Drinking water contamination

 

No offense Les, but I do take issue with this quote as it is simply not true at all. I'd like to know where the evidence is because as someone who works in the oil and gas industry I can assure you that there is not only regulation but rather a lot of it too! Even getting a well accepted by the DECC requires jumping through many hoops.

This is one of the governmental bodies that regulate wells - https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...climate-change

And this link allows you to look up basic offshore well data - https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/pls/wons/wdep0100.qryWell

As yet there isn't an equiv for onshore drilling but the same data is available in spreadsheet form if you look through the site in the top link.

Here is some more reading on oil and gas governence here - https://www.gov.uk/browse/business/g...and-production

Have a thorough read through some of that and then you may see why I take umbridge with your statement.

 

If there is adequate effective protection against fouling of the natural water supplies then I would have no fears about fracking going ahead. \what worries me is that there is no requirement for the drilling firm to disclose what chemicals etc they have added to the fracking liquid. I wonder why!

I was obviously concerned about the possibility of the fracking liquid getting into the natural water supply, Unlike many or so it appears, no one seems to be concerned and I consider it very significant. Since I started to worry about that, I saw that report about the bad water pollution in Pennsylvania which has been caused by fracking. To me that proves that the natural water supply is not automatically safe from pollution by fracking.

I would feel happier if they dug into our large coal reserves and opened up the coal fired generators. I don't think that the CO2 is so bad a threat anyway. Find a way to scrub it out anyway!

Les

 

What report ?

(where can we see it)

 

Still no proof though after being asked several times

 

Stop wondering, start researching.

Let us know what you find, and perhaps if you can't get any concrete information on what chemicals are used and in what proportions, at least see if you can find out the technical reason why pure water can't be used. Using pure water would appear to be one very good solution to the potential issue of contamination, so there must be a very good reason why it wouldn't work. I'd be interested to see what that reason is.

The problem here is that you're looking at it backwards. You're considering the seriousness of a potential consequence of the process, but you're not considering the likelihood that it could happen in any kind of scientific way. The 'evidence' you've presented is hearsay and conjecture, when what's needed is scientifically valid, site specific, quantitative data - which you probably won't find outside the industry.

Suppose, for a moment, we consider that switching on a light carries a risk of electric shock. It's absolutely true, if you care to ignore the layers of insulation built into the light switch, and the legislation which governs the design and manufacture of light switches. If all you consider is how dangerous an electric shock could be, then you'll live in the dark - literally - forever.

Do you trust your light switches? Why?

Like I said: hearsay and conjecture. Find a scientific report containing geological survey results of the specific site in question together with a detailed description of the site workings, and then perhaps there will be something to discuss.

I don't doubt that will become necessary in future, but what a shame it would be to have to do that if there's a cleaner fuel available.

However, as I've said before, I really don't know whether the risks outweigh the potential rewards, because experts on both sides of the debate seem so reluctant to provide credible quantitative information. I suspect the reason is that the general public simply wouldn't understand it anyway, and people prefer to be told what to think rather than being expected to make up their own minds.

(Thanks to Paul for your efforts so far, they're much appreciated BTW. Perhaps ironically, I'm now actually a little more concerned about the process than I was before, having calculated that the pressures used actually could support a column of fluid high enough to reach the water table if there were a vertical crack through the cap rock.)

 

So you'd rather the land look something like this



rather than

 

I don't see what all the fuss is about it...

 

OK, where to begin here. First point - if you look at the lower of the three links in my last post you can follow through the site and find a list of the government organisations which has requirements that have to be satisfied before a drilling license may be granted. These organisations include, for example, the environment protection agency. Now these guys aren't idiots and they do not accept 'we will pump random sh!te' into the ground as acceptable. They want to know what will be pumped in. The contents of all the fluids are recorded and detailed. Now, the exact recipie isn't necessarily given out, but the compositional components of the fluids must be disclosed. OK, so maybe you aren't happy that the exact composition is given out - well think of it this way, do you expect the government to know the exact recipie for every drug you take, drink you drink or food you eat? I'd say you would be satisfied to know they are free of anything that will do you harm and so it goes with drilling fluids.

So what about contamination? Well, as I explained in earlier posts, if carried out correctly there should be no possibility of water contamination. A cap rock seals the gas reservoir and cemented metal casing sheilds the well from any aquiffer it may pass through. Of course it is possible to muck this up and cause pollution and it could happen (while I have yet to see anything conclusive on the Pennsylvania incident, it does look like a bad cement job on casing was the cause - see my earlier posting on casing). But think of it this way, it's possible that one of our nuclear reactors could go wrong and wipe out the country, that a coal mine could suffer collapse and kill dozens - basically, if safety procedures and good practice are not adhered to then there will be the possiblity of danger with any activity be it driving your car or drilling a well. If done correctly the risk is very low.

So what's to say something wont go wrong here? Well the drilling companies are not oblivious to world news and peoples reactions and resulting perceptions of an industry and they know full well that any issue that occurs here as a result of fracking will be under and immense media spotlight and could ultimately see them shut down so it is in their best interst to make sure everything goes to plan really, isn't it?

 

Particularly enjoyed the grimace on the face of loony Brighton Green party mp's son, as Mr Copper attempted to pull his ears off.

 

Try the Express-Letter of the day-14th August.

I have no way of reproducing it here so I would be grateful if you could do it on my behalf.

Les

 

Ah right, can't find it myself either.





Personally, id put more faith in mystic meg

 

Shame the police didn't detain that stupid Lucas woman for longer...

 

Yeah , I enjoyed that too

 

This one?

 

I'm well against Fracking, read this

http://newsthump.com/2013/08/20/frac...hed-from-hell/

 

OMG! [shrill hysteria]Won't someone think of the children! [/shrill hysteria]

 

Get that thumb in there. That's a basic pressure point technique every police officer learns in training school.

The alternative is "Move before I smash your nose in with my baton"

 

These spacktards that chain and superglue themselves together, I see no problem. Leave them stuck together, let them figure it out when one of them needs a dump. I'm sure it will be uplifting and morale boosting sitting there protesting in soiled shorts.

 

I don't want to think about that scenario, Rich I imagine the smell of lentils around the site is bad enough.

 

Where's the "Like" button?

 

Squeeaaaal like a piggy Deliverance style.

 

Red cardy not a manly look either.

 

Red cardigan, orange T-shirt... not a good look!

 

Exactly, a couple of days should be more than sufficient - then refuse to give them any solvent to release themselves until they beg (over a non-vegan bacon butty) to never act like an eco-loon again.

Either that, or spray them with liquidised dog sh1te and leave them to peel their own skin off!

mb

 

No doubt it'll infringe their human rights....