99% of respondents say NO - Camoron says fuck you

[colinthewarriormonkey]

Magnitude 3 won't even be noticed by most people and won't cause any damage to buildings

Would you willingly buy a house sitting on an area which would have an increased risk of having am magnitude 3 earthquake underneath it?

Because the insurance companies would never refuse to insure would they?

Yes, because the increased risk of a magnitude 3 tremor is minimal and if one was to occur it wouldn't do any damage. There are hundreds of similar events every year in old coal mining regions, the area around Ollerton had 36 seismic events over a period of 50 days, I can't recall seeing reports of devastation or insurers refusing policies. In fact the British Geological Survey says there have been no reports of structural damage by mining induced seismicity in the last 40 years. We get bigger natural earthquakes in the UK relating to tectonics and old fault systems than we would ever get with shale gas operations.

The watermelon crowd (green outside and red inside if you didn't know) and nimbys are using scare stories which the ill-informed seem to fall for, perhaps understandably given induced seismicity is not something most people know anything about! My training and background is such that I do know a lot about it and I would not be worried one bit if fracking was happening under my house.

The key issues with onshore shale gas are water and vehicle movements both of which can be dealt with in any planning application.

You know as well as I do, that property prices will plummet because there are huge amounts of people who will not want to buy a house anywhere near a fracking operation.

I am however more concerned with the health risks, because energy companies inevitably fuck up - and if that gets into drinking water, then thousands of people could suffer.

Fuck them, this is kicking the can down the road is all, they should be investing in making renewable energy that can actually be utilised efficiently.

[therealHJ]

Colin those were a small number of early wells, the technology has come on a long way since then as has the legislation relating to this kind of extraction.

All of the extractive industries involve some risk you can't eliminate it completely, but if you look worldwide at all the hundreds of thousands of oil and gas wells, mines and quarries which provide the energy and raw materials necessary for you to enjoy talkFORUM and the relative luxury of modern life, there are very few incidents.

The benefits of onshore shale gas far outweighs the risk of a well or two having some problems. It will give us some breathing space while alternatives are developed, you can't just flick a switch and go alternative, The knowledge gained onshore can also be applied to the North and Irish sea basins where there is significant shale gas potential as well.

Property prices won't fall because people won't even notice and there is more health risk living near an "A" Road than having shale gas operations in your district. With modern drilling methods you can have multiple wellheads from one drilling site and once the drill rig has done its work you have surface infrastructure which has a small footprint and low visual impact. Wellheads themselves will also be sited in a way which minimises any visual impact, when compared to a fucking great windfarm it has negligible impact. Once the gas is drained the well will be closed down and sealed, they won't be there forever probably about eight years per well.

[ccreds]

Magnitude 3 won't even be noticed by most people and won't cause any damage to buildings

Would you willingly buy a house sitting on an area which would have an increased risk of having am magnitude 3 earthquake underneath it?

Because the insurance companies would never refuse to insure would they?

Yes, because the increased risk of a magnitude 3 tremor is minimal and if one was to occur it wouldn't do any damage. There are hundreds of similar events every year in old coal mining regions, the area around Ollerton had 36 seismic events over a period of 50 days

Over towards notts/derby's border where the coal seams are shallow, would we have problems?

[therealHJ]

Magnitude 3 won't even be noticed by most people and won't cause any damage to buildings

Would you willingly buy a house sitting on an area which would have an increased risk of having am magnitude 3 earthquake underneath it?

Because the insurance companies would never refuse to insure would they?

Yes, because the increased risk of a magnitude 3 tremor is minimal and if one was to occur it wouldn't do any damage. There are hundreds of similar events every year in old coal mining regions, the area around Ollerton had 36 seismic events over a period of 50 days

Over towards notts/derby's border where the coal seams are shallow, would we have problems?

There is some prospectivity for gas in the lower Bowland-Hodder Shale in this area although I don't think it will be a priority target for exploration. The shallow coal workings shouldn't cause any problems, there are enough unmined areas to drill through.

[m4 colin]

Big earthquakes Ooohhweee Never had them before ....................Wonder why

[ccreds]

Magnitude 3 won't even be noticed by most people and won't cause any damage to buildings

Would you willingly buy a house sitting on an area which would have an increased risk of having am magnitude 3 earthquake underneath it?

Because the insurance companies would never refuse to insure would they?

Yes, because the increased risk of a magnitude 3 tremor is minimal and if one was to occur it wouldn't do any damage. There are hundreds of similar events every year in old coal mining regions, the area around Ollerton had 36 seismic events over a period of 50 days

Over towards notts/derby's border where the coal seams are shallow, would we have problems?

There is some prospectivity for gas in the lower Bowland-Hodder Shale in this area although I don't think it will be a priority target for exploration. The shallow coal workings shouldn't cause any problems, there are enough unmined areas to drill through.

For opencast mining?

[therealHJ]

Magnitude 3 won't even be noticed by most people and won't cause any damage to buildings

Would you willingly buy a house sitting on an area which would have an increased risk of having am magnitude 3 earthquake underneath it?

Because the insurance companies would never refuse to insure would they?

Yes, because the increased risk of a magnitude 3 tremor is minimal and if one was to occur it wouldn't do any damage. There are hundreds of similar events every year in old coal mining regions, the area around Ollerton had 36 seismic events over a period of 50 days

Over towards notts/derby's border where the coal seams are shallow, would we have problems?

There is some prospectivity for gas in the lower Bowland-Hodder Shale in this area although I don't think it will be a priority target for exploration. The shallow coal workings shouldn't cause any problems, there are enough unmined areas to drill through.

For opencast mining?

Not sure about opencast, never been involved in that area, but the old shallow mine workings won't be a problem for shale gas drilling where the target will be much deeper

[ccreds]

Magnitude 3 won't even be noticed by most people and won't cause any damage to buildings

Would you willingly buy a house sitting on an area which would have an increased risk of having am magnitude 3 earthquake underneath it?

Because the insurance companies would never refuse to insure would they?

Yes, because the increased risk of a magnitude 3 tremor is minimal and if one was to occur it wouldn't do any damage. There are hundreds of similar events every year in old coal mining regions, the area around Ollerton had 36 seismic events over a period of 50 days

Over towards notts/derby's border where the coal seams are shallow, would we have problems?

There is some prospectivity for gas in the lower Bowland-Hodder Shale in this area although I don't think it will be a priority target for exploration. The shallow coal workings shouldn't cause any problems, there are enough unmined areas to drill through.

For opencast mining?

Not sure about opencast, never been involved in that area, but the old shallow mine workings won't be a problem for shale gas drilling where the target will be much deeper

Yorkshire coal seams were deep.

[Thursty]

We just haven't got the transport links to support the hundreds of extra trucks carrying equipment, water, waste, the gas, etc. etc. to-and-fro, then there's the CO2 from the trucks themselves! Fracking madness.

We have a planning system which takes truck movements and road usage into account

Was chatting to someone from BHP who said that one downside of their GPS truck-tracking system is that it is so accurate, the trucks are taking eactly the same routes around the mine and carving out ruts in which they get stuck.

[therealHJ]

We just haven't got the transport links to support the hundreds of extra trucks carrying equipment, water, waste, the gas, etc. etc. to-and-fro, then there's the CO2 from the trucks themselves! Fracking madness.

We have a planning system which takes truck movements and road usage into account

Was chatting to someone from BHP who said that one downside of their GPS truck-tracking system is that it is so accurate, the trucks are taking eactly the same routes around the mine and carving out ruts in which they get stuck.

Yes I heard the same from someone at Rio, they vary the routes slightly to reduce the ruts. There does seem to be more haul road maintenance required with driverless haulpacks but with a human driver, who is less efficient, costing $150,000 to $200,000 a year it makes sense.

[ccreds]

Derby's coalfield was shallower but Notts and Yorkshire were deeper. HJ they know where all the minerals are dont they, where it is? Is there a website?

[therealHJ]

Derby's coalfield was shallower but Notts and Yorkshire were deeper. HJ they know where all the minerals are dont they, where it is? Is there a website?

There's also quite a lot of shallow coal in Yorkshire. You could try the British Geological Survey and The Coal Authority http://coal.decc.gov.uk/

[ccreds]

Derby's coalfield was shallower but Notts and Yorkshire were deeper. HJ they know where all the minerals are dont they, where it is? Is there a website?

There's also quite a lot of shallow coal in Yorkshire. You could try the British Geological Survey and The Coal Authority http://coal.decc.gov.uk/

Cheers.

[m4rkb]

I don't trust this fracking lark at all TBH even though the economics of it mean no one is going to stop it. from going ahead.

And it won't bring down your gas bill either as whoever mines it will be duty bound to maximise profits for shareholders which means they will wring the last penny out of it at maximum price.

Nor can you trust the assurances that it will do no harm or that any environmental issues are put right after. In America they gave all these assurances and then bumped the company responsible for the clear up and just left it.

It strikes up images of tectonic plates being messed with and no one knowing what to do if it all goes wrong.

[therealHJ]

Nova Scotia's centre left government has banned fracking, bunch of pussies bowed to pressure from greens and First Nations

[m4rkb]

I'd certainly like to watch a piece of rock being 'fracked' just to see what it does to it before I make my mind up that it's all OK and perfectly safe. The idea of crumbling that which is supposed to be solid under our feet just doesn't appeal to me I'm afraid. And I'm presuming it literally does crumble.

[therealHJ]

I'd certainly like to watch a piece of rock being 'fracked' just to see what it does to it before I make my mind up that it's all OK and perfectly safe. The idea of crumbling that which is supposed to be solid under our feet just doesn't appeal to me I'm afraid. And I'm presuming it literally does crumble.

I posted a link earlier to a briefing note which is worth reading.

No it doesn't crumble, all it does is propagate a network of very fine fractures (about 1mm) which allow the gas to drain into the well. In the UK it will be done at depths of greater than 2km a long way from aquifers and property.

Some initial disruption during drilling, truck movements etc but once the well is established I doubt you would notice.

I think part of the problem is the word "fracking" it sounds much worse than it is, they should have used the full name of hydraulic fracturing

[colinthewarriormonkey]

What do you reckon to this claim that the 4 mile landslide that happened in colorado was due to a fracking operation?

phpBB [video]

[m4rkb]

The word 'fracturing' is the word most of us read into the word 'fracking' and what we're worried about. Like as thought they wanted to hide something by toning it down.

But fair do's. A sensible link to address the issues is well worth a read.

But what happens when they decide they can get more and more gas out , more and more quickly with bigger and bigger fracture lines? They will surely push for it, and once started these increases might happen unchecked by anyone other than their experts say so everything is still safe.

But.

If there were any gas supply problems in the future, and looking at the state of the world at present that is highly likely, common sense tells me we should do it even if there is a slight risk. That risk would be better than the UK having no gas.

They need to lose the word fracturing altogether if they are to swing this and give it a new fancy name and a picture of a cute baby next to a roaring gas fire. Get some image consultants in to brainwash us en masse. Something with the word 'reserve' in it to make it sound we're on the last drop and about to run out. Maybe the word 'deep' in there too to make us feel it's miles underground.

Failing that just fuck everyone and start cracking the earth's crust like a walnut.

[therealHJ]

What do you reckon to this claim that the 4 mile landslide that happened in colorado was due to a fracking operation?

phpBB [video]

It had nothing to do with fracking

A period of very heavy rain saturated the slope which was composed of relatively loose material, this fluidises the material and gravity takes over and you get a debris flow / mudslide. There was a similar one in Washington State around the same time.

Geology and weather not fracking

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... teractive/

[colinthewarriormonkey]

Fair enough.

[m4rkb]

What do you reckon to this claim that the 4 mile landslide that happened in colorado was due to a fracking operation?

phpBB [video]

I think there's an additional issue with the amount of water they use to do it, as was also mentioned in that video.

I'm sure I've heard of it depleting huge lakes and rivers. And what comes out the other end isn't the kind of stuff you'd want to put back either.

I'm genuinely torn on this. One second it sounds a must, the next - a catastrophe waiting to happen.

[therealHJ]

Fair enough.

What about the people that can set their tap water on fire?

Yet another anti-fracking scare story, after the film was shown the water was tested by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. They found no evidence of fracking related contamination by oil or gas. What they did discover is that the man drew his water from a water borehole which passed through several thin coal seams hence the gas, I also recall that the isotopic signature of the gas also confirmed it came from the coal.

The anti-fracking brigade peddle lies and scare stories which people ignorant of what are quite complex facts seem all too eager to believe for some reason

[therealHJ]

I think there's an additional issue with the amount of water they use to do it, as was also mentioned in that video.

I'm sure I've heard of it depleting huge lakes and rivers. And what comes out the other end isn't the kind of stuff you'd want to put back either.

I'm genuinely torn on this. One second it sounds a must, the next - a catastrophe waiting to happen.

The amount of water to create a landslide like that would be immense and far more than any fracking well or wells would ever use. Besides which the depths at which they are fracking are well in excess of 2000 feet.

It is true in the early days of shale gas there were a few fuck-ups but the technology has come a long way as has the legislation and knowledge of potential environmental issues.

As I have said several times the main issue is water. Fracking involves pumping water down the hole with a propant such as frac sand or ceramic beads to keep the micro cracks open. They also usually add some chemicals to reduce viscosity etc (less than 1% of volume).

In shale gas operations around 10% to 30% of the water will come back to the surface (flowback water) via the well. It is usually contaminated with salts (from the sea water in which the shales were originally deposited millions of years ago), chemical additives and hydrocarbons and maybe some traces of metals. These days this water is recycled and used in additional fracking operations but it still requires substantial amounts. In the UK water availabilty could limit fracking in some areas.

[m4rkb]

It's true the amount of water needed to create this landslide probably didn't come from water injected by fracking but the main point was that it is drawing water from supplies which are causing water depletion in other places along the line.

A quick google brings up several examples. This link for example claims water is tapped off before it reaches other towns further downstream and 30 towns are affected.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/18/30- ... -fracking/

If this is ever allowed to happen, the amount of water used must be public knowledge as should be almost every other piece of data. This needs properly regulating, not lobbyists and friends of government offering lucrative directorships to anyone prepared to rubberstamp whatever's in front of them.

The actual cracking of the earth's crust beneath our feet in the quest for a bit of gas seems a step too far for me. It's like an attack on nature and nature will always win that battle.

All the research so far seems to have been about how to extract it and nothing about what side effects there might be.