If only you could sort the rhetoric and spin from fact. The British Geological Society announced that surveys suggest there could be up to 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas under much of northern and central England.
Britain's shale gas deposits 'could supply country for 25 years' | Environment | guardian.co.uk
That could be as much as 25 years worth of energy but the extraction process, known as fracking, is somewhat controversial and that's where the rhetoric and spin come in. Are the protagonists driven more by hidden agenda than fact?
For example, if the UK became largely independent of imported gas a few countries would be less than happy. They'll probably side with the tree-huggers then. On the other hand the oil companies could stand to make a load of cash, as could the UK Government. For the rest of us trying to figure out what the implications are is a minefield.
Anyway, this article gives a reasonable explanation of fracking for those interested:
BBC News - What is fracking and why is it controversial?
If you prefer the most basic description then fracking is the process of drilling into the shale layer then, using a 'bendy' bit, drill horizontally from the bottom directly into the shale. Pump fracking fluid down under pressure to crack the shale, the released gas is then collected at the well head.
Sounds simple enough but the environmentalists are complaining, in some cases probably with some justification. The fracking fluid is 90% water so you need loads, it will probably have to be brought to the drilling operation by road. The number of tankers per day (per well) could be in the hundreds so a better road infrastructure will be needed. Not sure where all the water will be coming from?
So, if fracking fluid is 90% water, what's the other bit? Hmm, 8% or so sand and some 'other stuff' (trade secret and all that). Some hysterical discussions about hydrochloric acid and the odd US Senator drinking some (experimental green untested stuff).
What is fracking fluid made of? - - News - Denver - Westword
A lot of the fracking fluid stays down there but the rock is impermeable, allegedly.
Then there's possible contamination of ground water with methane - there seems much disagreement about this and the documentary Gasland didn't help - I've dropped that one into the rhetoric side of the argument. Ground level methane is common all over the World, even in the UK, so it will be impossible to determine the cause anyway. The earthquakes will likely be few and far between - Blackpool test drilling, 2011.
On the other hand there are few areas of exploration that are without risk and fracking is no exception. It seems to me to represent a good opportunity to supplement our energy supplies until such time as renewables are sufficiently widespread and cost-effective. I suppose there'll be a fair few green protest marches over the next few years though!
Britain's shale gas deposits 'could supply country for 25 years' | Environment | guardian.co.uk
That could be as much as 25 years worth of energy but the extraction process, known as fracking, is somewhat controversial and that's where the rhetoric and spin come in. Are the protagonists driven more by hidden agenda than fact?
For example, if the UK became largely independent of imported gas a few countries would be less than happy. They'll probably side with the tree-huggers then. On the other hand the oil companies could stand to make a load of cash, as could the UK Government. For the rest of us trying to figure out what the implications are is a minefield.
Anyway, this article gives a reasonable explanation of fracking for those interested:
BBC News - What is fracking and why is it controversial?
If you prefer the most basic description then fracking is the process of drilling into the shale layer then, using a 'bendy' bit, drill horizontally from the bottom directly into the shale. Pump fracking fluid down under pressure to crack the shale, the released gas is then collected at the well head.
Sounds simple enough but the environmentalists are complaining, in some cases probably with some justification. The fracking fluid is 90% water so you need loads, it will probably have to be brought to the drilling operation by road. The number of tankers per day (per well) could be in the hundreds so a better road infrastructure will be needed. Not sure where all the water will be coming from?
So, if fracking fluid is 90% water, what's the other bit? Hmm, 8% or so sand and some 'other stuff' (trade secret and all that). Some hysterical discussions about hydrochloric acid and the odd US Senator drinking some (experimental green untested stuff).
What is fracking fluid made of? - - News - Denver - Westword
A lot of the fracking fluid stays down there but the rock is impermeable, allegedly.
Then there's possible contamination of ground water with methane - there seems much disagreement about this and the documentary Gasland didn't help - I've dropped that one into the rhetoric side of the argument. Ground level methane is common all over the World, even in the UK, so it will be impossible to determine the cause anyway. The earthquakes will likely be few and far between - Blackpool test drilling, 2011.
On the other hand there are few areas of exploration that are without risk and fracking is no exception. It seems to me to represent a good opportunity to supplement our energy supplies until such time as renewables are sufficiently widespread and cost-effective. I suppose there'll be a fair few green protest marches over the next few years though!