Friday
Dec192014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Environmental risks of fracking
Dec 19, 2014 Climate: Parliament Energy: gas The House of Commons is to hold an inquiry into the environmental risks of fracking.
Submissions of written evidence are invited addressing the following points:
- The risks from fracking operations in the UK, including potential risks to water supplies and water quality, emissions, habitats and biodiversity, and geological integrity
- Necessary environmental safeguards, including through the planning/permitting system
- The implications for our carbon emissions reduction obligations
It's being held under the auspices of the Environmental Audit Committee, so I think it's fair to say that it will be a complete farce.
Reader Comments (37)
The long grass is getting awfully full.
Back in 1945, when the mines were nationalised, the Labour Government held a review and a call for submissions on the future of coal mining*. It was based on:
Then, of course, you have to add:Pneumo-coniosis, white-finger, black lung, fire risk, health and safety, etc
Now, whatever happened to
manual frackingmining after that?(Yes, for certain pedants, that is a Tu Quoque. But it is also a parable of the age in which we live).
*OK...for those who might wonder, it didn't really happen.
...and every Unnecessary 'safeguard' they can think of, as well.
It certainly looks like our "Rolls Royce" public servants have abandoned the the idea of delivery of things that make life better for the people who pay their wages + pensions and are simply busying themselves solely with stuffing themselves with "process" - leading to morbid constipation.
Is there a laxative strong enough to deal with this?
As Otter has said, it might be decided that fracking can go ahead, but will be as laden as nuclear power with totally unnecessary “safety” features that will more-or-less render it unviable.
Another Inquiry? Ye Gods.
This is another example of why the UK suffers from overburdened red-tape. The best way of establishing whether fracking is good, bad, viable or otherwise is to drill a dozen test boreholes and actually get on with some actual fracking.
Then, for the dozen test sites at least, we'd know. After that further decisions can be taken based on observed evidence from actually fracking real sites rather than speculative hot air from self-important talking heads - many of whom will be tainted with agendas or vested interests.
At times this country makes me despair.
cheshirered
tut ... Ted - you're being rational. rolls eyes skyward and shakes head.
Analysis paralysis.
I would be obliged if I could renounce my carbon reduction obligations. I have no objection to reducing pollution and if that involves using energy more efficiently that is all to the good. However I do not feel under any obligation to reduce energy consumption for the sake of reducing CO2 emissions, nor do I recall being consulted by any politician about this as opposed to being told by them what we should all do.
Will they accept submissions on the environmental risks of NOT fracking?
Off the top of my head these would include:
1) Loss of economic competitiveness resulting in loss of industries to countries which do frack - and the consequent social decline, joblessness, despair etc.
2) Increased reliance on intermittent renewables which have a far greater environmental footprint eg. on average one shale well can produce the same power output as 300 intermittent 2MW turbines - but in an easily storable form.
3) As gas prices rise more and more people will turn to burning wood for warmth - resulting in a return to the chocking smogs of the 1950's (already happening round my way).
4) We would be forced to rely on expensive gas imported from countries with less environmental regulations. So merely offshoring any environmental issues.
From today's Wall Street Journal regarding New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's fracking ban ...
Economic growth sure can be a nuisance. The fracking boom in other states has led to overbooked hotels, restaurants where you can’t get a table, and the quandary of how to spend disposable income from rapidly rising wages. Life is tough when people have more money. The burdens on roads and public services are real, but fracking also produces the extra tax revenue to finance them.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cuomo-bans-fracking-1418947374?mod=WSJ_Markets_LatestHeadlines
You'd think they could just read this and crack on....
http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/statement-from-european-academies.html
Shouldn't take too long. Caroline Nokes is on the committee - and she'll be wanting to get to bed on time.
Harry Passfield: "Back in 1945, when the mines were nationalised, "
Interesting subject. We hear a lot about how the public-owned mines were a shambles and "had to be shut down", but of course as you suggest, they were taken into public ownership.
So why weren't the mines privatised like everything else in Thatcher's Britain (except and very notably middle class unions: like academia).
So, not only did Thatcher close coal rather than selling it off - but she also promoted global warming research.
If the current political class had been in place in the 18th Century we wouldn't have had the industrial revolution yet. But taxpayer-subsidised lobbyists would have just persuaded MP's to ban powered looms, and a Westminster committee would have spent 20 years discussing the potential environmental impact of the introduction of gas street lighting.
With the current price of gas and oil I would say that the risks and benefits are largely academic. Nobody is going to waste their money fracking wells in the UK until the price goes up. We don't have enough rigs and enough experienced people to start anyway. A few test drillings til the Majors get interested maybe.
@chilli re the increased burning of wood. Wood burns faster than it grows so it will also lead to rapid deforestation.
MikeHaseler: Not that I want to get into the politics of mining (my comment was supposed to be ironic), and it may be apocryphal, but I understand that the Callaghan Government closed more mines than Margaret Thatcher's. That said, when it came to privatising mines, my guess is that she was shrewd enough to know that she wouldn't be able to get that through pre-'85 (with Scargill), and after that time she probably felt there was nothing to be gained. Bear in mind the privatisation of BT and BSC etc must have taken a lot of time and effort in the '70s/'80s (I was around then).
As for MT's espousal of AGW, IIRC, she resiled from that position later in her political life.
My hope is that the Cameron Gov has the guts to get on with the shale gas revolution and get this country through the next 20 years without another crash.
Ivor Ward is right. The risk from fracking is that it ain't going to happen.
Chilli
Re wood burning, as David Chappell says will lead to deforestation due in no small part to illegal logging for want of a better word. It will also lead to more house fires and deaths (from fire and carbon monoxide) due to poorly maintained chimneys.
Like Ivor Ward/Vernon E, the anti-frackers know well enough that simply introducing delays based on unreasonable fears is enough to serve their ends. It worked against the nuclear industry.
My technical contribution to today's fossil-fuel article is that I just learned that xanthan gum, used in many food products and gluten-free baking, is also a staple of the oil industry who use it in large amounts in horizontal drilling.
The horror, the horror...
@ Chilli: "As gas prices rise more and more people will turn to burning wood for warmth - resulting in a return to the chocking smogs of the 1950s (already happening round my way)."
Rubbish, the 'choking smogs' of the 1950s were due to use of coal burnt in open grates for domestic heating, and were solved by the requirement to use smokeless fuel and smokeless zones under the Clean Air Act.
@ SandyS and David: Wood burning is a no-brainer as a primary heating source for domestic uses, but is a good back-up in rural areas. I end up with a large amount of dead wood each year from our land. I can't turn it all into hedgehog nests, insect refuges etc, so I'd rather burn it more cleanly and efficiently in a woodburner and save some money than on a bonfire. As to the daft comment about deaths due to poorly maintained chimneys, that applies equally to poorly maintained gas/oil/or coal fired heating systems.
What's all the fuss about this link has been posted here at least twice -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23756320
michael hart
xanthan gum - I went to an IET public fracking lecture where the presenter Peter Styles from DECC (!!) made some fracking fluid on the rostrum (sand, water, washing up liquid and Jelly Babies (guar / xanthan gum...)) - he handed out the remaining bags of jelly babies to the audience - the huffing and sneering of the eco-twerps in the audience was actually something to behold - rude, graceless, humorless gits - said gits also seemed incensed that an officially sanctioned / sponsored event could actually take a balanced view....
This bad faith inquiry whose purpose is to stop fracking and its benefits is no more cynical than a certain American President who repeats lies about pipelines as if they are true.
why isnt there a similar investigation into the environmental impacts of windfarms ?
why isnt there a similar investigation into the environmental impacts of windfarms considering that fracking involves just a small hole while windfarms require large concrete units ?
@tomo/cheshired: There's no rationality on this issue, particularly as far as the green blob is concerned. A bunch of protesters (though they prefer to claim to local journos that they are 'protectors'), are currently illegally occupying an intended site for exploratory drilling for coal bed methane at Dudleston Heath in Shropshire, on the false allegation that it will turn into fracking. The eyesore of their illegal camp 'Fort Dudleston' made of pallets, corrugated iron, and tarps, is topped with a pirate flag and an Irish tricolor.
The irony of this farce is that the Shropshire coalfield was the main site for NCB explorations into coal bed methane extraction in the 60's/70's, and was only stopped because it was economically unviable, not because of any environmental issues.
Rather than spend taxpayer GBPs on another enquiry, why not dispatch a couple of duly accredited boffins to New Zealand to examine the practices on our offshore and onshore oilfields where fraccing has been employed for over half a century and where no ill effects from fraccing in NZ have ever been reported. We still have an active protest ignoramii here, many of them filmic luvvies, but they are generally ignored, except when they do something really strupid and/or dangerous, when the law properly swings into action.
The guvmnt has stumbled across a perfect stance on fracking; it openly encourages fracking and even offers subsidies. However all the while it knows that the climate change act covers its back and that nothing will happen until it is repealed.
When the lights are going out it will still be the case that renewable energy will get priority and that gas power stations will be told to go offline on far too many occasions. You would have to be a philanthropist to keep a gas power station up and running today. Without demand from the power generation industry why would anyone frack?
It defines the word disingenuous :P
No Michael Hart I am not anti-fracking, the opposite in fact. But I do not believe that anyone is mad enough to invest in this hugely expensive technology with its poor yields and the constant harassment from the environmental blob. Especially with falling prices. However, I do believe that there may be specialist applications (most likely INEOS) who may try - but the overall priority is to get a few wells fracked and tested so that we will know once and for all if shale is viable in the UK and see some factual proposals. This is so critical to our energy future that the government should carry it out at its own (our) expense. What I find amusing comes from a public enquiry I was involved in in the 1980s for an ethylene plant at Nigg Bay. I will remember the reactions of all the local supposedly environmental folk when the project didn't go ahead and they woke up to the fact that the golden goose wasn't going to lay for them!
Vernon E
We already know that shale is viable in the UK and we have some of the richest deposits ever discovered so far, unfortunately "We" does not include the government.
Dung
I would dearly like your references. What flow rates have been achieved? What depletion/re-frack rates? What gas compositions?
As far as I know, the main, possibly the only, purpose in adding the controversial substances known as "chemicals" to the water used in the controversial process known as "fracking" is to suspend proppants - grains of sand and sometimes other solids of various microns diameter.
I wouldn't drink it - I wouldn't drink any untreated water , even before chemicals were added, if I could help it - but I doubt the sort of stuff they need to make it slick enough to hold proppant would do me any significant harm should I swallow some.
So quite apart from the minimal risk of frac fluid getting into domestic water supply, the fluid itself is unlikely to be as bad as the stuff we spill on the ground going about our daily lives. But never mind, it's got CHEMICALS in it!
Not to mention that people in coal-mining areas are getting all riled up about coal seam gas extraction.
People with vast caverns under their land, fretting about cased boreholes after reading activist websites?
Who protested against Thatcher closing the mines (whether she did or not, they believe she did) but now are protesting against de-watering the coal seams and extracting the gas commercially and safely which is often seeping out uncontrolled anyway?
Hysteria's too mild a term for it.
Oh dear Mr Vernon are you against fracking then :)
You are either playing devil's advocate or you are from Barcelona and know nothing. It would be great to have the info you require but it is unlikely to appear until we change our government. Merry Christmas and please do enjoy any blackouts :)
This is just plain stupid.The Germans were Fraking during WW11 and the Yanks have been doing it for the last thirty or so years.It has been proven safe,so who is dragging the chain?Green-piss?