Message from Councillor Paul Crossley (10.5.12)

I’m going to my first fracking conference this month in London to deliver a presentation about how fracking may potentially affect Bath’s hot springs, and the Co-operative are holding a fracking café in Bath on 29^th May, so there will be more visibility on this issue over the next few weeks.

Councillor Paul Crossley

Leader of Bath & North East Somerset Council

Guildhall, High Street, Bath. BA1 5AW

Telephone: (01225 477496)

Facsimile: (01225 477062)

Email: paul_crossley@bathnes.gov.uk

www.bathnes.gov.uk

The man from the Environment Agency he say " Renewables just won't do it.....nuclear and fracking are the way to go, but we must be careful!"
Hear his spiel 'are green and growth compatible?' on the RSA website

every little helps

If 100,000 people sign th,e petition below Fracking could be debated in the House of Commons (if not in current debate or going through legal proceedings).
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5927And on the anti-nuclear front: http://epetitions.direct.gov..uk/petitions/1035

Are we having the wrong debates?

I thought this was an interesting set of views:

Discussion of climate change and the wider public interest has been jettisoned in the rush to lobby against alternatives

• • Zoe Williams
  • guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 18 April 2012 20.29 BST
  • Article history

Illustration by Matt Kenyon

It's been a big week for alternative energy sources. On Tuesday, the British Geological Survey effectively greenlit fracking, with its conclusion that the earthquake risk was low. Tomorrow National Opposition to Windfarms launches its campaign in the House of Lords. My instincts are pro-wind and anti-fracking, from a straight climate change perspective: wind is renewable and not harmful, while shale gas is not renewable and contributes as much or more – much more, according to a study by Cornell University – to the greenhouse effect than either oil or coal.

The anti-fracking lobby should just stick with this argument – that if you're serious about halting global warming you have to concentrate on energy sources that don't contribute to it. However they don't want to – believing, possibly correctly, that the political will to prevent irreparable climate change just isn't there.
Instead, the anti-frackers range freely around in their opposition; some of it's grounded and some isn't. What strikes me is the similarity in approach from the anti-wind camp and the anti-frackers.

First, they talk about the aesthetics of these energy sources – National Opposition to Windfarms talks about windfarms destroying tourism, and their opening gambit is that the area becomes so unspeakably unattractive that people will simply stop going there. In the Ribble Valley and across the areas affected by fracking, the sheer ugliness of industry is emphasised.

There's a counter-argument in both cases. The aesthetics of windfarms are pretty subjective – some people like them. National Opposition to Windfarms quotes a survey from the Welsh Tourist Board in which 71% of respondents said turbines spoilt the environment; Renewables UK quotes a survey in which an almost identical proportion, 75%, finds the effect of turbines either positive or neutral.

Fracking occurs predominantly underground, so while heavy machinery is rarely attractive, it's nothing like as ugly as a coal mine or a nuclear power station. But, more important, unless you're prepared to stop using energy or you have an alternative, "I don't like the look of it" isn't enough. "It's too expensive to produce" isn't enough, either – it will look a lot less expensive when the existing energy sources run out.

Windfarms are ahead of frackers in the way they comprehend their obligations. They pay rent to landowners but also £1,000 per megawatt a year to the community – and this sector is also creating a new model for small-scale finance. You can, from Saturday, invest in a wind turbine in the Forest of Dean for as little as £5, with the expectation of a return. More on that another day; there are so far no small-scale investment plans for fracking the Bowland Basin in Lancashire.

But there is a huge swath of shale gas in the north of England; the mineral rights are owned by the crown. That money could be sucked into the centre, or it could be kept in Lancashire, dispersed to local authorities. What would the north-south divide look like then? Is there any requirement to privilege local companies in the granting of contracts, either for wind energy or shale gas? Where there isn't, why isn't there?
What would society look like if the shareholders in its major energy companies were regular people on median incomes? What would it look like if the people living above the gas supplies were its beneficiaries? These questions will affect the wealth distribution of this country for the next 200 years. And yet what does the debate concentrate on? How many jobs are created building a road to the well site? How much a unit of wind energy costs to produce? It's so narrow as to be a distraction.

Finally, both the anti-winds and the anti-frackers are guilty of such overstatement as to collapse their arguments. Respectable anti-windfarmers generally don't make the case for adverse health effects, but on the ground protesters are still talking about infrasound and flicker, and how they cause suicide. National Opposition to Windfarms claims losses to bird life that are disputed by crowning bird fanciers the RSPB. Anti-frackers claim that France has a moratorium on fracking because it has learned and understood the lessons of the film Gasland.

If this is true, it is remarkable: not just because France's geology is different to that of the film's US location, but also because the scientific arguments lodged in that film are nothing like a done deal. There's a scene in which someone turns on a tap, and gas comes out that you can light with a match. Scientists contest that this was localised methane in the aquifer and nothing to do with the fracking process. Thermogenic methane is associated with gas production, while biogenic methane isn't, and it's apparently easy to tell the difference.

People counter with "well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" – that point was made by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission of Colorado – but you can't cherrypick the science that suits you and reject that which doesn't. Frackers, incidentally, believe France's moratorium is linked to lobbying by the nuclear industry. As enjoyable as it is to see big businesses eat each other for a change, it's not exactly the sight of everything working in the public interest.

I remain pro-wind and anti-fracking; but my main worry is that both will go ahead, and the real concerns of energy users – proximal or not – won't be resolved or even discussed, just swamped under anxious misinformation.
Twitter: @zoesqwilliams
• This article was amended on 20 April. The original referred to the British Geological Society. This has been amended

FROME ANTI-FRACKING has now forged links with Frack-Free Somerset.
http://www.frackfreesomerset.org/
sign up on their website for ACTION ALERTS

Responses from Environment Agency and SCC

9th March 2012:
quote from letter from SCC:

"As you note, the Environment Agency has an important role to play, in particular because of the important aquifer that supplies pub;lic drinking water as well as supporting the natural environment of the Mendip Hills"

19th March 2012
quote from letter form Environment agency:

"For ongoing UK Shale gas operations we have adopted a precautionary approach thus far [........................] Radioactivity in the return fluid in Lancashire has already meant a change in our approach. [.............] regarding as to whether sewage works routinely screen for radioactivity I recommend you speak with the sewage undertaker for your area of interest."

Interesting bristol exploration club on the case...

An Interim Report on Hydraulic Fracturing – Fracking
By Phillip Romford BSc (Hons), MSc (Petroleum Geochemistry)
Abstract:
A proposal has been made to conduct drilling and coring to investigate what may be suitable
geological formations for hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to be conducted in the Mendip Hills
region. The intention of this report is to describe the technology, science and chemistry, and
to explain the possible problems that may be encountered; such as earthquakes caused by the
fracturing process, groundwater contamination and shale gas contamination of domestic
water supplies, and the release of green-house gases (GHG). It will also be reasonable to
make mention of the benefits that shale and/or coal gas extracted in the region may bring. The
evidence presented here may be used to determine whether there is any risk of degradation to
our cave environments.
All information and data presented in this report were taken only from reliable sources that
are expert in this subject who do not enter into citing ‘hear say’, or from organisations who
may distort the data for their own vested interests, whether this be industry or protesters. The
information provided here, is for the readers to digest and then to be used to form their own
opinions.

(14 pages omitted by me)

Shale & Coal Gas Report Bristol Exploration Club 3rd December 2011

9 Conclusions

Given that no permissions have yet been applied for it is not possible to draw firm

conclusions. However, from the investigations conducted so far, the indications are that the

proposals and planning applications will most likely be into source rocks that bear the highest

reserves of extractable gas. This suggests that operations will be in the areas that have already

been mined for coal. It would seem illogical to conduct operations in poor source rocks with

low TOC and consequent low gas evolution.

Of primary importance for the objectives of this document is this observation: the evidence

suggests that it would appear to be unlikely that drilling operations, either investigative or for

gas extraction, would be considered for the area containing the Mendip caves. Further to this;

analysis of drilled cores could suggest that hydraulic fracturing may not be required for

successful gas extraction.

The British Geological Survey have estimated that the UK may have only about 1.5 years of

gas supply at the current level of demand; this may be raised, according to an operator in

Lancashire. This does beg this question: would extraction of gas in the Mendip Hills region

be a viable proposition, given that the resource area is very small? (references 2 &3)

Finally, this report is not considered complete until all facts are known about localities,

applications, and operations that may be allowed to take place.

Hydraulic Fracturing . Version 1.0 13 November

2011

Shale & Coal Gas Report Bristol Exploration Club 3rd December 2011

10 References:

1.http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/ resources/081111_90_day_report.pdf

90 Day Report. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, shale and gas sub-committee.

2. https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/UKpromote/onshore_paper/Promote_UK_CBM.pdf

Department of Energy & Climate Change. The Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources

of Britains Onshore Basins – Coal Bed Methane

3. https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/UKpromote/onshore_paper/UK_onshore_shalegas.pdf

Department of Energy & Climate Change. The Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources

of Britains Onshore Basins -Shale Gas

4. http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Chemical-

Disclosure-PH-1.jpg Cuadrilla Resources, table of fluid constituents.

5. http://www.microseismic.com/technology.html micro seismic information

6. cuadrilla_report.pdf Dr. C.J. de Pater and Dr. S. Baisch. Geomechanical Study of

Bowland Shale Seismicity. November 2001.

7. http://www.quakes.bgs.ac.uk/hazard/Hazard_UK.htm information on earthquakes.

8. http://www.philromford.co.uk/pedl074.html map depicting relinquished licence.

9. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/02/fracking-cause-lancashire-quakes?

INTCMP=SRCH Prof A Aplin comment. The Guardian.2 November 2011

10. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/43/E871 Methane contamination of drinking water –

a letter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

11. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/E665nt/108/37/E665 Methane contamination of

drinking water – a letter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

12. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/126689.aspx The Environment

Agency, information on regulation.

13. The Environment Protection Agency, USA Hydraulic Fracturing

14. www.halliburton.com Listings of fluid compositions for many wells.

15. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1100682108 Methane contamination of drinking

water – Osborn et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

Other references of interest:

• Dept. of Energy & Climate Change : Oil & Gas general information

• PBU UK Ltd . Directional drilling

• bgs_mpfoilgas.pdf information ; Onshore Oil and Gas.

• tyndallcentre_shale_gas_report.pdf Shale gas: a provisional assessment of

• climate change and environmental impacts. Wood, Gilbert, Sharmina &

Anderson.2011

• epa_study_plan.pdf Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

on Drinking Water Resources.January 2011

• Natural England