Geoffrey Settle Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 I received a link to Lancashire Wildlife Trust earlier this month about a new report, Are We Fit to Frack? http://www.lancswt.org.uk/news/416/15/Leading-countryside-groups-join-forces-to-challenge-fracking-rules?dm_i=449%2C2BTP9%2CDYE69E%2C8G25J%2C1 no doubt has taken place on this discussion forum - would you be in favour of local fracking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Yep. Cheap, clean energy with minimal environmental impact. What's not to like? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Yes.... cheaper energy has to be a far more important priority than a few birds and frogs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Frack baby, frack away!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Yep, and get on with it asap, before Putin turns the tap off ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted April 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Well that's FIVE Big Fat yeses from the WWW panel Here is a paper from the British Geological Survey Natural Environmental Research Council http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquake_hazard_shale_gas.html for an objective point of view which seems to support your view: It includes a BGS co-author and concludes that the earthquakes near Blackpool in April and May 2011 were induced by hydraulic fracture treatments at the Preese Hall well (PH1), operated by CUADRILLA RESOURCES LTD. The report also concludes that further small earthquakes cannot be ruled out, however the risk from these earthquakes is low, and structural damage is extremely unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 States in the US,are prohibiting fracking within 1,500 feet of a home, school, church, and other areas. If they apply those rules over here they might as well ban fracking altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 You may find that the earth beneath our feet, can be unstable in any case, due to voids left by coal mining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Given that there are around 20 or 30 earthquakes strong enough to be felt by people each year how can they tell. (there are also some hundreds of other eathquakes each year that are only detected on the instrumenst). The western side of the british isle is the most prone to earthquakes but strangely ireland seems to suffer from very few. so if they start fracking in ireland and th incidence of earthquake activity rise then you would have definite proof that fracking causes earth quakes. as for being for or against it. currently undecided. on the plus side I MAY get cheaper energy. on the minus side there is a remote posibility that the earth will move for me and my house will fall down. (then agan there is a remote possibility that i will be struck between the eyes by a stray bolt from a passing sattelite that will leave a hole identical to a wound from a 9 mm automatic) If they do start fracking and there are earthquakes it seems that they only need to stop the process and the earthquakes go away. So go ahead and frack with the proviso that operations WILL cease if earthquake activity is detected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Fracking is ok as long as the government will be covering any costs for repairs to property that might occur through fracking & as long as the government treat fracking only as a short term measure to get some breathing space till their nuclear power stations are up & running. I can't honestly see it reducing energy prices though.....this is the British government & vested interests we are dealing with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Sid, If earthquake activity is detected they won't stop because of the same reasons you give early on in your post, ie it's normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hill Cliffe walker Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 It is quite alarming that Bazj has found the need to say this about the Animal Kingdom. Why do you say alarming? I happen to think that the future energy supplies of our country is more important than any wildlife or their environments People would soon start to complain if the lights went out because a power station or fracking spot couldn't be built because of some rare species of frog or lesser greater spotted newt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 I can see nuclear being the only alternative because the nimbys won't tolerate wind farms . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 ...and, of course, the fact that wind farms don't provide any sort of energy security. So we have the ridiculous situation of coal and gas fired power stations being kept on hot standby and burning thousands of tons of fossil fuels without generating any power, just so they can instantly pick up the load when the wind drops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 The subsidy that goes on to wind power should go to other types of generation, solar, methane, wave, but the power in the future will come from nitrogen I think not nuclear. Oh yes to fracking (watching my spelling). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 Where id Hill Cliffe Walkers post go???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 Water Pollution http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/groundwater-contamination-may-end-the-gas-fracking-boom/ You don't here about a lot of pollution issues in America as cracking is exempt from legislation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 The fracking being proposed in the UK is FAR deeper than groundwater levels and utilises sealed concrete boreholes to bring the gas to the surface. Some of the early fracking sites in the US were much shallower - and there's plenty of evidence that groundwater in these areas naturally contained methane well before fracking started. There's even a video of tap water being set on fire which was being used as propoganda by the anti-fracking groups until it was revealed that the footage was shot years before any fracking had taken place. The main groundwater contamination risk with fracking is if the water injected into the rocks to frack them is not contained when it is returned to the surface. The risks of that are now well understood and all UK fracking permits will require companies to contain this water - and from an economic point of view they'll, given the relatively higher cost of water supply in the UK than the US, they'll probably want to reuse it time after time anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/24/caudrilla-censured-fracking-safety-claims Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris1066 Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 Energy from Nitrogen ? How so ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 Energy from Nitrogen ? How so ? It's quite simple Boris. You obtain the nitrogen from the atmosphere (where it is plentiful being the most abundant gas) and compress it. You store the compressed gas in cylinders and use it to drive whatever machinery you need! What's that you're saying? How do you compress the nitrogen? Easy, use electric driven compressors using electricity from coal/gas/nuclear powered generators of course! Simples Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Either that or or a you could install a large treadmill in each cell block that drives a compressor to compress the nitrogen. two hours a day for each convict to take a turn as part of their sentence. Could be onto a winner there as the green party could not protest against it, it is sustainable,renewable energy (until we run out of convicts that is) The human right wallers could not complain against it, it provides much needed exercise for the convicts and if sited in a covered area in the yard fresh air as well. There is little or no pollution from it and it would give the convicts a good feeling that they were helping to provide cheap energy for the community and a cleaner future for the next generation. Might even persuade a few of them that crime is not the way to go. The only downside that I can see is that convicts would build up a considerable amount of leg muscle which would mean that they could better escape the police in a foot race (another incentive for them perhaps). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/24/caudrilla-censured-fracking-safety-claims Cuadrilla censured for their advertising? A year ago?? Is that really the biggest storm in a teacup you can come up with??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.