Bishop Hill Ridley et al on shale
Nov 27, 2013 Energy: gas Greens Matt Ridley, Nick Grealy of No Hot Air blog and filmmaker Phelim MacAleer were the latest witnesses to appear before the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee inquiry into shale gas.
To tell the truth it was not particularly exciting and most of the arguments made will be familiar to readers at BH.
There was one rather interesting exchange (from about 16:15) when Phelim MacAleer described the green objectors to fracking as liars. Shortly afterwards he clarified this statement to make it clear that he was referring to the environmentalists rather than local residents in, say, Balcombe. This was followed by an objection from Lord May who, despite MacAleer's statement to the contrary a few moments earlier, accused him of calling local residents liars and suggested that this was a bit rich from someone who was representing companies like Cuadrilla, who had been found by the Advertising Standards Agency to have breached the Advertising Code.
I must say that Lord May's being able to quote the specific findings of the ASA suggests that this was a deliberate attempt to undermine a witness. This would be entirely consistent with his earlier contributions to the hearing and thus not a surprise.
If you look at the ASA findings, you discover that the ASA objected to Cuadrilla saying:
The Government's own review ... also concluded that it was safe to resume hydraulic fracturing [in the Bowland basin] ...It too set out safeguards ... and no prospect of any resulting damage.
They felt this was misleading because the government had recommended a cautious approach to be adopted when hydraulic fracturing was restarted, and the use of more sensitive seismic equipment, among other things.
Shocking stuff, I'm sure you'll agree.
That Lord May would contemplate comparing this sort of trivia to, say, Josh Fox's flaming faucets or pretty much anything coming out of Friends of the Earth is pretty surprising. That he would imply that it is worse almost defies belief.
Reader Comments (65)
Stop wriggling, Chandra, and answer the question. Where is your evidence that hydraulic fracturing is contaminating the aquifer?
You are aware that hydraulic fracturing usually takes place several KILOMETRES below the aquifer?
And if the hydraulic fracturing fluid does leak into the aquifer, what is it contaminating it with? Water? Sand? (Both being the two main constituents of hydraulic fracturing fluid.)
Now, please, answer the question; you are being very rude by your attempts to avoid doing.
the really weird thing is that in the UK drinking water is supplied by companies who have to subject their product to rigorous tests. Even if fracking contaminated the aquifers, how would that impact on drinking water? The water companies are duty-bound to filter out the contaminants. In other countries, where people are supplied by wells or untreated river water, dangerous chemicals in the aquifers might be problematic. But, since we know that there are no dangerous chemicals involved in fracking, why should we be concerned about that? The whole thing is yet another instance of lying by the drama greens.
RR, I'm not going to spoon feed you like a baby. You have Google. Search! I've given you the tools to understand. You now know that a high proportion of wells leak. You have also learned that what leaks doesn't disappear. I suggest you read what you find about contamination of water, and this time use your new understanding to put two and two together.
IMO, this site deserves a better class of troll.
I think some are indeed happy to lie. Many others are simply too easily frightened by the word "chemicals" because they have little or no knowledge of chemistry. That's why the first mentioned lie.
To whit, a few days ago the BBC posted an article "Viewpoint: Why do people hate the word 'chemicals'?"
Twenty fours later, the BBC posts an article "'Substantial' shale gas in Wales, firms say". Unsurprisingly, it goes on to say "The (fracking) technique, also called hydraulic fracturing, involves injecting water and chemicals into shale rock at high pressure."
What are the chances that the anonymous author doesn't know water is a chemical too? I'll probably never find out. But if the BBC employed more people with a chemistry training then they might be able to explain the matter to readers in a more informative and educative manner, assuming that is their intention. It certainly should be their intention. I've heard others say that 'saving-the-world' from hydrocarbon fuels or carbon dioxide is not actually in the BBC charter.
Chandra, you are wriggling like a fish on a hook. I am not asking to be spoon-fed; I am asking what evidence do you have of hydraulic fracturing contaminating the aquifer? As you are unable or unwilling to answer that very simple question, I can only conclude that you do not have any evidence. Without that evidence, it is probably quite fair to say that you are engaged in scare-mongering, attempting to whip up a fear of something of which there is little to be fearful of.
Michael Hart is correct in describing water as a chemical; so is sand. Water cannot be carried in an oil tanker as a cargo; it can only be carried as a cargo in a designated chemical tanker. Knowing this, you have to ask what the BBC is trying to say with regards to the Welsh shale. Knowing this, we have to ask what you are trying to do with your insistence that hydraulic fracturing is involved in widespread contamination of the aquifer, yet refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim.
In other words Chandra, you have no evidence of aquifer contamination, but you don’t want to admit it. But we can all see, including those lurkers you were hoping to influence with your scare-mongering, that your accusations are pretty well baseless. However, as you like to set others homework (because you don‘t know the answer), lets see how you do with a bit of your own. In the States, despite many thousands of wells drilled and fracked, there has been only one case where legal judgement has determined that aquifer contamination was caused by a drilling company. The contamination in question was elevated levels of methane due to a leaking well-casing. Once repaired, the methane levels dropped back to the normal background levels for that area within a couple of weeks. No evidence of any frac fluids were found. See if you can find it.
Sorry RR, your post saying pretty much the same thing wasn't there when I started typing mine out.
’sokay, Laurie; nice to know someone is following my logic… I do wonder, at times, if the furrow I am ploughing will produce any crops.
As an aside, is methane dangerous contaminant? I would say not; probably on a par with water or sand. Do you have any idea what the other chemicals used (if any) are, and the quantities (or concentrations)?
RR,
http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
Gives a list of compounds that have been used, emphasizing that in practice only two or three might be used. They will certainly be used in dilute concentrations/amounts (due to cost, if nothing else), but I don't think the site lists those details. I found the site via a link from NoHotAir-Nick Grealy
http://www.nohotair.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=171
which the Bish linked to from an article about biofracking with Marmite
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/6/28/fracking-with-marmite.html
To my chemical eye there is nothing in the list to write home about regarding toxicity/environmental persistence, and I've worked with a greater variety of compounds than most chemists ever will. Many of them will appear in food and cosmetic products, and the biocides/surfactants in many domestic cleaning agents.
Glutaraldehyde stands out as being slightly volatile and irritating with some modest toxicity issues. That is why it is used as a biocide/preservative, similar to formaldehyde used in chemical toilets. But it is biodegradable. With the exception of petroleum distillate, they all appear water soluble. After allowing a period for degradation, I would class the mixture no differently than seawater. The worst thing in the operation is probably the oil/gas that is actually being mined.
Thank you, Michael. Very interesting and informative.
There you are RR, Laurie Childs confirms it.
Hark! Is that the sound of methane bubbling up through the water table that I hear? No! Silly me! It’s just the sound of the last vestiges of Chandra’s credibility disappearing down the plughole.
As I recently noted on WUWT Bob May (now Lord May) was my lecturer in 4th yr Physics in Quantum Mechanics in School of Physics, Univ of Sydney, nearly 50yrs ago. I best remember him as an arrogant s.o.b. one of whose most memorable opening remarks to the class was that half of them shouldn't be there (not bright enough).
Laurie is quite right; in your attempts to scupper the arguments of one of the least able debater and one of the most ignorant on this site, you have blasted a huge hole below your own waterline, and are sinking fast.