Half of the UK 'suitable for fracking', report says

[cronus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25420552

Half of the UK 'suitable for fracking', report says

More than half of the UK could be suitable for shale gas fracking, according to a government-commissioned report.

Under the maximum scenario, up to 2,880 wells could be drilled for oil or gas in a new licensing round, the report says, generating 16,000 to 32,000 jobs.

This would markedly increase lorry movements and could squeeze water supplies for local communities.

But the environmental impact would be "manageable", say consultants AMEC.

A single well might create up to 51 lorry movements, AMEC says, but laws and systems already in place would be enough to absorb the environmental upheaval.

(continued)

[mistermack]

A single well might create up to 51 lorry movements, AMEC says, but laws and systems already in place would be enough to absorb the environmental upheaval.
(continued)

They should go for it. The end result makes it worth a bit of upheaval. After all, all's well that ends well.

[JimC]

A single well might create up to 51 lorry movements, AMEC says, but laws and systems already in place would be enough to absorb the environmental upheaval.
(continued)

They should go for it. The end result makes it worth a bit of upheaval. After all, all's well that ends well.

The potential polluting effects on underground water are the main issue. Needs a very serious monitoring regime, but the companies themselves are absolute fucking cowboys, if US and Australian experiences are anything to go by...

Perfect example of how the Libertarian "minimum government control" mantra ends up fucking the common good for everyone...

[Clinton Huxley]

Tricky one, this. Environmentally, problematic. This being Blighty, you just know that a) all the benefits will go to a small minority of Tory-favouring billionaires and b) though is has lowered the cost of fuel in the US, here it will, almost miraculously, make fuel more expensive for some reason us proles are too stupid to understand.

On the other hand, buying Russian gas sticks in the craw.

What to do, what to do?

[cronus]

Best fracking in the North-East and they need the jobs right now. With it being a former industrial powerhouse the polluted water issue isn't gonna bother them too much. Quality over quantity with life expectancy.....and it'll keep the lights on.

[pErvinalia]

Frack the shit out of the cunt!

[mistermack]

The potential polluting effects on underground water are the main issue. Needs a very serious monitoring regime, but the companies themselves are absolute fucking cowboys, if US and Australian experiences are anything to go by...

Perfect example of how the Libertarian "minimum government control" mantra ends up fucking the common good for everyone...

There's a BIG difference between the UK and Australia, when it comes to water supplies.
We don't get all that much water from deep underground sources. We don't need to, the place is usually ringing wet and we use a lot of shallow run-off. So the quality of water deep underground isn't really an issue for much of the country.
Australia and the US would need to be much more careful.

Also, I think that from what I've read, the problems are much over-hyped, and can easily be stopped with proper monitoring and big penalties.
The US does a hell of a lot of fracking, but you only hear very isolated incidences of any problems.
Of course, those get shouted to the heavens by the opponents of fracking.

[PsychoSerenity]

The best thing to do is absolutely nothing to begin with. Whether there are problems with it or not (and there are), we won't lose anything by waiting, saving those resources for the future when they will be able to be obtained and used in a more efficient and less damaging manner. There is far too much pressure from certain corporations eager to rush into this before proper evaluations and regulations can be put into place. That alone is enough to suggest it might be best not to go for it, at least at this point in time. Start on two or three test sites maybe, in the lowest risk areas, and monitor the effects over a decade, prove it can be done safely before letting loose on the whole country.

[JimC]

mistermack wrote:

...and can easily be stopped with proper monitoring and big penalties...

I agree that fracking could possibly be done without too much environmental damage. But doing so requires being careful, working slower and spending more money, as well as very extensive government monitoring by governments. From all I've read, that is what is lacking - the companies are get rich quick cowboys, and government EPAs are poorly funded and lacking teeth.

[Seth]

A single well might create up to 51 lorry movements, AMEC says, but laws and systems already in place would be enough to absorb the environmental upheaval.
(continued)

They should go for it. The end result makes it worth a bit of upheaval. After all, all's well that ends well.

The potential polluting effects on underground water are the main issue. Needs a very serious monitoring regime, but the companies themselves are absolute fucking cowboys, if US and Australian experiences are anything to go by...

Perfect example of how the Libertarian "minimum government control" mantra ends up fucking the common good for everyone...

Except it doesn't. Nothing in Libertarianism prohibits government from exercising its police powers to prevent the initiation of force or fraud, which in this case would be exported harm from fracking.

With all the hysteria you're pandering you'd think that millions of people in the US are drinking water contaminated with fracking fluid. It's simply not true. The EPA, despite it's slavering anticipation of yet another excuse to hammer domestic energy production, has verified only ONE single instance of fracking fluid contaminating a water supply, in the middle-of-nowhere, Wyoming.

That's one. As in the first whole number after zero. As in the "potential" for underground water pollution little more than a battle-cry for anti-carbon Luddites who want to shut down domestic coal, oil and gas production not because it's dangerous, but because it's way too successful for their idiotic agenda.

Can it happen? Yes. Does it happen? No. Is regulation and oversight appropriate? Yes. Does Libertarianism subscribe to the notion that such activities should not be supervised and regulated? Absolutely not.

[mistermack]

Start on two or three test sites maybe, in the lowest risk areas, and monitor the effects over a decade, prove it can be done safely before letting loose on the whole country.

That's a fairly sound way to go at it.
I would specify a very high level of local input, for any quote for the first licences. Try and grow a UK industry out of it, and reduce reliance on overseas get-rich-quick merchants.

[Seth]

Start on two or three test sites maybe, in the lowest risk areas, and monitor the effects over a decade, prove it can be done safely before letting loose on the whole country.

That's a fairly sound way to go at it.
I would specify a very high level of local input, for any quote for the first licences. Try and grow a UK industry out of it, and reduce reliance on overseas get-rich-quick merchants.

Fucking paranoid Luddites....

Why the hell don't you just look at the half-century of fracking in the US and use the sophisticated and very, very safe technology that we've developed in that time?

You do realize that "fracking" is nothing new at all. We've been doing it safely for many decades now and nobody took any notice till the Obamanuts and anti-carbon ass-hats fell upon it as a new tactic to discourage oil and gas production not because it's unsafe but because they will use ANY excuse whatsoever, like objecting to the pipeline from Canada, to instill fear and panic in the populace in order to gain support for their ACTUAL agenda, which is putting us all back in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing for roots with sharpened sticks.

Fucking anti-carbon nitwits need to be lobotimized and institutionalized as a clear and present danger to themselves and everybody else.

[Audley Strange]

Start on two or three test sites maybe, in the lowest risk areas, and monitor the effects over a decade, prove it can be done safely before letting loose on the whole country.

That's a fairly sound way to go at it.
I would specify a very high level of local input, for any quote for the first licences. Try and grow a UK industry out of it, and reduce reliance on overseas get-rich-quick merchants.

Fucking paranoid Luddites....

Why the hell don't you just look at the half-century of fracking in the US and use the sophisticated and very, very safe technology that we've developed in that time?

You do realize that "fracking" is nothing new at all. We've been doing it safely for many decades now and nobody took any notice till the Obamanuts and anti-carbon ass-hats fell upon it as a new tactic to discourage oil and gas production not because it's unsafe but because they will use ANY excuse whatsoever, like objecting to the pipeline from Canada, to instill fear and panic in the populace in order to gain support for their ACTUAL agenda, which is putting us all back in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing for roots with sharpened sticks.

Fucking anti-carbon nitwits need to be lobotimized and institutionalized as a clear and present danger to themselves and everybody else.

Hmm my sympathies are with you, but given the stupidity of businesses here, I would not be surprised if somewhere like Manchester was depopulated by such idiotic negligence.

[pErvinalia]

Also, I think that from what I've read, the problems are much over-hyped, and can easily be stopped with proper monitoring and big penalties.

Funny one, MM. Where does this fabled "proper monitoring" and "big penalties" occur? Are there unicorns there too?

[pErvinalia]

The best thing to do is absolutely nothing to begin with. Whether there are problems with it or not (and there are), we won't lose anything by waiting, saving those resources for the future when they will be able to be obtained and used in a more efficient and less damaging manner. There is far too much pressure from certain corporations eager to rush into this before proper evaluations and regulations can be put into place. That alone is enough to suggest it might be best not to go for it, at least at this point in time. Start on two or three test sites maybe, in the lowest risk areas, and monitor the effects over a decade, prove it can be done safely before letting loose on the whole country.

Unfortunately, capital and profits dictate that it must be done NOW and as cheaply as possible. We're fucked, basically.