Fracking in the West -

Spunkypoo

Tamboran, the Australian company who have been granted the licence to frack in the northwest, are meeting with the public this evening at 7pm in the Bush Hotel, Carrick-on-Shannon.

frackingishell

they havent been given the licence yet SKunkypoo

feicim

frackingishell wrote: »

they havent been given the licence yet SKunkypoo

They have now... for preliminary drilling (with a view to fracking)

Australian company Tamboran has been awarded the licence to make preliminary drillings for onshore natural gas in the Lough Allen basin, which takes in all of North Leitrim, and parts of counties Sligo, Roscommon, west Cavan and Donegal.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gas-firm-denies-drilling-method-will-cause-cancer-and-pollution-2882530.html

MadsL

An Taisce is taking the position that no activities should take place until clearly monitored and regulated operations can be shown to be possible.


Todays Press release

“An Taisce call for Moratorium on Fracking”

An Taisce called for a moratorium on ‘Fracking’ in a presentation to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht.

At yesterday’s Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht Charles Stanley-Smith, Chair of An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland stated “An Taisce is calling for a Ban on ‘Fracking’ until such time as the People of Ireland can be convinced that it is possible to regulate Fracking, so that it can be undertaken sustainably and as a result there will be no environmental, social or economic harm.”
He continued “Fracking has gained a very poor reputation in recent years, with many cases of environmental and societal damage recorded in the US. Much of this is due to the large amount of land used and its proximity to population and groundwater. Many would say that the pollution was caused by lax regulation in the past. Others say that Europe and Ireland can learn from the mistakes of the US and ‘Frack’ under ‘Best Practices’. Unfortunately, Ireland has an extremely poor history of environmental enforcement and the environmental threats of Fracking are many and due to the hundreds of sites involved will be cumulative. Can you really convince the People of Ireland that ‘this time it will be OK’?”
“An Taisce is very aware of the potential jobs that ‘Fracking’ could provide so we are also calling for a full ‘Life Cycle Analysis’ to be undertaken on Fracking to see if it will really bring benefits to the People of Ireland and at what risk?”

Ends
For further commentary/clarification please contact:
Charles Stanley-Smith, Chair, An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland, 087 2411995

Download An Taisce’s Presentation from here

feicim

Received august 31st 2011

The first thing that I would like to say is that while there has been considerable focus on the possibility of the technology of hydraulic fracturing (commonly referred to as “fracking”) being used in the area, that the authorisations that have been granted by my Department do not permit exploration drilling of any kind at this point in time and specifically do not provide for fracking.

As I have set out in more detail below, licensing options do not involve exploration field activity with drilling rigs etc. I can assure you that if in the future (before expiry of the licensing options in 2013) the companies consider they want to proceed to such an exploration stage, permission would have to be sought for an exploration drilling programme. That application would have to be detailed, setting out a full programme of work, supported by an environmental impact statement. My Department would undertake a full assessment of the application, including an environmental impact assessment.

The two authorisations granted by my Department earlier this year are called “licensing options”. The purpose of these authorisations is to confer on the two companies involved (Tamboran Resources and LANGCO), a first right of refusal for an exploration licence over the area concerned. The licensing options are for a two-year period and expressly state that exploration drilling may not be carried out under the licensing option. Before either company could apply for an exploration licence and proceed to an exploration drilling phase, they must first complete the licensing option work programme agreed with my Department. These work programmes are primarily based on desktop studies of existing data and should be completed by February 2013. When they have completed their work programmes each company will then have to decide if it wishes to move to the next stage and apply for an exploration licence. It is at that point that a work programme involving exploration drilling would be considered.

As I have already stated any application for permission to carry out exploration drilling, including drilling that proposed using hydraulic fracturing, would be subject to an environmental impact assessment. That assessment would include a public consultation phase, of four weeks or more, which would be widely advertised on my Department’s website and in the local press. As part of such a process my Department would also seek and be guided by, the expert advice of other relevant statutory authorities such as the EPA, NPWS and the Local Authorities. I would add that should such exploration work prove successful and the companies decide to seek to proceed to any production activity, that would be subject to a further assessment.

I am aware that one of the companies with a licensing option has scheduled a number of public information sessions for early September and I understand that the purpose of these information sessions is to provide information on the company’s plans. While I am sure that these meetings will be helpful in providing members of the local community with more by way of background and possible future plans, they are not a part of a formal public consultation process like that which would have to take place before exploration drilling could be approved. Should either company decide to advance to the exploration licence phase then it could be expected that a formal public consultation would commence by mid 2013"

The facts outlined in the independent newspaper article seem to contradict what is outlined in this letter.


Another (different) correspondence from Minister Rabbitte states the following:

Received august 24th 2011

Exploration drilling is not allowed under these authorisations, but shallow geological sampling is permitted

Anyone know what the definition of "shallow geological sampling"??

How shallow is shallow and what exactly is geological sampling? Will Tamboran or whoever be deciding what these definitions are?

frackingishell

so is it looking inevitable that parts of our country are about to be raped?

thebman

feicim wrote: »

Anyone know what the definition of "shallow geological sampling"??

How shallow is shallow and what exactly is geological sampling? Will Tamboran or whoever be deciding what these definitions are?

Geological sampling is just soil samples. It would be at the depth they are intended to Frack to I imagine but not over a wide area. Just shallow selections from a few areas to get an idea of how hard it will be to extract the gas I imagine.

Scofflaw

thebman wrote: »

Geological sampling is just soil samples. It would be at the depth they are intended to Frack to I imagine but not over a wide area. Just shallow selections from a few areas to get an idea of how hard it will be to extract the gas I imagine.

More a case of drilling to less than 200m depth, and most likely for core samples - that is, you drill out a tube of rock to have a look at the rock types, fracture patterns, permeability and so on. You can also use the boreholes for a certain amount of exploratory geophysical measurements - again, they'll be most interested in fracture patterns and permeability.

Sub-200m core samples would be pretty routine - not much in the way of serious equipment, and done by the universities and GSI fairly regularly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BRUSSELS (Dow Jones)--The European Commission is studying whether the current European Union environmental laws would apply to shale gas production, but isn't planning to propose any new legislation on what is becoming an increasingly contentious issue in Europe.

"At the moment, it is not foreseen that we come forward with a legislative proposal," said Marlene Holzner, spokeswoman for Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger. The commission, which has executive powers within the EU, has however asked a private consultant to look into whether the present environmental laws would cover shale gas, she said.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MadsL

Is there any risk in sampling through a water table or aquifer? (being lazy - will try and research this soon, but in the meantime)

Scofflaw

MadsL wrote: »

Is there any risk in sampling through a water table or aquifer? (being lazy - will try and research this soon, but in the meantime)

Not with that kind of shallow drilling, really. It's the same kind of depths you might go to for water well drilling.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MadsL

“Please discuss the findings of the EPA advice on Fracking with the people – An Taisce”

Today, An Taisce complemented Minister Rabbitte for his initiative to ask the EPA for advice on the environmental implications of fracking.
Charles Stanley-Smith, Chair An Taisce, the Environmental charity, stated “We complement Minister Rabbitte on his initiative on asking the EPA for their advice on the environmental impacts of Fracking. We call upon the minister to make this advice publically available to allow the people participate properly in the decision making process. An Taisce is very aware of the potential jobs that ‘Fracking’ could provide, so we are also calling for a full ‘Life Cycle Analysis’ to be undertaken on Fracking to see if it will really bring benefits to the People of Ireland and at what risk?”
He went on to say “We realise that currently no company is licensed to undertake Fracking in Ireland and reiterate our call for a Moratorium on Fracking and we call upon the Minster to convince the people of Ireland that Fracking can be undertaken without environmental damage before any company is licensed to undertake Fracking, even on an exploratory basis”
An Taisce Ends
For further commentary/clarification please contact:
Charles Stanley-Smith, Chair, An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland, 087 2411995

ed2hands

feicim wrote: »

Edit:

Earthquakes/Tremors in Blackpool suspected to be linked to fracking in the area.





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/small-earthquake-in-blackpool-major-shock-for-uks-energy-policy-2291597.html

"US Govt. confirms links between earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing":

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/U.S.-Government-Confirms-Link-Between-Earthquakes-and-Hydraulic-Fracturing.html

cavedave

CLARE COUNTY Council last night became the first local authority to agree to put in place a ban on fracking in its county development plan.

Councillors back fracking ban

Run_to_da_hills

cavedave wrote: »

Councillors back fracking ban

Fair play to them and I hope the rest of the countries county councils follow. People need to be educated about this scourge.

Who wants €300 to €400 bn worth of natural gas extracted from our land if the consequences of it is turning our country into a toxic wasteland. You could Kiss good bye to Ballygowen, Tipperary, Irish Spring Water not to mention ordinary tap water.

Check out the movie Gaslands, available on DVDor big screen, it will open your eyes.

nedzer2011

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Fair play to them and I hope the rest of the countries county councils follow. People need to be educated about this scourge.

Who wants €300 to €400 bn worth of natural gas extracted from our land if the consequences of it is turning our country into a toxic wasteland. You could Kiss good bye to Ballygowen, Tipperary, Irish Spring Water not to mention ordinary tap water.

Check out the movie Gaslands, available on DVDor big screen, it will open your eyes.

Turn Ireland into a toxic wasteland? Is that not a bit OTT?? Talking about education.. do you base your statements on any technical ground other than 'facts' provided by Gasland?

MadsL

Pretty hard to clean up a water table once you pollute it though, not like cleaning up, say, the Gulf of Mexico... *COUGH*

books4sale

It's beyond me why fracking would even be proposed.

It's ok to shove every toxic chemical known to man into the Earth for a bit of gas and pollute the water table to boot but when it comes to throwing up a wind farm, everyone's up in arms about the scenery.

What is it with people and stupidity? They almost seem to go hand in hand these days.

nedzer2011

books4sale wrote: »

It's beyond me why fracking would even be proposed.

It's ok to shove every toxic chemical known to man into the Earth for a bit of gas and pollute the water table to boot but when it comes to throwing up a wind farm, everyone's up in arms about the scenery.

What is it with people and stupidity? They almost seem to go hand in hand these days.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but this post suggests that you believe that the hydraulic fracturing process virtually guarantees groundwater pollution?

The more these threads progress, the more it becomes clear that hydraulic fracturing won't go ahead. Not because of any technical reason, but because of this somewhat blind perception that people have. As was stated in another thread, it's those who shout loudest who are listened to; not those who research the subject and educate themselves prior to coming to a conclusion.

Yahew

Its mere ludditism in most cases.

books4sale

nedzer2011 wrote: »

The more these threads progress, the more it becomes clear that hydraulic fracturing won't go ahead. Not because of any technical reason, but because of this somewhat blind perception that people have. As was stated in another thread, it's those who shout loudest who are listened to; not those who research the subject and educate themselves prior to coming to a conclusion.

Good if it dosen't go ahead. I don't want it to.

It's not a blind perception, I watched 'Gasland', it was more than enough evidence for me. I don't need any BS coporate facts and figure telling me how safe it is.

'Those who shout the loudest' ...right! tell that to the people who had their water supplies polluted and the damage done to their bodies as a results of this process in America.

I came to my conclusion, I don't like the idea of pumping hazordous chemicals into the ground for the sake of a bit of gas when renewables offer a cleaner and safer return.

First and foremost I care about people not some foreign corporation using us as disposable assets.

Some just want to watch the world burn. FACT!

books4sale

Yahew wrote: »

Its mere ludditism in most cases.

I totally agree with you, well said. Thank you for your contribution.

Investment in renewables is indeed the way forward for a cleaner and better future for everyone on this planet.

Some of the most advanced technology is currently being developed in this field. Ireland has the potential to be a world leader with vast renewable resources on our doorstop instead here we are considering 'fracking', a finite resouce which offers limited return and hell of cleaning bill for the taxpayer.

Just another irish joke really....can't see the wood for the trees.

Kepti

This is an informative article/podcast on fracking.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275

Pablo_

Kepti wrote: »

This is an informative article/podcast on fracking.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275

Urbanisation urbanisation urbanisation , then ......then we'll deal with the real problem .... Energy is half our problem

cavedave

books4sale

Some of the most advanced technology is currently being developed in this field. Ireland has the potential to be a world leader with vast renewable resources on our doorstop instead here we are considering 'fracking', a finite resouce which offers limited return and hell of cleaning bill for the taxpayer.

Do you have a good reference for how Ireland could meet its energy needs through renewable sources? some of the ones I have seen either require too much investment in capital like spirit of Ireland. Others seem to mix up peak supply with constant ability to supply.

Yahew

books4sale wrote: »

I totally agree with you, well said. Thank you for your contribution.

Investment in renewables is indeed the way forward for a cleaner and better future for everyone on this planet.

Some of the most advanced technology is currently being developed in this field. Ireland has the potential to be a world leader with vast renewable resources on our doorstop instead here we are considering 'fracking', a finite resouce which offers limited return and hell of cleaning bill for the taxpayer.

Just another irish joke really....can't see the wood for the trees.

If renewables worked we would be using them by now. Gaslands was massively biased, like a Michael Moore documentary.

books4sale

Yahew wrote: »

If renewables worked we would be using them by now.

We are. :rolleyes:

Once again thank you for your contibution though this time I fear your mask has slipped and that it you dear sir who are the luddite.

Yahew

books4sale wrote: »

We are. :rolleyes:

Once again thank you for your contibution though this time I fear your mask has slipped and that it you dear sir who are the luddite.

Cut the sarcasm mate or get reported. We are nowhere near a position where we can even begin to fuel either Ireland, or the Earth with renewables.

Fracking, on the other hand will double, or triple the world's known reserves, most importantly bringing renewed prosperity to central Ireland. Jobs, exports, VAT etc. We probably should wait until the technology is a bit refined, but we should be able to do this.

MadsL

Yahew wrote: »

Cut the sarcasm mate or get reported. We are nowhere near a position where we can even begin to fuel either Ireland, or the Earth with renewables.

Err, about 40 years actually.

wrote:

It is estimated that capturing 0.3% of the sunlight falling on the desert would meet all of Europe's needs.
The major drawback to the proposal is the cost and the time. An investment of around €450bn would be needed and scientists estimate that it would take until 2050 before the project could produce 100 GW which is more electricity than all sources of power in the UK combined

source

However, Solar panels take an efficiency leap about every five years or so as new panels come on stream. So there may be a Moore's Law effect.

Fracking, on the other hand will double, or triple the world's known reserves,

Could we get a source for that confident forecast, would that be an Oil company talking by any chance?

most importantly bringing renewed prosperity to central Ireland.

Central Ireland?? What? Prosperity? Like Mayo and Shell you mean?

Jobs, exports, VAT etc.

They can fix the road while they are at it. What is it about Ireland that every half-assed project is justified because someone mentions "It'll bring Jabs!!" - never ends...

We probably should wait until the technology is a bit refined, but we should be able to do this.

Ya think? Or will we just blast some chemicals down a deep hole and see what happens - because that is pretty much the technology at the moment. When the technology is 'refined', please explain to me how the EPA can possibly police this type of operation? Oh, of course, these are major multi-nationals, they would never make a mistake and destroy the natural environment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

Yahew

MadsL wrote: »

Err, about 40 years actually.

source

However, Solar panels take an efficiency leap about every five years or so as new panels come on stream. So there may be a Moore's Law effect.

We are talking about Ireland - at best that project might work in Spain. It is more likely to work in Africa, and relying on Africa for a significant portion of our energy would be madness. And we have 40 years to wait.

Could we get a source for that confident forecast, would that be an Oil company talking by any chance?

No it came from Michael Moore's bollocks. Of course it came from the geological scientists who know the actual science behind fracking - unlike that luddite documentary ( already destroyed in a previous link here). That's where geological scientists go - they work in multinationals. The people who produce the peer reviewed papers, not some arts student with a camera.

Central Ireland?? What? Prosperity? Like Mayo and Shell you mean?

Well like the prosperity and jobs which would have increased employment and generated tax revenues had the project not be curtailed by a insane ignorant cabal of sophomoric pseuds, aging Marxists, tricolour waving republicans, semi-literate druids and rosary toting neanderthals, yes.

They can fix the road while they are at it. What is it about Ireland that every half-assed project is justified because someone mentions "It'll bring Jabs!!" - never ends...

What are you taking about? Why would this project, or indeed the Shell project on which they spent 2B be "half-assed". It wold be big mining operation. In fact we are sitting on massive gas reserves. Lets use them.

Ya think? Or will we just blast some chemicals down a deep hole and see what happens - because that is pretty much the technology at the moment. When the technology is 'refined', please explain to me how the EPA can possibly police this type of operation? Oh, of course, these are major multi-nationals, they would never make a mistake and destroy the natural environment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

Yeah, lets ban all oil refining because of a tiny % of faults. Now go back and read the link which pointed out exactly how biased the Gasland documentary.

( And who do you think is going to fund the solar panels in Europe but multinationals. The people who hire the scientists. )


What a mass of Ludditism, Anti-science, and Anti-progress commentary this is.

Sicking medieval nonsense. Mother Ireland is rearing them yet.

MadsL

nedzer2011 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong... but this post suggests that you believe that the hydraulic fracturing process virtually guarantees groundwater pollution?

The more these threads progress, the more it becomes clear that hydraulic fracturing won't go ahead. Not because of any technical reason, but because of this somewhat blind perception that people have. As was stated in another thread, it's those who shout loudest who are listened to; not those who research the subject and educate themselves prior to coming to a conclusion.

Very well, please enlighten me. How do you

A. Adequately monitor what is being injected?
B. Predict the effect precisely enough to make the process safe?
C. Clean up the fuckups?
D. Do with well water that is now polluted as a result of groundwater pollution?

Unless you think diesel is an appropriate thing to be injecting into the earth?

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/waxman-markey-and-degette-investigation-finds-continued-use-of-diesel-in-hydraulic-fracturing-f

Yahew

I don't know, but it will show den russians.

MadsL

Yahew wrote: »

We are talking about Ireland - at best that project might work in Spain. It is more likely to work in Africa, and relying on Africa for a significant portion of our energy would be madness. And we have 40 years to wait.

Like we rely on the Middle East for oil now, jeez how would that ever work :rolleyes: Personally I;d say we'll figure out wind and wave soon enough.

No it came from Michael Moore's bollocks. Of course it came from the geological scientists who know the actual science behind fracking - unlike that luddite documentary ( already destroyed in a previous link here). That's where geological scientists go - they work in multinationals. The people who produce the peer reviewed papers, not some arts student with a camera.

Link? Seriously can we have a source for this, or is it like the marketing spin you fell for about "double, or triple the world's known reserves" I'd seriously love to know which marketing dept that came from.

Well like the prosperity and jobs which would have increased employment and generated tax revenues had the project not be curtailed by a insane ignorant cabal of sophomoric pseuds, aging Marxists, tricolour waving republicans, semi-literate druids and rosary toting neanderthals, yes.

How much will Shell be contributing to Ireland's tax coffers again, oh that's right. Fuck all unless they hit unobtainium out there. All of their costs underwritten by a Irish tax break and a giveaway deal. Employment? sure, dream on. Lots of experienced Oil workers in Mayo are there? Go away out of that.

What are you taking about? Why would this project, or indeed the Shell project on which they spent 2B be "half-assed". It wold be big mining operation. In fact we are sitting on massive gas reserves. Lets use them.

Fine, lets use them. But not at the cost of a much more valuable resource - water.

Yeah, lets ban all oil refining because of a tiny % of faults.

Where did I say that?

Now go back and read the link which pointed out exactly how biased the Gasland documentary.

I'm not using Gasland as an resource - I linked to US Congress concerns about fracking.

( And who do you think is going to fund the solar panels in Europe but multinationals. The people who hire the scientists. )

And more power to them, but they need to be regulated as they are profit-driven. My point is that fracking is unregulatable, you cannot control what goes down the hole because the profit margins are marginal. Multi-nationals will not stand for losing money because of regulation, and the EPA cannot monitor this effectively.

What a mass of Ludditism, Anti-science, and Anti-progress commentary this is.

Ok, explain to me from a scientific viewpoint how you;
A. Adequately monitor what is being injected?
B. Predict the effect precisely enough to make the process safe?
C. Clean up the ****ups?
D. Deal with well water that is now polluted as a result of groundwater pollution?

The EPA employs scientists too, guess what they found...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-linked-water-contamination-federal-agency

source ^^^

In a first, federal environment officials today scientifically linked underground water pollution with hydraulic fracturing, concluding that contaminants found in central Wyoming were likely caused by the gas drilling process.

The findings by the Environmental Protection Agency come partway through a separate national study by the agency to determine whether fracking presents a risk to water resources.

In the 121-page draft report released today, EPA officials said that the contamination near the town of Pavillion, Wyo., had most likely seeped up from gas wells and contained at least 10 compounds known to be used in frack fluids.

That is hardly Ludditism, Anti-science, and Anti-progress - it is empirical analysis of a pollution problem. Unless the semi-literate druids put that sh1t in the water.

Sicking medieval nonsense.

Compared to your childlike all-trusting niavete. Whoah 'Scientists!' got to trust them, when did they ever lead anyone astray or make a catastrophic mistake??;

Now we can continue in this silly name-calling nonsense or try to have a proper discussion. Would you like to try?

Mother Ireland is rearing them yet.

Whatever;

As for your link - lets not even get started on the politics of Gas production, we are discussing the environmental impact.

Coillte_Bhoy

Yahew wrote: »

( And who do you think is going to fund the solar panels in Europe but multinationals. The people who hire the scientists. )

Exactly. And of course the scientists are not going to be bought off are they?

Yahew

MadsL wrote: »

Like we rely on the Middle East for oil now, jeez how would that ever work :rolleyes: Personally I;d say we'll figure out wind and wave soon enough.

Depending on the Middle East hasnt been a barrel of laughs.

Link? Seriously can we have a source for this, or is it like the marketing spin you fell for about "double, or triple the world's known reserves" I'd seriously love to know which marketing dept that came from.

You could google oil reserves, and shale oil reserves your self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves

How much will Shell be contributing to Ireland's tax coffers again, oh that's right. Fuck all unless they hit unobtainium out there. All of their costs underwritten by a Irish tax break and a giveaway deal. Employment? sure, dream on. Lots of experienced Oil workers in Mayo are there? Go away out of that.

Shell would be paying wages spent in the local economy. Of course the deal they got was ridiculous, but they spent 2B of their own money already. Too much because of the luddites.

Yahew

Actually given the amount of Shale oil in the world, and the fact that IReland doesnt register, we might as well not bother. Once that gas comes out of the ground in quantities, the cost of energy will trend towards free. In the US gas costs are collapsing already.

nedzer2011

MadsL wrote: »

How much will Shell be contributing to Ireland's tax coffers again, oh that's right. Fuck all unless they hit unobtainium out there. All of their costs underwritten by a Irish tax break and a giveaway deal. Employment? sure, dream on. Lots of experienced Oil workers in Mayo are there? Go away out of that.

A well known engineering and environmental consultancy in Dublin are pretty much being kept operating by Shell E&P. It may not be mass employment but it's still a sizable number of jobs.
Regarding a fraccing program there are a huge number of jobs that could be created and sustained. Resource estimation, infrastructure design and construction, environmental planning, management and monitoring are just some of the required skills which we have (and are required) in abundance.

MadsL wrote: »

Like we rely on the Middle East for oil now, jeez how would that ever work :rolleyes: Personally I;d say we'll figure out wind and wave soon enough.

C'mon... dependence on the middle east for our energy is one of the greatest problems we face in the west! Security of supply is the issue.. why do you think the EU pumps so much money into agriculture... Security of supply!!

Attempts have been made to develop wind and wave over the last 30 years. Technical feasibility has been proven but the economics are a mess and will be for the forseeable future.


Sure, Shale Gas has had problems during it's infancy and is not without some risk (like the risk of a oil lorry crashing into a river or an oil tank leaking close to an abstraction well) - I accept that.

The problem I have is that the (minimal) risk of contamination is being completely blown out of proportion on blogs, forums and in the general media.

Do we wait until the escalating price of utilities and fuel push us all closer to poverty or do we do something about it?

nedzer2011

MadsL wrote: »

Very well, please enlighten me. How do you

A. Adequately monitor what is being injected?
B. Predict the effect precisely enough to make the process safe?
C. Clean up the fuckups?
D. Do with well water that is now polluted as a result of groundwater pollution?

A. Not difficult. Can be stipulated as part of a permit/licence that full monitoring of input material is required. Technical execution would be routine for a nominated environmental/engineering consultancy.

B. More difficult. Given that any possible hydrofrac jobs are a long way off in this country, it is best to see how those countries at a more advanced stage than us (i.e. Poland and the UK) get on. It is not entirely appropriate to base our preconceptions on experiences in the USA. A lot of jobs there were carried out when the technology was in it's infancy and the potential environmental effect of poor installation was not appreciated. It is my firm belief that the best minds in the industry are employed to minimise risk environmental damage through the process. It's simply not in the interest of the O&G companies to cause pollution.

C. Providing that groundwater and surface water monitoring on site is frequent, any problem can be detected quickly before widespread contamination occurs. In the unlikely event of this happening, production will stop and if necessary a groundwater remediation program could then be employed. Obviously if this was to occur, I would fully support fracturing to be halted immediately pending investigation.

D. Not going to occur if the above procedure is followed. The fraccing pad is simply not going to be allowed to be placed immediately upgradient of an abstraction well and monitoring can help identify a problem before it becomes a widespread issue.

The funny thing here is that runoff resulting from agricultural practices pose a far far (far) greater risk to groundwater, surface water and drinking water quality than fraccing ever will. It's much easier to monitor and control a point source of (potential) contamination that is being well monitored than a nationwide source that people seem to overlook.

MadsL

nedzer2011 wrote: »

A. Not difficult. Can be stipulated as part of a permit/licence that full monitoring of input material is required. Technical execution would be routine for a nominated environmental/engineering consultancy.

And of course we are excellent at this type of monitoring and control. My point is that until we can find an effective way of independently monitoring on a live basis what goes into the hole there is no way to monitor that dangerous crap is not being pumped.

B. More difficult. Given that any possible hydrofrac jobs are a long way off in this country, it is best to see how those countries at a more advanced stage than us (i.e. Poland and the UK) get on. It is not entirely appropriate to base our preconceptions on experiences in the USA. A lot of jobs there were carried out when the technology was in it's infancy and the potential environmental effect of poor installation was not appreciated. It is my firm belief that the best minds in the industry are employed to minimise risk environmental damage through the process. It's simply not in the interest of the O&G companies to cause pollution.

Pollution is a byproduct of Oil & Gas production and in their eyes seen as a cost of doing business, we have become less tolerant certainly of such pollution; but BP (for example) are still in business. Fracking at the moment is like coal mining by lobbing grenades down a old mine shaft to see if some coal will fall out, I agree that geological prediction will become easier, but I don't in all honesty believe these guys know exactly what they are at. Risking our biggest industry (agriculture) on a gamble seems absurd. We need to be reducing our reliance on Gas not increasing it.

C. Providing that groundwater and surface water monitoring on site is frequent, any problem can be detected quickly before widespread contamination occurs. In the unlikely event of this happening, production will stop and if necessary a groundwater remediation program could then be employed. Obviously if this was to occur, I would fully support fracturing to be halted immediately pending investigation.

You don't say. Explain to me how you remediate a major aquifer on the scale of fracking - even septic tank contamination/remediation is massively expensive. What about the non-polluting impacts - like the requirement in certain operations to lower the water table, effectively disrupting water supplies in rural areas and agricultural use. In some cases water extraction runs at a 1:25 ratio of gas/water pumped.

D. Not going to occur if the above procedure is followed. The fraccing pad is simply not going to be allowed to be placed immediately upgradient of an abstraction well and monitoring can help identify a problem before it becomes a widespread issue.

Except that this ain't Texas. Group water schemes are all over Ireland and you are going to be hard pressed to find a fracking location that won't impact a well.

The funny thing here is that runoff resulting from agricultural practices pose a far far (far) greater risk to groundwater, surface water and drinking water quality than fraccing ever will. It's much easier to monitor and control a point source of (potential) contamination that is being well monitored than a nationwide source that people seem to overlook.

And look how well we are monitoring that, as well as septic tanks. you think fracking will be any different. Ah sure, it'll bring jabs!

Yahew

MadsL wrote: »

Ah sure, it'll bring jabs!

what do you think mis spelling "jobs" gets you. Whats the ideology behind that?

MadsL

The mantra and justification behind every bad development idea in Ireland is..."Sure, it'll bring jabs!" Usually uttered by some gob****e therefore spelt J.A.B.S

jabs  plural noun, excuse, distraction,
noun
1. a vaguely expressed promise of future employment, usually without substance or basis in reality.

2. A reasoning for undertaking a course of action that does not stand up to rational scrutiny, but gains popular support through the hypnotic power of the the word. Found in popular usage by politicians (example:....yada yada jaaabs yada yada yada jaabs)

Often also found used in press releases by large multinationals or property developers to justify excessive development or rezoning attempts. The formal form 'employment opportunities' is often found in such usage.

nedzer2011

And of course we are excellent at this type of monitoring and control. My point is that until we can find an effective way of independently monitoring on a live basis what goes into the hole there is no way to monitor that dangerous crap is not being pumped.

Pardon my naivety but I find it difficult to see why this would not be possible?

Fracking at the moment is like coal mining by lobbing grenades down a old mine shaft to see if some coal will fall out, I agree that geological prediction will become easier, but I don't in all honesty believe these guys know exactly what they are at.

Do you base this on any actual knowledge of the industry, or is it just a hunch?

the requirement in certain operations to lower the water table, effectively disrupting water supplies in rural areas and agricultural use.

Not to to harp on, what is the likelihood of a water supply being disrupted and is there a basis for this claim? In the area of the Marcellus Shale play (which has a dryer climate and a huge amount of fraccing wells) the total extraction due to fracturing operations is 0.03% to 0.13% of the total water requirement. I really don't think that this is going to be an issue.

and look how well we are monitoring that, as well as septic tanks. you think fracking will be any different.

Bloody hell... it's hard to win! It's far easier and very achievable to monitor a specific operation.


Theres a slight touch of double standards here though. Why is agricultural pollution seen as unavoidable (cryptosporidium anyone?) or even overlooked when we're all getting militant over something which poses less of a risk of pollution?

MadsL

nedzer2011 wrote: »

Pardon my naivety but I find it difficult to see why this would not be possible?

Monitoring would be very difficult because of the massive complexity of 'ingredients' being used to facilitate the fracking process (do you need me to list the long list of acids, VOCs, additives and radioactive elements used)
Switching 'recipes' would be so easy to do 'under the radar'...you would need a lab and eyes full time on site to keep up with the samples. Even then it wouldn't be real-time.

Do you base this on any actual knowledge of the industry, or is it just a hunch?

The industry admits it is unpredictable;

In December of 2010, the EPA issued an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order because two landowners in Parker County, Texas had explosive levels of methane in their water wells and in their homes, plus they had drilling toxins in the water.

The attorney for Range Resources, elaborated in great detail about how “abundantly clear” it is that the area has “angular and nonconforming and unpredictable geology”

Schlumberger's Oil Field Review (Winter, 2005/6, p. 44) entitled "The Source for Hydraulic Fracture Characterization": "While it is possible to have a good understanding of existing natural fracture systems, our ability to determine hydraulic fracture geometry and characteristics has been limited. Geologic discontinuities such as fractures and faults can dominate fracture geometry in a way that makes predicting hydraulic fracture behavior difficult. Clearly, the exploration and production (E&P) industry still has much to learn about hydraulic fractures."

"Hydraulic fracture geometries are difficult to predict. Even in environments with relatively simple fracture geometries, hydraulic fractures can grow asymmetrically, have variable confinement across geologic horizons, and change orientation. In naturally fractured reservoirs, such as the Barnett Shale, hydraulically created fracture patterns become amazingly complex as the injected slurry preferentially opens the pre-existing fracture network."

http://www.epmag.com/EP-Magazine/archive/Fracs-tracked-microseismic-images_2809

Not to to harp on, what is the likelihood of a water supply being disrupted and is there a basis for this claim? In the area of the Marcellus Shale play (which has a dryer climate and a huge amount of fraccing wells) the total extraction due to fracturing operations is 0.03% to 0.13% of the total water requirement. I really don't think that this is going to be an issue.

Pollution would be a fairly hefty disruption, one well in Pennsylvania was disrupted to the point it exploded! Regarding level drops; Texas are geting pretty steamed up as any water extraction in that area has a massive impact of potential drought levels; I think longer term continued use is going to be a significant factor, oil companies are seeing the problem and investigating alternative sources and reuse of water - the problem would be the intensification of pollution of the aquifer as a result of reuse.

Bloody hell... it's hard to win! It's far easier and very achievable to monitor a specific operation.

It is hard to win, truth is we do not know enough to regulate this industry effectively, that may (may!) be ok in Texas with land to 'burn' not OK on a small island.

Theres a slight touch of double standards here though. Why is agricultural pollution seen as unavoidable (cryptosporidium anyone?) or even overlooked when we're all getting militant over something which poses less of a risk of pollution?

err...never said agricultural pollution was OK...
Where are you getting the less risk of pollution from? Fracking pollutes, no one disputes that - you cannot do the process without injecting pollutants, the question is how much of that are we prepared to take coming through our wells/taps?? Cryptosporidium is easy to kill if you treat the water - hell UV light will do it, extracting a cocktail of many different chemicals is a bit tricker...

nedzer2011

Schlumberger's Oil Field Review (Winter, 2005/6, p. 44) entitled "The Source for Hydraulic Fracture Characterization": "While it is possible to have a good understanding of existing natural fracture systems, our ability to determine hydraulic fracture geometry and characteristics has been limited. Geologic discontinuities such as fractures and faults can dominate fracture geometry in a way that makes predicting hydraulic fracture behavior difficult. Clearly, the exploration and production (E&P) industry still has much to learn about hydraulic fractures."

This is not really related to your point - the point made here is that induced and reactivated fracturing is difficult to characterise from a production point of view. Nothing mentioned here about fracture propagation to aquifer depth. Bear in mind that we're talking about vertical distances of thousands of metres (which, depending on depth of the shale, is close to impossible).

The attorney for Range Resources, elaborated in great detail about how “abundantly clear” it is that the area has “angular and nonconforming and unpredictable geology”

Not saying that this is completely wrong - but these are the words of an attorney representing a client. Angular and unconforming geology may exist but does it promote fracking to aquifer depth?? A technical report would be needed.

http://www.epmag.com/EP-Magazine/archive/Fracs-tracked-microseismic-images_2809

Again this is irrelevant - microseismics are used to assess production potential.

err...never said agricultural pollution was OK...
Where are you getting the less risk of pollution from? Fracking pollutes, no one disputes that - you cannot do the process without injecting pollutants

I'm trying to be objective about this though - objectivity is lacking from a lot of (not all) the posts here.
The term "Fracking Pollutes" gives the impression that pollution is guaranteed. An inaccurate statement.

Theres completely objective article here by the BGS which pretty much sums up what I'm trying to put across. Doesn't argue for or against fracking, simply tries to put the truth across

MadsL

Nedzer, I think we both want this;

I'm a (I like to think) rational environmental activist, you appear to be a geologist. I've been supporting a moratorium, not a kneejerk ban.

Let's have this....



At the moment we have this....





I'd dispute this however...

The term "Fracking Pollutes" gives the impression that pollution is guaranteed. An inaccurate statement.

pol·lu·tion (p-lshn) n.
1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutants: Pollution in the air reduced the visibility near the airport.


Pretty much what is being done is it not, harmful substances being injected into the earth?? The question is how much pollution will we accept?

nedzer2011

pol·lu·tion (p-lshn) n.
1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutants: Pollution in the air reduced the visibility near the airport.


Pretty much what is being done is it not, harmful substances being injected into the earth?? The question is how much pollution will we accept?

Ok.. I'll take your definition and raise you the following definition (admittedly from Wikipedia).

"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem"

(I would possibly argue that this is a more accurate definition in many peoples eyes...)

If the process of fracking can be carried out without having an effect on groundwater i.e. at great depth, km's beneath impermeable material, No instability, disorder harm or discomfort would be caused.


But yeah fair enough.. we've similar enough viewpoints and I do support a wait-and-see attitude. I just tend to get annoyed by the exaggeration (bordering on lies) that tends to happen on the anti-fracking side who want an immediate outright ban. Best keep objective until we have enough evidence to argue either way.

MadsL

nedzer2011 wrote: »

Ok.. I'll take your definition and raise you the following definition (admittedly from Wikipedia).

"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem"

(I would possibly argue that this is a more accurate definition in many peoples eyes...)

If the process of fracking can be carried out without having an effect on groundwater i.e. at great depth, km's beneath impermeable material, No instability, disorder harm or discomfort would be caused.


But yeah fair enough.. we've similar enough viewpoints and I do support a wait-and-see attitude. I just tend to get annoyed by the exaggeration (bordering on lies) that tends to happen on the anti-fracking side who want an immediate outright ban. Best keep objective until we have enough evidence to argue either way.

I'd say that "introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability" would be a good definition of Fracking, but hey...

But I agree that we both are closer in viewpoint than it would appear, I'd say there is sufficient risk to halt any licencing to take a deep objective look at what the potential risks to the environment could be from an Irish perspective - which is a very different kettle of fish to Wyoming or Texas.

Sponge Bob

I hear that some fracking tests are to be conducted in the Clare West Limerick area as well. Don't have any more info.

cavedave

Energy production is one of the few bright spots in the American economy. A back of the envelope cost-benefit calculation from a Yale-associated group estimates that recent increases in shale gas production have been worth just over $100 billion annually to US consumers. In comparison, the authors estimates that groundwater contamination costs $250 million per year, a 400 to 1 benefit to cost ratio. The calculation is crude and the authors do not take into account environmental benefits from using natural gas over coal but the ratios are of interest.

$100 Billion in Consumer Surplus from Fracking

Macha

What about the other costs?
- air pollution
- reduced real estate prices
- noise pollution (from traffic bring water in and out - these wells run 24/7)
- impact on local agriculture
- impact on local tourism
- carbon emissions
- soil pollution from tail ponds
- water clean up
- water use (shale uses a LOT of water)

The authors admit that they used a 'traditional cost benefit analysis' methodology that is unlikely to cover the scope of all environmental and social costs.