Fracking disgraceful

Another broken government promise fracking is now allowed underneath SSSI sites and ,unbelievably , underneath National Parks

Fracking under national parks approved by MPs amid acrimony | Environment | The Guardian

Its undesirable rather than disgraceful, we cannot remain reliant on far East or Russian energy imports, they have proved expensive, unreliable and a strategic risk. The only reason the oil price is so low is that OPEC are deliberately holding it there to discourage fracking, as soon as it stops, watch the oil price soar. Two sides to this and we have to be careful before we dismiss our own natural resources, but lets do it in a controlled way, all this fuss over GM foods, i dont hear the starving people of the third world complaining, only middle class nimbys.

This could turn out pretty political for a fishing forum!

While it hardly a major surprise that the government could.......lie  I actually agree with the government here, we cannot stop progress. We are a ever energy hungry world that's only going to get more hungry in the future, we cannot just bury our heads in the sand.



Sent from my HP 8 G2 using Tapatalk

Lads we have done this to death a couple of times and very entertaining the threads were too , my intention was not to start a long thread but merely to bring this interesting news to your attention.

OK guys how this for a plan, we'll go to Paris and agree to decarbonise the planet and three days later announce we’re going to get at the rich pickings of a carbon rich fuel. What do you think of it guys? Great plan, great plan boss! How much do you think the party coffers will swell by letting them get at it under the National Parks etc boss? Lot, lots guys!

Might even be a bit of brass in it for members of your families too if they make the right investments wink, wink nudge, nudge.....you know what I mean!
Err boss, what about the promise you made...... SHUT UP IDIOT AT THE BACK!

I've actually been speaking to my local MP about this today.

So we are trying to deal with the obvious effects of climate change, and have been one of the world leaders in reducing CO² and uptake of renewable energy solutions since 2006, so what do we do.... squeeze every last drop of gas and emit more CO², despite the Gov't categorically saying earlier this year that fracking under national parks won't happen! A complete U-turn by the Gov't on an issue as emotive and important as this goes way beyond undesirable.

Why? Money! Pressure from the shale and gas industry.. big business talks.

Fracking is a short term solution to rising gas and oil costs and is an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

We can't rely on imported fuel forever (quite possibly the reason for World War 3 imho) and need long term renewable and sustainable energy solutions, not short term fixes to keep prices down, and gas use up. Fracking IS burying our heads in the sand.

When it all runs out they will go back to coal, still loads of of it about.

Second thoughts , probably not. Cold fusion will probably happen one day or hydrogen fuel technology, maybe solar when they find a way to super boost it. Cars will probably end up all electric..Oil and gas will be looked at in the same way we look at candles today -one day.

This may be a bit controversial but haven't we got an abundance of sparsely habited islands dotted around not only these shores but our overseas territories, so can't we try out the early attempts at fracking somewhere where the impact would be a lot less than on the mainland, where whole rivers and cities could be affected?

You wouldn't test the A-bomb on your doorstep after all

We have been testing and using Fracturing techniques since the 1930's, with the first real test using explosive injection substances in 1947.

The practice has been used universally for the last 2 decades from the USA to Russia and all places east of there.

We (the nation) need a secure, stable and independent supply of gas if we are ever to break the hold of the Middle East and Russia. No amount of "trendy" natural alternatives come even close to the margins of necessity that are required, and in the next couple of years, not some pie-in-the-sky natural wonder generator that will take another 50 years to design and perfect.

Post Paris Agreement we are now obligated to shut down our coal-fired power stations by around 2023, and unless we can secure cheap alternative gas supplies we will fail in that respect. Plain and simple Fact.

Coal burning produces between 214.3 to 228.6 Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy . . . . Natural Gas produces around 117.

We still rely on coal-fired stations to provide around 25% of the nation' power needs . . . . . . . the maths are simple . . . . add to that the fact that those coal-fired stations are rapidly becoming obsolete as they are aging facilities.

This is not a problem that we can blame anyone government or party for, but in fact all governments for the last 30 years or so, as this is not a surprise . . . . we saw this coming decades ago, and no one did anything about it!

As for directional horizontal drilling under Parks etc., then again, the technology is far from being a new concept.

Directional drilling has been around and in general use since the early 1970's, the only main difference being the angle at which we can now drill, the concept and the physics are still the same.

. . . and before anyone points it out, yes, I work in the Oil and Gas business and have done so for over 40 years, but none of the companies who I consult to have any interests in Hydraulic Fracturing here in the UK.

Finally, regarding nuclear power stations, yes, they will go a long way to solving the problem, just not in the restricted time frame we now have post Paris. It takes a between 7 to 10 years to build just one, and that is after all the planning consents have been given . . . . .

Peter,


I bow to your superior knowledge on this but regarding directional drilling, I'm fairly sure BP were going to undertake that a decade or more ago when they acquired the rights to the recently discovered oilfield off the coast of Christchurch. From what I remember, they'd had to have drilled from their on shore facilities in the Purbecks and, I think I'm right about this, it would have been the longest horizontal drilling operation anywhere in the world.

Regarding fracking, I know we've raised this before but one thing I recently ran across was that Nikolai Tesla proposed undertaking it at the turn of the 20th century so, again, not exactly new technology.

I would hope that, as long as it's regulated, it's safe to undertake? Hopefully we've moved on since the days of the Klondike and washing half the country away to scour gold that might or might not actually be there.

If fracking is so safe let them do the test drilling under London.

A good alternative might be Chipping Norton.

I think the idea that any energy source is not going to have some economic or environmental downside is impossible. Bonfires, electricity, coal, oil extraction, gas extraction, nuclear, hydro, wind farms-it doesn't matter, take your pick, they all have a downside .Fracking is no different-
Sorry for people that have got it on their doorstep, but would it be any different if it was a wind farm, a solar field, a nuclear power station, a coal pit shaft.We want energy then we will have to put up with it or do without.

Another dreadful decision by people who are proving themselves to be unfit to make important decisions about anything - and i am thinking of the Parliament as a whole, not any particular party.

No informed debate, no listening to experts, no "precautionary principle" (remember that?) just a blind rush towards whatever is perceived as being a business interest.

Why could they not leave special environmental areas alone - for the time being at least - until the technology is proven to have no impact elsewhere?.

markg said:

I think the idea that any energy source is not going to have some economic or environmental downside is impossible. Bonfires, electricity, coal, oil extraction, gas extraction, nuclear, hydro, wind farms-it doesn't matter, take your pick, they all have a downside .Fracking is no different-
Sorry for people that have got it on their doorstep, but would it be any different if it was a wind farm, a solar field, a nuclear power station, a coal pit shaft.We want energy then we will have to put up with it or do without.

Click to expand...

All very well Mark when its not your local National Park on your doorstep. You may not give a flying fook about the impact, but I can assure you we the people who live near and use them the most do!

Despite what Peter has wrote this particular type of fracking is very new about a decade old. The type of fracking Peter talks about is vertical deep fracking not very long distance horizontal fracking as will be needed to get at the gas under the NPs. On what are unknown deep geo-stratas the UK has.

The most advanced country in this type of fracking is in the US and there are serious problems starting to emerge there of that there is no doubt. Mr D&C said he hoped it wouldn't be like the Klondike here! Well many or most of the companies that have been formed are new with no expertees in this area. Why is it the big boys in the industry are not jumping on this speculative bandwagon? Do they know something the others don't?

One of the Klondikers said over 12 months ago on NW TV, “They welcomed much tighter regulations on the British fracking industry.” Has that happened? No! If anything it's got slacker. Local public accountability and democracy has been removed and handed over to Govt Ministers as has happened in Lancashire.

Regulation is whole carried out by the EA that's the same EA that has had 33% cuts across the board, losing many of it most experience specialists in all field and is an Executive Agency of Government. Heaven forbid, he who pays the piper names the tune!

What most people don't know about this type of fracking is, it's not just a case of drilling one hole per site and the gas flows, it doesn't, it lots of holes as the gas is in such small quantities the hole(s) very soon become exhausted. It is not like the North Sea gas fields of old where the gas sits in a big reservoir. When the small quantities of gas have been exhausted from one site they move onto a new site elsewhere. The industry itself admit they may need many 100s if not 1000s of sites to full exploit the gas needed to make it a viable proposition in an area containing gas. Each site needs a pad of at least an acre per well head.

It's therefore entirely possible that abutting the NPs there could be many 100/1000s of concrete well pads littering the surrounding countryside. Is that type of waste exceptionable as they will be there for a very long time, as all spent wells will have to be monitored for degradation? Well that is unless this government removes the cradle to the grave scenario from the operators and hand the responsibility of aftercare to the great British tax payer. They wouldn't do that would they? Well of course they wouldn't! But don't ask who's picking up the tab for the decommissioning of the long privatised nuclear plants... eh!

The safety aspect of them needs scrutinising very carefully, as in the US the industry acknowledges that between 5-10% of the well fail either in construction or operating phases. We don't know what it will be here as of yet, as only test drills have been done. One of the noted failure points is in the grouting sleevings where it passes through the water baring rock strata. This allows the chemicals (note the term, as rarely do they say what chemicals they are using in fracturing fluids) to seep out into the water baring rock strata and pollute it. On calcareous rock strata, ooops that would be where you live Mark, much of the water is drawn from boreholes as public supply. As it is in the Lakes NP and White Peaks, southern part, of the Peak District NP.

The tailings water in the construction phase doesn't have a good rep so far in Britain as it goes for treatment to the local large sewage works. This water contains naturally occurring radioactive substances at concentrated levels in the sludge, which needs a permit to dispose of. 18 months ago 5 million litres of it went through a NW sewage treatment plant unpermited and not treated properly by the plant, it was then flushed into the Mersey and its estuary. To date the regulator (EA) has not, or indicated it's going to take any action against either party for polluting the Mersey with radioactive substances. One can't help thinking the piper was paid to play a tune here!

As to cheaper gas because of it, don't any of you watch the news on TV the fracking industry said only 2 days ago this gas won't make gas any cheaper!

Boy they know a cash cow mug when they see one!

Couple of points from me.

First when has any government every kept to their word, so there is no surprise this is happening.

Second, Peter Jacobs is right to a point. Only today it has been revealed on the TV, that this new kind of Fracking hasn't been carried out. 4 years ago it was going to be started, but the company backed out after the up roar from locals.

So it isn't a tried and tested method at all.

As someone with limited knowledge of the technology involved, if this method of energy production avoids any additional burning of carbon fuels is it not a suitable alternative to Fracking?

EnviRecover Project | Recovery | Severn Waste Services

I know one has been built at Ferrybridge and a second is planned for the same site.

Something similar near Corby, the protest is massive, nimby syndrome will not go away, thats why western governments dump toxic waste on African beaches or turn a blind eye to it.

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------

Just a question to you guys whether all this investment couldnt be redirected to fitting solar panels to every roof in the U.K.

That's a great post Bad One! :thumbs:

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:31 ----------

There are numerous zero carbon technologies already available and, although there's no single magic solution, we've got to start phasing out high CO² producing technologies. The construction industry is highly regulated in this regard already but some people don't want to let go of the money to be made by using coal and gas, despite it's damaging effect.

We shouldn't be looking for more easily available fossil fuel sources that produce CO², we should be investing in replacement technologies and research.

The future energy industry will have to be a very different landscape than it looks like now and will have multiple sustainable energy solutions working together to cater for our energy needs... not a handful of outdated industries with questionable ethics that simply don't want to change. This will include solar, wind, water, nuclear, and a miriad of other existing and emerging technologies. We need to reduce our usage of coal and gas, not scrape together every last bit of it by any means necessary and pump more emissions into the atmosphere. That will run out eventually anyway and we'll still have to change, just from a much worse starting point.. the quicker we start the better we'll all be off, and that goes for our children, and their children, and so on.

Nuclear power stations do take a long time to build. We've known that for decades but not acted on it... a number of them would have been built by now and our dependance on fossil fuels would already be less.

We already see climate change progressing quickly and no-one actually knows how fast it will progressively get worse, if it hits a tipping point we're screwed, but you can be sure that while we're pumping pollution into the atmosphere it isn't going to slow down and while all this is happening we'll destroy the natural world us anglers hold in such high regard with toxic chemicals.

There was recently a programme on the TV, Horizon I think, that showed how people are being affected in the US directly down to fracking operations.. severe illnesses, infertility, reduced cognitive brain power, to name but a few. People abandoning their homes for their health and ending up with nothing.. they can't sell their houses adjacent to fracking platforms. Whole communities decimated so a few can make a fortune.

Apply that to our small and overcrowded country and the effects will be devastating. Taxpayers will then have to foot the bill while the fracking industry and no doubt some appointed officials become rich.

wanderer said:

Its undesirable rather than disgraceful, we cannot remain reliant on far East or Russian energy imports, they have proved expensive, unreliable and a strategic risk. The only reason the oil price is so low is that OPEC are deliberately holding it there to discourage fracking, as soon as it stops, watch the oil price soar. Two sides to this and we have to be careful before we dismiss our own natural resources, but lets do it in a controlled way, all this fuss over GM foods, i dont hear the starving people of the third world complaining, only middle class nimbys.

Click to expand...

Any gas they extract from their crazy fracking on this small island will not be for us, it's for re-sale to foreign countries...our bills will not go down!!!
They made that clear a few months ago on the box.
If the british public weren't such a bunch of fracking to$$ers they'd unite and put a stop to this lunacy (as they would about the dreggs of the earth flooding into our country). The only people who'll benefit from fracking are the people who have too much money already .

itsfishingnotcatching said:

As someone with limited knowledge of the technology involved, if this method of energy production avoids any additional burning of carbon fuels is it not a suitable alternative to Fracking?

EnviRecover Project | Recovery | Severn Waste Services

I know one has been built at Ferrybridge and a second is planned for the same site.

Click to expand...

IFNC the fundamental problem with incineration is it “burns waste, “ which emits CO2 on a level very close to coal due to the fuel stock it uses. The Refuge Derived Fuel is (RDF) is so variable in the carbon content it can not be controlled, as what is present to it as RDF, it has to burn. So after burning it the CO2 goes up the stack and into the atmosphere in mega tones per year.

Post Paris, Waste to Energy, the industries fluffy term for incineration, is living on borrowed time because of the quantities of CO2 they emit. A point I argued at public inquiry over 12 years ago when governments weren’t taking the CO2 issue very seriously. Thankfully we stopped that incinerator being built.
There are many other serious issues surrounding incinerators that makes building them a very bad idea indeed.
I can fully understand the so-called nimbism of local communities opposing them being built in their locality.