Fracking earthquakes

It can’t be good, can it?
Do we have to wait for a more severe earthquake or sinkholes opening up for those responsible to see sense?

I am not in favour of fracking.

Am also definitely against fracking!!!

I am steadfastly AGAINST fracking this island is too small and not enough is known about the chemicals used getting into the water supply

I am another who is very concerned that fracking should not take place. We will have to live with the consequences if it proves to damage planet Earth and us.

I honestly don't see the need for fracking at all. The earth is unstable as it is with the many earthquakes reported and volcano's activating to say nothing of the many sinkholes that have opened up both here and abroad.
Weather changes too will have their effects on the land without drilling into the unknown.
It proves that disturbance to the plates/seams is creating minor earthquakes so why are the idiots continuing ? In whose interest is this all for ? Not ours that's for sure. If it's fuel they're after open a few coal mines.

There is no fracking in Scotland the Scottish government has said until it can be proven safe then the moritarium stays in place.There has been an attempt to take them to court over it but so far it hasn't come to anything.We are on a fault line so it might be especially dangerous here .Hopefully we can remain in control of this even after the B event in March .

Government permits and encourages fracking.

Government throws out Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Project.

Time for a change of government??

There is nothing new about fracking, it has been going on for more than thirty years both onshore and offshore UK.
It is only since the decision to release gas from shales and start exploration in areas not previously already marked down for hydrocarbons that it has suddenly become political.

An awful lot is known about fracking, its effects and most of the liquids used in fracking are water and sand, it doesn't require vast quantities of chemicals to produce an effective fracking fluid and a lot is known about them as well. They have been in use for decades.

Coal is far more environmentally damaging than gas. This is why all the coal-fired generating plants in the UK have been closed down and replaced by gas-fired plants. Suggesting we use coal rather than gas to generate electricity would really get me out in the streets.

Yes, of course we must move to, not so much renewable as non-carbon dioxide producing sources of energy, but far too much of our investment has been in sources like wind and sun, which are unreliable. I have gridwatch.co.uk/ on my book marks bar and check it daily. Look how much the windpower contribution to our energy supply varies. It can be as much as 25% some days, 2% another, regardless of demand. Solar is daylight only and less in winter. The gap has to be filled by something else. Nuclear can supply baseload, but is not flexible. The only alternative is gas.

What is needed is investment in the South Wales tidal barrage, which the government has decided not to do - and the Severn estuary barrage that was turned down because of wildlife objections. However tidal barrages need very high tidal ranges and the Bristol channel is about the only place in the UK where the tidal range is big enough.

Until alternative non CD producing sources of power generation that can provide all the power we need 24/7/365 other sources of power generation are needed to keep our homes, industry and, soon, transport system running. Gas is the most efficient and least polluting way to do it.

Thank you for that MOnica. I read this thread earlier and was trying to mentally compose a rebuttal, but you have done it much more eloquently and in a much more informed way than I could have.
As you say, we need gas to produce our electricity, and it is the most reliable source we have at the moment.
To claim that fracking is disruptive and suggest we "open a few coal mines" instead beggars belief! If fracking disturbs the earth, what does ripping great caverns out of it to extract coal do??

and so much more environmentally damaging., not just carbon dioxide but sulphur oxides nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.

I live a couple of miles from the fracking site. Opinion here is divided as the area suffers generally with subsidence but we also need investment . We have been told that if fracking goes ahead we could be as rich as Saudi Arabia!! (we have got plenty of sand)

The only people that are going to get rich are the Cuadrillo shareholders and CEOs.

Trickle down goes all the way to the Bahamas!

No, I doubt whether fracking will make the area rich. Extracting gas onshore is not labour intensive and really it is quite quiet and unobtrusive

The Wytch Farm oilfield, situated in an AONB in Dorset, has been operating since 1973 and is the biggest onshore oilfield in Europe, and I do not think the Bournemouth area has become as rich as Saudi Arabia, nor has the field destroyed the local environment, made air pollution worse or contaminated water supplies in the area. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/10233955/The-town-where-a-form-of-fracking-is-already-happening.html

Wind and waves are here for a reason We need to understand the nature of what we ve been given more

Or we could just stop expecting to fly around in gas-guzzling polluting aeroplanes whenever we fancy it. It has to stop.

But that will not deal with the irregularity of supply from many weather-dependent sources of non-polluting energy.

Not earthquakes, earth tremors. Distinct difference.
I was born and bred and worked in the Black Country for forty years, and feel that should the Industrial Revolution attempt to evolve it would be thwarted before it even began, not by Luddites understandably anxious about their jobs but by people intent on preserving the countryside 'for my grandchildren.'
I now live near the Wytch farm development and would endorse everything MOnica says about it, and also about fracking.

I'm a bit vague about the details because I was very young when this happened. Really, I just remember it because of the punchline. There was a plan for the dumping of nuclear waste somewhere in south west Scotland. Many objections were received but the plan was given the go-ahead and the site was secured. A couple of days before excavation was due to begin the area suffered a "small earthquake" centred on the place where the waste was to be stored. The plan was scrapped, of course. I think there was a newspaper headline at the time which I certainly remember being repeated by many people who said: "At least we now know whose side God is on."

And yes, I do know that Scotland has many more minor tremors than are ever reported. I also don't want to get into a debate about God. I'm just adding something to the discussion, based on a memory from the time when I was first aware of the nuclear power waste issues.

I do not know or understand this as much as I should. M0nica your thoughtful post has made me aware I need to do some research.

As far as tremors are concerned, logically fracking will release pressure that would otherwise build up over time to earthquake levels as I understand it, but I am sure those with greater knowledge than I will put me right on that score.

M0nica do you have any ideas on good resources?

Quakes have stopped play again. This time it was 1.something. One of these days they're all going to vanish down a big hole.

It's not just quakes we should be concerned about this concept that it's OK to do because it just uses water is a total nonsense. Water is a finite resource that will in the future become more and more precious. Basically everyone needs drinking water and fracking uses millions of gallons to obtain the gas. It's a bit like sending an aeroplane to collect your weeekly shop. It just doesn't make sense (except of course to the companies investing in it) Read about theproblems in the USA www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/environmental-impacts-water/

The water comes out of the ground and goes back in the ground.

I'm waiting for the bigger quake - it will happen.