Fracking and Underground Coal Gasification

[Moulin Yarns]

Today is a big day for both the Scottish Government and UK Governments as they decide what to do regarding the environment.

Fracking has been approved at one site in the north of England by Westminster, later the Scottish Government will decide whether to allow UCG under the Forth Estuary.

The Council in Lancashire refused planning permission for fracking but Cuadrilla appealed to the government and have been allowed to go ahead at a site near Blackpool.

Later today the Scottish Government will decide on whether to allow Cluff Natural Resources to extract gas from under the Forth at Kincardine. UCG involves setting fire to coal underground and harvesting the various gases that are produced, Hydrogen, Methane, CO2 and CO. When I was younger, I remember when a fire in a coal mine was a disaster, now it seems to be considered a good thing.

Something I don't understand about UCG is what happens after the fires have burnt out and the gas has been extracted. I guess there will be voids which will fill with water, or collapse, or maybe remain as voids. I just don't know, but the other thing I wonder about is how are the fires controlled, the wrong mixture of fire and air could cause explosions.

As far as I'm aware there are only 3, yes THREE active UCG sites in the world, so this is largely untested technology.

Anyway, the debate starts at 14:30 at Holyrood and I will be tuning in to follow the debate with interest.

[Bristolhibby]

Who is on the pro and against side?

Sounds some real dodgy technology.

My heart sank when I heard about fracking this morning.

[Peevemor]

Today is a big day for both the Scottish Government and UK Governments as they decide what to do regarding the environment.

Fracking has been approved at one site in the north of England by Westminster, later the Scottish Government will decide whether to allow UCG under the Forth Estuary.

The Council in Lancashire refused planning permission for fracking but Cuadrilla appealed to the government and have been allowed to go ahead at a site near Blackpool.

Later today the Scottish Government will decide on whether to allow Cluff Natural Resources to extract gas from under the Forth at Kincardine. UCG involves setting fire to coal underground and harvesting the various gases that are produced, Hydrogen, Methane, CO2 and CO. When I was younger, I remember when a fire in a coal mine was a disaster, now it seems to be considered a good thing.

Something I don't understand about UCG is what happens after the fires have burnt out and the gas has been extracted. I guess there will be voids which will fill with water, or collapse, or maybe remain as voids. I just don't know, but the other thing I wonder about is how are the fires controlled, the wrong mixture of fire and air could cause explosions.

As far as I'm aware there are only 3, yes THREE active UCG sites in the world, so this is largely untested technology.

Anyway, the debate starts at 14:30 at Holyrood and I will be tuning in to follow the debate with interest.

I don't know enough about UCG, but your concerns/questions are valid.

I'm not an expert on fracking either, but from what I've seen and read it's a definite no from me.

[Pretty Boy]

Am I right in thinking this is an issue even those on the 'green' side are split on?

A guy I know who is very active with the Scottish Greens in Aberdeenshire and who regularly comments on all things environmental posted on Facebook this week that 'From an environmental point of view we should be backing fracking, I await the well meaning but misguided lynch mob.' He went into all kinds of detail about things I don't pretend to understand but his stance did suprise me.

[Moulin Yarns]

Am I right in thinking this is an issue even those on the 'green' side are split on?

A guy I know who is very active with the Scottish Greens in Aberdeenshire and who regularly comments on all things environmental posted on Facebook this week that 'From an environmental point of view we should be backing fracking, I await the well meaning but misguided lynch mob.' He went into all kinds of detail about things I don't pretend to understand but his stance did suprise me.

Not knowing exactly what he said, I would guess he was meaning it is the lesser of all the evils. Having said that, I'm not convinced that they are that 'clean' because the technology is still in it's infancy.

As I said earlier, from what I could find there are only 3 UCG plants active, the 2 that are in Australia are experimental, and one has been closed down after concerns about boreholes in the area.

[Moulin Yarns]

There shall be NO UCG exploration in Scotland at this timehttp://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/thumbs%20up.gif



Minister says UCG will have no place in Scotland's energy mix

Mr Wheelhouse says Prof Gemmell says it would be wise to approach UCG cautiously.
The minister says UCG poses numerous and serious environmental risks and UCG will have no place in Scotland's energy mix at this time.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Am I right in thinking this is an issue even those on the 'green' side are split on?

A guy I know who is very active with the Scottish Greens in Aberdeenshire and who regularly comments on all things environmental posted on Facebook this week that 'From an environmental point of view we should be backing fracking, I await the well meaning but misguided lynch mob.' He went into all kinds of detail about things I don't pretend to understand but his stance did suprise me.

I guess it's more efficient than extracting oil and gas offshore in terms of carbon footprint per barrel? But it's not something I know much about.

I do know for sure that if fracking was happening near me I'd be concerned about it. I'm dubious that you can pump millions of gallons of water in to the ground and not cause movement and structural damage to the buildings above. Happy to be told otherwise of anyone on here knows more about it.

[Moulin Yarns]

I guess it's more efficient than extracting oil and gas offshore in terms of carbon footprint per barrel? But it's not something I know much about.

I do know for sure that if fracking was happening near me I'd be concerned about it. I'm dubious that you can pump millions of gallons of water in to the ground and not cause movement and structural damage to the buildings above. Happy to be told otherwise of anyone on here knows more about it.

A popular misconception about fracking is that it is just water to fracture the rocks. There is water involved but there is also a cocktail of very nasty chemicals that can get into soils, watercourses and destroy ecosystems.

Same with the UCG, a whole mix of nasties is involved.

[ronaldo7]

There shall be NO UCG exploration in Scotland at this timehttp://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/thumbs%20up.gif

We had an expert come to our Branch meeting to enlighten us on UCG. Too many unknowns even for him. Needless to say we made our thoughts known to our MSP.

Well done Paul Wheelhouse and the Scottish Government.

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/Speeches-Briefings/Paul-Wheelhouse-statement-on-Underground-Coal-Gasification-2ca7.aspx

[Holmesdale Hibs]

A popular misconception about fracking is that it is just water to fracture the rocks. There is water involved but there is also a cocktail of very nasty chemicals that can get into soils, watercourses and destroy ecosystems.

Same with the UCG, a whole mix of nasties is involved.

Cheers, didn't know that. Sounds like even more of a reason not to do it then.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Just seen an article on BBC news about fracking next to someone's house. They'll have noise and a building site outside their house for ages in an area that's now a small field. Don't know who officially approves the site but seems really unfair and the home owner was understandably very pissed off at the situation.

[RyeSloan]

I think UGC sounds a step too far due to the infancy of the technology and to be honest I think we have probably moved on from needing to burn coal whether that's over or underground.

Fracking on the other hand has developed massively and I think could be something that if done correctly and in the right places an option that shouldn't be blindly ruled out.

It is a complex subject though and even after doing a lot of reading on it not something that I would always automatically support. There is quite a strong economic and job creation argument for it however.

That said I have no doubt the SNP will not in a million years be prepared to make that argument to a public that has seen the scare stories and has a general hostility to it (often one that is not overly informed) so expect them to 'ban fracking' with a loud fanfare.

[ronaldo7]

I think UGC sounds a step too far due to the infancy of the technology and to be honest I think we have probably moved on from needing to burn coal whether that's over or underground.

Fracking on the other hand has developed massively and I think could be something that if done correctly and in the right places an option that shouldn't be blindly ruled out.

It is a complex subject though and even after doing a lot of reading on it not something that I would always automatically support. There is quite a strong economic and job creation argument for it however.

That said I have no doubt the SNP will not in a million years be prepared to make that argument to a public that has seen the scare stories and has a general hostility to it (often one that is not overly informed) so expect them to 'ban fracking' with a loud fanfare.

Here is the SNP current policy on Fracking. http://policybase.snp.org/the_snp_policy_on_fracking

Evidence, consultation, then we can have the fanfare...I hope.:wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

Am I right in thinking this is an issue even those on the 'green' side are split on?

A guy I know who is very active with the Scottish Greens in Aberdeenshire and who regularly comments on all things environmental posted on Facebook this week that 'From an environmental point of view we should be backing fracking, I await the well meaning but misguided lynch mob.' He went into all kinds of detail about things I don't pretend to understand but his stance did suprise me.

A wee bit more on this, if I may.

I think there are two viewpoints on fracking v offshore conventional extraction. My own thinking is that the damage has been done, and can't be reversed regarding the offshore extraction, and it will reduce as reserves deplete. Fracking on the other hand opens up new areas for potentially hazardous and environmentally destructive technology. That is a risk I'm not willing to take.

It may be is possible to extract gas by fracking with a reduced carbon footprint, but that doesn't take into account the other potentially hazardous effects on the environment.

The gas extracted by fracking will not go to fuel heating of homes, but is used by companies like Ineos to manufacture plastics which have environmental footprints that will last for hundreds of years. You know, those plastics that end up on beaches or in landfill and break down slowly to affect marine life.

I'm not a hairshirt type of Green, I like my technology as much as the next guy (wait a minute while I wind up my wind powered computer) but some things are a step too far if there is evidence of the environmental damage attached to the technology.

[Hibrandenburg]

A wee bit more on this, if I may.

I think there are two viewpoints on fracking v offshore conventional extraction. My own thinking is that the damage has been done, and can't be reversed regarding the offshore extraction, and it will reduce as reserves deplete. Fracking on the other hand opens up new areas for potentially hazardous and environmentally destructive technology. That is a risk I'm not willing to take.

It may be is possible to extract gas by fracking with a reduced carbon footprint, but that doesn't take into account the other potentially hazardous effects on the environment.

The gas extracted by fracking will not go to fuel heating of homes, but is used by companies like Ineos to manufacture plastics which have environmental footprints that will last for hundreds of years. You know, those plastics that end up on beaches or in landfill and break down slowly to affect marine life.

I'm not a hairshirt type of Green, I like my technology as much as the next guy (wait a minute while I wind up my wind powered computer) but some things are a step too far if there is evidence of the environmental damage attached to the technology.

Good balanced post. I'd add that fracking needs to be proven safe before its used, as long as there is doubt on its effect on the environment then it's a no go.

[Just Alf]

Good balanced post. I'd add that fracking needs to be proven safe before its used, as long as there is doubt on its effect on the environment then it's a no go.
I have my doubts on the "safe" part, certainly in populated areas. I watched a documentary a while back on channel 4 (i think) where they showed the water coming from a well feeding a farm in the states was polluted with the fracking chemicals. Unsurprisingly the farm had to shut down.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

I think UGC sounds a step too far due to the infancy of the technology and to be honest I think we have probably moved on from needing to burn coal whether that's over or underground.

Fracking on the other hand has developed massively and I think could be something that if done correctly and in the right places an option that shouldn't be blindly ruled out.

It is a complex subject though and even after doing a lot of reading on it not something that I would always automatically support. There is quite a strong economic and job creation argument for it however.

That said I have no doubt the SNP will not in a million years be prepared to make that argument to a public that has seen the scare stories and has a general hostility to it (often one that is not overly informed) so expect them to 'ban fracking' with a loud fanfare.
I read that they've been trying to perfect UCG for over 100 years and failed miserably.

[Moulin Yarns]

I read that they've been trying to perfect UCG for over 100 years and failed miserably.

Lenin was wanting to try it in Russia.

[RyeSloan]

I have my doubts on the "safe" part, certainly in populated areas. I watched a documentary a while back on channel 4 (i think) where they showed the water coming from a well feeding a farm in the states was polluted with the fracking chemicals. Unsurprisingly the farm had to shut down.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

But you could say that for any industrial process that was not monitored or regulated properly I suppose.

I'm minded to think that with the rather tougher regulations in the UK on environmental impact assessments etc that fracking could be competed safely in the correct locations. It's another question all together if it could (or even should) be done on a scale that would make any significant difference to our economy or meeting our energy requirements.

[Moulin Yarns]

But you could say that for any industrial process that was not monitored or regulated properly I suppose.

I'm minded to think that with the rather tougher regulations in the UK on environmental impact assessments etc that fracking could be competed safely in the correct locations. It's another question all together if it could (or even should) be done on a scale that would make any significant difference to our economy or meeting our energy requirements.


Ah yes, the bit in bold. Thank heavens for the European Union.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm


Wait until the Conservative Government start to pick and choose to dismantle the European legislation currently protecting us.

[Moulin Yarns]

Interesting research from the good old USofA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39032748

[One Day Soon]

Interesting research from the good old USofA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39032748



This report doesn't damage the case for fracking. It damages the case for poor storage, management and movement of what is extracted. This argument could have been used to prevent North Sea oil from being extracted if the safety regime wasn't sufficiently stringent.

There may be strong arguments against fracking, this isn't one of them.

[Colr]

Today is a big day for both the Scottish Government and UK Governments as they decide what to do regarding the environment.

Fracking has been approved at one site in the north of England by Westminster, later the Scottish Government will decide whether to allow UCG under the Forth Estuary.

The Council in Lancashire refused planning permission for fracking but Cuadrilla appealed to the government and have been allowed to go ahead at a site near Blackpool.

Later today the Scottish Government will decide on whether to allow Cluff Natural Resources to extract gas from under the Forth at Kincardine. UCG involves setting fire to coal underground and harvesting the various gases that are produced, Hydrogen, Methane, CO2 and CO. When I was younger, I remember when a fire in a coal mine was a disaster, now it seems to be considered a good thing.

Something I don't understand about UCG is what happens after the fires have burnt out and the gas has been extracted. I guess there will be voids which will fill with water, or collapse, or maybe remain as voids. I just don't know, but the other thing I wonder about is how are the fires controlled, the wrong mixture of fire and air could cause explosions.

As far as I'm aware there are only 3, yes THREE active UCG sites in the world, so this is largely untested technology.

Anyway, the debate starts at 14:30 at Holyrood and I will be tuning in to follow the debate with interest.

**** it, let's get the cheap fuel out the ground. We need all the help we can get at the moment.

[Moulin Yarns]

**** it, let's get the cheap fuel out the ground. We need all the help we can get at the moment.

Except the shale gas if it is viable would be used by Ineos in the manufacturing process of plastic. Not for energy

[danhibees1875]

Personally, I'm not a fan. I think it'd be a blight on local landscapes, the chemicals used in the fracturing can leak and damage water tables and I think it also destabilises the earth floor on a local level - giving way to the potential to earthquakes. Given the amount of fuel required to transport all the water required to perform the fracturing is it even efficient?

Overall, I think it's just a distraction from the next, and most important, step in our energy pathway - renewables. That's where the focus should be in Scotland IMO.

[One Day Soon]

Except the shale gas if it is viable would be used by Ineos in the manufacturing process of plastic. Not for energy


Either way its all jobs.

[hibsbollah]

Personally, I'm not a fan. I think it'd be a blight on local landscapes, the chemicals used in the fracturing can leak and damage water tables and I think it also destabilises the earth floor on a local level - giving way to the potential to earthquakes. Given the amount of fuel required to transport all the water required to perform the fracturing is it even efficient?

Overall, I think it's just a distraction from the next, and most important, step in our energy pathway - renewables. That's where the focus should be in Scotland IMO.

:agree: as well as focusing on reducing energy use in society generally.

[Moulin Yarns]

Either way its all jobs.

No it is not.

The jobs are there already as Ineos are already shipping ethane (shale gas) from the USofA.

From INEOS

Faced with the challenge of meeting a decline in gas from the North Sea, our key petrochemical feedstock (down 60% in the last 10 years) and with no additional raw materials currently available locally, the Grangemouth site is now benefiting from the significant investment of £450m by INEOS to build a storage facility and gas import terminal to bring in shale gas ethane from the USA. Even after factoring in the transportation costs of shipping the shale gas ethane across the Atlantic, it is providing a competitive source of sufficient raw material.
In addition, the quantity of US ethane being imported is now enabling the ethylene cracker (KG) at Grangemouth to return its throughput from less than half of its capacity to full rates.



Note, West Lothian is littered with shale bings where shale oil has been extracted, thereby reducing the potential reserves of shale gas.

[One Day Soon]

No it is not.

The jobs are there already as Ineos are already shipping ethane (shale gas) from the USofA.

From INEOS


Note, West Lothian is littered with shale bings where shale oil has been extracted, thereby reducing the potential reserves of shale gas.


Yes it is. Someone has to do the fracking.

[Moulin Yarns]

Yes it is. Someone has to do the fracking.

In the state with the Largest Shale Field in the USofA 1 out of 249 jobs rely on Fracking, compared to 1 in 6 jobs in Education and health. Not the jobs boom

https://newrepublic.com/article/120873/fracking-creates-jobs-how-many

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/how-many-jobs-does-fracking-really-create/445227/

However the Central Scotland Shale fields are unlikely to be anywhere near as productive. (I don't have the research to hand) They ae considered to be the poorest in the whole of the UK.

And then there is the environmental factors to consider.

http://www.livescience.com/34464-what-is-fracking.html