Fracking in Streatham??

[ddraig]

He is expressing his opinions, based on the evidence he is aware of, just like you are. You seem to be making some kind of moral judgement on him.

I hope that you don't earn your living doing anything that relies on industrial processes that aren't 100% risk free.

what evidence is that then? have you seen it?
and hypocrisy hunting, a great game you're playing there

 

[teuchter]

what evidence is that then? have you seen it?

Are you asking me if I have psychic knowledge of what other posters have and haven't seen?

 

[ddraig]

meh

 

[cuppa tee]

Oh yes, don't get me wrong, we must kill the HGV scourge before it kills (more) of us. My point is that increased HGV traffic is the worst potential by-product of fracking in urban areas.

You seem to have a strong opinion on the HGV issue, seems peculiar that you havent popped up on any of the cycling threads but decided it was time to join in when the remote possibility of Fracking in streatham came up, anyway in your defence of it you always stress the risk for urban areas, what about non- urban places, are the risks the same in your opinion ?

And, worries about groundwater contamination etc are a distraction from the most important reason that fracking should be resisted, which is that it extends our reliance on fossil fuel and the infrastructure that goes with it and makes it harder for other energy sources to get off the ground.

Oh really ? if water is undrinkable then a lot of people won't have to worry about the long term dependence on fossil fuels because they'll eiither be dying of thirst/poisoning or buying water at whatever price trusted suppliers such as coca cola chose to levy.

 

[DanJer]

by definition an event in a rural area would affect fewer people so yeah, the risk to the individual is lower.
i don't have much to add to the HGV issue, apart from +1 etc, so i haven't felt compelled to join in.

 

[Treacle Toes]

by definition an event in a rural area would affect fewer people so yeah, the risk to the individual is lower.

No, this means the risk to the 'collective' is lower. Any individual affected is an individual person affected. Fewer people living in rural areas means fewer individuals are affected, not that the risk is lower for those people.

 

[Greebo]

My work is rewarding. I play a part in reducing the risk in an inherently risky industry.

You also hold down a job as either a bouncer for a strip joint, or as a condom tester? Your work ethic does you credit.

 

[cuppa tee]

by definition an event in a rural area would affect fewer people so yeah, the risk to the individual is lower.
i don't have much to add to the HGV issue, apart from +1 etc, so i haven't felt compelled to join in.

The risk to people is lower because of the numbers of people are less what about the environment ?

 

[Treacle Toes]

The risk to people is lower because of the numbers of people are less what about the environment ?

But the risk isn't lower, it's the same, but affects fewer people.

 

[teuchter]

Oh really ? if water is undrinkable then a lot of people won't have to worry about the long term dependence on fossil fuels because they'll eiither be dying of thirst/poisoning or buying water at whatever price trusted suppliers such as coca cola chose to levy.

There is a high likelihood, based on substantial evidence, that continuing use of fossil fuels will lead to massively damaging and possibly catastrophic consequences for huge numbers of people.

The sketchy evidence available at present seems to suggest that there is a possibility that fracking could pollute groundwater supplies, but that if properly carried out and regulated, the risk is low.

I know which I'm more worried about.

Even if a large proportion of fracking sites caused problems locally with groundwater, I'd venture that the consequences of that would be totally dwarfed by those that are going to result from climate change.

 

[cuppa tee]

But the risk isn't lower, it's the same, but affects fewer people.

That's why I did the face palm

Even if a large proportion of fracking sites caused problems locally with groundwater, I'd venture that the consequences of that would be totally dwarfed by those that are going to result from climate change.

I think the shafts are between 5 and 10,000 deep so we aren't really talking about a bit of a puddle on the surface that's at risk,

 

[DanJer]

perhaps the probability of the event is the same, but the "risk" takes into account the impact of the event along with the probability of said event. if the impact is worse, the risk is worse.
if there were some event which resulted in some damage to the environment which directly impacts local residents, the same event would carry a higher risk in a densely populated area where more people are affected, as opposed to a rural area where fewer people are affected.

 

[Tankus]

Its more than just an obscure risk,, which is why the industry in the states has got exemption from fairly basic environmental protection acts , with the halibton loophole.
(Safe water act, clean drinking water act, etc)

Also if the rural (fuck them all) communities are some distance inland they generally form the head of the watershed for the urban communities downstream. Population settlements are drawn to water.....and its courses..Tough shit for the crops and cows too.

 

[existentialist]

But the risk isn't lower, it's the same, but affects fewer people.

Arguably, it's higher - most narrow rural roads don't have footpaths, unlike their urban counterparts. Not that this would matter to a broad brush apologist like our mutual friend here.

 

[Effrasurfer]

Regardless of the safety issues, I've been led to believe we just shouldn't be burning any more carbon. Renewables and reduction of energy consumption please. Everything else is blind greed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

residents can expect a reduction in council tax at least.
and once it's up and running, you probably wouldn't even know it's there, apart from the required increase in HGV traffic.

Have you seen the roads around Streatham Vale?
Even an increase in normal traffic would block up the area like a dose of kaolin and morphine!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, this isn't going to improve the reputation of Streatham High Rd....

TBF, the only thing that could improve the rep of Streatham High Road would be to erase the memories of anyone who's ever been there!

 

[ViolentPanda]

and the flaming tapwater

Isn't that what the estate agents and letting agents would refer to as a "unique local feature"?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh yes, don't get me wrong, we must kill the HGV scourge before it kills (more) of us. My point is that increased HGV traffic is the worst potential by-product of fracking in urban areas.

So, not any of the myriad ecological problems that have proven to be so pesky in other states that have fracked, then?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm in the O&G industry, yes, but have no vested interest in fracking and am not affiliated with Quadrilla or any other affiliated party. My bills are paid by doing offshore safety work. re fracking, I'm just an interested observer really.

Thanks for the above link.
Regulation of fracking in the US has historically been frankly terrible, so yeah, definitely there are data which show groundwater contamination. If the industry is properly regulated and minimum safety requirements are established and followed, there are no issues with groundwater contamination.

From an engineering standpoint there shouldn't be any issues if the geological expectations are accurate.
However, seismic data only gives a limited range of geological data, so your stating that "there are no issues" is an expression of faith on your part, rather than a statement of fact. We won't know anything for sure until something does or doesn't happen. With regard to fracking, though, history so far shows us that unanticipated issues aplenty spring up.

 

[ViolentPanda]

quite right. we can only hope. the industry / government mutual masturbation system will ensure that this hope is forlorn.

I look forward to the non-binding "fracking code of conduct" with trepidation!

 

[ViolentPanda]

the O&G industry is safer now than it was 10 years ago, and 10 years ago it was safer than it was 10 years before that. This is because the HSE and other global regulators, and the industry itself, places a very high value on safety. why should this trend change?

That's either a naive or a disingenuous reading of the state-of-play. Yes, safety standards across the industry are on a fairly long upward curve, but they're buoyed by "best practice" in some parts of the industry that mask poor practice in other parts, especially in terms of environmental damage.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And, worries about groundwater contamination etc are a distraction from the most important reason that fracking should be resisted, which is that it extends our reliance on fossil fuel and the infrastructure that goes with it and makes it harder for other energy sources to get off the ground.

Unfortunately, the fossil extraction industries have deep pockets and more than a century's-worth of built-up political connections, which those other energy sources (however promising they are) don't, so we'll probably see the licencing of extraction right up until the last well runs dry, and the last internal combustion engines coughs to a halt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You seem to have a strong opinion on the HGV issue, seems peculiar that you havent popped up on any of the cycling threads but decided it was time to join in when the remote possibility of Fracking in streatham came up, anyway in your defence of it you always stress the risk for urban areas, what about non- urban places, are the risks the same in your opinion ?

Oh really ? if water is undrinkable then a lot of people won't have to worry about the long term dependence on fossil fuels because they'll eiither be dying of thirst/poisoning or buying water at whatever price trusted suppliers such as coca cola chose to levy.

I'm not so worried about fracking's potential for gross groundwater contamination, as much as I am worried about even minor contamination adding to the sum of groundwater contamination that's already a fact in many urban and industrial areas.

 

[ViolentPanda]

by definition an event in a rural area would affect fewer people so yeah, the risk to the individual is lower.

It's not only the people that matter, although obviously they're the only "victim of any consequence" given that any decent risk analysis will be factoring possible claims against the company doing the extracting, while not worrying oovermuch about soil and groundwater contamination.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Regardless of the safety issues, I've been led to believe we just shouldn't be burning any more carbon. Renewables and reduction of energy consumption please. Everything else is blind greed.

Blind greed from an industry that knows it is on the home strait to losing/exhausting its' historic source of income, so the greater forcefulness of the greed isn't too surprising to me, and neither has been the increasing degree of apologism in the media.

 

[lang rabbie]

Much as the prospect of the Norbury Brook/River Graveney and the whole Wandle valley being polluted by hydrocarbons is an alarming one, for the next fifty years, the more realistic risk to local health is from idiots continuing to dump used engine oil over the bridge parapets.

The area of the exploration licences covers four Ordance Survey national grid blocks, 10km from north to south and 40km from east to west.

I'm pretty sure It isn't the Lambeth/Croydon boundary areas at the northernmost edge of the blocks that made the oil companies buy these licences. All the oil industry talk is about the potential of the southernmost part of these blocks which follows the North Downs much closer to the existing oil and gas resources of the Weald basin.

 

[Tankus]

The researchers examined the group of more than 50 earthquakes that hit the area of Cleburne, Texas in 2009 and 2010, and found that they could have happened because of wastewater injection wells associated with fracking operations. Before 2008, the Fort Worth Basin of Texas had never experienced an earthquake.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/06/3029951/texas-fracking-earthquakes/
“Because there were no known previous earthquakes, and the located events were close to the two injection wells and near the injection depth, the possibility exists that earthquakes may be related to fluid injection,” the authors write in their report..........

....…. Earlier this year in Ohio, fracking wastewater disposal was also linked to the 109 earthquakes that shook Youngstown in 2011 — an area that hadn’t ever experienced an earthquake before an injection well came online in December .......

.......Last month, North Texas was hit by more than 20 earthquakes, prompting calls for an investigation into a wastewater disposal link.

Mag. 3's and 4's might not cause too much damage to a building (unless its brick) but it could totally trash a pipe string.
What's worse these are contaminated fracking waste effluent injection wells.

Pressured and mobile with potential conduits up through the failed pipe strings to the aquifer's above or even the surface

Disquiet is growing
http://rt.com/usa/fracking-texas-activists-concerned-510/

 

[Greebo]

Mag. 3's and 4's might not cause too much damage to a building (unless its brick) but it could totally trash a pipe string.
What's worse these are contaminated fracking waste effluent injection wells.

Pressured and mobile with potential conduits up through the failed pipe strings to the aquifer's above or even the surface

Disquiet is growing
http://rt.com/usa/fracking-texas-activists-concerned-510/

Most residential buildings in this bit of S London are brick or mainly brick.