New fracking licences

[Domh245]

The word in the dictionary that describes this is 'bribery'.

"Let us contaminate your water and cause earth tremors in your neighbourhood and we'll bung you a cheque for £13,000".

Bribery or Compensation? My reading of it is that the money is going to be paid out after fracking has been carried out, and I'm not sure if you can really retroactively bribe someone

 

[PHILIPE]

They should put representatives of anti fracking, anti coal, anti nuclear, anti windfarm, antisolar. anti tidal and Greenpeace all together in a room, lock the door and not let them out until they come to an agreement as to what type of power we should use. Turn the lights off an on a few times to remind them if they don't come up with a solution quickly, the lights will go off and not come back on again. The dithering has gone for far too long now due in part to pressure groups so a decision must be made pretty soon.

 

[Harbornite]

All the people moaning about earthquakes should shut up, quite frankly. The risk is minimal and the two quakes that hit the Blackpool area in 2011 never exceeded 3.0 on the Richter scale. Anyway, I don't see these people mentioning the earthquakes that were caused by coal mining. These people complain about risks, why can't they accept the need for trials to see if their concerns are valid?

We had to study fracking in the Roseacre wood area of the Fylde for our A level geography unit. Some of the concerns are genuine, namely water contamination and traffic. Nevertheless, the UK's fracking operations will be more heavily regulated than those in Pennsylvania so there will probably be less risks. If I'm honest, I don't really care about what the Nimbys think because fracking will reduce energy prices and aid the UK's national energy security, and it will also result in job creation and associated benefits for local communities. If people don't like it, they can either put up with it or move to Scotland, where the jocks have banned trials for now.

As for the fact that shale gas is a fossil fuel, that is a fair point but I think it's worth having a mix of renewable and non renewable energy sources, as long as we reduce are dependency on coal and oil, which is happening
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh and before anyone starts accusing the Tories of orchestrating this as part of their Zionist new world order plot, just remember that they weren't the ones who decided to put the Bowland Hodder shale under Lancashire.

 

[Jonny]

They should put representatives of anti fracking, anti coal, anti nuclear, anti windfarm, antisolar. anti tidal and Greenpeace all together in a room, lock the door and not let them out until they come to an agreement as to what type of power we should use. Turn the lights off an on a few times to remind them if they don't come up with a solution quickly, the lights will go off and not come back on again. The dithering has gone for far too long now due in part to pressure groups so a decision must be made pretty soon.

I would go one better and let them stay in a muddy field in the middle of no-where until they come up with an explanation of how Britain could keep the lights on if the wind stops on a dark winter's day. If they can't manage that, then we should proceed without them.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would go one better and let them stay in a muddy field in the middle of no-where until they come up with an explanation of how Britain could keep the lights on if the wind stops on a dark winter's day. If they can't manage that, then we should proceed without them.

And without taxing anyone, I presume.

 

[Lankyline]

Fracking has already been going on in Lancashire too and has had unintended consequences, like causing small earthquakes which have damaged buildings. Oh, of course, things like that don't get reported on the national news unless they happen in the South so you wouldn't know about it.

Its ok it was only Blackpool

I'm not up to speed on the technicalities of fracking, whilst I understand the principle, my question is this how much of the objections to fracking, as an operation, are based on the experiences and stories in the USA ? because it seems to me that objectors have taken a few "alarmist" stories from there and used them as a basis to say fracking is dangerous.

As I see it since we don't currently have any fracking operations in the UK, apart from a couple of test wells in Lancashire and I believe there may have been in North Yorks as well ? so how can objectors know what the possible effects of this will actually be in the UK ?

So instead of the "ban it completely because we heard from somewhere it could be dangerous approach" lets sanction a couple of operations and then evaluate them properly over a decent time period, say 1-2 years and then see if they are "dangerous" or not

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not up to speed on the technicalities of fracking, whilst I understand the principle, my question is this how much of the objections to fracking, as an operation, are based on the experiences and stories in the USA ? because it seems to me that objectors have taken a few "alarmist" stories from there and used them as a basis to say fracking is dangerous.

As I see it since we don't currently have any fracking operations in the UK, apart from a couple of test wells in Lancashire and I believe there may have been in North Yorks as well ? so how can objectors know what the possible effects of this will actually be in the UK ?

The USA is a lot less densely populated than the UK, so a minor earthquake outside a big city in the USA will affect a lot less people and buildings than in the UK.

Since we know a small test site in Lancashire caused a small earthquake there seems to be little consideration as to how we can have fracking all over the North of England without far worse consequences. Could it cause larger simultaneous earthquakes?

 

[Harbornite]

The USA is a lot less densely populated than the UK, so a minor earthquake outside a big city in the USA will affect a lot less people and buildings than in the UK.

Since we know a small test site in Lancashire caused a small earthquake there seems to be little consideration as to how we can have fracking all over the North of England without far worse consequences. Could it cause larger simultaneous earthquakes?

That's why there's a need for trials. I don't see anyone moaning about the earthquakes that used to be caused by coal mining...

 

[northwichcat]

That's why there's a need for trials. I don't see anyone moaning about the earthquakes that used to be caused by coal mining...

Who's saying more coal mining is the best alternative to fracking? I thought we were phasing out coal mining because it's accepted it is a bad option.

 

[NSEFAN]

Who's saying more coal mining is the best alternative to fracking? I thought we were phasing out coal mining because it's accepted it is a bad option.

He's not saying it's a best alternative, just that there are geological consequences from active and past coal mines, but fracking is perhaps getting a disproportionately negative response given how extensive coal mining is/was by comparison.

 

[northwichcat]

He's not saying it's a best alternative, just that there are geological consequences from active and past coal mines, but fracking is perhaps getting a disproportionately negative response given how extensive coal mining is/was by comparison.

When coal mining started the technology and scientific knowledge that we have now wasn't available. Saying fracking is OK to carry out because it's not as bad as coal mining is just ignorant. As you say there are still consequences from closed coal mines, what effect could fracking have on those closed coal mines if they aren't fully stablised prior to large scale fracking commencing?

 

[Lankyline]

The USA is a lot less densely populated than the UK, so a minor earthquake outside a big city in the USA will affect a lot less people and buildings than in the UK.

Since we know a small test site in Lancashire caused a small earthquake there seems to be little consideration as to how we can have fracking all over the North of England without far worse consequences. Could it cause larger simultaneous earthquakes?

They say that the earthquake was linked to the fracking and Quadrilla did say there was a probability it could of been, but they did also say that there were some geological events occurring in the area at the same time and it would be extremely rare to find the same combination of events to happen again.

There are a number of faults lines running throughout the UK and these are well documented and researched, minor earth tremors occur all the time mostly without us noticing, an example of which is a 1.2 magnitude earthquake 10km off the coast of Blackpool, 3 miles down, which happened on Aug 2nd 2016, or the 1.4 mag in Middleton Gtr Manchester on June 29

If anyone is interested take a look at this link which shows you all the earthquakes around the UK in the last 50 days, now be honest has anyone felt any of these ??

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html

 

[northwichcat]

There are a number of faults lines running throughout the UK and these are well documented and researched, minor earth tremors occur all the time mostly without us noticing

That's the problem with fracking though. It could cause these minor tremors to turn in to earthquakes that we can feel. While we're not Japan we do occasionally have earthquakes which can cause damage to buildings and people so if fracking can cause more or make existing ones worse then it not's something we should dismiss.

 

[Trog]

Just a thought but I assume the fracking is just triggering earth quakes from pre-existing stresses building up in the ground. So with no fracking the stress would just build up and the earthquake would then eventually happen naturally anyway. So is the effect of fracking to perhaps cause two or three small earth quakes today next year and the year after, rather than one bigger quake in say five years time. When the stress in the ground causes a quake of its self.

 

[Lankyline]

Just a thought but I assume the fracking is just triggering earth quakes from pre-existing stresses building up in the ground. So with no fracking the stress would just build up and the earthquake would then eventually happen naturally anyway. So is the effect of fracking to perhaps cause two or three small earth quakes today next year and the year after, rather than one bigger quake in say five years time. When the stress in the ground causes a quake of its self.

There are a number of tectonic plates that affect the UK, under the Irish sea is one area and when these move, which as i understand it is most of the time,they set off tremors, most we don't notice. But your right about stresses building up and all these are a natural occurrence.
It's not just fracking though, as has been previously mentioned coal mining had an effect, land oilwell drilling can, but you don't hear or see Greenpeace or the other environmental nutjobs shouting about them causing tremors

 

[Trog]

The nearest tectonic plate boundaries to the UK are the mid Atlantic ridge and the boundary through the straight of Gibraltar. All we have are some more ordinary fault lines probably powered by such things as the stresses caused by rocks sinking as they are loaded by sedimentation, or rising as they continue to react to the loss of the weight of ice cover following the end of the last ice age.

 

[Harbornite]

He's not saying it's a best alternative, just that there are geological consequences from active and past coal mines, but fracking is perhaps getting a disproportionately negative response given how extensive coal mining is/was by comparison.

This.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's the problem with fracking though. It could cause these minor tremors to turn in to earthquakes that we can feel. While we're not Japan we do occasionally have earthquakes which can cause damage to buildings and people so if fracking can cause more or make existing ones worse then it not's something we should dismiss.

But fracking will not trigger any serious earthquakes, the damage caused by the 2011 earthquakes was negligible. Using earthquakes as an excuse not to frack is pretty desperate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The word in the dictionary that describes this is 'bribery'.

"Let us contaminate your water and cause earth tremors in your neighbourhood and we'll bung you a cheque for £13,000".

What about earth tremors that occur naturally? Let's put this into perspective, the tremors triggered by tracking are really not serious.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are a number of tectonic plates that affect the UK, under the Irish sea is one area and when these move, which as i understand it is most of the time,they set off tremors, most we don't notice. But your right about stresses building up and all these are a natural occurrence.
It's not just fracking though, as has been previously mentioned coal mining had an effect, land oilwell drilling can, but you don't hear or see Greenpeace or the other environmental nutjobs shouting about them causing tremors

Indeed. Some people will look for any excuse to bash fracking, and the phrase "clutching at straws" springs to mind.

 

[northwichcat]

But fracking will not trigger any serious earthquakes, the damage caused by the 2011 earthquakes was negligible. Using earthquakes as an excuse not to frack is pretty desperate.

People have been killed by a single roof tile or brick falling from a building before. What you call negligible damage could mean death for one person.

Also are you happy for your home insurance premium to double or triple to cover the potentially 'negligible' damage?

 

[Harbornite]

People have been killed by a single roof tile or brick falling from a building before. What you call negligible damage could mean death for one person.

Also are you happy for your home insurance premium to double or triple to cover the potentially 'negligible' damage?

When was the last time someone in the UK was killed during an earthquake?

 

[northwichcat]

When was the last time someone in the UK was killed during an earthquake?

Why does it have to be a death during an earthquake (which there have been 10 UK instances of)? Like I said a single brick or roof tile falling from a building have caused people to die in unfortunate instances. If there was a small earthquake and then a storm the next day then bricks or tiles loosened by the earthquake could fall to the ground which wouldn't have happened by the storm alone or wouldn't have happened by the earthquake alone.

fracking will not trigger any serious earthquakes

Only a very brave politician or scientist would ever make a comment like that. While the chance of it happening might be small I very much doubt the chance of a serious earthquake from fracking is 0.00%.

 

[NSEFAN]

Why does it have to be a death during an earthquake (which there have been 10 UK instances of)? Like I said a single brick or roof tile falling from a building have caused people to die in unfortunate instances. If there was a small earthquake and then a storm the next day then bricks or tiles loosened by the earthquake could fall to the ground which wouldn't have happened by the storm alone or wouldn't have happened by the earthquake alone.

The problem is we are creating hypothetical scenarios. Any industrial activity will introduce some kind of non-zero risk to people nearby, but unless this risk can be quantified we will be stuck with a load of hyperbolic what-ifs. For example, what if the building in question had been struck by a large vehicle the day before the storm, causing the roof tiles to become loosened?

 

[Harbornite]

In that case, why have buildings, cars, coal mines, oil refineries, power stations? All these things are dangerous in one way or another.

 

[northwichcat]

The problem is we are creating hypothetical scenarios. Any industrial activity will introduce some kind of non-zero risk to people nearby, but unless this risk can be quantified we will be stuck with a load of hyperbolic what-ifs. For example, what if the building in question had been struck by a large vehicle the day before the storm, causing the roof tiles to become loosened?

A lorry crash is a different kind of problem as you'd know exactly which building or buildings were hit by the lorry. An earthquake could damage no buildings or it could damage hundreds or thousands of buildings.

 

[Harbornite]

The problem is we are creating hypothetical scenarios. Any industrial activity will introduce some kind of non-zero risk to people nearby, but unless this risk can be quantified we will be stuck with a load of hyperbolic what-ifs. For example, what if the building in question had been struck by a large vehicle the day before the storm, causing the roof tiles to become loosened?

Indeed. The low likelihood of a fatal earthquake is not a good justification for banning hydraulic fracturing
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A lorry crash is a different kind of problem as you'd know exactly which building or buildings were hit by the lorry. An earthquake could damage no buildings or it could damage hundreds or thousands of buildings.

But it is reckoned that earthquakes caused by fracking will not exceed 3 on the Richter scale. This would not result in hundreds or thousands of damaged buildings.

 

[northwichcat]

In that case, why have buildings, cars, coal mines, oil refineries, power stations? All these things are dangerous in one way or another.

More coal mining is not seen as a viable alternative to fracking so I don't know why you keep making coal mining comparisons. It's almost like comparing diesel trains to electric cars and concluding electric cars are brilliant, while not mentioning electric trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But it is reckoned that earthquakes caused by fracking will not exceed 3 on the Richter scale. This would not result in hundreds or thousands of damaged buildings.

Depend where the epicentre is. If a town has a lot of old buildings a small earthquake can damage a lot of buildings - see what's happened as a result of some Spanish and Italian earthquakes.

 

[NSEFAN]

More coal mining is not seen as a viable alternative to fracking so I don't know why you keep making coal mining comparisons. It's almost like comparing diesel trains to electric cars and concluding electric cars are brilliant, while not mentioning electric trains.

Since the point being discussed is the geological consequences of fracking, we should also be considering the effects of similar activities. Coal mining was once very extensive in this country, and we are now seeing some disused mines collapsing and causing sink holes in modern housing estates. I don't see however a movement to try and have mines filled in to prevent more sink holes. Perhaps it's just easier to object to doing something, than to actively propose doing something? Good old Britain

On the wider point of obtaining energy, I agree that there are better means of doing this than hydraulic fracking, although I think most people are quite happy to have cheaper energy at the price of longer-term environmental problems (especially if the problems are not of local concern). I personally would like to see much greater use of tidal and offshore wind harvesting, given we're surrounded by the sea on all sides. Solar usage could also be massively extended along the south coast.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't see however a movement to try and have mines filled in to prevent more sink holes.

In my local area there were salt mines not coal mines and there was a 'salt mines stabilisation' program: http://www.arup.com/projects/northwich_salt_mines_stabilisation so I wouldn't be surprised if there's coal mining ones in other areas.

 

[Lankyline]

When was the last time someone in the UK was killed during an earthquake?

Since these events were recorded the answer is no one, the largest recorded earthquakes in the UK were 6.1 in the North sea (Dogger Bank) in 1931, a few buildings lost a few slates and some cracks appeared and 5.8 in the Dover straits in !580 ! where it is reported that significant damage to property occurred, but no one died !

Since 1970 there have been only 20 earthquakes of 4.0 magnitude and higher, up till then there were no significant quakes since 1958.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

More coal mining is not seen as a viable alternative to fracking so I don't know why you keep making coal mining comparisons. It's almost like comparing diesel trains to electric cars and concluding electric cars are brilliant, while not mentioning electric trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Depend where the epicentre is. If a town has a lot of old buildings a small earthquake can damage a lot of buildings - see what's happened as a result of some Spanish and Italian earthquakes.

You cannot compare Spain and Italy with the UK, as they have different construction methods and different building regulations which are certainly not as rigorous as here in the UK.
There have been a number of quakes in the UK that have occurred inland and in areas that would have a percentage of old buildings, for instance, Market Rasen 2208 5.2, Warwick 2000 4.2, no reports of major damage to old buildings.

Fracking is an unknown quantity and I pretty sure that the geologists working for the fracking companies are well aware of what's underground, yes they acknowledge there is a risk, but it carries the same potential risk as drilling for oil, or in the past, deep coal mining even tin mining, yet there has been no direct connection made with quakes or tremors resulting from these activities

 

[Harbornite]

More coal mining is not seen as a viable alternative to fracking so I don't know why you keep making coal mining comparisons. It's almost like comparing diesel trains to electric cars and concluding electric cars are brilliant, while not mentioning electric trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Depend where the epicentre is. If a town has a lot of old buildings a small earthquake can damage a lot of buildings - see what's happened as a result of some Spanish and Italian earthquakes.

You've completely missed my point. I am not advocating the reopening of coal mines, I'm just saying that you are against fracking due to the likelihood of fatalities being caused (which is strenous at best) so I said that by your logic, we might as well ban everything that has the potential to be fatal.

As for the car/train argument, I don't see the relevance so I'm not even going to bother addressing it.

As for the Italian and Spanish case studies, that's just clutching at straws. Italy lies much closer to a tectonic boundary, hence why the likes of L'Aquila had considerably higher magnitudes on the Richter scale.

 

[ninja-lewis]

Interesting comparison of a train passing over Balcombe Viaduct 150m away from a surface seismometer vs the 1.5 magnitude tremor triggered 2km below the ground by hydraulic fracturing.

http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/seismometer-deployment-to-monitor.html

http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/image-of-day-comparing-train-to.html