I used to think fracking could be the way forward for us and that the objectors were just NIMBYs but a couple of articles I read this weekend made me think twice: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... nanza.html feeds.technologyreview.com/click ... b65895c4a7 Maybe I won't be buying a retirement bungalow on the Fylde just yet...

I used to think fracking could be the way forward for us and that the objectors were just NIMBYs but a couple of articles I read this weekend made me think twice: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... nanza.html feeds.technologyreview.com/click ... b65895c4a7 Maybe I won't be buying a retirement bungalow on the Fylde just yet...

You watch some idiot post 'I don't fracking know'.
The leaning tower of Blackpool would be worth seeing.

Sounds to me like the slant is coming from a very harsh monetarist belief.
Sounds like he wants a lot more austerity and is afraid that cheaper fuel will slow that down.

The problem in the UK is that we are gegraphically small and the risks of exploiting oil shale so close to population centres could be disatrous - eg ground-wate contamination. Not that that will worry our desperate, short-term politicians.

It's Lancashire, who cares if it ends up like an oil delta in Nigeria

Scabs and Yellowbellies?

Nah, nowhere near us my old cocksparrow.

Frack off.

Is cracking the ground open using a cocktail of highly-toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, lysogenic non-biodegradable agents (not including those which [ieven the US government[/i is prevented from identifying as they are classified as "secret patents"icon_wink.gif, perfected by the notorious war profiteers, Halliburton, in order to tap natural gas reserves via a negative net-energy process during times of energy depletion, the answer?

The answer to [iwhat?[/i

The reality is that tight gas/oil were ALWAYS going to be tapped once the global cost of oil/gas from conventional sources rose to levels that made them economic. Oil and gas prices globally are never going to fall back to the levels they were in the past due to massive increases in consumption in developing countries. As a result, gas/oil reserves such as shale and coal bed methane, which have always been there, are seen as viable.

The major issue isn't fracking (which is not required for all or even most tight oil/gas production) but the fact that the US experience is unique - they've effectively got a massive oversupply of gas for domestic use, a highly competitive wholesale market and very limited export capacity, which have led to the price of gas remaining at very low levels.

Those conditions will never exist in the UK. Even if you could replicate US production costs in the UK (which is highly doubtful), you will not see any 'cheap' oil/gas in the UK unless exports were banned. Even then, you'd most likely see companies simply choosing to exploit other financially superior options elsewhere.

The major environmental issues associated with shale are the destruction of huge swathes of countryside, together with the consumption of vast amounts of energy and a generally very 'dirty' manufacturing process. Have a look for pictures of shale oil plants and their surrounds in the US/Canada and it looks like something even 1970s eastern Europe would have banned. Fracking is very much a secondary issue compared to that.

What a pity tax-breaks and financial encouragement wasn't offered to our coal mining industry in the 1980s. Clean-burn, carbon capture and sequestration would go a long way to mitigating our enegry shortfall

Yes. If the UK ever achieved gas surplus the Government would be only too pleased to encourage exports. Probably the best we could hope for would be a freeze for a couple of years, followed by annual RPI increases. World prices will always be the driving factor.

What concerns me more is the MIT report, no one could accuse that of being a paid report. If I lived in the proposed fracking area I'd make sure my MP was well aware.

Doesn't the current Ferrybridge PS incorporate some extensive cleaning equipment? Looks like it from the A1. Any feedback on how that performs?

Ferrybridge C was the "experimental" station for carbon capture and we did some work for the main contractor who was doing a complete refit over the past few years, I had a chat with one of the contract managers there one day and he explained what they'd been doing just before the turbines were fired up and the station went back online - basically it was only ever licenced for 25 years use when it was built in the 1960s, which was extended by another 15 years, and now its a flagship for biomass and carbon capture its future is basically open ended.

Drax and Eggborough were supposed to be next in line, our client operates at both of them but I know that the biomass plans were cut back when the current incumbant government came into power.

According to Wiki the current setup at Ferrybridge remove 95% of sulphur dioxide from its flues, which is pretty impressive.