Give us a fracking break!

[jshell]

AdeTuono said:

jshell said:

Mr Whippy said:

jshell said:

Mr Whippy said:

Fracking won't last for the long term. We need investment in stuff that works!

Dave

What do you mean by long term?

Long term, as in a long time. Long as in a lifetime.

In 50-100 years time.

That's a good timescale to solve any energy crisis - properly. None of this windy mill shyte!

Wasn't 80-odd the figure originally mooted for fracking gas reserves? Or is that a lie from the big bad energy companies as well?

Depends if it's used for Hydrate locked gas, which is mega-fecking-mahoosive reserves and in plentiful supply for many decades!

[Mr GrimNasty]

Apologies if it's a repost, but I saw it again in the paper today. It rather makes the point, in this article is a picture in which windmills dominate the landscape, but there are actually 11 GAS WELLS there too. You can see the full size picture in the article.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/21/e...

[Mr GrimNasty]

"A three-year study [looking for fracking dangers] undertaken by the state-funded University of Cincinnati will not be released to the public, because it found no damage at all."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/public...

[turbobloke]

Mr GrimNasty said:

"A three-year study [looking for fracking dangers] undertaken by the state-funded University of Cincinnati will not be released to the public, because it found no damage at all."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/public...

Outrageous, but sadly that's not untypical of the way science is suborned at the hands of wealthy environ mentalist type groups and individuals.

[hidetheelephants]

jshell said:

Mr Whippy said:

jshell said:

Mr Whippy said:

Fracking won't last for the long term. We need investment in stuff that works!

Dave

What do you mean by long term?

Long term, as in a long time. Long as in a lifetime.

In 50-100 years time.

That's a good timescale to solve any energy crisis - properly. None of this windy mill shyte!

The French managed to build enough nuclear power stations to generate 70+% of their electricity in less than 20 years; it's taken 15 years for UK wind power to reach the heady heights of 9%. Which of these is a practical solution and which is an act of unpardonable folly?

[jshell]

hidetheelephants said:

jshell said:

Mr Whippy said:

jshell said:

Mr Whippy said:

Fracking won't last for the long term. We need investment in stuff that works!

Dave

What do you mean by long term?

Long term, as in a long time. Long as in a lifetime.

In 50-100 years time.

That's a good timescale to solve any energy crisis - properly. None of this windy mill shyte!

The French managed to build enough nuclear power stations to generate 70+% of their electricity in less than 20 years; it's taken 15 years for UK wind power to reach the heady heights of 9%. Which of these is a practical solution and which is an act of unpardonable folly?

Amen, Brother. Amen!

[Mr Whippy]

hidetheelephants said:

jshell said:

Mr Whippy said:

jshell said:

Mr Whippy said:

Fracking won't last for the long term. We need investment in stuff that works!

Dave

What do you mean by long term?

Long term, as in a long time. Long as in a lifetime.

In 50-100 years time.

That's a good timescale to solve any energy crisis - properly. None of this windy mill shyte!

The French managed to build enough nuclear power stations to generate 70+% of their electricity in less than 20 years; it's taken 15 years for UK wind power to reach the heady heights of 9%. Which of these is a practical solution and which is an act of unpardonable folly?

Exactly the point.

We make out we're doing fantastic things and this is a 'hard thing' to do.

But we must just look like clowns to a lot of other countries in the world.

Obviously clowns to professional forward thinking progressive countries.

We look like a gift to profiteering energy companies though, what with our crony conservative government.

Pretty depressing really.

[Jockman]

Mr Whippy said:

We look like a gift to profiteering energy companies though, what with our crony conservative government.

What strategic decisions did 13 years of Labour give us?

[WelshChris]

Mr Whippy said:

But we must just look like clowns to a lot of other countries in the world.

That's because we are clowns - We simply can't do large infrastructure projects of any description. Seems to me that there's far too much red tape involved - planning, environmental studies, public enquiries, appeals, more bloody appeals.

Meanwhile we descend into power generation crisis.

[HD Adam]

Jockman said:

Mr Whippy said:

We look like a gift to profiteering energy companies though, what with our crony conservative government.

What strategic decisions did 13 years of Labour give us?

Er, didn't Two Shags Prescott sign us up to the Kyoto agreement?

Very strategic

[JagLover]

Telegraph article on Fracking

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/03/bri...

[Scotty2]

Maybe a "NOT TO SCALE" message might help on the "Extracting Shale Gas" diagram as it puts the reservoir just below the water table, not thousands of feet below it as it is in reality...

Mind you that might explain the natural gas that they claim they find in water...Utter Sheite.

[Composite Guru]

As long as the money keeps flowing then lets forget clean drinking water. We'll drink the money instead.

[jshell]

Composite Guru said:

As long as the money keeps flowing then lets forget clean drinking water. We'll drink the money instead.

Wot?

Everything is done to protect the water-table...

[rolando]

Scotty2 said:

Maybe a "NOT TO SCALE" message might help on the "Extracting Shale Gas" diagram as it puts the reservoir just below the water table, not thousands of feet below it as it is in reality...

It helps not a bit that the drawing shows the reservoir so close to the water table. Just the sort of misinformation that the greenies love to exploit.

[turbobloke]

JagLover said:

Telegraph article on Fracking

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/03/bri...

Timely comments from EEP.

"While the US is striving for self-sufficiency in fuel and power as a primary goal of strategic security in a dangerous world, this country has acted with strange insouciance."

What he really means is that this country's foolish political leaders have acted with dangerous green blob lunacy.

[motco]

The video is very interesting. The process is elegantly simple - obviously the development was not simple, but the result is surprisingly so.

[turbobloke]

Composite Guru said:

As long as the money keeps flowing then lets forget clean drinking water. We'll drink the money instead.

Very as it happens.

Article on fracking safety study by BGS and EA said:

A major study into the potential of fracking to contaminate drinking water with methane has been published.

The British Geological Survey and the Environment Agency have mapped where key aquifers in England and Wales coincide with locations of shale.

The research reveals this occurs under nearly half of the area containing the principal natural stores of water.

It finds that the Bowland Shale in northern England - the first to be investigated for shale gas potential - runs below no fewer than six major aquifers.

However, the study also says that almost all of this geological formation - 92% of it - is at least 800m below the water-bearing rocks.

Industry officials have always argued that a separation of that size between a shale layer and an aquifer should make any contamination virtually impossible.

So far, no definitive distance for separation between shale and aquifers has been set but a limit of 400m has been suggested because water from below that depth is rarely considered drinkable.

In some areas, shale layers rise closer to the surface - and the assumption is that these would be ruled off-limits.

Frankie said:

Relax

The one instance I've read of water contamination around a fracking operation was in Wyoming where drilling took place at very shallow depths close to an aquifer (see above) and where unlined pits were used for dumping which is not something directly related to the fracking process.

It's sad but true that trains can leave their tracks occasionally and kill passengers, however the safety rules do what they can to keep trains on tracks and when a very rare if tragic event occurs the benefits of train travel aren't sacrificed due to unwarranted and excessive scaremongering via disinformation.

The key is to keep the minimum separation to at least 400m and carry on fracking.

[hidetheelephants]

turbobloke said:

The key is to keep the minimum separation to at least 400m and carry on fracking.

The distance/depth is rather a red herring; far better that the geology is studied closely and a considered view of the best or safest way of tapping the source rock for each site. Setting an arbitrary depth restriction is a clumsy way of managing risk; Labour lobbied for such a rule in parliament, then whined that there was no more fracking plans for the home counties and tory shires while the labour heartlands of the north were going to look like swiss cheese, overlooking that the source rocks in the south were much shallower than the Bowland and consequently it was above the arbitrary limit and out of bounds for fracking.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Thursday 4th August 21:42

[turbobloke]

Public perception will look at the separation, it's been in the news quite a lot - and as per the report, drinkability comes into consideration. Overall, 400m of separation makes sense but of course the full site geology should and will be taken into account not least as there's more to consider than a list of fracking green myths.