flipflop21
Firstly flatpack - each drill pad the size of a football pitch with roads large enough to service tankers and trucks, flares, 24 hour drilling, light pollution - having one of these in operation every 2 miles is hugely detrimental to the environment.
No doubt the people who currently live next door to such sites would have some useful input
Not to mention the potential damage being caused under the ground.
Oh gosh, underground damage. Come on.
^Secondly in relation to this point - you are assuming that the only alternative to fracking is turbines and pylons. What about alternative suppliers of gas: we get a considerable amount via the undersea gas interconnectors from the Norway and the Netherlands. The remaining imports are of liquid petroleum gas by tanker from the Middle East.
The US is now producing very large quantities of shale gas and is building gas liquefying plant and new gas ports on its eastern seaboard and plans to export it. China, another large country, is also planning to extract shale gas but is at present trying to overcome water supply difficulties. The US would of course be a very secure source of supply.^
We would be reliant on Russian gas. The US needs all of its own gas, and it's 4,000 miles away. I don't want to be reliant on the capricious Russians to stay warm. I want the UK to be able to generate its own power.
"There is plenty of open space to frack in" - well then why are they proposing it in AONB, within metres of residential homes and schools?
Uhhh - because that's where the gas is.
Why are bore holes being drilled on the edge of villages and towns?
Uhhh - because that's where the gas is.
The open spaces they are proposing are not remote. We do not have the open plains like they do in the States. In terms of surface area how many UKs can you fit into Texas alone? The oil and gas fields across there are massive - it is not feasible here.
If you make that argument about fracking the same must surely apply to wind and solar and we seem to have limitless amounts of open spaces for windmills and sunshine collectors. Everything will have a footprint. The question people need to ask themselves is - would they prefer to be poor and cold and hungry or tolerate a small-scale fracking site next door.
Up to 50% remains in the formations - I am surprised you are unaware of this fact - you are usually extremely well informed. This water IS lost.
I can see having read a bit more (unfortunately on a few alarmist websites, there seem to be so many which basically say ZOMGFRACKINGAIDSDEATH) and while they argue about the amount and the actual definition of 'lost' it would be fair to say that some of the water is unavailable for future use in any form.
Secondly water treatment facilities are ill equipped to deal with the waste water due to the nature of the chemicals the returned fluid contains. The EA (one of the regulatory bodies of onshore exploration in the UK) only recognised the need for mining waste permits after pressure from local community groups. The waste water needs in some cases to be treated for naturally occurring radioactive materials. Also, the acid used in the fracking process dissolves the minerals in the rocks under the ground - hence the returned fluid contains heavy metals and is highly saline. In New York it has been found that the water is not "pure" after treatment.
That's why you don't drink it, you pump it back in to the fracking system. It never enters water treatment facilities designed for drinking water.
Furthermore the sludge left after treatment is highly concentrated in these chemicals - disposal of this is unregulated.
If that was the case surely it would have been raised as an issue at some point in the last 3 decades while fracking has been taking place? Disposal is not unregulated.
Currently the levels of water being used are not critical as only one well in the UK has been hydraulically fracked in this way. However should shale gas exploration move into production the volumes of waste water would be enormous. Although there are currently new technologies being developed to reduce water use or re-using fracking fluid it is not standard practice and adds cost to the oil companies.
Fracking has been taking place for decades.
Regarding your point re water companies - I would be happy for them to repair the pipes and leakages. Especially if the are going to be selling off gallons of water to oil companies - we need to conserve water not waste it.
We aren't short of water. We have huge amounts of rainfall in this country, and we're surrounded by sea.
Uniting around locations or beliefs, yes, but not about whether we ate mothers.