This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
News reports indicate Lancashire County Council has voted to turn down Quadrilla's application to frack on 2 sites between Preston & Blackpool.
6
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Heard it in rockfm news before. So chuffed.
I live in Freckleton so would have made a notable difference to the area
Heard it in rockfm news before. So chuffed.
I live in Freckleton so would have made a notable difference to the area
1
2
In reply to goose299:
Why would it make a difference?
I don't really see how Fracking contributes to global warming when gas generated electricity produces half the CO2 emissions of coal generated electricity per unit of electricity produced. 35% of UK's electricity is still generated from coal (compared to 25% from gas). Almost all of that coal is imported, 41% from Russia, 23% from Columbia and 25% from the USA - all mostly with massive environmental despoliation from open cast mining, not to mention burning dirty bunker oil in those cargo ships used to import it (the world's cargo ships emit 260x more sulphur dioxide than all the cars in the world - acid rain, acid oceans).
But I guess that's much more preferable to a small surface installation on a Fylde field. Much of the anti fracking hysteria is based on rare examples of unregulated and badly engineered fracking leading to water pollution in the US.
The whole point of Cuadrilla's application was to test the process. I guess the single interest protest groups wouldn't have been too happy if it went ahead and no problems were found.
I'm a passionate environmentalist and my career is and has always been to reduce CO2 emissions from energy use in Industry - to be successful it's important to see the whole picture. Something many single issue protest groups refuse to do.
Why would it make a difference?
I don't really see how Fracking contributes to global warming when gas generated electricity produces half the CO2 emissions of coal generated electricity per unit of electricity produced. 35% of UK's electricity is still generated from coal (compared to 25% from gas). Almost all of that coal is imported, 41% from Russia, 23% from Columbia and 25% from the USA - all mostly with massive environmental despoliation from open cast mining, not to mention burning dirty bunker oil in those cargo ships used to import it (the world's cargo ships emit 260x more sulphur dioxide than all the cars in the world - acid rain, acid oceans).
But I guess that's much more preferable to a small surface installation on a Fylde field. Much of the anti fracking hysteria is based on rare examples of unregulated and badly engineered fracking leading to water pollution in the US.
The whole point of Cuadrilla's application was to test the process. I guess the single interest protest groups wouldn't have been too happy if it went ahead and no problems were found.
I'm a passionate environmentalist and my career is and has always been to reduce CO2 emissions from energy use in Industry - to be successful it's important to see the whole picture. Something many single issue protest groups refuse to do.
26
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
Come on, somebody disagree or argue the case; after all there's been loads of anti-fracking posts on UKC over the last few months
Come on, somebody disagree or argue the case; after all there's been loads of anti-fracking posts on UKC over the last few months
In reply to kevin stephens:
You want to gamble your life on the quality of water should the water table become contaminated?
> Come on, somebody disagree or argue the case;
You want to gamble your life on the quality of water should the water table become contaminated?
1
1
In reply to The Lemming:
fortunately I don't have to gamble as in the UK I can rely on strict environmental monitoring and controls imposed on all industries' emissions to land, air and water
fortunately I don't have to gamble as in the UK I can rely on strict environmental monitoring and controls imposed on all industries' emissions to land, air and water
2
1
1
In reply to The Lemming:
That's not a flippant comment by the way, my energy efficiency work involves me in a wide range of manufacturing industries which are supervised and monitored under strict Pollution Prevention and Control Permits amongst other regulations, which I have had direct experience of.
That's not a flippant comment by the way, my energy efficiency work involves me in a wide range of manufacturing industries which are supervised and monitored under strict Pollution Prevention and Control Permits amongst other regulations, which I have had direct experience of.
4
In reply to The Lemming:
No, it's much better to gamble your life on the scientifically rigorous analysis that can be found in popular newspapers (along with horoscopes, obviously).
No, it's much better to gamble your life on the scientifically rigorous analysis that can be found in popular newspapers (along with horoscopes, obviously).
In reply to The Lemming:
Look at it this way Lemming. You're a medical professional and I guess have had to talk down media hysteria about the "perils" of the MMR vaccine resulting in parents putting their children in danger by refusing to have them vaccinated?
Us engineering and environmental professionals have similar issues with non-scientific gut reaction media hysteria
When things go wrong in your's and my profession its not the fundamentals that are at fault but usually because people don't do their job properly, or the supervision is lacking.
Look at it this way Lemming. You're a medical professional and I guess have had to talk down media hysteria about the "perils" of the MMR vaccine resulting in parents putting their children in danger by refusing to have them vaccinated?
Us engineering and environmental professionals have similar issues with non-scientific gut reaction media hysteria
When things go wrong in your's and my profession its not the fundamentals that are at fault but usually because people don't do their job properly, or the supervision is lacking.
6
In reply to kevin stephens:
I'm anti-fracking because we need to start leaving fossil fuels in the ground, regardless of groundwater contamination risk. The rush for fracking, coupled with the early removal of onshore wind subsidies, the lack of progress on tidal, wave and renewables in general makes a mockery of our supposed commitment to carbon reduction.
Put the money into nuclear and renewables.
I'm anti-fracking because we need to start leaving fossil fuels in the ground, regardless of groundwater contamination risk. The rush for fracking, coupled with the early removal of onshore wind subsidies, the lack of progress on tidal, wave and renewables in general makes a mockery of our supposed commitment to carbon reduction.
Put the money into nuclear and renewables.
8
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
I agree with you, I am in the environmental sector also specifically Pollution Control, which includes environmental permits etc.
> Us engineering and environmental professionals have similar issues with non-scientific gut reaction media hysteria
> When things go wrong in your's and my profession its not the fundamentals that are at fault but usually because people don't do their job properly, or the supervision is lacking.
I agree with you, I am in the environmental sector also specifically Pollution Control, which includes environmental permits etc.
In reply to kevin stephens:
Ding, ding, chicken dinner. We have a winner.
> When things go wrong in your's and my profession its not the fundamentals that are at fault but usually because people don't do their job properly, or the supervision is lacking.
Ding, ding, chicken dinner. We have a winner.
2
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Yep nuclear or nuclear fission, or what the correct terminology is the way to go.
Fracking is an answer too, but in a populated area like Lancashire, even if MP's think the county is devoid of voters?
> Put the money into nuclear and renewables.
Yep nuclear or nuclear fission, or what the correct terminology is the way to go.
Fracking is an answer too, but in a populated area like Lancashire, even if MP's think the county is devoid of voters?
Post edited at 20:13
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I agree with you part of the way, but at the moment the choice is getting coal out of the ground or less carbon intensive natural gas out of the ground.
The lack of progress on tidal and wave is mainly due to they are very expansive and don't deliver energy when needed. You need to burn gas to meet the electricity load when wind/wave/tidal aren't delivering (gas is much better for changeable loads than coal, and particularly nuclear)
Re lack of progress on renewables; are you aware that one of the UK's coal fired power stations now generates around one third of its electricity from wood waste; not virgin forests but waste timber from building sites etc)
Re commitment to carbon reduction - I'm rushed off my feet this year due to legislation (Energy Saving Opportunity Scheme) that requires every sizeable company in the UK to have a mandatory energy audit. Cost effective energy savings in Industry are still the best way to reduce the UK's CO2 emissions.
I agree with you part of the way, but at the moment the choice is getting coal out of the ground or less carbon intensive natural gas out of the ground.
The lack of progress on tidal and wave is mainly due to they are very expansive and don't deliver energy when needed. You need to burn gas to meet the electricity load when wind/wave/tidal aren't delivering (gas is much better for changeable loads than coal, and particularly nuclear)
Re lack of progress on renewables; are you aware that one of the UK's coal fired power stations now generates around one third of its electricity from wood waste; not virgin forests but waste timber from building sites etc)
Re commitment to carbon reduction - I'm rushed off my feet this year due to legislation (Energy Saving Opportunity Scheme) that requires every sizeable company in the UK to have a mandatory energy audit. Cost effective energy savings in Industry are still the best way to reduce the UK's CO2 emissions.
In reply to kevin stephens:
Excellent point about the coal. But there are other reasons as to why fracking might not be such a great idea.
You claim these environmental protection laws are strict. TX & OK also have strict environmental laws that were not followed - and now have consequences that will take a long time to ramify (it's quite possible some areas will be declared SuperFund sites later on) . Hope Cement plant is _in the middle of the National Park_ (cement factories produce a large amount of emissions - approximately 5% of all CO2 emissions globally are from cement plants). Clearly there is leeway for creative interpretation of these laws, or rather the extent of the environmental law is not as powerful as claimed, and there is the potential to make mistakes with grave consequences.
While natural gas is indeed a less polluting fuel than coal, solar is almost non-polluting, and about to become far cheaper still (it's expected to almost halve in price in the next 2 years). We have the technology to skip ahead to non fossil fuel sources right now! The cost for solar is cheaper when the fossil fuel industry subsidies and the cost of environmental cleanup and damage are taken into account.
Excellent point about the coal. But there are other reasons as to why fracking might not be such a great idea.
You claim these environmental protection laws are strict. TX & OK also have strict environmental laws that were not followed - and now have consequences that will take a long time to ramify (it's quite possible some areas will be declared SuperFund sites later on) . Hope Cement plant is _in the middle of the National Park_ (cement factories produce a large amount of emissions - approximately 5% of all CO2 emissions globally are from cement plants). Clearly there is leeway for creative interpretation of these laws, or rather the extent of the environmental law is not as powerful as claimed, and there is the potential to make mistakes with grave consequences.
While natural gas is indeed a less polluting fuel than coal, solar is almost non-polluting, and about to become far cheaper still (it's expected to almost halve in price in the next 2 years). We have the technology to skip ahead to non fossil fuel sources right now! The cost for solar is cheaper when the fossil fuel industry subsidies and the cost of environmental cleanup and damage are taken into account.
In reply to SenzuBean:
The fundamental limit on solar panels is that they can't suck more energy out of the sun that actually falls on them Indeed domestic solar panels typically only make use of around 10% of this energy while the most efficient make it up to around 25%. Like all semi-conductor stuff solar cells are getting a lot cheaper and hence the payback shorter, but you will need an awful amount of land in Northern Europe, which is fine but increases the cost and NIMBY factor
The fundamental limit on solar panels is that they can't suck more energy out of the sun that actually falls on them Indeed domestic solar panels typically only make use of around 10% of this energy while the most efficient make it up to around 25%. Like all semi-conductor stuff solar cells are getting a lot cheaper and hence the payback shorter, but you will need an awful amount of land in Northern Europe, which is fine but increases the cost and NIMBY factor
In reply to SenzuBean:
Have you taken into account the manufacturing in, and shipping from, China there?
> solar is almost non-polluting
Have you taken into account the manufacturing in, and shipping from, China there?
In reply to kevin stephens:
Much as it pains me to agree with you Kevin, your well argued and expert opinion has made me reconsider my views
Much as it pains me to agree with you Kevin, your well argued and expert opinion has made me reconsider my views
4
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Let's see if Quadrilla can mount an effective appeal, and rally all the people who want to attract jobs, investment and prosperity to Lancashire to demonstrate that the anti-fracking campaigners don't speak for everybody. Many of us would choose to trust scientists and engineers to ensure the process is safe and clean. The anti-frackers are the same people who would have protested that travelling by rail at more than 30 mph would kill everybody, that nuclear power would destroy the world and that electricity is the devil's work!
I hope the government can step in and restore some common sense into local government.
Let's see if Quadrilla can mount an effective appeal, and rally all the people who want to attract jobs, investment and prosperity to Lancashire to demonstrate that the anti-fracking campaigners don't speak for everybody. Many of us would choose to trust scientists and engineers to ensure the process is safe and clean. The anti-frackers are the same people who would have protested that travelling by rail at more than 30 mph would kill everybody, that nuclear power would destroy the world and that electricity is the devil's work!
I hope the government can step in and restore some common sense into local government.
7
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
Trust me, the environmental laws are extremely strict in the UK, DECC carry a pretty big stick and are quite rightly not shy in wielding it when required! I have been a drilling fluids engineer for almost 20 years so I deal with this stuff every day at work. I suspect you would be very surprised to see how seriously hydrocarbon spills are taken by operators and drilling contractors and the preventative measures and controls that are in place. Anyone involved in a hydrocarbon spill would certainly be in fear of disciplinary action and possibly dismissal.
Spills, of course still happen but are generally pretty minor and the aim is certainly "zero discharge" i.e no spill is viewed as acceptable.
You say : Clearly there is leeway for creative interpretation of these laws, or rather the extent of the environmental law is not as powerful as claimed, and there is the potential to make mistakes with grave consequences.
There is NO leeway for creative interptretation of environmental law in the offshore industry! The second part of your statement is certainly true though.
I think it's fair enough to be against fracking but the simple fact is that most people are taking that position on "information" they have gleaned from the media and a complete misunderstanding of the process and level of risk involved. There are certainly risks involved (generally no greater than drilling oil wells and producing without fracking) but they have been wildly over-stated and totally misunderstood in the majority of reporting that I have seen, especially in relation to groundwater contamination.
I'm not here to defend the oil industry or fracking and clearly a move to sustainable clean energy ASAP is the way forward - I'm just saying it's better for people to form opinions based on actual evidence/information than emotion and lazy journalism. That's a general comment BTW and not aimed at you or anyone else in particular!
Trust me, the environmental laws are extremely strict in the UK, DECC carry a pretty big stick and are quite rightly not shy in wielding it when required! I have been a drilling fluids engineer for almost 20 years so I deal with this stuff every day at work. I suspect you would be very surprised to see how seriously hydrocarbon spills are taken by operators and drilling contractors and the preventative measures and controls that are in place. Anyone involved in a hydrocarbon spill would certainly be in fear of disciplinary action and possibly dismissal.
Spills, of course still happen but are generally pretty minor and the aim is certainly "zero discharge" i.e no spill is viewed as acceptable.
You say : Clearly there is leeway for creative interpretation of these laws, or rather the extent of the environmental law is not as powerful as claimed, and there is the potential to make mistakes with grave consequences.
There is NO leeway for creative interptretation of environmental law in the offshore industry! The second part of your statement is certainly true though.
I think it's fair enough to be against fracking but the simple fact is that most people are taking that position on "information" they have gleaned from the media and a complete misunderstanding of the process and level of risk involved. There are certainly risks involved (generally no greater than drilling oil wells and producing without fracking) but they have been wildly over-stated and totally misunderstood in the majority of reporting that I have seen, especially in relation to groundwater contamination.
I'm not here to defend the oil industry or fracking and clearly a move to sustainable clean energy ASAP is the way forward - I'm just saying it's better for people to form opinions based on actual evidence/information than emotion and lazy journalism. That's a general comment BTW and not aimed at you or anyone else in particular!
Post edited at 15:20
3
In reply to cragtaff:
I suspect most of them are NIMBY's, they want and need energy as cheap as possible but they want it elsewhere thank you very much. I have no doubt their views are formed by the media scare mongering.
Obviously coming from Yorkshire I think franking on the other side of the hill is a great idea but no matter how well regulated I wouldn't want it near me either.
I work in a very regulated industry and see the shortcuts that people take everyday out of pure laziness at the ground level and profit driven at the corporate level.
> The anti-frackers are the same people who would have protested that travelling by rail at more than 30 mph would kill everybody, that nuclear power would destroy the world and that electricity is the devil's work!
> I hope the government can step in and restore some common sense into local government.
I suspect most of them are NIMBY's, they want and need energy as cheap as possible but they want it elsewhere thank you very much. I have no doubt their views are formed by the media scare mongering.
Obviously coming from Yorkshire I think franking on the other side of the hill is a great idea but no matter how well regulated I wouldn't want it near me either.
I work in a very regulated industry and see the shortcuts that people take everyday out of pure laziness at the ground level and profit driven at the corporate level.
1
1
In reply to cragtaff:
Irrespective of the desirability for obtaining an allegedly cheap energy source ( remember what we were all told about Nuclear Power in 50's and 60's) and the pros and cons of fracking technology one of the biggest issues in the Fylde and West Lancashire areas where Quadrilla are proposing drilling is the total unsuitability of most of the rural roads to sustain the number of heavy traffic movements. At the moment Quadrilla are attempting to obtain licenses for test wells on only two sites, however if they were successful, they would need to sink around a hundred such wells in a productive agricultural area close to centres of population to obtain maximum economic returns. The area is flat - similar to the Fens in Norfolk, with few obstructions. Any heavy industrial processes would have a major visual impact.
If fracking is such a good idea, and apparently potential resources exist over wide swathes of England, why not let the first drill sites to prove the viability of the process be sited in or near a prominent cabinet minister's constituency. Parts of Cheshire have been identified as having shale gas potential. Now which cabinet minister has a seat in Cheshire? Somehow I can't see it happening in the Chancellor's back yard.
Irrespective of the desirability for obtaining an allegedly cheap energy source ( remember what we were all told about Nuclear Power in 50's and 60's) and the pros and cons of fracking technology one of the biggest issues in the Fylde and West Lancashire areas where Quadrilla are proposing drilling is the total unsuitability of most of the rural roads to sustain the number of heavy traffic movements. At the moment Quadrilla are attempting to obtain licenses for test wells on only two sites, however if they were successful, they would need to sink around a hundred such wells in a productive agricultural area close to centres of population to obtain maximum economic returns. The area is flat - similar to the Fens in Norfolk, with few obstructions. Any heavy industrial processes would have a major visual impact.
If fracking is such a good idea, and apparently potential resources exist over wide swathes of England, why not let the first drill sites to prove the viability of the process be sited in or near a prominent cabinet minister's constituency. Parts of Cheshire have been identified as having shale gas potential. Now which cabinet minister has a seat in Cheshire? Somehow I can't see it happening in the Chancellor's back yard.
1
In reply to Lord of Starkness: The flatlands around the Fylde are hardly an area of outstanding natural beauty, they are flatlands! New roads can easily be built to accommodate traffic, sensible 'landscaping' can easily reduce the visual impact of the relatively small sites that would develop. The amount of agricultural land lost would be miniscule (relatively) and more than compensated for by the economic advantages.
I am not going to comment on your second paragraph, its hardly worth the bother.
I am not going to comment on your second paragraph, its hardly worth the bother.
In reply to cragtaff:
It's as much about the future impact as with the initial test sites. The gas produced will have to be processed before it gets fed in to the mains. It would be difficult to screen a major industrial plant of the scale required. Whilst an ideal location for such a processing plant would be on the site of the old chemical works at Fleetwood. Then you have the question of how you get the gas from the well heads to the processing plant and thence to the Gas grid. There will be a huge amount of disruption for many years as access roads, pipelines and plants are built. From what we have seen of gas production in the US there will be flare stacks that wil be visible for miles.
Let's face it, as a country we've hardly got the best record in forward planning when it comes to infrastructure in the North. The major road upgrades to West Cumbria were built AFTER the bulk of the construction work at Sellafield was completed!
It's as much about the future impact as with the initial test sites. The gas produced will have to be processed before it gets fed in to the mains. It would be difficult to screen a major industrial plant of the scale required. Whilst an ideal location for such a processing plant would be on the site of the old chemical works at Fleetwood. Then you have the question of how you get the gas from the well heads to the processing plant and thence to the Gas grid. There will be a huge amount of disruption for many years as access roads, pipelines and plants are built. From what we have seen of gas production in the US there will be flare stacks that wil be visible for miles.
Let's face it, as a country we've hardly got the best record in forward planning when it comes to infrastructure in the North. The major road upgrades to West Cumbria were built AFTER the bulk of the construction work at Sellafield was completed!
1
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Very unlikely to be the case in the UK. Flaring is a problem only either with "wet" gas (gas associated with oil production) or with "dry" gas (not associated with oil production) in stranded markets (ie markets where there's no infrastructure and it's uneconomic to transport). In a country as small as UK there would be no need for routine (and very wasteful) flaring. In parts of the US the regulations allow producers to flare gas for a whole year without paying royalties or taxes on it, while infrastructure is built, so they have an incentive to "just let a well flare" while they're putting in infrastructure. No such incentive exists in the UK.
Any flaring in the UK with be short-lived, in the initial phase, when flaring may be required while quality and flow rates are assessed. We're talking days here, and only at some sites. Production flaring should hardly be necessary at all....for a matter of hours maybe at sites where problems need to be checked. After all, every cubic metre flared off is lost revenue to the producer!
> From what we have seen of gas production in the US there will be flare stacks that wil be visible for miles.
Very unlikely to be the case in the UK. Flaring is a problem only either with "wet" gas (gas associated with oil production) or with "dry" gas (not associated with oil production) in stranded markets (ie markets where there's no infrastructure and it's uneconomic to transport). In a country as small as UK there would be no need for routine (and very wasteful) flaring. In parts of the US the regulations allow producers to flare gas for a whole year without paying royalties or taxes on it, while infrastructure is built, so they have an incentive to "just let a well flare" while they're putting in infrastructure. No such incentive exists in the UK.
Any flaring in the UK with be short-lived, in the initial phase, when flaring may be required while quality and flow rates are assessed. We're talking days here, and only at some sites. Production flaring should hardly be necessary at all....for a matter of hours maybe at sites where problems need to be checked. After all, every cubic metre flared off is lost revenue to the producer!
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...