To frack, or not to frack?.....that is the question (with POLL)

[Divide Overflow]

Responsible fracking is highly situational.
Many factors need to be considered to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks.
In many cases it is probably safe. In others it is demonstrably unsafe.

 

[Vayra86]

To chime in on this.

http://www.ninefornews.nl/winning-van-schaliegas-veroorzaakte-aardbevingen/

The TL: DR of that article is this:
- Fracking is currently not happening yet in our country, but it has been proved that normal gas exploitation has caused earthquakes in the province and this problem was long ignored or set aside for economical reasons.
- Fracking is being planned in several regions, options are being researched @ Boxtel & Noordoostpolder

Note this article is from jan 2015 so the current situation could well have moved on and we could be doing it right now, haven't gotten into that atm.

The earthquakes we have in our country are NOT due to fracking, but due to drilling and exploiting a normal gas pocket under the surface. That gas reserve is now nearly dry, but its a different beast.

Regardless, common sense applies here: if you change the structure below the surface and it is not 1:1 the same density and resistance, of course you will have moving pieces of earth as weight and gravity are applied. There is no doubt in my mind that fracking will have this effect, just like normal gas/oil drilling does.

https://milieudefensie.nl/schaliegas/fracking/milieuproblemen-schaliegas-op-een-rij

This is a site that shows a study discussing all the issues surrounding fracking.

 

[P4-630]

GRONINGEN CALLS ON FURTHER GAS CUTS TO PREVENT EARTHQUAKES

The province of Groningen, municipalities affected by fracking earthquakes, water boards and the local safety office are all calling on the Dutch government to reduce gas extraction in the province even further to prevent more earthquakes.

The involved parties feel that Economic Minister Henk Kamp’s recent decision to cap gas extraction in the province to 24 billion cubic meters per ear for the next five year, is not going far enough, GIC reports.

The Groningers submitted their opinion on the matter stating that there is still to many unknowns and that too little attention is paid to safety, prevention of damage psychological effects the earthquakes have on residents and their impact on the economy and quality of life.

They also want the directorship for the province to be more in the hands of the National Coordinator for Groningen. According to them, NAM and CVW still have too many fingers in the pie when it comes to new construction, earthquake proofing buildings and resolving damage clams.

The Groningers had until August 11th to submit this opinion. Minister Kamp has to take it into account when making a final decision on gas extraction in the province. This decision is expected on October 1st.

http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/08/09/groningen-calls-gas-cuts-prevent-earthquakes/

 

[Vayra86]

GRONINGEN CALLS ON FURTHER GAS CUTS TO PREVENT EARTHQUAKES

The province of Groningen, municipalities affected by fracking earthquakes, water boards and the local safety office are all calling on the Dutch government to reduce gas extraction in the province even further to prevent more earthquakes.

The involved parties feel that Economic Minister Henk Kamp’s recent decision to cap gas extraction in the province to 24 billion cubic meters per ear for the next five year, is not going far enough, GIC reports.

The Groningers submitted their opinion on the matter stating that there is still to many unknowns and that too little attention is paid to safety, prevention of damage psychological effects the earthquakes have on residents and their impact on the economy and quality of life.

They also want the directorship for the province to be more in the hands of the National Coordinator for Groningen. According to them, NAM and CVW still have too many fingers in the pie when it comes to new construction, earthquake proofing buildings and resolving damage clams.

The Groningers had until August 11th to submit this opinion. Minister Kamp has to take it into account when making a final decision on gas extraction in the province. This decision is expected on October 1st.

http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/08/09/groningen-calls-gas-cuts-prevent-earthquakes/

I'm having my doubts on the legitimacy of that source. It's just somebody's blog it seems. Hardly trustworthy, especially because it also uses 'fracking' as the main reason for earthquakes, while the entire dispute with the Dutch government is due to regular gas exploitation. Of course, this leaves very little doubt as to the effects of Fracking as a consequence, but OK.

*edit: well not somebody's blog, but a site ran by nobodies anyway

In case you're able to read Dutch:

Here's a nice PDF:
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=...bFfgJBfjsv5Lvai5w&sig2=pQGomZ9VLlI59_QDhnbWiw

https://www.google.nl/search?q=stud...ome..69i57.16769j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That PDF discusses the earthquakes as a result of regular gas exploitation from the pocket underneath Groningen. Not from fracking.

 

[P4-630]

- Fracking is currently not happening yet in our country,

"Fracking: more natural gas by liquid injection
NAM has used the fracking technique seven times between 2012 and 2014 to increase gas production on existing sites or launch. The technique was used in Blija, Kollumerpomp, Kiel-Windeweer, Lauwerzijl crab Buren, Warfstermolen and again in Kollumerpomp. Thanks to fracking gas production from these fields has greatly improved. additional gas is now won is different in the subsoil would remain, so we make the most of the Dutch mineral resources."

http://www.nam.nl/nl/technology-and-innovation/optimization-natural-gas/fracking.html

Anyways, @Vayra86 I thought the damaged homes in Groningen was caused by fracking.

Schaliegas heeft toch te maken met "fracking"?

 

[Vayra86]

"Fracking: more natural gas by liquid injection
NAM has used the fracking technique seven times between 2012 and 2014 to increase gas production on existing sites or launch. The technique was used in Blija, Kollumerpomp, Kiel-Windeweer, Lauwerzijl crab Buren, Warfstermolen and again in Kollumerpomp. Thanks to fracking gas production from these fields has greatly improved. additional gas is now won is different in the subsoil would remain, so we make the most of the Dutch mineral resources."

http://www.nam.nl/nl/technology-and-innovation/optimization-natural-gas/fracking.html

Anyways, @Vayra86 I thought the damaged homes in Groningen was caused by fracking.

Schaliegas heeft toch te maken met "fracking"?

Ah! Yes, Schaliegas = fracking. I didn't know they had already done this, but as you can see it has been done in a limited way, only 7 times over 2 years. The majority of the gas exploitation in the past (and still) happened with regular drilling. The issues with earthquakes have been far older than 2012, but I think it's safe to say fracking hasn't helped.

 

[jsfitz54]

Once you poison the well.....

 

[nolafotoknut]

Fracking can be good IF it is done properly. Here is a link to a study conducted by Harvard.

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/06/harvard-study-fracking-is-safe-profitable-good-for-environment/

 

[broken pixel]

Fracking can be good IF it is done properly. Here is a link to a study conducted by Harvard.

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/06/harvard-study-fracking-is-safe-profitable-good-for-environment/

They collected about 60 water samples, come on. That was a payed for by you know who scientific study, Yale also did a bought and payed for a study also.

 

[rtwjunkie]

They collected about 60 water samples, come on. That was a payed for by you know who scientific study, Yale also did a bought and payed for a study also.

You DO know Yale and Harvard are the biggest nest of liberal and anti-fossil fuel thinking in the U.S.? There is zero chance they got bought out by oil producers. It is the antithesis of their wind power, solar power, hug everybody for body heat in winter thinking.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Fracking can be good IF it is done properly. Here is a link to a study conducted by Harvard.

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/06/harvard-study-fracking-is-safe-profitable-good-for-environment/

It's not good. The only purpose in extracting it is to set it on fire: 4 hydrogen, 1 carbon. Less carbon than oil products but still carbon. Using natural gas is a lot like the US POTUS election: the lesser of evils. Good is no evils.

You DO know Yale and Harvard are the biggest nest of liberal and anti-fossil fuel thinking in the U.S.? There is zero chance they got bought out by oil producers. It is the antithesis of their wind power, solar power, hug everybody for body heat in winter thinking.

Oil producers are hugely promoting natural gas right now because they want it to replace oil. The more natural gas used, the less demand for wind/solar.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Oil produces are hugely promoting natural gas right now because they want it to replace oil. The more natural gas used, the less demand for wind/solar.

And I repeat, you don't know Yale and Harvard. If you aren't from the Northeast you cannot comprehend the depth of their liberal thinking. They would rather crumble into the Earth in dust than give in to fossil-fuel. For this reason, I am willing to attach some credibility to a pro-fracking study.

For the record, I am not pro-fracking. I don't like what it appears to do to water quality.

 

[slozomby]

You DO know Yale and Harvard are the biggest nest of liberal and anti-fossil fuel thinking in the U.S.? There is zero chance they got bought out by oil producers. It is the antithesis of their wind power, solar power, hug everybody for body heat in winter thinking.

manwhile yale graduated gw bush. so much for not being able to buy them

 

[nolafotoknut]

They collected about 60 water samples, come on. That was a payed for by you know who scientific study, Yale also did a bought and payed for a study also.

I hardly think that liberal Harvard or Yale were "paid" for a study.

 

[broken pixel]

Marcellus Drilling News:

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2016/06/yale-arrives-in-belmont-county-to-study-the-evils-of-fracking/

 

[Beastie]

Tidal generators FTW!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

And I repeat, you don't know Yale and Harvard. If you aren't from the Northeast you cannot comprehend the depth of their liberal thinking. They would rather crumble into the Earth in dust than give in to fossil-fuel. For this reason, I am willing to attach some credibility to a pro-fracking study.

For the record, I am not pro-fracking. I don't like what it appears to do to water quality.

marcellusdrilling.com -> Harvard Magazine -> Fracking’s Future by Michael Butler (professor of environmental studies) and Xi Lu (postdoctoral fellow in environmental and energy sciences)

But even though natural gas is relatively “clean”—particularly relative to coal burned to generate electricity—the “fracking” process used to produce the new supplies poses significant environmental risks. We must ensure that procedures and policies are in place to minimize potential damage to local and regional air quality and to protect essential water resources. We need to make sure that extraction of the gas (consisting mainly of methane, with small amounts of other gases) from shale and its transport to market does not result in a significant increase in “fugitive” (inadvertent) emissions of methane (CH4)—which is 10 times more powerful as a climate-altering agent, molecule per molecule, than carbon dioxide (CO2, the most abundant greenhouse gas). Further, we will need to recognize from the outset that cheap natural gas may delay the transition to truly carbon-free, sustainable solar- and wind-energy supplies that remain crucial in light of our worsening climate-change crisis.

...later...

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently proposed steps to ensure responsible extraction of gas from shale. If these procedures are implemented, the IEA concluded that the increase in production costs should be relatively modest—7 percent or less—and that the integrity of the environment could be protected. The IEA conclusions appear overly optimistic in the U.S. context: the costs for design and implementation of sensible regulations for the domestic shale-gas industry are likely to be significantly greater—but still tolerable. The problems are neither technical nor economic, but essentially political.

...which is like trying to squeeze orange juice out of a lemon.

The article in general is packed with a liberal spin on things. The overarching argument is that burning natural gas produces fewer carbon emissions than burning coal and that is true.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Ex Greenpeace leader supports fracking ...... BBC video


A former Greenpeace leader said the green movement needs an "urgent rethink" over energy sources and claimed it was time to "frack on".

While opponents claim fracking would desecrate the countryside, pollute water supplies and produce thousands of tonnes of global warming gasses, Stephen Tindale disagrees.

In a personal film from Lancashire for the Daily Politics soapbox series, he said: "If we want to keep the lights on, and stop burning coal, it's time for green campaigners to stop saying 'frack off' and time to say 'frack on'."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37751012

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Somebody got paid off by big oil.

 

[the54thvoid]

Somebody got paid off by big oil.

...we stopped ex Greenpeace leader driving his gold played new Bentley to get his views on tracking and human trafficking...

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

He probably drives a Prius....

Stephen Tindale is a Climate and Energy Consultant and an Associate Fellow at the Centre for European Reform. He was Environment Policy Adviser, Policy Director and, latterly, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK before leaving in 2006. He was also chair of the Greenpeace European Unit. Prior to that he was Special Adviser to Michael Meacher MP, Minister for the Environment (1997-2000), and was closely involved in the development of the UK's Climate Change Strategy, the Integrated Transport White Paper and the Government's green tax proposals.

Between 1996 and 1997 Stephen was Director of The Green Alliance (a small London-based think tank/environmental pressure group) and, before that, was a Senior Research Fellow on environment and energy at the Institute for Public Policy Research (1994-96). From 1992 to 1994 he was Environment Policy Adviser to the Labour Party and secretary of the Labour Party Policy Commission on the Environment, which produced ‘In Trust for Tomorrow’, the Party's 1994 environment policy statement. He spent four years in the Foreign Office (third secretary in Islamabad), was a lecturer in Environmental Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and worked with Friends of the Earth and the Fabian Society.




Tindale is noted for his recent U-turn on nuclear power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Tindale

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Well, he could be an environmentalist that believes the atmospheric carbon problem is catastrophic. In which case, fracking and nuclear make sense. The thing is, as the atmosphere continues to warm, keeping underground water reserves clean becomes increasingly important. Fracking is a win in terms of atmosphere but a loss in terms of the crust. Alternatives are needed.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

At the same time..... Do we as Brits want to surrender ourselves to the chinese who are going to be building our nuclear powerplant? Youre almost handing the keys to the country to them in a sense. they can choose to disable our electricity by turning the plant off if they ever think we're worth invading.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

China is a novice at building nuclear power plants. France is probably the most knowledgeable on that subject right now. Outsourcing design and construction to China is foolish.

If there's increase demand for new nuclear reactors, research into next generation reactors should take off again (e.g. fast breeder and bed reactors).


Edit: Here's the location you're talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_nuclear_power_station

The design was obtained from France by China in the 1990s and China made changes to increase it's power capacity and is selling that to UK.

They are a pressurized water reactor (PWR) design which is rare in the UK but common in USA and France.

I seriously think fast breeder and bed reactors are the future, not PWR. PWR will get you power faster though because they're well understood.

 

[64K]

France really would be a good choice to design and build a nuclear reactor. They get about 75% of their electricity from 58 nuclear reactors though it's expected to decline in the future. They are the world's largest exporter of electricity due to it being so cheap to generate.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx