Thursday
Aug112011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Green desperation
Aug 11, 2011 Energy: gas Greens A task force set up by President Obama has reported that fracking for shale gas presents serious environmental risks (as if they would say anything else).
The report underscores differences in public perception of the potential consequences of gas fracking. Industry advocates say the technique hasn’t caused a major incident for more than 60 years, though current techniques were introduced less than a decade ago. Opponents cite failures and accidents that result in tainting drinking water.
If the worst that has happened in 60 years is occasional tainted drinking water, it looks like a pretty benign technology to me.
Reader Comments (27)
Other people's determination to roll back the advances of civilisation is a constant puzzle to me. If and when they achieve their goal.....I am pretty sure they will not like it.
This is a classic example of how 'scares' just pick up and snowball. Whether food, health, nuclear, etc, etc. Its the sort of thing you could probably do a PhD thesis on.
The trigger (or tipping point) for this one was the film of a man lighting up the gas from his kitchen sink.
However, all that demonstrated was that whoever was supplying the water was not treating it properly to remove the methane - by aeration. As a hydrogeologist, I know that methane is a common risk for water wells drilled in rocks containing organic material. For example, the Coal Measures is quite a widely used aquifer in the UK, but you need to be careful about the methane. I've seen drillers throw a match down a water well to create a small 'boom'. If shallow aquifers are getting contaminated from shale fracking, its not the fracking itself, but may be from poor well construction. But this is the risk for many engineering operations. They can pollute if not done properly. Yes, you need to do it right and be careful. As a comparison, you could argue we should build no more sewers, because they can leak and contaminate our aquifers - if not done poperly.
oakwood
That's pretty good technical explanation why the gas appeared from the tap but I still think the best explanation for the burning taps appearance in the Gasland film is given in this revealing Phelim McAteer interview with the film maker ;)
Gasland director hides full facts
Remember, it's a matter of supreme importance to shut down Shale gas.
It's a cheap, relatively clean alternative to coal, plentiful enough to bridge the world's energy needs until real renewables come online in 20-40 years. And will therefore scupper environmentalist's plans to exploit apocalyptic carbon scenarios.
Gotta be stopped.
As I wrote yesterday. How dose the pumping of Co2 underground at high pressure differ from hydrofracking?
The "precautionary principle" at work here is completely unscientific.
The US would never have even been discovered ("Sorry your majesty I might fall off the end of the world!"), X-Ray machines would never have been developed, the US would have lost 6 million more men defeating Japan, stomach ulcers would still be being operated on etc etc etc etc, if this principle had been properly applied.
These people are latter-day Luddites.
BH in his opening says: "Opponents cite failures and accidents that result in tainting drinking water."
I remember reading "somewhere" that in the USA where there is a lot of shale gas, that this gas has been coming through taps for some time. Even before it became a viable source of energy and companies started drilling for it (or fracking etc).
JohnOfEnfield
Exactly. The way the 'precautionary principle' is now routinely used:
1. Speculate about all the bad things that could potentially possibley theoretically happen if you do ......?
2. Unless someone can prove each of these things can't happen, do nothing.
A fair analogy would be to lie in bed when you wake in the morning and consider all the bad things that could happen to you today. Then, if you apply the precautionary principle, you will decide its safer to stay in bed.
In fact, we should rename the 'precautinary principle' (when over-zealously applied), the 'stay-in-bed principle'.
Aug 11, 2011 at 10:03 AM | Anoneumouse
Completely different.
I assume from your tone that you like the idea of CCS being deployed in order to save the planet, and you detest the thought that fracking is a good thing.
Hydro fracking is used to get a useful product out of the ground, which is then processed and pumped into the natural gas network, to be burned by gas turbines to generate electricity or used directly to heat your house. In other words a good thing, which, as more and more fracked gas becomes available, will eventually reduce the cost of of living a life in safety and comfort.
Storage of CO2 captured from power stations is a useless endeavour which would double, treble, quadruple (take your pick) your electricity bill.
The number of people in the UK who are having to choose, in winter, between eating or heating is staggering - IIRC, the figure is in the millions and this is a direct result of the insane policies enacted into the law of the land by those F.I.s in the HoC. And that is without CCS being in place.
The coming winter 2011/12 is probably going to be OK vis a vis electricity supply, but it will be tight.
However, the winter of 2012/13 is going to be a different kettle of fish altogether. You had better be praying for an unseasonal heat wave.The number of excess deaths from freezing due to not being able to afford heating or freezing because the power is cut off due to a shortage of capacity, is likely to be a record.
CCS is insane by any measure but fortunately it will not become a reality.
For that you should be thankful.
Browned off:
I agree, but it won't stop those FIs wasting billions on it.
Aug 11, 2011 at 11:10 AM | Phillip Bratby
F.I.s - please.
Can we show some respect for these narcissistic self-serving acronyms; full stops are essential lest the peasants think that we mean a Faraday Isolator, which apparently is something very useful.
Browned off:
I always thought acronyms lost the full stops! If in doubt, spell it out.
BrownedOff;
I took anoneumouse's observation to mean that if it's ok to pump co2 into the ground what's wrong with frakking, ie. what's the difference? And it seems a good question to ask of the co2 pumping crowd.
As some philosopher once explained precautionary principle excludes itself. The argument goes something like this:
Every action cannot be started until a full investigation of the potential risks has been undertaken. (Never mind that this, in the real world, is completely impossible.)
However, inaction is also an action. Choosing not to do something also has consequences which cannot be properly assessed until a full investigation has been undertaken. (Never mind that this, in the real world, is completely impossible.)
Therefore, the precautionary principle makes it impossible to both begin and not begin as both incur unknown and unquantifiable dangers.
Aug 11, 2011 at 10:52 AM | oakwood
Surely not!
More people die in bed than anywhere else......
Brownedoff
You assumed wrongly twice, there is no tone in the written word.
Martin Brumby - you must be right there! So the precautionary principle says: 'don't go to bed'.
j ferguson 12:07 PM
Agree - I thought it too obvious!
"Gasland director hides full facts": thanks for the link. Alas, although I could understand the Irishman, I could make out scarcely a word from the Yank.
j ferguson
I took Anoneumouse's comment the same way: if you're OK with CCS why object to fracking?
And I responded accordingly: the difference is that fracking will provide us with cheap energy which is anathema to the eco-luddites while CCS would ... not sure what exactly. But it would bankrupt us which I think they would probably consider an added bonus, or possibly even their main purpose.
"Browned off: I always thought acronyms lost the full stops! If in doubt, spell it out."
Aug 11, 2011 at 11:55 AM | Phillip Bratby
Remember the early days at the D.M.with the "person from the south coast" Phillip? We tried to spell it out but it never worked! Oh well, Halcyon days and great fun but it still trolls!
By the way Phillip, one wonders why Obama's water melons would not rack...Will China people or India people not frack? Are people from East Europe not already fracking,
I still try to persuade my old lady that fracking is possible even for someone in their early 60's .....I love that fracking word! ;-)
Well Obamassiah has told Americans, for the 137th time, he has a razor focus on jobs.
Two points.
No doubt, this time he really, really means it.
Banning fracking will really, really help him succeed.
Hmmmm, or maybe not?
Aug 11, 2011 at 12:42 PM | Anoneumouse
Sorry about the delay in responding but my local telephone exchange keeps awarding me a DNS error.
"You assumed wrongly twice, there is no tone in the written word."
I apologise, rebuke accepted; I took your question literally and I made an assumption.
However, there is tone in the written word and it is everywhere, in letters from the council, in opinion pieces in the papers, in e-mails sent in haste particularly, in job applications, indeed the sentence to which you took exception is an example.
Aug 11, 2011 at 11:55 AM | Phillip Bratby
I now find that the form of abbreviation F.I. is not only "obsolete" but is also "tiresome and unnecessary".
This is from sussex.co.uk: http://tinyurl.com/bu4zbo (Ctrl F "obsolete")
Ah well, Keep Calm and Carry On.
The greens really are misanthropes.
They will never accept anything that works and will push things that do not work at every opportunity.