Channel Four on fracking

Channel Four TV covered the fracking story last night, but rather managed to blot its copybook by including the "flaming faucet" clip from the movie "Gasland".

Since this has long since been shown to be a fraud - there was methane present in the water long before fracking commenced - I queried the station's science editor, Tom Clarke, via Twitter. He didn't object:

Agreed. Included to show heated opposition to fracking in US. Which there is. Should have mentioned it was a campaign film.

To which I responded that they should have mentioned that it was misleading. I actually think this is a sufficiently big mistake that they should issue a correction, but I don't suppose this will be forthcoming.

Comments

[dougieh]

[Off topic]

[RoyFOMR]

@Apr 18, 2012 at 3:19 PM | Vernon E
+1.
Well said!

[pat]

u have to pity the taxpayers who pay Black's wages:

18 April: BBC: Richard Black: Carbon capture 'viable with long-term support'
Specialists in technology and economics spent two years researching the issue for the UK Energy Research Council.
The government recently announced a £1bn fund to help carbon capture and storage (CCS) develop; but the report says wider support is needed...
"The UK has a huge amount of potential storage, amounting to about 700 years worth of emissions," said another of the report's authors, Prof Stuart Haszeldine from Edinburgh University.
"But that is as yet unproven; and no commercial company is going to go ahead and build a CCS facility costing maybe £1bn if they don't know they'll be able to inject CO2 for 30 years into that site."...
The government will also have to work out rules on liability for leakage, he said, that are fair to both companies and the public purse.
Matthew Spencer, director of the Green Alliance, which produced its own analysis of CCS recently, agreed that investors needed support and confidence...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17760441

[jones]

Just read it.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH....

Cheers.

[tomo]

The crass stupidity and laziness of most of the media "elite" never ceases to amaze.

That these folk feel empowered to make judgements and rush to provide fraudulent "informed commentary" on technical matters is is a manifestation of their own deep ignorance and fear - coupled to an implicit assumption that the "lefty" media adhere to which is that being fashionable and vehement (Hello! Josh Fox) is a substitute for honesty, accuracy and integrity.

They really can't be bothered to do any research and constantly screech, slap the ground and throw bananas in the air on cue from Greenpeace, WWF, FoE and sundry other eco activist organisations.

I thought that the old primate and typewriter gag was worn out - but evidence shows it's got plenty of tread on the tyres yet...

Given the evidence - I suspect this lot could do a better job than C4 news...

[Chairman of Selectors]

I challenegd that youth Ciaran Jenkins, who did the pathetic report, on twitter. He replied, in that classic way journalists who know they have written/produced an entirely bias piece ALWAYS do, that he said the film gasland had "claims" that gas was seeping into drinking water. He is a coward and a liar.

[Jamspid]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17767075

Latest windfarm story

If Scotland goes independant is there going to be enough money up there to build the windfarms to meet its EU renewals target
It wont have any more English money coming in

[TheBigYinJames]

Jamspid, there will be enough money if they start fracking :) Oh the irony...

[RoyFOMR]

Interesting to see a figure of a potential 700 years of CCS storage in the UK.
With all that building material available what chemicals could be manufraccured by enterprising micro-organisms?

[Don Keiller]

Energy Facts Coal v /Shale gas

Given the controversy and misinformation surrounding shale gas and its potential here are a few facts about energy generation and CO2 emissions. Shale gas is approx 90% methane.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/epreports/shale_gas_primer_2009.pdf

Reference units for the energetic evaluation of various energy carriers. http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/coalequivalent.htm

1 m3 natural gas 1.35 kg coal equivalent
1 kg anthracite 1.14 kg coal equivalent
1 kg hard coal 1.00 kg coal equivalent
1 kg hard coal coke 0.97 kg coal equivalent
1 kg lignite briquette 0.72 kg coal equivalent

Now 1mole of a gas occupies 22.4L (STP) and 1m3 = 1000L
Therefore moles of shale gas/methane = 1000/22.4 = 44.6

Since weight = moles * molecular weight (MW methane = 16) 44.6 * 16 = 713g = 0.73kg

So since in energy terms 1m3 methane = 0.73kg methane = 1.00kg coal

Hence energy equivalent per unit mass = 1.35/0.73 = 1.84

Energy production per unit weight from methane is 1.84 times more efficient than coal.

i.e 46% less CO2 emitted per unit energy production.

Coal is currently 28% of UK energy production

http://www.claverton-energy.com/uk-electricity-energy-generation-statistics-proportion-of-thermal-nuclear-wind-and-other-renewable-energy-sources.html

Replacing this 28% with shale gas would result in an overall reduction in CO2 emissions of
28 * 0.54 = 15%

Switching from coal to methane (Shale gas) will go along way to meeting the 34% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/carbon_budgets/carbon_budgets.aspx

What is there not to like?

[Robin Guenier]

Here's a US take expanding on the interesting Economist perspective on fracking to which I referred yesterday - link.

[ManicBeancounter]

One good point, that is not widely reported, is the size of these earth tremors. They were 1.5 and 2.3 on the Ritcher scale. 2.3 can be felt if you press naked flesh to the ground, but most would not notice it. I looked up the amount of energy released compared to a large earthquake. A rise of one point on the Ritcher Scale is around 31.7 times the energy release. So the energy release rate of the Japanese earthquake was around 11 billion times of the strongest Blackpool tremor. It is the same order of magnitude as comparing the power consumption of the weakest low energy light bulb with the combined potential energy output of all the power stations in Britain.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/earthquake6.htm

[hunter]

Notice how the greens never quantify the term 'earthquake", and in fact seek to deceive the public by pretending that the tremors have been of any significance at all. which is fitting in the context of the deception it takes for anyone to use Gasland clips as a supporting prop for an allegedly serious non-fictional work.

[Chuck Norcutt]

While I'm a strong supporter of fracking I'm also a strong supporter of strong regulations to control the industry. I live in upstate New York about 20 miles north of a large fracking area in Pennsylvania which has also reported "flaming faucets". I tend to disbelieve that water contamination there was caused by fracking but that does not mean that it can't and doesn't happen. Billy Liar pointed out the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's report on Gasland <http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf> which I hope you'll all read. The report discusses three cases of polluted wells from Gasland and dismisses two of them as being biogenic gas that was present before fracking started. However, the third case showed naturally occurring biogenic gas but also thermogenic gas which is clearly from fracking. The cause is not gas seeping up through the rock from 8,000 feet down but rather escaping from around the drill casings and cement used as a sealant. This is essentially the same cause as BP's Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It's either accidental or (sometimes) deliberate failure to follow good drilling practice since good practices can be time consuming and expensive. Whenever there's economic incentive to take short cuts it's best that the fox not guard the hen house.

As I said, I'm all for fracking (which will likely start here this year) because I believe we need this gas and the economic development it entails. But at the same time I'm a bit leery of what I wish for. That area in Pennsylvania used to be farmland traversed by quiet country lanes. It's still largely farmland but the quiet country lanes are now full of huge numbers of heavy tanker trucks carrying water and drilling fluids everywhere, breaking the pavements to bits and causing traffic jams for miles the likes of which have never been seen in that area. If you live in an area that will likely see fracking be sure that adequate oversight is in place before the first drill rig starts boring.

[Skiphil]

Does anyone know if serious economic analyses are being offered of how much UK consumers could save if a lot of domestic energy usage could be switched to natural gas if fracking takes off??

In the USA production has soared and prices have fallen dramatically:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-natural-gas-boom-brings-201710773.html

Yes, I know I can Google for answers to my question, But there is often much nonsense to wade through to find any gems of info and analysis.

I simply thought that this thread would benefit from more such info if anyone has it handy, thanks!

[Mooloo]

Obama is out to do to the "frackingers" what he's done to the drillers in the Gulf, the coal miners and just about every energy area except the swindlers of the renewables and slime folks.

Oil production in the US rose last year.

While you hyperventilate how Obama is out to get all petro-firms, the Greens are saying exactly the opposite thing : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/14/us-oil-production-to-obama_n_861962.html

Obama is running for election again. He will talk big to some of his greenie fans, but there's no way he will turn off the spigots.

[Vernon E]

Good post by Don Keiller in the same vein as my previous one. In defending the gas solution I don't think he places quite enough emphasis on the effects of thermal efficiency as well as the stoichiometry, though he certainly includes it in the calculation. The eficiency of conversion in a modern combined cycle gas fired station is up at the 80%'s. In the most modern coal fired stations, of which Germany has just commissioned or is commissioning, about twelve (greens please note!), the efficiency is at best 46%. If the politicians ever manage to impose some kind of CCS on the generators -heaven forbid, but I still think physics may save us - the efficiency falls by a further 10%, but this is just a projected figure, no one has proved CCS yet.