UK Power supplies Winter 2022/2023. Are you prepared ?

[tobyjugg2]

3 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

Is fracking really a viable option in the UK ?

 

So how about giving some credible evidence that warrants even considering forcing high pressure chemicals, intended to literally fracture (in increasing areas) the foundations of a smallish island, should even be thought of as even worthy of a moments consideration

I even have some doubts regarding the FAR FAR safer cleaner and immensely longer lasting geothermal option, which only fractures a small area far deeper.

 

-  otherwise you might as well say;

Is setting fire to forests, cities, towns and hamlets of England a viable option to keep warm this winter in the UK

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

@tobyjugg2

 

So I guess that you are undecided about whether fracking in the UK would be on balance a good or bad thing to do ?

 

My reading of the fracking debate is that there are about as many pros and cons.  Personally, if I were in charge of making decisions, I would be wanting money spent on less risk energy production options, that could provide reliable enviromentally friendly energy.  With fracking, the risk of pollution on a small island and the consequential health issues that could be caused, would possibly be more costly to deal with, than the benefit derived.

[tobyjugg2]

44 minutes ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

@tobyjugg2

 

My reading of the fracking debate is that there are about as many pros

 

So lets hear them?

(With some realistic support)

Edited September 10, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

.., realistic support - eg cross referenced with academic sources outside industry bought reports

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

Really?

So @unclebulgaria67 tell us roughly how much did the frackers pay for the damage caused by the earthquakes which stopped fracking not so long ago?

 

and how much has been spent at taxpayer expense in the USA cleaning up abandoned fracking wells that no longer, or NEVER did  pay profits?

 

 

You've not answered these yet either

and rather than leave a trap for some shill who might claim that theres no proof fracking caused earthquakes ...

.... despite it being obvious that frackers should be proving beyond ANY reasonable doubt they didn't and don't

 

How fracking caused earthquakes in the UK | New Scientist

WWW.NEWSCIENTIST.COM

---

Hydraulic fracturing has been linked to two earthquakes in the UK earlier this year – now a report says the fracking "most likely" caused the quakes

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[unclebulgaria67]

@tobyjugg2

 

Sure that you have both of those answers to hand.  Lots of information online about fracking, but I am not equipped to weigh up the evidence.  MP's will have to carefully study all of the information, before Parliament decides whether to grant licences for test drilling sites.   The new Chancellor of the Exchequer recently said in March 2022 that he was not convinced of the case for fracking, so there may not be majority support even in the Tory party for it.

 

My instincts are to invest in quickest safest way to obtain energy supplies and to invest in technological research to find ways to provide energy for the future. And technology that helps reduce the amount of energy demand.

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

@tobyjugg2

 

Sure that you have both of those answers to hand.  Lots of information online about fracking, but I am not equipped to weigh up the evidence. 

 

really? The FACTS do speak for themselves - even just the few I've posted this time around

You clearly don't work on a basis of 'deliberately fracturing the earth we live on .. aka ... by definition generating repeated artificial earthquakes  needs some solid justification ..

 

Surely you wouldn't shoot yourself in the head just because somebody who would benefit from your death told you 'it wont cause any damage and will make you rich'?

Would you?

 

 

Which leaves you still short on your "as many pros" your "reading of the fracking debate" gave you confidence to post on?

Surely that wasn't empty? and if it was and is - why?

We are talking about potential extensive damage to our and our children's home

Edited September 10, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[unclebulgaria67]

Fracking can never be made completely safe

ENERGYPOST.EU

---

As fracking is starting up in the UK, Prof Richard Davies of Newcastle University writes that we can manage its risks, but not guarantee complete...

 

If you read the article, you will see the complexities involved.  I don't know whether there are any areas in the UK, where fracking could be done at an acceptable risk level.  And if they found such sites, whether they could actually deliver any useful supplies at a rate that would make it viable.

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

Well theres a quite informed report detailing why it isn't a good idea in sooooo many ways

.. despite detailing it 'could' be possible to frack without a great deal of risk of endangering people via earthquakes - if the site and people are far enough away, and enough thorough pre-drilling checks and balances are in place - which would add massively to the cost - and simply aren't.

 

How did you read it?

 

"From 2007 to 2010 he led an international team that showed that the Lusi mud volcano that caused 40,000 Indonesian’s to lose their homes was almost certainly triggered by drilling for gas rather than being a natural disaster."

 

"Similarly, the new research on earthquakes could one day inform a law on where exactly drilling can take place. But all these results are preliminary, using empirical data, modelling and various assumptions."

 

and What (apart from the actual headline) does that tell you

 

(I was going to save that one - but AM giving you the benefit and a pass)

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

All other issues aside, including actual financial cost and damage to the environment, there are places where the risk to the environment and of damage from generated earthquakes might be minimised somewhat

 

eg  where the land is desert or already so polluted by the oil/shale that VERY few live for 100's miles in every direction.

 

So where is that in the UK?

 

Then we'll get on to the financial side already touched upon and the levels of taxpayer support of the development of the sites

 

* Then we'll get onto the simple fact that even JUST financially viable fracking (all else aside) depends on maintaining a high energy cost to the consumer, and therefore needs antagonism toward now cheaper, faster and safer implemented, and cleaner renewables

[tobyjugg2]

LOL

Even TRTnews juyst now discussing the UK energy cost issues and windfall taxes on energy company 'massive profits'

 

'If you are on the left of the political spectrum like Keith Starmer you think its a good idea, if you are on the right and your campaigns are largely funded by gas and oil companies, you think otherwise'

 

[honeybee13]

Who are TRT News please, TJ?

[tobyjugg2]

TRTworld satellite channel - Turkish news channel

 

I like to get a broad spectrum of opinion (and justifications for that 'reasoning) in all areas.

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

I also put some effort into finding free versions of info I refer, even though its clear few read them - which is often why i treat those with a modicum of the bruskness (perhaps perceived as contempt) it seems to me that they seem to deserve).

 

Like this when following up an reality checking info on leakages generally and additionally abandoned wells where fracking sites add an entirely new dimension to what we in the UK might consider 'brown sites' in addition

 

"Our study was the primary to look at the info contained within the British Columbia Oil & Gas Commission Wellbore (OCG) Leakage Database. We found that nearly 11 per cent of all oil and gas wells had a reported leak, together releasing 14,000 cubic metres of methane per day."

 

 

 

Petrochemistry 2015 :The impact of abandoned fracking sites on brownfield funding | Abstract

WWW.PRIMESCHOLARS.COM

---

Abstract: When land researchers discuss brownfields, often former industrial sites (e.g., steel mills), automobile shops, salvage yards, dry...

 

 

 

 

But THIS is well worth reading as a positive and realistic base as a counter along with my prior post link on the cost-benefit of the developed world going renewable and dumping fossil fuel use.

 

How to ramp up Hydrogen under the new REPowerEU targets - Energy Post

ENERGYPOST.EU

---

What needs to be done to develop hydrogen as a major fuel in Europe as the continent looks to diversify away from Russian oil and gas supplies...

 

 

More on the conspiracy side, with no real evidence (<- clearly stated) but I utterly believe it.

So who thinks a hydrogen formula is available that would enable a form of hydrogen, perhaps bonded with graphene/graphite among others, suitable to directly replace petrol and diesel - but hidden away with patents protecting all areas around it by the petro industry and their political puppets?

 

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

So, when Truss starts promoting fracking as the future .... fracking shill claims aside, how much can fracking 'potentially recover' if everything is perfect and no matter the costs ....

 

According to the British Geological Survey, initial estimates in 2013 suggested that the Bowland-Hodder area may have held between 23.3 and 64.6 trillion cubic metres (tcm),

- but a more recent analysis in 2019 suggested the figure is closer to 4.0 tcm.

 

How could the BGS have got it SOOOO wrong .. 

... particularly given that the US Energy Information Administration also estimated in 2013 that the UK had a total resource of NOT 23-64tcm in one site, BUT 3.8 tcm of shale gas in Northern and Southern England - including chunks of that which would be uneconomical or physically impossible to extract

(aka at best)

I can think of no credible answer other than corruption/collusion or rank incompetence.

 

and whys it so different from the US - apart from all the (obviously ignorable) people living nearby on our relatively small Island? and why is even the 3-3.8tcm NOT worth the risk? - even with cost and more 'normal' environment damage aside?

- Science readily defines the differences between US mega shale sites and the UK's bent and distorted geologically complex 'potential sites ... and the very real potential for fracking disaster should heavily folded geological formations be treated the same when in proximity to large population centers.

 

May be environmentally active site linked, but check the guys credentials.

 

Geology in Britain cannot support fracking for oil and gas, expert claims

THEECOLOGIST.ORG

---

We’re 55 million years too late for hydraulic fracturing to work in the UK, claims Professor John Underhill, the chief scientist at Heriot-Watt...

 

 

Still waiting for your 'as many pros' @unclebulgaria67

I see none zip nada sweet Francis Adams ... other than profits in a handful of pockets

Edited September 10, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[unclebulgaria67]

Fracking Pros and Cons: Why Is It Controversial?

SELECTRA.CO.UK

---

With the fracking debate returning in light of the global energy crisis, we've laid out the main fracking pros and cons in our quick guide to...

 

[tobyjugg2]

LOL - Nothing better than expected

 

Now how about something that isnt BLATANTLY an energy supplier shill site

Theres even an EDF advert prominent above the blurb.

 

But lets take a brief look at the alleged 'pros, most of wjich have already been addressed here

 

 

Fracking Pros	Fracking Cons
More gas and oil reserves <- LOL - meaningless 'more'	Water contamination
Self-sufficiency <- Nope - not enough and too high a cost and *duplicated claim	Earthquakes
Reduced coal production <- Nope, and at least as 'dirty'	Industrialisation
Jobs creation  <- NOPE not in any significant number - see US examples	Ecological destruction
Energy security  <- NOPE - not enough at too high a cost - just like north sea oil and gas and *duplicated claim	High water consumption
Reduced water intensity <- WTF is that supposed to be in any meaningful way? - Fracking might use a bit less than we would have done? - Justify it WOULD	Carbon emissions

 

and lets take a look at YOUR links other content:

 

"According to the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), UK petroleum reserves are projected to sustain production for another 20 years or more"

- NOPE - already addressed these false claims in detail - 10 years at best, at current usage levels, if its possible at all, with US estimates lower than that.

 

"The UK has large enough reserves of shale oil and gas to meet national energy consumption needs for years to come. This would allow the UK to rely much less heavily on foreign oil and gas imports"

- Its not happening now with North sea oil and gas, so where is there any justification that lessor more expensive fracked hydrocarbons will eh?

 

 

"An industry review in 2014 predicted that fracking could generate over 60,000 new jobs."

- NOPE - absolute rubbish just like the apacity claims - around 6,000 is the real estimate and thats with hundreds of wells

 

 

 

That linked article is complete industry spin with 'suggestions; that have already been crushed as deceipt even in the few recent posts.

 

Now prove, with solid facts, that fracking in the form of 100's or thousands of wells generating earthquakes (by definition) is worthwhile.

 

*Start with ACTUAL rules that ENFORCE the competence and requirements that these articles suggest is possible (sic aint against the laws of physics) but there are NO plans, let alone requirements to implement.

* Follow up with projections based on the most likely ACTUAL total available amount, how to address the issues of location, earthquakes and how to safely frack folded geology

* Then address with a detailed plan the issues surrounding leakages and decommissioning of wells after the few years at best of fracking.

 

Then put it together in a supported rational and credible plan to implement fracking in even just a reasonably safe manner.

Surely thats the absolute minimum anyone or any company should have as a start?

 

We've not even touched on the environmental damage of burning what comes out.

 

You wouldn't go to change the wheel on your vehicle with a matchstick to hold it up and a pair of tweezers for the rest and simply hope for the best now would you?

Or would you.

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Do I need to disassemble more of those 'suggested' 'possible' claimed pros?

 

the article itself utterly negates a number of the pros itself - away from the headline of course.

Need more examples?

 

Now I think claiming a 'pro' at the top that the article then completely negates MUCH further down, but leaves it as a pro for the schills to quote, is dishonest.

The summary should be clear with the detail proving it - not selected 'detail' highlighted with its disproving left to the suburbs of the article

 

 

So Heres the summary of that article

The pros claimed for fracking have largely all been demonstrated to be lies, wishes and deceit.

 

 

So lets see a detailed plan addressing the issues raised. You need one just to build a bungalow.

Edited September 11, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

Another viewpoint from Will Hutton on current energy policy. This paragraph sums up his thoughts.

 

Financial sustainability could have been addressed in a number of ways. A further windfall tax could have been imposed on the extraordinary profits in the energy sector. In addition, for the duration of the Ukraine war, all gas and oil from British fields should be required to be sold to the government on a cost-plus basis rather than distorted international prices. Consumers could have been told to tighten their belts with ministers giving a lead and a rationing system rolled out if needed. There should be a state-led crash programme of building onshore and offshore windfarms, – the fastest and lowest cost route to boosting energy supplies – along with accelerating the home insulation programme.

 

Putin is waging an economic war with Europe. Britain’s absurd energy plan plays into his hands | Will Hutton | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

The Tories’ ideology of daffy libertarianism seeks to triumph over evidence and reason

 

[tobyjugg2]

Above links Summarised for those for whom reading is an issue

Part 1.

 

* There is no legislated requirement  for any resultant fossil fuels to be used to address UK energy needs, or for anything other than being sold on the international market to the highest bidders with the profits going to the international fracking companies coffers

 

* The cost of fracked fuel will remain at a very high level and actually REQUIRE a high energy cost to the consumer to maintain it, and will be sold to the highest bidder on international markets

 

* The actual amount of potential frack fossil fuels in the UK is less than 1/10th the figures used to justify fracking - and is a relatively small amount which will actually make little difference to supplying the Uk's needs even if it were directed there. It isnt.

 

* The potential damage caused by fracking to local populations, local environment, and the global climate is do extreme it needs solid legal limitations and requirements defined and enforced - which simply aren't there - as they would make it even further uneconomical.

 

* The actual jobs created is a small fraction of the claimed jobs created - and VASTLY less and lower quality jobs than a concerted move to a renewable infrastructure which would create far more jobs across the range of expertise.

 

* The nature of the folded UK geology, in addition to large local populations increases the risk of catastrophic events immensely over US fracking even if the potential amounts were at US levels - which they aren't anywhere near.

 

* Fracking would entail forcing millions of gallons of water carrying grit and solvents to force artificial fracturing (earthquakes) in a folded UK geological structure with INCREASED potential for inducing catastrophic geological events of a number of types.

 

 

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Quite a good paper from the Univesity of Manchester on  economics of Fracking. Was issued 4 years ago, but probably still relevant information.

 

https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/65318663/Economic_viability_of_UK_shale_gas.pdf

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

Not even reading it as it seems unlikely you will have checked it against the issues already disproved.

 

Summarise it with some quality assurance and fact checking applied, and where it answers the questions already raised or raises some new points

- to show it might be even worth 10 minutes of my time, by demonstrating you have invested even that little amount of time.

 

just firing off links which you haven't actually properly read or commented on just demonstrates your failings.

 

 

[honeybee13]

Let's not make this personal please, TJ.

 

So you don't think Manchester University knows what it's talking about?

 

Another comment on energy policy.

 

UK must insulate homes or face a worse energy crisis in 2023, say experts | Energy bills | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Cutting heat loss from houses will be more effective in the long term than subsidising bills, according to analysis

 

[theoldrouge]

Why bother yourself with the pro’s when only the con’s suit your narrative?

Fracking has become a necessity due to the dereliction of duty of politicians of all colours  in providing energy security whilst fawning at the feet of a Scandinavian schoolgirl 

Meanwhile China is building and opening hundreds of coal fired power stations whilst laughing at those who espouse net zero 

[honeybee13]

China is part of the problem, how does further pollution help anything?

 

If the politicians were truly fawning at the feet of Greta - is that what the Mail, Express and co are saying? - they'd have made the effort with renewables to replace what gas is being used for.