Geologists Say UK Shale Deposits Hold Vast Energy Reserves

fishmike writes with this news snipped from a Reuters story: "Britain may have enough offshore shale gas to catapult it into the top ranks of global producers, energy experts now believe, and while production costs are still very high, new U.S. technology should eventually make reserves commercially viable. UK offshore reserves of shale gas could exceed one thousand trillion cubic feet (tcf), compared to current rates of UK gas consumption of 3.5 tcf a year, or five times the latest estimate of onshore shale gas of 200 trillion cubic feet."

Comments

Let the Fracking Begin!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[rainmouse]

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

Considering the majority of the gas reserves are in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland it seems unlikely that London (seemingly the only city in the UK that most have heard of) will suffer any form of earth quakes, though they may well lose out if Scotland is granted their independence in 2014 when the vote comes.

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[gbjbaanb]

I thought most of the fracking protests were taking place around Blackpool, so unless you have an American's knowledge of geography, you're wrong. The shale gas is all under the west coast of England in Lancashire.

So all the London politicians can rest easy, knowing any shit that happens will happen to someone else far away up north. Hopefully the nuclear reactors they also foisted on those people won't get damaged, but hey - its not in Notting Hill, so no worries.

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I know Blackpool. It was where you'd go for holiday, 'til it got cheaper to visit Greece in the 90's. :-P

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[AmiMoJo]

Actually Soctland isn't planning to use any shale gas, and in fact intends to be 100% renewable by 2020. What that means is they will produce 200% of their energy requirements, half of which will be renewable. The overproduction will be exported, mostly to what remains of the UK after Scottish independence.

Scotland really doesn't need shale gas. There is plenty of demand for what fossil fuels they do have and vast untapped renewable resources (mainly wind). They will end up "oil rich" without the oil.

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

Considering the majority of the gas reserves are in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland it seems unlikely that London (seemingly the only city in the UK that most have heard of) will suffer any form of earth quakes, though they may well lose out if Scotland is granted their independence in 2014 when the vote comes.

Nope. Two points: First, we're talking about frackable shale gas reserves, rather than conventional off-shore reserves, and the distribution of the two resources is completely different. Second, most of the North Sea gas reserves are in the southern part of the sea anyway, near England and the continent, so in the event of Scottish independence would be mostly in English territorial waters rather than Scottish (the most productive oil fields are of course between Scotland and Norway, so would go to Scotland following independence, but most gas exploration to date has been in more southerly areas).

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slight error, Scotland is only planning on reaching 100% renewable on Electricity (not Energy) by 2020.

I believe electricity only makes up about 35% of total energy use for a country like Scotland.

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[Anonymous Coward]

We got married in a castle in Scotland. You know, in England? Near Paris?

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[Pax681]

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

Considering the majority of the gas reserves are in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland it seems unlikely that London (seemingly the only city in the UK that most have heard of) will suffer any form of earth quakes, though they may well lose out if Scotland is granted their independence in 2014 when the vote comes.

while i VERY much agree with what you say we will NOT be "granted" independence we will vote for it in a referendum and thus we will decide ourselves
i'd like to see what happens if westminster tries to deny the will of the Scottish people.

even now after all the years that have passed since april 6th 1320 when robert the Bruce co-wrote and signed the "Declaration of Arbroath" the people of Scotland, in legal terms are regarded as "sovereign" under Scottish Law which is separate and distinct from english law. And there was a legal judgement in Scotland where a court of Session(highest court in Scotland) Judge even said outright that in Scotland the people were sovereign under Scottish law as opposed to england where parliament was sovereign.

but basically.. aye... we will decide and the way things are looking with the likes of Peter Crudass admitting that the tory govt were faking opposition to scotland becoming independence so as to position themselves to try and screw Scotland in a settlement, johan lamont, the Scottish labour leader already saying that, in the up coming coincil elections to take place in May, they already concede defeat adn expect to come in second..... to the Scottish tory leader ruth davidson who , in her big conference speech actually said that "if the people of Scotland vote NO in the referendum them the tories would cut the Scottish budget by 2,500 per person per year"!!! yeah.. there's a carrot to dangle! ... the lid dems... total non entity.. that party is gonna go tits up and rightly so..

Scotland is actually IN SURPLUS but with 8.6% of the "uk" population" paying 9.8% of the total tax revenue we get humped by westminster
total Scottish revenue is just over 126 billions per year when you count in the tax raised in "extra regio territories"(ie the place westminster try to hide the scottish oil/gas income) and we get about 30 billions back.. YET with that we STILL have universal free healthcare with free precription medicines, universal free education.. ie no college/university fees, and so much more that has been done while the tories sell everything off after labour SHAT on it all
and before anyone starts about universal free healthcare being some commie crap... no it's not.. we just give enough of a fuck about our own people to want them to be healthy and , when you think about it . that is good for employers too! a healthy workforce!
Saor Alba!

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[Cederic]

Hmm. Such hatred. What's wrong, letting your personal insecurities out as nationalism?

Try living in the middle or north of England, where your net return on taxes makes Scotland's look generous and you still have to pay university fees, prescription costs and travel to find work.

Trust me, England would be in a far better position without the Scots MPs that voted to fuck over the English while protecting the Scots. Why do you think most people in England wantto vote in the referendum: it's so they can stop Scottish MPs voting on matters that don't effect Scotland.

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[MightyMartian]

Too bad 2 out of 3 Scots don't want independence. You'll be sort of like British Republicans when the vote fails; miserable, mocking your fellow man and refusing to admit that your whole idea was daft and a minority position.

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[Pax681]

well we'll just have to see come the vote... there's a wind blowing people..

Re:Let the Fracking Begin!

[MightyMartian]

Farts from Salmond no doubt. But he's playing the same gamebook the Quebec Nationalists did... and look how well their independence movement has done. Two failed referendums, and independence far less likely now that 15 years ago.

That's the reason for Devo-Max, and why the Scottish Nationalists are terrified of a simple yes or no ballot, because they know they'll lose that kind of vote, and it will kill the nationalist movement for a generation or more. But toss in Devo-Max, and suddenly they can win just enough to hold on.

This is why I tell Scottish Nationalists that a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence. Voters can be more sophisticated than political parties give them credit for. And this is confirmed time and time again by poll after poll that shows the Nationalists at least 10 points (and often more) from even imagining a successful vote.

What about impact on environment

[siddesu]

Shale gas and oil is still fossil fuel, and we are still threatened by climate changes due to the increase of greenhouse gases, aren't we? Or is the Sun going to dim and save us all?

Re:What about impact on environment

[siddesu]

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp

Re:What about impact on environment

[sleiper]

Fossils ? You think that there has been enough biomass to create this much gas. There's a reason it's called Natural Gas, nothing to do with dead flora and fauna.

My detectors on the blink, so for the good of Humanity I'm going to assume that was sarcasm, just poorly implemented.

Re:What about impact on environment

[Anonymous Coward]

Fossils ? You think that there has been enough biomass to create this much gas. There's a reason it's called Natural Gas, nothing to do with dead flora and fauna.

Most natural gas was created by Conservatives venting their frustration over the evils of liberalism on Fox News. Exactly how it came to be sequestered so far underground is still unclear.

Re:What about impact on environment

[PhilHibbs]

Fossils ? You think that there has been enough biomass to create this much gas.

Yes. I do think that.

There's a reason it's called Natural Gas, nothing to do with dead flora and fauna.

Plants and animals are part of what is usually referred to as "nature". Prior to life appearing on the planet, there was 1,000 times as much methane in the atmosphere than there is now. Over the last 3 billion years, life has been extracting carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it under the earth in the form of coal, oil, and methane. I think that some of the methane underground is abiotic, but most is indeed "fossil fuel".

Re:What about impact on environment

[Rogerborg]

• Sitting in a climate controlled room and fretting about the environment using a massive global information network.
• Shivering in a dark cave and gnawing on your aunt's shinbone while exclaiming "Me um welcome natural re-glaciation".

Choose one. And no, I am not joking, not in the slightest. Solar, wind and wave are boondoggles, spending fossil energy up front to create inefficient, (generally) unreliable generators that will pack up and die long before they pay back the energy that's gone into making and (vitally) maintaining them.

Our choices are fossil fuels, or a massive nuclear program, probably thorium, to tide us over to fusion. That's it, greenwashing the question doesn't give a realistic third option.

Re:What about impact on environment

[jaymemaurice]

Except when the wind and solar powered solar and wind turbine factories start making solar and wind powered solar and wind turbine factories... and solar and wind technology improves - that is a realistic 3rd option

Re:What about impact on environment

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, the sun is constantly expanding, and is likely to be the main cause of the end of all life on earth, simply due to higher temperatures that is going to happen even if all greenhouse gases were to disappear.

On this deal about shale oil, I've read a lot of false alarm reports about it being available in the West - all of which has turned out to be unfounded. For the foreseeable future, Islamic oil is what is going to be the prime energy source. Anyone wants to seriously change that in order to dry up the cash flow to the jihad, the way to do it is to go nuclear, with thorium. The main suppliers there are non-Islamic countries - US, Australia, Brazil and India. If these countries were to get rich selling and using thorium, they'd at least use it for the well being of their people, and unlike the OPEC guys, not for the sake of spreading Christianity/Hinduism in other places of the world (the way the Saudis and other OPEC guys do with their money.

Re:What about impact on environment

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. But pick your poison. Either you can do without energy and invest in a crash program to build more expensive renewable energy immediately, meaning some pretty heavy economic disruption and fiscal pain; or continue development of oil and gas in order to give you enough time to gradually build up the alternatives. The end point is going to be the same: some pretty radical changes in energy supply. But it's kind of like the difference between quitting cold turkey versus managing a staged withdrawal. If you really want the cold turkey approach, well, be prepared for quite a shock.

Re:What about impact on environment

[fatphil]

Stop encouraging breeding, so that there are fewer humans to support?

At the moment, there's no evidence we'll ever be able to harness fusion as a power source. (Apart from the big round reactor up in the sky.)

Re:What about impact on environment

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it, greenwashing the question doesn't give a realistic third option.

But...but...GAIA!!!11!!ONE!!

Re:What about impact on environment

[DaveGod]

Shale gas and oil is still fossil fuel, and we are still threatened by climate changes due to the increase of greenhouse gases, aren't we? Or is the Sun going to dim and save us all?

Hmm, I was under the impression that that gas plants are the least-bad of the fossil-fuel burners and good for offsetting the weaknesses of "green" approaches?

That is (er, or so I thought), it responds to demand spikes quickly, the fuel stores reasonably well, output efficiency and economic efficiency aren't as impacted by output level. In other words, you run your base load as much as possible on your green stuff while gas smooths everything over and boosts output during peak hours.

Without wanting to reduce it's importance, eliminating greenhouse gas emissions isn't the goal, we need to reduce them to the sustainable level or at least slow the rate of change. Slowing the rate of change doesn't just buy more time, change itself is much more easily managed when it happens slowly.

Also, again without meaning to reduce it's importance, climate change is one of the three major issues. Resources being finite is a second and energy security is a third.

Re:What about impact on environment

[32771]

No, we need all the energy to deal with the problems global warming may cause, also to continue growth. Beyond that gas flows much faster than oil.

This is my sarcastic contribution of the day, although it might turn out to be reality.

Also if past performance is any indication the sun is going to cook us all.

Re:What about impact on environment

[cffrost]

Our choices are fossil fuels, or a massive nuclear program, probably thorium, to tide us over to fusion. That's it, greenwashing the question doesn't give a realistic third option.

I agree, and I'll take nuclear's probabilistic issues over fossil fuels' deterministic issues any day. I wish we could get past this and move the discussion from "why," to "how," before we dig ourselves into a hole we can't climb back out of; (i.e., before we don't have enough fossil fuels left to construct nuclear infrastructure).

One other issue which I think is too often overlooked: Maybe we should be saving some of our petroleum supply for petrochemical production; burning it all up is madness. We already know how to burn radioisotopes for energy, what we haven't figured out is how to supply humanity's demand for food (via petroleum-derived fertilizers), plastics, pharmaceuticals, and so on without petroleum. That's something that bothers me about "drill, baby, drill;" in USA, we already have relatively inexpensive gasoline; please, let's leave some of our domestic supply alone for when we actually fucking need it, as opposed to when we wanna save a couple of bucks at the pump.

Where is this?

[rich_hudds]

Anyone know whether this would belong to Scotland or England should the UK break up?

Re:Where is this?

[rainmouse]

Anyone know whether this would belong to Scotland or England should the UK break up?

It's a good question because despite most of the gas reserves are in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland, I've heard that England is currently laying claim to all territory off Scotland beyond 20 miles from the coast; Though as I cannot find a good citation, I cannot fully guarantee truth of this. Can anyone back this up or prove it false?

Re:Where is this?

[rapiddescent]

google "Extra-Regio Territories" - it's pretty frightening how the Scottish people have been misled by various Westminster parliaments about the value of the north sea. (presumable in an effort to prevent Scotland from becoming politically independent from the UK)

Re:Where is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scotland won't be able to afford a military to exert it's right over anything with all the spending promises Salmond is making, on top of emulating the Celtic Tiger and cutting corporation tax.

Re:Where is this?

[GigaBurglar]

I'm actually losing respect for the English. I try to treat everybody the same and I don't judge - but now I am thinking that maybe the rest of the world are correct about you. It's funny how you hold contempt for us but, a self respecting nation, yet we don't have a big throbbing, stars and stripes, jammed down our gullet. Enjoy your fascist future. Independence for Scotland - vote yes Autumn 2014.

Re:Where is this?

[rich_hudds]

The article says 'offshore shale gas' though. I know about the stuff in Lancashire, was wondering about where this was.

Re:Where is this?

[rapiddescent]

the sad truth is that the former UK will no longer be able to afford a military either.

Re:Where is this?

[rich_hudds]

I'm English and most of my fellow countrymen are quite happy for Scotland to be independent. Think it would do both countries a lot of good to be honest.

I worked in Glasgow for a while and found everyone perfectly pleasant, whenever a Scot works in England though they seem to get all chippy and resentful for some reason.

Think maybe you're confusing the English with the much smaller bunch of Londoners who dominate our media and other elites. Speaking as a Northerner who's worked in London I can guarantee that they are just as patronising to us as they probably are to you Scots.

Re:Where is this?

[hrvatska]

With the state of things in the UK some wonder whether it can afford the one it has now.

Re:Where is this?

[Chrisq]

Think maybe you're confusing the English with the much smaller bunch of Londoners who dominate our media and other elites. Speaking as a Northerner who's worked in London I can guarantee that they are just as patronising to us as they probably are to you Scots.

I also know a number of Northerners who wish that the Scottish border would move south if Scotland got independence, as they are fed up of being governed by people who think the country stops at Watford (a couple of miles North of Greater London) and allocate spending accordingly.

Re:Where is this?

[Chrisq]

the sad truth is that the former UK will no longer be able to afford a military either.

You mean we can afford them at the moment?

Re:Where is this?

[Wizard Drongo]

I wouldn't normally respond to such nonsense, but it irks me that someone else might read this and not know the truth:

1) Alex Salmond was democratically elected by the people of Scotland. How's that Cameron working out for you?

2) HBOS is made up of Bank of Scotland (in Scotland, strangely), and Halifax Building Society (almost all in England). BoS was very profitable, one of the last great retail banks. Halifax on the other hand was massively in debt, toxic nasty debt from overextending mortgages to anyone and everyone. This is why HBOS was bought "outright" by the Lloyds Group (under HM Govt. orders), instead of breaking it up into BoS and Halifax - it would have become clear that the debt was an English one and not a Scottish one, despite the Scottish name. If Scotland had been independent, under international law, we'd have had to account for the assets in Scotland, and their debts; this would have been very little, since Halifax was never that popular in Scotland, and BoS was running a profit. England would have been saddled with massive debts.

3) RBS, bit different, since it was still a Scottish bank. However, again, most of the debt was another part of the company, in this case the Dutch investment group ABN Amro. A lot of the debt was serviced by the Netherlands government, but yah, RBS would have had to be bailed out by Scotland. Fair enough, we'd have the credit rating to support it if we were independent.

I don't mind the notion that Scotland should pay her way after independence, nor do I think we'd have a problem doing so. I do mind the idea that England somehow subsidises Scotland, given that even the somewhat-biased UK Govt. figures (google "GERS 2011") show that Scotland pays more tax per capita than the English do, and on top of that has been running a surplus for several years. Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population, and yet pays 9.4% of the tax, and is responsible for over 10% of the UK's GDP. And all of that is NOT including all the North Sea oil & gas revenues that will become Scotland's post independence. Nor does it account for any taxes raised in Scotland by companies registered in England (such as most banks, shops etc.) , a good example being Tesco's which brings in staggering quantities of money in Scotland, but pays it's tax from London, and so it not accounted for in Scottish figures. Post-independence that will obviously change, so really, when the economic figures are in, Scotland will be a lot richer and better off without having to subsidise London.

Re:Where is this?

[ocularsinister]

We can't... that's why we have a half finished air craft carrier and no aircraft to put on it, at least not for the next decade.

But, hey, we've still got nuclear submarines so we can claim to be sitting at the top table.

Re:Where is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Alex Salmond was democratically elected by the people of Scotland. How's that Cameron working out for you?

Technically Alex Salmond was nominated for the role of First Minister of Scotland by the Members of the Scottish Parliament, who were democratically elected by the people of Scotland, and then formally appointed by HM The Queen who is bound by convention to always appoint that nominee. This is almost always going to be the leader of the majority party in that parliament.

There was never a true "Presidential" election where Alex Salmond was a candidate for the role and the Scottish people elected him.

It is an almost identical system to that by which Cameron became UK Prime Minister. In that case, The Queen is bound by convention to appoint as Prime Minister the person she believes commands the confidence of the House of Commons. This is almost always going to be the leader of the majority party in that parliament. This is why after the most recent general election there was a delay before the appointment of a Prime Minister - while coalition negtiations were ongoing it was unclear which party leader it should be.

The real democratic deficits in the UK remain the West Lothian question, the entirely first-past-the-post electoral system for the UK parliament (the Scottish system is excellent), and the current appointment system for the House of Lords. Maybe the second of those might've spared us Cameron and co.

Re:Where is this?

[clickclickdrone]

should the UK break up?/blockquote? Would that be by voting or fracking?

Re:Where is this?

[Rogerborg]

England. No, I don't know where the deposits are, but that isn't exactly relevant to the de facto situation.

Re:Where is this?

[TheRaven64]

Speaking as an Englishman living in Wales, I don't want to see independence for Scotland or Wales, I want to see independence for London. Without London, I think the rest of the UK would get along a lot better...

Re:Where is this?

[JasterBobaMereel]

...actually the Watford Gap, about 50 miles north of Watford the Town, although even that is pushing it for most people who work in London, to them many parts of Outer London are in "the North"!

The new UK, should be the home counties, the Square mile, and docklands ... and the the rest of the country would be southern Scotland ...

Re:Where is this?

[ehlo]

I'm English and most of my fellow countrymen are quite happy for Scotland to be independent. Think it would do both countries a lot of good to be honest. .

Either full independence, or atleast lets introduce a federal system here. The current system where Westminster has devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament (and the Welsh Assembly and the NI Assembly) is unmanageable for several reasons.

I think the most important one must be that Westminster can at will take back all of those powers (and has! Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and then again in 1991. I think they only got back to full devolution in May of 2007). Another is the Westlothian question where there has become an assymetry of polities due to the assymetrical nature of the UK devolution. English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish Parliament on matters regarding Scotland (which makes perfect sense), but Welsh, Irish and Scottish MPs can vote on matters which affect only England in Westminster. Since creating an English Parliament would be overly costly (and where are we going to get a new cohort of politicians, and how will we mobilise an already lack-lustre voting population to vote in yet another election?), I think writing a constitution and creating a federal system somewhere along the lines of the American system would be a good idea. And introduce a constitutional court perhaps! And start a serious investigation into the problems facing us for a future codification of laws.

Re:Where is this?

[Chrisq]

...actually the Watford Gap, about 50 miles north of Watford the Town, although even that is pushing it for most people who work in London, to them many parts of Outer London are in "the North"!

The new UK, should be the home counties, the Square mile, and docklands ... and the the rest of the country would be southern Scotland ...

Please make Slough an enclave of England!

Re:Where is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"it would have become clear that the debt was an English one and not a Scottish one, despite the Scottish name"

??? they were not 'owned' by any country. They were public limited companies ?

But your English conspiracy theory really makes sense when you factor in the guys making the decisions for the British Govt.
Chancellor of the exchequer : A Darling : Scottish
Prime Minister : G.Brown : Scottish

Re:Where is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like they moved Sacramento from California to London without telling us. A backdoor deal with a public employee union or the movie industry no doubt.

Re:Where is this?

[HarryatRock]

The UK will continue to exist. Scotland will probably not become a republic, but the Kingdom will include two independent countries, one principality and the province of Northern Ireland. The crown was united long before the parliaments.
There would be no problem in creating a shared "British" military, in fact the usual designation is "British armed forces".
Don't forget, once independence is in place, there will be a brand new political landscape in Scotland, without the unifying theme of "independence", the SNP might well fragment over other issues.

Re:Where is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't normally respond to such nonsense, but it irks me that someone else might read this and not know the truth:

.....

And all of that is NOT including all the North Sea oil & gas revenues that will become Scotland's post independence.

You do, I take it realise that the UK's gas and oil assets do not exclusively exist off the Scottish coast ... right? That a significant number of primarily gas fields (indeed iirc the bulk of said fields) lay in the southern gas basin off the English and Dutch coasts? You also realise of course that it's estimated well over half the extractable - existing and yet to be exploited - reserves are now gone. And that a significant amount of what remains will be increasingly expensive to extract and by the time it becomes profitable the fields will likely have been shut down or used for other purposes. It amuses me that the oft cited economic powerhouse for a future independent Scotland is "we have the oil" ... good luck with that ... you've about 20 years worth of decreasing income to look forward to.

Post-independence that will obviously change, so really, when the economic figures are in, Scotland will be a lot richer and better off without having to subsidise London.

Yawn ... yes yes you subsidise the area producing ~30% of the UK's GDP. Stop assuming the SNP's propaganda about the Scottish economy, it's future and how how all the UK reports are wrong, etc. are anything more than that - propaganda.

Personally and this is all way off-topic I think the UK is better off as the UK - and both parties will suffer should the SNP manage to win the intentionally delayed vote for independence. Fortunately I very much doubt they will.

Re:Where is this?

[Elky Elk]

Most of it could belong to a new, independent Orkney Islands.

Re:Where is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as an Englishman living in London, I know Welsh, Scotish, and Irish people living and working in London. As far as I'm aware we get on just fine. Sure there's some entertaining nationalism when sporting events are on, or a famous person says something stupid. I'm not really sure where the hate is coming from.

Re:Where is this?

[VisceralLogic]

I worked in Glasgow for a while and found everyone perfectly pleasant, whenever a Scot works in England though they seem to get all chippy and resentful for some reason.

Or, as it is soon to be known, Gasglow.

Re:Where is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without London, I think the rest of the UK would get along a lot better...

Woohoo! them sounds like fightin' words, music to ma ears! Boys, we got ourselves a good ol' fashioned blitzkrieg! Yeehaw!

Sincerely,
The United States of America

Re:Where is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically Alex Salmond was nominated for the role of First Minister of Scotland by the Members of the Scottish Parliament, who were democratically elected by the people of Scotland

Actually, no. Theres a first minister polling section on the ballot, so Salmond was picked democratically.

The real democratic deficits in the UK remain the West Lothian question

Id say the real deficit is having a Tory PM of the UK running Scotland yet his party only got one seat in our country.

Dig baby dig!

[arcite]

The only hope for western democracies to survive the future is to become energy independent. No longer will we need to depend on threats from Russia, or the antics of Chavez, or put up with the theatrics of Iran. Energy independence secures freedom and liberty. When it comes to shale, natural gas, even uranium, thankfully US, Canada, and other western powers have a majority share. Unfortunately, China will find they have a deficit in the near future, which is probably why they are beefing up their military.

Re:Dig baby dig!

[siddesu]

The only hope is to develop alternatives that do not require burning of precious resources for energy. Given the many irreplaceable uses that oil and gas have beyond energy, not investing enough into research of safe and plentiful alternatives seems like a much bigger folly than even tolerating Khamenei, Chavez or even Putkin.

Re:Dig baby dig!

[simoncpu was here]

Yepp, China is currently bullying the Philippines so that they can steal oil from the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal.

Re:Dig baby dig!

[Anonymous Coward]

What could go wrong with China drilling in the ocean. It would make the BP disaster look like spilled oil in the driveway.

Re:Dig baby dig!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yepp, China(PRC)/Vietnam/Philippines is currently bullying Vietnam/Philippines/China(PRC) so that they can steal oil from the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal.

Pick whichever you like. Here is some news for you: disputes are not one sided. One can accuse another of being "wrong".
Asians! narrow-minded people, they can't even think of doing something like a European Union

Re:Dig baby dig!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, forcing other countries to pay for your huge debt is a good idea. The EU is so successful that it isn't in danger of disintegrating anytime soon. Also, the ASEAN doesn't exist too.

Re:Dig baby dig!

[PopeRatzo]

The only hope for western democracies to survive the future is to become energy independent. No longer will we need to depend on threats from Russia

I'm more worried about the threats from the Koch Brothers than I am about "threats from Russia".

Re:Dig baby dig!

[fnj]

Since you spell "western democracy" with a small w, small d, Venezuela is a western democracy. So just what do you mean by "antics of Chavez"?

As for Iran (which is really neither western nor eastern), I'm afraid that no matter whether you trade with Iran for fuel or not, you have no practical choice but to "put up with the theatrics of Iran". Racial and religious hatred is not going to go away, regardless of anybody's foreign relations with Iran.

The question is...

[dimethylxanthine]

Will we have enough oxygen to burn it all?

Too late about climate change

[arcite]

Climate change is here and now. The Earth is already irretrievably changed from the state it was in even one hundred years ago. We must make the best of a bad situation. Greater energy efficiency would be a good way to start.

Re:Too late about climate change

[siddesu]

But we're getting better extraction efficiency instead, and only hoping that the increase in fuel costs will be enough to trigger said efficiencies. Will it?

Re:Too late about climate change

[arcite]

IMO, we already have the technology, look at the new LED lights coming on the market which can save big money for everyone...unfortunately all this new technology is still horribly expensive. It needs to get cheaper, and fast. I would love to have solar panels on my roof, but its just too costly.

Re:Too late about climate change

[siddesu]

And that is exactly the problem, although lighting is a small part of it. Efficiency will require retooling and refurbishing most of the economy and industry. This will require not only new technology, but also enormous capital and energy expenditure and serious financial incentives.

It seems we have plenty in the way of incentives for efficient extraction provided by the oil and gas market itself already, but the incentives to save energy and resources for a better future are just not there, neither in the developed, nor in the developing world. Not until it is too late, at least.

Re:Too late about climate change

[AmiMoJo]

Efficiency will require retooling and refurbishing most of the economy and industry.

Not really, many of the big savings will come naturally as things like light bulbs and vehicles reach their end of life and are replaced. With rising energy costs replacing or upgrading other equipment is becoming the most economically sensible thing to do already.

A lot of people seem to think that green policies are focused on forcing them to change, but actually they are mostly about providing good options when change comes along. Need a new car? There are plenty of efficient models out there now.

Re:Too late about climate change

[denzo]

but the incentives to save energy and resources for a better future are just not there, neither in the developed, nor in the developing world.

Yeah, there's no incentive to buy a fuel-efficient car or energy-saving lightbulbs. Oh wait, yes there is... it's called saving money! I make a consumer-driven decision to buy a 40-highway-MPG car to commute in and CFL lightbulbs, because I like to lower my monthly bills. The higher gasoline and electricity prices become, the more I save. Pure capitalism works well good because the best decisions are made by the consumer; however, pure capitalism does not currently exist in the Free World(TM).

Re:Too late about climate change

[fatphil]

Whilst I have a heater running off a thermostat, incandescant light-bulbs help reduce my heating bill. I shall continue to use these glowing heat-balls until they prize them from my warm dead hands.

Re:Too late about climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

How long does it take to pay off the initial cost of the item though? That's what other posts are getting at. When you replace a worn out item it is easy to go for a more efficient option but the other items that aren't worn out still have a cost. How many years before they pay for themselves? I've seen far too many adverts for so called cost reducing items, such as window glass or even solar panels but they cost X amount in the first place. The break even point is 10-15 years at current costs and that's for an average home. My electricity bill is a third of the national average. I'm not likely to be in my home long enough so I have no monetary incentive.

Re:Too late about climate change

[Shatrat]

Heating your home with electricity is cheaper than heating it with oil or gas or whatever your furnace is using?

Do you leave your TV and computers on 24/7 as well?

Re:Too late about climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he gets free electricity -- it's not hard to run a jumper lead between two service boxes, if you know the apartment maintenance crew. ;)

Re:Too late about climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

My furnace uses electricity. Yes, that’s stupid, but until the kids are through with university/college, that’s the way it’s going to stay. Lots of people in Canada heat with baseboard electricity, because historically, hydro-electricity has been the primary source of electricity and it has been relatively cheap. So no, heating with electricity is not cheaper than with oil or gas, but for many parts of Canada it is not very much more expensive. If I were worried about my heating bill, I would be better off spending money on improving my house’s insulation that spending the same amount changing my type of heating.

Old CRT TVs were on 24x7 to keep the picture tube warmed up so that the TV didn’t take multiple minutes to turn “on”. Flatscreen TVs don’t turn off: they stay in standby mode. Again 24x7. The same is true for the VCR, DVD, and cable/set top box. Some brands of these devices have been shown to have such inefficient standby modes that they might as well be full on.

Our computers get put to sleep, and the sleep modes of the specific models we have are very energy efficient. The cable/wireless box is full on 24x7.

Given that I heat with electricity for more than seven and a half months of the year and that during the time that I am not heating I also have greatly reduced lighting requirements, for me incandescent are cost effective.

Re:Too late about climate change

[fatphil]

It appears you are far too quick to make assumptions about other people's energy use.

My heating is 100% electricity.

I do not have a TV, but I do leave 3 of my 4 computers on 24/7, and the only reason we suspend (but not turn off) the 4th is due to its too audible fan noise. 2 of the machines have only been turned off 2 times in the last 7 years (both when moving property).

Currently my heating is active, therefore my computers are not generating enough heat. Maybe turning my light on will help.

Re:Too late about climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, your purchase of a 40-MPG car is going to be FAR more expensive than somebody else's purchase of a 13-MPG car. New cars cost more than old cars. Sure, the cost of an old car will exceed the cost of a new car in a decade or two depending on driving... But few people keep the car they purchase for >10 years.

Again with the CFLs. I buy them too, but I kind of feel like a moron spending $12 on one CFL vs. $2 on 8 incandescent bulbs. If a CFL EVER breaks or burns out just once, then the investment never pays off. My electricity costs are enormous, not because of heavy usage but because of ancillary fees. Wire polishing fee, administration fee, transportation fee (who the fuck is driving around a truck full of electricity??!), rate rider and other BS fees that inflate my $30 electricity into $120 bills per month!. A CFL may reduce my bill by $2 per year. WOOOPTY-DOO!!

And the captcha is "disagree" hahaha.

Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still a finite resource. Every fossil fuel used is fossil fuel not available to our ancestors. One day it will be gone. How can it not be the single focus of humanity to make a viable renewable energy source? Fix that and we fix a LOT.

Re:Irrelevant

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I don't know about you but most of my ancestors are dead and on their way to trying to become fossil fuels.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Touche Turtle! Obviously I meant descendants although to be pedantic I should point out that it is true to say the fossil fuels will not be available to our ancestors ;-)

Re:Irrelevant

[HarryatRock]

They were available, but our ancestors had enough sense to leave them alone.

You, too

[Sez Zero]

Congrats! You too can have tap water that catches fire.

Re:You, too

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA.. "offshore". So, probably not a problem for tap water.

Re:You, too

[sFurbo]

Congrats! Now you, too, can watch agenda-pushing disguised as documentaries!

Re:You, too

[betterunixthanunix]

Yeah, they staged the burning tapwater, and all those people who said it started happening after the fracking operations began were in on the hoax. One big conspiracy to attack safe, clean fracking technology.

Re:You, too

[L4t3r4lu5]

Care to share with us how you found out about this hoax? The links I can find are either gas industry sites or youtube videos of the phenomenon. I'm accepting neither as impartial.

Re:You, too

[sFurbo]

They didn't fake it, and people didn't lie, but in at least one of the examples in Gasland, the methane have been shown to be naturally occuring, a fact that they somehow forgot to mention in the film. What probably happened is that people have had flammable water for years and years, but have never tested it. How often do you test your water for flammability? After talk started about fracking and water pollution, people in fracking areas have started testing it. They can see that they have flammable water now, and they have never seen it before, what is the natural conclusion? It must be caused by fracking.

Burning water is a red herring in the fracking debate. I understand why people like it, it is very effective demonstration, but problems with fracking is unlikely to show up as flammable water. To keep bringing it up will make it harder to discuss the problems which fracking is likely to cause, and harder to fight the practises which causes these problems.

Re:You, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what happens when THE WHOLE SEA is flammable, and some poor sot flips a butt into the ocean, and 70% OF THE EARTH'S SURFACE is ON FIRE? What then, I say?!

Re:You, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to share with us how you found out about this hoax? The links I can find are either gas industry sites or youtube videos of the phenomenon. I'm accepting neither as impartial.

The state of Colorado published a document explaining what went on in those wells. Basically the water wells were drilled through coal formations, which contained natural gas.

http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

Re:You, too

[TheSync]

Care to share with us how you found out about this hoax?

It is not a hoax, it is just that natural gas occurs in many aquifers: Environment Alberta says "Methane gas occurs naturally in groundwater aquifers in most geological sedimentary basins worldwide...Biogenic methane is produced by subsurface bacteria and is a common natural source of methane gas in groundwater aquifers used for water well supplies...Biogenic gas typically contains above 1000 times more methane than ethane....The results show that the gas contained in the sampled wells is primarily biogenic in origin."

FTW! Frack The World!

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Let's hope that the World doesn't crack . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_world

Bigger Problems Than That

[eldavojohn]

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale. They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it? And in some US states, it appears that when people think they are affected by it the company responsible doesn't have to tell them what their area was exposed to. It's well known that it contaminates water supply but greed can overpower any environmental problems. Luckily we should be able to watch Pennsylvania screw up their own water and hopefully other states will take a different approach.

I wonder how many laws and regulations UKELA will let slide in order for England to "catapult into the top ranks of global producers."

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[sFurbo]

They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it?

Given that it is pumped into oil/gas-carrying rock, it will not seep into the water table. If it could, the oil or gas would be long gone. The problem is that you must pump some of it out to get acces to the oil or gas, and even if it was pure water you pumped down, the water coming up has been in contact with oil and is not clean. With horizontal drilling, you end up with quite a lot of dirty water, and no good way to get rid of it. Another problem is the casing of the pipes going down. It seems to be hard to make sure it is done properly, and if it isn't, you risk the pipe breaking and the fracking fluid running out. As the pipes are necessarily drilled through the aquifer, this is clearly problematic.

It's well known that it contaminates water supply

We have established it in one case with quite a special geologic profile (the fracking happened much closer to the surface than normal). That is a far cry from it being an established, general problem. It is cause for concern, especially for shallow fracking, but I think the two problems I mentioned first are more acute.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many laws and regulations UKELA will let slide in order for England to "catapult into the top ranks of global producers."

As many as it takes.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that it is pumped into oil/gas-carrying rock, it will not seep into the water table. If it could, the oil or gas would be long gone.

Hydraulic fracturing. That oil/gas-carrying rock is fractured in the process. You will state that there is no chance this is released upward or will ultimate find its way upward?

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[sFurbo]

Through kilometers of rock that has held gas for millenia? While "no chance" is extreme, I would say that there are far more relevant concerns with regards to fracking.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Sarten-X]

Through 7 kilometers (4 miles) of rock that's resistant enough to breaking that we drill around it? Through strata that tend to separate horizontally, rather than vertically? There is a chance, but it's roughly the same as the chance that politicians will ever actually talk about the realistic problems with fracking (waste disposal, mostly) rather than the fearmongering (contamination, "peak energy") that's effectively unsupported by any scientific studies.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that it is pumped into oil/gas-carrying rock, it will not seep into the water table.

While gas (CH4: molecular weight 16, gaseous) is lighter than water (H2O: molecular weight 18, liquid), I'm pretty sure that the chemicals they use will be heavier than water. That is, gas would try to go upwards, while the chemicals would try to go downwards. So if the way up is closed but the way down isn't, the gas will be kept there but the chemicals won't.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

England isn't the UK. Most of the reserves are off the coast of Scotland.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

With those arguments, coal mining would have been banned in 1724 and we would never have had the wonders of the industrial revolution.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[denzo]

I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale. They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it?

First, let me put out there that I Am A Frac Engineer (IAAFE), so take what I am about to say for what that's worth...

Sand (or other suitable grain material, known as "proppant") is pumped into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation to keep induced fractures propped open after frac operations have finished, so that such fractures do not close up (negating the effects of creating the fractures in the first place). Sand keeps that "highway" open from the fracture network in the formation to the wellbore, so that oil and gas can freely flow to the production tubulars and up to the surface. I assure you that the intention, by design, is to *keep* the sand in the formation, not "suck it back up".

The best frac fluid by far (for optimum oil and gas production) is plain freshwater with no additives whatsoever. However, in the real world various additives are necessary to make fracturing possible: anti-clay swelling agents (NaCl, KCl) are needed to keep clays in the formation rock from swelling up and closing up pore throats, acrylamide polymers are needed to reduce the pipe friction of water at fracturing rates so that surface pressures are minimized, surfactants are used to reduce the surface tension of the water so that the water does not block up the pores and fissures by capillary effects, guar gum is used to gel up the water so that sands don't settle out of the water too soon (causing the sand to bridge off and block flow), etc. The total concentration of chemical additives used in the frac fluid usually does not exceed 0.5% by volume, and at those concentrations are relatively benign.

Frac fluids are flowed back naturally to surface, not "sucked up". The reason they are flowed back is that, well, you can't immediately tie the well to a sales line and start selling it until the produced fluids meet a certain quality. The first fluids that flow back out are the last you put in (LIFO), so by extension the frac fluid would be the first fluids back to surface (and they aren't worth anything to any gas pipeline companies or oil refiners), so they must be stored in a tank and hauled off to wherever it goes (either disposed of in a permitted waste disposal well, or recycled for other frac jobs).

It's well known that it contaminates water supply but greed can overpower any environmental problems.

No, it is not a well-known fact. It is presumed in some cases, but not proven. The link you cited has many other factors that have contributed to water contamination, including the shallowness of the hydrocarbon-bearing formation, and the fact that surface retention pits were largely unregulated for a certain period of time. Surface pollution *is* well known to cause water contamination. Engineers and geologists also know that if your hydrocarbon-bearing formation is within a few hundred feet of a water table, that hydraulically-induced fractures *can* propagate into them. There are a few scientific methods for measuring hydraulically-induced fracture growth, which have been utilized in every active shale play in the United States.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[sribe]

Given that it is pumped into oil/gas-carrying rock, it will not seep into the water table. If it could, the oil or gas would be long gone.

Yoh, the entire point of "hydraulic fracturing" is to fracture the rock so that the oil/gas can be be brought to the surface. You know, if the process did not allow the oil/gas to reach the surface, it would be kind of pointless wouldn't it?

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[PopeRatzo]

Given that it is pumped into oil/gas-carrying rock, it will not seep into the water table.

Start the countdown to the news announcement that fracking is really "healthy for the Earth" along with pictures of children planting flowers around the site.

There's a guy from some energy corp-funded "Family Council on Freedom, Prosperity and Liberty for Families" who's written a book and doing the circuit of schools and right-wing media and church groups who explains how fossil fuels are just "chewed up plant matter" which is "food for our society" and the fact that it's "chewed up plant matter" is proof that you can't get energy from the sun. Or something. He's a Texan (natch) and has a down-homey way of speech, sort of like if Will Rogers was one of the Koch Brothers.

Fracking - what could go wrong?

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Hatta]

I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale.

I'd be far more worried about where all that CO2 is going to end up. We're already past the tipping point for serious climate change, and they want to increase fossil fuel production? Stupid crazy bastards.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[sFurbo]

The point is to fracture the bed so the gas can make it to the drilling head. From there, there is a pipe taking it to the surface. It is not supposed to reach the surface on its own, how would you use that?

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for anon due to mod points:

As some one who knows an EPA worker who is heavily involved in fracking, I can say that you are wrong about the contamination. We discussed this issue over dinner last week, and I quote,"Yeah, fracking has definitely been shown to contaminate the water supply, but only when it's done wrong."
Now I don't have citations to back me up on that, but there you go.

Personally, I think the question sounds like it ought to be: "Is it possible to do it right %99.999 of the time so that we're unlikely to contaminate large water reserves?"

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[sFurbo]

A lot of things can go wrong, but several kilometers of cap rock cracking is not near the top of that list. If we keep discussing it as if it is, we will not get anything done to the things that are actually likely to happen, hell, that does happen when people frack.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funnier than that. These rocks also already contain all sorts of exotic and potentially toxic hydrocarbons. Naturally. After all, that's the reason that these formations are interesting in the first place: they're already laced with hydrocarbons. Yet people drill their wells into them and assume it will be as pure as distilled water if it wasn't for the darn petroleum industry injecting fluids to fracture the rock.

Of course, in reality nobody drills their water wells that deep anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point either way. The most significant source of potential contamination of groundwater (in the interval where humans actually draw on it -- close to the surface) is from human activities on the surface such as agriculture and surface industry, not deep petroleum exploration wells.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[sribe]

The point is to fracture the bed so the gas can make it to the drilling head.

No shit, sherlock. However, you have now fractured the rock that has contained it for millions of years. How exactly do you defend the argument that the now-fractured rock formation will contained the fracking chemicals???

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[10101001 10101001]

Well, I guess the question then becomes, is this strata similar to, say, shatter-resistant glass? And if so, what do you imagine would happen if you first (a) drilled through several separate panes/layers of shatter-resistant glass over a lower chamber of gas and then (b) stared pumping water into that chamber greatly increasing the pressure, even if it's for a short time, then sucking out the gas and water greatly decreasing the pressure? I mean, I recognize rock is a lot harder than glass. But, if drilling fractures rock along the way and there's a sudden shift in pressure, I could certainly see that that causing a bubbling up of gas and waste water. I mean, as I understand it, things like gysers function, although that's admittedly only on the order of 2 kilometers, and I can readily see that making a huge difference. Then again, gysers are a byproduct of water seeping down naturally then up which I'd presume limit both the time scale and the likely depth while forcing water down much further might have a rather different effect.

Having said all that, yes, waste disposal is probably a bigger issue anyways, given I'd presume that's of a much larger volume.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[ColdWetDog]

Nice description but I think it would be better as a car analogy....

The one bit that you didn't mention (on top of 100+ years of the minutia of drilling technology) is the casing. That seems to be where many of the problems have occurred (the other is bad water disposal practices - mostly a political issue rather than a technical one). As the well is drilled, pieces of pipe are dropped in to create an open bore. It isn't just one giant piece of metal, it's a series of tubes. Of different sizes and types. They are sealed via several methods but the most problematic one is cementing. It is a complicated, expensive process and, in fact, the primary reason that the Macondo well failed.

If you don't cement properly stuff leaks out. Hydrocarbons, all the icky stuff in the fracking fluid. Drilling mud (which isn't so terribly benign by itself).

IANACI (I am not a cementing engineer) but from my limited petrogeology courses a billion years ago and my reading of the issue it's like many complex, high tech things - you can take the time and money to do it right, or you can cheat and try to cheap out. Which often works, but when it fails, it makes an unholy mess.

Fracking is one of those things that needs to be done correctly. All of the time. It can be done, it has been done in many places (Horizontal fracturing has been done extensively for 50+ years and is only now the current boggie man). There are places where it can be done (relatively) safely. There are places where it shouldn't be done at all and all manner in between.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[ColdWetDog]

Actually, the wikipedia article I cited was mostly about the casing - but it's just part of the same issue and problem. You can screw a well up in a variety of entertaining and expensive ways.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[DesScorp]

Given that it is pumped into oil/gas-carrying rock, it will not seep into the water table.

Start the countdown to the news announcement that fracking is really "healthy for the Earth" along with pictures of children planting flowers around the site.

Sure, right after the countdown that were doomed, doomed if we do it, and that our only hope is wind powered cars.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Weatherlawyer]

What I like about the obfuscation is the excuse that it is a secret recipe. As if they had spent money on research to find the best fracking agents rather than accepted consignments of agent orange and various orthophosphates the military and their suppliers no longer want to have hanging around.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[chill]

Uh, they're fracturing the rock layer down a few Km where the gas is, not the Km of rock on top of it. You still have layers upon layers of rock on top that is just as it was, except with a bore hole through one point.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[s122604]

Fine, when you do it wrong, you can have problems

ANY kind of petroleum extraction can, and does, have problems.
Issues with an on-shore hydrofracking operation are far easier than dealing with an issue in deep water
It is unwise economically, and I dare say immoral, to use energy, but demand it come from somewhere else.
My furnace doesn't run on fairy sweat and neither does anyone else's.
We (meaning the "west" in general) would be far better off economically, and even environmentally, if we ran more of our transport on natural gas.
It's also a great compliment to alternative energy sources like wind and solar, given the extreme reliability and variablility of a well desigined combined cycle natural gas electric generation plant.

People are slimy, and the petroleum industry is especially so, so tough, enforcable, and actively enforced regulations are needed, but lets not throw the baby out with the (natural gas heated) bathwater...

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[sribe]

You still have layers upon layers of rock on top that is just as it was, except with a bore hole through one point.

Maybe, or maybe those layers are not actually quite just as they were before. Also, some of the aquifers go really deep, and there's plenty of migration through some of those "layers upon layers of rock". And of course you also need to claim that after the earthquakes, all those layers will still be intact. That's quite a succession of dependent claims to assert...

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Pax681]

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale. They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it? And in some US states, it appears that when people think they are affected by it the company responsible doesn't have to tell them what their area was exposed to. It's well known that it contaminates water supply but greed can overpower any environmental problems. Luckily we should be able to watch Pennsylvania screw up their own water and hopefully other states will take a different approach. I wonder how many laws and regulations UKELA will let slide in order for England to "catapult into the top ranks of global producers."

hate to break it to you but ALL the offshore gas mentioned is in Scottish territorial waters and we'll be taking them with us after the 2014 Independence referendum win ;)

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[RobertLTux]

and Scotland is well ready to stop England from leaching off them.

All hail the Allbannach!! (btw they have an albumn that you can download for free on their website)

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[sFurbo]

The most significant source of potential contamination of groundwater [...] is from human activities on the surface such as agriculture and surface industry [...]

Or oil drilling operations on the surface. Which is my entire point: If an oil or gas well is going to pollute the surrounding area, the pollution will probably originate from the above-ground activity. Focusing on fracking misses the most likely point of pollution.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Pax681]

England isn't the UK. Most of the reserves are off the coast of Scotland.

well sir ALL the "uk" offshore reserves are in Scottish waters.
in 199 when that tony bliar devloved the Scottish parliament(and how they wish they didn't now..LOL)
he also snatched 6,000 square miles of Scottish territorial waters in the north sea! See here for map with old and nw territorial lines
Here is what is called the "statutory instrument" that did it
and http://www.oilofscotland.org/scotlands_stolen_sea.html is the site to check out about the whole story.....
when you sail Easy from St Andrews which is in Fife and go out 12 miles , somehow you are then in english waters now.. it's fucking insanity...
however come that day after 2014 when we do become independent we'll be having that back thanks very much.
"UK" gas my aching ass! it's Scottish!!!

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[couchslug]

"England isn't the UK. Most of the reserves are off the coast of Scotland."

It's all part of that amorphous blob Americans know so well from documentaries like Benny Hill and Top Gear.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[couchslug]

What practical separation technologies exist for separating the water from "the rest of" frac fluid?

Would evaporation be practical?

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Pax681]

Alba Gu Brath mo' charaid!
Aye Albannach kick ass.... just keep Jaimsie away fae yer wummin! LOL
fantastic tos ee live and i'll be seeing them soon as Bannockburn in june :P

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Sarten-X]

Your analogy doesn't make sense. The drilling does not affect the rock in the way that drilling through a glass plate would.

Fracking is not new. Only the debate is. One of the reasons hydraulic fracturing is economically feasible now is the addition of directional drilling technologies, allowing drills to go around geologic formations that can't be passed through. Previously, going through the one small hole of softer rock would let the well extract only the gas from directly below it. With directional drilling, that hole allows access to a wide area beneath the would-be barrier.

Perhaps a more appropriate analogy is that a wall with a window in it is only weakened if the window installer's an idiot.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Pax681]

I heard that most of it is off the Shetlands and Orkneys, and that many of the islanders were considering not seceding...

sorry bud, the only person on those islands that want to break from Scotland.........one english guy who got marooned of Orkney when he ran aground there....
So sorry that dog don't hunt at all, in fact, in plain simple english... it's utter bollocks the guy is widely regarded by the locals as a raging nutbar
Also you'll find that it's mostly oil off Orkney and the Shetlands, there is *some* gas, as there always is but that's not where the massive bulk of it is bud

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Hatta]

"Clean" fossil fuels are a fucking lie. We'd be better off with all the other polution from coal and no CO2 than we would be with all the CO2 from natural gas and none of the other emissions.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[BlueStrat]

I'd be far more worried about where all that CO2 is going to end up. We're already past the tipping point for serious climate change, and they want to increase fossil fuel production? Stupid crazy bastards.

So, are YOU going to turn off YOUR heat this winter? Or do you just want "those people over there" to freeze this winter? All the while keeping yourself nice & toasty while exporting all the production negatives to less-developed regions of the world for poorer people to suffer with?

Sorry to break this to you, but alternative energy is nowhere near able to supply even a decent fraction of the needs of ~7 billion people (and growing). Even at multiple-national-economy-wrecking levels of investment in alternative energy, it will still take at least 5 decades or more for alternative energy and the infrastructure necessary to be able to supply even a significant fraction of the world's energy needs. *Much* longer to be able to supply a majority. Until then, those people still need energy.

Unless, of course, you're willing to wipe out several billion people and force the rest into a primitive hunter-gatherer level of development. Are you one of those people that think that whole "coming down out of the trees, standing upright, and using fire" thing was a bad idea that you'd like to see reversed?

Strat

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[BlueStrat]

We'd be better off with all the other polution from coal and no CO2 than we would be with all the CO2 from natural gas and none of the other emissions.

This is the kind of ignorant nonsense that makes people stop listening to you. You get CO2 when burning just about anything, including coal.

If you're incapable of even understanding that much extremely basic early-grade-school science, why in $DEITY's name should we listen to anything you have to say on the subject? One could probably get better answers asking a chimp at the zoo about quantum theory.

Sheesh! What has this place become? "News For Luddites, Stuff That Splatters"??

Strat

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Hatta]

We'd be better off with all the other polution from coal and no CO2 than we would be with all the CO2 from natural gas and none of the other emissions.

This is the kind of ignorant nonsense that makes people stop listening to you.

WTF are you talking about? Are you too stupid to know a hypothetical when you see one? Why do you think I put that "other" in my sentence? Because CO2 is part of the pollution coal produces, but not the part I'm talking about for that example.

My point is that CO2 is the major problem when burning any fossil fuel. Calling any fossil fuel clean is disingenuous.

You get CO2 when burning just about anything, including coal.

Which is exactly why we need to stop burning anything. Including shale oil.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Cederic]

That's fine, if Scotland ever goes independent I'll work in England so I benefit from the employment, weather and quality of life then retire in Scotland to benefit from the healthcare and pension paid for by the oil wealth. With the added bonus that my annuity rates will be vastly improved if I move to Scotland just before taking them out.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that, in that one case, the cause of water contamination was not hydraulic fracturing, but instead the entirely unrelated "hydrocarbon-bearing formation" and the "surface retention pits". I see. Surface pollution.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Superdad]

In the UK, our (minute) onshore drilling industry has an admirable environmental record; the flagship field at Wytch Farm in Dorset is almost invisble (you really have to search for it), and even though its situated in a envornmentally sensitive protected area, it has won awards for its low impact. Onshore can be done well.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Superdad]

Hmmm. And between England and Holland too.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[sFurbo]

I'm glad to hear of it.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[MightyMartian]

With polling still barely able to crack 40 percent, it's extremely unlikely that Scotland will vote for independence. And before you bring up SNP's successes, a quick look at Quebec tells you that a vote for a secessionist party is not a vote for secession. As much as anything SNP's success in the last election has much more to do with the collapse of Labour support in Scotland than with any particular desire for independence. Two of every three Scots still wants to remain part of the UK.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[flyingfsck]

The shale gas is 7 to 8 kilometers down under solid rock. The reason it is down there, is because the rock above it is impermeable, otherwise it would have escaped millions of years ago already. Drinkable ground water is in the upper 0.1 kilometer of the crust. There is no way for the 'water and chemicals' to get into the drinking water, unless the gas well itself is faulty and needs a new sleeve.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[MightyMartian]

I think we should have but one regulation. If your oil company fouls up the environment, your CEO, senior management, the board of directors, and the top ten investors are taken out and shot (and if the investor is another company, then you start with their board and their management).

I think you'd probably have significantly fewer problems if the guys at the top knew a bullet waited for them if they contaminated groundwater, or say, a big fucking chunk of the Gulf of Mexico.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Pax681]

and if you look at my other posts it gives you a total run down of the political situation in Scotland..
you unionists make me laugh my balls off.. ALL you ever come out with is negativity and BS nonsense
the ONLY poll that matters really is the one in 2014. the council election will give an indication but labour have already said they will lose and lose HUGE.....

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Pax681]

ROFL and you assume that Scotland will have lower employment?
you do realise that Scotland is actually in SURPLUS, and that's a fact.. westminster drags us down and people like YOU!

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[MightyMartian]

The same thing will happen when the price of oil skyrockets. Continuing the addiction to fossil fuels is a dead end road, no matter whether you accept AGW or not. At the very least, we should be taxing the living fuck out of energy companies, or giving them a carrot if they invest a substantial amount of their profits into alternative energies, because when the price of a barrel of oil becomes too high, it isn't just your car that grinds to a halt, but agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and a thousand manufacturing processes that either rely on long-chain hydrocarbons for fuel or as the raw material.

In fact, using fossil fuels as energy is possibly the most moronic thing you can do with those long chain hydrocarbons, and our descendants will be pissing on our graves for wasting them in SUVs and jet airplanes.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[BlueStrat]

Which is exactly why we need to stop burning anything. Including shale oil.

So, I'll ask you what I asked further up the thread.

So, are YOU going to turn off YOUR heat this winter? Or do you just want "those people over there" to freeze this winter? All the while keeping yourself nice & toasty while exporting all the production negatives to less-developed regions of the world for poorer people to suffer with?

Sorry to break this to you, but alternative energy is nowhere near able to supply even a decent fraction of the needs of ~7 billion people (and growing). Even at multiple-national-economy-wrecking levels of investment in alternative energy, it will still take at least 5 decades or more for alternative energy and the infrastructure necessary to be able to supply even a significant fraction of the world's energy needs. *Much* longer to be able to supply a majority. Until then, those people still need energy.

Unless, of course, you're willing to wipe out several billion people and force the rest into a primitive hunter-gatherer level of development. Are you one of those people that think that whole "coming down out of the trees, standing upright, and using fire" thing was a bad idea that you'd like to see reversed?

It's quite easy to scream & rail against our current petroleum use. It's much, MUCH harder to actually come up with a reasonable, viable, practical solution that doesn't require people to live like it's 1499 and/or require implementing mass worldwide genocide through intentional starvation, freezing to death, and lack of modern medical care.

There is a real and not-insignificant cost in human life that is rarely ever considered by those who scream to stop/severely limit all oil/gas/coal use NOW!!! The fact that many are NIMBY-ists that prefer that "those brown people over there" live with the costs in environmental damage to support THEIR lifestyle and standard of living just adds to the dis-ingenuousness of their arguments.

Strat

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Hatta]

It's not as hard as you think. We need to be building modern nuclear power everywhere. In my backyard is fine, I already have two nuclear plants within 80 miles of my home. Nuclear power is already safer per watt than any other green power except for geo-thermal. And that's with decades old designs.

If we don't do this, we'll be sentencing several billion people to death anyway.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

When you finish with the well, you plug it with cement (artificial rock). Standard practice.

And the fractures don't extend kilometres up towards the surface. They extend perhaps tens of metres if you are lucky.

The now-fractured rock containing the fracking chemicals (that aren't flushed back up the borehole when you put the well into production) is kms below the level of groundwater that is tapped by wells used for drinking water or other purposes.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[MightyMartian]

First of all, I'm not British, so I have no particular horse in the race. But the facts themselves speak volumes:

1. No poll has ever put support anywhere close to 50 percent.
2. The SNP's successes have come in large part because of the decline in Labour support.
3. Considering point 2, one cannot thus assume that support for independence is equal to that of support for the SNP. The SNP appears to be the equivalent of the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois in Quebec, a placeholder party for the so-called "soft nationalists".
4. There are no lack of hotheads in England and Scotland making rude noises at each other, but there's no indication that general sentiment can be gauged by the usual gang of lunatics.

My feeling is that the UK is heading slowly (and awkwardly) towards becoming a federated state; more in the model of Canada or Germany. It probably should have been done three hundred years ago, but I don't think political science had quite evolved to the point where one could fathom a federal government with internal states holding some limited sovereignty. The best example they had at the time was the Holy Roman Empire, which had basically rendered the central government nothing more than a fancy dress party.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[BlueStrat]

The same thing will happen when the price of oil skyrockets.

And

we should be taxing the living fuck out of energy companies

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oil companies don't pay taxes. Businesses don't pay taxes. Taxes on oil companies and other businesses is just a way to tax the people without political blow-back from angry citizens by obfuscation.

or giving them a carrot if they invest a substantial amount of their profits into alternative energies,

That's already happening. Oil companies want to be the leaders in developing alternative energy. They invest heavily. Unlike the MAFIAA or RIAA/labels, they see the business models for energy changing and are determined to be on the leading edge to remain in business as "energy companies".

You still didn't answer the problem of how, if alternative energy sources are not ready yet for prime-time (and they most certainly are NOT!), are people to stay warm and fed for the decades it will realistically take until they are?

Magic Gaia organic energy beans?

Strat

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Cederic]

Stop trolling. How the hell am I dragging you down, when my tax bill alone is higher than the average wage in Scotland, when my cash benefits from the Government are zero, when the net spending per person in my area is lower than it is in Scotland?

I don't care if Scotland's in surplus or not, including or excluding North Sea oil: right now Scotland has a lower rate of employment than the part of the UK in which I'm living.

Can you at least use some basic facts rather than SNP propaganda? You sound like a small child bleating that it's all so unfair.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[MightyMartian]

They'll never be ready as long as we keep underwriting oil exploration, or at least not diverting a hefty amount of money towards research. I doubt oil companies are all that interested in alternatives, because the mid-term view is that as long as the price of a barrel goes up, they make more money.

We have a lot of at least partially workable solutions. Nothing perfect, but then again, as I said, the use of long-chain hydrocarbons to run vehicles is idiocy in the extreme, no matter how you look at it. It is possibly the most ludicrous, incompetent and irresponsible use of a precious resource I can think of save perhaps for water fountains in Las Vegas.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[BlueStrat]

They'll never be ready as long as we keep underwriting oil exploration, or at least not diverting a hefty amount of money towards research.

That's the great thing about Capitalism (no, not what the US has had for the last >50 years thanks to Progressives). When alternative energy is efficient and practical enough, people will be able to make money from it, and then it's adoption will explode.

Trying to force it's adoption through government mandates before it's ready will only lead to widespread suffering and conflict, and may well result in public perceptions turning so negative towards it that adoption could be delayed decades or centuries. Much like we've seen with public perceptions of AGW and those behind it. There are always unintended consequences in the real world.

Strat

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's a series of tubes.

So it's actually an Internet analogy?

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Attila Dimedici]

I think your regulation is a bit extreme, but the idea of a single regulation like that with rather severe penalties is the right idea.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Pax681]

well why don't you stay there?
btw i am NOT an SNP member and the facts i have quoted here are freely available to people with the brains to look for them.
the imbalance in wages is something to be addressed
Also what has happened to Scotland actually IS unfair... but it seems that you, like like a typical unionist would rather attack the messenger than properly try to refute the message and this message happens to be factual

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Cederic]

Also what has happened to Scotland actually IS unfair

Only if you're living in the 17th century still. The rest of us have moved on.

you, like like a typical unionist

However, unlike unlike a typical unionist, I'd actually vote for Scottish independence. I'd split off Wales, Northern Ireland and Yorkshire too. Frankly these things are pretty arbitrary anyway and too many idiots get hung up on where a line is drawn on a map.

I'd keep Wiltshire though. I like Wiltshire. Actually, that whole band of the country, from Wiltshire and Bristol, up through Gloucester and Oxford, incorporating Hereford and Worcester, cutting across to include Kettering and then skirting below Birmingham, past Derby (which is awful) and through Nottingham into Lincolnshire.

But then, I like Denmark too. It's clean and civilised and the people are friendly and have wonderful accents. Can I swap Scotland for Denmark?

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Pax681]

i used to live in Wiltshire, know it well, i was in Devizes and used to drink waddies in the moonraker
and i am NOT talking about the 17th century, the fact we contribute a MASSIVE amount more than we get back and a whole heck of a lot more
if you like Denmark so much.. bugger off there bud and.. your taunting voodoo is weak as water

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh! What has this place become? "News For Luddites, Stuff That Splatters"??

Strat

Self-loathing to unwarranted self importance in less than 24 hours. Quite the turnaround.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[rtb61]

The focus on fracking though is getting as much methane gas out of the well as possible and generating a profit. Clearly in the US they knew most wells would fail which is why the had Darth Cheney arrange a get out of jail free card, basically legislation which allows them to pollute.

Fracking is all about turning rock formations into giant soda fountains and hoping to draw enough methane out at the 'designed' pressure drop point to generate a profit. Everyone by now must have seen the water from a tap burnings vids, well exactly how much methane a more severe greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere in a relative short time at these sites or has no one bothered to check.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[tehcyder]

i used to live in Wiltshire, know it well, i was in Devizes and used to drink waddies in the moonraker

As someone who used to live in Wiltshire, I can only apologise for Devizes, and quite understand why it has made you bitter about England.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Xest]

Your abysmal English, complete inability to argue based on facts, and blatant populist nationalistic rhetoric only further reaffirms my view that if the rest of the UK no longer has to subsidise the likes of the education system for people like you who despite said subsidy still demonstrate a horrendously poor level of education then Scottish independence is indeed a good thing.

The only question is what excuse you're going to use when all those islands around Scotland, whom are actually closest to the oil decide they'd rather stay with the UK meaning that all such oil and gas reserves actually remain in UK territorial waters.

Still, at least when they do you will have an excuse for yourself as to why the Scotland experiment failed and you become the next Greece. At that point you could probably protest about something in the streets, but with Salmond insisting he has powers he does not, throwing away the rights of Scotsmen who want to keep their land in favour of billionaire Americans like Trump, and generally trying to fiddle the referendum by eliminating as many Scots who are unlikely to vote for him as possible then I'm not sure you'll even have the freedom to do that.

Either way I'm sure it'll be a lot of fun for you.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[RockDoctor]

Of course, in reality nobody drills their water wells that deep anyway,

Given that the article (which I haven't bothered to read - it's probably just a re-hash of the BGS report that was released a week or so ago, which I did read) is discussing the UK's potential reserves of offshore shale gas, then a couple of points are relevant : firstly, almost no-one in the UK operates private wells for water supplies, almost everyone is on the piped water system. Secondly, almost no-one in the UK lives offshore, where the reserves under discussion are.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[RockDoctor]

In the UK, our (minute) onshore drilling industry

That's a pretty accurate one-word summary of the industry. Having done 4 wells onshore-UK, that makes me one of the more experienced people for the region.

has an admirable environmental record;

... two of those wells having been drilled in a Nature Reserve, but not the one at Wytch Farm.

Onshore can be done well.

That's not the right thing to say. Have you been boiling your babies before you eat them, or are you just eating them raw? It's patently obvious that you're using something invalid to inform you about these matters, instead of swinging an organic hand-knitted Tibetan tofu phalloform pointer over the Ouija board in the approved manner. Pickled eggs be thy penance!

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[Superdad]

Having done 4 wells onshore-UK

... two of those wells having been drilled in a Nature Reserve, but not the one at Wytch Farm.

Not quite. Wytch Farm field has/had 104 wells drilled across 8 well sites. And the field lies beneath a combination of National Nature Reserve, National Trust, and SSSI land. Its true that not all the 8 sites are on that land, but some are, and others are adjacent, so the impact could have been significant, but wasn't.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That

[RockDoctor]

There are onshore oilfields operating in the UK which are not part of the Wytch Farm complex, some of which I've worked on.

• - In Nottinghamshire, around the village of Eakring (where Kenting used to have their rig-base, though I don't know if they're still there), they've been drilling and producing since approximately 1935.
• - Wytch Farm is, as you say, the biggie.
• - Across the valley from Goodwood racecourse, above a village called Singleton, on a wooded hilltop in a nature reserve, is a modest field producing from a single pad ; I've worked on that site, back when it had two slots in production with cellars cut for another two wells. I recently saw it on a TV news program (pointing out a bit of concrete to the wife and saying "I used to work *there*. Before they laid the concrete." Pointing at a bank of exposed Chalk and saying "*That* echinoid on the bookshelf came from *there*." Spot the geologist!), and it looks as if they'd put in a second skidway, presumably to take the site up to 8 wells. It was called "Singleton" when I was there, but it's changed owners several times since then and may have changed names.
• - Along the strike of that South Downs cuesta there are a number of other prospects. Last year there was a call for tender for personnel to work on a couple of exploration wells in the Weald, but I took a project abroad instead.

Given the current good state of oil prices, I can see more prospects being dusted off along that coast. "Nimbys ahoy!"

Fracking is here to stay.

[Karmashock]

Get used to it. This is one of those technologies we can't afford not to exploit.

The people most enthusiastic about it are the eastern Europeans... it means freedom from Russian energy supplies. And I suspect the Israelis are looking into it rather deeply now that the Egyptians are interfering with their natural gas supply.

This technology is going to mean liberation and stability for nations... against those pros you're going to need some substantive cons.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[msobkow]

You mean cons like pollution of the ground water, causing minor earthquakes, and being left with hundreds of thousands or millions of gallons of polluted material that you need to do something with?

If we spent a tenth of what we do on exploration and "extraction technology" on the development of bio-diesel crops such as cannabis and canola, we'd not only free ourselves from dependency on oil and gas reserves, we'd be using a fuel that actually consumes CO2 during it's growth phase.

Some even claim that hemp-based bio-diesel is carbon negative when you consider the full production cycle, and I'd dearly love to see that theory tested.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[msobkow]

I like to think of bio-diesel as the most effective and practical means of storing solar energy that there is.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[jaymemaurice]

What about poppy seed bio-diesel. Would you like to see that tested too?

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is this "we" that cannot afford not to exploit it? Who are "you" to dictate what "we" should be doing? The people that are most enthusiastic about it are the people that stand to make huge profits as the technology is talked up in the press greatly increasing share prices. The same people who will rather fortuitously have cashed out not long before it's realised it doesn't live up to the hype. Would it not be bad enough if it only poisoned the land and water, or if it only caused earthquakes, or if it only was a large scam to fleece people who believe in it. The high probability of it being all three of those things is however somewhat distressing.

It's hardly the only option for energy self sufficiency is it? Aside from the fact it's hardly self sufficiency when you have to pay for the rights to use some American company's secret formula. Seeking energy independence is also somewhat counter to the whole scheme cooked up in the wake of the WW2 to get the entire world so bound by trade that it was in everybody's interests to work to avoid another global war.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[__aaltlg1547]

Yeah we should totally convert our cropland to producing fuel to heat homesand move cars because people don't need to eat food.

Where do I sign up?

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[PopeRatzo]

Get used to it. This is one of those technologies we can't afford not to exploit.

Just like slave labor from the Third World.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[blind biker]

Get used to it. This is one of those technologies we can't afford not to exploit.

The people most enthusiastic about it are the eastern Europeans... it means freedom from Russian energy supplies. And I suspect the Israelis are looking into it rather deeply now that the Egyptians are interfering with their natural gas supply.

This technology is going to mean liberation and stability for nations... against those pros you're going to need some substantive cons.

While I am personally strongly against fraking... I can't find much to object with your post. Regrettably, I think you're right.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't bad, but when you consider the fact that you have to burn it in order to recover that energy, there may be alternatives that are more efficient if you consider the full-cycle efficiency (both collecting, storing, and then using it). There's also the sheer quantity of biofuel that would be required in order to replace a significant amount of current oil and gas supply. It would put severe strain on agriculture to implement it on a meaningful scale. It's worth experimenting with, but it's not a panacea.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems promise of fracking is failing in Poland.

Exxon, the largest U.S. gas producer after its 2010 acquisition of shale driller XTO Energy, failed in its first two efforts to crack gas-rich shale fields in Poland. Gas discovered in a pair of wells finished during the final three months of last year didn't flow, even after the company used high-pressure jets of water and sand to create fissures in the rocks.

"Some of the shales don't respond as well to hydraulic fracturing," Tillerson said. "It's going to take research and time in the lab to understand that."

Some parts of U.S. shale formations also have proven impervious to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, he said

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20120327_49_E4_CUTLIN375730

This technology is going to mean liberation and stability for nations.

Bullshit. It just means pass the buck down the road 10 years or maybe 1 generation. The ecological damage just multiplies. Stability for nations means energy independence for long term. It means things like renewables and nuclear, not things that deplete within a few years.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[Raenex]

[Fracking] is one of those technologies we can't afford not to exploit.

Then it should be done right. No "trust us" and "our ingredients our secret" bullshit. Mandatory testing of water supplies both before and after should be done, and all materials used in fracking should have a chemical signature added unique to the site to make identification of leaks easy.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[narcberry]

should eventually make reserves commercially viable

... just like the fusion reactor.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[Karmashock]

So long as you don't stop the fracking, that should be fine.

Understand. Stopping it is off the table as an ultimatum. The economics will pile drive any opposition into the ground that interferes with the process now. There is too much money and REAL interest in the technology now.

You can't stop it. You can SUGGEST how to improve it. But its going to happen.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[Karmashock]

All you'd have to do is find a con that's worth dog vomit and you might be able to stop it. So far, the anti fracking people haven't found a con that measures up.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[Karmashock]

You mean sweatshop labor... not the same thing as slave labor.

Re:Fracking is here to stay.

[Karmashock]

Those cons aren't substantive. They're speculative.

If you want to stop something providing REAL benefits you need to show REAL cons. Actually really real.

Britain is Back!

[PacRim Jim]

Might I suggest Britain's 21st-century slogan: Britain is back, baby!

Re:Britain is Back!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Surely you mean Scotland? :D Are these in Scottish waters or English?

Re:Britain is Back!

[rapiddescent]

The current "find" on the Lancashire coast (in England) but it is thought that the gas shale will will extend much further (it just hasn't been properly found yet) to Northern Ireland. Only the northern part of the Irish Sea is in (what might become) Scottish waters.

Central Scotland has had oil shale mining in the 1800's near Broxburn on the outskirts of Edinburgh. If you have been in the area, you can see huge bings at the end of Edinburgh airport's runway and by the M9 motorway - this was from the old mining activity.

Re:Britain is Back!

[rHBa]

The article doesn't mention exactly where these shale deposits are (although it does make a vague reference to the UKs North Sea operations). However it doesn't make any difference because Scotland is part of Britain anyway. FYI:

$GreatBritain = array('England','Scotland','Wales');

$UnitedKingdom = array($GreatBritain,'Northern Ireland');

Re:Britain is Back!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Well, for now. If more major resources are found in Scottish waters I can definetely see the independence movement getting a big lift from it.

Reserves != recoverable

[DaveyJJ]

Ah, the mighty and breathless media not understanding (again) that reserves != recoverable. There's a lot of water on the planet but not much of it is actually drinkable or in a form available to drink. Furthermore, the process to remove said shale "gas" involves seismic activity and a nasty, nasty (and highly secret) brew of toxic chemicals.

Re:Reserves != recoverable

[Swampash]

Yeah, it's like saying that because Britain lies above the Earth's iron-nickel core, Britain has enormous untapped mineral resources.

Re:Reserves != recoverable

[hrvatska]

Does fracking have to use toxic chemicals, or are those used because it's the cheapest alternative to industry?

Re:Reserves != recoverable

[sFurbo]

If I understand it correctly, there are three main components of fracking fluid:
1: Water. Just the carrier, but it is by far the largest part. Under high pressure it forces open cracks in the rock.
2: Sand. It is pressed into the newly formed cracks to stop them closing when the pressure is removed.
3: Surfactants. This is where the toxic chemicals show up. It makes up a very little part of the fracking fluid, but because so much is used, the total amount can become quite large. It is used to make sure the water get into every crack.
It would seem that fracking can be done without surfactants, but it would be less efficient. Surfactants are generally not that good for the environment, so I would be sceptical as to whether sustituting the ones used today would make much of a difference.

However, there is another problem. Some of the fracking fluid comes up again when the pressure is released. This has been in contact with oil, so it is extremely dirty. What to do with this water is a big problem that can't be removed from fracking.

Re:Reserves != recoverable

[wmaker]

not secret at all, please visit: http://fracfocus.org/

Re:Reserves != recoverable

[wmaker]

recycle it! http://www.askchesapeake.com/Pages/Aqua-Renew.aspx

Re:Reserves != recoverable

[T Murphy]

and a nasty, nasty (and highly secret) brew of toxic chemicals.

I was of the impression that the fossil fuels they're going for are rather toxic themselves. What's your point?

Not the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Britain may have enough offshore shale gas to catapult it into the top ranks of global producers

You mean, soon-to-be-independent Scotland has enough gas to tell you to sod off /duck

The WORLD has dodged a bullet (sort of)

[wisebabo]

Look I'm as concerned (and convinced) about environmental damage and global warming as anyone. But finding immense reserves of natural gas in the U.S. and now the UK can only be a good thing. It should buy us a few decades of relatively cheap, relatively low carbon producing (well at least compared to coal and oil shale) energy. If it's cheap enough (or if we aren't too cheap ourselves) we can use the energy to PULL CO2 from the atmosphere (I've heard a measly 10% increase in the cost of electricity would pay for it!).

Ok, if we insist on being idiots, we're still gonna get somewhat screwed by global warming, but hopefully we won't lose more than a few million species and displace no more than a few hundred million people (*SIGH*). The environmental damage from shale gas, while significant, is on a local level and the earthquakes are nothing to be afraid of (I'm from CA so I know earthquakes). Sorry for the low expectations but I'll take this as GOOD news.

The BEST thing about this is that we won't be supporting (as much) people who hate us and want to blow us up. (What is about this that Republicans don't understand? That SUVs = terrorists.) Also the jobs that are created will be on-shore (or just off-shore).

Re:The WORLD has dodged a bullet (sort of)

[ArcherB]

The BEST thing about this is that we won't be supporting (as much) people who hate us and want to blow us up. (What is about this that Republicans don't understand? That SUVs = terrorists.) Also the jobs that are created will be on-shore (or just off-shore).

Oh, no! We understand completely. That is why we keep pushing for domestic oil production. We're even OK with oil from places close by like Canada and Mexico. Personally, I'd even be OK with a tax on domestically produced energy to fund renewable energy research. Liberals even oppose this idea.

It's the liberals and "tree-huggers" that oppose this. Republicans have been pushing for domestic production for decades, only to be blocked by liberals in powerful places. ANWR is a fine example. I remember hearing how it would take ten years for the ANWR to be at full production. That was 11 years ago. And yet, even today, we may not drill in ANWR.

Liberals have always been against domestic oil production. I remember going to my wife's graduation, before Global Warming was even a blip on the radar, and being handed a flier talking about Cheney's links with "Big Oil". It's not global warming that liberals are worried about. I think they are just mad that someone is making money off of oil and they absolutely hate "fat cats". Southern talking, string tie wearing, "found oil in my back yard while shooting possum", big oil fat cats are the ones they hate the most.

Re:The WORLD has dodged a bullet (sort of)

[ColdWetDog]

It should buy us a few decades of relatively cheap, relatively low carbon producing (well at least compared to coal and oil shale) energy.

Did you miss the part where TFA stated that oil needed to go to $200 a barrel for these reserves to be economically recoverable?

Re:The WORLD has dodged a bullet (sort of)

[fnj]

SUVS = terrorists? That is about the most nonsensical statement I ever heard, and I have heard a LOT of nonsense. Extreme animosity = terrorists, and the most usual forces driving extreme animosity are racial and religious hatred.

Price

[hrvatska]

This new source of energy may not come cheap. If you think the cost of gasoline and diesel is too expensive now, this new source of fuel may be much more expensive. As the article notes, this gas may not be worth recovering until we see "vastly higher energy costs, perhaps as high as $200 (per barrel) or more." If you can't afford to operate your car with $150/bbl oil you are even less likely to be able to be able to run it with $200/bbl equivalent natural gas. Vast reserves of recoverable methane might spur research into developing a practical methane fuel cell. If one were to be developed it could dramatically change a lot of things. I have no idea whether we'll see a practical methane fuel cell before we see practical fusion power, though.

Re:Price

[AdrianKemp]

Well even as early as next year decent plug-in hybrids are coming on the market with many more to come.

I'd say the concern is more bridging the central production problem until people either stop being scared of fission/they get fusion sorted/we fix the storage issue with renewables.

For the central production problem, large reserves of natural gas (even comparably hard to retrieve) would solve the issue by giving some extra time.

I don't think any of this is a good thing, because an *actual* energy crisis is what we need to spur proper innovation and reform... But it is the truth, with new reserves being found there's no real pressure to change quickly.

Re:Price

[hrvatska]

Even with more efficient vehicles I think a lot of people will find they are priced out of the personal transportation market. Either because they can't afford a new high efficiency vehicle, price a plug in Prius, or even with one of these the cost of fuel is still too high. I've recently seen some articles that describe how young people today are not as interested in owning cars as previous generations were. The high cost of ownership compared to likely earning potential was one of the reasons.

Re:Price

[ceoyoyo]

Natural gas is mostly used for generating electricity and heating houses. You can get along without electricity if you have to (but you'd pay quite a bit not to have to) but in the UK, as in many other places, heating isn't really an optional thing, regardless of the cost.

Re:Price

[AdrianKemp]

Well that ultimately fixes the problem as well. A lot of public transit is already on/moving to hybrid or electric.

My point was that the issue of running your car at $7/gal (or natural gas equiv.) won't be an issue if you a) don't have one, or b) have a plug-in hybrid.

Most people who do buy cars currently are *not* put off by the increased cost of the hybrid, they're put off by the increased cost of the hybrid *which doesn't save you anything*

For me, to get a Prius with an equivalent set of features (saying nothing for the fact that it's ugly as hell) it'd have cost an extra $10,000. Lets say (generously) that it saves half of my fuel (it doesn't) and you're needing to save at least $1,000 a year in fuel. Given that I only *use* $1,200 or less fuel in a year that's a problem.

If the Prius would've actually saved the extra outlay (and wasn't ungodly hideous) I'd have bought one. But I'm not going to buy an underpowered ugly POS and pay extra to do it. A Smart is closer to sanity but still a pretty stupid choice.

Physicists say massive energy reserves in my arse

[Instine]

The fact that there is energy stored in anything is not the question we should ask. But rather is it practically stored for our safe and easy retrieval/use. The answer is no, in the case of shale, according to many, if not most.

Cheaper lighting - more used

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to find the study - it was written about in the Economist a few months ago.

Anyway, what the study found - going all the way back when folks moved from candles to oil - to gas - light bulbs - is that as lighting becomes cheaper and more efficient, folks use more of it thereby negating any energy savings.

Here's one contemporary LED example: go into any home center (or open up an architecture magazine or kitchen design book) and go to the kitchen design area. You will notice in the design catalogs all those LED lights underneath cabinets and tucked into places no one would ever have considered a few years ago.

Re:Cheaper lighting - more used

[icebraining]

More bulbs doesn't necessarily mean more light. In fact, targeted lighting can use less energy, because you don't need to shove 150w into the main light in order to illuminate every corner well enough, if those have their own lights (that are only turned on when needed).

Re:Cheaper lighting - more used

[Opyros]

It sounds like you're talking about the Jevons paradox?

The lament of the net importer

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK used to be a net exporter of oil and gas, mostly because of the North Sea. Now they're a net importer. They have to do something or they will soon by on the same puppet strings that the US is when it comes to energy imports. Despite everyone going on about the risks of small earthquakes in some locations (not everywhere is suitable for triggering quakes even if you do fracking), and the usually overblown concerns about groundwater contamination (the intervals being hydraulically fractured are kilometres below the surface and not in the zones tapped for wells), what alternative are people suggesting? Pave the UK in wind turbines? People will probably oppose those even more.

Set up stringent regulations regarding drilling and fracking operations, set up thorough enforcement, and get on with building renewable supplies for the long term, because even shale gas won't last forever. It's that or be content with less energy.

I hope this doesn't mean...

[PhilHibbs]

...that the US is going to invade us or bring about regime change!

Re:I hope this doesn't mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a question of whether, a question of when.

Re:I hope this doesn't mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regime change would be nice.

Re:I hope this doesn't mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Iraqi I can tell you it is pretty "/$%?&BN NO CARRIER

Re:Northumbria will be free!

[HarryatRock]

I live about 30 miles south of the border, and strongly believe that we should become part of Scotland until we can re-establish the kingdom of Northumbria with a king at Bamburgh. We will then demand compensation from the english for all the coal and iron they stole and take the Australian Government to court for copyright infringement by the Sydney bridge which is a blatent copy of our bridge over the Tyne.

Fracking...

[superflippy]

...is actually starting to become a dirty word. Gotta love it. So say we all!

economically recoverable?

[__aaltlg1547]

Is the 1000 TCF the economically recoverable portion or the total amount of gas in the ground?

It makes a big difference.

The Magic of Fracking

[Anonymous Coward]

Through kilometers of rock that has held gas for millenia? While "no chance" is extreme, I would say that there are far more relevant concerns with regards to fracking.

Ah yes, strong enough to cause earthquakes kilometers away but not strong enough to disrupt kilometers of "millenia old" shale?

Re:The Magic of Fracking

[sFurbo]

I don't think shale will work as a cap, it is porous after all. So no, not kilometers of shale, kilometers of significantly harder rock. And why is "millenia old" in scare quotes? To signify that that was not at all what I said? Of course, pointing out your own straw man is a great service, but given that you quote my text in its entirety two lines above, I think it is superfluous.

The age of unrestrained Greed

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Frack this Starbuck. Those greedy corporations want to Frack anything they can stick their pipes into. Most of the US states where Fracking occurs have contaminated aquifers. They want to Frack a dormant volcano in Oregon, just to see what happens. Why not Frack the ocean floor and contaminate that with toxic chemicals too. Didn't anyone learn ANYTHING from the BP spill in the gulf?

In other news ....

[3seas]

,,, astronomers have determined there is massive energy stores in sun light.

Re:In other news ....

[3seas]

government is now trying to figure out how to meter it... via chemtrail cloud creation.....

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Preliminary estimates suggest that every kg of shale holds nearly 9.0 × 10^16 joules

Vast? Perhaps someone could check my calcs.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

1 trillion Cf of natural gas. Isn't that energetically equivalent to 166 million barrels of oil? (i.e. 6000 cf of natural gas = 1 barrel of oil).

So, that works out to 6.64 billion barrels of oil. The USA uses 9 billion barrels of oil a year. The world uses about 30 billion barrels a year.

I'm sorry, where does "vast" come in here? Did I drop a digit somewhere?

Re:Vast? Perhaps someone could check my calcs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural gas is useful for some things oil is considerably less useful for (piping underground to a furnace in every home, for example), so there's a distinct natural gas market. Moreover, the UK is much smaller than the US, so its gas market is considerably smaller. It's rather large in comparison to the UK gas market, not the US or world oil market.

Re:Vast? Perhaps someone could check my calcs.

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd be correct if you hadn't forgotten a few zeros: "could exceed one thousand trillion cubic feet."

Re:The ground water that is thousands of feet lowe

[ColdWetDog]

Geologically speaking, water held in the ground is VERY far removed from the level fracking is done at.

True to a certain extent - the actual hydrocarbons are way below the aquifer. However, the hydrocarbons have to 1) pass through the aquifer on the way up to the pipe and 2) the enormous amount of fluids (mostly water) used in hydraulic (there's that word again) fracturing has to go somewhere as well.

The first problem is solved by making sure that casing / cementing of the well is done correctly. That usually happens and there are places where that pretty much always happens but you need careful oversight to make sure that fly-by-night bozos like BP (ie, the Macondo well) don't screw it up. The second problem is mitigated, again, by making sure that disposal processes are tightly controlled - that you don't dump the waste water in a nearby stream or pond or just sneak it through a municipal waste water system that isn't designed to deal with these specific contaminants.

this is probably true for most of the world

[peter303]

The US, having consumed most of its potential petroleum, developed these "unconventional" technologies first over the past decade. For the most part they can be applied to areas all around the world. That will retard "peak oil" to the later part of this century and give breathing room for alternative energy development.

Believe or not the USA was the leading oil producer for the first 80-90 years of the "Hydrocarbon Age (b 1859)". They squandered much of this on poor petroleum engineering practices and inefficient combustion engines.

OMG why to the religious nutcases post to SD?

[arcite]

Honesty. It's just sad.

Even Better :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Being offshore, there won't be anyone complain about their well being contaminated by the fracking or the water tasting funny.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The ground water that is thousands of feet lowe

[msobkow]

Neanderthal.

Good comeback.

Very insightful argument.

It adds a lot to your position.

Really?

[feranick]

This is a common misconception and oversimplification that does more damage than good. due to the way 10% of the water used for a fracking job is recovered (itself a huge environmental issue, but I digress). The remaining 90% stays within the rock adsorbed by the finely porous material that make up the gas shale, due to the thermodynamic conditions of gas/water - organic interface. Even with the best effort that water won't come up to the surface. This water will stay there at 3K km underground, way below the ground water reservoir. The real problem is in the cementification of the well. Due to lack of regulations, this is a huge problem in that the leakage takes place within the cement itself (or lack thereof). 2-5% of wells fail, not as a consequence of fracking but on the way the cement job is done. Try to think to what would mean if 2-5% of bridges would fail. I am not defending the procedure necessarily, but continuing to spread generic and essentially wrong reason for why we should worry that is the problem. BTW, this has been highlighted in a variety of studies, from academia (MIT in particular for the department of Energy) and environmental agencies that actually perform real science. Fracking isn't going away and by barking at the wrong tree we are not going to solve the significant issues revolving into the extraction of natural gas. identification of the real causes and establishment of proper regulation is where the action should be. Luckily that is exactly where the government is acting.

Re:The ground water that is thousands of feet lowe

[RobbieCrash]

How about cons like, another decade of reliance on a fuel source that pollutes in every step of its manufacture and consumption. Regardless of if you think that fracking is safe or not, fossil fuels are bad for earth. They're bad for political stability, the environment, and are going to become prohibitively expensive before we come up with a truly viable alternative.

Bio-diesel is a good stepping stone to get off of traditional fossil fuels; which is what should be the end goal. Starting to rely on technologies like fracking and tar-sands based production proves that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel. I remember hearing about how there was never going to be a time where getting oil from the Alberta tar sands was going to be cost effective, because oil was way easier to process from other sources. But Canada is now a huge oil producer, and nearly all of it comes from there.

We are running out of oil, or at the very least, running out of easy to procure oil. If that doesn't make you think that moving to something that we're going to be able to use forever (solar, tidal, wind, blueberry-based-fusion, or whatever other renewable resource we come up with), then you're too locked in your 'anyone who's against this is against progress and wants us to be hippies' mentality, and there's no point in anyone trying to tell you different.

Moving to so-called green energy HAS to happen. Not solely because of global warming, or environmental concerns, but because I want to be able to drive a car in 50 years, without having to pay $60/gal, and heat/power my house for less than $10,000 a month.

Sad.

[P-niiice]

Pretty sad when we have to discuss how hard we can/can't buttfuck the planet for our energy needs. We really need to get on that fusion progress.

UK yet ?

[luk3Z]

or Ireland, Scotland and England alone ?