Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Fracking
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 23, 24, 25  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
Author 
 Message
Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15107

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 15 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Well as I say James, this reservoir has been planned since I was a teenager, and I am now theoretically retired. There is currently planning permission going through for over 1000 houses in our 'village' alone, and I can't see that reservoir being built in less than 10 years, even if it had permission. I rather suspect that those at the end of the line will be suffering low water pressure, or no water when the new houses are built. Trouble is, it could well be us.

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 15 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Public Health Englandís draft report on shale gas extraction.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44476
Location: yes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 15 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Tavascarow wrote:
Public Health Englandís draft report on shale gas extraction.


that is quite fluffy compared to some of the scientific thoughts on shale gas and the papers on ucg are rather forceful.iirc i have posted links somewhere in this thread .

i still think some shale fracking could be a relatively harmless gap filler but fracking for cash will be messy .

James



Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 2866
Location: York
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 15 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

That's very interesting, tavascarow. I notice one of the signaturies is the acting director of public health at York council. The exploration site that dpack's been talking about is close to, or maybe in York council. So I foresee one almighty bun-fight.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44476
Location: yes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 15 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

oddly enough the area around here seems to have fairly safe geology for shale gas extraction ,the coal that is above the shale might pose some "difficulties"should anyone decide to try to ucg it .

fight only when it is necessary and when one can (probably) win is a good motto for such things

James



Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 2866
Location: York
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 15 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

The coal becomes thicker and more gassy as you move from Selby to York and onward to Linton on Ouse.
So I've been told...

jamanda
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 35056
Location: Devon
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 15 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

James wrote:
The coal becomes thicker and more gassy as you move from Selby to York
So I've been told...


Where as it's the other way round for the inhabitants.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44476
Location: yes
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 15 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

James wrote:
The coal becomes thicker and more gassy as you move from Selby to York and onward to Linton on Ouse.
So I've been told...


yep and having seen what happened at skipwith when they stopped pumping the selby field it has a fair few cracks and rivers in it .having a go at drying it out for cbm might be a bit messy but ucg on that sort of geology could be the road to (a good impersonation of )hell.

as a strange coincidence the muppets are on telly at the mo trying to save their theatre from the seven sisters

James



Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 2866
Location: York
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 15 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11253301/Barclays-backed-business-applies-to-frack-near-Flamingo-Land-in-North-Yorkshire.html

3rd Energy have lodged a planning application to frack an existing borehole at their Kirby Misperton site, between Malton & Pickering in North Yorkshire. It's my understanding that the planning application has not yet been validated and is not yet open for comment. The Environment Agency has not yet recieved a permit application.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44476
Location: yes
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 15 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

most of the "existing"boreholes into the shale are fairly recent "exploration" to see if the geosurvey bang and listen or wait for a bang and listen,study the maps etc etc stuff was correct.

considering the asymmetry of the situation and my personal outlook about the risks of this in uk geology is gas from very deep shales and even cbm is probably best monitored until they make a bad error rather than opposed in every case.

ucg is potentially so horrible it should be opposed by any means necessary and not allowed to be done even as an experiment on land or under the coastal waters .
perhaps the undersea aspect is more disturbing than onshore cos it will be far harder to monitor .

where ucg has been tried it has been a very messy fail in most examples .

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15107

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 15 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Dpack, if they only frack in one or two places and monitor, it is hard luck for those places if something goes wrong, but the study can be stopped at that point. The trouble is, they could be giving permission to frack all over the place in lots of different geologies and it is more likely that permission will be revoked on a case by case basis if something goes really wrong rather than the whole lot being stopped. By that time it could be a bit late and we may end up with all sorts of problems like contaminated water supply in large parts of the UK. Perhaps a rather pessimistic outlook, but quite possible as we are still getting trouble with mines that are several hundred years old.

James



Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 2866
Location: York
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 15 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Mines are much, much closer to the surface.
In terms of ground water that is used for drinking, I've rarely come across a borehole in the UK deeper than 150m .The shale that's attracting all the attention is located ( in Yorkshire) about 1.5 km down. So there's about 1,350 m of vertical rock between the frack zone and any water worth drinking. And in that distance you've got many hundreds of metres of dense clay that is really, really hard to get through.
The risks, as I perceive them is well integrity during the frack and the containment of waste at the surface.

Talking about the containment of waste at the surface that's putting your drinking water at risk, never mind about fracking....go onto the Environment Agency's web site "what's in your back yard" and have a look at the landfills, historic landfills and waste facilities near your house. No idea were you live, but trust me, there'll be lots. I've heard people say (not my view here) that most active landfills leak, all historic ones do, and finding a well run waste site is rarer than hens teeth.

Some people may say (again, not my view) its a horrible mistake of privatization that's allowed organised crime to pollute our environment in an unseen way, the legacy of which will last decades if not centuries. And its on your doorstep now. Today. Condoned by your local authority.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I'd like to seperate out the reality of what risks we are putting our environment under from the emotive concerns people have.

You raise a fare point regarding the numerous well sites. It's a debate that needs to be publicly decided by the local communities as part of the planning process and it'll only happen if the community are accepting of it.

Ty Gwyn



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4517
Location: Lampeter
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 15 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

James,that is something i have mentioned several times,the depth of the gas bearing shale`s and the thickness of rock above them,
In coal Mining area`s,its the water logged workings that have more chance of causing contamination to water supplies,hence the reason its piped in from non mining area`s in the large.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15107

PostPosted: Sat May 30, 15 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

We do have lots of contaminated sites caused by dumping round here James. Many are so bad they have to be decontaminated before anything can be built on them, so your point there is very valid. I also believe that the only way to be sure that sites are safe is to have government inspection and enough money for it to be done properly.

Perhaps I am being over sensitive about fracking, but as you say, there is always the potential for leakage at the well head. I don't know what is below the water bearing chalk, but that is pretty deep. I suppose there must be clay there somewhere as the whole area is alluvial, but I have only really studied the top few hundred metres.

cassandra



Joined: 27 Mar 2013
Posts: 1733
Location: Tasmania Australia
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 15 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Ty Gwyn, the depth of shale gas is frequently cited as grounds for not being alarmed by it's impacts. Unfortunately in order to reach those depths it is necessary to drill through shallower strata. The failure of a well wall (and it does happen more frequently than industry admits to while the well is live, and inevitable when the well is no longer in use) means that gaseous escapes occur into the upper, water-bearing strata, and also during the drilling process, and setting up the well, contaminated material is also introduced into these strata. It doesn't take much of some of those chemicals to cause a major downstream problem, unfortunately. Water is too precious to gamble with.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 23, 24, 25  Next
Page 20 of 25
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com