Bishop Hill Water...shortage?
Nov 20, 2013 Climate: Parliament 
The House of Lords questioned Baroness Verma on shale gas developments yesterday. The formal question came from Baron Renton and was on safety and regulation of shale gas, but there were a series of follow-ups from other peers, mostly from the pro-shale side. The only voices against were a rather vacuous contribution from Baroness Worthington and a bizarre one from the Liberal Democrat Lord Teverson, who seemed to suggest that a successful shale gas industry would use 10% of the UK water supply.
Given my earlier researches into water use in fracking operations, this figure seems quite unbelievable. My guess as that he arrives at it by defining UK water supply as being domestic (i.e. treated) water only and then assuming that all the wells would be fracking simultaneously rather than over a period of years. This is only supposition though.
I wonder if anyone can throw any light on it.
The video is here, with the section on fracking right at the start.
Reader Comments (50)
The truth is that the environmental establishment, the ones with their noses in the green trough, will throw anything at fracking to try and delay/stop it going ahead. A cheap gas supply used to generate cheap electricity signals the end of renewables. Switching to gas also drastically reduces CO2 emissions, whilst this is irrelevant to anyone not of the cAGW faith, it is an uncomfortable truth that the greens also do not want to have to acknowledge.
The most vacuous argument used against fracking is that the UK will realise none of the benefits seen in the US so there is no point trying. How do these Mystic Megs of economics know? Good job the same arguments weren't deployed against people like Fleming; "Put the petri dish down Dr Fleming there's a good chap, those funny growths will never be of any use."
We're at peak water. The world's supplies of water are running out. We simply can't go on exploiting the world's finite reserves of water at current rates. Put a brick in your cistern and take short showers. Ban baths and stuff.
;-)
@AngusPangus - don't worry the EU are taking decisive action on your behalf.
Toilet Flushing EU Directive Could Affect British Cisterns, Branded 'Money Down The Pan'
31st Oct 2013.
Chairman Al on Nov 20, 2013 at 9:40 AM
An experienced plumber told me that for anyone in a household that had installed new a toilet/WC/lavatory in a house with old sewerage pipes, at least one of them should have a bath each week.
This is not for reasons caused by personal hygiene! It is because domestic sewerage systems used to be built with less steep gradients. Because less water is now used on each flush, a large flow of water is needed to ensure the sewerage pipes are clear of solids!
So, for those living in old houses with new 'plumbing', it is a case of having a bath at least once a week, whether we need one or not!
Chairman Al: You're pulling our chain. Nobody in the EU could be that stupid.
The law of unintended consequences says that people will flush the toilet twice in order to make sure the job is done properly.
Robert Christopher. I can attest to that. I had to install a macerator pump in a tank between the house and the septic tank because the gradient of the existing pipes was not sufficient.
Phillip Bratby wrote:
The bureaucrats will never know. Nor will they be aware of people carrying buckets of water to the toilet to effect an inefficient flush. Because the public will be too "ashamed" to say that they do that to an "official".
May all your deeds be like the ping-pong balls used to test the effectiveness of flushing. In an eco-toilet, the flush only has to be effective with the simulant 90% of the time to get the sticker of approval.
Robert Christopher, you are quite right.
Low flush toilets are now an important source of revenue for plumbers, where they are attached to old or just cheap (narrow) pipes. My plumber explained this to me last year in between compiling his invoice for clearing the pipes in my 60 year old house.
So yep, I always use the full flush option, and have luxuriant baths as well whenever possible. And don't get me started on the abomination called low-flow showerheads.
There was never any good reason for water shortages where I live except for greenies opposing dams on principle. Fortunately, since it is the national capital, a decent water supply was deemed a priority of national importance, and has now been fixed by upgrading our main dam. But we had to go through years of crap about how using water was wrecking the planet first.
Australians who live elsewhere have not been so lucky.
Perhaps he meant that shale gas exploration & extraction uses water equivalent 10% of what he uses in his mansion.
h/t SJF in Unthreaded:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/19/global-warming-professor-kevin-anderson-cuts-back-on-washing-and-showering-to-fight-climate-change-admits-at-un-climate-summit-that-is-why-i-smell/
"Anderson conceded that he has cut back on his personal hygiene after Morano read aloud to him his 2012 quotes.
“That is why I smell, yes,” Anderson told Climate Depot.
Morano then asked Anderson: “And you really believe that [not bathing] is going to help people avoid typhoons?
“I think you misunderstand the point, I do not believe it would help as an individual,” Anderson responded.
“So it’s symbolic?” Morano asked.
“Well, it’s symbolic, it catalyzes action,” Anderson replied."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can just imagine the action it catalyses in a stuffy meeting room.
Anderson is a professor at U of Manchester and a Deputy Director at Tyndall.
" ... the water companies of England and Wales ...leaking water mains ... recorded losses today are marginally high than they were a decade ago – about 3.4 billion litres a day ... national water leakage rate at 24%"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/08/water-industry-pipes-scandal
So, using these rough figures, the water companies produce about 13.6 BILLION litres a DAY and waste a quarter of it!
Reducing leakage by 1% would gives us an extra 136 million litres, or 30 million gallons a day at the tap for consumption. A 10% reduction would give us 300 million gallons a day, enough to START 60 wells a DAY, as fraccing a well takes around around 2 to 5 million gallons.
This does not take into account the fact that much of the water used is reclaimed so the total figure for water consumption for each well will be much less.
The alarmists also say that no one knows what is in fraccing fluid. Well, someone does, even if it only the man making it!
And here is a list, with CAS numbers:
http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
One would hopefully expect that the regulatory bodies, that we as taxpayers pay for, would know as well, but after the Coop Bank's doomed attempt at being an ethical bank and the FSA's performance at monitoring the resulting car crash, one does wonder!
Andrew, the first in a mini series on shale gas at Energy Matters that some of your readers may find interesting:
Marcellus shale gas Bradford Co Pennsylvania: production history and declines
"From a standing start in 2009, natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale in Bradford County Pennsylvania (PA) now exceeds 2.2 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day from 728 wells (to end June 2013). This report examines the production history, decline rates and average well performance en route to assessing the potential impacts of shale gas developments in Europe."
This is quite a long article, but I think it gives a rounded picture of water usage in the US:
http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/205481/friday-energy-facts-how-much-water-does-fracking-shale-gas-consume
My favorite quotes:
"That's all a rough order of magnitude estimate, but it indicates that shale wells are not as significant a consumer of freshwater as I would have suspected prior to running these numbers. By far the biggest sources of water consumption in the United States remains agriculture, which consumes on the order of 32,850 billion gallons of water annually, or more than 243 times more water than fracking for shale gas."
"As another point of comparison, golf courses in the United States consume about 0.5 percent of all freswhater used in the country, according to the Professional Golf Association ...."
"Summary: All shale gas wells drilled and completed in the United States in 2011 consumed on the order of 135 billion gallons of water, equivalent to about 0.3 percent of total U.S. freshwater consumption."
"The recent shale gas transformation of the U.S. natural gas industry has also focused attention on the water-energy nexus, although the water consumption for the production of shale gas appears to be lower (0.6 to 1.8 gal/MMBtu) than that for other fossil fuels (1 to 8 gal/MMBtu for coal mining and washing, and 1 to 62 gal/MMBtu for U.S. onshore oil production). The increased role of shale gas in the U.S. energy sector could result in reduced water consumption (Chart ES-1)."
"A couple points here: not only does shale gas extraction consume less water per unit of energy provided as coal or oil, combined cycle gas-fired power plants currently offer the most efficient way to turn fossil fuels into electricity. A pulverized coal-fired power plant will consume about 30-50 percent more fuel than an efficient combined cycle gas plant to produce an equal amount of electricity.
As a result, if shale gas displaces coal in the electric power sector, as has been occurring in recent years, then total water consumption per unit of electricity provided will actually decrease – by a lot. "
And, with my emphasis:
"Summary: Shale gas consumes about 0.6-1.8 gallons of water per million BTUs of energy produced. If shale gas is used to generate electricity at a combined cycle gas plant and displace coal-fired power, the quantity of water consumed per unit of electricity generated could fall by on the order of 80 percent."
A little known fact: :)
A 100 metre square pool with water to a depth of 0.1 metres, about 110 yd * 110 yd * 4 inches, contains ONE MILLION litres of water, but it is only 1000 cubic metres of water, or about 25 lorry loads!.
We cannot carry on as if water just fell from the sky or something and we could simply collect it from any natural or artificial hole into which it had found its way.
It's normal green dirty PR trick they go all out to push a fantasy view of the world why ? - Cos the real world & validated science is not in their favour, . And they do it for each issue.
- Note the hour and hours put into talking about Typhoon Haiyan & climate when , it should have all been about poverty erradication and disaster preparedness etc.
- Typhoon expert Ryan Maue points us to an official list of WN Pacific cyclones since 1950 that shows there have been 58 similar in strength to Haiyan that means on average there is one every (flaming) year ! (..not always in the news ,cos not all make landfall).
- and they do it about every issue. How many green solutions like renewables etc. achieved in reality better than the hyped predictions ?
..Can you trust the greens ? We live in the real world not their deluded fantasy world.
This would seem a good time to pause and remind ourselves of the prescient Dr Viner's words:
"Children just aren't going to know what water is"
Or something.
Lord Teverson was obviously venting methane out of his fertilizer
Talking of Dr Viner, some cold white stuff has just fallen from the clouds in Somerset for the first time this autumn, can anyone provide an explanation?
It's "snow". Please inform any children you see today.
I can't see the problem. I have a bath every August whether I need one or not...
So, Chairman Al - someone from the EU will come and clear out our blocked sewers when these new regulations are put in place, then..?
What do you mean - 'No'..?
Surely these matters are thought through thoroughly..?
Oh - of course - silly me - its the EU we're talking about...
The UK receives an average of 3 feet 9 inches of rainfall per year. That exact quantity is lost to the sea or the atmosphere over the same period. If we build no more reservoirs, our intervention is only in processing and transport and that is only to a small percentage of the total. We can't run out of water but we can f*** up.
When smart-meters rule the realm, those who use electricity for heating water could find themselves taking more cold showers in January. So while people may arrive at the office a bit earlier, they might not smell as nice.
It has been calculated that the volume of water used to produce unconventional gas is 100 times less than that required to produce biofuels, per unit of energy. So the answer is to ban biofuels to liberate large quantities of water for fracking.
NeilC
We have an inch or two of "global warming" in Burgundy as well — and that is unusual! Melting like mad of course at this time of year but more forecast for the end of the week.
Perhaps Lord Teverson got his 10% water usage figure from the UK Groundwater Forum here:
The cited source, Wood et al. 2010, may be found here. This contains the following statement:
UK Groundwater Forum's figures for production are for 90 bcm/yr, vs. Wood's 9 bcm/yr.
Frankly my toilet doesn't work - US congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDHaeEsNF0&tracker=False
An old link about water:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/germany-s-environmental-protection-policies-fail-to-achieve-goals-a-821396-3.html
The other parts are also worth a read.
I'm a riparian owner and am allowed to extract 20,000 litres of water per day without a licence. I usually help myself to a few buckets a year. I'm open to offers from the fracking industry for the rest..
As a follow up to my previous post (1:23 PM), as that's no longer editable...
The claimed 10% of the UK’s annual water consumption is based on fracking providing the entirety of UK gas. Even then, scaling up Wood et al.'s figures, one obtains 13,000 to 56,000 megalitres/year. This amounts to 1% to 6% of annual industrial water usage.
Water industry site Water UK says: "Each day the UK water industry collects, treats and then supplies more than 17 billion litres of high quality water to domestic and commercial customers." To put this on an equal footing with the previous figures, 17 billion litres/day is about 6.2 million megalitres/year. Thus the projected water usage for fracking -- to suppy 100% of UK gas -- amounts to 0.2% to 0.9% of annual abstraction.
So, the scaled values from Wood et al amount to 1% to 6% of annual industrial water usage, or
Isn't Rising Oceans the most feared consequence of Climate Change? If so the storage of water underground by fracking should be viewed as part of the solution, not the problem.
Ripper. I've just solved the problem.
CH4 + 2O2 -> heat -> 2H2O + CO2
Solution: burn more hydrocarbons! Plus we can use the heat to solve our energy crisis as well. Two for the price of one.
Fracking get on with it, there's plenty of water to go around and for all purposes in Britain.
"Water sustainability" and artificially engineered [or lack thereof] crises are a major part of the lunacy of agenda 21. Thus, combining this [water shortages] with the added 'threat' of hydraulic fracturing adds [takes away?] to the 'cup' which over floweth bearing joyous tidings to the cohorts of the anti frack green loony brigade.
Bawling school children, all or, most recent members jammed into to the House of Lords and the green eco fascists: peas in a pod.
The problem with the question the Bishop poses is it requires a rational response to the irrational.
Environmentalism is a religion and thus based in Faith not logic, reason and (God forbid) evidence.
However I believe the answer is Environmentalists believe water is one of those resources Mankind is using up, so any water used in fracking, in aggregate is water used up, destroyed, thereby reducing the Country's water stocks.
Mike, Just proves a point for CAGW, melting French glaciers /
According to my daughter — a recognised expert in such matters — winter has come early to the Alps, yet again. Half-a-dozen of the Cols (Glandon, Croix de Fer among them) have been closed for over a fortnight. If this is what global warming is like, believe me the ski resorts can't get enough of it.
And if you have a water meter - and if you have a new style loo - and if it has an overflow that feeds back into the pan - and if the cistern is not quite set right - and if it DOES therefore overflow all the time - it will cost you a fortune.
Just soze you know. It's worth checking.
Mike, I was joking.
One of my favourite examples of the law of unintended consequences. San Francisco needs to pump 14 million dollars of raw bleach into the sewers every year, to counter the effects of 'solids' accumulating in the pipes. The reason? They manadated low flow toilets. They also spent 100 million on new sewers, to try and fix the effects of low flow.
Total water saved? 20 million gallons per year. Just counting the cost of bleach alone, that works out to 70 cents for every gallon of water saved. Of course, environmentalists don't like all that bleach going into the bay.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361896/San-Francisco-spends-14-million-bleach-eco-toilets-cause-stink.html
Of course, in fracturing, the water is not really 'lost'. If you use 4 million liters of water to fracture a well, that same well will produce 22 million liters of water when the CH4 is oxidized to form water and CO2.
http://www.energyindepth.org/turning-natural-gas-into-water-hydraulic-fracturing-doesnt-deplete-water-supplies/
NeilC
Yeh, I know.
It's just that the concept of glaciers in Burgundy is a bit ..... way out!
You can frac just fine with river water. Don't yall have one or two of those over there in England. I've fracced a well here in Texas directly out of a small river (< 100 cubic meters per second) without it having any effect on the river level.
Fracking does not require potable quality water. In the Eagle Ford field in Texas some smart townships have started selling their treated sewage water to "Big Oil".
Mike Jackson
Should'nt Burgundy be poured and drunk at room temperature?
are you thirsty, EM?
diogenes
Regrettably poor health limits my alcohol consumption nowadays.
I put bottles of red wine in the fridge in summer, because in Australia, room temperature in summer is somewhat different than it was when and where the original instructions for drinking red were drafted.
EM, sorry to hear that your health is not the best, and especially if it prohibits supping a bottle or two of fine Australian shiraz from the Coonawarra.
Water used in drilling and fraccing is usually known as "drill water" i.e fresh water that is not necessarily potable.
johanna
Thank you. I miss good wine.
The Australian preference for a cold one is legendary.
I remember a strip cartoon called "The Cloggies" about North of England clog dancing folk. Their competion moves included the "Single Leg Arkwright" , a boot to the opponent's groin. Beer was a crucial ingredient.
During a world tour they were losing to Australia, unable to stomach the ice-cold lager. (Proper English beer is served warm!)
The Cloggies won after starting a bush fire to warm up the Fosters. :-)