Britain and the U.S. could tap undreamed reserves of gas and oil

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Thoughtful article by Nigel Lawson, hopefully if he is right we can eventually go tell the Middle East and Russia to get stuffed.

Thirty years ago, I was Secretary of State for Energy in Margaret Thatcher’s government, and one way and another I have been a close observer of the energy scene ever since. In all that time, I have never known a technological revolution as momentous as the breakthrough that has now made it economic to extract gas from shale. Geologists have long known that shale — a finely grained rock created from compressed mud, which sits in layers — contains, trapped in it, massive amounts of gas, and in some cases, oil.

article-2244822-16674E27000005DC-713_634x422.jpg


Dense rock: Energy companies must drill a well hundreds or thousands of feet deep to reach the layer of shale, which can be just 50ft thick

But getting it out of the ground is a tricky business. Below the North Sea, natural gas forms in sandstone and when a drill reaches the gas, it flows out.
But shale gas is locked in dense rock. Energy companies must drill a well hundreds or thousands of feet deep to reach the layer of shale — which can be just 50ft thick — and then turn the drill sideways to bore horizontally. Water, chemicals and sand are pumped into the hole under enormous pressure until the rock cracks, allowing gas locked up in the shale to escape and flow upwards into the well.

This process is called hydraulic fracturing — or ‘fracking’ for short.
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
:facepalm:

So you found a new unsafe technology to flail, eh shill?
Click to expand...

Why are you such a dozy twat? So big deal the chemicals are left in situ, so what? They are thousands of metres underground so where are they going to go?
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
:facepalm:

So you found a new unsafe technology to flail, eh shill?

Click to expand...
Fracking isn't unsafe. Where did you ever get that idea? The technology is eminently sound. The problems that arize from fracking have to do with improper construction of well casings (an easily fixed problem) and from how the "petroleum derived waste" (PDW) from fracking is managed or, in some cases, mismanaged but the technology it self is fundamentally safe and sound. The implication of this video that the petroleum derived waste (PDW) cannot be managed adequately, safely or cost affectively is misleading at best and downright dishonest at worst and is absurdly untrue.

First, fracking waste,though aqueous in nature, are not waste waters. Waste water treatment facilities are designed to manage waste with total dissolved solids (TSD) and total suspended solid (TSS) of from 0.1 to 1%. The cocentration of contaminents are far higher in the PDW from fracking operations and does not meet the definition of a waste water under federal guidelines so only an idiot (or some uninformed neophyte) would even considering sending a PDW to a waste water treatment facility. So thats an uniformed point. What's completely dishonest about the video posted is that it implies that other cost affective treatment technologies for PDW's from fracking are not available. That's complete, total and utter nonsense. They do exist and the majority of these waste can easily managed and treated with minimum risk of exposure of hazardous materials to people and the environment. Hell I've managed fracking waste. As far as waste goes, it's garden variety waste. It's easily managed though of large volume and contrary to what this video implies, most PDW is not hazardous by regulatory definition (though a significant fraction of it is).

The conclusion drawn by this video is beyong moronic. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Fracking is an extraordinary development that can have a huge positive impact for most of the industrial world in lowering energy cost. The problem with fracking is not that the technology is not safe or that treatment technologies for the PDW from fracking are not available cause it is both safe and the technology to handle the waste is readily available.

The problem with PDW from fracking is the regulatory framework around the technology. It has been purposefully reduced and relaxed to reduce cost and spur the development of the technology but now that the technology has matured and attendant problem with assuring safe well casing structures are maintained and that PDW from fracking is treated and managed according to appropriate BDAT (best developed available technology) and that thoPDW meet current land disposal restrictions (LDR or "Land Ban Rules", at least in the US) is easily managed by the proper implemantation and enforcement of the appropriate regulatory framework.

If in your video it had called for a greater degree of regulation assuring well casing are properly designed, constructed, inspected and maintain to prevent leaks of hazardous materials and that the appropriate treatment standards are applied to PDW from fracking that meet the characteristics of hazardous waste under Federal RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) regulations so that the problems associated with fracking technology can be more appropriately managed they might have a point.

To just say "Ban the technolgy" when readily available solutions to those problems are available and just need to be implemented is beyond stupid when considering the economic benefits derived from fracking.

The people who produced this video are either grossly uninformed or mindless ideologues.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Fracking isn't unsafe. Where did you ever get that idea? The technology is eminently sound. The problems that arize from fracking have to do with improper construction of well casings (an easily fixed problem) and from how the "petroleum derived waste" from fracking is manages or, in some cases, mismanaged but the technology it self is fundamentally safe and sound.
Click to expand...

Because there are large number of people on the hard left that always react the same way to anything which is not on their sanctioned list of energy sources. They would rather get their info from blogs and propaganda films like Gasland than actually do some research. Why the fuck would anybody want to be held hostage by the Middle East and Russia is beyond me. Do you know even one of the treehuggers on here that has a scientific qualification? If energy is made cheap enough and it is not wasted then it would also allow for jobs to be repatriated from China but that is far too sophisticated an argument for the ecomorons on here.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Because there are large number of people on the hard left that always react the same way to anything which is not on their sanctioned list of energy sources. They would rather get their info from blogs and propaganda films like Gasland than actually do some research. Why the fuck would anybody want to be held hostage by the Middle East and Russia is beyond me. Do you know even one of the treehuggers on here that has a scientific qualification? If energy is made cheap enough and it is not wasted then it would also allow for jobs to be repatriated from China but that is far too sophisticated an argument for the ecomorons on here.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree with you there. Gasland did not call for a ban on fracking (at least I don't remember that it did) but brought to the public attention abuses and mismanagement of fracking technology by the petrochemical industry that has caused exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials. The fact that they brought these abuses and mismanagement to the publics awareness has provided a huge public service. There are significant abuses of fracking technology by petrochemical companies that need to be addressed.
Baning the technology just isn't one of them. In fact it's an incredibly stupid idea.


As for any treehugers here who have any scientific qualifications? I do. I have a BA in human biology, including over a years graduate studies in human biology and I have a Masters in Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) Management. I'm also a CHMM, spent 2.5 years as a research assistant at The Ohio State University researching recycling hazardous waste and I also chair the examination committe for my professional society (IHMM). I've also spent over 20 years managing hazardous waste/materials in the real world. I'd be careful about lumping all environmentalist into the stereotype you described.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't necessarily agree with you there. Gasland did not call for a ban on fracking (at least I don't remember that it did) but brought to the public attention abuses and mismanagement of fracking technology by the petrochemical industry that has caused exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials. The fact that they brought these abuses and mismanagement to the publics awareness has provided a huge public service. There are significant abuses of fracking technology by petrochemical companies that need to be addressed.
Baning the technology just isn't one of them. In fact it's an incredibly stupid idea.


As for any treehugers here who have any scientific qualifications? I do. I have a BA in human biology, including over a years graduate studies in human biology and I have a Masters in Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) Management. I'm also a CHMM, spent 2.5 years as a research assistant at The Ohio State University researching recycling hazardous waste and I also chair the examination committe for my professional society (IHMM). I've also spent over 20 years managing hazardous waste/materials in the real world. I'd be careful about lumping all environmentalist into the stereotype you described.
Click to expand...

Mott, I know very well your scientific background, as well as you know mine. I am thinking of people like Rune who are always implacably against just about everything except windmills and hydro. As for Gasland I suggest that you see it again, it is done in a sensationalist style with graphic images of gas coming out of taps (faucets) etc. without pointing out that there was a history of natural gas escapes before fracking.

http://geothunder.com/en/2010/12/11/gasland-josh-fox-and-a-world-of-misinformation/

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1517771/pg1
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Mott, I know very well your scientific background, I am thinking of people like Rune who are always implacably against just about everything except windmills and hydro. As for Gasland I suggest that you see it again, it is done in a sensationalist style with graphic images of gas coming out of taps (faucets) etc. without pointing out that there was a history of natural gas escapes before fracking.

http://geothunder.com/en/2010/12/11/gasland-josh-fox-and-a-world-of-misinformation/

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1517771/pg1
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I saw Gasland and I work in the industry and I'm aware of the abuses of PDW. Yes, it is done in a sensationilist manner but that's kinda the point when you're trying to increase public awareness. Is it completely factual? Of course it's not but it did, in general, point out the abuses by petrochemical companies in the management of PDW and the failure to properly manage well casings.

Where you and I converge is on the conclusion that banning fracking is just plain stupid. Where we may diverge is I believe a greater degree of regulation may required to curtail some of the abuses.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm sorry but I saw Gasland and I work in the industry and I'm aware of the abuses of PDW. Yes, it is done in a sensationilist manner but that's kinda the point when you're trying to increase public awareness. Is it completely factual? Of course it's not but it did, in general, point out the abuses by petrochemical companies in the management of PDW and the failure to properly manage well casings.

Where you and I converge is on the conclusion that banning fracking is just plain stupid. Where we may diverge is I believe a greater degree of regulation may required to curtail some of the abuses.
Click to expand...

Easy on the TLAs (three letter abbreviations), what does PDW stand for? As for Gasland, I am afraid that it is a tissue of lies for the most part. You can see some of the bullshit regurgitated on here by the hapless and gullible who seem incapable of getting their info from more objective sources. If you really want to get a more sober and considered view then you need to go somewhere like the Energy in View or Energy Tribune websites where the film is thoroughly debunked.

Here is just one of the canards propagated by the usual suspects.

By now, the movie’s hype is in full flow: “in order to frack … you need some fracking fluid – a mix of over 596 chemicals”. To underline the point the figure appears full screen. Now the unsuspecting could only conclude that Big Gas is indeed pouring massive cocktails of chemicals into the ground. In reality, over 99.5 percent of the fracking fluid is water and sand. The rest are largely components used around the house, including gums and emulsifiers. As the US Department of Energy/Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) report states: “Although the hydraulic fracturing industry may have a number of compounds that can be used in a hydraulic fracturing fluid, any single fracturing job would only use a few of the available additives” (italics mine).
Click to expand...

Here are ten facts for those that are too lazy to read more extensively.


  1. Hydraulic fracking has been around for 60 years. Developments made by U.S. engineers around 2008-9 have simply made the process much more commercially viable.
  2. Since fracking was introduced in 1949, over 2 million frack treatments have been pumped without a single documented case of treatments polluting a water aquifer.
  3. 90 percent of all gas wells drilled in the United States since 1949 have been fracked.
  4. The depth of most shale gas deposits drilled is between 6,000 and 10,000 feet – water aquifers exist at an average depth of 500 feet.
  5. Claims of ‘migration’ between the shale gas layers and water aquifers due to fracking or for any other reason, are patently absurd as the gas would have to pass through billions of tons of impermeable rock. If the rock was that porous, neither the water nor the gas would have been there in the first place.
  6. Fracture design engineers go to great lengths to avoid fracture growth of even 100 feet to prevent losing production.
  7. The new eco-horror genre flicks like Josh Fox’s Gasland, create impact by making outrageous claims which include suggesting “596 chemicals” are used in a single “toxic cocktail” frack treatment. The reality is that 99.5 percent of the treatment is water and sand. Much of the remainder is made up of a maximum of 12 or so harmless gelling agents, like Guar gum (used in ice cream making), and chemicals commonly used around the house.
  8. Domestic running water faucets being set alight with a match might wow gullible film audiences, but dissolved methane found in well water may well be biogenic (naturally occurring). As the largest component in natural gas, methane is not even regulated as it is not toxic and escapes naturally like soda bubbles.
  9. Hydraulic fracking procedures are heavily regulated and not, as often claimed by eco-activists, exempt from drinking water and other key regulatory laws.
  10. Concerns about using “excessive water resources” in the process are already being assuaged by new developments, including recycling water. And the U.S. Ground Water Protection Council confirms that drilling with compressed air is becoming increasingly common.


http://www.energyindepth.org/debunking-gasland/

http://www.energytribune.com/6907/gaslands-fracking-nonsense
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Fracking isn't unsafe. Where did you ever get that idea? The technology is eminently sound. The problems that arize from fracking have to do with improper construction of well casings (an easily fixed problem) and from how the "petroleum derived waste" (PDW) from fracking is managed or, in some cases, mismanaged but the technology it self is fundamentally safe and sound. The implication of this video that the petroleum derived waste (PDW) cannot be managed adequately, safely or cost affectively is misleading at best and downright dishonest at worst and is absurdly untrue.

First, fracking waste,though aqueous in nature, are not waste waters. Waste water treatment facilities are designed to manage waste with total dissolved solids (TSD) and total suspended solid (TSS) of from 0.1 to 1%. The cocentration of contaminents are far higher in the PDW from fracking operations and does not meet the definition of a waste water under federal guidelines so only an idiot (or some uninformed neophyte) would even considering sending a PDW to a waste water treatment facility. So thats an uniformed point. What's completely dishonest about the video posted is that it implies that other cost affective treatment technologies for PDW's from fracking are not available. That's complete, total and utter nonsense. They do exist and the majority of these waste can easily managed and treated with minimum risk of exposure of hazardous materials to people and the environment. Hell I've managed fracking waste. As far as waste goes, it's garden variety waste. It's easily managed though of large volume and contrary to what this video implies, most PDW is not hazardous by regulatory definition (though a significant fraction of it is).

The conclusion drawn by this video is beyong moronic. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Fracking is an extraordinary development that can have a huge positive impact for most of the industrial world in lowering energy cost. The problem with fracking is not that the technology is not safe or that treatment technologies for the PDW from fracking are not available cause it is both safe and the technology to handle the waste is readily available.

The problem with PDW from fracking is the regulatory framework around the technology. It has been purposefully reduced and relaxed to reduce cost and spur the development of the technology but now that the technology has matured and attendant problem with assuring safe well casing structures are maintained and that PDW from fracking is treated and managed according to appropriate BDAT (best developed available technology) and that thoPDW meet current land disposal restrictions (LDR or "Land Ban Rules", at least in the US) is easily managed by the proper implemantation and enforcement of the appropriate regulatory framework.

If in your video it had called for a greater degree of regulation assuring well casing are properly designed, constructed, inspected and maintain to prevent leaks of hazardous materials and that the appropriate treatment standards are applied to PDW from fracking that meet the characteristics of hazardous waste under Federal RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) regulations so that the problems associated with fracking technology can be more appropriately managed they might have a point.

To just say "Ban the technolgy" when readily available solutions to those problems are available and just need to be implemented is beyond stupid when considering the economic benefits derived from fracking.

The people who produced this video are either grossly uninformed or mindless ideologues.
Click to expand...

Look who posted it, Rune is a grossly uninformed mindless ideologue!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top