earthquakes or the ruining of groundwater.

What I do fear and think is more than likely is the fallout from professional agitators that are simply "anti" whipping up the well intentioned public into a frenzy of unnecessary protest via the use of what is effectively fake news to justify their arguments. Rational, calm, evidence based points of view are just being shouted down.

The UK leads the world in the technology and standards for safe and environmentally friendly hydrocarbon extraction and we export that knowledge around the world improving the way in which things are done in what historically has been a very messy business, this is something that we could and should be proud of and making the most of when the opportunity arises to use it at home. Don't get caught up in the protestors hype.

Some of you might find this interesting.

Trampag. Appreciate your honesty declaring your interests.
The problem your industry has when compared to renewables is that it cannot guarantee there won't be toxic spills, that there won't be earthquakes, that the extra lorries won't cause crashes noise and spills, that the groundwater won't be affected... there are a lot of probables but no cast iron guarantees.

I think what a lot of us don't understand is why other countries have banned it but we've said yes. Why when Lancs said NO did we have it forced on us by the government?

The thing is - the industry is not anti renewables or interested in putting obstacles in the way of their development, quite the opposite in fact (see Lord Browne "the sun king" getting lampooned for this 10-15 years ago...) there is acceptance and in fact more than that, eagerness to head towards it, the reality however is that carbon consumption has to go on for a while yet, we have to keep the lights on.

If you want something for use as anology, allegory, metaphor or whatever - and this is something I've come up with at short notice, do you want to get your gas from Putin or other dubious regimes who can turn the taps on and off when they want, exploit their workers (properly... Dickensian style) and pick and choose their environmental standards, turn a blind eye to corruption and child labour or have it produced and extracted to some of the highest standards in the world?

Nimbyism wrapped up in virtue signalling is all very well but it starts to wear a little thin when you begin to dig deeper. The push towards renewables is great and I'm all for it, but what are we going to do in between times. I see all the emotive posts about the short term, local issues, whether right or wrong, like it or not , if you still want to keep the lights on for the next generation, we need gas, where do you want to get it from if you still want to (as far as possible) keep the moral high ground??

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

When it comes to the protection of the water supply, I am convinced the precautionary principle must be adopted.

The application being considered near me is for acidisation, not quite fracking - and the company refuse to advise what chemicals they want to use. If it was all so safe and well regulated, they would let us have that information, they would agree to public meetings, and so on.

As it is, they refuse to engage with the residents and refuse to provide the information we ask for. They will only agree to private meetings with one or two parish councillors, and to private meetings with the water company.

It does not instill confidence.

So how do you think a public meeting would run given the current emotional climate? Any spokesperson would not be given a chance.

Just playing devils advocate here but it would degenerate very quickly don't you think? Maybe best to let it go through the parish council at least at first?

For what it's worth, the concentrations of acids used in the jobs I've been involved with are used to weaken joints and are neutralised by the rock they are pumped in to.

...and you've not exactly taken my point on board about where we have to get OUR gas from now. I don't accept that buying your energy from a 'renewables' company is enough. It's impossible in the uk to audit your life and overall energy consumption to that degree. The moral standpoint should not be ignored on the wider stage.

Maybe be it's impossible to 100% audit your carbon footprint and the environmental damage you cause but many of us are trying? And if more of us change to green energy providers and renewables it will help.
There's also a lot to be gained from energy efficiency. Current thinking seems to be that in order to fill the gap by 2025, there needs to be a mix of energy saving and more money invested in all the new clean energy technologies. But I believe strongly that no industry that is going to use such wholesale environmentally unfriendly techniques as fracking should be invested in by the government or be allowed to be bullied into communities. It's wrong. We said NO.

For my peace of mind, could people posting here who are against environmental damage and in favour of renewable energy, please confirm that they do not fly abroad on holiday?
Thanks!

Don't be so fucking ridiculous and childish. Posts like that don't help anyone or anything.

"Oh you can't care about animal cruelty because you wear leather shoes"

"Oh you can't care about battery hens because you're not a vegan."

"Oh you can't care about pollution because you have a computer."

"Oh you can't care about anything to do with the environment because you don't live in a mud hut and grow your own food."

Grow the fuck up.

"wholesale environmentally unfriendly techniques as fracking "** Im sorry but you seem to be stuck on this standpoint which is essentially misinformed. The whole anti fracking movement seems to be based on the idea that this is untested, untried technology that might see us all suddenly find ourselves sliding into the Irish Sea with our hair on fire.

Energy security is key... not heeding that is going to result in the very real possibility of far more serious consequences than the slim possibility of the environmental issues postulated earlier in this thread. Anyone denying this and not living off grid is, to some degree a hypocrite.

On the UK gas supply vs import thing - have you seen this?
www.rse.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Options-for-Scotlands-Gas-Future-pdf.pdf
(sorry...cant do linky things)

It's for Scotland - but would apply elsewhere in the UK too. It makes exactly the point that if we import, we pass over the environmental and moral cost to the other country...which is hardly what we should be doing if we care about the environment?

At the moment we (in the UK) import over half our gas. About a quarter of that is from Qatar as LNG. Regardless of our thoughts about the workers rights in Qatar and so on - that can't be sensible from a greenhouse gas perspective? (liquefying the gas and, shipping it halfway round the world has to be more energy intensive than extracting right near our existing gas pipelines. In my opinion, it makes more sense environmentally to use shale gas we produce to replace some of that imported LNG. Same goes for gas imported from Europe, of which almost certainly some comes from Russia - along goodness knows how many miles of (I'm sure totally non-leaky) pipes.

If we're after facts -www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577712/DUKES_2016_FINAL.pdf

is a looooong report on our current energy use and how it is changing over time. Electricity, as produced by solar, wind, tidal power (and also at the moment about a third gas) is only a small part of our overall energy use. Heat and transport is at the moment much more fossil intensive. Moves are being made slowly to change that - but it will take time and money. Yes energy efficiency is part of the answer - but not all. And a lot of the things important in improving energy efficiency (making vehicles lighter so they use less power, for example) are made possible by (you're guessed it) chemicals companies using raw materials made from gas.

Balls

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577712/DUKES_2016_FINAL.pdf

Also on the "We Said No" thing - appealing planning applications is totally standard. Sometimes the inspector agrees with the Council decision, and sometimes they don't. In the case of Cuadrilla's applications, the inspector's report to the Secretary of State agreed on refusal of Roseacre, but disagreed on Preston New Road (and the refused seismic array application).

This is not democracy being trampled on - it is ensuring planning committees make their decisions based on sound planning grounds, to be fair to the applicant and the local community. If there wasn't any come-back for refusal, any locally unpopular development would be refused purely on the grounds of numbers of people shouting loudly at the planning committee - rather than having regard to the development plan which is what applications have to be decided on.

An appeal being recovered by the secretary of state (or a planning application being called in directly) is rarer, but by no means unheard of. There's a list of recovered appeals here...you have to scroll down a fair way to find the Cuadrilla one.

www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-applications-called-in-decisions-and-recovered-appeals

Are every single one of them examples of local democracy being trampled on?

re the public meeting, they won't meet with the parish council, just two nominated parties

and acidisation is, I am told by the press and also the oil companies own press releases, new, so the anecdote about the acids used in jobs you have worked on is completely irrelevant

can one of you pro fracking people explain to me why the precautionary principle should be abandoned?

please don't say it has been done for decades again, that is boring and untrue. Even the oil companies are advising us that this is new, exciting (!) and unconventional oil extraction

Why don't mumsnet have a 'like' facility. Some of the posts are so funny.

drillordrop.com/2017/02/15/why-not-look-for-shale-gas-under-london/

I wonder how southern mummies will view London being fracked. Wonder if they'll accept the 'it'll be fine don't worry' message. Or will they start getting savvy and informed about the possible effects. It says in this article that the thought of a protectors camp in central London is ludicrous. I wonder why he thinks that.

Missing my Sleep. one million wells in the USA and over 50 years of fracking here in the UK tell me that the precautionary principle has been addressed.

My final contribution is this, and I'm only trying to provide food for thought and steer this towards practical considerations away from diametrically opposing viewpoints from which people seem to be unwilling to shift.

Much of the fear and antipathy relates to the consequences of equipment failure if the developments were to go ahead. We are all to a degree surrounded by this type of infrastructure already and have been for well over a century in the uk and yet how often do you hear of high pressure gas line failures from the flow lines that have criss crossed Birmingham, the Black Country and Greater Manchester since the days of the Victorian industrialists? No doubt many of you walk past, drive over or live and work next to all of this each day unaware or without a second thought. I repeat, the uk leads the world in standards of development, safety and construction standards in this area.

How often has there been a catastrophic failure of a well or wellhead in the uk offshore industry? How much has deep coal mining, open cast quarrying, artesian water extraction itself or landfill contributed to aquifers no longer being viable? All of these things are perhaps undesirable but have been necessary, broadly speaking for us to exist. Again, I put it to you all that gas extraction is likely to be considerably safer, cleaner and more beneficial to all of us than most of these things - it is in everyone's interests for it to be so.

...ok, and one more thing, how many have you have had idyllic holidays in and around the beautiful countryside and coast near Poole Harbour in Dorset? Are any of you aware that it's there? 50,000 bpd is a SERIOUS oil field, yet they've quietly gone about their business for many years (and... shock horror, it's "down south" and has partly exploited a shale formation), I give you Wytch Farm: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

Oh for goodness sake

Fracking as is planned for the UK has happened once in this country. In 2011. This is an undisputed fact. Comparing the drilling that's been done previously to what they want to do now, is like comparing a fart to a hurricane.

As you work in the industry, you know this, so you're clearly on this conversation to misinform, rather to engage in any meaningful dialogue.

I was genuinely interested in hearing why people might be pro fracking but you and undercrackers keep repeating things that are untrue, so I'm starting to think the only reason you're pro fracking is your pay packet.

Trampas
But why do we need to continue doing stuff like everything you mention? There is the possibility that we could stop. If enough was invested. Instead of this mad dash for gas with all the attending environmental consequences. Why can't we run for the sun etc...
Just because we are already doing really stupid things to our planet doesn't mean we have to carry on doing them. Does it?