Fracking in Sussex? Fracking Firm Test Drilling in Balcombe

[Guinness Boy]

The facts do prove that there are levels of radium and uranium that are up to 1500 times the safe limit in the vicinity of franking sites. The further from the sampled well you go, the less of these substances were found in harmful quantities.

I don't fancy having radioactive water in Sussex for the next few hundered years just so we can provide energy for half a dozen.

You don't have the facts and neither do I. Literally two minutes on Google yields the below which contradicts your "fact"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...hs-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-4

It needs to be scientifically and unemotionally investigated. Luckily for you the human race would never allow that.

 

[Superphil]

This is the report I read regarding shale gas production, it's difficult to know what to believe, but I'd rather not form an opinion when there are so many apparently opposing "facts" out there. I'm not a scientist, I do have a vested interest in being able to use gas and electricity, so it is impossible for me to protest one way or the other.

"Shale gas does not cause earthquakes, pollute water or use toxic chemicals. Wind turbines do far more damage.

.....fracking has been happening in this country (USA) for decades — the opponents do seem to be astonishingly cavalier with the facts.

Here are five things they keep saying that are simply false. First, that shale gas production has polluted aquifers in America. Second, that it releases more methane than other forms of gas production. Third, that it uses a worryingly large amount of water. Fourth, that it uses hundreds of toxic chemicals. Fifth, that it causes damaging earthquakes. None is true.

Let’s start with the aquifers claim. The total number that has been found to be polluted by either fracking fluid or methane gas as a result of fracking in the United States is zero. Allegation after allegation has been found to be untrue. The Environmental Protection Agency closed its investigation at Dimock, Pennsylvania, concluding there was no evidence of contamination; abandoned its claim that drilling in Parker County, Texas, had caused methane gas to come out of people’s taps; and withdrew its allegations of water contamination at Pavilion, Wyoming, for lack of evidence. Two recent peer-reviewed studies concluded that groundwater contamination from fracking is “not physically plausible”.

The movie Gasland showed a case of entirely natural gas contamination of water and the director knew it, but still pretended it might have been caused by fracking. Ernest Moniz, the US Energy Secretary, said this month: “I still have not seen any evidence of fracking per se contaminating groundwater.” Tens of thousands of wells drilled, two million fracking operations completed and not a single proven case of groundwater contamination. It may happen one day, of course, but few industries can claim a pollution record that good.

Next comes the claim that shale gas production results in more methane being released to the atmosphere than coal. (Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time and its concentration is not currently rising fast.) This claim originated with a Cornell biology professor with an axe to grind. Study after study has refuted it. As a team from Massachusetts Institute of Technology put it: “It is incorrect to suggest that shale gas-related hydraulic fracturing has substantially altered the overall [greenhouse gas] intensity of natural gas production.”

Third comes the claim that fracking uses too much water. 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.

Fourth, the ever-so-neutral BBC — in a background briefing — has described fracking as releasing “hundreds of chemicals” into the rock. Out by an order of magnitude, Auntie. Fracking fluid is 99.51 per cent water and sand. In the remaining 0.49 per cent there are 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your kitchen, garage or bathroom: citric acid (lemon juice), hydrochloric acid (swimming pools), glutaraldehyde (disinfectant), guar (ice cream), dimethylformamide (plastics), isopropanol (deodorant), borate (hand soap); ammonium persulphate (hair dye); potassium chloride (intravenous drips), sodium carbonate (detergent), ethylene glycol (de-icer), ammonium bisulphite (cosmetics) and petroleum distillate (cosmetics).

As for earthquakes, Durham University’s definitive survey of all induced earthquakes over many decades concluded that “almost all of the resultant seismic activity [from fracking] was on such a small scale that only geoscientists would be able to detect it” and that mining, geothermal activity or reservoir water storage causes more and bigger tremors."

 

[beorhthelm]

The facts do prove that there are levels of radium and uranium that are up to 1500 times the safe limit in the vicinity of franking sites. The further from the sampled well you go, the less of these substances were found in harmful quantities.

source please. even the normal anti-frcking blogs dont make any claims of radium and uranium that i've seen. if there's none of those elements in the rock, fracking isnt going to make them suddenly appear and theres high "unsafe" levels all over the country that are completely natural.

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

fracking in sussex....

You don't have the facts and neither do I. Literally two minutes on Google yields the below which contradicts your "fact"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...hs-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-4

It needs to be scientifically and unemotionally investigated. Luckily for you the human race would never allow that.

And luckily for you there are people fighting to keep your children's world free of radioactive water, as you seem to be too blinkered by what the oil companies (the ones who will make a shitload of cash) are actually doing.

This article from the NY Times will show you a very reputable source of water contamination due to fracking:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-map.html?_r=0

If you choose to believe what the profiteers choose to tell you fine, but don't dismiss others that question what they are up to. To me the whole thing is so totally idiotic and the ultimate in short term thinking that I can imagine.

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

fracking in sussex....

source please. even the normal anti-frcking blogs dont make any claims of radium and uranium that i've seen. if there's none of those elements in the rock, fracking isnt going to make them suddenly appear and theres high "unsafe" levels all over the country that are completely natural.

If you look at the NY times map I just posted it shows a direct correlation of unsafe levels of radium and uranium and the proximity to fracking wells.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Fracking fluid is 99.51 per cent water and sand. In the remaining 0.49 per cent there are 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your kitchen, garage or bathroom: citric acid (lemon juice), hydrochloric acid (swimming pools), glutaraldehyde (disinfectant), guar (ice cream), dimethylformamide (plastics), isopropanol (deodorant), borate (hand soap); ammonium persulphate (hair dye); potassium chloride (intravenous drips), sodium carbonate (detergent), ethylene glycol (de-icer), ammonium bisulphite (cosmetics) and petroleum distillate (cosmetics).

Is that really supposed to put your mind at ease?! Bloody hell.

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

fracking in sussex....

Is that really supposed to put your mind at ease?! Bloody hell.

Exactly. In addition, yes, maybe it is only 1 teaspoons of chemicals per litre of water, but as each frack requires around 15-20 million litres of water, this equates to 15-20 million teaspoons of chemicals - 90,000-120,000 litres of chemicals. Surely not good for the surrounding argument. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me!

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

fracking in sussex....

*surrounding area, not argument!

 

[CheeseRolls]

And luckily for you there are people fighting to keep your children's world free of radioactive water, as you seem to be too blinkered by what the oil companies (the ones who will make a shitload of cash) are actually doing.

This article from the NY Times will show you a very reputable source of water contamination due to fracking:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-map.html?_r=0

If you choose to believe what the profiteers choose to tell you fine, but don't dismiss others that question what they are up to. To me the whole thing is so totally idiotic and the ultimate in short term thinking that I can imagine.

Pennsylvania unlike most of the UK has very high levels of naturally occurring radium in the rocks. See this pdf for the UK www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=2498‎

You need to understand if you are comparing apples with apples. Also bear in mind that locally we do not have deep wells, our main water supply comes from water filtered through chalk, collected at the base of the South Downs. Fracking will occur at much lower levels.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

http://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/

Lots of places are wary and have started to/banned it, including the Americans, despite their usual laissez faire attitude towards energy.

Is that really supposed to put your mind at ease?! Bloody hell.

 

[Superphil]

Is that really supposed to put your mind at ease?! Bloody hell.

I think it's more the point that those who criticise fracking claim there is a lot more than half a percent. How many of those chemicals are present in the food we buy, in the shampoo we use, make up, cleaning products etc? And we willingly put that stuff on and in our bodies.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I think it's more the point that those who criticise fracking claim there is a lot more than half a percent. How many of those chemicals are present in the food we buy, in the shampoo we use, make up, cleaning products etc? And we willingly put that stuff on and in our bodies.

In the quantities they use Phil, 0.5% is MASSIVE, and if you are comfortable with de-icer in your water, you crack on.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I think it's more the point that those who criticise fracking claim there is a lot more than half a percent. How many of those chemicals are present in the food we buy, in the shampoo we use, make up, cleaning products etc? And we willingly put that stuff on and in our bodies.

We shouldn't be putting ANY chemicals into the ground - full stop !

 

[CheeseRolls]

http://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/

Lots of places are wary and have started to/banned it, including the Americans, despite their usual laissez faire attitude towards energy.

We are not going to get far with this discussion if people are scared of words like chemicals and radiation. The chemicals going in represent a minute risk compared to the potential chemicals released from the fractured rocks and the best way to determine what is present in the rock formations is test drilling, followed by analysis.

The keepwatersafe list reminds me of when Brighton was a Nuclear free zone - those signs really were the ultimate deterrent.

 

[CheeseRolls]

We shouldn't be putting ANY chemicals into the ground - full stop !

Why what is the problem ? If the Earth is flat anyway, they will probably just fall through the other side.

 

[joeinbrighton]

I think it's more the point that those who criticise fracking claim there is a lot more than half a percent. How many of those chemicals are present in the food we buy, in the shampoo we use, make up, cleaning products etc? And we willingly put that stuff on and in our bodies.

Household products also contain petroleum. Doesn't mean to say I'd want to store a huge Jerry can of it though.

 

[somerset]

Re: fracking in sussex....

Is that really supposed to put your mind at ease?! Bloody hell.

At those volumes it should at least put to rest some of the flamin blinkered scaremongering and propaganda , casually thrown about by those who may have read one report, probably in the Guardian, dug out by the journalist from years old documentation, probably also from the States, citing unconfirmed 'leakage' into the water table......but hey, then there wouldn't be a cause would there?....mind you, the protests will end soon when 1) the schools and colleges go back and 2) the weather get autumnal.

 

[Superphil]

In the quantities they use Phil, 0.5% is MASSIVE, and if you are comfortable with de-icer in your water, you crack on.

As I said at the begining of my post, there are so many opposing claims and counter claims about the safety of fracking, I am not prepared to form an opinion either way. There are so many instances where chemicals are ingested, knowingly and unknowingly, polution has been getting into our water supply for years and years.

The chemicals in that 0.5%

citric acid (lemon juice), I've consumed that today.
hydrochloric acid (swimming pools), ever taken a gulp of pool water by accident?
glutaraldehyde (disinfectant), I've spilt that on my skin in the past, but of course, I haven't knowlingly consumed it.
guar (ice cream), dur
dimethylformamide (plastics), used in millions of food packaging products, it's already on your Pizza from Bejam.
isopropanol (deodorant), used it this morning, probably breathed in some too.
borate (hand soap); yup, used this morning that too
ammonium persulphate (hair dye); not me, but the missus does.
potassium chloride (intravenous drips), god willing, so far I've managed to avoid ever having to be put on a drip.
sodium carbonate (detergent), use it all the time, where does detergent go when you wash up a glass, leave it to dry, then use it to drink from?
ethylene glycol (de-icer), Austrian wine producers put it in their wine to make it taste nicer, OK, 36m bottles of wine were subsequently destroyed, but no-one died.
ammonium bisulphite (cosmetics), don't use lippy myself, but do have a snog with the missus on occasions.
petroleum distillate (cosmetics), anyone ever used Vasaline on their lips?

 

[somerset]

Re: fracking in sussex....

Exactly. In addition, yes, maybe it is only 1 teaspoons of chemicals per litre of water, but as each frack requires around 15-20 million litres of water, this equates to 15-20 million teaspoons of chemicals - 90,000-120,000 litres of chemicals. Surely not good for the surrounding argument. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me!

What's a 'frack'?

 

[CheeseRolls]

Household products also contain petroleum. Doesn't mean to say I'd want to store a huge Jerry can of it though.

A discussion around what is acceptable risk is a positive thing.