Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jambomo

Fracking

Recommended Posts

Are you sure that fracking is already done offshore?
I was under the impression that what they are talking about in onshore fracking is a very different technology than is used in conventional oil extraction typical in the north sea.  The rock that is drilled is 'tight' in that the hydrocarbons don't flow under their own pressure - they need to be fractured by injecting water at very high pressure before they flow.  

Hi Crossbill, yes I'm sure it's done offshore. In general the fracking is done by explosives.
The extraction is done offshore by pumping water at @15k psi into the formation.
This is exactly the reason our oilfields now have a much greater life expectancy. Without re-injection a lot of fields would be dead.
Now, I'm not an advocate of fracking over environment, I believe that the environment should always come first.
I think that done correctly - hence my suggestion of environmental groups being involved at every stage, it's a viable economic policy to pursue.
I understand that multi-national & major oil producers have a bad reputation when it comes to the environment and historically that rep is deserved.
Nowadays, the producers are incredibly strict when it comes to spillage or damage to the environment.
The slightest spill is thoroughly investigated.
I just don't see it as a fracking = bad argument. There needs to be strict controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am all for Fracking. Having worked in the Oil & Gas sector all my working life, I have seen first hand the devastating effects the down turn has had on families and businesses. 
If done by the book and correctly this will have no enviromental impact, I do agree that it should not be done in residential areas or beauty spots.
It is all very well for people who have never worked in the industry to sit and judge it as destructive and dirty by only reading articles and clippings that suit them, but the operators take the environment very seriously and do everything possible to ensure there is no threat. Also try telling a redundant North Sea worker that there is another option of staying in the sector by using Fracking, but we don't want to do that because some guys from Greenpeace might get pissed off. Well I say "f**k off" to that, whats more important to me? Keeping Greenpeace happy or giving my family a comfortable lifestyle.

And try telling someone who's kids suffer serious ill health as a result that it was more important that you have a comfortable lifestyle......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

And you've admitted that fracking always has an environmental impact, yes.

It wouldn't help the North East much anyway, it's mostly central belt.

Supply chain and expertise would almost certainly be from the North East. Im not too fussed where though as it would be helping the Scottish economy.

If your going to use vehicles on the road as me admitting thats an environmental impact, why dont we just go back to horse and cart? Thats a lame argument BP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogmc said:


And try telling someone who's kids suffer serious ill health as a result that it was more important that you have a comfortable lifestyle......

Ffs, who's kids are going to have serious ill health due to Fracking? That is just a complete fairy tale!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ffs, who's kids are going to have serious ill health due to Fracking? That is just a complete fairy tale!

Aye course it is.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And try telling someone who's kids suffer serious ill health as a result that it was more important that you have a comfortable lifestyle......

I think that's a little simplistic tbf.
There are environmental / human impacts on everything we do, regardless of the industry we are in.
I really don't think Johnnydun is advocating making children ill so he can earn money.
I think the practise should be monitored so closely that if there are any negative impacts, it's realised immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ivo den Bieman said:

At a time when the world is looking desperately for alternatives to carbon fuels, and making quite a lot of progress, it's eccentric at best to introduce a method of extracting small pockets of carbon fuels at such a high cost.

This ^^^

I studied Geology, and am now studying Environmental Science, and we've looked at fracking. It's basically environmentally fine, or at least no more damaging than other industrial processes. There are air quality issues associated with processing, transport etc. In the early days of fracking in the US, there were massive issues with gas leakages and leaching into subsurface water supply. This was largely due to terrible management, cheap techniques, low regulation and land ownership issues. In the UK, the Crown Estate means that mineral extractions must go through planning/regulation/etc, and this would never be allowed to happen. Seismic activity is virtually undetectable under around magnitude 3.5, and there is little evidence that repeated, small tremors do much damage.

My issue with fracking is that investment really shouldn't be heading towards hydrocarbons, if possible, rather we should be trying to fund cleaner energy, and in particular, energy storage techniques. IMO this should be the number one engineering and scientific priority for our generation. 

If I were in power I'd keep the gas in the ground. The price is fucking low at the moment anyway. Wait until the Saudis decide to put the price up again, and re-assess. I flip between feeling really principled about CO2 emissions, and thinking "we're only wee Scotland, what difference will our wee bit of gas make?" The reality is climate change is going to hit the planet like a ton of bricks either way, so make up your own mind. 

Edit to add: if anyone has any specific questions, I'm happy to answer them. I realise its quite an emotive subject and people feel strongly about it. I hate to see some of the, understandable, misinformation that gets chucked around in a debate like this. 

Edited by RussellAnderson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dogmc said:


Aye course it is.....

But it is, there is more chance of children having serious illness due to poverty if you do not have job creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RussellAnderson said:

This ^^^

I studied Geology, and am now studying Environmental Science, and we've looked at fracking. It's basically environmentally fine, or at least no more damaging than other industrial processes. There are air quality issues associated with processing, transport etc. In the early days of fracking in the US, there were massive issues with gas leakages and leaching into subsurface water supply. This was largely due to terrible management, cheap techniques, low regulation and land ownership issues. In the UK, the Crown Estate means that mineral extractions must go through planning/regulation/etc, and this would never be allowed to happen. Seismic activity is virtually undetectable under around magnitude 3.5, and there is little evidence that repeated, small tremors do much damage.

My issue with fracking is that investment really shouldn't be heading towards hydrocarbons, if possible, rather we should be trying to fund cleaner energy, and in particular, energy storage techniques. IMO this should be the number one engineering and scientific priority for our generation. 

If I were in power I'd keep the gas in the ground. The price is fucking low at the moment anyway. Wait until the Saudis decide to put the price up again, and re-assess. I flip between feeling really principled about CO2 emissions, and thinking "we're only wee Scotland, what difference will our wee bit of gas make?" The reality is climate change is going to hit the planet like a ton of bricks either way, so make up your own mind. 

Good post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DI Bruce Robertson said:


Hi Crossbill, yes I'm sure it's done offshore. In general the fracking is done by explosives.
The extraction is done offshore by pumping water at @15k psi into the formation.
This is exactly the reason our oilfields now have a much greater life expectancy. Without re-injection a lot of fields would be dead.
 

OK, but I still not sure that you aren't comparing apples to oranges.  

The fracking that they are talking about onshore is hydraulic fracking into shale - source rock, not reservoir rock.  One of the big differences is the life expectancy of the wells.  Experience from the US shale boom has shown that wells can be productive, but are typically very short lived - they need to keep drilling more and more to maintain production.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-does-Fracking-Differ-from-Conventional-Oil-Recovery.html

That is quite different from from the conventional reservoir drilling where a decent well may keep producing for 5, 10 15 years (or more with the correct stimulation).  So, if we go for onshore fracking it is unlikely to be just a few wells here and there - It will be hundreds or possibly thousands.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This ^^^
I studied Geology, and am now studying Environmental Science, and we've looked at fracking. It's basically environmentally fine, or at least no more damaging than other industrial processes. There are air quality issues associated with processing, transport etc. In the early days of fracking in the US, there were massive issues with gas leakages and leaching into subsurface water supply. This was largely due to terrible management, cheap techniques, low regulation and land ownership issues. In the UK, the Crown Estate means that mineral extractions must go through planning/regulation/etc, and this would never be allowed to happen. Seismic activity is virtually undetectable under around magnitude 3.5, and there is little evidence that repeated, small tremors do much damage.
My issue with fracking is that investment really shouldn't be heading towards hydrocarbons, if possible, rather we should be trying to fund cleaner energy, and in particular, energy storage techniques. IMO this should be the number one engineering and scientific priority for our generation. 
If I were in power I'd keep the gas in the ground. The price is fucking low at the moment anyway. Wait until the Saudis decide to put the price up again, and re-assess. I flip between feeling really principled about CO2 emissions, and thinking "we're only wee Scotland, what difference will our wee bit of gas make?" The reality is climate change is going to hit the planet like a ton of bricks either way, so make up your own mind. 

Great post.
I think alternative / renewable is the ultimate goal.
In the meantime, we need to look closely at fossils and decide what's acceptable & what isn't.
Many birds die every year by flying too close to Wind Turbines, so, if we are going to get all "Greenpeace" about it, we need to find an energy source that doesn't disrupt nature at all.
Count out Hydro, Wave, Wind & Solar.
So here we are. Trying to minimise impact, whilst still being able to light dogmc's house & fuel his car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, but I still not sure that you aren't comparing apples to oranges.  
The fracking that they are talking about onshore is hydraulic fracking into shale - source rock, not reservoir rock.  One of the big differences is the life expectancy of the wells.  Experience from the US shale boom has shown that wells can be productive, but are typically very short lived - they need to keep drilling more and more to maintain production.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-does-Fracking-Differ-from-Conventional-Oil-Recovery.html
That is quite different from from the conventional reservoir drilling where a decent well may keep producing for 5, 10 15 years (or more with the correct stimulation).  So, if we go for onshore fracking it is unlikely to be just a few wells here and there - It will be hundreds or possibly thousands.  

What do think "Stimulation" means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DI Bruce Robertson said:


What do think "Stimulation" means?

In the North Sea, water injection at an adjacent part of the reservoir to sweep the hydrocarbons towards the well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the North Sea, water injection at an adjacent part of the reservoir to sweep the hydrocarbons towards the well. 

What do you think is different in offshore formations as opposed to onshore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post.
I think alternative / renewable is the ultimate goal.
In the meantime, we need to look closely at fossils and decide what's acceptable & what isn't.
Many birds die every year by flying too close to Wind Turbines, so, if we are going to get all "Greenpeace" about it, we need to find an energy source that doesn't disrupt nature at all.
Count out Hydro, Wave, Wind & Solar.
So here we are. Trying to minimise impact, whilst still being able to light dogmc's house & fuel his car.

Yeah cancer clusters are entirely comparable to some birds occasionally flying into turbines. Still let's just believe the big corporations that there's no risk to the public after all its the 'greenpeace' types that have the vested interests.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DI Bruce Robertson said:


What do you think is different in offshore formations as opposed to onshore?

The rock that the hydrocarbons are being extracted from: Reservoir rock is permeable, it flows under its own pressure.  Source rock is impermeable - you need to split it apart to access the microscopic fissures that hold the hydrocarbons before it will begin to flow (and then only to the extend that you have fractured it). 

I work in subsea design.

Edited by Crossbill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×