We thank those who have come from outside the village to help defend our countryside, our air and water quality, and our right to a peaceful existence on tanker-free country roads.
Press release from No Fracking in Balcombe Society, Friday July 26th, 2013, 5pm
Balcombe residents protest against fracking in the village
14 people have been arrested this afternoon at oil and gas driller Cuadrilla’s site half a mile south of the village of Balcombe in Sussex. Police used force to arrest the protesters under trades union picketing laws. Those arrested were peacefully sitting in front of the gate to the site in order to prevent the drill rig and other equipment entering. They were amongst scores of protesters from Balcombe and surrounding towns and villages.
NoFiBS is deeply disappointed in the police role in facilitating the drilling for Cuadrilla when they have an obligation to facilitate protest. NoFiBS intend to continue to protest legally and peacefully on the verges by the site gate. Cuadrilla’s vehicles have since begun to enter the site, to chants of ‘Ouze Valley OUR valley’ and ‘Go home Cuadrilla’.
Cuadrilla may not now be on schedule to begin drilling as planned tomorrow, Saturday. They make much of their quibble that they will not frack at this exploratory stage. For PR purposes and to facilitate permits, Cuadrilla will take the water pressure to just below rock-fracturing level. The exploratory stage has its own nuisances and dangers, and is a precurser of actual oil production, which will certainly involve fracking. So Cuadrilla, please stop telling us to ‘calm down dears because we are not going to frack just now’.
We call upon the government to change its policy on on-shore oil and gas exploration. This is not just a Balcombe issue – licences for the underbelly of two-thirds of the UK have been sold by the government to oil and gas companies. Citizens across the UK should wake up and take note that oil rigs and frack sites are coming to a field near them.
This week, Cuadrilla were given the government go-ahead to drill in Balcombe only three working days after the public consultation had ended. The Environment agency had received nearly 900 submissions from the public in Balcombe and beyond, many arriving close to their deadline. It is hard to believe that the Environment Agency properly considered the public’s views. What confidence can we have that government agencies will be willing or able regulate and police this industry, and protect our wellbeing and quality of life?
We thank those who have come from outside the village to help defend our countryside, our air and water quality, and our right to a peaceful existence on tanker-free country roads. We stand united with friends similarly besieged elsewhere in the country, especially in the North West, on that other front line of the fracking war. We in Balcombe feel bullied. Bullied by the oil and gas industry. Bullied by our government. We stand strong in the fight against this dangerous and misguided government policy.
Contact: nofibs@btinternet.com
gasdrillinginbalcombe 
Letter to President Obama from 1 000 US medical personnel from right across the USA, urging him to put an end to fracking.
Click to access compiled_hp_letters_to_president_obama.2.20.14.pdf
Shame this site appears to have gone dead. For all its bias it did accommodate differing views. Now all we have is FFBRA scratching each others backs.
But there is good news; Ffbra’s submission to WSCC is so full of condescension & convoluted arguments that we can be confident the council will bin it as just another activist nuisance.
At least everyone is using argument and not riot to promote their causes.
Happy Easter all, when it comes.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/storms-floods-climate-change-upon-us-lord-stern
A snippit from Friday’s Times to cheer you all up; ” A small town in the rolling prairies of North Dakota has overtaken the likes of New York& Los Angeles as the most expensive place to live in America-thanks to the fracking revolution in the new wild west.”
Perhaps NoFibs should switch to scare stories about house prices rocketing in Balcombe.
Now there is to be no fracking to cause earthquakes we need something new to worry about.
For the first 20 years after release into the atmosphere – for the same mass – Methane is 72 time more damaging than C02 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas. Methane release from Fracking are only one of the sources, Cows and Methane Hydrates (as Oceans and Tundra) warm are also a big problem.
Also regarding US and CO2. They simply exported their CO2 population. The coal is still being dug up – but exported.
We really are (on average) an incredibly shorted sighted / self-interest species
Don’t forget the wildebeeste – the wildebeest population of the Serengeti is now 6 times what it was twenty years ago.
The Germans might not be importing US coal had their Greens not shut down their nuclear generating capacity. And since usage doesn’t soar, US coal is in turn being used in place of more expensive other coal.
No of which justifies Fracking.
The US figures may show reduced CO2, but that is negated, greenhouse-gas-wise, by all that escaped methane. Yes, more work does need to be done, on methane escaping from wells, from the surrounding countryside via fractures and faults, from valves etc, pipelines, during transport and preparation for use.
So they are not going to frack in Balcombe? Cuadrilla are a just a prospecting company. Their objective is to prove that there are economically viable amounts of oil under Balcombe, and then sell on to an extraction company. Cuadrilla can gather enough information about Balcombe’s oil from the ‘core samples’ they have already taken, and by ‘acid-etching’ at this next flow-testing stage. The extraction company that succeeds them will need to frack, because the oil-bearing rocks beneath Balcombe are ‘unconventional’ – oil will not flow in sufficient quantity without fracking. In any case we object to their presence in our village, to their drilling, to their flow testing, whether they frack at this stage or not.
Both conventional and unconventional oil wells spell unacceptable dangers to health, environment and climate.
Balcombe village has been mislead by Cuadrilla before. In December 2012 they wrote to us to say that they would not be drilling at all in Balcombe, they were too busy in Lancashire. In May 2013 suddenly we got a letter to say they were coming in June to drill.
Every new oil and gas planning application nowadays avoids the ‘f’ word. Claiming ‘no fracking’ aims to sooth local opinion, make permits easier to get, and make all this a ‘non-story’ for the press. It’s a general industry ruse. Here and elsewhere, oil and gas exploration companies will need to frack these ‘unconventional’ rocks – and licences will soon cover two thirds of the British Isles.
It was no news to us in Balcombe that Cuadrilla drilled into a shallow layer of micrite. We knew this back in May. Micrite is a loose-textured rock, principally calcium carbonate, made up of ancient sea creatures and/or solidified limey mud. Natural fractures were to be expected. We were told in May that Cuadrilla would use a 15% solution of hydrochloric acid (plus other chemicals) to dissolve pathways into this micrite layer – acid dissolves lime. Cuadrilla reduced the proposed hydrochloric acid strength to just under 10 per cent on discovering that the Environment agency considered anything over 10% to be toxic. They planned, they said, to top it up with citric and acetic acids (plus, of course, other chemical additives). They would take the test pressure up to just below rock fracturing point, so that technically they would not be fracking.
We asked the DECC, the EA, the Health & Safety Executive and West Sussex County Council for a definition of fracking. The differenence was surprising. Some in the industry would call what Cuadrilla are propoing an ‘acid frack’.
According to David Smythe, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, University of Glasgow, Balcombe’s geology is deeply faulted, and unsuited to drilling of any kind for hydrocarbons, let alone to fracking. Faults, as well as the well itself, can act as conduits for liquid or gaseous pollutants.
Cuadrilla’s horizontal well will have intersected with the Paddockhurst Park Fault, says Professor Smythe, and possibly with other faults as well. The micrite layer, only 33 metres thick, will have slipped 30 or 40 metres lower along these faults . It will have been ‘all-but impossible to keep the drill string within the 33 m thick micrite layer, due to insufficient geological information.’ The horizontal well will therefore have entered shale, and Cuadrilla will have information not just on the micrite, but also on the shale layer above. Is the proposal to investigate oil in micrite ‘a cover-story for investigating the shales?’ he asks. http://www.davidsmythe.org/fracking/cuadrilla%20sussex%20critique%20V1.pdf
There is nothing ‘unconventional’ about micrite.
David Smythe is a bit past it. On the basis of his several pronouncement, I;m not sure I’d trust him to order me a pint. You’re scraping the barrel there.
15% acid in contact with micrite doesn’t stay acid for very long at all. There are good reasons, such as buffering & chelation, for using vinegar & lemon juice, not just trying to kid the EA.
Kathryn,With regard to your statement;”Balcombe village has been mislead by Cuadrilla before. In December 2012 they wrote to us to say that they would not be drilling at all in Balcombe, they were too busy in Lancashire. In May 2013 suddenly we got a letter to say they were coming in June to drill.”
Presumably the letter in December caused much rejoycing among the NoFibbers. “Victory” ” Make sure they stick to it” etc. BUT the posts in December 2112 do not even mention it. The debate rages on as if nothing had changed.Does this letter actually exist? If so could you favour me with a copy please? Thanks. Will consult those qualified on your several technical posts.
Somerset under water. Cornwall cut off by rail – and the Government are still not happy?! We need to produce yet more Climate Change via Methane / CO2 via Fracking.
The North West has some of the strongest tidal systems global. Yet this Government would rather pollute Lancashire than do the right thing. FYI – Tidal is 7x24X365X(for as long a the moon is in orbit).
The latest Severn Estury tidal scheme requires subsidy to the extent of 3.6 TIMES present prices. Do you really think our economy could stand that sort of energy price hike.?
I wonder if our economy, our society, our ecosystem can withstand the damaged caused by the short term – quick fix – fast buck – policies you advocate.
\for every idiot who claims tides are 2/365, there are just two words: Spring & Neap.
Spring tides, like Neaps, are on a 14 day cycle. Springs are higher energy, Neaps much lower.
Oh yes, & turbines corrode awfully in the marine environment.
Lets see.
Maintaining a clean renewable energy resource. This generating plenty of local engineering jobs in the Lancashire area, and in some quite high tech areas of engineering.
Or a Frack, pollute and run policy.
Which do you think is preferable to the people of Lancashire?
Article in The Times yesterday by Hugo Rifkind, passionately supporting action on reducing emissions & a fan (his pun not mine) of wind farms and tidal generation. He also writes “ Green opposition to shale & nuclear strikes me as bizarre when both offer dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions”
Common sense creeping into the Green camp. NoFibs will end up with only house prices to worry about.
Mr Rifkind should do some research on the likely greenhouse effect of fracking. Taking into account the methane that ecapes all the way along the process from well to kitchen cooker, shale gas is worse than coal. (And in any case is unlikely to REPLACE coal.)
Peer-reviewed scientific papers published recently in the USA provide powerful evidence of
extremely high levels of methane emissions in the air around gas sites. Principal amongst them is
a study from the University of Harvard in collaboration with four other top academic bodies and
a federal agency, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Further studies
from Austin, Texas, Colorado and Cornell University put losses to the atmosphere from venting
and leaks at up to 8% of all the shale gas they get out of the rocks.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5#page-2
Levels this high would undermine any claims that shale gas could result in lower greenhouse gas
emissions if gas were to replace coal. (There is no guarantee than gas will be used instead of
rather than as well as coal.) Burning methane produces less CO2 than coal, but methane escaping unburnt to the atmosphere is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20 year time scale, and about 35 times more potent even over 100 years, according to latest figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Such evidence threatens the main justification for shale gas development, namely that it is a
useful ‘transitional’ fuel that can quickly lower greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium
term, while investment takes place to build up low carbon generation from renewables. The
growing US evidence on fugitive methane emissions was completely ignored in a recent paper
on shale gas and the greenhouse effect, co-authored by the DECC chief scientific advisor.
In additon, the time-scale is all wrong. By the time shale gas wd come on tap in any quantity in the mid to late 20s or even 30s, we are committed to being well on our way out of fossil fuels.
And what does Mr Rifkind propose to do with all that nasty waste, whether from nuclear power stations or from fracking, radioactive both!
Interesting that the scare stories have moved from “earthquakes” to methane!
The exact tonnage may be disputed but I have not seen it questioned that USA HAS reduced emissions on account of fracking. Even the learned people on your link cannot seem to agree. Quote
“Using more reasonable leakage rates and bases of comparison, shale gas has a GHG footprint that is half and perhaps a third that of coal.”
Another set back for NOFibs is that there will not be fracking in Balcombe anyway, just drilling for oil.
You say we are “Committed” to being well on our way out of fossil fuels in 20/30 years time. I won’t be around to check but very much doubt if oil will be entirely redundant by then.
Moreover we might as well be “committed” to travelling only in silent non-polluting aircraft. Both very desirable and & if economically viable renewable energy HAS been developed in 20-30 years time the shale drillers will be out of business. Meanwhile we should welcome their investment in what may be a temporary energy source AND a source of funding into viable renewables (and those silent aircraft)
Rodney, this is an old article but may interest you, re earthquakes and subsidence owing to natural gas extraction
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/10162343/Earthquakes-from-onshore-gas-drilling-threaten-a-disaster-warn-residents-of-Dutch-city.html
And they haven’t even fracked in Groningen (NE Holland). Last week Henk Kamp, Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs, wrote to the Dutch President re the need to reduce gas extraction at Groningen. He attached the results of a study into earthquakes and subsidence as a result of gas extraction at Groningen, Europe’s biggest natural gas field: serious earthquakes, cracked houses, danger to dykes, serious compensation figures for local residents.
it’s not that we are no longer worried by earthquakes. It’s just that earthquakes are a certain way down our list of sound reasons not to frack. I’ll answer the rest of your comment in a moment. Meanwhile am going to forward on your email the Dutch letter and study. Do share it with your friends. You could ask Malcome to tack it on to the end of a green leaflet! I loved your choice of colour!
I often wonder why, if they haven’t fracced in Groningen, there are service companies with frac spreads in the Netherlands. But no matter – maybe the claim is to avoid a Vanessa-visit, complete with burn-the-police-cars flag. After all, the Germans used to claim they hadn’t fracced, whereas they invented this “modern” high volume fraccing.
But Groningen has been producing gas at a very high rate for about half a century {all those nice greenhouse tomatoes}, perhaps at too high a rate. That is why there is local subsidence.
Kathryn, Given all the doom-laden ‘statistics’ about ‘fugitive’ methane, it is worth pointing out that they are all estimates, usually by people funded by the Park Foundation.
There has been only one actual measurement at well-heads survey, the recent UT one, which found gas losses of 0.017%. So much for alarmist & inaccurate estimates!
The atmospheric one you quote, the only other non-estimate, does not distinguish between wells {never mind shale gas wells}, refineries, coal mines – a major source of methane, see Australia, ruminants & distribution networks. Boston, for instance has a very leaky old gas network – but that has nothing to do with shale gas well emissions.
Oh what a lovely article by former Energy Minister Chris Huhne in today’s Guardian:
Huhne: ‘To sum up, shale may not happen. If it does, it will be slow. Even if it is eventually massive, prices will not drop. British industry, far from re-shoring, will be squeezed by the strong pound. Could the prime minister please hire a respectable economic adviser with a memory?’
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/26/truth-david-cameron-fracking-fairytale-shale-gas
Vanessa Vine rattling Peter Lilley on Channel 4 yesterday, from Barton Moss (pity she wasn’t in the studio): http://www.channel4.com/news/fracking-barton-moss-peter-lilley-vanessa-vine-manchester
Fracking firms ‘should pay £6bn a year tax to compensate for climate change’
Cambridge University study says shale gas companies should pay for harm they will cause to environment
(…)
‘Chris Hope, a parliamentary adviser and reader in policy modelling at the Judge Business School in Cambridge.
“Shale gas will contribute to climate change in two ways, from carbon dioxide emissions when the gas is burned, and from the fugitive emissions of underground methane that leak into the atmosphere when the gas is extracted,” he says.
“Under the Institute of Directors’ central production estimate and with a central methane leakage rate of 2%, the tax revenues for the UK will be about £6bn per year in current prices by the time shale really gets going in the latter half of the 2020s.” ‘ (…)
‘The social impact of methane has been less well studied, Hope says, but the best estimate for this much more powerful greenhouse gas is a little over $1,200 a tonne.
Hope, a specialist adviser to an inquiry by the House of Lords select committee on economic affairs into aspects of the economics of climate change, says the advantage of a tax of this nature is that companies engaged in future fracking would know from the start what extra cost they would be expected to bear.’
Sorry, that article just posted was: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/26/fracking-firms-tax-compensate-climate-change
‘Shadow energy minister, Tom Greatrex, said shale gas could have a role to play in improving our energy security, but added: “I would expect government to engage with key stakeholders, including businesses, but to do so in order to provide …responsible leadership, not pliant cheerleading. It is increasingly concerning that Tory ministers seek to exaggerate the potential benefits of shale and dismiss genuine and legitimate concerns. The public would expect government to be challenging shale companies on their interaction with communities, not agreeing press lines with them.” ’
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/17/emails-uk-shale-gas-fracking-opposition
See more
Emails reveal UK helping shale gas industry manage fracking opposition
http://www.theguardian.com
A little cautionary tale about poorly treated flowback and produced water, something I missed back in October, a new, peer-reviewed study from Duke University.
‘Oct. 2, 2013 — Elevated levels of radioactivity, salts and metals have been found in river water and sediments at a site where treated water from oil and gas operations is discharged into a western Pennsylvania creek.
________________________________________
‘ “Radium levels were about 200 times greater in sediment samples collected where the Josephine Brine Treatment Facility discharges its treated wastewater into Blacklick Creek than in sediment samples collected just upstream of the plant,” said Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment.
The new Duke study examined the quality of shale gas wastewater from (…)
‘”The treatment removes a substantial portion of the radioactivity, but it does not remove many of the other salts, including bromide,” Vengosh said. “When the high-bromide effluents are discharged to the stream, it increases the concentrations of bromide above the original background levels. This is significant because bromide increases the risks for formation of highly toxic disinfection byproducts in drinking water treatment facilities that are located downstream.”
“The radioactivity levels we found in sediments near the outflow are above management regulations in the U.S. and would only be accepted at a licensed radioactive disposal facility,” said Robert B. Jackson, professor of environmental science at Duke.’ (…)
‘…the amount of radioactivity that has accumulated in the river sediments still exceeds thresholds for safe disposal of radioactive materials,” Vengosh said.”Years of disposal of oil and gas wastewater with high radioactivity has created potential environmental risks for thousands of years to come.” ‘
etc, much more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131002092621.htm
The Duke team published their findings on Oct 2 in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The Environment Agency will say that the UK will regulate, but poor them, they are losing so many staff… And it seems to me that flowback treatment remains a dilemma worldwide. We don’t want deep re injection of flowback liquid here. Think of all the earthquakes that would cause!
We in the UK are starting receive similar issues, we have a number of drilling companies that are commenting on the issues look at http://www.piling-equipment-ltd.com to view information from the other side of the world (look at their blog section)
Ron Drill – it is hard to find a subject listed in the Blog section of that site which discusses water remediation.
Please point us in the right direction.
The Telegraph gets it right! Fracking-related diseases – birth defects, hormonal disturbances, infertility, cancer… And do read down to the second half – about research into fugitive methane from fracking – in Teddington! You could also google research on fugitive methane at Harvard et al, Colorado, and in Texas. Currently, fugitive methane – gas escaping via all kinds of fracking-related routes incuding valves and equipment – makes methane a ridiculously filthy fuel. Methane is 86 timesworse a greenhouse gas than coal, over a 20 yr period.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10520735/Fracking-chemicals-could-cause-infertility-cancer-and-birth-defects.html
The first big player is to announce its entry into the British fracking game on Monday:
‘London (AFP) – Total, the French oil giant, is to become the first major firm to explore for shale gas in Britain, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, despite a ban on exploration in France.
‘The firm will on Monday announce a deal under which it will join an exploration licence in Lincolnshire, central England, currently operated by US company Ecorp, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter.
‘Singapore-based Dart Energy and UK-listed Igas and Edgdon resources are also partners in the project, the Financial Times said.’
Naja Michael, was meinst Du davon? Zahlen ab 2013!
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/fehlkalkulation-der-energieunternehmen-fracking-lohnt-sich-nicht-1.1859579
9. Januar 2014 19:14
Fehlkalkulation der Energieunternehmen Fracking lohnt sich nicht
Die Euphorie ist verflogen: Für Energiefirmen und Investoren hat sich Fracking bislang nicht ausgezahlt. Die Kosten sind hoch, die Preise niedrig und noch dazu sind die Schiefergasreserven wohl kleiner als bislang angenommen.
English summary: The energy companies miscalculated in the USA – fracking isn’t worth the effort, it doesn’t pay. The euphoria is over. Fracking has not paid out for the energy companies and investors. The costs are too high, prices low, and what’s more, reserves of shale gas are smaller than predicted.
Investment in shale gas halved in the US in 2013 compared with 2012 (figures from consultants IHS Herold). Oil and gas companies and their investors spent more money on land, equipment and exploration than they earned from sales of gas and oil. Less capital outlay means fewer wells drilled and lower production – and that could spell the end of the era of low energy prices. The bubble will burst. ‘I wouldn’t be surprised if it burst this year,’ says Werner Zittel, chief executive of independent analysts the Ludwig-Bölkow Foundation. Notably, European and Asian investors have pulled out in recent months. Analysts are now saying that the whole market has completely changed.
Critical experts such as Zittle are of the opinion that shale gas reserves have been overvalued. Shell had to write off $2 billion a couple of months ago in its N American holdings. BP, Encana and the BG Group have likrwise had to downvalue their shale gas business in the last couple of years. The same goes for many smaller firms.
Meanwhile, the EU Commission downgraded its estimates of European shale gas reserves from 15.8 billion cubic metres of extractable gas to only 13.3 billion. And it’s clear that here in Europe shale gas will be much more expensive to tap than in America.
Open letter from prof of geology at Southern Illinois University Carbondale
‘Just because the fracking technology has been invented and can increase the production of oil and gas that provides jobs and profits for a while does NOT justify its use if it puts the health, well-being and survival of the human species and our accumulated civilization at risk. (Humans also invented nuclear bombs but must not use them for similar reasons!)
‘We should not be playing games with fracking rules. More stringent rules and nickel and dime fines for environmental damages are part of that game. We should not even be considering a moratorium. Fracking technology very simply should not be used.’ etc
http://thesouthern.com/news/opinion/christensen-moratorium-insufficient-protection-from-fracking/article_4068bbc0-7350-11e3-b4f4-0019bb2963f4.html
He is a retired, not practicing, not even ’emeritus’, professor.
He is a professor of Geography, not Geology.
His ignorance of the earth is shown by his statement “remaining toxic fluids, oil and gas rise randomly to the surface for miles around the bore hole”. With over 2 million wells fracced to date, if this happened even once in a million times, it would have already been seen to have occurred.
More alarmist tosh.
Interesting report from Texas on the dangers of oil and gas wells for public health:
Click to access FULL-RecklessEndangerment-sm.pdf
Brian Monk, Queensland, Australia
2nd January 2014:
“Those of you who have followed my posts will know the impact this industry has had on my grandchildren.
For a few weeks I have intermittently complained on FB about a stink, a creosote type smell, that burns your eyes, gives you a headache, burns your nose, makes it hard to breathe, in fact a little while ago I said it scared me enough to contemplate fleeing in the middle of the night.
So back to this week, 3 days ago my littlest granddaughter walked out to the deck saying “my nose just started bleeding” with blood running down her face and dripping on her shirt and shorts all the way down to her feet and a trail behind her. You add that to our youngest grandson banging his head on his pillow saying”my head hurts”, he is a beautiful strong little boy who will pick himself up after tripping and dust himself off saying “I’m all right”. Then add that to 2.30 this morning when Cathy calls me to come over because our second youngest grandson is having a Grand Mal seizure. Pretty big coincidence hey.
So this morning I’m here to tell you how helpless and hopeless I feel today, how the tears stream down my face as I type, how the surge of anger and frustration makes my body shake. So, I don’t want sympathy, I don’t want help, I’m not looking for solutions, this is not the reason for the post.
I want to warn you, this is life in a gas field, look to the USA to see your future if we don’t stop this. We are one individual family, we are part of a group of families in a developing gas field, as this develops we will become one of hundreds and then thousands. Don’t help me, we are a proud and independent family, this is our problem, no one else’s. But please help the rest of Australia, please, no one should have to endure this in our Nation.”
Very sad. But it is probably wise to point out yet again that there is no production of shale gas in Queensland, Australia.
And that the UK does not experience the rampant exploitation of resources that Australia does.
Methane is methane with all its associated VOCs and NOx and so on whether extracted from coal or shale beds. Britain is under threat not only from exploitation of shale gas but also of coal bed methane/coal seam gas and underground (or at least undersea) coal gasification. If you think we are not going to oppose the whole undesirable trio, Michael, you must think we have learnt nothing over the past years. We are very much united with friends in East Kent, Nottingham , Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales, all those coal mining areas of old. And yes indeed, doch, rampant exploitation is exactly what we are being threatened with by our government and its industry cronies.
No Kathryn, methane is indeed methane, but natural gas is a differing mixture of gases depending on its origins. If you want to discuss associated ethane, propane, VOCs, NOx or sulphides, then you must take cognisance of the source. If you wish to consider possible pollution, then you really must consider the source, as wells & mining are not really the same industry & do not historically have the same standards. Coal exploitation is definitely mining, shale gas is definitely oil & gas.
There are significant differences between coal bed gas & shale gas & the methods of recovery. Underground coal gasification is yet again an order of magnitude different.
You might want to consider whether a ragtag & bobtail alliance of misaligned & often eccentric interests is the best way of trying to find sensible middle ground. Or do you just wish to consume the benefits of what is produced elsewhere, which is not very moral.
Nobody said the contaminants were the same. There seems to be a remarkable similarity between health impacts reported around coal bed methane and shale gas sites – respiratory, endocrine, neurological, dermatological…! YOU are the excentric ones, not us. We are indeed rag and bobtail, all kinds of ordinary citizens increasingly united. We want a ban, a world-wide ban. And no, Michael, we do not want to consume extreme fossil fuels produced elsewhere. Do please explain to me why this would be less than moral?
Kathryn, few of us WANT to depend on fossil fuels produced here or, least of all, elsewhere but for the foreseeable future you will & we all will.
Clean, indigenous and economically viable energy is greatly to be desired. So are silent, non-polluting VTOL airliners, but we ain’t there yet.
A few small communities may be genuinely self-sufficient & God bless them. We need poets & dreamers as well as engineers & entrepreneurs but an economy of 70 million cannot live on poets & dreamers alone.
It is morally bankrupt to pose as “holier than thow”, living by candle light & log fires but running to the NHS & the benefits office funded by the real ( fossil fuel powered) economy. This seemed to be the stance of many (not all) of our delightful summer visitors. As morally bankrupt as the NIMBY’S who put (unfounded) fears for their house prices before their country.
As a nation we are still spending more than we earn, &, heaven knows, we need better services not diversion of resources to subsidise renewable follies. Too many, especially the young, are un-or underemployed. They will not be helped by a motley crew of anarchists bleating for subsidies & blocking every attempt to get our economy back on it’s feet.
Ask yourself how many would subscribe to the “community solar project” if it were not a chance to scrounge subsidies? Probably about as many as would eschew fossil power when the sun doesn’t shine!
Please just face it , if if the selfish NIMBY’s succeed in Balcombe they will continue to rely on oil & gas from elsewhere for at least another generation. Call that the moral highground?
Happy New Year!
There are no so blind as those who will not see. There are no energy sources that can fully replace fossil fuels, not even nuclear – & the current world population could not survive without current energy usage levels, levels that the intermittents called renewables cannot hope to meet. It is immoral to pretend that the intermittents are not polluting, just because they pollute elsewhere, or that you are not using fossil fuels to maintain present lifestyles.
‘Remarkable similarities’ are as capable of similar explanation as using the same word {“fracking”} to describe different things. I should imagine the dissolved chemicals in the water de-watered from coal are different from those in the associate water produced from shale – but it suits some to identify any that are poisons & to claim they come similarly from all sources.
‘
This won’t be the first time we’ve heard whispers of impending doom for the natural gas fracking industry, but since this one is coming from Bloomberg it’s probably worth a listen, so here’s the deal. Yesterday, Bloomberg reported that the boom in gas field purchasing from 2009 to 2012 has turned into a whopper of a bust, leaving oil and gas companies with a belly load of depressed assets and “disappointing” wells to go with falling gas prices.
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/20/the-fracking-chickens-are-coming-home-to-roost/#je8z8hjQxUB4dA7m.99
from the article –
“As for individual property owners, some of them have gotten themselves into a triple whammy. They’re being shorted on royalties, their property values are being affected by increased evidence of the harmful impacts of fracking, and now comes word that the insurance industry is casting the stinkeye on properties that host drilling operations.
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/20/the-fracking-chickens-are-coming-home-to-roost/#OwilqGfD1v6GzFQ6.99”
I was expecting this. Surprised to see it so soon though. If this really is the case the US economy is going to have big problems.
“down to $26 billion ” ! If only UK could have a “bust” like that!
“If only UK could have a “bust” like that!”
Well Rodney, we’ve certainly got a pair of tits running the economy – Cameron and Osborne – does that count?
I do hope you won’t mind my pointing out, on today’s date, that to use 2012 statistics to forecast “impending doom” for shale gas, is ‘so last year’.
Here is something more up-to-date: “Seneca says improvements in the last year alone saved about $525,000 per well in Tract 100. Its break-even point for these wells is $2.20 per 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The market price is nearly $4, so these are very profitable wells.”
This is from the story “Marcellus Shale drilling becomes more efficient” at http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/9504712-113/gas-wells-drilling-seneca
Might I wish all of you, from the presiding spirit Kathryn McWhirter to the redoubtable Rodney Jago, a happy & prosperous New Year. Perhaps we’ll meet up at a [safe] well-site somewhere.
‘On Dec. 4, a crew under Dewberry’s direction dug into the mountaintop of a state forest near here (…) When it’s done, the towering rig will crawl 20 feet and begin drilling another well. Seneca plans to complete nine wells in an assembly-line fashion on this site, which is the size of five football fields.’
The scale of the industrialisation of the countryside thanks to shale gas is horrific, Michael.
‘ “For natural gas, EIA has no doubt at all that production can continue to grow all the way out to 2040,” Sieminski said. The new fossil-fuel boom relies upon advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing…’
Michael, the timescale simply doesn’t work. By the 40s, even by the mid 20s, we are supposed to be well on our way OUT of fossil fuels.
And a happy new 2014 to you… If we have to wait to meet at a safe well, I’m afraid it isn’t going to happen!
Let’s start 2014 with a bit of realism.
Unless some quite unforeseen breakthrough unlocks competitively priced renewables we will NOT be free of dependence on fossil fuels by 2020/40.
Huge long-term contracts have already been signed for imported oil & gas. Do we make the Americans, Norwegians & Middle Easterners even richer by buying their gas or try to use our own resources to the benefit of our economy & energy security?
One of the best bits of news at the end of last year was the start of US co-operation with China to develop fracking. If that takes off it really could make a significant dent in world emissions. The downside is that countries that insist on hopelessly uneconomic renewables will simply decline into bucolic poverty.
Regarding our dear Balcombe . All the fuss is about one well which we cannot see , & if we are honest, can hardly hear even when being drilled. As I understand it the next development stage should last only a few weeks after which it will probably be closed off. If the site has more potential than expected we would end up with a nodding donkey & a couple of oil tankers a week.
Any new well sites would require complete new planning consents and may or may not be acceptable. On the Recreation Ground , no; in woods a couple of miles away, maybe. But we cannot possibly judge the merits of hypothetical sites.
Let’s be clear, the outlook for the foreseeable future is reliance on expensive imported energy unless we are willing to exploit our own.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares portions of shale-drilling law unconstitutional
‘ “By any responsible account,” Chief Justice Castille wrote, “the exploitation of the Marcellus Shale Formation will produce a detrimental effect on the environment, on the people, their children, and the future generations, and potentially on the public purse, perhaps rivaling the environmental effects of coal extraction.”
(…)
‘The decision sent shock waves through the shale gas industry, which had sought legislation guaranteeing uniform statewide land use rules, and the Corbett administration and legislators who had championed passage of the oil and gas law changes.’
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/2013/12/19/Pennsylvania-Supreme-Court-declares-portions-of-shale-drilling-law-unconstitutional/stories/201312190254#ixzz2o9rUzIPZ
Happy Christmas & a Peaceful New Year to all readers & contributors.
Thanks ,web-site, for accommodating ,contrary views.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/11/taxpayers-fracking-pollution-companies
‘Rob Cunningham, head of water policy at the RSPB, said: “The prime minister promised one of the most stringent regulatory regimes for fracking in the world but his government appears more interested in tax cuts than managing risk. It really doesn’t matter if you are pro or anti fracking, this proposal would simply ensure that when things do go wrong shareholders, not taxpayers bear the cost for cleanup if companies go bust or cease trading. If government’s response boils down to concerns over cost of insurance it sheds an interesting light on just how safe they really think the technology is.”
Here is an interesting & heartening recent environmental posting:
“… climate scientists Richard and Elizabeth A. Muller have produced a report for the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), claiming that environmentalists are making a “tragic mistake” in not supporting the [hydraulic fracturing] technique.
The report claims that many of the fears held over fracking are either unsubstantiated or can be controlled with proper legislation.
Additionally, the report states that fracking can in fact “reduce greenhouse gas emissions” and “reduce a deadly pollution known as PM2.5”.
Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres, named PM2.5, is associated with adverse health effects and is estimated to take the lives of 3.2 million people a year worldwide.”
http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2013/12/06/environmentalists-are-mistaken-over-fracking-says-cps
The actual report can also easily be found online.
Hmm – “the lives of 3.2 million people a year worldwide” – a figure well worth reducing, I should say. Truly a tragic mistake to be resolutely against trying.
Article in today’s Times and a supportive leader. Message is that unless UK gets on with shale gas a serious number of British jobs & investment may migrate to the U.S.A.
Cannot we in Balcombe put up with a mere few months of minor inconvenience (apart from protestors) to avoid the miseries of yet more unemployment?
Also a relevant letter on the outlook for energy supplies from a Cambridge Professor of Technology.
Michael, I need a tutorial. Something that came up in the Lords yesterday, but as usual with technical quesitons, no Lord leapt up to query it.
Is there any way to repair cement damage or inadequate or deteriorated cementing? For example the ovalisation at the base of Preese Hall? I wd imagine the only solution for that particular problem is to seal off the base of the well. But in general there must be no means of access and repair? I wd love to understand in engineering terms how a repair can be done. I mean, the cement is crumbly or whatever on the outside of the well, between casing and formation. How do you get through the casings and re-cement? Sounds impossible? How would you access the damaged or badly-cemented section from the outside?
The TUC and 100 organisations back the independent committee on climate change with its call for a 4th carbon reduction budget leading to 2027, while the Chancellor is making the insurance industry nervous with a head in the sand attitude to climate risks.
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/12/climate-chancellor-worries-insurers
Kathryn, Way back in the beginning of this, one January, I explained about squeeze cementing to repair wells. I guess you were unreceptive to good news.
Yes, poor cement can be, & almost always is, repaired. Remember that the steel casing gives radial sealing, the cement gives a longitudinal seal. One hundred feet of cement is usually considered a seal. When a fault is found in the cement outside a casing, by leaking, testing or more usually by logging, a hole is perforated in the casing, often at the lowest point of the bad section. An injectivity test is then run to establish that cement can be pumped through the hole & into the void space. If it cannot be, perhaps another distant perforation would be made – the object is to establish a path through which a cement slurry could be squeezed. This pathway is then squeezed full of cement & the sealing deficiency corrected. A set of squeeze packers is part of the tools kept at well sites. The ‘old reliable standby’ tool was called an RTTS, for retrievable test, treat & squeeze. Newer or non-retrieveable squeeze tools & bridge packers are also available. ‘Special tools services’ are a respected sub-contracting speciality.
Note that the ovalization at Preese Hall did not cause a loss of integrity – about half of the ovalization was of the already perforated casing, the rest did not suffer a radial leak. If the well perforations were squeezed after – the annulus would have been re-sealed.
“often at the lowest point of the bad section” should better be written “at a convenient extreme of the bad section”.
From Helz Cuppleditch, Frack Free Arun:
‘This is what happens when there’s a strict regulatory regime. QUOTE (abstracts): …Chevron said that “Significant changes to the fiscal, legislative and regulatory climate in Lithuania have substantially impacted the operational and commercial basis of the investment decision.”….. the government has introduced strict laws to ensure that shale oil and gas extraction does not adversely impact the environment.
‘Gold Standard Regulatory Regime in the UK?? I think not.’
http://www.shaleenergyinsider.com/2013/10/09/chevron-withdraws-from-shale-gas-exploration-in-lithuania/
Bit of a misdirection on your part. It is reported that “25 pieces of legislation of shale gas extraction are still undecided”, including probable taxes & the reliability of any lease awards. No company can risk exploration & development expenditure when they cannot rely on gaining future benefits.
As to HSE issues, in my experience Chevron do indeed meet gold-palted standards. Balcombe should be so lucky Chevron were interested in them.
“gold-plated”
Startling headline in today’s Times “Fracking gets the green light”. Startling because here we have politicians putting our long-term energy security, our prosperity, our economy & our balance of payments (yawn yawn go the Greens) before the chase for populist votes. Let us hope they have the guts to push it through.
just as a number of us have argued. Thanks for posting.
Remember the “it’s only the same as a golf course” spin? I think ‘they’ selected the water consumption numbers for a golf course situated in Kuwait 😉
So did Michael Fallon make up the story about the water industry giving its blessing to fracking? Did get its facts in a twist?
This is what The Telegraph is saying today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/utilities/10189331/Water-firms-raise-fears-over-shale-gas-fracking.html
‘In a blow for shale gas explorers and government alike, Water UK, which represents all major water suppliers, has published a series of concerns about fracking and warned that failure to address them could “stop the industry in its tracks”.
‘It suggests aquifers could be contaminated by fracking, by leaks from wells, or by poor handling of chemicals or waste water on the surface.
‘It also warns that “the fracking process requires huge amounts of water, which will inevitably put a strain on supplies in areas around extraction sites”.
‘It adds: “The power of the drilling and fracturing process even risks damaging existing water pipes, which could lead to leaks and shortages to people’s homes and businesses.”
(…) The water industry has commissioned its own report on the potential impact which shows the volumes needed presented a “real concern”.
This especially applies in the south east which is believed to have significant shale potential but is prone to water shortages.
Actually this was today’s article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/utilities/10479027/Fracking-has-inherent-risks-to-water-supply-but-these-can-be-mitigated-says-Water-UK.html, and the one in a twist was the FT last week.
From the first paragraph of your linked article:
“… holds “inherent” risks … but these can be mitigated through tough regulation, the water industry body Water UK said on Wednesday as it signed a co-operation agreement with shale gas industry”
Hmm, “it signed a co-operation agreement with shale gas industry”.
Tough regulation does not exist. Regulations were developed for off-shore, where no one cares about the environment and there are no neighbours and you can tip your rubbish into the sea because no one is looking. The Environment Agency could not even cope with one little well in Balcombe. How do you expect them to manage thousands? In balcombe they relied on an email at the end of each week to reassure that all was well.
I take exception to that. Although I’ve been on only a tiny fraction of North Sea rigs, the ones I was on did care about the environment & did not tip rubbish into the sea.
I fear you greatly misunderstand goal-setting regulatory regimes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03jcgq2/North_West_Tonight_26_11_2013/
News of drilling at Barton Moss and excellent commentary by Friends of the Earth
When the authorities fail to listen, sometimes all than remains is direct action.
“We are so angry about the way our country is being run. 2013 must be the year that Romania wakes up, that citizens begin to have a say in what is happening to our country. Things like fracking have to stop, we cannot accept the destruction of our future.” (…) ‘A man more accustomed to milking cows than fighting multinationals, he is nonetheless standing up to the gas companies and people are following his lead in growing numbers. (…) ‘And in the latest public showdown, communities deeply fearful of the damage that they believe fracking may cause havechased a rig operated by Chevron away from a test site. (…) claims that half a dozen laws are being breached by Prospectiuni in their gas exploration, including ones that restrict testing being carried out too close to homes, and others related to permits and trespass. (…) Elderly ladies in headscarves and traditional dress are rubbing shoulders with pierced activists and men in balaclavas. It is an interesting social mix. The crowd marches to the road to tear out more seismic wires in full view of the policemen, who stand watching. Residents who had been too scared to talk the day before now stand outside their houses, cheering and clapping on the protesters in delight.’
“It has been over an hour since the group started trashing equipment owned by the gas exploration company Prospectiuni S.A., playing an edgy game of cat and mouse”.
So destroying equipment isn’t breaking the law, its playing ‘cat & mouse’?
When Romanians come to Britain to seek work, will you still be so proud of stopping them developing sources of employment in their own country?
A seismic survey is not hydraulic fracturing.
Ah, you are back. A seismic survey is clearly in itself very disruptive and destructive: we shall oppose it, if ever we get to 3D point here in Balcombe. Yes, there comes a point where direct action becomes a necessity. Michael, you have worked in Europe. Would you deny the same rights of movement to Romanian citizens of the EU? Yes, coal is very bad too, but we are talking methane emissions around frack sites. Do stick to the subject in hand. And that was the second report this week about discharge of frack fluid into the sea. The Preece Hall frack fluid was discharged into the Manchester Ship Canal, after minimal treatment (with EA dispensation, we hear)! The world over, no government, no evironmental agency, no oil and gas company currently has a valid policy for cleaning up returned frackwater and restoring it to the water cycle in pristine state. And how much remains below ground?How much water is the oil and gas industry putting for ever beyond reach? In Balcombe, three proposed chemicals were rejected by the Environment Agency. Cuadrilla knew only their brand name. Neither Cuadrilla nor the EA could work out what they were. So they got banned. (Source: EA) You really should come to Balcombe for re-education.
Transylvania is indeed a very beautiful area. It is also very big & very rural. I do not know the full story but doubt if a few properly sited drill sites would spoil it and could benefit a poor population.
It may well be that the Romanian authorities do not work to our regulatory standards and if sub-standard and/or land has been illegally occupied, or the owners have inadequate legal advice they deserve help.
The usual agitator groups will be totally counter-productive. Perhaps the EU could do something useful for once. Our dear Green MEP might turn his energies from encouraging mob rule in Balcombe to some real work through diplomacy in the EU?
Whatever the facts in Romania it is hardly relevant to Balcombe where land owners surely have very able legal support!
On an entirely different note I have received pages from The Sunday Times Magazine about Genocide in Brazil accompanied by an anonymous typed note which seems to equate some slight inconvenience to the well fed burgers of Balcombe with genocide. If the person responsible reads this I can only say “calm down, dear (or old chap)”. The comparison is so unbelievably parochial, crass, and insulting to past & present victims of genocide as to mark a new low in the debate.
If the anonymous deliverer wishes to write I will reply. If he or she wants to talk I don’t bite , (nor do I block roads, squat on public or private land, drain millions from the Public Purse policing my “peaceful protests” or put green dye in streams. Nor do I cower behind anonymity. If you read this perhaps you will have the guts to talk it over.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/new-study-finds-u-s-has-underestimated-methane-levels-in-the-atmosphere/?smid=tw-share&_r=3
New Study Finds U.S. Has Greatly Underestimated Methane Emissions
Where did the methane come from? “released by leaky oil and gas operations and livestock”
How come there is no mention of the open-cast mining of coal, in these “south-central United States”?
I mean, doesn’t coal have so much methane, that they drill for it in Australia?
Oh what a contrast with OUR Dear Lord of the Manor: ‘FULL PAGE IN THE SUNDAY TIMES…Quote (abstract): Over recent weeks he (Viscount Cowdray) has registered the verges next to the narrow access to the Celtique Energie’s proposed drilling site as under the ownership of his estate. He will refuse any request to widen the access, and does not believe lorries will be able to drive in without crossing the verges.’
As in the days of the Corn Laws and railway construction the super-rich put themselves before the population in general. But perhaps the Noble Viscount has more cunning and is preparing against protestors!
A bit of good news ; C.P.R.E have modified their stance on Shale drilling.
‘About half of the oil platforms in federal waters in the Santa Barbara Channel discharge all or a portion of their wastewater directly to the ocean. This produced wastewater contains all of the chemicals injected originally into the fracked wells, with the addition of toxins gathered from the subsurface environment.’
http://www.dailypilot.com/opinion/tn-dpt-me-1124-commentary2-20131123,0,3198535.story
‘About half of the oil platforms in federal waters in the Santa Barbara Channel discharge all or a portion of their wastewater directly to the ocean. This produced wastewater contains all of the chemicals injected originally into the fracked wells, with the addition of toxins gathered from the subsurface environment.’
Bit of a false syllogism here:
• If a portion of wastewater is being discharged to the sea, wouldn’t you think it might be the cleaner portion:
• How was the jump made to assuming that what was being discharged was produced wastewater from fracced wells?
• How could returned frac fluid contain “all of the chemicals injected originally”, when the purposes of those chemicals are to react, or to plate out, or ….?
• What toxins are “gathered from the subsurface environment”?
Alarmist nonsense, as so often on this site.
Good summary of European position: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/uncertain-future-for-fracking/78788.aspx EU proposals on fracking due by the end of the year: ‘…there is still disagreement within the Commission about how thorough the new legislative framework should be. The environment department, which is in charge of the subject, has concerns about water, air and climate effects, while the energy and industry departments are concerned that red tape could stifle shale-gas exploration.’
2-year study in Southern Ireland to start next summer, no fracking until earliest end 2016.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/majority-of-submissions-to-epa-oppose-fracking-1.1604852
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/the-ragtag-group-of-aussie-activists-fighting-gas-industry-37462
‘BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA — One year ago, I flew over West Texas in a small prop plane observing a landscape pockmarked with caliche drill pads and freshly plodded access roads. This July, I did the same thing halfway around the world and the view was remarkably similar. From the window of a chartered flight from Brisbane, Queensland, midway up Australia’s east coast, to a small town 160 miles inland, I saw large exposed pools of water used for extracting gas, sprawling industrial sites, a coal mine, and other signs of the rapid onset of fossil fuel development in a region known for its remoteness, pristine agricultural land, and natural beauty.’ etc
Once upon a time, way back in May 2011, when the good burghers of Britain were all innocent of the dangers or even the existence of fracking, the Energy and Climate Change Committee wrote a report on shale gas. And they knew, and the Government knew, that fracking for shale gas could pollute our water.
Sitting comfortably, Dave and Nick? ‘During the fracturing process, some of the hydraulic fracturing fluid may flow through the artificially created fractures to other areas within the shale gas formation, in a phenomenon known as “fluid leakoff”. Fluid leakoff during hydraulic fracturing “can exceed 70 percent of the injected volume if not controlled properly”, which could result in fluid migrating into drinking water aquifers. In comparison, coal-bed methane formations are mostly shallow, so where hydraulic fracturing is used there is a risk that it could be happening in—or very near to—shallow drinking water supplies.’
Shall we all drink happily ever after?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/795/79508.htm
Letter to the Independent , November 18th:
You quote the Director of Public Health England’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards that produced the fracking report (1 November), saying: “The currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to emissions associated with the shale gas extraction process are low if operations are properly run and regulated.” The minister responsible for fracking in England states: “The UK has the most robust regulatory regime in the world for shale gas and companies will only be granted permission to frack for shale if their operations are safe.” Low risk is of course not the same as safe.
There are major questions too about how a government committed to a deregulatory and reduced regulatory agenda, along with chopping budgets – and the resulting major job losses in agencies that have oversight of environmental pollution – will be capable of guaranteeing that fracking companies operate safely.
Also extraordinary is the minister’s unsubstantiated statement that the UK has the most robust regulatory regime for fracking. In other countries the exact chemicals used in fracking have been covered by commercial confidentiality and are not disclosed fully. So how can their risks be fully assessed and cleared for UK use?
The draft review itself does not provide information indicating it is a systematic review and provides minimal information about its method, rigour and results. Public health practitioners look for high-quality systematic reviews before accepting any conclusion about a lack of public health risk.
The review also notes many gaps and specifically excludes consideration of occupational health and safety and climate change. This is a very odd way of assessing public health threats and could for example lead to the impression that climate change does not impact on public health: something strongly refuted by those working in the field.
All in all, the report raises as many questions as it attempts to answer and most certainly does not show that fracking is safe, as the UK Government tries to assert.
Professor Andrew Watterson
Director of the Centre for Public Health and Population Health Research
University of Stirling
One would think that Professor Watterson would know better than to write: “extraordinary is the minister’s unsubstantiated statement that the UK has the most robust regulatory regime for fracking. In other countries the exact chemicals used in fracking have been covered by commercial confidentiality and are not disclosed fully. So how can their risks be fully assessed and cleared for UK use?”
If he knows much about the subject, he would know that all the “exact chemicals” used in UK wells are all pre-approved {“fully assessed and cleared”} & are then listed on the CEFAS website maintained by DEFRA.
As has been pointed out on this site before now …
Two articles about frack fluid from off-shore drilling being dumped directly into the ocean:
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/14-9#.UoYl5SSU9bI.twitter
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/03
‘In the offshore context, fracking fluid is either discharged into the ocean or transported for onshore underground injection. When disposed of at sea, these chemicals enter the marine ecosystem. The Coastal Commission acknowledges that approximately half of the platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel discharge all or a portion of their wastewater directly to the ocean. This produced wastewater contains all of the chemicals injected originally into the fracked wells, with the addition of toxins gathered from the subsurface environment. These discharges of toxic chemicals directly contravene the requirements of the Coastal Act, which charges the Coastal Commission with the “protection against the spillage of . . . hazardous substances.”’
National Geographic – water used for fracked wells can be even more excessive than we knew… because it’s needed in large quantities to keep the oil flowing: ‘Without water, salt buildup forms and restricts the flow of oil.’ This article relates specifically to North Dakota. But fracking flowback is always laced with brine. God only knows (and Cuadrilla of course, who have their cores) how briny our Balcombe well would be. But then, Balcombe will be just one of thousands of British wells, if our oil-smeared Government gets its way.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/11/131111-north-dakota-wells-maintenance-water/
‘It’s well known that water has been key to the shale oil and gas rush in the United States. But in one center of the hydraulic fracturing boom—North Dakota—authorities are finding that the initial blast of water to frack the wells is only the beginning.
‘The wells being drilled into the prairie to tap into the Bakken shale need “maintenance water”—lots of it—to keep the oil flowing. (See related photos: “Bakken Shale Boom Transforms North Dakota.”)
‘So while the water first pumped down the hole to crack rock formations and release the underground oil and natural gas typically totals 2 million gallons (7.5 million liters) per well, each of North Dakota’s wells is daily drinking down an average of more than 600 gallons (2,300 liters) in maintenance water, according to recent calculations by North Dakota’s Department of Mineral Resources (DMR). ‘
How to lose hearts and alienate voters! From The Telegraph yesterday:
‘Shale gas exploration has so far been concentrated in the North, but Mr Fallon said the South could also be in line for fracking. Next year, the British Geological Survey will publish a map of the “southern basin” of England, identifying sites most likely to be rich in shale gas.
‘“It’s right across the South we’re talking about: Wiltshire, Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, into Kent,” said Mr Fallon, the MP for Sevenoaks. Ministers have reduced the regulatory barriers to fracking, clearing the way for the industry to spread across the country, he said, adding: “There is shale in the Midlands too.”’
The home counties 🙂
Looks Like the Conservative Government are bent on self-destruction over this issue. We just need Liberals / Labour to stand up and make a clear no fracking policy.
As an aside – I know the “pro-fracters” that frequent this site really don’t give a damn. But I wonder if they are going to explain the Super Typhoon Haiyan as yet another one off event? Along with all the other ‘one off’ events.
When fighting to stop tracking in Balcombe and Lancashire, we are fighting to try and avoid pain and suffering on a much much bigger scale.
Indeed it must be tempting for candidates to put short-tern electoral advantage before the long -term national interest in energy security and the economy.Remember that Labour supports fracking in spite of an attempt to cash in locally. If in power they will put the Nation first (unlike the irresponsible Libs & Greens.)
As for your not giving a damm name calling get this; if Shale oil & gas does not succeed, either for technical reasons or because the Luddite Mob prevail the ONLY practical alternative will be more coal powered power stations and MORE emmissions. The ONLY major economy to have substantially reduced emmissions in recent years is USA. Thanks to shale gas. Less name calling & more thinking please.
Please read these last three postings from bottom up.
So no evidence just conjecture. If someone prefaces their chitchat with “TESTIMONY” it doesn’t give it any extra weight or credence. The old guy needs to clean his rusty old pipes that’s all.
I also wonder what effect this poisoning is having on farm animals. Most of the cows drink
the water from the stream called Ugoszczanka, and the pigs get their water from wells,
not from the village network.
Finally, I do not understand why the authorities allow such a barbaric destruction of the
environment and the people. Has greed made them completely blind ?
Z.S.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The concessions for drilling for gas in the shale were given without any procedure,
without any invitations to tender. The beneficiaries are not well-known multinationals, but
small, dummy companies, registered in Poland for the circumstance : they all have very
long names (with the name of the multinational camouflaged in the middle) and with
authorized capital reduced to the minimum, this last so as not to have to respond to
claims for damages.
It is another colonization of the country, yet another, after industry and the banking
system. Yet this is the most dangerous of them since it destroys the very essence of the
country : its environment, its drinking water, the health of its inhabitants.
Needless to say that NO insurance company will agree to insure you against the risks
linked to drilling, just as is the case with nuclear energy.
Teresa Jakubowska
TESTIMONY
I own a chalet in the forest on the banks of the river Bug. Already, in 2011, I had noticed
that every time I was absent for several weeks, the water that came out of the tap ran
brownish and oily for half an hour. Afterwards, the kitchen smelt of gas for a long time.
First of all, I thought that my gas bottle was leaking. But as the same smell could be
detected in different parts of the surrounding forest, I began to think about shale gas and
to look for information.
In the spring of 2012, when I turned on the pump that brought up water from eighteen
meters below, there was an explosion that tore the reinforced rubber pipe. You could
smell gas everywhere. I decided to buy a new system.
In the summer of the same year, another strange thing happened. I was indoors, sitting
on a wooden stool when there was a tremor, strong enough to make me fall onto the
floor. My house is made of wood, so it was not damaged ; there would certainly have
been cracks in a permanent structure. From that moment on, the dribble of water got
smaller and smaller and disappeared completely in the spring of 2013. My system no
longer worked. Obviously, the underground aquifer eighteen meters below that had
supplied me with water for fifteen years had disappeared. Later, I discovered that
companies prospecting for shale gas use explosives at a great depth.
For years, I had planned to move permanently into my house in Ugoszcz. But, no longer
having access to water, I have to ask to be connected to the village water network. Since
my land is quite far from the centre of the village, it is going to be very expensive. The
Town Hall has refused to help with the cost of the connection.
A few years ago, several families of beavers had been brought in to live in the nearby
stream, and they all disappeared last summer, exactly like the fish and the crayfish. I can
also see that the bees have disappeared – my trees have not produced any fruit this
year : not a single plum, not a single apple in the orchard. Never before had such a thing
happened.
The drilling pad is some four kilometers from my house and is no longer operating. It is
deep in the forest, inside the triangle formed by the villages of Treblinka- Maliszewa-Lipki.
The forest paths are full of potholes caused by heavy vehicle traffic and hundreds of tons
of mud have been dumped amongst the trees. I could not get onto the site ; the wheels of
my motor bike sank in up to the axles. And until recently, this place was so beautiful and
so clean ……
I also found another well, not far from the place called Zlotki Kolonia. Machines were
drilling into the earth, sending up dirty mud that ran down the forest path.
Three years ago, the local farmers tried to drive out the team whose big lorries were
moving slowly near the village sending powerful vibrations into the ground.
Hi there, This is a great testimonial but I cannot use it to further the anti-fracking cause if I don’t know who wrote it. Can you tell me their name so I can put it in my presentations?
WILL YOU BE THE NEXT VICTIM OF SHALE GAS ?
Thoughts about the value of a house without water – October 2013
Read this story which may soon become your story. You are not a farmer who has
allowed himself to be hoodwinked by the propaganda of the venal Polish government.
You have not signed a contract leasing your land to a small company which may go
bankrupt at any moment, but which masks a powerful multinational.
You are just the owner of a main or a second home with a small orchard, situated in a
bucolic setting, and you believe you are in no danger from the the unknown quantites
linked to the shale gas and oil industry.
And yet, everything may be turned upside down as you can see from this story that
happened in Ugoszcz, a small village in Mazovia, ninety kilometers frrom Warsaw.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy
‘This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy
‘Brussels has kept quiet about a treaty that would let rapacious companies subvert our laws, rights and national sovereignty. (…)
‘…the most important issue: the remarkable ability it would grant big business to sue the living daylights out of governments which try to defend their citizens. It would allow a secretive panel of corporate lawyers to overrule the will of parliament and destroy our legal protections. Yet the defenders of our sovereignty say nothing.
‘The mechanism through which this is achieved is known as investor-state dispute settlement. It’s already being used in many parts of the world to kill regulations protecting people and the living planet. (…)
‘These companies (along with hundreds of others) are using the investor-state dispute rules embedded in trade treaties signed by the countries they are suing. The rules are enforced by panels which have none of the safeguards we expect in our own courts. The hearings are held in secret. The judges are corporate lawyers, many of whom work for companies of the kind whose cases they hear. Citizens and communities affected by their decisions have no legal standing. There is no right of appeal on the merits of the case. Yet they can overthrow the sovereignty of parliaments and the rulings of supreme courts. (…)
‘Investor-state rules could be used to smash any attempt to save the NHS from corporate control, to re-regulate the banks, to curb the greed of the energy companies, to renationalise the railways, to leave fossil fuels in the ground. These rules shut down democratic alternatives. They outlaw leftwing politics. (…)
‘This is why there has been no attempt by the UK government to inform us about this monstrous assault on democracy, let alone consult us. This is why the Conservatives who huff and puff about sovereignty are silent. Wake up, people we’re being shafted.’
Do read more
The letter to Fernhurst was clearly written at the time when no analysis had been made of the green dye. The mention of the green dye was a small part of the help that Balcombe (the majority of Balcombe) was keen and able to offer to Fernhurst in the early days after their discovery that they too were under threat of drilling. The EA still does not know what the green dye was, but has ruled out the type used by the industry for tracking – I do mean tracking, not fracking. And they have ruled out your algae. Everyone, camp and village, was keen to show the EA where the stream was. Didn’t bother?? We, they, all of us in unison, were deeply concerned. The EA turned up in the gloaming, with police escort, their sample-taking delayed, they later admitted, by the need for police protection – from the campers! Peaceful people – and no one could have been keener for the EA to take their samples. I am absolutely certain that no one from the camp put green dye in the stream. Emptying latrines? It would have been ludicrous to tramp uphill from the camp loos, through the ancient woodland and across the railway line to tip waste into a tiny stream that is more than a trickle only after heavy rain. The loos were composting loos, and the waste was removed to be recycled, ecologically. No motive for people from the Balcombe Estate? Did someone have a motive for speading muck along the edge of the field adjoining the camp? Did they have a motive for shooting pigeons in that field? Either they were rotten shots or the pigeon population of Sussex must have been roosting there in protest. Were people from the Balcombe Estate annoyed that people from the camp had (a day or two before) discovered and publicised an (in their view) unecologically sound tip on Balcombe Estate land? I could continue.
Rodney, what can you and humanity live without, fresh, clean water or fossil fuels? Are you happy to industrialise our countryside for the sake of the last globs of oil and gas? Balcombe’s will be one well amidst thousands if the industry and the Government gets its way. Planning requests are popping up now right across the country, across Europe, across the world. The flow-back water – contaminated by the original fracking chemicals and, from the depths, radiactivity, heavy metals and salt – cannot be adequately treated. In America it is being dumped down old wells (causing earthquakes), spead on fields and roads. Rodney, ask the Government what plans they have in place for disposal of fracking waste. The world would like to know. No one has a good solution.
And now we hear that Balcombe estate has leased Lower Stumble to Cuadrilla and its sucessors for the next 30 years, until 2043!
Rodney, I do hope that YOU will have the decency to apologise one day, when you realise the error of your views.
Thanks! I hold no brief for Balcombe Estate. Taking subsidies for wind farms in Scotland is just not on! However as the Estate are getting good money for leasing the drilling site it does not make sense that they would put dye in a stream knowing the protestors will immediately blame the drillers.
As for the error of my ways, if I see them I will apologise. Likewise when imported energy comes under pressure, perhaps because of a flare up in the Middle East, President Putin holds us to ransom, energy prices rocked, fuel poverty multiplies, the economy collapses and unemployment doubles, you will question the wisdom of sparing the NIMBYS among us some minor inconvenience.
Agree it was over the top for the EA to demand a police escort as I found the remaining campers very friendly & willing to show me the watercourse. However it is not only the EA who demand protection from all conceivable risks however imaginery! Best wishes.
Rodney, I clearly do not mean that Mr Greenwood, his family or land agents were out there in the woods by the railway line with containers of green dye. And I sincerely hope that they would not santion such a thing. ‘Balcombe Estate people’ was my surmise. There are quite a lot of those in this feudal village.
What are your children and grandchildren going to do for energy, and for water, and what sort of industrialised waste are they going to live in?
What did the feudal serfs (as you seem to regard them) have to gain by risking the master’s wrath polluting streams ? The Protestors had lots to gain with their pictures of “radioactive” water. So, on the balance of probabilities who are the more likely culprits?
As to the “industrial wasteland” I would leave to my grandchildren. So many people have asked me this so for what its worth; on a local level a few well hidden areas the size of football fields which will soon grow over and become industrial heritage sites.
On a more profound level I would like them to inherit & improve upon the generous & liberal society my generation have enjoyed.
Our grandfathers & fathers , unimpeded by “green” sects built an industrial economy which for all its faults led to a huge improvement in welfare. Yes, they left areas of industrial waste (now largely greened over) no, the mill owners etc. were not all generous employers BUT they created the wealth without which no government, however well intended, could have produced the welfare state & the benefits of free university education etc. which my generation enjoyed. These things are precious. We must not let a subsidy crazed pressure group destroy them.
I would wish my grandchildren to understand that nothing comes from wishful thinking. That maintaining the rule of law, supporting the generation of wealth, and research into ways of doing it better is the only way to benefit the community, themselves and next generation. I do not want them to believe that demanding their way by abusive protest (however enjoyable) is anything but despicable. Above all I want them protected from fanatics of whatever stripe trying to impose their beliefs on the community. Once priests, mainly well-meaning, put the fear of god into children. We must not allow “greens”, even if well-meaning, to take their place (or to impose their green “tythes” on energy- poor families).
I would like my grandchildren to welcome a new energy producer, support its proper regulation, help to ensure it pays taxes, contributes to research into cleaner & cheaper energy for the future, and ,at local level, pays a fair share of profit towards maintaining our beautiful environment & supporting youth & community causes. In a word to be constructive, not just shout “frack off!”
YOU may dream of an unchanged bucolic community living on subsidies generated elsewhere & ruled by whoever can get out the biggest mob. With respect I think my vision more liberal, more practical and ultimately better for the environment & next generation.
Drilling or not drilling will not affect me . I never heard the noise some people pretend kept them awake all night, nor sensed any earthquakes. I WOULD like to welcome employees of the Driller & their Families into the Village & Pub but, believe it or not, the core of my opposition to NoFibs is concern for the next generation.
Bravo Rodney! Very well put.
Thanks, Michael. A bit of moral support much needed!
Poor you, Rodney. It’s hard being such a tiny minority.
Well said. It is hard for the renewable bandwagon to face the inconvenient truth when it comes to face reality of losing their government subsidies and their unreliable technology (currently).
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/10/fracking-by-numbers
This could be Sussex, at the moment, it’s just Wyoming – Philip
Philip, please stop repeating this porky. It has already been pointed out to you that this is not a “fracking field”. It is a picture of the Jonah field, an extremely unusually closely packed number of vertical wells drilled into highly faulted stacked lenticular fluvial sand/silt/shale sequences. The startling fact is that Jonah has a surface area of approximately one township yet it contains 10.5 trillion cubic feet (300 km3) of conventional gas – it is one of the world’s densest gas fields. Nothing like it will be found in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Field
Philip, there are enough people influenced by this blog who evidence a considerable lack of profound knowledge & an exaggerated fear of unlikely consequences. It is a shame that you are dishonestly feeding such fears.
Tommie – Which planet do you live on? Here on Earth – renewable is not optional. If we want a sustainable future then we have no choice. Your comments only make sense if you motives are based on short term self-interest – and we all should know where that leads.
Richard, If the whole of UK switched to renewables we would wreck our economy, devestate our welfare state and make no perceptible difference to world emissions.( Note that Germany, let alone China & India are opening NEW coal fired plants.)
Only when “clean” energy is cheaper than conventional will there be any progress on world -scale emissions. So let’s use what we have wisely putting royalties & taxes into research.
Switching to the present uneconomic renewable technology is but a pointless gesture. Just as effective & more fun to dance round an oak tree.
Increasing intensive agriculture – so reducing area of land used by farming, large scale reforestation and nuclear all have their place. But the reckless pumping CO2 into the atmosphere from fracking doesn’t. This can only be acceptable – IF and only IF there is full off-set. Funnily enough the Government keep avoiding this discussion.
Britain has stood alone and done the right thing in the past. We should have the guts to do so again.
If shale gas succeeds it will help to reduce emmissions as the only practical alternative will be more coal -fired generation..
I’m all for intensive agriculture especially via GM crops but the Green loonies trash the experiments!
However you evade the point. Renewables are at present MUCH more expensive than conventional energy. Correct or not?
If as an individual you want to use (unsubsidised) renewables, that’s fine but do not foist the cost of pointless gestures on others.
Yes Britain should do the right thing——get out of ruinous EU emmissions directives!
Rodney – The following indicates an extreme naivety on your part.
“support its proper regulation, help to ensure it pays taxes, contributes to research into cleaner & cheaper energy for the future, and ,at local level, pays a fair share of profit towards maintaining our beautiful environment & supporting youth & community causes.”
Regulation will not be rigorous, full taxes will not be paid, off-set Carbon capture will not be pursued, the environment and communities will be degraded in pursuit of short term political objectives and “share holder value”.
If we had half decent government that would commit to these objectives – there would be less concern. Unfortunately we don’t.
Richard, Here we have an industry with potential to safely boost our economy, improve the balance of payments, contribute to our energy security AND benefit the environment (by replacing coal).
We all have our gripes with Government. One of my many is that they too often roll over when faced with irresponsible minorities. Perhaps yours are different but if you doubt proper regulation, taxation etc then by all means campaign to get it.
Do not just hamper or try to ban the industry & hope that affordable heat & light will arrive from windmills or stardust. THAT is naive!
Regarding taxation I accept that Government (both parties) have been out-foxed by the likes of Amazon, Google & Starbucks but oil is rather different. The IR actually seem quite efficient at taxing whisky distilleries in the Highlands of Scotland & micro-breweries in remote barns so I think they might be able to spot & tax a couple of oil tankers a day leaving Balcombe.
In spite of what I say above about Governments caving in to minorities when push comes to shove no Government of whatever party (except perhaps the Greens!) will put NIMBYS before avoiding blackouts. So just face it; shale gas WILL be exploited. By all means use your energies to demand proper regulation & taxation. Best wishes with that.
Regulation frameworks should be defined first, and only then commercial activities pursued – WITHIN the context of THAT framework.
Government have / continue to / totally failed us all. Our carbon capture policy should be active – the taxation mechanism to ensure that appropriate money from the profits of companies likes of Cuadrill flow to our Carbon Capture commitments. Also local environmental impact studies should be conducted / concluded by independent parties. Finally appropriate liability mechanisms – with TEETH – should ensure that any wrong-doing by corporates results in appropriate financial punishments.
Then and only then should commercial activity begin.
By protesting at the focal point of all these issues – the protestors are doing us all a service – include the next generation of your family. You should be thanking them.
Richard. Ask yourself the same question. I look at the facts, statistic numbers and make informed choice, not emotional decision. Why don’t we have a choice of those who like to use renewables pay for renewables at the cost they happy to pay and who don’t want renewables pay for cleaner and more efficient source (namely natural gas, and nuclear).
It is real simple..
Selfish individuals should not have the option of destroying shared resources.
Richard,
Do you consider governmental tax subsidies for wind farm a common resource? The cost of energy for poor family and industries (i.e our country’s economy and security) as a common resource? Why should the poor family have to pay to additional cost of green energy on their bill while the rich land owner benefit from land lease to wind farm and their governmental subsidies? and those who can afford to install solar panel to benefit the feed-in tariff?
Tommie – surprisingly I agree with your comment. The solution though is simple.
Increase Taxation on the wealthy minority. Access pension benefits on Asset / Income – and push the generated revenue into subsidising the energy costs for everyone.
That is if you really care about energy poverty.
I agree. Tax the riches as well as those companies exploiting shale gas.
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=539083426180706&eid=ASu_-96rtq6x_bmEDRujGUp8C8PC6KLceTyn0M7mEgTUHeilqX6kj3-4cJ58hntDJuY&inline=1&ext=1383388318&hash=ASuZ7ChvA6IHK_l0
See the last page. On September 26th this year, a month ago, the Balcombe Estate signed a 30-year lease on on ‘Land at Lower Stumble’ (WSX359771). So, Simon Greenwood appears to have given his blessing to Cuadrilla (and to those to whom they might choose to sell on) until 2043!
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/naturalresources/article3907511.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_10_29
Security fears lead to shale gas hiatus
There are growing concerns that environmental regulations could limit growth in the industry
Matthe Lloyd / Getty
I note the following in an open letter to Fernhurst Residents;”we have just had a gill stream go fluorescent green down its entire length, 75 yards from the well pad last Monday, ”
Grateful is someone could tell me where to find this fluorescent stream as I would like to take a look .Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescein
easily obtainable
Thanks Michael but it is the location of the Balcombe fluorescent stream I want so that I can see it and take a sample.
It probably left when the tents left. Surely you couldn’t think a Balcombe resident might have added the dye to the stream?
Michael and Rodney, yawn! Rodney, you are a bit slow on the uptake of samples.The Lower Stumble stream ran green for a day and a half, so long ago that I can’t remember when. Early October some time. Balcombe people took samples, people from the camp took samples, the EA finally got around to taking samples, with a police guard! It was established that the source of the green was up beyond the railway line – it’s a stream that dives underground at various points. The nature of the dye was never determined. I suspect it was a prank by people from the estate.
Thanks for replying, Kathryn. Slow off the mark because I have only recently seen a letter to the People of Fernhurst from some Balcombe residents (not including yourself)
In contrast to your honest reply these people write, immediately after mentioning radioactivity ;” we have just had a gill stream go fluorescent green down its entire length, 75 yards from the well pad last Monday, it was reported early afternoon by numerous residents, and the EA only arrived at night to take samples, went to the wrong stream, so came back the following day at lunchtime…They haven’t been back and they still have not found the source, they havent had the results back, though they think its harmless. “
You speculate a prank by Balcombe Estate & certainly they had the opportunity but no motive that I can think of however the protestors had both opportunity AND motive. As M. Poirot might say—-!
One of the remaining campers kindly led me to the stream. I took a sample & am pleased to say a bit of my pond weed seems quite happy in it.
Perhaps it was a natural algae flush but it is suspiciously close to the camp latrines. Has anyone considered when they were emptied?
Whatever it was all seems well except that the protestors have photographs of green water and this “radioactive” stream will now join earthquakes, cancer & all the other myths used to hamper the Nations energy production.
Another gem, among others, in the Fernhurst letter is “Where is our apology from the council for allowing——— up to 120 trucks and tankers on our road weekly ?
The drillers were lucky to get one truck a day past the mob buts what’s a bit of artistic licence if it serves the Cause!
And where is the apology to the council from those who cried “wolf” and didn’t bother to show the EA where the suppose pollution was? Next time it might be real.
‘UK universities urged to pull cash from fossil fuel giants
‘Anti-carbon divestment campaign targets £5bn of British funds’
Damian Carrington in The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/27/fossil-fuel-divestment-campaign-uk?guni=Keyword%3Anews-grid+main-1+Main+trailblock%3AEditable+trailblock+-+news%3APosition6
‘An international campaign to urge large institutions to dump fossil fuel investments reaches the UK this week, following rapid success in the US.
The year-old divestment campaign, Fossil Free, has grown even faster than similar efforts that once targeted apartheid, tobacco and arms manufacturers. It now aims to focus attention on the £5bn invested in coal, oil and gas by the endowment funds of UK universities. The move comes as financial giants such as HSBC, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs are starting to take seriously the prospect that global action to reduce carbon emissions could leave two-thirds of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves unburnable and worthless.’
(…)
‘With the 200 biggest fossil fuel companies spending $674bn in 2012 on finding new reserves (compared to $281bn renewable energy investment), the risk of inflating a stock market “carbon bubble” to the tune of trillions of dollars is “very big indeed”, according to Stern. “The financial crisis has shown what happens when risks accumulate unnoticed,” he said in April.’
etc
You are invited to the following event (where Caroline Lucas will be speaking):
Can fracking be sustainable?
Monday, 11 November 2013 from 17:30 to 20:30 (GMT)
Royal College of Physicians
11 St Andrews Place
NW1 4LE London
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/event/6709940613/?ref=enivte001&invite=NDQ4NTMwNS9wcGVhcnNvbkB0dWMub3JnLnVrLzA%3D&utm_source=eb_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=inviteformalv2&utm_term=attend&ref=enivte001
‘Erin Brockovich Weighs in on Fracking and Gives Praise to GasLand the Movie – See more at: http://environews.tv/erin-brockovich-weighs-in-on-fracking-and-gives-praise-to-gasland-the-movie/#sthash.ylQlrgTe.dpuf
http://environews.tv/erin-brockovich-weighs-in-on-fracking-and-gives-praise-to-gasland-the-movie/
‘”Communities need to get really proactive about what’s happening in their backyard and take control again – this is my community, my town, my air, my water, my family, my health and I am going to get involved and I am not going to wait 10 years for the EPA (equivalent of Environment Agency in UK) to catch up and come out and have the “oh crap” moment of you’ve been polluted all this time.”
People of Balcombe and beyond, come and meet Josh Fox, director of Gasland II, and watch the film with us in East Grinstead on Wednesday, October 23rd. Bring your friends – it’s a big venue:
YOU ARE INVITED TO A SCREENING OF
GASLAND II
in the presence of Director JOSH FOX
on October 23rd 2013 at 7.30pm
Talk and Q&A with Josh after the screening
Jordan Hall, Jubilee Community Centre
Charlwoods Road, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 2HL
Map and directions: http://www.jcceg.co.uk/about-jcc/map-and-directions/
20 minutes’ drive from Balcombe,
12 minutes’ walk from East Grinstead Railway Station
Event ends at 11pm Free, donations welcome
Re yesterday’s French announcement of continued ban on fracking, I received some clarification last night from a friend in the anti-fracking group in Jouarre (the place south of Paris where villagers occupied the rig in September). It seems that EXPLORATORY fracking might nevertheless go ahead. This is my translation/summary:
There is no legal recourse to yesterday’s decision of the Conseil Constitutionnel – it has been declared that the law of July 2011 banning extraction of hydrocarbons by fracking is in line with the French Constitution.
However, the law of July 2011 left open the possibility for exploratory fracking. Section 2 of the law proposed the creation of a ‘national advisory commission to investigate and evaluate exploration and extraction techniques for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons’. This commission could give the go-ahead for exploratory fracking. If the Government does not get on with forming this advisory commission, the industry could take the French State to court again and insist that it does so. The friend in Jouarre fears that the Government will not fight the setting up of this commission. The French state does not have a good record in this respect – this case in the Conseil Copnstitutionnel is the first time the French state has stood up to the oil and gas industry. The Government will, she fears, be able to duck out of the responsability – they will say they didn’t want exploration, but that this has been imposed on them by the judiciary.
This wd no doubt not displease the ‘Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices’ (a group made up half and half fom the two French chambers and sometimes called the Commission Bataille et Lenoir), who issued a preliminary report in June calling for exploratory fracking to be allowed in order to demonstrate that it is harmless. Their final report is due in November.
Incidentally, on Thurs 10th October the firm EcorpStim issued a press release about a new type of fracking using non-flammable propane. The Commission Bataille et Lenoir had got excited about this propane fracking back in January, but following reports of its causing explosions were a bit less enthusiastic about it in their June report.
Meanwhile, Schuepbach is preparing a court case and demanding a billion Euros of compensation for the cancellation of its two licences.
PRESS COMMENT Friday October11th 2013 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
No FiBS (No Fracking in Balcombe Society)
Court upholds French fracking ban
A ruling in Paris this morning has confirmed that the French Government’s ban on fracking can stay in place.
The French State had been taken to court by American oil and gas company Schuepbach, who claimed that the ban contravened the French Constitution. At a hearing on September 24th before the Conseil Constitutionnel, the case for the French State had been elequently put by barristers from Greenpeace and France Nature et Environnement, as well as by their own lawyer.
Schuepbach was climing €1 billion in damages for the withdrawal of its contract to explore for oil and gas in South East France, an area where the geology, with its many natural faults, is just as dangerous and inappropriate for fracking and coal seam gas exploration as the much faulted areas of Britain where fracking could be imminent.
Kathryn McWhirter of No FiBS says: ‘We in Balcombe, united with the growing number of anti-fracking groups around the UK, call upon the British Government to examine the French legal arguments, and to abandon their dangerous dash for gas – and their untruthful or misguided spin. Only yesterday David Cameron repeated his false claim that shale gas would bring cheaper energy prices. Within the UK and Europe market, this is clealy not true. Nor will it bring jobs. Mr. Cameron, listen to the French lawyers: fracking spells risk – to the purity of our water, the quality of our air, the beauty of our countryside, and ultimately to our climate, and the future of our children.
No Fracking in Balcombe Society nofibsbalcombe@gmail.com
Gas and the danger of open exploration holes: A driller’s view
http://www.beefcentral.com/p/news/article/3783
If the water is removed from the coal seams as planned over such a vast area of Queensland we are going to see uncontrollable volumes of gas leak from open mineral exploration test holes and we will also witness the depletion of many of our aquifers via these holes.
Coal Seam Gas/ Coalbed methane. There is coal in East Kent, not East Sussex.
The author, a water driller {not oil & gas} refers to “open mineral exploration test holes” – not common in England.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-08/shale-drillers-offered-water-cheaper-than-u-dot-k-dot-residents-energy
Britain’s water utilities, which coped with at least three separate periods of drought in the last decade, are ready to offer discounts for drillers needing supplies for fracking oil and natural gas wells.
A reduction would help make the technique to extract hydrocarbon reserves more profitable in Britain, where municipal water rates often are two-thirds higher than in the U.S., according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Hydraulic fracturing uses high volumes of pressurized water mixed with chemicals and sand to crack open underground deposits….
“You send them an economic signal, and they will respond,” Ian O’Gara, U.K. head of new energy at the consulting firm Accenture Plc (ACN:US), said in an interview. “You can’t allow the water price to be such that it hinders development.”
Cheaper water along with tax breaks and government support for the technology support Prime Minister David Cameron’s goal to draw investment for petroleum production in the U.K. as wells in the North Sea go dry. It would benefit companies such as Cuadrilla Resources Ltd., backed by former BP Plc (BP/) Chief Executive Officer John Browne, and anger residents concerned that toxins in drilling fluids will poison their water supplies.
United Utilities Group Plc (UU/), the U.K.’s largest publicly traded water company, said it’s negotiating tariffs with large industrial customers that generally are lower than households pay. Fracking companies qualify for those rates, said Helen Wilson, a spokeswoman for the company.
Water Costs
Southern Water Ltd. said its industrial rate is 1.05 pounds ($1.69) per cubic meter. That can drop to 88 pence for the biggest customers, 25 percent less than homes and business pay. The lower rates would apply to shale drillers, though it hasn’t had any applications
Re Water costs to big industry. This is so wrong. It is quite sickening.
It was a great blog wit many information about Drilling in Oklahoma
Interesting news from Dimock:
In one northeastern Pennsylvania village that became a global flashpoint in the debate over fracking, the switch has raised more than a few eyebrows.
A few weeks ago, Victoria Switzer and other activists from Dimock endorsed a candidate for governor who supports natural gas production from gigantic reserves like the Marcellus Shale, albeit with more regulation and new taxes. Dimock was the centerpiece of “Gasland,” a documentary that galvanized opposition to fracking, and Switzer was also featured in this summer’s “Gasland Part II,” which aired on HBO.
“We had to work with the industry. There is no magic wand to make this go away,” said Switzer, who recently formed a group that seeks to work with drillers on improved air quality standards. “Tunnel vision isn’t good. Realism is good.”
For Switzer, the endorsement was a nod to reality; for some of her onetime allies, a betrayal. Either way, it was a sign that anti-drilling activism is evolving, with some opponents shifting tactics to reflect that shale gas is likely here to stay.
http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/anti-fracking-activists-starting-to-work-with-drilling-industry-1.434888
When you are already infested with this industry a rational response is to ensure that it not as bad as it otherwise could be. However, we will ensure that they don’t manage to get themselves into the woodwork here, so we won’t need to make these compromises. 🙂
‘The Environment America Research & Policy Center report, Fracking by the Numbers, is the first to measure the damaging footprint of fracking to date.’
http://ecowatch.com/2013/report-calculates-damage-by-fracking/
Could this be the most worrying environment report in years? Have tried to capture the key points here:
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/10/fracking-by-numbers
Philip, your blog starts dishonestly: “This is an aerial photo of a fracking field in Wyoming today”. That is the Jonah field – it is not “today” & it is not a “fracking field” {whatever that undefined term might mean – it is a picture of unusually close-drilled wells to bounded reservoirs in an extremely faulted non-shale field.
“People who live close to fracking sites are exposed to a variety of air pollutants …” – as are people who live near factories, urban areas, motorways, ports …
There are other broad-swipe inaccuracies – as would be expected in a summary of an aggregated & inaccurate report from an “anti-fracking” so-called environmental association.
errata: … might mean} – it is a picture of unusually close-drilled wells to fault-bounded reservoirs …
Michael/Yetypu – you are the dishonest one. Shame on you. You claim that the Jonah field is conventional gas and it is not a fracking field and point to a wiki entry.I have read th entry and nowhere is conventional gas mentioned. The gas is referred to as ‘natural’ which includes both conventional and unconventional the latter being exploited through fracking which indeed it is in the Jonah field. This is an extract fro the wiki entry you refer to: “The principal technical challenge in Jonah is identification and stimulation of productive intervals in a 3,000 ft (910 m) to 3,500 ft (1,100 m) section of stacked lenticular fluvial sand/silt/shale sequences which comprise the Upper Mesaverde, Lance, and Unnamed Tertiary formations. Hydraulic fracturing is used to open (stimulate) the tight sand formations that exist more than 1.5 miles (2.4 km) underground, which allows gas to be recovered at economic rates.”
Do you see the bit about Hydraulic Fracturing?????
If you are the Michael Baker who claims to be a lifelong member of SPE, double shame on you.
There is a plethora of comment Below The Line to this story, in the Guardian. I recommend reading the story on the Guardian Environment pages.
at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/fracking-us-toxic-waste-water-washington
Halliburton in Cahoots with Celtique Energy? Coming to Sussex?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-us-oil-giant-halliburton-lined-up-as-potential-fracking-partner-8859873.html
Given the inexperience of those companies holding onshore leases, it is to be hoped that they would partner with experienced ‘majors’ & work through competent contractors.
But the Independent story inaccurately conflates the two – Halliburton is the most experienced hydraulic fracturing contractor {& has been continuously established in the UK for over 40 years, & has already done a lot of work in Sussex}, but it is not a company that “farms in” on leases. The major service companies tend to avoid acting in competition with their customers & so generally do not act as lease operators.
Have you considered a legal approach to putting some grit in the works? The Case of Rylands v. Fletcher see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v_Fletcher and http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Rylands-v-Fletcher.php. This established the principle of STRICT liability of a landowner who allowed the escape of harmful substances from his land. Not sure how this applies to leased land. Strict liability applies even where the landowner has not been judged to have been negligent.
Rodney Jago, this rather contiues our theme:
PRESS COMMENT, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Sunday, September 22nd, 2013
No FiBS (No Fracking in Balcombe Society)
Shale oil rig occupied for four hours
A drilling rig was occupied for four hours this morning by local protesters in Jouarre, a village as far south of Paris as Balcombe is south of London. At 6.53 this morning, 30 local activists climbed and chained themselves to the rig, and dropped a full-length banner from the top: STOP FORAGES (NO MORE DRILLING!). Although a fracking ban is currently in force in France, the action is timely. A well has been drilled at Jouarre by US company Hess in anticipation of the French fracking ban being overturned in early October by the Constitutional Court, a case brought by US company Schuepbach against the French State – they claim the ban is unconstitutional. The court hearing is this Tuesday, Sept 24th, and the decision is likely to be announced on October 3rd or 4th.
The rig was due to be dismantled today. Its next destination is unknown, but campaigners in Jouarre suspect that it is heading for Fonteney-de-Bossery, south of Champagne, right by the Nogent-sur-Seine nuclear power station, on the banks of the Seine, 110km from Paris.
A spokesman for the Jouarre protesters said: ‘By this action we want to draw press and public attention to this farce. We want to remind president Hollande of his promise that there would be no exploration in France for unconventional oil and gas. We demand an end to exploratory drilling for coal bed methane, shale gas and oil, the withdrawal or rejection of all permits for oil and gas exploration, that all projects like this one here at Jouarre should be abandoned, and that the Government should commit to a real transition towards green energy. We are taking this action because the oil and gas lobbies are determined to press ahead with exploration and extraction of ‘extreme’ energy sources in France with no regard whatsoever to public outrage. We are here to defend our water and our air, our health, the beauty of our countryside, the green alternatives, and a vision of a world driven by more important objectives than profit. WE SAY NO TO SHALE OIL AND GAS AND COAL BED METHANE, TODAY, TOMORROW, HERE, EVERYWHERE.
Balcombe residents will join the French national protest against coal bed methane and shale oil and gas in Montélimar on October 19th.
Just goes to show that fracwit ecotards are not confined to Balcombe.
In Balcombe 126 people got themselves arrested on what we now know was a conventional oil well, not to shale, not for frac’ing, although they atavistically persuaded themselves that that was the hidden agenda. I cautioned that you needed a response position should it eventuate that Cuadrilla were doing just as they said.
Now some claim, similarly groundlessly, that Hess are drilling to shale in the Paris basin & laud that the rig was “occupied” at the termination of drilling. Maybe Rodney was right about fearing trouble at the end of the well – he just had the wrong well?
As to your quoted “lobbies are determined to press ahead with exploration and extraction of ‘extreme’ energy sources in France with no regard whatsoever to public outrage” – France, with 80% of electricity delivered by nuclear, might be considered as the epitome of extreme energy.
Interesting article. Truth v.s. Belief – https://medium.com/editors-picks/adfa0d026a7e
Having read that reflect upon…
“According to Think Progress, over half of Republicans in Congress have taken over $51 million from the fossil fuel industry, which causes the majority of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. This, even though a study by the U.S. National Academy of Science states over 97% of climate researchers say humans are the cause of global warming.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fracking-for-gas-and-oil-poses-serious-risk-to-livestock-warns-expert-8822746.html
‘Fracking for gas and oil in the British countryside poses such a significant risk to livestock that a moratorium should be imposed on the industry until its impact on food safety can be assessed, a leading researcher has warned.
‘Professor Robert Oswald, co-author of the first study into links between hydraulic fracturing and sickness in farm animals, said his findings of deaths and deformities in American livestock are so alarming that Britain should halt growth of the practice while further research is conducted.
‘Professor Robert Oswald said that farmers living in intensively drilled areas should be ‘very concerned’
‘The stark warning comes as planners prepare to consider applications to expand exploratory drilling operations around Sussex, a prime dairy farming area.
Didn’t Oswald publish that report in 2011? If in updating it for peddling in the UK, he {or the regurgitator} still claims the ‘chemicals’ are unknown or ‘secret’, when they can all be found on DEFRA’s CEFAS site, isn’t this rather dishonest?
Good summary (in Spanish) of the current situation in Spain: fracking was agreed by the central government, scattered anti-fracking groups sprang up around the country, then they got together, became co-ordinated, politicians began to take notice and the shale gas prospectors set up a PR campaign to try to convince the public of the ‘virtues’ of fracking! Now various local governments have banned fracking. Catalunya is still on the fence – they have set up a fract-finding committee (bit like Balcombe Parish Council!). I especially like the statement by the government of Rioja, which banned fracking throughout the province in May, and plans ‘fines of up to €2.5 million for anyone drilling into the region’s sub-soil in search of natural gas. Rioja will not permit fracking while there are no scinetific guarantees of the safety of this technique.’
http://www.noticiasdealava.com/2013/09/15/sociedad/el-peso-de-la-calle
A most ‘scinetific’ (sic) point of view.
Meanwhile, in other news, a UT study just released, the first actual study, shows 99% of ‘fugitive emissions’ during completion can be captured.
There is science, and there is superstition.
… and then of course there are industry funded studies 🙂
The results were published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Nine large fossil fuel companies contributed about $250,000 to fund this study, as did the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. The Environmental Defense Fund can not be described as “industry”. Study authors said they controlled how the research was done and how the wells were chosen for study. And even Robert Howarth of Cornell University, one of the scientists who first raised the methane leak alarm, calls the results “good news.”
As Forbes reports “it would be helpful if commentaries were less biased or focused more on the facts. The scientists, and some media and industry observers, seem to have no trouble admitting the limitations even of a study whose results they find agreeable, while the kneejerk reactions from some fracking opponents is highly informative of their prejudices.”
Yawn ….. zzzz
CAN be captured?!
per UT, http://www.utexas.edu/news/2013/09/16/understanding-methane-emissions/
The study, a unique partnership between the Environmental Defense Fund, participating companies, an independent Scientific Advisory Panel and the study team:
• Is based on measurements made directly at 190 production sites throughout the United States, with access provided by nine participating energy companies.
• Found that the majority of hydraulically fractured well completions, which were sampled during the study, had equipment in place that reduces methane emissions by 99 percent. Because of this equipment, methane emissions from well completions are 97 percent lower than calendar year 2011 national emission estimates, released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2013.
• Found that emissions from certain types of pneumatic devices are 30 percent to several times higher than current EPA estimates for this equipment; combined, emissions from pneumatics and equipment leaks account for about 40 percent of estimated national emissions of methane from natural gas production.
• Found that the total methane emissions from natural gas production, from all sources measured in the study, were comparable to the most recent EPA estimates.
How irresponsible to set up a fact-finding committee! Obviously if the mob cry “frack –off” any competent authority should do just that.
Reply intended for Kathryn’s post 17 September but it seems to get in the wrong place. Sorry, Michael.
“How irresponsible to set up a fact-finding committee! Obviously if the mob cry “frack –off” any competent authority should do just that.
There is a rumour that the protestors’ object is now not to expell Caudrilla but to prevent them leaving with a view to prosecuting for over-staying their licence. I would not want to spread a false rumour so perhaps some of you gallant eco-warriors would confirm or otherwise. Thanks.
Oh but Rodney, it isn’t over until the Fat Bastards leave. (I of course mean the FBs within the Cuadrilla Cage, whose tune and lyrics the majority in the village do not like.) And in any case, the FBs might be back before long. Who knows what they are doing right now as we fiddle on Gasdrilling? All Cuadrilla’s PR company will say is that whatever is going on now is ‘in line with the existing planning permission’ – which of course included horizontal drilling (they have admitted to starting that on September 3rd) and a test. I am waiting for proper, detailed replies to my questions:
When they will stop drilling? Assuming that they want to get out by the 28th, when will they have to stop drilling? Will there be any testing before end September? If not flaring, are they currently venting? What will remain on site, October onwards?
To you, now, Rodney: where will the drill go from here? We think it will go to Salford, Greater Manchester, where iGas is poised to drill (at least FBs share nicely). Do you think we don’t care about the ‘desolate north’? Do you think this is only about Balcombe? Two-thirds of the country could be closely affected by fracking if the coalition of industry and government get their way. Do you feel lucky, Rodney, to be one of the first?
Thanks for replying if not answering my question. Are the protestors attempting to delay Caudriller’s departure from the site or not?
Perhaps some in the village have supported your efforts to get them out. They may be interested to know if you are now trying to keep them here. Or are you just concerned that if they go the protest camp & the millions spent on policing and legal costs will be even more pointless? Please note that the Protestors have achieved NOTHING.
I f Caudrilla has been forced to re-apply for a licence that is because someone (F of the E lawyers?) have combed through the minutiae of the licence. They are of course entitled to do so but would have achieved the same result without all the unpleasantness of recent months.
I have been upbraided for calling a Green MP a fool ( perhaps I should have made the same point in more diplomatic language) but you seem to consider it OK to call ordinary employees “Fat Bastards.” Admittedly quite mild compared to the repellent insults hurled at them by some of your supporters. These are people going to work and contributing taxes to support the Druids, benefit cheats and “take a sickie” shirkers whom you have welcomed here. Yes, OK, I accept many of the protestors are perfectly nice, hard working, if misguided people genuinely concerned for the environment. Shame they have become the unwitting stooges of selfish NIMBYs.
As to the” Desolate North”. Up there they have a proud history of producing real wealth and the energy which some spoilt Southerners feel entitled to have discreetly piped down to them. Perhaps they will take a more robust view of bussed in “rent-a-mobs”.
As for being the first. we are not. Fracking has been going on for years and in some of the most desirable areas of the country. Am I pleased it may come to Balcombe? Selfishly, no ! I would like our friendly, peaceful, a-political village back. But not at the price of a “green” dictatorship contemptuous of the National Interest. We are not an island unto ourselves etc. etc.
Happy camping.
Rodney – having read what you write here and now seen you on TV, I can say that I’d rather welcome any of those in the protest camp to my house in the desolate North than your good self.
Thanks
Rodney,
The most important myth in your post that I really must counter is: ‘Fracking has been going on for years’. No, Rodney. That is a piece of the Cameron-and-Cuadrilla Coalition spin.
1 High volume hydraulic fracturing using slick water and other additives into lateral sections in unconventional reservoirs at high pressures is new . Developed over the last decade.
2 Original hydraulic fracturing into vertical wells located in conventional reservoirs at lower pressure is “old”. Developed in the US in the late 1940s.
3 The two are about as related as a small grocers shop and a hypermarket.
4 Conventional reservoirs generally allow gas/oil to flow easily once punctured.
5.Unconventional reservoirs do not generally allow gas and oil to flow easily (ultra low permeability) and so require HVHF. I.E. 20M litres of chemicals, sand & water per well to be introduced at various stages, at pressures in order of 6000psi and typically leave 50% of the fracking fluid in the target formation post frack. This is NEW not old.
6) Ask DECC – they will confirm that the only well to have been fracked in this way in the UK, the new, modern, dangerous way, was Preese Hall in Lancashire, the one that caused the earthquakes.
No Kathryn, after all these months you should not be peddling this favourite chestnut of the frackwits.
• “using slick water and other additives” – slickwater is fluid with fewer additives {“just slick it up some”} Also, its been over a decade more since “the last decade” when it was developed;
• there is no major difference in hydraulic fracturing for vertical or horizontal wells – both are the use of fluid pressure to crack rock. Because a horizontal well accesses a greater sandface, there will be more perforations, the perforations may be grouped, the stages may be separated by sleeves or packers instead of diverters & the fluid volume will be greater – but none of these make it into something different;
• both a small grocer’s shop and a hypermarket sell produce for a consideration, scale does not alter substance;
• all frac’ing is used in tight reservoirs. Reservoirs which flow easily are not fracced, Whether one is frac’ing milliDarcy or microDarcy permeability rock, the purpose of the frac is to create flow channels & so increase the productivity by altering the flow pattern;
• proper usage is to mention items in terms of significance: “water, sand & chemicals” is the order of volume. 20 million litres is a way high {deliberate exaggeration?} estimate, 1 to 10 million is far more reasonable. Stages are used in all types of fracs – the greater the perforated interval, the more stages. There is no difference in frac pressure, it depends on the rock tensile strength & overburden; shale may be deeper, but may also be more friable, these effect countering each other. The % amount left in the rock doesn’t differ, what differs is that new shale frac operators might tend not to flow back immediately & because of the much lower permeability, the time to unload the supercharge is closer to 2 years than 2 months.
• DECC were unaware of drilling & frac’ing in the Wiltshire Cotswolds – they have poor records. No present operator is going to broadcast their frac history lest they unleash the unwashed of Balcombe upon their fields & verges, but fraccing has been going on onshore the UK for perhaps half a century. The “earthquakes” at Preese Hall #1 were noticed primarily because the well treatment was intentionally monitored on several microseismic recorders.
Despite the knee-jerks attacks on him, Rodney Jago’s recent long post was a sensible & observant statement of his opinion, which should be respected.
You decried “bullying”, but it seems most of the bullying has been by those opposing the drilling of Balcombe #2. After all, it is not 106 Cuadrilla employees who have been arrested.
Michael, unconventional tight reservoirs were not fracked in the UK before 2011.
Are you aware of Prof R Selleys’ studies in Lancashire back in 1993? He identified the gas reserves Cuadrilla are getting so excited about now. But they couldn’t get at it as high volume slick water hydraulic fracturing had not been developed then, and was not to be developed for another ten years. Your ultra-tight micro Darcy formations could not be fracked even in the 1990s. All these wells that they (Coalition of Government and Industry and their Balombe friend Rodney Jago) say were fracked by old-style fracking are in conventional reservoirs of higher permeability. As you say, easy-flow reservoirs are not fracked, but they might be tickle-fracked if/when flow dwindles as they get ‘tighter’ – not, of course, as tight as the unconventional wells that are up for fracking now, the wells that need the heavy treatment, high volume slick water hydraulic fracturing.
So basically it’s new. It has never been done here except at Preese Hall in Lancashire, and never on lateral sections (as DECC have confirmed to us).
If I remember, slick water contains friction-reducers so that it is less viscous at higher pressures, and flows. Plus of course other additives including biocides and hydrochloric acid, to name but two of some 600 possibilities… More chemicals rather than less or fewer?
Who said the difference between high vol fracking and old-time fracking is just a difference between vertical and horizontal? No one?
The volumes of chemicals, silica sand and water used are of a totally different magnitude in ancient and modern fracking. So is the pressure. Corner shop and hypermarket, yes.
The 20m litres figure for water comes from a company called, er, er FB Limited? Cuadrilla? Maybe they are lying but hey, for once maybe I believe them.
Frack pressure – not sure we ever had an argument there. But flowback, well, it was much faster than that in Lancashire, if I remember. There I would argue.
The earthquakes at Preese Hall had nothing at all to do with micro seismic. BGS picked them up (so did the locals!) and reported them to Cuadrilla, who hadn’t noticed. But those earthquakes cracked local houses and damaged the well over a large distance, and deformed it severely over 240 feet. (Why are you lot so pre-historic as to talk in feet???) And Cuadrilla carried on drilling!
Anyway, Michael, main point: fracking in the UK in unconventional tight reservoirs using high-volume slick water is new. New since 2011.
Kathryn, in your skill at NOT answering questions you are up there with our political greats!
For the THIRD time of asking are the protestors now aiming to prevent or delay Caudrilla’s departure from the site? In the absence of an answer I shall assume there is no just cause or impediment why I should not take it as fact.
I am not qualified to debate your point on when fracking is not fracking but I trust our Learned Friend , Michael Baker, will help us.
Happy Camping.
Rodney, if you read my original reply, you will note that I did answer your quesions. And if you fail to understand my allusions and read Fat Bastards as a gratuitous insult… yawn. If I were choosing insults from the panoply of possibles, I would have found a far better one. No FiBS has no leaders. The Balcombe Protector Camp has no leaders. As I said, there is still a job to do at Cuadrillagate. A varied bunch of principled people are getting on with it. Sunday is too short, so I shall not repeat the details. If you are not qualified to debate whether or not a frack is a 20th century tickle or a large-scale 21st century menace to our health, water, air, farming, ecosystems, landscapes and climate – then, Rodney, please don’t repeat the myth that the wells (bar one) that have already been tickle-fracked in the UK have anythng to do with what we are talking about.You are a prime example of people who are taken in by Government and Industry spin.
Kathry – I don’t think Rodney is taken in. I think he knows exactly what the truth is but comes out with this drivel in spite of that.
Rodney: I seriously dont think that this website is the place for downright rude comments. Using language such as: Shame they have become the unwitting stooges of selfish NIMBYs – drags the whole debate down and yourrself with it. I’d be happy to debate evidence and opinion online, but you go too far.
Philip, Your delicacy seems rather one –sided! “Fat Bastards “ is apparently acceptable . Go back on this web-site & you will find several accusations of corruption levelled at people who are actually qualified to comment. As far as I know the leaders of NoFibs have never tried to distance themselves from these slanders , let alone from the really foul verbal abuse of hurled at the driller’s employees.
In the circumstances “UNWITTING stooges” seems quite moderate!
May I repeat that many (not all) of the protestors are good, sincere and well meaning people with whom I have enjoyed talking. Our talks usually fade out when it comes to paying for their Utopian dreams, but I do not doubt their goodwill.
However this is not just a local issue. On a broader front, a legal operation has been stopped for a week, its work obstructed for over two months and the public, especially farmers , greatly inconvenienced.
Forget for a moment that Caudrilla is “only” an energy company employing “fat bastards”. Imagine a group objecting to the policy of, let us say, a local newspaper. Instead of taking their complaints to the authorities they bus in a mob; barricade the entrance, shout obscenities at the employees, sabotage vehicles and stop the paper publishing. Would you adopt a benign stance towards these “peaceful” protestors? Or would you take up your pen in support of a legal business?
There are many groups who arrogantly believe their pet causes justify unsocial actions. If we are to maintain a civil society we must not become their stooges.
But I will try to avoid unparliamentary language in future. Hope it will be reciprocated! Cheers .
Rodney – you are being totally disingenuous (again) – you are giving an example which bears no real comparison. The policy of a local newspaper compared to the impact of fracking LOL – oh come on! If you haven’t managed to learn enough about the local impacts that will occur when fracking starts in earnest down your way you must have your eyes and ears closed. This (and that other small thing about global warming – BTW are you a climate change denier Rodney? ) is why people are protesting. Not because they don’t like the coverage of the village cricket match.
Dear Refraction, Just my point. YOU may think fracking so risky it justifies protests. OTHERS may think the contents of a newspaper so blasphemous THEY are justified in protesting, or it might be drink or tobacco or (close to my heart) wind turbines.Please note I do not object to peaceful protesting (would do some myself if a wind turbine is planned near me) but to closing or disrupting a legal business. We have to face it that the Law does not always give us what we want but unless mob rule is to take over we need to accept that not everyone agrees with all our oppinions or beliefs.
And there was silly old me thinking Cuadrilla had to stop drilling because their planning permission was deficient and they got caught out drilling at twice the permitted volume… It was all those pesky protestors’ fault all along was it?
PRESS COMMENT Monday, September 16th FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
No FiBS (No Fracking in Balcombe Society)
West Sussex case against Balcombe Camp ‘deeply flawed’
This morning at the High Court of Justice, the Strand, a judge took less than an hour to dismiss the attempt by West Sussex County Council to evict the Balcombe Community Protection Camp. The case was ‘deeply flawed’, she said.
This was much more than a simple eviction. Given that the court notice was issued on Friday lunchtime, there had been little time for council for the defence to study the documents and prepare their case. There was no discussion of human rights law and freedom of assembly. And nowhere in the submission was it stated that Cuadrilla’s planning permission was to run out on September 28th. The judge ordered the case to be adjourned until October 8th. Council for the Camp expects it then to be either withdrawn or dismissed.
West Sussex County Council will pay costs. Council for the Balcombe Community Protection Camp, although acting pro bono, has asked that West Sussex Council Council should pay a donation to a pro bono charity fund.
A tense assembly of Balcombe villagers, anti-fracking campaigners and many protestors from the site filled Court 37 this morning – standing room only and permission from the judge to sit on the floor.
‘Justice Prevails!’ said Graham Mackie, who lives just beyond the village. ‘Thanks to all the wonderful people who made it happen. And the pro bono legal team who supported them. ‘
No FiBS member Douglas Wragg added: ‘This is very good news. This should send a message to the County about the sloppy way they’ve behaved throughout – over permissions and regulations, as well as over this eviction attempt.’
Cuadrilla are bound by the terms of their Planning permission to cap the well and leave the site by September 28th. The protest camp will remain, with the blessings and support of the majority of the Balcombe community, for as long as Cuadrilla occupy the site.
The Camp was rejoicing early afternoon: ‘ We are so happy that we can now stay to finish our protest, and then leave in a peaceful way once Cuadrilla have left,’ said a spokesperson. ‘This will give us time to clear and clean up. And to rethink and regroup, for future action against oil and gas drilling – in Balcombe and elsewhere in the country where new drilling sites are in the offing.’
No Fracking in Balcombe Society nofibsbalcombe@gmail.com
‘Colorado Floods Break Pipeline and Engulf Gas Wells
‘The rain pummeling Colorado this past week caused epic flooding. Photos show miles of devastation: homes lost, crops underwater, surviving livestock on flooded pastures, people in shelters.
‘In addition to rescuing stranded people, emergency crews have also had to contend with broken oil and gas pipelines – and those that haven’t broken yet are exposed due to eroded ground.
‘According to reports from the Denver Post, “Oil drums, tanks and other industrial debris mixed into the swollen river flowing northeast. County officials did not give locations of where the pipeline broke and where other pipelines were compromised.”
(…)
‘Weld County is home to about 20,000 oil and gas wells, and companies have been drilling on the flood plains. Once the gas and oil companies were notified of the threats, they began shutting down drilling operations and transmission pipelines. Even so, that still leaves wells, tanks, gathering lines and transmission lines in the path of raging waters.
‘In a statement to the press Gary Wockner, of Clean Water Action, said “Fracking and operating oil and gas facilities in floodplains is extremely risky. Flood waters can topple facilities and spread oil, gas, and cancer-causing fracking chemicals across vast landscapes making contamination and clean-up efforts exponentially worse and more complicated.”
‘No one expected this type of flooding: it’s a one-in-500-year type of event, aided in part by hillsides denuded of trees resulting from wildfires over the past couple years. Even so, the results illustrate the risks of drilling in flood plains. Even when the company shuts off the drilling or shuts down a pipeline, there is little they can do to prevent flood waters from ripping tanks from their moorings or washing frack pit waste downstream.’
(http://marcelluseffect.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/colorado-floods-break-pipeline-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMarcellusEffect+%28The+Marcellus+Effect%29)
Floods in Colorado – how many gas wells are under water?
From Vanessa Vine:
‘Media blackout on fracking flood disaster in Colorado.
‘”The tanks are tipping and, in some cases, have fallen over. They have to be leaking toxins into the flood waters. There have to be hundreds if not thousands of underwater well pads in Weld County as a result of the flooding.”
‘Please publicize this. Media and politicians have gone silent.’
from the Guardian story on Balcombe road-side & High Court, BTL:
raggedbandman -> watersprite
17 September 2013 1:15pm
The real news is that a 500 year flood hit an oil pipeline and some fracking sites. All the wells have been valved-off and there is no leakage from the wells. There has been some damage but we (I’m in Colorado) don’t know if it’s even significant.
9News covered your claims as a “Myth” along with the other flood related conspiracy “Myths” that have come from the loonies after this natural disaster. Honestly, what would you expect from a 500 year flood?
Energy plants need to to be fit to withstand earthquakes, tsunamis and 500-year floods.
You say ‘Myth’ if you want to!
Maybe you talk to the wrong people. Read this: http://www.texassharon.com/2013/09/15/is-there-a-media-blackout-on-the-fracking-flood-disaster-in-colorado/
‘Regulators say they agree these well sites could pose a contamination risk, and they will get out to assess the damage as soon as it’s feasible.
[…]
‘Lafayette-based anti-fracking activist Cliff Willmeng said he spent two days “zig-zagging” across Weld and Boulder counties documenting flooded drilling sites, mostly along the drainageway of the St. Vrain River. He observed “hundreds” of wells that were inundated. He also saw many condensate tanks that hold waste material from fracking at odd angles or even overturned.
‘ “It’s clear that the density of the oil and gas activity there did not respect where the water would go,” Willmeng said. “What we immediately need to know is what is leaking and we need a full detailed report of what that is. This is washing across agricultural land and into the waterways. Now we have to discuss what type of exposure the human population is going to have to suffer through.”
A spokesman for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission said the agency is aware of the potential for contamination from flooded drilling sites, but there simply is no way to get to those sites while flooding is ongoing and while resources are concentrated on saving lives.
From a friend in Lancashire:
‘There’s a AJLucas Preliminary annual report now available – to year end 30 June 2013 published Aug 2013.
Click to access 42j2dkzv93yvvz.pdf
Interesting comments on Cuadrilla’s prospects pages 5 and end of page 6,
especially this —
“Currently, an Environmental Impact Assessment is being conducted on the Bowland Prospect and drilling consents are being sought. It is therefore unlikely that any significant drilling work will be undertaken on the Prospect for upwards of another 12 months.”
and
“Drilling has also commenced, this time looking for oil, at Balcombe in the Bolney Prospect in the south of England. The results of this drilling are not expected for several months.”
So a delay before significant drilling in Lancs? They are on the hunt for more pads? Or what?
Are they seeking to renew their PEDLs? I thought time was up next Spring.
Some comments reported here on this link from an Interview with CEO of Cuadrilla, Francis Egan, by the Australian Financial Review —
http://www.sharescene.com/index.php?showtopic=1906This is my favourite —
“Mr Egan said the population density in the UK was not necessarily a problem for shale development given much of the land in Cuadrilla’s 1200-squarekilometre Bowland Shale licence was farmland or rural.”
So there you have it. Rural Lancastrians don’t matter. At least he didn’t say “desolate”.
Drilling poses dangers, as well as fracking. I think we missed this article back in June, I did anyway. Balcombe also has a very faulted goeology:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/10162343/Earthquakes-from-onshore-gas-drilling-threaten-a-disaster-warn-residents-of-Dutch-city.html
From friends in Ireland:
http://www.independent.ie/videos/locals-have-their-say-on-proposed-introduction-of-fracking-to-the-area-29575134.html
For anyone keen to debate energy policy – free –
Registration now open: Green Growth: No Turning back
TUC annual climate change conference, 21 October, London
https://greenconference2013.eventbrite.co.uk/
Thank you.
This is nice and useful article. You write well.
Hope next time you write on oil and gas drilling in oklahoma
9th September 2013
Balcombe Community Protection Camp Press Release
Please find below an update from the Balcombe blockade of the Cuadrilla drilling and fracking site. The update is provided in the context of a letter from one Tony Kershaw of West Sussex County Council’s legal department. The blockaders are consulting their own legal advisers about how to respond to it. The validity of the letter is questionable.
From the viewpoint of the blockaders the last six weeks have been a great success with national and international coverage of the danger fracking poses to the environment and human health. The invasion of the British countryside has been strongly resisted and will continue to be resisted until the last fracker runs out of gullible investors. Landowners are discovering the hidden liabilities they will have to bear when the inevitable accidents, contamination and injury bring massive claims for damages. Best of all communities are learning how to defend themselves and combine with other communities in strength and unity.
An amazing feature of the fight against fracking is the range of people, political and social positions that have drawn together to face the unwelcome gas and oil invaders. The blockaders have conducted themselves peacefully throughout this first blockade of a UK based fracker. The safety and sanctity of human life is at the heart of the purpose of the blockade.
It is a shame that a lower speed limit has not yet been imposed in the area of the entrance to the Cuadrilla drilling site and the blockaders and their many supporters in the wider community urge those responsible to immediately establish a safe speed limit of 20 or 30 miles per hour on the relevant stretch of the B2036 south of Balcombe. Failure to heed this request for a lower speed limit will lead even more people to question the good faith of their elected representatives and institutions.
The Balcombe blockaders urge West Sussex County Council to take urgent steps to preserve its democratic role in the community.
Excellent article in today’s Telegraph. “Romantic Germany risks economic decline as it tries to pursue its green dream”
To quote just one paragraph’ “ Germany’s greenhouse emissions rose 1.6 pc last year. In the US they fell to a 20 year low thanks to the switch from coal to shale gas.”
And still the NIMBY’S protest away at the expense of the community AND the planet!
Rodney, it’s not that simple. In Europe, Germany and the UK are burning cheap coal from the USA, dumped on the world energy market because of the American shale gas boom. The UK’s emissions have also increased as a result. Hve a look at the new DECC report on shale gas, and you’ll see that DECC predicts this will happen. Without the development of renewable energies the emissions increases would have been even higher.
After the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, Germany embarked on an ambitious “energy revolution”, deciding to phase out its nuclear power plants by the end of 2022 and bolster renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind power. The biggest worry is the free market for energy again converting more coal into electricity.
Germany said that despite the slight increase in emissions in 2012, it had more than met the targets agreed under the Kyoto Protocol, with its greenhouse gas emissions having fallen by 25.5 percent compared to 1990.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-german-greenhouse-gas-emissions-rose.html#jCp
But if we can make a success of shale gas we will not need to import cheap coal from US and at least lessen our dependance on oil & gas from unreliable sources. Give shale a chance, tax the profits, & put some of the revenue into researching cost effective clean energy.
Germany is about to discover existing renewable technology is financially unsustainable. So will we.
Where we are in this debate is that there is no credible evidence that domestic shale gas will have any beneficial effect on UK gas prices – see the DECC report on this point. Cheap US shale gas seems to be creating a global cheap coal glut, highly damaging to CO2 emissions globally, whilst reducing them in America. In my view, the UK should focus on carbon sequestration technology for coal and gas wherever the gas comes from. Anyway, there’s no silver bullet in shale gas or any other energy source.
In reply to Philip Pearson; I agree with your last sentence advocating investment in carbon sequestration technology for coal and gas.
Your contention ,so often repeated, that shale gas will not affect domestic prices deserves a comment.
It is a simple law of economics that increased supply reduces prices be it of wine, milk, or, as so clearly demonstrated in US, gas.
It is true that the increased supply must be significant. Just as a couple more cows will not reduce the price of milk, a few dozen wells will not affect gas or oil prices BUT while prices remain high production will be profitable and from profits can flow tax.
This tax can be used to subsidise energy costs or contribute to research into carbon sequestration and more fundamentally into cost-effective clean energy.
We have to face it that ONLY when clean energy is cheaper than dirty energy will there be ANY effective reduction in world emissions.
One protestor told me , and I suspect it’s a popular myth in the camp, that the oil drillers would fiddle their way out of paying tax. Perhaps they would like to, but whiskey distillers deep in Highland Glens get taxed; open a micro-brewery in a remote barn and the man from the Revenue will be round in a flash. Possibly the revenue would suss out huge oil tankers leaving Lower Stumble?
If our eco-warriors really want to reduce emissions they will give up pointless gestures. Those qualified to do so might enter constructive dialogue on safety issues.
Rodney – your faith in your fellow man does you credit – but you really do need to get wise and ask yourself why Riverstone LLC is based in the Cayman Islands if Cuadrilla don’t intend to dodge as much tax as they can 🙂
Blog by Glasgos Emeritus professor David Smyth: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/analysis/why-have-cuadrilla-withdrawn
‘Cuadrilla claims that they’re ceasing operations at Balcombe because they didn’t realise they should first have notified local inhabitants living above the location of their horizontal drilling. Hard to believe? Yes. But on the other hand, their plans and operations to date seem to be so inept that perhaps there is a grain of truth there. They are attempting a challenging technical drilling operation in heavily faulted geology which could act for a fast track for leakage of drilling fluids. To avoid this a full 3D seismic survey of the area would be required, and has not been undertaken. (etc…)
Cuadrilla’s dog’s dinner: http://processengineering.theengineer.co.uk/oil-and-gas/cuadrilla-pulls-balcombe-planning/1017043.article?utm_source=Process+Engineering+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e5688ece71-Process+Engineering+Newsletter%3A+7th+August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9bcf02450d-e5688ece71-46391749
The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10283587/Cuadrilla-admits-Balcombe-planning-application-legally-ambigious.html
Cuadrilla admits Balcombe planning application ‘legally ambigious’
Cuadrilla’s attempts to drill for oil in West Sussex have suffered a fresh setback after it was forced to re-apply for planning permission, admitting its current application may not comply with regulations.
PRESS RELEASE (for immediate release, Tuesday September 3rd)
No FiBS (No Fracking in Balcombe Society)
In response to news that Cuadrilla is withdrawing planning applications to extend the time they can test drill and increase height of flares at Balcombe, Louisa Delpy, villager and member of No Fracking in Balcombe Socieity (NoFIBs) said:
“This is a victory for our campaign and we thank everyone who raised objections. But we know that the problem has not gone away. We are now in limbo and ask West Sussex County Council urgently to explain the reasons why Cuadrilla must resubmit the planning application and whether testing and flaring has been carried out on the vertical well section.
“We also want to know the current direction and length of the horizontal section of the well; how they can test drill into oil without a flare; and how they can operate and test right now without their permit to extract radioactive substances, about which the Environment Agency has maintained a curious silence since public consultation ended.”
Kathryn McWhirter added:
“No FiBS’ delight is tempered by suspicion of the company’s motives, and question marks over details of the full planning application that Cuadrilla will now submit on September 27th. Do they want to do something that is not allowed in the current permission? Do they simply want to disperse the blockade and postpone matters until next spring, when less contested planning consents will perhaps already be in place elsewhere, and the Government’s deregulation will make their lives easier. However they dress up their new planning application, the community in Balcombe has spoken loud and clear. 85 per cent do not want Cuadrilla in Balcombe.”
It would seem that Cuadrilla have withdrawn their current application for planning extension in anticipation of its being thrown out by West Sussex County Council. The planning and flare permit applications had been due for consideration on September 19th. The existing planning permission is due to run out on September 28th. Cuadrilla now intend to suspend operations mid-September and temporarily clear the site by the end of September.
ENDS
Interesting visit to protest site on Sunday 1/9 when I actually met a sensible protestor! (first ever).His idea was that all households should get the energy reasonably needed by the average well-insulated house at the lowest possible price with an escalating surcharge for additional consumption. Excellent idea! Would encourage home insulation and could substitute for the lib-labs beloved “Mansion Tax” as even a well insulated “mansion” would use more energy than the average house and one-bed London flats (not that I have one) would not be hit.
But in case I am accused of going soft two more points;
1) I asked about compensation for farmers obliged to block their gates . The lady suggested they should come & discuss it. It did not occur to her ( or to me at the time) that no farmer would risk becomming the target of the next “peaceful” tresspass by complaining. If innocent victims of your protest are of any concern perhaps something could be done?
2) Over the, very intrusive, loud speaker those who worked were invited to cheat their employers by throwing sickies to make time for blocking site deliveries during the week. Heatry applause & not a murmer of dissent. And you lot claim the moral high-ground!
Hi Rodney from Australia, If you like the idea of a gas field in your neighborhood you could try moving to one of ours – land is dirt cheap. You would only need to put up with headaches, skin rashes, breathing problems, neurological problems and an increased risk of cancer. You would also have to put up with government and industry that insists it is perfectly safe despite all evidence to the contrary.Please support your community on this issue – maybe you could suggest ways they could do things better or maybe you could tolerate a small inconvenience now as compared to the bigger inconvenience of trucks, heavy machinery noise and pollution 24/7 if the CSG industry hits your area.
Hi folks,
Thanks for the all the quality debate on here – excellent stuff. Just to let you know it’s our aim to REMOVE and UNAPPROVE comments that are overly personal, incendiary or accusative.
While we don’t get all of them, if you feel like writing something like that then it’s worth knowing we will do our best to remove that post. We’d also highly recommend Facebook if you’re interested in more incendiary debate!
GDIB
Great weekend reading:
http://www.refracktion.com/index.php/private-eye-the-fracking-issue/
Texas water stolen by the frackers:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water
Caroline Lucas: ‘There are some major questions to be asked about the role of politicians in the fracking debate. To me, the biggest are about why the Prime Minister is acting as a public relations man for the shale gas industry, and why there are people with financial interests in the sector who have senior roles in Government. (…) ministers are ignoring industry experts whose analysis undermines the frequently repeated myth that shale gas will mean lower fuel bills. Deutsche Bank, Chatham House, and Ofgem all predict that it will not bring down fuel bills.’
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-i-risked-arrest-to-protest-against-fracking-8776745.html
Hi NoFIBs, I work at the TUC on energy & climate change and wrote this blog – see below – after four visits so far to the Cuadrilla gates – I’ve learned a lot from talking to local residents, and felt welcomed by you, who went out your way to be friendly. Good luck! http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/08/balcombes-wake-up-call
Hi Philip, and thank you. I saw your email of yesterday but then seemed to have deleted it, otherwise would have replied. Maybe someone else replied? I posted your blog on our (open to only village opponents to fracking) NoFiBS Facebook page. Cd you contact me again via the nofibs email address?
Hi Kathryn, oops, sorry for the very slow reply, my old Mac let me down. Sunday was great, really inspiring, singing beats political lectures any time. This is my work email: ppearson@tuc.org.uk Keep in touch, and hope to get down this week (not with a sickie, tho!)
Philip
Not sure quite how the chair of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, Derek Lickorish, came to conclude that fracked gas would – or could – contribute to cutting energy costs and therefore fuel poverty. None of the analysts seem to agree with him. – I’ve dug out the most recent studies in this TUC blog – Philip
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/08/no-shale-gas-price-revolution
And one more.
“The Fifth Assessment Report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is due next month. Drafts of the study include the conclusion that it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels) are the main cause of warming.
That likelihood has risen from 50% in 1995, to 66% in 2001, to 90% in the 2007 report, suggesting that expert opinion is swiftly moving toward a unanimous conclusion. We are to blame. Yet the deniers keep repeating the same old myths, trying to confuse the public.”
http://www.ipcc.ch
Michael – keep spreading those olds myths – you’ll eventually convince yourself.
Richard and Refracktion
Our thoughts and our prayers are with you. This corrupt and poisonous industry will be going down our neck of the woods soon, fracking in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
http://bridgendgreens.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/frack-free-wales-press-release-frack-off-south-wales-tour-details/
What you are doing where you are is an inspiration to us all. There has to come a time when common sense prevails, where the future of our children and our children’s children prevails over the greed of toxic industries and their puppets in government.
For further information on how fracking destroys the countryside (and people), click on the link to the peer reviewed research and the findings of various public studies below:
http://nodrilling.wordpress.com/fracking/fracking-research-peer-reviewed-published-studies-independent-expert-opinions/
Also:
http://ecowatch.com/p/energy/fracking-2/injection-wells/
Solidarity from Wales.
Today the scientific community is in almost total agreement that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, and that this represents a huge threat to the planet and to us. According to a Pew survey conducted in March, however, public opinion lags behind the scientific conclusion, with only 69% of those surveyed accepting the view that the earth is warming — and only 1 in 4 Americans see global warming as a major threat. Still, 69% is a solid majority, which begs the question, Why aren’t we doing anything about it?
Actually, the main community that hasn’t swallowed the AGW hype is the Scientific community. The only members of that that sit up & beg are the ones whose grants depend on it.
Bullshit. Actually most climate deniers have been bribed by – sorry FUNDED by – your industry.
“Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, Stanford climate scientists Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field report that it’s on pace to occur at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period. Without intervention, this extreme pace could lead to a 5-6 degree Celsius spike in annual temperatures by the end of the century.”
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html
Purely as a matter of scientific literacy, one cannot have a 6 degree Celsius spike. One cannot have a “degree Celsius” change. “degree Celsius” is a temperature. The correct nomenclature for a change is “Celsius degree”.
As in a Celsius degree is the same as a Kelvin degree, whereas a Celsius temperature is some 273 degrees higher than a Kelvin temperature.
Funny, I should have expected a fellow “Physics graduate” to know that.
Not my words. Go and argue with the Stanford scientists. They probably tell you to move on as-well.
From a Guardian blog – we in Balcombe would like to underline that we stand united against oil and gas drilling in the beautiful North West, North East, South Wales and whevever else these bullies are heading in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or beyond.
‘Slightly odd one. Bookies Ladbrokes is claiming to be the first to offer odds on fracking. It reckons Balcombe and the south are likely to be behind Lancashire – where Cuadrilla has already fracked – for commercial fracking in the UK. Here are the odds if you, um, fancy a fossil fuel flutter:
Where will fracking first take place commercially in the Britain?
North-west 4/6
North-east 3/1
South Wales 4/1
Southern England 4/1
Scotland 10/1
Northern Ireland 14/1
The company’s Alex Donohue says: “The odds suggest fracking will take place in the north-west before the end of the decade. The odds of Balcombe being developed before anywhere else continue to drift as the protest movement grows.”
One jolly quote from another disgraceful day; Caroline Lucas says the quality of debate at the protest site is better than in the House of Commons. Could this be because all the professional protestors agree with her but the House of Commons regard her as a fool?
Caroline is one of the better ones in Parliament. She has convictions and will fight for them.
She’s earned my vote.
In general – the quality of our MP’s is low – across all parties they are ineffectual, and / or overly influenced by shorter self-interest – especial that bunch of Clowns that are collectively referred to as Cameron’s cabinet. Obviously my personal opinion.
Rodney you really are a dislikeable twerp – you are so full of bile that I’m surprised you don’t melt from the inside 🙂
Lost an argument, have you?
No just my patience with idiots and stooges.
Rodney Jago has never struck me as someone I’d characterise as a stooge.
No – I was thinking of him as the idiot and you as the stooge – clearer now? 🙂
Agreed, this spite is simply the death throws of Capitalism, it’ll be difficult for them, they have been defeated on all fronts, but at least it’s nearly over. As for Baker, yes he and a couple of others on here are clearly industry stooges, they need to be banned once found out otherwise the argument is unfair and this site is fast becoming just another government outlet for industry propaganda.
Enfield – I suspect you are correct about the use of this site for Government / Company propaganda. It seems to be a common occurrence a number of sites and responses to on-line news paper articles. I’ve noted several ‘rote’ responses across several sites.
I suspect the antagonists are paid by some marketing company. Superficially they seem to be able to respond to a wide range of arguments – but scratch beneath the surface and they show little real understanding about the implications of their arguments. Of course they could also be simply retired Tory ‘free market’ bigots from the Thatcher era. Which ever, once backed into a corner – they resort to re-iterating key facts: facts they are told to push (Golf Courses)? Or start personal attacks. OK – I’ve been overly blunt on a couple of occasions. But in my defence, I am right and I am a Northern 😉 (Living in Haywards Heath).
I don’t think this is about Capitalism or Socialism; it is about doing the write longer thing for the UK Environment and Economy. All major political parties will ‘short’ the future for a quick win at the next elections. The point Taleb makes in antiFragile – is that individuals / organisations / governments should not be allowed to make profit by dumping long term risk on other people. This is exactly what happened in the Finance Industry, this is what I suspect the Fracking Industry seem to be trying to do. Taleb’s message is simply and one Chris failed to understand / or choose not to / understand.
It is wrong to ban free speech even if we dislike the message. They are arguing a point of view – it may be a self-interested, short-sighted, ethically and intellectually dishonest point of view – but is is not an unpopular point of view. They just need to be challenged continuously.
Richard, I’ve got to be quick I’m afraid, I agree with you on most of those things, or just quibbles that aren’t worth going into except for the free speech, banning them is not banning free speech, they are paid to spread propaganda, normal people have to work for a living and then fight the good fight, we have no chance against a band of people employed specifically to counter every response with prepared non-facts, they are hindering our free speech by polluting it for their own gains.
Some will be paid / some will not. I don’t know how one would differentiate. That’s my concern 😦
To Enfield from the Dislikeable Twerp. Probably a waste of time but let me quote Charles Murray writing in The Times;
“ From the dawn of history until the 18th century, every society in the world was impoverished, with only the thinnest film of wealth at the top. Then came capitalism and the industrial revolution. Everywhere that capitalism took hold national wealth began to increase and poverty began to fall. Everywhere that capitalism didn’t take hold, people remained impoverished. Everywhere that capitalism has been rejected since then, poverty has increased.”
In the course of my career I have been able to visit, compare & contrast countries which adopted socialism or capitalism. I can assure you that, while capitalism, like democracy, has its faults, it is far better than the alternative. Better, that is for everybody, not just the capitalists (of whom I am not one).
Before you resume protesting read today’s Times report on Detroit and have a good day.
Rodney – I’d argue that Detroit’s present problems are a direct result of the failure of the unregulated free market. Also much of Africa’s problems are caused by distortions in the ‘free market’ caused by US agricultural policy and commodity speculation. However I acknowledge your point.
If you are really interested in an analysis of the effectiveness of unregulated free markets – I’d recommend reading ‘Ill Fares the Land’ and also ‘The Entrepreneurial State’ – the second explaining how the free market ride on the back of long term investments made by Governments / Society.
Finally Jarred Diamond – ‘The World Until Yesterday’. While we are materially better off in the West – that’s not the whole story. Jarred’s latest book makes some thought provoking points.
Cheers
Thanks, Richard. Perhaps we are getting a bit off topic but read the article on Detroit.
Meanwhile perhaps you can use your good influence to discourage us from accusing each other of being in the pay of sinister forces. Just as I cannot know for sure who some on my side may be I cannot be sure that some of your fellow travellers are not Tory bankers trying to protect the views from their converted barns! best wishes.
Rodney – I have no influence. 🙂 I have no clue who is and isn’t who they say they are. I live in Haywards Heath – a work in IT (so cursed with being on the computer a much of the time
).
Will read the article (as long as I don’t have to pay the Times to access it).
Rodney – OK I’ve read the headline. The “Cost of Government” is a tired argument. Peddled around by Tea Party types. I don’t feel compelled to read further. Detroit may / may not / have in-efficient local government – but the basic problem was a mono-economy. Not enough economic diversity.
If savings made by cutting back on in-efficient public services could be ploughed into increase economic diversity – then I’m all for it. However – the Elephant in the room is the grossly unfair Taxation System. As pointed out by Warren Buffet no less!
If we’re going to fixing things – lets make sure the Wealthy make an appropriate contribution to society – lets base the taxation system on income and assets. Not just income.
Anyway – we’re drifting again 🙂
I’m all for taxing the profits of fracking so long as we don’t kill the goose. As for landowners getting rent for wind-farms squeese till the pips squeak!!
The problem is long term (longer time frames than affect you or me) – the goose may kill us
See my previous reference to Lovelocks comments on CO2 / Methane.
If profits are used to fund an equivalent level of Carbon Capture – then I find it more difficult to be against Gas. But we know the Government will not do that. The Government have given Tax cuts to the industry.
Re Rent / Windfarms – +1.
A mono-economy might have been a major problem, but the basic cause of the disaster was continuing Democratic civic administrations spending more than they had coming in.
Spending without earning – hmm, might be able to see some local campers who think that is economically feasible.
Michael – you continue to demonstrate your lack of subject knowledge. Marks for perseverance thought.
Rodney, Chris and the rest – they’re not here for the hunting. Stop wasting your time humouring them. They are classic forum trolls – you have seen they don’t care about what is really going on – they are just here to sow fear uncertainty and doubt – they aren’t very good at it but they do spend a lot of their and our time on it.
The problem is that as enlightened well brought up people we like to give people the benefit of the doubt. In this case though it is better just to ignore them – maybe just post “don’t feed the trolls” when they try their silliness in future?
Refracktion – Agreed I think we’re at that point.
Piss off Jago you Tory pig.
Is this sort of language & abuse really necessary? it just confirms my statement (earlier post somwhere on here) that those against are too busy shouting down anyone who has another view, won’t listen to anything but their own voice, hardly a democratic protest is it.
Thanks,John, but no worries. Anonymous abuse is always a good sign!
Democratic protest does not work, more proof of that yesterday, I’m tired of arguing, time for fighting.
If you think yesterday’s actions were “democratic protest”, then we can hardly trust your political judgement.
But then, we knew that already.
From the Royal Society report – that Chris is so fond of quoting from…
Recommendation Regarding Water Management.
—
RECOMMENDATION
Water should be managed in an integrated way:
• Techniques and operational practices should be implemented to minimise water use and avoid abstracting water from supplies that may be under stress.
• Wastewater should be recycled and reused where possible.
• Options for treating and disposing of wastes should be planned from the outset. The construction, regulation and siting of any future onshore disposal wells need further investigation.
—
So the Royal Society agree with the concerns raised by several of us here on this site. For those of us that live in Sussex will know that water supplies have been under-stress in recent years.
I hope South Eastern Water are gearing up to pursue Cuadrilla for the necessary investment. I’d be writing to them to may my views know and I would encourage others to do likewise.
I don’t diasgree with any of those Water Management Recommendations by the Royal Society. Any rational person would support those recommendations.
However, relatively insignificant water usage by fracking at say 0.3%, will not be the issue putting our water supplies under stress.
What is and will continue to put our water supplies in the South East under stress is the shameful water management by the water companies, who lose 17% of our water through leaks in their pipes and do not invest any money at all in increasing capacity i.e. building new reservoirs.
No matter how many times you repeat the sentence – YOU are not in the position to state what is / or isn’t / significant water consumption for Mid Sussex.
If South East Water need additional investment to cope with Cuadrilla’s drilling – then Cuadrilla should bear all the costs. NOT the population of Sussex. If Borde Hill Estate also stand to profit from this grubby little business – then perhaps the costs should be split between Cuadrilla and Borde Hill Estate.
Richard, are you seriously suggesting that using up to 0.3% of all freshwater supplied for fracking is likely to be a serious water consumption problem for Mid Sussex?
It’s not a question of “If South East Water need additional investment to cope with Cuadrilla’s drilling”; South East Water & Southern Water without question need to invest in additional capacity now, by building new reservoirs, regardless of any potential future modest need for water from fracking.
Chris – I am stating two thing.
1: Despite endlessly repeating a number you’ve found – you are clueless as to the actual impact on Sussex; the percentage increase that would be caused by Cuadrilla. As per Royal Society recommendations – in the paper you keep parroting – an independent local impact assessment is needed.
2: The complete costs of of ANY impact caused by Cuadrilla need to be fully carried by Cuadrilla – and NOT the local community.
If impact is minimal – then financial exposure to Cuadrilla – for this aspect of their operations – is minimal.
I don’t see how anyone can argue against this. Unless of cause you are Cuadrilla and you intend to dump on the local community / Sussex all the environmental costs?
Richard,
The total amount of water supplied by South East Water & Southern Water is greater than 1,000,000,000 litres a day.
The total amount of water needed for up to 10 days to frac a well with a life span of up to ten years is 18,000,000 litres.
The amount of water used to frac a well as a percentage of the total water supplied by South East Water & Southern Water over 10 days, is therefore 18,000,000 divided 10,000,000,000 = 0.18%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17622837
You really are rather stupid aren’t you Chris.
It doesn’t matter what the number are. The principle IS – that Cuadrilla will pay for any Water Infrastructure enhancements that are trigger by their activities in Sussex.
Richard,
What a shame. You’re no better than Refracktion, resorting to abuse when losing the argument.
The function of a water company is to plan for and provide an adequate supply of water to its customers. This simple enough function, our local water companies have blatantly failed to fulfill for decades. The cost of this long overdue new water infrastructure should not be borne by one customer, such as Cuadrilla, particularly give its relatively modest water needs.
Chris – yes the costs should. If the requirement is only modest. The cost to Cuadrilla will be modest. Honestly – It’s very simple.
You could only object to this argument if you represent Cuadrilla. Read Taleb AntiFragile – for a quick lesson on commercial ethics. (I think it will help you).
But what “water infrastructure” costs will Cuadrilla’s relatively modest water requirements trigger?
In Lancashire, Cuadrilla simply sourced their 8,400 cubic metres of water for fracking from the mains.
Think I’ll give Taleb’s ‘Antifragile’ book a miss thanks:
“Antifragile, a more philosophical work than Taleb’s earlier books, shares much with the Marxist philosophers….”
Do you still maintain you’re not a socialist?
Interesting – so you are aware of the work. Though you appear to completely misunderstand Taleb’s message. Stupid? Or intellectually & ethically dishonest?
Anyway – I’d like to thank you. Without your inane banging on about minimal water consumption it wouldn’t have crossed my mind to contact other commercial companies that might be exposed to down-side caused by Cuadrilla.
Home goal! 🙂
I’ll be writing the Nicolas Soames, my local Council and the MD of South East Water tomorrow.
1: South East Water asking them to ensure that – should operations commence – all costs caused by increase in Water demand – caused by Caudrilla – are born by Cuadrilla.
2: The Local Council asking them to ensure that all costs caused by increase in lorries on our local road infrastructure are charged back to Cuadrilla.
3: To our MP’s restating (1) & (2) – and asking for a statement from the government that all environmental damage associated with Cuadrilla by independent body – are born by the company.
I’d encourage others to do the same.
The costs and risks must fall on those responsible, those taking the profit, and not the local population.
so hopefully the cost of policing this lot (as Cuadrilla are there legally & protestors blocking them & the highway are not) will be bourne by those responsible too? i.e the protestors.
In my opinion – those cost should also be born by Cuadrilla and perhaps Borde Hill Estate. But feel free to write and suggesting otherwise.
Balcombe Estate.
Kathy – Thanks for the correction. Is Balcombe Estate a completely separate entity to Borde Hill Estate? Or is there a relationship of some form?
Completely separate. Adjoining estates, Borde Hill to the south, incldes the lovely, visitable, Borde Hill Gardens, Jeremy’s Restaurant and Elviras’s Cafe, all very worth a visit. Balcombe Estate is farms, managed forest, a small quarry. Meanwhile the Cowdray cousins down the road to the west, instantly declared themselves against fracking when a well was mooted at Ferhurst:
‘Cowdray Estate was approached by Celtique Energie about an alternative location, 18 months ago but we had concerns about the environmental impact on the area and decided not to proceed with the proposals.
‘Cowdray Estate has a number of concerns about Celtique Energie’s proposals for an exploration well at Nine Acre Copse, Fernhurst. These include traffic, noise, light pollution and the impact on an area within the National park.
‘Whilst it is recognised that the proposals on the table are for an exploratory well, it could be the thin end of a wedge which would have long term implications on the village of Fernhurst and the nearby residential and business properties.
‘There is not enough information about whether or not Celtique Energie is expecting to find oil or gas. If they find shale gas they may apply for consent to carry out extraction by Fracking or hydraulic fracturing techniques which may have long term environmental implications, such as pollution to the natural water resources, the potential for wellhead pollution or indeed earth tremors. Fracking requires vast amounts of water and we must question where this will be coming from.
‘We therefore have concerns about whether there have been sufficient investigations into the Environmental assessments which have been carried out, for instance; we question the results of the noise level survey which has been published in Celtique Energie’s consultation document.
We also question whether the relevant parts of the National Planning Policy Framework, (paragraphs 115 and 116) which relate to planning considerations for development proposals within a National park, have been fully considered
We also call upon Celtique Energie at this stage of the proceedings to make a public commitment supported by evidence that they will fulfil their liabilities in the event of contamination, given the potential impact their activities may have on the local community.
Kathy – many thanks for the clarification.
PS The No Dash for Gas/Reclaim the Power camp is on a field belonging to a farm belonging to the Borde Hill Estate. The Cuadrillagate Balcombe Protection Camp is on the grass verges adjoining the Cuadrilla site and (across the road) a farm on the Balcombe Eastate. Some families with little children were camping safely and peacefully in a Christmas tree field up a tree-lined bank from the verge, with impressive views of the rig.. Today they were served notice to move to the verge. Shame on the Balcombe Estate, shame on the police.
Richard, let’s get this clear. Suppose you run a legal business but I don’t like it or you.
I bring in a mob to “peacefully protest “ by closing your access, abusing your employees, threatening civil disobedience, and closing you down for over a week. And, oh yes, encamp my mob on your neighbour’s premises.
YOU should pay the policing costs, I should have no liability to you, your neighbour or the community.
Is that what you are saying?
As always – it depends on the context.
Probably – in this costs should be allocated via an independent review process – split between both sides. If this were the case – Cuadrilla / the Government might have tried harder to win over the protestors. The protestors may have thought a little harder about blocking the roads. Unfortunately the population of West Sussex should not – but will – end up picking up the costs.
All too often greed and corrupt hide behind the “law”.
But suppose that “legal” business is found out operating outside it’s legal permissions for months, or repeatedly trespassing on people’s property (just like Cuadrilla). The case is no longer clear cut is it?
Egan’s whining yesterday that he has to abide by the law but the protesters don’t was just hypocritical guff.
Next
Indeed.
Me to Parish Council, of which Simon Greenwood of Balcombe Estate, host to Cuadrilla, is a sometimes-absent member: ‘Bad idea to close the country footpath, the safe route to Cuadrillagate?’
Simon: ‘If some irresponsible idiot had not invited the outside professional protesters to disrupt the lives of the 77% who did not oppose drilling then I am sure the council would not have felt the need to close the footpath. I imagine that British Transport Police were concerned over the possibility of illegal trespass onto the railway property and the resulting danger to themselves and rail users. Some very nasty people are coming who think nothing of actions such as throwing scaffolding poles through police van windows and otherwise trying to injure the police.
‘For they sow the wind And they reap the whirlwind.’ – Hosea 8:7’
My reply: ‘Oooooh how exciting, a direct message from the Horse’s mouth! Not via your Land Agent! Not telling us to mind our own business!
‘A great day today. Peaceful, huge publicity. The country needs to learn about this process. It could be coming their way. Invited? No. They (protecting our village, our country, our planet, unlike you) decided to come. We welcome them.
‘The Irresponsible Idiot is the one who allowed Cuadrilla onto this site on the edge of our village. Shame on you, Simon Greenwood. I do hope Mummy and Daddy are ashamed of you
too. Tell us, have you signed a new, ongoing contract with Caudrilla? What a foolish question.
‘If 77% of the village did not vote in the Parish Council survey, shame on them. Perhaps some of them were scared, because they live in houses, run shops, or farm land attached to the estate. 82% of the people who exercised their democratic right and responded to that council survey were against.
‘Nasty people? Simon, do visit the site – the temporary site, south of Cuadrillagate. So civilised, so organised, so democratic.
‘Hm, I seem to have mislaid that fracking prayer from the Diocese of Chichester. Oh what a fitting finale that would have made.’
K, I imagine you have royally p*ss*d off some neighbours.To oppose something safe.
As a kid, my Dad read me myths – you have certainly been sowing dragon’s teeth. Now to see what the harvest is.
I think if anyone is reaping a whirlwind just now it is Cuadrilla and the government 🙂
just sayin’
Kathy – according to local spin
“Mr Greenwood is the owner of The Balcombe Estate, and has a passion for all aspects of the countryside and its pursuits. He is proactive with the running of the Estate, and also an active member of the Balcombe Parish Council.” What a nice chap!
However I’ve only noticed a passion for attempting to bulldoze local opinion w.r.t. fracking and housing development (Penland Estate).
I’m assuming / hoping that readers of this blog will think twice before getting involved with other ‘community’ Board Hill Estate activities.
Penland Farm is on Borde Hill estate as is Sugworth Farm. Both subject to speculative development. Borde Hill estate is entirely seperate from Balcombe Estate. The only housing Balcombe Estate has enabled development of in the last few decades is Barn Meadow, an affordable housing site on the old allotments which they then provided land to relocate.
Michael, the oil did not flow for Conoc. Please would you comment on the prospects for Frack Free Caudrilla?
Kathryn, Conoco found oil, so obviously it did flow. But oil was probably over $35/ bbl when they applied for planning permissions for the well & about $10 /bbl when they finished the well, the biggest downturn since the sixties, so it would have been classed as uneconomic. That same well today, with oil at $115 /bbl, even allowing for inflation, would probably be economic. Add in drilling horizontally to increase the exposed sand-face {micrite-face} & the increased productivity due to the increased flow surface could well be very economic.
Or, since they’re only testing it, could flow at a rate economic to complete.
Or not – since other nearby wells were completed at the time, was it only the timing of the downturn/ slashing of CapEx budgets, or were there productivity issues that led to it being abandoned? Hence the option of an acid wash.
All those protestors, under a false flag. Not gas, not shale, not fraccing. Tsk!
From an absent supporter
I am not at Balcombe though I whole-heartedly support the protest to stop fracking, there – and at other sites, where water-extraction and water-contamination could jeopardise people’s well-being.
The pollution by noise, fumes, artificial lights, and the dangers and upset caused by new lorry-movements and by other machinery, near and away from the drilling site, will not be noticed by politicians and others who encourage this exploitation. These things will be devastating to the people of the locality, and hazardous to people who are further away.
Although I am not protesting at Balcombe, I am represented by those who are so.
However many people protest at Balcombe, they will be but a small number compared with those they represent – a vastly greater number with the same opinion and wishes.
Yours, sincerely in support of the protest. J. Kaadé
The following paper is hopefully of interest to those trying to see through some of the bullshit that is being liberally spread around this site.
Click to access tyndall-coop_shale_gas_report_final.pdf
The report is actually quite old – 2011.
The Tyndall Centre seems to represent some of the UK’s strongest academic universities. The report was commissioned by the Sustainable Change Co-operative – which appear to be a local North West Group of companies and organisations interested in sustainable development.
Comments on Water Consumption can be found on page 69. The report states that fracking will cause significant issues for local communities w.r.t. water consumption – both the volume used – and the need to transport this to and from the sites.
The Tyndall Centre is an outreach of the climate lot at the University of East Anglia – they of the “hockey stick” graph & faked data sets.
And the 2011 report was funded by the Co-Op – the Co-Op that’s part funding the ruckus on London Road.
That’s more “impartial” than other sites? Oh dear.
A number of UK Universities are involved in the Tyndall Centre. Latest research published in Nature this year http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~sjphipps/publications/pages_2k_consortium2013.pdf summary provided here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-pages-2k-synthesis/ supports the existence of a CO2 induced hockey.
For those questioning my preference for Nuclear over Fracking; try reading the following explanation by James Lovelock – http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/loveprefaceen.htm. To summarise Nuclear is a threat to myself and my children. CO2 based energy generation is a threat to the whole planet.
Rodney. Your house will be worth less, you may not have drinking water if Sussex have another drought year and fracking is in full flow. You may experience subsidence, the local road system will be overwhelmed with lorries. And the environment you leave to you children more damage than that left to you.
And you have an issue with the protesters?
The Guardian carried a report this week implying that a town in Texas is running dry because of water used for fracking. Yet in Texas 1 per cent of water use is for fracking; in the US as a whole it is 0.3 per cent — less than is used by golf courses. If parts of Texas run out, blame farming, by far the biggest user. For more myths about fracking please see this: http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-shatter-myths-fracking/
w.r.t. the gwpf —
“The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions.”
So another industry lobby group. One only needs to take a cursory look at the site to see what the agenda is.
Chris – so you are stating that the fracking operation will only required the same amount of water as that required to water a normal golf course??
With anyone with access to the real facts care to comment?
The 18,000 cubic metres of water needed for drilling a well with a life span of up to ten years is equal to the volume used to irrigate a 3 hectare corn field in one season or an 18 hole golf course in one month.
The entire volume of water used, over a projected life span of 10 years at the Cuadrilla Resources’ well in Lancashire UK, is less than half of the water lost through leaking pipes in Manchester in one day.
http://www.nohotair.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2446:myths-and-facts&catid=184:uncategorised&Itemid=232
Chris – do you work for Cuadrill?
Then why do you keep referring to websites sponsored by the industry. The information presented there cannot be taken at face value. Yet you keep doing so — as long as it supports your bias.
” or an 18 hole golf course in one month”
I do wish you’d occasionally check a fact or two!
The GWPF’s claim bout the golf course is comprehensively debunked with figures
here .
http://www.refracktion.com/index.php/myth-busting/myth-8-fracking-water-usage-is-minimal/
they are only out by a factor of about 60
The GWPFs credibility is shot to hell as they may lose their charitable status http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-climatechange-think-tank-risks-being-dismantled-after-complaint-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html
next?
” or an 18 hole golf course in one month”
I do wish you’d occasionally check a fact or two!
The GWPF’s claim bout the golf course is comprehensively debunked with figures
here .
www. refracktion.com/index.php/myth-busting/myth-8-fracking-water-usage-is-minimal/
they are only out by a factor of about 60
“A Unesco World Water Development report found that an 18-hole golf course can use as much as 2.3 million litres of water every day.” Source: Independent 29/8/2010
2.3 million litres = 2,300 cubic metres every day
2,300 cubic metres every day = 70,000 cubic metres per month
Therefore Nick Grealy of No Hot Air’s, (not GWPF) quote of :
“18,000 cubic metres of water needed for drilling a well with a life span of up to ten years is equal to the volume used to irrigate a 3 hectare corn field in one season or an 18 hole golf course in one month.”
is entirely reasonable and credible.
. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/its-a-greener-shade-of-green-britains-first-organic-golf-course-2064801.html
So my water consumption concerns include new Golf courses in West Sussex, as well as fracking in Balcombe. However, I’m not aware that any of the former are planned.
NO Chris – My point was that water is an increasingly scare resource in Sussex. We can ill afford to waste it on golf courses or fracking! Or for that matter – significant new housing developments.
Of course water is a resource that requires careful management, on that we can agree, however fracing’s temporary use of water would be relatively insignificant:
Total amount of water supplied by South East Water & Southern Water is greater than 1,000,000,000 litres a day.
Total amount of water needed for up to 10 days to frac a well with a life span of up to ten years is 18,000,000 litres.
The amount of water used to frac a well as a percentage of the total water supplied by South East Water & Southern Water over 10 days, is therefore 18,000,000 divided 10,000,000,000 = 0.18%
For comparison the leakage rate from South East Water & Southern Water’s water pipes is 17%
Water companies should be fixing their leaks and increasing capacity i.e. building more reservoirs.
To stop fracing from using a relatively insignificant amount of water for a short period of time, will therefore have no significant effect whatsoever on conserving water.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17622837
The GWPFs credibility is shot to hell as they may lose their charitable status www. independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-climatechange-think-tank-risks-being-dismantled-after-complaint-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html
next?
“an 18-hole golf course can use as much as 2.3 million litres of water every day” possibly if it is in a crazy place like Dubai. I imagine the snow dome there probably uses quite a bit of power to keep to down to alpine temperatures too. So what?
If Royal Lytham – a UK championship golf course in the heart of the area to be fracked can get by on just 5 million litres a year it shows how desperate you have to be to try to use such a bizarre comparison.
I see you also repeat the new bit that politicians like DAn Byles have disingenuously added – the part about “a well with a life span of up to ten years” – don’t you know a:) that fracking a well takes only a couple of months b:) there will be around 40 wells per pad.so the water used on a single well pad (base on GWPF’s estimate of up t 19,000 m3 per well), would keep Royal Lytham irrigated for about 150 years.
That’s not what Geasy Grealy of AllHotAir would have you believe but then Cuadrilla are one of his clients…
Total estimated 2011 water consumption for all shale wells completed that year represented about 0.3 percent of total U.S. freshwater consumption.
In comparison, golf courses in the United States consumed about 0.5 percent of all freshwater used in the country, according to the Professional Golf Association.
http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/205481/friday-energy-facts-how-much-water-does-fracking-shale-gas-consume
Well Chris I don’t know what country you are in – maybe the the USA I guess, but we are in the UK and our golf courses hardly use a frackers piss of water by comparison.
Slow learner? Wet behind ears?
“1. It proves Nick Grealy’s quote to be correct about water usage.”
Why not go further and use a golf course in Abu Dhabi as a comparison Chris? ou could make yourselves look REALLY silly then. What it actually proves is that you are both rather desperate and short of relevant material
“2. I am referring to the US to compare water usage between fracking for shale and usage by golf courses, as the UK cannot be used at the moment for such a comparison.”
I have given you data for usage in a premier UK golf course. Perhaps you can explain why you think water usage per frack in the UK will be significantly different to that suggested by your friends at the Global Warming Policy Foundation then?
Frankly you are making yourself sound ridiculous (again) Chris
Good Lord, Royal Lytham uses a ‘wetting agent’??? That wouldn’t be a surfactant now would it, you know, the sort of ‘chemical’ used in fraccing? And put directly onto the earth, not pumped within the confines of multiple casing & tubing strings.
Well I never. Perhaps the Occupy lot should leave the field to the sheep & decamp to the 13th fairway at Royal Lytham?
I imagine if they start covering the links in fracking fluid and or flow back fluid a:) locals would indeed be up in arms. b:) the membership might have something to say about it.
Your disingenousness seems to know no bounds Michael
LOL – but Royal Lytham is one of the UK’s best maintained golf clubs and is slap bang inside PEDL 165 Chris. Trying to compare UK fracking water usage to a golf club in Florida is pathetic. You just make yourself look like a fool (again). Why do you keep digging?
…, you silly man, that is what the original quote about golf course, long ago referred to Florida. You don’t even know THAT do you 🙂 The quote has since been bastardized for use in the UK and the clever “in 10 years bit” added by devious commentators, but if you do a bit of homework you will find the original quote you mindlessly refer to in its full glory 🙂
Refracktion
My post above, referred to an article written in April 2013:
“Total estimated 2011 water consumption for all shale wells completed that year represented about 0.3 percent of total U.S. freshwater consumption.
In comparison, golf courses in the United States consumed about 0.5 percent of all freshwater used in the country, according to the Professional Golf Association.
http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/205481/friday-energy-facts-how-much-water-does-fracking-shale-gas-consume
And anyway, OMG you are slow to learn. The water poured on golf courses makes nice green grass, evaporates, forms clouds, and falls again as rain. Pity about the cost, but at least it falls again as rain. The unfortunate water whacked down fracking wells laced with sand and chemicals comes back enriched with saline solution, heavy metals and radioactivity from down under, and at best is dumped underground, forever out of the water cycle, causing eathquakes the while; at worst it is dumped on land, in watercouses or at sea, polluting; while some remains underground, free to migrate throughout eternity to God knows where.
Kathryn,
In the well developed fracking industry of the USA, water usage is a relatively insignifcant 0.3%.
In comparison our local water companies lose through leaks a far more significant 17%.
Flow-back water in Europe must be recycled according to a standard which means it is equal to existing water supplies in rivers or lakes.
Untreated flowback water cannot be disposed of in rivers, streams or anywhere above ground according to current EU wide laws. It certainly cannot as you state be simply “dumped on land, in watercourses or at sea.”
“forever out of the water cycle” … perhaps just as well, considering that burning all that gas creates pure virgin fresh water. We wouldn’t want the sea-levels to rise from all the water being brought into existence, now would we?
In response to Richard Aug. 17th 9.22 am. (my replies seem to get in the wrong place).
Yes I do have an issue with protestors.
Most of them nice people but “greenwashed “ into believing they can protest their way to a clean, green, subsidised world while still enjoying all the benefits the real economy provides for them.
In perhaps 15 lengthy conversations three protestors have with obvious sincerity told me we could all have free & clean energy but “they” are blocking it for profit. Might as well argue with the Druids (also present).
Even the reasonably sensible ones seem unconcerned about higher energy prices or energy security.
I do not wish to be governed by rent-a-mob or faded “celebs”. Parliamentary Democracy involves some give & take. Just look what happens when people think their “causes” justify mob rule.
If property prices fall it is entirely the fault of the selfish NIMBY’s who have brought our village notoriety .
Much more important is the economy we are leaving to the next generation. We are nearly as indebted as the Weimar Republic and do not have the resources to waste on pointless gestures to satisfy green or any other cults. We may have an opportunity to reduce energy costs to the great benefit of the economy and thus the welfare of the Nation.
As to Balcombe I doubt if drilling will do more damage than the M23 spur road. I love our countryside & heartily wish shale oil were confined to the northern waste lands. But we do, or may, have it and for the sake of our country must accept some new development. If the professional protestors would go away we would hardly notice it…
“the selfish NIMBY’s who have brought our village notoriety .”
I presume you must be referring to David Cameron and Lord Howell there? After all you won’t find two more selfish nimbys on the subject of fracking anywhere in the UK 🙂
Rodney – originating (a long time ago) from the Northern Wastelands – I’d need to defend those locations also.
I do sympathise about the M23 truck; we also suffer from its effect on the run into Haywards Heath.
As I discussed with a friend of mine. I’d rather support the deployment of a couple of Thorium reactors to Sussex than see hundreds of fracking wells. I’ve come to conclusion that James Lovelock was 100% correct. Radiation is preferable CO2 / atmospheric warming.
Thorium?!?! You think we don’t have the technology to pump water under pressure through steel piping into the earth for a few hours ate a stretch, but that we do have the technology to weld unobtanium piping to contain ultra high temperature liquid fluoride {fluoride!} salts in a closed loop through a nuclear reactor for thirty years at a time.
I guess a PhD is no proof of the ability to discriminate risk.
Michael – you don’t know what your talking about.
A PhD? “your” as an abbreviation for “you are”??
So tell me – what is the working temperature of the liquid fluoride salt used for exchanging heat in a thorium reactor? Go on, you’re a ‘physicist’.
Sorry – I’m too busy trying to find your “Raal et al” paper – that doesn’t appear to be cited anywhere. Guess it was low grade research. Consistent with your ongoing comments on the web site.
Its not that difficult, here’s one: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786436508230081?journalCode=tphm19#.Ug-vqxxR8pI
& a ref: http://orlabs.oclc.org/identities/lccn-no2008-40989
but that is all totally irrelevant to the Balcombe #2 well, or this blog site.
Go and look it up in Wikipedia.
0101011001110101011000110110101100100000010110010110111101110101
Wikipedia:
Piping: A low chromium, nickel–molybdenum alloy, Hastelloy-N, was used in the MSRE and proved compatible with the fluoride salts FLiBe and FLiNaK.[6] All metal parts contacting salt were made of Hastelloy-N. … all major components were fabricated in U.S. Atomic Energy Commission-owned shops at Oak Ridge and Paducah. … At the time that design stresses were set for the MSRE, the data that was available indicated that the strength and creep rate of Hastelloy-N were hardly affected by irradiation. After the construction was well along, the stress-rupture life and fracture strain were found to be drastically reduced by thermal neutron irradiation. The MSRE stresses were reanalyzed, and it was concluded that the reactor would have adequate life to reach its goals. At the same time a program was launched to improve the resistance of Hastelloy-N to the embrittlement. … Fluorine gas was found to be produced by radiolysis of frozen salts, but only at temperatures below about 100 °C.
Components that were developed especially for the MSRE included flanges for 5-inch (130 mm) lines carrying molten salt, freeze valves (an air-cooled section where salt could be frozen and thawed), flexible control rods to operate in thimbles at 1200 °F (650 °C), and the fuel sampler-enricher. … Remote maintenance considerations pervaded the MSRE design, and developments included devices for remotely cutting and brazing together 1½-inch pipe, removable heater-insulation units, and equipment for removing specimens of metal and graphite from the core.
One unexpected finding was shallow, inter-granular cracking in all metal surfaces exposed to the fuel salt. The cause of the embrittlement was tellurium – a fission product generated in the fuel. This was first noted in the specimens that were removed from the core at intervals during the reactor operation. Post-operation examination of pieces of a control-rod thimble, heat-exchanger tubes, and pump bowl parts revealed the ubiquity of the cracking and emphasized its importance to the MSR concept. The crack growth was rapid enough to become a problem over the planned thirty-year life of a follow-on thorium breeder reactor. This cracking could be reduced by adding small amounts of niobium to the Hastelloy-N.
The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called “the most technically challenging” activity assigned to Bechtel Jacobs under its environmental management contract with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Operations organization. In 2003, the MSRE cleanup project was estimated at about $130 million, with decommissioning expected to be completed in 2009. Removal of uranium from the salt was finally complete in March 2008, however still leaving the salt with the fission products in the tanks. Much of the high cost was caused by the unpleasant surprise of fluorine and uranium hexafluoride evolution from cold fuel salt in storage that ORNL did not defuel and store correctly, but this has now been taken into consideration in MSR design. A potential decommissioning processes has been described; uranium is to be removed from the fuel as the hexafluoride by adding excess fluorine, and plutonium as the plutonium dioxide by adding sodium carbonate.
Michael. paraphrasing Mae West: “I seen thorium & I seen fraccing and believe me honey, fraccing is safer”.
Alison and Rodney,
Was it you (BPC) or WSCC who instigated this footpath ban? How are the 82/85% of interested/concerned residents safely to access the site? And others who are here to protect us? I hope whoever it was who took tis decision to close the country route will take responsibility for accidnets on the road. Serious question – who was it who instigated the ban?
responsibility for accidents on the road lies with who ever organised an event on a main road, without proper stewarding and risk assesment
NOW, not Sunday’s protest, is the time when road traffic poses a danger to residents as well as to those here to protect us who now need to walk down the twisting, forest-shaded, verge-free first stretch of road between Balcombe station and the start of the wide grass verge that leads to the camp site. Normally we walk safely across the fields. Thanks to bullies in our local council (or should that read councils?) the footpass is closed for 21 days.
responsibility for accidents on the road lies with who ever organised an event on a main road, without proper stewarding and risk assessment
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/cuadrilla-pr-man-admits-george-osbornes-shale-gas-revolution-wont-cut-energy-bills-8656246.html
How devious. Our government covering up the dangers of fracking. Congratulations, Finn Scott Delaney!
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10610762.Secret_emails_reveal_the_risk_to_water_in_Sussex_from_fracking_was_known_by_officials/?ref=mr
I do not know if your legal advisers have given you any advice on this action but you should and advisably must obtain a quiae timet injunction to stop any further activity. This would be based upon the real and immediate fear of environmental pollution under the Environmental Protection Act, should any of the complained of events present a clear and imminent danger to health, human rights and environmental well being. Good luck and remember solidarity is strength!
Effect of fracking on house prices in the US.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/fracking-boom-could-lead-to-housing-bust/
Effect of fracking on UK house prices:
“It certainly does not seem to have affected property prices. In Poole, which looks out on the main offshore activities of Perenco, properties go for millions. Purbeck Property, the local estate agents, said the proximity of an oilfield has not had an adverse effect”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10233955/The-town-where-fracking-is-already-happening.html
Are you suggesting that Wytch Farm was fracked with high volume hydraulic fracturing? I’m not convinced it was fracked at all but if you believe it was then please share the volume of fluid used and the date of the operation. As far as I am aware ther has only ever been 1 HVHF operation in the entire UK – Preese Hall and we all know what happened there don’t we?
Even if the allow them Wytch Farm – just to be sporting – we’re still missing 197 others 😉
Wytch Farm is not a well, its nearer a hundred wells.
Imagine – a hundred wells – and the most valuable real estate outside London. And an AONB to boot.
I didn’t know that – I’m not in the industry. Thanks for the correction.
“its nearer a hundred wells” – and not one of them fracked if this this document is honest.
Click to access Update%20on%20ESP%20Operation%20at%20BP%20Wytch%20Farm.pdf
You really MUST stop making these silly non-comparisons. Cuadrilla got censured by the ASA for doing this with Elswick even though that WAS fracked. You are trying to draw inferences that can’t be supported
From the Royal Society’s ‘Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing’ June 2012:
Section 1.8 The UK policy context:
“The UK has experience of hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling for non-shale gas applications.
Over the last 30 years, more than 2,000 wells have been drilled onshore in the UK, approximately 200 (10%) of which have been hydraulically fractured to enhance recovery. The combination of hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling allowed the
development of Wytch Farm field in Dorset in 1979.”
Click to access 2012-06-28-Shale-gas.pdf
I have just posted a piece about the potential fracking in Balcombe on my site, here at http://www.intheirprime.wordpress.com Everyone is welcome to read it
We don’t care if Cuadrilla are legally responsible, it makes no difference once the damage is done and we all know the law is not on the side of people but on the side of the government who are there to line the pockets of the rich and have already demonstrated that they can simply change laws to suit themselves. We don’t want the damage done in the first place, we already know that it is not a safe practice, they people at the top who will profit are willing to take the risk but we are not.
Guys, I just want to add our support to your efforts all the way from the antipodes. Our community has been fighting a 2+ year running battle to prevent exploitation of Sydney’s main drinking water catchments ( yes, that’s right, on the driest continent on earth). So far we have prevented commercial drilling but the war is far from won. We, at Stop CSG Illawarrra http://stop-csg-illawarra.org/ would like to offer any practical support we can: We have developed effective branding, web media tools, research material, messaging, merchandising etc, as well as public event experience, which we can make available if it will help you.
It is important to raise awareness and support outside of the immediate area and generate large numbers of supporters willing to sign partitions and give voice. This the purpose of our new website focussing on water supply http://stopcsg.org/ourwater/ . (As you may well be aware less than 1% of the world’s water is potable!). This site provides a common interface and messaging for a range of communities and has the support of half a dozen local councils and various state MPs.
I have lived in Ardingly and Haywards Heath and know not only the beauty of the area but also the location and importance of Ardingly reservoir as a drinking water supply, wildlife habitat and public recreational area.
Dig in for a long, hard and dirty fight from the industry, be resilient and cohesive ( as the industry will try to split you up and isolate you) and may the force be with you.
Peter,
While not nearly as stressed as Australia, Sussex is a water stressed county.
We’ve had hose pipe bans for the last two out of three years. There is continued pressure to build more housing and now we have Cuadrilla – who if successful will be a massive consumer and possibly polluter of water. I doubt Sussex water supplies can cope with these additional stresses on top of increasingly volatile weather.
Thanks for your support. I spent a year in Sydney (many years ago) – and loved the country. Sussex is – to me – special and we need to fight to protect it.
Best Wishes
Richard
Richard, “Sussex is a water stressed county”. Do grow some perspective – I grew up in the Karoo; I have fracced in the Rub al Khali {in mid-summer}. That is water stress.
I really don’t care where you lived. Do you actually live in Sussex. If you do – you will be aware that for a number of reasons water HAS BEEN as problem. Governments activities across several fronts will make this situation worse. Period.
Michael – so you do work in the fracking industry. Are you paid to post by your employees?
Peter – suspect you have some good numbers for water usage w.r.t. fracking. Could you comment on Chris’ claim that there is no issue here?
Richard, How would Peter have the remotest idea – he is on about Coal Seam Gas. There may be historic coal in Sussex, but Cuadrilla is not remotely seeking Coalbed Methane.
I realize you have just woken up to this & have as much knowledge as my teddy bear, but do think before posting. Perhaps you should spend some time on “industry sites”.
Point me to some balanced resources – resources that are not industry propaganda unlike the sites Chris continues to reference – and I’d gladly read around the area. You are quite correct – I’m not an expert, but I suspect I’m significantly more qualified in the fundamental sciences than yourself or your comfort toy. The challenge is finding unbiased high quality information.
What exactly is your motivation? Something drives you to keep re-posting. Do work in the shale gas industry? Do you live local to Balcombe?
Richard, the answers to your questions are all in previous postings on this very site, so read this at least.
You might be more qualified than Teddy, but you’d have to go some for the other half of your claim to be true.
If you continue to seek your information off the web, then do yourself a favour & expand your researches to the sites without a “k”: ‘fracing’, ‘frac’ing’, ‘fraccing’, ‘fracting’, ‘fracturing’, ‘hydrofrac…’, ‘well stimulation’, SPE & BGS sites – you might be amazed – or even learn something.
1st Class Honours in Physics, Experimental Physics prize, Phd in AstroPhysics. And you? As I previously requested – I’m happy to read any unbiased resources you can point me to?
Member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers since 1977 {now a life member}; Member of the Chartered Management Institute since 1984; did my last 10 years before retirement working in oilfield law; did my first job, in 1960, doing x-ray diffraction in diamonds; did my dissertation on binary stars.
As I said, browse the sites without the “k”. Book in to some SPE symposia – there are always some, e.g. Offshore Europe in Aberdeen early next month.
So at least we have something in common (re AstroPhysics). As promised – I will check out the resources you mentioned. When I get time. (Unfortunately I have a day job).
De Beers Scholar
Michael – just doing some background checking. FYI – I cannot find any publications under you name concerning binary stars, or X-ray diffraction in Diamonds. If you have any URL’s much appreciated.
However in my travels I came across the following question that you didn’t answer from earlier this year. A similar dialogue on a Somerset web site.
I assuming the name is coincidence only?
“My name is Tim Richards and I live in Somerset within the PEDL licensed by UK Methane Ltd. You have got me wondering if you are a local to Somerset or not? I can’t help but notice that as well as posting comments in This is Somerset you also comment on fracking (we spell it with a ‘k’ over here) stories in This is Bath, This is Derbyshire, This is Leicestershire, Gas Drilling in Balcombe, Gentle Wisdom and the Daily Maverick in South Africa, – who say that Michael Baker is “a retired member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers with extensive experience of hydraulic fracturing”. Perhaps I have got it wrong but in the interests of transparency it would be useful if you would clarify to the people of Somerset if you are a local, if you are associated with the Michael Baker Corporation in the USA and why you are so interested in commenting on fracking stories in the local press across the UK and in particular here in Somerset?”
Read more: http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/New-report-highlights-fracking-technical/story-18450093-detail/story.html#ixzz2cEWBUcj7
Follow us: @thisissomnews on Twitter | thisissomerset on Facebook”
You won’t find anything under my name. The diamond stuff is under Raal et al – I was 16.
If you can find Tim Richards’ question you can find my answer to him.
Stop playing the men – its bad enough you think an oil well in Sussex is a shale gas frac site, now you’re off the subject entirely.
Michael (if that is your real name – you seem to have several): you are clear paid by the Industry to goi around UK web site spreading disinformation and oil industry propaganda.
Cannot be bothered wasting my time further.
Richard etc – “Analysis of the US shale gas phenomena concludes that the benefits are – at best – short term”.
Marcellus Shale natural gas production is rising even faster this year than energy experts had predicted, and that’s having a national impact on energy.
Bentek, a Colorado company that analyzes energy trends, said 2013 production in Pennsylvania and West Virginia is up about 50 percent compared with last year. Figures for the pipelines that take gas out of the Marcellus show that in the first six months of the year, Pennsylvania produced about 1.5 trillion cubic feet of gas, with projections for a year-end total of about 3.2 trillion cubic feet.
That yearly number translates into the equivalent of about 550 million barrels of oil.
The official mid-2013 production figures for Pennsylvania and West Virginia haven’t been released yet by those states, but Bentek’s figures are considered very reliable by government and industry sources.
Marcellus production this year “has definitely outpaced our expectations,” said Diana Oswald, a Bentek energy analyst, and it’s changing long-established national energy trends.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/marcellus-shale-gas-production-rising-faster-than-predictions-having-national-impact/2013/08/15/f986940a-0574-11e3-bfc5-406b928603b2_story.html
Depletion?
There seems to be a sub-thread going about rival economic theories, & proposing that it is the duty of good socialists to oppose drilling in Balcombe. Interesting.
But anyone wishing to acquire knowledge directly relevant to shale exploitation, might want to look at “Shale Gas: The Promise and the Peril”, by Vikram Rao
ps – why are my posts being blocked? Don’t reverberate with “anti” hysteria perhaps?
Michael – Unfortunately the author (Vik Rao) is not unassociated with the profit side of the fracking industry. He previously worked as CTO for Halliburton – a company making money out of the chemicals used in fracking. See http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/03/2868988/fracking-chemical-rule-sent-back.html.
Halliburton do rather more than make a profit out of the chemicals used in fraccing – they developed hydraulic fracturing & make a great deal of money performing actual frac jobs. They also run the most extensive frac research programme. They are an actual “fracking company” unlike the many drilling companies so described by the BBC & Grauniad.
The fact that Vik Rao has retired as their chief technical officer makes him pretty well uniquely placed to write about it. From the reviews I’ve seen {I haven’t read it}, he is reportedly even-handed about it. Or do you prefer to get your facts from idiot numpties?
My only question concerns the degree to which the author is unbiased / untainted by financial considerations. It may well be a completely balanced analysis, but without understanding the authors Financial interests one cannot assume that.
The fact that the author has been a life long member of the Sierra Nevada club – would imply a strong environmental ethic.
Given the extent to which US industry lobbyist have attempted to skew / corrupt interpretation of data – I hope you can understand my caution.
Vik’s 401K {pension} entitlement form being CTO in a company that pays its CEO over $2million a year will surely be sufficient that that we can assume that as a retiree he is free of financial constraints.
Many senior Halliburton {& not doubt Schlumberger etc {other fracking companies are available, T Wogan}} have high environmental & ethical standards. The company offers a matched giving scheme of up to 10% of salary, for charity etc.
Michael – I think you are being a little naive. Or perhaps I’m being overly paranoid. The problem is – its difficult to fix environmental destruction / pollution once it occurs. But easy to avoid. Therefore caution makes sense.
This is why I keep reiterating that – should fracking commence – Cuadrilla should be legally liable for any long term environment or property damage. Insurance companies have already stated that property damaged that can be attributed to fracking will not be covered.
Only then, only with these responsibilities enforced, can we be sure that Cuadrilla will do the right thing.
Surely that isn’t contentious. If fracking causes no-harm – then Cuadrilla’s exposure / liabilities will be £0. ?
‘from’, not ‘form’
OCD?
Richard, “Cuadrilla should be legally liable for any long term environment or property damage. Insurance companies have already stated that property damaged that can be attributed to fracking will not be covered.”
Cuadrlla are legally responsible – that is the legal position. That is also why the insurance industry has that stand; Damage would be what in US usage would be a tort by Cuadrilla, insurance companies do not generally provide primary cover against loss recoverable from a party inflicting tortuous harm.
ps – why are my posts being blocked? Don’t reverberate with “anti” hysteria perhaps?
Kathryn did you activate that post quality plug in?
Sorry, I don’t understand the question… But I don’t administer this site, if that is an answer. Just post on it. And am currently working furiously on wine stuff, so not even reading most posts.
Several correspondents have been waiting for answers to questions about the recent “survey” but a strange silence continues. Unfortunately the “Middy “did not see fit to publish my letter but I have sent it to some of the responsible authorities. To quote
“Two correspondents (August 8th) imply a recent survey found 85 % or more of residents against fracking. But they do not tell us the question asked which was; “ DO YOU WANT YOUR LAND/ROAD FRACK FREE?”
As for most of us our “land” is a modest garden it is no surprise they got the required result.
Just to be sure well drilled campaigners visited every house (sometimes more than once) spreading fear and never, of course, mentioning the dire outlook for our energy costs & energy security.
The survey was controlled solely by campaigners . I voted twice and for all we know the keener Greens may have ticked their boxes a dozen times apiece. No information is available on the number of votes cast or qualification for voting so the percentages are meaningless.
I trust the responsible authorities will ignore this dodgy survey.”
Whenever I have questioned the false claim that that the Parish Council poll last year showed 82% of the village against fracking I have been told that only the percentage of votes cast is relevant. If that is the case then the latest “survey” has produced an increase of just 3%
So congratulations to NoFIBS. For a miserable 3% you have spread fear, abused members of the Parish Council, branded us all as selfish NIMBY’s, politicised the Village Fete, encouraged illegal banners, welcomed rent-a-mob and incurred huge policing costs.
All this unpleasantness for what? 99.9% at the protest camp are already “converts”. (Some perfectly nice people deluded into believing they can protest their way to a clean, green subsidised world and still enjoy all the benefits the real economy provides for them).
Perhaps you hope to convert the police or employees abused as they go to work?
Do you really want to see every issue on which people have strong feelings decided by protest mobs?
Try to keep the peace this weekend!
There seems little point in trying to gain the upper hand intellectually or through presenting more or less rational logic here as ideas won’t be the limiting factor in this whole process. What will shut this whole operation down is action and that’s precisely what we intend to do. Let’s save our energy for that and let those who are fearful and emotionally damaged to do the necessary work on themselves.
Will the ‘action’ be lawful?
Like households across the rest of the country, Balcombe’s residents use rather a lot of fossil fuels.
In fact, they use more fossil fuels than most. Three-quarters of Balcombe’s homes have gas central heating, in line with the rest of the country (78 percent). But Balcombe’s residents consume 30 percent more gas and 30 percent more electricity than the average for England, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Most households in Balcombe have either one car (37.6 percent) or two (39.2 percent). With 1.6 vehicles per household, car ownership is nearly 40 percent higher than in England as a whole (1.16 vehicles per household).
Like many other Britons, Balcombe’s residents, and the protestors who have travelled down to show solidarity with them, depend on the availability of reasonably priced oil and gas – they just don’t want it produced in their own area.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/13/column-britain-fracking-idUKL6N0GE2OO20130813
I actually suggest the protestors at Balcombe care about the much bigger picture. However Balcombe is a focal point. Especially salient as usually a Tory strong-hold. I suspect the Tory’s will pay the price at the next election. Perhaps that is way Cuadrilla are starting to engineer their exit 😉
Balcombe keep it up – we’re winning 🙂
Michael, what do you make of the fact that Caudrilla trucks have been spotted and photographed taking silica sand into the site? Why would they need that for micrite, and why if not fracking? What do you make of Cuadrilla’s latest announcement that they are unlikely to PRODUCE at Balcombe? Just trying to make us shut up and go away? Why bother to drill if not intending to produce? Our local geology is very different from that of the surrounding country. So what wd be the use?
Kathryn, I was surprised at the silica report – its months too early, they must still have a couple of thousand feet. You wouldn’t happen to know the size of the sand? Sand can also be a cement additive, but usually in deep hot wells. Mind you, sand can be used to strengthen a whipstock plug – a strong cement plug used to kick off into the deviated section.
I still doubt that C will frac, but its worth remembering that when carbonate is too homogeneous to etch, it can be propped with sand.
As you know, I was at Balcombe {wish we’d met}. Its a pretty good site for a well, and for a producing well, in my estimation. But perhaps too crowded, or too adjacent to the road & railway line for the erection of storage tanks needed for a production hub. Maybe that’s what they mean.
I shudder at C’s profligacy with the readies, but Balcome is not shale, so maybe not part of the Centrica acreage buy-in & destined for something else. I would have thought they’d like a cash flow, e.g. Elswick, but maybe the cash-flow pressure is off for now. Drilling it does give confirmation {or not} of the Conoco data – & cores.
As a village resident of over 35 years with a wife born here, I feel compelled to put my views on this issue.
We are both appalled by the absolute waste of money to police & protect this exploration site to allow Cuadrilla to carry out what they are entitled to when some village clubs or societies would be so happy with just a small amount of it, i.e. cubs/scouts to renew their portakabin perhaps or church bell refurb? It appears it will get worse between 16th & 21st when “direct action or missions” is forecast. Already we are seeing large tree trunks being placed in front of field gates, where we live (in Balcombe) is now getting a 24 security guard to protect the site, are we preparing for an invasion again? What effect is all this threat of action having on our residents? I feel this situation has now gone well beyond sensible, the views of a few (82% of the responders) has done more to damage our village than any amount of activity from Cuadrilla, what about those who are not against or don’t know, why are their views just being ignored, just get shouted down, don’t they have a right too?
Where were most of these protesters in 1986 when the site was drilled exactly as it is now? Most weren’t born & a majority weren’t living in Balcombe, there was no trouble, Conoco were able to get on with their job, finish & go.
As a resident I am fed up with the inconvenience of the concrete road being closed because of “protesters” the impression visitors coming into Balcombe get is not one I’m proud of nor would I expect it to actually attract anyone to visit our village at present.
We don’t need this “threat of direct action” Cuadrilla ARE NOT FRACKING, save your actions until they apply for the licence, if they ever do, just let them get on & do what they want to at this time & the quicker they will be out of Balcombe.
Just let us have our quiet, peaceful & scenic village back.
It is up to the organisers of this fiasco to demand that this threatened “direct action” does not take place, it isn’t needed, but I doubt if anyone will take any notice of my request, after all, according to Kathryn I’m a cronie!
Thank you John for speaking up for what I perceive as the silent majority in Balcombe, who have had enough of this protest, which could spiral out of control with talk of ‘direct action’.
85% of nearly every house in Balcombe. We visited them all, street by street. No reply from very few. You must remember our visit? You should be grateful that someone is taking action, someone is protecting your future and your children’s future. You belong to the oh-how-noisy-few!
Some reading for you:
http://frack-off.org.uk/the-real-significance-of-the-battle-of-balcombe/
If 85% support the protest, how come less than 7% took part in the protest walk please?
Chris – Thanks to your efforts I’m sure the numbers will increase. For certain – I’ll be at the next one I can get too. I’ve not attended previously.
I’ve never been worried about standing alone.
I’ll be cycling over from Haywards Heath to show my support tomorrow for the protestors. If you are around – I’ll even buy you a pint.
“If 85% support the protest, how come less than 7% took part in the protest walk please?”
A fair point Chris French – can I suggest you organise those who are in favour to make a similar show of solidarity. It will be fascinating to see how many you can get. If you got 7 % of the people you know support fracking out how many would that be? Do tell us so we can see how well you actually do.
Frankly, I think the last thing the silent majority of Balcombe residents want is more protesting. They’ve probably had more than enough of that already. I should imagine they would just like the hundreds of uninvited ‘direct action’ protesters from outside Balcombe gone, and their once peaceful village returned to them.
Chris – Where do you live? I’m guessing not in Balcombe?
Where I live is irrelevant to this debate. I’m simply exercising my freedom of speech, based upon my own research on the topic. Not only does the less than 7% attendance at the protest walk undermine the much publicised ‘85% support the protest’ line, but also many letters written by residents of Balcombe to the local Mid Sussex Times paper. This one is a good example: http://www.midsussextimes.co.uk/news/letters/letter-well-done-balcombe-1-5369121
Chris – are you paid per post – or is it a flat rate?
Chris – you don’t live there – how would you know?
& as usual a snide remark left by Kathryn!
Yes I remember the visit, I was left a non -functioning DVD! I registered my answer, I was one of those 15% not against or undecided, so i can assure you that you are not protecting mine or my childrens future, we ALL rely on fossil fuels & will for years to come, you are not representing my views or those of that 15%, I am not grateful you are causing me & hundreds of others inconvenience & unnecessary expense, possibly long term when the bills for this fiasco are added up & our council taxes rise to pay for the policing etc, also if this “direct action” results in damage or injuries, sympathy for the protest will rapidly evaporate.
John – I think you have more to worry about than any temporary blip in local council costs caused by policing the demonstrators.
Assuming you live in Balcombe – the value of you home will fall and you water rates will increases as Cuadrilla competes with local residents for limited water supplies – see http://www.organicauthority.com/sanctuary/farming-or-fracking-water-rights.html
In reply to Richards comment below, Yes I do live in Balcombe, for the last 35 years actually & also worked here, probably a bit longer than most of the protesters! My house price won’t drop, my water rates won’t rise, if they do I’m not bothered because I enjoy living in Balcombe – well, used to, I’m sorry to say that I feel really upset by all this stupidity, none of the “against” brigade have the slightest intention of listening to anyone but their own opinions, lifelong friendships ruined by split opinions & misinformation.
If the oil prices in 1986 had been different there may well have been a “nodding donkey” on the drill site now, would people that have moved here since then lived elsewhere because of that? doubtful.
Perhaps we could have a poll on how many residents want this protest/direct action/ fiasco to continue?
John you say “there may well have been a “nodding donkey” on the drill site now”
So you really have no idea what a 40 well multi-lateral shale gas frack pad will be like for years then? You think it will be just like a single vertical oil well? Really??
“If the oil prices in 1986 had been different there may well have been a “nodding donkey” on the drill site now” refers to when Conoco drilled here in 1986 & found oil, price of oil then made it uneconomical to extract, but if prices had been higher, they may have done so, there was no talk of fracking, no intention of exploring for gas, just the possibility of one pump. What you are suggesting is never likely to happen at lower stumble nor is it even planned.
Fracking prayer written for Balcombe by the Revd Dr Mark Betson, Diocesan Rural Officer, Chichester
God of love, spirit of creation, out of your love you created the world and made it so that it might sustain us and that we might care for it.
Forgive where we have in the past used its resources in greed and selfishness, indifferent to the needs of others and the rest of creation. In our ignorance we made mistakes, which now we begin to understand.
We ask that through your spirit you encourage us in our understanding so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past and further abuse creation to support unsustainable lifestyles that will make future generations suffer.
In Christ you gave us a message of hope, and in that hope help us look to a future where all creation will be redeemed by your love. Give us courage to build for this future now with sources of energy that will last in harmony with creation and with lifestyles that look to support our children and grandchildren’s future. Amen.
The Church of England has publicly criticised anti-fracking campaigners insisting that “blanket opposition” to the fracking technique ignores the interests of the poor: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10247524/Church-of-England-fracking-opponents-are-ignoring-the-poor.html
Now we’re scrapping the bottom of the barrel 😉
Chris – so what are you views on Taxation and the Welfare State? Bon’t bother – I suspect I know the answer.
Fracking will not alleviate poverty – it will just destroy our countryside.
Have the 200 fracked wells across the UK over the last 20 years or so, destroyed the countryside?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10233955/The-town-where-fracking-is-already-happening.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/church-denies-accusations-of-fracking-landgrab-as-it-moves-to-claim-mineral-rights-to-500000-acres-across-england-8770692.html
What do you know! Of course – they really want the money for the poor…
Well thank God that some members of the Church of England have a social and ecological conscience and are praying for us. The ones quoted in the Telegraph would appear to be waffly lost sheep.
“Have the 200 fracked wells across the UK over the last 20 years or so, destroyed the countryside?”
What 200 fracked wells – I am aware of two Elswick and Preese Hall – where are the other 198?
None of your d*mn business – but over 200 wells have been fracced onshore UK. And a great many more offshore.
{if you don’t know where they are … it does tend to negate claims of their obtrusive polluting destruction of the landscape
tell you another thing – you won’t be able to tell, from looking at the wellhead, whether the well has been fracced or not}
“None of your d*mn business”
funniest thing you’ve ever typed on this site.
”
if you don’t know where they are … it does tend to negate claims of their obtrusive polluting destruction of the landscape”
Nothing to do with them not actually existing then? Do feel free to prove me wrong of course!
Can’t. Wytch Farm is now known about {Telegraph article, third party divulgement}, but a duty of confidentiality is a continuing duty.
“Can’t. Wytch Farm is now known about {Telegraph article, third party divulgement}, but a duty of confidentiality is a continuing duty.”
So they were SECRETLY fracked? How delicious – no planning permission was secured then.
So we know that you *know* that the industry have illegally fracked 200 wells and you have admitted as much on a public forum.
Keep your ears open for a knock on the door from Her Majesty’s Finest once they have finished bothering peaceful protestors.
Of course it could just be that you are just full of bullsh!t Michael.
Would you confirm which it is. I wouldn’t want to waste police time after all
Refraction – They don’t live local to Balcombe, they are intent on flooding the site with mis-information, and they have detailed knowledge that few would know.
It is obvious – Chris & Mic are trolls from the industry!
Not very GOOD trolls are they LOL
I see them more as gonks
😉
I’m probably wasting my time since facts are something that are evidently not wanted on this site but I can at least say I tried!
CUADRILLA ARE NOT FRACKING.
CUADRILLA DO NOT HAVE ANY PERMISSION TO FRACK
CUADRILLA ARE NOT PROSPECTING FOR SHALE GAS
CUADRILLA ARE INVESTIGATING A WELL THAT WAS DRILLED 20 YEARS AGO BY CONOCO
CUADRILLA MAY (OR MAY NOT) DEVELOP THE WELL WHICH IS FOR OIL NOT GAS
But hell, don’t ever let the truth get in the way of a good demo.
Cuadrilla are stimulating. That’s the phrase they use. Stimulation involves the high pressure injection of chemicals and water down their horizontal borehole. Look at their planning permission. Oh, and don’t believe the hype.
Not necessarily – especially the “high pressure” bit.
We have at present a political consensus, not a scientific consensus. As for cherry picking data, what about Climategate and Mann’s Hockey Stick graph : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html
Do No Harm…
There seem to be several individuals that post to this site whose strategy seems to be obfuscate or dismiss the scientific consensus concerning Global Warming and issue relating to fracking.
Science progress / evolves through robust discussion and testing theories against the actual real world via the process of experimentation. So argument / differing opinions / is not in itself an issue. However two principles must be applied when the consequences of a decision could potentially cause harm.
1: The burden of evidence should fall on those proposing the action. In this case – those proposing fracking need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that fracking is safe. This has not been done!
2: Those that profit from fracking should be liable for down stream damages. By profit I mean the company directly involved, the current Conservative Government / Cabinet that are trying to force this through.
If the Balcombe community could sue Cuadrilla / Conservative Party for damages caused by fracking – I’m sure we’d all sleep a little easier.
Indeed – The burden of evidence should fall on those proposing the action.
So those who are attempting to strangle at birth the U.K.’s best chance of evading our foreseeable power shortages must needs justify why they wish pensioners to die of hypothermia.
Michael – what utter utter nonsense.
“utter utter nonsense” – exactly my opinion of so many of the “fractivist” posts on this site.
Michael is quite correct. Regarding the most recent excess cold winter deaths: “The experts said that the crisis showed the need for more energy to be produced in this country, either from nuclear, coal or gas plants”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9950731/Drawn-out-winter-may-have-caused-thousands-of-extra-deaths.html
No – you are both quite wrong / misled. Energy poverty has nothing to do with the lack of fuel. Everything to do with the distorting effects of an unregulated free market. If you want to address energy poverty:
– Increase taxation levels on the well off.
– Force the energy generation companies to reduce pricing – via reduced profits / senior management pay / dividends paid.
Every time you post I have to lower my estimate of your maturity …
The degree of energy poverty is related to the price of energy. The price of energy is determined in a free market by the interaction of the supply of and demand for energy.
Suggest you read the following –
‘The Great Transformation’ – The Politics and Economic Origins of our Time – Karl Polanyi
‘Ill Fares the Land’ – Tony Judt
then reflect and review and reconsider your faith in unregulated markets.
Thank you Richard for confirming what this is all about – imposing socialism in the guise of environmentalism. Suggest you read the following –
‘The Road to Serfdom’ – Hayek – then reflect and review and reconsider your faith in excessively regulated markets.
Chris – I’m not a Socialist. I just enlightened enough to look beyond simplistic dogma’s and understand – what the free market is good for / and what is isn’t good for.
Neither political extreme work and the reasons can be found in hard science. If you are actually interest in this area – as opposed to just trolling – or paid to push a POV – I’d be happy to exchange some reading materials.
Start by reading around the area of research know as ‘Complex Adaptive Systems’. I will read the book you suggest. I doubt you’ll do the same.
“I’m not a socialist” Funny then how those 2 books you recommended are the first 2 books in a suggested modern day ‘Left Book Club’ http://redrabbleroz.tumblr.com/post/17300404128/any-suggestions-for-a-left-book-club-reading-list
Actually – sounds like Hayek would be in agreement with my views.
I quote….
While Hayek is opposed to regulations which restrict the freedom to enter a trade, or to buy and sell at any price, or to control quantities, he acknowledges the utility of regulations which restrict allowed methods of production, so long as these are applied equally to everyone and not used as an indirect way of controlling prices or quantities, and without forgetting the cost of such restrictions:
To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances, or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs which they impose.
…
I think this is in-line with my previous posts. 🙂
Hayek was simply saying that some regulation is necessary.
Hayek made it clear that he was not advocating a system of pure laissez-faire, but one with a general system of rules that would enable individuals to carry out their own plans. http://gardinersright.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/what-would-hayek-say-about-our-economy-28-2/
Exactly. The free market cannot be left to its own devices. We both appear to agree on this – we are making progress 😉
The discussion turns to the degree and form of regulation required – i.e. the boundary conditions. This is difficult – one has to be careful – as the boundary conditions affect the behaviour of the Market. Again – I refer to the previous comments I’ve made in this area. There is no longer any need for Left / Right political dogma. The dynamics of such systems are increasingly understood and policies should be crafted with that knowledge.
Back to Balcombe and fracking. Those making the profit should be held legally liable for any damage to the environment or community caused by their activities. Im certain this is a necessary constraint that Hayek would have agree with – do you?
What you are proposing is nothing new; Cuadrilla must be subject to the Rule of Law, of course Hayek would agree.
So as long as those laws are sufficient to cover the long term interests of the Balcombe community; then we’re in agreement.
“The price of energy is determined in a free market by the interaction of the supply of and demand for energy.”
You were doing quite well before that idiocy. time to pipe down now 🙂
So you refuse to acknowledge the law of supply and demand? Just look at the United States: they’ve got more than 10,000 fracking wells opening up each year and their gas prices are three-and-a-half times lower than here. Even if we only see a fraction of the impact shale gas has had in America, we can expect to see lower energy prices in this country.
“So you refuse to acknowledge the law of supply and demand?”
No Chris – I just know that they don’t apply to gas pricing in Europe – it’s not a “perfect market” by any stretch of the imagination and I am honestly fed up of hearing idiots like you (and the Prime Minister) telling me that increased supply will result in cheap gas. I’ve lost count of the sources who agree it won’t (including as you can hardly fail to be aware surely) Cuadrilla themselves.
As I suspect Refracktion is aware.
‘Perfect markets’ tend to a power law distribution of the resources that define the Market. A few extremely wealthy individuals and the majority surviving with just enough. Both external regulation (boundaries), and wealth re-distribution mechanisms, are required we want a market to behave in a socially acceptable manner.
May I suggest that the Govt is probably better informed than you. Gas prices could fall by a quarter and help bring down household energy bills if Britain exploits its shale gas reserves. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10186007/Gas-prices-could-fall-by-a-quarter-with-shale-drilling-Government-advisers-say.html
“Gas prices could fall by a quarter and help bring down household energy bills if Britain exploits its shale gas reserves. ”
Yes Chris, and pigs may fly.
Given the choice between the government desperately trying to shore up a busted policy and the massed voices of those telling them that shale won’t bring down prices (and even Cuadrilla have admitted this) I know who I trust, but then I don’t have any vested interests.
Do you deny the reality of the US shale gas success story? Fracking in America has brought US natural gas prices to lows not seen in decades, boosting its economic recovery and providing cheap energy for consumers.
Analysis of the US shale gas phenomena concludes that the benefits are – at best – short term. If the US slow down investment in Green alternatives – long term they’ll be screwed.
Chris – Don’t you have a day job? Or are you paid to do this?
“Do you deny the reality of the US shale gas success story?”
I don’t deny that gas prices in America fell to levels which let to fracking companies “losing their shirts” to quote one CEO.
You are either being disingenous, or you are simply ignorant, if you suggest that the same thing will happen over here. As I have said, even Cuadrilla admit it won’t. What do you know that they don’t?
The UK’s Bowland Shale in North West England, contains 50% more gas than the combined reserves of two of the largest fields in the United States. http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jul/16/bowland-shale-fracking-uk-economy-co2-emissions
‘We are writing to express our solidarity and support in your fight to defend your enviroment, community and the right to protest, We are acutely aware that your fight is our fight as we face the roll out of fracking throughout the UK. We reject the assertion that fracking will provide cheap energy and are appalled at the tax give aways to fracking companies at the clear expense of sustainable enregy sources.
‘We wish you every success and will be with you in thought and physically.
PCS Union Revenue and Customs enviromental committee’
And Louisa’s letter to the editor, unpublished:
To the editor,
I am a Balcombe resident. I am a mother of two small children and since Cuadrilla announced on the 8th May 2013 this year that they were intending to drill an exploration well this summer I have been researching and informing myself regarding the facts about fracking and the potential impact to my village, community and landscape.
I am a Conservative voter. Balcombe is a conservative village. I am shocked by the Conservative’s response to Fracking and the push to get this unproven, unsafe technology into our countryside without proper regulation or consultation with local residents.
We are on the frontline here in Balcombe, this is a fast growing campaign, individuals are informing themselves, coming together to share information and I think it is safe to say that most other communities facing the government pressure to host this kind of activity, will be following our lead and fighting against your governments plan to inflict this on our communities.
I would like to respond to some of your statements in your letter within the context of my own discussions with the research I have done and the meetings and correspondence I have had with Cuadrilla, DECC, the Environment Agency, the local Mineral Planning Authority in this case West Sussex County Council and the Health and Safety Executive.
Firstly, regarding reduction in our energy bills – Cuadrilla’s representatives said at a meeting in our village when asked about the impact on energy bills “We’ve done an analysis and it’s a very small…at the most it’s a very small percentage…basically insignificant,” How do you respond to that? This is what we have been told.
Secondly, fracking will create jobs, jobs for whom and where? I have seen no evidence of jobs apart from the police force and security at the site
Thirdly, the community bribes. Balcombe is on the front line of exploration and fracking. I have seen no mention of the community payment/benefit to us. If we are not benefitting how can other villages like ours trust that they will too?
Regarding regulation and safety. The Royal Society wrote an excellent review of hydraulic fracturing within it they wrote 10 recommendations of multiple points. Which of these points have actually been taken forward and addressed by your government?
You say that “what they [local people] do object to is the idea that their neighbourhood should change without any say” – we have had no say in Balcombe, our views are not being listened to or taken into account. They are being swept aside by your Governments insistence that this is the right thing to do at any cost to our environment, landscape and community.
Our community is currently being ripped apart by exploratory drilling in our Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, no amount of community bribe or regulation can make fracking/acid etching or acid stimulating acceptable. If there is any risk to our water supply it should simply not be taken. If I had the choice between the lights going out or the taps running dry I know which I would choose.
And finally, there has been no dawn chorus in Lower Stumble woods since the drilling began. The birds have left, sensibly like they do when a storm is brewing. The clouds are gathering, the storm is turning into a hurricane. Mr Cameron you had better ready yourself, middle England is just getting started!
Louisa Delpy, Balcombe, West Sussex
My full letter to the Telegraph, truncated by them:
Sir,
David Cameron advises us to ignore the ‘myths’, to lie back and be fracked. He is the myth-spinner. Slashed energy bills? No. Experts (Ofgem amongst them) agree that gas prices will not change. Jobs for hard-working Brits? No. Frack sites will employ a few specialised workers, many of them foreign; but yes, jobs for the army of tanker drivers who will infest our country roads, and the road-menders who will have to repair the damage. Welcome windfalls for communities? Cash bribes will not work if property values plummet and houses become uninsurable. Vast volumes of gas? Even if true, extracting this locked-in gas will mean fracked wells every mile across our landscape. Mr Cameron should Google Pennsylvania , and ponder its forests pocked with wells. He should ask himself why New York is fighting fracking. He should investigate the earthquakes of Ohio and Texas , whose old wells and mines are dumping grounds for the sea of contaminated water that fracking generates. How much water is Cameron willing to sacrifice to his new god? Has he considered the destiny of British waste water, too polluted to be treated and returned to the water cycle? Our bullying government and their oil and gas cronies can expect a Balcombe barracking wherever they go next in Britain . Mr Cameron, think of the votes you are flushing down all those wells.
At last some sense on gas prices:
UK Senior Banker debunks argument for fracking in letter published today by the Financial Times:
Sir, Your support for UK shale gas (“Make haste slowly on UK shale gas”, editorial, August 6) based upon “the reduction in energy prices and the improvement in energy security” is unjustified on both grounds. Even if the extraction, transmission and eventual environmental reinstatement costs were lower than those of Norwegian conventional gas, the end user, industrial or residential, will pay the same and the benefit of the presumed (but at this point unproved) higher operating margin for onshore shale gas extraction will accrue entirely to equity and debt investors in the extraction companies and to the exchequer through corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax.
The only way it could be cheaper would be if the government sought to penalise gas imports through higher duties, which would be illegal under EU and World Trade Organisation rules. As for… energy security, it is absurd to imply that gas extracted from the Norwegian sector of the North Sea is less secure than from the UK sector, unless you expect FT readers to believe that Norway could be overthrown by a hostile regime.
Import substitution would, of course, benefit the balance of payments (BoP), but you do not mention this and there has been little (if any) economic analysis to suggest that the UK will run into an unmanageable BoP problem because of gas imports alone. Wider issues of competitiveness and whether the UK can continue to attract foreign direct investment if it suicidally exits the EU are far more likely to weigh on the external position over 20 years.
Above all, the pursuit of shale gas is wrong-headed because it distracts from the overriding public policy objective of de-carbonising the economy.
You report today (“A rising power”, Analysis, August 9) how the surge of efficient Chinese production of solar panels has led to an 80 per cent drop in the capital cost of solar photo-voltaic production and how Germany is already producing 22 per cent of its energy from renewable sources, manifestly without any noticeable impact on overall German competitiveness.
Consequently, the suspicion is that the UK government’s support of shale gas is a political sop to its climate-change-denying supporters – led by Lord Lawson – which, however, may yet backfire as it becomes clear that it risks industrialisation of the English countryside.
With a global glut of conventional gas, which has seen the value of Russia’s Gazprom slashed, the sensible course is to continue to work with our excellent Norwegian and Qatari friends to secure plentiful gas imports by pipeline and liquefied natural gas transportation.
Tom Brown, Senior Credit Executive, Norddeutsche Landesbank, London EC2, UK
According to Tom Brown in his ivory tower: “Germany is already producing 22 per cent of its energy from renewable sources, manifestly without any noticeable impact on overall German competitiveness.” Back in the real world Tom, Germany has gone further down the ‘renewables’ path than any country in the world, and now it’s paying the price: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html
To quote from the article you reference Christopher Booker writes “vacuous, one-sided propaganda”. If he and you don’t believe global warming is happening then feel free to keep sticking your heads in the sand. Meanwhile, back in the real world….
Try pulling your head out of the sand. There has been no global warming for over 17 years: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/
Sorry – I obviously got sand and backside mixed up in your case Chris – apologies.
Those recent photos of polar lakes are obviously photoshopped by the environmental taliban I suppose?
Re: Your photos of polar lakes : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/follow-up-the-bogus-north-pole-becomes-a-lake-story/
Is that the best you’ve got Refracktion ? LOL
Interesting – just goes to show there’s shenanigans on all sides eh?
It doesn’t change the scientific consensus I’m afraid.
Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years – the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
Obviously global warming doesn’t fit in with your world view, but with your head where it is I’m glad I don’t have to share it 🙂
So much for your scientific consensus : http://www.petitionproject.org/
Chris French — Here is some first rate science. Read and learn.
Increasing greenhouse gases and decline of stratospheric ozone tend to cool the stratosphere while warming the planet near-surface layers. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html
“None of it is new. The NOAA report is simply a collection of rehashed stories that have already had their 15 minutes of fame, stories that we (and others) have already commented on, put into perspective, or debunked.”. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/climate-hash-rehashed/#more-91212
Chris, there is a scientific consensus, don’t be silly. Get used to reading and critically analysing peer-reviewed research which is published in high impact journals. These are typically more robust and reliable in their analysis of primary research. The only way a scientist can now deny climate change is by ‘cherry picking’ their evidence and not looking at all the evidence, critically and on balance. You will find, if you take the time to really educate yourself in critical analysis of evidence, that the phenomenon of catastrophic climate change as a result of human activities is highly likely to exist
The medical community puts its 2 pennies in:
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1358
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6520.full
The bmj is lauded for its high editorial quality, critical discussion and openness/avoidance of bias.
If you or anyone cannot access these journals then reply to me and I will ensure we can share them
Whatever our views on climate change reducing emmissions must be a good thing. If shale gas fails to deliver in UK we will have to follow Germany and INCREASE coal powered generation. If you really want to reduce emmissions as opposed to posing as a holier -than -thow subsidy junkie Green ,see off the selfish NIMBYS & give shale gas a chance.
Rodney, I’m afraid it is not that simple. It is an established fact that Fracking results in leakage of Methane. Methane is 12X more potent w.r.t. warming that CO2. Meanwhile coal burning is indeed dirty – the soot and sulphur in the atmosphere actually having a cooling effect.
Nether fracking, nor coal are the answer.
Richard, Point of Fact: it is not an established fact that frac’ing results in leakage of methane.
For most people – those without a vest interest – cause & effect have been established to a sufficient extent to be concerned. I suggest you read the latest issue of New Scientist – page 41. 4 to 8% of methane from fracking sites goes straight into the atmosphere. Also – in Boston alone 3000 methane leaks have been identified from pipelines.
New Scientist is balanced – and also explain that over a 20 year + horizon methane has less impact than CO2 – because methane has a shorter lifetime.
However the vast amounts of ocean or tundra methl hydrates that could be unlocked by a small additional amount of global warming is frightening. Surely we are not so self interested / short sighted as to take such risks?
Richard, I don’t doubt that the gas pipes under Boston leak. Probably under Birmingham as well. But that in no way makes it established fact that frac’ing results in leakage. As to the New Scientist – not enough data. If one is spending $5 million drilling a well to recover gas to sell, one would be very unhappy about the lost revenue any leakage represents & accordingly seek to minimise it..
“Cause & effect” is a strange term to use about possible leaks. One could draw conclusions …
I’m guessing the cost of preventing the 5% leakage out weights the value of the lost methane to the company. No matter how destructive it is too the planet – the the company accounts say let it leak – they will do so. Of course – you know that? What industry do you work in?
I doubt that. When one is putting PTFE tape round joints to make them leakproof, one never says to oneself “oh, I know, I’ll just make this joint 95% leakproof to save myself the cost of making it 100% leakproof.”
They say boys only mature at 42 nowadays – I’m guessing you haven’t got there yet?
When one cannot win the argument – turn to sarcasm?
Makes the point rather neatly though.
Rodney – you really must learn to distinguish between the short and the long term. By 2050 Germany will be streets ahead of us in terms of renewables. Ask yourself why a country so committed to environmental protection thinks a short term dose of coal is preferable to shale gas extraction. Hmm . Interesting question that one eh?
And the choice is not clear cut between domestic shale and coal as you pretend. There are many other possibilities, including but not limited to increasing renewable generation, reduction in demand – and even the import of gas from the USA – the latter carries a raft of issues with it but it is an option which shows your false choice scenario for exactly what it is. Why do you do do this?
There is no scientific consensus, only a current political consensus. As for cherry picking data, how about Climategate and Mann’s hockey stick graph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html
Hey Chris, it occurs to me that multinational consultancy businesses like PwC would benefit from your great wisdom.That way they could save huge amounts of cash they waste on research like this
http://www.pwc.co.uk/sustainability-climate-change/publications/international-threats-and-opportunities-of-climate-change-to-the-uk.jhtml
– have you thought about contacting the silly old things to explain how things really stand?
PWC are not the ones wasting cash. The taxpayer pays PWC.
Chris, now you’re just being silly. PWC are not a state owned company. I imagine you are aware of this. If you don’t have a sensible response that’s fine – no need to waste our time.
Govt commissioned the PwC report.
LOL so it’s Cameron and Osborne ultimately then? Even more delightful – you’d better explain it to them instead then 🙂
Texans competing with frackers for drinking and farming water:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2013/aug/11/texas-drought-fracking-video
‘…and we’ve got fracking, which uses a tremendous amount of water’
I read this in today’s Guardian. “Call Me Dave” wants us to sign up for fracking at any price, including the destruction of the environment, apparently. The UK doesn’t have an integrated energy policy, only a sticking plaster approach to covering the energy gaps. Importing LPG from countries who can turn off the taps at a moments notice is not a recipe for long-term energy needs. What kind of world does he imagine we will be leaving future generations?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water
Hi,
Environmental/Economic Data:
http://theautomaticearth.com/Energy/shale-is-a-pipedream-sold-to-greater-fools.html
Best,
JM
Please see the UK Parliament’s research paper on fracking for an impartial view. This is a Parliamentary paper not a Government one.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06073
These cannot be independent or impartial if by a ‘Royal’ society. Cost benefit for long and short term not investigated, nor the safety of drilling. What assurances are obtained/demanded of drilling companies and what checks are in place?
At what cost is fracking having on the tax payer? Who owns the gas? Where do all liabilities lie ?
How can UK be convinced that this is a reasonable exploitation of the earth’s resources when the ministers involved have a personal financial interest in fracking
Please stop paying your taxes. Its the only protest they will listen to. You are such a close knit community, so is it not possible to start your own alternative tax to clear rubbish, upkeep roads, help the poor and sick, own hospitals and fire crews etc.? Since most of the tax collected goes to paying off debt and useless waste, it may be possible to achieve.
It seems to me that the plan is to eventually turn almost all of the UK into one big fracking factory with trucks going every which way transporting chemicals and water. Not forgetting all the pipelines.
“Since most of the tax collected goes to paying off debt ”
Jojam, you are seriously misinformed:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2013/mar/20/budget-spending-interactive
Clearly Jojam does not believe in paying off debts. Hope he/she never needs a loan!
Second attempt: from Spiked-online:
Balcombe Resident
Be careful what you wish for
85% of Balcombe Residents are against fracking.
Really? That’s not the impression I get. Take a leisurely stroll around our beautiful village and count how many houses are displaying anti-fracking posters? About 1 in 20 at my last count, maybe 5%? Even less are displaying yellow ribbons to show they support the campaign. However, the ‘stroll’ event on Saturday shows how committed the Villagers really are to this cause; depending on who you listen to there were 60, 100 or even 120 Villagers participating (according to their own You Tube video). Now that surely shows that 85% are against fracking. But do the maths; 120 including children and families equates to about 30 families, out of 800 living in and around the area, so another 4-5%. Surely if you were that opposed to something you would as a minimum display a poster, a ribbon or join in a peaceful stroll?
Now I am no statistician but none of this adds up to the 85% I keep hearing about! The thing that really worries me about this 85% figure is everyone is latching onto it like it is set in concrete. It is apparently the reason why Balcombe is getting all this attention. So what if it was wrong? Would everyone go home? No, but it might make the World realise that there is another view amongst the Villagers. Maybe the dynamics of Balcombe are more complicated? Maybe Balcombe has three sets of people; the anti-frackers (say 10%), the pro-frackers (say 5%) and the others; ‘haven’t made my mind up’, ‘don’t know’, ‘neutral’, ‘sitting on the fence’ – however you want to class them making up the ‘real’ 85% of Balcombe?
All I am asking for is for a truly independent survey to be conducted where everyone gets to respond (just once) and rather than just two options; Pro or Anti there is another – Neutral. Would this paint a different picture? Maybe, maybe not but at least this magical 85% that I keep hearing about could then be verified one way or another.
I have listened to all the arguments for and against and have kept silent up until now but the realisation that over 500 extra protestors are about to descend on our beautiful little village purely based upon the ‘fact’ that 85% of us want them here has tipped me over the edge! Do we really want ‘No Dash for Gas’ to arrive on our doorstep on 16th August for 6 days? Does the taxpayer really need an even bigger bill for Policing? Do we really want an even larger camp site on the edge of a road without any sort of facilities? Apparently 85% of us do.
When this is all over and the protestors have returned to their homes or moved onto the next headline grabbing campaign we will be left to clear up this mess; a broken and much divided village.
Please Balcombe, be careful what you wish for.
An anonymous resident
(I wish to stay anonymous as I do not wish to seek publicity)
How many people participated in the door to door petition?
We have heard how many in percentage terms answered which way, but not how many households participated. I am sure the answers are ready to hand and that the numbers are high, but what are they.
its not just your village involved though, its the whole area, fields farming, and water supplies, not to mention the vast amount of heavy traffic carrying toxic & highly dangerous chemicals into the site, that will only expand and expand, please get more informed about the realites of what this will mean to Balcome and the rest of the UK, If you can watch drill baby drill, a documentory by a polish filmaker who visited a new site in Poland and established sites in America, i think this would give you a more realistic view of what to expect if allowed to go ahead in your village. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTL11N4Tp-k
With reference to the Insurance industry’s refusal to cover property damage caused by Fracking…
My question to Nicholas Soames was whether the Government and / or Cuadrilla would be liable for any long term damage caused by these operations. Or is it the case that all the profit goes to Cuadrilla / Government – while all the’risk’ falls on the shoulders of the Balcombe community. Sound familiar?
—————————-
Dear Dr Nicholson,
Mr Soames is now away from this office so I have read your email to him over the phone.
He has asked me to seek a reply from the Minister on the point that you have raised about insurance.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Barker
PA to The Rt Hon Nicholas Soames MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel 020 7219 4143
Fax 020 7219 2998
nicholas.soames.mp@parliament.uk
http://www.nicholassoames.org.uk
Kathryn
From afar (not as far as USA, Colombia or Korea where there was an article today on Balcombe) can I congratulate you for your hard work and say my hopes are with the people of Balcombe in these times.
Long letter of support from the people of a village in Colombia threatened by a different ecocidal process:
Dear Balcombe UK inhabitants,
We are reaching you from Colombia, South America. We have been astonished by all you efforts and resistance in order to keep the
fracking companies out of your town, and we address this letter because we feel identified with your struggle. We are inhabitants of a
small town called Doima, in the Municipality of Piedras, in a region called Tolima, on the Andes Mountains, near the Magdalena river
basin. Anglo Gold Ashanti, a huge gold mining corporation, arrived at our town at the end of last year with the interest of installing a
processing plant for the rock extracted from one of the potential biggest gold mines in the world, La Colosa. Five years ago, this
company received the license to explore the possibility for exploitation of the dissipated gold in a forest reserve area, with an
approximate production of almost 759 tons of gold in all its production stage, acquiring one gram of gold per ton of removed rock. This
region is very vulnerable because of its steep mountains, rich forests and vast water wealth. When the company received the license, it
was made clear that the leaching facilities couldn’t be built in this area. But the question of where it would be held was never
answered…
Doima, 100 kilometers in a straight line from the mine, is the ideal place to install the leaching facility, because if its abundant water
resources and aquifers. January 31st the town’s inhabitants, peasants and farmers, worried about their environment, occupied the only
bridge that gives access to the town and the company’s working place, on La Opia river. This was a way to start a pacific protest held
with banners with pro-life and water protection messages, and to block vehicles and employees of the corporation, leaving them with no
access to provisions and working tools. As it was to be expected, the company found its way of entering the area.
Despite of the insistent presence of the corporation in the region, the majority of the community is against mining activities, and insists
that the company should abandon their land. Calling for help to the competent governmental authorities the protest on the bridge
continued. Our people have resisted the police, who have exercised their power by guarding the company, and the municipal mayor
received a lawsuit from the company, for allowing the violation of their free transit right, and the community had to rethink their strategy,
but they didn´t abandon their cause. Piedras Municipality lives from what they produce from the earth. Farmers have rice crops and
other products like plantain, manioc and maize. This is why the region is called the “agricultural pantry” for the country. Worries about
the future of this region have not disappeared, but grown with the presence of the company and with the various governmental actions
benefiting foreign companies for their investment strategies of extraction projects in the country.
Consequently, the community did a formal request to the local government authorities in order to hold a popular vote referendum in
the municipality so the inhabitants would be who proclaim if they agree on a mining project in their territory. After the long
process this request has to go through in order to be legal, the referendum finally took place last Sunday, July 28 with the following
question:
“Do you agree as an inhabitant of the Piedras municipality, Tolima, with the development of exploration, exploitation, treatment,
transformation, transport, wash of materials result of large scale gold exploitation activities in our territory; storage and use of harmful
substances for health and the environment, like cyanide and/or any other toxic substance or material associated to these activities, and
for these to use superficial and underground water resources from our territory in mining activities or any other similar development that
can affect or limit the provision of drinking water for human consumption and the traditional productive agricultural activities of our
municipality?”
The results of the election vote were imminent. Of 5,105 people enabled to vote, there were 3,007 voters of which 2,971 voted
against mining and only 24 votes were in favor of these activities. On behalf of Colombian Law 134 of 1994, this decision should
be of mandatory fulfillment for our government, because more than one third of the possible voters participated, and the voters against
mining won with more than 50% of the votes.
The community had to formally request the government to make the “Popular Consultation” by popular vote. This is a civil participation
mechanism that appears with our new Constitution in the year 1991. Analysts say this will put local and regional governments in debate
with the national government because the later will have to decide if it will give legitimacy to this democratic exercise, or will go
forward with the development of investment projects without regarding the people´s opinion.
2. Taken from: http://www.elespectador.com/opinion/editorial/megamineria-lios-articulo-436850
Our former government has great interests in opening opportunities for large investment extraction projects, and the Minister of Mines
and Energy has manifested that the last word will be in the ANLA´s (Environmental Licenses National Agency) hands. Some months
ago, the national government signed a decree (0934 of May 9 2013) that removes the possibility of the municipal governments to
decide if they destine mining zones in the environmental arrangement of their territory, leaving this decision in the hands of the ANM
(Mining National Agency) and ANLA. This decree was sued by the Mayor of Bogotá (our national capital), declaring it
“anticonstitutional”. However, because of this decree, the Minister of Mines could argue that the results of the votes does not count in
the governments final decision.
About a month ago, the ANM Agency also established a resolution that declares some mining projects as “of national interest”, for
which the AGA project of La Colosa is on the list. This “national interest” concept appears very abstract when taken into account that
not only AGA´s project is on the list, but other polemic projects in the country like: the Drummond coal mine project which entered a
strike last week and who´s owner is sued in the USA for disappearing nearly 600 Colombian civilians in the past; The Santurbán gold
mine, which has been very criticized because of its location in one of our endemic high mountain ecosystems (páramo) only found in
Venezuela and Colombia; and the Cocigo Gold Mine project in the Vaupés Amazon region also called “the South American Avatar”,
which is located within a protected area, which is illegal regarding that this national park figure is the only one in the country that
protects the subsoil.
Unified and pacific resistance have been key for our process, and now our government shall decide if it will recognize the voice of its
citizens in a democratic exercise, or shall it award the international interests? Autonomy and participation in decision-making is the core
of our Constitution as a democratic republic. In spite of this, yesterday morning, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable
Development said on the radio that government shall wait for the pronunciation of the Minister of Mines, who said that the subsoil
belongs to “the nation”, and it shall be the national government who takes the decisions. This concept of “the nation” appears abstract
when it was the nation’s citizens who clearly pronounced themselves through an official mechanism. Anyhow, Piedras is for now only
one of many options for the leaching facility ground as AGA has said, and that there shall not be any subsoil resources utilized in this
municipality. Anyhow, the Piedras community did not vote against the subtraction of natural resources from the subsoil in their territory,
but against any mining activity in its jurisdiction. Beyond this debate, the real debate here is how democratic actions are taken
about by the government and to what extent can civilians really participate in the decision making of projects that will affect
them, their land and their future.
This is why we want to manifest our support and express our solidarity to the inhabitants of the town of Balcombe in the
United Kingdom, and are willing to recommend the UK government to listen to its people and involve them in decisionmaking
regarding their land and future. In consequence, we are interested in establishing a constant communication with you in
order to initiate a brothership between the two municipalities living through the same issues.
Please receive warm regards and the best of luck from
Colombia.
Att.
A personal comment to me from Ranjana Bhandar, anti-fracking campaigner in Texas. Tired of hearing our government spokespeople falsely assert how fracking will cut gas prices for hardworking families, I asked her about the economics of gas prices in the USA. This is her reply:
‘On top of the environmental and health consequences, the supply of natural gas is vastly overstated. The Energy Information Administration dropped its estimation of shale gas resources by 40 percent from 2011 to 2012. The Marcellus Shale, one of the largest deposits in the country, is estimated to have only a six-year supply of gas. Further, recent reports have shown that fracking is not as cost-effective as once thought. The vast majority of fracking wells deplete within five years and production has been on a plateau since December 2011. The high decline rate of fracking wells requires continuous capital inputs—at least $42 billion per year to drill more than 7,000 wells. There may be gas trapped in the shale, but the more difficult it becomes to release it, the more expensive the process becomes.Moreover, while many proponents claim that the large supply of gas released through fracking would make prices fall, there has been little impact on electricity prices nationwide. The recent natural gas boom created an overabundance of supply, yet electricity prices have steadily increased. Utilities do set rates in advance to protect against fuel price spikes, and the cost of delivery is increasing due to investment in electricity infrastructure. But the wholesale prices of natural gas have significantly decreased, yet no cost savings have been passed on to customers.’
She sent us the link to this article of last June:http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/unnatural-gas-how-government-made-fracking-profitable-and-left-renewables-behind
Have you seen this? We have till 13 August to make representations!
Consultation underway for second Cuadrilla permit at Balcombe
The Environment Agency is seeking further views from the local community and interested groups following the application for a second environmental permit from energy company Cuadrilla Balcombe Ltd (Cuadrilla). The company is not proposing to carry out any hydraulic fracturing (fracking) as part of this activity.
The company has already applied to the Environment Agency for a mining waste permit to manage wastes arising from an exploratory borehole to test for oil reserves at Balcombe in West Sussex. This consultation was open until today (16 July) and is now closed.
Cuadrilla has also now formally applied for another permit to manage any waste water or solid waste which may contain naturally occurring radioactive substances. Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) are present in many types of rocks. Sometimes, waste water from such activities can contain low levels of this NORM. A permit is required to ensure safe disposal of any waste that may fall within the scope of the regulations.
The NORM waste permit, if granted, will only be needed if Cuadrilla carries out any well testing onsite.
If any of the permits are granted, the company will need to adhere strictly to the conditions set out in the permits. This will ensure that local communities and the environment are protected.
Chris Wick of the Environment Agency said: “We would like to thank the local community and interested parties for all their valuable comments received so far. We are now inviting feedback on this second permit application between Tuesday, 16 July 2013 and Tuesday, 13 August 2013 to ensure that we have fully considered all views before determining this latest application.
“It is our role to ensure that the environment will be safeguarded during exploration for oil and gas. With this in mind we will ensure all relevant information is considered before we make a final decision. If any of the permits are then granted, we will ensure that they are being fully complied with.”
More information on the plans is available on our website: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/portal/
16 July 2013
People now have the chance to comment on the proposals by visiting our website or by emailing: rsr.rotherham2.ne@environment-agency.gov.uk
or writing to:
P&SC – RSR Team
PO Box 4404
Sheffield
S9 9DA
The consultation on the second permit runs until Tuesday 13 August 2013. Responses will be fed into the Environment Agency’s on-going assessment before a final decision to grant or refuse the permits is made.
ENDS
All media enquiries: 0118 953 5555, out of hours 0800 141 2743.
Please ask for the duty press officer
Environment Agency news releases, both national and regional, can be found on its web site: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Follow us on Twitter @EnvAgencySE
Bonjour, (hello)
My name is Isabelle Levy, I am a “fracktivist”, acting within a group nammed “collectif du pays fertois”. I am French, leaving in a village called “Jouarre”.
What is happening in our place sounds very similar to your situation.
Jouarre is 65 kilometers far from Paris. It is already the countryside, not far from the first suburb circle (25 kilometers).
You have to fight against Cuadrilla, we have to fight against Hess Oil France.
Our group is gathering “citizens”. We are not in this group because we are from the left wing or from the right one.
We are not in this group because we are “environmentalists”.
We are not in this group because we wish to become rich and famous.
We are in this group because we are totally against the idea of exploring the shale oil supposed to lay down 3000 meters (9000 feet) deep under our feet.
This stupid artificial factory is set up in the middle of wheat fields.
I read these last days that you had to fight against Cuadrilla which had decided to go fracking not far from you village.
Several people were arrested this is what we learned from the French newspapers.
Last Saturday (3rd of august), in Jouarre we set-up a protest against Hess Oil new drilling pad (approximativaly 500 people).
Nobody was arrested. Obviously our police was les agressive than yours.
From Louise Delpy, commenting on the misguided communiation we have received from our County Council:
“I’m very sorry for the disruption that you’ve experienced over the past couple of weeks from protestors at Lower Stumble Wood. Here at West Sussex County Council, the interests of our residents are our primary concern and I am keen to ensure that we support you as much as we can during this challenging time. ”
Where is our apology for allowing this to happen in the first place? Where is our apology for allowing trucks in to the site past 1pm last Saturday? Where is our apology for providing incorrect information that an extension would be a full planning application and then it turns our to be a minor amendment? Where are the enforcement officers? Where will they be on 29th September the day after planning permission expires? Where will they be when the 13.7m flare which does not have planning permission is lit? Where are our councils, our representatives? Where are they – they are writing letters to residents to apologise for something 85% are against? I am proud to call myself a Balcombe resident AND a protestor and protector of our land. Please do not apologise to me about my behaviour, take responsibility and apologise for your own and most importantly do not allow Cuadrilla further permission to continue the industrialisation of our area of outstanding natural beauty and contamination of our water, air and soil.
WSCC – 02-08-13-louise-goldsmith-letter-to-balcombe-residents-re-oil-and-gas-exploration.pd
“I’m very sorry for the disruption that you’ve experienced over the past couple of weeks from protestors at Lower Stumble Wood. Here at West Sussex County Council, the interests of our residents are our primary concern and I am keen to ensure that we support you as much as we can during this challenging time. ”
Where is our apology for allowing this to happen in the first place? Where is our apology for allowing trucks in to the site past 1pm last Saturday? Where is our apology for providing incorrect information that an extension would be a full planning application and then it turns our to be a minor amendment? Where are the enforcement officers? Where will they be on 29th September the day after planning permission expires? Where will they be when the 13.7m flare which does not have planning permission is lit? Where are our councils, our representatives? Where are they – they are writing letters to residents to apologise for something 85% are against? I am proud to call myself a Balcombe resident AND a protestor and protector of our land. Please do not apologise to me about my behaviour, take responsibility and apologise for your own and most importantly do not allow Cuadrilla further permission to continue the industrialisation of our area of outstanding natural beauty and contamination of our water, air and soil.
WSCC – 02-08-13-louise-goldsmith-letter-to-balcombe-residents-re-oil-and-gas-exploration.pdf
2nd attempt at response to
JL Laura BSc(Hons), BA(Hons) Dip Ed, MA. – posted by kathrynmcwhirter says:
August 5, 2013 at 10:33 pm
“say that Cuadrilla have are [sic] now simply drilling for oil – Why bother at all if the previous company which prospected on the same site gave up?”
Perhaps because Conoco found oil at $10 /bbl, whereas Cuadrilla hope to find it at $110 /bbl?
Letter to South East Water:
2nd August 2013
Dear Mr Greg Tate,
RE: Your ref: GT/je/Laura/20919730-8
Thank you for your prompt reply to my serious concerns regarding Cuadrilla’s intention to begin drilling for hydrocarbons at Lower Stumble, Balcombe, West Sussex.
I’m however sorry to say that I do not share your faith in the EA or HSE with regards to looking after our water supplies, environment and checking on Cuadrilla’s activities. Their ‘robust framework’ is questionable. The EA received nearly 1000 responses to Cuadrilla’s previous permit application and some 9000 residents of Balcombe signed a petition against Cuadrilla’s proposals to begin drilling at Lower Stumble. The permit was given three days after the consultation period had ended. The questions asked by concerned citizens were genuine and yet the EA ignored them. 90% of Balcombe voted against Cuadrilla’s proposal and yet their local MP has ignored them.
Did you read the article referenced in my letter from the Scientific American ? It is readily available and not a difficult article to read it makes reference to a number of peer assessed studies.
You quite rightly say that Cuadrilla have are now simply drilling for oil – Why bother at all if the previous company which prospected on the same site gave up? As we all know Cuadrilla feel that they will be able to use Hydraulic Fracturing to release more oil/gas. Then what? This is not an ‘old tried and tested’ industrial process but a relatively new and dangerous one which has destroyed everything in it’s path where it has been deployed. Do you really believe Cuadrilla when they say that this is safe?
I even overheard a police sergeant tell people at the Balcombe site that this process is ten times safer here than in the USA! Where is he getting his quantitative data from?
More importantly I would urge you to check the validity and appropriateness of the Cuadrilla staff qualifications supplied in Cuadrilla’s Permit application for a Radioactive waste permit currently on the EA website and Cuadrilla’s Balcombe site. (See Appendix A – Letter and Training Certificates.)
Mr Nick Mace and Mr Graham Scarisbrick have undertaken a ‘basic’ radiological awareness course on the (delivered 16th November 2012) and a ‘basic’ Radiation Protection Training course (delivered 8th Feb 2013).
The certificates are signed by Ash Matthews on behalf of a company called RADSMART Ltd. This company is registered to a small suburban property in Portishead, Bristol (see Google maps). Mr Ash Matthews is sole director and principle consultant for Radsmart Ltd which was set up in 2011. He has been appointed as the Radiation Protection Adviser for a small waste management company called Remsol based in Lancashire. He includes this fact on the certificates as a way to somehow enhance the validity of the ‘certificate’ which he has given the Cuadrilla staff. The content of the course is extremely basic and no higher than level 2 (gcse). A one day introduction to gcse level ionizing radiation physics is laughable. How long was the course : 1 hour, 2hours ? Where did it take place? Was this ‘course’ delivered online . It is not accredited to any organization or UK University or examination board.
These certificates are worthless in my opinion. I question the legality of supplying these to the EA.
As someone who is qualified and who teaches in Higher Education and who is used to OFSTED scrutiny and external verification and moderation, I find the EA/HSE’s inability to vet appointed Cuadrilla staff very poor and shows no respect for the general public who are meant to believe that their safety is being looked after.
In the light of the above are you seriously expecting myself and others to feel safe in the knowledge that the EA/HSE feels it is OK to allow Cuadrilla to deal with ‘norm’ brought up from the ground, check bore case integrity and carry out their own water sampling on the site? Why are you not undertaking the sampling yourselves? Have you asked to do the site sampling? Are you happy with the level and quality of training that Cuadrilla staff have with regards to radioactive materials which may surface and seep into surrounding land?
As you mention in your reply the South East will need more and more water (145 million litres extra per day by 2040) in the years to come. Fresh water will be at a premium. Our weather patterns are changing and the likes of flash floods and general flooding has increased. Are you happy for residual chemicals to be washed away from this site? Who will be checking on the Cuadrilla’s activities on a daily basis? Their track record to date is extremely poor. They will be planning to set up thousands of wells across the South East – Then what? It doesn’t even bare thinking about does it? Does this not concern you?
This, Mr Tate, will be you and your company’s legacy as well as Cuadrilla and this coalition government if no pressure is put on the EA/HSE to stop this now.
Perhaps you can supply references to long term impact studies on groundwater supplies in areas of hydraulic fracturing ? Where are the impact studies on the South East with regards to this industry including waste management, water supply and burden on transport arteries and destruction of ecosystems which are already under severe stress from poor farming practices ? You clearly have knowledge and feel secure that nothing will happen to our groundwater. Have you read the Duke report? You must also have a register of the chemicals Cuadrilla intend to use and their respective COSHH data? If not, why not? What would happen to me if I was caught dumping chemicals or low radioactive waste into a local reservoir or water supply? I certainly wouldn’t be getting a 30% tax break!
Having read your response to my letter, my feelings towards South East water have not changed for the reasons mentioned above. If Cuadrilla are not challenged and stopped then I have no choice but to express a vote of no confidence in your future ability to monitor and to deliver safe water to the South East.
If you are so confident why don’t you set up a meeting at Balcombe Victory Hall for all residents of the village and beyond to voice their concerns about their water supply, that would be a good start. I appreciate your comment about referring my concerns to the HSE but would it not be more appropriate for SE Water to do this on all of our behalves as bill paying SE Water customers?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours Sincerely
JL Laura BSc(Hons), BA(Hons) Dip Ed, MA.
“..9000 residents of Balcombe signed a petition..”. That’s quite a feat from a population of just 1,700.
Indeed! and it was 17% against fracking not 90%
Lock the Gate survey, Rodney, not the Parish Council one. Parish Council one 82% against, not 17%. (I despair of your maths, and your poor understanding of how our democracy works); Lock the Gate (conducted by residents callong at all houses) 85% against, 9% not sure, 6 per cent your cronies. Even the Parish Council don’t quibble with their 82%. And the petition is yet a different thing. All adds up to most of the village against. Some feat when you consider that Balcombe has – is it 100 tied farms and houses? And that rumour has it that tenants and workers have been warned not to comment. That reminds me of the shooting, the all-night bird-scarer and the smelly muck-spreading on the Balcombe Estate farm behind the hedge opposite the Cuadrilla gate, right beside the camp. I wonder whose idea THAT was?
Guilty of many things but not muck spreading! Am patiently awaining published results of latest survey before commenting, not that anyone doubts you got the “right” result.Do read today’s Times an excellent article by one of your own.
Kathryn, re: “Parish Council one 82% against” – Would that be the 82% of the 33% who bothered to reply to BPC’s survey? Therefore only 27% (82% of 33%) of those surveyed indicated opposition to fracking. What did the other 73% think about fracking? Obviously not concerned enough to warrant a reply to the issue in question.
When we asked them again a year later, calling at every house, 85% said no to the oil and gas industry in this village. Only 9% were still pondering. Once all the implications become clear…
Kathryn : This survey of all households in Balcombe, showing 85% support, please provide more details i.e. How exactly was the question (s) worded? What proportion of all households responded to the survey?
Thank you. But percentages can be misleading as you keep telling me.Please advise;1) Who was entitled to vote?2) What were the total number of votes against, not sure, & how many cronies do I have?
Are those in favour of the exploration now being referred to as “cronies” by those who have no intention of respecting their views??
This is my third attempt at a reply to:
deniseashurst says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:54 am
Denise, The DECC probably says “that the injection fluid was ‘safe’” because only approved chemicals are allowed to be pumped into wells in the UK.
Google the CEFAS site {google ‘CEFAS DEFRA chemicals’} to see an Excel spreadsheet of all the approved chemicals.
Hello – an interesting article below, gives the lie to those who say there is no corroborated evidence that fracking is harmful – the evidence is often gagged.
http://endthelie.com/2013/08/03/lifelong-frack-gag-two-pennsylvania-children-banned-from-discussing-fracking/#axzz2b4oxTnl7
Has anyone found out who and what is pulling the string?
Interesting background information here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPrq1Anc0Ag
Also, I read that over 500 chemicals are used to break rock and it will undoubtedly affect the environment. Perhaps, it’s time that the protesters used the Aarhus Convention to demand information. It will halt the project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Convention
I meant to add the detail of 500 chemicals are kept secret and therefore one should demand it to be disclosed.
Andy, I will do you the courtesy of assuming you don’t live in Britain.
There are not “500 chemicals used” anywhere – that is nonsense. It is also physically impossible.
There are NO “secret chemicals used” – all chemicals used either in drilling or stimulating British or Dutch wells, onshore or offshore, can be found on the CEFAS website maintained by DEFRA – just google ‘CEFAS DEFRA chemicals’.
Andy,
In Europe there will be 100% visibility of the contents of fracking fluid under a combination of local regulations and via the EU regulatory body the European Chemical Agency (ECHA).
Existing best practice in the USA is moving towards 100% transparency of fracking fluid via sites such as http://www.fracfocus.org. We can anticipate similar visibility will be the norm in Europe through both government and private sites such as NGS Facts.
There are generally only a handful of chemicals in fracking fluid. In the example of Cuadrilla Resources in the UK, they are only using three,two of which only have to be revealed as they already exist in the public water supply of local supplier United Utilities. The third, polyacrylamide is widely used in water treatment and agriculture. In this case, polyacrylamide is used at a concentration of less than 0.25%, whereas the same “chemical” is used at a 2.5% solution in disposable contact lenses among other uses.
Drillers have an incentive to use less fluid both on cost grounds and for environmental risk abatement.
Many chemicals are already present in far greater concentrations under a kitchen sink in common household cleaners. A common chemical is also used in lipstick and many foods (sorbic acid) or in plastic containers (polypropolene). One of the chemicals most often used in the highest concentration is hydrochloric acid, naturally occurring in stomach acid. Hydrocholoric acid is present in higher concentrations in swiming pools than that found in fracking fluid.
Fracking fluid is over 99.85% water and sand. Fracking fluid serves to act as a proppant so that gas can flow into the well bore and to the surface. Chemicals are necessary to keep the process going. Consider as well that chemicals are more expensive than water or sand, providing an incentive to use as little as possible.
http://www.nohotair.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2446:myths-and-facts&catid=184:uncategorised&Itemid=232
Please share as widely as possible – put this on your facebook pages:
Balcombe call to Nick Clegg
Press comment, Sunday August 4th, 2013 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: nofibsbalcombe@gmail.com 01444 811682 07767 420549 No FiBS, No Fracking in Balcombe Society
The people of Balcombe call upon Nick Clegg and all Lib Dem MPs, party members and supporters throughout the UK to examine their consciences and their policies and stand up against the Tories on the issue of fracking. We ask you to stand firm against an explosion of exploration for on-shore oil and gas in this beautiful land that the Liberal Democratic party has always sworn to protect.
We thank Lib Dem President Tim Farron for his honest opposition to fracking. In a private conversation, Ed Davey has voiced similar views and offered advice to our cause. The time for revolt is NOW.
The Environment Agency apparently swept aside nearly 900 representations from the public in the recent mining waste permit consultation, approving Cuadrilla’s application within three days, despite the arrival of hundreds of public comments, many of them long and detailed, in the last hours of the consultation period.
We quote from an article in yesterday’s Guardian online:
‘Planning authorities have been banned from considering whether renewable energy plants would be a better fit for their communities, if they receive an application for a fracking mine.
‘Documents released by the government stress that local authorities should instead recognise that “mineral extraction is essential to local and national economies”. This is despite a Department for Communities and Local Government document highlighting 16 environmental risks linked to the process, including seismic shocks and the appearance of radioactive surface water.’
Mr. Clegg, we call upon you now to defend the liberty and democracy of your electorate. At the next election, we shall not forget.
Wow! This is very informative and I cannot help thinking a link to the Frack-Off.org site with this info would be helpful. What has concerned me is CEO of Quadrilla made reference to the Dept. of Enviro’t and Climate Change saying that the injection fluid was ‘safe’. I would like to know on what grounds the DoECC are saying this. Thank you for your article
Deniseashurst
Just read the post two up from yours. Main chemical is polypropolene which is used in water treatment to help remove particles from the water supply. That is, it is in the water you drink every day. So it is not likely to be harmful if injected into the ground 3000 to 5000 metres below the ground surface. The other chemicals are already in the treated water supplied by the water company. So can’t be harmful.
RE my comment above. The chemical is not polypropolene. It is polyacrylamide. It is used in water treatment to floculate solids and aid their removal as part of the process of providing drinking water for disribution in the water mains.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/03/ignore-fracking-protests-government-tells-planners
Planning authorities have been banned from considering whether renewable energy plants would be a better fit for their communities, if they receive an application for a fracking mine.
Documents released by the government stress that local authorities should instead recognise that “mineral extraction is essential to local and national economies”. This is despite a Department for Communities and Local Government document highlighting 16 environmental risks linked to the process, including seismic shocks and the appearance of radioactive surface water.
etc
Frightening and disgusting. The stench of agenda here is thick as muck.
The Telegraph on line yesterday evening:
Lib Dem president Tim Farron warns fracking could harm countryside ‘for decades’
A new political row has broken out over the Coalition’s support for shale gas fracking, with a high-ranking Liberal Democrat warning that the process risks “damaging the countryside” for decades.
By Robert Watts
9:30PM BST 03 Aug 2013
In the first major attack on fracking by a leading member of the Coalition, Tim Farron, the Lib Dems’ president, said he was “greatly worried” by the Government’s “dash for shale gas”.
Mr Farron’s views clash strongly with those of Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary and a fellow Lib Dem.
Mr Davey said he was “excited” about the secure supply of energy and thousands of jobs that shale gas extraction could create.
Mr Farron’s comments suggest that rank-and-file Lib Dems, whom Mr Farron represents, could increase pressure to rein in fracking, restricting the potential that senior ministers such as George Osborne see for it to help revive the British economy.
Hydraulic fracturing has already cut the energy bills of millions of Americans, and ministers are hoping for a similar effect in Britain.
Related Articles
The academic turned protester behind anti-fracking group Frack Off
02 Aug 2013
Lush chain bankrolling Frack Off campaign
03 Aug 2013
We could soon be paying billions for this wind back-up
03 Aug 2013
The technique involves blasting rock deep underground with water and chemicals to extract shale gas.
IGas, one firm hoping to exploit Britain’s shale gas reserves, estimates that there may be 170trillion cubic ft of gas in the areas of the north of England where it is licensed to explore.
The company estimates that fracking could create up to 40,000 jobs over 20 years.
However, opposition to the process on environmental grounds has become increasingly vocal. A protest near the West Sussex village of Balcombe is into its 11th day, and has already led to more than 30 arrests.
Residents are concerned about issues such as possible contamination of their water supplies and the increase in traffic on their roads. A poll published by villagers found that 85 per cent opposed fracking at the nearby site.
On Saturday more than 100 Balcombe residents joined forces with campaigners who have blockaded the site. Cuadrilla, the firm operating the well, has a licence only to drill so far, but may apply to extract gas by fracking.
Mr Farron told The Sunday Telegraph: “I am afraid the Government has seen flashing pound signs, and has not considered the long-term threats fracking poses to the countryside.
“I think this is a very short-sighted policy, and we will all be left to live with the consequences.” Mr Farron said he had raised concerns with Mr Davey and would also do so with Nick Clegg.
Mr Farron, a respected figure within the party tipped by many to succeed Mr Clegg, said he opposed shale-gas mining because it would industrialise unspoilt areas, could cause seismic activity, and maintains Britain’s reliance on fossil fuels.
He believes opposition to fracking could become even more fierce than the campaign against wind farms and said Mr Osborne should not be offering tax breaks to firms that use the technique.
“With a wind farm you can actually choose where you put it; that is not the case fracking,” said Mr Farron, who represents a Lake District constituency. “This technology can lead to earth tremors and I’m particularly worried that buried nuclear waste in my part of the country could be affected. We should be investing more in renewable fuels.
“I am very sceptical. The green movement were pro-wind farms, and countryside groups were against. With fracking you are already seeing powerful alliances forming between those two groups, so opposition could become very strong.”
Those arrested in Balcombe have included Natalie Hynde, the daughter of Ray Davies of the Kinks and Chrissie Hynde, the Pretenders singer.
On Saturday night Michael Fallon, a Tory minister at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, was criticised for a joke he made about fracking at a private meeting that was held in Westminster.
Mr Fallon said a key place for shale gas exploration was the Weald, between Hampshire and Kent. “The beauty of that — please don’t write this down — is that of course it’s underneath the commentariat,” he said. “All these people writing [newspaper] leaders saying: ‘Why don’t they get on with shale?’
“We are going to see how thick their rectory walls are, whether they like the flaring at the end of the drive.”
After the comment was reported on Saturday night, Mr Fallon told The Sunday Telegraph that it was intended to be “light-hearted” and that fracking would only be allowed in the Weald if it were shown to be absolutely safe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384191/Doomsday-alert-fracking-minister-warns-rectory-walls-quaking-Middle-England-drilling-continues.html
‘The Tory Minister responsible for fracking has conjured up a chilling image of swathes of rural England shaking with the sound of drills as a result of the drive for shale gas.
Referring to people living in the countryside who have supported fracking, Energy Minister Michael Fallon said at a private meeting in Westminster: ‘We are going to see how thick their rectory walls are, whether they like the flaring at the end of the drive!’
His unguarded comments follow angry protests in Balcombe, Sussex, last week in the first clashes between police and anti-fracking protesters.
And they are in stark contrast to a public statement Mr Fallon made last week when he said claims that fracking will ruin the countryside were ‘nonsense’.
Mr Fallon is a huge enthusiast for fracking, arguing it offers the promise of lower energy bills and millions of pounds in compensation for local communities.
But in the private briefing, he candidly admitted that prosperous homeowners who find fracking on their doorstep in the Tories’ Middle England heartlands could be in for a shock.
Mr Fallon, MP for Sevenoaks in Kent, said that exploratory studies for fracking were already poised to start in the North of England and are set to spread the length and breadth of southern England.
He said: ‘The second area being studied is the Weald. It’s from Dorset all the way along through Hampshire, Sussex, East Sussex, West Sussex, all the way perhaps a bit into Surrey and even into my county of Kent. It’s right there.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384191/Doomsday-alert-fracking-minister-warns-rectory-walls-quaking-Middle-England-drilling-continues.html#ixzz2awjw7B00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Dear citizens of Balcombe,
My name is Maurizio Atzori and I am writing you from Sardara a small town in Sardinia.
I often read The Guardian on line and I could not help but notice the fights you are putting up against hydraulic fracturing.
I just wanted to say “hi” and let you know that, even if someone like me lives so far away, you are not the only ones hoping
that your lands and waters will stay “drill free”.
There are companies which would like to drill the area where I live too; must be some kind of fancy trend..
Keep up with the good job and send those drills away from your lands!
My best regards,
Maurizio Atzori
—
Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world — Arthur Schopenhauer
When are you people going to realise that our society needs energy independence. In these most uncertain of times it could be the likes of Quadrilla and Sirius Minerals with their potash project which help to bring the UK out of recession in the same fashion that North Sea Oil exploration did. Have any of you thought of the jobs these projects create? How about reduced energy costs? Do you really want to see pensioners sat without their heating on because they can’t afford it?
A link to helecopter pictures of the site toay:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10218477/Tears-in-village-as-energy-firm-begins-drilling-in-Balcombe.html
A spot of 2002 Dom Perignon is in order, perhaps, chez Greenwood, our traiterous Lords of the Manor. And no dount a bottle of Tesco Finest for Rodney Grinning Jago.
We will drink the tears of or enemies……
Thanks, Kathryn, I will Stand you a Dom P. myself when the Queen’s Highway is again open to all citizens and the give & take required for a democracy re-affirmed.Not a perfect system but as it has produced only one Green MP ( less than the communists in the 30’s) it can’t be all bad.Cheers when the time comes!
Great to see the drilling has started. Hopefully the well will prove the resource and allow safe and careful exploitation of the gas.
Not a reply to this particular bit, just a general comment or two from myself, a ( hopefully ) normal resident of Balcombe of over 35 years :
It appears that the Fracking process is something that could go a long way to helping the UK energy requirements, particularly as successive Goverments are very poor at Long Term Planning. However, it appears that as the technology stands, there are some real risks attached to this process. Particularly operating near to inhabited areas and water supplies. So, my principle concerns ( and I think we’re too focussed on Balcombe here and we should attack this from a wider area; Mid Sussex and beyond ) are the massive amounts of water required for Fracking in an already very dry area of the country and the longer term possibility of water contamination. Both of these issues are also concerns for the Water Supply Companies who have recently approached the Government. And what do my years of infinite wisdom tell me? Don’t trust anyone and allegedly everyone can be ‘bought’………….
From a supporter:
Hi all,
First up – look at the massive impact your little village is having on one of the most powerful companies in the world:
“Shell also continued to play down the prospects for shale gas in the UK and said recent controversy over fracking showed it was right not to get involved.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10215535/Shell-profits-drop-on-shale-write-down-and-Nigerian-woes.html
This will have a huge ripple affect on the investment decisions of many companies in relation to shale – it is terrible news for Osborne and Cuadrilla!
The trauma/tragedy happening in sleepy Balcombe village should serve as a lesson to all other regions that are threatened with fracking in the UK. You have to STOP the Government from issuing the licenses to the fracking companies in the first place. I’m not a lawyer but it seems Cuadrilla had its license almost well over a year ago? Why were its residents not better informed ? Wake up UK ! Watch the attached link and whatever you do don’t forget to watch Josh Fox’s latest documentary Gasland Part II.
Anyway, Well done Balcombe and everyone who’s protesting. It’s NEVER too late.
p.s. here’s the link I mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEKQINE1ptU
on ‘why is there no outrage in UK?’.
And whilst we wait for J. Fox’s latest doc. to arrive in UK and for the dvd to be released, you can watch it temporarily on:-
http://putlocker.bz/watch-gasland-part-ii-online-free-putlocker.html
They have just started drilling.
Good news and unless every issue is to be decided by mob rule the authorities must ensure they can do so unhindered.
For Publication
From Tony Bosworth, friends of the Earth:
Energy Minister Michael Fallon’s suggestion that people in the south east must accept fracking for the sake of Britain’s economic future is complete nonsense.
The ‘benefits’ of shale gas and oil have been over-hyped. There’s plenty of evidence to show fracking isn’t going to lead to a new era of cheap fuel. Earlier this year energy experts Bloomberg New Energy Finance described hopes that shale gas will lead to lower energy prices as “wishful thinking”.
Fracking poses a significant threat to the quality of life and local environment of communities across the UK. And, despite the Government’s localism agenda, the Government appears determined to foist fracking schemes on them – regardless of local opinion. 82 per cent of Balcombe residents oppose fracking in their area – but that hasn’t stopped Cuadrilla pushing ahead with test drilling.
This is just the beginning. If the Government continues to back fracking large parts of our green and pleasant land will become industrialised – from the leafy shires of the south to what Tory peer Lord Howell called the ‘desolate’ north east.
If we want to create new jobs and safeguard our environment we must build a clean energy future based on cutting waste and investing in the UK’s huge renewable power potential.
Tony Bosworth
Energy campaigner
Friends of the Earth
See Balcombe Parish Council website this morning, their replies to West Sussex County Council re flare permit and extension to planning period. (Are they also scratching their heads about the radioactive waste permit?) They should note that we do not want an oil well on the edge of our village, fracked, unfracked, or prepped for future fracking.
Click to access bpc-response-re-cuadrilla-extension.pdf
Why not?
Do you drive, fly or use plastics?
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10579654.Send_in_questions_for_anti_fracking_campaigner_Vanessa_Vine/
Send in your questions for Vanessa by commenting below, emailing news@theargus.co.uk or by calling 01273 544 682.
Sussex is now on the front line of the controversial fracking revolution.
The ‘Battle of Balcombe’ continues to rage on as anti-fracking protestors stand defiant against drilling company Cuadrilla, who now want to start drilling for shale gas in the sedate village.
This week’s Your Interview features high-profile anti-fracking campaigner Vanessa Vine, founder of Frack Free Sussex.
On Cuadrilla, she’s previously said: “They have underestimated the local resistance. They will have a big fight on their hands.
“Fracking threatens to contaminate our water and our air, and the roads are not suitable for the tankers. We do not need to take more fossil fuels out of the ground – we need to invest in clean renewable technology.”
Do you want to challenge Vanessa’s views? Or maybe you want to know more about the fracking process?
Send in your questions for Vanessa by commenting below, emailing news@theargus.co.uk or by calling 01273 544 682.
The interview will be published on Friday.
‘Saturday Stroll to the Site’
• Confused about fracking and what it all means?
• Not been down there yet and want to see it for yourself rather than what’s depicted in the press?
• Nervous about going down on your own?
• Willing to find out a bit more about it from some informed people from the village and beyond?
All Balcombe Villagers are invited on a relaxed stroll on the public footpath down to the Drilling Site
There we can chat with some of the protesters – both from this village and from Cuckfield, Ardingly, Haywards Heath and beyond and find out why they feel so strongly about this controversial new drilling process.
We will meet at 1045am this Saturday up at Balcombe Rec and start strolling down at 11am, there will be refreshments on arrival.
Hope you can join us!
Hi Kathy My sister and Iwould like to come to your chat re anti fracking on Saturday. We will be travelling down from Essex so Please could you advise on parking facilities – is it easy to park at the Rec? Also is the walk to the site fairly easy – sorry but we are both elderly and not so athletic anymore! Good luck to you all in Balcombe!!!! Cheers lyn
Demn – I almost did. Was 6 hours too late.
Jane, thank you for your round robin reply to our many questions to the planning department of West Sussex County Council.
2 things.
1) If, when you granted an extension to Cuadrilla’s delivery time last Saturday, you had communicated that to people in Balcombe other than the parish council (in whom we have no trust), certain arrests would not have been made, we protesters would not have been so furious at a seeming breach of the permission, and the police would not have had such a hard time. The parish council put the info on their website. Of course we monitor the parish council website regularly every five minutes all day every day – not! Had you shared this info with the police? If so, what a pity they did not share it with the protesters. And how sad for the people who were arrested because we were so furious, becasue there had been no communication.
2) You mention in your FAQs ‘no objection’ from Balcombe back in the day, 2010, when the permission went through. See attachements. I know you are aware of this. I know you were are the meeting in Balcombe, Jan 2012. You know that Balcombe Parish Council did not follow normal procedure, did not circulate the application to members prior to the meeting, did not put the planning application on the agenda, that Councillor Simon Greenward of Balcombe Estate did not declare an interest at the start of the meeting, that the application was not properly discussed, that, in the minutes of the meeting, the application is mentioned only under the application number of someone’s car port! For someone in the village to have known about this planning application, and the council’s non-decision, they would have to have be interested a) in reading the minutes of the parish council meetings (yawn, back in the day) and b) to have been interested in that particular car port.
How can you still answer a FAQ with the defence that there were no objections? Do we still have redress? Can we still challenge the fact that Balcombe council never properly considered the impact of an oil well in our village?
A third question:
How long does it take to frazzle a mummy bat in a flare? One second? One minute? One week?
The attachements to follow
My statement to the Parish Council, January 2012:
Kathryn Metcalfe in the village and family, Kathryn McWhirter in my professional life.
I have lived in the village for nearly 10 years.
I address this statement to those of you council members who were present at the Parish Council meeting of February 2010: that is to chairwoman Alison Stevenson, Simon Greenwood in his absence, Mike Talman, Susan Barker-Danby, Carol Jarvest, Sarah Moore-Williams (who apparently arrived late arrival and probably missed the moment of the absent apology, but was probably there by the time Simon Greenwood ‘mentioned’ his plans), Robin Williamson, and clerk Richard Greig,
It would appear from the minutes of that Parish Council meeting that the planning application for the re-opening of the Balcombe oil well 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 County Council had emailed details of the planning application to the Balcombe council on January 28th, 2010, prior to the February meeting, along with the address of the County Council website at which the application could be viewed. I note that after the meeting Richard Greig, clerk of the council, failed to reply to the County Council. The County 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 wonder how honourable members of this council can expend much thought and energy on discussing minor details of our village porches and carports, and yet fail to discuss the implications of an OIL WELL within the confines of our village. An OIL WELL, even a conventional oil well, with all the potential impliations for road use, noise, pollution…. It was not worth discussing.
As far as your deputy chairman Rodney Saunders can remember, this particular planning application does not seem to have been circulated to members of the Council in the way that all other planning applications are, prior to the meeting. According to Rodney, it does not seem to have been put on the advance agenda, and it was not put into your ‘box’ in the centre of the table. I quote Rodney, ‘It is my personal opinion that the letter should have been treated as a formal planning consultation document and placed on the agenda.’ I find myslef wondering why this application was not treated like any other.
The deputy chairman of this council ‘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.
What is done is done. But now, surely you owe it to the village to rack your memories for the details of that day, to explain what actually happened, and to apologise. At the meeting last Wednesday Rodney merely explained that the matter had passed under the Council’s radar, and suggested that none of the rest of us, without the benefit of hindsight, would have read the small print or investigated further. I think you underestimate your ‘constituents’, Rodney.
Why am I bothering? It is of little positive use backtracking and casting blame. Nevertheless, it would be NICE for the village to understand exactly how the Parish Council passed this application. And it worries me that, while protecting your backs, you will be too locked in your defensiveness to take the views of the villagers into proper consideration, too defensive to keep open minds
Please tell us what happened.
more…
The following spcific matters run through my mind:
1. I wonder precisely whose decision or oversight meant that the planning application was not placed on the agenda
2. I wonder whether Richard Greig in particular remembers any discussion of this planning application at the meeting, anything that he did not put into the minutes
1) I wonder why Richard Greig considered he had the authority to write the ‘no objection’ email to the Planning Department
2) I wonder whether anyone else who was present at that meeting of February 15th can remember more about the ‘mention’ of this matter than Rodney Saunders can.
3) I wonder what the view of the Council is now? I wonder whether you plan to fight possible future planning applications from Cuadrilla to scale exploration up to production
4) I wonder if the Council will take into account the views of the majority of the locals who attended the neeting last Wednesday? The only voices of support for Cuadrilla came from Rodney Jago and a Cuadrilla-paid PR man.
5) I wonder what kind of representation you are going to make to Simon Greenwood? And when.
6) I wonder if you are aware of this clause in the Council Council planning papers of 2010: ‘After receiving planning consent for the exploratory well, the minor site construction and preparation would take one or two weeks to complete. The drilling rig would then be mobilised to the site over an approximate 2 to 3 day period. Once rigged up, the 24-hour drilling would take place over an approximate 4-6 week period.’ Twenty-four hour drilling. I was told today by a pro-Cuadrilla oil and gas engineer that residents with ‘sensitive ears’ would hear the drilling.
7) Mark Miller told me after the meeting that, following a possible future commercial frack at the Balcombe site, around 100 tankers would be required to take away the spent frack fluid. Since more liquid always goes in than comes out of these wells, MORE than 100 tankers would be required to DELIVER the water and chemicals to the site. I wonder if you, our Council, feel the London Road was built to withstand this kind of traffic.
8) I wonder if you will admit to having failed to follow proper procedure, and having failed to discuss an issue that will have such an impact on the quality of our village life.
R Greig,
I am the planning officer at West Sussex County Council dealing with a County Matters planning
application at Lower Stumble Wood, Balcome- reference WSCC/027/10/BA. Balcome Parish
Council was invited to comment on the application on 28 January 2010, where it was indicated that
if no comments were received by 18 February 2010 it would be assumed that the Parish Council
has no objection to the proposal. I wish to clarify if this is the position so i can record that no
response was received.
I look forward to hearing from you at your nearest convenience.
Regards,
Michael Vine.
M Vine
Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that the matter was discussed at the
last Regular Meeting of the Council & that there is no objection to the application.
Regards
Richard Greig
Clerk to the Council
Kathryn,
More fluid always comes out than goes in.
M
From a village mother:
‘Just want to say a massive THANK YOU to everyone who helped and came to Storytime at the Rig this morning! Especially xxxxx. Chris told me how inspiring the protest is and he was thrilled to be there.
A fantastic fun kids event in the sweltering heat and wow what a moment when all the kids and parents stood on the road with the handprint sign – so moving.
Today at the rig – friends from the potential gaslands of the Bowland Shale in Lancashire will be coming to offer their support. Thank you also to the people of Fernhurst to the west of us, next in the fracking line, who have been here to support. Thank you everyone, from Balcombe and beyond, especially to those brave people who have risked arrest to protect our environment. Balcombe and the Bowland shale are just the start. Two-thirds of the UK will be blighted by oil and gas wells if this industry and our government get their way. This is not just a Balcombe issue.
Storytelling at the rig this morning. From 10.30 this morning, come down to the Cuadrilla site with your children for a fun morning of storytelling and live drawing by award-winning local author/illustrator Chris Riddell, along with craft activities organised by village mothers. A family, fun-filled, safe event for children of all ages – from anywhere in the UK!
From an Australian friend. Encouragement from down under!
Coal and gas licences or applications currently cover more than half of Australia, an area 18 times the size of Great Britain.[1] But community efforts to stop fracking in its tracks are gaining ground, and we’ve got new stories to share to keep the momentum going strong.
http://www.welloftruth.org.au
On Sunday, managing director of Origin Energy, Grant King, admitted that grassroots campaigning had “materially influenced public policy and resulted in more onerous and duplicative legislation…” Yesterday, QGC managing director Derek Fisher said activism “has been allowed to shape public policy as a relatively small but vocal group have campaigned against us”.[2,3] Vocal? Absolutely. Relatively small? Nup.
Click here to watch and share inspiring micro documentaries — 4 minute films exploring what happens when the gas industry comes to town.
http://www.welloftruth.org.au
Energy executives have no problem drilling on other people’s land without their consent1, but spit the dummy when the same people make them spend time and money on ‘onerous’ tasks like proving they aren’t going to poison our water tables before they do so.
Fortunately, there are increasing signs of a major tipping point against unchecked CSG expansion. In April, Dart Energy suspended all CSG developments in NSW; while just last month Santos abandoned plans to drill 550 mines in the Pillaga State Forest. A huge shout out to our friends at Lock the Gate, who’ve been leading some of these amazing victories, with the involvement of many GetUp members.
With the tide of public opinion against them, the industry lobby group, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, is now planning a new multimillion dollar advertising campaign — claiming that opposing CSG will ruin Australia’s economy[4].
Fortunately, the truth is more powerful than any amount of corporate spin. Just as films like An Inconvenient Truth and Gaslands ignited mass consciousness around threats to our environment like never before, we can help keep CSG companies on the back foot, instead of taking over our land, by sharing these short, powerful videos far and wide.
Click here to check them out:
http://www.welloftruth.org.au
Thanks for all that you do — and let’s keep it up,
The GetUp team
Rodney Jago is obviously in the pocket of quadrilla
To attack the person is to concede his argument.
A thought of Chairman B?
Play the ball, not the man.
LOL – The last person I heard trying to pull that one was the ludicrous Dan (no HS2 in my constituency but I *love* fracking elsewhere) Byles.
So you think this is like some kind of public school rugby match do you? FFS!
Where were the police when Cuadrilla were trespassing on property in the Fylde?
Answer me that before you pontificate about fair play.
Greetings and best wishes for your efforts from a resident of the so-called “desolate” Northumberland in the English north east, seemingly next in line for fracking according to George Osborne’s father-in-law!
Beautiful region, I have had friends and holidays there. Thank you.
Urgent:
Hello, I work for Channel 4 News.
After much chasing the CEO of Cuadrilla has agreed to be interviewed by us. We think it would be execellnt to give some local people in Balcombe the chance to put their questions to him via phone.
It is in half an hour but if you are keen to put your issues and questions to him then give me a call asap: 07854401302.
Many thanks
Tom Calverley
You all have a right to peaceful protest but what you are doing by physically preventing the licensed operator from doing their work is undemocratic. They have obtained permission through the normal legitimate process (and approved by your elected representatives) to drill a well (not to frac) and they should be allowed to do so. If you want to stop fraccing then take a close look at their next application and lobby your planning committee members.
In the meantime, if you want to do something for the environment, go home (preferably walk or cycle and not drive your cars), turn off a few lights, turn down your thermostat, recycle your rubbish properly and compost your green waste.
Take a closer look at the protesters most of them clearly live as cleanly and greenly as possible. The point is that despite protesting those with power and influence will do as they please…… but we will never stop. Trying to protect this earth and our children from those who only appear and i mean appear to care when forced too. The idea of relentlessly drilling in this way, is clearly wrong for so many reasons. But like so many things, such as the scale of child abuse, the dangers of vaccines or GMO,s, we are told by ‘experts’ that these poisonous things are good for us. More and more people are awakened, and there is now an unstoppable will within people en masse to create changes despite this…………….. If you listen to the real news on the internet you will hear a woman explaining that due process is not being followed, to allow enough time. They are not intending to just drill a well. And even if that were true, it is still not needed or wanted. This is like building carparks as a step towards another type of permission, which is a step. When will those in power simply act in right ways? rather than use might to do so much harm and wrong ?
They seem to have an atavistic need to fabricate a scary happening in order to protest it.
This is not a shale gas well, it is not a shale well, it is not a gas well & it is not scheduled to be fracced.
Bit what the h*ll – its summer holiday time.
As you say, we shot ourselves in the feett by campaigning on the f and the s word. And oh how clever Cuadrilla have been, and oh how gullible the press and the regulatory authorities! Cuadrilla will psuedo-frack up to just below point of rock fracture. And so what if their unconventional target seam is micrite or shale? If they get to test, it will be the precursor of fracking. Or will it be fracking after all? Who will be there to check? Not the EA – where are their staff??
I see by your cc that you are or have been in the industry. I had two and a half hours sleep and have been awake for 20 hours. The EA consultation on the mining waste was a joke. I am waiting to hear how many people there worked on turning around hundreds of public comments in three or was it four days? I cannot believe that they read them all. Hundred of comments arrived in the EA offices in the last day. What confindence can we have in the EA? How may zillion times less can we have confidence in DECC, who have been so unhelpful! Is it worth responding to future consultations? Radioactive waste? Flare pollution? Will they listen, will they read? What kind of regulation is this? What kind of bullying government. What democracy? I would like to compare our personal energy consumption with yours! Thermostat, what thermostat? We scarcely heat our house, almost never turn on the central heating, and then only in the room we are in. We compost every scrap of green waste, are even currently taking green waste from the brave folk outside the Cuadrilla site. What cannot be composted is eaten by our chickens. Please, please suck your own eggs. (The reference is to Grandmothers, and not to huevos.)
Perhaps we should ask exactly how much investigation was carried out by the elected representatives, both Balcombe Parish Council and West Sussex County Council on behalf of local people before planning permission was granted back in April 2010.
What I find extraordinary about this whole process is that a company can obtain planning permission to carry out heavy industrial processes, literally, in people’s back yards. Flaring of gas, if discovered, will have to take place for safety reasons at the test stage and there are legitimate concerns about the potential for leakage of methane into ground water. I realise that Cuadrilla are drilling for oil, but gas is also found when oil is present. The planning permission does give Cuadrilla permission to frack – they have said they don’t intend to do so at the test stage – but WSCC were apparently willing for this to happen.
http://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2013/07/Schug-water-well-contaminants-study.php
A new study of 100 private water wells in and near the Barnett Shale showed elevated levels of potential contaminants such as arsenic and selenium closest to natural gas extraction sites, according to a team of researchers that was led by UT Arlington associate professor of chemistry and biochemistry Kevin Schug.
So thoughtful, these lwayers and landowners back in 1898.
Dear Sir,
I attach a restrictive covenant applying to the land at Lower Stumble.
You are bound by this cove. It says:
“4. No noisy noxious offensive or dangerous trade business or occupation shall at any time be carried on upon the land hereby conveyed or in any buildings thereon and the same shall not at any time be used to the nuisance annoyance injury or danger of the houses or land adjoining or near thereto or the owners or occupiers thereof.”
We call on you to cease your noisy, noxious, offensive and dangerous activities, according to the restrictive covenant on the title attached.
Yours faithfully,
Charles Metcalfe and Kathryn Metcalfe
Brilliant bit of research! And brilliant of those 19th century lawyers to foresee the rent-a mob “peacefully” blocking the highway & cutting break linings!
Hi Kathryn,
I think I told you that D’s talk on fracking was brilliant. I just wanted to let you know that it’s left me feeling so strongly against fracking. I feel quite frustrated that I can’t get up to Balcombe to help. I’ve never protested about anything in my life, haven’t even had a speeding ticket but I’d be there if I could – which sounds quite feeble I know. Sorting out parents and tomorrow I’m off for the next 2 weeks playing at festivals. If there’s anything I can do (from a distance – at the moment) let me know It’s just an email of support, keep on. xx
Thank you! It is really much more peaceful than it seems, apart from the police. See what it does to people to watch police violence, dutiful citizen that I once was, only last week. Lucky really that I was in hospital last week with C and tied up on the computer writing press releases etc this week and saw only one lorry arrival with Cuadrilla kit. Disgusting police behaviour. Not sure any more how I am going to get on with the idea of S being a special constable. Disgusting police behavour. Coochy cooch try on my police hat little child and let me help your across the road one minute, fierce and physical the next, children screaming in terror. Bi-polar, our police. Forming a guard of honour round every Cuadrilla vehicle.
When you get back, if the camp is still there, it wd be great to come down and play one night. Lovely people. If we are hijacked by hippies, bring on more. We Grrrrr. Round the campfires at night there is a lovely atmosphere. Such lovely people. We are so grateful to them
Kxx
If “D’s talk on fracking was brilliant” & left K “feeling so strongly against fracking” – then its an easy money bet that D’s talk was neither true nor accurate.
keep up the good work…. you are all wonderful. A few of us going to come over to visit the camp on Friday afternoon. Is there anything you particularly need that we can bring?
The Parish Council will be visiting the site (with Rafe) at 6.30pm this evening, Tuesday. It is important that as many villagers as possible are there at that time. Please come, even for a short time.
Keith Taylor, the Green Party’s MEP for the South East, has written to Sussex Police over what he describes as the use of ‘excessive force’ against protesters in Balcombe.
Mr Taylor, who was in Balcombe on Sunday to support the protesters, is particularly concerned over the suspected use of the ‘mandibular angle’ technique to force protesters to comply with their demands. This technique, which involves pressing against a pressure point behind the ear, was used on Friday to clear protesters from an access road which they were peacefully blockading.
In the letter to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police Mr Taylor said:
“Given the peaceful nature of the protest I was concerned to hear reports from both my own staff and others that your officers seemed to be using excessive force against protesters last week.
Specifically I was concerned to see video and photographic evidence showing officers apparently using pressure point techniques against some protesters who had locked arms on the side road leading to Cuadrilla’s drilling area.
The officers appear to be using their hands to apply pressure on or near the protesters ears – I believe this is the mandibular angle technique.
The use of this kind of force seems to me to be excessive given the peaceful nature of the protest and could run the risk of exacerbating tension between protesters and police.”
After sending the letter Mr Taylor said:
“The campaigners in Balcombe are modern day defenders of the land. They are fighting against a company desperate to drill into the countryside and a Government hell-bent on supporting extreme energy.
The fact that so many ordinary people are willing to take direct action against drilling in their area shows the depth of feeling against shale oil and gas extraction.
The police shouldn’t resort to excessive force against peaceful protesters who are taking action to defend their communities from extreme energy.”
ENDS
1) The letter to the Sussex Chief Constable: http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Letter-to-Sussex-Police.pdf
2) Clear photos of the Police using the mandibular technique are available on request.
My email to our Conservative County Councillor Bill Acraman re the unannounced extension of delivery time on Saturday from 1pm cut-off to 4pm. And his reply.
‘Whom can residents contact out of office hours with any concerns about the operations at the Cuadrilla site in Balcombe, such as alleged violations of planning permission etc?
‘We feel that you, as our local representative, should be informed in future of amendments to planning permission etc, so that you can make sure that we in Balcombe are in the loop. I know you agree that the works anticipated in Balcombe are scientifically questionable.’
Bill:
‘There is no out of hours contact and even if there were that person would not be able to do anything.
The senior officer contact is Elkington.
You will see deep in his letter below an apology to me and the parish council for not keeping us fully informed. I think that lesson has been learned.’
His email address is billa@sussextory.org.uk. I’ll get his phone number.
Contact: Neil Verlander, Friends of the Earth press office – 020 7566 1649
NEW PLANNING GUIDANCE ON RENEWABLES & CLIMATE – FRIENDS OF THE EARTH REACTION
Commenting on new Government planning guidance on renewable energy and climate change, published today (Monday 29 July 2013), Friends of the Earth’s Planning Campaigner Naomi Luhde-Thompson said:
“Eric Pickles rightly says the views of local people must be listened to when making planning decisions – it’s outrageous this doesn’t apply when it comes to fracking.
“Under these proposals clean energy schemes such as wind turbines could be rejected on visual grounds, while fracking operations that threaten local communities and pollute our atmosphere could be given a virtual green light.
“It’s staggering that the Minister has refused to insist on councils playing their part in developing renewable energy goals – unless everyone take urgent action, the UK will fail to meet its targets for slashing emissions.”
From a villager:
I spent some time down at Lower Stumble, and amongst many other things noticed the deterioration of the road at the site entrance, and work has not really begun in earnest.
Something you may care to ponder upon – a tanker carries approximately 30,000 litres, depending on the construction of the vehicle, so how many tankers will it take to supply the water necessary for one fracking application?
The state of the B2036 leaves a lot to be desired due to “normal” traffic – what will it be like after such “abnormal” use?
Having had a very friendly chat with several police officers on duty at Lower Stumble, it would appear that there are about 70 officers present to deal with the arrival and departure of traffic from the site – the cost of which is going to be considerable – who, in your opinions should pay for that?
As you ask, obviously the protest groups should pay.Without them & their threats police would not be needed.
Obviously Cuadrilla should pay. Without them anbd their threats the police would not be needed.
An astounding bit of logic. Listening to YOU whinge about the policing costs (of which you doubtless pay very little) of a disruptive protest actually ORGANISED by you provides a perfect microcosm of the holier than thou eco-loon mentality. I wish I had the means to broadcast it further.
From a village member:
“Feeling angry and saddened about some of the recent press coverage about the villagers in Balcombe especially Saturday’s Guardian: ‘There is mass hysteria in the village and the fears are ungrounded’ says Katherine Gunning, a local resident. Most of the village is not anti-fracking’. WHERE DOES SHE GET THIS INFORMATION FROM? HAS SHE DONE A POLE HERSELF IF SHE HAS THEN MAYBE SHE CAN PUBLISH THE RESULTS SO WE CAN ALL SEE. At least Louisa Delpy who is a star and supposed to be having a break from all this got a chance to balance the discussion. If Katherine Gunning has been misquoted then shame on the Guardian. I agree that most of those in the village including myself will do nothing illegal and will not go to the extent that many outside protesters would HOWEVER I respect their right to protest and admire that they have the courage of their convictions.”
Shame on you, Kathering Gunning. You know very well that the Parish council poll came out 82 per cent against oil and gas exporation in the village – despite the fact that people had to put their names and addresses on the form, that only one form was allowed per household, and that so many people in this village live in houses tied to the Balcombe estate, or work for the estate, and that the well will be on the Balcombe Estate land. No Fibs has run a door-to-door survey at nearly every house in the village – just a few now to mob up. We have spoken directly to everyone. The result is over 90% against. You must have a very limited bunch of friends and acquaintances, Ms Gunning.
Shame also on Rodney Saunders for his most unhelful and unsupportive comments to the press.. After the results of your poll were published, you councillors promised to support us against this oil well, since you ‘now had a mandate to do so’. So where is that support? Why don’t we see you down at the rig? Why do we never see you at our meetings. Why are you openly obstructive to this cause?
Shame on you, councillor Simon Greenwood, for leasing your land to bullies (not to mention failing to declare an interest when the planning permission came before the parish council). We hear that you have renewed the lease, post September 29th when the first one runs out. You won’t even reply to our emails. You agent tells us to mind our own business. What do your parents think about all this? They who have been so beloved in the village? I cannot believe they want to sell the soul of the village for – what was it? £16,000 per year, £16,000 for three years? Just how many pieces of silver were handed over has never been quite clear.
Well done all those slated above ! The Parish Councll Poll managed only below 17% of eligible voters against exploration. I do not doubt the new poll will get the “right” result but will await the detailed report.
I did not observe any local people other that the usual NFIB lot on the Cuckfield road. Perhaps Katherine is right?
There have been many local people. Pehaps you do not mix with the same people we do. Only one reply was allowed per house, Rodney.
Parish Council Circular 12 August 2012 ” Each resident of the Parish of Balcombe AGED 16 OR OVER is invited to express his or her oppinion” and inspite of all the threats of earthquakes etc less than 17% bothered. We are really quite a sensible village!
The Parish Council had many multiple responses from single households. They were counted as individual votes;
This is the wording of the letter that accompanied the poll cards.
Each resident in the Parish of Balcombe age 16 or over is invited to express his or her opinion by completing the attached fracking poll document and either placing it in the box which will be located in Balcombe Stores, or handing it to any member of the Parish Council or the Parish Clerk, by not later than 10th September. If more than one person living at your address wishes to express an opinion, please make copies of the fracking poll document.
From Helen Savage:
‘4 things happening at the mo. Please forward this to anyone who will be interested!
Please respond to the consultation below, there are only a few days left. Remember that Cuadrilla are drilling through an aquifer. The area already contains ‘brackish’ water apparently but it’s worth asking whether the work going on will disturb or cause this water to move into the main water supply (Ardingly reservoir). In Poland local farmers have found that even initial seismic testing has caused their individual farm wells to become contaminated in the vicinity. Presumably it is causing movement of groundwater. There is a seasonal gill stream in the area which connects to a tributary to the Ouse which feeds Ardingly reservoir which feeds 84,000 homes to the south. If Cuadrilla do not deal with their radio-active (NORMS) and mining waste appropriately, there are risks of contamination. Please bear in mind Cuadrilla intended to go ahead with this work without a ‘mining waste’ and radioactive waste’ permit as directed by the EU. Given that they over-drilled for a month in Lancashire (without permission – they had been asked not to because of bird-migration) and cracked a well including causing seismic tremors, this does not inspire confidence. They also told someone at the open consultation in Balcombe that they would ‘mix the waste as straw and use it as fertilizer!’ TRUE! When you read up on this kind of waste it should be disposed of extremely carefully in steel drums…ask SouthEast water where this waste is going and where will it be stored, how will it finally be ‘dumped’. Apparently in the sea in the case of Lancashire.
Consultation on SouthEast water’s management plan ‘clear water’, closes 30th July
http://www.southeastwater.co.uk/about-us/our-plans/long-term-plans-clear-water#.UfNqfmS9Kc0
This petition is still being developed, but up and running for signing, please sign it is the only one genuinely created by Balcombe residents and we will take it to WSCC, please forward!
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/wscc-cease-the-oil-exploration-activities-of-cuadrilla-in-balcombe
Daily protests occurr at the site. Balcombe people are down there as much as possible, but obviously it is hard to sustain, so we are grateful that people from surrounding villages (Pease Pottage/Forest Row/Ardingly/Horsted Keynes/Haywards Heath) and Lewes and Brighton, care enough to come along. It’s important to keep as many local people going down there as possible – particularly tomorrow as the drill rig is scheduled to arrive. Local faces help stop this being labelled as a ‘rent-a-mob’ campaign, so if you can, please go down. Bear in mind, however, that it is not a small child friendly site. Big layby but by a fast road.
As always, write to Francis Maud/ your MP, but please be sure to copy a version to another MP or chairman of their party, Mp’s of different parties etc, don’t want Maud to feel he can hide his mail bag!
38 degrees is canvasing for opinion if this is a cause worth fighting…and raising funds to do so, if you have a mind to, check out their site etc….
Fracking: if you haven’t heard of it yet, you’re probably about to. It’s the process of blasting water and chemicals deep underground to extract shale gas. [1] And Last week, the chancellor George Osborne announced that the UK will become the “most generous” tax regime for shale gas extraction in the world. [2]
Osborne’s ‘dash for gas’ is scaling up – but fracking is incredibly dangerous. In Lancashire, it’s caused small earthquakes. [3] In parts of America, fracking has resulted in contaminated drinking water. [4]
Most damagingly, pouring tax payer’s money into shale gas now means less investment in renewables and clean energy. Green MP Caroline Lucas has said that fracking is “incompatible with the climate change targets of the UK. Shale gas is a high-carbon fuel.” [5]
George Osborne would like us to think that this is all sewn up. But fracking isn’t an established industry here yet – and there’s a huge amount still to be decided. There’s lots that 38 Degrees members could do together to stop fracking, but first we need to know how ambitiously we should plan and how much money there is to spend.
Are you in? Could you make a pledge today to chip in just £3 or more to make this possible?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/pledge-fracking
If you’re standing behind this, here’s a first list of ideas for what we could do together:
Commission expert reports into the murky legislation – and then campaign to fix it
Publish every MP’s opinion on fracking, so local campaigns know what they’re up against
Push local councils to declare themselves ‘frack free’
Support local community campaigns with small grants, campaigning advice and outside experts like lawyers for court cases
Learn from successful anti-fracking actions in other countries
There’s lots more than that, too. This could be the next big climate and energy campaign for 38 Degrees. We have the numbers and the energy to take this fight to fracking companies across the country: but there’s no point making grand plans unless we know that we’re all behind this – and that we’ll have the money to be successful. This won’t be a quick win, but we’re ready to go – if enough of us want to.
Can you pledge £3 today to support what could be the next watershed environmental campaign?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/pledge-fracking
Thanks for being involved,
Becky, Susannah, James and the 38 Degrees team
NOTES
[1] BBC News: What is fracking?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23314874
[2] The Guardian: George Osborne unveils ‘most generous tax breaks in world’ for fracking: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/19/george-osborne-tax-break-fracking-shale-environment
[3] BBC News: Fracking ‘likely cause’ of tremors: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15550458
[4] Duke University: Higher levels of stray gases found in water near shale gas sites: http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/news/higher-levels-of-stray-gases-found-in-water-wells-near-shale-gas-sites
[5] The Guardian: Fracking companies should not get tax breaks, says No 10 adviser http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/18/fracking-tax-breaks-peter-lilley
‘Its decision to divest comes after the publication of UK-based thinktank Carbon Tracker’s latest Unburnable Carbon report, which said some 60-80% of fossil fuel reserves need to be left in the ground if the worst effects of climate change are to be avoided.’
An important point made by Frack Off. Do phone the Environment Agency about this on Monday. Worthing office, but switchboard is 03708 506506.
“The ‘EA permit for radioactive substances activity’: Why does it only apply to the testing stage? If Cuadrilla are testing a layer of rock that may contain Naturally Occuring Radioactive Materials (NORM) they will have to drill through it. This means their drill cuttings and also drilling mud that they use will be radioactive, and they will need to be stored at the site and disposed of at some point. The consultation mentions it is to “operate a radioactive substances activity at Lower Stumble Hydrocarbon Exploration Site” which would seem on the face of it to apply to handling and storage of these materials as well as disposal, though you would have to look at this the law this is all based on to be sure. If so the permit should be needed before the material is brought out of the ground, i.e. for the drilling stage. There is clear evidence from the states of how radioactive shale drill cuttings can be:
“Shale truck sets off alarm in South Huntingdon
http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/3888698-74/radiation-max-poister “
From villager Louisa Delpy:
Dear WSCC and Planning Enforcement,
Yesterday (Saturday at 2pm) I had rush down to the Lower Stumble site with the planning conditions for the work going on at Balcombe Lower Stumble site and negotiate with the police to ensure that no further trucks were allowed on to the site. The conditions of the planning have been put in place to protect my and the other residents of Balcombe’s amenities.
Why was no-one available at WSCC to come to the site or speak to the police? Where are our representatives, where are planning enforcement?
I would ask that planning enforcement at WSCC be at the site from 07:30 tomorrow when work starts to liaise with the police – Chief Superintendent Webb is in charge, and ensure that no further planning conditions are breached. The police told me that WSCC had agreed an extension until 4pm for Saturday work which there was no documentary evidence of. The planning conditions clearly state that in Condition 6 “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.” How was an extension agreed? Who made that decision – where is it published? Why weren’t the residents informed or consulted with? How are WSCC allowed to make changes to conditions? Please advise me of that process so that I will be aware of any further changes WSCC is making without residents being involved?
There are further conditions of the planning decision being breached as well, which urgently need investigation and enforcement action taken:
Condition 5 “A copy of this decision notice together with the approved plans and any schemes
and/or details subsequently approved pursuant to this permission shall be kept at the site office at all times and the terms and contents thereof shall be made known to supervising staff on the site.
Reason: To ensure the site operatives are conversant with the terms of the planning permission.”
There was no copy of the decision notice available, no-one at WSCC to talk to which was why I had to drive my copy down there. Clearly the site operatives are not conversant with the terms of planning. What else are they not conversant with? Who will planning enforcement be taking this up with?
Condition 12: “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. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.” Trucks are turning southbound off the site – who is enforcing this?
The police tell me that these breaches (and we are on Day 3 here!) are civil matters and therefore they cannot do anything about them therefore WSCC it is I assume your responsibility to ensure that there is cover day and night and over weekends until the end of planning permission for Balcombe residents and indeed the police, to be able to voice concerns and for you to immediately investigate.
The road has already had to be patched up due to the lorries turning in. The damage to the trees by the side of the roads is also very evident. We are on Day 3.
I would like clear details on who to complain to, their telephone number and email address regarding the state of the roads, the lorries turning the wrong way, the breaching of planning conditions and the noise levels at the site and please an emergency 24/7 number for residents and the police to call.
Kind regards, Louisa Delpy
Have the results of the survey started in May ” Do you want your road/land frack free” been published yet & if so where please?
Over 90% against. Still mopping up last houses where people have been away.It was a big exercise. A team of village members talked to every house, twice.
Thanks! Will await full results with interest.
You are in a tiny majority.
Do you mean a tiny minority interested in the survey? I expect you are right!
Minority, Rodney, minority. More than 90 per cent of this village are opposed to the presence here of the oil and gas industry.
I am former resident of Sussex, and have so many fond memories of the countryside. I am horrified that some how this is taking place, and has been approved by the government. If I were still living there, here are some questions I would be asking the Environment Agency. “What is the Environmental Agency’s contingency plan in the event of an environmental disaster to the lower weald aquifer system?” “Where is the water to drill coming from? (Especially since hose pipe bans have occurred frequently over the last few years) “Who is paying for the police force protection of Cuadrilla?” “Who is protecting the water rights and environment of millions of Tax Paying citizens?” Why is the environment not being protected from Carpetbaggers?” I would also encourage someone to write a note to the police who are on patrol and protecting this company. A flyer given to each and everyone of them …… Asking them why they are condoning environmental destruction, because it not only affects locals it affects everyone who lives in the region, which includes them. Ask them to ask themselves if what they are doing seems right? Ask them to not stand by and help destruction. I feel so darn helpless thousands of miles away. As I said this is just horrid and insane.
Bravo! This is an important issue that needs tackling. If you would like to receive a small bundle of my “anti-fracking” postcard ( http://www.postcardpolitics.org/catalogue/html/021-shale_gas_col.jpg.html ) just send me a postal address and I will put a package in the post (no charge). All the best for your campagne, Alan Mitcham ( http://www.postcardpolitics.org )
Thank you, much appreciated.
We can park legally on London Road. It’s a great weekend for clearing out the garage, and storing the car the while on London Road (leaving adequate access, of course). Feeling overwhelmed by weekend parkers up on Newlands? Give them space, how about moving your car down to London Road? This is something you as a resident of Balcombe can do very easily to support the amazing people we have down at the rig.
Kathryn, When the Deepwater Horizon blew out, BP were paying a Day Rate of $1,000,000 per day for the spread, half that for the rig.
Onshore is much cheaper, but even at a tenth to a twentieth of $1m day rate, does NoFIBS have the wherewithal to compensate Caudrilla for Non Productive Time?
Just asking.
An update from Caroline Lucas MP:
‘Several weeks ago, I found out that the Government was going to publish new planning guidance to ‘streamline’ the process for fracking companies seeking permission to drill – without any public consultation or parliamentary scrutiny.
‘Therefore, I submitted an application to the Backbench Business Committee for a Commons debate on these new shale gas planning rules, and other new Government policies on fracking. I am concerned that this is part of a new ‘dash for gas’ that would put us on a path towards greater reliance on high carbon, polluting fossil fuels, rather than a low carbon, affordable, sustainable energy future. The debate on shale gas took place on 18 July. Government response was shockingly complacent.
‘I urged the Minister to consult on these new guidelines – in light of the controversial nature of shale gas, the local environmental and health risks, and my belief that local communities should be given a meaningful say over something as important as new planning rules for fracking.
‘During the debate, I also argued that the guidance must include strong provisions on tackling climate change and require that the precautionary principle is followed when it comes to risks such as groundwater contamination.
‘The new planning guidelines have now been published but are woefully inadequate. They will make it easier for fracking companies to drill – irrespective of the views of local people – and they fail to recognise the need to cut carbon emissions or to protect groundwater. Nor do they require a full Environmental Impact Assessment for all drilling proposals. I think this is appalling and I will continue to do my utmost to secure stronger planning guidelines to give local people a voice and to protect our environment.
‘I raised a number of other points in the debate too including: my opposition to the Treasury’s new tax breaks for shale gas companies; the inappropriate influence of big energy companies over policy making; the overwhelming lack of evidence to support claims that shale gas could bring down energy costs; and the need for all politicians to take a science-based approach to the climate change implications of shale gas.
‘As I expect you will know, some of the UK’s leading climate scientists are warning that shale gas is completely incompatible with the Government’s international commitments to keep global warming below two degrees. Organisations such as the International Energy Agency and Carbon Tracker have shown that the vast majority (up to 80%) of existing fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground if we are to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. Therefore, I think it is wrong to support the exploitation of new sources of fossil fuels – including shale gas but also things like tar sands and Arctic oil – even if we did have stronger regulation that could reduce the risks of local environmental pollution and harm to health and wellbeing.
The UK’s renewable energy resources are among the best in the world and I want Government to be a lot more ambitious about investing in clean technologies that harness our abundant home-grown renewable energy potential instead. Much greater community ownership of energy generation must be a part of that too.
Move to the United States then please Rodney and do us all a favour here.
From a Balcombe mother: ’75 riot police just bulldozed their way 30 peaceful protesters, resulting in both my son weeping in terror along with the Telegraph reporter….’
I have but one comment on the disgraceful scenes on the Cuckfield Road. The use of school children. If we are to improve our environment & economy we need scientists, engineers and people able to evaluate all sides of a debate, NOT a generation misled into believing they can have it all by waving placards, blocking highways & sabotaging lorries. Shame!
LOL Rodney – you are very pompous aren’t you?
Better to educate children about what is happening in their world and how it works than to do what the frackers advocate doing with them – If you want to see how they propose using children check this out http://www.refracktion.com/index.php/infiltrating-schools-and-issuing-fracking-propaganda/
As you say – Shame!
Anonymous insults always welcome! Excellent that children should learn (in a properly regulated environment) from those who actually produce the Nation’s wealth. But perhaps you prefer they are “Greenwashed” only by those who think our energy will come from wishful thinking?
I prefer that smug councillors don’t sell their own voters down the river Rodney. How about you – happy with the frackers using kids to try to get to the parents are we? What a weird world view you must have.
It’s not really worth commenting on your “wishful thinking” jibe is it but do feel free to take a look at this – http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/07/the-energiewende-and-energy-prices-public-support-and-germany%E2%80%99s-long-term-vision
Try facts; “Germany has 6 of Europe’s 10 biggest polluting plants. [3][4] Germany produces more carbon dioxide to produce the same amount of energy than France, Canada, Japan or Korea. Due to the costs of “Energiewende”(switch to renewables) Germany now has Europes highest energy costs. Costs have risen over the last 5 years even for industrial consumers who are exempted from the costs of the renewable energy subsidy that consumers pay. In 2013, energy was 4 times cheaper in the United States than in Europe, and 6 times cheaper than in Germany.”
With luck (for Germany) the Greens will be trounced at the next election!
“Try facts; ” – LOL – I I take it you didn’t bother reading the article then Rodney but just keep spewing out your prejudices in the futile hope that you might sound intelligent to somebody?
PS Germany is in Europe 🙂
Shame on YOU for endorsing the ruin of their future.
Press release from NoFiBS (No Fracking in Balcombe Society), Friday July 26th, 2013, 5pm
14 people have been arrested this afternoon at oil and gas driller Cuadrilla’s site half a mile south of the village of Balcombe in Sussex. Police used force to arrest the protesters under trades union picketing laws. Those arrested were peacefully sitting in front of the gate to the site in order to prevent the drill rig and other equipment entering. They were amongst scores of protesters from Balcombe and surrounding towns and villages.
NoFiBS is deeply disappointed in the police role in facilitating the drilling for Cuadrilla when they have an obligation to facilitate protest. NoFiBS intend to continue to protest legally and peacefully on the verges by the site gate. Cuadrilla’s vehicles have since begun to enter the site, to chants of ‘Ouze Valley OUR valley’ and ‘Go home Cuadrilla’.
Cuadrilla may not now be on schedule to begin drilling as planned tomorrow, Saturday. They make much of their quibble that they will not frack at this exploratory stage. For PR purposes and to facilitate permits, Cuadrilla will take the water pressure to just below rock-fracturing level. The exploratory stage has its own nuisances and dangers, and is a precurser of actual oil production, which will certainly involve fracking So Cuadrilla, please stop telling us to ‘calm down dears because we are not going to frack just now’.
We call upon the government to change its policy on on-shore oil and gas exploration. This is not just a Balcombe issue – licences for the underbelly of two-thirds of the UK have been sold by the government to oil and gas companies. Citizens across the UK should wake up and take note that oil rigs and frack sites are coming to a field near them.
This week, Cuadrilla were given the government go-ahead to drill in Balcombe only three working days after the public consultation had ended. The Environment agency had received nearly 900 submissions from the public in Balcombe and beyond, many arriving close to their deadline. It is hard to believe that the Environment Agency properly considered the public’s views. What confidence can we have that government agencies will be willing or able regulate and police this industry, and protect our wellbeing and quality of life?
We thank those who have come from outside the village to help defend our countryside, our air and water quality, and our right to a peaceful existence on tanker-free country roads. We stand united with friends similarly besieged elsewhere in the country, especially in the North West, on that other front line of the fracking war. We in Balcombe feel bullied. Bullied by the oil and gas industry. Bullied by our government. We stand strong in the fight against this dangerous and misguided government policy.
Contact: nofibs@btinternet.com 01444 811682 / 0772 005 0772
None of those charged lives in the village.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/27/twelve-charged-sussex-fracking-protests
?
Those charged include Ezra Lynch, 31, a circus employee, Samantha Duncan, 29, from Brighton, and Marcin Swiercz, 35, a handyman from London. They will appear before Crawley magistrates on 14 August along with Mark Mansbridge, 51, a voluntary charity worker from Lewes, Nancy Walker, 25, from Brighton, Richard Millar, 29, also from Brighton, Frances Crack, 31, a teacher from Cardiff, and Justin Preece of Pontypridd.
A 15-year-old boy from West Sussex, and a 17-year-old boy from Brighton have also been charged and will appear before Crawley youth court on 6 August. Paul Deacon, a writer, 50, from Worthing, West Sussex, will appear before Crawley magistrates on 7 August.
In addition to being charged under the Trade Union Labour Relations Act, Michael Atkins, 37, of Westbury, Wiltshire, has also been charged with assault on police and he will also appear before Crawley magistrates on 14 August.
A 56-year-old man from Lewes has been cautioned. A 52-year-old man from Lewes has been given police bail until 12 August in relation to causing danger to road users and for attempting to stop drivers and other workers from accessing the site.
We are hugely grateful to those who have come from elsewhere to support us, and horrified that they have been charged. Balcombe is a conservative village. (Whether some of the old faithful will vote Conservative next election is, however, perhaps no longer the usual given.) Balcombe people work on Thursdays and Fridays, mostly in London, people have aged parents and children to look after. Some of us happened to be in hospital – the NHS clearly being in league with Cuadrilla.
Fracking is a national matter, indeed an international matter. Everyone everywhere should wake up and smell the gas and oil. If the oil and gas industry is to fulfil its inflated predictions and satisfy its shareholders, you know very well how densely wells will be drilled across the British landcape. The government – they know not what they do. Surely they can’t know… what WILL it do to their election prospects, gas wells right across the Conservative electoral heartlands. One wonders how the Lib Dems can go along with a policy so deeply in conflict with their policies.
Michael, please would you define ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’ ? Is lateral drilling conventional? Is Caudsrilla’s not-quite frackrd, acid-etched, laterally-drilled well ‘conventional@? This site is so annoying. I am not typing blind.
But this not “fracking”.
Seriously Kathryn, it is no longer possible to define “fracking”, “conventional” or “unconventional”, they have been too misused to any longer have sensible denotations … & their connotations are entirely in the minds of the user. What is clear is that there is not a consensus.
To me, acid etching micrite is just business as usual. But we do not know Cuadrilla’s intentions, so why panic?
As to producing shale gas, wells are expensive, so there will be fewer rather than more. Progress moves on apace – I see a report, I think from Canada, of coiled tubing used to frac 59 stages in a single horizontal. I wonder how many shafts would have been needed 10 years ago to achieve the same drainage?
But this is not “fracking”.
59 opening/ closing sleeves.
A further thought {mentioned long ago} – micrite is depositional in origin & expected to be fine grained {hence the low permeability}. So, it might not etch differentially & so not be suitably responsive to a simple acid wash stimulation.
No knows at this stage, which is why Cuadrilla say they need to know more before they can project any course of action. And why any ‘occupy’ based on a woolly-headed generalised ‘anti’ sentiment is silly.
We have issues (pollution, nuisance, wildlife, regulatory, supervision, industrialisation of our village) with the exploratory stage, not just with the production stage to which this foreplay will almost undoubtedly lead. Now that they have their big fat bullying foot in the door it will be so much harder to keep them out of Balcombe, out of Sussex, out of the South of England, out of the rest of the UK. By ‘they’ I mean not just Cuadrilla but also the other bullies who have bought the rights to so many other parts of Britain. I mean our thug of a government, including those weasly Libdem sidekicks for whom I have always voted but who can now stuff themselves down a gaswell. This is soooo contrary to Libdem policy. I also mean the police, who acted in Balcombe out of all proportion to the peaceful protests of Balcombe residents and those who came to help us. We have a right to protest, and the time to protest is now.
Do not pretend to know if the following is strictly correct but probably more so than the imaginary “earthquakes. Enjoy!
Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist,
academic and businessman, and professor of mining geology at the University
of Adelaide .
You will appreciate his take on climate change (aka: global warming).
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you’ve read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
Are you sitting down?
Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland ,
since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to
suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to
live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal
life.
I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission
savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of:–
driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight
to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project,
throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares
of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your
SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit
every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with
$10.00 light bulbs . .. . well, all of those things you have done have all
gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes
– FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland , has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon;.
And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this
crud any one time -EVERY DAY.
I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention
that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it
spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than
the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth.
Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.
Of course I shouldn’t spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and
mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized
800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our
completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact
of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and
Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our
world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon
tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more,
but just “Climate Change” – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme –
that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing
except make you poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!
PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?
not pretend to know if the following is factually correct but guess closer to the truth than the “earthquakes
Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist,
academic and businessman, and professor of mining geology at the University
of Adelaide .
You will appreciate his take on climate change (aka: global warming).
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you’ve read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
Are you sitting down?
Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland ,
since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to
suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to
live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal
life.
I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission
savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of:–
driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight
to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project,
throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares
of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your
SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit
every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with
$10.00 light bulbs . .. . well, all of those things you have done have all
gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes
– FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland , has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon;.
And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this
crud any one time -EVERY DAY.
I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention
that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it
spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than
the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth.
Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.
Of course I shouldn’t spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and
mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized
800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our
completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact
of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and
Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our
world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon
tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more,
but just “Climate Change” – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme –
that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing
except make you poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!
PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?
I want to attend demonstrations so please notify me if there is one organised for this Sat 27th July. I also want a press release for my media contacts stating there is an imminent threat if drilling commencing this Sat according to Caudrilla’s Notice lodged today.
Thank you,
Atlanta Cook
Sorry, this has I think only just been posted. They still have equipment to bring in tomorrow. Everyone welcome at the site tomorrow.
Not good news…
Dear Ms Moseley,
RE: CUADRILLA RESOURCES LIMITED: LOWER STUMBLE HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION
SITE, LONDON ROAD, BALCOMBE: EXTEND PLANNING CONSENT No. WSCC/027/10/BA –
START DRILLING OPERATION NOTICE.
As detailed under condition (4) of planning consent WSCC/027/10/BA Cuadrilla Resources Limited (CRL)
give notice that their programmed drilling operation is due to start in the near future.
We are anticipating starting the mobilisation of the drilling rig from the 23rd July 2013 and the drilling is
currently programmed to start on the 27th July 2013. Please accept these dates as the 7days notice required
under Condition (4).
If for any reason there is a delay in the rig mobilisation or the start of drilling CRL will notify West Sussex
County Council (WSCC) of any change.
We would be grateful if you would send an email acknowledgement on receipt of this conditional information.
If you require any further information regarding this application please contact me on either 01253 530371 or
07974 577920 and phil.mason@cuadrillaresources.com
Yours sincerely
on behalf of Cuadrilla Resources Limited
From Jane Moseley, Planning, WSCC:
I can confirm that with the submission of the application to extend their time at the site, we have asked Cuadrilla to prepare a bat survey prior to determination of the application.
I feel very strongly about global warming, that so little is being done, and have recently started a petition which I hope you will feel able to sign.
The government has been forced by public outcry to keep climate change on the National Curriculum. But is it really serious about changing policies to reduce global warming? The latest news of tax breaks for fracking suggests not.
I feel that the pressure needs to be kept on, and as I seem to have a talent for song-writing, my petition is “Teach Global Warming Song in schools”.
The song (lyrics below) includes lines like: “Car share, avoid the plane”, “Stop oil, gas and coal being mined”, and “Organic, local, seasonal eating” which challenge Government policy and ethos, and the big business lobbies they mostly listen to.
Promoting the petition may help keep the issue of global warming at the forefront of people’s consciousness. Plus, most children love singing, it’s a great way of learning, and singing protest songs as part of a campaign is really good for morale!
You can read more, listen to the song, and sign the petition here:
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/teach-global-warming-song-in-schools
Thank you!
Oliver
P.S. Can you also take a moment to share the petition with others? It’s really easy – all you need to do is forward this email or share this link on Facebook or Twitter.
What can we do about global warming?
(to the tune of ‘What can we do with the drunken sailor?’)
Chorus: What can we do about global warming?
What can we do about global warming?
What can we do about global warming?
Shrink our carbon footprint!
1. Walk, cycle, bus and train
Car share, avoid the plane
Holiday at home, learn to love the rain
Shrink our carbon footprint!
2. Insulate homes and get them lined
Stop oil, gas and coal being mined
Use tidal, solar, wind and find we’ll
Shrink our carbon footprint!
Chorus: What can we do about global warming?
What can we do about global warming?
What can we do about global warming?
Shrink our carbon footprint!
3. Organic, local, seasonal eating
Recycle, mend, turn down the heating
Share, cooperate, stop competing
Shrink our carbon footprint!
Watch out! The seas are rising
Cry out! The seas are rising
Bale out! The seas are rising
Save our lovely planet!
4. Don’t believe the greenwash, keep on prying
Tax millionaires, stop envy buying
Climate change deniers, they’re all lying
Shrink our carbon footprint!
Chorus:
We can do a lot about global warming
We can do a lot about global warming
We can do a lot about global warming
Save our lovely planet!
Lyrics by Oliver Swingler and Making Waves choir, Cullercoats, UK – Version 3 March 2013
‘Anti-Fracking Activists Celebrate Cancellation of Gas Leases and Drilling Plans in NE Pennsylvania’
http://www.alternet.org/fracking/anti-fracking-activists-celebrate-cancellation-gas-leases-and-drilling-plans-ne
(…)
‘Since 2007, when leasing began in Wayne County, Fox’s once idyllic rural community has been embattled. And so is a nation divided at a crossroads of energy choice and climate change.
‘But over the last few weeks, that changed for Wayne County. Hess and Newfield, the two major gas companies leasing land there, decided to cancel their leases in Marcellus shale, and move out of Wayne and much of northeastern PA. The companies sent letters stating that they “have elected to release your lease, thus your lease will not be continued to the development phase,” terminating approximately 1,500 leases covering over 100,000 acres of land.
‘“I can’t believe it and I can’t stop crying,” Fox said, adding that he is deeply grateful for this “amazing victory.” “This proves that people passionate and organized can actually win sometimes. We won’t stop until we win everywhere.”
‘It’s no happenstance that the unprecedented mass lease cancellation occurred in a region that is home both to Josh Fox, fractivism’s heroic Pied Piper, and to the first fractivist organization founded in the Northeast U.S., Damascus Citizens for Sustainability (DCS)— making it a triumph both for Fox and for the dedicated grassroots effort by a community of neighbors that began in 2007. ‘
Oh happy day! Four little bits of good news;
1)An excellent Times Leader unequivocally supporting shale gas. Read it!
2)Another article “ Farmers, Agricultural Scientists & the Science Minister have united to condemn EU hostility to GM crops, warning that British agriculture is at risk of becoming an international backwater” Read it!
3) On BBC “Any Questions” an eminent panel, of diverse political persuasions, all supported shale gas. Some reluctantly, some enthusiastically, but all acknowledged the necessity. Listen to the re-play!
4) The panel and entire audience condemned the para-medics who after a “risk assessment” refused to rescue a farmer from a drainage ditch. ( A policemen then jumped in to help him but ,sadly was too late.) A caller to” Any Answers” then linked this cowardice to the attitude of those who condemn fracking as not absolutely risk free. Again, listen!
Good sense is breaking out all over!
Yesterday in parliament: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130718/halltext/130718h0002.htm#13071889000539
18 July 2013 : Column 346WH
As the Member for Wells in Somerset, my constituency includes the Mendip hills, the southern fringes of the Chew valley and the very edge of the Bristol and Bath basin. It adjoins north-east Somerset and Bath. Both Bath and Wells are naturally completely intertwined with water—the clue is in the name, really. I, too, am delighted to hear of Bath and North East Somerset council’s recent unanimous, cross-party resolution formally to register with the Department of Energy and Climate Change its serious concerns about the potential impact of unconventional gas exploration and extraction in that critical area.
The source of the thermal waters feeding the Bath hot springs in the world heritage site is widely believed by experts to be in the Mendip hills. The hills also feed the city of Wells and the well known Somerset levels, with their several sites of special scientific interest and network of rhynes, most of which were dug under the aegis of the abbot of Glastonbury to ensure that there was water throughout the area. That beautiful and large environmentally sensitive area, with regionally important water supplies, is one of the most complex geological districts of the UK, and the state of geological knowledge of the lower coal measures rocks and the carboniferous shales is extremely limited. We simply do not understand the mechanisms by which those vulnerable hot springs are controlled.
The estimated economic value of the hot springs for tourism and employment is close to £100 million annually and, in my opinion, this is not an area in which any dash for gas can be allowed. The global embarrassment of damaging the world heritage site does not bear consideration. More concerning would be the unknown health and environmental effects of a pollution incident. The earthquakes in Lancashire triggered by lubrication of undetected and apparently still untraceable geological faults are an example of why it is crudely short-sighted to encourage a “drill and see what happens” approach for short-term commercial or revenue gain. Whatever the unconventional gas industry worldwide says, with the present level of technical understanding it is unable to rule out long-term disastrous impacts. Widely reported pollution incidents in the US and Australia seem to reinforce that.
I have no interests to declare, other than those of my constituents, their children and their grandchildren, in particular those who live in Compton Martin, Ston Easton, Glastonbury and Wells, but also the many residents of the villages and towns in the area where I have attended meetings and heard their concerns expressed. I am deeply concerned that any hasty legislative or regulatory streamlining that fast-tracks exploration will inevitably set us up for future environmental and geological failures. The precautionary principle must take precedence.
Spectator article on opposition to oil and gas exploration in Fernhurst, West Sussex:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8965151/fracking-the-village/
From Louisa Delpy:
Following Francis Egan’s written statement to many people including myself which I will remind you of in case you have forgotten “You may be aware that over 50 exploration wells have already been drilled in Sussex (several of them still in production) without, as far as we are aware, any reported injury or damage to property or the environment. The exploration well that Cuadrilla plans to drill outside Balcombe is no more technically challenging than previously drilled wells”
I got my Freedom of Information request from DECC today.
Turns out there are 24 exploration wells in Sussex none of which have been horizontally drilled or burned a flare.
The only horizontally drilled wells are storrington and singleton which are production wells and are the only ones in Sussex burning a flare.
Francis Egan – the man who claimed on Radio Lancashire that they’d be investing hundred of billions – caught out exaggerating again? Surely not?
From Jacob Tomkin
Our remit is the promotion of water efficiency. So to a certain extent fracking lies outside our remit. However, as you may have seen from our tweets we do comment in this and these are our formal views on fracking:
* Each time a well is fracked it uses about 20 million litres of water – normally each well can be fracked about 18 times.
* There is a real danger of irrepairable polluting the UKs groundwater – this is the source of water for about half our population
* There is a high possibility of causing environmental damage and poisoning aquatic ecosystems – in particular the Chalk Streams which are of international significance.
* There is no where near enough research on the impact of fracking at an international level and even less at the UK level so we don’t really know what the impacts will be
* The UK is unique in having large Chalk Aquifers (apart from a few in France) and their hydrology and hydrogeology is difficult and still not fully understood – unlike many US aquifers there is a possibility of very high fracture flow in Chalk which means that pollution can move quickly over very large distances in a way that is very difficult to predict (eg a fracking well in Woking could potentially pollute water resources in Guildford)
* The UK has not pursued aquifer recharge and recovery because of concerns over pollution from injection wells so why on earth will we allow fracking companies to inject contaminants into groundwater?
My personal views (not official Waterwise position) is that fracking in the SE would be insane. I am happy to discuss this further as Waterwise or in a personal capacity (my training is in hydrogeology so fracking is of particular interest).
Thanks Jacob
07793 709567
Jacob, you unknowingly hold either outdated or inaccurate information, or you are knowingly making false & alarmist claims.
Your 20 million litres is an outside amount & there is presently nowhere in the UK the equipment to pump so large a job. The “each well can be fracked about 18 times” is nonsense, That many stages might be pumped, but re-fraccing is something that exists more in the minds of antipathetics than in fact. Absent some fantastic diverting material, re-fraccing the same perforations will only open up the existing, presumably drained, fractures.
“real danger”, “high possibility” & “no where near enough research” are all weasel words with little statistical support.
“at an international level” – the 3 major service companies have about as large a presence outside the U.S. as they do within it.
ps GDIB – why did my twice-posted response on the Poland film never become visible?
Cuadrilla have now applied for the Radioactive Wastes permit, for managing waste water which may contain naturally-occurring radioactive substances.
The consutlation starts today and ends on August 13th. You can view and comment on the plans at: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/portal/ or e-mail your comments to rsr.rotherham2.ne@environment-agency.gov.uk.
Letter to the Planning Department of the West Sussex County Council:
I think we in Balcombe need to clarify that we protest against all onshore oil and gas exploration, fracked or unfracked. Conventional oil and gas exploration would bring enough nuisance and threat. Please don’t think we shall be reassured by the promise of a frack-free exploratory phase! Anyway, Cuadrilla’s proposition is not ‘conventional’. Cuadrilla cynically intend to ‘stimulate’ the well to a jot below fracturing point. We have all concentrated too much on the f-word. On the s-word too, so they are cynically targeting micrite, not shale, with an acid solution just below the level at which the EA considers it to be toxic. We are not stupid, and know that you are not either. Exploration is a precursor of production, and we all know that production would involve fracking.
Incidentally, was a bat survey ever carried out? Should Cuadrilla apply for a European Protected Species Licence along with their plea to extend their planning permission by six months? Are you aware that mummy bats will be flying to feed their babies in July and August? Mummy bats frazzled in the flare? Starving baby bats? Are you aware that in September and October and possibly into a mild November the bats will be mating, on the wing?
Oh joy! Months ago I posted a jest that if all else failed protesters would bring up Less Spotted Newts but it turns out to be mummy bats who cannot see a flare!
If we wreck our economy with hopelessly uneconomic renewable energy projects in will be human mummies facing a bankrupt NHS ,human children without shoes, all the joys of the pre- industrial society to which the Greens would take us, always expecting that somehow all their benefits would continue to shower upon them.
Well now I really can quote worries about baby bats!
And more good news! The recent film was so long, so boring & so obviously propaganda that ther is little risk that any but the baby bat lobby will sit through it. No risk to the real world!
Bats indeed… I am delighted!
Aï! EeeeeAaaaa! Oh how difficult it must be not to allow one’s spine to collapse under the weight of the industry and government lobby!
‘http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/148476.aspx
‘Commitment to streamline and simplify environmental regulation of onshore oil and gas exploratory activities
’27-Jun-2013
‘The Environment Agency is the environmental regulator for the onshore oil and gas industry in England.
‘We take the environmental risks associated with oil and gas exploration and production very seriously, including hydraulic fracturing for shale gas. We are committed to ensuring that people and the environment are protected. We are also committed to ensuring that our regulation does not impose unnecessary costs or delays on industry. Oil and gas exploratory activities may require a number of environmental permits from the Environment Agency, depending on the methods used and the geology of the sites. Exploratory operations may require permits for the safe management and disposal of mining wastes, the safe management and disposal of the naturally occurring radioactive materials and to protect groundwater.
‘To simplify our regulation and provide greater certainty to industry we are committed to a number of actions to streamline our regulation of oil and gas exploratory activities whilst ensuring the proper protection of people and the environment. We will:
– Immediately extend the remit of our shale gas unit to include all onshore oil and gas exploration, ensuring a single point of contact for the industry
– Publish draft technical guidance for consultation by the end of July, setting out our requirements of – operators and giving them certainty
– Significantly reduce the time it takes to obtain environmental permits for exploration, including –
By August, developing a single application pack for mining waste and radioactive substances permits, to streamline the process.
By September, issuing permits within the standard 13 week period. In some cases this could be as little as 6 weeks.
By February, issuing permits within 1-2 weeks, by developing standard rules for onshore oil and gas exploration activities.
‘We are committed to working closely with the UK Onshore Operators Group as we develop our work as well as listening to and taking into account the views of local communities, environmental organisations and other stakeholders.’
WHO BELIEVED THEM WHEN THEY SAID THAT SHALE GAS WOULD BE BETTER REGULATED IN THE UK THAN IN THE USA? ACTUALLY, YOU SEEMED QUITE GENUINELY ECOLOGICAL, YOU ea FOLK TO WHOM WE SPOKE.
Spine??
There is still time to respond to the EA, even though the official deadline was lunchtime today. Simon Deacon at the Environment Agency said this morning that while they would have preferred all responses to the consultation be in by this lunchtime, they will take into account any that are sent today/tonight or that they receive tomorrow (Wednesday).
If you haven’t already, please send something in. Anything!
Even if it’s one sentence saying how you feel about Cuadrilla being given permission to dump potentially carcinogenic, radioactive waste from their Balcombe operations (and thereby laying the way open for these permits to be issued across the country) it will be registered as an objection!
Email PSCpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk
Subject line – Cuadrilla Balcombe Limited permit application consultation – Application reference number EA/EPR/AB3307XD/A001
Or fill in the form here: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/portal/permits/app/cuadrilla/balcombe and send to the same email address.
You can use the tips on the Note here for what to say if you’re stumped for details – and ideally frame questions rather than responses. the longer it takes the more delays the better! https://www.facebook.com/notes/frack-free-sussex/urgent-guidance-on-responding-before-16th-july-to-cuadrillas-application-to-the-/452274618201262
Saturday’s terrifying Lac-Mégantic inferno was caused by a rail shipment of shale oil. This is what it looked like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRb3JHsiqfA#at=201
Imagine that on London Road. If the Envoronment Agency grants Cuadrilla the remaining permits later this month, it could be the beginning of oil transport through our village, past the school. Accidents happen.
Write to the Environment Agency, help protect our village.
Coverage of the Quebec disaster in National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/07/130708-oil-train-tragedy-in-canada/ public consultation ends mid-June
You are invited to a screening of
Drill Baby Drill
at The Victory Hall, Balcombe
on Monday, July 15th
at 8pm
Brought to us (free of charge) by Keith Taylor MEP
Drill Baby Drill
Director: Lech Kowalski
Producer: Odile Allard
France , 2013, 84 min, HDCAM, English, Polish (but we’ll show it in English!)
In rural Pennsylvania , the cows are unwell. It’s the heart of shale gas mining, and the farmers are belatedly realising the devastation fracking is wreaking upon their livelihoods. Filmmaker Lech Kowalski takes Pennsylvania ’s woes as a warning for his native Poland . He is on hand with his camera as a group of farmers in Eastern Poland awaken to the reality that Chevron is preparing to establish numerous gas wells on their land. At first they are open to the idea, but soon internet research and blackening well water sets off alarm bells. The farmers mobilise to stop Chevron. But is it too late? A lack of concrete information, and Chevron’s secrecy, perpetuate an atmosphere of fear in this David vs Goliath story (with a surprising ending).
Programme:
8pm fracking update by Chairman Charles Metcalfe
8.15pm welcome and introduction from Keith Taylor MEP
8.20pm Drill Baby Drill
9.45 Questions, answers, discussion – panel: Keith Taylor MEP, Charles Metcalfe, Louisa Delpy, Katie Dunne
Keith is also screening the film at other venues during the same week: http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/constituency/events-in-the-south-east/drill-baby-drill/
Please feel free to attend at other venues, and to pass this invitation on, for all venues, to anyone you think might be interested.
Thanks, Kathryn! From the web-site you quote I picked up the following;
“In short, holding hydraulic fracturing companies at arm’s length because you think they’re destroying our environment is absolutely silly.
And there are two reasons for this.
1) You’re wrong… and 2) You’re losing out on tens of thousands in potential market gains.
That may seem blunt, and it is… but after talking with friends, colleagues, investors, and neighbors, I’m absolutely floored by the amount of folks who shun fracturing companies.”
Personally I support fracking in the National interest but a bob or two to spend at The Frackers Arms would be welcome! Cheers!
Excellent article in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/shale-gas-40-years-fracking#start-of-comments
Good article today by Tony Bosworth of Friends of the Earth:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/does-the-uk-really-need-fracking/
A sister process. Worth a few minutes of the weekend:
http://newint.org/blog/2013/06/20/underground-coal-gasification-britain/
Coming to Britain: Underground Coal Gasification
UCG is serious science researched by respectable institutions such as Newcastle University. see http://www.ncl.ac.uk/energy/research/themes/novelgeo/UndergroundCoalGasification.htm
Research into cleaner,cheaper, home produced energy is surely to be encouraged.
Why do Greens automatically oppose all efforts in that direction?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10148552/Fracking-faces-tough-foes-in-leafy-Sussex.html
‘Fracking faces tough foes in leafy Sussex
‘Shale gas and oil may hold the key to Britain’s energy troubles – but not if grassroots protesters have their way’
MP complains about lack of detail on fracking reforms
Barbara Keeley MP has called for a debate in the Commons about shale gas after complaining that Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander had only “one mumbled sentence” on the subject.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-27/mp-complains-about-lack-of-detail-on-fracking-reforms/
From Alan Tootill in Lancashire, rsponding on the website page Frack Free Ferhurst (the community threatened by Celtique Energy over to the west of us):
‘It would hardly be surprising if a certain amount of “scaremongering” as you describe it did take place. Both in Lancashire and now in (Sussex) people ARE scared. In Lancs they fear an industrialisation of their agricultural landscape (up to 3,000 drillings are planned in an area no more than about 20 miles by 25) and all it involves from disturbance of important birdlife sites to noise, traffic and flaring. They fear the effect on tourism. They fear the effect on property values. And they fear for the health of themselves, their animals, their children, their grandchildren and future generations. No wonder they want to protect themselves. They don’t think a quick hit and run operation – because at best shale is a temporary diversion from the real problems of increasing energy demand and attempts to meet it – are worth putting their homeland at risk.
‘These are not merely “aesthetic” grounds. You might level that charge against opponents of wind energy, who have been extremely effective in voicing opposition. But not against the opponents of shale gas.
‘I don’t know for which issue you say there is no scientific evidence. On health risks there is growing evidence of problems in the US and Australia with related technology. If you mean, for example water contamination, a further report published only this week confirmed gases contaminating wells within a kilometer of fracking sites. True it identified the link but not causal factors, although the finger pointed at faulty wells. Cuadrilla have already deformed one well casing and closed down a second after they were concerned about well integrity and lost a packer down the hole. Two wells closed down out of four. This is not a very impressive safety record, I am sure you will agree. And this is only the start. On my calculations, using US data from the USGS and other sources of well lifetime production and recovery factors, to extract from half the area in the North of England the BGS studied to produce their new estimates of gas in place, it would take about 45,000 wells. The BGS is now turning its attention to the Weald formation and Sussex. Sussex folk have every reason to look at what is happening elsewhere and read the danger signs rather than rely on bland and misleading reassurances from the government and the industry.’
Lets all follow the U.S after all they have such a long history of wise and considerate policies.
Im in the process of making myself and friends printing Tshirts in support of anti-fracking ( all slogans considered (( and not censored)). Single orders available. Please contact:
Annette Holliday ( responsible but extremely concerned and frustrated resident of West Sussex)
email: lostcorz@hotmail.com
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/06/10/294608.htm
Re people with poisoned water being gagged by oil companies.
An excellent article in today’s Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100222841/drilling-set-back-regulator-caught-out-as-fracking-opponents-draw-first-blood/
Hello,
The Ouse Valley Viaduct has grade II listed building status, (English Heritage) I contacted them to see if this means there may be legal restrictions on what can be done in the vicinity with regards to fracking . . . Is this an idea worth pusuing?
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/grant-aided-properties/ouse-valley-viaduct-balcombe-rh17-6qr/
Thomas
Kathryn. The flaring is included in their waste application. Flaring was included in the detail of the WSCC planning application. But not for the type they are using now.
Has Cuadrilla applied for a flaring permit as well a mining waste permit and a ‘permit to manage waste water that may contain naturally-occuring radioactive substances’? The Times seems to think so:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/naturalresources/article3795501.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_06_19
contact me (I am easy to find) if your local group isn;’t active enough on this.
We have a four-week stay of exploration!! The Environmental Agency yesterday (Monday June 17th) announced that they have told Cuadrilla to apply for a Mining Waste Permit and for a ‘permit to manage waste water which may contain naturally-occurring radioactive substances’. Cuadrilla’s application landed on their desks this morning.
For the next four weeks, the EA will now consult with West Sussex County Council Health & Safety Executive and with us, the public. Chris Wick of the Environment Agency: “We are consulting on the permit application between 17 June and 16 July to ensure that we have fully considered all views before determining the application for a mining waste permit.”
Great work everyone who emailed, phoned and wrote letters to the EA, and many thanks to Friends of the Earth for their legal investigations, letter and support, and to Green MP Keith Taylor for his excellent letter, too. It’s not over, however. We must remain vigilant and continue to express our concerns to the EA and to West Sussex County Council
More information on the EA website: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/portal/
You can comment on the proposals by emailing: PSCpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk or writing to:
P&SC – EP Team
Quadrant 2
99 Parkway Avenue
Sheffield
S9 4WF
Yesterday’s Independent:
‘Cuadrilla PR man admits George Osborne’s shale gas revolution won’t cut energy bills
‘Plan to drive down prices will have ‘basically insignificant’ impact’
(Incidentally, this conversation at the Balcombe drop-in meeting was recorded.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/cuadrilla-pr-man-admits-george-osbornes-shale-gas-revolution-wont-cut-energy-bills-8656246.html
Hello,
I’ve contacted these people, (Campaign for Rural England) it may be worth other people doing so as well . . .
http://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/3170-fracking-announcement-risk-of-damage-to-countryside-communities-for-what?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiJmcmFja2luZyI7fQ==
To all complacent local people see how the industry sees the Weald. They see it full of hundreds or thousands of frack sites.
Magellan Petroleum Corporation – Tue, May 28, 2013
Dear Shareholders,
………
In the UK, we maintain a large acreage position in the Weald Basin, which we believe is a very promising unconventional play. In recent months, it appears that the regulatory and political climate has warmed considerably to unconventional production onshore UK. The Department of Energy and Climate Change recently lifted its moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, and the government is exploring new tax incentive proposals to encourage unconventional drilling onshore. We believe that these developments should have a favorable impact on the perceived value of our acreage. In order to substantiate this value, we, together with our partner Celtique Energie, plan to drill one or two evaluation wells at the end of 2013, through which we will gain a better understanding of the shale potential of our acreage. In the meantime, Magellan remains one of only three publicly traded companies to offer significant exposure to this emerging UK shale play.
………..
Sincerely,
J. Thomas Wilson
President & CEO
Just had a call from PPS on behalf of Cuadrilla, who could give us no info yesterday about the three loads of rig that arrived in Balcombe mid-morning, in advance of a DECC drilling permit.This was, according to PPS, the rig for drilling the water-monitoring well, and they say they do not need further permissions for this one. They say they have informed Balcombe Parish Council about the rig’s arrival this morning. I badgered them to do this yesterday. A little late with their community engagement??
From Professor Laurence Dunne of the University of the South Bank, to Cuadrilla, our Member of Parliament, and the Environment Agency, who are still scrutinising Cuadrilla’s Method Statement:
‘Dear Mr Egan, Mr Maude and The Environment Agency,
Unconventional Oil Exploration in Balcombe
Cuadrilla has recently made a statement to Balcombe Parish Council regarding Air Quality and Flaring associated with the possible operation of a flare on the edge of the village at the Lower Stumble site. It makes the false claim that flares do not contain toxic or carcinogenic constituents. (see http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120417presentation.pdf ) Neither does it seem that Cuadrilla is familiar with the “ Precautionary Principle”.
It is widely documented that flare emissions can contain a complex mixture of highly toxic volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, dioxins, heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. The latter are often physically adsorbed onto the soot particles emitted from the flare. Many polyaromatic hydrocarbons are widely considered to be highly carcinogenic at relatively low levels and I am not aware that Cuadrilla intends to monitor for these.
Some years ago I worked on modelling soot formation in flames (refs 1,2,3 below) with Professor Sir Harry Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry. In that study I became very acquainted with the fact that many soot particles contain high percentages of polyaromatic hydrocarbons. To identify and measure these polyaromatic compounds, solvent extraction from a collected soot sample and analysis with GC-MassSpec. is required.
Cuadrilla is evidently not familiar with the “Precautionary Principle” (better safe than sorry) widely used in risk assessment. To diminish my concerns please
produce and give me the reference to peered review work which demonstrates that flaring is a safe process when carried out so close to a village.
I do not believe that either the Environment Agency or Cuadrilla currently has epidemiological peer-reviewed evidence to indicate that pumping out flare emissions into the prevailing wind across Balcombe Village, where I and others live, would be a safe process. If I am incorrect then please supply me with the robust evidence to this effect. The onus is on Cuadrilla and the Environment Agency to do this.
Yours Sincerely,
Professor Lawrence Dunne
References
1 (L J Dunne with H Kroto et al.) Electrical, Magnetic and Structural characterisation of a Fullerene soot J. Physics (Condensed Matter) Vol: 8 ,2127-2141,1996
2.(L J Dunne et al) Experimental Verification of the Dominant Influenence of Extended Carbon Networks on the Structural, Electrical and Magnetic Properties of a Common Soot J Physics(Condensed Matter) Vol: 9, 10661-10673 (1997)
3 (L.J Dunne et al) Formation of Twisted AB- Graphitic and Fullerene related Tubular structures during Soot Formation from the flaming Combustion of Polymers, Combustion and Flame, Vol: 114, 591-593 (1998)
I must confess to being sensitive to certain hot button’ phrases used by those pretending to knowledge & to use that pretence to impede matters. Among these are “VOCs”, “BTEX”, “EROEI” & “the precautionary principle”.
The precautionary principle could equally well be used to state:
• let us commence gas production in the Karoo before any more poverty stricken indigenes die; or –
• let us move forward with production in the UK & so prevent the aged dying of hypothermia.
In the real world, no one has a monopoly of a ‘good’ ethical position.
By the by, “green” flares were being developed abut the time Prof Dunnne was analyzing soot from incomplete combustion http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-94/issue-50/in-this-issue/drilling/elf-first-to-use-39green39-gas-flare-burner.html
“peer review” is another hot button of mine: Einstein had no peers, while the peer of a fool or a fraud is by definition a fool or a fraud.
Be gone, vermin
in line 1 of my 8:22 post: ‘hot button’
“An environmentally friendly well test burner
The EverGreen burner is a single-head, 12-nozzle, well test oil burner for onshore and offshore exploration and development well testing and cleanup. It provides an efficient and cost-effective alternative to oil storage.
The EverGreen burner performs a fallout-free and smokeless combustion of liquid hydrocarbons produced during well testing. The burner geometry makes extensive use of pneumatic atomization and enhanced air induction. The burner is equipped with twin pilots, a flame-front ignition system (BRFI), and a built-in water screen to reduce heat radiation. The EverGreen burner is also fitted with an automatic shutoff valve that prevents oil spillage at the beginning and end of a burning run. A high turn-down (1:5) feature can be further extended to 1:30 using the multirate kit (BMRK) option, which allows the user to select the number of operating nozzles. For onshore operations, a special skid (EBSK) is available.”
http://www.slb.com/services/characterization/testing/surface_testing/evergreen_burner.aspx
I would suggest that the answer is to ensure that Cuadrilla et al use such technology, rather than the sort pictured in “anti” pictures of flaring in Pennsylvania. Since many Cuadrilla personnel are ex-Schlumberger, they should be familiar with green burner technology & may well already be intending to employ it.
Be gone, vermin
“flare emissions can contain a complex mixture of highly toxic” – ‘can’ is an awful weasel word, it also allows for the complete absence of everything listed.
Not a complete ignoramus – I ran atomic spectroscopy {as part of gold assaying & other prospecting} in 1963. I also did a bit on adsorption onto diamonds with Frikkie Raal back in ’61 {the early work on diamond integrated circuits}. So I do know a bit whereof I speak …
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Diamond_South_Africa_s_Leading_Role_in_R.html?id=BnEOAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
Be gone vermin
“UK self sufficient in gas for decades to to come” – Frack On!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22748915
Be gone vermin
When the train south goes over the viaduct, I always look up from my book – it may be the sudden quality of extra light – and think of the landscape as one of the most beautiful in the south. So this horrific tale has an extra flavour to me. Let me know when you have another protest, and I’ll be there.
Thanks
New York – No Fracking
Quebec – No Fracking
Bulgaria – No Fracking
France – No Fracking
Good news abounds
Bakken, North Dakota rig numbers down.
Cuadrilla on the run.
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
What the hell are you on about?
Death
Kathryn, I was rather horrified by the Celtique Billingshurst revelation. My main question was why (particularly if Centrique had lettered 6,600 local residents) did this seem to fall beneath the radar of the “local” ant-fracking brigade? Why didn’t this surface over the time between July 2012 and now, especially when WSCC gave planning permission in February?
A familiar tale? Wisborough Green, west of Billinghurst, is in Celtique Energy’s patch. From Frack Off this morning: ‘Sussex Driller Celtique Energie is preparing to test for shale gas and oil at a new site in Wisborough Green, Sussex, even as it tells the public it’s not doing so. Indeed, the company has tried hard to hide the fact that Wisborough Green is a shale well. They certainly seem to have convinced West Sussex County Council, who granted the company a license to drill in February this year.’ (…) ‘Yet Celtique’s partner, Magellan Petroleum, is telling its shareholders something completely different. Three days ago, in a letter to shareholders detailing the company’s plans for Sussex, Magellan noted: “In the UK, we have a promising unconventional play (industry speak for a shale prospect) …together with our partner Celtique Energie, we plan to drill one or two evaluation wells at the end of 2013.”’
http://frack-off.org.uk/celtique-energie-sussex/
What atavistic needs are at play here? What childish need to hide under the beds from the monsters in the wardrobe?
Shale gas/ hydraulic fracturing has been shown to be safe & the ecologically cleanest form of energy. It has further been shown not to be on the agenda in Balcombe, & now not on the agenda at Wisborough Green – yet, like teens attending Hammer House of Horror movies, the whole Frack-Off lot seem endlessly to need to conjure up a demon threat, abetted by {gasp} profit-seeking Capitalists hand-in-glove with corrupt or unresponsive politicians. Shudder/ get a life!
Celtique have stated their aim is a sandstone formation; Magellan have said their lease interests contain shale – these disclosures do not a hidden plan reveal.
Much is being made that the well will pass thro’ shale {& given the current interest Celtique will surely cut cores in it} – but, hello! How do people think oil & gas are trapped in ‘conventional’ reservoirs – that’s right – by a layer of impermeable shale forming a cap.
Indeed, it is the lack of a shale seal between the Lower & Upper Wind River formations, & between the Upper Wind River & the aquifer above that is the root of the anomalous problems at Pavillion, Wyoming – but that is another story.
Consider it just possible that Celtique, like Cuadrilla, is intending to do just what they have stated they intend.
Or does “nothing to see here, move along” deprive some of a required frisson?
A community does not always feel represented by its councils, IS not always properly represented by its councils, elected or otherwise.
Here are some “good news” links – the first is about improved equipment – do look at the solar powered SandCastle frac sand transport & delivery trailer, built to reduce the ‘dusting’ shown in the new video posted at the top of this page
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2013/05/halliburton-rolls-out-next.html
the second about the benefits accruing from sensitive exploitation
http://rockfordsquire.com/2013/05/02/part-of-rockfords-charm-due-to-hydraulic-fracturing/
“You always hear the negatives of this industry, but it is an industry that creates jobs and money that come back to the community in a cool way,” Collins said. He also noted that emissions from compressed gas are “incredibly cleaner” than other common fuel sources.
Insensitive oily gas industry wins. Sympathies to the folk of Illinois.
108 for to 9 against is a fairly whacking democratic majority – I guess the lies of the Pennsylvania hysterics were seen for what they are.
Illinois came a giant step closer to approving the nation’s strictest regulations for high-volume oil and gas drilling on Friday, as lawmakers approved a measure they hoped would create thousands of jobs in economically depressed areas of southern Illinois.
The Senate passed the legislation 52-3, one day after it was overwhelmingly approved in the other chamber. Gov. Pat Quinn promised to sign it, calling the legislation a “shot in the arm for many communities.”
So: House 108 to 9; Senate a day later, 52 to 3.
One might say: “a majority in favour”. Two majorities, even.
The Illinois House overwhelmingly approved a plan Thursday that would regulate high-volume oil and gas drilling in the state, hoping to kick-start an industry that proponents say could bring thousands of jobs to economically struggling southern Illinois.
The measure — SB1715 — passed 108-9 and headed to the Senate, where it was expected to pass.
Illinois’ regulatory bill, drafted with the help of industry and some environmental groups, has been touted as one of the toughest in the nation. But while supporters say hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” would generate tens of thousands of jobs, opponents — fearful that it could cause pollution and deplete water resources — have been pushing for a two-year moratorium to allow more time to study health and environmental issues.
Common sense wins.
Illinois House OKs Bill to Regulate “Fracking”
Lawmakers voted 108-9; Bill moves to Senate
May 28, 2013
Illinois General Assembly
Governor Pat Quinn
Attorney General Lisa Madigan
State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Dear Governor Quinn, Attorney General Madigan, and Members of the Illinois General Assembly,
We write today to urge you not to allow high-volume horizontal fracturing (‘fracking’) for oil and gas in Illinois. We, the undersigned residents of Pennsylvania, are among the many victims of fracking. Informed by extensive first-hand experience with the oil and gas industry and suffering from the impacts of fracking, we implore you with the greatest sincerity to protect the health and safety of the people of Illinois and swiftly enact a moratorium on fracking. We have learned the hard way that regulations–no matter how strict they sound on paper–do not provide adequate protection to human health or property, especially in tough economic times when the state agencies charged with enforcing the regulations are understaffed and underfunded. Also, regulations cannot prevent accidents, and this is an industry prone to accidents of an especially frightening nature and whose effects are not temporary.
The oil and gas industry promises that fracking is safe and that it will create jobs and bring your state riches, but Pennsylvania’s experience in the past five years tells a very different story. In short, water contamination has been widespread; our air has been polluted; countless individuals and families have been sickened; farms have been devastated, cattle have died, and our pristine streams and rivers have turned up dead fish; only a fraction of the promised jobs and revenue for the state have come to fruition; and our communities have been transformed into toxic industrial zones with 24/7 noise, flares, thousands of trucks, and increased crime. What’s more, the jobs have made many workers so sick that they can no longer work in the industry.
A week ago, the Scranton Times-Tribune revealed that oil and gas development from fracking damaged the water supplies of at least 161 Pennsylvania homes, farms, churches and businesses between 2008 and the fall of 2012, as indicated by state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) records. The Times-Tribune notes that this number is not comprehensive; an exhaustive analysis was made impossible by DEP’s lack of transparency, poor record keeping, potentially inadequate testing procedures, and lack of cooperation with the investigation. Regardless, with around 4,000 wells drilled during that four-year timespan, these 161 cases show how common and extensive water contamination is from fracking operations. These numbers are not surprising given the high rate of well casing failures. By the gas industry and the DEP’s own data, well casing failure rate in Pennsylvania is 6.2% (rising to 8.9% in 2012). Failures occur when the layers of cement and steel that encase the well–providing a barrier between the toxic fracking fluid and freshwater aquifers–are damaged or become corroded. Even with the most careful workmanship cement can shrink, crumble, and crack as it ages.
Because the chemicals used in fracking operations are highly toxic, water contamination is a very serious problem. Although the industry blocks attempts to know what chemicals and combinations are used, we know that it is a cocktail whose ingredients are selected from a possible menu of around 600 chemicals. Those include many known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. They include chemicals such as benzene, toluene, hydrochloric acid and petroleum distillates. In addition to the chemicals used by the industry, the operation releases many hazardous materials from the shale itself, including radium, uranium and radon, arsenic, and mercury. Cows that have consumed water contaminated with used fracking fluid (flowback waste) have quickly died, and land where it has spilled has been scorched.
For us, fracking has been a public health disaster. Victims experience symptoms ranging from headaches, dizziness, burning eyes, sore throats, rashes, hair loss, severe nose bleeds, nausea, blood poisoning, liver damage, intestinal pain, neurological damage, cancers and many more. Many fracking victims who have suffered these health symptoms sign legal agreements that force them to forfeit all rights to speak about what has happened to them in order to settle with multi-national oil and gas corporations. Although many cases have been hidden from the public eye through these non-disclosure agreements, we have compiled a ‘List of the Harmed’ that now well exceeds 1,000. Our efforts to create this lay registry of healthy problems in an attempt to compensate for the legally enforced silence of our medical community. After extensive lobbying by the oil and gas industry, the Pennsylvania State Legislature passed Act 13, which, among other things, places a gag order on doctors who deal with victims of fracking and who wish information about the possible chemicals to which their patient may have been exposed.
The Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project – an initiative of medical experts – is working with Pennsylvanians affected by fracking and has concluded that health impacts are serious and that we still do not have enough scientific data to make an informed decision or to be able to claim that ANY regulations will protect public health.
One major, uncontrollable problem is hazardous air pollutants, which are emitted from wellheads themselves, as well as from flares, dehydration devices, compressor stations, and the thousands of diesel trucks that are needed to service each well. Silica dust–a known cause of lung cancer and silicosis–is also a problem in an around drilling and fracking operations. We live with the knowledge that our children are breathing in hazardous air, and are left to wonder what and how severe the ramifications will be in their future.
Our environment has been transformed seemingly overnight from beautiful countryside and farms into toxic, heavy industrial zones. Commutes that used to take 30 minutes now take two hours because of the truck traffic. Many of our schools and playgrounds are blanketed in carcinogenic silica dust. Towering flares light up the night sky, while health-damaging levels of noise penetrate our homes 24/7. Only a small fraction of the promised jobs and revenue have materialized, with most jobs going to out-of-state workers and most revenue accruing to a only few individuals. Meanwhile the community has had to pay for road and bridge damage, increased accidents and need for more emergency workers, and we’ve had to live with increased crime rates.
In addition to the water contamination, air pollution, industrialized communities, increased crime rates and ruined farms, we’ve also experienced countless spills, blowouts and disasters. Communities have been evacuated because of explosions and uncontrolled leaks and fires.
As we have experienced the horrors of fracking firsthand for years, we have also carefully followed the industry in other parts of the country and watched the science that has emerged. We have followed what is happening in Illinois with great dismay. We are certain that your proposed regulations will not protect the health of Illinois residents, your farms, communities, environment, and everything that makes Illinois special. Please, do not make this mistake.
If you allow fracking to go forward as planned, you will bring to your state the same horrific experiences we have suffered in Pennsylvania. The oil and gas industry cannot and must not be trusted. We implore you to enact a moratorium in order to take the time to visit areas with fracking, bring scientists and medical experts into the process, and undertake an environmental and public health study. This is the only responsible course of action, and far too much is at risk to do otherwise. We would be glad to speak with you, and we invite you to our homes and communities to see fracking and its impacts first-hand.
Speaking on behalf of a broad network of communities, sincerely,
Ron Gulla, Hickory, PA
Adam Headley, Smithfield, PA
David Headley, Smithfield, PA
Grant Headley, Smithfield, PA
Linda Headley, Smithfield, PA
Ray Kemble, Dimock, PA
Jenny Lisak, Punxsutawney, PA
Matt Manning, Montrose, PA
Tammy Manning, Montrose, PA
Randy Moyer, Portage, PA
Vera Scroggins, Silver Lake Township, PA
Craig L. Stevens, Silver Lake Township, PA
‘As the Illinois General Assembly votes this week on the state’s increasingly suspect fracking bill, residents affected by similar operations in Pennsylvania and frac sand mining in Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota took the extraordinary step today of releasing unprecedented letters warning of a “public health disaster” in the making, and called on Illinois lawmakers to set aside the flawed bill and “swiftly enact a moratorium.”
‘”We have learned the hard way that regulations — no matter how strict they sound on paper — do not provide adequate protection to human health or property, especially in tough economic times when the state agencies charged with enforcing the regulations are understaffed and underfunded,” states the letter signed by impacted Pennsylvania residents, released publicly this morning, along with links to a eye-opening “List of the Harmed” health registry of fracking-related afflictions.
‘As a powerful response to last week’s House Executive Committee hearing on fracking bill SB 1715, where every member on the committee made the breathtaking admission of having never visited a fracking site, the letter challenges exaggerated promises of jobs and revenue, and provides a firsthand look at the growing health, workplace and environmental costs of Pennsylvania communities “transformed into toxic industrial zones” over the past five years.
(…) Admonishing Illinois lawmakers to “enact a moratorium in order to take the time to visit areas with fracking, bring scientists and medical experts into the process, and undertake an environmental and public health study,” the besieged Pennsylvania residents didn’t pull any punches on their warnings: “If you allow fracking to go forward as planned, you will bring to your state the same horrific experiences we have suffered in Pennsylvania. ”
The full letter is below in next post, along with link – this site is not working properly.
Hi Kathryn,
Recently I send you a comment that has not been published.
When will it be published. It was a constructive and non offensive comment. The essence of it was that I fully appreciated that you asked for the meaning of certain technical words and technologies. It shows you are really in an active process to understanding what you have opposed against all the time. In fact, once you understand the issue of shale development better you may even become a supporter. We should try to make it replace coal!!!
Looking forward to seeing it.
It is slightly unpracticle to have a large time gap between issue and placement. is it possible to close this gap?
I just need to make clear that I have nothing to do with publishing anybody else’s posts on this site. Sorry not to respond to other points instantly, but I am very very busy just now in too many directions.
Illinois House OKs Bill to Regulate “Fracking”
Lawmakers voted 108-9; Bill moves to Senate
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/illinois-fracking-bill-209597261.html#ixzz2UsVTvvwj
Kathryn, regarding the WSCC reply you received, as you may be aware by now Cuadrilla do need authorisation from DECC. Providing they expect low rates of flaring, they fill the papers up to say that, and they will get their permissionm on a nod and a wink. And nobody will check up.
What I do find a trifle unsettling is that WSCC seem from their reply to have little grasp of the situation. And they are the main decision-makers locally, of course. To pass off responsibility to the district council and avoid their own responsibility for examining the issues is rather worrying.
I have followed the comments for some time with interest, but as drilling in Balcombe is imminent I really feel I should put aside my reluctance – as a non-Sussex resident – aside and make a selected comment or two.
Michael, your last post in particular attempts to input knowledge into the debate, but actually does nothing to address the major issue – that no-one is puttin their head on the block and promising shale gas will bring consumer prices down. Carbon Connect – the body involved in the report referred to above,, the Committee on Climate Change, an independent body established under the Climate Change Act to advise the UK Government on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the official parliamentary Energy and Climate Change Committee – none of these are saying that shale gas will reduce consumer gas prices.
In the last week we have seen that the “lights will go out” is an industry-manipulated myth. We were told that two months ago we were within six hours of losing our gas supply. Last Friday’s Guardian report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/24/energy-suppliers-held-back-gas-uk) shows how this was no more nor less than an industry scam.
We seem happy to import gas from the USA – the first of probably a number of agreements with USA companies has already been signed and more are on the way now the US govrnment has opened the doors to gas exports – the government applaud this but still talk about our own UK security of supply? It’s politicas, pure and simple, Michael, and has little to do with any technical debate.
But to take up just one interesting point. We can talk about security of vertical well casing, but when there are horizontals involved (which, normally, despite your protestation, are perforated by small explosive charges) and when fracked, the fracking fluids do NOT need the safe conduit of a triple cased well. They are free to migrate through the target rock formation, and eventually through sub and sopra formations. It may take years, decades, but the well casing itself becomes slightly irrelevant.
Alan, whether or not the gas price will fall depends on too many unknowns to predict, not least the amount & cost of production of whatever shale gas we have. Basic economics would suggest that if supply grows faster than demand, then prices should drop; if supplies only grow, then prices will rise less. More importantly, using British gas does not damage the balance of payments.
“Lights will go out” is no myth – it is a possibility. What you & the Grauniad claim as a scam was the press conflation of the fact that the Rough storage reservoir was within six hours of being drained with a disregard of Britain’s many sources of gas: the UK North Sea, Norway, Qatari LNG & the Interconnector.
Is it ethical to import shale gas from the U.S.A. rather than to produce it in Britain under better ecological controls?
I’m not sure what you mean by your “just one interesting point” – the horizontal section of a well lies completely within the shale & the entire purpose of fracturing is to open up flow channels within that producing formation. A well-performed frac stays “within zone”. The fluids do not travel through sub nor super zones as there are no flow channels. With particular regard to the zones above, they will have sealed the producing zone already through eons of geological time, {otherwise there would be no trapped hydrocarbons to produce} & can be expected to continue to maintain the seal for further eons of geological time.
By the way, I have never said wells are not perforated. But perforation is not part of hydraulic fracturing. There are no explosions in fracturing – well, not since the pre-hydraulic 1930s.
Be gone vermin
Michael
I am glad you agree that fracking is not going to bring gas prices down. That is one lie that is used to promote fracking.
It makes me laugh to hear the environmental movement acccused of scaremongering, when the myths of “lights will go out” are just that.
The idea that we have adequate regulation is another myth. We do NOT. We don’t have the regulation in place, and even if we did we don’t have the regulators funded, they don’t have monitoring capablity, not responsibility. This is a self-regulated industry, and if David Cameron’s insistence a week ago that he will not allow regulation to stay in fracking’s way it is likely to remain so.
Regarding transport methods of fracking fluid and gas you should look at the evidence. This should convince you that your confidence is very misplaced.
Professor Davies of Durham is hardly an anti-fracker. He is becoming, it seems to me, more pro-fracking as his career in the field progresses. However, he has done the most research in this country on the length of fractures. He studied fracture lengths in and outside of the US.
His recommendation was that fracking should be done at a minimum of 600m from aquifers, and preferably more. This was based on his analysis of fracking data and other evidence including a Wyoming case of of water contamination after fracking at a depth of around that 600m figure. His data showed that only 1% of fracks were likely to get near than distance, but did record far greater distances than that. He reported average fracture lengths of 200-300m outside the US and less in Marcellus, but it seems to me from a brief look at the graphs that even in the Marcellus the fractures had a probability of 20% or so of exceeding 100m and 5% or so of exceeding 200m. This should be a matter of concern in Balcombe.
You will note that fractures do NOT stay within target formation necessarily. This, of course depends on a number of factors including formation depth. I have particular concerns about Cuadrilla in the Bowland Shale, even though the depth is far greater than most fracked formations at around 790m. What is of concern here is that Cuadrilla plan to employ stacked horizontal drilling, three horizontals per vertical well. As these will be spaced out through the shale, it is clear that again their fractures are likely to go beyond the formation.
5% may not seem a high probability, but if we consider that Cuadrilla are planning up to 1000 wells in Lancashire, perhaps 3000 horizontals, then it is pretty damn sure that their fracking will reach outside the formation. This is a matter of concern, because this in breach of EU regulation but there is no mechanism for monitoring or enforcement.
To add to the fracturing extent are the unknown factors about natural pathways. Professor Davey in fact got into an argument with a team of researchers at Duke University saying they had claimed in a 2011 report water pollution was due to fracking. They denied this allegation, saying the existing evidence was inadequate either way. But what emerges is that groundwater WAS contaminated. A further report from Duke in 2012 again suggested natural pathways for brine contamination of drinking water. Geochemical analysis of the contaminants showed it was from reserves deep below. Another 2012 study by hydrologist Tom Myers challenged the common view boasted by the industry, that there are impermeable layers between fracking or deep injection wells.
Your argument is destroyed either way. If contamination examined in these studies was not because of fracking, then because there was a natural pathway. – contrary to your claim of gas being trapped for “eons”.
The debate in the US continues as to whether there is definitive evidence of fracking causing groundwater pollution. Debate now often centres on whether pollution is caused by fracking itself, or by failing wells. Either way, in the UK in my opinion this is not a risk we should take. Especially at Balcombe. High pressure shale gas fracking may indeed have unpredictable results in terms of opening up unforeseen existing natural rock fractures.
By referring to perforation as not being part of hydraulic fracturing you are continuing to play the industry trick of defining fracking in a too narrow sense. We are not talking about pollution potential of the fracking itself, but all the associated activity, drilling, flaring, fracking, fugitive emissions, traffic and its pollution etc etc etc.
Alan,
Were gas not trapped by overburden seal for geological eons – why is it there now, since eons have elapsed since it was formed?
Calling something by its proper name is not an “industry trick”; it is the soul of science, the heart of engineering. If you cannot say what you mean, how can people believe you mean what you say? If you cannot describe in detail the process you perform, how then can it be repeated? There is a distinct lack of intellectual rigour in claiming truck deliveries {‘all associated activity’} are part of fraccing, yet maintaining that the fraccing of today is somehow different to the fraccing of yesterday – perhaps too much affection for flaunting a pseudo swear word. We engineers use precise descriptions because we perform precisely defined operations. BP for instance maintain separate Drilling & Completion Departments, & in consequence drilling a well & fraccing it are paid for out of completely separate departmental budgets.
There is no shale fraccing planned for Balcombe – what atavistic need is being served by pretending there is?
I did not say shale gas production will not bring gas prices down – I said we have no present way of knowing. I remember Ted Heath’s three day week – I know the lights can go out.
The North Sea is a very well regulated place, which is why it is so safe. You all need to escape the nursery where nanny is necessary & become adult, where self-control is the ultimate virtue. Adult self-regulation here is the valuable legacy of the Cullen Commission, held a quarter century ago.
Professor Davies might be a professor, but I imagine I have an experience he lacks. I doubt he has designed & performed a hydraulic fracturing job. I doubt he has run the calculations as to the pressure required and the pump rate required to maintain that pressure. Fluid is incompressible – increase {by growing a fracture} a closed volume under fluid pressure & the pressure will fall {& the fracture close} unless the volume is filled by adding more fluid. Controlling several thousand hydraulic horsepower at a flow rate of thousands of gallons a minute is a fine balance, the appreciation of which is not helped by antipathetic descriptions of fraccing using verbs like “blasting” or “shattering”.
There are two distinct challenges which those who claim that fractures will propagate indiscriminately & indeterminately need to answer:
• from whence comes the pressure that will overcome the rock tensile strength & split it?
• if a created fracture is capable of flow without being propped open, why on earth is proppant so necessary to fracture stimulation?
Fractures are made with pressure & extended by volume. Variations in pressure & volume are in the gift of the Frac-Master. Frac jobs are performed neither by the owner of the reservoir, nor by the driller of the well. If the frac contractor fracced “out of zone”, the reservoir fluids would escape & the reservoir owner would be unlikely to re-engage the frac contractor for another job. For this reason, as well as optimization of resulting flow, the Frac-Master will ensure the frac stays within zone. Additionally, the ratios between fracture half-length {which is horizontal}, height & width can be controlled by controlling the fluid properties. In this way elliptical fractures with 500 metre half-lengths & 50 metre heights, for example, can be created. This might be quite a good geometry for 3 stacked fracs within a 400 metre high zone. Note that the growth of today’s fracs are monitored with geophones providing real-time feedback.
ps – my argument was not destroyed – there was no contamination, so there were not two either/or causes. Methane is not a pollutant & no Duke study has found any frac chemicals “out of zone”. Neither did the EPA at Pavillion, Wyoming, find frac chemicals “out of zone” – they found them within zone {the Upper Wind River formation} – which is where one would expect to find them.
Fine Michael. You try and use your out-of-date experience to bamboozle us but it seems to me you are not succeeding with this audience. You certainly don’t fool me. Most of your posts is irrelevant and designed simply to fox us into thinking you know more than we do. Which may be true, but it seems to me many here are wiser.
“BP for instance maintain separate Drilling & Completion Departments, & in consequence drilling a well & fraccing it are paid for out of completely separate departmental budgets.”
What the heck has this got to do with anything we’re discussing, for heavens sake?
It is interesting that you should put down an academic who has risen to becoming a star of the pro-fracking fracademia as having a knowledge inferior to yourself. How many top level studies on fracking by bodies such as the Royal Society and the Environment and Climate Change Committee have you been invited to attend to give evidence? Your posts are overloaded with arrogance, Michael. If you toned that down a bit mayb you would be more persuasive.
You expose the truth of our greatest fear. That the industry is self-regulating. With the onslaught of misleading statements, deceptions and outright lies by Cuadrilla, how is that going to persuade us we can trust these people?
Since you want to adhere to terms having meaning – is acid frack stimulation fracking or not? Is this one example of the fracking you claim has been used for decades? Yes or no? If yes it exposes Cuadrilla to the charge that they are lying to Balcombe Parish Council and the public.If no then you admit that old technologies are NOT what we are talking about potentially being used here.
Methane is not a pollutant, when it is an aggressive GHGas? Time you went back to school, Michael.
Yetypu renowned troll and pathetic flirt aka Michael Baker is so full of BS, {absolutely full} spent the last year admitting to being a cement squirter, suddenly graduated in dotage to being a fantasy completions and workover fracker.
Cuadrilla’s own study on the Lancashire earthquakes states frack fluid is documented as migrating 2,000 feet upwards.
The Balcombe target formations are very shallow and they will be fracked in the appraisal and development stage.
Be gone vermin
Fracking ‘unlikely to give UK cheap gas’, report says
Cross-party group pours cold water on Osborne’s hopes shale gas will solve energy problems
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fracking-unlikely-to-give-uk-cheap-gas-report-says-8582089.html
‘George Osborne’s plan to deliver cheap energy by fostering a fracking revolution has been dealt a severe blow after an influential cross-party group of experts said any boom in shale gas production would be “unlikely to give the UK cheap gas”.
(…) ‘A UK shale price boom will have little to no bearing on the energy price in this country, the report argues, because the gas can be exported through pipes to Europe where the prices are higher or by being frozen to 1/600th of its size and shipped further afield to Asia in the form of liquefied natural gas for an even higher price. As a result, the UK price is likely to rise at least to European levels.’
Cross-party group are ill-advised. the Interconnector to mainland Europe is relatively low diameter & low capacity – it can be used for ‘swing’ flows, but not volumes sufficient to increase the UK gas price. The large diameter/ large volume line is the one that brings in Norway’s gas – & Norway will not be importing gas from the UK thro’ it. When the Nordstream line form Russia to Germany has been extended across the North Sea to us, it will be sufficient for export production to drop prices – but it is still at a planning stage & UK production will never {except under a Russian freeze} be so much higher than Gazprom’s that flow will go that way.
As for exporting LNG – ha ha! It is taking Cheniere in Louisiana well over 2 years to convert an import terminal to allow export to BG. The UK has import terminals only.
The major effect of UK shale gas will be on the balance of payments – that should be more than enough to keep George Osborne {& all of us who holiday abroad} happy.
This is the response to a Freedom of Information Request to WSCC about the regulation of Flaring. Basically, you can put a flare anywhere and emit whatever you like from it.
Our Ref: 210
Dear Professor Dunne
Freedom of Information
I refer to your Freedom of Information request in relation to Gas Flaring in Balcombe and we are now in a position to respond.
Flaring itself is not licensed. The Environment Agency and Mid Sussex District Council were consulted in relation to the Balcombe application. Neither raised concerns about the potential for air pollution, or in relation to flaring. There are therefore no conditions attached to the permission relating to flaring, including monitoring, distance from houses or emissions control.
First German brewers, now German Mineral water producers against fracking:
Warnung vor Gift im Mineralwasser – Niedersachsen – WESER-KURIER
Allgemein .Mai 27
2013.
Nach den Brauern nun die Mineralbrunnenbetreiber.
Die deutschen Hersteller von Mineralwasser und Bier sorgen sich um die Qualität ihrer Produkte. Der Grund ist das sogenannte Fracking. Bei dieser Fördermethode wird Erdgas mit einer Flüssigkeit aus dem Gestein gepresst. Diese enthält unter anderem Benzol und Quecksilber. Stoffe, die hochgradig giftig sind. Damit Fracking möglich wird, muss das Wasserhaushaltsgesetz geändert werden – das ist umstritten. So sollen Trinkwasserschutzgebiete und Heilquellen für das Fracking künftig tabu sein, nicht aber die Mineralbrunnen. “Das macht keinen Sinn”, protestiert der Geschäftsführer von Vilsa in Bruchhausen-Vilsen, Henning Rodekohr. “Wenn Chemikalien ins Mineralwasser gelangen, bedeutet das das Aus für den Betrieb”, sagt Rodekohr. Anders als bei Trinkwasser sei eine Aufbereitung zur Entfernung von Schadstoffen bei natürlichem Mineralwasser nicht zulässig.
They do say a lie can circle the world many times, before truth has had time to pull its boots on.
What BS this latest meme is – Germany has had hydraulic fracturing for the last 40 years. What effect has that had on their lagers? They don’t even know about the frac’ing having happened. Maps of Lower Saxony detailing just how much of it there has been, can be found online.
And not just 40 years of minor frac’ing – the TLA ‘MHF’ stands for Massive Hydraulic Fracturing, developed for stimulating the Rotliegendes & a direct forerunner of these supposedly ‘new’ ‘high volume hydraulic fracs’ blazoned out by antipathetics as being newly invented for Texas shales.
To this constructed scare story you now add mineral water – the French, Italian & German mineral water producers have been frac’ing their Mineralbrunnen und Heilquellen, to increase production, for years. As my knowledge is privileged, I can’t name names, but it is true nonetheless. There was a famous case …
Whenever you see something like Diese enthält unter anderem Benzol und Quecksilber, you can be sure it is a lie – benzene is ubiquitous, but is not generally a constituent of frac fluids, while mercury is not used in frac’ing (it is taken to location as a means of displacing samples captured under downhole pressure, volume & temperature from the sampler tools into the specialized containers for transport to analytical laboratories). Someone who doesn’t know this is ipso facto incompetent to comment factually.
“MHF” is the three letter acronym for Massive Hydraulic Fracturing. The supposedly ‘new’ fraccing didn’t start in the USA – it started in Germany with Mobil’s {as then was} MHF jobs, & in the chalk offshore Denmark.
German fraccing has not been small-scale, experimental {except in the “massive” sense}, nor accident prone. It has also been silent – both in being unnoticed & in using sound proofed frac pumps.
Kathryn,
I applaude your approach of asking for explanation of certain words and technologies. I hope it helps you in understanding oil and gas exploration and operations, particularly in combination with fracking (although it has been repeatedly stipulated that the current activities of Cuadrilla in Balcombe do not use fracking).
Clearly your initial protest started on the basis of having a knowledge gap, and was intuitive at most. Or maybe you have come across practices used elsewhere, which will not be allowed in the UK due to stringent regulations. Also technology has improved, and will continue to improve.
Believe me, every single person would prefer a 100% renewable energy world. Unfortunately, we are not there jet. It will take time.
As I said, you should be praised for your request for information. Maybe it would have been better to have shown an open mind from the start to the whole matter, instead of seeking the spotlight and protesting against something, which is simply out of your zone of expertise to form an opinion in the first place.
Please do not take this offensive, and understand that the industry of oil and gas has been developing over a great many years, and is built on professionals that use their expertise and integrity taking in mind the many stakeholders. They carry great responsibilities. The risks they sometimes have to take is always done taking in mind that they have a lot to loose, and have heavy capital investments for the long term. Leave it to the pro’s is my advice to you. Have some believe that they will not wreck your country, and on top of this ‘believe’ there are government pro’s using rules and regulations, that are on top of this matter. We should not offend them by not letting them do their job.
Oh, let us offend them!
Your points – it is naïve to accept exploration on the basis that it will be done at just blow fracturing pressure; it is naïve not to consider the production phase that would be the natural sequel to exploration. Irrelevant, therefore, whether what they say they would do at exploration phase is technically fracking or not. We do not want an oil well, conventional or unconventional, on the edge of our village. We do not want ANY heavy industry on the edge of our village. We do not want heavy vehicles in large numbers through our village. So much for the nimby aspect.
We do not approve of the use of large qauntities of fresh water for fracking in Balcombe, in the UK, anywhere in the world. We question how the flow-back and produced water can be treated. We abhor the possibility of its being discharged part-treated into waterways or the sea; we abhor the possibility of its being dumped down old mines or wells, taken forever out of the water cycle, migrating over time to god knows where. We abhor the prospect of our countryside, of the countryside of others, being desecrated by a rash of oil and gas wells.
‘Knowledge gap’? We filled it fast, the information is out there. Do read it. ‘Stringent UK regulations’? A joke, a splintered joke. Renewables – if only our politicians would pour their resources into renewables, and into research into even better renewables, rather than throwing bribes to the oil and gas industry. ‘Expertise and integrity of the gas industry’? Corner-cutting, accidents, lobbying and lies. ‘The risks they sometimes have to take’? Well, yes! So they do.
Kathryn, ” We do not want an oil well, conventional or unconventional, on the edge of our village” – hmmm.
In 1983, about the time Conoco were planning the Lower Stumble oil well, the oil price was $50 /bbl {I bought myself a Rolls-Royce}. In 1986, the year they drilled & plugged the Lower Stumble well, Qatar shipped a tanker-load at $6.50 /bbl. Saudi Aramco slashed their operations from 50 rigs to 3. They may well have plugged a “good producer”.
Consider that the Lower Stumble well is indeed an oil well, viable at an oil price of 50 1985 US dollars; that today’s oil price is about $100 /bbl & that Cuadrilla might just be interested in whether Lower Stumble #2 might be economically viable today.
Oh – & fraccing does not use a lot of water.
Be gone vermin
Michael,
Please could you explain the difference between bog standard and premium coupling and thread? And explain exactly the nature of ‘intermediate strings of casing’? How would you (if in charge) seal the abandoned bottom section of the vertical bore? Cd you list what wd be required for production ‘infrastucture’? Posting answers one by one and not too detailed would be wonderful as I am about to go out with a photographer. Thank you.
Production infrastructure: what is a length of string? How much production? Of what?
If one were never to return to the abandoned lower section of the well, it might well be legally required (onshore U.K.) to fill it with competent cement. If re-entry is envisaged at some (unspecified) time, it could be plugged with mechanical or cement plugs across & above fluid-bearing (hydrocarbon or aqueous) formations & below the point at which the horizontal kicks off.
A well starts with a cellar, a hole into which one can climb to work on the pipes, followed by a conductor pipe, to conduct the well through the unstable surface soils. Then comes the surface pipe, to isolate the well from all potable aquifers, which I think should end at least 150’ below the deepest aquifer. The well is finished with the production casing, which runs (except in a ‘barefoot completion’) & is cemented through, the zone to be produced.
It is often necessary & usually desirable, for reasons of control, to run one or more strings between the surface & production strings – these are the intermediate strings. The deeper the well, the more the formations change (in composition, strength, sensitivity, friability, tendency to flow etc) on the way down, the more intermediate strings are advised. Some problems in Pennsylvania might be attributed to the lack of any intermediate strings at all.
Kathryn, I did address these way back when.
When (if) Cuadrilla go on to drill development wells, then there are three possibilities as regards the planned well integrity:
• the same casings, couplings & cements as in their first well;
• lower specification casings, couplings & cements as in their first well;
• higher specification casings, couplings & cements as in their first well.
Since the third option is possibly the least likely (it might be improved if they increase their expected stimulation requirements), we can see the importance of getting it right on the first well.
Some posters here & elsewhere make great play of casings & cements not lasting, without ever acknowledging that both steel & cement come in a variety of widths, materials & strengths. There are API specifications, or recommended practices, covering both steel casing & cement sheaths – Spec 5 & RP 10, as I recall. Casing used can range from a standard carbon steel of 25,000 psi strength through modified steels up to 150,000 psi & higher. Note that a 7” outside diameter 38 lbs/ft L-80 casing will be significantly stronger {~50% more} than a 7” diameter 23 #/ft L-80 casing, due to the greater wall thickness. Similarly, a 7″ 29#/ft N-80 casing would be twice the strength of a 7″ 29 #/ft H-40 casing, were there one (there isn’t, 20 #/ft is the thickest standard H-40 available, while 23 #/ft is the thinnest available N-80).
Casing comes in approx 40 ft lengths & these must needs be joined together. This is done by cutting threads into the ends (or welding, for conductor pipe). At the cheapest, the same thread is cut on each end and the joint is made by screwing it into a (female) threaded collar, while more sophisticated joins are made by cutting male & female threads with metal-to-metal sealing surfaces, into the opposing ends of each pipe. At the cheap end one gets short round(-profile) threads, longer round threads, then square edged (‘buttress’) threads; at the top end triple seal integral joints – I believe Austria mandates triple seal for all gas wells.
If you Google ‘premium casing connections’ & look at the offerings from Hydril or VAM, as used in the North Sea, you will gain more information.
Listen to the deafening silence about the development stage of fracking in the Weald.
It really will be the end of the Weald as we know it.
From Annie Kia in Australia
As Tony Ingraffea says, the 2 most important words for us all to understand are ‘Spatial Intensity’.
The relentless logic of the industry is to extract every last ounce of resource. This means ‘in-filling’ wells when the first ones diminish in yield.
Fracking is just one part of the problem. It’s how all the technologies fit together that creates an industrialised landscape.
Having seen the nightmare in southern Queensland, it would be a complete disaster in the closely settled English countryside.
The solution is solidarity of everyone working together to protect what they love. Strong social movements can succeed. We’ve got the gas miners in retreat here in the Northern Rivers NSW.
I am not aware that Tony Ingraffea has ever pronounced on Coal Seam Gas, or that Annie Kia has any experience whatsoever of shale gas.
& Balcombe, of course, has neither coal seam gas nor shale gas, but possibly oil bearing micrite.
These industrial process have many similarities. Many environmental concerns relate to both (or to all three if one considers micrite to be Variation No3 on the theme. We are not stupid, Michael, nor are we insular and only nimboid. We have links to groups opposing unconventional gas exploration around the world. You are picking nits.
No Kathryn, I am not picking nits. Your “These industrial processes” is the key – you are opposing all industrial development. If one wishes to oppose or to make safe as possible any of these three matters, then one must needs look at the fine & distinctly different details involved in each particular process.
God is in the details {Mies van der Rohe}.
I disagree. Sharing information on common aspects of these industrial processes, standing solidly alongside each other to combat shared menaces, this is valid.
Our campaign is wide-ranging. This is not just a Balcombe issue. Wells will no doubt be drilled in the near future in many other people’s back yards. As for Balcombe, yes, there is definitely also very much a nimby aspect. This well is half a mile from my house and those of many other villagers. Some people are closer than that. Yes, yes, yes, this is an inappropriate place for any heavy industrail process, and we reject and oppose any heavy industry this close to our community.
Several years ago, our council rejected my planning application for a wood store (I have one now, following appeal). What a pity they did not properly debate the planning application for an oil well.
By the way, should Cuadrilla have done seismic testing before their horizontal drilling and acid frack?
Kathryn, ‘Gas Drilling in Balcombe’, even though a misnomer, is fairly unique in the ‘Frack Off’ canon for the reasonableness & literacy of most of the posts, possibly due to the greater age & better education of most of the posters.
But for an example of the degree of ignorance of small details, consider this from a new site yesterday, which has the aim of ‘spreading awareness’
“Coal seams … [in] some cases, water, foam, or air are pumped into the well at high pressure, causing a jet of rock fragments, gas and water to explode to the surface for up to 15 minutes.
This is done repeatedly, creating up to a 16-foot crater and a radius of fractures through the ground.”
http://www.clevedonpeople.co.uk/Fracking-Awareness-North-Somerset/story-19035634-detail/story.html?email-tobe-verified=true&afterReg=Y&dwrMeth=addComment
Too much of this level of awareness & we’ll be back in the stone age.
I have it in mind to write for you & post a comparison between CBM & shale, because like Tolstoy’s ‘happy marriages are the same, it is the unhappy ones that differ’ successful unconventional gas production raises no issues, but the causes & types of failure hazard are different between the two … and it is failure we all wish to avoid.
As to ‘Balcombe being a rural idyll’ – I have just returned from a trip to Durness going through Assynt – now that is ‘rural’.
“By the way, should Cuadrilla have done seismic testing before their horizontal drilling and acid frack?”
Aah, but they have undertaken not to frac …
But an acid frack is a ‘frac’, I think you said, even though lower pressure and different ingredients in the soup? I thought we agreed that this was a small linguistic nit.
Anyway, should seismic testing be done prior to directional drilling and acid etching?
Not that seismic testing would be welcome, a most intrusive process, I hear from friends elsewhere.
People come new to the subject. You pick one newcomer’s misunderstanding. The groups with whom we have links worldwide are well-informed. New people are waking up to this menace every day. Give them time.
Indeed “an acid frack is a ‘frac’” – but I read their undertaking not to frac to include not acid fraccing. One only needs a fracture of less than an inch or so to determine the pressure at which rock fractures. The rate at which the fracture propagates is determined by the mechanics of the pumping, so is not needed at this early stage.
For a fracture of an inch, I hink full seismic would be over-kill. For a development programme, I would desire a full 3-D seismic.
But at this stage, perhaps just my May 20, 2013 at 1:01 pm questions should be brought to the meeting.
A great many of the people you have links to worldwide might be well informed, but they are engaging in a widespread dissemination of incorrect alarmist “facts” nonetheless. MMR all over again.
Consider CLR claiming that one cannot say fracturing today is the same as forty years ago, while simultaneously holding that “fracking” need not mean fracturing. Inconsistent, not so?
Fracking as we know it is only 15 years old MAX. Don’t fall for industry myth making. Horizontal drilling, seismic arrays, and chemical formulations are all new. The fracking we’re seeing now is only happening because of a suite of new technologies and methods.
Cuadrilla seem to have been rather smart here. By doing what they originally set out to do – drilling to 3,000 ft, then pulling back up & side-tracking, they should be able to demonstrate {if they work competently} how undramatic & uncataclysmic the whole process is.
If the antipathetic hysterics continue to focus on whether Cuadrilla are actually going to “frack”, they will deprive themselves of the opportunity of determining what really matters.
To wit –
• will the surface pipe terminate 50 ft, 100 ft, 150 ft or some other depth below the deepest potable aquifer?
• how many intermediate strings of casing are to be used?
• what grade of casing will be used?
• what coupling & thread will be used to link casing joints – bog standard or premium?
• how will each string be cemented? With what?
• is the vertical to 3,000 ft going to be cased & cemented?
• after the side-track window is cut higher up, how will the abandoned vertical below the window be plugged?
• what will be the disposition of the well at the end of the exercise?
These are all matters to be decided by Cuadrilla & vetted by the independent well examiner, but BPC might wish to insist on ‘premium’, rather than ‘sufficient’ choices, i.e. to ‘set the bar higher’. This should be done as a prior constraint upon the well examiner.
Just a thought.
Thank you, Michael. What exactly do you mean by ‘disposition’. Presumably the plan would be to go on to frack and extract. Yes, yes, might flow, but I suspect it won’t. Do you mean how would they seal it temporarily for the interval between exploration and a full-scale frack-and-extract?
Kathryn, There is no production infrastructure in Balcombe. Say the well flows copious quantities of oil – will they immediately go for infrastructure, if so what will they do with the well until production facilities are in place. Or the well might need stimulating which needs prior approval – what will they do with the well until approval is in place & if the well then flows …
Or they decide to leave the well in a state suitable for re-entry in 2 years time – what will they …
Or it is a complete dud – how will they permanently abandon it?
So it goes.
Kathryn, You know I’m a great believer in the sealing efficacy of 150 ft of cement. All I have seen from Cuadrilla is that they will have 3 strings {big deal} & that there will be cement well below the lowest aquifer. Well duh – the production string cement will be far below the aquifer – but how far below the aquifer will the surface string {the one run to isolate the aquifer} be run & cemented?
Also, how will the individual strings be cemented – bottom to surface, bottom to overlap by how much, or …?
How it all started… I am searching for emails from DECC and found this from Rodney Saunders, deputy chair of the Balcombe Parish Council, early January 2012. Let us hope that attitudes amongst the council have evolved over the past 17 months, that our representatives have done some reading and listening, and that our council, unelected all bar the last two new members, will listen to ‘their’ public tonight and take action to represent us. Have any of the pre-election members been spotted at recent meetings and talks? This is how it seemed to Rodney back then:
‘I have no recollection of the discussion at the Parish Council two years ago. However the records show that there was a communication from WSCC in the correspondence box, and that Simon Greenwood mentioned a recent application relating to re-establishing exploratory oil drilling at the previous site off the London Road on Estate land. Presumably we assumed that as it involved drilling another borehole in a location where one had been drilled twenty odd years earlier (when none of the current members was on the Council) it was not a controversial matter. I don’t imagine we spent any time reviewing the detailed technical aspects of the proposed borehole, and it should be remembered that this was some 15 months before the minor seismic events in Lancashire. (To describe two events registering 2.3 and 1.5 on the Richter scale as “earthquakes” is serious over-egging!). I don’t imagine that any of us had heard of fracking. (…) ‘Have you heard the rumour of an application for planning permission to demolish the church and to build a (small, unobtrusive, tastefully decorated and landscaped) nuclear power station in its place?.’
Rodney Saunders’ comment seems relatively level headed & sensible. Why need any attitude evolve – Cuadrilla do appear to intend “drilling another borehole in a location where one had been drilled twenty odd years earlier”
Thank you! Please would you define ‘spend rate’? Rate at which it combines and is thereafter useless? What, other than (10% they now say) HCl, wd you expect to use in a Balcombe etch??
Nothing fancy – I just used “spent” to denote when the acid is no longer capable of reacting with the rock. Spend rate is the rate at which an acid spends – the greater the surface area you move it across while it is spending, the greater, but shallower, will be the subsequent etched area.
As an example, hydrochloric acid + calcium carbonate reacts to become {soluble} calcium chloride + water + carbon dioxide {CO2, oh horrors}. Once all the H+ in the HCl has become the H+ in the H20 {water}, there is no more H+ to react with the carbonate & the acid is “spent”.
One should not let the ideal drive out the good – I have a theory that Tamboran & Cuadrilla are so concerned to minimise opposition that they are designing less than optimal fluids to enable them to trumpet a lack of additives, Tamboran somewhat more so.
What besides 10% HCl? – I have an entire set of proprietary manuals upstairs. The Balcombe micrite is shallow & hence relatively cool, so an obvious additive would be Acetic acid {vinegar} as hydrochloric & acetic dissolve carbonate at differing rates & hence etch quite effectively.
This is not entirely a joke: were Balcombe’s micrite hot & deep, fire ants could be added to the mixture. {works in Latin}
The reaction of acid on carbonate is not linear – there are a lot of carbonates – think limestone, dolomite, marble, chalk, micrite etc. These will react at different rates & different examples of the same generic rock will also react at different rates. Look at polished marble – the changes in surface colouration & texture indicate differing reactivities. Differing reactivity = differing spend rates.
Another reason why Cuadrilla need the upcoming well to obtain core samples.
Kathryn, apologies, this re-jigged site was not sending out e-mail notice of new postings, so I have just seen your May 12, 2013 at 3:46 pm posting.
Linguistically, those antipathetic to “fracking” have painted themselves into a corner by their dire predictions. If, as they claim, “fracking” is something that will pollute, maim & rape – then Cuadrilla can claim that by not polluting, maiming nor raping, they are not “fracking”.
Your ‘local’ village member, who has a penchant for denying geology to be a science, is adept at quoting data devoid of knowledge & seems incapable of dialectic, which much lessens the value of any contributions. To knowledgeably answer your questions:
Hydraulic fracturing is neither more nor less than creating & extending fractures in rock by the application of hydraulic pressure. Nothing to do with rate {speed} of pumping, explosions {ha ha}, fluid characteristics etc – these {non-existent explosions aside} are only aids to effectiveness.
• To initiate a fracture, one has to overcome the tensile strength of the rock normal {perpendicular} to the fracture plane, after overcoming the least principal stress on the rock. Once sufficiently deep the least principal stress will be horizontal.
• To extend a fracture, one has to maintain the fracture pressure while allowing it to grow, i.e. to compensate for any loss of fluid due to leak-off into the rock face and, more so, the loss of pressure due to the increase in volume as the created fracture grows. The first is met by modifying the fluid characteristics, the second by pumping fluid into the fracture fast enough to maintain the pressure – so the rate of pumping needs to pick up as the fracture grows. The pump/ wellhead pressure must then additionally overcome all frictional pressures due to the pump rate, and compensate for changes in hydrostatic pressure of the fluid column, which will change with fluid density & proppant entrainment.
These two above are common to fracturing all rock, whether sandstone, shale or carbonate {or even granite – geothermal frac’ing}.
Since the purpose of fracturing rock is to alter the flow pattern by creating high permeability flow channels within low permeability rock and since the created fracture will close as soon as the applied pressure is bled off, it is necessary by some means to hold, or prop, the fracture open after the pressure within the fracture falls below the frac pressure – which it does as soon as wellhead/ pump pressure is reduced.
The most common proppant is something small round & spherical, graded ‘frac sand’ is the cheapest but stronger proppants might be needed for deeper fractures, where the closing pressure is greatest. However sometimes a proppant will embed in soft rock, rather than hold the fracture open; at other times pumping proppant, which is technically a challenge, can be avoided by creating self supporting fractures by etching the fracture surface so that etched flow channels will remain open to flow when the fracture closes. {Or one can create ‘worm holes’ though the rock}.
Etching by acid dissolution of the rock face is possible when the rock face dissolves unevenly in the applied acid wash, or means are employed to expose different parts of the rock face to differing times, strengths or types of acid. Acid etching of fracture faces is only possible in carbonate {acid soluble} rock & will only occur until the acid is ‘spent’, i.e. no longer has free H+ radicals. Where acid etching is possible it may well be the preferred treatment, so proppant use is not common in carbonate formations.
The maximum length achievable is dependent on the spend rate of the acid, rather than the total volume pumped, as in proppant fracturing. The modification of spend rate is technical & one reason why the materials & processes used are trade secrets. Spend rate is also temperature, hence depth, dependent. This too can affect the formulation of successful fluids.
To your specific questions –
Etching micrite: would you call acid-etching fracking?? Or even frac’ing??
A: Etching is a process subsequent to creating a fracture, to create flow channels that will remain after the fracture closes, so it is an integral part of acid frac’ing.
Could you remind us what the typical pressure of a ‘normal’ frack might be?
A: rock tensile strength plus least principal stress – which is why Cuadrilla need to cut core samples to measure tensile strength.
And of a micrite etch?
A: Rock tensile strength plus least principal stress – which is why Cuadrilla need to cut core samples to measure tensile strength.
For a given length of bore. Please wd you compare the volumes of liquid typically used to frack shale and to etch micrite?
A: Due to acid spend, acid fracs are generally smaller than proppant fracs. However acid etching spend can be retarded allowing more time, to pump more fluid & a lack of viscosity to support proppant can limit the volume of a proppant frac due to proppant settling.
How deeply into the micrite could the hydrochloric acid solution be expected to work?
A: Depends on the rate of spend, which depends on the acid reactivity {solubility} of the rock & the precise formulation of acid, as well as the rate of pumping {spending is time dependent, faster pumping moves the acid further within a given time}.
With what kind of frequency would the acid etch be repeated?
A: I don’t think any kind of frac ‘needs to be repeated’. I have addressed this quite extensively ‘below the line’ in the Grauniad.
How likely is it in your view that a frack will follow the ‘etch’?
A: The etch follows the frac, i.e. the exposed fracture face is surface etched by the acid{s}. If you mean ‘how likely is it that a frac treatment will follow an etch treatment’, they are one & the same & I remain unconvinced of any need to repeat treatments {without damn good diversion}.
———
To expand upon my only semi-jocular “If, as they claim, “fracking” is something that will pollute, maim & rape – then Cuadrilla can claim that by not polluting, maiming nor raping, they are not “fracking”“. As well as obtaining cores, Cuadrilla would value knowing the pressure at which their rock of interest fractures. To do this they do not need the full panoply of formulation & equipment necessary to extend a fracture, but merely quietly to increase the fluid pressure until the rock fractures. Because of the hysteria generated by the antipathetics, they will be able to do this while maintaining their commitment not to “frack”.
So we are back to linguistics – Cuadrilla will almost certainly crack {fracture} their chosen rock, calling it ‘ascertaining the in situ frac pressure’, but will adhere to their commitment not to “frack”, given the worthless inflation of that particular term.
When I initially commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added”
checkbox and now each time a comment is added
I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that service?
Thank you!
Visiting expert to address Sussex on fracking impacts
Distinguished Australian chemical expert Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith will be in Cuckfield, Sussex tonight, Thursday, discussing the impact of fracking on local environments and communities.
Her visit follows the announcement from energy firm Cuadrilla last week that it plans to drill for oil two miles from Cuckfield in West Sussex. This is widely understood to be the first phase in a future fracking operation.
Dr Lloyd-Smith, who is Senior Advisor to the Australian National Toxics Network, and has over 25 years’ experience in chemicals policy and waste management, has accused UK politicians of taking a “naïve” approach to fracking, having seen first-hand the adverse impacts such as air pollution, waste and water contamination.
In Cuckfileld, Dr Lloyd-Smith will discuss the fracking industry’s use of chemicals, evidence of impacts on air and water, methane emissions, and the problems of dealing with related wastes. “I’m here to talk about the real impacts of this industry,” she says.
Her talk will also focus on how communities across Australia from all walks of life and all shades of politics have joined forces to resist the expansion of ‘unconventional gas’ activities.
Media are welcome.
Event starts at 8pm.
Venue: Upstairs at The Old School, Church St, Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH17 5JZ. Please park in the Broad Street car park.
Please do bear in mind that “Distinguished Australian chemical expert Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith” cannot be an expert on shale gas development, & by extension “fracking” – as no shale gas development has occurred in Australia.
Australian shale gas development is at more or less the same stage as that in the U.K.
Perhaps we should send local ‘expert’ Vanessa Vine to Australia to address their parliament?
“Dr Lloyd-Smith, … having seen first-hand the adverse impacts” – no shale development yet, so what can she have seen “first hand”?
Why Cuadrilla really stopped work in Lancashire 2 months ago
http://www.refracktion.com/index.php/why-cuadrilla-really-stopped-work-in-lancashire-2-months-ago/
…
‘Lord Smith revealed that the process had been held up by “one or two months” after Cuadrilla Resources claimed it should not be subject to tough regulations requiring it to monitor closely any contamination of aquifers after fracking takes place.’ (…)
‘Cuadrilla’s plans for fracking involve blasting up to 8.5 thousand cubic metres of water as well as toxic chemicals and proppants into the shale to make the gas flow.
‘Between 20-50% of the fracking fluid flows back to the surface, having picked up some nasty carcinogens and other hazardous material whilst underground, and also becoming mildly (that’s 90 times the permitted disposal level without a permit) radioactive. The rest remains under ground. There is a danger that any failure in well integrity might lead to the contaminated fluid leaking into the local aquifer with the resulting contamination of the water.
‘It seems that Cuadrilla argued that the EU Mining Waste directive should not apply to the contaminated fracking fluids that remained underground. However, this directive makes it incumbent on operators to check on a regular basis that the fluid underground cannot and does not escape.
‘Under this Directive shale gas operators have to make absolutely sure that the underground fluid is under proper control, properly sealed and check that it continues to be the case for decades after fracking.
‘This is all right and proper as we can’t just have cowboys riding in, taking their profit and then abandoning the wells and leaving any clean up problems to us long after they’ve gone. It seems perfectly reasonable that if they want to build wells they have to be responsible for them.
‘In spite of initially fighting this ruling Cuadrilla have now had to accept that the Directive should apply.
‘Given that Cuadrilla have sought to reassure the public that it is well nigh impossible for fracking fluid to escape, (…) With that level of certainty we can’t really see why they had a problem with this – unless they are perhaps not as sure as that statement might suggest when it comes to having to back up their words with actions and hard cash?
‘However, we are pleased to see that the one of the disparate and rather uncoordinated band of regulators is at last taking meaningful steps to address some of the serious issues around the potential pollution which could arise from contaminated fracking fluids leaking into the environment.’
Just for the record {& to keep this site honest}:
• Cuadrilla has no plans to “blast” “toxic” chemicals anywhere
• no one knows what % of frac fluid returns or remains, at what time interval – particularly before any fraccing has taken place
• I doubt “nasty carcinogens” are anything of the kind
• I believe the mild radioactivity {less than that to which one is exposed on a flight to the Med?} dissipates
• there is almost zero danger that any failure in well integrity might lead to the contaminated fluid leaking into the local aquifer {thousands of feet of solid rock away}, so there is extremely little risk of resulting contamination of the water – none proven in over 1,000,000 fracs in the extremely litigious U.S.A.
{not that Refracktion is anything other than an agitprop site}
Just for the record {& to keep YOU honest Mr Baker}:
“• Cuadrilla has no plans to “blast” “toxic” chemicals anywhere.”
According to their ow web site They intend to frack using hydrochloric acid. If you think that isn’t toxic. The toxicity of hydrochloric acid is documented by the HPA as follows
“General toxicity
Hydrogen chloride is irritating and corrosive to any tissue with which it comes into contact. On exposure to air, hydrogen chloride gas forms dense white vapour due to condensation with moisture in the air. It dissolves rapidly in water to form hydrochloric acid, affecting moist areas e.g. mucous membranes.” http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947386706
“• no one knows what % of frac fluid returns or remains, at what time interval – particularly before any fraccing has taken place”
Which is precisely why I used a range here based on evidence from other wells. I deliberately erred on the cautious side. At least you are admitting the woeful ignorance of future consequences that characterises the pro-fracking arguments.
“• I doubt “nasty carcinogens” are anything of the kind”
LOL -I presume you know of some nice carcinogens do you I “doubt” you know much about the subject based on your comments here. The BTEX group of chemicals ( Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene are routinely found in flowback water. Would you drink a cup full every day and take your chances? No I thought not.
“• I believe the mild radioactivity {less than that to which one is exposed on a flight to the Med?} dissipates.”
Your wilful ignorance is astounding. Radioactivity does dissipate – but it has a half life of about 1500 years. I have no idea where you get your figures for a flight to the med, but fracking flowback from Cuadrilla’s Lancashire wells was measured at 90 times the permitted level for unregulated disposal by the Environment Agency.
“• there is almost zero danger that any failure in well integrity might lead to the contaminated fluid leaking into the local aquifer {thousands of feet of solid rock away}, so there is extremely little risk of resulting contamination of the water – none proven in over 1,000,000 fracs in the extremely litigious U.S.A.”
As usual fracking apologists love to quote their historic wells but even Peter Lilley (who is fracking chief cheerleader these days) only claims that there have been 100,000. Please check your facts before subjecting us to more of your pro-fracking propaganda.
Horizontal slickwater fracking using massive volumes of water is a relatively recent affair – the first recorded instance was in 1997 when they injected 800,000 US Gallons in a well in Texas. Current 10 well frac pads are injecting 50,000,000 gallons a time. Cuadrilla’s proposed 40 well pads? Well – do the arithmetic yourself but do try not to mess up your zeroes again. I’m afraid that your history lesson here is as disingenuous and ill-informed as the rest of your post.
If you really are ignorant of the danger of contaminated fluid affecting aquifers I suggest you read this
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/sunday-times-review-of-dep-drilling-records-reveals-water-damage-murky-testing-methods-1.1491547
and then look at this http://pennsylvaniaallianceforcleanwaterandair.wordpress.com/the-list/
In February, the list of the harmed stood at around 800 individuals and families. In May 2013 the list tallied 1352.
As to your {thousands of feet of solid rock away} comment – do some research on progressive channelling.
As “Scientific American” explains
“You may have heard something like this before: ‘There has never been a documented case of the fractures in a shale gas production zone migrating upward to the water bearing zones. There are thousands of feet of impermeable rock separating the two, and the rock mechanics make it a physical impossibility.’ That is true. However, that does not mean fracking fluid cannot get into the aquifer. So how does this happen? If fractures never reach the aquifers, then how does the fracking fluid get there?
It goes like this:Sometimes, drillers have to drill through an aquifer to access a natural gas zone that is farther below. (by the way, an aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock. It is not an underground lake or cavern that is filled with water, like many people imagine.) If the act of drilling through the aquifer and cementing the walls of the hole is not done carefully, there is a higher chance that the cement casing can crack, leaking hydrocarbons and other fluids into the aquifer. If there is a casing leak near the water table, whatever is travelling up or down the well can leak into the aquifer. Since the fracking fluids have to travel through this pipe twice (once on the way down, once on the way back up), it can contaminate the water through the casing leak. In fact, whatever travels through that pipe can leak into the aquifer. Sometimes it is fracking fluid, but more commonly, it is methane, drilling mud or produced formation water.”
Finally you comment :{not that Refracktion is anything other than an agitprop site}”
Well given your evident ignorance of the subject I’ll not take that criticism of my efforts to present the facts of the argument and cut through some of the more outrageous hyperbole furnished by the fracking PR machine to heart.
However, I would advise you to a bit more research before offering your opinions on subjects you evidently know very little about Mr Baker.
Is there any particular reason why you are not publishing my reply above?
Refracktion, I find you very careless of the verité.
Hydrogen chloride is not hydrochloric acid; 15% hydrochloric acid is not particularly toxic {I have been immersed in 28% HCl}. Cuadrilla do not intend to frac with HCl – they intend to use it a pre-wash to clean the perforations.
There is no evidence of what % of frac fluid returns or remains – the most commonly quoted figure is from a single study in a coalfield & does not record the time interval measured. We know from the time it takes for the supercharge to dissipate after treating shale {about 2 years} that the study would not have been for long enough. The percentage is an irrelevance anyway.
BTEX are routinely found in hydrocarbon production from all wells, treated or not; in fuel; in exhaust gases – and in tobacco smoke as inhaled. BTEX is so omni-present as to be irrelevant to fraccing.
“Radioactivity does dissipate – but it has a half life of about 1500 years” – ha ha ha. Individual isotopes have individual half-lives – like 3.8 days for Radon. One way to handle a figure of “90 times the permitted level” is to dilute it by a factor of a hundred. There are others.
Over a million – I know my industry.
1997 – and what of the MHF earlier performed in Germany?
“50,000,000 gallons a time” – define “time”, that’s a figure for over ten wells – quite a hook-up to do simultaneously.
There might be a danger of contaminated fluid affecting aquifers {everything is “possible”} – it just hasn’t happened; at a rate of less than one in a million that is statistically “never”.
The Scientific American article is pretty unscientific – it ignores practice for “possibility” {everything is “possible”}. To take just one example: “the fracking fluids have to travel through this pipe twice” – what do they mean by travel through? The treating fluids go down {& return up} a treating string, a separate string of pipe run within the production casing, and are isolated from the production casing {by the way, there is no such thing as a “cement casing”} by the treating string and the annular fluid. The article is, frankly, nonsensical & it is no great credit to the Scientific American that they published it. I speak as someone who had a subscription to the Scientific American in the 1950s & have read it since.
“I would advise you to a bit more research before offering your opinions on subjects you evidently know very little about” – ironic when someone thinks googling the internet provides more knowledge than university, a life in the industry & professional accreditation.
c’est la vie moderne.
“Refracktion, I find you very careless of the verité.”
Pretentious? Toi? Ungrammatical peut-être
“Hydrogen chloride is not hydrochloric acid; 15% hydrochloric acid is not particularly toxic {I have been immersed in 28% HCl}.”
Hydrochloric acid is a solution of hydrogen chloride. And your point is?
“Cuadrilla do not intend to frac with HCl – they intend to use it a pre-wash to clean the perforations.”
Hydrochloric acid is a solution of hydrogen chloride. Your point is?
If Cuadrilla do not intend to frack with hydrochloric acid why do they list it on their web site.
“Cuadrilla’s fracturing fluid, which along with fresh water and sand includes:
Polyacrylamide friction reducer
Hydrochloric acid”
There is no evidence of what % of frac fluid returns or remains – the most commonly quoted figure is from a single study in a coalfield & does not record the time interval measured. We know from the time it takes for the supercharge to dissipate after treating shale {about 2 years} that the study would not have been for long enough. The percentage is an irrelevance anyway.
There are accepted ranges used by the drillers themselves. But according to you this is just another of the many unknowns – hardly surprising that people are concerned with this level of guesswork going on perhaps?
“BTEX are routinely found in hydrocarbon production from all wells, treated or not; in fuel; in exhaust gases – and in tobacco smoke as inhaled. BTEX is so omni-present as to be irrelevant to fraccing.”
Ah I see – you don’t really expect us to take you seriously – you are about quantity not quality of argument then? Are you going to tell us that there is no proof that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer next? You may consider it irrelevant to fracking , but then that just gives us all a huge pointer as to the quality of your thought processes.
“Radioactivity does dissipate – but it has a half life of about 1500 years” – ha ha ha. Individual isotopes have individual half-lives – like 3.8 days for Radon. One way to handle a figure of “90 times the permitted level” is to dilute it by a factor of a hundred. There are others.
Typo /mistake there – It should have read radioactivity from Radon and in my haste I did quoted a figure for radium. Schoolboy error and I’m happy to admit when I get something wrong 🙂
I’m not a chemist but that’s precisely why we do need regulations to protect us isn’t it? It is still radioactive and it still has to be safely disposed of.. Of course you could dilute the millions of gallons 100 times – are you seriously suggesting that as a practical solution? (pardon the pun)
“Over a million – I know my industry.”
Will yo ulet Lilley know as he should be sacking his advisers then?
“1997 – and what of the MHF earlier performed in Germany?”
tell me about it
“50,000,000 gallons a time” – define “time”, that’s a figure for over ten wells – quite a hook-up to do simultaneously.
I didn’t say simultaneously. For the hard of thinking “50,000,000 gallons a time” here would mean “50,000,000 gallons to frack a 10 well pad.”
“There might be a danger of contaminated fluid affecting aquifers {everything is “possible”} – it just hasn’t happened; at a rate of less than one in a million that is statistically “never”.”
Saying something hasn’t happened unfortunately does not make it true. Even Cuadrilla admit is has happened. “In the US, only a handful of operations have led to the subsurface environment being contaminated with natural gas, with bad well design the cause”. How ig is a handful? Cuadrilla obviously have very big hands?
“The Scientific American article is pretty unscientific – it ignores practice for “possibility” {everything is “possible”}. To take just one example: “the fracking fluids have to travel through this pipe twice” – what do they mean by travel through? The treating fluids go down {& return up} a treating string, a separate string of pipe run within the production casing, and are isolated from the production casing {by the way, there is no such thing as a “cement casing”} by the treating string and the annular fluid. The article is, frankly, nonsensical & it is no great credit to the Scientific American that they published it. I speak as someone who had a subscription to the Scientific American in the 1950s & have read it since.”
Well if you don’t like a message why not shoot the messenger eh? Your argument style is to constantly pick on issues of detail like your “cement casing”. Clearly it is cement sealing of the casing but so what? It is a part of the casing. At least they got the cement right unlike the MD of a company who advise on energy investment who swears blind that fracking is perfectly safe because they use concrete to seal the wells 🙂
“I would advise you to a bit more research before offering your opinions on subjects you evidently know very little about” – ironic when someone thinks googling the internet provides more knowledge than university, a life in the industry & professional accreditation.
I do try to base my opinions on research Mr Baker, and reading your comments it is clear that whilst you may have some experience in the industry you are quite happy to appear here to defend it using every trick in the its playbook. You are ofcourse entitled to our opinions, but your arguments are not very convincing I am afraid.
“c’est la vie moderne.”
Mais comme vous êtes sophistiqué! (not)
Why do the posters publicising the meeting on Thursday night keep being taken down from the Parish Council Noticeboards? 82% of the village do not want fracking and it is a subject that is of interest to the village. Is there someone on Cuadrilla’s payroll that we don’t know about?
When is a shale not a shale? Learn all about it. Text below was sent to me by a village member:
‘The classifications of shale and micrite and so on seem to be loose.
‘Don’t rush but when time’s available this might clarify things to the point of things clearly being unclear.
‘http://paleodb.org/public/tips/lithtips.html
‘For example:
‘”shale”: fine-grained siliciclastic rocks containing unknown proportions of clay and silt, but containing at least 33% clay. May be lithified or not. Avoid using this category, except in cases where the proportions of clay and silt are not known. This will be a catch-all category for poorly described fine-grained siliciclastic rocks. Also see: claystone, mudstone, siltstone.
‘lime mudstone: a limestone composed almost entirely of lime mud (micrite) and less than 10% grains (ooids, peloids, bioclasts, or intraclasts). Note that a lime mudstone is a carbonate rock. A rock composed of siliciclastic mud but with carbonate cement should be treated as one of the fine-grained siliciclastic rocks (“shale”, claystone, mudstone, siltstone).
‘”carbonate”: category to use for a carbonate rock that cannot be classified as either a limestone or a dolomite. Avoid using if possible.
‘and under Translations of lithologic terms
‘micrite: lime mudstone
‘and on it goes
‘Perhaps it proves that Geology really isn’t a science.’
‘Coming to sites across the UK soon – fracking flares’
‘IGas chief warns that any production of shale gas would involve ‘flaring off’ leakages’
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/coming-to-sites-across-the-uk-soon–fracking-flares-8609940.html
We in Balcombe will be down-toxic-wind from Cuadrilla’s Lower Stumble gas flares.
For a worrying example of seemingly dubious environmental risk assessment ere Cuadrilla’s operations in Lancashire, see http://reaf.org.uk/news.php?readmore=61
For those of you who have not yet read the report on the parish council’s meeing last week with Cuadrilla: http://balcombeparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/meeting-bpc-cuadrilla-on-03-05-133.pdf
Michael, a linguistic question. Etching micrite: would you call acid-etching fracking?? Or even frac’ing??
Could you remind us what the typical pressure of a ‘normal’ frack might be? And of a micrite etch? For a given length of bore. Please wd you compare the volumes of liquid typically used to frack shale and to etch micrite? How deeply into the micrite could the hydrochloric acid solution be expected to work? With what kind of frequency would the acid etch be repeated?
How likely is it in your view that a frack will follow the ‘etch’?
Thank you.
Cuadrilla’s claim about fracking or not fracking at Balcombe and relayed enthuisiastically by a couple of members of the Balcombe Parish Council is a deception and a red herring.
Click to access meeting-bpc-cuadrilla-on-03-05-133.pdf
http://balcombeparishcouncil.com/
There is no need to deal with the red hering but here is some information for those who want to to deal with red herrings:
This might help
In the planning application Cuadrilla explain it expects the oil and gas to flow naturally, that is without stimulation. But that if it doesn’t flow naturally it will use stimulation which it describes in the planning application in the following way:
“Stimulation is carried out by pumping water under pressure into the natural fractures in the shale formations to open them up to let the gas flow more freely.”
See appendix C page 9 under “Testing Procedure”
http://buildings.westsussex.gov.uk/ePlanningOPS/tabPage3.jsp?aplId=1154
One of the suggested target rocks is micrite and is a carbonate but is very fine grained and not likely to respond to a matrix treatment. Therefore the likelihood of rock breaking hydraulic fracturing is medium to high. The use of sand as a proppant may or may not be necessary.
The following definitions may help.
“stimulation”
A treatment performed to restore or enhance the productivity of a well. Stimulation treatments fall into two main groups, hydraulic fracturing treatments and matrix treatments. Fracturing treatments are performed above the fracture pressure of the reservoir formation and create a highly conductive flow path between the reservoir and the wellbore. Matrix treatments are performed below the reservoir fracture pressure and generally are designed to restore the natural permeability of the reservoir following damage to the near-wellbore area. Stimulation in shale gas reservoirs typically takes the form of hydraulic fracturing treatments.
“fracture acidizing”
A well-stimulation operation in which acid, usually hydrochloric [HCl], is injected into a carbonate formation at a pressure above the formation-fracturing pressure. Flowing acid tends to etch the fracture faces in a nonuniform pattern, forming conductive channels that remain open without a propping agent after the fracture closes. The length of the etched fracture limits the effectiveness of an acid-fracture treatment. The fracture length depends on acid leakoff and acid spending. If acid fluid-loss characteristics are poor, excessive leakoff will terminate fracture extension. Similarly, if the acid spends too rapidly, the etched portion of the fracture will be too short. The major problem in fracture acidizing is the development of wormholes in the fracture face; these wormholes increase the reactive surface area and cause excessive leakoff and rapid spending of the acid. To some extent, this problem can be overcome by using inert fluid-loss additives to bridge wormholes or by using viscosified acids. Fracture acidizing is also called acid fracturing or acid-fracture treatment.
“formation fracture pressure”
Pressure above which injection of fluids will cause the rock formation to fracture hydraulically.
“acid frac”
A hydraulic fracturing treatment performed in carbonate formations to etch the open faces of induced fractures using a hydrochloric acid treatment. When the treatment is complete and the fracture closes, the etched surface provides a high-conductivity path from the reservoir to the wellbore.
“micrite”
Dense, fine-grained carbonate mud or rocks composed of mud that forms by erosion of larger carbonate grains, organic precipitation (such as from algae), or inorganic precipitation. The grains in micrite are generally less than 4 microns in size.
Cuadrilla’s claim about fracking or not fracking at Balcombe and relayed enthuisiastically by a couple of members of the Balcombe Parish Council is a deception and a red herring.
There is no need to deal with the red herring but here is some information for those who want to to deal with red herrings:
This might help
In the planning application Cuadrilla explain it expects the oil and gas to flow naturally, that is without stimulation. But that if it doesn’t flow naturally it will use stimulation which it describes in the planning application in the following way:
“Stimulation is carried out by pumping water under pressure into the natural fractures in the shale formations to open them up to let the gas flow more freely.”
See appendix C page 9 under “Testing Procedure” in the planning appication documents.
One of the suggested target rocks is micrite and is a carbonate but is very fine grained and not likely to respond to a matrix treatment. Therefore the likelihood of rock breaking hydraulic fracturing is medium to high. The use of sand as a proppant may or may not be necessary.
The following definitions may help.
“stimulation”
A treatment performed to restore or enhance the productivity of a well. Stimulation treatments fall into two main groups, hydraulic fracturing treatments and matrix treatments. Fracturing treatments are performed above the fracture pressure of the reservoir formation and create a highly conductive flow path between the reservoir and the wellbore. Matrix treatments are performed below the reservoir fracture pressure and generally are designed to restore the natural permeability of the reservoir following damage to the near-wellbore area. Stimulation in shale gas reservoirs typically takes the form of hydraulic fracturing treatments.
“fracture acidizing”
A well-stimulation operation in which acid, usually hydrochloric [HCl], is injected into a carbonate formation at a pressure above the formation-fracturing pressure. Flowing acid tends to etch the fracture faces in a nonuniform pattern, forming conductive channels that remain open without a propping agent after the fracture closes. The length of the etched fracture limits the effectiveness of an acid-fracture treatment. The fracture length depends on acid leakoff and acid spending. If acid fluid-loss characteristics are poor, excessive leakoff will terminate fracture extension. Similarly, if the acid spends too rapidly, the etched portion of the fracture will be too short. The major problem in fracture acidizing is the development of wormholes in the fracture face; these wormholes increase the reactive surface area and cause excessive leakoff and rapid spending of the acid. To some extent, this problem can be overcome by using inert fluid-loss additives to bridge wormholes or by using viscosified acids. Fracture acidizing is also called acid fracturing or acid-fracture treatment.
“formation fracture pressure”
Pressure above which injection of fluids will cause the rock formation to fracture hydraulically.
“acid frac”
A hydraulic fracturing treatment performed in carbonate formations to etch the open faces of induced fractures using a hydrochloric acid treatment. When the treatment is complete and the fracture closes, the etched surface provides a high-conductivity path from the reservoir to the wellbore.
“micrite”
Dense, fine-grained carbonate mud or rocks composed of mud that forms by erosion of larger carbonate grains, organic precipitation (such as from algae), or inorganic precipitation. The grains in micrite are generally less than 4 microns in size.
Sorry to be negative but the government have decided to worship the Golden Calf and the light of truth has been turned off. It is a war between reason and selfishness and today reason never seems to win. Best of luck if I can help I will but I only have a small candle.
Many thanks to all of you who have contributed your comments over the last year. This has created an invaluable resource, but due to the volume of them, we’ve had to archive what’s been said so far. To see comments previous to 10 May 2013 (all 1,072 of them), see our archive page here. Meanwhile, please feel free to recent comments below.