Fracking Watch

Poll: Do you support Fracking in the UK?
Yes (23)
60.53%
No (15)
39.47%
WKUK
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I am very pro fracking as I am not convinced of that it would even be that bad for the environment, but would lower energy prices and create jobs. It would also help with the UK's shrinking energy gap - due to the EU shutting down our coal burning stations.

It is a very good short term solution which we need now while we develop renewables or nuclear energy for the future. We can't just jump straight to green energy, a transition period is needed, and it would be foolish not to exploit our own natural resources and to buy other people's instead.

I don't understand how some people can be so passionately against it, they must have a chip on their shoulder against someone.
0
reply
Jemner01
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
I'm pro-fracking but people dislike it because of the environmental issues. Fracking in the US is causing more earthquakes as well as poisoning local aquifers with chemicals, including the Ogalla Aquifer where the majority of the US populace gets its drinking water. The blemish of fracking equipment and the ecological results of increased human activity in remote areas is also of concern.
0
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I am pro-fracking, as it helps to keep the cost of energy bills down. However, we must be cautious with it, to make sure we aren't left with water pollution and environmental damage. So I believe it should be done, but not extensively.
0
reply
zjs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by WKUK)
It is a very good short term solution which we need now while we develop renewables or nuclear energy for the future. We can't just jump straight to green energy, a transition period is needed, and it would be foolish not to exploit our own natural resources and to buy other people's instead.
'Exploit' is the key word.

I don't think it's 'foolish' to spend more investing in alternatives or paying to import in the interim, if the alternative is poisonous run-off and huge environmental damage.
0
reply
Smack
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
I'm not against fracking, but I think it's unlikely we'll see it in the UK any time soon. It's a very expensive way of extracting hydrocarbons, and with prices the way they are at the moment, I can't see any sudden desire in oil companies to start fracking here at the moment.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by zjs)
'Exploit' is the key word.

I don't think it's 'foolish' to spend more investing in alternatives or paying to import in the interim, if the alternative is poisonous run-off and huge environmental damage.
Except of course the suggestion of 'huge environmental damage' is nonsense.

We've seen stuff about polluting drinking water. Easily avoided with proper containment. Or microearthquakes - which have zero impact on anything, and are considerably less of an issue than those which occurred through coal mining.

The environmental damage comes from not taking up this opportunity. Substitution of less polluting fossil fuels for more polluting fossil fuels has been fundamental to progress in meeting our carbon emissions targets. Even a small amount of fracked gas would have a very useful effect in substituting for other energy sources like coal in this country.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
I don't mind so long as they don't frack near where I live. Or near the nice parks I like to visit.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Smack)
I'm not against fracking, but I think it's unlikely we'll see it in the UK any time soon. It's a very expensive way of extracting hydrocarbons, and with prices the way they are at the moment, I can't see any sudden desire in oil companies to start fracking here at the moment.
Except of course that hydraulic fracturing has been used here for a considerable amount of time on numerous wells, and there are plenty of companies with exploratory licences for shale gas fracking who are undertaking surveys.
0
reply
zjs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by L i b)
Except of course the suggestion of 'huge environmental damage' is nonsense.

We've seen stuff about polluting drinking water. Easily avoided with proper containment. Or microearthquakes - which have zero impact on anything, and are considerably less of an issue than those which occurred through coal mining.

The environmental damage comes from not taking up this opportunity. Substitution of less polluting fossil fuels for more polluting fossil fuels has been fundamental to progress in meeting our carbon emissions targets. Even a small amount of fracked gas would have a very useful effect in substituting for other energy sources like coal in this country.
Plenty of possibility for environmental damage.

  • 40,000 gallons of chemicals per fracturing
  • 600 chemicals are in fracking fluid, including carcinogens and toxins, i.e. lead, uranium, mercury, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid.
  • Only 30-50% of the fracturing fluid is recovered, the rest is a non bio-degradable toxic fluid, left in the ground
  • Volatile organic compounds are released into the air, which can cause acid rain, among other things


Aside from the use of 8,000,000 gallons of water per fracturing.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Yes. Jobs, growth and movements towards energy exports.
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Yes, it's good that we can produce or export some our own energy rather than being overly reliant on foreign imports. Whilst I think nuclear energy is the long-term solution, it would be foolish to ignore the economic potential of fracking.
0
reply
St. Brynjar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
Absolutely not. As far as I can work out, fracking won't bring down energy prices at all, since the rights have been given to foreign companies.

(Original post by InnerTemple)
I don't mind so long as they don't frack near where I live. Or near the nice parks I like to visit.
Please tell me you're being flippant and that my sarcasm detector could do with a fix-up.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Jemner01)
I'm pro-fracking but people dislike it because of the environmental issues. Fracking in the US is causing more earthquakes as well as poisoning local aquifers with chemicals, including the Ogalla Aquifer where the majority of the US populace gets its drinking water. The blemish of fracking equipment and the ecological results of increased human activity in remote areas is also of concern.
That's debatable. Be very wary of watching docufilms like gas land.
0
reply
Dylann
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
The first modern frack that happened was in Blackpool in 2011 and caused a small earthquake, which I thought must have been quite awkward for the fracking companies.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by St. Brynjar)
Absolutely not. As far as I can work out, fracking won't bring down energy prices at all, since the rights have been given to foreign companies.



Please tell me you're being flippant and that my sarcasm detector could do with a fix-up.
And yet we've already seen price drops because of fracking in the US.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Dylann)
The first modern frack that happened was in Blackpool in 2011 and caused a small earthquake, which I thought must have been quite awkward for the fracking companies.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Odd geological setup in the area.

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp...y_02-11-11.pdf

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15550458
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by St. Brynjar)
Please tell me you're being flippant and that my sarcasm detector could do with a fix-up.
Nope. These naysayers need to pipe down. Most of them live in the North and other irrelevant places that no one has ever heard of.

Back in the real world (London),we have things to do. I have a coffee machine which needs powering. People need to stop standing in the way of progress.

...joke. This week I will mainly be pretending to be a Tory/nasty person.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
The problem with fracking anywhere but the US is that no where else has mineral based property rights.

The government decides where fracking takes place, where and when, also what the company in question has to pay to frack which the government gets not the land owners or local people who could be affected.

So if we are going to have fracking we need mineral bases property rights, until them I am opposed to fracking. I have had two drill sites a mile either of my how which were just left for 5 years and not capped off until they came to return the sites to farm land which took 3 weeks to do both sites. Needless to say I am not happy and I want the government to go away and stop sticking its nose in to my property and area telling other people what they can and can't do on my land or the farmers around where I live. I mean the government will not allow my to employ a company to repair the road outside my house. Yet when balfour beatty is need to upgrade the sub-station about 2 miles from my house they widen the road.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by zjs)
Plenty of possibility for environmental damage.

  • 40,000 gallons of chemicals per fracturing
  • 600 chemicals are in fracking fluid, including carcinogens and toxins, i.e. lead, uranium, mercury, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid.
  • Only 30-50% of the fracturing fluid is recovered, the rest is a non bio-degradable toxic fluid, left in the ground
  • Volatile organic compounds are released into the air, which can cause acid rain, among other things


Aside from the use of 8,000,000 gallons of water per fracturing.
Large use of water isn't necessarily irrelevant, depending on the water used, remember that only something like 2% of all water on Earth is freshwater, if the 98% is used rather than 2% you're taking water you can't drink and turning it into water you can't drink, what a terrible thing to do(!)

And back to the bullet-points:
Strictly, it's 8m gallons of chemicals per fracture, and 40,000 gallons doesn't really mean anything, that could be 40,000 gallons of, say, water. Oh no, water, it's going to kill us. I can additionally say "well, nationwide every day we pollute the environment with over 25 million gallons of chemicals when we pee, so we should stop peeing; additionally, drinking pee is bad for us, so it's irrelevant that is it dissolved to insanely low concentrations when expelled back into nature."

Only 600 chemicals? I'm surprised it's so few, and again, you're being unnecessarily vague, you say it includes carcinogens and toxins, well, so does everything we eat and drink, are you going to stop eating and drinking? Don't eat shellfish, they contain arsenic, that's poisonous. Don't breathe, it contains Carbon monoxide, that's poisonous too. Don't drink anything, whatever you drink will almost certainly include lead, uranium, mercury, formaldehyde and hydrochloric acid, they're dangerous too.

Only 30-50% of the fluid is recovered, the rest is 99.5% water with plenty of harmless other chemicals in it and a few that are dangerous but also exist in trace quantities naturally and when these fluids combine with the natural ones the trace increases marginally to a slightly higher trace which is probably still lower than traces you have already experienced in your lifetime. Did I mention they weren't bio-degradable, that must be a bad thing, the only way anything can degrade is biologically, and even then it is very rapid(!)

More vagueness, and again: "oh noes, something that exists naturally in trace quantities has even smaller trace quantities added to it". The atmosphere, if the pressure was consistent throughout it equivalent to the pressure at sea level, would have a volume in excess of 4bn cubic Km, or ~10^41 molecules. The atmosphere is a big thing, look at all the nuclear testing that took place in the last century, surely we should all be mutated beyond belief by all that atmospheric radioactive material? Oh, no, wait a second it's spread incredibly thinly around the world.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Large use of water isn't necessarily irrelevant, depending on the water used, remember that only something like 2% of all water on Earth is freshwater, if the 98% is used rather than 2% you're taking water you can't drink and turning it into water you can't drink, what a terrible thing to do(!)

And back to the bullet-points:
Strictly, it's 8m gallons of chemicals per fracture, and 40,000 gallons doesn't really mean anything, that could be 40,000 gallons of, say, water. Oh no, water, it's going to kill us. I can additionally say "well, nationwide every day we pollute the environment with over 25 million gallons of chemicals when we pee, so we should stop peeing; additionally, drinking pee is bad for us, so it's irrelevant that is it dissolved to insanely low concentrations when expelled back into nature."

Only 600 chemicals? I'm surprised it's so few, and again, you're being unnecessarily vague, you say it includes carcinogens and toxins, well, so does everything we eat and drink, are you going to stop eating and drinking? Don't eat shellfish, they contain arsenic, that's poisonous. Don't breathe, it contains Carbon monoxide, that's poisonous too. Don't drink anything, whatever you drink will almost certainly include lead, uranium, mercury, formaldehyde and hydrochloric acid, they're dangerous too.

Only 30-50% of the fluid is recovered, the rest is 99.5% water with plenty of harmless other chemicals in it and a few that are dangerous but also exist in trace quantities naturally and when these fluids combine with the natural ones the trace increases marginally to a slightly higher trace which is probably still lower than traces you have already experienced in your lifetime. Did I mention they weren't bio-degradable, that must be a bad thing, the only way anything can degrade is biologically, and even then it is very rapid(!)

More vagueness, and again: "oh noes, something that exists naturally in trace quantities has even smaller trace quantities added to it". The atmosphere, if the pressure was consistent throughout it equivalent to the pressure at sea level, would have a volume in excess of 4bn cubic Km, or ~10^41 molecules. The atmosphere is a big thing, look at all the nuclear testing that took place in the last century, surely we should all be mutated beyond belief by all that atmospheric radioactive material? Oh, no, wait a second it's spread incredibly thinly around the world.
Bearing in mind that renewables have yet to meet their output targets and aren't relabel or cost effective. Would you prefer the lights went out?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (109)
17.3%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (68)
10.79%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (110)
17.46%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (92)
14.6%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (63)
10%
How can I be the best version of myself? (188)
29.84%

Watched Threads

View All