Fracking in Sussex? Fracking Firm Test Drilling in Balcombe

[hans kraay fan club]

Are socialists not allowed to use smart phones and social media?

I think you have them confused with the Amish

Ha.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Are socialists not allowed to use smart phones and social media?

I think you have them confused with the Amish

Any idea how much water it takes to make a tablet computer? Ever been on North Korean Facebook?

 

[LargeHadronZugzwang]

Yes well done for turning up at a socialist environmental protest organised by smart phone and social media. She can cycle up there wearing a sandwich board before she gets my respect.

Anything else you want her to do? Handstand on a unicycle?

Before you read the usual reactionary paper concerning your Mate Dave in Jura who has a bad back (he'll not be killing two deer with one shot today, he is good at that apparently, bless him) and subsequently proceed to tell everyone that the Countryside should be made to look like Croydon, you would do well to peruse a voice of reason if you can be bothered.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-cameron-fracking-mania-machismo

According to the figures, to equal current production of the North Sea, we are looking at a minimum of 10,000 wells. A quick tap on ye olde calculator arrives at these numbers on the amount of water that would be needed;-

300000000 tons (water) = 67200000000 gallons (UK)

That is without addressing the steel needed or the waste of energy transporting it around. So you see, the argument that fracking is a plausible solution, is completely false.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

LBC where talking about this issue yesterday. The presenter was saying that protesting is the wrong way to go about it, my question is how else are people able to make a point, because if you try and talk nobody will listen and they will just push it through like all cases.

They didn't listen to people as regards the incinerator in Newhaven after years of campaigning, the deal was completed years before.

I think this fracking company at least has a responsibility to tell everybody what the actual risks are from fracking, tell the truth. People telling these protestors to shove off, wonder what they will say in a few years if in fact they where right. It would then be a case of we told you so.

http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUJX39_WM9M

 

[Guinness Boy]

Anything else you want her to do? Handstand on a unicycle?

Before you read the usual reactionary paper concerning your Mate Dave in Jura who has a bad back (he'll not be killing two deer with one shot today, he is good at that apparently, bless him) and subsequently proceed to tell everyone that the Countryside should be made to look like Croydon, you would do well to peruse a voice of reason if you can be bothered.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-cameron-fracking-mania-machismo

According to the figures, to equal current production of the North Sea, we are looking at a minimum of 10,000 wells. A quick tap on ye olde calculator arrives at these numbers on the amount of water that would be needed;-

300000000 tons (water) = 67200000000 gallons (UK)

That is without addressing the steel needed or the waste of energy transporting it around. So you see, the argument that fracking is a plausible solution, is completely false.

You should click on my blog link. I'm normally left of centre. I just find the Greens embarrassingly hypocritical.

While we're doing links here's a much more sensible one from the same paper.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/15/tory-labour-energy-policy-winning-votes

You will also notice from my other posts a link that admits fracking is water intensive but that up to 70% is reused.

 

[glasfryn]

after watching the police tactics on the demonstrators at the fracking site it does make me wonder why the same tactics were not used on Mr one eye hook hand when his supporters were sitting in the road?

 

[beorhthelm]

I think this fracking company at least has a responsibility to tell everybody what the actual risks are from fracking, tell the truth.

people dont want to hear the truth. they just listen to the most vociferious argument, usually the green or Nimby lobby these days (applies to anything). anything a company says is discredited as propaganda, the details and reality get lost in a sea of FUD. like the water usage above, either a few extra zeros added to embelish or thats not actually as much water as you might think, but my what a big number, must be bad? i read that the amount of water used in fracking in the US was a fraction of that used to water golf courses, i dont know if thats true, but illustrates that a big number is meaningly without context. similar fear around nuclear has all but killed off that industry, but that would solve the carbon issues and the waste problems arent as significant as is made out, or could be eliminated with technology.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

anything a company says is discredited as propaganda, the details and reality get lost in a sea of FUD.

The problem being that many companies have been proven to lie as so much money is involved - Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 

[BadFish]

Any idea how much water it takes to make a tablet computer? Ever been on North Korean Facebook?

As coherent, logical and relevant as your other arguments on here. At least you are consistent I suppose.

 

[BadFish]

people dont want to hear the truth. they just listen to the most vociferious argument, usually the green or Nimby lobby these days (applies to anything). anything a company says is discredited as propaganda, the details and reality get lost in a sea of FUD. like the water usage above, either a few extra zeros added to embelish or thats not actually as much water as you might think, but my what a big number, must be bad? i read that the amount of water used in fracking in the US was a fraction of that used to water golf courses, i dont know if thats true, but illustrates that a big number is meaningly without context. similar fear around nuclear has all but killed off that industry, but that would solve the carbon issues and the waste problems arent as significant as is made out, or could be eliminated with technology.

Trouble is there is no independent body that can tell us if things are safe or not. Everyone who has an opinion on this stuff also has some vested interest in it as well. The truth is a very interesting concept in these matter and generally depends on the value you place on the opinions you read.

Personally I will take the word of Greenpeace over most sources (although i suspect they will be dismissed as hippies or some stupid generalised label and criticised as hypocrites because they have a website and wear shoes).


http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/3-reasons-why-we-could-all-be-fracked-fracking-20130812

4 reasons why we could all be fracked by fracking

As David Cameron warns the nation to like fracking or lump it, we examine why shale gas extraction is a bonkers idea for Britain.

A quick reminder of what fracking actually is - it is blasting water, sand and a cocktail of chemicals deep underground in order to get out the gas or oil.

Yes, you read right, it’s not just gas, it’s also oil they're hunting for. And here are four reasons why this is a really bad plan.

1. It could frack the climate

The world already has far more gas and oil than we can burn if we are to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global climate change. Finding more will only make it worse.

In fact, analysts like the International Energy Agency warn that most of the gas we’ve already found should stay in the ground. The last thing we need is new discoveries of expensive, hard to extract gas.

Fracking fans say gas is better than coal but it turns out simply replacing coal with shale gas may do little good over the next few decades – especially if the gas leaks out, sending super-warming methane into the atmosphere.

Frankly we’re well past the point of swapping between dirty fuels. Not only should we stop using coal – right now – we should be cutting down on our gas habit too.

The government’s climate advisors say emissions need to fall by more than 80% in just a few decades, that means cutting down on the gas yet Cuadrilla’s own analysis suggests they won’t even be producing much gas until the 2030s.

And that’s if we’re talking gas. A lot of the fracking could actually be for oil, especially in the South.

Fracking for oil is even worse for the climate than normal oil production (according to this report for the Norwegian government) and, as the IEA research shows, we already have far too many people pumping dirty oil into the world.

2. It could frack the countryside, too

Smashing rocks to get at the gas on an industrial scale isn’t easy.

An analysis by Bloomberg suggests that to match what we get from the North Sea with fracking (about half our demand) would need 10-20,000 wells scattered across the countryside in clumps of 6-10 on so-called ‘drilling pads’.

Each well would spread like an octopus underground potentially running for miles deep under land and homes. Cuadrilla, the company currently drilling in Sussex, say they would need fewer wells on site – but only because they would run even more wells underground.

New roads would be built for the thousands of polluting diesel trucks laden with chemicals, fracking fluid and waste fluids travelling to and from the drilling site. A report for Cuadrilla suggests that in drilling areas 6-17 trucks a day could be needed – over five years.

On site a drilling rig would move from well to well, pumping water underground and collecting the gas or oil in a 24-7 operation. During the exploratory phase flaring may take place burning off any gas the company finds.

3. And it could frack our water

Fracking uses so much water that the water industry has warned it could make our shortages even worse.

But there is also another risk to our water. If things go wrong on the drilling site (or in transit) then contaminated water from fracking could spread into the environment, polluting ecosystems.

The fracking process involves potentially toxic chemicals at almost every stage.

Injected fluid contains chemicals including hydrochloric acid, the drilling process often involves muds containing chloride and the waste fluid – which comes back up – contains potentially toxic minerals as well as low levels of naturally occurring radioactive materials (or Norm) from the rocks.

As the UK’s Environment Agency found, flow-back fluid from the Lancashire shale contained “notably high levels of sodium, chloride, bromide and iron, as well as higher values of lead".

The shale is fracked deep under ground but if something goes wrong with the well, gas and fluids can leak into the ground or water supply higher up.

Studies in the US have indicated this may be happening in areas with lots of drilling in Pennsylvania and Texas where contaminants including were found at higher concentrations in water wells closer to fracking sites. The studies can't show conclusively what caused the contamination - but the US Environmental Protection Agency is in the middle of a long-running investigation into shale gas and water.

And then there is the risk of a leak from fluids held at the surface.

According to a study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “spills or leaks can … occur during the transport, mixing and storage of the water and flowback”.

It’s happened more than once. In fact there are claims of spills, accidents or fines for firms engaged in drilling activities here, here, here, here, here and here.

The Government insists its tougher regulations will mean none of that happens in the UK. Fracking firms have to get lots of permits and won’t be allowed near sensitive water tables – but most of the monitoring will ultimately be down to firms like Cuadrilla, and when has that ever gone wrong before?

4. It won’t bring down bills

George Osborne and David Cameron want you to think fracking will send your energy bill crashing. We’re not saying they’re lying, it’s just there aren’t any facts on their side.

In fact, the guy Cuadrilla hired to do their spin put it most simply when he was talking to us at a public meeting. He said they’d done some research and the impact on bills would be pretty limited, “basically insignificant” was how he put it.

Why? Well firstly because nobody actually believes they are going to succeed in plastering the country with the thousands of wells it would need to produce very much gas. A government report thinks UK shale will make up about 5% of what we use.

But what if they do? Well it will still make no difference (except to the countryside).

Firstly every single expert we’ve found (apart from George) thinks UK shale is going to be quite expensive compared to the US, quite possibly no cheaper than gas already is, in fact. All that water, all those trucks, wells far deeper than in the US and those pesky rules about not damaging the environment.

But maybe George knows something we don’t, maybe they can frack on the cheap. We don’t think that sounds like a good idea, but even if they did it, here’s the thing. We already produce lots of gas in the North Sea yet our bills aren’t low. That’s because we’re connected to a European gas market. We’ve got pipes all over the channel and the North Sea.

Cuadrilla will sell their gas to the highest bidder. We already export gas at the same time as we import gas for more money. That’s just how the market works. We’d have thought George would know a thing or two about that really.

Oh, we almost forgot, the exploration in the South East - that's not for gas, its for oil, shale oil. Shale is not going to reduce anyone's gas bill and, thanks to the market, it's not going to reduce anyone's petrol bill either.
Article tagged as: climate change, cuadrilla, energy, fracking, gas, oil

 

[folkestonesgull]

I think if we are going to frack it needs to form part of a coherent long term energy strategy. It needs to be taxed appropriately at 60% (as per gas and oil) and all tax revenue needs to be ringfenced for long term investment or subsidy of renewable technologies so that in 20 years time we are not in deep trouble. I would also like to see all tax revenue from remaining oil and gas put towards long term sustainable alternatives rather than going in to the general UK budget. If we are going to exploit natural resources we need to do so to secure our own and future generations long term energy future, rather than as a lowly taxed, quick rush as currently being proposed.

 

[CheeseRolls]

LBC where talking about this issue yesterday. The presenter was saying that protesting is the wrong way to go about it, my question is how else are people able to make a point, because if you try and talk nobody will listen and they will just push it through like all cases.

They didn't listen to people as regards the incinerator in Newhaven after years of campaigning, the deal was completed years before.

I think this fracking company at least has a responsibility to tell everybody what the actual risks are from fracking, tell the truth. People telling these protestors to shove off, wonder what they will say in a few years if in fact they where right. It would then be a case of we told you so.

http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUJX39_WM9M

I am trying hard to be objective and really struggling.

Youtube -

Carl, a local resident is ALREADY HAVING PROBLEMS WITH WATER . Green tinge and black dots appearing . Also three other locals . People on site ALREADY COMPLAINING OF COUGHS , We can also hear the coughs of the G4s security officers surrounding the Deadly installation along with the drilling , into the night . The question of protective gas masks is raised seriously at camp meetings . The DRILLING NOISE and the SMELLY GAS RELEASE seriously lowered moral on site ." It was like a smack in the face for everyone " One Protector said . I camped at the site , the lack of birds first thing in the morning was deafening if you know what i mean . A place like that , so beautiful , its a travesty .Even with the positive mindset that exists on a site like that .

This is as a result of a test drill. Have there been similar complaints from residents of Singleton and Storrington, where there have been similar drills, but for oil


The website animation is nicely presented, but I have to question it's relevance.

1 The animation starts with the environmental impact of bringing in water by truck. I doubt there is anywhere in all of England that is remote and arid enough to warrant this.
2 It repeats the same story about the cocktail of chemicals that are added to the fracking solution and as I have said before, most of the chemicals are released from the rocks that are fractured and are not part of some secret sauce or witchcraft. Here again is the link to Cuadrillas site that explains the what, where and how, all of which is monitored and approved by the environment agency.

If you want to search for information on polyacrilimide you will find that there are safety standards in place as to acceptable concentrations in drinking water. Dig further and you will see that it is used extensively in the treatment of drinking water, to remove particles. I think we will have a better understanding of the risks, once the test drill and analysis is completed. This is currently being delayed by a bunch of pseudo scientists and street entertainers, with a quite different agenda.

3 It talks about the dangers of polluting water in deep wells. Take a look at the link below, we do not get our drinking water from deep underground. It simply is not relevant.

http://www.southernwater.co.uk/at-home/your-water/water-resources/where-our-water-comes-from/

 

[dougdeep]

There are 8 sites where fracking may take place in England. Balcombe isn't one of them. I'd just like to know why the rent a mob hippies don't go to one of them.

 

[beorhthelm]

The problem being that many companies have been proven to lie as so much money is involved - Pacific Gas and Electric Company

dont for a moment disagree. but that shouldnt mean we ignore all information from companies. on the other hand, special interest groups have been proven to lie too, to support their causes. like...

Personally I will take the word of Greenpeace over most sources ...
1. It could frack the climate

The world already has far more gas and oil than we can burn if we are to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global climate change. Finding more will only make it worse.

to address their first concern, its simply a matter of fact that gas is more efficient and cleaner than coal. the whole point why we are interested in fracking for gas is to get a cleaner energy source, cheaper. we could follow the logic and just carry on shipping gas from overseas. they'd be against that too of course, Greenpeace is against any use of fossil fuels, so why don they just say that? because reality bites and people want to have a cup of tea while watching Corrie, so they twist the story and hide the agenda.

 

[Since1982]

In amongst all of the biased commentary and propaganda from both sides in this debate (although as an observation we seem to be hearing more anti than pro at the moment) does anybody know of a credible source for an objective assessment of the pros and cons for the UK?

 

[keaton]

There are 8 sites where fracking may take place in England. Balcombe isn't one of them. I'd just like to know why the rent a mob hippies don't go to one of them.

Fracking may take place in Balcombe. Who is paying the rent a mob?

 

[BadFish]

dont for a moment disagree. but that shouldnt mean we ignore all information from companies. on the other hand, special interest groups have been proven to lie too, to support their causes. like...



to address their first concern, its simply a matter of fact that gas is more efficient and cleaner than coal. the whole point why we are interested in fracking for gas is to get a cleaner energy source, cheaper. we could follow the logic and just carry on shipping gas from overseas. they'd be against that too of course, Greenpeace is against any use of fossil fuels, so why don they just say that? because reality bites and people want to have a cup of tea while watching Corrie, so they twist the story and hide the agenda.

That is exactly what that sentence says

The world already has far more gas and oil than we can burn if we are to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global climate change. Finding more will only make it worse.

Not trying to hide the agenda just pointing out that we should stop burning oil and gas instead of finding expensive and potentially dangerous ways of finding more.

Where is the lie?

 

[glasfryn]

OK so it might not be any cheaper and it might infringe on the some of the "NICER" places we have in the UK but we would not be relient on getting our gas from places like Russia and shipping it in from the middle east.

 

[BadFish]

In amongst all of the biased commentary and propaganda from both sides in this debate (although as an observation we seem to be hearing more anti than pro at the moment) does anybody know of a credible source for an objective assessment of the pros and cons for the UK?

I would suggest that this depends on who you trust. Are there any independent sources who the other side won't accuse of having an agenda?

 

[keaton]

OK so it might not be any cheaper and it might infringe on the some of the "NICER" places we have in the UK but we would not be relient on getting our gas from places like Russia and shipping it in from the middle east.

To what end? If it's not saving us any money