To Frack or Not To Frack - That is the question

[Hysteresis]

Surprised this topic hasn't been aired here, but what are your views.

The protestors are out in force, but what do they really know about the process.
The descriptive word 'Fracking' generates bad images, it's a pity the word was used for the process in the first place. I believe the Canadian Noun is Shale Gas, which sounds a little less dramatic.
I think 99% of the protestors know next to nothing about the process and I include myself in that 99% although not one of the protestors.
The history of the process in NorthAmerica and the UK for that matter, is that it is not environmentally harmful.
The potential of water course pollution seems to be a red herring, but is it?.
Is the Granite containing the Methane so deep as to make the process not a factor in water course problems?.
The triggering of Earth Tremors also seems to be not an issue judging by the substantial North American experience, but is it?.
The attraction of Gas supplies that are unaffected by foreign politics is undoubtable vary attractive. Having said that, I also have no doubt that the companies who develop the Fracking sites will be foreign owned as are all of our Energy companies in the UK, so any profits will be sent abroad anyway and foreign politics will inevitably be significant.
I am sure that the vast majority of the Protestors presently evident, know nothing about the process and it's effect on the environment and are there purely as professional trouble makers who go anywhere for a bit of confrontational activities this occasion using Fracking as the excuse/catalyst for shouting off with silly posters such as Frack Off etc.
As stated, I personally know next to nothing about the whole process and potential problems and maybe all you 'Know It All' guys would engage in a discussion which will maybe educate us all . I think I may be being a bit optimistic in my expectations here, as the thread will be changed to something other than its intention by posters drifting off the subject which is the usual on this site.
But maybe we will all benefit from the infinite knowledge Data Base which is DIYnot.

 

[conny]

Whilst working away last year I got to chatting with a group of lads who were carrying out tests in the North sea.
They basically explained that the way they did it was to drill down very deeply on land, (over 1 1/2 miles), then burrow out to sea for about 3 or 4 miles, sometimes more, and then 'inject' 'muddy' water into the sub strata which forced the gas to the surface where it was collected.
This was obviously a very simplistic explanation but they assured us that when they pump 'muddy' water the mud actually takes the place of the pockets of gas and practically eliminate any risks of land slip below the ocean/sea.

 

[Hysteresis]

That's interesting conny. That process is not really Fracking as I understand it. Fracking is similar but involves pressurising the Bore holes so as to fractures the granite sub surface structure and somehow this releases Methane. Just how geologically the Methane got there in the first place is a mystery to me. It seems to be a different process to that off Oil and Gas Formations, or is it?.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

I am sure that the vast majority of the Protestors presently evident, know nothing about the process and it's effect on the environment and are there purely as professional trouble makers who go anywhere for a bit of confrontational activities.

Think you're right. Look like a bunch of dole bludging hippy stoners. They were probably marching for squatters rights or to be kind to muslim terrorists last week.

 

[snico]

Not sure why people are protesting against this

In Cheshire there are over 100 bore holes, each capable of housing blackpool tower!! and people have never bothered about them.

 

[Dextraneous]

In Cheshire there are over 100 bores.

 

[longdogs]

In North America the cost of gas has dropped greatly (apparently) but of course in Britain, that will never happen.

 

[Dextraneous]

The UK will probably sell it abroad cheaply so that it can use any profits to pay more for imported gas.

 

[breadnbutter]

theres a risk of it contaminating the water supplies.

 

[Hysteresis]

Just watched the One Show in which there was a reporter asking questions of some Science guy and some of the protestors. The science guy was very honest about the fracking in the US and the consequences. Most of the anti arguments seem to be without substance. One clip showed a guy in the US lighting gas coming out of his water tap and who purported that Fracking was the cause of the gas. Subsequent investigations showed that the gas was from coal deposits and nothing to do with the Fracking being undertaken in the area. Also Scientific studies show that Fracking extraction of gas is far less environmentally damaging than Coal mining both atmospheric and surface damage and also nuclear radiation is far less than in coal mining. Earth quake problems are minute in that it does happen but so far below ground that its manifestation on the surface is almost unnoticeable. Apparently there are identified Gas deposits in the North of the UK is such that if we manage to get 10% recovery, there is enough gas to supply the UK for 51 years. Sounds a good idea to Frack to me.
The reporter then gave a protester a platform to put his views forward. All the protester could come up with was to ask the question of what the reporter knew of fracking, to which he replied "nothing but I am only here to ask questions and report and give the protector a platform to convince the public fracking was wrong". The protestor demonstrated his total lack of knowledge of what he was protesting about.
So Score to date = Fracking 6 - Anti Fracking A big Nil.
I know a little bit more about fracking now than I did this morning

 

[Hysteresis]

theres a risk of it contaminating the water supplies.

But it is apparently very low risk, if you believe what we are being told. To be honest I will believe the science rather than the unknowledgeable protestors (See my last posting.)

 

[jockscott]

Hyster, it's not granite that contains the methane, but shale. Granite was formed millions of years ago from magma spewed out by volcanoes. Shale on the other hand , is a sedimentary rock, consisting of mainly mud , compacted in layers , millions of years ago.

 

[misterdubya]

If you research how much methane is down there, its a no brainer really.

 

[misterdubya]

theres a risk of it contaminating the water supplies.

How? You may want to look into conny's comment. He has hit the preverbial nail on the head.

 

[JBR]

The reporter then gave a protester a platform to put his views forward. All the protester could come up with was to ask the question of what the reporter knew of fracking, to which he replied "nothing but I am only here to ask questions and report and give the protector a platform to convince the public fracking was wrong". The protestor demonstrated his total lack of knowledge of what he was protesting about.

That says it all. Protesters like these (and the Greenham Common women - remember them?) are either naive middle class housewives with nothing better to do with their time, or equally naive and selfish NIMBYs.

Fracking is, I agree, a safe and effective way to obtain badly needed fuel for this country for decades. The only option that these protesters seem to like is wind turbines, which have been shown to be little more use than a chocolate teapot.

I sincerely hope that fracking goes ahead on a large scale (along with an expansion of our nuclear power generation) before the lights start going out.