Fracking is not a threat to water supplies in the South Downs

Flashback to August last year as anti frackers protest outside the Cuadrilla drilling site in Balcombe

Flashback to August last year as anti frackers protest outside the Cuadrilla drilling site in Balcombe

First published in News

A GLOBAL survey states deep fracking is not a threat to water supplies in the South Downs.

The British Geological Survey states the risk of water supplies being contaminated in Britain is much lower than in the United States because almost all shale oil and gas is at least 650m below groundwater layers.

Many US homeowners have claimed that their water supply has been contaminated by methane leaks from fracked wells.

But companies in the US targeted shale less than 100m from chalk aquifers, which store water.

The distance to chalk water supply aquifers at the Weald basin in the South Downs is at least 650m.

The survey states that water supplies under the Downs should not be at risk from deep fracking, as long as vertical wells were drilled and sealed safely.

Dr Alwyn Hart, head of the air, land, and water research team at the Environment Agency, said: “We have strong regulatory controls in place to protect groundwater, and will not permit activity that threatens water and drinking supplies.”

Groundwater from the aquifers in the South Downs provide up to 70 per cent of the drinking water in the South East, making it one of the most important natural resources in the region.

Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas was among 25 people arrested at Balcombe in August 2013 during anti-fracking protests.

At court she was found not guilty of obstructing a public highway and a public order offence.

Brenda Pollack, south east campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: “The survey is very interesting but we don’t think that it will eliminate the risk to the contamination of water.

“We believe the regulatory system is not strong enough.

“We don’t need to be trying to extract increasingly difficult fossil fuels when we need to be reducing our carbon emissions.”

A planning application for shale exploration inside the South Downs National Park is currently being considered by the South Downs National Park Authority.

A decision is expected in the next few weeks.

Simon Clydesdale, energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “Protective casings around drilling wells do sometimes fracture and with 30,000 wells planned in the UK can we really guarantee no water contamination?

“Water is essential to life. Playing roulette with our drinking water is a game that is too dangerous to play.”

Exploratory drilling for oil is also set to begin at Horse Hill, on the Sussex and Surrey border next month.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:22pm Sat 5 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

Our tracking MP disagrees with this. But we DO know that travellers unsavoury rubbish is as threat to health.
Our tracking MP disagrees with this. But we DO know that travellers unsavoury rubbish is as threat to health. NickBrt
  • Score: 21

1:46pm Sat 5 Jul 14

RAS Putin says...

"...as long as vertical wells were drilled and sealed safely."

Therein lies the rub.
"...as long as vertical wells were drilled and sealed safely." Therein lies the rub. RAS Putin
  • Score: 22

2:22pm Sat 5 Jul 14

whatone says...

Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger.

So is the report to be believed as unbiased?
Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger. So is the report to be believed as unbiased? whatone
  • Score: 15

2:24pm Sat 5 Jul 14

ICantThinkOfAName says...

Are all water supply aquifers in chalk? If not, and I believe there is one at Forest Row, how safe are they?
Are all water supply aquifers in chalk? If not, and I believe there is one at Forest Row, how safe are they? ICantThinkOfAName
  • Score: 5

2:42pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Can this be says...

RAS Putin makes a good point: things are not always as they should be. No one with any sense would put at risk our sensitive water supplies which are already formally categorised as being "An Area of Serious Water Stress". Who said that? It was the very same Environment Agency who are now so relaxed.

Whilst the popular figure is 70% for water supplies being from underground sources in the South East, in some parts of the area it is 100% and never forget that some of our river and reservoir supplies come from spring fed sources making the figure even higher.

I repeat that no one with any sense would put any risk on our drinking water for such a short term gain.
RAS Putin makes a good point: things are not always as they should be. No one with any sense would put at risk our sensitive water supplies which are already formally categorised as being "An Area of Serious Water Stress". Who said that? It was the very same Environment Agency who are now so relaxed. Whilst the popular figure is 70% for water supplies being from underground sources in the South East, in some parts of the area it is 100% and never forget that some of our river and reservoir supplies come from spring fed sources making the figure even higher. I repeat that no one with any sense would put any risk on our drinking water for such a short term gain. Can this be
  • Score: 21

3:17pm Sat 5 Jul 14

seagull@BGT says...

The main problem here in the USA is from numerous mini earthquakes in areas, e.g. Oklohoma were fracking is taking place. So even if the water supply is Ok, don't trust the government, look out for those earthquakes!!
The main problem here in the USA is from numerous mini earthquakes in areas, e.g. Oklohoma were fracking is taking place. So even if the water supply is Ok, don't trust the government, look out for those earthquakes!! seagull@BGT
  • Score: 8

3:25pm Sat 5 Jul 14

fredaj says...

RAS Putin wrote:
"...as long as vertical wells were drilled and sealed safely."

Therein lies the rub.
But that is true of EVERY industrial process.

Why are you just nervous of fracking but prepared to accept every other modern convenience, process or product without comment?
[quote][p][bold]RAS Putin[/bold] wrote: "...as long as vertical wells were drilled and sealed safely." Therein lies the rub.[/p][/quote]But that is true of EVERY industrial process. Why are you just nervous of fracking but prepared to accept every other modern convenience, process or product without comment? fredaj
  • Score: -4

3:26pm Sat 5 Jul 14

fredaj says...

whatone wrote:
Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger.

So is the report to be believed as unbiased?
You think it is biased because they are no saying what you want to hear?
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger. So is the report to be believed as unbiased?[/p][/quote]You think it is biased because they are no saying what you want to hear? fredaj
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Sat 5 Jul 14

charlie smirke says...

I wonder why France banned fracking for environmental concerns? They must have had good reasons?
I wonder why France banned fracking for environmental concerns? They must have had good reasons? charlie smirke
  • Score: 6

4:01pm Sat 5 Jul 14

monkeymoo says...

Fracking is not a threat.......

....And......
The moon is made of cheese,
Politicians don't abuse the system,
And there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!

Ha ha!
Fracking is not a threat....... ....And...... The moon is made of cheese, Politicians don't abuse the system, And there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Ha ha! monkeymoo
  • Score: 12

5:18pm Sat 5 Jul 14

fredaj says...

charlie smirke wrote:
I wonder why France banned fracking for environmental concerns? They must have had good reasons?
What does French politics have to do with energy policy in the UK?
[quote][p][bold]charlie smirke[/bold] wrote: I wonder why France banned fracking for environmental concerns? They must have had good reasons?[/p][/quote]What does French politics have to do with energy policy in the UK? fredaj
  • Score: -8

5:21pm Sat 5 Jul 14

fredaj says...

monkeymoo wrote:
Fracking is not a threat.......

....And......
The moon is made of cheese,
Politicians don't abuse the system,
And there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!

Ha ha!
Fracking is a threat to pro-global warmist dogma and that is the beginning and the end of this debate.

It has nothing to do with water-tables or French energy policy or big business or any other smoke screen that these religious zealots want to put up - it is simply about being anti any and all fossil fuel use.
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: Fracking is not a threat....... ....And...... The moon is made of cheese, Politicians don't abuse the system, And there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Ha ha![/p][/quote]Fracking is a threat to pro-global warmist dogma and that is the beginning and the end of this debate. It has nothing to do with water-tables or French energy policy or big business or any other smoke screen that these religious zealots want to put up - it is simply about being anti any and all fossil fuel use. fredaj
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Serf says...

whatone wrote:
Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger.

So is the report to be believed as unbiased?
Follow the money.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger. So is the report to be believed as unbiased?[/p][/quote]Follow the money. Serf
  • Score: 13

6:32pm Sat 5 Jul 14

fredaj says...

seagull@BGT wrote:
The main problem here in the USA is from numerous mini earthquakes in areas, e.g. Oklohoma were fracking is taking place. So even if the water supply is Ok, don't trust the government, look out for those earthquakes!!
Earthquakes too small to actually notice without equipment and smaller than those linked to traditional coal extraction methods - those earthquakes?
[quote][p][bold]seagull@BGT[/bold] wrote: The main problem here in the USA is from numerous mini earthquakes in areas, e.g. Oklohoma were fracking is taking place. So even if the water supply is Ok, don't trust the government, look out for those earthquakes!![/p][/quote]Earthquakes too small to actually notice without equipment and smaller than those linked to traditional coal extraction methods - those earthquakes? fredaj
  • Score: -8

6:35pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Plantpot says...

Serf wrote:
whatone wrote:
Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger.

So is the report to be believed as unbiased?
Follow the money.
Plenty of money in "renewables". It would be interesting to know where Greenpeace invest their money. We know from recent activity they lost millions playing the markets. Millions that was donated to them. We also know their FD commutes, by plane, from Luxembourg to Amsterdam for family reasons. Why should we believe a word they say?
[quote][p][bold]Serf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger. So is the report to be believed as unbiased?[/p][/quote]Follow the money.[/p][/quote]Plenty of money in "renewables". It would be interesting to know where Greenpeace invest their money. We know from recent activity they lost millions playing the markets. Millions that was donated to them. We also know their FD commutes, by plane, from Luxembourg to Amsterdam for family reasons. Why should we believe a word they say? Plantpot
  • Score: 9

6:38pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Plantpot says...

fredaj wrote:
whatone wrote:
Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger.

So is the report to be believed as unbiased?
You think it is biased because they are no saying what you want to hear?
The debate about fracking isn't actually about fracking, as you have noticed. The global warming types like science when it suits them, and dismiss it when it affects their anti-capitalist, anti-globalisation, anti-corporate views. When the IPCC says that fracking has an important part to play, it is conveniently ignored by their otherwise slavish disciples.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger. So is the report to be believed as unbiased?[/p][/quote]You think it is biased because they are no saying what you want to hear?[/p][/quote]The debate about fracking isn't actually about fracking, as you have noticed. The global warming types like science when it suits them, and dismiss it when it affects their anti-capitalist, anti-globalisation, anti-corporate views. When the IPCC says that fracking has an important part to play, it is conveniently ignored by their otherwise slavish disciples. Plantpot
  • Score: 2

6:39pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Plantpot says...

Serf wrote:
whatone wrote:
Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger.

So is the report to be believed as unbiased?
Follow the money.
House prices in fracking areas.
[quote][p][bold]Serf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger. So is the report to be believed as unbiased?[/p][/quote]Follow the money.[/p][/quote]House prices in fracking areas. Plantpot
  • Score: 3

7:05pm Sat 5 Jul 14

David523 says...

So even one of the FIRST paragraphs of this anti protest smear piece of rubbish article admits and concedes; all this report ACTUALLY states is "risk of drinking water poisoning in UK is bit less than it is somewhere else, ie, US"

Well, thank goodness for that, problem solved, no more enquiries needed, lets ask no more questions, frack away everyone!! What a JOKE...

Argus again shows its true Right wing, Corporate a*se kissing colours.
So even one of the FIRST paragraphs of this anti protest smear piece of rubbish article admits and concedes; all this report ACTUALLY states is "risk of drinking water poisoning in UK is bit less than it is somewhere else, ie, US" Well, thank goodness for that, problem solved, no more enquiries needed, lets ask no more questions, frack away everyone!! What a JOKE... Argus again shows its true Right wing, Corporate a*se kissing colours. David523
  • Score: 8

7:09pm Sat 5 Jul 14

NickBtn says...

"Water is essential to life" - that's true. But in the modern world electricity is also essential. How well would we survive without lighting, fridges, hospitals - or even water which needs electricity to pump it?

Yes, fracking isn't ideal. But it could help replace coal which would be priced out and is even worse. More renewables would be good - but these cannot meet the levels required for many years (despite subsidies) and have inherent flaws (like solar where the supply - daytime - doesn't match peak demand - evening) and wind, which needs, wind!

So fracked gas will be a useful addition to our energy mix. Campaigners should concentrate not on preventing it but ensuring that it is only used where safest (where far away from water supplies for instance)
"Water is essential to life" - that's true. But in the modern world electricity is also essential. How well would we survive without lighting, fridges, hospitals - or even water which needs electricity to pump it? Yes, fracking isn't ideal. But it could help replace coal which would be priced out and is even worse. More renewables would be good - but these cannot meet the levels required for many years (despite subsidies) and have inherent flaws (like solar where the supply - daytime - doesn't match peak demand - evening) and wind, which needs, wind! So fracked gas will be a useful addition to our energy mix. Campaigners should concentrate not on preventing it but ensuring that it is only used where safest (where far away from water supplies for instance) NickBtn
  • Score: -4

7:38pm Sat 5 Jul 14

rolivan says...

charlie smirke wrote:
I wonder why France banned fracking for environmental concerns? They must have had good reasons?
The French consume huge amounts of bottled water and at about 7p a litre perhaps it is a cheaper cleaner option.
[quote][p][bold]charlie smirke[/bold] wrote: I wonder why France banned fracking for environmental concerns? They must have had good reasons?[/p][/quote]The French consume huge amounts of bottled water and at about 7p a litre perhaps it is a cheaper cleaner option. rolivan
  • Score: -1

11:16pm Sat 5 Jul 14

B Chudrun says...

Its amazing how the old 'solar and wind are intermittent' arguement still gets rolled out - as if working out smart grids and more sophisticated ways to store electrical energy were some massive problem, when the massive problems with fracking, like how to deal with the radio active waste water are brushed aside, or under the carpet.
Its amazing how the old 'solar and wind are intermittent' arguement still gets rolled out - as if working out smart grids and more sophisticated ways to store electrical energy were some massive problem, when the massive problems with fracking, like how to deal with the radio active waste water are brushed aside, or under the carpet. B Chudrun
  • Score: -1

12:03am Sun 6 Jul 14

Sheeples says...

fredaj wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
Fracking is not a threat.......

....And......
The moon is made of cheese,
Politicians don't abuse the system,
And there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!

Ha ha!
Fracking is a threat to pro-global warmist dogma and that is the beginning and the end of this debate.

It has nothing to do with water-tables or French energy policy or big business or any other smoke screen that these religious zealots want to put up - it is simply about being anti any and all fossil fuel use.
Absolute poppycock, god forbid you should educate yourself beyond the MSM. Not every person that apposes cracking fits your stereo type. Modern coal power stations are a much cleaner option.

This issue has nothing to do with so called global warming, or is it climate change now?
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: Fracking is not a threat....... ....And...... The moon is made of cheese, Politicians don't abuse the system, And there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Ha ha![/p][/quote]Fracking is a threat to pro-global warmist dogma and that is the beginning and the end of this debate. It has nothing to do with water-tables or French energy policy or big business or any other smoke screen that these religious zealots want to put up - it is simply about being anti any and all fossil fuel use.[/p][/quote]Absolute poppycock, god forbid you should educate yourself beyond the MSM. Not every person that apposes cracking fits your stereo type. Modern coal power stations are a much cleaner option. This issue has nothing to do with so called global warming, or is it climate change now? Sheeples
  • Score: 5

2:02am Sun 6 Jul 14

Gribbet says...

Nobody wants fracking in this country apart from people who've invested in fracking and a few stupid everyday people who don't care about future generations.
Nobody wants fracking in this country apart from people who've invested in fracking and a few stupid everyday people who don't care about future generations. Gribbet
  • Score: 7

2:46am Sun 6 Jul 14

fredaj says...

Sheeples wrote:
fredaj wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
Fracking is not a threat.......

....And......
The moon is made of cheese,
Politicians don't abuse the system,
And there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!

Ha ha!
Fracking is a threat to pro-global warmist dogma and that is the beginning and the end of this debate.

It has nothing to do with water-tables or French energy policy or big business or any other smoke screen that these religious zealots want to put up - it is simply about being anti any and all fossil fuel use.
Absolute poppycock, god forbid you should educate yourself beyond the MSM. Not every person that apposes cracking fits your stereo type. Modern coal power stations are a much cleaner option.

This issue has nothing to do with so called global warming, or is it climate change now?
Coal power stations can certainly be more efficient than old ones.

But what has that got to do with fracking and why the majority of dissenters are against it?
[quote][p][bold]Sheeples[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: Fracking is not a threat....... ....And...... The moon is made of cheese, Politicians don't abuse the system, And there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Ha ha![/p][/quote]Fracking is a threat to pro-global warmist dogma and that is the beginning and the end of this debate. It has nothing to do with water-tables or French energy policy or big business or any other smoke screen that these religious zealots want to put up - it is simply about being anti any and all fossil fuel use.[/p][/quote]Absolute poppycock, god forbid you should educate yourself beyond the MSM. Not every person that apposes cracking fits your stereo type. Modern coal power stations are a much cleaner option. This issue has nothing to do with so called global warming, or is it climate change now?[/p][/quote]Coal power stations can certainly be more efficient than old ones. But what has that got to do with fracking and why the majority of dissenters are against it? fredaj
  • Score: 3

3:19am Sun 6 Jul 14

seagull@BGT says...

fredaj wrote:
seagull@BGT wrote: The main problem here in the USA is from numerous mini earthquakes in areas, e.g. Oklohoma were fracking is taking place. So even if the water supply is Ok, don't trust the government, look out for those earthquakes!!
Earthquakes too small to actually notice without equipment and smaller than those linked to traditional coal extraction methods - those earthquakes?
Are you from Oklohoma or just think you are!
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seagull@BGT[/bold] wrote: The main problem here in the USA is from numerous mini earthquakes in areas, e.g. Oklohoma were fracking is taking place. So even if the water supply is Ok, don't trust the government, look out for those earthquakes!![/p][/quote]Earthquakes too small to actually notice without equipment and smaller than those linked to traditional coal extraction methods - those earthquakes?[/p][/quote]Are you from Oklohoma or just think you are! seagull@BGT
  • Score: -3

9:47am Sun 6 Jul 14

Matt Grout says...

whatone wrote:
Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger.

So is the report to be believed as unbiased?
Yes this article is heavily biased in favour of the fracking industry. All Argus articles on this issue are similarly biased. The Brighton and Hove Argus is in favour of fracking.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger. So is the report to be believed as unbiased?[/p][/quote]Yes this article is heavily biased in favour of the fracking industry. All Argus articles on this issue are similarly biased. The Brighton and Hove Argus is in favour of fracking. Matt Grout
  • Score: 2

11:11am Sun 6 Jul 14

DeanLucas says...

The quake issues in the US are down to waste water injection, which doesn't matter in the UK since it is illegal throughout the EU so lets put that to bed at least. Fracking can result in small tremors similar to mining which is why in the UK it will be stopped if anything above 0.5 is registered, which is far too small for humans to notice.

The NORM argument has been settled in recent research by Durham University (http://tinyurl.com/
q65cn55). Processing of NORMs has been handled in this country for over 50 years. It is done through chemical and physical means. There are plants around the country which will be adapted to handle the NORM volumes if fracking goes ahead.

This work by the BGS settles the debate about water aquifer risk. In the US chalk aquifers belived to have been affected by fracking are around 100m from the fracked shales. Well below what is believed to be safe by geologists (greater than 400m). It doesn't matter one iota who funds the BGS on this matter. All they have done is produce maps of the separation between formations. That could have been done by anyone with the data.

Even the IPCCs statements are different to the anti-fracking movements and they are the worlds foremost body on climate change.

Why is it that no-one on here is actually talking about what these separation distances mean for their arguments? That would be the scientific way of doing it. Even Greenpeace and FotE are ignoring this data completely and switching arguments, even though they have spent the last few years saying exactly what this data disproves. It would bug the hell out of me to see scientists behaving this way and it doesn't diminish it just because they are political parties and pressure groups. This data puts alot of the aquifer risk argument to bed as well leaving well casing and cementation as the core remaining argument as all the others have mostly been dealt with (water companies are not saying that it will be a major issue, at least not like the anti-frackers are, but I would still like to see more about their plans).
The quake issues in the US are down to waste water injection, which doesn't matter in the UK since it is illegal throughout the EU so lets put that to bed at least. Fracking can result in small tremors similar to mining which is why in the UK it will be stopped if anything above 0.5 is registered, which is far too small for humans to notice. The NORM argument has been settled in recent research by Durham University (http://tinyurl.com/ q65cn55). Processing of NORMs has been handled in this country for over 50 years. It is done through chemical and physical means. There are plants around the country which will be adapted to handle the NORM volumes if fracking goes ahead. This work by the BGS settles the debate about water aquifer risk. In the US chalk aquifers belived to have been affected by fracking are around 100m from the fracked shales. Well below what is believed to be safe by geologists (greater than 400m). It doesn't matter one iota who funds the BGS on this matter. All they have done is produce maps of the separation between formations. That could have been done by anyone with the data. Even the IPCCs statements are different to the anti-fracking movements and they are the worlds foremost body on climate change. Why is it that no-one on here is actually talking about what these separation distances mean for their arguments? That would be the scientific way of doing it. Even Greenpeace and FotE are ignoring this data completely and switching arguments, even though they have spent the last few years saying exactly what this data disproves. It would bug the hell out of me to see scientists behaving this way and it doesn't diminish it just because they are political parties and pressure groups. This data puts alot of the aquifer risk argument to bed as well leaving well casing and cementation as the core remaining argument as all the others have mostly been dealt with (water companies are not saying that it will be a major issue, at least not like the anti-frackers are, but I would still like to see more about their plans). DeanLucas
  • Score: 3

11:15am Sun 6 Jul 14

jackthekipper says...

i wonder does anybody know that fracking has been going on for some time in the states and is very unpopular,ive read many many posts about tap water quality being affected and gas escaping through fissures in rocks etc and mini earth tremors ,subsidence and sinkholes.has enough evidence been accrued to prove this will not happen here?
i wonder does anybody know that fracking has been going on for some time in the states and is very unpopular,ive read many many posts about tap water quality being affected and gas escaping through fissures in rocks etc and mini earth tremors ,subsidence and sinkholes.has enough evidence been accrued to prove this will not happen here? jackthekipper
  • Score: -2

11:44am Sun 6 Jul 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

So why hasn't this article got the name of the reporter behind it?

Argus name and shame your biased, uncaring, paid for reporters for all to know who our enemies are!

This article is inaccurate and misleading but then that's what our leaders want.

Who's been paid and by whom? George Osborne's father in law owns a fracking company and that's why the corrupt bar steward reduced tax on these toxic companies by half.

Corruption rules. Come the revolution.
So why hasn't this article got the name of the reporter behind it? Argus name and shame your biased, uncaring, paid for reporters for all to know who our enemies are! This article is inaccurate and misleading but then that's what our leaders want. Who's been paid and by whom? George Osborne's father in law owns a fracking company and that's why the corrupt bar steward reduced tax on these toxic companies by half. Corruption rules. Come the revolution. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: -3

11:46am Sun 6 Jul 14

Plantpot says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
So why hasn't this article got the name of the reporter behind it?

Argus name and shame your biased, uncaring, paid for reporters for all to know who our enemies are!

This article is inaccurate and misleading but then that's what our leaders want.

Who's been paid and by whom? George Osborne's father in law owns a fracking company and that's why the corrupt bar steward reduced tax on these toxic companies by half.

Corruption rules. Come the revolution.
What size is your tinfoil hat?
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: So why hasn't this article got the name of the reporter behind it? Argus name and shame your biased, uncaring, paid for reporters for all to know who our enemies are! This article is inaccurate and misleading but then that's what our leaders want. Who's been paid and by whom? George Osborne's father in law owns a fracking company and that's why the corrupt bar steward reduced tax on these toxic companies by half. Corruption rules. Come the revolution.[/p][/quote]What size is your tinfoil hat? Plantpot
  • Score: 4

11:53am Sun 6 Jul 14

Plantpot says...

DeanLucas wrote:
The quake issues in the US are down to waste water injection, which doesn't matter in the UK since it is illegal throughout the EU so lets put that to bed at least. Fracking can result in small tremors similar to mining which is why in the UK it will be stopped if anything above 0.5 is registered, which is far too small for humans to notice.

The NORM argument has been settled in recent research by Durham University (http://tinyurl.com/

q65cn55). Processing of NORMs has been handled in this country for over 50 years. It is done through chemical and physical means. There are plants around the country which will be adapted to handle the NORM volumes if fracking goes ahead.

This work by the BGS settles the debate about water aquifer risk. In the US chalk aquifers belived to have been affected by fracking are around 100m from the fracked shales. Well below what is believed to be safe by geologists (greater than 400m). It doesn't matter one iota who funds the BGS on this matter. All they have done is produce maps of the separation between formations. That could have been done by anyone with the data.

Even the IPCCs statements are different to the anti-fracking movements and they are the worlds foremost body on climate change.

Why is it that no-one on here is actually talking about what these separation distances mean for their arguments? That would be the scientific way of doing it. Even Greenpeace and FotE are ignoring this data completely and switching arguments, even though they have spent the last few years saying exactly what this data disproves. It would bug the hell out of me to see scientists behaving this way and it doesn't diminish it just because they are political parties and pressure groups. This data puts alot of the aquifer risk argument to bed as well leaving well casing and cementation as the core remaining argument as all the others have mostly been dealt with (water companies are not saying that it will be a major issue, at least not like the anti-frackers are, but I would still like to see more about their plans).
As I said before concern about fracking seems to be mainly about house prices, globalisation, anti-corporations etc. The IPCC favours fracking as a transitional power source until we reach our utopian future.

Unfortunately, climate change, renewables, it's the new socialism. Power and control.
[quote][p][bold]DeanLucas[/bold] wrote: The quake issues in the US are down to waste water injection, which doesn't matter in the UK since it is illegal throughout the EU so lets put that to bed at least. Fracking can result in small tremors similar to mining which is why in the UK it will be stopped if anything above 0.5 is registered, which is far too small for humans to notice. The NORM argument has been settled in recent research by Durham University (http://tinyurl.com/ q65cn55). Processing of NORMs has been handled in this country for over 50 years. It is done through chemical and physical means. There are plants around the country which will be adapted to handle the NORM volumes if fracking goes ahead. This work by the BGS settles the debate about water aquifer risk. In the US chalk aquifers belived to have been affected by fracking are around 100m from the fracked shales. Well below what is believed to be safe by geologists (greater than 400m). It doesn't matter one iota who funds the BGS on this matter. All they have done is produce maps of the separation between formations. That could have been done by anyone with the data. Even the IPCCs statements are different to the anti-fracking movements and they are the worlds foremost body on climate change. Why is it that no-one on here is actually talking about what these separation distances mean for their arguments? That would be the scientific way of doing it. Even Greenpeace and FotE are ignoring this data completely and switching arguments, even though they have spent the last few years saying exactly what this data disproves. It would bug the hell out of me to see scientists behaving this way and it doesn't diminish it just because they are political parties and pressure groups. This data puts alot of the aquifer risk argument to bed as well leaving well casing and cementation as the core remaining argument as all the others have mostly been dealt with (water companies are not saying that it will be a major issue, at least not like the anti-frackers are, but I would still like to see more about their plans).[/p][/quote]As I said before concern about fracking seems to be mainly about house prices, globalisation, anti-corporations etc. The IPCC favours fracking as a transitional power source until we reach our utopian future. Unfortunately, climate change, renewables, it's the new socialism. Power and control. Plantpot
  • Score: 3

11:54am Sun 6 Jul 14

Plantpot says...

jackthekipper wrote:
i wonder does anybody know that fracking has been going on for some time in the states and is very unpopular,ive read many many posts about tap water quality being affected and gas escaping through fissures in rocks etc and mini earth tremors ,subsidence and sinkholes.has enough evidence been accrued to prove this will not happen here?
People like science when it supports their views, and ignore it when it doesn't.
[quote][p][bold]jackthekipper[/bold] wrote: i wonder does anybody know that fracking has been going on for some time in the states and is very unpopular,ive read many many posts about tap water quality being affected and gas escaping through fissures in rocks etc and mini earth tremors ,subsidence and sinkholes.has enough evidence been accrued to prove this will not happen here?[/p][/quote]People like science when it supports their views, and ignore it when it doesn't. Plantpot
  • Score: 4

12:58pm Sun 6 Jul 14

DeanLucas says...

Plantpot wrote:
jackthekipper wrote:
i wonder does anybody know that fracking has been going on for some time in the states and is very unpopular,ive read many many posts about tap water quality being affected and gas escaping through fissures in rocks etc and mini earth tremors ,subsidence and sinkholes.has enough evidence been accrued to prove this will not happen here?
People like science when it supports their views, and ignore it when it doesn't.
I agree entirely. This is people picking and choosing what science they want. Asking if there is enough evidence it won't happen here is just fear mongering - it is not relevant. To make it relevant to the science you discover why something has happened elsewhere and look at whether it could happen under circumstances elsewhere.

I think the thing I despise most about the anti fracking movement is their complete disdain for doing this. Under no circumstances is anyone allowed to actually use science correctly. No like for like comparisons are allowed. Anything can be quoted out of context. If an open pond creates air pollution or spills over a farmers land then lets just say that that risk is the same here - is there any evidence it couldn't happen. It makes me want to scream YES, there are no open ponds. Doh. The same goes for if a formation is fracked 100m away from an aquifer. Is there any evidence it won't happen here. YES. Because structural geology tells you things like fracture extent given rock mechanics.

We started several years ago with a long list of claims about the safety of fracking. Over time these have been whittled down to a handful and those have been quantified.

The only remaining arguments are NIMBYism or just a plain stubbornness and refusal to do anything that is outside of your political ideology.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jackthekipper[/bold] wrote: i wonder does anybody know that fracking has been going on for some time in the states and is very unpopular,ive read many many posts about tap water quality being affected and gas escaping through fissures in rocks etc and mini earth tremors ,subsidence and sinkholes.has enough evidence been accrued to prove this will not happen here?[/p][/quote]People like science when it supports their views, and ignore it when it doesn't.[/p][/quote]I agree entirely. This is people picking and choosing what science they want. Asking if there is enough evidence it won't happen here is just fear mongering - it is not relevant. To make it relevant to the science you discover why something has happened elsewhere and look at whether it could happen under circumstances elsewhere. I think the thing I despise most about the anti fracking movement is their complete disdain for doing this. Under no circumstances is anyone allowed to actually use science correctly. No like for like comparisons are allowed. Anything can be quoted out of context. If an open pond creates air pollution or spills over a farmers land then lets just say that that risk is the same here - is there any evidence it couldn't happen. It makes me want to scream YES, there are no open ponds. Doh. The same goes for if a formation is fracked 100m away from an aquifer. Is there any evidence it won't happen here. YES. Because structural geology tells you things like fracture extent given rock mechanics. We started several years ago with a long list of claims about the safety of fracking. Over time these have been whittled down to a handful and those have been quantified. The only remaining arguments are NIMBYism or just a plain stubbornness and refusal to do anything that is outside of your political ideology. DeanLucas
  • Score: 5

1:43pm Sun 6 Jul 14

tinker111 says...

Many words Deanlucas but do you say as I feel that there is not a problem just the nimbi's Ben's hangers on and of course LUCAS how did you choose that Handle ??? or am I missing a point for me we have to grab all sources of energy let's face it wind wont bring oil and gas to this country
Many words Deanlucas but do you say as I feel that there is not a problem just the nimbi's Ben's hangers on and of course LUCAS how did you choose that Handle ??? or am I missing a point for me we have to grab all sources of energy let's face it wind wont bring oil and gas to this country tinker111
  • Score: 3

2:09pm Sun 6 Jul 14

salty_pete says...

fredaj wrote:
whatone wrote:
Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger.

So is the report to be believed as unbiased?
You think it is biased because they are no saying what you want to hear?
That company list has the best engineers with the most experience. And these companies are very conscious of their PR profile. Their opinion is far more accurate than any of the "Green" scaremongers that foisted the Brent Spar on the poor naïve Norwegians.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: Funnily enough the BGS is partly funded by companies involved in the fracking industry - amongst others they including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger. So is the report to be believed as unbiased?[/p][/quote]You think it is biased because they are no saying what you want to hear?[/p][/quote]That company list has the best engineers with the most experience. And these companies are very conscious of their PR profile. Their opinion is far more accurate than any of the "Green" scaremongers that foisted the Brent Spar on the poor naïve Norwegians. salty_pete
  • Score: 3

2:45pm Sun 6 Jul 14

wippasnapper says...

How can they be 100% shore about there assessment of how safe our water is duo to fracking i.e. they have yet to start to be proven wrong by witch time it will be to late for use but being this is all being paid for by the BIG greedy 6 all assessment results would look good in there favor as they will loss lots of £££ if they dote state making a fracking profit soon.
How can they be 100% shore about there assessment of how safe our water is duo to fracking i.e. they have yet to start to be proven wrong by witch time it will be to late for use but being this is all being paid for by the BIG greedy 6 all assessment results would look good in there favor as they will loss lots of £££ if they dote state making a fracking profit soon. wippasnapper
  • Score: -8

6:29pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Hove Actually says...

charlie smirke wrote:
I wonder why France banned fracking for environmental concerns? They must have had good reasons?
Only because they have spent so much on Nucular Power Station
[quote][p][bold]charlie smirke[/bold] wrote: I wonder why France banned fracking for environmental concerns? They must have had good reasons?[/p][/quote]Only because they have spent so much on Nucular Power Station Hove Actually
  • Score: 4

6:46pm Sun 6 Jul 14

fredaj says...

wippasnapper wrote:
How can they be 100% shore about there assessment of how safe our water is duo to fracking i.e. they have yet to start to be proven wrong by witch time it will be to late for use but being this is all being paid for by the BIG greedy 6 all assessment results would look good in there favor as they will loss lots of £££ if they dote state making a fracking profit soon.
No one can be 100% sure about any of the technology you are using and its cost if something goes wrong.

Even those lovely, green, light bulbs you are probably using risk mercury contamination if they are not deposed of correctly.

If we do not frack because we cannot be 100% percent certain there will never ever be an issue then we cannot do anything else either.

Squat in your muddy puddle, naked and cold.
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: How can they be 100% shore about there assessment of how safe our water is duo to fracking i.e. they have yet to start to be proven wrong by witch time it will be to late for use but being this is all being paid for by the BIG greedy 6 all assessment results would look good in there favor as they will loss lots of £££ if they dote state making a fracking profit soon.[/p][/quote]No one can be 100% sure about any of the technology you are using and its cost if something goes wrong. Even those lovely, green, light bulbs you are probably using risk mercury contamination if they are not deposed of correctly. If we do not frack because we cannot be 100% percent certain there will never ever be an issue then we cannot do anything else either. Squat in your muddy puddle, naked and cold. fredaj
  • Score: 3

9:46pm Sun 6 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Go Green.....die of cold in the dark but with a smug expression on your face.
Go Green.....die of cold in the dark but with a smug expression on your face. stevo!!
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree