Footage of the OB dealing with a 79yo woman who made cups of tea on the anti-fracking frontline at a site about nine miles from my house. Exploration of that site has stopped for the foreseeable.
Footage of the OB dealing with a 79yo woman who made cups of tea on the anti-fracking frontline at a site about nine miles from my house. Exploration of that site has stopped for the foreseeable.
Rowley [Lee Rowley, Tory MP for North East Derbyshire], a former oil and gas analyst, told the Guardian proliferation was a genuine fear: “The only way fracking can impact energy and security or jobs and growth is if you do it at scale, at thousands of places around the country, industrialising the landscape … I just don’t think fracking is going to work in the UK.”
The government’s official estimate is that there will be 155 fracking wells by 2025 – a figure the energy minister, Claire Perry, accepts is “out of date” but refuses to revise.
“If the objective is for shale gas to provide a major contribution to the UK’s energy, both the pro-fracking and anti-fracking lobby agree that somewhere north of [i.e more than] 6,000 wells would be required and the likelihood is it is probably far north of that,” said Rowley.
Rowley [Lee Rowley, Tory MP for North East Derbyshire], a former oil and gas analyst, told the Guardian proliferation was a genuine fear: “The only way fracking can impact energy and security or jobs and growth is if you do it at scale, at thousands of places around the country, industrialising the landscape … I just don’t think fracking is going to work in the UK.”
The government’s official estimate is that there will be 155 fracking wells by 2025 – a figure the energy minister, Claire Perry, accepts is “out of date” but refuses to revise.
“If the objective is for shale gas to provide a major contribution to the UK’s energy, both the pro-fracking and anti-fracking lobby agree that somewhere north of [i.e more than] 6,000 wells would be required and the likelihood is it is probably far north of that,” said Rowley.
Sounds a lot ... however I believe there are almost 1.5 million in the US. New York State alone has over 25,000.
Rowley [Lee Rowley, Tory MP for North East Derbyshire], a former oil and gas analyst, told the Guardian proliferation was a genuine fear: “The only way fracking can impact energy and security or jobs and growth is if you do it at scale, at thousands of places around the country, industrialising the landscape … I just don’t think fracking is going to work in the UK.”
The government’s official estimate is that there will be 155 fracking wells by 2025 – a figure the energy minister, Claire Perry, accepts is “out of date” but refuses to revise.
“If the objective is for shale gas to provide a major contribution to the UK’s energy, both the pro-fracking and anti-fracking lobby agree that somewhere north of [i.e more than] 6,000 wells would be required and the likelihood is it is probably far north of that,” said Rowley.
Sounds a lot ... however I believe there are almost 1.5 million in the US. New York State alone has over 25,000.
Yes, well they don't care about trashing their countryside, do they? That's how they built the USA.
But even so, New York state has a land area larger than England, with a population of 19 million, including NY City. There are relatively large areas of thinly populated countryside, which is untrue of England. When you discount the counties that aren't relevant to fracking, you are talking perhaps of (for example) 250 wells in London, 250 in Kent, 200 in Surrey, 150 in East Sussex and 200 in West Sussex. That is in order to justify fracking in England in terms of job creation or energy security, according to this guy, a former analyst in the industry.
The real significance of what he is saying is that these are the residual justifications for fracking. Ten years ago, we were being told that it would provide us all with cheap energy - no-one makes that case in its favour any more. Then they said it would be green, but that doesn't hold up either; it's better than coal, maybe, but it's still fossil fuel, and the pollution from thousands of sites would be very dirty indeed. As for earthquakes...
Then they said it would create jobs and energy security - see above. So what's the next argument?
Rowley [Lee Rowley, Tory MP for North East Derbyshire], a former oil and gas analyst, told the Guardian proliferation was a genuine fear: “The only way fracking can impact energy and security or jobs and growth is if you do it at scale, at thousands of places around the country, industrialising the landscape … I just don’t think fracking is going to work in the UK.”
The government’s official estimate is that there will be 155 fracking wells by 2025 – a figure the energy minister, Claire Perry, accepts is “out of date” but refuses to revise.
“If the objective is for shale gas to provide a major contribution to the UK’s energy, both the pro-fracking and anti-fracking lobby agree that somewhere north of [i.e more than] 6,000 wells would be required and the likelihood is it is probably far north of that,” said Rowley.
Sounds a lot ... however I believe there are almost 1.5 million in the US. New York State alone has over 25,000.
Yes, well they don't care about trashing their countryside, do they? That's how they built the USA.
But even so, New York state has a land area larger than England, with a population of 19 million, including NY City. There are relatively large areas of thinly populated countryside, which is untrue of England. When you discount the counties that aren't relevant to fracking, you are talking perhaps of (for example) 250 wells in London, 250 in Kent, 200 in Surrey, 150 in East Sussex and 200 in West Sussex. That is in order to justify fracking in England in terms of job creation or energy security, according to this guy, a former analyst in the industry.
The real significance of what he is saying is that these are the residual justifications for fracking. Ten years ago, we were being told that it would provide us all with cheap energy - no-one makes that case in its favour any more. Then they said it would be green, but that doesn't hold up either; it's better than coal, maybe, but it's still fossil fuel, and the pollution from thousands of sites would be very dirty indeed. As for earthquakes...
Then they said it would create jobs and energy security - see above. So what's the next argument?
I have no argument, I was merely comparing to the US. As I said earlier on the thread, I have no idea whether this is good or not.
coal mining went on for hundreds of years .. I don't think there have been many, reported earthquakes or cave-ins as a result .. there have of course been landslides (Aberfan disaster for example) and serious diseases as a consequence of historical lack of health and safety in the coal mining industry .. I can understand the apprehension on the part of people who live in the areas where fracking is happening. However, as stated above, the potential benefits to the UK energy sector could be massive
And that's why this world will be much, much better off when we're gone.
I understand the environmental and geopolitical advantages of having a domestic supply of shale gas to tide us over the period while we develop more renewable energy and the technology to use it to more fully replace petrochemical fuels.
BUT we live on a small and geologically complex island where even the most rural areas are densely populated when compared with great swathes of North America.
Some of our most sparsely populated regions are in our national parks - places like the Lake District, and the Peak District. The last I read was that fracking sites would not be set up in them, but could drill sideways for many miles under them from sites outside the boundaries to frack the underlying rocks. Maybe that sounds OK until you remember they are the aquifers from which much of the country draws its drinking water - and contamination of ground water has been one of the reported "complications" of fracking experienced in the USA.
Although it is currently the effect receiving the most publicity, I suspect earthquakes are the least of the problems fracking will bring in its wake.
I understand the environmental and geopolitical advantages of having a domestic supply of shale gas to tide us over the period while we develop more renewable energy and the technology to use it to more fully replace petrochemical fuels.
BUT we live on a small and geologically complex island where even the most rural areas are densely populated when compared with great swathes of North America.
Some of our most sparsely populated regions are in our national parks - places like the Lake District, and the Peak District. The last I read was that fracking sites would not be set up in them, but could drill sideways for many miles under them from sites outside the boundaries to frack the underlying rocks. Maybe that sounds OK until you remember they are the aquifers from which much of the country draws its drinking water - and contamination of ground water has been one of the reported "complications" of fracking experienced in the USA.
Although it is currently the effect receiving the most publicity, I suspect earthquakes are the least of the problems fracking will bring in its wake.
I understand the environmental and geopolitical advantages of having a domestic supply of shale gas to tide us over the period while we develop more renewable energy and the technology to use it to more fully replace petrochemical fuels.
BUT we live on a small and geologically complex island where even the most rural areas are densely populated when compared with great swathes of North America.
Some of our most sparsely populated regions are in our national parks - places like the Lake District, and the Peak District. The last I read was that fracking sites would not be set up in them, but could drill sideways for many miles under them from sites outside the boundaries to frack the underlying rocks. Maybe that sounds OK until you remember they are the aquifers from which much of the country draws its drinking water - and contamination of ground water has been one of the reported "complications" of fracking experienced in the USA.
Although it is currently the effect receiving the most publicity, I suspect earthquakes are the least of the problems fracking will bring in its wake.
I wanted to comment on this post as it has got two technical matters bang on IMHO.
(For the last 5 years I have done insurance policy wordings for major O&G companies so I am pretty genned up on the issues)
Earthquake risk is a bit of a red herring IMHO. Whilst there is good data linking fracturing to consequential seismic activity, it is not to anything of the magnitude that we would normally consider to be an EQ.
By far the biggest danger is pollution and specifically of aquifers as @N01R4M states. It's been a while since we have been drilling at shallow depths in the more developed economies. Far more risk of attiritional loss incidents (pollution as a consequence) with a well out of control when you are horizontal rather than vertical drilling. Of course the risk at 500m plus is greater but it tends to be low frequency high severity events. This is the problem with well out of control at ultra deep sea depths as we have all seen with the most famous loss, Macondo.
There are a wealth of much less risky solutions out there (both attic and Antarctic have a load of very attractive prospects which is almost guaranteed to find). However it's the cost. When oil plunged from 110 p.b to 30 odd dollars all the expensive yet "environmentally" friendly plans were shelved . Of course it still can be disastrous for those remote regions but society doesn't care as much. Horrible fact but a fact nonetheless.
Fracturing is no bad thing. I don't see oil and gas being usurped as our major energy sources by renewables anytime soon. The "geyser" (punalert!) Mr Drake who set up that first nodding donkey in Pennsylvania no doubt had to convince the locals in a similar way. We have to accept risk is a necessary part of a resource dependent society. The lesser the potential risk to the environment the greater the Exploration and Prodxuxtion costs are for the operators of the wells. Unfortunately E&P is a bastion of capitalism so that's unlikely to lead to a holistic and environmentally conscious industry.
If customers are prepared to pay more for their energy because it is responsibly sources then you have market pressure. Until then we are reliant on the food nature of the industry and the politicians that depend on their support. I wouldn't hold your breath.
Shale gas fracturing will go ahead in this country at some speed is my conclusion.
I have come to the conclusion that gas extraction by 'fracking' is both too contentious and too unpredictable at this time. Potential permanent damage to the environment is too probable for it to be dismissed as someone else's problem.
The gas will still be there in years to come. It's best left where it is until or rather if it is ever needed in extremis. We live in uncertain times (when was it ever not thus). In future if we as a country are unable to import or pay for vitally needed gas, then there might come a time to 'frack' for survival (sorry if that sounds too melodramatic)
The present position is that 'renewables' as expensive as they are, are more and more on stream. New technologies will possibly come online, we are able to import gas and other renewables (e.g. wood chips) with no problem. Nuclear power stations are being built, but there again, nuclear power generation is just not trusted by many experts.
I have asked myself the question 'would I want a fracking site just down the road from my house ?' .. the answer is no. Therefore fracking should not be imposed on those unwilling to put up with it at this time
The Oklahoma earthquakes are a result of wastewater reinjection, aren't they? That is to say, they have as a by-product of shale gas fracking, huge amounts of highly toxic wastewater and they're too far from the sea to dispose of it economically (not forgetting, with regard to fracking in Britain, the issue of cleanly and ethically), so they "recycle" it by using it for oil drilling. That then causes serious quakes in a place that previously had virtually none.
Comments
The government’s official estimate is that there will be 155 fracking wells by 2025 – a figure the energy minister, Claire Perry, accepts is “out of date” but refuses to revise.
“If the objective is for shale gas to provide a major contribution to the UK’s energy, both the pro-fracking and anti-fracking lobby agree that somewhere north of [i.e more than] 6,000 wells would be required and the likelihood is it is probably far north of that,” said Rowley.
But even so, New York state has a land area larger than England, with a population of 19 million, including NY City. There are relatively large areas of thinly populated countryside, which is untrue of England. When you discount the counties that aren't relevant to fracking, you are talking perhaps of (for example) 250 wells in London, 250 in Kent, 200 in Surrey, 150 in East Sussex and 200 in West Sussex. That is in order to justify fracking in England in terms of job creation or energy security, according to this guy, a former analyst in the industry.
The real significance of what he is saying is that these are the residual justifications for fracking. Ten years ago, we were being told that it would provide us all with cheap energy - no-one makes that case in its favour any more. Then they said it would be green, but that doesn't hold up either; it's better than coal, maybe, but it's still fossil fuel, and the pollution from thousands of sites would be very dirty indeed. As for earthquakes...
Then they said it would create jobs and energy security - see above. So what's the next argument?
(For the last 5 years I have done insurance policy wordings for major O&G companies so I am pretty genned up on the issues)
Earthquake risk is a bit of a red herring IMHO. Whilst there is good data linking fracturing to consequential seismic activity, it is not to anything of the magnitude that we would normally consider to be an EQ.
By far the biggest danger is pollution and specifically of aquifers as @N01R4M states. It's been a while since we have been drilling at shallow depths in the more developed economies. Far more risk of attiritional loss incidents (pollution as a consequence) with a well out of control when you are horizontal rather than vertical drilling. Of course the risk at 500m plus is greater but it tends to be low frequency high severity events. This is the problem with well out of control at ultra deep sea depths as we have all seen with the most famous loss, Macondo.
There are a wealth of much less risky solutions out there (both attic and Antarctic have a load of very attractive prospects which is almost guaranteed to find). However it's the cost. When oil plunged from 110 p.b to 30 odd dollars all the expensive yet "environmentally" friendly plans were shelved . Of course it still can be disastrous for those remote regions but society doesn't care as much. Horrible fact but a fact nonetheless.
Fracturing is no bad thing. I don't see oil and gas being usurped as our major energy sources by renewables anytime soon. The "geyser" (punalert!) Mr Drake who set up that first nodding donkey in Pennsylvania no doubt had to convince the locals in a similar way. We have to accept risk is a necessary part of a resource dependent society. The lesser the potential risk to the environment the greater the Exploration and Prodxuxtion costs are for the operators of the wells. Unfortunately E&P is a bastion of capitalism so that's unlikely to lead to a holistic and environmentally conscious industry.
If customers are prepared to pay more for their energy because it is responsibly sources then you have market pressure. Until then we are reliant on the food nature of the industry and the politicians that depend on their support. I wouldn't hold your breath.
Shale gas fracturing will go ahead in this country at some speed is my conclusion.
The gas will still be there in years to come. It's best left where it is until or rather if it is ever needed in extremis. We live in uncertain times (when was it ever not thus). In future if we as a country are unable to import or pay for vitally needed gas, then there might come a time to 'frack' for survival (sorry if that sounds too melodramatic)
The present position is that 'renewables' as expensive as they are, are more and more on stream. New technologies will possibly come online, we are able to import gas and other renewables (e.g. wood chips) with no problem. Nuclear power stations are being built, but there again, nuclear power generation is just not trusted by many experts.
I have asked myself the question 'would I want a fracking site just down the road from my house ?' .. the answer is no. Therefore fracking should not be imposed on those unwilling to put up with it at this time
https://fullfact.org/news/fracking-causing-earthquakes/
(And to be clear, I am opposed to fracking wherever it is proposed to conduct it in the UK, not just my back yard.)
Oh, fracking ....