[Archived] Fracking, for or against it?

[Jock]

Cant see how they can really do it safely. What happens if there is an accident, is the land ruined for our lifetime?

Osbourne's father-in-law says the North East isnt populated so it might aswell be Fracked. He was then told its the North West that has most of the gas.

Cameron now says the whole of the country can enjoy the benefits of this shail gas. Probably contaminate Lancashire for the City of London to get rich.

Lots of spin recently on the news that the North West is knackered and is so desperate for work. Just a shame that quality engineering hasnt been pushed by governments for our area. Surely we need to start exporting goods to developing countries.

[Mike E]

I personally can't see what's wrong with it. Admittedly I only have A-level geology to rely on but the cracks in the rock which release the gas are up to 2 miles underground. Added to the miniscule size of such cracks, there is no chance of any tremor worse than is felt every couple of years when some Brum chimneypots fall off a house.

There is no risk to potential drinking water as far as I can tell (owing to the natural minerals we already drink anyway as well as the depth at which the liquid is forced).

And the drill hole is about 9inches wide, and (allegedly) easy to refill by simply making use of the rock that was just drilled.

I THINK I'm all for it but I'd like cold, hard facts to make a real judgement. At least it seems the Yanks have had no issues yet. And surely the drills would look better than those money-drains called wind turbines.

[Jock]

I personally can't see what's wrong with it. Admittedly I only have A-level geology to rely on but the cracks in the rock which release the gas are up to 2 miles underground. Added to the miniscule size of such cracks, there is no chance of any tremor worse than is felt every couple of years when some Brum chimneypots fall off a house.

There is no risk to potential drinking water as far as I can tell (owing to the natural minerals we already drink anyway as well as the depth at which the liquid is forced).

And the drill hole is about 9inches wide, and (allegedly) easy to refill by simply making use of the rock that was just drilled.

I THINK I'm all for it but I'd like cold, hard facts to make a real judgement. At least it seems the Yanks have had no issues yet. And surely the drills would look better than those money-drains called wind turbines.

Theres some odd videos of people being able to set alight their water at the kitchen taps in America. We are massively populated in real terms compared to the US and theres the issue of the amount of water and chemicals needed for this operation. But never mind its desperate Lancashire thats on its arse.

[Baz]

Theres virtually no chance that Fracking would cause earthquakes of a magnitude to cause damage with the Geology of the NW, but Id have major concerns at the potential of groundwater pollution. (Degree in Applied Geology). The lighting of tap water wouldn't happen here either, even our government aren't naive enough to allow that. The problem with groundwater though, is that if polluted it can take a very long time to clear (100's of years in some cases).

If this was an emerging technology and the reserves were in the Tory heartlands of South-east England Id be pretty confident that the PM wouldn't be favouring his opinion before an inquiry reports, and removing an energy minister cabinet who voiced against it.

[Paul]

Technically I can't comment other than it seems opinions are very polarised; those for see no danger while those against talk of earthquakes, water pollution etc.

The main concern for me is commercial interests will obviously be strong supporters of the technology and possibly be less concerned about local effects on individual homes - a bit like the bankers selling debt having no concern for the man in the street.

The American experience is largely irrelevant as they are fracking in virtually unpopulated areas while the northwest is the opposite.

The discussion often misses one key point. Media reporting suggests we have sufficient shale gas reserves to cover our entire gas consumption for 20-50 years. Assuming its safe this is great news as burning gas reduces CO2 emissions significantly when compared to coal and oil. It would also bring greater energy security. The key is the 20-50 year period.

We have made pitifully small steps towards reducing CO2 emissions and the introduction of renewable energy sources. All fracking will achieve is to delay the inevitable need for renewables by a few decades. What is really required is a determined effort to solve the emissions / renewables question and succesful fracking will result in these receiving even lower priority.

[Mike E]

I've never understood why we don't have hydroelectric power. We're an island, surrounded by water! I know there's the issue of tidal action but surely there's more water than wind?

[incy wincy little spider]

I'm a fish biologist and studied Geography at uni. Like Baz im not too concerned about earthquakes, but i'm more concerened about groundwater pollution. I'm assuming some of the proposed sites are on 'protected' greenbelt land. Guess we will find out the price of this greenbelt land soon. I'm sure there will be economic benefits and probably more than we would get through tourism, so even if the countryside is destroyed we would still be financially better off. My personal viewpoint is that you can't put a price on the environment so I am against it at the moment.

[speeeeeeedie]

Fracking in the USA has created new boomtowns. Former coal producing ghost towns are being revitalised due to it.

There are supporters who are saying that there are enough reserves (with current technologies) to produce 300 years worth of gas. Also, it is said that the USA could be self sufficient in 3 years. If any of this is true it won't look good for the middle east. Further to this Canada is sitting on an unbelievable amount of the stuff.

Earthquakes shouldn't be an issue. However, it is an extractive industry, that shoots chemicals deep underground to fracture rock. That can't be good for the environment. With proper regulation it can be done. However, too much and it will stop.

I do agree that fracking in spots such as Eastern Ohio and Blackpool are completely different.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

No technical knowledge on it but in the modern day health and safety obsessed culture, I'm assuming there's no way it would go ahead without it being safe. Obviously there's other negatives to consider such as the visual impact on the environment and the removal of more space for nature, in an already crowded country. Ordinarily I'd say the creation of jobs and wealth in the area, plus reduced energy prices, would outweigh the negatives. But it seems more and more in society that London, the south-east, and the fatcats in general take 90% of the cream in situations like this. Lancashire would be sacrificing its environment, would Lancashire reap most of the monetary rewards? Almost certainly not.

[ABBEY]

I saw some of the footage of taps exploding in America ... Playing god with Mother Nature will only end one way

[Baz]

I do agree that fracking in spots such as Eastern Ohio and Blackpool are completely different.

True, it could really improve Blackpool.

[speeeeeeedie]

I saw some of the footage of taps exploding in America ... Playing god with Mother Nature will only end one way

What fdo you mean here? It's hardly that.

True, it could really improve Blackpool.

The smell alone will improve.

[Baz]

I've never understood why we don't have hydroelectric power. We're an island, surrounded by water! I know there's the issue of tidal action but surely there's more water than wind?

Tidal Is a low yield energy at present.

Wind is more so but still relatively inefficient.

[adopted scouser]

Anything that reduces the installation of those 'ugly as sin' wind turbines gets the thumbs up from me. Takes four of them to power the pump in a fish tank

[T.J.Newton]

I find Wind turbines quite impressive looking to be honest (but no they don't seem very efficient or cost effective)

[Jock]

Anything that reduces the installation of those 'ugly as sin' wind turbines gets the thumbs up from me. Takes four of them to power the pump in a fish tank

They do produce naff all. The energy needed for the concrete to sink one causes massive pollution.

[Baz]

The problem i see with renewables is the low yield, and the fact the big energy companies wont back them. They would be more effective, and less damaging if every home generated the majority of its energy needs itself. Solar panels / small rooftop windmills etc. big business obviously doesnt want this, so there is no industry funding for the schemes that could up the yield from these technologies.

As a country one of the major reasons for our current economic climate is energy pricing, which is restricting growth and stopping spending, so i totally understand that the government wants to see us in charge of our own energy prices for the next 30-40 years. However, from what i have read, its a pretty horrible energy source, and my feeling is that we are rushing towards it without due consideration.

I dont see how actively driving chemicals into rocks not very far from the surface can possibly have no effect on our groundwater sources, and my fear is we'll only find out when its too late. If there is proper testing, and a consensus of scientific opinion backs that outcome then thats the best option for me. However removing the energy minister the day before granting licenses, because he was scepticle worries me how indepedant the governments opinion on this actually is.

[Aberdeen Blue]

Love to see everyone's opinions developing on this issue.

Being an Oil and Gas professional I am going to skip further comments while on vac for the next 10 days to see how this goes. That said I really think this is a potentially huge opportunity for the NW of England but lets see the layman's view.

[Paul]

However removing the energy minister the day before granting licenses, because he was scepticle worries me how indepedant the governments opinion on this actually is.

Whether the government is independent or not is debatable, history says not, fracking is a heaven sent opportunity though.

Self-sufficient in energy for perhaps 50 years

Control of energy prices for that period

Significant direct and indirect employment opportunities

Tax revenues

Reduced CO2 emissions

All of these give real positives and strong arguments for fracking. It isn't just about energy supply BUT a different sector of the energy industry is facing an $11 billion, 40 year clean up programme and a fishing industry on hold for 10 years:

Fukushima

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/fukushima-fallout-threatens-fishermens-livelihoods

No water in Texas though more than just fracking to blame

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water

I've no doubt every study imaginable suggested Fukushima could not happen - it did. The reality is no one can accurately assess or forecast the pollution potential until it all goes wrong. Groundwater pollution could take decades / centuries to clean up.

I read somewhere communities would be compensated with £100,000 per well and perhaps a new community centre or similar! Tell you what Mr Cameron if you want to sh1t in our backyard we get to keep the money.

The real benefits of fracking are in the south-east and not the north-west. Now where have we experienced that before? Keep London's lights burning though.

[Paul]

We shouldn't forget Cumbria rejected nuclear waste storage despite the promise of huge investment because "evidence from independent geologists that the fractured strata of the county was impossible to entrust with such dangerous material"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/30/cumbria-rejects-underground-nuclear-storage

Surely fracking down the road from Sellafield, with the potential for earthquakes, is a little flawed?

[ABBEY]

I see George Osborne's father in law heads one of the fracking energy companies. .. Sounds Suss to me.

[Guest Norbert]

Oh now don't be cynical, it is just coincidence...................

[Mike E]

I see George Osborne's father in law heads one of the fracking energy companies. .. Sounds Suss to me.

@#/? hate that odious dipshit. Jus' sayin'.

[Jock]

I see George Osborne's father in law heads one of the fracking energy companies. .. Sounds Suss to me.

Like John Lennon said, 'you just have to see who benefits'

Osbourne's father-in-law doesn't know the North East from the North West. But he doesn't have to know because they wont be pumping chemicals under his property.

[K-Hod]

Start with the back garden of George Osbourn/ father in law, then see how he feels about fracking.