Go to first unread
Back
to top
Fracking
Watch this thread
Announcements
Poll: Do you support Fracking in the UK?
Yes
(23)
60.53%
No
(15)
39.47%
WKUK
Badges:
0
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#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.
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:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#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
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#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:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#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.
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 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
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report
#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:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report
#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.
'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.
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:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report
#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:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report
#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.
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
zjs
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report
#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.
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.
- 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:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
tengentoppa
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report
#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:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report
#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.
Please tell me you're being flippant and that my sarcasm detector could do with a fix-up.
(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.
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
MatureStudent36
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report
#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.
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
Dylann
Badges:
21
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report
#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
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report
#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.
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.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report
#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
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
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:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report
#17
(Original post by St. Brynjar)
Please tell me you're being flippant and that my sarcasm detector could do with a fix-up.
Please tell me you're being flippant and that my sarcasm detector could do with a fix-up.
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:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report
#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.
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
Badges:
21
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report
#19
(Original post by zjs)
Plenty of possibility for environmental damage.
Aside from the use of 8,000,000 gallons of water per fracturing.
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.
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:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report
#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.
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
X
Quick Reply
