Lawman3 wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:
Can anyone explain why fracking is more dangerous than drilling a normal oil or gas well?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because it involves unconventional methods of high pressure water and chemicals to fracture the shale and release gas.
It caused earthquakes in Lancashire, and, in the US, has been linked to water contamination, methane emissions, respiratory problems in children and reproductive problems in animals (there are numerous research papers if anyone is interested).
Of course, there is also the ongoing problem of man-made climate change, for which the biggest ever agreement was signed in December to reduce CO2 emissions - already this government has turned it's back on it's obligations. We should be moving away from burning fossil fuels. But it keeps Darlo Pete happy, so frack on, I guess.
I should probably come clean, I threw out a hook and you took the bait. I have designed and project managed the drilling and fracking of numerous oil and gas wells in Britain and elsewhere. So I know a little about the subject.
The drilling of conventional wells requires water and chemicals to be pumped at high high pressure, so although it is termed as "unconventional", it's an everyday occurrence.
As far as I am aware the "earthquake" in Lancashire hasn't been confirmed as an actual earthquake (rock sliding past each other along a fault) as opposed to a shockwave/sound wave from the rock cracking traveling through the rock to a seismic monitoring station. The earthquake was estimated at 2.3 on the Richter scale, to put that in perspective I've slept though a 6.4 earthquake (OK, alcohol was involved), that's more than 10,000 times stronger than the Lancashire earthquake. A 2.3 earthquake is said to be 1/7th of the vibrations you encounter in your house when a truck drives past on the road outside. It's so negligible that it really shouldn't be a consideration in a country as seismically stagnant as the UK.
Some of the problems in the US have been proven to be fake (setting their tap water alight, for example). Any other issues they have faced, as far as I am aware, is to do with disposal of drilling, fracking and completion fluids in ways which would not be permitted in the UK (if there was no fracking similar problems could be encounter from disposing the drilling and completion fluids in this manner) or by not implementing safety measures that are classed as best practice and are required in the UK.
You have to understand that US land rigs are generally manned by "good old boys" with Cowboy boots and chewing tobacco, you can't compare that to the highly professional industry we have in the UK. We have the 2nd strictest legislation in the world (behind Norway), this reduces the potential environmental impact.
Man made climate change would not vary depending on if the hydrocarbons came from fracked or convention sources.
What has a greater negative impact on the environment, liquifying gas and transporting it around the world or using gas from a local fracked well?