Fracking in the West -

feicim

The other thread on this got locked for apparently not providing links (most posts had links as far as I could see). I thought it was interesting topic so I've started another thread.

With "Links":) Quotes below taken from Irish Times website... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0611/1224298736261.html


Fracking seems is a contentious method to extract gas.

As far as the Irish Government is concerned, it seems that fracking is at present a perfectly acceptable method to extract gas from the ground.

Exploration rights have been granted to two companies.

In February, two companies, the Australian-based Tamboran and the Lough Allen Natural Gas Company (Langco), were granted onshore petroleum licences to carry out preliminary testing in an area which includes the counties of Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Cavan and Fermanagh.

They aussie company Tamboran, has explicitly stated that fracking is the only way to do it....

Mr Moorman acknowledged that it would be “impractical” not to use the process of hydraulic fracturing or fracking to extract the gas though some of it might be liberated using only horizontal drilling.

The EPA in america have noted that Fracking is detrimental to air quality...

“You are going to have huge smog problems where you never had them before,” Jackson was quoted as saying. “These are rural areas. ... There is a lot of activity around those wells and that has an impact on air quality — and we know it already. The EPA will soon be coming out with regulations to deal with the air quality around natural gas production.”

link: http://www.dieselprogress.com/Industry-News/3424/Another-Fracking-Problem?/

Fracking has also been blamed for water (aquifer) pollution.

It seems ideal for use in say a big uninhabited desert... not the west of ireland - where people and animals / plants live and tourists go to visit...

It seems like the typical government ignorance/stupidity/falling asleep at the wheel - that this method can be used in Ireland...

It would be nice for once if this issue could be debated before it is too late...

A free documentary on this topic can be found here

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/gasland/

There seems to be planty of info online on this topic. Surprising the government has absolutely no concerns about this... (just like the way the last dozy government had no concerns about the financial system and ignored all advice/warnings)

Now is the time to do something about this. Ireland doesn't need another shell to sea type debacle...


Edit:

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

The controversial new drilling operation for natural shale gas in Lancashire has been suspended following a second earthquake in the area that may have been triggered by the process. The earthquake last Friday near Blackpool occurred at the same time that the energy company Cuadrilla Resources was injecting fluids under high pressure deep underground to deliberately blast apart the gas-bearing rock – a process known as "fracking", brought to Britain from the US, where it has been highly contentious.

"It seems quite likely that they are related," said Brian Baptie of the British Geological Survey (BGS). "We had a couple of instruments close to the site and they show that both events were close to the site and at a shallow depth.

"The timing of these two events in conjunction with the ongoing fracking at the site suggests that they may be related." He added: "It is well-established that drilling like this can trigger small earthquakes

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

nesf

Thanks for restarting the thread and providing sources for your quotes.

thebman

I saw this on the journal who had articles on it too. It seems like a bad idea.

But I think Irish politicians know they will lose more votes than they could gain by going for it if it is as dangerous as it seems.

frackingishell

Hi folks, doing a bit of research on this lately, and has anyone wondered why the Fracking issue has stalled and seems to be idling? Well, from what i can gather the price of GAS has to be over 5 dollars per unit to make Fracking profitable, which it isn't now. Currently The August natural gas contract was unchanged at $4.55/MMbtu on NYMEX.

This is why these things are just ticking over at the moment. It is NOT because the planning process etc. is being adhered to, so don't think it is. It is unfortunately a fact that economic factors are going to define how hard we'll all have to work to fight this poison.

Currently in the M&A (mergers and acquisitions) market, a possible bad omen is that BHP Billiton, (the Australian mining giant and world's seventh largest company) is still persisting with it's diversification strategy into Shale Gas. They are trying to buy PetroHawk, which has in or around 25% of the interest in the US Fracking market- if my figures are correct. Despite the fact that their analysts and shareholders don't want to invest in it, as it won't be profitable and will be at best a break-even strategy (unfortunately it's nothing to do with the fact that fracking simply f*cks over the environment...). So for us here in Ireland i see this merger as being a big indicator as to what industry sees as the long term future for Fracking. It also points out to me that we all need to organise better, and meet this problem now, and attempt to nip it in the bud by getting legislation introduced BEFORE the price is above the profitable level. I can only imagine how much harder this struggle will be when our wonderful politicians have big green readies in their eyes,and private swiss bank accounts, and the IMF pressuring them to destroy much of this nation even more like they've destroyed so many before.

Right now we are only being reactionary- turning up in Cavan when they are having a meeting. But we need get professional with out ****, and start making the first moves. We need to get out of our submissive Irish mindsets, and meet up, and formulate a plan to take the initiative here. Let me summarise- Price right now being low means it might be easier for us to win this thing, provided we attack early. I don't know where to start with this, but we need to meet soon.

cavedave

Almost every new energy source is greeted with fears it will horribly damage the environment. That does not mean evidence something will damage the environment should be ignored. But it does make me sceptical of claims we should do nothing new as a precaution until we can absolutely prove nothing bad will ever happen.

Burning natural gas produces a lot less carbon dioxide than burning coal or oil. So on that score if fracking is energy efficient it could be much less bad for the environment than coal or oil burning. There are some sites that say fracking is not that bad. I am no expert on the matter but I support decarbonising so it seems it might be a good step.

frackingishell

Hi cavedave. it's already been done pal- so noone's saying this is a new technology that hasn't been tried and tested like you seem to be suggesting. This is not hysteria like religious and economic protests during the 1600's and 1700's at the theories of Galilleo, and industrialisation destroying jobs etc. etc.

It (Fracking/shale gas)) has destroyed and ruined, and the process hasn't changed. And your argument that it is a clean burning fuel is moot-the damage done to water tables, and environments, and ecosystems negates any end-user benefit.

You can cite websites saying the opposite, and that's your right. But i'm sure there's plenty of neo-nazi websites extolling the virtues of Hitler's actions. My point being that all the research is there that this is lethal, and the downsides far outweigh the upsides, no matter what a few industry-influenced websites say.

cavedave

frackingishell

It (Fracking/shale gas)) has destroyed and ruined, and the process hasn't changed. And your argument that it is a clean burning fuel is moot-the damage done to water tables, and environments, and ecosystems negates any end-user benefit.

Places and lives have been ruined by oil, coal, hydro, nuclear, wind and wood burning

Deaths per TWH by energy source

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

The question is not whether an energy source ruins the energy source kills people and damages the environment but how much. Coal Powerstations kill miners and people downwind if fracking kills less it may be better.

My point being that all the research is there that this is lethal, and the downsides far outweigh the upsides, no matter what a few industry-influenced websites say.

How lethal in deaths per TWH?

feicim

I emailed all 166 TD's re fracking (2 days ago) so far I have 6 replies.

Sinn Fein

a chara,

Thank you for contacting us regarding the issue of fracking. Deputy Colreavy and SF are also concerned about the possible use of fracking here in Ireland. Deputy Colreavy arranged for a viewing of the film 'Gasland' here in Leinster house on 16th June 2011 to make people more aware of the issues surrounding the method.

We have been vocal in sounding our concerns regarding fracking and will continue to do so.

Fracking is a very serious issue and it is something we are keeping a very close eye on here and also encouraging others to educate themselves more on the facts.

We will continue to work on this issue.

Le meas,

Dessie (Ellis)

Labour Party

Thank you very much for your email which has been forwarded to the Minister for Communication, Energy and Natural Resources for his attention.

Yours sincerely,


EAMON GILMORE, T.D.

:rolleyes:

Fianna Fail

I have noted your concern re fracking and have put down a number of questions to the Minister in relation to this issue. Having been in Leitrim and the surrounding area many times I am aware of the valuable and sensitive ecology there. I will continue to pursue this issue to try ensure that nothing happens that would be detrimental to the ecology and way of life in the area. As outlined by the Minister there would be a number of steps to be gone through before any project could proceed including planning. The Bord Pleanála in my experience are very strict in relation to planning issues (Eg refusing the OPW planning for a decentralised Department at Knock Airport) . I would not accept that it is inevitable at all that fracking will be approved but I also accept the need for vigilance in relation to same. Éamon Ó Cuív

Labour Party #2

Thank you for your email.

I am referrring same to Minister Pat Rabbitte.

Emmet (Stagg)

Socialist Party

Thanks for getting in touch and for the links and the information. We have raised the issue with the Minister already. We are opposed to the process on the grounds that you outline. We are going to continue to develop our Party position on the issue and we will keep up the pressure in relation to it.

Best wishes,

xxxx,

Dail Assistant to Clare Daly TD

Socialist Party

Its interesting to see the position (or lack of it) from the 2 government parties.

Labour - are emailing everybody else about it.
Fine Gael - Are ignoring it.

Fianna Fail - Seem to have faith that the institutional bodies will keep Ireland safe from the perils of fracking. (Without being opposed to fracking itself - similar to Labours position).

Sinn Fein and Socialist Party - Actively opposing it.

The lack of response (so far) from Fine Gael is disappointing and hopefully not ominous.

frackingishell

cavedave wrote: »

Places and lives have been ruined by oil, coal, hydro, nuclear, wind and wood burning

Deaths per TWH by energy source


The question is not whether an energy source ruins the energy source kills people and damages the environment but how much. Coal Powerstations kill miners and people downwind if fracking kills less it may be better.



How lethal in deaths per TWH?

are you simple? This is about the environment, and it remaining healthy, and it's destruction.

Don't you even think for one second that you can use your pathetic amateur tactics to derail my point by trying to put words in my mouth, or by trying to justify Fracking by relating the unfortunate death's of other industries.

Not once did i mention human deaths. You're not getting an argument from me Mr. Fracking, best of luck with your campaign though.

However, what i WILL say on deaths is that this has only been introduced on a wide scale recently, and cancer deaths take time to show up. Your method of comparison is like saying the Chenobyl disaster was grand because only a few lads died at the beginning. Cop yourself on, and get a grip- everyone can see your agenda, and everyone can see your childish tactics fail miserably.

cavedave

are you simple? This is about the environment, and it remaining healthy, and it's destruction.

Ok lets talk about the environment. Where does fracking stand in relation to other methods of producing power in terms of environmental destruction?

frackingishell
Don't you even think for one second that you can use your pathetic amateur tactics to derail my point by trying to put words in my mouth, or by trying to justify Fracking by relating the unfortunate death's of other industries.

Not once did i mention human deaths

Because you don't care about humans?

You're not getting an argument from me Mr. Fracking, best of luck with your campaign though.

What is the point of you taking part in a debating forum if you wont get into an argument?

Your method of comparison is like saying the Chenobyl disaster was grand because only a few lads died at the beginning.

The debate about Chernobyl is well known. You can read the wikipedia article here
for example

Late in 1995, the World Health Organisation (WHO) linked nearly 700 cases of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents to the Chernobyl disaster, and among these some 10 deaths are attributed to radiation.

Cop yourself on, and get a grip- everyone can see your agenda, and everyone can see your childish tactics fail miserably.

My agenda to use evidence to do a cost benefit analysis? Oh the humanity! If looking at evidence and debating on a debating forum are childish tactics what do you consider adult tactics?

ei.sdraob

More hysterics and conspiracy theories

For a balanced overview of shale gas there is a free book available here

London, 4 May - The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed report about the shale gas revolution and its likely implications for UK and international climate policy.

The report The Shale Gas Shock, written by Matt Ridley and with a foreword by Professor Freeman Dyson, finds that shale gas:

is not only abundant but relatively cheap and therefore promises to take market share from nuclear, coal and renewable energy and to replace oil in some transport and industrial uses, over coming decades.
will help to keep the price of nitrogen fertiliser low and hence keep food prices down, other things being equal.
is unlikely to be a major source of pollution or methane emissions, but in contrast promises to reduce pollution and accelerate the decarbonisation of the world economy.
Matt Ridley, the author of the GWPF report, said:

"Abundant and relatively cheap shale gas promises to lower the cost of gas relative to oil, coal and renewables. It indefinitely postpones the exhaustion of fossil fuels and makes reducing emissions of carbon dioxide possible without raising energy prices."
Freeman Dyson, in his foreword to the GWPF report, said:

"Shale gas is not a perfect solution to our economic and environmental problems, but it is here when it is needed, and it makes an enormous difference to the human condition.”
“Matt Ridley gives us a fair and even-handed account of the environmental costs and benefits of shale gas. The lessons to be learned are clear. The environmental costs of shale gas are much smaller than the environmental costs of coal.”
The full report can be downloaded here (1.58 Mb 04/05/2011)

kingtubby

Just checked out this website http://what-the-frack.org it gives info on where in Ireland companies have been given license to do this and explains the dangers etc.
Seems quite dangerous surprised I don't here more controversy about it.

ei.sdraob

Burning mountains of coal down moneypoint to power your computer while you type this is also dangerous, all that mercury and other nasties might literary go to your head.

cavedave

ei.sdraob

Matt Ridley, the author of the GWPF report, said:

Matt Ridley is one of the "rational optimists" I linked to earlier that frackingishell *said was industry influenced*

karma_

cavedave wrote: »

Matt Ridley is one of the "rational optimists" I linked to earlier that frackingishell compares to Neo Nazis

He didn't compare anyone to neo-nazis. I suggest you read that part of his post again as you seem to have failed to grasp the point that was actually made.

frackingishell

cavedave, and e.sdraod...you guys can carry on in your little pro-fracking hysterical fantasy bubble there, don't let us disturb you. Keep banging your pro-fracking pots and pans, and continue fooling yourselves as long as you can- noone else is falling for it.

Now continue, and entertain us further.

oscarBravo

frackingishell wrote: »

cavedave, and e.sdraod...you guys can carry on in your little pro-fracking hysterical fantasy bubble there, don't let us disturb you. Keep banging your pro-fracking pots and pans, and continue fooling yourselves as long as you can- noone else is falling for it.

Now continue, and entertain us further.

As a disinterested observer, you're doing an absolutely terrible job of convincing me that your position on fracking has merit. If you want to convince people, debate calmly and rationally. Your near-hysterical reaction to people who disagree with you is only going to make people think you're a nutter.

No offence intended, genuinely.

frackingishell

i hear what you're saying dude.

I'm just getting tired of people quoting this and that in favour of Fracking, at the same time ignoring the basic facts and track record of this process.

You can see from a mile away that these two above, from the way they're going on, that they likely have an agenda, and are in all probability connected to the industry.

I have no such agenda. i have no land, no home in the areas proposed, and i don't even have any relations. But this is my country, and i won't let it or part of it be destroyed by profiteering groups without a fight. Even if there were any benefits to pumping chemicals underground. Which there aren't. Even if the profitable price in international markets comes about, Irish people will see very little of this money. Then when the price dips again we'll be left with a polluted environment, with gas we can't sell, unknown toxic chemicals throughout our water tables (with concurrent impacts on our world class agriculture sector), gas wells everywhere, and what will we have gained? A few local form signers, and the company owners will get rich quick, but there is absolutely no scenario where this becomes a logical, realistic option in this world for the Irish people.

Many analysts have also pointed out that the projected yields for these wells are fanciful, and massively overhyped. Shale rock is a seriously difficult substance to break down, and you'd have to continually pump chemicals in to keep fracturing and exploding the rock.

It's like this. If fracking is allowed happen, when the market price goes over 5 dollars, these wells will be driled, a couple of profiteers will make supernormal profits for a short time and very few jobs will be created. Our water tables will be polluted beyond repair, in beautiful tourist countryside and in world class agricutural land- (the things that we can make last forever i might add, and continualy reap the benefits from). Then the price will dip with the advances in green energy, and more efficient engines/processes around the world. Even if the price doesn't dip, we'll see very little money of it for the nation. Then we'll get a bit of gas out of the wells for a while, (the companies making most of the money), they wont pump any more chemicals in because it's not economically viable to do so. Then we'll have sacrificed everything in these areas for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. We can't be bushwacked once more as a nation,as we were with the banks, like dumb rabbits in headlights, by words such as 'clean energy',' jobs' etc. etc. It's all rubbish in relation to Fracking and Shale Gas extraction

I approached this issue months ago with genuine optimism at the thought of clean fuel; with an open mind I spoke to friends in the US in affected areas, read the scientific respected reports, and read about the the shady dealings in the US Govt in the lead up to them destroying communities in the US. Why did Dick Cheney make a law to exempt fracking (his company Halliburton being a 'pioneer' in the fracking field!) from the oversight of the American EPA in 2005 if this was a clean process with little detrimental environmental impact? Why indeed...Look at these areas now- Massive lawsuits are ongoing, others are settled, and areas are destroyed-literally.

If i sound hysterical it's because this issue demands that we don't roll over tickled and just take it like we have as a nation for so long. So i would urge you to cast off your indifference and do your own research on this important matter.

Your point is taken though. Suffice to say if this were a face to face debate, i'd bother my arse alot more with these numbskulls to dissect their 'points'. And their agendas.

nesf

frackingishell, tone it down a bit please.

ei.sdraob

Conspiracy theory nonsense being entertained in politics again?

anyways this "numbskull" already posted a link to a document signed off by quite a respectable UK organisation with dozen Professors, Lords and Sirs on board which addresses most of the "issues" raised above, the conclusion of the The Global Warming Policy Foundation is that unconventional gas would help the environment and provide a way for humanity to move forward, a win win, the alternatives are much less pretty

MadsL

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Conspiracy theory nonsense being entertained in politics again?

anyways this "numbskull" already posted a link to a document signed off by quite a respectable UK organisation with dozen Professors, Lords and Sirs on board which addresses most of the "issues" raised above, the conclusion of the The Global Warming Policy Foundation is that unconventional gas would help the environment and provide a way for humanity to move forward, a win win, the alternatives are much less pretty

I think I'd call your tap being able to be used to light your cigarette is a bit more than "conspiracy theory nonsense". This study wasn't conclusive, but it points at a problem with the method. Common sense says that blasting underground rock apart using highpressure fluids might just have unintended consequences.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking/single

I'd also wonder at the motivations of The Global Warming Policy Foundation. ithink you might be right in describing it as 'quite' a respectable organisation; as in 'almost' a respectable organsiation.

FundingCiting privacy concerns, Director Benny Peiser declined to reveal the sources of funding for the GWPF. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."

In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward commented ""We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/20/global-warming-policy-foundation-donors

We have called a lot of 'ahead of the curve' people 'Conspiracy theorists' over the years. I'm old enough to remember when we laughed at the 'nutters' who said aerosols were damaging something called 'ozone'. :rolleyes:

nesf

MadsL wrote: »

We have called a lot of 'ahead of the curve' people 'Conspiracy theorists' over the years. I'm old enough to remember when we laughed at the 'nutters' who said aerosols were damaging something called 'ozone'. :rolleyes:

That doesn't mean anything though. Some people will always jump on a bandwagon due to stories or limited evidence or whatever. Just because the bandwagon happened to arrive at truth doesn't mean these people were correct to jump on the bandwagon in the first place.

karma_

nesf wrote: »

That doesn't mean anything though. Some people will always jump on a bandwagon due to stories or limited evidence or whatever. Just because the bandwagon happened to arrive at truth doesn't mean these people were correct to jump on the bandwagon in the first place.

And dismissing it by the same token.

nesf

karma_ wrote: »

And dismissing it by the same token.

Dismiss, no. Sceptical, yes.

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

frackingishell, tone it down a bit please.

no problem Nesf, will do- had a tough day at the office!

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

That doesn't mean anything though. Some people will always jump on a bandwagon due to stories or limited evidence or whatever. Just because the bandwagon happened to arrive at truth doesn't mean these people were correct to jump on the bandwagon in the first place.

True nesf, but we're getting bogged down in semantics here. The point i got there was that people are often dismissed as conpiracy theorists for having a different point of view. I think we'd all agree that most conspiracy theories go nowhere. However, the above is no conspiracy theory. These are real world facts on how Fracking has been a disater. And the facts on the GWPF above are also indicative that everything isn't in the open. If they had nothing to hide, then they'd simply give out all the donation details. Its really quite simple.

With 80 members and half a million in cash, and many secret donors, any logical human being wil infer that the people spending that money have an agenda. Doesn't make it so, but very likely.

Having lived in many places around the world, there's one thing i've noticed about Ireland- we're an awful lot more conservative here, and afraid to stick our heads above the parapet for whatever reason. it's a deeply ingrained cultural thing... That has to change i think if we're to mature as a people.

cavedave

frackingishell
i'd bother my arse alot more with these numbskulls to dissect their 'points'. And their agendas.

are you simple?

Are you saying that i am stupid here?

frackingishell
from the way they're going on, that they likely have an agenda, and are in all probability connected to the industry.

Are you saying here you think I am a shill and am lying about my opinion?

frackingishell

Well, Freud did say the best kind of analysis is self-analysis...But,gee whizz Dave, i'll have to consult my legal team before i answer those to be honest. I'll get back to you soon....i promise.

thebman

Well I do think it would be a shame to not have a proper debate on it. From the articles posted on the journal (presumably this isn't considered a bias source on boards.ie :P), they were pretty damning of this method of extracting gas.

A lot of green experts seem to favor extracting natural resources at any cost to the environment to decrease carbon emissions on the bandwagon of the green agenda to decrease carbon emissions.

A lot of money to be had by supporting government views now they are signed up to carbon reducing targets with financial penalties some might say (<- now that is a conspiracy theory :P).

Realistically it is hard to believe that Fracking hasn't the potential to be extremely damaging to the environment given how it is extracted and the articles I've read on it so far (admittedly mostly from the journal) so I'd personally be on the skeptical side and expect the people wanting to extract it to be able to give cite unbiased sources for why the skepticism is unwarranted.

nesf

thebman wrote: »

Well I do think it would be a shame to not have a proper debate on it. From the articles posted on the journal (presumably this isn't considered a bias source on boards.ie :P), they were pretty damning of this method of extracting gas.

A lot of green experts seem to favor extracting natural resources at any cost to the environment to decrease carbon emissions on the bandwagon of the green agenda to decrease carbon emissions.

A lot of money to be had by supporting government views now they are signed up to carbon reducing targets with financial penalties some might say (<- now that is a conspiracy theory :P).

Realistically it is hard to believe that Fracking hasn't the potential to be extremely damaging to the environment given how it is extracted and the articles I've read on it so far (admittedly mostly from the journal) so I'd personally be on the skeptical side and expect the people wanting to extract it to be able to give cite unbiased sources for why the skepticism is unwarranted.

Does it do more or less damage than coal though? That's the real (and only) question here, since it's an either/or in the medium term given massive resistance to nuclear and the complete lack of political will to make it happen. I'd love to say we could just go 100% wind but it isn't an option with current technology.

Macha

nesf wrote: »

Does it do more or less damage than coal though? That's the real (and only) question here, since it's an either/or in the medium term given massive resistance to nuclear and the complete lack of political will to make it happen. I'd love to say we could just go 100% wind but it isn't an option with current technology.

A comparison with coal is difficult, mainly because the environmental impacts of fracking are relatively unknown. And the impacts are different: the use of large amounts of water (and the creation of significant amounts of waste water), the contamination of aquifers with chemicals and/pr methane., subsidence and possible seismic activity (this isn't scaremongering - it happened a few weeks ago in Brighton) as well as carbon emissions, which are generally higher than conventional gas.

Of course all of this must be balanced against the fuel that the gas extracted through fracking would be displacing.

cavedave

There seems to be two reasonable arguments about fracked gas
1. Though lower in direct co2 it produces a lot of methane and this means it is not that much better for global warming than coal.
This view has been expressed by Robert Howarth in this paper

“Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon, and is comparable over 100 years

Rebuttals of his paper have been made.
"Using a 100-year global warming potential and assuming an average power plant, unconventional gas results in 54% less lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal does. Even using a 20-year global warming potential, as Howarth controversially argues one should, the savings from substituting unconventional gas for coal are almost 50%. The NETL study acknowledges – and explores – a range of uncertainties. But it finds nothing close to the problems that Howarth claims."

One paper and one rebuttal is not enough to convince anyone.
But to me it looks like at the moment that the balance of evidence says that fracked gas is probably better for the global atmosphere than coal.

2. What about local effects. Flaming water taps are pretty scary. Is the pollution caused by fracking locally worse than the alternatives? The alternatives at the moment being coal.

I have linked to evidence here that between mining, working in a powerstation and breathing the air produced by coal burning powerstations conventional gas is much less damaging to human life than coal power.

"Some of the arguments about local environmental impacts of shale gas development are, however, on stronger ground.
...
The best compromise would involve minimum standards from the federal government combined with detailed implementation at the state level. These standards might usefully focus on at least three areas: well casing, wastewater disposal, and monitoring of impacts on local water supplies. Studies currently underway at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy might reveal other matters deserving of oversight. "

This seems reasonable. What standards would fracking have to come up to here and should these standards be higher?

A reading of the wiki page on Fracking shows that it certainly has some negative effects. And a detailed EPA report on these is due in 2012.
But I have not seen a huge amount of evidence that fracking is worse than the coal alternative

*I prefer nuclear to coal and to fracked gas as I believe it to be safer. And to hydro, biomass and wind for reliability and environmental reasons. In the medium term I believe solar will become cheap enough to be the best major source of power.

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

Does it do more or less damage than coal though? That's the real (and only) question here, since it's an either/or in the medium term given massive resistance to nuclear and the complete lack of political will to make it happen. I'd love to say we could just go 100% wind but it isn't an option with current technology.

Nesf, I don't think the question as to whether it does more or less damage than coal is really relevant. Coal doesn't require the pumping of huge amounts of toxic chemicals underground (some still as yet un-named on the basis that the concoction is proprietary...). Coal doesn't require that we risk whole aquifers, agricultural and tourist areas,& people's & nature's drinking waters to extract it.

SO the question on coal is irrelevant i feel.

The only question is whether there would be any possibility of the risks outweighing the rewards, and there doesn't seem to be any scenario where this is true.

Pumping hundreds of toxic chemicals, in massive amounts, into water tables, has destroyed whole areas in the USA. Why anyone could think it'd be any different here is beyond me. We're not a special case- they want to come in, and make a quick buck off a predicted future spike in gas prices for themselves, then leave the mess for the environment and the local people to deal with. These people don't care about the environment, eco-systems, and the interests of local agriculture and wildlife. It's no win for us, only them. And even if there was a small win for us, we shouldn't risk our environment for a small net gain, and a few quid in our arse pockets.

frackingishell

Macha wrote: »

A comparison with coal is difficult, mainly because the environmental impacts of fracking are relatively unknown.

i agree with everything you said there Macha except this sentence.

The likely impacts are well known in the US. Hence why many states have banned it, and France has banned it. If the impacts were unknown then lawsuits for millions would not be ongoing in the US. And some of these cases have been settled for millions already.

The impacts are known to be devastating to local environments, and the only question is, how far does the pumping of these chemicals reach from ground zero. I would think this differs in each region because none of us have a clue where groundwater links up where and how far away.

frackingishell

cavedave wrote: »

But I have not seen a huge amount of evidence that fracking is worse than the coal alternative

*I prefer nuclear to coal and to fracked gas as I believe it to be safer. And to hydro, biomass and wind for reliability and environmental reasons. In the medium term I believe solar will become cheap enough to be the best major source of power.

cavedave, what coal alternative? Is anyone talking about pumping masses of chemicals into exploded underground aquifers so we can mine a bit of coal throughout a large section of our country?? No, there isn't. So quit pulling out the "coal alternative"...it doesn't exist, it's irrelevant, it makes no odds whatsoever to this discussion. You make it sound like we HAVE to do one or the other in this county, right away, which is blatantly untrue.

Second thing, i actually agree completely with your second paragraph quoted above there. I'd be a nuclear man myself. I would of course prefer solar, but i would like an explanation from world governments as to why there haven't been more advances in solar. Christ, ten years ago i was genuinely optimistic that by this stage we'd have the technoloogy at an amazingly advanced state. But i thik i can work out my own explanation...

The slow development pace really suggests that the huge interests of global energy are intent on stifling this energy source as much as possible, so they can make as much wealth as they can out of the fossil fuel reserves they control.

Everyone else here remember the late 90's? and all the Solar power talk etc. etc.. It was really exciting wasn't it?! Where has all the R&D money gone? Where have all those scientists gone that were running solar cars across the desert and fascinating us? Fifteen years and feck all has changed really. I feel genuinely let down to be honest. The progression of the human species has been halted by monied energy interests intent on keeping their stranglehold on energy, and holding us and the planet to ransom. At least this is what i think on the issue...not so much a conspiracy, more as a simple logical conclusive mental reasoning on self-interest, greed, control and a lack of any other reasonabe explanation. The sun is still buring just as bright. (ok, technically there has ben an unpredicted cyclical falloff in solar energy lately but that's another day's discussion!)

Macha

frackingishell wrote: »

i agree with everything you said there Macha except this sentence.

The likely impacts are well known in the US. Hence why many states have banned it, and France has banned it. If the impacts were unknown then lawsuits for millions would not be ongoing in the US. And some of these cases have been settled for millions already.

The impacts are known to be devastating to local environments, and the only question is, how far does the pumping of these chemicals reach from ground zero. I would think this differs in each region because none of us have a clue where groundwater links up where and how far away.

OK, let me rephrase: relatively unknown in Ireland. The regulation of fracking in the US is practically non-existent with the EPA reacting to the situation, rather than managing it.

In Ireland, it seems likely that the environmental impacts will be more considered through the mandatory EIAs and it remains to be seen to what extent the negative impacts of fracking can be mitigated. I don't know much about this area admittedly.

frackingishell

ok, but you have to assume that Fracking is fracking for the moment. Which it is. Same chemicals, same amounts, same results. I really can't see them coming up with an Ireland-friendly concoction.
I see it the same as Macdonalds. No matter where you go a big mac is a big mac is a big mac, despite local tastes.

The only difference between Ireland and the USA is whether we allow our environment to be destroyed through our oversight institutions being undermined by special interest groups to the detriment of the bigger picture. Just like Cheney & Bush did in 2005 by writing a law exempting fracking from EPA Federal (countrywide) oversight. (I won't go into Cheney again being part of Halliburton- the company that benefited most from deregulation law he enacted).
The oversight went to the individual states, cash strapped and desperate for revenue with underfunded statewide environmental agencies.(we've all seen the TV show 'The wire'! ). This left the door open for local politicians in those states to cut deals, and we all know how much easier corruption can be on a local level, and how much easier it is to make money talk locally.

Granted we are a smaller country, but if we the people don't recognise this Fracking for what it is-(the exact same as what it is in the USA), then we will have abdicated our responsibility for our environment, and our nation's interests, and the planet we inhabit that gives us everything we have, because we weren't bothered to go out and fight for what is right. Fracking is wrong because it wont give us the purported jobs, and it will potentially destroy our agriculture and tourist areas. Never mind the fact that it's wrong simply because we all know deep down that pumping huge amounts of toxic chemicals anywhere unless it's directly into the earth's core is a bad thing. We all instinctively know this.

Fracking involves pumping large amounts of toxic chemicals, some they won't even name, into the ground, and thus the water table. The gas comes out (varying amounts) and the chemicals dont. They go somewhere else. That somewhere else in the US has been local water tables, upon which everything and all life and industry and the environment and agriculture and trees and animals in the area depend .

Now shale rock is shale rock no matter where you go- in New Jersey, and in Drumshanbo, and azerbaijan. Thus, the results will likely be the same here.

THUS, the results are not relatively unknown in Ireland. Because our shale rock underground is the same as everyone elses. This is how we are supposed to learn as a species- from the mistakes of others.

Back to my point-Fracking is fracking,is fracking, and it will be fracking, no matter what language or jurisdiction you pronounce it in.

nesf

frackingishell wrote: »

Nesf, I don't think the question as to whether it does more or less damage than coal is really relevant. Coal doesn't require the pumping of huge amounts of toxic chemicals underground (some still as yet un-named on the basis that the concoction is proprietary...). Coal doesn't require that we risk whole aquifers, agricultural and tourist areas,& people's & nature's drinking waters to extract it.

Coal is a massive polluter and causes very serious health problems which is something far more important than merely damaging a tourist area or drinking water to be blunt. We can avoid drinking water from a particular source, we cannot avoid breathing the air around us.

Macha

nesf wrote: »

Coal is a massive polluter and causes very serious health problems which is something far more important than merely damaging a tourist area or drinking water to be blunt. We can avoid drinking water from a particular source, we cannot avoid breathing the air around us.

Very true. It's important we don't "outsource" our environmental damage to other countries through, in this case, using imported fuels that damage the local environment of other people.

That is against the basic environmental tenet of dealing with your own mess, ie the polluter pays.

frackingishell, coal mining has it's own serious environmental impacts. Just because they don't correspond directly with those of fracking and don't tend to occur in Ireland, doesn't mean they aren't important. But in this case, it's really oil and conventional gas, not coal that would be displaced by fracked (?) gas. In 2009, coal only counted for 8% of Ireland's total primary energy mix. Oil and gas, however, counted for over 82%.

cavedave

nesf

Coal is a massive polluter and causes very serious health problems which is something far more important than merely damaging a tourist area or drinking water to be blunt. We can avoid drinking water from a particular source, we cannot avoid breathing the air around us.

Coal mining can be very bad for the ground water though. For examples of how the wikipedia page on Environmental impact of coal mining and burning gives some examples. There is also a fairly extensive literature out there on the negative groundwater effects of coalmining

nesf

Macha wrote: »

Very true. It's important we don't "outsource" our environmental damage to other countries through, in this case, using imported fuels that damage the local environment of other people.

That is against the basic environmental tenet of dealing with your own mess, ie the polluter pays.

frackingishell, coal mining has it's own serious environmental impacts. Just because they don't correspond directly with those of fracking and don't tend to occur in Ireland, doesn't mean they aren't important. But in this case, it's really oil and conventional gas, not coal that would be displaced by fracked (?) gas. In 2009, coal only counted for 8% of Ireland's total primary energy mix. Oil and gas, however, counted for over 82%.

Over the medium term coal is going to get more attractive though.

Macha

nesf wrote: »

Over the medium term coal is going to get more attractive though.

Not with a decent carbon price. It's just so incredibly short sighted to use coal. The cost of dealing with climate change is going to be astronomical.

Cue: tearing hair out.

frackingishell

i completely agree with all of you on the detrimental effects of coal- in the air, and sometimes on groundwater.

But coal isn't on the table here in the proposed areas. Fracking is.

I completely agree that we shouldn't export our mess, but as mentioned there my Macha, coal usage wouldn't be displaced. There's also plenty of conventionally mined gas available in the market, that doesn't involve pumping chemicals into the ground in the countryside.

So can we please drop coal from this discussion finally- it's irrelevant, and taking everything well off course.

i think YOU ALL need to realise that coal oil and gas activities are going to continue worldwide no matter what we do here in little old Ireland. We don't matter internationally in consumption figures. This is our problem, and will be our problem in future if we allow it.

The sooner you get the notion of displacement of coal/oil usage out of your heads the better. They're irrelevant to our situation for the moment. We'll have access to natural gas and oil at the same prices if we allow Fracking or not. Understand? The tiny amount of supply we would introduce globally would mean nothing to the price we would pay. Coal and Facking are not mutually inclusive for our situation, and oil, coal and gas abroad will be mined whatever we do here. All fracking will do is likely screw up our environment and agriculture. Understand that people, and you can make a real picture in your head about Fracking- whether you want it or not.

I repeat- we would still pay the same price for GAS and OIL if we allow fracking. Now what in Christs name is the point in allowing in Ireland, the same stuff that destroyed huge areas in the US???

Take away the irrelevant coal/oil displacement rubbish, and it's plain to see there is no merit in Fracking whatsoever.

cavedave

Macha

Cue: tearing hair out.

Not to hijack the conversation but quoting from the solar article I linked to already

Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells.
...
What do these trends mean for the future? If the 7 percent decline in costs continues (and 2010 and 2011 both look likely to beat that number), then in 20 years the cost per watt of PV cells will be just over 50 cents.
...
The cost of solar, in the average location in the U.S., will cross the current average retail electricity price of 12 cents per kilowatt hour in around 2020, or 9 years from now. In fact, given that retail electricity prices are currently rising by a few percent per year, prices will probably cross earlier, around 2018 for the country as a whole, and as early as 2015 for the sunniest parts of America.

10 years later, in 2030, solar electricity is likely to cost half what coal electricity does today.

So this to me says we only have to avoid destroying the place with carbon and radioactive pollutants in the air and groundwater for 20 years.

Anyway back to fracking

nesf

frackingishell wrote: »

i completely agree with all of you on the detrimental effects of coal- in the air, and sometimes on groundwater.

But coal isn't on the table here in the proposed areas. Fracking is.

I completely agree that we shouldn't export our mess, but as mentioned there my Macha, coal usage wouldn't be displaced. There's also plenty of conventionally mined gas available in the market, that doesn't involve pumping chemicals into the ground in the countryside.

So can we please drop coal from this discussion finally- it's irrelevant, and taking everything well off course.

i think YOU ALL need to realise that coal oil and gas activities are going to continue worldwide no matter what we do here in little old Ireland. We don't matter internationally in consumption figures. This is our problem, and will be our problem in future if we allow it.

The sooner you get the notion of displacement of coal/oil usage out of your heads the better. They're irrelevant to our situation for the moment. We'll have access to natural gas and oil at the same prices if we allow Fracking or not. Understand? The tiny amount of supply we would introduce globally would mean nothing to the price we would pay. Coal and Facking are not mutually inclusive for our situation, and oil, coal and gas abroad will be mined whatever we do here. All fracking will do is like screw up our environment and agriculture. Understand that people, and you can make a real picture in your head about Fracking- whether you want it or not.

I repeat- we would still pay the same price for GAS and OIL if we allow fracking. Now what in Christs name is the point in allowing in Ireland, the same stuff that destroyed huge areas in the US???

Take away the irrelevant coal/oil displacement rubbish, and it's plain to see there is no merit in Fracking whatsoever.

So you just have a problem with pollution when it's in your backyard then?

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

So you just have a problem with pollution when it's in your backyard then?

Nesf, i think you're being unfair there now.

I said i agree with all the coal stuff you guys said. I merely pointed out that oil and coal and gas drilling abroad will happen with or without us. Any gas from fracking would equal a small percentage of what we use from current russian wells. Practically, Fracking extracted gas would make no difference on price, nor on coal/oil/gas mining abroad.

If you knew me better, you'd know i'm currently working on a solution to a Different, unrelated EU wide pollution problem to an EU wide problem, and i've been fighting to get it recognised for a long time. I'm slowly getting somewhere with it but it's tough. And i'm not going to go into it here anyway.

I've repeatedly mentioned the PLANET and fracking in the US and the awful devastation it has left behind, so how you can say that to me in any seriousness is beyond me. You must be joking

I think it's disingenuous of you to ask me that question above frankly, and quite unfair.

i hope this doesn't distract from my point that the displacement talk is irrelevant, and it is stifling true debate here on Fracking. The displacement issue is moot when it comes to pollution and market price for reasons outlined in my last post. Asking me if i only care about Ireland isn't going to make those facts go away.

Anyway, i have to go do some work, until tomorrow ladies and gents.

feicim

nesf wrote: »

Coal is a massive polluter and causes very serious health problems which is something far more important than merely damaging a tourist area or drinking water to be blunt. We can avoid drinking water from a particular source, we cannot avoid breathing the air around us.

That is true. Many people in the gasland documentary had to drive into their nearest unpolluted local town with massive water tanks on the back of a trailer to collect water to drink and wash with. Is this a potential scenario we want for Ireland?

Despite all the rain in Ireland - Ireland is on the brink of a water shortage due to poor management/infrastructure. If a large aquifer were to be polluted - a replacement source would not be readily available...

With water from the shannon proposed to supply parts of Dublin via the new pipeline from mullingar to Dublin - the water from the shannon is currently the only way to meet projected increased water demand for Dublin. If this aquifer gets poisoned its not just the local area that will be affected. Lough Ree is downstream from Lough Allen.

http://www.watersupplyproject-dublinregion.ie/uploads/files/Updated%20Publications/Draft%20Plan%20Summary.pdf

Note: Those who argue that on balance (on a global scale) coal does more damage - that may indeed be true (might not be) - but would that justify polluting a large chunk of Irish drinking water? For the greater good? I don't think so.

We have seen that the government can expect little in the way of a return from these gas companies - so why bother letting them in when there is a risk of polluting Irelands drinking water, and potentially losing tourist and farming revenue too? If it goes wrong - which it has done in other countries - depsite the promises and denials from the companies who are involved in this process - why take the risk?

Its like placing a bet where you can't win - but you can lose... why would you do it?

For these simple reasons the government should not entertain the Fracking in Ireland.

nesf

feicim wrote: »

That is true. Many people in the gasland documentary had to drive into their nearest unpolluted local town with massive water tanks on the back of a trailer to collect water to drink and wash with. Is this a potential scenario we want for Ireland?

Despite all the rain in Ireland - Ireland is on the brink of a water shortage due to poor management/infrastructure. If a large aquifer were to be polluted - a replacement source would not be readily available...

With water from the shannon proposed to supply parts of Dublin via the new pipeline from mullingar to Dublin - the water from the lough allen basin is currently the only way to meet projected increased water demand for Dublin. If this aquifer gets poisoned its not just the local area that will be affected.

Note: Those who argue that on balance (on a global scale) coal does more damage - that may indeed be true (might not be) - but would that justify polluting a large chunk of Irish drinking water? For the greater good? I don't think so.

We have seen that the government can expect little in the way of a return from these gas companies - so why bother letting them in when there is a risk of polluting Irelands drinking water, and potentially losing tourist and farming revenue too? If it goes wrong - which it has done in other countries - depsite the promises and denials from the companies who are involved in this process - why take the risk?

Its like placing a bet where you can't win - but you can lose... why would you do it?

For these simple reasons the government should not entertain the Fracking in Ireland.

Does well regulated fracking cause massive water pollution though? (I don't know) I'm just sceptical of using the US as a marker for what would happen here given it's so poorly regulated there.

feicim

nesf wrote: »

Does well regulated fracking cause massive water pollution though? (I don't know) I'm just sceptical of using the US as a marker for what would happen here given it's so poorly regulated there.

I'm not sure its possible to accurately regulate a process so powerful it fractures underground rock so much that it can cause tremors of up to magnitude 2.3 or so. The fluid and gases travel through these fractures - that is how the pollutants enter the water table.

This process also uses up massive amounts of water. Millions of litres at a time. Some of this polluted water (not sure what percentage) stays under the ground in the water table.

http://www.icis.com/Articles/2011/06/01/9465292/fracking-suspended-in-uk-following-possible-earth-tremors.html

It doesn't sound like a process that you could fine tune - more of a blunt instrument. There are so many variables in the geology of the bedrock that would be unknowable for it to be well regulated.

The companies would surely try - give it their best guess - and then hold their hands up and say sorry Ireland - didn't mean to pollute your aquifers. And anyway it wasn't us and you can't prove it.

Don't worry though they'll be ok again in a few hundred or maybe a few thousand years.

thebman

When you look into how it is achieved, one can't help but think it has too many variables that can't be full controlled.

France has banned it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-bans-fracking-2011-5

And France is heavily involved in Nuclear power so it isn't like they are opposed to a certain level of risk or hazardous waste. So they obviously feel the risk is environmental damage is higher than nuclear if they have banned it and a few states in the US have followed the French ban, some after having found out the hard way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking#Water_and_Health

This is only recent that New Jersey has banned it until the EPA finishes its studies on it in 2012 so it is by no means considered safe yet and it would be a mistake to get involved until the US study is finished especially since it is not far away.
http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/07/french-fracking-ban-spreading-us

nesf

thebman wrote: »

When you look into how it is achieved, one can't help but think it has too many variables that can't be full controlled.

France has banned it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-bans-fracking-2011-5

And France is heavily involved in Nuclear power so it isn't like they are opposed to a certain level of risk or hazardous waste. So they obviously feel the risk is environmental damage is higher than nuclear if they have banned it and a few states in the US have followed the French ban, some after having found out the hard way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking#Water_and_Health

This is only recent that New Jersey has banned it until the EPA finishes its studies on it in 2012 so it is by no means considered safe yet and it would be a mistake to get involved until the US study is finished especially since it is not far away.
http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/07/french-fracking-ban-spreading-us

Yeah, it looks like the weight of opinion is against tracking, still though the way that the US went about was an absolute joke.