Shale gas

[JohnL]

Bit of a protest on Holborn today

Some activists chained to a doorway. Police look confused. office workers milling around.

[numbers]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bit of a protest on Holborn today

>

> Some activists chained to a doorway. Police look

> confused. office workers milling around.

jeez watching them arriving in droves to Balcombe, do they realise they'll have used more in bloody petrol to get there (and back) than that well will likely produce if it brings in oil.

Disclaimer: slight exaggeration perhaps but you get the gist!

[numbers]

marmora man,

"The UK Government?s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington FRS, asked the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to review the scientific and engineering evidence and consider whether the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ?fracking?) as a means to extract shale gas could be managed effectively in the UK."

key findings and link to report here - http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/

[JohnL]

The ITER project continues @ t -25 years odd :(

LENR is still alive, but not in the mainstream - I'd love it if something came of this.

polla2256 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've made my mind up - fracking is not the future.

> It will cause issues and I want fusion NOW.

> Imagine if the UK ploughed the money earmarked for

> HS2 into fusion.

[polla2256]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The ITER project continues @ t -25 years odd :(

>

> LENR is still alive, but not in the mainstream -

> I'd love it if something came of this.

>

> polla2256 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I've made my mind up - fracking is not the

> future.

> > It will cause issues and I want fusion NOW.

> > Imagine if the UK ploughed the money earmarked

> for

> > HS2 into fusion.

I'd like LENR too but I'm sure the day we see it the demonstration will take place in a field full of unicorns.

[Marmora Man]

An article from Professor Robert Mair

It persuaded me to consider Fracking and Shale Gas as an, overall, positive initiative.

ENVIRONMENT

Drilling in places such as Balcombe in Sussex can be safe if we simply follow the rules, argues Prof Robert Mair

IN RECENT weeks, the Sussex village of Balcombe has found itself at the centre of the argument around hydraulic fracturing, or ?fracking?. This debate has become heavily polarised, and there has been much speculation around the environmental risks of shale-gas extraction, concerning water contamination and earth tremors.

There are many factors that policy-makers and local people must consider before deciding whether or not they are in favour of fracking ? but I believe that the scientific and engineering evidence should play a key part in that decision. Everyone deserves to know the evidence, as it currently stands.

Over the past 30 years, more than 2,000 onshore wells have been drilled in Britain, approximately 200 of which have used techniques similar to fracking to enhance the recovery of oil or gas. Chief among these is Wytch Farm in Dorset ? Europe?s largest onshore oil field, located in one of England?s most famous regions of outstanding natural beauty and special scientific interest, and therefore an area where the aesthetic and environmental impact of drilling are highly sensitive issues.

Last year, I chaired a joint committee set up by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering to analyse the environmental, health and safety risks associated with shale gas exploration in Britain. We came up with a set of recommendations for the Government to make it as safe as possible, if they decided to go ahead. The report concluded that these risks could be managed effectively as long as operational best practices were implemented, and enforced through regulation. The Government has accepted all the report?s recommendations.

Fracking in Britain would take place at depths of many hundreds of metres or several kilometres. So far the only shale gas fracking in this country has been at depths of 1.06 miles (1.7km) and 1.93 miles (3.1km), equivalent to the height of many London Shards placed on top of each other. It would be highly unlikely for water contamination to occur by means of fractures extending upwards from these deep shales and intercepting an aquifer, since the two are separated by a vast cover of rock. Even if it were possible, pressure conditions mean that the fracking water would not flow that far upwards.

If there is water contamination, it is much more likely to be due to poorly constructed and regulated wells. These are lined with a steel casing, which is sealed into the ground by cement: ensuring the well?s integrity is very important if the risk of contamination is to be kept to an absolute minimum. Here in Britain, we have a long history of world-class oil and gas industry regulation, plus a unique examination scheme to ensure that the design, construction and abandonment of wells is reviewed by independent, specialist experts.

The other main potential cause of environmental contamination is poor site construction at the surface. However, any risks can again be minimised by best practice and good regulation, which Britain has a good track record of upholding. For example, every company must disclose the contents of the fracturing fluid they use, which is not mandatory in America.

There has also been concern about fracking causing earth tremors ? but the evidence indicates that this will not be a big issue in Britain. Coal operations have been causing barely noticeable levels of seismicity for many years, and we expect that those caused by fracking will be at an even lower level, no more severe at the surface than the passing of a truck.

Another allegation against fracking in America is that it can result in methane leakage. We must therefore start to monitor methane emissions and groundwater composition at potential sites now, before any fracking takes place (as well as during and after such operations). This baseline monitoring is vital, since methane can be present in groundwater naturally. Such data will be the only way of keeping close track of the environmental impacts of fracking in situ, and should be submitted to regulators to inform local planning processes and address wider concerns.

Shale gas companies must also play their part in building public confidence. It should be mandatory for operators to conduct Environmental Risk Assessments. Local communities should be involved and informed from the very start. People need have a say in the planning process and to feel their concerns are being addressed.

In our report, we did not assess the climate risks associated with shale gas exploration, although we recommended that the Government should do so. The chief scientific adviser to the Department for Energy and Climate Change is currently leading a study on the potential for methane and other greenhouse gas leakages during extraction. The results will help form a clearer idea of the overall carbon footprint associated with shale gas.

Difficult decisions lie ahead for the Government. Opinions on all sides of the debate must be heard and considered, and uncertainties explored. However, at the heart of any judgment should be evidence-based science and engineering, which will help to ensure that the best decisions are made, unswayed by preconceived notions of risk or benefit.

[StraferJack]

Decent article MM but largely defensive about arguments in America

Main concern I have encountered in uk is one of scale. Can the pros outweigh the cons in a vastly smaller geographical space. Forget cons.. Can fracking generate anything like the positives seen in us? Energy bills going way down for example... Can anyone see that happening here?

[numbers]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Decent article MM but largely defensive about

> arguments in America

Er...that's Robert Mair who chaired the committee of which report I linked to earlier in thread. That cut and paste is essentially a rehash of the reports key findings.

>

> Main concern I have encountered in uk is one of

> scale. Can the pros outweigh the cons in a vastly

> smaller geographical space. Forget cons.. Can

> fracking generate anything like the positives seen

> in us? Energy bills going way down for example...

> Can anyone see that happening here?

Strafer, you've raised an excellent point about reductions in energy bills. There's nowhere near the volume of suitable shale in the UK. However it will produce some gas, not enough to make a huge difference but I don't think it will be the bonanza that government are hoping for. However it will give us more energy security the more we can produce the less we rely on imports which in itself is 'greener'.

Onshore coal bed methane has produced negligible amounts to date and uses similar techniques.

If we subsidised british deep mine coal the same way we have subsidised wind would provide guaranteed generation capacity whenever we needed it and do a log more to reduce our energy bills.

[StraferJack]

Coal finite, deep or no

Wind, not so much

Surely?

[numbers]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Coal finite, deep or no

>

> Wind, not so much

>

> Surely?

Depending on how you work it, lets say at least 100+ years of coal.

Wind doesn't blow all the time and when it doesn't you use coal of gas as other renewables don't produce enough back up. A lot of coal we use now to provide back up for eg wind is imported.

[StraferJack]

Oh for sure renewables like wind aren't yet able to provide enough... But that will change. At the moment wind power feels like mobile phone tech in 1989

[El Pibe]

Well if all the bloody nimbies didn't keep whinging about the noise/bird strikes we wouldn't have to build them all offshore at double the cost and half the lifespan....grrrr

[numbers]

you get nimbys no matter what energy source you choose.

onshore is worse than offshore as there's even less capacity. no matter where you are in the UK you will never have enough to provide your energy need; if you're lucky you'll get 20%.

as for wind power being akin to 1990s mobile technology - its not a coal seam you can go out and mine; its variable and there's not that much energy for what you want or need to do.

try smelting steel or aluminium using only wind power, it won't work.

[henryb]

Yeah Christ, where we would be without all those aluminium cans. Every year the world throws away more aluminium in cans than is used aeroplane manufacture. But even so if fossil fuels are necessary for some processes then that is even more reason to try and save them as much possible and not waste them on energy use that does not require them.

Micro solar generation could potentially provide 80% of household usage with macro wind and tidal production, better recycling and energy efficiency there is no reason to think that fossil fuel usage couldn?t be cut to a fraction of what it is currently. The fact there may be shortfalls at peak times and in the winter with renewable isn?t a reason not to use them at all.

It would a be lot better if the money being spent on shale gas was spent on renewables and energy efficiencies. It is not as if the gas is going anywhere. If gas prices are going up then it makes even more sense to wait.

[david_carnell]

What would be the burden on:

a) housebuilders

and

b) housebuyers

if new regulations stated that every new build home in the country had to have solar panels?

[El Pibe]

Well we wanted to have them, but the energy companies simply won't buy any back surplus back to the grid, which seems a bit mean and short sighted and made us have to rethink the cost/benefit.

We've wired for them and will probably still do it once the costs have come down a bit more and the efficiency goes up a bit, probably in a couple of years.

Still, micro generation is already at about 20% in Germany* isn't it?

*somewhat off the top off my head after article read the other day.

[henryb]

> What would be the burden on:

> a) housebuilders

> and

> b) housebuyers

> if new regulations stated that every new build

> home in the country had to have solar panels?

According to the energy saving trust a 4kWp unit costs around ?7,000 to install. That will produce around 80% of a house hold energy use. I imagine that cost would be a lot less if it was done on mass for new builds. ?7k isn?t a lot compared to the total cost of house these days but I would offset it by reducing stamp duty by the same amount. I believe this has be discussed in committee in parliament ? don?t know how far it got. Probably got scuppered by energy company lobbyists who are desperate that wide spread micro generation doesn?t take off.

[david_carnell]

Yes, vested interests etc.

Although presumably the manufacturers of the panels would be raking it in.

[StraferJack]

Is this the same David king?

http://bit.ly/1eVy5Zt