pavelcherepan Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) Apparently there's been an oil field found in Sussex in the vicinity of Gatwick airport. With some 100 bn barrels it's supposed to be one of the biggest onshore deposits in the world and while only 3-15% can be extracted it's still a lot of oil. Oh, yeah, and fracking will be required. Now I wonder whether common sense and community pressure will be able to hold off the development of deposit? EDIT: Sorry, forgot to add a link http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/09/west-sussex-oilfield-could-produce-50-to-100m-barrels-of-oil Edited April 9, 2015 by pavelcherepan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 If it is outside the North/South Circular Roads (A406) then it isn't London - let alone if it is outside the M25! Not strictly true - but close enough. It is worth noting that this is from one exporation company's findings and runs contrary to the British Geological Survey results. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - with many Home County Tories in the very recent past castigating those in the North West of the country for campaigning against oil exploration and fracking it will be interesting to see how they respond to exploration in the Weald Basin http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32229203 http://news.sky.com/story/1461413/oil-find-near-gatwick-may-be-world-class with BGS results and ic.ac.uk study Also worth noting that UKOG stocks flew up by over three times upon the news - "Trebles and Bonus Options all round" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-09/a-tiny-u-k-company-s-stock-is-surging-massively-after-announcing-a-world-class-oil-discovery-near-gatwick-airport 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 If it is outside the North/South Circular Roads (A406) then it isn't London - let alone if it is outside the M25! Not strictly true - but close enough. It is worth noting that this is from one exporation company's findings and runs contrary to the British Geological Survey results. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - with many Home County Tories in the very recent past castigating those in the North West of the country for campaigning against oil exploration and fracking it will be interesting to see how they respond to exploration in the Weald Basin NIMBY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 NIMBY! Exactly - and for an Essex boy like me there is nothing like watching Kent/Surrey/Sussex squirm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 The carbon dioxide released if they burn it won't stay within the M25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I don't think they'll be filling pools with it and burning it for no reason. If they need it they'll burn it. Or is the CO2 from foreign oil less harmful than CO2 produced by British oil ? And I get the impression that you're not thrilled with the prospect of fracking, Pavel. At the risk of thread derailment ( and opening a can of worms ), what risks do you see associated with fracking ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavelcherepan Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 And I get the impression that you're not thrilled with the prospect of fracking, Pavel. At the risk of thread derailment ( and opening a can of worms ), what risks do you see associated with fracking ? Mostly that would be contamination of ground waters, but also there is are some studies that link increased seismic activity with fracking. There are also some noise and air pollution concerns but I'm more worried about the first two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Well, fracking is, by definition a seismic activity, although a controlled one. And AFAIK, fracking uses water ( with added biocide ) to provide the hydraulic pressure for 'cracking' the shale plates. Can you point me to some studies of ground-water contamination as a result of fracking ? And what were the contaminants ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavelcherepan Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Well, fracking is, by definition a seismic activity, although a controlled one. And AFAIK, fracking uses water ( with added biocide ) to provide the hydraulic pressure for 'cracking' the shale plates. Can you point me to some studies of ground-water contamination as a result of fracking ? And what were the contaminants ? Have a look at these: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking%20study.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shale-gas-extraction-review-of-the-potential-public-health-impacts-of-exposures-to-chemical-and-radioactive-pollutants And also: A typical fracture treatment uses between 3 and 12 additive chemicals.[42] Although there may be unconventional fracturing fluids, typical chemical additives can include one or more of the following: Acids—hydrochloric acid or acetic acid is used in the pre-fracturing stage for cleaning the perforations and initiating fissure in the near-wellbore rock.[52] Sodium chloride (salt)—delays breakdown of gel polymer chains.[52] Polyacrylamide and other friction reducers decrease turbulence in fluid flow and pipe friction, thus allowing the pumps to pump at a higher rate without having greater pressure on the surface.[52] Ethylene glycol—prevents formation of scale deposits in the pipe.[52] Borate salts—used for maintaining fluid viscosity during the temperature increase.[52] Sodium and potassium carbonates—used for maintaining effectiveness of crosslinkers.[52] Glutaraldehyde—used as disinfectant of the water (bacteria elimination).[52] Guar gum and other water-soluble gelling agents—increases viscosity of the fracturing fluid to deliver proppant into the formation more efficiently.[49][52] Citric acid—used for corrosion prevention. Isopropanol—used to winterize the chemicals to ensure it doesn't freeze.[52] The most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 2005–2009 was methanol, while some other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.[55] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Was only able to read the cover notes of the second link, and it states that risks of contamination are low if operations are sufficiently regulated and run correctly. Heck, if a bus is run correctly it provides transport, saves money and is environmentally friendlier. But if run incorrectly, like being driven down a busy sidewalk, it'll kill dozens of people. But nobody says " Oh no, London may need increased bus service ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavelcherepan Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Was only able to read the cover notes of the second link, and it states that risks of contamination are low if operations are sufficiently regulated and run correctly. Here's a quote from the second link: The risks of surface water and groundwater contamination during the technical hydraulic fracturing stage are considered moderate to high. The likelihood of properly injected fracturing liquid reaching underground sources of drinking water through fractures is remote where there is more than 600 metres separation between the drinking water sources and the producing zone. However, the potential of natural and manmade geological features to increase hydraulic connectivity between deep strata and more shallow formations and to constitute a risk of migration or seepage needsto be duly considered. Where there is no such large depth separation, the risks are greater. Also from the first link: In a preliminary risk assessment of allphases of hydrocarbon extraction (ie from site identification to well abandonment), groundwater and surface water impacts were considered to present the greatest threat to people and the environment. And as far as Murphy's law is concerned, if there's a chance that a well could be constructed poorly it will happen: A further study of 141 wells within this area of Pennsylvania, assessed natural gas concentrations and isotopic signatures.Methane was identified in 82% of drinking water samples, with levels higher in homes located within 1 km of a gas well (Jackson RB et al, 2013). The elevated levels were considered to be due to poor well construction. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 It's not that foreign oil makes more CO2, it's that we shouldn't be looking for more oil to burn. We are doing enough damage with the stuff we already have. Increasing the supply will drop the price and increase usage. And the industry record for spilling it and causing minor (so far) quakes isn't something to inspire confidence. Of course one could argue that a proper government regulating that industry would improve things but money talks and governments listen to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I don't think they'll be filling pools with it and burning it for no reason. If they need it they'll burn it. Or is the CO2 from foreign oil less harmful than CO2 produced by British oil ? ... Not less harmful - but, using a back of an envelope calc, but for the same energy usage in the UK you would have around 1-2% less CO2 emissions as you don't have to ship crude oil from West Africa or the Gulf. The drop in Sulphur emissions would be even higher. It is also seems useful to localise environmental dangers to the end users - it is very easy to downplay hazards and mishandle risk when one is keeping the problem nicely offshore. So I would say that every gallon of petrol produced would be significantly less harmful in terms of CO2, in terms of Sulphur and other emissions (both in decreased shipping and higher standards), in terms of the human cost (life is shamefully cheap in the oil producing areas of West Africa) , and in avoiding potential disasters though good continual maintence and best practice. To declare interests: I do work in the transportation industry, and have worked in the oil sector; I do however refuse to drive a car, I minimize my flights, and I actively try to keep my carbon footprint to an absolute minimum 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Not less harmful - but, using a back of an envelope calc, but for the same energy usage in the UK you would have around 1-2% less CO2 emissions as you don't have to ship crude oil from West Africa or the Gulf. The drop in Sulphur emissions would be even higher. It is also seems useful to localise environmental dangers to the end users - it is very easy to downplay hazards and mishandle risk when one is keeping the problem nicely offshore. So I would say that every gallon of petrol produced would be significantly less harmful in terms of CO2, in terms of Sulphur and other emissions (both in decreased shipping and higher standards), in terms of the human cost (life is shamefully cheap in the oil producing areas of West Africa) , and in avoiding potential disasters though good continual maintence and best practice. To declare interests: I do work in the transportation industry, and have worked in the oil sector; I do however refuse to drive a car, I minimize my flights, and I actively try to keep my carbon footprint to an absolute minimum I think you are solving the wrong problem. The question is not "How can we pollute the atmosphere more safely?" but "How can we avoid polluting it at all?" It is true that here in the UK the political pressure might keep the risks well regulated, but I'd not bet on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Mostly that would be contamination of ground waters, but also there is are some studies that link increased seismic activity with fracking. There are also some noise and air pollution concerns but I'm more worried about the first two. A new study in Oklahoma, where earthquakes have increased on a grand scale over the past few years, indicates it is not the fracking itself that is causing the quakes, but rather the injection of wastewater into formations deeper than the extraction depth . Inasmuch as the Gatwick area appears to have similar deep limestone deposits suitable for such injection*, it is not a stretch to think the area could experience a similar result to Oklahoma if extensive oil recovery activities are conducted. * Geological Profile of Oil Discovered at Gatwick Seismic shift: Oklahomas earthquakes triggered by wastewater disposal wells ...Link between earthquakes and industry On Tuesday, the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) issued its most strongly worded statement yet linking the oil and gas industry to the states earthquakes. State geologist Richard D. Andrews and state seismologist Austin Holland say the spike in earthquakes particularly in central and north-central areas of the state is very unlikely to represent a naturally occurring process. The primary suspected source of triggered seismicity is not from hydraulic fracturing but from the injection/disposal of water associated with oil and gas production, the report from the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) reads. ... Oklahoma quake report @ USGS: >> Record Number of Oklahoma Tremors Raises Possibility of Damaging Earthquakes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Atlas Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Luckily I live further North than London; if the government decides to pursues extraction, I will be unaffected. This is not so good news for Londoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) ...This is not so good news for Londoners. It's excellent news. After centuries, coal mucking up the North, Londoners can now do their share. Edited May 1, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 I think you are solving the wrong problem. The question is not "How can we pollute the atmosphere more safely?" but "How can we avoid polluting it at all?" It is true that here in the UK the political pressure might keep the risks well regulated, but I'd not bet on it. Ultimately we need to switch to much lighter weight electric cars, hopefully with super-capacitors for electricity for storage. Regardless of storage technology, prices are coming down, driving distance is increasing, and we will be able to eliminate burning most oil and coal. Unfortunately, total transition will take decades, even with technology available today, because there are power plants and cars with good service years remaining that are currently being used. An even bigger problem is the powerful people who want to extend the use of coal and oil, and who buy political decisions in their favor. I wish you luck in keeping that oil in the ground, and that you avoiding fracking in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) TBH, I think fracking is literally scraping the barrel. If we look at it like that, as a visibly diminishing resource, should we not be thinking about using it only for things that can't be done by any other way? I think we have a responsibility to consider the material needs of those that are yet to be born, as well as climate change. Edited May 1, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 StringJunky said: "TBH, I think fracking is literally scraping the barrel. If we look at it like that, as a visibly diminishing resource, should we not be thinking about using it only for things that can't be done by any other way? I think we have a responsibility to consider the material needs of those that are yet to be born, as well as climate change." That's a good image for fracking. IMO it should be banned unless people's lives depend on fracking to get more oil or gas. I'd prefer we quickly build renewable energy production till we can supply 90+% of our needs, use oil & gas sparingly, and use no coal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Well, fracking is, by definition a seismic activity, although a controlled one. And AFAIK, fracking uses water ( with added biocide ) to provide the hydraulic pressure for 'cracking' the shale plates. Can you point me to some studies of ground-water contamination as a result of fracking ? And what were the contaminants ? Hot off the press: These findings are important because we show that chemicals traveled from shale gas wells more than two kilometers in the subsurface to drinking water wells," said co-author Susan Brantley, distinguished professor of geosciences and director of the Earth and Environmental Institute at Penn State. "The chemical that we identified either came from fracking fluids or from drilling additives and it moved with natural gas through natural fractures in the rock. In addition, for the first time, all of the data are released so that anyone can study the problem." Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-technique-shale-drilling-additives-drinking-water-leak.html#jCp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts