Fracked off

THE LATEST ‘public relations’ film by the fracking industry makes for disturbing viewing.

In it by the fracking fraternity seem hell-bent on selling their dubious cash-clutching scheme to a sceptical public, what with a 30-minute sales pitch on how utterly impressive/essential/cost-effective/brilliant fracking is.

The programme gave a scant look at one of the ‘minor’, hardly worth mentioning, downsides in Pennsylvania [US] which is riddled with fracking well test areas.

Tests showed that 85 per cent of water samples from these sites contained dangerous levels of methane and the bubbling water was actually flammable.

Apparently the reasons given for this was that were the construction of wells is somewhat primitive, causing the chemicals to seepleech into the earth.

But there was no mention of how fracking blasts the bedrock we live on to pieces and is known to cause earthquakes.

The 2010 Gulf of Mexico disaster was caused by BP scrimping on safety checks and maintenance, so if multinationals can’t be trusted, now we have fly-by-night fracking cowboys!

The frackers should be told to frack off and take their fracking gear with them.

T King Five Locks Road Cwmbran

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:10pm Fri 6 Dec 13

_Bryan_ says...

Fracking causes earthquakes that are too minor to be felt, certainly far less than you would feel if a truck drove past your house.

All of the stories of methane filled water that I have come across have been shown to be modern myths, always happening to a "friend of a friend" or appearing in spurious youtube videos. I am not aware of a single test conducted under laboratory conditions which demonstrates this, let alone there being enough such tests for "85% of samples tested" to show contamination.

The Gulf of Mexico oil leak was caused by a contractor hired by BP failing to fulfill the terms of their contract. There was a lack of corporate oversight which may have highlighted this issue but the direct blame should be apportioned to this contractor and not BP.
Fracking causes earthquakes that are too minor to be felt, certainly far less than you would feel if a truck drove past your house. All of the stories of methane filled water that I have come across have been shown to be modern myths, always happening to a "friend of a friend" or appearing in spurious youtube videos. I am not aware of a single test conducted under laboratory conditions which demonstrates this, let alone there being enough such tests for "85% of samples tested" to show contamination. The Gulf of Mexico oil leak was caused by a contractor hired by BP failing to fulfill the terms of their contract. There was a lack of corporate oversight which may have highlighted this issue but the direct blame should be apportioned to this contractor and not BP. _Bryan_

12:00am Sat 7 Dec 13

leedsjon says...

1. 'Fracking causes earthquakes that are too minor to be felt, certainly far less than you would feel if a truck drove past your house.'
This is a truly outrageous comment to make! There has not, as yet, been published a single research study anywhere in the world which supports this conclusion. There has, in contrast, been a number of studies, largely of UK origin (Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering 2012 - the seminal evaluation into the safety of the UK fracking industry commissioned by the Govt) whose aim was to estimate the probability of fracking causing earthquakes and, if so, their size and likely impact. Probability - an estimate of how likely something is going or not going to happen - is completely different from any kind of empirical evidence - proof (ie verifiable evidence) that something will or will not happen. It's important not to confuse these two very different kinds of study. Just to put this into context, the govt's study assessed how likely it was that fracking would cause earthquakes. This needs to be contrasted with empirical studies which have analysed real life occurrences of earthquakes happening in fracking areas. In the UK the most well documented of these happened in the Blackpool/Fylde area 2/3 years ago and caused earthquakes sufficiently large to cause the kind of damage to buildings (including residents' houses) comparable to that created by mining subsidence (eg cracks down walls) - this is, using the measurements currently used in scientific studies, substantially higher than the kind of small seismic impact caused by a passing lorry.
2. 'I am not aware of a single test conducted under laboratory conditions which demonstrates this, let alone there being enough such tests for "85% of samples tested" to show contamination.'
In 2012 the US based Environmental Protection Agency/EPA published final results from a national research project conducted over ten years which found over 1,500 separate cases of methane contamination of public water sources. All of these studies were conducted in strictly controlled laboratory conditions. It is largely as a result of studies such as these that the EPA is campaigning vigourously for the adoption of higher and stricter safety standards in the US fracking industry.
1. 'Fracking causes earthquakes that are too minor to be felt, certainly far less than you would feel if a truck drove past your house.' This is a truly outrageous comment to make! There has not, as yet, been published a single research study anywhere in the world which supports this conclusion. There has, in contrast, been a number of studies, largely of UK origin (Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering 2012 - the seminal evaluation into the safety of the UK fracking industry commissioned by the Govt) whose aim was to estimate the probability of fracking causing earthquakes and, if so, their size and likely impact. Probability - an estimate of how likely something is going or not going to happen - is completely different from any kind of empirical evidence - proof (ie verifiable evidence) that something will or will not happen. It's important not to confuse these two very different kinds of study. Just to put this into context, the govt's study assessed how likely it was that fracking would cause earthquakes. This needs to be contrasted with empirical studies which have analysed real life occurrences of earthquakes happening in fracking areas. In the UK the most well documented of these happened in the Blackpool/Fylde area 2/3 years ago and caused earthquakes sufficiently large to cause the kind of damage to buildings (including residents' houses) comparable to that created by mining subsidence (eg cracks down walls) - this is, using the measurements currently used in scientific studies, substantially higher than the kind of small seismic impact caused by a passing lorry. 2. 'I am not aware of a single test conducted under laboratory conditions which demonstrates this, let alone there being enough such tests for "85% of samples tested" to show contamination.' In 2012 the US based Environmental Protection Agency/EPA published final results from a national research project conducted over ten years which found over 1,500 separate cases of methane contamination of public water sources. All of these studies were conducted in strictly controlled laboratory conditions. It is largely as a result of studies such as these that the EPA is campaigning vigourously for the adoption of higher and stricter safety standards in the US fracking industry. leedsjon

7:40pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Bobevans says...

leedsjon wrote:
1. 'Fracking causes earthquakes that are too minor to be felt, certainly far less than you would feel if a truck drove past your house.'
This is a truly outrageous comment to make! There has not, as yet, been published a single research study anywhere in the world which supports this conclusion. There has, in contrast, been a number of studies, largely of UK origin (Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering 2012 - the seminal evaluation into the safety of the UK fracking industry commissioned by the Govt) whose aim was to estimate the probability of fracking causing earthquakes and, if so, their size and likely impact. Probability - an estimate of how likely something is going or not going to happen - is completely different from any kind of empirical evidence - proof (ie verifiable evidence) that something will or will not happen. It's important not to confuse these two very different kinds of study. Just to put this into context, the govt's study assessed how likely it was that fracking would cause earthquakes. This needs to be contrasted with empirical studies which have analysed real life occurrences of earthquakes happening in fracking areas. In the UK the most well documented of these happened in the Blackpool/Fylde area 2/3 years ago and caused earthquakes sufficiently large to cause the kind of damage to buildings (including residents' houses) comparable to that created by mining subsidence (eg cracks down walls) - this is, using the measurements currently used in scientific studies, substantially higher than the kind of small seismic impact caused by a passing lorry.
2. 'I am not aware of a single test conducted under laboratory conditions which demonstrates this, let alone there being enough such tests for "85% of samples tested" to show contamination.'
In 2012 the US based Environmental Protection Agency/EPA published final results from a national research project conducted over ten years which found over 1,500 separate cases of methane contamination of public water sources. All of these studies were conducted in strictly controlled laboratory conditions. It is largely as a result of studies such as these that the EPA is campaigning vigourously for the adoption of higher and stricter safety standards in the US fracking industry.
Fracking does not cause earthquakes that has been proven beyond any doubt

Yes test in the US have found methane in wells. It occurs naturally in ground water in parts of the US. There is no evidence to link it to fracking.. Water is in any case vented to prevent any build up of naturally occurring gases which is always a possibility with wells
[quote][p][bold]leedsjon[/bold] wrote: 1. 'Fracking causes earthquakes that are too minor to be felt, certainly far less than you would feel if a truck drove past your house.' This is a truly outrageous comment to make! There has not, as yet, been published a single research study anywhere in the world which supports this conclusion. There has, in contrast, been a number of studies, largely of UK origin (Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering 2012 - the seminal evaluation into the safety of the UK fracking industry commissioned by the Govt) whose aim was to estimate the probability of fracking causing earthquakes and, if so, their size and likely impact. Probability - an estimate of how likely something is going or not going to happen - is completely different from any kind of empirical evidence - proof (ie verifiable evidence) that something will or will not happen. It's important not to confuse these two very different kinds of study. Just to put this into context, the govt's study assessed how likely it was that fracking would cause earthquakes. This needs to be contrasted with empirical studies which have analysed real life occurrences of earthquakes happening in fracking areas. In the UK the most well documented of these happened in the Blackpool/Fylde area 2/3 years ago and caused earthquakes sufficiently large to cause the kind of damage to buildings (including residents' houses) comparable to that created by mining subsidence (eg cracks down walls) - this is, using the measurements currently used in scientific studies, substantially higher than the kind of small seismic impact caused by a passing lorry. 2. 'I am not aware of a single test conducted under laboratory conditions which demonstrates this, let alone there being enough such tests for "85% of samples tested" to show contamination.' In 2012 the US based Environmental Protection Agency/EPA published final results from a national research project conducted over ten years which found over 1,500 separate cases of methane contamination of public water sources. All of these studies were conducted in strictly controlled laboratory conditions. It is largely as a result of studies such as these that the EPA is campaigning vigourously for the adoption of higher and stricter safety standards in the US fracking industry.[/p][/quote]Fracking does not cause earthquakes that has been proven beyond any doubt Yes test in the US have found methane in wells. It occurs naturally in ground water in parts of the US. There is no evidence to link it to fracking.. Water is in any case vented to prevent any build up of naturally occurring gases which is always a possibility with wells Bobevans

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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