Balcombe scheduled for Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) company Cuadrilla has planning permission to drill just outside Balcombe.
The company admits that its fracking process has already caused earthquakes in Lancashire.
Fracking in the US, South Africa and Australia has caused serious concerns around water pollution – to the extent some US households are able to set their tap water on fire. Air pollution, aquifer depletion and increased truck traffic are other issues.
France has already declared a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and there are calls for the same in the UK. Planning has been denied in the Vale of Glamorgan (mainly because of local outrage) but many other sites are planned UK wide including in the Mendips and in Kent.
Most advanced among sites outside Lancashire, however, is Balcombe. Cuadrilla has prepared a site at Lower Stumble (1 mile south of the village). Foundations have already been laid. The company is now ready to bring in the drill rig. Drilling could start any day.
You can watch an excellent documentary by the UK’s Ecologist Film Unit on the risks of fracking here -
Update!
Many thanks to all of you who came to the meeting on 11th Jan. It was certainly an evening to remember. You can read about what happened at the following links:
Press – national
Daily Telegraph – Fracking company blamed for earthquakes comes to the Home Counties
The Guardian – No fracking in home counties, village residents tell oil company
BBC – Cuadrilla bosses to respond to Balcombe fracking fears
The Ecologist- Middle England and eco-activists unite in opposition to shale gas and fracking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9013589/Shale-gas-the-battle-for-Balcombes-riches.html
Press – Mid Sussex Times
Fracking fears for Southern rail commuters on London to Brighton line
Green MEP backs Balcombe residents and calls for moratorium on ’fracking’ in Mid Sussex
Friends of the Earth backs Balcombe residents as ground swell grows over fracking
MEP joins calls to stop fracking in Mid Sussex
TV & Radio links (links may not work for too long)
Meridian News
BBC Radio Southeast
Web
http://millicentmedia.com/2012/01/12/cuadrilla-in-balcombe-a-fracking-pr-disaster/
http://frack-off.org.uk/caudrilla-boss-mauled-at-west-sussex-public-meeting/
Great to have this website up to alert Balcombe residents to the dangers of ‘fracking’ very close to Balcombe village.
Nancy’s words above begin to tell the story, but consider two of the issues she raises.
‘Increased truck traffic’: which resident of London Road would want heavy lorries thundering along this small road, rattling windows, shaking houses and terrifying local wildlife?
‘Aquifer depletion’: we all love Balcombe Reservoir. What if the holes created by removal of gas were to suck the water out of the reservoir. I know there’s not much there at the moment, but a normal ‘summer’ should remedy that.
Cuadrilla is best known here in the UK for admitting to causing earthquakes near Blackpool by its ‘fracking’ operations. Do we want ‘the earthquakes of Balcombe’ to become part of local folklore? It may sound amusing, but consider the effect on your houses – cracking, subsidence, even collapse.
Why has our county council allowed this disruptive, dangerous process to be considered so close to an inhabited area? Who is the land-owner taking rather more than 30 pieces of silver for undermining (literally) and ruining the environment of Balcombe?
At a time when France has a moratorium on the ‘fracking’ process, why is the UK allowing it? (France, Europe’s most environmentally-friendly nation? Probably not.)
If anyone has any doubts about the concerns, look at the videos on this site. There’s an 8-minute one that explains the ‘fracking’ process, and a 19-minute one in which the director of a film about the effects of ‘fracking’ in the USA talks about what he learned while making the film. (While accompanying himself on the banjo.)
19 minutes is a long time to watch a film on a computer (I believe is the average is about 90 seconds). But this is important stuff! And having watched the videos will give people more background for the meeting on Wednesday 11th January.
I shall definitely bring a cake to that one. And look forward to a very interesting discussion.
Thanks Charles, all very good points, however, I am afraid I cannot take credit for the website or any of this research – sorry for any confusion – I simply copied and pasted and emailed links to local groups as it seemed nobody knew anything about this fracking or the meeting planned.
My mistake, but thanks for speading the word.
You CAN win – see thevalesaysno.com and nofrackinguk.com. Here in South Wales we’ve won the first stage at the planning committee and are now moving on to a public enquiry.
http://www.lucas.com.au/files/ASX-Announcements/ASX-2010-11/Lucas_drilling_update_101013.pdf
See bottom of page 1. Moving to balcombe.
Dated October 2010
They have been held up by the “unexpected” earthquakes.
Thanks Sara – interesting.
Very interesting, Sara. Thanks!
For others interested, the sentence Sara refers to reads: ‘Following the completion of the drilling of Grange Hill#1 hole, it is CRHL’s intention to drill and frac a well in the Bolney prospect located in south-east England’.
Or, translated, Cuadrilla is bringing the drills and fracking equipment to Balcombe when they’ve finished in Lancashire. That was in an AJ Lucas media release dated 13 October 2010.
Charles,
Given that the spotlight is now focussed on them and the site, would they really DARE to start bringing in equipment?
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/14271
I’ve just found the fracking moratorium government petition above. If you are worried about the effects of fracking, please go to this website and sign the petition!
Look after the earth it’s the only one we have. We need to think about the present and future generations.
Charles, Many thanks for providing the petition website – I have signed, and I hope others will.
What chance is there of finding out how the permission was obtained and precisely from whom?
Douglas, this is the page on the WSCC website showing the application and documents: http://buildings.westsussex.gov.uk/ePlanningOPS/loadFullDetails.do?aplId=1154. Click on ‘Documents’ for the actual details.
Who is the company proposing to profit from fracking in Balcombe? UK or overseas? Low level oil retrieval is not the viable issue. Let this company invest in sustainable energy sources. not fracking.
Is there a government petition against fracking currently on the gov.uk site?
Yes, Sylvia. The petition link is in my second comment from the top.
Get everyone you know to sign as well!
The company conducting the drilling is Cuadrilla Resources, in partnership with AJ Lucas, who Cuadrilla refers to as its ‘investment partner’ (AS Lucas is one of the major investors in Cuadrilla, according to the company website, the other being an American company, Riverstone LLC.) Cuadrilla Resources is registered in the UK.
Most of the land in and around Balcombe is owned by the Balcombe Estate, but whether they own this site I don’t know.
A good description of just who Cuadrilla are:
http://www.mining-reporter.com/index.php/component/content/article/653-lucas/2867-riverstone-llc-invests-us58-million-in-cuadrilla-resources-
Yes it does belong to Balcombe Estate.
Sorry, Sylvia, I’ve just found a much clearer explanation of who Cuadrilla are: http://frack-off.org.uk/who-are-cuadrilla-company-overview/.
As I understand it Cuadrilla do not have a licence for fracking in Balcombe. . If there is reason to suspect they plan to breach the terms of their licence a report should be sent to the licencing authority.If there is no evidence then this could be a storm in a teacup of the usual NIMBY sort.
I have heard that this alarm has been stirred up by political “greens” from Brighton I do not know if this is true but if it is we should not give them the satisfaction of attention.
Thanks Rodney,
West Sussex County Council planning department confirm that under the current planning permission Cuadrilla has provision to use hydraulic fracturing at this test borehole. I’d suggest a thorough reading of Cuadrilla’s planning application (especially appendix C) then phone WSCC planning and ask them.
Cuadrilla – or more likely Cuadrilla’s PR company, PPS Group, recently stated: ”There are no plans, or regulatory approval, for hydraulic fracturing to take place at this stage.”
The planning permission, however, contradicts this. As part of the planning application the company states: “There may be a need to stimulate … by pumping water under pressure into the natural fractures in the shale formations to open them up to allow the gas to flow more freely.”
Looking forward, Cuadrilla are a fracking company, and if the borehole yields positive results they will certainly look to frack Balcombe & surrounds in the future. Thus the concern of forward-looking residents is justified whether or not the company decides to frack the test borehole or not.
No bad thing to question the questioners, Rodney. But the specific part of Appendix C in Cuadrilla’s application to the WSCC you should read is page 9, paragraph 4. There is a clear provision for ‘fracking’, and this application has been approved.
Charles, Many thanks for providing the website showing the application details.
If I have read it aright, permission was granted in April 2010 – how come it has been kept so quiet for more than a year?
Has our own Parish Council been consulted over this proposal?
I suspect the application went straight to WSCC, Douglas. But I’ve just had a Parish Council statement via Rodney, which I reproduce below:
B a l c o m b e P a r i s h C o u n c i l
“FRACKING” IN BALCOMBE
Following articles that have appeared recently in the press there is speculation that gas exploration involving the controversial “fracking” technique is about to be undertaken within the parish of Balcombe. Understandably this has given rise to concern among Balcombe residents.
Balcombe Parish Council has contacted West Sussex County Council, the body that granted planning permission for the current exploration works, and the information it has received is summarised below.
In 1986/7 a well was drilled at the Lower Stumble Hydrocarbon Exploration Site in London Road, south of the village, for exploration purposes following which the well was plugged and abandoned. The site was reinstated and has since been used for forestry storage.
In April 2010 planning permission was granted to Cuadrilla Resources Ltd to upgrade the existing platform at the Lower Stumble site and to drill a single exploratory borehole for oil and gas exploration, subject to conditions governing time limits (3 years), approved operations programme, hours of working, noise, lighting, restoration, access, fencing, groundwater drainage & protection, etc. It should be noted that the current planning permission is for exploratory work only and that Cuadrilla would have to make a new application for planning permission if it wished to commence any extraction of oil or gas from the site.
Cuadrilla says that at present it is fully engaged with drilling activity in the north-west of England, and that it has made no firm plans for work on the Balcombe site. Further it has advised the County Council that it will notify various interested parties, including Balcombe Parish Council, if and when it intends to commence work on the site. To date Balcombe Parish Council has not received any such notification from Cuadrilla.
“Fracking” (Hydraulic Fracturing) is a technique that uses water pumped at high pressure into layers of rock to create fractures that allow the shale gas trapped within the rock to be extracted via a borehole. Although the planning permission that has been granted for the exploration work at the Lower Stumble site would permit the use of this technique, all fracking operations in the U.K. are currently suspended by order of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, presumably while any risks associated with the process are investigated. Cuadrilla has advised that at this stage it has no plans to carryout any fracking during the drilling and testing of the new borehole at the Lower Stumble site. Any change in these plans to include any fracking operations would first require the Department of Energy and Climate Change to have lifted the current suspension.
Balcombe Parish Council will continue to use its best endeavours to keep itself informed of developments, and to pass on relevant information to residents.
31st December 2011
In response to Rodney’s comment earlier, with all due respect, there are many people in the village of Balcombe itself who do care deeply about the environment and may consider themselves Green, or of Green persuasion. I personally would like to thank any the the folk from outside the village for caring enough to give up their valuable time and effort to point this whole issue out to us, as nobody initially seemed to be aware of any of it! At the moment it is a threat to our immediate back yard, not theirs, however, this issue affects us all and if this disgusting practice of fracking sneaks through under the radar and goes ahead in Balcombe, then it wont be long before it is prevalent everywhere in our green and pleasant land.
In one of the planning documents I saw, it made mention of the fact that “…the public consultation period had now expired”
I, for one, do not recall any public consultation over this matter.
Was there a notice in the Mid-Sussex Times inviting comment, perhaps? I don’t see the paper?
Has our County Councillor, Bill Acraman, been informed of, and invited to, the meeting? I received some information that the permission given was through delegated authority of WSCC Officers, and that WSCC Members are unaware of the strength of feeling of Balcombe village?
I emailed Mr Acraman yesterday, to invite him to the meeting. He replied almost immediately, regretting that he would not be there as he was about to go to Spain for a number of weeks, and apologising.
The original application (back in 2010, when no one had heard of ‘fracking’) was approved by Balcombe Parish Council at a ‘Regular Meeting of the Council’ and no objections were raised.
If anyone is interested, and reads French, there is a French anti-shale gas website, http://www.facebook.com/groups/CollectifAntiGazDeShiste/. The tone is a bit hectoring, but there’s some interesting stuff.
What concerns a friend of mine in the South of France is that the exploration permits granted include some on vineyard land. And that sends any red-blooded Frenchman’s heart pounding…
Logical and common sense for a greater alway prevail over self-vested interest and emotional basis.
SHALE GAS DEBATE IS RESUMED IN FRANCE AND BULGARIA
from Sofia News Agency
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=136712
Traicho Traikov, Minister of Economy, Energy and Tourism, has suggested that the shale gas debate in Bulgaria will resume so that society can be presented with the absolute truth about the matter.
“This is a precious resource for achieving Bulgaria’s energy independence and if we can use it safely, I do not see why not,” the Energy Minister said in an interview for private TV station TV7 on Thursday.
He explained that a parliamentary commission was being set up to examine cutting-edge research by Bulgarian and foreign experts on economy, energy and environmental protection.
Traikov admitted that the energy sector involved an interplay of numerous interests.
“I shall not be pointing a finger at anyone, but let me say who is interested in all of this – it is the defenders of the status quo. There are just too many interests at play,” the Energy Minister stated.
He went on to say that he had held talks with France’s Energy and Industry Minister Eric Besson, who had implied that the shale gas debate would soon be renewed in the country.
France and Bulgaria are the only countries to have imposed a moratorium on shale gas exploration and production.
“It is hard to keep a the lid on a boiling pot,” Traikov remarked, adding that the discussion on shale gas development in Bulgaria would resume soon.
You might like to see this from TIME.com re earthquakes caused in Ohio caused by fracking:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2103518,00.html
For anyone who’s interested, here is a list of chemicals that have been used in the ‘fracking’ process. Not all of them at every site. It is one a webite run by two US regulatory bodies, the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
The chemicals used in America and the rest of the world are completely different . Cuadrilla are only using 3 chemicals :-
- a lubricant found in cosmetics
- hydrochloric acid as found in stomach . Then only small quantities at the beginning
- a biocide to prevent infection of the well
- water . Large amounts but not massive .
Hydraulic fracturing has been carried out in the UK for decades . The only new thing is using it with horizontal drilling to get at tight gas and shale gas . In future liquified natural gas may be used for fracturing instead of water .
Any company investing in shale gas over in the UK knows that the quickest way to get it all closed down would be to cut corners . These people do care about the environment and besides it would be catastrophicly bad business to try and cut corners – they could not survive safety and environmental disasters like BP.
This is not the US . For instance US shale gas wells do not have to be cased with a steel lining to the same degree UK wells to prevent contamination of soil and ground water .
Poland and Hungary are pioneering shale gas extraction in Europe on a much bigger scale than the UK . They are taking environmental issues very seriously too and everyone else is likely to follow when they’ve shown what can be done safely .
I’m a small shareholder in A J Lucas , one of the major shareholders of Cuadrilla and examined my conscience before investing and satisfied myself that they are doing things properly . I would not be worried
I’ve never had a pension from any of the companies I’ve worked for and have been robbed blind by financial advisors and private pension schemes . By investing in A J Lucas and Cuadrilla I hope to make a return on an enterprise which will help give the UK energy security , create jobs and improve our balance of payments by offsetting imports of gas rather than just pile up more debts for future generations .
Everyone wants to drive a car , switch the light on and heat their houses , indeed they think it’s a birthright in the UK but actually try and do anything and you will find it opposed on principle out of ignorance .
Take an unbiased look at Cuadrilla and engage them . I think you will be relieved , impressed and even some of you enthused .
We stand with you! Cuadrilla is also trying to start exploration and exploitation in The Nederlands and we’ve been able to hold them off for now! Be aware that fracking according to EU regulations might be illegal, even in Britian, because of chemicals not being registerd for this use under the REACH directive! Resistance is NOT futile! Even if they try to make you believe that it is…
See our facebook page “Stop Schaliegas” or follow twitter on @_Joep.
Dont give up!!!
Have any of you thought about the possible benefits if there is viable gas or oil under Balcombe? Doubtless you all drive cars, use oil and gas, enjoy the miraculous benefits of an economy run on fossil fuels. Our economy runs on hyrdocarbons and will do so for decades to come. I’d like our world to be powered by wind and solar and hydro and marine. But it just won’t for a long time to come – decades maybe, at least not in significant quantities. The best we can hope for is a gradual weening off fossil fuels and the development of a much less fossil fuel energy-intensive economy. But that needs money and unavoidably, fossil fuels initially, to achieve – how else to pour those concrete turbine pilings or cast their steel structures? Our post 70′s prosperity was built on oil and gas in the UK, however inconvenient a truth that may be. How might Balcombe benefit? Jobs. Income (for putting up with what will probably turn out to be low-level disruption). Villages in Scotland get grant funding for local community benefit form nearby hydro and renewables schemes. Why not here in return for letting what could be considerable wealth come out of the ground and help get our economy back on track? Are there people in the area who can look beyond knee-jerk NIMBYism? I wonder. Perhaps I would not be able to if I lived there either. Perhaps I would also feel it was OK for us to fight foreign oil wars and for civilians elsewhere to die as long as no trucks were rumbling down my local road or mildly inconvenienced me by holding me up as I drove to do the shopping in Haywards Heath. Hyperbole? Well, where do you want the petrol for your car to come from? It has to come from somewhere. Why not from under our feet?
It’s not just ‘knee-jerk’ NIMBYism, anonymous ‘Brightonian’. It’s a process of fossil fuel extraction I wouldn’t wish on anyone’s back yard. Particularly when the seam being ‘stimulated’ is close to the surface, as it is here. And there is a rigid 160 year-old structure (Balcombe Viaduct) less than a mile away.
At the meeting last night, the CEO of Cuadrilla replied very honestly that the company had been surprised by the ‘seismic events’ their fracking had caused in Lancashire. Fracking is a random, unpredictable process, and should not be allowed in the UK.
Hi Charles,
My name is Andrew Stone. No anonymity intended. I did some of my growing up the other side of Haywards Heath (Wivelsfield Green). I take an interest in this professionally too as I am a business journalist and sometimes write about energy and environment themes. My use of the term ‘kneejerk’ was too dismissive perhaps. I’m sure I would have concerns as a local resident – I was thinking more about the reaction of much of the green movement to shale so far – from what I can see very emotional and lacking much logical thought.
Regarding the seismic and pollution risks of fracking, it seems the disinterested experts are sanguine:
” [LINK=http://www.keele.ac.uk/gge/people/ps/]Peter Styles[/LINK], professor of applied and environmental geophysics at Keele University, said the chemicals used in fracking in the UK were relatively common, including compounds close to those found in household detergents and contact lenses, and were unlikely to cause problems of pollution. He also said the seismic activity that had been prompted by the Cuadrilla drilling near Blackpool was very small, and similar to that found in coalmining areas.”
I agree that should there be any realistic risk to houses or the viaduct, however, fracking should not go ahead. Doubtless thorough studies will be/ are being carried out.
Meanwhile the economies in shale-rich areas of the US have roared back to life, creating jobs and wealth and holding out the hope they might even pull the US economy out of slump. I’d be genuinely interested to know if anyone in the local area is considering that as well as the possible risks of disruption there might actually be a chance of similar benefits flowing into Sussex.
Thanks, Andrew. You make some fair points. I would love to believe what Mark Miller said last night about the only chemical they intend to use being polyacrylamide (about which Wikipedia has some pretty cautious things to say, by the way). Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry does not have a spotless record on truthfulness. I really don’t know. Maybe Cuadrilla are good guys. My worry about pollution of local water-courses stemmed more from what heavy metals might be liberated underground during the fracking process. As I said before, it’s unpredictable.
And yes, should there be any seismic risk, fracking should not be given the chance to bring down a 160 year-old railway viaduct, or even just cause land-slips in the vicinity of the very nearby railway line. We live in an area that has a history of land-slips.
Regarding benefits to the local community, yes, the Balcombe Tea-Rooms may get more custom. It’s not big, and is well-patronised anyway. And there may be bednights spent at local hotels, and meals eaten in pubs and restaurants. HM Govt will get the block income from Cuadrilla, and Balcombe Estate their £16.000 a year rental. Otherwise, the profit from this will go to the shareholders, AJ Lucas in Australia, Riverstone in the US and the Cuadrilla management team. Looking more widely, there will be money in it for haulage companies that can supply large road-tankers for the liquids taken to and from the site. Probably not Sussex hauliers. And then business for road-mending companies who come to repair the damage the heavy vehicles have done to the roads. But we taxpayers will have to pay for that.
Forgive me if I sound cynical. I’ve just seen too many large companies promising paradise, then making life hell. Maybe Cuadrilla is an exception.
If the exploration is successful and the extraction process goes ahead, a whole swathe of the map of the south of England is already covered by the yellow blocks marking where companies have bought the rights from HM Govt. There are names there that certainly have fewer scruples than maybe Cuadrilla has. And they are just waiting for someone to make the first worthwhile find.
Do we really want the beautiful counties of the South of England to become an oil/gas field? OK, now we’re into back-yardism. But it’s a big and very beautiful back-yard, the South of England. And already has revenue from visitors who come to admire and enjoy that beauty. Would these visitors continue to come if oil/gas wells dotted the landscape?
Charle’s
The company has been selling off it’s other divisions to fund its obligations for the Cuadrilla subsiduary and stands to succeed or go to the wall based on short term activities in the UK or Poland . They have acquired all the best equipment so they can be in complete control of the process .
They are trying to do it in the UK , a technically averse country which lacks a credible energy policy and which does not afford engineers the respect they get elsewhere like Germany . They are taking the risk that a less professional company will not also try it in the UK and ruin it for everyone .
As they are taking such a heroic risk surely they deserve to make a good profit if they succeed ? Certainly they will have done more to benefit the UK than our financial services industry .
I’d also like to see some of the proceeds going to a sovereign fund for future generations like Norway did with North Sea Oil .
I am a British Citizen of 45 years of age , in poor health , self employed with diminishing income and prospects for the next 20 years and have never had access to a vocational pension – certainly not one guaranteed by other people . The next generations prospects are even worse than mine which saddens me !
I bought some A J Lucas shares when they resumed trading a couple of weeks ago .
Hi Charles, It depends what you mean by a gas/oil field I suppose. If you mean flaring and oil soaked wasteland, few would want to see that and I would oppose it. I’d like to see greater reassurance that it is possible to develop these resources with minimal disruption. Sandbanks, one of the UK’s prime property hotspots is close, after all, to Wytch Farm, Europe’s largest onshore oil extraction operation. Doesn’t seem to be putting off the rich and famous or dampening house prices there. I remember driving through the Downs near Goodwood a few years ago and spotting, quite by chance, a nodding donkey, occupying a quiet corner of woodland, presumably at the head of a very small-scale oil well. An amazing site barely noticeable in a site tucked off the main road and doing nothing to spoil the spectacular countryside. I agree that truck movements will increase if fracking happens in Balcombe and would be something of a blight but they would be temporary, and far less disruptive I would imagine over the long term than the quarrying and associated tipper trucking that I assume still goes on near Ardingly. As I understand it, once the fracking is finished the well head is small and the site quiet and free of activity.
“And there is a rigid 160 year-old structure (Balcombe Viaduct) less than a mile away.”
This provokes a question .
What would Isambard Kingdom Brunel and the people who built that viaduct 160 years ago have thought about fracturing rock to obtain gas ?
Sorry for the rash of replies from me .
You have my sympathy for your ‘poor health and diminishing income and prospects’, Striebs. But your investment in AJ Lucas makes you an interested party.
Concern for the safety of workers was less when the Balcombe Viaduct was built than it is today. The workers who died buidling the viaduct would almost certainly not have died in modern working conditions and safety harnesses. The builders and engineers of the Victorian era would have considered workers expendable in the greater cause of progress. Thinking changes.
Thanks Brightonian, Can certainly see where your’e coming from with the ‘we all drive cars and enjoy this lifestyle’ type of argument but do we really have to instantly dismiss wind, solar, hydro and marine? Why including the government is everyone so negative and unsupportive of these alternatives? Why can we not put all our time and effort into these forms of safe energy when other countries seem to be doing so? I would happily see wind turbines in Balcombe if it were suitable, maybe we could put them on top of the 13 or so phone masts that we already have in the village? To me they are a thing of beauty as they do not have the potential to poison or damage the environment. And as we all know there are cars which do not need petrol, we should all be moving towards a new alternative lifestyle, god knows its difficult, but I for one am not going to support this option ever, whether in Balcombe Brighton or Birmingham.
Hi Nancy, I really heartily do agree with you – I would love to see a move away from fossil fuels to renewables and to a less energy-intensive economy as fast as possible. There’s nothing wrong with that as an aim and aspiration but let’s not underestimate the challenge. Paradoxically I also think the gas under the UK could be a means to achieving a more rapid transition to a greener economy but only if it’s exploited wisely. The UK is, in fact, the most ambitious anywhere in the world in its pursuit of a greener economy. So I respectfully disagree with you there – I don’t think these things are being dismissed at all. The UK’s offshore wind plans are vast and will make a meaningful contribution to electricity generation – 10%?, 20%? – eventually – 10 years? 20 years? – but as a percentage of overall UK energy use (transport, heating etc) its contribution will still be small. I take an interest in renewables and even write about it as a journalist sometimes and see that there’s much good stuff going on but it’s all very early days. When it comes to marine we really are decades away from commercial success for most technologies under trial (wave or tidal). Hydro is pretty much fully built out already (a couple of new schemes in the pipeline in Scotland – hooray). Wind is proven and being ramped up, especially offshore. Rooftop solar – who knows – it’s getting cheaper rapidly but is still to expensive (for me anyway) with or without subsidy. Still small potatoes though when you look at a household’s energy use. Maybe the plans to wire up Europe to the sunny Sahara will pay off. The problem is that scaling this all up meaningfully in a way that will power our modern society is a colossal, decades-long undertaking and massively expensive. All of these technologies are essentially about harnessing renewable but dissipated sources of energy, The energy contained in a barrel of oil or a bottle of natural gas, in contrast, is highly concentrated and vast. Miraculous. Incredibly cheap really when you think about it. Like having the power of hundreds of slaves to do your bidding. A curse too (if you accept the consensus on climate change). My misgivings are that the UK’s green plans will cost a lot and still won’t get us to where we need to be. The more I read, the more I think there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on in government and among the green movement. In the meantime we have these potentially precious resources under our feet that could be used to phase out dirty coal and create a much more efficient energy system and we must have a sensible rather than hysterical conversation about them. The way I see it the green movement should be lobbying now to ensure a tithe is paid on every unit of energy generated from any eventual shale resources to go into paying to insulate our houses (my solid-walled Victorian house first please!), roll out a much greener grid, invest in green transport and so on. As it is I see the Green movement wishing shale energy away. But it probably won’t go away. Meanwhile it’s missing a chance to influence and shape policy and is utterly squandering any mainstream credibility. I think that would be a shame. I do understand that not living in Balcombe it is easy for me to take a step back from this and might feel conflicted if I did live locally, but just maybe there could be upsides for the area and the wider economy here. I’d be interested, by the way, to know what people who attended the meeting thought about the representations from the companies involved as I didn’t attend.
Brightonian, re the comment in the middle of your response, there is a point of view that the end of slavery {in the industrialized world} was only brought about by the availability of the first cheap fossil-fuel energy, coal.
I’m a bit disappointed with the press for trailing last night’s meeting, but not printing a follow up report today. Maybe tomorrow. Anyway, I do hope you’ll update your website.
Is the possible zone of productive interest really as close to the surface/ aquifers as the posted schematic shows? Was that, & the height of any prospective frac clarified at the meeting?
By the way, Charles Metcalfe, fraccing is not that random or unpredictable: the frac pressure is calculable & the direction estimable & a lot can be done with pre-testing of cores in a good rock mechanics lab. The key to safe fraccing is knowledgeable oversight.
Maybe fraccing should give calculable results, Michael. But why then did Mark Miller admit at the meeting last night that Cuadrilla had been surprised by the seismic events following their fraccing activities in Lancashire? Had they not done the calculations, or were the results less predictable than he might have hoped?
Cuadrilla have made two key admissions that the fracking is unpredicatable –
1/ that the Lancs earthquakes were of a far greater magnitude than they expected (more than 100 times greater)
2/ that frack fluid in Lancashire could have travelled 2000 feet upwards. In their June submission to parliament they claimed 300 feet was the maximum fracture length – the 2000 feet figure appeared in their post-earthquake analysis.
Neither core testing or lab work revealed any of this – knowledgeable oversight or no.
There is an argument that the oversight worked: due to anomalous seismicity on the earlier frac, the later Preese Hall one took place with the BGS monitoring real-time microseismicity in 3 dimensions. This then informed both the post-frac analysis you refer to & the present DECC moratorium of onshore fraccing in the UK.
Hi Michael,
The Mid Sussex Times was the first to put up a story. I think the initial one was up at about 1030am. http://www.midsussextimes.co.uk/news/fracking_fears_for_southern_rail_commuters_on_london_to_brighton_line_1_3409877
Not too much hysteria here, I hope, or hypocricital ‘Nimbyism’ inferences.
We are doing more in the paper on Thursday.
Carolyn Robertson
Thank you Carolyn. Good reporting. A bit too much doom & poison for my tastes, but given the tone of the meeting, not nearly as much as it might have been. I shall look out for the follow-up on Thursday.
Please also look at the News tab on this ‘gasdrillinginbalcombe’ site. Some useful additional information there. {as on the other tabs}
I saw the item on Meridian Tonight (11 Jan) about the oil drilling near Balcombe. Is your group aware of the Save Our Sussex Alliance (SOSA)? We are an alliance of campaign groups all over Sussex that was set up in August 2011 to try and prevent the wanton destruction of the Sussex countryside/farmlands/woodlands/wetlands by things such as over development, inappropriate planning applications, land fill, etc. Membership of SOSA is completely free and we aim to help and provide assistance to each of our member organisations as well as lobbying regional and national government on planning policy issues. We would very much like your group to join SOSA and look forward to your reply. Please see our website http://www.saveoursussex.com for more info.
I’m not sure how much light was shed last night, but there sure was some heat.
In the interest of evenhandedness I would like offer my site as a resource: http://www.nohotair.co.uk
As you can see, I was one of the expert witnesses to the Parliamentary Enquiry on Shale Gas just over a year ago. I assume that the village hasn’t entirely lost their ability to believe that Parliament is able to offer unbiased advice to the government.
There are over twenty reports for and against shale at the library at http://www.nohotair.co.uk There is obviously a lot of emotion about tracking, I’m trying to inject some scientific focus. http://www.shalegasinfo.eu/index.php/en/info/top-10-myths.html has the readers digest version of a very complex subject that cannot possibly be covered in a 9 minute video.
I have almost four year’s experience in shale gas and have spoken widely, been quoted in the media extensively and have worked for a number of governments as shale consultant.I think shale provides the best news for both our economy and the environment in a time when there is little of either.
Two recent news items on earthquakes come from sources most people would be happy to normally have confidence in.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/01/10/should-we-freak-out-about-fracking-induced-earthquakes/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21341-fracking-risk-is-exaggerated.html
Happy to come to Balcombe again, would love to see it in daylight!
Nick, you told a colleague of mine last night that you were paid by Cuadrilla to write this stuff. That effectively makes you a lobbyist along the lines of Nick Sutcliffe. Parliament’s willingness to call paid advocates as expert witnesses hardly says much about its own impartiality, does it? Ben, NGIB
1. Cuadrilla are just one of my clients. They pay me for the value of my opinion, I do not depend on them so that I parrot their line.
2. Be that as it may, my actual finances are irrelevant. For example, is the New Scientist talking about the British Geological Survey rubbish because I pointed it out to you? What about the academic and government bodies cited in my library? MIT, Harvard, Cornell, International Energy Agency, World Economic Forum, Dutch Government etc etc. All useless sources because I told you about them?
There are some people who distrust all experts who don’t agree with them. The green movement has their own vested interests in promoting for example, Will’s Solar Group which depends on their profitability on a perception that gas is in very short supply and thus going to be very expensive which makes solar, however noble it is, not cost effective for most people.
Defenders of Shale Gas are so often found to have vested interests in its success.
Striebs (above) mentions he’s an AJ Lucas shareholder. Nick Grealy of No Hot Air (http://www.nohotair.co.uk/) revealed last night he was being paid by Cuadrilla (and other unnamed governments).
Parliamentarians are required to state their financial interests because a vested interest undermines the credibility of any argument they might make. The same logic is true of pro-Shale protagonists – your financial involvement leaves your arguments much weaker.
You are of course correct that I was required to tell Parliament about any potential for conflict. I testified in February 2011, I have only had Cuadrilla as a client since September 2010. I’m sure that will make you paranoid but it is perfectly legal nevertheless.
I have been reading all the blogs here and it seem that the comments against or for oil/gas is about financial interests. For a major national issues like this (enery security) it cannot be done in this manner, it has to be about the benefits/risk balance and can the risks be managed effectively to achieve the benefits that affect the society as a whole.
I am so glad that gasdrillinginbalcombe is aware of Nick Grealy and No Hot Air’s vested interests.
Those who have been involved in environmental work for several years will know Nick as a climate change dianialist and an industry stooge. The man is on the pay roll. The fact he is posting here lets you know this industry means business in Balcombe. Residents beware!
Dr Edwards I have said on numberless occasions that I overwhelmingly support the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, for example
http://www.nohotair.co.uk/2011/92-political/148-france-says-non-to-a-moratorium.html
Global warming: Scientifically proven, but open to misinterpretation by those who are prone to conspiracy theories, selectively choose contradictory data, and have completely unconnected political agendas.
Shale gas: Scientifically proven, but open to misinterpretation by those who are prone to conspiracy theories, selectively choose contradictory data, and have completely unconnected political agendas.
Retraction please Doctor!
Once again Nick, you’ve a conflict of interest. Let’s take an example. Suppose you were to find some evidence that was anti Cuadrilla. This would be problematic, because it would potentially put your revenue on the line. It’s unspoken censorship – in exactly the same way newspapers won’t print articles critical of the car industry because they are major advertisers.
Of course you have an opinion, that may or may not be well read. But your opinion can only take one side of the argument into account because the other side jeopardizes your cash flow.
You tacitly admit this by omitting to reference Cuadrilla’s payments to you on your website. By couching it in terms of a euphemism (a ‘consultant’ – which, incidentally, was how Neil Hamilton described his services to Ian Green Associates in the Cash for Questions scandal in the late 80s), you imply that you are independent.
C’mon Nick: you’re just an outpost of the lobbying industry. Prove us wrong. Admit on your website that Cuadrilla pays you. Or is it PPS?
OK, we won’t win on that one will we. I agree to disagree, but unfortunately you will agree to ignore me. And it would appear, ignore every book, document, scientific paper I’ve ever read simply because I pointed them out.
BTW< do cut me some slack, After all, unlike you, I don't hide behind a pseudonym. If I was truly devious, I wouldn't reveal who I was.
gasdrillinginbalcombe (who appears to use this pseudonym throughout) in discussion with Nick Grealy (not anonymous) accuses Mr Grealy of potential censorship.
When I posted a 2nd message about the completely inaaccurate diagram on this websites news section, it wasnt published by gasdrillinginbalcombe. Is that what he means by not publishing information that doesnt fit your version of events.
More practically, I was glad to see that a much more correct diagram (only an error of 150 feet ) was presented at the meeting, yet the incorrect (by 836+150=986 feet) diagram is still on the website. Please could you replace the incorrect one please
thanks
Alistair (looking forward to seeing this post passed)
Alastair. We’ve been trying contact you to discuss your points on the diagram. Unfortunately the email you supplied didn’t work. As such the post stayed the same.
Meanwhile we haven’t published some contributions as they are off-topic – can we leave out the climate denial and wind turbines please folks?
So we reject Dr Sarah Edwards’ implication that climate denialists (whatever they are) are unfitted to comment on this. Good
Nancy Towers proposed (12 Jan) 13 or so wind turbines on top of the Balcombe phone masts. Nice to have a bit of light relief & I am glad it was published but now wind-power is banned as off-topic!
strange I’m receiving other mails, try again
re-post after mis-posting:
The schematic diagram of the proposed well is alarming, but not all may be as it seems. There is an apparent confusion between the ‘length’ of any planned fracture, i.e. the distance from its originating point in the well-bore, and its ‘height’, i.e. the vertical distance from top to bottom of the planned fracture. These are not generally the same & are influenced by the mechanics of pumping the fracture stimulation.
It would be unusual for any designed frac height to exceed that of the interval of interest, because a) it is a waste of energy to frac into non-productive rock, & b) fraccing out of the source rock {or fraccing the upper cap-rock} might produce a flow channel by which the valuable hydrocarbon could escape recovery.
Additionally, there is a difference in frac geometries, depending on whether the frac is initiated from a vertical or horizontal well-bore.
Tim Probert has just posted this link to his report of the meeting, on the Guardian CIF thread about this:
Cuadrilla in Balcombe: A fracking PR disaster
http://millicentmedia.com/2012/01/12/cuadrilla-in-balcombe-a-fracking-pr-disaster/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/10/fracking-chief-critics-south-east?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
As the sole dissenter from the floor may I offer a few comments on Wednesday’s meeting & subsequent web-messages?
I do not claim qualifications to judge the technical or economic merits of the proposal. One thing I suspect I have in common with the majority!
Some residents of Balcombe have raised very legitimate safety concerns. With respect these should have been dealt with in the first instance by a courteous but firm approach to the licencing authorities and , failing satisfaction, to our local MP.
As it is there is a danger that following the fracas in the Victory Hall and vitriolic web-postings the authorities may disregard these concerns as just the NIMBY- knee-jerk protests which so many developments in this country must overcome.
The meeting opened with a 25 minute propaganda film of strident bias portraying out-dated technology. From what I can discover Pennsylvania remains a delightful place to live & work!
Mark Miller’s presentation could have been crisper & clearer but he was faced a technical subject, a hostile audience, was rudely interrupted, and after 10 minutes told ,from the floor, to sit down & shut up. The 25 minute propaganda film had been heard in silence.
A fluent presentation by Will Cottrell, introduced as a “researcher “into fracking. Surely even his supporters would admit that his “research “ would only come to his pre-determined conclusion? Unlike Mark Miller he was heard in reverential silence.
The following discussion was at times difficult to follow. Regrettable some good & fair questions & answers were drowned out. In no particular order, several people expressed shock horror that Cauadrilla were AMERICAN! The blatant discourtesy apart, what sort of message does this send to existing and potential American investors in our country? If the shareholders are black, gay, British, or even American it is not relevant to considerations of safety.
More shock horror that Cauadrilla aimed to make a PROFIT. Countless millions have suffered from regimes trying to run “not for profit” economies. Are Caudrilla expected to invest money and face hostile natives for fun?
Nick Grealy, one of the few who seemed to have in-depth technical knowledge, was branded as a toady for his (declared) connection with the industry. No such branding for Mark Miller who promotes hideous solar panels subsidised by taxpayers! A bit off topic, but until recently those rich enough to blight their roofs with solar panels actually got paid by the taxpayers for the power they themselves consumed. The daftest subsidy ever?
I could not catch it all but a very excited gentleman seemed to claim that we could all have had free clean energy but wicked American capitalists had blocked it in the 19th Century. Perhaps the “killer patents” have now expired and the miracle power could be introduced? More info. please.
What I tried to say was that safety concerns are entirely legitimate and should be quietly dealt with by professional & unbiased experts. (Since consulting an American friend I understand there should be frequent, independent monitoring of any fracking operation ) But the sort of intemperate “ban –it because-its –new/American/for profit -type of protest is just counterproductive. All new technologies had teething problems, trains, planes & antibiotics to name a few. As a nation we are sleepwalking into an energy crisis. We should welcome investment subject to realistic risk/benefit assessments.
Turning to the Web postings, first thank you Brightonian/ Andrew Stone and Striebs for your fluent contributions. I do wish you had been at the meeting. This rather nervous dissident needed your help!
Some of the name-calling ( Nick Grealy linked to “cash for questions”) etc. will, I trust be treated with contempt by the civilised elements in both camps.
Interesting but not posted on the web-site ( risk of libel?) was a message( 13/01-01:57) ) implying that some senior politicians were corruptly in hoc to the EU. I am uncertain from which side this came and which cause might benefit or otherwise from the alleged corruption! The gentlemen mentioned are not all of my political persuasion but I do not believe any of them would put their EU pensions before their country . If I did believe it I would be worried as many in the EU would love to have Great Britain dependant on French generated nuclear power! Something the Greens are unwittingly working for.
Then as light relief we have proposed wind turbines on top of the Balcombe mobile phone masts. This is delicious as only a few years ago there was a campaign to stop the masts and a suggestion that by now we should all be dead or dying from radiation. Now we don’t notice the phone masts and get decent reception. Huge noisy wind turbines would be a real blight. Have you seen the despoliation our hills & coast line caused by these inefficient, subsidised monsters. Give me a nodding donkey hidden in Lower Stumble any day!
Almost finished. May I say that I have no financial interest in the project whatsoever ( any oil-related housing boom will be after my time). As a walker, and garden composter, I am as keen as anyone to preserve our green & pleasant land. But I do not wish to see future generations reliant on American or Chinese aid because nobody stood up to the fundamentalist greens.
Perhaps our elected Parish Council can now take over from all us self- appointed pundits. A letter of apology to Mark Miller & his team on behalf of the community might set the tone for the more robust investigations to follow.
If you have read this far, thank you
Rodney, I wasn’t at the meeting, but have listened to the audio recording on Tim Probert’s site. I salute your courage – & your good sense, as evinced above. Just to let you know i appreciate your post & wish you well.
{I’m a retired petroleum engineer, an expert in fracturing, & on no-one’s payroll. I have family nearby, & also near other putative shale gas exploitation sites. I think it would be unwise to exploit some, & wise to develop others. I presently have no opinion re Balcombe, other than to correct error & present the truth as I see it.}
Many thanks! How do I find Tim Probert’s site please?
Via the link I posted above: http://millicentmedia.com/2012/01/12/cuadrilla-in-balcombe-a-fracking-pr-disaster/
The audio files are in the response by ‘Georgie Porgy’. They are great entertainment.
Mark Miller’s presentation could have been crisper & clearer but he was faced a technical subject, a hostile audience, was rudely interrupted, and after 10 minutes told ,from the floor, to sit down & shut up. The 25 minute propaganda film had been heard in silence.
Rodney, one of the things that struck me was that more than half the audince were not from the village, and, correct me if I am wrong, but the heckling and interruptions
appeared not to come from Balcombe residents.
When the water is poisened it will effect not only Balcombe people.
If they find oil/gas here they will plunder the whole of south east england.
It is not just a Balcombe issue.
Sara, it is quite hard to respect the scientific predictions who cannot spell ‘poisoned’ & apparently knows very little whereof she posts.
apologies for omission: “… the scientific predictions of someone who cannot spell ‘poisoned’ & apparently …”
If it was an unintended spelling error, my apologies.
Sarah
Out of almost 1000 000 000 fracced well around the world (including those in the middle of North Sea, Gulf of Mexico and onshore south east UK) only 3 reported cases of water contamination with methane. One was due inproper well-engineering (Wyoming case). The case in Penn, or gasland, has been proven to be due natural methane in water accumulated by decomposed organic matter in the water well. I can find a reference source to explain the third case. But 3/1000000000 risk ratio seem to be a very good by any industry standard. Anyway, UK’s BGS European EPA and UK parlimentary inquiry have came to the same conclusion. Even Obama’s administration gave its backing to shale gas exploration/production in US. I can’t imagine important issues such as water contamination and earth quake issues are taken lightly by these public organisations of professionals, whose main responsibiliy is public health & safety and which has not conflict interest in oil/gas industry. I think what the public should push for is proper regulation/monitor of the industry and not emotional reaction to an important national issue such as energy security and economy. The economy of UK own energy resource can save the whole country tens of billions pounds a year in imported gas as well as generating tax for goverment so it is not a small issue that can be assessed without serious considerations.
I am sure you are right. It was the bussed in mob who disgraced the meeting but Balcombe will carry the stygma, hence my hope that the Parish Council send an apology & clear our reputation!
This ‘bussed in mob’ comment really gets my goat!! To put the record straight – there was NO bussed in mob, Will came up with 4 friends from Brighton by train we picked him up from the station. Most of the other people in the hall were from Balcombe. Surely you do not know everyone in this village. There were also lots of people from surrounding villages who had read the local press, heard it on radio or seen it on Meridian tonight. THEY HAVE JUST AS MUCH RIGHT TO BE HERE AS YOU DO. IT IS NOT JUST A BALCOMBE ISSUE, IT AFFECTS US ALL. If you cant even get these simple facts straight why should anyone else believe anything you say anywhere else on this site.
I am sorry your goat was got by my views on “outsiders” On reflection & further enquiry I accept that SOME Balcombe residents did get over excited and not ALL the visitors were discourteous. To the latter I apologise.
HOWEVER it was the deliberate (?) packing of the meeting with some green zealots which turned what should have been a serious discussion into an uncouth shouting match.
They did much harm to the cause of those with genuine concerns.
I still hope our Parish Council will send an apology on behalf of the village but without prejudice to seeking qualified advice on the pros & cons.
I entirely agree with your sentence in capitals “IT IS NOT JUST A BALCOMBE ISSUE, IT AFFECTS US ALL” From a selfish Balcome point of view I would prefer no new enterprises, no new houses,much less traffic,residents parking only and free beer for OAPs. Others may have their own lists!
But we are part of a nation facing an energy crisis and a flat economy. For the sake of future generations we must learn to welcome new solutions, not regardless of risk but after sober assessment of both risk & national interest. Calling out the mob at the first hint of exploration is just irresponsible. And before it comes up again, while the far east is developing as it is, alternative energy is about as useful to climate change as a bucket on the Titanic.
You will be relieved to hear that I may not be able to respond to postings for a week or so but meanwhile may your windmills keep turning, but don’t worry, the oil & gas industries you despise will do their best to keep your lights on!
If anyone is in any doubt to the potential size of the oil drilling operation. Please see Michael Portillo’s Great British Railway Journeys Series 3 Wareham to Portland on BBC iplayer. It shows Wytch Farm Oil Field. It’s not just one nodding donkey.
Wytch Farm is reportedly the largest onshore oil field in Europe. As such it is in Cuadrilla’s dreams, but not their expectations.
It doesn’t seem to have had a very depressive effect on Sandbanks real estate prices.
Is this a fair summary of the meeting?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9013589/Shale-gas-the-battle-for-Balcombes-riches.html
The vast majority of the people at the meeting were local, from Balcombe or surrounds. Yes, some came from Brighton, and many of those ‘foreigners’ made a valuable, considered contribution to the meeting. Yes, there were some heated remarks, but many of those came from Balcombe residents.
This is a local, national and international issue.
And the Parish Council should apologise to the village, not to Cuadrilla.
It would appear from the minutes of the Parish Council meeting in February 2010 that the planning application was not properly discussed. The planning application number did not appear on the minutes. Mention of the matter comes in a little afterthought, with no heading of its own, at the end of a paragraph about an application to build a carport. I quote: ‘Mr Greenwood mentioned a recent application (to WSCC) relating to re-establishing exploratory oil drilling at the previous site off the London Road on Estate land.’
Incidentally, at the beginning of the meeting, at the official ‘Declaration of personal or prejudicial interest’ moment, another councillor declared an interest in another planning matter. But there is no mention in the minutes at this point of a declaration by Simon Greenwood.
The District Council had emailed details of the planning application to the Balcombe council on January 28th, 2010, prior to the February meeting. I note that Richard Greig, clerk of the council, failed to reply to the District Council after the meeting. The District Council re-emailed Richard on March 10th to prompt a response, and within minutes Richard replied to say yes, fine, go ahead, we have no objections. I wonder on what grounds he based this consent?
I have put all this to the deputy chairman of the council, who ‘cannot remember’ what happened at the meeting. I wonder if other councillors can remember, or whether maybe Richard Greig can remember some details that he did not put into the minutes. He must have remembered something 3 weeks after the meeting, something that gave him the confidence to email the Council’s ‘no objections’ the the planners.
Surely the whole village would respect our Councillors if they racked their memories for the details of that day, explained what actually happened, and apologised. I feel that if they did this they would be in a better collective psychological position to move on in a positive way, to acknowledge our views and to protect our interests (rather than their backs).
Councillors present at the February 2010 Parish Council meeting were: Robin Williamson, Simon Greenwood, Rodney Saunders, Mike Talman, Alison Stevenson, Sarah Moore-Williams (late arrival), Susan Barker-Danby and Carol Jarvest, with Richard Greig taking notes.
Thanks for that Kathryn – I feel that puts the case very fairly.
As with all these things, there is so much more going on behind the scenes, and it takes a bit of “sleuthing” to find the relevant information.
Keep up the good work!
Guys, I can understand your local issues, but on the subject of national and international ones, apart from my site, now unbearably tainted in some eyes because I’m honest about Cuadrilla being (only) one of my sources of income, perhaps reading page 12 of this from the White House the other day, underlines that it is a bigger question than your pleasant corner of the world.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/investing_in_america_report_final.pdf
Only a few years ago, fears of a looming natural gas shortage led to significant investments in the rapid construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) port facilities that could enable the United States to import vast quantities of natural gas. Projections from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) as recently as 2005 suggested expanding natural gas imports for decades. Just several years ago, leaders of the domestic organic chemical industry predicted that shortages in natural gas would dramatically raise the domestic price of natural gas, one of their key inputs. Without the prospect for adequate domestic supplies of natural gas at reasonable prices, companies increasingly pointed to overseas operations where they could access large quantities of low‐cost natural gas.
Since the mid‐2000s, however, the discovery of new natural gas reserves, such as the Marcellus Shale, and the development of hydraulic fracturing techniques to extract natural gas from these reserves has led to rapidly growing domestic production and relatively low domestic prices for households and downstream industrial users. Appropriate care must to be taken to ensure that America’s natural resources are extracted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner with the safeguards in place to protect public health and safety. Provided these precautions are taken, the potential benefits to the U.S. economy are substantial.
I think that this paints another picture than the shown the other day which was the first thing most people heard about shale from. But everyone seemed old enough not to believe the first thing they hear. Democracy is about debate, and debate takes two sides.
I’m a Labour voter myself, and I am definitely not a climate change denier, but I couldn’t help getting the impression that perhaps Balcombe is more naturally aligned with the Conservative Party? In that case, perhaps many Balcombe residents would value this report from the former science editor of the Economist Matt Ridley.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/shale-gas-shock
Imagine if you will, that you had read this first and then seen the movie?
Exactly where near Balcombe has permission been granted for drilling ?
Maggie, just click on the Lower Stumble drill site tab above.
This goes beyond my remit as a freelance energy journalist, but I would be asking Simon Greenwood whether it is true, as Charles Metcalfe suggests on this page, that the Balcombe Estate will receive an annual rent of £16,000 from Cuadrilla Resources.
I would also ask him if this relatively small sum if worth incurring the wrath of villagers and, if so, does he intend to donate any of this money to the village.
I am a Balcombe resident with a degree in Geology. In no way would I claim to be an expert on the local Geology, drilling or hydraulic fracturing. However I do know a bit about this and maybe can understand some of the technical documents better than those with no previous knowledge of either geology or oil exploration. Considering what I’ve read or know already,I am currently undecided and neither for or against (so currently neither a NIMBY or in the pay of caudrilla or any of their associates). Indeed I would welcome the chance of a civilised meeting where I could calmly ask some questions of Caudrilla. I decided very early on during Wednesday’s meeting to keep my own council, as I felt very uncomfortable with the overall bias and “tone” of the meeting.
However there are two issues, that are continually mentioned, that I feel need to be put into perspective, namely the seismicity and the integrity of Ardingly reservoir. If any Balcombe residents would like to understand a bit more about these points or other issues around drilling and the local geology, I would be happy to talk to them face to face in a less frenzied atmosphere.
“If any Balcombe residents would like to understand a bit more about these points or other issues around drilling and the local geology, I would be happy to talk to them face to face in a less frenzied atmosphere.”
If enough people were in favour, perhaps you would consider holding a meeting and explaining the situation from the geologist’s perspaective?
Douglas, I wrote face to face in a less frenzied atmosphere on purpose.
) about some of the geological issues (especially the strength of the seismic events and the sources of water for Ardingly reservoir).
Following last weeks unpleasant scrum, I can assure you that I have absolutely no intention of ” calling a meeting”.
However as I said I am quite happy to talk with interested people (over a pint ?
For what its worth, that Norfolk man, Thomas Paine, records that while over-wintering during the Revolutionary War. he would boat out on a Pennsylvania lake with General Washington & others, where they would take delight in igniting the rising Methane bubbles.
Now I know Ben Franklin was an experimenter ahead of his time, but I’ve never seen it claimed that he indulged in the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas formations.
Fascinating to read, Michael, that Mother Nature has been belching gas (which anti-Shale agitators would have us believe might one day be shooting in flames from Balcombe’s bath taps) into the atmosphere in such prodigal quantities. Sounds to me like an argument for putting it to good use before She gets a chance to waste it.
Perhaps a day trip on the Ouze when Cuadrilla go into production?
The American point is that gas has bubbled up where no gas used to bubble – for example in the bore holes from which people previously drew fresh, unpolluted water.
In how many cases out of the thousands of wells drilled?
I believe Tom Paine made the point that gas has always bubbled …
Not up everybody’s borehole! In specific places where there were natural fissures to allow the gas to escape. We are concerned about unnatural fissures. Created new fissures.
You make it sound positively salacious! There is a twofold solution to your concern:
1 – ensure the well is properly & multiply cased & cemented {& not just a couple of hundred feet of cement either}. Ensure that the cement bonds are verified by electrical wireline logging;
2 – ensure the existence of sufficient vertical separation above the zone being stimulated. The Bowland shale is deep enough, Balcombe’s Portland shale at the shown 1831 ft possibly is not. I understand there is some doubt about the drawing on the News tab. 1831 metres might be better.
Stimulating the zone – you make it sound positively salacious! What a euphemism! I might rather have chosen the word ‘raping’. And bugger cement at the site of the well! I presume Cuadrilla do not intend to spread an underground sea of cement over the – what was it – 28 acres? of surrounding area affected by the proposed Balcombe fracking? Who are you anyway? A Cuadrilla person I presume? No, I think I have found your website. I suspect you are sitting in Moon Township PA. Could that be Pennsylvania? I suppose it is called Moon Township because it is pitted with bubbling and belching well holes. I quote the site: ‘For more than 60 years, from surveying and permitting natural gas gathering pipeline systems to designing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, Baker has delivered exceptional services to the oil and gas industry. ‘ Or could this be a namesake?
PA is indeed the abbreviation for Pennsylvania. But no, I am unattached & presently lying in bed in Norfolk – thats the bit sticking out into the North Sea, not the one in VA. I wrote a describer/ disclaimer earlier up the thread.
Just put the cement in the annulus, the bit outside the steel casing & make sure it is well attached to the casing & the hole wall, or the interior of the outer casing, whichever applies. Cementing is quite technical, & all too often skimped, which is why you have bad results to draw attention to. I’m an engineer of the Brunel school: do it properly & it’ll last. Trouble is, cementers are always contractors & employers are always trying to save costs.
Yes, it just goes to show that you can’t really control anything. Even less so at a concrete-free distance from the well. Sleep well, Mr Baker. I am turning off my email .
I hope you slept well. By the way, I was talking cement, never concrete. Oilwell cement is silky smooth & sweet flowing, as beautiful as a cat in silver moonlight.
I am not sure what the fuss is about. If free gas come out of my well I am just going to use it for my heating and cooking and drink from treated water from my local water company though.
Noone is going drink straight from the well or the aquafier are they? Free gas for heating what esle can you ask for from fracking?
Point is not the wellbore. Point is Cuadrilla admit 2000 ft unidentified vertical faults. Which puts frack fluid/ gas into the aquifer and 667 feet below the surface at Balcombe.
http://gasdrillinginbalcombe.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/cuadrilla-documents-balcombe-water-vulnerable-to-fracking/
You presuppose that the 2000′ slip zone retains permeability once the frac pressure was bled off. This is highly doubtful – only spaces into which proppant has been placed retain transmissability.
But your main point is valid – to Cuadrilla’s embarrassment, there was a potential slip zone of which they were unaware. This should show on 3-D seismic surveys so maybe they skimped. Seismic is much easier offshore – just tow the array behind a ship. Spacing out & setting off ‘thumps’ onshore West Sussex would be a nightmare by comparison.
Of course, it was only a magnitude 1.something tremor, i.e. one that would have gone completely undetected unless they were monitoring in 3-D for it.
Is it safe to rely upon the words and deeds of Caudrilla? Personally speaking, the CEO seems like a decent man, but we are being asked to trust him and his assurances that they are better than the rest. What do we know about these guys? – they are a start up firm, they have only a handful of directly employed staff, they sub-contract nearly everything and even their “in-house” operations are carried out by two separate corporate entities. In my industry, construction, this is usually considered to be a bad business model. The usual reason in my field, to split out your risk areas by using sister companies is because you see that they have the risk of failure. If they fail, you can cut them loose and keep the parent company protected. Caudrilla are a very small outfit, they only have these few sites at the moment and are yet to show a return. They do have a 100% record though – but not the sort of 100% record you want – one job, one failure. They are fighting for their corporate survival, the management are fighting for their jobs – high pressure indeed. Under these circumstances, are they to be taken at their word? My request to all interested parties is to look at the facts from those without a financial interest either way. Also, look at each site – on the Balcombe site, I can see very little to commend it as an oil or gas site – it is right by a railway, next to a river, near a reservoir, has a shallow geology, is very close to a village, has poor road communication, is by a listed viaduct, is located in an area with low water levels. What has it got going for it? Perhaps only that the land owner is prepared to allow it. If this site goes wrong, the results could be simply awful – why on earth should we take that risk?
Cuadrilla are 41% owned by Riverstone. Not exactly amateur chancers, they are run by Lord John Browne former BP boss. Riverstone are part of the Carlyle Group. You may have heard of only two of the chancers on their board. George Bush Senior and John Major.
All true but still a start up firm, as easy to turn off after a crisis as to set up in the first place and no hard fought, multi-generation, long term reputation to preserve – if it goes wrong – sorry folks and goodbye! Compare BP – they have responsibility to public shareholders and a truly valuable and highly regarded reputation to maintain. If the Deep water Horizon accident had happened to a new start company and not the likes of BP do you really believe the new start company would have been willing or able to respond in the same way as BP in order to make right the situation? So, my lack of faith in Cuadrilla is born out of appreciating the commercial reality. Riverstone, Lord Browne or Carlyle Group would not dip into their pockets and bail out Caudrilla if they faced huge 3rd party claims – and neither should they – Cuadrilla should simply not be allowed to engage in activities where the down side could even remotely approach the limit of the ability to put things right.
Mr Bottomly (assuming Mr as I believe there was a Kevin Bottomly on radio sussex talking about this last week, so appologies if its Mrs bottomly)
This is fascinating and a very useful insight into the business world. I would definitely take onboard what you say about their business model. Iit appears these people need to be handled with great care.
I am assuming this is your area of expertise
Where you let yourself down is the last bit. This bit is clearly not your area of expertise. Of your 8 points only the last is valid. You have been scared by the scaremongers.
Oil exploration can be done responsibly(and it is in THIS country) . Drive south of Midhurst to Goodwood and see if you can find the producing oilfield right on top of the south downs (multiple wells with more recent sidetracks).
Dosent Balcombe have someone who knows about this stuff? As it clearly has lots of other expertise (like your business acumen, a lawyer specialising in risk and Mr Meltcalfe’ wine expertise)
As the reply didnt appear directly under your first post
Just to make it clear the 8 points were
it is right by a railway, next to a river, near a reservoir, has a shallow geology, is very close to a village, has poor road communication, is by a listed viaduct, is located in an area with low water levels
In fact the first one could even be a positive if they actually wnet into production (but thats at least 5 years away and on average a 1 in 10 chance)
Hi Botts
From a business and exploration viewpoint, I think you’ll find its one well, one success. A 100% success rate. Inbetween being shouted at Mark Millar said they are very excited about the prospects up near Blackpool and they’ve issued big claims about the amount of recoverable gas. Its that success that might mean they have no time or interest in pursuing things down here
This is a reply to Michael Baker. A little late but there is no reply button at the end of your post of this morning.
Please don’t be flippant and complacent about matters that concern Balcombe village people deeply.
But, thank you, I slept very well. We sensitive-eared Balcombe residents clearly need to bank our sleep before the four-to-six-week 24-hour drilling begins. (Our Parish Council seems to think that Caudrilla need further permission before they can test-drill. I think otherwise after my discussion with Mark Miller.)
How many tankers, by the way? You haven’t answered that one. Between x and y will do.
You could always count tankers to help you fall asleep. Unless of course you are really in PA, in which case it is not yet bed time. But I suspect you are, as you say, in Norfolk.
Mind the bugs.
‘Tis not me that hid the reply button. I meant only to be humorous, not complacently flippant – sorry. I spent a few hours replying to your questions, click the Comments button below the article on the News tab.
{I really do find cement worthy of respect – its an engineer thing}
Thank you. I do appreciate your helpful replies. I’d love a reply to the how-many-tankers question.
Lots of replies, long written. They’re posted each in response to your actual questions, go to the News tab & click on ‘comments’ at the bottom of the ‘Cuadrilla documents: Balcombe water vulnerable to fracking’ article.
The trucks/ tankers question is broken down by category, as there would be more trucks than just tankers.
No idea what capacity tankers, but I wrote “say 30, of 2,000 usg/ 1,650 Imperial gallons. Add 10 more for displacement.”
Broad brush, you understand.
Thank you and sorry. I shall read with interest after work.
At the Balcolmbe Parish Council Meeting last night, Robin Williams (who was chair of the council at the time of the Feb 2010 meeting that let the planning decision slip through) apologised honourably and humbly on behalf of the council. Thank you, Robin. They intend to send a letter to every house in the village, and put together a village info-gathering working party made up of council and village members. Exclusively village.
Rodney Saunders insisted at the Parish Council meeting last night that Cuadrilla have no right to drill without further planning permission. Rodney, I think your official informants were talking at cross purposes. They meant that Cuadrilla need further permission if they want to drill, frack and extract commercially. As I understand it from Mark Miller, Cuadrilla already have permission to drill experimentally, to extend the existing shaft. Indeed, this experimental, investigative drilling has to be done under the terms of the current agreement, and a decision taken on commercial viability, by September of next year – 2013 (not 2014 as some have reported – I have confirmed this date with the planning department). This, the experimental phase, is the drilling that will go on for 4-6 weeks for 24 hours a day, and ‘might be audible in the village to sensitive ears’.
The shale boom has meant a reduction in electricity prices in the US of 50%, as announced by Bloomberg today. As far as I’m aware, there has been no disaster, floods, poisoned water or gas in taps (as per discredited film Gaslands). I’d have fracking over wind any time, as it works ALL THE TIME and is a darn sight cheaper. Don’t believe all the green propaganda, as they’d have us back in the stone age, bartering for our very existence.
I can see the green movement losing credibility and votes if it refuses to countenance shale in years to come, assuming of course that the UK’s resources can be extracted commercially. At a time when inflation is making the majority of British households poorer, who wouldn’t want to halve their gas and electricity bills? It’s the ideal complement/backup energy to the UK wind generation being rapidly installed offshore and there’s an added bonus that the UK would be far less vulnerable to energy shocks, thanks, for example to Iranian sabre rattling (we get most of our LNG imports from Qatar, which has to pass through the Straits of Hormuz, which Iran in threatening to close).
Brightonian-Shale gas is not a complement/back up to wind. Shale gas works, as proven by prices in the US. Wind power is an oxymoron. Duplicitous politicians, pushing their trendy greenness will give 100% capacity figures for electricity produced by wind, when in reality these figures should be under 30% (load factor) as the wind does not blow all the time, and sometimes too much, which results in no spinning turbines or just turned off. The companies responsible don’t care, as the National Grid will pay them even when they’re off (£25 million last year for onshore alone for doing nothing, no spinning, and producing no energy). And, where does that money come from? Oh yes, you and me, as a levy on our bills. Of course the eye watering installation costs are also met by us, the upkeep, and replacement (expected offshore to be twenty years). Of course a conventional power station has to be built as back-up, running twenty four hours, for when the wind doesn’t blow or blows too much. Honestly, Lewis Carroll would have problems satirising modern life.
Energy in Depth alert! Critics of the ‘discredited’ film Gasland have long been revealed as Gas industry funded. Well worth reading this document here – http://www.damascuscitizens.org/Affirming-GASLAND.pdf – which takes these criticisms on. The website that started this – Energy in Depth – is funded by a Washington lobbyists themselves funded – surprise – by the Gas industry. Pro fracking activists love to wheel out this ‘discredited’ line – in fact these criticisms have long been discredited themselves.
Better research, please, J Watson!
The film does not need gas industry critics to discredid it! So obviously one sided & desighed as a work up to mindless anger. Perhaps it was not faked but the gasmen could surely have produced an equally “unfaked” film. American grannies grateful for cheaper heat, Mom & Pop businesses brought back from the brink by well heeled oilmen. I can almost see the lambs gamboling & smell the wheat! Fortunately they did not insult us with tit for tat propaganda.
Thanks everyone for your commments. There are uncertainties attached to fracking that mean unquantifiable but very definite and potentially very serious risks attached to it. The essence of the debate here is it it worth the gamble? Our clear response has to be NO, IT IS NOT, for all manner of reasons ranging from local impacts on your water supply and property prices, through imapcts on energy policy, especially to investment in renewables, through to the whole global warming tipping point scenario. (thanks to Andrew Chyba for his input)
Fracking is widespread in the US, and will happen in China, Australia, Poland, Argentina, India … and they will have cheaper energy, and your doctrine of renewables will make us poorer and colder.
(I am not implying anything about Balcombe in particular.)
Your meeting tactics may deliver you victory in Sussex, but you will lose in the wider world, where ever fewer people believe in “the whole global warming tipping point scenario”.
So are you saying that the risk is not worth taking for balcombe but let other UK counties (including the middle of North Sea) and other places around the world take the unproven risks just because it affects your property prices. What about the risk of increased energy security for the wider UK, higher cost of energy that break low income family and drive away manufacturing/production to China because of their cheaper energy source (by burning coal/oil/gas) and therefore more competitive than UK. There have been argument on this blog about vested interest of gas/oil industry on this issue, but from what i can see from this blog there is also vested interest of renewable industry on this issue. Am I wrong?
Please, gasdrillinginbalcombe, don’t use the tired old chestnut of all critics being in the pay of big oil. I’d love some of that money if it’s going, but, as a private individual with no particular axe to grind, unfortunately I have yet to receive a cent from anyone in the gas industry, or oil, or any other for that matter. By the way, I have done a little research, and there are plenty of critics of Josh Fox, the director of Gaslands. Mr. Fox even took legal redress to muzzle the good folks at http://www.noteviljustwrong.com who asked him some pretty awkward questions regarding the facts that gas had been coming out of the taps of homeowners that he filmed, long before fracking began. He had his lawyers remove from Youtube and Vimeo the short film they made, on spurious copyright grounds. However their website shows film of Phelim McAleer questioning the director. I think you’ll find they are not in the pay of big oil, big gas, or any other big energy company. I note you conveniently ignore the fact that electricity prices have reduced 50% in the US (see Bloomberg today), as a result primarily of the shale gas revolution. If you want to run your life on windmills, that is your prerogative. The rest of us will have affordable energy thank you, and take our chances with ‘the global warming tipping point scenario’, a statement upon which I will resist the temptation to comment.
This link: http://exploreshale.org/ is well worth a look for anyone wanting to get a feel for shale energy extraction. Surprised me just how very deep the fracking takes place (no idea what depths are being discussed in Balcombe though).
2667 feet, according the planning docs.
[quote name="Lancastrian123"]
(TAKEN FROM A POST ON http://www.balcombevillage.co.uk BY A LANCASHIRE RESIDENT – see http://reafg.blogspot.com/)
Well done Balcombe for holding an interesting public meeting with Cuadrilla. I’ve listened to a recording.
http://soundcloud.com/cnut3/sets/balcombe-meeting-11-01-2012
Reminded me of various meetings in village halls up here in Lancashire.
I liked the way your parish council openly explained how they were misled by the low key application. Similar applications were waved through by our County Council Minerals and Waste Committee in 2010. Some of our parish councils thought the applications were so trivial they didn’t even respond.
Beware what Cuadrilla do NOT tell you. For instance about the failures in well linings. Mark Miller told you that the plastic liner “would outlast our well for sure”. Please try to watch youtube video lectures by Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, Cornell University, engineer, specialist in fracture mechanics who has worked with the hydrocarbon drilling industry for decades. He explains that a well, punctured through the strata, lasts for EVER – the weakness remains even if the well is out of production. So let’s hope the plastic lasts that long.
Also the Prof tells us about the concrete casings. 5% fail in the first year with a steady failure rate thereafter. Also he explains how fluids and gas migrate upwards OUTSIDE the well shaft, between the pipe casing and the rock strata. There is no way of stopping that, therefore aquifers at higher levels in the rocks ARE vulnerable to pollution. eg –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOXS0aRxwDo
Mr Miller gave you the same old story about their slickwater using polyacrylamide. Yes, that chemical has very many uses, including in face cream as he stated. But wide usage does not mean it is safe! A search on Google will show there is increasing concern about polyacrylamide decay releasing acrylamide, a neurotoxin and carcinogen. Mr Miller seemed to avoid getting into a deep discussion about the chemical.
Up here there is a good website, Ribble Estuary Against Fracking and the Fylde Borough Council website also has many useful comments from the public.
So good luck, stay watchful and beware sweeteners.
PS Today found out that Cuadrilla submitted a planning application just before Christmas to Lancs County Council for permission to extend one of their pads in the Fylde. So it goes on.[/quote]
Hello Nancy, My interest here is truth, not exaggeration, so in regard to your posting -
- Dr Ingraffea is a specialist in fracture mechanics of surface, not sub-surface, structures and has NOT “worked with the hydrocarbon drilling industry for decades”. He is telegenic, tho’;
- he is right that a well is for ever. But I believe that in the UK {following a nasty incident in Cheshire} abandoned wells are filled from top to bottom with cement, so there is no longer a ‘hole’ through the strata;
- there is no concrete in wells, “oilwell cement” is placed between the outside of the steel casing & the inside of the drilled hole/ previous casing. Yes there is a significant problem rate, both initially & eventually. But it is wrong to say this cannot be rectified. In good practice, the bond is logged and more cement can be squeezed to improve the seal. After placement or after many years. And as for “there is no way of stopping that” – yes there is, good practice, no short-cuts & use of the many {possibly slightly more expensive} methods available;
- I agree with the first video clip you show {with the proviso that rectification is both possible & good practice.}. It is obvious from the video that good practice requires centralization, so that the cement is placed equally all round the pipe; … requires sufficient cement, so that all the problem zones are covered/ sealed & even possibly an additional casing string used;
- methane is not a poison, but you could drown it it & it is explosive. Last night I posted a link {go to the News tab & click on ‘comments’ at the bottom of the ‘Cuadrilla documents: Balcombe water vulnerable to fracking’ article} showing a rig fire that has just occurred, due to gas rising outside the pipe;
- there is a lot for & against the second video you post {the Duke study} – but in England we don’t generally drill our own drinking water wells, so it is of limited relevance.
With regard to relevance – none of this has to do with fraccing – it is all about well construction.
Also with regard to relevance, it seems that Balcombe is not about ‘shale gas’.
Isn’t polyacrylamide what ‘soft’ contact lenses are made of? Or am I confused – age, you know.
I agree – beware sweeteners. But I think it better to have good knowledgeable oversight than to be a headless chicken.
Please don’t be offensive to concerned villagers.
That Dr Ingraffea has made himself a specialist in this field is clear from http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/the_science_and_safety_of_hydr.html , and from many other web sources. It may not be his official field, but surely a professor of above-ground fracturing can be expected to have the wit to research the subterranean sister-field. You do pick nits.
But thank you for taking all that time to answer my previous questions in such fine detail. It was very helpful, and I appreciate it.
As I said before, I have no difficulty with how he describes himself – it is the “Extremists” trotting him out as more than he is. {He’s making a mint on his talks, by the way}
quote: I am not an activist. As I see the spectrum, it goes like this for academics:
1. Scientist/engineer researcher. One can stop right there, or …
2. Advocate: the science tells me there should be new/change in regulation/policy and I need to communicate that to the appropriate powers
3. Activist: lead stakeholders to protest, peacefully, in ways that the standard approaches cannot handle
4. Extremist: bad people
I am an advocate. I am a licensed professional engineer in NYS, and as such have taken an oath to inform and protect the public on issues of my expertise.
—–
I agree completely with:
quote: it is not quite the right question to ask if you mean “during the fracing process.” You can find many cases of returned frac water contamination, and frac chemical contamination, of surface waters and private water wells resulting from leaks and spills. This issue is NOT a “fracing” issue, it is unconventional development of gas from shale formations, and ALL of the science, technology, and engineering problems associated with it. And a major problem is water contamination that can and has occurred at a number of locations/times during the whole process.
repeat: is NOT a “fracing” issue – it is a behavioural issue at times, by other people, in the process. If you don’t identify it – how can you prevent it {other than by head in the sand ‘go away’?}
—–
this bit cannot be said often enough {you snubbed my first cement comment}
quote: Faulty cement jobs are the bane of oil and gas wells. Have been since day 1, and will to a known degree of probability, always be. The industry has published data on what % of wells will have faulty cement jobs. We should want DEC to accept that there will be faulty cement jobs, and anticipate how much monitoring, before and after drilling/fracing will be needed to determine contamination that might result. This problem is NOT SOLVED. It is one that has to be accounted for in all calculations of costs and benefit.
note that ‘known degree of probability’ – compare with Charles Metcalfe’s “Fracking is a random, unpredictable process, and should not be allowed in the UK.” Isn’t that dangerously all or nothing?
So as regards Dr Ingraffea: don’t trot him out to justify ‘bad Extremist’ views, but do pay attention to what he has identified as issues needing attention/ resolution.
Thanks for your thanks, de nada, anytime. {what’s with the nits & bugs – small children?}
That wasn’t the cement comment that I snubbed. That one was useful. The flippant one was the cat-in-the moonlight simile. If you were English you would understand the nits and bugs. Hombre, nothing to do with small children! Well, maybe the bugs have, sometimes.
I thought I was English {3/4 anyway, my gran’s from Cork} & have raised 3+ daughters here & elsewhere, so I know my nit-combs. The cat in the moonlight was accurate – I guess you had to be there. I’ve pumped a lot of cement in my time, day or night, the pure grey powder stuff, you mix it with water in a variety of tubs with a great deal of energy & its flowing so fast it looks just like those slow shutter-speed photographs of water going over rapids. For something so industrial, it is really beautiful. The simile was apt – my own, but apt. Noisy process, in the old days, tho’. There was a time I’d taught almost half the cementers in Europe how to do it.
Oh my god, what an epitaph. And what a thing to be proud about. So your Spanish is Castellano. Combs? Would that be part of the anatomy of a headless chicken?
D*mn, you good, girl! My Spanish is Baja Oklahoma. Y’ever drink wine on the Mosel, below the Huhnrucke Straße? I hope I don’t need an epitaph for years – how about frac’ing at 65ºC among the wolf-spiders of the Rub al Khali, in the snow at Gainsborough, or pumping liquid CO2 on a hot Texas day, the pump fluid ends coated in flaking hoar?
Ein Gluck, dass Du jetzt nur mit unterirdischen Schrecken zu tun hast! (Darf ich Dich dutzen?) Yes, how lucky you only operate underground these days. Mein Gott, if you hadn’t retired, you might have been pouring slinky concrete into that micro-climate-busting motorway bridge over the Mosel.
Doch. Been on & below that bridge, scrumped grapes & all, but I stand by my initial comment, way above: “there is a point of view that the end of slavery {in the industrialized world} was only brought about by the availability of the first cheap fossil-fuel energy, coal”. I was concreting a fence post today – but concrete can’t hold a candle to cement.
With respect, are we to leave shale gas in the ground based on what ONE professor says? What about the far more at MIT, Cornell who have supported shale? Oops I forgot. Anyone who is for shale is automatically in the pocket of gas companies.
Facts on earthquakes today at http://www.nohotair.co.uk. These are scientific and mathematical facts, they would be the same whether I do them or anyone else does them.
I think someone last week was asking if Cuadrilla could absolutely guarantee there would be no earthquake damage. The honest answer is that they could not, but mathematically speaking one would have the substantially higher risk of being eaten by a shark on the day you won the Lotto. Now if that still scares people, please take on board 11 people accidentally suffocated in bed in 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/14/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2009
May I propose that the group come to some sort of consensus in face of this evidence as to whether continued discussion of earthquake risk is productive? Some will find other stuff to make baseless outrageous claims about, but quakes aren’t one of them. Or quite simply people want to have a permanently unchanged village, which is their right. I would stay out of that fight, because it’s not any of my business. But they should be open about where they are coming from and be able to defend their position to fellow villagers without exaggerating other dangers.
Nick
Since the day, I received a leaflet through my Balcombe front door about earthquakes. I have been trying to explain to worried local people that these events (1.5 and 2.3) are only measurable by very sensitive instruments. In fact there was 1.7 in nearby Chichester in November that failed to make the local Chichester papers, because practically nobody knew it had happened. I had assumed it was a tactic to get people to the meeting (well you cant say it didnt work), but it turned out at the meeting that Will thought it was significant. He quoted in his talk much stronger events in the US, but what he didn’t point out (or possibly understand) was that the strength of the events are par for the course in those more seismically active parts of the US. Basically man can cause earthquakes by dumping waste water down wells but of the strength normally occuring in that area, which in the UK is described as micro or minor..
Unfortunately having to constantly argue against two issues, that people seem to believe are true. Namely the “earthquakes and the danger to the water in Ardingly reservoir is making me sound like I’m in favour of fracing this well and that’s beginning to annoy me as I’m currently undecided.
So posts like yours that point out the madness of calling minor seismic events earthquakes will be welcomed by me
shouldn’t that be ‘untererdich’? & yes, comb, not cwm.
‘untererdisch’, tsk
Did you mean unterirdisch?
unterirdisch un•ter•ir•disch
1 adj [Parkhaus etc, Atomversuche] underground
[Fluss etc auch] subterranean
2 adv underground
unterirdisch verlaufen to run underground
Since we are picking nits.
Tell me about the thickness of that slinky cement casing… I am grouting tomorrow. Would the casing be much thicker than my grout? Lovely, slinky stuff, grout.
hmm, I thought ‘erd’, not ‘ird’, for earth, as in Mahler’s Song of. I stand corrected. What you really want to hear about is stimulation: running the RTTS {retrievable test, treat & squeeze} packer into the hole to the desired depth, picking it up off bottom just a tad, a quarter turn to the right, plus a bit depending on the length of the tool-string, set down, let the packer rubber swell out against the interior of the confining casing, put the pumps into gear & squeeze in the treating fluid. Afterwards, flow-back & check to see how much returns & how much more productive the well is.
There’s not a word of a lie in any of that, I swear – its an accurate description. See what happens when you use Du.
Tut mir Leid, was just eating, on Spanish/Texan time. Malher cd have set you to music… Man meint’, ein Künstler habe Betonstaub Über die feinen Halme ausgestreut…
Nicht persper, as the Ozzies say in Tirol. Agatharied was pretty deep in the backwoods, & you do keep strange hours. I am honoured & flattered to be set to good ole Gustav.
Oooh, nits again. Just checked my Schoffler-Weiss, which confirms unterirdisch. Easy mistake, if your German is Mosel, and orally-learnt – Mosel ich is pronounces isch. I’m not sure construction on the Hochmoselubergang has started yet. ‘The 1.7-kilometer-long, 160-meter-high road bridge is part of a 330 million euros ($469 million) project. It was planned to straddle the unspoiled middle Mosel, halfway between the villages of Uerzig and Rachtig, by 2016. The area has the highest concentration of prime “erste Lage” vineyards, the German equivalent of the French “grand cru.” Riesling grapes have grown there for 2,000 years.’ I doubt you have yet picknicked beneath it, nor upon it. I digress from fracking, but it’s a similar abomination, and now, I think, has planning permission. A Texan would know about slavery, I suppose! And oh do tell me the difference between concrete and cement. I know you are dying to.
You have me, twice at least. My German is Bayerisch, learnt orally when I were a toyboy in Starnberg. I knew not of zis new brücke, I thought you referred to the one near Koblenz, the left-of-the-Rhine autobahn, route 9. For the record, I am anti-slavery {& pro progress, so I don’t think frac’ing an abomination {& note that Dr I points out that most of what is held against frac’ing has nothing to do with it – & he doesn’t use a “k” either}}. Brit Georgian wealth was built on slavery: Glasgow, Liverpool, Bristol – or do they still call it the ‘sugar trade’ in Balcombe? Cement is smooth, it has no impurities like sand & rocks {well, silica flour is acceptable}.
Mine is Bayerisch too, learnt when I was a barmaid in Agatharied. Don’t think you were a Stammgast. Thickness?
Standard is seven inch, in a nine & five eighths – casing & hole, that is.
And I hope you left some lilacs growing green down in Baja Oklahoma.
The eyes of Texas are {always} upon you …
If that cat could talk, what tales he’d tell,
About Della and the Dealer and the dog as well.
But the cat was cool,
And he never said a mumblin’ word.
MP SURGERY AND BALCOMBE PUBLIC MEETING WITH MEP
FRIDAY JANUARY 20TH, THIS FRIDAY
An opportunity to express your opinions directly to your MP and MEP – this Friday!
FRANCIS MAUDE WI Room, Victory Hall from 4.30pm Friday 20th January
If you would like to make an appointment please telephone his constituency office on 01403 242000 or book an appointment online at http://www.francismaude.com
Keith Taylor, MEP South East, will welcome anyone from the village for a public meeting to discuss fracking in the Parish Rooms (to the left fo the Victory hall in case anyone is unsure) from 3-5pm. Just drop in.
Children welcome
Dear All,
I’m sorry Balcombe has been put in such a difficult position – fracking is a very worrying subject. I work as a researcher for a TV company with a strong interest in ethical and environmental stories. Although this subject does not fit any of the remits on our current development slate, I’m very interested, on both a personal and professional level, in finding out as much as possible about your story. If there is anyone who would be happy to meet for a drink in the pub on Saturday I’d love to hear more about what you feel about the proposals – from either perspective… And to visit Balcombe!
With best wishes,
India
India, it’s a bit late to reply, sorry, but are you coming to Balcombe tonight?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16626580
At least Bulgaria’s government has the sense to ban fracking and listen to their people, unlike our corrupt MPs who seem to only listen to companies that will line their pockets
Francis Maud’s surgeries go on into the evening, if you make an appointment. The public meeting with our MEP in the Parish Rooms fits in with his schedule. We should be happy that he is willing to spend an afternoon in Balcombe, if that is when he has time. As you say, we are all busy people, Keith Taylor MEP perhaps more than many. I am taking time out of work to see both. Many people are freelance, working from home in the village, many are retired, many are mothers who may or may not be going out to work outside the home tomorrow Friday the day of these democratic opportunities, but at around 3pm they will have picked up their children from school, and will be free to attend the meetings – with their children if they so wish. In the Parish Rooms there will a supervised side-room for children. OK, it is unfortunate if you can’t get back from London to attend these meetings. Does your comment imply disrespect towards people whose working lives are village-based, or whose family commitments make them village-based once school is out? I kind-of sense that it does.
Folks – it’s been fascinating to read everyone’s points and input to these comments. One topic that’s noticeable by its absence, however is that of aquifers and water supplies. Does anyone have any insight into how the aquifer around Balcombe might work, where it is etc?
Yes i’ve done a fair bit of research on this (BGS borehole records, geological map, seismic lines through the well site from the British onshore geophysical library and Environment agency website about aquifers). I’ll report what I’ve found to the Parish Council’s fact finding team. I will advise them to try and get further information from South East Water.
Basically the aquifer is the Lower Tunbridge Well sand. This aquifer, and all the run off that feeds the reservoir comes from above the Wadhurst clay (which is the seal underneath the reservoir).
The drill site is actually on Wadhurst clay so no contamination of the aquifer or the stream that feed the reservoir would be possible.
Those are the facts as I understand them
cheers
Mostyn
Thanks Mostyn – worth having a play around with this map here –
http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?value=RH17+5AG&submit.x=25&submit.y=10&submit=Search&lang=_e&ep=map&topic=drinkingwater&layerGroups=default&scale=7&textonly=off#x=528601&y=130212&lg=1,&scale=7
Bulgaria is, in this respect, an admirable example of a country where the government listens to and acts upon the strong environmental concerns of its constituents. Are you as dismissive about France, which has also imposed a moratorium? South Africa?
Are you now promoting Bulgaria as being equal to France? I was in France the other day and the ban is slowly but surely on the way out.
South Africa is a travesty: Rich Boer Farmers suddenly become liberals:
http://www.nohotair.co.uk/component/content/article/139-shale-gas/1971-us14m-war-chest-against-south-african-shale.html
What has ‘equal’ got to do with anything, Monsieur Cuadrilla Sur-le-Cote? I sometimes wish this site had accents.
There is strong public feeling in France against fracking. You seem to be aware of the meetings in Paris in the last few days. You seem to take account of only one side of the argument. There have been meetings and protests on the other side, too. If the French government proposes revoking the moratorium, it will be given a very hard time by protesters, nationwide. The call ‘Aux armes, citoyens!’ has clearly been heeded, and clearly those citizens will continue the fight. Let’s hope that only the symolic blood of petrol-chemical prospectors will be spilled into those French furrows; it would be more than a pity to pollute them with ‘le leakoff’ or other manifestations of spend frack fluid. I worry that you won’t get my drift, M Cuadrilla S-le-C.
Do you read ‘The Economist’? http://www.economist.com/node/21540256
Kathryn
Now thats a balanced article, that shows you why whats happened in America wont happen here. Which is why the gasland film is sooooo misleading for the UK situation.
Can we learn from Americas mistakes…..YES
Will whats happened there happen in the UK….NO
Note this point
America’s gas industry faces fewer and friendlier regulations than Europe’s.
So this doesnt mean we have to BAN fracking, it means we should do it carefully and well.
We should look at the UK’s onshore exploration record for safety and enviromental impact (its very good by the way), and trust that our planners, regulators and explorationists will do their usual good job (there are plenty of producing oilfields in the Weald by the way).
Basing our decisions on the problems in the US, or scaring people who dont understand the technical issues with the worst cases from America, is pretty simplistic . As I said good article thanks for the link
I linked to this (yes, excellently-balanced) ‘Economist’article to counter Mr Nick Cuadrilla-on-the side PR person’ comment earlier this morning re economics. I too can quote selectively from this article: ‘But technically recoverable does not mean economically recoverable, notes Peter Hughes of Ricardo Strategic Consulting.’ ‘Americans worry about the environmental impact of fracking, too. But Europeans worry more, not least because western Europe is far more densely populated than America. Extracting shale gas is more disruptive than hoicking other hydrocarbons out of the ground—far more wells must be sunk than are needed to produce the same quantity of conventional gas. Fracking requires oceans of water, brought in by fleets of noisy tankers. More people will live close to a typical European drilling site, so opposition to drilling permits is likely to be louder.’
Next in the fracking line in the South of England after Balcombe: friends in Kent have just heard that Coastal Oil & Gas (their equivalent of our and Blackpool’s Cuadrilla) are giving a presentation to the Sandwich Town Council on Monday January 23rd on the test bore hole at Woodnesborough. The Council supported the initial planning. Meeting 5:45pm for 6pm.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/No-Fracking-in-East-Kent/261081763913917?ref=ts
The following communication will be delivered to every residence in the parish of Balcombe, hopefully within the next few days.
Can you help?
The Parish Council would like to form a working group to assess information relating to the proposed gas/oil exploration borehole at Lower Stumble.
Over the past month the Parish Council has established communications with the parties and regulatory bodies involved and believes that within the village there are people with relevant expertise whose views would be valuable in assessing the credibility of the information obtained from the various sources and who may be able to contribute additional information.
Balcombe Parish Council met on 16th January and confirmed that it believes that its responsibility in this matter is in three parts:
Phase 1 To gain as much accurate information about the fracking process as possible, and to share this information with the residents of the village.
Phase 2 Thereafter to seek actively the views of the residents.
Phase 3 Thereafter to act as an advocate on behalf of the residents in promoting their views to the relevant authorities, and in supporting such lawful actions as may be appropriate in the furtherance of those views.
Hence the Parish Council wishes to establish a working group comprising some of its members and some other residents of Balcombe. If you think that you have relevant expertise or experience, technical, commercial or other, have no vested interest in the proposed exploration and would be interested in joining the working group please contact Rodney Saunders (preferably by email to rodneysaunders@clara.net , otherwise by telephone on 01444 811598) indicating what you feel that you would be able to contribute to the working group.
A statement by the Parish Council on the proposed borehole can be found on the village website http://www.balcombevillage.co.uk under announcements.
Rodney,
I would be happy to help.
As you know, I am an engineer, but have absolutely no knowledge of geology, am not in the pay of any oil companies or drilling companies, and therefore I have no conflicts of interest.
Rodney, although people may think that my support from the shale industry makes me suspect in the eyes of some, I must point out that there are 26 separate reports collected at http://www.nohotair.co.uk/resources/library.html
Call my bona fides into question if you will, but I imagine that most Balcombers aren’t so paranoid, as some opponents are, that Harvard, The National Wildlife Foundation, International Energy Agency, House of Commons, etc etc incapable of being trusted. This is a good place to start, will save the council a lot of time,
Rodney – if you’d like a trove of analysis that’s not paid for by the industry (as Mr Grealy is) the New York TImes have been running an exceptional series – http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html
I think you miss the point: Articles in the library, if you were open minded enough to browse them come from The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Harvard, MIT, Cornell, US Energy Information Administration, International Energy Agency, House of Commons etc etc. Surely you’re not saying they are in the pay of the oil industry?
An interesting aside to the New York Times (best newspaper in the world bar none) is this from their own Public Editor on the shale gas series:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/opinion/sunday/17pubed.html?_r=1
On the subject of the New York Times, read this from today on their DotEarth environmental blog
In quieter corners, including at environmental groups focused on energy and climate policy as well as land preservation, the goal has never been a ban, but instead a push to create the set of rules, policies, revenue flows and relationships that give the greatest social and economic benefits with the least risk of environmental regrets.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/next-steps-on-gas-fracking-in-new-york/
Stories from Way Down South in Baja Oklahoma:
http://www.nofracktexas.com/
I know of a county in Texas where there was a damages lawyer who was the son of the County Judge & he would prosecute oil, drilling & service companies on behalf of the bhumiputra, if they ever put a foot wrong – the cow that drank at an ill-guarded pit would surely be the pure blood dam of the most valuable short-horn hereford bloodline in all the contiguous states, work at least a couple of million in damages. The site you cite smacks of that, not of unvarnished impartiality.
Poor cow.
ROBERT E. OSWALD, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, CORNELL
ABSTRACT
Environmental concerns surrounding drilling for gas are intense due to
expansion of shale gas drilling operations. Controversy surrounding the
impact of drilling on air and water quality has pitted industry and lease -
holders against individuals and groups concerned with environmental
protection and public health. Because animals often are exposed continually
to air, soil, and groundwater and have more frequent reproductive cycles,
animals can be used as sentinels to monitor impacts to human health. This
study involved interviews with animal owners who live near gas drilling
operations. The findings illustrate which aspects of the drilling process may
lead to health problems and suggest modifications that would lessen but
not eliminate impacts. Complete evidence regarding health impacts of gas
drilling cannot be obtained due to incomplete testing and disclosure of
chemicals, and nondisclosure agreements. Without rigorous scientific studies,
the gas drilling boom sweeping the world will remain an uncontrolled health
experiment on an enormous scale.
Keywords: hydraulic fracturing, shale gas drilling, veterinary medicine, environmental
toxicology
cOPYRIGHT 2012, Baywood Pub lishing Co., Inc.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/NS.22.1.e
http://baywood.com
quote: “This study involved interviews with animal owners who live near gas drilling operations”.
As we know from the present record claims for whiplash injuries in UK car crashes, the verbal evidence of those who stand to gain financially, cannot always be relied on for its impartiality.
If compensation is available for gassy wells, or ill animals, it must be considered that claimants have an incentive to skew their evidence.
Poor people.
http://www.frackcheckwv.net/2011/12/26/black-foamy-water-worries-fracking-neighbors-in-s-w-pa/
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006
Kathryn,
Many thanks for that.
IF the reporting is accurate and unbiased, that is dreadful state of affairs!!!
It is very difficult when people are faced with a situation where they have no specialist knowledge, to know what is right and what is wrong, and where to get true, unbiased and accurate advice.
It is a bit like looking for a plumber in Yellow Pages (only far more serious) – you could end up with a really good plumber or someone from Bodgit & Scarper!!
Perhaps the proposed “working group” will prove to be of benefit.
Douglas, the second link takes one to the Vanity Fair article, at the bottom of page 2 of which is a reference to “Gasland” as a documentary. That knocks it out of the ‘unbiased’ corner. The first link contains within itself a link to the Voice of America report from whence it comes. The first paragraph of that notes the recent arrival of “multiple drilling-waste ponds” nearby. Later the pollution disappears, so a possible cause was a spillage or overflow. The report is inapplicable to the UK for 2 reasons – generally we don’t use household wells* for our drinking water, and, most importantly, “drilling-waste ponds” are not used in the UK.
* – I once lived on a farm outside Aberdeen, with its own water well, french drainage for sewage & occasional agricultural run-off. There were times when the tap water in the cottage was discoloured & undrinkable, but there was never any nearby drilling.
Sr. Baker, Cuando el diablo no tiene nada que hacer, mata moscas con el rabo…
‘Doing fracking “right” simply means building time bombs with longer fuses.’ Discuss?
No, there is no ‘time bomb’ to the safe exploitation of petroleum. If the well is properly designed & cased & the cementation has been verified, if the stimulation is conducted keeping the created fractures within the productive zone & the production is then flowed through competent completion piping to a non-leaking surface collection network, there will be no spillage or other contamination. If at the end of the well’s productive life it is abandoned in accordance with UK law, the reservoir will remain sealed.
‘Doing it the right way’ happens hundreds & thousands of times, all the time. How do you think you have gas in your kitchen, hot water in your bathroom & petrol or diesel in your vehicle? How do you think the world presently runs?
A lot of ifs in your discussion…
If a drill bit delves down an uncased well-bore… If gas or whatever leaks up the outside of a cement casing… even 10 casings are not enough. Anyway, I thought I remembered you saying that 5% of casings fail in their first year, that incompetent contractors are a big problem as far as pollution is concerned?
If the nation throws its energy into shale gas/oil, if we switch complacently to cooking our lamb chops over shale gas, we shall neglect renewables. And you must admit that renewables have to be the solution in the longer term. Have those 3+ girls of yours given you granchildren yet?
Those ‘ifs’ {& others} are all the subject of UK legislation, usually requiring prior approval. I’m just not one to claim all is OK – it is only OK if proper practice is followed. Post Piper Alpha, the UK has possibly the best proper practice regime in the world. ‘Twas Dr I who quoted the 5% figure, & he was using US statistics. What a 5% failure rate means, under good practice, is that remedial cementing must be performed on 5% of wells, not that the errors are allowed to perpetuate.
No, I said that pollution was almost never due to frac’ing, but almost always due to other contractors during the well construction phase. Because of this, the ‘antis’ focus on ‘fracking’ is counter productive.
I do have grandchildren, & know that there are no clean, never mind ‘renewable’ sources of energy. Or do you just prefer your pollution to be in Chinese rare earth mines?
I prefer no pollution and certainly do not wish it upon the Chinese.
Then how will you get the magnets in your Dyson? Or, more pertinently, in the generators in wind or wave turbines, or the photo-voltaic panels now festooning so many roofs. I haven’t run the figures, but the vast amounts of concrete anchoring wind turbines are equivalent to the amount of cement in wells, & making cement is a very dirty business. You do know that wind turbine gear boxes have a very limited life & need frequent replacement, & are made in foundries, as are the turbine towers?
I’m not anti these, its just I’m flabbergasted at people thinking they are either clean or renewable.
Thank you for your stimulating analysis, Monsieur le fracceur. It was 4 000 ‘trucks’ per WELL, not per day. By the way Cuadrilla’s own commissioned report confirms that frack fluid can migrate over 600 metres upwards along a fault plane. The faults, where there have been such, have not all been human, not all the work of careless contractors, and not all disasters can be anticipated. Awful awful news in the Philippines http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3863141%3ABlogPost%3A831555&commentId=3863141%3AComment%3A831929&xg_source=activity. Could this possibly be related to our discussion? I just wonder. I shall read the rest of your analysis tomorrow. I’m off to bed to dream of Darcy, hoping that all this friction won’t give me nightmares.
Do you use French to address those who pique you? I find 4,000 trucks per well equally unbelievable, but it does provide steadier employment to the drivers. That sugar beet figure is indeed 1,000 trucks per DAY {so higher frequency than for a NY well, should the well take longer than 4 days}.
Reading Cuadrilla’s report, the well intersected the fault and the fluid penetration occurred while the well-bore pressure was held to a value required to open a fracture. There must have been low fluid loss at the sand-face, otherwise they couldn’t have held the high pressure. Once the pressure was lowered, the fault/ fracture closed & two of the recommendations arising were a more aggressive bleed off of pressure, and to bleed off prior fracs before proceeding. Note that once the fracture closed, the fault returned to its original impermeability.
I agree, bad news from PNG. ExxonMobil were building a pad for an LNG plant, doesn’t say how near any wells were. I’d put the LNG plant near the point of export {docks}, rather than the wells, to reduce the length of liquids piping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Darcy
“he conducted column experiments that established what has become known as Darcy’s law; initially developed to describe flow through sands”
“Darcy’s law is a phenomenologically derived constitutive equation that describes the flow of a fluid through a porous medium. The law was formulated by Henry Darcy based on the results of experiments on the flow of water through beds of sand {aka French drains}. It also forms the scientific basis of fluid permeability used in the earth sciences, particularly in hydrogeology”.
Sweet dreams.
What/where ‘SAND-FACE’? (I’m in Blackpool, and in your last post.) Do you mean that the leak occurred at the point where geological fault met shaft? When you say ‘WELL’ do you mean the horizontal part? Are we at the tip of the horizontal part from which pressurised frack fluid would emerge? Do you still call that horizontal part ‘the well’ or is ‘the well’ just the vertical shaft? Thank goodness it was only a ‘low’ fluid loss. Should we understand that only a ‘low’ fluid loss caused the seismic events in Lancashire? Is ‘a more aggressive bleed off of pressure, and to bleed off prior fracs before proceeding’ something that is generally advised/done elsewhere in the world, beyond Lancashire? Do you think Cuadrilla would now aim to do that everywhere, or just in Lancashire? How much time usually elapses between fracks?
This newer article about the 2 villages buried under the mudslide yesterday in Papua New Guinea speculates about Esso Highlands/Exxon Mobil’s activities nearby: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/120125/papua-new-guinea-landslide-png-exxon-mobil-lng. Unlikely that they were fracking yet? Just prepping? Maybe horizontal drilling? Or maybe the gas there can be conventionally retrieved.
Monsieur, I addressed you in French partly because I had just been reading in French about water engineer Henry Philibert Gaspard Darcy of Dijon, and partly because, picking linguistic nits (frac’ing lingo fleas) I don’t like the industry’s spellings Frac and Frac’ in English English, but suddenly thought it looked OK in French. Petty, but I thought you’d be pleased I’d noticed how you dislike the …cking spelling. I understood a Darcy to be a unit of friction, not of permeability. It was late. Good man, liked clean water. Sugar beet? I feel friendlier towards vehicles used to transport agricultural products. Sugar beet might make us fat, but is less likely to pollute us. Especially if organic.
Tell me something about horizontal drilling?
You are something else {somewhere else too, I gather}. ‘Sand-face’ is a generic term to describe the rock at the point it is open to the well-bore. This is so we can talk about the rock’s characteristics at the point of interest.
“Well” means the entire bored bit from surface to total depth. We would then use terms like ‘cased hole’, ‘open hole’, vertical section’, horizontal section’ etc. Preese Hall #1 was entirely vertical, there was no horizontal, per the schematic in Fig 11 on p 11 of the Geomechanical Report. Fig 13 on page 13 appears to show the fault which the well intersected at 8185 ft, within Perf zone 4. I take it that this was related to the seismicity observed during treatment {frac} 4.
Pressurised frac fluid leaves the pipe {Cuadrilla were treating out of the casing, not a treating string} through the perforations, the interval being constrained by bridge plugs {BP is a temporary closure of the well bore}.
On page 24: “The strong event after stage 4 happened again after about 10 hours, while the well was shut-in on high pressure”.
On page 45: “The seismicity occurred first during and after the second treatment stage, which was pumped immediately after the first stage, without any flow back of the well. In view of the low formation permeability, there is still a fairly high pressure in the well after the treatments. Also, the fourth stage showed significant seismicity and this stage was not flown back either. The third and fifth stage showed only weak seismicity, while there was aggressive flowback after these treatments.”
On page 48: “After each stimulation treatment and minifrac, there will be release of fluid pressure in the fracture system.”
Please look at the bullets points at the bottom of page 51.
My fluid loss comment was based on fluid being incompressible which makes the pressure in a closed system very sensitive to changes in volume. Fissures {fractures} opening increase the volume of the closed system, so rapid pumping is needed to maintain pressure. Similarly, if fluid leaks off into exposed sand-face permeability, pressure will be lost. Of course, shale has extremely low permeability, which is why we are frac’ing it, so there will not be high fluid loss, unless into existing fissures.
I think Cuadrilla will be more cautious everywhere {pp 51, 52 etc}.
Time between fracs would be commercial downtime & hence kept to a minimum {no necessarily so at the test drilling/ evaluation stages}.
I don’t believe there is shale gas exploitation in PNG yet, XOM will n=be producing conventional gas.
I liked the fracceur, had noticed you’d dropped the “k” – the ‘pique’ comment arose from your earlier ‘sur le cote’.
I think beet sugar is the product of some quite aggressive chemistry, I buy cane. Also helps the 3rd world.
What is a treating string?
A tube of high strength steel run inside the production casing, with a packer on the bottom & isolation at the top.
Advantages are: higher treating pressure, protection of the production casing from treating/ burst pressure, better monitoring & control. Since Cuadrilla are relying on fluid turbulence to support the proppant, treating tubing has higher internal turbulence, rate for rate.
Disadvantages are it restricts the rate {vol/time} at which the frac can be pumped – for high volume shale fracs, this may disallow it. For turbulence, a higher rate will be necessary.
Thank you for all these explanations. I am becoming bog-brained trying to understand this last one. Mosel Riesling in Norfolk or New Zealand Sauvignon in Balcombe? Whichever, I’m not sure the microDarcy logic channels are flowing smoothly. (Anyway, logic apart, why is there more turbulence inside a treating string? And incidentally to what extent are fibres now being used instead of sand as a proppant, and what kind of fibres? Are C likely to use sand or fibres if they get to frack in Sussex?) But back to the logic: the first part is fine. Do you mean in the second part that you can put small vols down a little tube and rely on the wurble-factor to keep the sand in suspension, but that if you want to use large volumes and therefore have to use the wider space – what ? Nice to have an image of these things, like snakes in the moonlight!
Here’s a colleague of yours suing a petrochemical company and her local government:
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/
Jessica Ernst’s suit against EnCana is not about shale gas: “applied intense hydraulic fracturing for shallow coalbed methane” – the key word there is ‘shallow’. Later it states “ERCB recently gave EnCana permission to drill and fracture more CBM wells above the base of groundwater protection” – note the ‘above the base’. Hmmm. EnCana are an OilCo,
There are 3 flow regimes, in order of increasing velocity: plug, laminar, turbulent. Velocity is measured in distance/ time while rate is measured in volume/ time – so as cross-sectional area increases, a greater volume can be pumped at the same speed. {volume = distance x area}. Conversely, as x-sect area decreases, turbulence will commence at a lower pumping rate.
Unaware re fibres {can be used to ‘toughen’ cement} vs sand. Cuadrilla have used sand in Lancs.
Presently Rioja in Aberdeen {can’t afford Burgundy}.
Proppant laden fluid should not be pumped within steel tubing any faster than 35 ft/sec, otherwise abrasion will result.
Tonight 7.30 BBC1 South East only: “Glenn Campbell examines the case for and against fracking for gas in Kent and Sussex.” (The programme will cover holocaust and fracking in case you switch on and wonder where the fracking is.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01b94c2#programme-broadcasts
Not a bad programme – no evidence was led for the claims of ether side. It followed practice in showing an inaccurate graphic: fractures are not “initiated by small explosions” – the clue is in the unabbreviated name, “hydraulic” fracturing.
“Fracking” is also not a drilling method. Drilling & stimulation are two entirely different matters, best carried out by entirely separate contractors.
The link above now takes one to the i-Player replay of the snippet.
Fracking in Rioja – an open meeting last Thursday ‘to begin the fight against fracking’, in Logrono, one of Rioja’s main urban centres, in the midst of the vines.
Una reunión abierta mañana en Logroño para comenzar la lucha contra la fractura hidráulica en La Rioja. La reunión será mañana Jueves 19 de enero a las 19.30 horas en La Gota de Leche, C/Once de Junio, nº2, Logroño.
Eire: Donegal and Sligo county councils have now rejected fracking, joining Clare, Leitrim and Roscommon. Councillors in Clare have urged the Irish government to declare a nationwide ban.
Look where else they are plotting to frack in Spain:
http://fracturahidraulicano.wordpress.com/documentos/mapa-de-concesiones/
A fascinating map.
Not unlike
http://gasdrillinginbalcombe.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/uk-onshore-licenses-2011.pdf
Kathyrn – which bits on the Spain map refer to frack sites?
To see the Spanish frack sites you have to click on the link ‘Informe sobre el gaz de pizarra en España’, above the map. Current Spanish gas frack sites are concentrated across a swathe of central northern Spain, the Basque Country, Cantabria, Burgos, Rioja, Navarra, Alava, the stunning, remote Cameros mountains above Logroño (I spent my honeymoon there). People in these areas are already fighting anti-fracking battles. In some cases (where Spanish planning applications are pending) it is not totally clear from the documents whether companies with permits are actually intending to frack, but they do use the word ‘stimulación’, which, as with the English ‘stimulation’, is a eupehmism often used by petrochemical companies in planning applications to mean fracking. It’s the gentle little word Cuadrilla used in their planning application for the Balcombe site.
The Spanish map http://fracturahidraulicano.wordpress.com/documentos/mapa-de-concesiones/ is the equivalent of our Department of Energy & Climate Change’s map of Onshore Licencing in the UK http://gasdrillinginbalcombe.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/uk-onshore-licenses-2011.pdf, the map that carves much of our country up into yellow squares under which our government has put the oil and gas rights up for sale. Except that the Spanish one shows only those chunks of Spain whose oil and gas rights had already been sold, or had already been applied for (to/by petrochemical companies) at the time when the map was prepared, whereas the British map appears also to show those that are still up for grabs. The Spanish map comes from their Ministry of Industry, Tourim and Commerce. The yellow and blue squares are exploration permits applied for but not yet granted, green and orange are active permits, red is an active commercial gas or oil mining concession, and purple is a storage concession (there is to be a massive new subterranean hydrocarbon storage facility inland from Murcia in the South East). Not all the licencees on the Spanish map have declared an interest in unconventional extraction (fracking). Some are extracting conventionally, through vertical-drilled wells, and some are extracting methane from coal mines.
The petrochemical company ahead of the fracking game up there in Northern Spain is SHESA (Sociedad de Hidrocarburos de Euskadi, S.A.). Euskadi = Basque in the Basque language. This company belongs to the Department of Industry of the Basque Government!
http://www.un-earthed.com/blog/response-fracking-worth-billions-business-times-261111/ Interesting comment from South Africa, published today in response to a Novermber article. Some excerpts:
‘to host the 4000 truck trips required for each well, the state of New York estimates that road maintenance alone will cost communities up to $375 million’
‘It is also well-known that employment around gas drilling is limited to skilled workers who move from one drill site to the next and once wells are in production, only a handful of employees are needed to manage a field of gas wells.’
‘On the note of water contamination, local anti-fracking activists have limited most of their arguments to the impact on groundwater and Dr. Vermeulen is correct in admitting there is a minimal, but not zero, possibility that frack fluids would seep directly into shallow aquifers from the much deeper layer of shale. However’… ‘there are various ways in which water can be polluted – initial drilling can puncture shallow aquifers, failures of cement casing present many opportunities for methane or frack fluid to escape the well, the risk of surface spillage throughout production and via the improper disposal of produced water.’
‘one has to acknowledge that the vast amounts of water used during drilling and hydraulic fracturing is permanently removed from the natural water cycle.’ …’No technology exists to rehabilitate the returning produced water that is laced with the original chemicals used in drilling and the contents they meet in the shale layer such as heavy metals, salts and naturally occurring radioactive material. Owing to its toxicity, this water has to be forever contained in such a way that it is never exposed to human, animal or plant life. Ironically, despite not having any adequate solution to this basic hurdle, gas drilling continues to accelerate on a daily basis.’
‘Owing to the steep decline in the gas yield from a well within its first year of operation, wells constantly need to be drilled to maintain a sustained flow. In addition, for a company to optimally develop a shale play, the standard practice in the US stands around 8 wells per square mile. Around Rifle, Colorado, for instance, gas wells are spaced every quarter mile.’
Anyone in Balcome got another field to lease? I wonder what Balcombe has to gain from allowing even one oil well within its boundaries.
First – it seems Cuadrilla are seeking oil in Micrite below Balcombe, not gas in Shale, so all this ‘fracking shale gas’ stuff is irrelevant.
Then, here is a counter from SA: http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2011-05-24-a-response-to-fracking-critics Ivo Vegter has 2 other applicable posts & there are counter posts from both colleagues & Jonathon Deal that can all be reached from the site.
Re ‘various ways in which water can be polluted – initial drilling can puncture shallow aquifers, failures of cement casing present many opportunities for methane or frack fluid to escape the well, the risk of surface spillage throughout production and via the improper disposal of produced water.’ – The regulatory purpose of surface pipe is to case off aquifers {altho’ I dislike the PA criterion of setting it 50 ft below aquifer base, I’d prefer 250 ft}; you know my views on verifying the cement bond after cementing casing in place {the author’s use of ‘cement casing’ indicates to me he doesn’t know what he’s talking about}; no competent stimulation contractor would presume to frac a well until the casing bond had been verified, & remedied as required; spillage & illegal disposal are risks common to all drilling activities.
I doubt both the ‘vast amounts of water’ claims & the 4,000 trucks per well claims. People who use the spelling ‘fracking’ usually have little knowledge of the amounts of water used in industrial practices {how much water is required to process 1,000 trucks per day of sugar beet?}. If 4,000 trucks are used per day {unbelievable}, then a great deal of semi-skilled employment is given to the drivers of those trucks. It is absolutely true that wells are drilled, completed & stimulated by skilled drilling & service contractor crews, who do not presently exist in South Africa – but neither did they exist 40 years ago in Aberdeen {& now the Scots are self-sufficient & want independence}.
The so called ‘steep decline’ is understandable to those who know what tight permeability is, & why frac’ing is used to produce tight formations: the fractures produce say 2 Darcy flow channels through the 20 microDarcy shale; after a period, say a year, the ‘near’ distance from the channel has been drained of gas & the quick fix is more high permeability channels. The easy way to do this is either to re-frac, or to drill another lateral bore & frac that, not to drill a fresh well.
I don’t know Rifle, CO, but see little point in drilling wells every quarter-mile, when the horizontal sections could be as long as 10 miles. Coal Seam gas perhaps – those are vertical wells & hence closer together.
Oh yes – & re ‘water used during drilling and hydraulic fracturing is permanently removed from the natural water cycle.’ …’No technology exists to rehabilitate the returning produced water’ – patent nonsense. Some water is contaminated beyond easy remediation, & connate water produced, which has been millennia in contact with the formations, will contain solutions of insoluble materials. The re-injection of connate water is emphatically not removal of water from the cycle, & the small proportion of untreatable returned water is insignificant in industrial terms.
This might be considered by some as a ‘not in our back garden’ comment, but could someone explain what 55dB(A) sounds like? According to the Lower Stumble planning document on the West Sussex County Council website, 55dB(A) is the maximum permitted noise. People repeat that the drill site is ‘one mile south of the village’, but anyone down by the station, or in or off Newlands or Oldlands, not to mention farms between Balcombe and Cuckfield – all these people are rather closer than 1 mile. It should be remembered that the 24-hour drilling would continue for 4-6 weeks. Below is the relevant extract from the planning permission. (I think it should read ‘drilling comma rig mobilisation’ – that makes a big difference. But maybe our planners intend to eat our shoots and leave us to endure the sound of the drilling phase.):
‘Unless otherwise agreed in advance and in writing by the County Planning Authority,
construction, drilling rig mobilisation and restoration phases of the development work
at the site shall only be undertaken between the hours of 0730 and 1830 Mondays to
Fridays and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays. No work shall occur on Sundays, Bank
Holidays and Public Holidays. This condition does not relate to operations necessary
for the 24hrs drilling operation.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.’
Please would someone kindly translate the following into village lay?
‘The corrected noise level* for operational noise from the site shall not exceed 55dB(A)
(free field as a L(A) eq over a time period of 60 minutes) between the hours set out in
condition 6 of this planning permission, or 42dB(A) (free field a L(A) eq over a time
period of 5 minutes) for the hours outside those set out in condition 6. The noise
levels shall be determined at the facades of the nearest residential premises.
*A 5 dB correction shall be added if one or more of the following features occur:
. the noise contains a distinguishable, discrete, continuous note (whine, hiss,
screech, hum, etc.);
. the noise contains distinct impulses (bangs, clicks, clatters, or thumps);
. the noise is irregular enough to attract attention.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
Kathryn,
Whilst I have NO pretensions whatever of being an expert on noise, the following might be of some help.
The “Control of Noise at Work 2005” act came into force in the UK on the 6th April 2006. The directive states that the Daily Noise Exposure Action Values have been lowered by 5dB (A) from 85 to 80 dB (A) and 90 to 85 dB (A) for lower and upper exposure action values respectively.
The measurement of environmental noise is often required as a planning procedure component BS 4142:1997 for any large proposed development, directly affecting its surrounding environment.
In other words, 55dB (A) is very quiet.
From memory, a background noise of around 68dB (A) would allow two people to converse at normal speaking volume one metre apart and without any difficulty.
Noise above that level requires the use of ear defenders.
I stress that this is from memory, so please do not nail me to the wall if the figures are not totally accurate.
Douglas, what about the night drilling? In the silence of night, would you think that drilling noise would be audible to someone at the end of Stumblemead, in houses by the station, or in farms surrounding the site? I speak as an insomniac who has been known to pad tearfully down to the station at 3am to ask the site foreman to ask his men to stop clanking their rails when they could do it quietly, stop calling to each other, and stop ‘singing’.
Kathryn,
I think that would depend on a person’s acuity and which way the wind was blowing.
The amazing – and somewhat worrying – thing about backgraound noises, is the speed with which the brain tells the hearing system to ignore them – even at high levels
It is a feature of the village, that when the wind is from the west, you can hear the through trains for quite a distance from the station.
I do not know if that is of much help.
Over the years my brain has indeed told itself to ignore the sound of night trains. I simply don’t hear them. The problem is always new noise. And my brain has never got used to workmen-on-the-line noise. Even when it goes on for weeks. Even though a singing workman probably emits fewer decibels than a freight train!
Try this,
http://www.stac-uk.com/downloads/Noise%20Levels.pdf
Electric toothbrush is about 55dBA, whisper at 30dBA
Appendix D to the planning application has a map/ noise contour diagram showing the predicted noise levels around the site. Max predicted noise at night is 35dBa at the nearest property, Kemps, and 27dBA when it gets to Oldlands, the nearest residential road in the village. The preparation of the site has higher predictions, 47dBA but below the 55dBA of the planning permission.
In addition the planning Decision contains the following clauses;
8. Within 5 days of the commencement of drilling, a noise survey shall be carried out accounting for’ regular working hours’ and night time operations, to demonstrate compliance with conditions 7 of this permission. Should the site fail to comply with conditions 7, the applicant shall provide details of noise attenuation/mitigation to ensure compliance with the maximum noise levels.
9. The operator will not, unless in the event of an emergency, withdraw and replace during well drilling operations the drilling string or set casing or place cement in the borehole between the hours of 22.00 and 07.00.
Two things on noise. One naturally, the ‘elf and Safety wouldn’t allow any well to exceed any noise levels. Apart from the lady with insomnia, HSE’s interest would lie in worker protection. If the workers aren’t damaged on site, it’s unlikely she will be off it.
Secondly, sound can be baffled down to inconsequential levels quite cheaply and easily. Modern drills are made to be used even in urban areas. The first large scale gas development in the US was in Fort Worth Texas, one of the top 10 largest cities. The Cuadrilla drills I’ve seen In Lancashire were surprisingly quiet: about as noisy as my washing machine.
An example of sound baffling comes in power generation. Modern electricity generation turbines are broadly similar to jet engines, often made by the same constructors. There could well be one in your local hospital for example among other large end users. If you sat next to one, you would lose hearing instantly. But thanks to sound insulation, If you walked by one, and you probably have, you would never have noticed it.
After THAT meeting in the village, I asked Mr Miller of Quadrilla if all the hundreds of ‘trucks’ required to service the site would go via Balcombe. He looked confused and came up with: ‘No, some would go the other way.’ or ‘They might go the other way’ – something like that. However, below is what the planning permission says (they mean B2036, London Road, not 82036):
‘Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of signage
(including text, size, fixings and location) to be displayed at the exit of the site strictly
directing all Heavy Goods Vehicles northbound onto the 82036, shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The signage shall then be
installed and maintained in place as approved for the duration of the site occupation.’
Balcombe still has no clear estimate from Cuadrilla of how many ‘trucks’ would be required during the whole of the testing period, and how many would be required during a commercial fracking operation (that would be frac’ing for industry knit-pickers). Please would some one give us a clear estimate? Between x and y will do. Piece of string is a bit too short. Nick?
We are already worried about the dangers of crossing by the school and the station.
And I wonder what the extra costs and inconveniences of road upkeep would be?
Appendix F of the planning application sets out the vehicle movements for the site. (Obviously this is solely for the test borehole and not for any commercial extraction or any large scale frac’ing operation.)
I have combined the Tables in section 3.0 and 4.14 ;
Duration. HGV movements/ day. Light vehicles/ day
Refurbishment of drilling site. 2 weeks. 6. 4
Erection of drilling rig. 4 days. 20. 30
Drilling – first 5 days. 5 days 30. 30
Drilling- remaining period. 2 to 4 wks. 0 to 10. 30
Removal of the drilling rig. 4 days. 20. 30
Testing. 2 to 4 wks. 4. 2
The documents gives a breakdown/description of the type of HGV for each of the activities.
To put that in perspective; I have traffic figures from 10 years ago for London Road which show about 2000 vehicles a day ( Haywards Heath Road has another 2800 so add that as you go past Church makes 5000 heading north out of the village).
But let’s keep to London Road. I don’t have the HGV percentages to hand but it’s usually about 8% for a road like London Road. So say 160 a day at present. However the morning peak between 7am and 9am has 300 vehicles an hour, so about 30 HGV an
hour, or 60 over that 2 hour period.
I went back to the council website. It looks like an average of 11 articulated lorries and tankers per day over 66 working days, but within that average some days as you say, far more. This is only for the initial, testing, stage. I don’t see a lot of tankers and articulated lorries passing my window at the moment. There would be vastly more tankers and articulated lorries if commercial fracking were to go ahead, bringing in all the water, taking away the waste and the oil, plus other stuff. You said at the council meeting that if you get a planning request for a garage on a lovely big field that would be ideal for a house you are not allowed as a council to take into account the next planning permission you know will come, for the house. What is the point of Cuadrilla testing if they don’t intend to extract?
Ms McWhirter, if it helps, Table 2 on p 22 of ‘Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale Seismicity’ report details the water & sand volumes for Preese Hall #1. Remember that one of the report’s conclusions was to use smaller minifrac volumes, but it still gives you an idea of what Cuadrilla consider to be test frac’ing & you can estimate truck numbers from the water & sand amounts quoted, for Lower Stumble #2.
In fact I have quoted the single way flows for London Road above and for fair comparison should have stated the 2 way flows which are higher.
So combined north and south bound flows for London Road are 4000 veh a day which gives about 350 HGV s in a day. Or in the am peak which is 400 veh an hour 2 way it’s about 35 HGV an hour.
And there are 10000 veh a day heading past the Church.
‘The drilling operation mainly uses water as a drilling fluid. The application does not
state that they will be using OilBased Moods (OBM).If OBMis used, we would like to
be re-consulted on the application,’ says our County Council.
This is why our Country Council granted this Planning Permission (the punctuation is theirs):
‘The proposed development meets the main material considerations in that it;
. meets an identified need for hydrocarbon exploration;
.. is acceptable in terms of highway capacity and safety; has an acceptable impact on local amenity;
. has an acceptable environmental impact; and
. represents a suitable site for Hydrocarbon Exploration.
Accordingly, the proposal complies with the Development Plan’
Some of us would question all four points. Surely all of us in the village would question some of them?
So our councils have landed us in it, and pulling us out of it could be expensive for them (and down the line, for us). From the planning permission:
‘In certain circumstances a claim may be made against the local planning authority for compensation
where permission is refused or granted subject to conditions by the Secretary of State on appeal or on a
reference of the application to him. The circumstances in which such compensation is payable are set out
in Section 114 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990.’
Of course, if the village stood together, if no one leased any more fields to petrochemical companies or renewed the lease on the Stumblefield when it expires in September 2010, we could probably continue to sleep safely and quietly in our beds. I wonder what the Stumblefield lease says?
Sorry, the lease on Lower Stumble was I think signed in September 2010 -I meant that it will be due to expire in 2013.
‘A 2010 study by seismologists at Southern Methodist University and the University of Texas at Austin found that the injection underground of wastewater from the wells may be affecting subterranean pressures in the rock, triggering tremors.’
from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/like-fracking-youll-love-super-fracking-01192012.html
The following is an extract from the Ivo Vegter article, the link to which is posted above {South Africa comment}: “deep wells have routinely been used to dispose of industrial waste. Half a million deep injection wells exist in the United States, and 34 billion litres of waste officially classified as “hazardous” goes down them ever year”.
So, “tremors may be generated” – no sh*t, Sherlock. What matters is what size tremors – it has been mooted to de-tooth predicted earthquakes by dissipating energy build-ups with hydraulically induced minor tremors.
Note that the “Half a million deep injection wells …, and 34 billion litres of waste” dispose of very much more than shale gas exploitation generated waste. Also, disposal is continuous, frac’ing is very sporadic – there are far longer times when nothing is injected, compared to the time when injection is occurring.
Alison, the link below your HGV comment is not working so I am starting a new thread.
I am interested to note that as chairman of our parish council you are so happy to anticipate an increase in truly heavyweight HGV traffic through the village, past our school.
Very few, if any, come through the chicaned 15 foot railway tunnel just north of Borde Hill and then along Haywards Heath Road into Balcombe.
How many 40 tonne tractor trailers/tankers travel along London Road? If a vehicle such as a bread delivery van or even a beer delivery lorry is classed as a HGV then the classification needs refining for the purpose of understanding the impact of exploiting unconventional gas and oil in the Weald Basin. The objective of this examination is to understand what will happen once/if development of the ‘play’ is underway.
The definition of HGV is:
- of a construction primarily suited for the carriage of goods or burden of any kind and
- designed or adapted to have a maximum weight exceeding 3,500 kilograms when in normal use and travelling on a road laden.
Most likely, the Cuadrilla-related vehicles concerned will be:
- 44 tonnes 6 axle articulated, 16.5 metres long, or road train, 18.75 metres long
- 40 tonnes 5 axle articulated, 16.5 metres long, or road train, 18.75 metres long
- 40 tonnes rigid, 12 metres long
3.5 tonne vehicles are not a cause for concern.
Does anyone know anything about the possible future ‘electric arc’ method of extraction of shale gas (and I think oil)? Michael?
‘L’industrie pétrolière évolue très vite et se penche sur des solutions techniques alternatives à la fracturation hydraulique, notamment, celle de “l’arc électrique”. Mais cette piste a peu de chances d’aboutir d’ici à 2015…’
Kathryn, the only link I can find between the two is electric arc ionization to produce ozone for remediation of flow-back waters. Perhaps its the French version of the UK trekkie-nerds “all you need is Thorium”; Perhaps if you posted the link to your quoted extract?
Thank you, Michael. This is the link (an interview with a Total fracker of the French variety!), stating his intention to continue to edge towards point of frack despite the French moratorium, and then to find ways to beat the ban. One thing he moots (along with using less water, fewer surface wells, and chemicals that are less environmentally undesiranble) is the budding ‘arc electrique’ method, but he says he doesn’t expect the method to be ready to go until 2015. (I know you will understand it in French, but not everyone will.):
http://bastagazales.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/total-veut-rendre-acceptable-lexploration-des-gaz-de-schiste/
How can you claim he is edging when “puisque la loi ne définit pas clairement la fracturation hydraulique”? Never mind, as directeur de Total Gas Shale Europe, he’s no Trekkie nerd. I’ve not heard of “l’arc électrique”, but Total are strong on research, so he’s possibly let slip something confidential which could be a game changer. I do hear the French moratorium will not last long past the election – but then EdF are a force in that land & shale gas is a commercial threat to nuclear.
You antis need to decide what you’re against & why – is it disturbance, pollution, hydraulic fracturing, shale gas, unconventional gas, new fossil fuels or all fossil fuels? Or all progress?
I have a half remembered 50 year old vignette of Violet Bonham Carter & the Daily Mail that is apposite to my situation here.
I am simply eager to understand the process, and any likely future developments, and thus to forearm.
I can’t speak for all antis, and no doubt others will have things to add, but yes, we are against hydraulic fracturing. Why?
• Possible seismic events – randomly unique to each site: no one can know what faults are down there, so should we let them just frack it and see?
• Pollution here and elsewhere, above ground and below, from random accidents, human negligence or corner-cutting (I conjure up your contractors), pollution on site and pollution at point of disposal or point of attempted cleansing of all that frack waste (somewhere else, that will be, but we still care), and, longer term, pollution as and when protective barrier substances deteriorate – wells are for ever.
• Use of vast quantities of water in the extraction process.
• Disturbance here and elsewhere – here in particular an excess of very HGVs on a minor country road and through our village.
• Balcombe, specifically, is the wrong place: an area of complex geology, many natural faults, the shale layer unusually close to the surface; an area that is closely populated, villages and nearby farms; the well site is 30 metres from the London to Brighton railway line, near the Balcombe viaduct, a long, high, rigid Victorian structure that carries that line.
Yes we are against shale gas. It is environmentally costly, and carbon-costly, not to burn, but to extract, outweighing its burning advantages. And frenzied concentration on flushing out the last of the fossil fuels distracts attention from the development and improvement of alternatives.
Are we against all progress? It depends what you call progress.
Yes (back in a previous comment), we know they expect to find more oil less gas beneath Balcombe – why do you pick that nit?
And incidentally (also back in a previous comment) I suppose there must be some stockbrokers in Balcombe but I have never met one!
In what specific way do you compare Violet B-C to Balcombe residents, I wonder? Collectively we seem to have voted for Francis Maude. And here is a slightly worrying quote from our MP at his recent surgery, reassuring though all his other answers were: ‘The way you find out about things to a certain extent is to allow some of it to happen.’ Well, one way you avoid being an industry and government guineapig is to keep vigilant.
Want to find out more about shale? As close as your newsagent
New Scientist this week (January 28) has an article, available only in the print edition:
Drlling into the unknown
Fracking is causing a furore in the US and Europe over possible health effects, but are the concerns justified? Peter Aldhous finds the evidences is scarce
On line
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328493.900-frack-responsibly-and-risks–and-quakes–are-small.html
Frack responsibly and risks – and quakes – are small
Worth noting that the author is the chief government scientist on fracking.
Thank you Mr Cuadrilla-on-the-Side. Luckily The New Scientist plops through my door and I don’t need to visit the news stand.
Our Norfolk correspondent Michael Baker insists that professors of above-ground engineering are not qualified to comment on what goes on in the murky depths. Peter Aldhous’ specialities are ‘the biological and social sciences, from genetics and stem cells, through ecology and conservation, to the psychology of addiction and crime’. Well, no doubt like Dr Ingraffea (so maligned by Mr Baker) he is intelligent enough to research outside his main fields of expertise. And anyway, it seems that Peter A is interested in ecology after all.
That being the case, let me quote him a little:
“With so many vested interests, getting reliable information is difficult.”
“Neighbours of new fracking operations complain of problems like breathing difficulties, nausea and headaches. ‘When the public is confused, the public is angry,’ says Bernard Goldstein, an environmental toxicologist.” What kind of an answer is that?
“Although the water has caused most concern, mainy of the ailments blamed on fracking seem more consistent with air pollution…. airborne volatile organic compounds spike during the initial flowback period.”
“As for earthquakes, it is undeniable that fracking causes them because they are used by geologists to track the progress of fracking operations.”
“Last year, researchers led by Rob Jackson of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina , analysed water from drinking wells above the Marcellus Shale. They found that wells within 1km of a shale-gas drilling site contained 17 times as much methane as those further away… whether the methane came from the fracked zone or from shallower deposits is in dispute.” Well, surprise, surprise. And yes, I have noticed that we in Balcombe don’t get our water from wells.
“Environmental scientists remail worried about illegal discharges and accidents.”
“Frack responsibly and the risks – and quakes – are small” Yay! We only have a small risk! And maybe just a little quake won’t demolish the viaduct! Yay!
“One way that fracking water – and methane – can enter groundwater is if the vertical well casing is breached. Methane is not toxic, but it can explode”
“While that should be good for the climate, providing a cleaner alternative to coal” – no, shale gas goes carbon-negative when you factor in the carbon costs of production. And yes, I know you are looking for oil, not gas, under our village.
“Industry is piling up problems for the long-run, and so is government.”
Peter A doesn’t talk about the contaminating potential of the spent frack fluid. Where would Cuadrilla take spent Balcombe frack fluid for disposal and/or treatment? Answer?
I wish someone were paying ME to write this stuff. You are so lucky, Mr Cuadrilla-on-the Side. I know you could quote some lines from Peter A in response. As the article is not on line, you could earn your living by typing them out.
Shooting the messenger again Kathryn: Me, New Scientist, Obama. All wrong or crooks or both. It doesn’t become you.
Of course the New Scientist raises some issues. That’s what balance is about. None of them are show stoppers.
I thought we had put the risk of earthquakes to bed, but you woke it up, so I’ll say this again:
I will happily admit that the chance of a damaging to life and property (>6 Richter) quake in West Sussex is statistically possible. That statistical possibility is the same as getting eaten by a shark on the day you win first prize in Euro Millions.
uadrilla has a 100% failure rate so far in the UK. Permit us to be sceptical. You can play at inventing shark-bitten lottery comparisons if you want to. I note you look upon this issue as ‘a show’. Take a look at the idiosyncrasies of construction of the Balcombe viaduct (within its brickwork lies scrap metal padding, or so it is said). What a spectacle its collapse would be on the front pages of the world’s papers!
Consider this comment from a village engineer:
“I am extremely concerned about the impact any vibrations, earth tremors, or “minor earthquakes” caused by fracking would have on the Balcombe Viaduct which is no more than 1 ½ miles (2 km) from the proposed drill test site.
This I believe is a major issue which should not just be heard by the local authorities and environmental agency. I would have thought that at least Network Rail and the Southern Rail Commuters group, would be extremely concerned by the potential catastrophic disaster that any disturbances would cause to the structure of the viaduct. As we know Balcombe Viaduct carries one of, if not the most, strategic rail transport links into London and there is no viable alternative route should trains have to be re-routed for any concerns as to the safety of the structure.
Any shock waves or vibrations on a structure of this length would set up a dynamic loading resonance along its length which could lead to fundamental failure. There is no need to state what the impact would be to the country if this were to happen. For this reason alone, where there is any doubt about the safety of the viaduct, there can be no justification for allowing fracking to be sited here. If not already, this should be raised with the respective bodies urgently .
I am not aware of any proper structural survey that has ever been carried out on the Viaduct since its construction in 1841, at which time the number of journeys on the line would have been significantly less. It certainly will not have had any structural steel incorporated into it to accommodate any earthquake type shocks.”
Kathryn I don’t know if you an iPhone but if you do there is a great app http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seismometer/id288966259?mt=8
Which is imperfect in that it doesn’t actually give any Richter readings, but is very useful in showing the relative impact of events, seismic or otherwise.
Keep it on the kitchen table and even a door closing or the cat flap will have some slight impact.
But most important take it on the train or next to the tracks, and please, please, drop the railway viaduct nonsense: Next time a train passes over, compare that to the at rest position. I’m not familiar with the viaduct, but I live next to a train track and I can assure you that your viaduct shakes equal in power to at least a 1.5 earthquake every single time a train passes over. The viaduct has handled that punishment for over 150 years and will continue to do so so many times an hour. Drilling for gas or oil or whatever will not make a blind bit of difference.
I think that you have to be honest not with me, or with your fellow villagers, but yourself: Absolutely nothing I, or Barack Obama, or the British Geological Survey or David Cameron or anyone could possibly ever convince you that you have nothing to fear.
Why is that? Because you don’t WANT to be convinced. And you don’t want to be convinced because I think at heart you are not being honest with yourself:
You simply love Balcombe as it is, and don’t want any change at all. That’s the reason you live there. Which is fine by me! As Jeremy Paxman said in his book The English: “To the true Englishman, any change at all is a change for the worse”. So sad, but true. But stop with the dragging up websites from East Cowtown Oklahoma as support of your position and imputing that any scientist that doesn’t agree with your position is corrupt.
The NIMBY, or NUMBY to be exact position is perfectly understandable and socially acceptable.
Next year or the year after when Cuadrilla might actually wish to start activity (if they do at all for any number of reasons) we can discuss the issues from that perspective. No one is wanting to permanently destroy Balcombe. But if there is a chance that there is oil under Balcombe, that oil belongs to every single person in the UK, via state (or Crown) ownership. That puts a different perspective on things, and we can argue at that time about that. But until then, I’m wasting my time discussing this with you. You can link to a web site that says that shale gas drillers are out to get people’s first born children or cause plagues of locusts or whatever and try and convince your fellow citizens that way, but I won’t engage anymore.
Anyone with an open mind is encouraged to either ask me questions directly or visit the website.
OK, then I’ll be openly numby, if that will please you, Mr Grealy. And I’d like to address a question about the underbelly of Balcombe to any geologists out there (since Mr Grealy appears to be peaked and will no longer engage):
The argument that has been presented so far is that the Balcombe aquifer is 1 000 feet below the surface and the shale layer some 2 000 + feet below. This is a single profile, a specific downward view from well site. But consider the topography of the Balcombe area. It sits at the top of a valley that drops steeply down towards the viaduct and the reservoirs. This could have significant impact on the relative distance of the beds. I am not a geologist but would have thought that the water table will drop down (ie in height above sea level) as the land drops away, also as water is drawn towards the reservoirs, whereas I suspect the shale layer is more level, since it will have been laid down many millennia earlier, before glacial (?) erosion formed the valley. If that is the case, then the safety (?) margin between the shale and the aquifer layers might be significantly reduced. The shale layer will not only be nearer the aquifer, it will also be nearer the top surface, increasing the exposure of the viaduct to any earth tremors. Oh dear, Mr Grealy won’t like me mentioning the viaduct again. Comments? Mr Baker? Balcombe and district geologists?
I use an ancient Nokia, by way, occasionally, when I bother to charge it. And of course the number of cowherds in Balcombe is limited, as is the number of stockbrokers and ‘sandal-weavers’. And yes, every fracking site will have its own unique issues. But we are not so parochial as to fail to learn from similar-but-different experiences of citizens elsewhere in the world. So I shall continue to post.
Any comments on the unique geological underbelly of Balcombe?
Kathryn, there is no shale. Again, there is no shale of interest in the Lower Stumble well, according to the posted docs, Cuadrilla are going seeking in Micrite. As to your larger question, Balcombe is atop a syncline, a high point of folding. All layers will be folded. As I understand it from an earlier post, your aquifer is the Wadhurst, which in on the surface at Balcombe, not 1,000′ below.
whoops, wrong word {am going gaga} – 180º out – should have said anticline. Point is, Balcombe in on the peak of a fold. I imagine this is why Conoco chose the site for the original well, an anticline is a classic reservoir trap, like Sheep Mountain or Jebels Dukhan & Daharan.
OK (thank you, you distract me from my pruning but…): I see that ‘Micrite is a limestone constituent formed of calcareous particles ranging in diameter up to 4 μm formed by the recrystallization of lime mud.’ Would we have the more porous bio version or the basic? This looks interesting for when the sun goes down: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00009878 But to save me further research, does being micrite make any practical difference? Or were you picking a nit? (Do pick nits. it is good to get one’s facts and terminology straight. And I must go back to earlier posts and revise…). Thank you, Mr Baker!
That’s an interesting link you found. Yes, it will give you valuable information. But, by exposing the fact that this was being studied as long ago as 1984, you open yourself to a charge of heresy from Buttons Will, ‘cos one of the anti shale gas articles of faith is that this is all recent & completely different from what went before. Actually, contrary to what most journos write, high volume fracturing in horizontal wells thro’ homogeneous reservoirs was developed in the ’80s, offshore Denmark, by Maersk.
You’ll note that the paper you found refers to layered rock, which shale might or might not be, but no matter the hetero- or nonheterogeneity of the reservoir, the bounding rocks are always other layers, so the paper will have some applicability to frac confinement. You’ll also note it would cost me $10 to download, $25 for you – keep this up & I might have to propose you for associate student membership {adult education section} to save you money. I assume you are adult?
Does being micrite make a difference? Yes, a helluva one. Being calcareous it would be soluble in HCl & being crystalline would presumably etch rather than uniformly dissolve. This means that on exhaustion of the acidity & removal of the frac pressure, the fissures would not close up completely but be held open by the etch high points, leaving infinite conductivity flow channels. Ergo, no sand, no sand trucks.
De nada.
ps – you might ask the good Mr Metcalfe to consider whether the unctuousness of great white Burgundy owes something to the fact that the grapes are rooted in reservoir rock – the same rock formation that holds Europe’s largest onshore oilfield, Wytch Farm, as well as the Sonning Eye. Tells you something about geological time, anticlines & closure faults, & flow in porous media. Hoe can anyone who believes in terroir also think frac fluids can migrate miles vertically?
The village (including the chair and vice-chair of our council) might also read this one from ‘The Independent’: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/exclusive-ministers-slammed-over-fracking-6290240.htm. Could there be a parallel here with village politics? Could this be a cautionary tale? I hear that concerned village people of environmental persuasion have been batted away from the (as yet unformed) Parish Council working party on the pros and cons of fracking.
I quote a little from the ‘Independent’ article, but it really is worth reading in full.
” ‘I am appalled that Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) ministers didn’t go to talk to somebody on the environmental side of things,’ added Professor Stevens, who in 2009 won the Opec Award for his contribution to oil and energy research.”
” ‘This is incredible, ridiculous really,” said Professor Stevens, who gave evidence to an inquiry by the Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee on the topic last year.’ It’s common sense that if a select committee has done a report like this the relevant ministers would go to the EA to get their reaction to it.”
“The shadow Energy minister, Tom Greatrex, said the Department of Energy and Climate Change was taking a “shockingly complacent approach” after learning that its ministers have not met anybody from the Environment Agency to discuss the technique.”
“Mr Greatrex tabled a question in Parliament, to which Mr Hendry replied: ‘Neither I nor other DECC ministers have met with representatives of the Environment Agency to discuss issues relating to hydraulic fracturing.’ ”
Dr Robert Gross, director of Imperial College’s centre for energy policy, said: “The speed of shale gasexploration is running ahead of our knowledge of the risks, especially in America. I think DECC need to get a better handle on all the issues around fracking.”
Kathryn
You asked for some info from any Balcombe geologists on the aquifer and shale seperation
I dont think this is the best way to explain the local Geology
I would rather draw some pictures, perhaps I will provide such diagrams to the working party if they request it.
A few facts
Balcombe is pretty much on the axis of the Weald anticline
As Michael Baker says that why Conoco drilled here.
Cuadrilla said they are interested in oil in a Micrite layer (which incidentally, as everybody is still talking about shale gas, shows how little the hapless Mr Miller was listened to.)
(Michael dont you stimulate micrite by scouring it with weak HCl?)
So the I and J Micrites will dip down deeper away from the well going north or south (and gently to the west as its a plunging anticline)
From the 86 well log the base of the Ashdown Sand is at 850ft and based on the BGS cross-sections and the seismic line in appendix B also dips away.
Also based on the info in appendix B and the well log from Balcombe waterworks borehole, the top of the Ashdown sands produce minimal water unlike the Lower Tunbridge Wells sands. The LWS sits above the Wadhurst clays and forms (what my family calls) the climbing rocks that overlook the drilling site to the west.
The drilling site is on the Wadhurst clay, beneath the LWS and at a pretty low elevation (for the area).
I told you some sketches would be better
So in in summary the seperation between their Zone of Interest (ZOI) and any aquifers will probably stay about the same and may actually get better away from the well site.
cheers
Mostyn
PS Like Mr Grealy I am surprised that you are still mentioning the integrity of the viaduct,
Thank you Mostyn, valuable post. Yes, I would stimulate micrite by fraccing with acid, HCl, possibly with Acetic – would put cores in a lab to study etching, as I mention in my near-simultaneous post above.
Kathryn, call me old-fashioned, but I think resonance failure more likely in modern, rather than solid Victorian structures {I use ‘solid’ in the heavy, not homogeneous sense}
Have guests and have only skimmed you and M and the research paper of back when Big Brother could surely not have dreamt of selling off underground squares of the realm to oil and gas prospectors… How much of the Weald wd be micrite, how much shale, how much gas, how much oil? I may be treating you as too much of a sage, maybe no one knows before pock-marking the region with exploratory drill-holes… And what is etching – pecking at the edges?
The same as in “come up & see my etchings” – scratching lines across a surface, in this case the sand-face {well, micrite face} exposed to the acid by hydraulically prising it apart, aka frac’ing.
When I was a district engineer in ’77 & my district was England & Ireland, it amused me how many oil wells were being spudded just off the M-25 {well, the route of the future M-25}
Actually acidically eating it apart? Does the pressure of the acidified liquid have much to do with it in the case of micrite? I presume it still does. What is so amusing about spudding oil wells anyway? Spudding as in potatoes branching off a plant? Or am I missing some point? And why does no one answer my question about micrite or shale where? I linked from your flowery museum to the British Geological Survey but you can answer quicker than I can find it.
“Actually acidically eating it apart?” – yes. The term of art is, I believe, dissolving it. If different bits dissolve at different rates, etching occurs. The pressure required to fracture rock is the sum of the amount required to overcome the least principle stress plus the tensile strength of the rock, so it is influenced by rock type & position, but generally micrite or sandstone at the same depth in the same place, would require the same order of pressure.
Your shale/ micrite/ dolomite/ chalk/ limestone/ sandstone/ siltstone – where & how much question is unanswerable – it is a commercial knowledge almost beyond general knowledge. Even OilCos do their own surveys beyond what the BGS knows.
One spuds fence posts to shut off the range, one spuds wells. Both jobs done by the same kind of hands – you want lessons in geology, seismology, rheology, reservoir engineering & also etymology?
Kathryn
You wrote ” maybe no one knows before pock-marking the region with exploratory drill-holes”.
The wealden basin has been quite extensively drilled already, I believe there are about 90 exploration wells and something like 12 producing fields.
Kathryn, you are aware that the oil that flowed though PLUTO {the pipeline under the ocean} to the Normandy beaches in June 1944 was produced entirely from under the green woods of England? It was secret then, but not now. Last time i checked the curator at the museum was a 90 year old who had worked on the project & was v proud of his contribution to WW2 – he loves visitors. http://www.dukeswoodoilmuseum.co.uk/
So I wd really like to know, shale or micrite, where, tell about the whole of the UK? Ireland wd be interesting too.
‘England & Ireland’ is not the whole of the UK – saying that could get you lynched up here in Scotland. Previously my district was the Scottish North Sea.
By Ireland I mean Eire. And I said UK, not England. UK = England, Wales, Scotland, N Ireland. Poor Scotland, it has its fracking issues too, and I wd not ignore it. So are you visiting Aberdeen, or not really resident in Winterton?
Remember my Granny – there is no ‘Eire’. In ’77 we were bringing in the gas from Kinsale Head, Co Cork {I have a friend who stood on the rig deck & watched the Fastnet lot scream by in race, not storm, rig}, also exploration west of Limerick.
The Scots have been making money from oil for 160 years – there was a chemist called Paraffin Young, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Young_(Scottish_chemist) who tied up a lot of patents, on the oil shale of West Lothian, before Col Drake flowed oil at Titusville, PA http://www.drakewell.org/ & spent the rest of his life claiming damages for patent infringements. {did the antis ever wonder why the first exploration well was in PA? might it have had to do surface manifestations?}
I have two roosts.
What reservoir traps in what thicknesses, underlie which parts of the UK would be extremely valuable, perhaps even ‘beyond the dreams of avarice’. As to your fears, here is this from England’s oldest oil field:
Dukes Wood is a marvellous example of cooperation between the Oil industry and the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust. It combines an area of ancient and secondary woodland with what was the site of the UK’s first oilfield. Some of the ‘nodding donkey’ pumps have been restored and can be seen on the trail. On the nature trial you’ll find the bronze statue of the The Oil Patch Warrior, commemorating the American ‘Roughnecks of Sherwood Forest’. The wood, on a ridge of high ground, is dominated by oak, ash, hazel and birch. The shrub layer also contains guelder rose (flowering white with shiny red poisonous berries), dogwood (flowering white, black berries) and wild privet (white blossom, shiny black berries) – species that thrive in the limey soil. The area contains many species of wild orchid and also is the habitat of the rare Vetch Nissola (found only in one other location in the UK). There are usually a good many spring and early summer flowers – bluebell, primrose, wood anemone, yellow archangel among them – no less than twenty four species of butterfly have been found at Dukes Wood. Among the songbirds you may hear the Nightingale and Pipistrelle Bats have been seen roosting in the Museum.
The land was donated to the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust in 1989 by British Petroleum.
I’d already read that on their flowery site. Back then, they didn’t frack, I think?
Back then they did frac – with nitro-glycerine. Eakring was still pumping in ’77, as I recall – I’m sure BP hydraulically fracced there at sometime, to keep the production going.
But not horizontally.
& the significance of that is … ?
I’ve forgotten what you call the type of fracking that happens/happend only at the bottom of a vertical well, without the horizontal arm and long-distance fracking. That is what I mean. Logically it wd seem safer to frack (if one must do such disgusting things!) within a small area where the immediate geology has been vertically investigated. ?
Fraccing is fraccing. Very big ones, with a lot of fluid, are called ‘Massive’, & the created geometry, when initiated from a horizontal bore, is different, but basically they’re the same.
I wish I could expose you to the full I-Max experience of 3-D {& 4-D} logs of downhole – a lot is known, for even a long distance from the vertical bore. And, at any stage in the boring, one has the option of cutting cores {‘carrottage’, en Francais}.
“(if one must do such disgusting things!)” – here’s one to get your knicks in a twist: early in my career I had an instructor who’d worked on several fracs using a plutonium bomb. Useless – the rock fused into impermeable silica glass & had to then be hydraulically fractured to restore a semblance of permeability. So it was pointless, but you know boys & their toys.
for the full effect you need to be a projection room with 3-D goggles, but …
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=3-d+seismic&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mcwlT4KbHceA8wOM0tnjBw&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1226&bih=737
Why does Appendix C of the Cuadrilla-in-Balcombe planning application say: “The main aim of the Lower Stumble esploratory well is to test for natural gas/oil trapped in the shale and thin sandstone layers in the Upper Jurrasic Formations which lie directly beneath the crest of the Bolney (Lower Stumble) Anticline.” Why do they say shale and sandstone and you say micrite?
Do you need as much volume of liquid to frack micrite as to frack shale? Forgive me if you answered this one before – I still have to go back and read those earlier emails slowly. I noted that you said no sand.
And if it’s so possible to see underground in all dimensions, why couldn’t Cuadrilla see the 2 000 foot Blackpool fault up which their frack fluid shot?
Alastair Logie says:
January 17, 2012 at 10:02 am
… stated in the very informative documents on the West Sussex Planning page.
They want to core two thinnish micrite layers (thicknesses of 110ft and 94 feet). Then pull back up and side track into the deeper one (2573 feet to 2667 feet), drilling horizontally for 2000 ft. He said very clearly it would then be a small test frac, and they are expecting oil not gas.
RE “why couldn’t C see …?: They could, even tho’ it seems they only had 2-D seismic, because they show both the fault in 2-D seismic, and the faulted core, in the report {attached to this site}
So if they could see (in advance of their fracking), why did they not see (in advance) the fault up which their fluid ran and caused the earthquakes, and say no to injecting? That’s what I mean. I presume this was not possible. I also presume they were not snoring in their pre-historic 2D cinema seats. I presume there is still a great deal of mystery down there in the depths. Cuadrilla seem to think so too.
On page 49 of the Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale Seismicity commissioned by Cuadrilla, I see this : “An important missing piece of evidence is the exact location of the seismic fault plane.”
It goes on: “Evidence is offered that the likely fault plane is a so-called type A fault in Figure 8, which would be critically stressed, but this cannot be ascertained.” There’s more: “If future treatments induce again seismicity it would be (now on page 50 – KM) important to determine whether the source is in the shale or rather the carbonate basement rock, but this is as yet uncertain.”
Of course Mr Miller of Cuadrilla tells us that the geology is different in and near Balcombe. What does that signify? That they know more or even less about our Balcombe geology?
To which roost can the humble pie can be delivered?
And it still remains the case that the planning permission talks of shale. Could I ask again… no one seems to answer: do you use the same pressure, the same water volumes to acid-frack micrite as to acid-and-chemical-frack shale? I know there would be no sand. Yay!
So there is opposition in Poland after all. And people thought OUR meeting out of order:
http://vimeo.com/33141308
But was the purpose of the Balcombe meeting to behave as the sandal-weaving stockbroker version of the Occupy protests, or to elicit information & reassurance from Cuadrilla. Did perhaps the sandal-weavers hijack it from those villagers seeking knowledge?
No Michael, the purpose of the Balcombe village meeting was to inform the village. The village (with the exception of the Parish Council) knew nothing of all this business until a little article appeared in the Independent about 3 weeks ago. The Clerk of our Parish Council emailed the Planning Department in Feb 2010 to say no, the parish council had no objection. But (you can see this in the minutes, if life is not too short) the council had failed to discuss the planning application properly. (They didn’t circulate the planning application to council members before the meeting as wd be normal, they didn’t put the application on the meeting agenda, the application number never appeared on the agenda, Simon Greenwood who owns the frack-field and is also a councillor did not declare an interest at the point in the meeting where interests are meant to be declared, and there was just a little afterthought in the minutes, underneath a numbered application for a carport, that ‘Mr Greenwood mentioned a recent application (to WSCC) relating to re-establishing exploratory oil drilling at the previous site off the London Road on Estate land.’ And no one on the council informed the village, apart from putting these minutes up on a board, and on the village website, but you’d have had to interested in people’s carports and porches to bother to read that far and find an oil well.
it wasn’t Cuadrilla who called the meeting. It was not Cuadrilla who booked the hall. The hall was booked by a concerned secretary who lives in a village 4 miles away, who had become aware of the frackfield and had begun to alert Balcombe villagers at about the same time that my husband and I saw the article. We helped organise the meeting, along with other people from the village. The hall hire was paid for by donations from those who attended. initially we the organisers had not thought of inviting Cuadrilla. it was Charles Metcalfe, who chaired the meeting, who persuaded us and who invited them, on the basis that listening to their side of the argument would add to the informative nature of the event. People did listen to Mark Miller. He was meant to talk for 10 minunes, had agreed to talk for 10 minutes, we had the hall for a limited time, and we needed to get on to the last presentation and questions. it was at that point that people started tell him to shut up. I could but won’t name people from the village who shouted. Shouters were not all from outside.
There WERE people from outside the village, but these were mainly from surrounding villages. Why not? It affects them too, and the meeting had been announced on local radio and TV. We had asked a very knowledgeable anti-fracking campaigner from Brighton to speak at the meeting, to inform us of the issues as he saw them. He came up from Brighton with a handful of people on the train. No one was ‘bussed’ as has been said. Yes, one of two of those people were a bit vocal. But many villagers were vocal too, and many people from surrounding villages. It was the first many people had heard of the proposal. No wonder they were vocal.
From a French document outlining proposed industry strategies to counteract the current French moratorium, and to woo French public opinion – by an organisation specialising in protecting economic interests:
“The objective is to reverse the current overwhelmingly negative message in the media, to offer a different vision and ideology”. They propose:
• Recruiting a popular credible figure as embassador for fracking
• Producing a popular pro-fracking equivalent of the “Gasland” film for mass viewing
• Creating a website, blog and facebook presence
• Recruiting a ‘community manager’ whose role will be to infiltrate forums, blogs, facebook pages, groups debating or opposed to fracking. ( M Caudrilla-sur-le Coté, how is your French? – KM)
• Heavy political lobbying: local, national and European
• Positioning fracking as geopolitical weapon ensuring political, economic and strategic power for Europe and member states
• “Whilst it will start in France, it will affect everybody in Europe.”
The document also outlines “the main concerns for investors”. These include:
• Financial risks linked to environmental impact, which can take the form of a fine, cleaning-up costs and remediation costs.
• Earthquakes
• Financial risks of increased legislation and government regulations
• Financial risks relating to loss of intellectual property, since there is more and more pressure for transparency and full disclosure of propriatory chemical-mix used
Kathryn,
Do have a look at page 10 in the latest Private Eye – No.1306.
There is an interesting article entitled “Keeping The Lights On”.
Funny fluids, soft solids… I shall return to my cheese and Chilean Cab Sauv. But yes, rheology lessons, please, if relevant. Back to geology, where else on the Weald is there micrite? If 90 wells have been drilled, there must be a partial answer.
Only 12 miles from the Balcombe site, another planning permission has just been agreed for a gas/oil well in Horse Hill, Hookwood, north west of Gatwick, off the road to Reigate:
http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/forget_dallas_let_s_drill_for_oil_in_horley_1_3296588
90 wells perforemd under the strict UK regulations and no sign of an environmental issue.
One of them even half a mile down the road and you didnt know it had been drilled
Now that your attenna are up, you spot a new one has been given planning permission.
Heck you dont think this all going on as fairly routine all the time? Performed by experienced experts who are regulated safely.
Perhaps that why the planning people, network rail, english Nature etc etc didnt raise an objection. Not because they werent doing their job, but because they WERE doing their job. Thats why we, the public, pay them.
Far be it from me to suggest that you now might want to question some of the info pouring out from the unknowledgable folk?
Well, you frackers have been accusing us antis of conflating and confusing conventional with unconventional wells! Now who is doing it? As far as we have been able to ascertain from DECC, none of these 90 wells has yet been fracked. At very least, none of them has been fracked in a 21st century, long-distance, horizontal manner. Or can you enlighten us? One in Kent has maybe been test-fracked – confirmation, please? These existing wells are conventional (some with potential for conversion to unconventional, like our very own Lower Stumble well). What we are particularly worried about is the new, modern phase, the new horizontal face of oil and gas extraction. But to be honest, no, I don’t think most local residents would be happy about the Weald being turned into a hedgehog of conventional oil and gas wells either. But that (a conventional hedgehog) seems unlikely, given that the oil and gas across the south coast of England is mainly ‘locked in’. If there have been 90 conventional wells already, then that is quite sufficient in a heavily populated region of natural beauty!
‘Performed by experienced experts who are regulated safely.’ Who have a 100% failure rate in England!
By the way, I have 2 antennae, and luckily plenty more antennae have now been stimulated into alertness on the little unknowledgeable heads of us local ‘insects’. Might our sting have been less provoked if you frackers had been less secretive? I suspect you would have provoked us anyway. But it’s a cautionary tale, perhaps.
Are you a Cuadrilla person?
I suspect but dont know, (and I dont like speculating) that all the 12 or so producing fields have been stimulated.
Are you a Cuadrilla person?
No geologist living in HH, with a brother who works for a council (in the east midlands) on just this sort of thing. Never heard of Cuadrilla before all this. Came to your meeting to learn more, and was then just bemused at the level of aggression and nimbyism
The point I was making , as you seem to be anti -everything , not just the fracking, was that you didnt know all this drilling was going on precisely because it is done so safely and sympathetically
The reason I stress that there is no “k” in fracturing is that I find offensive the sub-adolescent usages “you f*ckers”, “f*ck off” & “f*ck up” {the * of course substitutes for ‘ra’} – ’nuff said?.
I don’t know who has accused antis of conflating conventional & unconventional, I find it all too often the opposite, with antis claiming that massive fracturing in horizontal bores is completely new 21st century stuff. “Unconventional” covers a lot: shale oil, shale gas, coalbed methane, tar sands – of differing ease of extraction & levels of ‘cleanness’. Personally I abhor tar sands, but think shale gas is 50% cleaner than coal-fired power generation. As to fraccing, I find no ecological difference between fraccing from a vertical or horizontal bore.
To the best of my knowledge a great many of the existing onshore wells in the UK have already been stimulated. It is my understanding that DECC is compiling an addition to their database already published on this site, to include stimulation information on all the existing wells.
Most residents of the Weald seem have been happy or unbothered about the last 40 years of local drilling.
Please stop with that “100% failure rate” – its not true. Preese Hall #1 was Cuadrilla’s 2nd well & they fracced 5 times on PH 1, recording minor tremors during 2 of the jobs. Haven’t they drilled their 3rd well already?
Also, what’s with accusing everyone of being on Cuadrilla’s payroll. Are you able to confirm or deny that Buttons Will has a financial interest in solar power?
This was in our local paper the other day: could I apologise for the pie offer and ask you to comment?
A Cuadrilla spokesman said each ‘frac’ stage would use around 1,000 to 2,000 cubic metres of water. He said: “So we would expect to use less than five pools worth of water to open up a well, depending on the depth of the seam.”
The spokesman said water availability was not an issue and he confirmed that the fracturing, or fracking, to let gas, or oil in the case of Lower Stumble, seep out would be effective for decades. Water and chemicals were not needed for on-going extraction either.
I’m not sure I know what you’re asking, I’m not even sure you know what you’re asking.
If you’re asking whether 1,000 to 2,000 cubic metres is a lot of water to frac with, yes it is; if you’re asking how much sugar beet one could process with it, I have no idea.
If you’re asking how much water is needed to frac, read that $10/$25 SPE paper you posted a link to which explains the volumetric role of water in fraccing. The amount of water needed is: enough to fill the pipe {depth x 1.56 usg/ ft in 7″ 29# pipe} plus enough to fill the created fracture {half area x average width}, plus whatever is needed to allow for fluid loss. Since the pipe depth + length is fixed & fluid loss in µD permeability is negligible {that’s negligible for shale, not so negligible for micrite}, you can see that most of the water goes to create the fracture(s).
To calculate the # of trucks, go back to my earlier truck calc & redo if for 1,000 – 2000 cubes – that’s 6,290 – 12,580 bbls {13 to 25 of 500 bbl storage tanks, half that number for 1,000 bbl storage tanks} or 264,170 – 528,340 US gals, for truck loads of water.
If Cuadrilla say they have a source of water, why not believe them; Mr Miller said at your meeting he would send flowback to Manchester for treating, didn’t he?
If they said that the flow would be effective for decades, without re-treating {which is what I gather}, then they are not expecting the fall off in flow rates typical of microDarcy or millimicroDarcy permeabilitiss, so we can conclude they are not expecting to be fraccing shale {which since they said they’d be treating micrite, makes sense}. Helluva volume for micrite tho’.
It would take 2+ to 4+ hours to pump that much fluid at 50 bbl/ min, so they’d need more than a couple of pump trucks.
Is that enough of a comment? Your pie offer was daft anyway – I’ve never even seen, let alone talked to a Cuadrilla person {Lord Browne excepted – I’ve seen him in his BP days}, so its not down to me if you make presumptions about what C did or did not evaluate from their logs prior to fraccing PH 1.
I posted the query about the local article at speed before going out, and omitted inverted commas around the last paragraph, which was also part of the quote from the paper. I had reasons for hoping for a reply by the time I came back. My specific questions, if I had had time, would have been:
‘What does he mean by ‘open up a well’? Is he talking about a single horizontal bore? Does ‘open up a well’ mean something specific to you? Is he talking about water use during the total working life of that well? Or water use on a single horizontal bore? Or a section of a bore? He is unclear, that was my point.
The ‘decades’ comment – would it be correct that once a horizontal bore is fracked, that particular ‘tentacle’ would not be refracked? Once you have perforated and fracked ALL sections of a ‘tentacle’, would you ever refrack, would you be able to refrack, or is refracking impossible because sections of bore closer to the vertical bore have been perforated? I imagine so. I presume you concentrate on the end section of the tentacle, frack that bit as many times as you need to get the maximum desired fractures at that end, then bung it up and move back towards the vertical bore to frack the next section? How does the oil flow back then? You must remove the bungs. Explain?
‘Helluva volume for micrite’ because they are planning on 8+ tentacles?
This is probably a ‘piece of string’ question, but given the 2 scenarios of a) micrite or b) shale, how long (time-wise) might a single horizontal bore be expected/hoped to continue yield oil, and at what kind of flow-rate, obviously decreasing? From one horizontal bore, how many tankers of oil would they be hoping to take away per day, per week, decreasing over what space of time?
I don’t know what he means {as an aside, I wonder whether Cuadrilla’s ‘talk to the Press’ people are different from their ‘engineering solutions’ people}, but I read the reported comments as 1 – 2 kilocubes per stage, which give a total usage per well of ‘less than 5 pools worth’.
“to open up a well” I would interpret as being the full amount required between drilling & starting completed production – i.e. all stages & laterals, if any.
All fraccing does is reduce the distance the well fluid has to flow. I know you read about Darcy, but did you understand? For a given drive energy {shut in reservoir pressure minus sand face pressure} you can move 1000 times more fluid if the permeability is 1000 times more – OR, you could move the same amount of fluid from a 1000 times further away from the sand face – or a 1000 of each if there were a 1,000,000 times difference in permeability. Since a fracture has a more than a million times greater permeability that the rock itself, you can see the attraction of fraccing – & of creating a “lot” of fracture face.
So if you do not want to revisit too soon, then expose a lot of fracture face in the first instance. But they can re-frac at any time – whenever it makes cost/ benefit sense. Whether micrite or shale, it is entirely at their discretion {& depends in part upon the permeability} how much sand-face they wish to expose {i.e. how big a frac to perform}.
Well sections are indeed temporarily isolated from each other by ‘bungs’ – technically these are known as Bridge Plugs – drillable or retrievable. Nice little earners. You can see them pictured between the frac stages in the schematic diagram in the PH 1 report.
The number of laterals is entirely at Cuadrilla’s discretion – depends what they want to learn from a ‘test well’. Cost/ benefit again, but a large number of laterals would look more like a production well rather than an exploration well – aren’t they presently operating under an exploration, rather than production, licence.
Production, aka flow-rate {symbol J} is a function of reservoir size, drive energy, permeability & area of exposed {flowing} sand-face, & fluid viscosity {Darcy’s equation}. Without knowing all these, initial & later-time flow rates cannot be estimated. Establishing some or all of them is the purpose of test drilling – don’t expect C to share their results with you.
Thank you, Michael. As you say, maybe Cuadrilla’s press spokeman doesn’t know what he means. That was the comment I thought you would make. And anyway, what makes oil flow back to the surface, and what makes frack fluid flow back? I can see that gas would want to flow up. Why does liquid? Must be too wide for capiliary? I know I cd probably look this up, but I am not yet retired… I acknowledge that you are undoubtedly still busy too.
Kathryn, the pressure underground is approximately 0.45 psi for every foot of vertical depth {with the caveat that some reservoirs are ‘over-pressured’ & some ‘under-pressured’}. If you take diesel, a component of crude oil, it has a pressure gradient of 0.3528 psi/ft. This means that at a depth of 1000′ of diesel {assuming the oil in the bore were equivalent to diesel}, the hydrostatic pressure would be 352.8 psi, while the sandface pressure would be 450 psi, sufficient to allow flow out of the sandface into the bore & up the well. Even were the bore full of fresh water, the sandface pressure would be 433 psi, sufficient to be slowly lifted by 450 psi.
Put simply, lifting fluids out of a well is only a matter of having the hydrostatic pressure due to the contents less than the sandface pressure. The hydrostatic could be dropped by choice of fluid in the bore, by swabbing out some of the fluid in the bore, by introducing {any} gas into the bore at the base of the column, or by supercharging the formation, either with frac pressure or additionally by including a gas {such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide} into the frac fluids to help blow them out of the bore on the way back.
To flow gas, one similarly has to empty the bore of liquids, by similar methods. The universe of wells is very mechanistic.
re “you can see that most of the water goes to create the fracture(s)” – as I said in the earlier post, it is entirely down to Cuadrilla, as Operator, to decide how big a fracture they choose to make, it could be Y sq ft, or 1000Y sq ft – this is a cost/ benefit calculation of theirs that we are not party to.
erratum to immediately preceding post: “… truck calc & redo it for 1,000 …” {‘it’, not ‘if’ – refers to the calculation}
In the interests of fairness, openness and balance, may we know who is/are the originator/s of this blog, please, and who is writing the gasdrillinginbalcombe replies? Names and company affiliations would be good.
Yes, Carolyn, how good it would be if people who post on this site declared their interests, whereabouts and motives. I didn’t know who YOU were either, had not taken in your name at the top of your articles (sorry), but I see from Googling you that you are a part-time reporter at the ‘Mid Sussex Times’.
In case anyone is wondering I am a Balcombe resident with no vested interests other than caring about ecology and the environment (local and beyond), and (from a local point of view) worrying about the impact on our village and surrounds (this extends to the whole of the High Weald) of an influx of heavy industry and in particular a questionable, unconventional oil/gas extraction process.
I think your readers would be interested in the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s map showing the areas of Britain where DECC had already sold oil and gas licences to petrochemical prospectors (up to August 2011): http://gasdrillinginbalcombe.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/uk-onshore-licenses-2011.pdf . (Not everyone will know that oil and gas rights belong to the Crown, not to landowners.) Look at the great swathe of ‘sold’ yellow patches across the area of your readership, not to mention further swathes around Lincolnshire, Lancashire, South Wales, Bristol… Your readers need to be aware that planning requests for exploratory drilling may be landing on the desks of their county and parish councils this moment, as we blog. It is to be hoped that other parish councils in Mid-Sussex will actually consider the impact of an an oil or gas well (conventional or unconventional, fracked or unfracked) on their communities. Our Balcombe parish council recently apologised for not having properly done so.
It is good that the village has a forum for discussion. The blog was started on our behalf (on behalf, that is, of those of us concerned Sussex people, mainly from the village, some from the surrounds, but Sussex nevertheless) by Will Cottrell, who, as you know, spoke at our meeting and to whom we Balcombe villagers are grateful for bringing the fracking-on-our-doorstep issue to our attention. You will note that, once the site drew village (and industry) bloggers, ‘gasdrillinginbalcombe’ posted very little. (gasdrillinginbalcombe is not one person but a team who administer the site – some people have day jobs, and you can imagine the time it takes to inform ourselves, and respond to people whose lives and careers are imbued with gas and oil, and who have huge vested interests (or an least an emotional attachment to hydrocarbons, drills and cement). Nick Grearly, for instance, is paid by Caudrilla to do PR on their behalf. Yes, Will runs a solar energy co-operative in Brighton, and yes, of course he has environmentalist leanings. So do many people in the village. Anti-fracking feeling in the village is as strong as ever, and growing.
Our village blog is currently well endowed with paid-for posts on behalf of Cuadrilla, and posts by engineers and fans of fossil fuels as far flung as Aberdeen and the Norfolk edges. In the interests of fairness, openness and balance, let us also listen to those who care about our environment.
This engineer, from as far flung as Norfolk & Aberdeen, who believes fossil fuels are a damn side more energy efficient than the wimp uneconomic intermittents presently being pandered as renewable & clean, when they are patently nothing of the sort deeply resents any suggestion he doesn’t care for the environment. He actually believes he has made a greater environmental contribution, in many places, than any handful of greenies.
Thanks you, Kathryn. A simple , concise anwer would have sufficed.
.
Conspiracy theories aside, my name is there, no attempt to hide, as implied. I am well known as a long-standing Balcombe resident, local paper hack (not sure part-time is relevant), and probably lots more besides :/. Most of the Balcombe residents on this blog know me. Anonymity is not possible I’m afraid. Still, I’m thrilled that I can be found via Google
I wasn’t implying anything, Carolyn. You read my post in the wrong tone of voice. My first sentence was aimed at others, not at you. I was just making the point that you had not introduced YOURSELF either. If this site had italics, I would use them instead of capitals. I accept that capitals maybe look a little strident. Google took me to a happy-Christmas message from the paper, where they billed you as part-time. I just copied and pasted. Yes, irrelevant how many hours you work. Your original post did seem quite antagonistic towards gasdrillinginbalcombe, or did I misread your tone? It’s nothing to be angry about – some people’s interests are ecological, some people’s are petrochemical, both sides appear on the blog. As an unbiassed member of the press, you must see the value of allowing a voice to all interested parties. Anyway, your post was a good opportunity for me to be thorough and detailed. In my view simple and consise would not have done the job.
Too much speed reading & speed replying? – Carolyn is one of the few who introduced herself from day 1:
“Carolyn Robertson says:
January 16, 2012 at 3:12 pm
…
http://www.midsussextimes.co.uk/news/fracking_fears_for_southern_rail_commuters_on_london_to_brighton_line_1_3409877
Not too much hysteria here, I hope, or hypocricital ‘Nimbyism’ inferences. We are doing more in the paper on Thursday. … “
Pray why, gdib, have you not posted this Environment story, from the Guardian?
Fracking does not need more regulation, report says
European commission report concludes fracking for shale gas is covered by existing national regulations on water and drilling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/30/fracking-regulation-ec-report
I can’t speak for the admins of this site Michael (perhaps they thought it undeserving of their time posting it) but I’m responding here as the originator of the “NO Fracking in Sussex Page” to say that I have certainly posted this nonsensically dangerous article – With the purpose of highlighting the way that so many people believe what the newspapers tell them about statements from such hallowed institutions as the EU Commission. Sound posh, must be true eh?
If you are involved with the petro-chemical Industry (as your post suggests) you should be aware of the massive pro-fracking Industry lobby in the EU – and the backlash against anyone who seeks to raise a voice of ecological, humanitarian reason.
Where, would you say, is the greater vested interest? Where the greater altrusim? Hmm?
Do you make your living from hydrocarbons by any chance?
For the record, I’m a School Secretary, living four miles from the Balcombe bore. I earn precisely nothing from working all hours in raising awareness of the real and present danger that hydraulic fracturing for shale gas/oil and coal bed methane presents to my ecology and my family. On the contrary, it costs me money to do so.
Why are you here?
And how, precisely. do you back up your intriguing statement that you have:
“made a greater environmental contribution, in many places, than any handful of greenies.”
?
What about statements from “hallowed” people such as the UK Environment Agency Head of Climate Change Tony Gosling who says that he’s happy with Cuadrilla’s effect on the environment, after exhaustive analysis of all stages of the process?
How about hallowed people like Presidents Obama and Clinton when they say that shale gas and oil can be extracted safely?
You are entitled to your opinion, but you can’t choose your facts. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that it’s safe. There have certainly been accidents that have had a highly localised, but highly publicised impact. But the idea that shale is intrinsically and inevitably dangerous is simply not supported by reality.
This is very serious money that the United Kingdom needs. It merits serious consideration and not simple rejection based on something someone saw on YouTube.
Ha Ha HA!!
Good MORNING Mr Grealy. Oh yes, you’re that paid Cuadrilla lobbyist that the BBC “Inside Out” programme presented as an impartial consultant ..’though why Cuadrilla pay you at all is beyond me. You were even less convincing on that programme than usual.
I’ll thank you not to patronise me Sir, with your attempts at YouTube dismissal .. or, for that matter, of any other philanthropic people of ecological and humanitarian CONSCIENCE (are you familiar with that concept?) with either little or no vested interest in bringing the “facts” of this matter to light.
I, personally have been researching this issue worldwide for many months and you know as well as I do Mr Grealy, that the overwhelming INDEPENDENT, non-commissioned scientific consensus, is that the process of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas/oil and coal bed methane is FAR from safe.
Highly localised accidents?! Thank you for making me laugh out loud (if hollowly) this morning. So that will reassure the people of Pavillion, or Dimock, or Ohio or Australia .. and the growing litany of places suffering dreadfully form this wildcat, indefensible ecocidal industry. Or even the people of Lancashire. See how many will listen to you.
You missed my “hallowed” point. My use of the word applied to the EU Commission was ironic. Your suggestion that any intelligent observer would take Obama’s and Clinton’s pronouncements as gospel is too risible to grace with more of a response. Except to say that I suppose you would apply the same bizarre reverence to Nigel Lawson.
What “serious money”?
The “serious money” that will be made (by whom exactly?) from extracting the 4 trillion cubic feet of shale gas from the Bowland Shale – which Cuadrilla, in order to court investment, tried to claim is 200 trillion? Hmm?
Just like the industry-estimated amount in the States that has now been honed down by 60%?
Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas is neither a sustainable nor effective way to meet our CRITICAL energy needs. It is a short-term, finite energy-procurement technology, the methane emissions of which, give it a worse carbon profile than coal .. AND YOU KNOW IT.
However much the paid minions futilely bleat on about the estimated pot of black gold waiting to be extracted (and sold on) through their industry’s violation of our subterranean geology, irreversible contamination of our water table, pollution of the very air we breathe and through utterly irresponsibly messing with our seismic security .. NOTHING will change the FACT that, as Tony Juniper so irrefutably countered to Lord Lawson’s nonsensical pronouncements of his shale gas silver bullet solution on the Today programme recently:
“Let’s put a price on the environmental damage and it will change the economics of everything”.
The Inside Out show was referring to Coastal operations, not a client of mine. But you wish to shoot the messenger, or is that burn down the library because there are some books in there that contradict? The overwhelming scientific evidence is that there is nothing to be concerned about assuming the stringent regulation is in place and I defy you to provide something with a little more intellectual heft than Gasland to back that up. Peer-reviewed scientific evidence please.
I agree with Tony Juniper: let’s put the environmental price. 100%. And gas wins hands down.
While Lawson is right about shale, he has proved himself wrong about almost everything else, and every time he opens his mouth, he alienates thousands of potential supporters.
I repeat yet again:
Global warming: Scientifically proven, but open to misinterpretation by those who are prone to conspiracy theories, selectively choose contradictory data, and have completely unconnected political agendas.
Shale gas: Scientifically proven, but open to misinterpretation by those who are prone to conspiracy theories, selectively choose contradictory data, and have completely unconnected political agendas.
But I see here the paranoia that absolutely anyone who disagrees with you, be they West Sussex County Council, DECC, The Environment Agency, The British Geological Survey, The EU, The International Energy Agency, The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and even the President of the United States are all wrong (or corrupt) and you are right I stand with them, as I also stand with the US National Resources Defence Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, the US National Wildlife Council, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, etc etc.
I stand with them proudly and confidently. I have studied shale in depth for almost four years. I have heard this all before and calling names is something that simply shows the desperation based on knowing that the facts simply don’t back you up.
May I suggest that you read what little there is on academic studies of shale. I would recommend the Howarth Report from Cornell University for example, but at the same time look at similar studies, including one from Cornell that disagree based on scientific fact and rigorous investigation. Another one you may like is the Tyndall Report, which has very little actual proof, but wraps it up in academic respectability.
I can only find three academic reports out of the twenty six on my site that cast doubt on shale. The final one is from Duke University which discovered methane contamination near some wells, but also found absolutely no proof of chemical migration. If I have missed some, then please let me know.
Should we take Josh Fox as gospel, a film maker, on this geological and technical issues?
Or like you said the Obama administration (which must include the whole country’s institution such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, Public Health and Safety, National Park and Lands Protection, Energy department, when they decided to give their backing for shale gas exploration/production), maybe Obama just went ahead and give approval without consulting these agencies?
Or maybe a bit closer to home, Should we take Josh Fox as gospel over the professional opinion from studies by UK Parlimentary Inquiry into shale gas, EU Environment Protection Agency, British Geology survey, or the fact that hundreds of thousand wells have been fracced onshore UK, offshore (In the Middle of North Sea)? I guess Youtube is a perfect gospel for many people.
People have spoken before of the anti-shale campaign in South Africa
This is the other side. And it’s absolutely heartbreaking
http://blogs.businessday.co.za/sue/2012/02/01/a-karoo-communitys-views-on-fracking/comment-page-1/
We the community of Graaff-Reinet, coming from the sector of the predominately historically disadvantaged population faced by high unemployment and daily hardships have gathered … to make our view known on the subject of energy groups’ applications to study the feasibility of extracting natural gas from shale rock formations beneath the Karoo area …To let people of our South Africa know that the opinions expressed by the so-called representatives of the Karoo communities are certainly not a reflection of the majority of the population represented by our forum.
Our Karoo is a breathtakingly beautiful place. We love it not less than others. Its heavenly fauna and flora and terrific aesthetics have created a lifestyle that defines all of us as its inhabitants. Our love for our Karoo would dictate to us that its immaculately clean environment must be protected, and that protection does not suggest that we must be utopian and believe it is a pristine place. Any insistence that suggests any activity that has the slightest risk to the beautiful environment of the Karoo must not be allowed to imply that the ’pristineness’ of the area must be maintained. The Karoo is no longer pristine. That is not practical, it is also not desirable. Man’s activities in the Karoo and in all other places of our universe have an environmental price. The key question here is to weigh the environmental and social costs of the fracking and determine if it is worth paying the price.
“The demand for energy continues to increase in our country and there is no doubt that natural gas has a growing role to play in building a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy future. Natural gas could also provide South Africa with a stable, sustainable energy source, supporting economic growth and bringing needed employment and economic opportunity to the Karoo. We do not believe the jobs created would come at the expense of others, mainly in the agricultural and tourism sectors. We have no jobs right now!
For someone who talks such common sense on energy and fracking in particular, how do you come up with the following?
‘Global warming: Scientifically proven,…’
That is news to all climate scientists. As far as they are concerned it is an hypothesis, and not even a theory. We’d all love your ‘proof’, for which you will undoubtedly receive a nobel prize, and a hug of relief from Al Gore.
JWatson,
I am neither a climate scientist nor a denier. But from the point of view of general knowledge is that too much CO2 does trap energy from the sun. However, I also understand that the solar flares or sun spot cycle and radiation greatly influence the earth temp and weather and there is some talk of a mini ice age is coming. Anyway, i thought also CO2 is required for plant grow and algae in the ocean to grow and feed fish stock in the sea. But i guess if we burn too much fossile it is not good enough. Like many things in life moderation is good.
Russia Curbs Europe Gas Supplies
{Wall Street Journal} BRUSSELS—Russian natural-gas supplies to Europe were curtailed for a third straight day Friday as particularly cold winter weather increased Russia’s domestic demand.
“There has been a decrease in gas deliveries,” said Marlene Holzner, a spokeswoman for European Union Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger. “Russia is experiencing a really cold winter and it needs more gas than usual.”
Ms. Holzner said the situation isn’t critical because all affected EU members so far are able to meet the supply shortfall by buying gas from neighbors, using storage capacity and importing liquefied natural gas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203711104577200852563136204.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hps_LEFTTopWhatNews
In case the Sunday papers can’t make it through the snow, here’s a little reading:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-usa-fracking-epa-idUSTRE8041YE20120106
‘Federal regulators are considering trucking fresh water to households in a Pennsylvania town where residents say wells have been polluted by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas
‘Only a month after declaring water in Dimock safe to drink, the Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering action after residents supplied the EPA with hundreds of pages of data that link water pollution to fracking.’
Two residents of Dimock, a town of some 1,400 in the northeast corner of Pennsylvania, told Reuters that the EPA said water would be delivered on Friday, but the agency indicated it was still considering the issue.
“No decision has been made by EPA to provide alternate sources of water,” an EPA spokeswoman said in an email on Friday. She added that the agency was trying to understand the situation in Dimock where state regulators recently halted deliveries of fresh water.
If the EPA delivers water to the village, it would be the clearest sign yet regulators are concerned about the effect of drilling on drinking water there.
Dimock may become pivotal in a national debate about the environmental impact of fracking, the drilling technique that could unlock decades’ worth of natural gas trapped in shale deposits, but which environmentalists say contaminates water supplies.
On Thursday, the EPA said it was considering doing its own tests on drinking water there after reviewing the evidence provided by residents that suggested that water could be more polluted than they realized.
Dimock residents began complaining of cloudy, foul-smelling water in 2008 after Cabot Oil & Gas Corp began fracking, which involves injecting chemical-laced water and sand into wells to release gas in shale rock deep below the surface.
Environmentalists say fracking pollutes fresh water as fluids seep from drilling wells into aquifers and other supply sources.
Cabot had trucked water to a dozen Dimock households for three years until November when state regulators agreed it could stop. Now residents are onto the last of their water. Some are using pondwater for showers.
Cabot denies polluting local water supplies.
“We still feel very comfortable that the water meets safe drinking water standards,” said Cabot spokesman George Stark. “We have a lot of data on well water there.”
As fracking increases in the United States and contributes to an energy boom, the EPA is conducting a national study to determine its impacts.
A recent EPA draft report showed that harmful chemicals from fracking fluids were likely present in a Wyoming aquifer near the town of Pavillion.
Industry denies that fracking, which is being done across the country, poses a threat to drinking water.
You might want to read the EPA release {stateimpact-pa-dimock-action-memo} before making this into an “anti-fracking” issue – the pollutants in these particular 18 Dimock wells all might have come from drilling mud {or the natural surroundings}. No drilling mud is used in “fracking”.
As to the EPA Pavillion report, this has been previously discussed: the 2 EPA monitoring wells were within the same formation that was fracced. As noted, “no ****, Shelock” – monitoring in a fracced zone identifies chemicals possibly used in fraccing.
http://preventcancernow.ca/fracking-shale-gas-and-cancer-health-risks-at-every-step
Fracking, shale gas and cancer: Health risks at every step
By Barb Harris
“We’ve got to push the pause button, and maybe we’ve got to push the stop button” on fracking, said Dr. Adam Law, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. Law was among doctors at a conference in Virginia calling for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in populated areas until health effects are better understood. The January 2012 conference was organized by the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment and Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy.’etc – it’s a long article, culminating in a series of points, of which this is No 6:
’6. Preliminary evidence points to high rates of cancer in intensively drilled areas. In Texas, breast cancer rates rose significantly among women living in the six counties with the most intensive gas drilling (Heinkel-Wolfe, 2011). By contrast, over the same time period, breast cancer rates declined within the rest of Texas. In western New York State – where vertical gas drilling has been practiced since 1821 and has resulted in significant contamination of soil and water – rural counties with historically intensive gas industry activity show consistently higher cancer death rates than rural counties without drilling activity. In women, cancers associated with residence in a historically drilling-intensive county include breast, cervix, colon, ovary, rectum, uterus, and vagina. Men living in the same region are consistently in the highest bracket for deaths from cancer of the bladder, prostate, rectum, stomach, and thyroid (Bishop, 2011), (based on National Cancer Institute cancer mortality maps and graphs).
While these correlations do not prove a connection between abnormally high rates of cancer and gas industry pollution, they do offer clues for further inquiry. We in the cancer advocacy community believe that this inquiry must precede, not trail behind, any decision to bring hydro-fracking to New York State. Benefit of the doubt goes to public health rather than to the forces that threaten it.’
So, “In western New York State – where vertical gas drilling has been practiced since 1821″ there are suspicious health statistics. Please explain how exactly this is an argument against a process which has not been performed in NY State due to a moratorium? {The US oil discovery well, by the way, was in 1859}.
Repeatedly – US issues are not applicable to the EU & UK, which have far more rigourous regimes in place already.
From Today’s ‘Times’:
Blackpool tremors reopen questions over fracking
A loophole that allowed the shale gas driller Cuadrilla Resources to start “fracking” operations in Britain without carrying out a full environmental impact report is being reviewed. Two earth tremors were detected near Blackpool last summer during Cuadrilla’s hydraulic fracturing operations, in which water, sand and chemicals are blasted into shale layers underground to release natural gas.
An environmental impact report was not required from Cuadrilla because its drilling site was smaller than one hectare. The bores below the site, however spread across a wider area underground.
The exemption is under review, according to Tony Grayling, the head of climate change and communities at the Environment Agency. He added that the agency was also examining the risk of water contamination. American environmental authorities recently suggested that the technique had polluted drinking water.
Mr Grayling said: “Cuadrilla did not have to carry out a proper’ environmental impact assessment because the area covered was lower than the threshold. But has the threshold been set at the right level? That could be an area of government policy to look at. We are undertaking due diligence to see if the regulatory framework is fully robust”
He added that the review, undertaken in conjunction with government departments and, the Health and Safety Executive, was not complete.
Mr Grayling said that tremors set off by fracking would heighten the risk of water contamination, because they could damage the casing of the pipes that have drilled through aquifers. “We need to understand what is the maximum damage that might be done in such circumstances to a well and the integrity, of the casing,- whether it would increase the risk of a. leak. If there is ground water in the vicinity that could be a problem,” he said
Full environmental impact assessments are expensive. They must include the effects on plants and animals and the effects of site traffic and would be submitted to the local planning
authority.
Jenny Banks, of the World Wildlife Fund, said that because of revelations in the United State, environment assessments should be mandatory in Britain.’
From Texas, a beautifully-written explanation of fracking, urging residents to analyse their water for contaminants before and after fracking begins. Curently most fracked folk in the USA can’t ‘prove’ their water has been contaminated by fracking operations because before fracking began no one had analysed their water, so there has been no way of comparing.
‘…if a change in taste, color, or odor is detected, it can be difficult to establish the cause of the change without having first measured the original, background or baseline chemistry of the well water.’
And if there is no proof, the oil and gas companies feel free to say, ‘It wasn’t us, it was there before’.
Yes, we know that in Balcombe, in the Weald, in Britain, we do not use well water, with rare exceptions. This makes interesting reading nevertheless:
http://twon.tamu.edu/media/169670/facts-about-fracking.pdf
More fracking bans in the US:
‘Some residents complain of well water contamination and the strong stench of chemicals from fracking. Others say mechanical noise from the operation of the well persists through the night. Motorists complain of massive truck convoys that ruin roads.’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/with-deep-concerns-over-fracking-a-va-county-says-no-to-more-gas-drilling/2012/01/27/gIQAxhUcsQ_story.html
http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/05/06/gas-patch-scientists-explain-how-hydraulic-fracturing-can-permanently-contaminate-public-water-supplies/
‘Dr. Geoffrey Thyne, a geologist who studies drilling at the Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute at the University of Wyoming, explained to the Checks and Balances Project that the fracking process is most vulnerable to accidental water contamination at the surface. Like Volz, Thyne did agree that there’s certainly possibility of aquifer contamination based on flaws in the concrete casings of fracking wells as well as the other uncertainties that lie underground. But it is above ground that Thyne is most concerned about.
“You are handling millions of gallons of fluid at the surface. It is easy to spill. It happens all the time. Valves jam up, pipes break, this is not without hazard,” Thyne said.
‘…things break, things go wrong, somebody doesn’t do a careful enough inspection, sometimes it’s also an act of nature. It is impossible to assure one hundred percent safety in any of these processes.” ‘
‘ ”Cementing’ is actually a one inch smear of mortar and the ‘casing’ is an easily corroded thin steel tube that is severely stressed when it is forced into the ground. The industry draws pretty pictures with straight lines, but the reality on the drill floor and below the ground is completely different. For example, cementing should be done slowly and carefully and be tested thoroughly. But, on every drill site I’ve been on, the cementers and mud engineers are hurried and pushed by impatient drillers.’
I do wonder, Ms McWhirter, whether you scan & post, or whether you read, contemplate & inwardly digest your postings. `This post is from an unofficial ‘anti’ group claiming to ‘hold government official accountable’ – not quite how we do democracy in Britain. Also, the headline ‘Gas patch scientists’ is misleading – they’re academics dabbling in opposing; were you fed this one by the flaky Luke Ashley?
However, if we ignore the inaccuracy of Dr Volz’ “over-stressed rusty steel pipe & shrinking cement”, we do get a nugget of advice. Did you know that in Austria {I am told by someone in ÖMV} gas well pipes must have triple seal joints? Did you know that the API many grades of steel casing? Did you know that some oilwell cement does shrink {slightly} in situ, but not all, & that some can expand?
And Dr Thyne, as you note, dismisses the remote possibility of downhole leakage in comparison to the far greater risks of contamination from surface spills {a la Dimock}. You then quote him: “For example, cementing should be done slowly and carefully and be tested thoroughly”. I couldn’t agree more.
So, this post of yours stresses that the proper casing should be selected, the proper cement chosen & appropriate care used.
My point is that it is perhaps wiser for Balcombe to monitor this, than to rail at ‘global warming’ in all its possibilities.
In answer to my query about potential compulsory purchase of any land in the UK for oil or gas extraction, I have just received this letter from John Arnott, Oil and Gas Licensing, Department of Energy and Climate Change:
Dear Ms McWhirter,
There is a legal process by which a minerals developer can obtain any rights he may need to develop a mineral deposit, on a compulsory basis. (“Develop” in this sense would include exploration activities.) This is under the Mines Working Facilities and Support Act 1966, and the minerals which are covered include oil and gas. The prospective developer has to apply to a court, and the court will make an order for the rights requested only if it is satisfied that
(a) the grant of the rights is in the national interest; and
(b) it is not reasonably practicable to obtain the right by private agreement for one of a number of reasons, which include the possibility that the person with the ability to grant the rights (usually a landowner) unreasonably refuses to grant it or asks for unreasonable terms.
Before he can apply to the court, the prospective developer has to apply to the Secretary of State, who will transmit the application to the High Court if he considers that a prima facie case has been made (that is, if he considers that the application appears to be properly framed within the terms of the legislation). The landowner(s) who might be affected by the grant of the rights which are sought will be consulted before the Secretary of State makes any decision, and of course can contest the court action if the application does advance to that point.
I do apologise for the rather legalistic language in which we have to set this out, but as our Secretary of State has a role on the process, we have to be quite precise about it.
To the best of our knowledge, only one court order has ever been made under this procedure, so far as oil and gas is concerned. (This related to the Wytch Farm development in Dorset.) The companies clearly prefer to reach agreement with a landowner if they possibly can.
Yours sincerely
John Arnott
John Arnott| Oil and Gas Licensing| Department of Energy and Climate Change| 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A 2HH|+44 (0)300 068 6028
Story Created: Feb 9, 2012 at 9:53 PM CST
Fracking Spill Shuts Down Hwy 359
‘It’s something seen around the city too often, fracking spills on the roadways. Just this afternoon the spill caused part of highway 359 to be blocked off.
They applied dirt and sand to the affected area to prevent vehicles from slipping and sliding.”
The Executive Director of the Rio Grande International Study Center says those absorbents don’t always soak everything up which leads to other problems.
“The concern we have with these spills is that a lot of these fluids…we don’t know what’s in them. We know they contain possibly hydro carbons other heavy metals.”
The main concern Cortez says is the sludge from the fracking sites getting into our water.
“In the case of a rain event like today we don’t know if that’s going to move into our storm drains.”
Cortez and others with the Rio Grande International Study Center are tired of seeing so many careless spills with fracking sludge. They are planning to hold a meeting in San Ignacio to try and stop a future waste dump site from being built there.
“They will potentially be the site for a very large scale 72 acre oilfield waste dump.”
http://www.pro8news.com/news/local/Fracking-Spill-Shuts-Down-Hwy-359-139067889.html
‘Water availability is not an issue,’ said a ‘spokesman for Cuadrilla’ to the Mid-Sussex Times.
From an Ofgem report:
‘Fracking operations can, depending on local conditions, typically require around 20,000
cubic meters of water per well, and the first environmental concern is that the sourcing of
this water does not deplete local resources. If water is sourced from outside the region,
the volumes required imply up to 1,000 truck-loads of water for the fracking of each well.’
If the whole of the world’s shale gas and oil deposits are to be fracked, think of the wasted water.
In this respect, this article from National Geographic is relevant to us all:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-fossil-water-radioactive-science-environment/
Some extracts (but do read the whole thing!):
‘In the world’s driest places, “fossil water” is becoming as valuable as fossil fuel, experts say…
‘And like oil, no one knows how much there is—but experts do know that when it’s gone, it’s gone… ‘The U.S. $600 million project aims to tap Jordan’s last primary water reserve, the Disi aquifer, on the border with Saudi Arabia.
‘But the project has encountered an unexpected stumbling block. The Disi’s fossil water was recently found to contain 20 times the radiation levels considered safe for drinking. The water is contaminated naturally by sandstone, which has slowly leached radioactive contaminants over the eons….
‘Geochemist and water-quality expert Avner Vengosh of Duke University, one of the scientists who first discovered the problem, said the Disi’s situation is not unusual…
‘Fortunately, radiation contamination can be fixed through a simple water-softening process, though it does cost money and creates radioactive waste that must be disposed of properly, he noted…
“People think about quantity when they are pumping, they don’t ask about renewability as much—and that’s the big issue.”…
“If there’s exploitation going on in terms of water or hydrocarbons, you see a minute lowering of the land surface, which we can measure from space on a millimeter scale,” Saradeth said.
‘The NASA study found that humans are using more water than rains can replenish, and area groundwater levels declined by an average of one foot (30 centimeters) per year between 2002 and 2008.
In other nations the crisis is far more immediate—especially in Yemen, said Oxford’s Mike Edmunds. The Middle Eastern country depends on fossil water—but can’t expect to do so for much longer, according to Edmunds. “The Sana’a Basin is down to its last few years of extractable water,” he said.
Greetings again Balcombe.
Have you seen these different comments on the unconventional shale gas business?
With so much of our Cuadrilla pestilence owned by Chinese investors, this video lecture makes interesting viewing. 50 mins or so. But lots to consider.
Maybe we should invest in our own resource and develope it according to our standard. Or maybe just let them invest in this unprofitable industry so that we can get their moneys and create job in UK>
Jobs. Hmmm. Balcombe jobs…. A lovely oil well on the edge of town might mean a bit of extra business for the excellent Balcombe tea rooms, lovely Balcombe stores (let’s use it more! It’s my new resolution) and Isabelle at Threads? Tanker drivers? Articulated lorry drivers? Refuse men seeking creative ways to dispose of spent frack fluid? Dodgy cement contractors? (Or was it concrete that gleamed in the moonlight?)The odd fracking engineer on site. Who else might they employ? How many local people and how many foreign frackers on the payroll of a typical commercial one-well frack? One well with all its tentacles, shall we say 8 or ten tentacles, three-times fracked? Michael? Are you still out there, drinking your – what kind of ale was it? I am not good on ale. But possibly still owe you one. Or maybe Cuadrilla’s silent, multi-tasking spokesman can enlighten us on the mathematics of employment.
Two researchers at the University of Texas at Austin report finding no instance of fracturing polluting freshwater aquifers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2012/feb/16/how-safe-fracking-video
The story is covered in the Daily Mail & Independent as well as the Guardian – interesting to note how each slant it.
Irish times on proposed fracking both sides of the border:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0214/breaking61.html
I have just returned from a business trip and seen the minutes of last week’s Balcombe Parish Council meeting on the Balcombe website.
It is fascinating to see scribe Richard Greig’s spin on the council discussion following my criticism of their handling of the planning application. In actual fact the council accepted most openly that they had not followed normal procedure in considering the planning application for our Balcombe oil well, and Robin Williams apologised humbly and honourably on behalf of the council for their lack of due attention. To write that he ‘apologised for any misunderstanding that had arisen’ is inaccurate. It is sad to see that in these minutes our council has once again missed an opportunity to apologise to the village for their failure two years ago to alert us to this issue. They refused to do so in the letter they sent around (to most houses in the village) in search of members of their new fracking fact-finding group.
Saying sorry clears the air and allows people to move on.
And, Balcombe Parish Council, please do report your meetings accurately.
Apologies if this has already been posted, but who owns the Balcombe Estate ?
The estate is owned by the Greenwood family. The parents are quite elderly, much loved in the village, and live in the village centre. The estate is now run by their son, Simon, who does own a house on the outskirts of the village, but lives mainly in Chelsea. Simon is a councillor (Balcombe Parish) but is not always present at council meetings. He wasn’t present at the last 2, I think also not the one before. I don’t know if members of the council have spoken to him about the fracking issue. I don’t know anyone who knows him personally. I’ve asked around, because I’d love to speak to him! It would be great to involve him in these discussions. It is not clear for how long the field has been leased to Cuadrilla – 3 years, I think, beginning, presumably, back when planning permission was sought in early 2010. Whether Simon is happy to continue to lease the field to Cuadrilla I have no idea. But in any case it is not of great significance, as, under the 1998 Petroleum Act, these companies who lease oil and gas rights from DECC for great swathes of the country have the right to compulsory purchase of land for their wells, provided they pay 10% over market value.
Accidents happen. Look at Nigeria:
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Chevron_Environment.pdf
and that was before the recent fire, still burning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17126335
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/nigeria/120206/nigeria-news-chevron-fire-niger-delta-enters-week-four
http://ecowatch.org/2012/nigeria-back-in-the-spotlight-chevron-offshore-rig-catches-fire/
Oh so sweet: http://sweetcrudereports.com/2012/02/20/chevron-commences-drilling-relief-well-offshore-nigeria/
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2011/04/06/refugee-from-shell-slams-fracking/
I only recently became interested in shale gas after seeing friend arguing about it. One was an engineering and the other one is office manager. It was all about the the environment and climate change stuff. Then i ask a general question to them what it can be used for beside burning it and luckily enough there was a chemistry organic graduate at the table and she said natural gas is the raw ingredient (95%) of farming fertilisers as well as cheaper (than oil) essential feeding chemical stock to make quality plastic and nana carbon tube or carbon fibers. And then it struck me that it is more useful than just for burning. When it search on the application of nano carbon tube/fibre on Wikipedia, I was amazed how the bread of high tech application that use nano carbon tube. From making stronger lighter car, planes, boat, bike parts to medicals instrument, drug delivery, to areo space engineering to radar absorption tech for stealth fighter etc etc. Even electronic components for smart phone, lab tops to solar panel and wind turbine (ironically isn’t, they complement each other and yet they oppose each other madly). I also then realise that if we use nat gas in these high tech, the carbon is trapped in these material and yey no CO2 emission. These cheap gas may bring cheaper energy but may also bring these high tech industries to the UK is what i am thinking. Is the company drilling for gas? does anyone know?
Oil, apparently. And not in shale but in micrite, apparently. Oil was found here (in Balcombe) some decades ago but could not at that time be viably extracted. Cuadrilla have yet to sink their test well (the vertical part) into the existing old vertical well-bore and take their own samples to confirm what is there (vertically down from the site) before drilling horizontally and test-fracking to see what flows. They have planning permission to do this. However, they still need a drilling licence from DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) to begin this exploration. In normal circumstances, DECC would give this permission within a couple of weeks of application – it would be more or less a formality. However, DECC are now very highly aware of public feeling against fracking, and of publicity generated in particular around the Balcombe site. They are also contemplating the implications of earthquakes caused by fracking in Lancashire. I doubt now whether it will just be nodded through.
Cuadrilla (the prospecting company who have leased from DECC the oil and gas rights for this part of Sussex as well as for Lancashire) have admitted causing earthquakes in Lancashire when fracking fluid flowed up geological faults deep underground, faults that Cuadrilla had not detected before they began to frack. Since then, Cuadrilla have given a verbal undertaking to DECC not to frack in the North West of England (Lancashire) until DECC and the government have studied reports on these earthquakes. However, Cuadrilla are continuing to drill in Lancashire, in preparation for the ‘green light’. This preparatory drilling is hugely expensive. They must be very confident of a positive outcome.
Cuadrilla say they have no intention for the moment to drill here in Balcombe. They say they are too busy up in Lancashire. Intentions can change fast. We need to be vigilant.
Other communities across the south of England also need to be vigilant. Balcombe is an early-day guinea pig. There will undoubtedly be many more planning applications for frackable oil or gas wells elsewhere. The map on this site will show you the parts of England that DECC has already leased to oil and gas prospectors (or follow the link http://gasdrillinginbalcombe.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/uk-onshore-licenses-2011.pdf ).
The government seems very keen to extract every last bubble and globule. The 1998 Petroleum Act allows for compulsory purchase of land for oil wells, should the landowners prove unwilling. (In Britain, oil and gas rights beneath our feet belong to ‘The Crown’, ie the country.) It is to be feared that, across the country, planning permission will be imposed from on high, at government level, if parish, district and county councils refuse permission. it is really important to make our views heard.
So what does the future hold? Dwindling ‘conventional’ oil and gas may be replaced for a while by ‘unconventional’ oil and gas cracked out of our bedrocks. What a pity that our government is expending its energies on these last, locked-in petrochemical reserves! Now, wave and tidal power – THAT would be an interesting direction. And one into which government enthusiasm and subsidy should have been poured long ago.
Kathryn, thanks for the detail reply. It is a difficult issue isn’t it? Environment vs Energy supply security for the nation. I guess both have its own arguement and it is a difficult call. Renewables is the way forward but at the moment it is not economical efficient enough to compete with natural gas. Well even coal apparently. We need to push forward to improve efficiency of renewables. Natural gas seem to be the future or at least for the next few decadaes as many big oil/gas/financial heads commented. From I gather on the internet goverment around the world is and big oil major pouring billions investment into shale gas exploration, apparently just to learn the technology from the American (even Total SA, a big French oil major). I guess they want to apply it on their own shale resource. It is hard to agrue against natural gas on its merits of economics and as a cleaner and cheaper fossil fuel than coal or oil. I guess we need to push for a stringent regulation and monitor of the industry. I hope that there are enough regulation in place to make sure these companies do the right things.
No, there are not enough regulations in place.
While governments rely on future availability of fracked gas and oil, they will fail to put sufficient resources into making renewable energy systems viable. One day renewables will be all we have. That day will creep up and bite us if we remain so complacent.
If you factor in to the natural gas equation the carbon cost of production, it no longer appears such a positive option. It is more carbon-costly than coal. Cleaner to burn yes, but dirtier overall.
I have been asked to clarify that it was the current chairwoman of Balcombe Parish Council who wrote the part of the minutes relating to my statement, the council’s explanation of how the planning application was not treated as a normal planning application, and the apology at the January Parish Council meeting. I quote Alison Stevenson: ‘I also have to say that that section of the minutes this jan were written by me not Richard so I am afraid you have shamed the wrong person in your latest post and we must insist that post is therefore removed. The minutes were worded after advice from SALC.’ For those who don’t know, I quote the SALC website: ‘SALC / SCAPTC is the first point of contact for all local councils in need of free advice on a range of topics, from legal, financial and technical to general advice.’
Apologies therefore to Richard Greig for my post of yesterday – I wrongly assumed that the clerk to the council would always write the minutes.
I reword my post of yesterday: Following my criticism of the handling of the planning application for a Balcombe oil well, the Council accepted most openly that they had not followed normal procedure. One of the councillors apologised humbly and honourably on behalf of the Council for their lack of due attention. To write in the subsequent minutes that they ‘apologised for any misunderstanding that had arisen’ is inaccurate. It is sad to see that in these minutes our Council has once again missed an opportunity to apologise to the village for their failure two years ago to alert us to this issue. They refused to do so in the letter they sent around (to most houses in the village) in search of members of their new fracking fact-finding group. Saying sorry clears the air and allows people to move on. Please do report your meetings accurately.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/new-york-fracking-ban_n_1292497.html
‘In a blow to the oil and gas industry, a judge has ruled small towns in New York have the authority to ban drilling – including the controversial method known as fracking – within their borders.’
A UK independent view perhaps.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/uk-energy-shale-uk-idUKTRE81N00520120224
Thank you. May I ask where you are based, Tommie?