Is Britain fracking the wrong thing?

Why is everyone getting so exercised about 'fracking' recently? Hydrallic fracturing has been used for decades to improve the yields from wells for oil, gas and even water.
 
Sponsored Links
JBR said:
I am aware of that. To simplify, my point is that any (low grade) radioactivity released by extracting water from fracking wells is peanuts compared to the pre-existing natural radiation that we have always been subjected to, and which appears to have done us no harm.
Click to expand...
To simplify for you, which bit of the following from the report do you not understand?

Work can go ahead only if it has Environment Agency radioactive waste permits proving extractors can safely remove dangerous waste products....

A by-product is waste water contaminated by natural low-level radiation. Cuadrilla insisted to BBC Inside Out North West that it does hope in the future to submit new waste permit applications in Lancashire where shale rock is thought to contain huge amounts of natural gas.

But radiation waste adviser Dr Trevor Jones told BBC investigators that significant investment is likely to be needed to find a way to solve the waste problem, meaning plans for fracking all across the UK could be held up...

“Suitable treatment technologies are not available off the shelf and that will, inevitably delay fracking operations.”

Cuadrilla believes it can overcome the issue of disposing of radioactive water and says it has run successful trials. But these have yet to be proven full-scale.
Click to expand...

Add to that the chemical pollutants...

So what would you do with the millions of gallons of contaminated water from each well?

They haven't worked how to do it anywhere else, so they just get around the problem by scrapping pollution laws - try googling 'haliburton loophole'!
 
ellal said:
JBR said:
I am aware of that. To simplify, my point is that any (low grade) radioactivity released by extracting water from fracking wells is peanuts compared to the pre-existing natural radiation that we have always been subjected to, and which appears to have done us no harm.
Click to expand...
To simplify for you, which bit of the following from the report do you not understand?

Work can go ahead only if it has Environment Agency radioactive waste permits proving extractors can safely remove dangerous waste products....

A by-product is waste water contaminated by natural low-level radiation. Cuadrilla insisted to BBC Inside Out North West that it does hope in the future to submit new waste permit applications in Lancashire where shale rock is thought to contain huge amounts of natural gas.

But radiation waste adviser Dr Trevor Jones told BBC investigators that significant investment is likely to be needed to find a way to solve the waste problem, meaning plans for fracking all across the UK could be held up...

“Suitable treatment technologies are not available off the shelf and that will, inevitably delay fracking operations.”

Cuadrilla believes it can overcome the issue of disposing of radioactive water and says it has run successful trials. But these have yet to be proven full-scale.
Click to expand...

Add to that the chemical pollutants...

So what would you do with the millions of gallons of contaminated water from each well?

They haven't worked how to do it anywhere else, so they just get around the problem by scrapping pollution laws - try googling 'haliburton loophole'!
Click to expand...

The enviroment agency says "find a way to safely dispose of the water".

Cuadrilla says "we are already working on it".

Once an answer is found, it can go foward.

What is the problem here?
 
Sponsored Links
ellal said:
JBR said:
I am aware of that. To simplify, my point is that any (low grade) radioactivity released by extracting water from fracking wells is peanuts compared to the pre-existing natural radiation that we have always been subjected to, and which appears to have done us no harm.
Click to expand...
To simplify for you, which bit of the following from the report do you not understand?

Work can go ahead only if it has Environment Agency radioactive waste permits proving extractors can safely remove dangerous waste products....

A by-product is waste water contaminated by natural low-level radiation. Cuadrilla insisted to BBC Inside Out North West that it does hope in the future to submit new waste permit applications in Lancashire where shale rock is thought to contain huge amounts of natural gas.

But radiation waste adviser Dr Trevor Jones told BBC investigators that significant investment is likely to be needed to find a way to solve the waste problem, meaning plans for fracking all across the UK could be held up...

“Suitable treatment technologies are not available off the shelf and that will, inevitably delay fracking operations.”

Cuadrilla believes it can overcome the issue of disposing of radioactive water and says it has run successful trials. But these have yet to be proven full-scale.
Click to expand...

Add to that the chemical pollutants...

So what would you do with the millions of gallons of contaminated water from each well?

They haven't worked how to do it anywhere else, so they just get around the problem by scrapping pollution laws - try googling 'haliburton loophole'!
Click to expand...

I'd put this down to elf 'n' safety bureaucracy. Boxes have to be ticked, despite the fact that this is low-level radiation and which, as I have pointed out, is dwarfed by other types of natural background radiation to which we are all being subjected daily. Try not to worry, though, as we have been managing to survive this onslaught for centuries. Moreover, some sources maintain that we actually benefit from natural background radiation.

As for the polluting chemicals, I'm sure these could be removed by some sort of filtering or evaporation. I admit to not being an expert in these matters, but I'm sure they will find ways and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they managed to be able to re-use these chemicals.

What would I do with this 'life threatening' and 'contaminated' water? I'd pour it into the sea, of course.
 
stillp said:
ellal said:
So what would you do with the millions of gallons of contaminated water from each well?
Click to expand...
Millions of gallons? Really?
Click to expand...
Up to 8 million gallons per wellhead (but the average is about 4 million gallons) with added chemicals to produce a so-called 'slick water' mixture...

And an average of about 50% of that water returns to the surface via said wellhead, but now irradiated.

6,000 wellheads are proposed, so do the maths!

A link for your perusal
 
JBR said:
What would I do with this 'life threatening' and 'contaminated' water? I'd pour it into the sea, of course.
Click to expand...
I guess I got it right first time - you really are juvenile!
 
JBR said:
What would I do with this 'life threatening' and 'contaminated' water? I'd pour it into the sea, of course.
Click to expand...
If that's meant as a joke, I don't see a smilie. Ultimately, it all goes back into the food chain - our food chain.

It never ceases to amaze me how 'we' are so reactive instead of proactive. (Just like lead in fuel or making household gas smell).

We've got to get to a world population of 20 billion and screw our food up with high intensity artificial farming, creating countless problems, before some magnate has the balls to say "Stop! Too many people!"

By which time we'll have made most things extinct and converted any verdant land into a concrete jungle.

Gets out guitar and starts playing Big Yellow Taxi...
 
AronSearle said:
The enviroment agency says "find a way to safely dispose of the water".

Cuadrilla says "we are already working on it".

Once an answer is found, it can go foward.

What is the problem here?
Click to expand...


Depends on how you define "Once", above.

Might be next week, next year, next century, or never.

We'll just have to wait, and see.
 
Brigadier said:
Depends on how you define "Once", above.

Might be next week, next year, next century, or never.

We'll just have to wait, and see.
Click to expand...

And in the meantime...

New Study Finds Worrisome Pattern of Birth Defects in Fracking Communities.

Science has long known that the developing fetus is sensitive to experiences of the mother – alcohol consumption, dietary factors, and mercury exposure are some of the more well-known examples. This sensitivity makes newborn babies an early indicator of something going wrong in the environment of the mother. Unfortunately, a team of researchers found preliminary evidence of something gone wrong when they looked at the patterns of birth defects in newborn babies in Colorado. The researchers found that babies whose mothers lived in close proximity to multiple oil and gas wells were 30% more likely to be born with defects in their heart than babies born to mothers who did not live close to oil and gas wells.
Click to expand...
 
Its a good job jbr isn't a farmer. He'd just dump his excess slurry down the river. :mrgreen:
 
How do they drill a hole and then go at a right angle? Anyone know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top