Done properly, there shouldn't be an issue. The US frenzy for tight gas has given fracking a bad reputation.

http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf...tional_Gas.pdf

 

Looks like most of it will happen in the North East anyway

George Osborne's father-in-law has apologised after telling a shocked House of Lords fracking should happen in the North East because it is filled with "desolate areas".

http://news.sky.com/story/1122219/pe...racking-remark

 

Give us some proof there's radioactive involved if you will.


Sounds like a fair bit of nimbism afoot

 

They can come a frack for gas in my garden if they like, I would have arrested the protestors......they should be at work anyway instead of spending their days lying about.

Mick

 

I know lots of ppl who live in Balcombe. Doesn't make my argument any stronger though. As you say, its for oil drilling. If they want to frack, they have to apply for another license ( ), and opponents can protest at that point.

The exact nature of chemicals pumped in is proprietary to each company, and so without solid evidence I would have to say your claim is baseless and deliberately provocative. Your further point of being a mile away from Ardingly reservoir is another case in point. This is immaterial. The reservoir is fed from water from the River Ouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardingly_Reservoir) not drawn from any groundwater, the only possible and potential route for these "radioactive" chemicals. (And even if it drew from groundwater, the whole point of the Geographical survey recently competed shows that fracking reserves are far below the water table and given proper bore encasement, something I agree is necessary, is no problem at all)

In summary, you have done no proper reading on the subject and appear to have been swayed by a load of Luddite propaganda. Coal mining is dangerous, produces large slag heaps, has a danger of subsidence (and earthquakes...) and has large infrastructure footprint on the landscape, but I don't see these protesters outside coal mines. In fact I seem to remember a large amount of protests when they were threatened with closure.... Hypocrisy anyone?

 

Thought my post would spark a response

Plenty of proof from the US that the fracking waste has been radioactive, what makes you think that the British companies would do it differently? If it wasn't necessary, they wouldn't be using radioactive materials and generating waste that's extremely expensive to dispose of safely.

Does this list look environmentally friendly to you? Even the non-radioactive chemicals they are willing to declare look pretty nasty....http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/wh...icals-are-used

Unique to each company and somewhat secretive too. I wonder why... see my above comment

I agree with you on all of your factual points. Yes, Ardingly reservoir is primarily fed by the Ouse, but other streams/tributaries in the area can be fed by groundwater at different times of the year. Where do think these streams go? Into the Ouse....

And yes, the water table is below the fracking reserves. But the water table is a dynamic thing. It moves with the seasons through different types of rock and soil. How do they know what fissures are in the ground already that'll open up when pumped full of a pressurised liquid, providing a path for the chemicals to flow? Unlikely, but they're never going to guarantee it won't happen are they?

I'm not some nimby eco-nut protester, I can see the advantages too. Just thought i'd play devils advocate as its an issue thats close to home. I'd love cheaper energy prices like everyone else, but i'm not sure we'll ever get it - the energy companies will more than likely absorb most of it by increasing their profit margins and enjoy having more of a natural resource to exploit.

On the flip-side though, i shudder to think what the police costs will be due to the protestors. Every day lately there must be 10 full riot vans plus other police vehicles parked up on the roadside trying to keep things under control. Expect they'll be claiming they need to put up council tax next year in West Sussex to cover the cost. But its alright - as dpb says, everyone here is obviously loaded and can afford it

 

considering how unknown it is as far as ramifications does seem like jumping the gun.

We have no viable energy production going forward (gas an electric are one and the same in energy sence) excluding one, nuclear, nothing else can provide the required amounts of energy.

so much effort and expense is going into hair brained schemes to get more energy that will never produce the required amounts, just like fracking, it isn;t the great saviour.

 

But still not so hot on their, there and they're, though?

 

We need oil -urgently. If the protestors have an alternative, what is it?

Us British are such bloody moaners. There's been some attempt at mining around here; total uproar because it might upset a few surfers and tourists.

We need to support proper industry, not banks and bloody tourism.

 

sack oil, go nuclear.

p.s. im deadly serious, its the only viable source, with the recent developments in neutron reactors the waste produced is alot closer to being environmentaly disposed.

 

I agree. The process of managing the waste can be effectively controlled in todays nuclear industry, unlike in fracking where the liquid is god-knows-where underground.

Besides, we need to save the oil so Shell can keep making vPower for our scoobs

 

Indeed but I fear it's been left too late.

 

You can blame the same eco nuts for that catastrophe

 

depends, if the reactors planned go ahead then will save things int he nick of time, just depends how much the anti nuc folks try to stop them, planning is alreday granted for some so should start construction fairly soon.

 

Thats for me to know and you to wonder about!

Les

 

The information which has been stated so far states that the water which is pumped into the ground under pressure contains dangerously poisonous compounds. It cannot be guaranteed thats those poisons will not enter the natural groundwater.

Water companies do use ground water to augment supplies and have you thought about the surprising number of people in this country who rely on water supplies from wells because they have no mains supply near them?

All very fine it you are on mains water of course, but it is very selfish to write off the problem of those who are forced to use ground water supplies.

Les

 

Pumping Poison into the land, creating Earthquakes, for cheap gas!! Just nuts.

 

What the lord giveth the lord taketh away

Nothing created nothing destroyed

 

WTF has this got to do with some bloke made up to help people afraid of the dark.

 

Sodding protesters cost me about a quid in extra diesel and 10 minutes on my commute as the road was closed this evening and i had to take a different route home. Wonder what they're up to now....

 

We didn't invent the elements to create these chemicals, in a similar way big Jobs didn't invent the computer. We've just manipulated them

 

I imagine that's slightly troubling for you Jack

 

Proof you didn't quote I note, which makes it more of a baseless claim on your part. Even in a hypothetical case of waste being "radioactive" again this is emotive rather than factual. Half of Devon is "radioactive", but amazingly people still live there. How can you possibly explain that?! So maybe any "radioactive" waste simply contains natural radioactivite particles that is part of the local geology. Also the question is why radioactive? The simplest answer is probably for tracking purposes in the same way people drink a barium meal in hospital, that is to say get over yourself. Similarly for your question, why would UK companies do it differently, again the answer would be different geology and different regulatory environment.

Again this is entirely meaningless on its own. So what if they pump alcohols 5000 feet underground? They pump and have been pumping exactly these type of chemicals underground for years as part of oil extraction, what problems have they cause in those cases? Again calling these "poisons" is just trying to whip things up into a frenzy of luddism

Repeating and error doesn't make it right. They are kept secret for commercial reasons. My advice if that worries you is to lobby the Gvmt for companies to register the chemicals used as part of granting of permission, although that is back to front. Usually they way things work is they are free to use anything that is not on a banned list. To my knowledge, alcohols, salts and acids are not on that list

Oh dear I hope this isn't another bite at the "precautionary principle" is it? Using a car is potentially dangerous, don't drive. Oh wait, walking can be dangerous too, don't walk anywhere. In fact I've heard that using a computer can be dangerous so you'd better stop using the internet too

I don't disagree about dynamic water tables. I will again point out as per the RGS survey point that fracking sites are far deeper and separated by solid rock than any water tables, leading to low/no risk. That was the point of the survey. But I'm sure you saw a video on the internet by some guy "playing Devils advocate" that convinces you otherwise.

 

 

Many thanks for a good laugh, you two.

 

You say "low risk".

So do you think it is right or fair that people might be placed in the position of drinking ground water which is laced with poisonous substances?

Les

 

Les each case should be judged on its merits. In this case drinking water doesnt come from groundwater as already discussed. In all cases, the depth of the fracking area is far below any groundwater tables and separated by large barriers. This was the point of the RGS survey. Your continued use of the emotive term "poisons" indicates you have taken a large bite of the propaganda cherry. So yes on balance the risks involved in fracking are far outweighed by the benefits in a properly regulated scenario, as is being proposed in the UK.

Fracking is no real difference in risks terms to other oil, gas or coal mining, its just flavour of the day for the greenie loons to jump all over. Unfortunately you seem to be identifying with them

 

Radioactive poisons being pumped into the ground? Of course there's no radioactive substances already in the ground, like granite for example! Simply spewing some nonsense read in The Guardian and not quantifying any statements is just pointless.

 

I suppose you might subpoena the company for possible contamination your water supply les , get them to lay on mains water as settlement

 

Don't think I have not considered it but I am some distance away from the mains supply and it would be very expensive to connect to it.

I honestly don't think I would stand a cat in Hell's chance of getting them to pay for a connection. These kind of people have only got eyes for the profits and would not be prepared to protect my water supply.

Les