If you bothered to research the subject you'd know all wytch farm wells were fracked. The difference in fracking technique is non existent..... Not all conventional wells are fracked but the Dorset ones were...Go look at the nature reserve there and how animals and wildlife are thriving and compare to the hell being creeated in the Highlands up here and for what? To line the pockets of Gores cronies based on a multi trillion dollar lie!!! This subject makes me extremely angry, the lies peddled by the green movement and the hypocrisy involved is mind blowing!!! If you hate oil and gas then stop using any of the products and derivatives and that includes all petrochemicals and their products...
Spot on, we argue against turbines and have successfully stopped their erection in a place I visit for R n R using a bunch of planning arguments (exposing developers lies over a period of a couple of years at great stress to locals) but the fundamental issue is that these things are not fit for purpose, a fact that was discovered well over 100 years ago when we stopped using them for milling!!
Please identify these noxious chemicals!!! Please ensure that you drink no water that might have been deliberately treated with these "noxious" chemicals to make it safe for you to mix with your orange squash!!!! Stop believing the BS you are being peddled by the financially and politically motivated false green movemernt.
Wow we agree, support from the right for a sensible green! Consumption are waste are what need to be cut out. Country with highest co2 per capita in europe is germany after its drive to wind.
....and of course the oil movement is not politically and financially motivated???? I dont understand the point you are trying to make re the wells also.... can you please explain?
So close yet so far... You do realise, as I've mentioned previously, that it's not the same form of fracking that we're discussing previously, right? The difference in technique may be non-existent, as in Wytch farm they pump loads of water into the ground, but it's not laced with chemicals. As Yorkie said, how dare you accuse the 'Green' movement of profiteering on renewable issues, the oil companies have been one of the most evil and destructive byproducts of capitalism in the last 100+ years, causing wars and untold environmental damage whilst taking HUGE subsidies off governments all over the world. Unfortunately our economy is geared towards using as much petrol as possible (as it suits the oil companies quite nicely for us to be dependant on them), but I do everything I can do avoid waste/transport costs/etc...And that point is completely irrelevant anyways, we have other means of obtaining oil/gas that don't involve polluting our countryside and aquifers. At least w_y supports your nonsense, you can both be wrong together *sigh* Do you understand what noxious means? Give it a quick google Here is the list of chemicals used for hydraulic fracking (the current subject of debate here), sorry it's a cut and paste so w_y will be annoyed, but the source link is there and I don't have your address to post it to you... ADDITIVE TYPE DESCRIPTION OF PURPOSE EXAMPLES OF CHEMICALS Proppant “Props” open fractures and allows gas / fluids to flow more freely to the well bore. Sand [Sintered bauxite; zirconium oxide; ceramic beads] Acid Cleans up perforation intervals of cement and drilling mud prior to fracturing fluid injection, and provides accessible path to formation. Hydrochloric acid (HCl, 3% to 28%) or muriatic acid Breaker Reduces the viscosity of the fluid in order to release proppant into fractures and enhance the recovery of the fracturing fluid. Peroxydisulfates Bactericide / Biocide Inhibits growth of organisms that could produce gases (particularly hydrogen sulfide) that could contaminate methane gas. Also prevents the growth of bacteria which can reduce the ability of the fluid to carry proppant into the fractures. Gluteraldehyde; 2-Bromo-2-nitro-1,2-propanediol Buffer / pH Adjusting Agent Adjusts and controls the pH of the fluid in order to maximize the effectiveness of other additives such as crosslinkers. Sodium or potassium carbonate; acetic acid Clay Stabilizer / Control Prevents swelling and migration of formation clays which could block pore spaces thereby reducing permeability. Salts (e.g., tetramethyl ammonium chloride) [Potassium chloride] Corrosion Inhibitor Reduces rust formation on steel tubing, well casings, tools, and tanks (used only in fracturing fluids that contain acid). Methanol; ammonium bisulfate for Oxygen Scavengers Crosslinker The fluid viscosity is increased using phosphate esters combined with metals. The metals are referred to as crosslinking agents. The increased fracturing fluid viscosity allows the fluid to carry more proppant into the fractures. Potassium hydroxide; borate salts Friction Reducer Allows fracture fluids to be injected at optimum rates and pressures by minimizing friction. Sodium acrylate-acrylamide copolymer; polyacrylamide (PAM); petroleum distillates Gelling Agent Increases fracturing fluid viscosity, allowing the fluid to carry more proppant into the fractures. Guar gum; petroleum distillate Iron Control Prevents the precipitation of carbonates and sulfates (calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, barium sulfate) which could plug off the formation. Ammonium chloride; ethylene glycol; polyacrylate Solvent Additive which is soluble in oil, water & acid-based treatment fluids which is used to control the wettability of contact surfaces or to prevent or break emulsions. Various aromatic hydrocarbons Surfactant Reduces fracturing fluid surface tension thereby aiding fluid recovery. Methanol; isopropanol; ethoxylated alcohol Many fracturing fluid chemicals are known to be toxic to humans and wildlife, and several are known to cause cancer. Potentially toxic substances include petroleum distillates such as kerosene and diesel fuel (which contain benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene and other chemicals); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; methanol; formaldehyde; ethylene glycol; glycol ethers; hydrochloric acid; and sodium hydroxide. Very small quantities of some fracking chemicals are capable of contaminating millions of gallons of water. According to the Environmental Working Group, petroleum-based products known as petroleum distillates such as kerosene (also known as hydrotreated light distillates, mineral spirits, and a petroleum distillate blends) are likely to contain benzene, a known human carcinogen that is toxic in water at levels greater than five parts per billion (or 0.005 parts per million). Other chemicals, such as 1,2-Dichloroethane are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Volatile organic constituents have been shown to be present in fracturing fluid flowback wastes at levels that exceed drinking water standards. For example, testing of flowback samples from Texas have revealed concentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethane at 1,580 ppb, which is more than 316 times EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level for 1,2-Dichloroethane in drinking water. VOCs not only pose a health concern while in the water, the volatile nature of the constituents means that they can also easily enter the air. According to researchers at the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Healthy Environments and Communities, organic compounds brought to the surface in the fracturing flowback or produced water often go into open impoundments (frac ponds), where the volatile organic chemicals can offgas into the air. - See more at: https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#.Vr2NLvkrIgs
Here's an article about Wytch Farm that w_y won't think is biased because it's the Torygraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...-a-form-of-fracking-is-already-happening.html Have a look at the end of it, it seems they tried to mask their true intentions but someone pointed it out to them Update: Since this article was first posted it has been amended to make clear that the technology used at Wytch Farm is a form of fracking called “water injection”, also known as “water flooding”. This is not the same as “hydraulic fracking”. We are happy to make this clear. The 'happy to make this clear' bit doesn't sound very sincere...
Thanks Toby .... so it is not hydraulic fracking then.... "In northern England alone it will require “thousands” of wells to extract just ten per cent of the shale gas reserves, he said." And of course where are the majority of new sites envisaged to be? Shame that yet again this serious argument is being trivialised on party political lines... my goodness why cant we each have our own views?
"Unfortunately our economy is geared towards using as much petrol as possible (as it suits the oil companies quite nicely for us to be dependant on them" - of course, we all love paying for petrol!
I think that anyone who complains about paying for petrol should try comparing prices with other liquids - it would be considerably more expensive to run your car on water, milk, orange juice, beer, or, come to think of it, more or less every other liquid. Fact is petrol is ridiculously cheap in comparison - personally I would let the price of it rise to realistic proportions and supertax it to pay for investment in alternative energy.
That's easy for you to say as you don't use it. But the comparison against other liquids is quite ridiculous and factually incorrect - I don't not pay £1 a litre for water or orange juice and I could for milk, but I choose to have it delivered in the old fashioned way and pay a bit of a premium to help the environment.
Many of the chemicals used in fracking water treatment are also used in potable water treatment! Supposedly "toxic" chemicals are used to make our water safe to drink. For those "Greenpeace" and the like followers who are against use of petroleum derived products I would just like to cut them all off from access to the society derived from oil and gas.
Talking a load of rubbish from an ignorant position again toby!!!! I happen to work in the oilfield chemical industry and the chemicals used in the type of fracking at Wytch farm are the same as in unconventionals..... I'm oh so happy for you and your green buddies to avoid all petroleum derived products, that means I will not see a response to this post as you are unable to use your computer/mobile phone or whatever, also happy to see you all stop using the roads covered in asphalt or concrete derived from huge energy only possible from high energy density materials (hydrocarbons). Another reference from ignorant sources, you can find the same sort of chemicals in your food processing or any other walk of life. If you want to immitate Michael Jackson and live in a hermetic chamber feel free. Greatr quote from Chris Evans this morning the one sure thing in life is you're gonna die so better enjoy and experience while you can. I'll enjoy and experience my extended happy life using efficiently the resources the planet has given me in an intelligent manner whilst observing a section of society fade away to disease, cold, famine as they reject the planets given resource and our intelligence to use it.
That's bull. The wells are fracked as part of the completion process and then water injected. The fracks are created to increase injectivity and allow a higher volume of water to enter the reservoir for a given energy input as well as improve the sweep in the reservoir. I know folk who designed and implemented these wells which is far more accurate than some newspaper article. In fact you can access the well completion records if needbe.. Gone back to the origial Southampton University study and its applying to CBM not unconventionals. The original work is sound, its stating that the operations are different for CBM compared to the conventional in terms of spatial impact which is totally correct. The way fracking has been done in the USA has involved multiple wells one would hope that here we will advance that and use well pads and multilaterals to reduce surface impacts.
When oil went down below 10$ a barrel in the 80s we all said lets go drill for orange juice... The fact is that a barrel of oil doesn't just produce petrol but actually the building blocks of modern society are from it. About 3% of the barrel goes to petrochemicals which then are used to produce cheap and abundant medicines, plastics etc. I'd be happy if we found a way away from burning the majority of the oi products for fuel but disposal will only cause the saleable fractions to increase in price. You really have to consider what type of society we want, is it a modern healthy one for a large proportion of the earths inhabitants or do we want to make clean and safe living standards an exclusive right of only a select few? Find me a way to give a better life to more people, animals and vegetation than the current petroleum based one and I'll support it but don't just focus on petrol / diesel, this is about far more than that!!! I for one am not willing to go back to Dickensian living standards.
I think that you are making rather large claims for the petrolium industry here. The society of Dicken's time was already very well advanced compared to 100 years earlier - and would have continued to progress at a similar rate without the oil industry - this bears in mind that most of the improvements made to the world of Dickens have been either medical, or to do with sanitation, and are not direct products of the petrolium industry. We have no way of telling what the world would be like now if the petrolium industry had not been added to the mix - the only thing we can safely say is that our Co2 emissions would be lower and we would have had fewer and less costly wars.
Really? CO2 emissions lower with coal rather than gas and oil? I think you are wrong there. Having said that as I said before the real problem is one of population. If we hadn't relied on developments from petroleum we certainly wouldn't have the human population on the planet we do now and maybe CO2 would be lower but honestly I do not see this life giving gas as a problem. The worlds highest ability to support life is at vastly greater CO2 in atmosphere levels than current.
