And have a geoscience degree during which I studied various environmental issues. One of the things I studied was looking at the the accuracy of what is printed in the press on the topic of climate change. I'll save you the whole essay but the long and short is that the vast majority of what the press were writing on environmental matters was massively distorted and misleading. Then again, does anyone actually believe what they hear in the press....? Oh wait, clearly they do from some of the posts on here!

But yes, I am in the pay of a large oil company, but that's because I quite like a nice lifestyle and not because I worship their cause

 

Odd that "big oil" actually seems to have less credibility with the general public than "big journalism".

 

Large companies tend to be vilified whether they are in oil, alcohol, banking, insurance etc etc. It's easy to hate the big guys, right? It's very easy to have a go at companies like, for example, BP. They have made billions of pounds. But if you stop and think about it, it's hardly surprising, is it? Oil and gas a commodities so they are always NEEDED. And they are commodities that are being sold in massive quantities (billions of barrels). And when you sell such massive amounts of something, assuming your business isn't being run by a five year old, it's kinda hard not to make big money. Investigate the percentage profit made on oil/gas and the percentage profit made by Sainsburys on your can of Coke and loaf of bread. The profit is around 10-20 times greater on supermarket goods.

A lot of the drilling work in the UK for shale gas is being carried out by some pretty small companies. To be fair though some of these have parent companies that are large and some based abraod (Canada for example). But all I'd say is that there is much much more regulation surrounding what your big oil company can do compared to what the media can say which is rather often nothing more than a work of fiction. Treat everything you read in the media with suspicion and treat everything you read in the media on environmental issues with utter contempt.

 

Do you have specific qualifications with which to back up your advice to us all?

Les

 

Bearing in mind that shale gas and oil will lead to very large profits indeed for not only the prospecting companies but also government run agencies, I think it is sensible that the people should look at such actions very carefully and require strong and positive assurances that there are no significant dangers of contamination etc.

Les

 

I've a geoscience background including study of environmental matters and geology and I work analysing well logging data and formation structure. Maybe not specific enough for you, but unlike the journos that write about this stuff, I actually understand how it works. I'm sure that won't satisfy you so what I would suggest is that you do some research on some of the posts you have is this thread. Google does not equal research. Anything in the common press does not equal research. Examples from other countries where legistaltion and operating practice differs does not equal research - just think, they drive in other countries, but that doesn't mean you are in the same danger driving the M1 as you are on the highways of India, for example.

Do the research from credible resources and form your opinion then. I'm not having a go and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it's just best they are formed on solid evidence and not what the daily scare has published.

 

I agree. But until you work in the oil and gas industry you have no idea how health and safety obsessed it is. This drilling work isn't being undertaken in a 'lets drill and worry later' fashion. I have copies of some of the drilling programmes for these wells and they make pretty epic reads. A lot is taken into consideration beyond what any memeber of the public would ever think of. Ultimately people know that a major incident in the UK surrounding shale gas would force the government and dilling companies to act and it is beneficial for all involved if operations are undertaken as safely as possible.

 

Thanks for the information. I also specialised in the scientific side when it came to my educational qualifications although probably not to your standard.

I am suspicious about the possibilities of the natural water being contaminated as is pretty obvious. Regardless of the fact that they are drilling very deeply to reach the shale rock, I do not know whether there is a chance of the fracking fluid being forced upwards high enough to reach the ground water which is used for human consumption. I do not know whether there is a good enough seal between low levels and the natural water, and I don't believe that those doing the fracking or the government do either. It has not been specifically mentioned.

It has been stated that the additives to the fracking liquid are poisonous to life and also that the firm doing the fracking is not required to state exactly what they are adding to the fracking liquid. I find that pretty suspicious and I cannot help feeling that the authorities are relying on luck that nothing bad will happen!

I think it is right that these questions should be asked and that experiments should be carried out to find out for certain whether it really is safe to use noxious liquids deep in the earth under extremely high pressures.

It has also been stated that contamination of the ground water would take decades to clear.

Fracking has been forbidden in Eastern Europe because of concerns about contamination ot the water and the ground etc. and the requirement of experimental examination is confirmed.

Les

 

Les, you mention several times "it has been stated that...", but haven't mentioned your source. Are you certain that the information you have been given on the risks associated with fracking is credible and unbiased?

 

[QUOTE]
Easy Tiger, a lot of folk on here believe every word the Daily Mail publishes, don't destroy their dreams!!

 

Thought I'd follow this up with a little more info after doing some light investigation on the issues with fracking in the US that have lead to videos such as the one in this thread showing an American woman and her firey tap.

For those unaware of how wells are constructed I'll give a very brief explanation. When a well is drilled it is done so in decreasing sizes. For example from ground level down to, say, 800m may be drilled with a 24" bit. Then the next 800m may be with a 16", then 12 1/4" etc etc. After each hole section is completed (drilled) the hole is usually 'cased'. Casing is steel tubing that lines the well meaning that gases and fluids from inside the formation cannot enter the well and drilling fluids from the well do not enter the formation. At each section this casing is cemented in place. Now in highly simplistic terms, this involves pumping cement into the bottom if the hole to seal it and hole the casing in place. When they begin to drill the next hole section the cement will be drilled through and so on. Now shale gas wells are usually pretty deep (9-10km (5.5 - 6 miles) TVD (true vertical depth) below ground level) and this takes them a long long way from where any aquiffer used in the supply of water may be found (these are typically faily shallow, though vary with formation geology. In essence the water table and where the gas extraction is taking place are literally serparated by miles of rock. So how does gas get from the well into the water table? The answer is basically poor well construction - a poor casing cement job or poorly positioned casing. This is something that happens from time to time but usually does not cause major issue unless combined with other issues - remember the deep water Horizon blow out in the Gulf of Mexico a few years back? That was (amoungst other things) the result of poorly set casing which underpressure was dislodged. So to get back on topic, the reason for gas entering the water system in the US was, basically, poor well construction that allowed gas to exit the well on the way towards the surface. This unfortunately gave the shale gas industry a very bad press and now forms the basis of many peoples opinions of the process. The reality is that done correctly there should be no chance of water contamination from shale gas operations. And while I am sure many of you will continue to by cynical, I would say that lessons have been learned from the issues in the US and a better understanding is now in place along with better measure to stop a repeat occurance.

I hope this helps shed a little light on the ins and outs of what's actually caused the reported issues. It's a complex subject and I'm no expert but hopefully there will be something in what I have said that clarifies things a little for people.

 

 

The most important part of that graphic being the NOT TO SCALE bit (for the hard of understanding)

 

Exactly! If it were to scale there would be a gap of probably at least 4 miles between the frack zone and water table.

 

4 miles is 6400 metres, are you sure!!?

 

Yup. If you read my rather long post further up I give more info but it is not unusual for a shale gas well to hit 9-10km below ground level. I should add that some are much shallower but I think you'd be looking at at least a mile between frack zone and water table in most instances.

 

A one mile separation between the fracking area and the natural water table is actually not very far when you think about the movement of the spent fracking liquid with time.

It is worth considering the horizontal extent of natural water which is pretty enormous compared with the vertical distance quoted above.

Let me repeat that next to nothing is actually known about the possibility of contamination at the moment and a great deal of assumption is in existence helped on by the future view of enormous profits.

I believe that proper experimentation should take place with reference to the vertical movement of fracking liquid over a period of time before starting the job.

Les

 

I might agree if the water table were below the fracking zone, but it's not - it's above it. Can you suggest any geological feature - or indeed any circumstances at all - under which a liquid travels uphill for that sort of distance?

By whom? Paul seems to know a great deal more about this subject than I do.



This sounds to me like such an amazingly obvious thing to do, I'd find it nigh on impossible to believe that it hasn't already been carried out. Where have you looked to see if this information exists?

 

I'm still waiting to hear a rebuttal from Les regarding the hypocrisy charge levelled by Warren on page 3......

 

Only seismic activity perhaps



(for water to travel "uphill")

 

If the earth shifts by a mile, I'd be much more concerned about the earthquake!

 

What a fookin muppet that guy with the baby doll is, clearly he's taken all the facts on board

 

Les lives in the 50's

Unfortunately his pension is paid by the people living in the 00's

 

Les,

All needling aside, how do you think the water table exists at shallow levels if the base is porous? Would you agree that for the table to be shallow and not permeate down, that in itself is evidence that the underlying rock is impermeable and therefore fluids at a lower level cannot rise up to mix?

 

Interesting article on shale gas extraction

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...g-%281%29.aspx

 

True, but how is all that significant?

Les

 

Did you not notice that the fracking liquid will be pressurised sufficiently to break up the rock containing the gas and oil. I don't know how much pressure will be used,but it has to be pretty high when you think about it and my concern is that the liquid may therefore be forced upwards into the natural water supply.

Les

 

Earthquakes wouldn't be a good idea in an area with fracking and fresh water. Hmm.

 

You must be a very ill mannered person to pass such remarks. I can assure you that you cannot carry out my job in any kind of safety if you are living in any way in the past. You of course have no real idea what my job actually entailed, but believe me it could not be done without a great deal of practical experience and constant learning of future requirements in order to cope or even just to stay alive!

You really ought to make sure that you understand what you are talking about before you make an *** of yourself with such specious accusations.

Incidentally I paid a significant portion of my salary all the time I was employed in order to have a pension after I retired.

I presume you are paying your National Insurance as I did for all those years so that we can qualify for the OAP.

Will you personally be enjoying a private pension when you retire? Or do you think it might be hypocritical for you to accept it?

Perhap's you feel that we dont need any kind of military defence for this country, just like all those people did before WW2. Would you enjoy being under the rule of the jackboot or even later living under Soviet leaders?

Before you start passing remarks like those above you would do well to take a long hard look at your thinking!

Les

 

I see that the eco-loons have taken over the RSPB

It appears that they are objecting to "fracking" in Lancashire and West Sussex (even though Cuadrilla are exploring for oil, and not gas, in the latter).

On Radio 4 this morning, some chappy who was "Head of climate and energy" at the so-called "charity" was spouting the usual climate change bollocks. WTF - aren't the RSPB supposed to be, er, protecting birds and stopping delinquent yobs from destroying nests? I bet that the pensioners who give their last 10p to help save their local chaffinch are going to be very happy funding some self appointed "head" in a non-job on what will probably be on some six-figure salary

This "chappy" was blurting on about a swan whose pond might be contaminated near Morecambe Bay

When it was stated that the US are actually doing quite well with fracking, he argued that despite all of the "fracked gas", the US was still mining just as much coal as it always was. He didn't seem capable of recognising the multiple wins of US fracking such as...

• Cheap energy (bills more than halved)
• Lots of new jobs
• No energy blackouts
• Lowering of US CO2 emissions (by 40%?)
• Control of their own energy supply
• Boost to the US economy through coal exports

Nah, obviously the "swan" is more important

When the interviewer asked him about wind turbines, he defensively said that some are good and some are bad. So, the RSPB are obviously in favour or bird slicing windmills (if it saves just one swan ).

And the "Head" kept banging on about CO2 emissions and climate change for the whole interview - almost certainly deterring new twitchers from joining the RSPB. What a moron!


mb