Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Shale Gas - Mod note post#117

2456789

Comments

  • #32
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    An article in the Irish Times yesterday says that 2 onshore petroleum licences were granted in February for the Lough Allen area:

    http://m.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0611/1224298716471.html?via=mostread

    I am yet to be convinced that fracking is not a serious environmental problem.

    But more along the lines of what I think should be happening in Ireland the biomass plant in mayo just recently got the go ahead from the council (but will probably be appealed shortly):

    http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=10997&la=1


  • #33
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    ps: a map in the times indicated parts of Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim, Fermanagh,Roscommon and Cavan are included in the Lough Allen basin


  • #34
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    Oldtree wrote: »
    An article in the Irish Times yesterday says that 2 onshore petroleum licences were granted in February for the Lough Allen area:

    http://m.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0611/1224298716471.html?via=mostread

    I am yet to be convinced that fracking is not a serious environmental problem.

    But more along the lines of what I think should be happening in Ireland the biomass plant in mayo just recently got the go ahead from the council (but will probably be appealed shortly):

    http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=10997&la=1


    I've done a lot of reading up on the subject of shale gas exploration and I still believe that in our current energy and economic situation it is by far the best solution, both environmentally and economically. The following should be taken into account:
    - Aquifer pollution is extremely unlikely. Firstly because hydraulic fracturing is carried out at a depth of 1 mile (approx) below the aquifer, secondly because any harmful materials are used in minute quantities.
    Put in perspective, water contamination from agricultural runoff poses a massively greater risk to water quality and human health.

    - Although it may seem that Biomass is a good, reliable energy source for this country it has some severe drawbacks. Firstly, it has been the cause of increasing food prices worldwide as it reduces the amount of land available for food crop production. Secondly, it is simply not viable without subsidy.
    In the current economic climate, is it really the best idea to fund an inefficient source of energy while our health and education system are cash-strapped!?

    And before you ask... I am in no way affiliated with the shale gas industry!!


  • #35
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    is it good or bad,i do not know,but what i can tell you is that they had to stop drilling just off the coast near me because it was believed to be the cause of two local earthquakes last month.


  • #36
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    In my limited study i think that one of the problems is that the fracking fluid comes back up the bore hole thus polluting the aquifer. I would prefer if the timber in this country was sent to a biomass plant than to a mdf factory in cork. I too dont think that importing the fuel will give us a sustainable future. I would also prefer if subsidies were sent in the wood direction to get the business started properly rather than towards tidal or wind.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    Oldtree wrote: »
    In my limited study i think that one of the problems is that the fracking fluid comes back up the bore hole thus polluting the aquifer.

    It has been a problem in the earlier less regulated days of fracking that leakage of the fluid may have occurred (although not to a harmful level) but modern practices are designed towards minimising and eliminating this risk. Say fracking does take place on these shores, the regulation and monitoring regime would be as intense as we have seen.... the EPA would be all over it!!

    At the end of the day, if it were found that some pollution had occurred I would be all for closing down drilling operations but becuase of regulation and scrutiny, I really don't think it's going to be an issue!


  • #38
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Regulation and scrutiny, when it comes to the environment, is in my experience sorely lacking in Ireland. The quarry issue is a big one, water being another.

    Most recently the review into a number of councils and their planning issues ordered by ex minister gormley has been downgraded to an internal review by the new minister hogan. see this interesting article from the villager:

    http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2011/06/826/

    Serious EU fines are waiting in the wings for us. Why do we even need to be told by the eu courts that we need to clean up our act, beggers belief really.

    So much for progress......


  • #39
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Regulation and scrutiny, when it comes to the environment, is in my experience sorely lacking in Ireland. The quarry issue is a big one, water being another.

    Most recently the review into a number of councils and their planning issues ordered by ex minister gormley has been downgraded to an internal review by the new minister hogan. see this interesting article from the villager:

    http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2011/06/826/

    Serious EU fines are waiting in the wings for us. Why do we even need to be told by the eu courts that we need to clean up our act, beggers belief really.

    So much for progress......

    Are you not veering a small bit off topic?

    I can't say that I am overly experienced with regulation practices for conventional projects in Ireland but is it not reasonable to say that the media/public scrutiny that will be brought about by any SG drilling will basically force the regulator into action??


  • #40
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    You brought up regulation and scrutiny!
    "Force the regulator" how lovely - the innocence of it. We have many fines coming down the tracks from the EU due to lack of reglatory oversight and input, quarries, water, bogs, etc. I have no faith that we can rely on a regulator here, (way off topic now) look at the banks..............:D

    There has been much media scrutiny of the above to no avail.

    Best to get it all sorted out at the planning stage and ensure no more enviromental calamaties.


  • #41
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    Oldtree wrote: »
    You brought up regulation and scrutiny!
    "Force the regulator" how lovely - the innocence of it. We have many fines coming down the tracks from the EU due to lack of reglatory oversight and input, quarries, water, bogs, etc. I have no faith that we can rely on a regulator here, (way off topic now) look at the banks..............:D

    There has been much media scrutiny of the above to no avail.

    Best to get it all sorted out at the planning stage and ensure no more enviromental calamaties.

    In fairness, I can't argue (yet) about the state of regulation in Ireland as I have little experience of working with them.

    The best point I can settle on is that it should be realised by people that aquifer pollution caused in the past has been the exception rather than the rule and has been caused by shoddy working practices and lack of knowledge of the regulator.

    As with all types of work, experience has inevitably brought improvement both in standard of work and in regulation. Therefore isn't it fair to say that referring to occurrences during the earlier drilling operations does not necessarily make a valid argument?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    I would not agree that pollution is the exception rather than the rule in the past, and fairness does not come into it with a commercial operation. I can give you many specific examples of how the planning authorities and the developers have circumvented inadequate laws.

    Currently the planning laws are still under review, so I await the new laws with baited breath.

    I don't think that you can rely on espoused future laws to go ahead with potentially detrimental developments now, (well unproven not to be detrimental).


  • #43
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    Oldtree wrote: »
    ..... fairness does not come into it with a commercial operation....

    Just a turn of phrase!!!

    But really, how can you confidently say that fracking operations cause aquifer pollution without exception when several unbiased reports suggest otherwise?

    A question....
    Say in an ideal world, there was a thorough regulation process in place and say that we could be certain that if any discrepancies were to occur there would be severe consequences for the private oil&gas companies, would you accept shale gas exploration taking place on these shores?

    Sorry if I'm making this seem personal, just curious to see what attitudes would be like given this hypothetical situation.


  • #44
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Several unbiast reports say they do, so I would err on the side of caution based on past experience and await to be convinced.

    In an ideal world I would not have such a jaundiced view of how these companies hold our environment in such contempt, along with the authorities.

    Who will benifit from these developments? If like the corrib field not us!

    I firmly believe in the right development in the right place, with serious consideration given to finite resources such as our landscape and green and clean appeal. I am not against any development persay but I am of the firm belief that tourism has gone undervalued over the last number of years due to our successful economy. but now we are going to have to rely on it for the future as one of our recovery projects. There are many hundreds of thousands of existing jobs in this industry and many more to come.


  • #45
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    Oldtree wrote: »
    I firmly believe in the right development in the right place, with serious consideration given to finite resources such as our landscape and green and clean appeal. I am not against any development persay but I am of the firm belief that tourism has gone undervalued over the last number of years due to our successful economy. but now we are going to have to rely on it for the future as one of our recovery projects. There are many hundreds of thousands of existing jobs in this industry and many more to come.

    Great point and sorry to jump down your throat.

    I suppose the only thing that has got me a bit annoyed is that people automatically assume the very worst when they hear the term 'shale gas' and rely on hearsay as well as this 'Gasland' film (which I still maintain is 50-60% rubbish) when coming to their conclusion on the issue.

    Hopefully future debates will be balanced and based on real evidence with decisions made which best benefit the country environmentally, economically and socially.


  • #46
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    No sorry needed in a lively debate. I have learned something from you. The full facts are always difficult to find out in any issue, the best we can hope for is to continue to educate ourselves as best we can to inform our opinions to protect ourselves. There is no right or wrong. :D


  • #47
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    There may be no right or wrong, but we Ireland has to make a decision, on the basis of the facts, and not on the basis of emotive biased television documentaries. Also, we must remember, that Ireland as a bankrupt and broke country, has little room to snub its nose at a project to bring wealth to Ireland, and to try to help ensure its access to cheap and reliable power, and to shore up its energy security.


  • #48
    tuppence
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,130 ✭✭✭tuppence


    Great debate. There are multiple reasons why I would hesitate bringing in the procedure of fracking. One of them is that I am living in the epicentre of it in Leitrim. :eek:
    Seriously tho I dont think we are in the right place to make a call on an unproven procedure that could be devastating to our health and farming. We shouldnt be forced to make a choice because of a recesson that many would say is not of our making. Theres minimal long term jobs and there would be more sustainable ones in our food industry, renewal energy, not to mention our forgotton tourist industry. Each of these as 'products' could be damaged potentially irreparably to our international markets if this procedure were to go wrong . I wonder is anyone doing a cost benefit risk analysis on this. All of these I am sure reckon in our 'recovery plan'

    Do we trust regulators? Even if the so called Irish Ones are better than American, thats really no comparison because the American system has been non existent sadly for alot of Americas. :(
    Would Irish regulators do the job --finincial regulators were there only in name and swayed by politicians. And please can anyone enlighten me but is the Environemental Protection Agency immune to the Freedom of Information Act? If they are that would be disconcerting too. Expecting Irish regulators to be up to speed with such new technology is going to be challenging...And if they get it wrong is it not closing the door after the horse has bolted?

    No, I would call for a suspension of any exploration until a government review is put in place. Theres stats steadily been built up with the places that it already is. And I believe the EPA in America have an independent study, results due in 2012/2013.
    I would'nt be overly bothered bout reviewing the film which as become a bit of a public relations football. I would have thought tbh that these exploration firms would naturally be scared as hell of it not surprisingly as it as been a great vehicle to undermine what appears to be a flawed procedure and brought this evidence to a large international audience. (including the Irish Dail) Its in the private companies interests to discredit the film, and film is an art form so its always going to have its own kind of licence. Btw it appears that every challenge that the companies have produced about the film has been rebuffed. But I am sure that it will go on and on. I see the film as a springboard to go on to learn more about the issue.
    I do however still feel that if France and states of Amerca have banned it and theres a halt becuse of a earthquake in Blackpool linked to the procedure that its time the government stood up to the plate and halted it and called for a review.

    In the same vein apparently Mr John perry (TD) promised to be at the film tonight in Ballymote as its doing a tour in the region. Ive been to it (not connected to distributing it or anything!) and woudl recommend even for the debate afterwards which I thought was worthwhile as very informative.


  • #49
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    easychair wrote: »
    There may be no right or wrong, but we Ireland has to make a decision, on the basis of the facts, and not on the basis of emotive biased television documentaries. Also, we must remember, that Ireland as a bankrupt and broke country, has little room to snub its nose at a project to bring wealth to Ireland, and to try to help ensure its access to cheap and reliable power, and to shore up its energy security.

    The facts available are both positive and negative at the moment, so is it not prudent to wait for more information before we head headlong down another avenue?

    Bring wealth to this impoverished country like the corrib field will, more likely line the pockets of shareholders somewhere else!

    I'm all for cheap and reliable and sustainable power, but we seem to go usually too late for the wrong ones on a continuous basis driven by a corporate subsidised adgenda.


  • #50
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Bring wealth to this impoverished country like the corrib field will, more likely line the pockets of shareholders somewhere else!

    True to a certain extent but you miss an important point. This type of power generation does not require government subsidy in order to be feasible so while direct revenue generation may not be huge, it may reduce a financial burden on the country.

    And again, while the country's finances are undoubtedly important, energy security should be the greatest motivation for choosing a source of energy.
    Oldtree wrote: »
    I'm all for cheap and reliable and sustainable power, but we seem to go usually too late for the wrong ones on a continuous basis driven by a corporate subsidised adgenda.

    What do you see as the 'wrong ones' and what would you suggest as the alternatives?

    Our modern renewable energy sources, such as wind, biomass, tidal etc. show promise but are still a long way off from being financially feasible. Instead of ploughing our money into subsidising them, why not instead invest heavily (with the savings gained from SG production) in research to improve, develop and optimise them. It may take a few years but wouldn't it be great to have energy which is both environmentally and economically sound?
    Just a thought.


  • #51
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    In an ideal world it would be great, but we do not live there. However if I was convinced of the environmental impacts and would be all for it, provided that it was not another giveaway or white elephant.

    An example of the wrong ones is onshore wind generated power, once I discovered that it was subsidised and the types of backup systems it requires, such as pumped hydro storage.

    Energy security is important, but we are a tiny island in the scheme of things. The UK is going to build 8 more nuclear plants, we have/will have interconnectors, and the big push behind the windymills at the moment is to export renewable supply to the UK and further afield. We do not even have an appropiate infastructure to deal with the thousands of windmills necessary to deliver this new corporate dream, let alone the concept of the long term damage to our landscape. Do you think tourists want to come and see a landscape full of huge turbines?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    daithiordave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭daithiordave


    Insiders Warn “Shale Plays are Just Giant Ponzi Schemes” in Bombshell-Laden NY Times Piece on Natural Gas, Fracking, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=2&hp


  • #53
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Got a few figures for the tourist industry that bare thinking about in a increasingly sustainable way:

    Tourism earnings in 2010 are estimated to have fallen to €4.6 billion by year-end, a drop of 13% compared to 2009

    Failte Ireland reports that 830,000 visitore want to partake of hikeing and crosscountry walking (while golf attracts 143,000) and that was after a 12% drop in visitors for 2009.

    http://www.ezine.failteireland.ie/?p=1425


  • #54
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    daithiordave wrote: »
    Insiders Warn “Shale Plays are Just Giant Ponzi Schemes” in Bombshell-Laden NY Times Piece on Natural Gas, Fracking, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=2&hp

    Interesting article which could contain a certain amount of truth, but again the reporting around possible environmental impacts is terrible! "Toxic waste" is a meaningless term, used for the sole purpose of striking fear into the average Joe..
    Oldtree wrote: »
    Failte Ireland reports that 830,000 visitore want to partake of hikeing and crosscountry walking (while golf attracts 143,000) and that was after a 12% drop in visitors for 2009.

    Illustrates the need to conserve the countryside from visual blight, but the footprint of a SG exploration operation is tiny in comparison to say an Anaeroblic-Digestion plant...

    Also seeing as Golf is mentioned, A SG fracking well uses the same amount of water in its lifetime as a Golf course does in three weeks! (Nicely arguing against a claim made in the above article!:D)


  • #55
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    No visitor will want to come to a polluted area, which was the main thrust of my argument and like me the visitor will be decerning and err on the side of caution. It is not up to me to prove comprehensivly that the fracking will pollute, rather the industry. And so far they have failed to reassure me.

    Frankly it is extraordinary to read some of the professional documents put forward in various areas for polluting industries, even the follow on an bord pleanala inspectors reports can be extraordinary.


  • #56
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    All these discussions about impacts etc all seem to assume that the current situation is somehow ideal. Motor emmissions contain known carcinogens and cause asthma, not to mention global warming. Oil production and refinement is dangerous and destructive to the environment. Roads are hardly the most attractive feature of the landscape.

    Currently wind power can only make up a percentage of our power needs due to it's unpredictability, and wave power is still in development. We might as well talk about fusion reactors as wave power.

    Bord Na Mona are still cutting up bogs on an industrial scale FFS while blocking the small family from getting a few sods of turf for the winter.

    How are we going to increase tourism if peak oil is upon us? How will people get here? We are also broke to the ropes so need revenue.

    We have to look REALISTICALLY at the maximum benefit vs the minimum impact like adults, not like sheep or picking whatever scare story is doing the rounds at the moment. I would be all for wind farms on as large a scale as our grid can handle for starters, with a few outstanding tourist areas off limits, everywhere else should be up for grabs, and f*ck the NIMBYs.

    This fracking stuff does sound dodgy but if it can be demonstrated that it can be done in a safe, environmentally minimal and regulated way - and generate lots of income for the State in the process - a big big ask in this country - then it should be considered.


  • #57
    frackingishell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭frackingishell


    professore wrote: »
    All these discussions about impacts etc all seem to assume that the current situation is somehow ideal. Motor emmissions contain known carcinogens and cause asthma, not to mention global warming. Oil production and refinement is dangerous and destructive to the environment. Roads are hardly the most attractive feature of the landscape.

    Currently wind power can only make up a percentage of our power needs due to it's unpredictability, and wave power is still in development. We might as well talk about fusion reactors as wave power.

    Bord Na Mona are still cutting up bogs on an industrial scale FFS while blocking the small family from getting a few sods of turf for the winter.

    How are we going to increase tourism if peak oil is upon us? How will people get here? We are also broke to the ropes so need revenue.

    We have to look REALISTICALLY at the maximum benefit vs the minimum impact like adults, not like sheep or picking whatever scare story is doing the rounds at the moment. I would be all for wind farms on as large a scale as our grid can handle for starters, with a few outstanding tourist areas off limits, everywhere else should be up for grabs, and f*ck the NIMBYs.

    This fracking stuff does sound dodgy but if it can be demonstrated that it can be done in a safe, environmentally minimal and regulated way - and generate lots of income for the State in the process - a big big ask in this country - then it should be considered.

    the whole point is that it can't be demonstrated that it can be done safe. I'm not a sheep, and i'm an adult. Being against something that is ideally progress doesn't mean one isn't an adult. Don't be so condescending. The chemicals they use are secret- they won't say what they are because they say it's a trade secret, but witness the soaring cancer rates, the hair falling out of animals and people, the flammable water tables, the devastated wildlife in the areas where this has already happened. Once you see these things you'll understand why theyre keeping the chemicals secret. No matter way which this is spun, or looked at, it's lose lose. (and we'll have much more to worry about than tourism at peak oil, and tourists wont want to come to a gas dump)


  • #58
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    frackingishell wrote: »
    The chemicals they use are secret- they won't say what they are because they say it's a trade secret, but witness the soaring cancer rates, the hair falling out of animals and people, the flammable water tables, the devastated wildlife in the areas where this has already happened. Once you see these things you'll understand why theyre keeping the chemicals secret.


    I'm sorry but this is absolute tripe. The constituents were initially kept secret but were revealed following pressure from the USEPA. See this document for further details.

    You throw around all these statements without any sources or founding whatsoever. People perfectly entitled to debate but unless you can back up these claims of 'soaring' cancer rates, 'devestated' wildlife etc. it's better stay quiet for now.


  • #59
    frackingishell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭frackingishell


    nedzer2011 wrote: »
    I'm sorry but this is absolute tripe. The constituents were initially kept secret but were revealed following pressure from the USEPA. See this document for further details.

    You throw around all these statements without any sources or founding whatsoever. People perfectly entitled to debate but unless you can back up these claims of 'soaring' cancer rates, 'devestated' wildlife etc. it's better stay quiet for now.

    nah, don't talk rubbish. I understand you're one of those Irish people that feels they HAVE to play devil's advocate no matter what the price to their own credibility, but i'll dignify your attention seeking with a response.

    Why has there been at least one claim of 4million dollars paid out to at LEAST one community in the US? Second, they haven't divulged all of the chemicals, the EPA due to the created loophole can't demand anything.

    Goooo 'on Nedzer! Any more tripe? nah didnt think so, better stay quiet so for now. Good lad


  • #60
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    All: please do not tell other posters to "stay quiet".

    frackingishell: if you're going to make some spectacular claims, be prepared to back them up.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    nedzer2011
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭nedzer2011


    frackingishell wrote: »
    nah, don't talk rubbish. I understand you're one of those Irish people that feels they HAVE to play devil's advocate no matter what the price to their own credibility, but i'll dignify your attention seeking with a response.

    Why has there been at least one claim of 4million dollars paid out to at LEAST one community in the US? Second, they haven't divulged all of the chemicals, the EPA due to the created loophole can't demand anything.

    Goooo 'on Nedzer! Any more tripe? nah didnt think so, better stay quiet so for now. Good lad

    Attention seeking? I'm putting across my point of view on a controversial subject and I attempt to back up any of my arguments with either sound evidence or well thought out logic, how does that damage my credibility?

    Firstly, there may well be a basis to your claims but is there any evidence of this from an unbiased source?

    Secondly, I don't know if you've read my earlier posts but you ignore a principle which underpins a lot of my arguments. There has been admissions across the board that in the earlier days of Hydraulic fracturing, shoddy working practice coupled with a lack of understanding of the regulator most likely did result in some pollution (but not to the extent claimed by some). As the industry has matured, both practices and regulations have tightened to an extent where nowadays either none or negligible amounts of pollution have been documented to occur.

    Another thought to fuel the debate.... Is it reasonable to say that it is not in the best interests of a prospective drilling company to be found to have caused pollution?
    I completely accept that this may depend on the competency of the regulator but in the civils industry for example, a botched job would certainly rule out a company from ever obtaining necessary permits/licencing to carry out future work.... So why would a company jeopardise their future for the sake of one project?


Advertisement