AIBU or is the risk of earthquakes from fracking just too high?

[IABURQO]

I've always felt slightly concerned, but just seen about the earthquake. Fair play that even tiny earthquakes are being picked up so this can be both monitored and controlled. Overall though, if just 11 days can lead to an earthquake then surely this proves that fracking just isn't safe in our densely populated country and shouldn't be allowed?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-45976219

The Richter Scale is logarithmic meaning a small 'earthquake' is really really really tiny.
Wikipedia explains it better than I can;

Because of the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude; in terms of energy, each whole number increase corresponds to an increase of about 31.6 times the amount of energy released, and each increase of 0.2 corresponds to approximately a doubling of the energy released.

It's not a simple as the magnitude either as the damage a quake can cause depends on how deep it happens, the rock it happens in and the type of quake. Having said that magnitude 4 is probably when you start to notice something. So there's a long way to go before one of these quakes causes damage.

I think a lot of the fear on fracking stems from some of the frankly cowboy practices in the USA but there is a vast amount of regulation in the UK, which also explains why these quakes are even noted. Water quality is carefully monitored as are quakes.

I'm against fossil fuels, and would rather see investment into renewables but as it's the open market I can also see that some companies will develop one fuel whilst others chose a different one. I accept that we haven't got to the point where we can be entirely green just yet. If it was nuclear I'd say hell no, as the damage that can do plus the multi-decade waste issues are too high. In comparison fracking is safe as houses.

About the point that a quake could damage a well that could then leak; that would make it a really crappy technique! The wells are, as I understand drilled to a couple of KM down, that is vastly expensive. If the very purpose for drilling the well rattled it from together the whole thing would be a waste of time. Wells casing is made of steel sections welded together embedded in clay to stop water moving up the outside of the casing. Again, there are scare stories from other countries because no-one stopped the idiots who thought they would give it a crack. Regulation and planning in the UK is incredibly strict. Obviously once we Brexit the gov will be free to water these regs down, then I might start to worry.

Don’t forget that it’s not just the magnitude of the earthquake, but the depth and the location/rock type that all play a factor in the risk. Shallow earthquakes are more problematic than deep ones and baring in mind earthquakes can be felt as deep as 700km these are very shallow. It’s all a worry- water contamination if the faults open up incorrectly there could be seepage of the chemicals into the water table. It’s also using a lot of energy to gain energy. It’s buzzard.

Coal mining causes way more (and bigger) earthquakes than fracking. And far more environmental damage. Why isn't everybody calling for that to be stopped? Indeed, Mr Corbyn has even said that he wants closed mines to be re-opened...

I support local democracy and I think Westminister - London - has too much power
The UK is one of the most highly centralised of the developed countries and the regions have suffered from this for decades, especially the North

If the elected council decide they want the jobs and money that would come into the area, that's fine by me.

However, if they decide they don't want the risk to the water table, the noise, the damage to property prices - and people are stuck with their existing mortgages - then they should be allowed the final say

I think the environmental lobby is scaremongering local communities by exploiting their ignorance.

As has already been stated, the regulations are extremely strict around this, but they appear happy to sow fear by screaming ‘earthquake’ for these truly microscopic tremors whilst hoping the public will interpret their alarm as a warning that a truly damaging earthquake of literally 1 million times the size is about to happen.

It’s like trying to sew panic about an imminent ‘asteroid strike’ by screaming every time they see a shooting star!

It’s also using a lot of energy to gain energy.

Because it takes no energy to create solar panels of wind farms

I’m totally in favour of developing cleaner energy and think we should invest much more into it, but the argument that fracking is bad because it is using fossil fuels and therefore should be prohibited immediately, makes as much sense as saying ‘cars are bad because they use fossil fuels and therefore should be prohibited immediately’.

The earthquakes aren't the problem... it's the frack fluid containing dozens of chemicals, including known carcinogens, that's being pumped in to the ground, potentially finding it's way to the water table, that people should be worried about.

@NotAllIndividuals - About the point that a quake could damage a well that could then leak; that would make it a really crappy technique!

When they fracked at Blackpool before, the earthquake, although small, DID damage the well. I think you're right, it is a crappy technique.

Fracking takes place deep underground in shale that is impermeable, that is rock that doesn't allow the flow of water or gas. That property is the reason the gas is there, if it could flow it would not have built up.
The wells are drilled then cases with pipes that are sealed in clay. There are different rocks on the way down but the casing and clay stop anything moving between the layers. The fracking liquid can only go into the shale where it is needed. Groundwater used for drinking and that feeds rivers and wetlands is shallow, at a couple of hundred meters deep maximum. There is no connection between it and the shale at a couple of kilometres deep.
There could be a risk of a tanker overturning taking the wastewater from site for processing, that's where the biggest risk is to groundwater.

There are loads of other really destructive practices so it's hard to compare apples and pears to say which is worse. Fracking is probably mid-way on the list, mostly because of the fact that it's developing fossil fuel at all, but the technique isn't inherently risky. The shit thing is we are so reliant on fossil fuels. We need a fit for purpose clean energy policy in this country, and to stop disregarding international standards for air quality.

flipit81 can you share a link to a report on that? I searched but couldn't find anything and I'm interested to read what happened.

@notallindividuals ,I don't think you can say it's not risky. The small earthquake at Preese hall did damage the well casing and cuadrilla and DECC took their time in dealing with it. Damage to well casing is significant.

Although the distance between the shale formation and the water table is big, the uk shale formation is different to that in the US. It is full of faults which under pressure could act as conduits. It's not directly comparable to the formations in the US.

I think you're right that storage/spillage is probably a high risk too. Disposal of the waste fluid is a particular concern as there is so much of it.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/13/fracking-cuadrilla-halts-operations-lancashire

glad to see the paid posters are out in force to defend fracking, good job guys the economy is tricky right now so well done getting some work

I could get paid for posting on Mumsnet? Well that's a job opportunity I hadn't considered !

Oh mis read that. I'd have to change my views then ..

@iaburqo You're welcome . I was pointed in the direction of those refine links a while ago, so I'm passing on the love... I'm going for the cautious wait and see too. I just don't think we have enough data to do otherwise at the moment.

@flippit81 and @notallindividuals I think preese hall was a different design to the current well in that it didn't have a horizontal section. However, the idea was the same, in that the section of the well in the shale had holes in to let the fracking fluid into the shale. This bit did get squished by a centimetre or so over 100 m by the magnitude 2.something in 2011, but it did not affect the several layers of steel casing and cement in the rock above the shale, which is the important bit in maintaining well integrity. There is an environment agency report on it, but I can't link as on my phone.

It's called Review of assessment procedures for shale
gas well casing installation (riveting....oh yes). The whole thing is a good read if you are an insomniac like that sort of thing. But the bit on the 'damage' is p27.

Where do I send my in invoice just another poster?

I'm a hydrogeologist and spent years planning and supervising the installation of water wells. I'm not a fracking expert but there is lots of similarity between water wells and fracking wells, hence when someone raises a point I'm genuinely interested to know more because I'm in to educating myself. Calling people paid shills or Nazis (that other internet favourite) is a pretty weak way to try and shut down a discussion.

Well, we could ban all fracking in the U.K. and just buy our gas from that nice Mr Putin. Oh wait...

I think for me re Preese Hall was the lack of response by Cuadrilla - initially they continued their activity after the well was damaged and didn't report it immediately. We are relying on strict control and regulations to maintain safety and initially they didn't adhere to this. It seems though a lesson has been learnt.

I think earthquakes are not the real concern re fracking, I think they are headline grabbers. The real concern for me is the number of wells that will be required for commercial fracking. This is the real risk.

Oh, and I'm just on my way into town to spend my earnings for my job of "having a different opinion to someone else on the internet". It's a growing industry...I'd recommend it.

Oh Babcock we only get about 3% of our gas from Russia

I listened to a geologist talking about earthquakes on radio 4.

The fact is, an earthquake is the release of energy that has built up in a fault line in the rock, often over many many years.

The point is, fracking cannot 'cause' an earthquake. It may perhaps bring forward the timing of an earthquake that was already going to happen, but it simply doesn't have the ability to cause one that wasn't already destined to happen.

She went on to say that it's not necessarily a bad thing to artificially release the built up energy from fault lines while it is still very minor rather than wait until it builds up to the point where it releases itself naturally and is likely far more dangerous.