Shale Gas Boom ?

[Ootohere]

DEFRA & Environmental Agency 'EA',

they would be UK Government or Executive Agencies and employees would they not?

The Public Bodies that are responsible for rivers and land, 

the ones that have thousands of homes and land flooded, but the flaura and fauna is what matters.

Use Experts, just not the right experts, or ones with local knowledge.

 

So we might just discount them being Independent.

As the Government change laws on Mineral Rights, Access, Trespass etc to get the Licencing through quickly to continue fracking.

 

How about a Nationalised Industry, and the United KIngdoms Oil & Gas under the ground belonging to the public,  * Well it does already, but then that is 'The Crown'.*

if it can be Licenced and Sold to Oil Companies, then that will be the property of the public.

Fair Share, They work for us as Contractors & get a fair Income and profit, and pay taxes in the UK.

 

But then even the Rain that falls on the UK, or on peoples private land or Public land is not even theirs or ours,

some Water Company some how owns it, processes it, then sells it to us.

Licenced by the Government, *'The Crown'.*

that will be the Government that has members that are share holders in Oil, Gas, & Water Companies,

or members of parties funded by Oil, Gas & Water Companies.

 

http://dartgas.com

http://dartenergyscotland.co.uk

All ready to go in Scotland once there is a Yes vote, & after the 24 March 2016.

Or before in the case of a No vote.

Its just something the current Scottish & Uk Governments are not mentioning in the lead up to September.

 

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/282504-fracking-again-open-cast-mines-costing-millions-to-clean-up

 

george

[trundlenut]

George despite your seeming belief that we live in some sort of Banana Republic, I don't think things are quite that bad.

 

There are actually three separate bodies in Britain, the Environment Agency in England, Natural Resource Wales (cunningly in Wales) and SEPA in Scotland.

 

As regards flooding a lot of blame really has to be aimed at local authorities who have merrily ignored the EA and predecessors and granted all manner of planning permissions for inappropriate development, together with the Vikings, Saxons, Normans and even Romans for creating so many settlements in the wrong place in the first place.

 

The people who will deal with shale gas etc. are functionally separate to the flooding people (and now financially separate so are likely to be unemployed by the end of the year). Most of the legislation which will cover this (Environmental Permitting, Water Framework Directive, Environmental Damage Regs) is all derived from European Legislation and as such their is limited room for manoeuvre.  The nimby brigade will have plenty of solicitors, planning consultants and environment consultants who will delight in dragging as many people, companies and government departments/agencies through the courts for the absolute maximum amount of time if there is the slightest whiff of non compliance with all relevant legislation and guidance, or even if there isn't.

 

Also, based on personal experience the EA can be a bunch of belligerent, perdantic risk averse people, much to the annoyance of DEFRA and the government.

[sparks03]

The barrage would destroy significant areas of wildlife habitat permanently as a function of what it is.

 

I don't know how much you know about drilling and fracking but it is quite a localised short term activity.  The area required for drilling and fracking is about the size of a football pitch.  The fracking requires a lot of vehicle movements but over a short period.  Multiple wells can be drilled and fracked at a single site (10 or more wells).  It is very unlikely that houses or villages would have to be destroyed to allow fracking to happen.  The risks to wildlife is going to be limited to the areas around the drilling sites and for a short period of time.

 

The principle risk is of contamination of groundwater.  Largely this could affect drinking water supplies but in some areas groundwater feeds into surface water and so there could be an impact at the surface.  In the areas in the north west were exploration is taking place a lot of the groundwater is undrinkable so even if it got contaminated it would actually impact anything.

 

The UK is different geologically from the US and the regulatory regime in the UK is very very different.  Very little baseline (if any at all) monitoring was done in the US before fracking and gas extraction took place so a lot of the conclusions drawn by both sides are dubious.  The risk assessment process for assessing risks to groundwater and surface water are well developed in the UK and is a conservative process.

 

One big issue is the integrity of the boreholes in the long term (during and after gas extraction) and there is research ongoing into this at the moment.

 

There is also the issue of the disposal of the fracking water (both the injected water that comes back to the surface and the groundwater dragged up with it)  It can be contaminated with a variety of compounds including natural occurring radioactive materials (NORM).  In the US this water is injected into deep saline aquifers, which could be an option in the UK too.  Basically you stick it back in so deep it won't ever get back to the surface.

 

Sorry for the long post but I happened to be at a conference last week where representatives from DEFRA, Environment Agency and BGS presented on this very topic.

 

 

Absolutely no apologies required, its refreshing to see someone debating the issue of fracking without opting for hemp underwear or looking like Eric Pickles on treat day. 

 The process of fracking per se i'm not strictly opposed to. Its not the process or this seeming non-issue of whether or not it causes tremours. Its not even the potential for explosion or the alleged increase of cancer rates around drilling sites. Its the fact that wells have proven themselves vulnerable to failure especially in the medium term, polluted water must be safely disposed of, that predicted climate may be drier and put increased stress on our water supply (a what if, I know) and most importantly- it is just another stab at what we already have. Every man and his dog knows that fossil fuels are finite and we will get to the point where they're gone. Not even drilling in four miles deep ocean will cut it.

 

 Rather than pursue a quick-fix solution there should be renewed vigour to develop and push on renewable technology. The tipping point is so close that now is the time to be getting on with things, not dilly-dally with access rights and trying to justify why compensation (surely only paid for loss?) should be set at a relevant level. Fracking has its merits but it just seems like another blind alley. 

 

 Yes project like the barrage will have short-term impact and will cause loss of habitat but those are aspects that will recover. I don't want my children to live in a world where we've used the last drop and only then decided to make a change. It cannot be allowed to happen and now is the time to act. 

[trundlenut]

The evidence for well failure is poor. Based on studies in the US either over 90% of shale gas wells have failed, or there is an alternative source of gas in shallow groundwater/strata.  The construction methodology for shale gas wells is basically the same as for conventional oil and gas extraction.  The failure rates of conventional wells is nowhere near as high as this which certainly suggests that it is unlikely.

 

No baseline monitoring was undertaken prior to gas extraction starting.  I recently read an article which found very little evidence of fracking chemicals getting into shallow groundwater in fracking areas, which also supports a lower well failure rate.

 

Long term stability needs more work though as there are a number of well failure mechanisms and a construction options.

 

My house is underlain by shales which potentially could yield gas, but there is also about 200m of mudstone directly beneath my house and therefore the risks at the surface are very very low and there is no groundwater to impact.

 

I should point out the infamous scene at the beginning of Gaslands where the bloke lights his tap water has nothing to do with shale gas.  The methane comes from coal deposits which the blokes borehole was drilled through and is hundreds of miles from any fracking.  Make of that what you will in terms of the content of the film.

[sparks03]

I'm less inclined to watch Gaslands and the apparent sequel than I would An Inconvenient Truth. Its propaganda pure and simple and used by persons to their own ends.

[Ootohere]

No idea why  The United States of America get Mentioned, a whole different kettle of fish over there.

 

This is the Country seemingly too small for more to live in, 'We are full up, please leave!'.

No land for more houses and all that guff.

 

The country with Droughts, then floods,

and with old Mines and workings never cleaned up, Pollution just left underground, out of sight, out of mind,

and those that made a fortune over the decades can just walk away.

 

It has taken Decades to clean up the Shale Bings around Edinburgh

& now the Open Cast Mines in Scotland are Abandoned to be cleaned up at the Publics Expense.

Companies go bust, Directors and Shareholders are not bust,

they just keep Directing and Shareholding and Planning Gas Extraction,

Fracking for Shale Oil & Gas  etc.

 

This Government can not Organise a Pith up in a Brewery, and Lord Brown the Ex BP Chairman has them 

wrapped around his finger, or the finger even closer than that.

*That is Baron Brown of Madingley, if you want to see what company he now heads.*

& George Osbornes Father in Law has them assuming the position.

 

Anyone is welcome to trust them,

& as to Banana Republics,

We were the Country that set them up & where the Robbing Barstewards still have your money.

 

george

[trundlenut]

If you can't understand about the US you obviously don't really care.  They started fracking in the UK in the 1940s.

 

I assume politically you are firmly in the "none of the above" camp.  But I hope you aren't in the sit in the corner and whinge whilst making no attempt to do anything.

 

As for old mining issues, blame the Victorians for not pulling their fingers out earlier and nationalisation under labour.

[Ootohere]

I understand fully the different politics in the USA and the Corporations.

Money talks and makes the World go around, for some.

 

& i understand the similar  Greed in the UK, and the 3 Sisters & then the 7 Sisters that run the worlds energy, 

& the Politicians, and the House of Lords. The Backers, Hedge Funds, Pension Funds and Non Doms.

 

As long as your Fracking is in the South where they need more Energy and Cash because there is little else.

 

I hope the South Funds the NHS down there, and lets see what happens to the drinking water,

and the irrigation.

 

We do not expect those with Vested Interests to go against Fracking.

But i dont think they can expect the Public away to be exploited to cheer and say great,

we are away to have to pay the cost of making the few rich.

 

 

PS.

No Victorians involved in the 1970's when the Mines where forced to closure, quickly closed,

and sit there now as time bombs waiting for the Frackers to disrupt this country even more.

 

Labour, Liberal, Conservative, Marxist, Communist, makes no difference,

That was then and now, nothing changes,

it is fill your boots and stuff the plebs.

[trundlenut]

Ah, but I am discussing the technical aspects of shale gas/oil and not the political hoo hah.

 

We will have to make reference to the US as that is where commercial exploitation of shale gas has occurred. It would fairly pointless to discuss fracking in Cuba based on politcal grounds.

 

Personally I think shale gas MAY provide a stop gap and better alternative to coal as part of a plan to decarbonise power and heat generation, but I am not convinced.  However we MUST FIRST make a technical assessment on the viability and safety of shale gas/oil extraction in order to inform the political decision.  Otherwise we should just reach for the roulette wheel or dartboard.  Of course all of the political factions are just pushing their positions regardless of facts but there are people out there who are genuinely looking at this in order to provide a balanced scientific opinion.

 

I am trained and work as a geologist, I have access to a lot of technical information and people that Joe Public doesn't, as well as the skills and knowledge to understand it.  I am not interested in the political aspects here, rather factual information which is easy to miss when uninformed people are discussing it.

 

I have no axe to grind and have not yet made my own mind up.

 

As for the political system in this country, I think we could benefit from some significant changes.

[Ootohere]

Good, Frack on. Whats the worst that can happen.

[trundlenut]

Good, Frack on. Whats the worst that can happen.

 

No, let's review the available data, formulate a position on the risks and appropriate regulation within the legal framework (which is fairly comprehensive), determine if it is politically/socially acceptable, have a go and review.

[Ootohere]

Good,, its great someone is taking action.

Best check the regulations and legal framework as was/is,

and as the Civil Servants are preparing the changes that will be passed through the Lords then the Commons and back and fore then passed.

 

Luckily Scotland has a different Legal Framework, but then the Devolved Scotland has already signed the Contracts with China and are all ready to start the Coal Bed Methane Extraction for feeding Grangemouth..

(there was a bit of a looming Diesel Shortage last week, which they kept under wraps quite well untill the problem was resolved.)

http://directorstalk.com/grangemouth-refinerys-diesel-production-hit-by-glitch

 

http://directorstalk.com/grangemouth-boss-in-dash-for-shale-gas-the-sunday-times

 

Remember if the offer of a job is too good to resist, just go for it,

If you can not beat them join them.

[trundlenut]

The only problem is that the EA may gut all of the relevant staff before they finish the work.  Since they announced that the EA would loose 1600-1800 (or whatever it is) staff and that flooding would be safeguarded we could have a problem.

[RapidRonnie]

Announcing this less than one year before a general election, in an area traditionally quite Conservative doesn't seem politically very wise to me?

 

The money on offer to local authorities/land owners is peanuts, and how much are central government set to benefit from fracking, after the tax breaks (and probably tax dodging if it's involving multinational corporations)?

[Paul007]

As regards flooding a lot of blame really has to be aimed at local authorities who have merrily ignored the EA and predecessors and granted all manner of planning permissions for inappropriate development, together with the Vikings, Saxons, Normans and even Romans for creating so many settlements in the wrong place in the first place.

 

Also, based on personal experience the EA can be a bunch of belligerent, perdantic risk averse people, much to the annoyance of DEFRA and the government.

 

The blame is aimed fairly and squarely at Councillors who ignore advice, if we're being precise. As someone who worked closely with the EA and never found them beligerent, pedantic or whatever, it's the idiots you elected this week that are likely to allow building on floodplains as they have the final say, unless that twerp intervenes and directs the Council to make a different decision.

[trundlenut]

The blame is aimed fairly and squarely at Councillors who ignore advice, if we're being precise. As someone who worked closely with the EA and never found them beligerent, pedantic or whatever, it's the idiots you elected this week that are likely to allow building on floodplains as they have the final say, unless that twerp intervenes and directs the Council to make a different decision.

Totally agree I have seen some daft decisions made completely contrary to the planning officers recommendations.

Once you start getting more than one team at the EA involved is where things go wonky. I have had two people give opposite opinions on issues. I would imagine you deal with the planning liaison people rather than the technical guys and you might not appreciate the technical aspects behind their decisions.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Paul007]

I've some experience of the Flood defence team. Nuff said. The PLO is the one we listen to....

[Ootohere]

What Westminster needs to do is get with the times and go with the energy that is readily available now,

stop subsidising the car industry building Petrol & Diesel vehicles,

& the Oil & Gas, Industry because of that being where the Duty & taxes & their Investments are,

and have the EV car industry subsidised properly,

and get the Tax Breaks even better for Business & Private EV users,

 

Keep building those Wind Turbines in & around England rather than stop because of the Nimby's

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18071456

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26124572

 

http://newsinenglish.no/2014/03/14/surge-of-support-for-electric-cars

[trundlenut]

How much per car for EV do you mean?

As it stands an EV without a petrol or diesel engine would be useless for me. My normal commute is 20 miles each way but it is quite common for me to do 200-300 miles a day for work visiting clients and sites.

What we need to is rebuild the whole European transmission network to account for renewables and have a mix not just wind turbines.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Ootohere]

Thats you, and many others that covers longer distances,

and obviously EV's only usable for short distances are not going to suit Reps and Travellers.

But thats not the case with Light Commercials and Private Vehicles that maybe never leave towns or cities.

 

Maybe some car users will need to get used during a days work visiting locations,

to 'park and plug',  even if you are only there for 30 minutes plugged in, that will cover the next run to the next park and plug.

 

Storage of power on large or small scales is the world problem, that is why Nuclear & Hydro  is the only current solutions,  

Batteries & Storage with Big Enough Capacities and a means to store huge amounts of Electricity for instant use has never really been possible.

The production of Electricity from Solar, Wind, Wave, Heat Exchange etc is simple enough.,

the storage of it if not used right away is not.

 

Oil & Gas, minerals etc stored in the ground is the best plan, and use it sparingly, do not just squander it for short term gain and profiteering.

[trundlenut]

The problem with batteries is that in a simplistic way those with the space to charge them need to drive further than they can do and those that can live with the range can't charge them (I.e. those in cities)

I think you greatly underestimate those who travel. Pretty much anyone who installs anything beyond bigger than domestic stuff or maintains or repairs things travels.

Currently batteries do not offer the energy densities and longevity that fossils fuels do.

Hydrogen may offer a far better option than electricity and off shore wind farms could used to produce it during periods of low demand.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[BJM]

Maybe some car users will need to get used during a days work visiting locations,

to 'park and plug',  even if you are only there for 30 minutes plugged in, that will cover the next run to the next park and plug.

 

.

 

I do sometimes think you need to remove the blinkers George, and look at the real world as it is and not as you think it is. There are thousands of people out here who do a lot more than just potter around town locally.

 

In an average days work, I will drive between 240 - 300 miles, visiting from 15 - 20 customers.

30 minutes between each stop for a recharge?

The only recharge I get time for is a quick cuppa and a sarnie.

I'm far from unusual.

 

Electric power is OK for local runs and as an expensive toy (Tesla) but with the state of current battery technology, completely useless for real-world usage.

[Ootohere]

Well they do not suit you either. As to "Thousands of People",

34,500,000 registered vehicles in the UK i think, 29,000,000 are cars & and many are company cars.

Business users, Reps and travellers have always had cars built to suit their needs, more efficient usually these days, they are the driving force behind this nation.

Nobody would begrudge them their use of Heavy Oil.

 

'There are none as blind as those that will not see!'

[trundlenut]

George you are also missing the elephant in the room - freight transport, be that by road or sea.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Ootohere]

Not missing anything. I know about Haulage, Transportation and driving.

&

Not all petrol and diesel vehicles do long journeys.  

& EV's can be made more affordable for those that do not need Petrol & Diesel cars..

 

Some local Authorities, Utility Companies and local delivery firms are able to use Light Commercial EV's very successefully and do.

Milk Floats were common for decades, and did the job well around cities.

http://thedrum.com/news/2013/11/04/ford-announced-latest-glasgow-2014-sponsor

http://glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10428

http://glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10432

 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24063461