Fracking in the West -

cavedave · 22-07-2011 09:37AM

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 · 22-07-2011 02:16PM

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 · 22-07-2011 02:22PM

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 · 22-07-2011 02:33PM

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 · 22-07-2011 02:36PM

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 · 22-07-2011 04:30PM

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 · 22-07-2011 04:35PM

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 · 22-07-2011 04:43PM

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 · 22-07-2011 04:51PM

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 · 22-07-2011 04:58PM

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 · 22-07-2011 05:02PM

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 · 22-07-2011 05:08PM

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 · 22-07-2011 05:10PM

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 · 22-07-2011 05:13PM

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 · 22-07-2011 05:20PM

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 · 22-07-2011 06:10PM

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 · 22-07-2011 06:15PM

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 · 22-07-2011 06:22PM

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 · 22-07-2011 08:07PM

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 · 22-07-2011 08:47PM

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.

oscarBravo · 22-07-2011 09:15PM

nesf wrote: »

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

Bear in mind that in the US, pregnant women are advised not to eat fish because it's taken for granted that fish contains high levels of mercury.

Environmental disasters in the US don't translate directly to Europe.

frackingishell · 22-07-2011 09:26PM

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.

Well regulated fracking?

Nesf, i think you're still missing the point...let me try again;

Fracking is pumping many known and unknown toxic chemicals underground into water tables, regulated or not.
How do you regulate where water and toxic chemicals go deep underground on widely used aquifers?
How well it was regulated has nothing to do with anything. There are no half measures here, or 'Fracking-lite' concoctions-it's a one size fits all proprietary bundle of chemicals that are formulated to explode underground at depths.
US or Ireland, shale rock is shale rock

If you need any more clarification here please let me know, its quite concerning that you can't make the leap between fracking being somehow different in different parts of the world, and the fact that it is actually the same thing everywhere, regulation or not. The only regulation you can do on Fracking, is hwo many companies have licences and where they are allowed to drill.

The question is not whether it is regulated or not.
The question is whether it is allowed or not.
It's that simple.

oscarBravo · 22-07-2011 09:29PM

frackingishell wrote: »

Fracking is pumping many known and unknown toxic chemicals underground into water tables, regulated or not.

Oxymoron. "Well-regulated" precludes pumping unknown - or, indeed, toxic - chemicals into the ground.

frackingishell · 22-07-2011 09:34PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bear in mind that in the US, pregnant women are advised not to eat fish because it's taken for granted that fish contains high levels of mercury.

Environmental disasters in the US don't translate directly to Europe.

What's your point? That Fracking in the US shale rock could possibly be more likely to cause damage than in our shale rock? Is our Irish rock somehow better quality and stronger?

Yes, i'm being smart here, as i'm struggling to see your point in relation to Fracking.

frackingishell · 22-07-2011 09:41PM

[QUOTE=oscarBravo;
73437600]Oxymoron. "Well-regulated" precludes pumping unknown - or, indeed, toxic - chemicals into the ground.[/QUOTE]

aha, excellent point OscarBravo, thank you. It's the very point i'm trying to make

Fracking can't be well regulated. Because Fracking, IS pumping unknown-indeed toxic, chemicals underground. And they wont tell the US authorities what some of the chemicals are based on the fact it's intellectual property. Possibly (probably) also because they're some very serious nasty chemicals.

I'm glad you noticed.

(oh, and technically (or otherwise), i never used an oxymoron..not sure what you're on about there OscarBravo, check your dictionary- i never said anything was well regulated.....but lets not get bogged down in semantics, it's enough for me to point it out)

nesf · 22-07-2011 09:59PM

frackingishell wrote: »

Well regulated fracking?

Nesf, i think you're still missing the point...let me try again;

Fracking is pumping many known and unknown toxic chemicals underground into water tables, regulated or not.

How do you regulate where water and toxic chemicals go deep underground on widely used aquifers?

How well it was regulated has nothing to do with anything. There are no half measures here, or 'Fracking-lite' concoctions-it's a one size fits all proprietary bundle of chemicals that are formulated to explode underground at depths.

US or Ireland, shale rock is shale rock

If you need any more clarification here please let me know, its quite concerning that you can't make the leap between fracking being somehow different in different parts of the world, and the fact that it is actually the same thing everywhere, regulation or not. The only regulation you can do on Fracking, is hwo many companies have licences and where they are allowed to drill.

The question is not whether it is regulated or not.
The question is whether it is allowed or not.
It's that simple.

You could regulate where pumping was allowed to minimize damage to major aquifers. Etc.

frackingishell · 22-07-2011 10:13PM

nesf wrote: »

You could regulate where pumping was allowed to minimize damage to major aquifers. Etc.

this is true. But we don't know where all the ground water links up to aquifers as...noones been underground to see- and noone will be...so, in short (and not trying to sound rude here)..you can't regulate it to minimize damage as you've said. And minimised damage is still damage for very little benefit to anyone but international energy companies.... and how will we know it's minimised? Because they told us so?! Yah, right.... All we know is that the aquifers are in the shale rock regions- that's how water can flow around down there- visualise it.

And, We can't send a fact finding mission down there before or AFTER to follow every gallon of toxic chemicals hundreds of metres underground to check if it's minimised...

You'll get it eventually Nesf. Here's a new word for me and you;

Un-regulatable!

nesf · 22-07-2011 10:22PM

frackingishell wrote: »

this is true. But we don't know where all the ground water links up to aquifers as...noones been underground to see- and noone will be...so, in short (and not trying to sound rude here)..you can't regulate it to minimize damage as you've said. And minimised damage is still damage for very little benefit to anyone but international energy companies.... and how will we know it's minimised? Because they told us so?! Yah, right.... All we know is that the aquifers are in the shale rock regions- that's how water can flow around down there- visualise it.

And, We can't send a fact finding mission down there before or AFTER to follow every gallon of toxic chemicals hundreds of metres underground to check if it's minimised...

You'll get it eventually Nesf. Here's a new word for me and you;

Un-regulatable!

Sure, but do you have to use toxic chemicals when fracking? They do so in the US definitely but perhaps there's other ways of doing it etc.

cavedave · 22-07-2011 10:23PM

nesf

You could regulate where pumping was allowed to minimize damage to major aquifers. Etc.

There is a point. Having spent a large amount of time underground (hence the username) I know a few hydrologists who work in the area. I'll ask them their opinion on the local aquifers. If they are very connected that would make localising pollution very difficult I would imagine.

I do like spending time in the underground rivers of Fermanagh, Cavan ,Sligo and Leitrim so if fracking does pollute the underground water I really want to know about it.

frackingishell · 22-07-2011 10:32PM

nesf wrote: »

Sure, but do you have to use toxic chemicals when fracking? They do so in the US definitely but perhaps there's other ways of doing it etc.

aha again! Now we're getting somewhere. The process of Fracking and toxic chemicals are inseparable. There's an explsion down there that happens with these chemicals. This wouldn't work with just water.

Now, if it worked(facking) without toxic chemicals, dont you think the companies that have done this in the US (and want to do it here) would simply eliminate them and therefore satisfy the environmental worries and regulations that are stopping them making money at the moment? Think about that one.

This thing only works with toxic chemicals, many named, and many unnamed as they are holding the explosion concoction close to their chests as they don't want their R&D money to be wasted by every friendly neighbourhood 'fracker being able to mix this up in his grannies bathtub.

Nesf, in every sentence you've ever read about Fracking in shale rock, i want you to replace the word 'Fracking' with 'Pumping named and unnamed toxic chemicals underground at high pressure and causing explosions in aquifers'. You're saying the same thing.

Anything else wont get the gas out. If anything cleaner worked, they'd be doing it, if only to save themselves the regulatory hassle.

We're goin round in circles here. Alot of people are trying to explain his to you and you're asking the same questions...possibly in a wind up attempt, i'm not sure

Fracking in the West -

Comments