UKH

BBC News - Fracking in Lancashire: Second 0.8 tremor in 24 hours http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-46003462

I've not seen any thread on this so here we go. 

I don't really see the need for this dangerous endeavour . 

What do you think it would take for industry and people making these decisions to decide " actually we are wrong on this " 

A scene like something from " Volcano" with Tommy Lee Jones directing a flow of lava away from a large inhabited town or city ?

Doubt it very much.

Or perhaps water coming out of your taps that you can set fire to.

No   I'm sure they would try and charge you for that bonus.

Now I know this is perhaps an over exaggeration.  I just don't see the need to be doing it .  

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

There are reasonable arguments against fracking, but I don't think the "earthquake" one is one of them. 0.8 is ridiculously tiny. You probably have more to worry about if you live anywhere near a road with traffic causing vibrations.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

The flaming taps video is a fake.

 

The risks from fracking have been greatly over stated.

In reply to Removed User:

Ok well is there an argument that the benefits have also been greatly over exaggerated ?

 

 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

If I had water coming out of my taps that I could set fire to I'd fill my car up with it

In reply to Robert Durran:

So why did they stop fracking  and they classify the first as a red event ? 

Isn't red used to denote danger ?

I sound a bit like the lemming all these questions.   I Thought more people would be concerned personally but perhapse I'm ignorant on how safe it is and being alarmist. 

I've never weighed in on the issue publicly before.

In reply to birdie num num:

You have a methane powered car? 

Awesome :-D

In reply to birdie num num:

You’re not kidding me.  You were playing with oxides of fluorine...

In reply to Removed User:

I wouldn't know which video you mean, but some Americans have had their water sources contaminated, which means they can set fire to what is within their water supply. 

https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-victim-sued-for-defamation-after-proving-...

https://www.newsweek.com/fracking-wells-tainting-drinking-water-texas-and-p...

 

 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':they're doing the frac at a depth of 2100m or so which I think is a lot deeper than the stuff generally drilled in the US.  Generally you really don't want the frac to extend very far up as you can't get at what you want if there's out of zone fracturing. What can happen is you can lose all the proppant into a fault and reactivate it , so the question is, is that happening, because it's a waste of the producers time/effort, and how far do any faults extend up.

 

It's a purely commercial exercise - the UK uses a lot of gas and it's got to come from somewhere

 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

'0.8 tremor' - is that really a thing?

The Richter Scale only starts a 1, and 1 > 2 is 'earthquakes that aren't usually felt",

 

Chris

 

In reply to Chris Craggs:

And remember it is a logarithmic scale so a 2 is already ten times as strong as a 1.

I heard today that in Canada, a quake only shuts an operation down if it is 4 higher on the scale than here, and that is 10000 times stronger (though that does sound rather strong!). Anyway, it does sound like the threshold is absurdly low here.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

10 times the amplitude, and 32 times the energy.

0.8 is the sort of thing you might get when someone's blasting a road cutting.

 

In reply to skog:

I thought energy was proportional to the square of amplitude???

Anyway,  is amplitude or energy a better measure of "destructiveness". I would guess amplitude

 

In reply to wbo:

There’s more to it than that. Energy security and self-sufficiency matter on a continent that has Russia as the main source of gas. We are less vulnerable to supply sanctions as a result of broadening our local base.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

OK . 

I wont worry being as everyone has put me in my place .

Just showing concern in the natural world. 

I wont mention it again .

 

 

 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':I wouldn't sound so apologetic - you asked a question, and you got some information , some opinion and maybe even an answer.  Asking questions is hardly a crime

 

In reply to Chive Talkin\': Nah, it's good to mention it, in the face of climate change fracking is a crazy thing to do, it's a needless thing to do. It's potentially not economically viable in the UK once the costs of dealing with the waste water has been taken into account. I'll go and find the link about it. 

Here it is. http://www.after-oil.co.uk/fracking_wastewater.htm

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

As the posts above, keep asking and engaging in the forums.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

And it would grind to a halt if he didn't keep making me fart

In reply to Removed UserMrs. Num Num:

Do you bottle it?
Or, do you feed it directly into the engine via a tube?

In reply to FactorXXX:

would you mind passing the mental bleach?

In reply to BnB:

That's technically true, but I get the sense that Putin only threatens to turn off the gas or actually does do when it's ex soviet countries, or countries 'within Russia's sphere'.  There isn't any climate scientist who thinks the UK adopting fracking as a means of getting gas is a good idea, too. 

In reply to Timmd:

Do they think it’s better to ship the gas from half a world away?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Mental bleach?
Is that similar to the Balmy Fluid that Undertakers use?

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

The tremors are very small for now, they won't all be and they are probably what will galvanise wider public opposition. Widespread onshore fracking will prove a very hard sell.

Kicking the can down the road with regard to decarbonising our economy is the more serious threat but nobody will give a toss about that.

jk

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

No idea where all those dislikes are from, given that you asked a (series of) very reasonable question(s). I'm sure there's some hype amongst the anti-frackers that has led to a bit of sensationalism (like flaming taps etc.) and I'm sure the average UKCer with a Geology degree will be dismissive of seismic events so low on the Richter scale but overall, I am amazed that fracking has been so happily green-lighted in this country. The possibility of lower fossil fuel security as a result of geopolitical shifts should just serve to sharpen the focus on renewable development. Apart from the fuel security issue though, I cannot see a single good reason for fracking. Even if Cuadrilla and any other interested parties were bound to marry their shale gas extraction with carbon sequestration I don't think I'd be in favour. As it is, it appears to be entirely indicative of the low regulation, dangerously laissez faire governance we now enjoy. It's the sort of thing I'd only expect to be happening after Brexit when those self-centred Brussels gravy-trainers are no longer able to stop us f***ing up our own country.

Anyway, good on you for engaging on the topic; great to see.

In reply to sg:

Brexit Bingo!
 

 

In reply to wintertree:

Sometimes it's hard to know whether questions on here are rhetorical ones out to make a point or ones which are more 'face value'. Any climate scientist who accepts that climate change is happening, wouldn't call the UK adopting fracking a good idea.  I've come across a few who say it's definitely a bad idea. What they think about gas coming from other countries, hasn't been included in their comments about fracking in the UK being a bad idea, but fracking in the UK being a bad idea is one thing that's definitely been said, in terms of us having any chance of avoiding climate change getting too bad.

If you have figures comparing the impact of the UK using gas from other countries, using infrastructure already in place, and that of setting up the infrastructure needed for fracking and us using shale gas, do share them on this thread.

In reply to Timmd:

I don’t. You don’t.  I don’t presume to speak for “all climate scientists” without them, but it seems to be a sensible scientist would not be against fracking if it provides less emissions than gas from far away.  

”Infrastructure already in place” is not such a good point as new wells are always being opened up as old ones run out.

Im sure all climate scientists are against all fossil fuels, but a sensible one recognised that if they are to be burnt, doing so in the most efficient way is preferential.  In those terms gas is important as it displaced coal.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

If only some thought had been put into naming the process in the first place, there would not be half the fuss. 

Eco mining, rather than fracking and it would have passed under the hobby protestor radar I am sure. 

In reply to wintertree:

But there is a risk in pushing for the most efficient method of exploiting our hydrocarbon reserves if, as with fracking, this entails an increase in the total reserves available. 

Instead we should be doing what we can to expedite the development of renewable energy. My assessment of human nature is that this will best be served by reducing access to hydrocarbons, not increasing it. It's another version of the tragedy of the commons. Banning fracking, as the Scottish government has done, is a line in the sand. As the latest IPCC report reiterates, this is no longer academic.

In reply to Wicamoi:

I agree - but we need to wind fossil use down long before known reserves are exhausted so it’s a bit irrelevant.

I agree - and gas is the most useful fossil fuel to balance the grid as more intermittent renewables are added, whilst buffering of renewables is developed.

Decreasing the efficiency of fossil fuels is a self defeating way of nudging human nature.  It makes things worse.  If the Scottish government wanted a meaningful line in the sand they could ban off shore oil extraction.  Ah, but oil is important!  But so is gas.  CO2 is universally bad. We should not cut off our noses to spite our face however.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Yes, that worked well for Beyond Petroleum.

In reply to wintertree:

Your points are sensible as always, but perhaps I might suggest a little too sensible - by which I mean they do not accommodate the madness of human nature.

Yes, we need to stop exploiting reserves long before they will be depleted. But will we? We - ie the global leaders - already needed to have stopped exploiting fossil fuel reserves a decade ago, but did we?

So how do we stop if we don't stop? How do we stop if the signal from government is just to carry on and make money from new ways of hastening our own destruction?

Banning fracking isn't particularly rational, but it is a line in the sand. 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

I ask questions because I didn't know the answers, and I genuinely want to broaden my knowledge of a subject.

And that's a bad thing?

I live on the fracking site doorstep and completely disagree with it.

However what pisses me more, are the protesters and their antics.

When the fracking resumed, the protesters did their thing. On the day, one of the protesters became ill and needed both the police and ambulance service to take them to hospital.

Now while the individual was at hospital, all their little friends followed and continued the protest both inside and outside the A&E department. They were all shouting and screaming and running around.

As usual the hospital was full of sick and vulnerable people as well as greaving relatives who had enough to contend with watching loved ones die.How about having your last moments on earth being frightened out of your wits by shouting and screaming?

Am I painting a bad enough picture, because this gets worse?

When it was time to transfer the individual/patient to another hospital, all their friends surrounded the ambulance and started banging on the doors and windows. It was now late at night. Above A&E are wards full of sick and vulnerable people including those with dementia. I can't even imagine how frightened those people were having to hear shouting, screaming and profanity from outside.

And then 4 police vans  came at speed on blue lights and sirens to protect the ambulance driver and the individual/patient. More shouting and screaming ensued but with greater volume.

The protesters were completely oblivious to the simple fact that they were no longer at a fracking site, but they were at a hospital.

It was a completely selfish act to witness.

 

 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Hardly surprising considering the title of your post which is a little patronising and arrogant.

It is right to keep these concerns on the agenda but we shouldn't be blinded by sentiment.

Al

In reply to Wicamoi:

To be clear - the Scottish Government has not really banned fracking, as the ability to do so is not devolved.

It has achieved an effective ban on fracking through part of the planning system, which it does have authority over and can use to stop any such developments actually going ahead; this has been spun as a ban.

To be brutally honest, this is a case of the SNP trying to play to all parties, and kick the can down the road - fracking can't happen in Scotland just now, pleasing a sizeable chunk of the party, the membership and the electorate (and the somewhat-allied Scottish Greens) - but those who do want some fracking to happen, or are open to the possibility, know that there's little stopping this being changed later if the situation evolves. And I imagine it will if we start suffering fuel shortages, or if the price of gas soars making fracking much more profitable and able to sustain more employment and wealth creation. Objections to such things tend to disappear when people start suffering significantly for their stance!

It's possible that fracking will remain effectively banned in Scotland - that will be down to future governments - but for now the whole thing is about keeping people happy and avoiding taking a decision; to be honest that is probably the correct strategy anyway, while gas prices are low.

In reply to skog:

I don't disagree with any of that. What's more I'd say that the SNP were carried against their will by the other parties to a large extent. For me an example of the Scottish Government working well. No "ban" (however defined) is permanent. No law is permanent. It is the symbolic attempt that I value.

In reply to Wicamoi:

CO2 emissions are being reduced by governments signing up to climate change treaties. They are the result of all the horse trading that goes on to ensure no country's economy is wrecked by moving away from practices that lead to global warming. They're boring but really really important.

In the UK we have set ourselves targets that will result in substantial reductions in CO2 emissions such as a move to electric vehicles by 2040. Once set a whole host of other measures have to follow to ensure the top level targets are met.

Top down is the sensible approach to tackling climate change, not bottom up.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

It would seem sensible to me to minimise removing reserves of carbon stored in the ground in order to turn them into energy and atmospheric CO2...

Here's a way that CO2 can be sucked out of the atmosphere and, using renewable energy, turned into pure fuel:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-...

In reply to wintertree:

'...but a sensible one recognised that if they are to be burnt...' Which climate scientist?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-would-emit-methane/

A problem with fracking is fugitive methane. For a time, it was thought to be a greener form of energy (than is now apparent). It is possible to capture the methane which can escape, but there' no financial incentive to, or regulatory incentive, making it 'too much hassle' in the end. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/data-from-11-million-in...

Recent research shows that babies born close to fracking sites have lower birth rates and tend to be less healthy.

https://www.ceh.org/news-events/press-releases/content/fracking-chemicals-l...

Chemicals used in fracking have also been found to link to respiratory and skin conditions/complaints in children (and adults too I wouldn't be surprised).

http://www.after-oil.co.uk/fracking_wastewater.htm

This study of the treatment of fracking wastewater suggests that it may not be economically viable to frack in the UK, once treatment costs have been taken into account, too. Once any contaminants have been removed from fracking wastewater, it is toxic waste which needs careful disposal.

In terms of human health and climate change, it's very hard to find an angle from which fracking is a good idea.

In reply to Timmd:

Not even the unintended consequence of turning Tory constituencies against the Tories?

In reply to Timmd:

In terms of methane release I agree with you.  Any significant methane escape from mining is a very bad things. 

In terms of health consequences and waste water - that’s health not climate science; other sources of fossil fuels are not without their health detriments either.

My limited understanding is that both the methane and health problems are expected to be much less bad in the UK than the USA, partly due to geological differences and partly to do with better regulation and enforcement.  Someone more knowledgable can hopefully comment...

The problem is that it’s equally hard to find an angle from which any other form of fossil fuel is a good idea.

A large swath of County Durham countryside near us is currently being obliterated to opencast strip mine coal from near the surface.  It’s very hard to find any angle what so ever from which it’s preferable to burn coal than to burn gas.  Yet fracking is the target of far more protest despite being far less environmentally destructive and despite producing a far cleaner and more efficient fuel to burn.  

Myself, I would be leaving the UK’s coal and gas right where it is as a strategic reserve against the problems we’re likely to face over the next 50 years.  

In reply to The Lemming: When did this happen, was it quite recently within the past few weeks?

The reason I ask, is because somebody in her 20's had chained herself to a concrete tube of some kind, and was sectioned by doctors and removed from site, causing concern about the being 'a cunning plan' to remove protesters by sectioning them and declaring them mentally unwell (incidentally, 2 other protesters have been sectioned too). As it happens she came out again, I guess it's possible that in the spirit of the moment, they got caught up in seeing the hospital and ambulance related activity as 'another arm of the authorities'?

Which isn't to try to justify how they acted while in the hospital, or may have affected vulnerable and elderly patients...

In reply to Timmd:

It seems they’re filling tyres with concrete to create anchor points.  Someone should explain to them just how much CO2 is released by the manufacture and use of concrete...  This may sound facetious but with weak government, change starts with individual decisions.

In reply to wintertree:

https://drillordrop.com/2016/06/11/uk-link-to-alleged-under-reporting-of-fr...

This is quite interesting, about methane release and planning applications for fracking in the UK. Basically, what is thought to be the amount of methane released, as taken from US fracking sites and used in planning applications in the UK, could come from amounts being inaccurately measured as less than which is actually escaping. I've not found anything (yet) which talks about methane release being addressed in the UK, in the manner in which isn't required in the US.

After I posted that long post, I found myself thinking that no fossil fuel has a good 'health footprint' for people in the locality... 

In reply to wintertree:

Perhaps they know and have decided it's small in the grand scheme of things as used by them? You could find an anti fracking page on facebook and raise the issue if you want to explain it I guess.

In reply to Timmd: how much methane is leaked will depend entirely on local circumstance.  If you're expecting a very dry gas then you won't have any facility to deal with the returning water and associated gas.  If you are expecting a wet gas you'll have a separator to split water from gas, and much less gas is leaked off.  I don't know the exact situation in the UK.

 

In reply to Timmd:

I will not provide any information what so ever about anybody.

I'll start off with a revelation.  There are no Great Lizard Overloard's planning or overseeing the manipulation or management of the Fracking Protesters.  Protesters are allowed to protest and the Police are there to keep the peace as best they can with the limited resources at the time.

I'm not too sure you know about mental health, but do you think that a doctor would ever section somebody as part of a cunning plan to remove protesters to make life easy for the police?

People are allowed to make bad decisions as long as they have "Capacity of consent".  Once an individual no longer has the ability to use and understand information to make a decision, and communicate any decision made what should medical professionals do, look the other way because the individual is taking part in a protest or should they do their job and ensure that the person gets prompt medical help?

I shall try to be crystal clear here, there are NO cunning plans to section anybody because such acts have serious repercussions for all involved in the process.

 

In the spirit of the moment, they got caught up in seeing the hospital and ambulance as another arm of the authorities?

It was a hospital.  HOSPITAL. 

Any protester that can not tell the difference between a Fracking Site and a hospital where people are sick and dying and can not respect people in distress or greaving is a f*cking moron.

There is no justification what so ever for using a hospital as a proxy battle ground where protesters can smash their fists up against an ambulance which is trying to transport people in need of medical help, or for frightening the bejesus out of patients at the hospital.

 

By all means pick an argument out of that.

In reply to Timmd:

The article is from 2012 and the amount of fugitive emissions released by fracking and conventional extraction methods are still debateable. However in 2015 I did a bit of research into the subject, contacting a geologist who researches the subject. Total fugitive emissions from fracked gas at the time seemed to be about the same as LNG and the same or slightly higher than other forms of gas extraction. Further though I have a graph showing a year on year reduction in fugitive emissions...

One piece of research suggests those living within 1 mile of a fracking well have a 25% increased liklihood in giving birth to an underweight child. Be good to know the causation.

Which could be the answer to the queston raised in the previous report. Unfortunately the report isn't clear which chemicals are implicated and the range of chemicals used in the UK is more restricted, by government, than in the US.

 

This article doesn't really say much other than how waste water will be treated in the UK and that it might be expensive. I imagine Cuadrilla might have thought of that.

In reply to Removed User:

A fair point.

In reply to The Lemming:

Thank you for talking down to me - would you like the same in return? Probably not is my thinking,.

It was a turn of phrase, which I hoped was put across thanks to it being in quotes, and, yes, I do know something about mental health.

That was my thinking, too, that they'd have been professional, which was underlined by her being released rather quickly. 

I don't doubt it.

I *did* say I wasn't trying to justify their actions, did that escape you while talking down to me about lizard overlords? (You probably don't like this sentence, I'm figuring, so don't use similar tones in your posts to others, one generally receives what one gives out, I've found. Thanks).

I would agree, in having said I wasn't trying to justify their actions, I rather took it as read that nobody would think that was the thing to do . Explaining and justifying are distinctly different things.

I would agree.

Why would I want to pick an argument when I'm not trying to justify their actions? I think in real life we'd realise we're in agreement. 

In reply to Removed User:

I'm sure they have thought about it, they'll have thought about how to do it as cheaply as possible like any business would, the conflict between environmental and human health matters, and making profits, is a common one.

I found this quite interesting.

https://drillordrop.com/2017/12/18/fracking-waste-treatment-and-disposal-co...

Researchers at Edinburgh University have warned that cost of waste treatment and a shortage of specialist facilities could limit the development of fracking in the UK.

A team from the university’s School of Geosciences estimated that treating the salinity and other chemicals in fracking wastewater at existing facilities could cost between £100,000 and £1 million per well under current treatment regulations. This represented between 2% and 26% of the expected total revenue from each well, they said.

Operators could face additional costs of about £163,000 per well to dispose of concentrated sludge containing naturally occurring radioactive material, known as NORM.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Science Water Research & Technology, looked at wastewaters from wells in the US to better understand the volume and make-up of wastewater that would be generated by a UK shale gas industry. It also reviewed the methods used to treat waste from the fracking process.

Only one shale gas well in the UK has produced waste from high volume hydraulic fracturing so far. But the researchers said the fluid could be several times saltier than seawater and contain NORM.

They found that the capacity for treatment of NORM was currently limited in the UK and could restrict multiple fracking operations if not addressed. Under current regulations, NORM concentrated sludge must be disposed in permitted landfill sites, adding to costs of dealing with waste.

The lead researcher, Megan O’Donnell, said:

“Treating wastewater could require a large outlay of the expected revenue from each well, affecting industry profitability.

“The UK’s capacity to treat the radioactive material in wastewater is currently limited, which could pose serious waste management issues if the shale gas industry expands at a faster rate than the increase in treatment facilities.”

There are currently four treatment facilities in the UK that had permits to handle liquid waste containing NORM. The facilities are: FCC Knostrop in Leeds, Bran Sands in Middlesbrough, Castle Environmental in Stoke-on-Trent and FCC Ecclesfield in Sheffield.

The study said there was a limit of 826m3 on the volume of waste containing NORM that could be received each day by these plants.

it said:

“If the volume of FP [fracking waste] water produced during fracturing exceeds this the capacity of the available treatment facilities could become critically stressed.

“Without alternative storage options or emergency treatment capacity, operations would be forced to cease until the fluids can be appropriately handled.”

The study concluded that there was no co-ordinated strategy for the management of liquid fracking waste in the UK.

It also said options for disposal without treatment were limited. The viability of injecting fracking waste underground looked uncertain and there was no comprehensive assessment of suitable sites.

The study’s coordinator, Dr Stuart Gilfillan, said:

“We suggest that industry, wastewater treatment plant operators and UK regulatory bodies work together to produce a coherent strategy for managing wastewater.

“This would serve to assure the public of its safety and prepare for the expansion of treatment capacity required should a shale gas industry develop in the UK.”

Industry reaction

Ken Cronin, chief executive of the industry body, UK Onshore Oil and Gas, said:

“At this early stage in the development of the industry there are an appropriate number of Environment Agency approved facilities in the UK for the treatment of our waste water.

“The industry has been working with the Environment Agency and a number of leading institutions and companies in the waste management sector to bring techniques to the UK that enable fluids to be recycled on site and NORM wastes to be managed appropriately. Through this strategic work on waste with regulators, the supply chain and professional institutions, we believe the UK can lead the way on reducing wastes and achieving wider environmental outcomes for the onshore oil and gas industry. It is surprising, therefore, that the researchers did not make contact with the industry, as if they had they would then have understood the extensive work, research and planning we are doing in this area.

“There are some poor assumptions made in the research around revenue per well. The 1.8 billion cubic feet (bcf) estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) assumption includes some of the poorer performing wells of the US, while analysis of the top 6 performing shale gas plays of the US reveals an average EUR of 5bcf, over double the authors estimate(1). The use of this data noticeably reduces the inflated percentage cost projections conducted in this study.

“In the UK, optimal geologies are and will be mapped and explored with state of the art techniques and methods. The same attention and innovation will be paid to the disposal of the waste from these sites.”

Lee Petts, managing director of the consultancy Remsol, said:

“The UK waste management sector has a proud history of responding to market demand, investing in innovation and capacity-building where needed. A good example concerns incinerator fly ash – prior to the practice being banned, this hazardous residue from municipal waste incineration was simply sent to landfill but is now typically used either for its alkalinity value as a reagent in the treatment of acidic wastes or is ‘washed’ to remove insoluble metals and other constituents in order to enable it to be recycled into concrete block manufacture. Waste industry treatment capacity for fly ash has grown in-step with the expansion of waste-to-energy incineration, which would have been hampered otherwise.”

Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing in the UK: assessing the viability and cost of management. M C O’Donnell, S M V Gilfillan, K Edlmann and C I McDermott in Environmental Science Water Research & Technology Online link

In reply to Timmd:

Much TLDR.

 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

In my corner of Derbyshire the local anti fracking group are sponsored by the local miners welfare organisation, i'm not sure many appreciate the irony. 

I'm surprised there's anything left to frack there are so many old mine workings its like Swiss Cheese down there

In reply to Oceanrower: I dunno what TDLR means, but if it's to do with it being too long to to read and digest, I fear for humanity.

 

In reply to Removed User:

I've found this, to do with birth weights and fracking.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/fracking-linked-low-weight-babies

.......

They found that infants born within 1 kilometer of a well were 25% more likely to have low birth weights (less than 2500 grams or 5.5 pounds) than infants more than 3 kilometers away, they report today in Science Advances. Babies born in the first circle also showed significantly lower scores on a standard index of infant health. Infants born in the outer circles—between 1 and 3 kilometers away—were smaller and less healthy than those who lived farther away, but they weren’t as badly off as babies born closest to the wells.

To rule out other factors that could lead to poor health outcomes, including race and socioeconomic status, the team removed babies born in urban areas like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, which have comparatively high rates of lower birth weight babies. They also compared siblings born to the same mothers who lived near fracking sites before and after it started. Although this sample size was small—only 594 infants exposed to fracking had unexposed siblings—it showed that the exposed infants were smaller and less healthy.

The good news is that the effects don’t extend far beyond the fracking sites, Currie says. The study found no decrease in infant weight or health past 3 kilometers. But the team doesn’t know what aspect of fracking caused the low birth weights, which put babies at higher risk for infant mortality, asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, lower test scores, and lower lifetime earnings. Currie, who studies air pollution and health, says it’s likely air pollution from chemicals or the increased truck traffic and industrialization associated with fracking. Water pollution is an unlikely culprit because many people in the study got their water from municipal sources not close to fracking sites.

But Erica Clayton Wright, spokesperson for the Marcellus Shale Coalition in Pittsburgh, says the study doesn’t go far enough to address “crucial issues linked to low birth weights like smoking as well as alcohol and drug use. … Given these deep methodological flaws, it’s dangerously misleading and inflammatory to suggest that natural gas development has done anything but improve public health.”

Though there is no “smoking gun” that proves how fracking impairs infant health, economist Don Fullerton—who studies how public policies affect the environment at the University of Illinois in Urbana—calls the evidence “convincing” and says it adds to other studies that have also found evidence of preterm births and other negative health effects. That makes it even more important, he says, to regulate what chemicals are used in fracking or how close wells can be to residential areas.

Currie adds that infants, who are essentially the “canaries” near the fracking mines, probably aren’t the only victims. If they are experiencing negative effects, the elderly and other vulnerable people near wells are likely to also be at risk. “We really should move beyond the discussion of whether there is a health effect or not to figuring out how we can help people who live close to fracking.”

 

In reply to Timmd:

I find it really difficult to assimilate information that long on a phone screen. Bullet points, for me at least, get the information across much better. 

In reply to Oceanrower: Ah, I see, yes, I guess we're all different in how we process things. Pardon my glibness. 

 

In reply to IJL99:

As I understand it a similar or derivative technology to fracking can be used to extract coal - drilling horizontally through a seam then pulsing high pressure steam down the pilot hole to fracture and extract the coal; it comes out as a fine powder ready for burning in Drax etc.

Some crazier people, who haven’t seen the Steven Segal classic “Fire Down Below”, are developing the means to partially combust the coal to carbon monoxide below ground, so that the gas can be extracted and used as fuel. 

Round our way some houses are still heated by coal on open fires with back boilers.  Filth speed out of the chimney but I gather there’s a free coal allowance to retired mine workers so no financial reason for them to modernise their heating.

In reply to wintertree:

I suspect to consistently get that answer you'd have to ask a very carefully constrained question. Increasing our domestic gas supply relieves the 'energy security' pressure to decarbonise electricity production further and faster in the coming decades.

But still doing great harm. Investment in gas production and burning assets which will be expected to pay back over the next 2, 3 or even 4 decades (or there will be consequences for bill payers and government). Meanwhile we're still effectively banning onshore wind and by developing an onshore domestic gas industry we're squeezing investment in alternatives.

The only good argument for this is geo-political, reducing dependence upon foreign energy. Quatar et al will just develop new markets for their gas. It's lose lose for the environment, developing our own reserves just means there's a little bit more carbon that will ultimately be liberated.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

I agree, but relying on the potential future fragility of imports is not a sensible way to limit carbon emissions or drive green policy.   It’s a good way to create an energy crisis where environmental standards and emmisions efficiency can them be dropped - to the glee of corporate interests - as the public screams for energy.

As I said elsewhere on the thread we are opening new coal mines in the UK right now - open cast.  I’d far rather see our energy supplied from fracking gas than from coal.

You could be right - I’d be more positive about it if we were using the wealth granted to us by the burning of carbon to decarbonise as our top national priority.  Well, arguably we are by driving the whole economy off a cliff...  I’m not sure I agree though - as I said before we need to decarbonise long befor known reserves (let alone ones waiting to be found) are gone, so mine ours or not the demand remains the same, and by mining ours we save emissions in the process.

In reply to wintertree:

We're hardly single source, we can ship it in from anywhere with reserves and export capacity, for a price. You're right though, it wouldn't be a sensible way to drive change if there were alternatives but we are short of alternatives and relieving the pressure pretty much prevents change for another couple of decades which gives other countries behind us on the industrialisation and development path a reasonable excuse to do so for another half century at least. I think it's probably worth the risk.

Odd for me taking the more optimistic position here but previous energy crises (while undeniably prompting some duff panicked investment) have tended to drive efficiency through commercial pressure followed up closely by regulations tracking the new normal. Tighter environmental regulation seems to be the more common outcome of an energy shock than deregulation. No guarantee the next will be the same of course and we could look to Germany's brown-coal response to its nuclear shutdown as a counter example but that is hopefully a transient response. 

Me too but it's presumably fuelling legacy stations in their dotage rather than new ones with the exception of a small re-growing market for domestic heating. If that's the case fracked gas won't displace it.

I'd be banging a drum from the rooftop in support if it were heavily taxed with all revenue invested in decarbonisation, local damage mitigation and local economic development but you and I both know revenue from this will just be used to pay for tax cuts and offset brexit damage.

jk

In reply to wintertree:

Using economic incentives seems like a perfectly good way to limit carbon emissions to me. We are talking about not opening up new sources of gas here, not closing down current ones. It's not like they are suddenly banning something that's already happening (I mean in a commercial sense in this country). 

A bit of economic pressure seems like an ideal way to tilt investment into lower carbon generation and R&D, it doesn't dramatically change things but it's push in the right direction rather than the wrong one.

I think that counter example is but really fair, it's an exception to what's happening.

The government plans to close all coal generation by 2025 by mandating (as I understand it...) limits on the amount of CO2 generated per KWh of electricity. The limit used will affectively ban coal generation (but not electricity generation using gas).

Coal is not the competition for gas, the competition is other forms of generation.

 

In reply to MeMeMe:

I agree and I’d like to see much more than we have - but do it directly, not implicitly through a reliance on volatile imports.  

 

In reply to wintertree:

It's very hard for a government that has just sold eyewarteringly expensive licences and produced budgets based on forecast gas revenue to then radically change tack and promote policies that diminish the value of that gas.

Yes we should be directly addressing climate change but we can't if we keep disincentivising it with policies like licencing onshore fracking.

I'm just frustrated at how incapable we are of solving this problem.

jk

In reply to The Lemming:

I have to admit to being a bit confused by your post. I believe everything you have said but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

A protester becomes ill at the fracking site, so presumably they (the protesters) call an ambulance? You turn up and help the individual and take them to hospital, and the protesters follow you to the hospital, create havoc and attack the ambulance? 

I don't doubt it's what happened if you say so, but am completely perplexed by their actions? What a bunch of tossers!

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I have witnessed a lot of antics of the Fracking Protesters over the last year or so, and  I have to say that, I now have close to zero respect for them because of their actions.

I did not turn up to the individual/patient.  I just happened to be on shift and at the hospital when the individual/patient was being transferred to another hospital.

Non of us were best pleased with what we saw.

 

In reply to The Lemming: I'm tempted to post your sentiments on their facebook groups, it's a shocking way to behave in and around a hospital. They'd probably take it on board if you gave your perspective.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Just looked at a BGS website and tremors well below 1 are recorded.

Every incident in the last 5 days has been in the Blackpool area, with a 1.1 today providing a significant hiccup in the operation. As regards everyday life, a 1.3  last week in Ffestiniog is recorded as "felt". I don't suppose that will bother folk who won't hear alarm bells until Blackpool Tower looks like the one in Pisa.

 

 

In reply to Timmd:

As I am not on Facebook, I would be most grateful.  It is one thing to protest at a Fracking Site but unconscionable to take that protest to a hospital and roam around the area like a playground, shouting and screaming.

People were angry, I get that.  But travelling from the Fracking Site to a hospital gave the protesters enough time to reflect about where they were travelling to, and the purpose of that building.

I will repeat, they were morons!

In reply to The Lemming: Sure thing, I'll mull over what to post, and I might email you for details too if I'm stuck. 

 

In reply to Timmd:

Roger that.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

I'm surprised this thread is still going considering I was told it was nothing and I should be more concerned about local traffic vibrations.

Been some more earth tremors has there ? 

It's nothing .  Keep pumping I say.  Pump as much as possible .  

 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Here's some data on earthquakes in the UK, from the British Geological Survey:

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/hazards/earthquakes/UK.html

Remember that exponential scale; you'll also note they haven't bothered with charting quakes under magnitude 2.

In reply to The Lemming:

I've pinched this from somewhere else:

"All for everybody to have the space and right,to peaceful complaint and protest,but during some recent long-term protest,at Irlam Moss (Fracking site), I had to regularly run the gauntlet of the colourful and vibrant camped masses...

Bit of fervent lefty banter,through the window...all polite...but i had noticed that nearly every van/shack,had some form of bottled gas,for cooking and a bit of heating. No probs...got to eat...chilly when sat about all day...

I asked a previously perky and pierced spokeschap,how he squared that irony...and got a continuous and vocal assault,of the foulest manner...his tongue stud nearly flew out

If he couldn't form a reasoned argument,he should shut the frack up."

 

They don't do themselves any favours!

In reply to Lusk:

I found the Barton Moss (Irlam Moss is further west) fracking protest very wierd, mostly because the protest camp was on land my uncle used to farm and i could just imagine how it would have appealed to his somewhat anarchic nature. 

Ironically the whole area was a massive victorian landfill and sewage disposal site.  Used to turn up all sorts of stuff under the plough

In reply to skog:

You need to look on the Recent Activity page where you will find events as low as 0.1 recorded.

And you have confused me by using the word "exponential". Is that the same thing as logarithmic?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Exponential - think doubling up grains of rice on chessboard squares.
Logarithmic - think plotting a graph that would stretch to Pluto on a linear scale.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Apologies, it is of course a logarithmic scale, which means that the size of the event increases exponentially as you go up it.

What I was trying to say is that very small earthquakes are common and harmless.

An earthquake under 2 on the scale really doesn't matter (except maybe if you're playing Jenga right above it; quite possibly not even then). Having lots of earthquakes of that scale still doesn't matter. They're being ultra-cautious stopping operations at such low thresholds (which isn't a bad thing).

There are some perfectly valid arguments against fracking, and while I support carefully controlled fracking in principle, I certainly don't think it should be allowed everywhere, or without careful regulation. But having several tiny earthquakes isn't something to be afraid of, it's being used by anti-fracking campaigners because it's easy to make it sound scary.

In reply to Timmd:

Do they REALLY need telling?