Bishop Hill Balcombe heats up
Aug 4, 2013 Energy: gas Greens With test drilling now under way in Balcombe, the war of words is heating up. As one would expect, the Luddites at the Guardian are stirring any pot they can find, and Damian Carrington's story focuses on allegations that Cuadrilla trespassed on private land while undertaking geophysical surveys. Mountains and molehills are words that spring to mind, and one is left with the overwhelming impression that there is another side to the story too.
Meanwhile, Twitter also remains dominated by greens, with barely a squawk from anyone in favour, but at least Cuadrilla have now made themselves heard - CEO Francis Egan is interviewed in the Mail on Sunday (scroll down here) and does a pretty good job of relaying the facts.
However, any benefits from Egan's intervention are entirely undone by Energy Minister Michael Fallon, who is reported (at the same URL) as follows:
The Tory Minister responsible for fracking has conjured up a chilling image of swathes of rural England shaking with the sound of drills as a result of the drive for shale gas.
Referring to people living in the countryside who have supported fracking, Energy Minister Michael Fallon said at a private meeting in Westminster: ‘We are going to see how thick their rectory walls are, whether they like the flaring at the end of the drive!’
While it is fair to say that there are going to be some impacts, the remarks about rectory walls are absurd - I wonder whether the story is being embellished by the journalists who have reported the story (it appears elsewhere too) or by their source. It is nevertheless a complete own goal in PR terms.
Facing down the greens and their Luddite friends in the press is going to be pivotal for the government. Failure will have appalling consequences for the country.
It's a pity then that nobody on our side of the debate seems geared up for the fight.
Reader Comments (169)
Anon/Andrew,
If you live 10 miles from Balcombe near the Surrey border that puts you in the Crawley area. I rang around a few friends in that area (I used to live there) today and none of them had felt any earth tremors at all, "scary" or otherwise.
If you want a civil debate it is best not to tell lies to support your argument. The debate is bound to turn un-civil if you do that.
For what it's worth: I live in Fort Worth, Texas, a city of about three quarters of a million people that sits atop the Barnett shale (where the fracking business really got started in earnest). There is a fracking site less than a mile from our house and about one-quarter mile from a friend's house. We hardly noticed it going in and, as far as I know, no one in the area has been seriously bothered by it: no excess noise, earthquakes, water or gas pollution, etc. There are at least 4 or 5 sites within three miles of us, all within heavily populated areas and with similar results. You can drive thorough most of these areas and, unless you're looking closely, not even notice the production sites. You might want to suggest to your government people concerned with these issues to come over here and look into the real situation as it exists on the ground rather than in the imagination. I'm sure city/state officials would be happy to talk to them about the extensive regulations that have been put into place to ensure these results.
The Luddites had a point though they lacked the education to articulate their argument and were unable to put forward a reasoned case for an alternative.
Though I use the phrase 'eco-luddite' as a form of shorthand, the resemblance to the original article is not really a very good one. The activist is not concerned that technological advance will put him out of work; his argument is one that the true Luddite would have been unable to comprehend, namely that he wishes to halt development for the good of "the planet".
And the reason for the success (insofar as they have any success) is the very antithesis of the aim: technology and its benefits, mainly but not exclusively coal, iron, oil, and gas and what can be done with them to enrich the people, are the only reason why mankind can even think about putting the welfare of the environment anywhere on any list of priorities.
That has been said in so many different ways on this and other threads but it is worth hammering away at it until one day, with any luck, the message will get through to enough people.
Keith Jackson:
That's worth a lot. Thank you!
I hear that the head of Cuadrilla's received a death threat. That's just what was needed to show how mad this protest is,
.
Aug 4, 2013 at 8:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterAnon
Balcombe is NOT "densely populated"
Next?
Keith, that's really interesting, thanks.
Great information. Our mouthing politicians aren't interested in facts. Journalist Andrew Neil might be. Maybe some other journalists too - David Rose, for instance?
Keith Jackson; thank you for your post. It is great to hear real-life experience instead of media hype.
I have taken the liberty of cross-posting it to the earlier thread on Cuadrilla's poor handling of the PR. As you say, it would obviously help the case if we could get more such input brought to the attention of most of our politicos and the media.
This has to be a good way of defusing the fuss and phobias: "here is a major US city with x wells producing and y wells being drilled; no problems, no protests. Here are the benefits to the economy, jobs market and local industries and suppliers". It could all be supported by interviews with the local politicos, the operating companies, residents, workers, hotel owners, etc.
We can dream.
@ Garethman and Arthur Dent between earlier.
When I mentioned risks with windmills I specifically said dust to dust, which includes the sourcing and mining of the rare earth metals. Last reports I read this was causing considerable risks in China where it takes place, and have been described ( albeit in press articles) lakes of poison. Eg "The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about."
I also mentioned is that okay as long as it is in a land far away.
If the mining of materials used to manufacture the magnets in windmills in no longer risky then please advise me of the research and links.
The point I was making is that all energy production carries risks, and that includes windmills are which are often seen as benign.
It is important to give reasonably accurate information to support arguments. Patently some of Anons information is erroneous, but maybe some of it is accurate and he will provide references. The comparison of Wind turbines as a danger to human health and wellbeing as being similar to coal extraction is also erroneous as cursory glance at the statistics will demonstrate. Mining in China in all levels is a dangerous occupation. Since 1949, the first year in which reasonable stats were available it is stated that over a quarter of a million people have died in the Chinese coal mining industry. http://www.jpma.org.pk/full_article_text.php?article_id=1811 Wind generated power manufacture may well have harmed other miners, but I can find no evidence of mortality rates even approaching that on a pro-rata basis given the age of the rare earth extraction industry.
Comparisons, without looking at the bigger picture are usually very misleading. We know wind turbines kill birds. It's an established fact. But what is over looked is that domestics cats kill thousands of times more, as well as large glass panels. In terms of bird mortality, wind turbines are low down the list. So if you have to argue against fracking, use good evidence, and if you argue against wind turbines, do the same. My perspective on fracking is that the case for or against has not yet been fully demonstrated and the debate so far generates more hot air than any useful information.
@mikeh "This has to be a good way of defusing the fuss and phobia"
ooh MMR vaccinne scary scary
Gasland is what the Andrew Wakefield was to Anti-vaccination.
- Once you have an easy magic solution that gives all the answers, then people are no longer open to re-examining the facts.
People will wise up again when another place/country is suddenly rolling in fracking cash (some of which can be used for Climate research)
- The activists know when 3 fracks are safely under way in the UK (after tens of thousands safe ones in the US) ..then their whole scareporn charade is over
stewgreen:
Lawson's point that there's been no successful litigation in the most litigious society in the world over bad effects of fracking convinces me. I agree it's a last ditch fight from activists, knowing this. Maybe there will be delays as a result. But the greens identified with those delays will in the end pay a massive reputation price.
Dung and Dentarthurdent are right - Foxgoose is wrong. Civil dissent from blog views is to be encouraged, not suppressed - it advances the debate. It is really stupid to assume that people cannot hold opposing views in good faith. Many (I expect the vast majority) do. Any time you falsely accuse one of them of bad faith, you invite them to make the same assumption about you, and you lose the opportunity of a convert. Don't do it!
Joe Public,
So why then, presume & label him with the perjorative term ".. a beginner"?
"Label", "perjorative"?
All may be not as it seems?
Scanning over the words and phrases, attempting to perceive the subtext used by 'anon', to make the assumption that this person may be a "him" - most probably is to suppose diametrically to the actuality.
;-D
Big Oily Face finances the Balcombe rent-a-mob
: Lowdown on the dirty smell of Lush http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094368/The-innocent-looking-body-cream-hides-sinister-secret---financing-anarchists.html
BTW Can we say annual energy output of 1 multiple frack site = 100 medium onshore wind turbines ? 200 ?
- The BBC Countryfile just covered fracking was not a total travesty - loaded it using the word "controversial" and showing the faked burning tap footage from Gasland (see Colorado government report), butthen had friendly expert & friendly farmers.
- They failed to show activbists : either the "Greenpeace scientist" the BBC usually invite, nor the baying rentamob that discredit themselves
*(the BBC Disneyland distortion of real country life)
Anon called himself Andrew ..we are not presuming the sex nor do we care
Osseo, 7:17: Civil dissent from blog views is to be encouraged, not suppressed - it advances the debate. It is really stupid to assume that people cannot hold opposing views in good faith.
Exactly. The thing is we have to make a judgement on intent. Anon's post MIGHT have been in good faith, if he had enumerated those facts and risks he spoke of. However, he did not and one immediately assumed as I did that he had drunk the Koolaid and was preaching from Gasland.
Which has been roundly debunked. And to my knowledge, the producer of that film has not admitted the 'myth of flaming water'. Since eit has been established that incident never happened, that makes the filmmaker a purveyor of agitprop at best... a liar at worst.
And as mentioned above, the lack of litigation from fracking activities is the best debunker, especially in the US where lawyers regularly sue pharm based on the side-effects and risks data sheet.
However, while the answer is not in shutting down those who spout the narrative, it is best that we apply Alinsky's Rule right back at them.
"Identify - Isolate - Ridicule!"
That makes Progs furious!
Then they have choices; embarrass themselves further or actually come up with hard facts of their own... not propaganda.
How strange is it that some people who who never say "It might be true, I saw it on the 'net" will turn around and posit: "But I saw it in a documentary!"
Often they sign themselves 'Anon'.
PS: IT seems to me you cannot set off charges without tremors. These have fueled the silly argument that doing so might set off quakes. It just may be that no experts on quakes will weigh in because they don't want to be 'persecuted'. But there's one thing we know about it from casual interest in earthquake physics and common sense.
1. You cannot set off a quake that was never going to happen, otherwise.
2. If you set it off ahead of time, it will likely be of lesser magnitude and put off a possible big one that much longer.
To "Anon" and any other confused reader, may I heartily recommend the short film FrackNation for a better understanding of the pro- and anti-fracking arguments.
Countryfile Part 2
- first Activist Gareth Roberts handing out leaflets to public who said they weren't bothered..not very convincing
- now Quadrilla boss - getting his points over well "just 100 small sites would be needed in the whole of Lancashire.
presenter - Well we have all this, but using it "will mean more climate changing gas"
presenter - "Do we have a choice ?, environmentalist will have to work hard to keep it underground",
clever words cos the tone of voice was "they'll have a job, they've lost"
Luddites, neo-luddites, [snip - don't go too far], call them what you will. It's this bunch of people who drive 4x4s through the countryside, live in large fossil-fuel guzziling houses and own every modern gadget you can think of, from iphone to the latest plasma screen TV set. At the same time they are unable to comprehend the direct link between these accessories and the cheapness and wide availability of fossil fuels. To luddite, neo-luddite and cretin let's add hypocrite.
A lot of commentary has been made here without any appaernt background on the oil and gas industry.
First, wells have been frac-ed since 1948. We only started to hear concern about it as it became more common during the shale gas revolution, which started 25 years ago but really took off in the last 5 - 8 years.
In a typical frac situation, wells which initially are drilled vertically, are turned to an inclined or horizontal orientation anything from 800 m to 4000 m depth. A single vertical well typically has multiple horizontal sections emanating from it. Meanwhile water aquifers are typically at less than 100 m depth. This means hundreds or thousands of metres of unfractured rock lie between fracs and water aquifers which may be tapped for drinking water.
When a section of well is perforated and then frac-ed, the rest of the well is isolated from the water and sand which is pressured towards the area to be frac-ed.
When rock is fractured, it is like creating small faults and so there is micro-seismicity. Before critics get excited about that phrase, note the term "micro-seismicity". In fact, detecting this is a technique used to figure out where the frac was effective and where not. Note the phrase "detecting it". This is at a totally different scale to seismicity considered hazardous on the richter scale.
Almost all multi-lateral wells with fracs have a very rapid drop off or decline in production rates of oil and gas over time in comparison to conventional wells. What does that imply? Fracs become less effective over time because they close up under the pressure of the overburden rock, and they only communicate to a finite area from which oil and gas flow to the well.
It appears that Cuadrilla are drilling a conventional well in Balcombe - no fraccing involved.
The industry has to acknowledge that mistakes can happen in conventional wells as was spectacularly and sadly shown by Macondo in the Gulf of Mexico. However it should also be acknowledged that a tiny number of wells have had problems in comparison to the vast number of wells drilled successfully on the planet. It may not seem intuitive given the media coverage, but the statistics show an incredibly good health and safety track record in oil and gas drilling.
This is because detection systems are in place to see if gas or oil at pressure enters the well. The rock ground up by a drillbit at the bottom of a well (cuttings) is brought to the surface by circulation of drilling mud. Drill mud goes down the centre of drill pipe, exits via nozzles on the drillbit, and then rises between the drillpipe and the borehole wall raising the cuttings with it. When inflow of oil or gas is detected the mud can be weighted up to control any inflow or "kick". Additionally there is a blowout preventer at seabed or surface in the case of a land-based well. In the case of Macondo, inexplicably, all of these systems failed to prevent a blowout.
Reports are coming in that shows that fracking is dangerous:
Fracking boss Francis Egan receives bomb threat over shale gas exploration
Francis Egan, the chief executive of major fracking company Cuadrilla, has claimed that opponents of shale gas exploration have sent death threats to him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10221309/Fracking-boss-Francis-Egan-receives-bomb-threat-over-shale-gas-exploration.html
We await a speedy response from our law enforcers!
It seems anon's backyard is 8,000 times as big as the usual. Have a little respect, huh?
=================
stewgreen
I have complained to the BBC twice with regard to the use of that piece of film combined with obfuscated reporting leaving the viewer with the impression that flaming taps is an inevitable result of fracking for gas. Once on Mock The Week and Once on the Ten O'Clock News.
I would ask you to do the same as I didn't watch that particular programme and in the light of their response to my first complaint which said amongst other weasel words:
" This is an internal report of audience feedback that we compile on a daily basis and it’s made available to programme commissioners, channel executives and senior management.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content."
Anyone who wan'ts to see how a "sustainable" and "organic" lifestyle (in this case, compulsory) should just use Google Earth to look at the two states that share the island of Hispaniola- Haiti and the Dominican Republic. One uses fossil fuels, the other "biomass".
No prizes for guessing who burns what :-)
Mike Jackson
Whilst correct in what you say about the original Luddites the modern usage of the word has broadly come to mean: One who opposes technical or technological change. Therefore I would say that
Plane Stupid, Earth First!; Friends Of The Earth, Greenpeace and Say No To GM would all include Luddite elements, those who are opposed to technical advances for no other reason than they are technical advances.
Lush's Rent-a-mob is gaining credibility ..new supporter is @nickgriffinmep supports them
and "Bianca Jagger here in #Balcombe - great speech!"
- "Controversial The point made before is that BBC loads fracking by prefixing with "Controversial" yet somehow greendreams like windfarms are never loaded with that word ..although they are also controversial.
Everyone is welcome here.
Good to see a lot of civilised & educated comments.. #FeelTheLoveOfTheGreens
- BP has good lawyers doesn't it that's why it's paying $27bn for the "absolute disaster" in the Gulf Oil spill.
- Green Activists never exaggerate do they ?
BTW a good way the easiest way to reduce CO2 is to stop the use of all unnecessary products. Yes ?
so are any of LUSH's products necessary to the activists who care desperately about CO2 ?
- Surely all over their customers are just causing CO2 to be emitted unnecessaryily and they should stop right now.
Cheap and plentiful coal cost many lives in its extraction, transportation and use. However, it fuelled a process of industrialisation which reduced infant mortality, prolonged life and made lives more worth living for millions who would otherwise never have reached middle age and known the pleasures of adulthood, family and home.
Trolls don't come to discuss, only to despoil. When you respond, they win. And are encouraged to return.
stewgreen on Aug 4, 2013 at 11:16 PM
"BP has good lawyers doesn't it that's why it's paying $27bn for the "absolute disaster" in the Gulf Oil spill. ..."
Aparently not!
Deepwater Horizon: BP cry foul as 10,000 claims flood in each month
"BP faces struggle in court to argue that scheme set up after Gulf of Mexico oil spill is suffering fraudulent compensation claims"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/07/bp-oil-deepwater-horizon-disaster-compensation
Don K; a MkII Jag? You lucky so-and-so. If the Lotto fairy calls, a classic Jag would be high on my list, especially the racers: that noise!
Good to hear that you are doing your bit for the environment by giving the plants more of their essential CO2 food. What's not to like?
"Discussing" this article in tomorrow's Telegraph in the 10:30 news item on the papers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10221870/Fracking-biggest-threat-to-countryside-after-housing-says-ex-minister.html
The female "political commentator", name unmemorable, stated something along the lines of: ".. and do you know that in areas where fracking takes place, your tap water becomes flammable". Said with a straight face and with no query from the others. As Private Frazer used to say: "We're all doomed".
1984 rent-a-mobs fight the police over the CLOSING of mineral exploitation
2013 rent-a-mobs fight the police over the OPENING of mineral exploitation
To all posters on BH:
Remember that Cuadrilla fracked a well near Blackpool over 20 years ago and it is still producing gas . There have been no complaints from the local population which is why you might not have heard of it.
Heh, I'm waiting for the manifestly miraculous disappearance of my zombie comment. Zambonied, resurrected, waiting as Damocles.
=================
"All these posts, yet still no-one addresses the risks."
The reason for this is that there aren't any risks. Fracking isn't new, it's been going on in the USA since 1947, and in industrial quantities since the 1960s. If there were significant risks they'd be known to us by now. If you've been having earth tremors it isn't because of fracking because they haven't started yet. The Gasland scare was just that, a scare story, the part of Pennsylvania where methane came out the taps had methane coming out 10 years before fracking started. What I suggest you do is instead of reading environmental propaganda you go and look for yourself.
Although fracking has been around for a long time the introduction of industrial fracking in the 1990s has been the controversial issue, however as of 2010 there were 2.4 million fracking wells in the USA, if they were causing significant problems we'd know about them by now.
Just to give you an understanding of how fracking works in reality. One fracking rig can be used to drill multiple wells, as opposed to oil rigs where one rig is needed for each well, the fracking takes place over a two to three day period, so if , say, 40 wells were drilled from the same rig over a period of 2 years then out of that period around three months would be actual fracking.
The homes may or may not be quaking from the fracing machinery, but at least heating them will be affordable and perhaps the UK winter death toll from inadequate or unaffordable heat will fall. It's all about priorities. Or as they say, snail darters or heat - what's it to be?
I think the debate about the human costs of various types of energy production is very legitimate, but we need also to look at it rationally. My views, FWTAW:
1. All underground mining is dangerous. Not just coal, but any kind. However, modern mines which also comply with modern safety requirements are very much safer than those which caused the terrible disasters in places like the UK and the US in the past. It is clear that the Chinese mines which continue to cause such disasters are not being run like this - but it doesn't mean that all underground mining should be phased out.
2. Most Australian coal comes from open-cut mines, which are just huge holes in the ground that are progressively cut away from the inside using big machines. It's pretty safe.
3. Any comparison of the safety of different power sources needs to factor in the damage vs the amount of power being generated. I don't think that windmills would fare particularly well on that test.
4. Oil and gas extraction has also become very much safer than it used to be. Considering the massive quantities extracted in all sorts of places on land and sea, it is a remarkable technological achievement that there are so few accidents.
5. In Australia at least, it is far more dangerous to work in the construction industry than in any form of energy extraction, be it coal, gas or oil.
Let's keep things in perspective.
On the subject of earthquakes, I note that Wales has had several, so far this year:
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/second-earthquake-hits-llyn-peninsula-4724426
The article mentions magnitudes of 2.8 and 3.8, making them larger (in the case of 3.8, much larger) than the Blackpool tremors in 2011 triggered by Cuadrilla's operations.
The lack of panic is palpable.
johanna
A good summary, there are many industries where injury and death are part and parcel of the process. for instance
106 Ships Lost Worldwide in 2012
Fishing at sea is still as dangerous as it ever was-
Dorset Fishing Boat Lost in Channel
In fact mining and quarrying in the UK are relatively safe in terms of total deaths, not sure percentage wise. The much maligned HSE reports annually.
HSE Report 2012
As you say things should be kept in perspective, arm waving should always be questioned with show me the evidence.
Earth tremors can become a tourist attractions, I have posted about this before, but relevant here. This is close to where I grew up and in my younger days was a regular at The Royal Hotel.
Earthquake House Comrie Perthshire
Philip Richens post on Aug 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM:
"If all of the UK's energy demand could be supplied using home-produced shale gas, then 15 square km of the UK total land area of 240,000 square km would be occupied by drilling rigs.
If, on the other hand, all of the UK's energy demand could be supplied by on-shore wind turbines, then 130,000 square km would be occupied by the turbines"
Philip - where do these figures come from?
Alex Cull, we get lots of minor earthquakes in North Wales due to the Menai faults. We also have massive wind farms on Anglesey as well, so I suppose it could be that. Most are hardly felt or occasionally rattle cups or annoy the cats.( the earthquakes, not the wind turbines) If we had fracking here I don't suppose it would make any difference, in fact if they pay me enough they are welcome to use some of my land and then we would not need to bankrupt ourselves in building our massive white elephant known as Wylfa B power nuclear station, or Llys Twp if you will. I suppose there are lots of odd people like me around who don't really have a problem with Wind turbines or Fracking.
Cheshire Res
And assuming Philip Richens is correct in his arithmetic he would still be wrong on the science because when the wind isn't blowing an infinity of windmills wouldn't be enough to meet the demand.
A gas well, on the other hand, doesn't give a stuff whether the wind is blowing or not.
RobWansbeck
Let's ban cars too, they kill birds as well!
Anon
It's always nice when someone finally identifies himself as a troll and you just did.
Many thanks.
In appraising various means of obtaining fuel to serve human needs it is the net gain in human life years actually lived (more lives and longer lives) that is the figure that should concern us. Expensive fuel involves more loss of years lived - because of infant mortality early death in adulthood - than does cheap fuel that is somewhat hazardous to extract and use.
This does not mean that reasonable safety measures should not be taken in 'energy industries' provided they allow for viable commercial production.
Anon - A numbers and species breakdown of bird deaths from cars, building windows and wind turbines would be interesting.
If you are the same Anon from the Balcombe area, please can you supply the contact details for your calls to WSCC and SCC re: earth tremors? Thanks
I can't wait for some green outfit to successfully sue for micro-seism damage (psychological or otherwise) from fracking. I'm then going after the bus company for all the times their buses have rattled my windows and shaken my crockery.
[Of course, I don't ever expect this to happen despite the number of 'scary' earthquakes in the vicinity of Balcombe.]
Thanks MikeH. I really wanted an E-Type. Had one lined up - a lovely red 4.2, 2+2 which I had carefully measured to see if it would fit 2 childseats in the back. Then to my horror we found we were expecting twins to go with our daughter. Had to rapidly rethink. Hence the Mark 2- you CAN get 3 in the back and a double pram in the boot!
Drive it as much as I can, avoiding wet weather. Five-up on a long 70mph cruise it'll manage 25mpg. As long as you don't spend too much time in stop-start driving it doesn't go below 20mpg.
People smile and wave to me when I belt past- whenever I stop it pulls a small crowd. No-one I have spoken to so far views it as a planet-killer. There again I haven't had the pleasure of a "face-to-face" with the likes of Anon or ZDB!
Wonder why my posted vanished? Too much truth for the likes of Anon and ZDB to digest?
Following up on the positive experience posted by Keith J earlier, I found the following presentation:
http://www.dallascityhall.com/council_briefings/briefings0812/GasDrillingBriefingPro_080112.pdf
It was given to Dallas City Council to explain the realities of shale and fracking based largely on experience in the Fort Worth area. There are some very strong points:
~ Nearly 1700 producing wells within Fort Worth city, out of c.19,000 in the whole Barnett Shale
~ Pics of drill sites and finished sites (pages 14, 15, etc) set right alongside public parks, a golf course and even a church.
~ a summary of the massive financial benefits
~ hard data on environmental impact - minimal
This is the sort of thing that should be circulated to all the wittering politicos, hypeing journalists, et al.
Here's the reality of shale, right inside city limits.