Current Affairs EU In or Out

[orchard]

Case in point right here. The Environmental Protection Agency said last year that fracking doesn't pollute nearby water supplies, and it doesn't pollute the air, so what is it polluting exactly?

Firstly, what report ? I think I remember you quoting some report that claimed that it was carbon-neutral on some terms, or other, and you followed the BBC's dogma in claiming it was not a pollutant, period.

Secondly, do you class earth-quakes and subsidence as a pollutant ?
How about an extreme quantity of heavy lorries required for each well ?
You do know that a copious quantity of toxic liquid is used to facilitate this don't you ? The constituents of which are subject to rigorously policed NDA's (so much so, that US medic's investigating illnesses unknown pre-frack couldn't carry their investigations further) ?
This liquid is then either, or both, stored underground (you know, in the same place the earthquakes occur), or above ground in evaporation pits, which could be prone to flooding or evaporate out into the atmosphere.

For me, the onus is upon those who think it's safe and wish to conduct these experiments, to prove it long-term first whilst having complete liability for any damage caused, and pay for the use of the National infrastructure whilst they're at it, before committing to a National roll-out. There's loads of anecdotal evidence against fracking suggesting it can be a major pollutant.

 

[DownOnTheUpside]

Case in point right here. The Environmental Protection Agency said last year that fracking doesn't pollute nearby water supplies, and it doesn't pollute the air, so what is it polluting exactly?

it's more down to leaking, since hydraulic fracturing involves pumping down massive amounts of water to create enough pressure to break rock, and then hoping it all vents through the well you've drilled into the pipes. Problem is; the earth is crisscrossed with fractures as it is, and breaking the containment of that gas means it'll leak out anywhere it can, under pressure

And the gas is methane - 25 times more potent at trapping heat than co2


the issue isn't so much toxicity as global warming potency, and on that scale its about equal to coal

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Firstly, what report ? I think I remember you quoting some report that claimed that it was carbon-neutral on some terms, or other, and you followed the BBC's dogma in claiming it was not a pollutant, period.

Secondly, do you class earth-quakes and subsidence as a pollutant ?
How about an extreme quantity of heavy lorries required for each well ?
You do know that a copious quantity of toxic liquid is used to facilitate this don't you ? The constituents of which are subject to rigorously policed NDA's (so much so, that US medic's investigating illnesses unknown pre-frack couldn't carry their investigations further) ?
This liquid is then either, or both, stored underground (you know, in the same place the earthquakes occur), or above ground in evaporation pits, which could be prone to flooding or evaporate out into the atmosphere.

For me, the onus is upon those who think it's safe and wish to conduct these experiments, to prove it long-term first whilst having complete liability for any damage caused, and pay for the use of the National infrastructure whilst they're at it, before committing to a National roll-out. There's loads of anecdotal evidence against fracking suggesting it can be a major pollutant.

Here is the EPA study https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf

You also have the Royal Society https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/

Public Health England Report https://www.gov.uk/government/news/review-of-potential-public-health-impacts-from-shale-gas-extraction

CCC https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...petroleum-with-meeting-the-uks-carbon-budgets

I actually spoke personally to the folks at IMechE recently on the topic, and I quote directly from Dr Jenifer Baxter, Head of Energy and Environment:

“The U.K. shale gas industry has the potential to contribute to securing energy supplies and creating much-needed jobs in regions such as Lancashire and Yorkshire, particularly in a time of uncertainty around markets, investment and supply. Shale gas could provide opportunities for localized U.K. supply that replaces imports. Government and industry must now work to help change public perceptions of shale gas to convince the public that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of rock for shale gas extraction is safe,”

 

[Joey66]

If climate change/global warming is just a made up thing to keep scientists in a job, as you put it, how can you possibly explain the rise of surface, air and sea temperature over the last 50 years? Because that did actually happen.

Unless those scheming scientists are faking the temperature readings?!

What happened to the forecast of the ice age in the early 1970's then?

 

[Joey66]

Air pollution in London (as an example) is believed to be akin to smoking for several years in terms of its impact on our lung health. Even if you don't agree with climate change, generating energy in a cleaner and more sustainable way is sensible on so many levels.

My point in bringing this up however is that the vast majority of scientists and institutions working in this field accept that climate change is real, yet lay people feel somehow emboldened to disagree with those who have made it their lives work. I find that rather baffling to be honest.

They called it down the smoke because of fog and pollution in London Bruce!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

it's more down to leaking, since hydraulic fracturing involves pumping down massive amounts of water to create enough pressure to break rock, and then hoping it all vents through the well you've drilled into the pipes. Problem is; the earth is crisscrossed with fractures as it is, and breaking the containment of that gas means it'll leak out anywhere it can, under pressure

And the gas is methane - 25 times more potent at trapping heat than co2


the issue isn't so much toxicity as global warming potency, and on that scale its about equal to coal

But according to the University of Durham research into this, the field would produce more methane if it was retained for agricultural use.

 

[Joey66]

Go and do some research about the correlation in the increase in global Co2 emissions and the global temperature increase mate.

You stating that we burnt more coal in the UK in years gone by ergo climate change is therefore bunkum is complete cobblers. As global Co2 production has increased by about 6 Billion metric tonnes since the 50's ffs.

Every house burnt coal not gas I am not having that plus industry plus power stations hence the fling pickets!
Experience is better than your googling!

 

[Joey66]

Yes I am coming from Canada to London.

Yes we are booming can,t wait to leave the EU and trade all over the world freely not being dictated too by EU burocrats !
London tourism is on the up as is the rest of our country

 

[Bruce Wayne]

With friends like that...

 

[orchard]

But according to the University of Durham research into this, the field would produce more methane if it was retained for agricultural use.

Haha, what's 'agricultural use' ? To put it into terms you may be familiar with, it's like me saying a bike is a bike. FYI, excepting large industrial polluting farmers, the general tendency is towards sequestration of carbon, and a low hydro-carbon input. To compound the ridiculousness of this comment, what's the 'field', and has the land been bought outright and therefore not contributing additional carbon release (on their estimation)?

 

[orchard]

I actually spoke personally to the folks at IMechE recently on the topic, and I quote directly from Dr Jenifer Baxter, Head of Energy and Environment:

“The U.K. shale gas industry has the potential to contribute to securing energy supplies and creating much-needed jobs in regions such as Lancashire and Yorkshire, particularly in a time of uncertainty around markets, investment and supply. Shale gas could provide opportunities for localized U.K. supply that replaces imports. Government and industry must now work to help change public perceptions of shale gas to convince the public that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of rock for shale gas extraction is safe,”

And you bought that ? All that statement can contribute is that they believe that perceptions must be changed to serve their interests, not that perceptions are wrong.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Haha, what's 'agricultural use' ? To put it into terms you may be familiar with, it's like me saying a bike is a bike. FYI, excepting large industrial polluting farmers, the general tendency is towards sequestration of carbon, and a low hydro-carbon input. To compound the ridiculousness of this comment, what's the 'field', and has the land been bought outright and therefore not contributing additional carbon release (on their estimation)?

Agricultural use is equivalent to a few cows in the field. Livestock is believed to produce as much methane as oil and gas, so I'd say it's a fair comparison, especially if the field that is now fracked was previously used for livestock.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

yes when i was at school the experts were predicting an ice age in the future also gain an o level in Environmental studies - great new subject on the syllabus in 1971 opted for that instead of geography.
IMO its a con to make money - Fracking safe my backside - its just nature seasonal changes in my era of growing up we had nearly every house burning coal- industry on a big scale in the midlands it was known as the black country for its industry the potteries pumped smoke out in Stoke
oh the nickname of London was for a Northerner Im going down to the smoke !
all this has cleaned up yet global warming is now running riot oh by the way the ozone layer is now nearly repaired!
It's all about cashing in on scientist phenoms imo!
yet the big super powers put two fingers to it all , and they are the worlds biggest pollutants!

Point by point then mate:
1. Your opinion is all well and good but it's not nearly as powerful as science.
2. Yep, lots of places burned coal. Now we have a 6 billion people and a global majority who eat beef (methane from cattle is a bigger problem than carbon dioxide from chimneys and cars), add the CO2 from engines burning and the methane being released by the melting of the ice caps - something of a self serving prophecy - and you have a problem. These gases trap heat in the earths atmosphere.
3. The evidence is entirely there, you can read about it, but some simple back garden science over a decade would probably prove it anyhow.
4. The hole in the Ozone layer is on the mend because most countries banned the CFCs that reacted with the ozone. This is good news, but is not nearly enough to slow global warming significantly now.
5. The big super powers put two fingers to it all for several reasons. One is that they need to develop fast to keep up with and overtake one another - particularly big developing countries like the BRICs. They are in no rush to put down buring fossil fuels at the behest of the rest of us when they need this development.

Quite simply mate, CO2 and methane trap heat, and they don't disappear when they're emitted.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

And you bought that ? All that statement can contribute is that they believe that perceptions must be changed to serve their interests, not that perceptions are wrong.

Right, so the CCC, the EPA, the Royal Society and now IMechE are all crooked? You can see how parallels are made between this and the anti-NASA Australian MP who didn't think climate change was real.

 

[orchard]

Fracking Chemicals List – What’s involved and what’s dangerous

Photo by Nicholas A. Tonelli

Hydraulic-fracturing uses a great deal of water, but many other chemicals may also be involved in the fluids used for fracking. There are not large quantities of many chemicals, ranging from just 0.5 to 2.0 % of the fracturing fluid total volume, but the possible effects can still be negative on people and the environment.

• Proppants, also known as “props”, are chemicals that open the fractures and then allow the fluids or gases to flow in a freer way to the wellbore. Sand, including zirconium oxide and sintered bauxite, is used to keep fractures open, so that the gas or oil can be extracted. Ceramic beads are also a part of this mixture.
• Acid is used in cleaning intervals of drilling mud and cement before the fluids are injected. Hydrochloric acid HCL, also known as muriatic acid, is used in this process. Breaker chemicals, like Peroxydisulfates, reduce fluid viscosity so that proppants can be released into fractures. They also enhance the fracturing fluid recovery.
• Bactericides and Biocides including Gluteraldehyde inhibit the growth of certain organisms that might otherwise produce gases that could contaminate the methane gas. These also prevent bacteria growth which could reduce the fluid’s ability to carry the proppant into new fractures.
• Buffers, or pH adjusting agents, like potassium carbonate or sodium carbonate and acetic acid are able to adjust and control the pH levels of the fluid so that other additives will work properly.

• Clay controls or stabilizers, including potassium chloride and tetramethyl ammonium chloride prevent the migration and swelling of formation clays, so that they do not block pore spaces. Otherwise, they might reduce the permeability of the shale.
• Corrosion inhibitors like ammonium bisulfate and methanol help to reduce the growth of rust on the steel tubing, tanks, tools and well casings.
• Friction reducers including petroleum distillates and sodium acrylate-acrylamide copolymer allow the fluids used in fracking to be injected at the best possible rates, by lowering the amount of friction between the fluids and the piping.
• Iron control chemicals like polyacrylate, ethylene glycol and Ammonium chloride prevent any precipitation of sulfates and carbonites, so that they can’t plug off the shale formation.
• Surfactants like ethoxylated alcohol, isopropanol and methanol reduce the tension in the surface of the fracturing fluids, to aid in the recovery of the fluid.
  Some of the chemicals used in fracking are toxic to the environment, as well as to humans and to wildlife. Some may cause cancer. The substances that are potentially damaging can contaminate water in the areas around the fracking wells.
  

Health and fracking http://www.hazards.org/oil/fracking.htm

Silica Silica sand is the main ‘proppant’ used to fracture rocks underground and keep those cracks open. This ‘frac sand’ if not properly controlled can cause lung cancer, silicosis and other fatal diseases in exposed workers. The US has the same occupational exposure limit for silica as the UK. It is a level a study by the US government’s safety research agency NIOSH(11) found could be exceeded by a factor of 10 in fracking operations, prompting an official Hazard Alert.(12) Face masks did not reduce exposures below the limit, NIOSH found.

An ongoing attempt by the workplace safety regular, OSHA, to halve this permissible limit for crystalline silica exposure has been opposed by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the rest of the fracking industry. OSHA calculated that additional protections – including better ventilation, a misting system and enclosed “operator booths” for the most exposed workers – would be required for 88 per cent of fracking workers in order to comply with a tighter standard. API has refused to release the findings of its own evaluation of silica exposures.

Even at the current exposure standard – the UK and the US have the same occupational exposure limit for silica, at least for now - exposure can cause potentially fatal cancers and lung and kidney diseases, and may lead to arthritis and other chronic health problems. In general, the more you are exposed, the greater the risk.

Volatile hydrocarbons In May 2014, NIOSH(13) reported that workers were facing hazardous levels of volatile hydrocarbons from used fracking fluids. It said since 2010 there have been at least four deaths linked to acute chemical exposures during flowback operations, the transferring, storing and measuring of fluids that return to the surface after fracking. The research body said as a consequence it had launched an investigation. These volatile chemicals can affect the eyes, lungs and nervous system and at high levels also may lead to an abnormal heartbeat, NIOSH said.

Hormone disrupters A report presented to the Endocrine Society conference in June 2014 warned that the hormone disrupting properties of many fracking chemicals was worse than initially thought. “Among the chemicals that the fracking industry has reported using most often, all 24 that we have tested block activity of one or more important hormone receptors,” said co-author Christopher Kassotis of the University of Missouri. “The high levels of hormone disruption by endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that we measured, have been associated with many poor health and safety outcomes, such as infertility, cancer and birth defects.”(14)

Other exposures An estimated 600 chemicals are used in fracking operations. Oil giant Halliburton lists 27 chemicals plus water used in a “typical European frac formulation”. These include chemicals more traditionally seen in pesticides, stain removers, degreasers, paint thinners, inks and disinfectants. Exposures at fracking sites can include heavy metals, benzene and other carcinogens and nerve poisons. The use of heavy equipment and haulage vehicles can also create a risk from diesel exhaust fumes, a cause of lung diseases and associated with lung, bladder and other cancers.

The industry has been criticised for claiming the precise formulations used are ‘trade secrets.’

The TUC, in its submission to the House of Lords fracking inquiry, called for “transparency and disclosure of the full range of chemicals used in fracking,” adding “variations in operations between companies pose significant challenges for occupational health which have yet to be comprehensively addressed.”