Well I am concerned about the fracking liquid being under very high pressure so it can do the job. I don't think the underlying ground is completely permeable but that it is in places. The existence of natural ground water does vary in the amounts from place to place. The pressure of the natural water would be just due to gravity whereas the fracking liquid is pressurised.

I did make the point that instead of just assuming that all will be well, that at least some form of experimenting should take place to determine just how safe it all is.

Les

 

Do you have evidence that this experiment hasn't already been carried out?

The question over pressure should be dead easy to resolve with some basic arithmetic. Pressure in a liquid = density * g * height, so to raise a column of water by 1 mile requires a pressure of 1000 * 9.81 * 1609 = 15.8MPa, or 2300psi.

Finding out the pressures used in the process is difficult because most of the available "resources" seem to be from (if you'll pardon the pun) pressure groups who are far more interested in reinforcing peoples' existing fears rather than presenting verifiable facts, but the figure of 10,000 psi is mentioned as being "sometimes" used.

If that's the case, then in the absence of any resistance to the upward flow of the fluid, then I'd have to agree the maths does show that such a column could be supported. It's not, as I suspected, mathematically impossible.

Maybe if Paul's still reading, he wouldn't mind filling in some relevant maths and figures which explain how the flow of underground liquids actually works in practice?

 

The more apparent danger seems to be horizontal.

From failure seal the drilling pipe

 

Ehh? I've never heard of sealing the drill pipe? whats actually being sealed (or not) in this case?

 

It's not, I was just pointing out the irony of it ok.

Chip

 

Should I be concerned? This is just up the road from me....

 

Only from eco-loons setting up camp in your garden, otherwise no

 

On a plus note you could be quite close to some lesbionics

 

That'll get the tongues wagging

 

Just seen this. Seems like Germany has been fracking for the past 60 years without incident. Looks like the fears are being considerably overdone...

Germany fracking since 1955, nearly 60 years, with an 'exemplary record' on safety and the environment

Perhaps one of the more eyebrow-raising presentations at London’s 2011 Shale Gas Environmental Summit was that of Germany’s Klaus Sontgerath, head of department, Lower Saxony State Authority for Mining, Energy and Geology.

In his presentation, he illustrated that Germany – one of Europe’s greenest countries - produces more onshore natural gas than any country in Europe apart from the Netherlands.

And “EMPG has been fracking the Damme 3 shale well since 2008 without incident,” he said, to many of the delegates’ surprise. His comment that there had been shale gas exploration in the country by ExxonMobil since 2008 was to the surprise of many in attendance – including shale experts and consultants alike.

Even more surprising was the revelation that in fact, Germany has been fracking since 1955 in the Schleswig-Holstein region and since 1976 in the country’s Lower Saxony region.

However, said Sontgerath, “this is mainly unconventional gas, with tight gas exploration at depths of 4-5000 metres. And up until now, we do not know of any environmental incidents caused by fracking.”

Following Sontgerath’s second revelation inside the space of five minutes, there was an audible gasp from the audience – the majority of whom had no idea that Germany has indeed been involved with fracking for so long, and without incident.

http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/germ...ale-plays-3581

 

Definately, it's one thing the UK does seem to excel at.

 

It's hardly surprising, given that the procedure seems to be:

- hear about something controversial
- form an opinion
- read (exclusively) material which justifies and agrees with that opinion
- express that opinion anywhere and everywhere

...all without even the slightest attempt to check facts, learn anything usefully meaningful about the subject, or address the points made by critics. There also seems to be no distinction whatsoever between "we don't understand" and "I don't understand", which absolutely boils my p*ss and makes me fear for the future of civilization as we know it.

 

I see the crowds of the great unwashed have started gathering in Balcombe. Fingers crossed the police have brought sufficient water cannons for all.

 

Nah,

it just needs the farmer, whose field they have invaded to camp without permission, to suddenly decide to do a little "muck spreading"

mb

 

I saw a report today from a bloke who has just returned from Pennsylvania and he says that locals are fed up with fracking as much as anything because of the natural water pollution.

Les

 

 

Les,

Natural water pollution??

 

This passes for informed opinion in your household eh? Say no more guv!

I mean WTF?! You "saw a report" "from a bloke" who had "returned from Pennsylvania" and "he says" that "the locals" are "fed up" with fracking "as much as anything" because of "natural water pollution"

That statement is so far removed from a well reasoned argument as is pretty much possible to get. I would like to inaugurate an award for such a piece of total drivel and absence of rational thought, and being as you came up with that effort, I propose to name it the "Leslie Award for Moronic Expression" - or LAME for short.

Congratulations Leslie you are now LAME!

 

How about... Pollution of the natural water in the area of the fracking taking place! Apparently that is over a large area of Pennsylvania.

Les

 

OK Les, thanks for that

If you could post up the proof we'd be grateful

 

I think you should read your own extremely ill mannered post again in an unbiased way.

What is not reasoned about a report from a person who was living in that State and has seen the ongoing problems for himself. The locals are fed up with the pollution and the unpleasantness from the equipment and the heavy vehicles etc. They are not impressed with the destruction of their countryside. Many ponds have disappeared because of the large amount of water which is required for the job.

You may well be all "Gaga" about fracking being allowed to take place with no real governmental control and be quite happy about the enviromental destruction which will result. Perhap's you are quite happy to live in an industrial wilderness in the future. You would do well to look at both sides of the coin.

We are very lucky to live in what is on the whole a beautiful country. Throwing all that away would be a very short sighted policy and would also be very unfair to our descendants.

Bearing in mind your rather heavy attitude above, you might well be expected to accuse me of being an environmentalist with all the unreasonable attitude that can entail. I will not apologise for bringing that report above to peoples' attention, they have a right to know about it.

I see nothing wrong in carrying out fracking as long as it is properly controlled and that the country is protected from industrial destruction. The possibiliity of damage to the environment should be accepted and precautions against that should be taken. To just go banging into it irresponsibly would be a very stupid way to act.

I am not a dyed in the wool "Green" but I do not want to see the ruination of this lovely country.

You are of course entitled to disagree with my point of view, but certainly not to make such rude and shameful accusations purely because we think differently.

Being a pretty generous person, I will give you a very useful tip. Running a person's character down unfairly as you did to me above only serves to weaken your argument!

Les

 

OK Les, thanks for that

If you could post up the proof we'd be grateful

 

Les, whether fracking in the UK goes ahead or not I guess you will be against as I would think from your location that you have no natural gas supply in your house anyway, so if the UK gas supplies run short of gas it is irrelevant to you whereas for the rest of us we need to get our gas from somewhere.

 

Les, If you post ridiculous comments, why are you surprised when they are ridiculed?

Woah! I never said that at all. In fact if you search back you will see me say things like "properly regulated" and "sufficient protections". I do agree there needs to be safeguards on standards of well construction for example

Not a wasteland no, but looking on both sides of the coin Les, not in the Stone Age either, with people dying of hypothermia and living in fuel poverty

Agreed. But since fracking will not be throwing that away, it won't trouble you or me, or our descendants

No Les, this is the crux. You HAVEN'T added anything at all except hearsay and some unnamed bloke's opinion which is based on some undisclosed "facts". If you haven't noticed, dpb has been asking you repeatedly to back up your assertions. I "look on both sides of the coin" and show that Germany has been fracking for 60 years with no incidents at all. That is evidence. Hope you understand the difference

Totally agree

Not at all, if you had posted a sensible report detailing how water tables had been contaminated, how the company was being sued through negligence, how there was a regulatory failure, then it would have been accepted as a serious point. You instead posted some fact free hearsay nonsense that I treated with the ridicule it deserved and earned


Quite happy for my argument (supported with facts and evidence) to stand on its own

 

Except that these days gas is increasingly being used to generate electrickery as well (thanks to King Arthur and his mates back in the 80s) - so Les does need to worry about it!

mb

 

...and not just Germany.

50-year-old fracking site that makes a mockery of the Balcombe zealots: It's next to a nature reserve - and has fracked enough gas and oil to power 21,000 homes every day... with no complaints from locals

That must really **** off the RSPB

mb

 

I'm sure Les could manage with a wind turbine where his house is located.

 

No No No! I heard a bloke down the pub say he knows someone that had a neighbour that got ill after drinking some water. We must stop this NOW before its too late! Won't someone think of the children?!

 

I've read through some of the latest posts in this thread. I think a little education on geology may be helpful with regards to permiability of formations. The whole reason for 'fracking' is a lack of pore connectivity in rock - i.e. there is lots of small pockets of trapped gas (this is highly simplifying) that do not connect with each other in order to let gass flow from into the producing well. Fracking creates small fractures that allows the gas to flow. Now this works in a shale due to its layered composition (for those who don't know what a shale is, this will give a good overview - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale). However, in order to have a hydrocarbon containing formation there are various things that are necessary. One of these is the existance of a non-permiable 'cap rock'. Without a cap rock, over time hydrocarbons escape - oil or gas. Indeed when oil was first found in the US it was, basically, seeping out the ground due to a geological disturbance of its cap rock. Now, the rock above the shales that will be fracked is cap rock and very hard and impermiable. Now people are talking about the massive pressures used in fracking breaking through this and causing water table contamination. This is rather unlikely. Think of it this way - the shale gas reservoir is 'soft' (this is not sticktly true, but everything being relative and for illustrative purposes) and the cap rock as being hard. The fracking process is indeed at high pressure, but the pressure is carefully selected to fracture only the softer shale. The cap rock is much harder and is not effected by the fracking procedure and maintains its structural integrity. Now, as pressures have been discussed I'll touch on that a little. In an earlier post I explained how when drilling 'mud' as it's known is pumped down the well and that one of the purposes of this mud is to maintain a pressure equilibrium with the surrounding formation - these pressures can be very high. To give you an idea how high, most standard oil industry well logging tools are rated to pressures in excess of 20,000 psi. HPHT (high pressure, high temp.) tools are often rated to 22-25,000psi. I am unsure what pressures have been hit drilling any of the UK land wells but it isn't overly relevant. The basic point is that while fracking uses high pressured fluids, it's a relatively small overbalance when compared to the natural formation pressure. And it should not be sufficient to break the cap rock. If I can find some good reading on the geology of fracking environments I'll post something up.

 

Which particular proof do you mean?

Les