Frakking

[kenny]

So at least the first two statements seem not to be total rubbish.

As arguments against fracking they are rubbish.

The chemicals involved make up less than 0.5%, comprising common household chemicals we already flush away, by the billions of gallons probably.



Not to mention the depth of the injected fluids is several thousand feet below any surface aquifers, together with the constant drizzle and replenishment of surface water to be expected in the proposed drilling sites any of the, already trace chemicals, that somehow find their way to the surface with be massively diluted to the point where they would probably be undetectable.

Earthquakes. Come on. Any minor tremors will be no worse than that caused by coal mining, can't remember too many issues with that over the last few hundred years of mining in Britain.

Also seems to be working well for the last 30 years in the north sea, no mass extermination of marine life, no rigs sunk by killer earthquakes and tsunamis.

Frack on

[robin]

Here's another list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ad ... fracturing

So which is correct? One list is certainly less friendly looking than the other.

Not all the water that is pumped down, stays down. What happens to the rest ... the stuff that comes back up?

What happens when they make a mistake? Is it failsafe? If not, what is the worst case ... let's say they accidentally pump a few hundred thousand litres of their fluids into the local reservoir, say? Remember these guys don't give a fcuk and will take any risks to make money. They will be as negligent as we let them be.

I fully accept fracking is going to happen. I would prefer it if we started from the premise that everything they do is dangerous and then make sure that:

They are held accountable for all problems caused
They cannot cover up any problems by law suits and money
The country gets its fair share of the profits ... we are no doubt sharing in all but the financial risks associated with extraction.

Cheers,
Robin

[kerryxeg]

Fracing in the uk would be at around 4000ft plus. The fracs will normally go horizontal with minimal vertical travel, so can be modelled accurately.

The technology exists and it could be a good business in the uk. But infrastructure doesn't so development costs are not attractive.

[robin]

If the technology exists then presumably we know the answer to whether all the water that gets pumped down stay down? If not, where does it go and what does it contain besides water?

Cheers,
Robin

[Rich H]

They are drilling about 3 or 4 miles away from us, never had any fuss. Just get on with it IMHO.
They have done massive sizemic (sp) surveys all aroud here with microphones and cables for miles and miles.

I'm pretty sure 90% of the earthquake fuss was mostly people being told there was an earthquake.

[sendmyusername]

The test was stopped for three months due to the increase in siesmic acctivety.
Not talking about plates moving, more local activety.
Water goes along the bedrock back to sea etc, and still gets into the supply chain.
One of the biggest tree hugging complaints is that the chemicals have started turning up all around existing frak sites just outwith the 'testing ranges' but it couldn't have come from other sources.

[kenny]

Got any links to back that up?

[sendmyusername]

What bit ?
Over 250 communities in america have banned it, vermont, france, bulgaria and possibly germany too have banned it (the countries that have banned it have had access to more detailed and accurate information than would be handed down to us)
If it is such an all important money spinner, and has few risks, why would countries ban it and use nuclear power instead - which has high risks ?
I can't link using my phone anyways, but we had an apprentice that was doing his uni course (was the course after HNC)
And he did quite extensive research into it, gave a read of it before he sen it in, wasn't the nicest reading.

[j2 lot]

Over 250 communities in america have banned it, vermont, france, bulgaria and possibly germany too have banned it

I wonder how many will lift their bans once they see the £££ achievable

[kerryxeg]

Bans will be due to groundwater concerns the shales being targeted are at different depths so shallow shales are going to be considered higher risk. In the us the land owner has the mineral rights and the equipment is freely available and cheap. We don't have much of a land drilling history so everything has to be brought in and is expensive.

[martins]

Forget Frakking. Far too dangerous and enviromentally unfriendly. Nuclear power is the way to go

If our forebearers had been as scared as we all are in PC 2013, the internal combustion engine we are all so in love with would never have got off the drawing board. I blame the 24 hour news media. They are only happy when the populace are scared. Scared makes people watch Sky/BBC news etc. I am now off to start a conspiracy theory re the news media.

M

[BiggestNizzy]

Easily fixed, make the CEO of the frakking company and their children personally responsible if it goes wrong and the company is unable to service the cost of the cleanup/damage. we should have done this with the banks too.

[mwmackenzie]

Programme on BB2 right now about it

[j2 lot]

[Scuffers]

Programme on BB2 right now about it

and on the whole, was a pretty decent piece of work....

seems to me the only genuine concern with fracking is who is doing it and how good they are...

not sure if anybody noticed the company name on the plant?

Halliburton....(kind of fills you with confidence)

way I see it, without this, the UK's energy costs are going to be spiraling out of control pretty fast, and much as I think Nuclear is the way forward for electricity (and thus cut the gas usage in CCGT stations, realistically, it's just not going to happen with the anti-nuclear hysteria.

I am sure if the country were asked if they want windmills etc and their energy bills to be doubled in the next 5 years, or Fracking and cheaper energy bills, which do you think the majority would go with?