Associate
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 440
- Location
- UK
the UK being able to produce goods which could be exported globally! I'm all for it myself.
Tories grant 18 fracking licences - all north of Leicester
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
"If the UK is to dispose of high-volume flowback fluids from shale gas by using re-injection into geological formations, much further research into the potential risks of the process and how to reduce them is required. Lessons from the US, where the process has been linked to induced local seismicity and environmental contamination due to poor well construction, have to be learned and not repeated."
I don't see this as an issue in the UK, seeing as thousands of wells have been drilled in the North Sea without problem. Between DECC, the EA and the HSE our regulations are generally of a high standard and robust.
People need to remember fracking is just reservoir stimulation method - the drilling and well completions are fundamentally the same as what happens in the North Sea yet there's not much criticism of the regulation there....
I don't see this as an issue in the UK, seeing as thousands of wells have been drilled in the North Sea without problem. Between DECC, the EA and the HSE our regulations are generally of a high standard and robust.
People need to remember fracking is just reservoir stimulation method - the drilling and well completions are fundamentally the same as what happens in the North Sea yet there's not much criticism of the regulation there....
Last edited:
..... I'm out. have a nice day
I think you should stick around in this thread.
The joys of a system that has career politicians.
Shouldn't let anyone be a politician for more than 2-3 terms to help encourage a little less self preservation and hopefully make them do some good (god I sound like a niave idealist
)
There was a horizon program in 2013 covering it. Not the most detailed but fairly impartial and explains the basics.
A write up of it here http://frackland.blogspot.ca/2013/06/horizon-fracking-new-energy-rush-by.html?m=1
I believe that blog is a "pro"/neutral site.
There does seem to be a lack of unbiased media coverage on how it works but it's probably in part because companies may be loath to talk to reporters just in case they are quote out of context and whatever they present will be seen by one side as bias.
Unfortunately, like many things, as soon as you salutary discussing reports and study's done by government and independent organizations a certain subsection just insists that they are all in the pay of big oil/pro oil governments and ignores them.
And how many of those complaints were from the local community? Most will have been from FoE activists.
The EA, HSE, Local planning officers and multiple other organisations will have looked at that application and after months of toing and throwing between them and the company all were satisfied that the frack will be done safely and to the best standard. The exact same system will have dealt with the cuadrilla application last year. The only difference here is the councillors listened to the advice of the professional organizations and passed the planning application, rather than decline it for political reasons.
The huge amount of pressure is more related to Nimbyism and unsubstantiated claims rather than any conspiracy to force unsafe practices through.
As I mentioned earlier most of the objections were related to things like traffic movement, local noise and pollution (trucks and generators mostly) and things like effects on tourism and the community. The argument had long since moved from arguments against water contamination.
Of course an anti oil and gas (well pro renewable at least) website would appear to have no idea what it is talking about.
As mentioned the UK has been reinjecting waste water back into the formation for decades. The fracking fluid consists almost exclusively water, and a few non toxic chemicals added. It will be processed but in reality the "safest" place for the water that comes back is back in the ground from whence it came.
There has been significant study on both seismicity related to fracking and reinjection in North America as well as the UK. Background seismic monitoring has to be set up before any fracking is done over here (to get a baseline) and throughout and after the procedure. There are very strict rules on the amount of seismicity allowed (basically hardly any - max of 0.5 before being shut down).
As for well containment the regulation states triple casing through any aquifer zone (which in Yorkshire is the top 100ft, the rest of the water is highly saline and/or highly sulphurous), a requirement put in place for fracked wells to make sure the possibility of leakage is at a minimum.
The reality is however that most contamination of ground water is from the flow back water at the surface. Over here the regulation requires a "bathtub" design for the site, with heavy plastic membrane covering the site and any water falling or spilled on the site being channeled back to a processing facility. This isn't/was t the case in many places in the US. They also used open containment pools, rather than sealed above ground containers.
Unfortunately people read sites like frack off and energy and carbon and get the wrong end of the stick, partly because they may have an agenda, but also because they appear to miss a significant amount of the regulation that is designed to stop the problems the US had. You cannot just take the issues with US shale and assume they will be problems over here. It is a different legislative regime, with completely different nvironmental and HSE requirements. Heck, even the US he woken up, with regulations becoming significantly sricter in many places over the last few years.
Of course there are legitimate concerns, and they were aired at the public consultations, in letters and at the public hearing - things like traffic, pollution and community matters - but they aren't exclusive to fracking, they are standard for many large projects and can be mitigated as much as possible. Campaigning over other legitimate concerns (such as groundwater contamination) is also something that should go on, it helps tighten up legislation. People should realize that there is a limit however - once the regulation is updated people should realize that the critiscism on that base can now take a back seat. The problem is we are still getting arguments that may have been relevant in 2011, but since the government and organisations listened and changed regulation and legislation they just aren't as relevant now. It gets boring hearing people state xyz is unregulated, mostly because they haven't actually kept up with the regulation...
Edit: just to clarify - I think legitimate concern and protest is a great thing, it pushes regulation forward and keeps industry on its toes (all industry), but people should realize when to stop. It's generally not the likes of Greenpeace that are the problem in this respect, it's usually the campaigners that essentially make money (through appearance fees and book/video sales) on public presentations pushing lies and/or out of date information and people that are misled with out of date information and/or lies.
Last edited:
IIRC it's £100k per fracked well to the local community and any profit on the sale of the gas is taxed at around 60% (someone can clarify the exact amount). There's also the standard corporation tax and other normal taxes as well.
The majority of experts agree that the regulation is tight enough (the UK has some of the tightest regulation in the world, alongside alongside Norway. Much of the EU is severely lacking in that respect (including Western European countries). It's also NOT self regulating. Stop peddling that lie.
Of course there will be the occasional expert that disagrees, it's called opinion. The point is that the majority do, including multiple government and public organisations. A couple of people and one paper is not the be all and end all.
I'm not understanding what "10% of licenses in the last year issued" means. Are you suggesting that the recent 14th round offers are for "fracking licences"? In which case that's wrong. They are for hydrocarbon exploration licences. There's no differentiation between different techniques. It just gives companies exclusive rights to explore for hydrocarbons in their areas for a set period of time. Basically a company will bid "x km2 of 3D seismic, studies and 1 exploration well" or similar. The company with the largest work program, and good standing with DECC (safe, reliable etc) win the block and can explore for 4/5 years.
If they want to do anything, such as shoot the seismic survey, drill the well they bid, or frack anything then they have to get permission and go through all the channels that Third Energy have this time. The licence issue does not absolve them of any need to go through planning/DECC approval channels.
Then I suggest you look at the regulation covering oil and gas and shale gas extraction in the UK. I'm not suggesting nuclear is less well regulated, but that shale gas is just as regulated and safe. Have a look back through this thread as most of what you have said so far is covered by posts and links explaining why it is not the case/irrelevant.
Out of interest do you have anything specific that you are worried about. It may be someone can point you to regulation and/or links to show how it is being mitigated.
Posting sensible information with factural accuracy in this thread is generally ignored or joked about by the clueless hippes who have no idea on how fundamental parts of the O&G sector work.
Why waste your time
Because at least it means hopefully people with more open minds won't be infected.
You never know they may in turn learn a few facts and impart them to others.
That is the main problem with all this. Unfortunately O&G (as with many industries) are really poor at fighting to be heard over the vocal (largely ill informed) minority.
Last edited:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50267454
I guess the lessons our shale gas industry was going to learn from the problems the US companies have had didn't happen then?
As iirc earth tremors and polluted water were the two biggest concerns people had with this process?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
Fracking industry: 'Mind if we frack here?'
British government: 'Sure, it's not as if anything could go wrong.'
*everything goes wrong*
British government: 'I mean no, because of all the things that could go wrong.'
British government: 'Sure, it's not as if anything could go wrong.'
*everything goes wrong*
British government: 'I mean no, because of all the things that could go wrong.'
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
Rereading this it seems that whilst fracking stopped on a temp basis in August, there has now been a formal withdrawal of political support, hence the article now.
Interesting that the temp ban wasn’t more widely published though.