Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

This is fracking unbelievable, restart the gravy train, Leitrim to the rescue

1…457910…12

Comments

  • #182
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Of course, one of the main catalysts used in the fracking process is copious amounts of raw diesel. We all know what damage that can do on the environment.

    I thought the fluids used were to be stored in concrete containers.
    Also, isn't 'copious' a wee bit of a lie? Water makes up 98% of the fluids used and the rest isn't just Diesel.
    Also, didn't the company pledge not to use any chemicals? Which I find a bit silly, since everything is chemical of some description.


  • #183
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    I thought the fluids used were to be stored in concrete containers.
    Also, isn't 'copious' a wee bit of a lie? Water makes up 98% of the fluids used and the rest isn't just Diesel.
    Also, didn't the company pledge not to use any chemicals? Which I find a bit silly, since everything is chemical of some description.

    Stored in concrete containers above ground until it is pumped down a deep hydraulic pipe to the fracturing site and then high pressure released along with other toxic chemicals.

    More on it here.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/11/29/how-could-you-possibly-have-a-problem-with-diesel-based-gas-fracking/


  • #184
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Stored in concrete containers above ground until it is pumped down a deep hydraulic pipe to the fracturing site and then high pressure released along with other toxic chemicals.

    More on it here.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/11/29/how-could-you-possibly-have-a-problem-with-diesel-based-gas-fracking/

    I kinda dismissed that article as a guy who is all like "If you disagree with me you are wrong." Even though he is trying to say using Diesel is OK.

    Isn't the fracking mixture pumped way below the water table anyway?


  • #185
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    I kinda dismissed that article as a guy who is all like "If you disagree with me you are wrong." Even though he is trying to say using Diesel is OK.

    Isn't the fracking mixture pumped way below the water table anyway?
    The surrounding shale is going to be fractured in the process and will let fracturing fluid and god knows whet ever else work its way up through the ground and straight into the water table.

    This gives you a good insight into the fracking process.


  • #186
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    The surrounding shale is going to be fractured in the process and will let fracturing fluid and god knows whet ever else work its way up through the ground and straight into the water table.

    This gives you a good insight into the fracking process.
    500,000
    Active gas wells in the US
    X

    8 million
    Gallons of water per fracking
    X

    18
    Times a well can be fracked
    Do all these use fracking?
    There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water.
    General drilling or from sites that actually use fracking? Even then that's 1000 cases from the 500,000 drilling locations.

    That page references seemingly bias sources. Bringing trust levels down.

    I have a rule that whenever someone presents something as fact, I instantly Google: [subject] debunked
    Doing so for one of the references, Gasland, the movie, pulled up this. There is quite a few complaints in there, will have a look later.

    This is getting a bit long winded.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,788 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    The surrounding shale is going to be fractured in the process and will let fracturing fluid and god knows whet ever else.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTwH5nqRvOo


  • #188
    Noreen1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭Noreen1


    humanji wrote: »
    The inexperience wouldn't bother me, as once regulations are followed, it'd be a standard affair. The problem is that Ireland seems completely unwilling to follow regulations in anything, so the copany would most likely be allowed to do anything they want.

    The inexperience wouldn't bother me either, as such.
    The thing is, if Tamboran can hire the necessary expertise, then so can the Irish Government, hence eliminating one of the reasons Ray Burke used as justification for the Shell explorations.
    humanji wrote: »
    Also, I'd say that it'd be far too expensive for Ireland to hire people to do it. Plus, if it goes wrong, the government wouldn't have a scapegoat.

    Maybe. If Tamboran can hire people and make a profit, then surely one of our very well-paid advisors could locate similar expertise?
    humanji wrote: »
    Still, I'd like to see an actual unbiased report on the fracking system that's planned, rather than conspiracy theory videos and reports made by the companies that profit from it all. Can't imagine the government asking for anything like that, though.

    Agreed, 100%
    GetWithIt wrote: »
    The inexperience doesn't matter. Not because our fine regulatory system will be enforcing good practice, but because these guys will never be extracting anything.

    That's the business model. They're not in the business of extracting. They're in the business of identifying areas of geological interest, sorting all planning issues, and then selling on the Play to bigger operators. They may retain a small interest as part of the deal.

    That's just the way it works.

    Knowing that, knowing how accelerants are NEEDED for the liberation of hydrocarbons and witnessing the interview given by Tamboran's CEO last night on the news, I would want to see an independent analysis of all their data so far.


    Aah, the penny drops!


  • #189
    Millicent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    Voodoo_rasher wrote: »


    You can be sure that local lackeys will be employed as security guards, and
    gardaí enforcement is never far away. Sounds familiar??

    We're not the Fighting Irish for nothing..so easy to divide and conquer Paddy.

    Nice dig there before you edited it out. Way to totally disregard any point I made. I have no bias in this argument and simply said there needs to be greater study into the process. Why does that necessitate you trying to discredit my opinion based on where I live?


  • #190
    k.p.h
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭k.p.h


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    And Fracking will do that?

    Let's say it's 99% safe, would you go for it then...?

    How about 99.99% would you go for it then ..?

    How about 99.99999% safe ..?

    I don't know about you, but I would not let it happen if there was a 1 in a billion chance of any of out rivers getting polluted in any way.

    Also I don't know when the general consensus changed from conservation and environmental conservation. I don't give a rats if they are pumping purified spring water down there, is it meant to be there. Do we need to do it... No..

    Saying we need the money is not a valid justification either, in my opinion it's akin to robbing a pensioner and explaining yourself by saying "Huh I needed the money".

    Just about every scientist in the world agrees that fossil fuels are not the forward and Ireland is just about to pimp it's hole out for a pittance.


  • #191
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    k.p.h wrote: »
    Let's say it's 99% safe, would you go for it then...?

    How about 99.99% would you go for it then ..?

    How about 99.99999% safe ..?

    I don't know about you, but I would not let it happen if there was a 1 in a billion chance of any of out rivers getting polluted in any way.

    You've roughly a 1 in 576000 of being struck by lightning, so you're going to spend the rest of your life indoors?

    At the moment, all we have to go on is a load of propaganda from both sides and very little facts about what is actually going to be done, how it's going to be done or any environmental impact statements. To automatically dismiss the idea based on a lack of knowledge and sheer scaremongering is just plain silly.


    Also I don't know when the general consensus changed from conservation and environmental conservation. I don't give a rats if they are pumping purified spring water down there, is it meant to be there. Do we need to do it... No..
    Yes we do need it, actually.
    Saying we need the money is not a valid justification either, in my opinion it's akin to robbing a pensioner and explaining yourself by saying "Huh I needed the money".

    No, it's like finding out that there's a money buried in the ground in front of you. You don't exactly know how much is there, and you don't know what the impact of digging it up will be.

    Your analogy is just a terrible attempt at shocking people into agreeing with you.
    Just about every scientist in the world agrees that fossil fuels are not the forward and Ireland is just about to pimp it's hole out for a pittance.

    And when there's a solidly reliable alternative to fossil fuels available to us, we can go for that, but right now there's a fuel source that could benefit the people both in it's use and through it's monetary value.

    It is needed and if it can be extracted safely, then it should be. If it can't be, then it should be left there until a safe means of extraction can be found.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    this following paragraph is taken from a story about crime in a Indian reservation in the US - the story has nothing to do with fracking , not biased in any way anti or pro - and this is why i would be against frackin based on this ONE paragraph


    On one section of the reservation, people must boil drinking water because chemicals, possibly the result of the oil and natural gas drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, have contaminated the water supply. And fearing that the chemicals might explode in a home, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered residents to run fans and otherwise ensure ventilation while bathing or washing clothes.

    full story here ( not thread related but will show NO bias in the above comment ) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/us/wind-river-indian-reservation-where-brutality-is-banal.html?_r=1&hp


    that ends the debate for me


  • #193
    k.p.h
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭k.p.h


    humanji wrote: »
    At the moment, all we have to go on is a load of propaganda from both sides and very little facts about what is actually going to be done, how it's going to be done or any environmental impact statements. To automatically dismiss the idea based on a lack of knowledge and sheer scaremongering is just plain silly.

    News reports, EPA announcement, the fact that the French Government banned it can hardly be called propaganda. Generally the people who oppose fracking have nothing to gain, those who support it do. You are obviously pretty intelligent so I think you see the logic here.
    humanji wrote: »
    No, it's like finding out that there's a money buried in the ground in front of you. You don't exactly know how much is there, and you don't know what the impact of digging it up will be.

    We have a very good idea of the risks involved in fracking are as it has been done elsewhere. There is enough evidence currently to convince me and plenty of other people that it is too risky.Bulgaria have banned it. The EPA are currently investigating and it has been banned in some states in America,the most fossil fuel hungry country in the world.
    humanji wrote: »
    Your analogy is just a terrible attempt at shocking people into agreeing with you.

    Yup, pretty much. We don't want this going anywhere near a debate or getting into any politicians hands. The Irish public and government have a bit of a history of making stupid decisions. If you consider the current economic climate in this country and general state of the nation it slightly reduces the likelihood of the right thing been done here as it involves money.

    Money is the prime motivator here from both perspectives, the prospectors because they want more of it and Ireland as a nation because we don't have enough of it.

    I'm not saying the right thing will not be done, but if it's nipped in the bud we will never run the risk. You are the one who mentioned propaganda, if it did turn into a propaganda war with so much money on the line who do you think will win..?

    Despite what people may think it is actually black and white, and with so much at stake it would be silly consider it anything else.

    The best thing for all here is to just completely remove any possibility of fracking by making it illegal in this country as it is in others.


  • #194
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    The "risks" involved in tracking are non-existent or miniscule. The faucets which lit in Gasland were because of natural gas deposits in the ares, and has happened for generations, prior to drilling ( in fact drilling removes the gas).

    The gas is way below the normal water table, and in most case Ireland gets it's water from running water, rivers and reservoirs. If we drilled deep we wouldn't have to have hose pipe bans after 6 weeks of "drought".

    The US is coming our of it's recession partly because of Quantative Easing, partly because of cheap energy, because of fracking.

    This will continue. The muppets who run Europe- and Europe has never been run by such muppets in its history - will depend on the middle east, and Russia for oil and gas, and start to run down the successful nuclear industry in France because of a Japanese once in a lifetime tsunami which didn't cause any nuclear catastrophe in any real sense, and the rest of world moves on. The Chinese would drill and frack to bejesus if they had gas underneath.
    Money is the prime motivator here from both perspectives, the prospectors because they want more of it and Ireland as a nation because we don't have enough of it.

    You mean the vast amount of money spent by Putin and Gazprom to keep Europe in thrall to the Russians? Or the existing energy companies who have little interest in massive reserves which will, short to medium term, reduce profits.
    in..?
    Despite what people may think it is actually black and white

    Yeah, we have gas. It is harmless to drill it, as the US has shown, do drill the damned gas.

    Stop listening to non-scientific idiocy, and the innumerate caterwauling of marxtards, republicans, greenists, rosary bead clasping octogenarians, and unwashed crusties.


  • #195
    Kerrigooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


    Yahew wrote: »
    The Chinese would drill and frack to bejesus if they had gas underneath.

    So because the Chinese might do it so should we? Strange logic. :confused:
    They also have a 2 child policy...should we bring that in as well?


  • #196
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    k.p.h wrote: »
    We don't want this going anywhere near a debate or getting into any politicians hands.

    So you decide. Nobody else, just you. My freedom is stolen away because you believe you are right and refuse to investigate alternatives. Nobody should have an opinion. Nobody should be allowed to decide for themselves.

    You're as bad as the government.


  • #197
    k.p.h
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭k.p.h


    humanji wrote: »
    So you decide. Nobody else, just you. My freedom is stolen away because you believe you are right and refuse to investigate alternatives. Nobody should have an opinion. Nobody should be allowed to decide for themselves.

    You're as bad as the government.

    Oh right sorry, probably stating my position with a little bit too much conviction there.

    That's taken a bit out of context all the same, I would be open to investigate alternatives just not fracking.

    I just don't think there should be a public debate opened on fracking for the reasons stated previously. I still don't think it would make much difference if it was, I believe people would make the right decisions. I would just be a little apprehensive of that one in a million chance of a sequence of events happening that somehow the public got swung in favor of it.

    Don't want to infringe on anyone's freedoms, people have the right to be pro fracking if they want. I still reserve the right to think that anyone who believes that any significant amount chemicals can be pumped into the ground safely is a bit deluded.


  • #198
    Millicent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    k.p.h wrote: »
    Oh right sorry, probably stating my position with a little bit too much conviction there.

    That's taken a bit out of context all the same, I would be open to investigate alternatives just not fracking.

    I just don't think there should be a public debate opened on fracking for the reasons stated previously. I still don't think it would make much difference if it was, I believe people would make the right decisions. I would just be a little apprehensive of that one in a million chance of a sequence of events happening that somehow the public got swung in favor of it.

    Don't want to infringe on anyone's freedoms, people have the right to be pro fracking if they want. I still reserve the right to think that anyone who believes that any significant amount chemicals can be pumped into the ground safely is a bit deluded.


    You can't say you don't want to infringe on people's freedoms or opinions while in the paragraph before saying there shouldn't be a public debate. That's a contradiction.


  • #199
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    k.p.h wrote: »
    Let's say it's 99% safe, would you go for it then...?

    How about 99.99% would you go for it then ..?

    How about 99.99999% safe ..?

    I don't know about you, but I would not let it happen if there was a 1 in a billion chance of any of out rivers getting polluted in any way.

    What a load of rubbish. Your opinions on this subject are officially meaningless now. To show how ridiculous your statement is think about this; you have a one in a million chance of being killed by a dog, does this mean that all dogs should be put down? 13 people are killed by vending machines each year, should they be banned?


  • #200
    NinjaK
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭NinjaK


    Rabidlamb wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0201/1224311046794.html?via=mr

    The good.



    The seemingly good but on second read, not so much.



    Summary:
    Private firm find €55 billion woth of gas in Leitrim.
    Irish government only gets 10%, if we're lucky.

    Our government are traitors and our people are dumb so we wont see s**t of that money unfortunately


  • #201
    Kev.OC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 808 ✭✭✭Kev.OC


    dj jarvis wrote: »
    this following paragraph is taken from a story about crime in a Indian reservation in the US - the story has nothing to do with fracking , not biased in any way anti or pro - and this is why i would be against frackin based on this ONE paragraph


    On one section of the reservation, people must boil drinking water because chemicals, possibly the result of the oil and natural gas drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, have contaminated the water supply. And fearing that the chemicals might explode in a home, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered residents to run fans and otherwise ensure ventilation while bathing or washing clothes.

    full story here ( not thread related but will show NO bias in the above comment ) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/us/wind-river-indian-reservation-where-brutality-is-banal.html?_r=1&hp


    that ends the debate for me

    Sorry now to be pedantic, but "fracking" is the common term used for the process of hydraulic fracturing, so to state that the story has nothing to do with fracking leads me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you're not that terribly familiar with the process.

    The paragraph you quoted though does state that the chemicals are "possibly" the result of fracking. I don't believe this is enough to just ban it outright. There needs to be proper investigations done, along with EPA risk assessments and perhaps even a second opinion on the estimated size of the gas reserve. If an independent study proves, as a process, that fracking is inherently flawed, fine, outlaw it. Leave the gas there until it can be extracted in a safer manner. But there are very few rewards in this world that don't involve initial risk, and if the incidence rates for pollution occurring directly as a result from fracking are below an acceptable threshold, I would be in favour of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Voodoo_rasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 521 ✭✭✭Voodoo_rasher


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/europe-is-too-emotional-about-fracking-says-shell-chief-6316129.html.

    Could they be Tamboran's bigger brother/silent partner? Just a thought.

    Keep these €€€€s out whatever about T a m b o r a n. They already have

    the inside track on us Irish.


  • #203
    pcworldisajoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭pcworldisajoke


    Pat Kenny is an absolute c*nt. Cutting off important points from anyone against fracking, and letting the others speak.

    RTE, the propaganda arm of the Irish government, whos ministers are likely bought by the energy companies.


  • #204
    pcworldisajoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭pcworldisajoke


    Pat Rabitte attempting to undermine Irish fracking fears by mentioning the French ban on Fracking in the SAME sentence as their attack on our corporation tax rate. Pat Rabbite is a disingenuous little shlt that thinks we're suggestible morons in this country. He's been bought too.


  • #205
    GetWithIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭GetWithIt


    pcworldisajoke wrote: »
    Pat Rabbite is a disingenuous little shlt that thinks we're suggestible morons in this country.
    I think that's something we can all agree on.


  • #206
    pcworldisajoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭pcworldisajoke


    The president of UL says we'll be self sufficient if we do fracking.

    The president of the UL hasnt a clue what he's on about, we won't own the gas that comes out of it.

    What a f*ckhead. Another one who's been bought and promised a new wing on his University.


  • #207
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    pcworldisajoke wrote: »
    The president of UL says we'll be self sufficient if we do fracking.

    The president of the UL hasnt a clue what he's on about, we won't own the gas that comes out of it.

    What a f*ckhead. Another one who's been bought and promised a new wing on his University.

    Has everybody who opposes the insane ideology of the anti-frackers has been "bought".


  • #208
    pcworldisajoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭pcworldisajoke


    If anyone is wondering why companies are slow to Frack here in the past few years, it is because the cost of extraction is too far above current market levels. The price needs to be around 5 dollars per unit to make it profitable.

    Pat Rabbite wont tell you that, because Pat Rabbite is a little shlt.


  • #209
    pcworldisajoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭pcworldisajoke


    Yahew wrote: »
    Has everybody who opposes the insane ideology of the anti-frackers has been "bought".

    in a word, no...but most of them are. There are of course simply a few idiots out there who will believe what they are spoonfed, but get no cash for their support.

    The US system in particular sees jobs given to politicians in companies... the minute they walk out the door of their related government departments. It's an open book.

    Lobbying is unfortunately at the root of almost every political decision in western democracies...and the people with the best and most well funded lobbying machines are Energy companies.


  • #210
    pcworldisajoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭pcworldisajoke


    Pat Kenny once again cuts to the MEP, and as she's making an excellent point about the Fracking company being able to sell their gas anywhere they want to (ie, it doesnt have to be Ireland), Kenny cuts to commercial.

    Pat, it's getting fairly obvious now.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Mycroft H
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,306 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    There is a massive amount of complete bollocks being spouted about fracking. It makes my head hurt with the amount nonsensical rubbish. There is environmental concerns but the "wont someone please think of the children" crowd are really drowning out the factual arguments.


Advertisement