Fracking

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:30 pm

I have been Involved In a campaign to stop Fracking In the Mendip Hills of Somerset, a short drive from my home.

My Initial concern on hearing the plans was the effect on wildlife but the more I Investigated, the more It horrified me.

Mabinogogiblog: Fracking threat to the Mendip Hills

Have any of our US members experienced effects from Fracking and what are your views?

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:20 pm

That's just unbelievable, Oscar, it really is!!

Mustang · Post by **Mustang** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:37 pm

Fracking is being done all over the US, Oscar.

It not only has an impact on wildlife but also the environment and human beings.

A lot of people where fracking is taking place have wells or natural springs that supply their household water. Some have had them contaminated and became sick from using the water.

Fracking Linked to Water Contamination, Health Problems In Several States | NewsInferno

These drilling companies remove up to 1 million gallons of water per day, per drilling site, from local streams and rivers to use in their drilling process. That's a lot of water removal, especially when the drought hit this summer. People raised hell about them doing that during our drought and DEP (The Dept. of Environmental Protection) had to

temporarily ban them from removing anymore water, until the water ban was lifted.

The idea of fracking made people believe it would generate a good income from signing up to have their land drilled and bring jobs to their areas for local residents. Now, people are having second thoughts because of the contamination and health issues that are arising.

Personally, I'm against it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:04 pm

Thanks Mustang, that's a great help.

I am currently gathering as much Info as possible for our campaign. If you could point me In the direction of any further lawsuits In the US as a result of contaminated water etc etc, I'd be very grateful.

GMC.... Thanks for the stuff you sent me and I shall use this to bolster our objections.

Mustang · Post by **Mustang** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:09 pm

oscar;1367174 wrote: Thanks Mustang, that's a great help.

I am currently gathering as much Info as possible for our campaign. If you could point me In the direction of any further lawsuits In the US as a result of contaminated water etc etc, I'd be very grateful.

You're welcome Oscar.

Here's another link that might be helpful with some interesting information.

Documents: A Case of Fracking-Related Contamination - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:36 pm

Mustang;1367179 wrote: You're welcome Oscar.

Here's another link that might be helpful with some interesting information.

Documents: A Case of Fracking-Related Contamination - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
I just spent the best part of an hour reading everything In this link.

Thanks again Mustang. This Is all great stuff I can use towards with my campaign. Very much appreciated.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:28 pm

No Battlestar Galactica fans here, I guess.

Post by **spot** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:18 pm

SnoozeAgain;1367190 wrote: No Battlestar Galactica fans here, I guess.Few if any, I'd have thought. I did once view an episode but other than the bewildered presence of Lorne Greene the program had little going for it. It contained lots of plastic models, and I'm not referring to the spaceships.

I have no view on the benefits or otherwise of fracturing underground gas and oil reservoirs in order to extract fuel. I do wince at the word used to describe the technique though. I'd prefer not to see it in future.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:46 am

UK urged to ban controversial 'fracking' gas-extraction - News - The Ecologist

This video Is Interesting.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:37 pm

I have loads of info for you Oscar I've been protesting for awhile. I'll give it to you when I can ..bit busy at the mo.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:39 pm

It's official

Officials Say Fracking Caused Ohio Earthquake

FOCUS | AP: Officials Say Fracking Caused Ohio Earthquake

Gentle Brother · Post by **Gentle Brother** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:56 pm

When they test drilled outside Blackpool it triggered two earthquakes - something absolutely unheard of in that part of England.

I understand they're still going ahead though. Blackpool needs the jobs and the Government needs the revenue...

They have banned fracking in France and frankly they ought to ban it (Britain) here too! Short term gain, long term damage - doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:08 am

Gentle Brother;1380820 wrote: When they test drilled outside Blackpool it triggered two earthquakes - something absolutely unheard of in that part of England.

I understand they're still going ahead though. Blackpool needs the jobs and the Government needs the revenue...

They have banned fracking in France and frankly they ought to ban it (Britain) here too! Short term gain, long term damage - doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

If you are the one making the gain and don't actually care about the effect on anybody else plus you have the wealth and influence you will get your way. It's no different from employers using asbestos as a building material even after they knew it was dangerous or any other industrial process that causes harm, This is different in some ways as the long term consequences could be irreversible. The only way they get away with it is by portraying protesters as tree hugging nutters.

Gasland part 1 of 2 - YouTube

You should watch gasland it's the sheer complete indifference of the companies to the harm they cause - it's not fiction with a happy ending for those who are affected by it.

Stop Mountaintop Removal Mining - YouTube

If you don't have to deal with **** you tend not to worry about where it ends up.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:31 am

It is high time that people rose up en masse to stop the plans to frack in the UK. Time is of the essence and these companies cannot be allowed to insanely violate our lands and cause our precious earth to become toxic with all the 590 or so chemicals used with the millions of gallons of our precious spring water, in order to do this shale mining.

I implore you all to read all the posts and the links on this thread and just learn what this 'fracking' is all about. The drinking water in the fracking areas could well be poisoned and could cause people to experience severe all-over pains and brain damage amongst other nasty reactions ! We are not being told anything much about the REAL effect this fracking will have not just on the land and the environment but on human beings ! Because nobody knows !!! I was always suspicious when nobody mentioned the names of the chemicals used with the water to fracture the earth hundreds of feet below the surface to release the gas for our use for power. I realise now that with well over 500 different chemicals to be used, most have extremely long names that are hardly pronounceable, and anybody with a knowledge of chemicals would scream out loud and run as far away as possible from the mine that is using this dreadful mix. In America there have been numerous examples of people suffering terrible effects by drinking the tap water - even death. There are attempts to hush things up and to blame other possible causes, but more and more people are beginning to realise that the greed of the fracking companies far outweighs the common sense and need to be wary of looking after the health of the people living around their mining complexes !

It's all about bloody money isn't it ? Councils are likely to get lots of tax from these fracking companies for using the land for their mine complexes and be damned to any nasty consequences of the mining activities.

We must all get together and stop this insanity. There is just no good reason whatsoever in going ahead with fracking in the UK, or basically anywhere in the world, as the resultant adverse consequences are far greater than any potential benefit that MAY be gained.

Please check out the links...........................

Check out the chemicals @ 0.25 ! Thanks gmc for posting this video back in 2012 !

This is what fracking looks like (clone)

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:48 pm

I find the whole concept of fracking absolutely contemptible. In a world where fossil fuels are rapidly running out, resources need to be put in to finding clean, renewable resources, such as solar, wind, hydro & tidal energies, which are out there in abundance, rather than churning money into finding ways to lick the last remnants in the bowl.

The examples in the video of setting light to the water as it came out of the tap demonstrates just how 'safe' fracking is. Plus fracking has positively been related to seismic activity, causing earthquakes - and that's only in areas where it's being tested on a small scale. These sort of results have been observed & recorded worldwide, yet the Government & shareholders of the fracking companies (same thing really) continue to insist that it's totally safe & that the earthquakes around the fracking sites are purely coincidental.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:42 pm

Not a fan of fracking either. My state vetoed fracking. Only good thing this Governor, Cuomo the Younger, has done.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:35 am

FourPart;1481068 wrote: I find the whole concept of fracking absolutely contemptible. In a world where fossil fuels are rapidly running out, resources need to be put in to finding clean, renewable resources, such as solar, wind, hydro & tidal energies, which are out there in abundance, rather than churning money into finding ways to lick the last remnants in the bowl.

The examples in the video of setting light to the water as it came out of the tap demonstrates just how 'safe' fracking is. Plus fracking has positively been related to seismic activity, causing earthquakes - and that's only in areas where it's being tested on a small scale. These sort of results have been observed & recorded worldwide, yet the Government & shareholders of the fracking companies (same thing really) continue to insist that it's totally safe & that the earthquakes around the fracking sites are purely coincidental.

Totally agree. Mankind is a virtuoso at inventing "Frankenstein" technology, without a thought for future problems and ramifications! GM foods are another good example.

What's wrong with using hydrogen for PROPULSION, and oil for LUBRICATION? We have enough oil for centuries if we use it thus. I suppose that with enough research, they MAY be able to make "fracking" safe(er), but not until they can predict ACCURATELY where the cracks caused by the process will run and that will need many years of research and experimentation to ascertain, if it's even possible to predict...As for tap-water contamination, totally unacceptable and dangerous!

Why not invest the time and money used to "develop" fracking for developing "green" alternatives instead?

Stupid question really. "Oil Barons" wouldn't want anything threatening profits whatever the risk to us and our environment. We cannot go on abusing our environment as we do without nature "taking a hand", and "balancing the scales"...undoubtedly to our sorrow.

I note that the fracking companies don't elaborate on he chemicals used in the process...

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:37 am

AnneBoleyn;1481072 wrote: Not a fan of fracking either. My state vetoed fracking. Only good thing this Governor, Cuomo the Younger, has done.

As you say, at least he's got SOMETHING right!

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:12 am

I suggest there are two issues here, the unregulated activity in the USA and the regulated activity in the UK.

Firstly, no drinking water supplies have ever been polluted in the UK because nowhere in the UK does the public water supply take water from the underground water table. All of the UK public water supply is taken directly from surface water in one form or another. I can't see how the UK public water supply can possibly be affected. Does anyone have any suggestion as to how it might be?

Secondly, the issue of "earthquakes" was discussed at http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/unite ... kpool.html though none of my points there were addressed. The "earthquakes" were several orders of magnitude less than would cause any structural damage and I see no reason at all to think any fracking "earthquake" could ever reach that power in the UK. Does anyone have any suggestion why it might?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:04 am

spot;1481104 wrote: I suggest there are two issues here, the unregulated activity in the USA and the regulated activity in the UK.

Firstly, no drinking water supplies have ever been polluted in the UK because nowhere in the UK does the public water supply take water from the underground water table. All of the UK public water supply is taken directly from surface water in one form or another. I can't see how the UK public water supply can possibly be affected. Does anyone have any suggestion as to how it might be?

Secondly, the issue of "earthquakes" was discussed at http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/unite ... kpool.html though none of my points there were addressed. The "earthquakes" were several orders of magnitude less than would cause any structural damage and I see no reason at all to think any fracking "earthquake" could ever reach that power in the UK. Does anyone have any suggestion why it might?

In Nottinghamshire, there is something called the "Bunter Sandstone", in which which there is a underground natural water supply stored within this sandstone bed, and used as drinking water by local residents! If fracking is used in Notts, what guarantee is there that this supply will not be contaminated by industrial fracking chemicals?

If you trust these large, commercial companies to safeguard our health, or the safety of our water supply, then "fill your boots"!

As for quakes, why shouldn't fracking cause seismic activity? When these "fragments" settle, there could well be some seismic activity. I would imagine this activity would be worse in a geologically unstable area, or a sink-hole prone area.

We don' need fracking, we need environmentally SYMPATHETIC technology, not more ecological destruction with yet more fossil fuel pollution, mainly for the benefit of industrial "fat-cats" and governments. You complain about offshore power-boat racing, yet appear to support fracking?

Seems a little contradictory!

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:18 am

Smaug;1481107 wrote: In Nottinghamshire, there is something called the "Bunter Sandstone", in which which there is a underground natural water supply stored within this sandstone bed, and used as drinking water by local residents! If fracking is used in Notts, what guarantee is there that this supply will not be contaminated by industrial fracking chemicals?

I stand corrected, I had thought borehole extraction for public drinking supplies was a thing of the past in the UK but I was mistaken.

Chemical contamination depends on how far these chemicals can spread underground. I'll go and find out what the furthest measured movement of any pollutant into groundwater is and report back. I would be surprised if it's so much as a half mile, but we'll see. If it were more one would expect farming fertilizers and sewage would have been killing people every year through their taps. I note that that's not happened.

I'm aware there's seismic activity related to fracking but the largest disturbance measured to date in the UK measured 2.3 on the Richter scale, a factor of a hundred less than would be noticed by the public at any significant distance and thousands of times less powerful than would cause any structural damage. Earth tremors of magnitude 2.3 are frequent occurrences in the UK and have nothing to do with fracking, they're the background level. What reason have you for thinking that fracking will cause structural damage in the UK?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:00 pm

spot;1481108 wrote: I stand corrected, I had thought borehole extraction for public drinking supplies was a thing of the past in the UK but I was mistaken.

Chemical contamination depends on how far these chemicals can spread underground. I'll go and find out what the furthest measured movement of any pollutant into groundwater is and report back. I would be surprised if it's so much as a half mile, but we'll see. If it were more one would expect farming fertilizers and sewage would have been killing people every year through their taps. I note that that's not happened.

I'm aware there's seismic activity related to fracking but the largest disturbance measured to date in the UK measured 2.3 on the Richter scale, a factor of a hundred less than would be noticed by the public at any significant distance and thousands of times less powerful than would cause any structural damage. Earth tremors of magnitude 2.3 are frequent occurrences in the UK and have nothing to do with fracking, they're the background level. What reason have you for thinking that fracking will cause structural damage in the UK?
Environment Agency - Groundwater source protection zones

shale-gas-exploitation

It has been demonstrated that the concentration of tremors & the increased frequency co-relates to fracking regions. Of course there is a co-relation. Fracking, by definition extracts gas contained within fractures beneath the earth. It is these fractures which are the cause of seismic activity, with or without fracking. The difference is that when a pipe remains full it stays relatively strong. Once it is empty it is more likely to collapse. In other words, when substances are removed from the natural fractures, any level of natural strength is reduced.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:31 pm

I don't doubt in the slightest that there's a correlation. I said in the post you quote, I'm aware there's seismic activity related to fracking . What I keep saying is that the severity of the disturbances in the regulated UK industry has never come within a thousandth part of causing any damage to any property - unlike, for example, coal mining, which did so and continues to do so notoriously. I see no threat to life or property in any of these fracking micro-quakes, now or in the future. Why do you think there is such a threat? What do you rationally base that fear on?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:23 am

You're kind of missing the point aren't you - it's not the possibility of earthquakes that may or may not be minor - and initially the industry denied there was any connection - - it's the very real possibility that it contaminates the water supply unlike america this will not be taking place in sparsely uninhabited areas where only a few farmers lose their livelihoods. It only takes once for the danage to be irrepairable. You wouldn't piss in your own drinking water why do something like this? You're picking on one point and trying to make the person putting it sound silly while ignoring all the rest

Given the consequences of global warming does it make any kind of sense to be eveloping technologies that will add to the problem while cutting funding in to alternatives to burning oil?

Happily in scotland there is a moratorium on onshore development in england the government has short cirscuitted the planning regulations to prevent local opposition from having any effect.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _Offer.pdf

Simpler one for you

Map of UK Fracking Sites | Frack Off

Good luck gettingb the tories to listen.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:57 am

gmc;1481181 wrote: You're picking on one point and trying to make the person putting it sound silly while ignoring all the rest

Thank you. The only reason I've repeated anything on this topic is that you've completely ignored my every contribution until now - this is the first time you've addressed my points.

"All the rest" doesn't exist, there are only two points - "earthquakes", as you put them, which have never caused any property damage because the magnitude has always been so trivial, and groundwater pollution. You still haven't said anything at all about the triviality of these "50 earthquakes in Blackpool" hyperbole, for example. Does it or does it not cause structural damage to residents? I say it hasn't and that it is a totally different event to a geological earthquake because the source of the underground pressures and tensions is different. The USGS earthquake monitoring program, for example, notifies all US earthquakes above magnitude 3. None of the so-called "earthquakes" you're bringing to our attention have even reached that non-damaging level.

As for polluting groundwater, what seems relevant is the maximum distance to which underground pollutants can travel over a long time-frame in those places where UK drinking water is extracted. If it's 100m or 1km or 10km - and it varies depending on the type of rock - then obviously the regulated UK fracking companies will not be allowed within that range, nor would they wish to be given the adverse publicity they'd generate. I have no concern about non-drinking ground-water whatever. The biggest polluter of underground water is the damned farming community in the first place. Every field-full of cow-crap, pig slurry or super-phosphate runoff is an accident waiting to happen. And the country's full of landfill sites which leach heavy metals into groundwater which bothers me a damn sight more than the movement of naturally-occurring methane or oils, which are already naturally in place in neighbouring rock.

As for adding to global warming, we could work out the proportion of added atmospheric pollutants. My immediate guess is that you're talking of less than one part in ten thousand from all fracking worldwide, it must be immeasurably small. Would you like us to do the sums?

Instead of walking on by as usual, you might do me the politeness of addressing every point instead of just the sentence you feel you can score off.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:08 am

Another thing to bear in mind is that seismic activity is already being recorded even though the fracking is still on a very small / exploratory scale. Just imagine what it's going to develop into once it's fully under way.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:25 am

FourPart;1481185 wrote: Another thing to bear in mind is that seismic activity is already being recorded even though the fracking is still on a very small / exploratory scale. Just imagine what it's going to develop into once it's fully under way.

What it's going to develop into once it's fully under way is millions-more trivially-small earth-movements, none of which will cause any structural damage. It's the magnitude which causes damage, not the count of the events. All the events fall under a bell curve, a million-fold increase in their number will only push the highest-magnitude event up by two orders of magnitude - that's a thousand times the power, and would reach a single event of magnitude 4.3 which still wouldn't crack a wall much less bring down a building. The average event won't have become stronger at all, it will still be unnoticeable by the public.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:39 am

Remove material the size of a football, it's not likely to make much difference. Remove material the size of the Albert Hall is a little different. That is not going to be a matter of frequency. Of course once being done on an industrial scale there are going to be multiple Albert Halls.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:52 am

Their test sites will have been fully emptied, they didn't just suck a few quarts out and then seal the hole up. That's why there were micro-quakes. It's a test site of limited extent but full process, else it wouldn't have been a test. The test sites are full industrial-scale tests, they're not exploratory drilling. If there's an Albert Hall to be made then they made it.

Personally I don't think any such cavity could possibly be created. A fracking site is effectively an oil-and-gas field exactly like any conventional one except there's no back-pressure to squirt the oil-and-gas out like conventional fields always had in the past. The volume of rock left behind after fracking is the same as the volume of what's left behind after any normal oil-and-gas field has been processed.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:45 am

spot;1481108 wrote: I stand corrected, I had thought borehole extraction for public drinking supplies was a thing of the past in the UK but I was mistaken.

Chemical contamination depends on how far these chemicals can spread underground. I'll go and find out what the furthest measured movement of any pollutant into groundwater is and report back. I would be surprised if it's so much as a half mile, but we'll see. If it were more one would expect farming fertilizers and sewage would have been killing people every year through their taps. I note that that's not happened.

I'm aware there's seismic activity related to fracking but the largest disturbance measured to date in the UK measured 2.3 on the Richter scale, a factor of a hundred less than would be noticed by the public at any significant distance and thousands of times less powerful than would cause any structural damage. Earth tremors of magnitude 2.3 are frequent occurrences in the UK and have nothing to do with fracking, they're the background level. What reason have you for thinking that fracking will cause structural damage in the UK?

Thanks, Spot. I'd appreciate that. Not sure where you'll find that info, but I await your findings with interest!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:18 pm

spot;1481184 wrote: Thank you. The only reason I've repeated anything on this topic is that you've completely ignored my every contribution until now - this is the first time you've addressed my points.

"All the rest" doesn't exist, there are only two points - "earthquakes", as you put them, which have never caused any property damage because the magnitude has always been so trivial, and groundwater pollution. You still haven't said anything at all about the triviality of these "50 earthquakes in Blackpool" hyperbole, for example. Does it or does it not cause structural damage to residents? I say it hasn't and that it is a totally different event to a geological earthquake because the source of the underground pressures and tensions is different. The USGS earthquake monitoring program, for example, notifies all US earthquakes above magnitude 3. None of the so-called "earthquakes" you're bringing to our attention have even reached that non-damaging level.

As for polluting groundwater, what seems relevant is the maximum distance to which underground pollutants can travel over a long time-frame in those places where UK drinking water is extracted. If it's 100m or 1km or 10km - and it varies depending on the type of rock - then obviously the regulated UK fracking companies will not be allowed within that range, nor would they wish to be given the adverse publicity they'd generate. I have no concern about non-drinking ground-water whatever. The biggest polluter of underground water is the damned farming community in the first place. Every field-full of cow-crap, pig slurry or super-phosphate runoff is an accident waiting to happen. And the country's full of landfill sites which leach heavy metals into groundwater which bothers me a damn sight more than the movement of naturally-occurring methane or oils, which are already naturally in place in neighbouring rock.

As for adding to global warming, we could work out the proportion of added atmospheric pollutants. My immediate guess is that you're talking of less than one part in ten thousand from all fracking worldwide, it must be immeasurably small. Would you like us to do the sums?

Instead of walking on by as usual, you might do me the politeness of addressing every point instead of just the sentence you feel you can score off.

I've ignored you because it's actually a minor point. It's fact that fracking did cause the seismic activity, yes it was minor and it might have moived anyway that they say they will be more careful in future and will be closley regulated is hardly reasuring. When it comes right down to it we don;t need to do this the investment would be better spent on renewable energy sources that dont get the funding they need for the simple reason it affects the profits made by the big oil companies. Have look at what happened in america and decide whether you would trust those companies.

They are planning to do this inareas where there are porous chalk beds like tyhe south downs and kent if you think the risk is minimal I would put iot top you just once is all it will take for a resouirce we do not need.

Fracking fears highlighted by Campaign for the Protection of Rural England amid concerns to county's aquifer and water supplies

To reiterate I didn't bother answering because the risk of earyhquakes is the least of the problem with fracking.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:47 pm

gmc;1481221 wrote: To reiterate I didn't bother answering because the risk of earyhquakes is the least of the problem with fracking.

It's odd that you started an entire thread on it then. http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/unite ... kpool.html

This country - not least Scotland - has been kept solvent for forty years by North Sea Oil. The fracking reserves so far identified are on the same scale as the North Sea deposits turned out to be. What you think will keep the country solvent for the next forty years, if not fracking, I can't imagine. Where is the national income coming from, if you throw the fracking bonanza out of the window and refuse to cash it in?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:33 pm

Seriously, why doesn't the world go nuclear energy and be done with it.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:48 pm

Bruv;1481233 wrote: Seriously, why doesn't the world go nuclear energy and be done with it.

In the short term I think we have little other option.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:10 pm

I'd be delighted if it did. Everything not renewable to be nuclear, no fossil fuel use at all. If we're going to use any fossil fuel in the meantime though, I'd much rather we sourced it locally than paid for it as an import.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:20 am

spot;1481225 wrote: It's odd that you started an entire thread on it then. http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/unite ... kpool.html

This country - not least Scotland - has been kept solvent for forty years by North Sea Oil. The fracking reserves so far identified are on the same scale as the North Sea deposits turned out to be. What you think will keep the country solvent for the next forty years, if not fracking, I can't imagine. Where is the national income coming from, if you throw the fracking bonanza out of the window and refuse to cash it in?

That's the problem you see - lack of imagination plus an inability to accept that global warming is likely to make our worries about national income a bit irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much you earn if there is no food to put on the table. Look at america and the oncoming drought that's niot just global warming but short sighted overuse. corporations are already buying up control of the water supplies aand delivery systems and environmenta science is ridiculed as left wing propoganda. I'd hate to be american fifty years from now.

As to he north sea bonanza the revenues could have been better used investiumng for the future than giving tax breaks to already wealthy people and companies and paying mass unemployment benifits. You don't mention coal in all this that once used to supply all the town gas and we still have massive deposits of that. In thatchers' time when she introduced the opush for gas powered electricity generation people warbned that in thirty years time we would be dependent on foreign imports and we should relly consider alternatives to oil and gas. Guess what we now (dependent that is) are so why do we still listen to the same kind of idiots that are now pushing for fracking instead of those suggesting time and investment in alternatives.

In sweden instead of burying waste in landfill they uise it to generate electricity why can't we do that instead of the technological dead end of fracking

https://sweden.se/nature/the-swedish-re ... evolution/

Letâ€™s take a closer look at the 50 per cent of the household waste that is burnt to produce energy at incineration plants. Waste is a relatively cheap fuel and Sweden has, over time, developed a large capacity and skill in efficient and profitable waste treatment. Sweden even imports 700,000 tonnes of waste from other countries.

The remaining ashes constitute 15 per cent of the weight before burning. From the ashes, metals are separated and recycled, and the rest, such as porcelain and tile, which do not burn, is sifted to extract gravel that is used in road construction. About one per cent still remains and is deposited in rubbish dumps.

The smoke from incineration plants consists of 99.9 per cent non-toxic carbon dioxide and water, but is still filtered through dry filters and water. The dry filters are deposited. The sludge from the dirty filter water is used to refill abandoned mines.

Once the fracking is done do you really think the companies involved will care about clearing up their mess? Take the money and run as always.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:36 am

spot;1481244 wrote: I'd be delighted if it did. Everything not renewable to be nuclear, no fossil fuel use at all. If we're going to use any fossil fuel in the meantime though, I'd much rather we sourced it locally than paid for it as an import.

If we made our "energy drive" principally GREEN, with limited NUCLEAR power to "fill the gaps", as it were and only used oil as a LUBRICANT, as opposed to refining it for petrol, diesel and other fuels (very inefficient), and use hydrogen as vehicle fuel, we would have enough oil reserves to last hundreds, maybe thousands of years! We could reinforce these natural oil reserves with synthetics or palm oil, maybe both.

I think there IS a place for nuclear power at present, I agree with Bryn Mawr on that score. With energy demands being so high, and green power insufficiently developed to plug the energy gap on it's own, we have little choice!

However, nuclear power IS inherently dangerous, and should be phased out when green power is "up and running", therefore we should invest plenty of time, expertise and money into researching, building, and further developing this essential, ecologically sympathetic technology as soon as possible.

And stop erecting those **oody stupid wind turbines with their unreliable, inefficient, expensive, piddling contribution to the energy grid. A white elephant if ever I saw one, expensive and intrusive to boot!

I have my doubts on the desirability of developing shale extraction, if it goes wrong in the UK, we can't just relocate as the Americans do, we haven't the land-space available to do this, so IF we go for shale extraction we've GOT TO GET IT RIGHT FIRST TIME. I definitely share GMC's point of view that commercials aren't trustworthy

custodians for ANY form of wealth, they have a long, bad track record of theft, lies and deceit.

Is shale extraction worth the risk? At present, in the UK, I would tend towards "NO". The Americans have the space/land area to experiment and develop this technique, knowing that if things go "pear-shaped", they can abandon an area and relocate. We don't have that luxury!

Let's wait a while and see what the Americans can develop, in the way of safe extraction techniques.

I'll defer any final personal decisions about shale desirability 'till I've read Spot's report on pollution potential for watercourses/aquifers and reservoirs.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:40 am

Smaug;1481270 wrote: However, nuclear power IS inherently dangerous

Is it? How many people do you think nuclear plants have killed since the first one started. A hundred people? I suggest it's far and away the least dangerous of all energy technologies. Where are the deaths, if it's "inherently dangerous"?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:03 am

spot;1481271 wrote: Is it? How many people do you think nuclear plants have killed since the first one started. A hundred people? I suggest it's far and away the least dangerous of all energy technologies. Where are the deaths, if it's "inherently dangerous"?

Long Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl. How many died after Chernobyl? How many are YET to die because of Chernobyl? And Fukushima? What about all the escaping nuclear particles from Fukushima being deposited in the Pacific, and by now, other oceans and seas! Would you eat a fish from that part of the Pacific? What about the risk posed by terrorists to nuclear installations? Or destruction of these installations, and ensuing contamination of the population, by an aggressor?

Vunerabilities everywhere you look! The potential for major disaster is ever-present with nuclear power, a truly "double-edged" sword so we should be looking at this as a TEMPORARY solution, and stop being so damn greedy in our energy demands. Mankind is an energy "junkie" who would rather feel comfortable with his unhealthy habit, than REDUCE his demand!

And when a species places too much demand upon it's environment and rescources.....:yh_ghost

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:20 am

Smaug;1481273 wrote: How many died after Chernobyl?

As of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

WHO | Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident

Smaug;1481273 wrote: How many are YET to die because of Chernobyl?
A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

Smaug;1481273 wrote: FukushimaNone at all.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), released a report on the Fukushima accident April 2, 2014. It stated that the scientists have found no evidence to support the idea that the nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 will lead to an increase in cancer rates or birth defects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll

Long Island? None at all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mil ... th_effects

If you stretch the figures as far as they'll go, you have a potential from all nuclear incidents over the last sixty years of reduced lifespans of around a hundred people a year, worldwide. It's absolutely, totally, far and away the safest form of energy on the planet per Watt, or whatever unit of power you'd like to adopt. PetaWatt. Erg. There are more people die from falling off wind turbines, per GigaWatt generated, than die from nuclear-industry fallout.

Smaug;1481273 wrote: The potential for major disaster is ever-present with nuclear power

You could set off a Chernobyl every year and it would still qualify as a minor contribution to premature deaths. If you want to reduce premature deaths, produce safe copious drinking water for the less well off half of humanity. One Cherobyl a year would be a mere cumulative 4,000 premature deaths a year. Inadequate water provision, worldwide? Ten thousand times that number, annually? And even if that Chernobyl-a-year was the actual price instead of an obscene exaggeration, I'd still rather see that and no fossil energy production than the continued burning of the fossil fuel - the eventual cost of the consequences of global warming from that continued use will be astronomically higher than any worst-case radiation leak.

Reasonable risk assessment seems to be unfamiliar to a lot of people, you're not alone.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:48 am

So why the apparent support for fracking ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:53 am

Bruv;1481289 wrote: So why the apparent support for fracking ?

Purely financial. This country will be in the same position as Greece if it doesn't replace North Sea government revenues with something as big. Fracking's as big. Since nobody is in practice going to replace more than 50% of fossil energy production we might as well use our own fossil fuels and make an income out of it as pay for foreign fossil fuels and go broke as a consequence. Besides, the output of fracking is a feedstock to the UK's chemicals industry, you'll end up wearing it or cleaning your sink with it.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:22 am

spot;1481285 wrote: As of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

WHO | Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident

A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

None at all.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), released a report on the Fukushima accident April 2, 2014. It stated that the scientists have found no evidence to support the idea that the nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 will lead to an increase in cancer rates or birth defects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll

Long Island? None at all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mil ... th_effects

If you stretch the figures as far as they'll go, you have a potential from all nuclear incidents over the last sixty years of reduced lifespans of around a hundred people a year, worldwide. It's absolutely, totally, far and away the safest form of energy on the planet per Watt, or whatever unit of power you'd like to adopt. PetaWatt. Erg. There are more people die from falling off wind turbines, per GigaWatt generated, than die from nuclear-industry fallout.

You could set off a Chernobyl every year and it would still qualify as a minor contribution to premature deaths. If you want to reduce premature deaths, produce safe copious drinking water for the less well off half of humanity. One Cherobyl a year would be a mere cumulative 4,000 premature deaths a year. Inadequate water provision, worldwide? Ten thousand times that number, annually? And even if that Chernobyl-a-year was the actual price instead of an obscene exaggeration, I'd still rather see that and no fossil energy production than the continued burning of the fossil fuel - the eventual cost of the consequences of global warming from that continued use will be astronomically higher than any worst-case radiation leak.

Reasonable risk assessment seems to be unfamiliar to a lot of people, you're not alone.

Scientists and governments ALWAYS say "We can find no evidence to suggest there is any kind of problem". Standard excuse no.1! Whist I accept that it's an efficient way of generating power in copious quantities, radiation and radioactive particles are dangerous! I believe, though correct me if I'm wrong, that the British nuclear industry deems 100 Rads a year to be safe (there are areas of Cornwall that receive about 80 Rads annually as "background" natural radiation, as do a few other spots world-wide).

Oh no, world-wide Spots! :wah:

As for radiation, if we had 1 melt-down every year for a coupe of decades, how much lethal radiation , in the form of irradiated particles, do you think would be blowing around the world, carried on the wind in specs of dust, fine sand particles, washed down into lakes, rivers, reservoirs and into the soil, to be absorbed by crops and plants, then ingested by ourselves when we eat contaminated produce. The same applies to meat.

On paper, anything looks good, workable, reasonable and even desirable, and the risk assessment looks good too, but "real-world" conditions often knock even the best plans right "out of the window", as we frequently see. ANY scientist will attest to that! (it works in the lab, so why not outside...?)

Joking and dis-agreeing apart, I agree with you about the drinking water problem. Proper sanitation must be a high priority too, as well as irrigation of drought-hit areas to make them productive again. A massive humanitarian problem that will require much money, effort and education to accomplish.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:55 am

Smaug;1481292 wrote: I believe, though correct me if I'm wrong, that the British nuclear industry deems 100 Rads a year to be safe (there are areas of Cornwall that receive about 80 Rads annually as "background" natural radiation, as do a few other spots world-wide).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... omparisons

The table at the end has all the proportions, though they're measured in more current units than Rads. The annual exposure limit for nuclear industry employees is the same as three chest CT scans. The average annual radon dose to people in Cornwall is one chest CT scan. The UK average annual radiation dose is half a chest CT scan. Around 800 chest CT scans would would kill about half of those receiving it in a month.

As for Rads, from long-forgotten memory, a single dose of 600 is lethal and no government limit would be anywhere near as high as 100 - the Shuttle crews used to accumulate less than 25 and they were way past nuclear industry limits. The fifties were a different matter and people ended up dead back then.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:56 am

Thanks for the link, and the quick figures Spot. I've saved it as a bookmark. Handy to be up-to-date on such things, I feel. Rads measurement is what I learned years ago.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:46 pm

According to the Government no-one has been affected by Gulf War Syndrome, because according to the Government it simply doesn't exist. That being the case, my Brother had everything from his stomach down removed & fitted with a colostomy for no reason because he had an illness that doesn't really exist. THAT is how much you can rely on Government denial of statistics. The deaths "Attributed" to the disasters are more likely those killed outright. Secondary killings caused by the remaining fallout & permanently radio active land & water supplies are not included in those figures. Nor are the mutilations & cancers still being brought about by that remaining fallout generations afterwards. To call it the safest form of generating energy is farcical.

As for Wind Turbines, I totally disagree. 10 years or so ago it was believed that Solar Energy could never be a worthwhile reality in the UK because of the lack of continual sunshine. In the early days that may well have been true, but only because the early Solar Panels worked by capturing the heat from the sun. Since then much research has been put into Solar Energy & Photo Voltaic Cells are to be found all over the place. I think it is required by standard building code now that new buildings must include Solar Panels. I'm not certain about that, but every new construction I've seen lately has them. There is still much more research to be done on the matter, but even now buildings are not only becoming self sufficient from Solar Energy, but are also selling their excess back to the National Grid. I believe that Solar Energy is the best way to go, but I also believe that with the same amount of research being put into Wind Energy, that could also have much greater potential. To just give up on it would be to turn your back on that potential.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:19 pm

FourPart;1481312 wrote: According to the Government no-one has been affected by Gulf War Syndrome, because according to the Government it simply doesn't exist. That being the case, my Brother had everything from his stomach down removed & fitted with a colostomy for no reason because he had an illness that doesn't really exist. THAT is how much you can rely on Government denial of statistics. The deaths "Attributed" to the disasters are more likely those killed outright. Secondary killings caused by the remaining fallout & permanently radio active land & water supplies are not included in those figures. Nor are the mutilations & cancers still being brought about by that remaining fallout generations afterwards. To call it the safest form of generating energy is farcical.

As for Wind Turbines, I totally disagree. 10 years or so ago it was believed that Solar Energy could never be a worthwhile reality in the UK because of the lack of continual sunshine. In the early days that may well have been true, but only because the early Solar Panels worked by capturing the heat from the sun. Since then much research has been put into Solar Energy & Photo Voltaic Cells are to be found all over the place. I think it is required by standard building code now that new buildings must include Solar Panels. I'm not certain about that, but every new construction I've seen lately has them. There is still much more research to be done on the matter, but even now buildings are not only becoming self sufficient from Solar Energy, but are also selling their excess back to the National Grid. I believe that Solar Energy is the best way to go, but I also believe that with the same amount of research being put into Wind Energy, that could also have much greater potential. To just give up on it would be to turn your back on that potential.

But they only work when the wind blows. With that in mind, maybe we should store some of the energy generated by them on suitably windy days for release to the grid on still days, to even up the distribution. These turbines work better offshore, where the wind is stronger, and more "even" for longer periods than onshore. I find them an eyesore, TBH. And intrusive. Even if they do produce as much as 17% of the energy (ave) requirements for the national grid. I can go with offshore development, though. 17% is, I suppose, becoming more significant. As you say, not something we can necessarily afford to ignore, though I've heard many different percentages quoted.

Maybe these figures depend on which way you're prejudiced!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:43 pm

There are a lot of savings to be made by the way we use energy, energy efficient bulbs must have made huge savings.

It would be interesting if the deaths relating from mining oil and coal could be collated worldwide and compared to the ongoing death toll following the 2 atomic bombs on Japan from the date of detonation to today, including such tragedies as Aberfan, and lung disease.

I wouldn't mind a few quid on the bombs being 2nd or 3rd league killers.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:37 am

I've fitted my place out with LED bulbs. A 10W bulb gives out about the same amount of light as a 100W one, which would use most of the energy in the generation of wasted heat. The LEDs are barely warm. As a result, my energy bills have dropped by about 15%. Not much in the individual's scale, but multiply that by the number of consumers in the country.

Already, my tower block has fitted solar panels on the roof. These are used to power the communal lighting in the passageways, which have all been converted to LED, as well as going to subsidise the power used for the lifts. Once again, on the small scale it may not seem much, but over the year the savings are massive.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:55 am

At work they have changed rear of house lighting to be movement sensitive, turning off when nobody is in the warehouse/toilet or whatever. Many lights are now LED and that, all over the country must save a huge amount of energy/cost.............yet the low pay wage bill is subsidised by benefits........there ought to be a law against it.