Fracking U turn

[Cheshire Cat]

Bunch of fracking wusses weyll be alreet

You won’t be saying that when Cumbria slips into the Irish Sea, Winscale as well.

 

[Brewnaldo]

If this is the case i don't think we have anything to worry about -

But it's absolute speculation based on potential reserves. Actual proven reserves are hard enough to calculate. Offshore, there are quite literally thousands of holes drilled where geologists thought there were O&G formations. Until an appraisal well is drilled, its not too far away from educated guessing. Even an honest geologist would tell you that. I know, because an honest geologist told me that.

And any headline figure like that doesn't take into account that which is uneconomical to extract. Bear in mind here that it's only any good if it's cheaper than what we have, and can flow at high enough rates.

It's not for us. There's barely even anyone claiming its for us, and those that are have been pretty widely rebuffed. Google the story and there are dozens upon dozens of articles, quotes from experts and peer reviewed studies showing that it quite sinply will not make a jot of difference to the consumer.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

You won’t be saying that when Cumbria slips into the Irish Sea, Winscale as well.

Well they have predicted we will be underwater in a few years due to global warming so let's have some cheap gas to keep us warm through the winter months before we slip into the sea.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Even an honest geologist would tell you that. I know, because an honest geologist told me that.

I assume the guy on the radio today was an honest geologist 50 years may be a wild guess so let's say 20 and see.

 

[Brewnaldo]

I assume the guy on the radio today was an honest geologist 50 years may be a wild guess so let's say 20 and see.

But he's talking about theoretical reserves.
At my last work, we quite literally claimed to have found a gas field bigger than our next largest two combined, with billions of cubic metres of gas in it.
When they drilled it, there was quite literally no gas there. None.
There are a miniscule amount of these shale fields proven by drilling.

 

[Cwrw666]

Well they have predicted we will be underwater in a few years due to global warming so let's have some cheap gas to keep us warm through the winter months before we slip into the sea.

Any gas extracted will be sold at world gas prices. Loads of dosh to be trousered by the gov. and it's chums.

 

[moto748]

Anyway, bigger supplies of gas (even if proven, unlikely) is not we need, in the long-term anyway. We're supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, remember? We need to separate short-term emergency measures from long-term policy.

Also, we are not short of gas right now. We are selling it to France!

 

[Haversham]

I wonder if the US has a different geology? Fracking has been very successful there and reduced their dependence on traditional energy sources. But (big but) that doesn't mean it will work here if the geology is different. And of course they have more room there. But (trying to be fair) I'd like to see some test fracking to help us get an idea if it's worth it. I suspect that the cost might make any gains illusory, but I'd prefer to give it a chance first in a limited way, just to see.

 

[Brewnaldo]

Anyway, bigger supplies of gas (even if proven, unlikely) is not we need, in the long-term anyway. We're supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, remember? We need to separate short-term emergency measures from long-term policy.

Also, we are not short of gas right now. We are selling it to France!

Indeed. Less demand is the correct endgame here, not increased supply.

I genuinely am puzzled by the media cheerleading of fracking. Its as clearly agenda driven as any story you will ever see. You don't even have to do any research, you just have to Google it to be told repeatedly that this will not provide any answers, and yet still we have folk thinking this is a great result. It's really, really baffling.

 

[Rodcx500z]

At an educated guess i would say, tally ho old chap and frack on pass another beer over

 

[Haversham]

I genuinely am puzzled by the media cheerleading of fracking. Its as clearly agenda driven as any story you will ever see. You don't even have to do any research, you just have to Google it to be told repeatedly that this will not provide any answers, and yet still we have folk thinking this is a great result. It's really, really baffling.

I think it's just the success of fracking in the US that has raised hopes here. As I said in my earlier post, let's give it a go and see. There are massive lobbies on both sides of the argument so I trust no one. I'd just like to test it out (in a limited way) and find the truth.

 

[Brew_DD2]

I think it's just the success of fracking in the US that has raised hopes here. As I said in my earlier post, let's give it a go and see. There are massive lobbies on both sides of the argument so I trust no one. I'd just like to test it out (in a limited way) and find the truth.

It works in America because it's so sparsely populated. They can do it on a scale that's just not possible here. It's just more pie-in-the-sky nonsense from this government. Their own side can even see this.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

But he's talking about theoretical reserves.

I think he will have a much better idea than you me i will go with the expert

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Anyway, bigger supplies of gas (even if proven, unlikely) is not we need, in the long-term anyway. We're supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, remember? We need to separate short-term emergency measures from long-term policy.

Truss backs nuclear and renewables in bid to solve energy crisis​

Prime minister Liz Truss has pledged to ramp up nuclear and renewable energy generation, with the aim of tackling the current energy crisis and ensuring the UK is a net energy exporter by 2040.
Speaking in the House of Commons today, Truss said that "energy policy has not focused enough on securing supply", adding that there is "no better example of this than nuclear".
As such, she said the government will "end the short-term approach to energy security and supply" and "make sure we are never in this situation again".
New government body Great British Nuclear - announced in the Energy Security Strategy - will launch later this month, and Truss said that small modular reactors are also an "important part of the energy mix".
Great British Nuclear will bring forward new nuclear projects at a rate of about one a year this decade. This will support the Energy Security Strategy's plans which envisage a significant acceleration of nuclear, with an ambition of up to 24GW by 2050 to come from this source of power. In total, this would represent up to around 25% of the country's projected electricity demand.
As well as nuclear, Truss' plans also involve the acceleration of the deployment of clean and renewable energy sources including hydrogen, solar, carbon capture and storage and wind. Labour leader Keir Starmer emphasised the need for a clean energy plan, to accelerate the rollout of offshore and onshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen and tidal.

In addition, a new Energy Supply Taskforce has begun negotiations with domestic and international suppliers to agree long-term contracts that reduce the price they charge for energy and increase the security of supply. It will produce a plan in the next two months.
It comes after the Climate Change Committee and National Infrastructure Commission wrote to Truss, outlining their views on energy security, low carbon energy, fossil fuels and the role of infrastructure in delivering net zero.
Key among the recommendations is the need to make full use of new auctions for onshore wind and solar. The letter emphasises that "renewables are the cheapest form of electricity generation" and "onshore wind and solar have the potential to be deployed fastest and thus reduce our reliance on natural gas sooner".
A new report also recently found that the UK’s new government must double or even triple the rate of offshore wind turbine installations to meet the Energy Security Strategy's target of a four-fold increase in offshore renewable energy by 2030. The UK already has the world’s second largest installed offshore wind capacity, at around 12GW. The strategy aims to increase it to 50GW by 2030, of which at least a tenth is to take the form of floating wind farms.
Meanwhile, Hinkley Point C delivery director Nigel Cann has previously backed an increase in energy from nuclear power.
With the gradual winding down of UK nuclear plants, according to Cann only 10% of the country’s energy will be nuclear by the end of the decade, provided by Hinkley and Sizewell B. This used to sit at around 20% and he feels that it would be beneficial to return to these levels.
The nuclear industry has, however, been boosted by the government's decision this month to commit £700M to the Sizewell C nuclear power plant.
Former prime minister Boris Johnson confirmed government's funding plans during a speech on energy security at Sizewell C, adding that he is "absolutely confident it will get over the line" in the next few weeks. Planning permission for the project was granted in July, but details on the government's final investment decision were still to be revealed.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...les-in-bid-to-solve-energy-crisis-08-09-2022/

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I wonder if the US has a different geology? Fracking has been very successful there and reduced their dependence on traditional energy sources. But (big but) that doesn't mean it will work here if the geology is different. And of course they have more room there. But (trying to be fair) I'd like to see some test fracking to help us get an idea if it's worth it. I suspect that the cost might make any gains illusory, but I'd prefer to give it a chance first in a limited way, just to see.

I am with you why not give it a chance and see if it can be a sucess here.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

It works in America because it's so sparsely populated. They can do it on a scale that's just not possible here.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing if this can work alongside what we already have while they try to reach the goal in post #34 surely it's a good thing

 

[Brewnaldo]

I think it's just the success of fracking in the US that has raised hopes here. As I said in my earlier post, let's give it a go and see. There are massive lobbies on both sides of the argument so I trust no one. I'd just like to test it out (in a limited way) and find the truth.

I dont think this is a "give it a go" thing though. Its science. There are no intangibles that suddenly lead to enormous, unforeseen production. The only intangible here is just how bad the side effects are.

I think he will have a much better idea than you me i will go with the expert

I mean sure, if you have absolutely no intention of finding out what is being spoken about and instead settle on believing the headline figures regardless of what they mean. To each their own.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I mean sure, if you have absolutely no intention of finding out what is being spoken about and instead settle on believing the headline figures regardless of what they mean. To each their own.

You assume way too much!
I have been looking round many sites tonight as usual some say fracking is bad some say it isn't i am with Havaersham lets try it and see.

As @Haversham said earlier -

I think it's just the success of fracking in the US that has raised hopes here. As I said in my earlier post, let's give it a go and see. There are massive lobbies on both sides of the argument so I trust no one. I'd just like to test it out (in a limited way) and find the truth.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Do you know how many sites will be needed to make it work? It's lots. And lots.

If you consider how much people lose the plot over onshore wind, then it you'll realise it's not going to fly here.

 

[Haversham]

I dont think this is a "give it a go" thing though. Its science. There are no intangibles that suddenly lead to enormous, unforeseen production. The only intangible here is just how bad the side effects are.

The trouble is, there are vocal lobbies on both sides. Needless to say, as with many big emotional issues, each side likes to quote scientists friendly to (and often financed by) their own side. From a very inexpert standpoint, I’d say it seems unlikely for UK fracking to get the economies of scale needed to attract serious investment. But if it can be trialled safely, and provide some local employment into the bargain, then why not?