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.
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!