In the U.K. there is a big ridiculous row over this well concealed gas well in Balcombe, that the Balcombe Parish Council didn’t even object to when Cuadrilla’s application for planning permission to drill for shale gas went before them.
The noise being made by the anti-frackers in America is equally ridiculous, they can’t even protest the right well sites. “The protesters do not seem concerned with such details”
Josh writes:
Given the recent protests about Fracking, I thought some cartoons on the subject might be a good idea.
Suggestions for further Fract Sheets are very welcome!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are almost 600,000 fracking holes in the USA. This technology is transforming the American economy and is an enormous strategic positive, not having to rely on the goodwill of those with camels.
Fracking could be the economic salvation of the UK and Europe.
Because fracking makes so much sense, it was an obvious target for the serial ecoloons, who are becoming seriously worried that the subject of supposed man made climate change is becoming boring and/or debunked.
Is there some way this subject could be made into a cartoon?
The ecoloon arguments against fracking – earthquakes and ground water contamination – have as much credibility as His Manniness’ tree ring interpretations.
“richardscourtney says:
August 9, 2013 at 8:55 am
The well-head need be no more than the size of a small cottage and could resemble a barn. It will produce gas which will be piped from the well-head.
So, what will be seen of the well-head is accurately predicted in the Josh cartoon.”
So you’re saying that the storage of water, sand and chemicals in addition to the drill rig will fit inside the footprint of a small cottage? I see… You know that once the well has been drilled, it requires constant work-over to produce gas. You don’t simply put a hole in the ground and voila! gas comes out of the tap you fit at the top?
“Fracked gas will fuel an existing power station or add to household gas supplies. This requires no additional infrastructure.”
Agreed, except for what I’ve noted above, and possible pipelines.
“As the Josh cartoon indicates, windfarms do not reduce need for existing power stations or household gas supplies but add to the need for back-up power stations.”
Not necessarily – if you build a smart grid then you can counter intermittency. Not yet done, but apparently achievable, especially if you include other tech such as solar PV, wave, tidal, nuclear, etc.
“Oil and gas companies are no more “cuddly fluffy companies with only our best interests at heart” than are windfarm companies.”
Glad we agree!
“Assertions of “fugitive methane releases” and “potentially polluted groundwater” are deplorable and unsubstantiated scare-mongering.”
I hope you see the irony in what you wrote.
“RockyRoad says:
August 9, 2013 at 9:03 am
“Propaganda” is defined as:
noun 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement , institution, nation, etc.
With that definition in mind, can you explain to the rest of us what there is in Josh’s cartoon that you would consider to be “propaganda”?”
OK, the cartoon is an idea deliberately used to harm the wind farm group, spread widely through this blog. The cartoon does this by portraying wind farms falsely, or at least, inaccurately and DEFINITELY unfavourably compared with shale gas, which is shown to be all sunshine-and-daffodils. This leads one to the assumption (falsely) that windfarms are BAD and shale gas is GOOD. In fact, there are both strengths and weaknesses with both, which I’m happy to acknowledge by the way. Contrary to what you may think, I am not anti shale gas or fossil fuels, but we need to have take a realistic and pragmatic approach to the issues.
Methinks Kit and Co. are members of the Environmental Industrial Complex…
Greg says:
August 9, 2013 at 8:20 am
yeah Greg.
I’ve worked on a Southern English oil field just north of Winchester, you probably didn’t even know this existed, and also on Wytch Farm in Dorset, which you can’t see because it’s so carefully land-managed,There are several also around Gainsborough and near Welton in Lincolnshire and again in East Riding near Bridlington. Wytch Farm has 300+ 8 1/2″ – 3 1/4″ holes from 10k – 33k’ long running underneath Poole Harbour. The footprint of a land drill site is one of the most carefully managed sites by DECC and is well smaller than the abscesses we see from the windmill footprints that have raped the countryside.
Look before you leap next time Muppet.
@John Mason
‘Perhaps Josh will give up driving then as the figures WRT the number of birds killed by automobiles every year are not difficult to access!’
Any sane person will compare the cost to the benefit, and very few of the technologies we use come without a cost.
The problem we have is that there are a section of people who blind themselves to the high cost and low benefit of a particular technology, like wind power, for ideological reasons. Then, for those same reasons, they object to a low cost and high benefit alternative.
“The main objection to fracking would seem to be the danger of pollution of the ground water.”
Well then we should find out whether or not there is any danger of ‘pollution’ from fracking to assess whether or not it ‘poses a threat’ to groundwater, right?
Arguably a large meteor ‘poses a threat’ to ground water so I guess anything you can imagine also ‘poses a threat’. Now, is that threat credible?
My boys used to love watching a TV show they called “The Credible Hulk’. They found the green monster quite credible, apparently. So too, the Green Monster finds any and all threats ‘credible’. So creating ‘opposition’ to any non-pet technology is as simple as Imagineering some ‘threats’. Credibility is not required as all threats are to be treated as ‘credible’ at least long enough to suit their purpose.
Fracking has been going on for decades. I think the protesters didn’t know that which I cannot say surprises me in the least.
What’s facts got to do with it, got to do with it…
What’s facts but an overblown emotion…
Ya know Carruthers, you are right: We “do” need more than 1 little building for the NG “hole”.
But I “can” fit the entire drilling rig and its trucks and work trailers on two acres (less than the size of my elementary school and playground back home).
Oh. Those 1304 wind turbines we need to replace that ONE 10 acre 600 Meg power plant? Each needs about 1 acre itself. And each wind turbine life span is only 7 years. Assuming you actually DO the required maintenance and rebuilding (requiring cranes and extensive ground support equipment) every 8 months to change bearings, brakes, gears, controllers, motors, breakers, and generator parts and pieces and regulators.
But your wind turbine extortionists don’t get “maintenance money” and “repair tax breaks and tax incentives” from Obama. They ONLY get their tax breaks and “green energy” subsidies for building the things! Once built, no money!
So, worldwide and nationwide, maintenance just ain’t happening.
So if you lived in that cottage by the lake with no obvious grid connection how would you power it? It’s funny because if I lived in that what looks like a peaceful cottage by a lake I would certainly not want fracking taking place next door and I don’t believe any of you would.
But anyway getting back to that peaceful cottage how you going to power it? I guess if you have billions and can wait 20 years you could have a very pretty Nuclear plant supplying you and the surrounding area, oh as long as you can afford to stick up the pylons to get the lecky to the cottage, though my guess is in 20 years time energy supply will be beyond the financial reach of most people. Or of course you could spend a few thousand pounds get some panels and a windmill and a back up generator.
@Eternal Optimist:
“Any sane person will compare the cost to the benefit, and very few of the technologies we use come without a cost.
The problem we have is that there are a section of people who blind themselves to the high cost and low benefit of a particular technology, like wind power, for ideological reasons. Then, for those same reasons, they object to a low cost and high benefit alternative.”
Low cost and high benefit? Simple. Waste less energy! The main impact that has on a person is to save them money. Let’s face it, we are going to have to make the transition to low-carbon solutions to the energy situation eventually, and it will have to involve more efficient equipment and less wastage through carelessness, especially because the EROEI factor in the post-low hanging fruit era is already making itself felt. Technology is catching up to an extent, but behaviour needs to change too. I like many of you grew up in a time where all of a sudden, energy could most of the time be taken for granted and it was unbelievably cheap. We’ve had that party now and even if we disagree on climate change there are other fundamentals to be taken into account: the bottom line being that infinite growth, underpinned by accessible natural resources, on a finite planet, is impossible – that is, unless you’re one of the aliens off Independence Day who “move from planet to planet like locusts, strip out all the natural resources, then move on” (I can’t remember the exact quote but it’s close).
Please spell it correctly. It’s frac’ing. Take it from an industry insider and spell the term like someone who is actually ‘in the know’ rather than the outsiders who are wannabe cogniscenti.
REPLY: “Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracturing, commonly known as fracking, is a technique in which…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
I’m going to coin a new word: Fractfact. A fractfact is something that is based on emotion, twisted logic, or made-up facts but not on easily verifiable and easily provable facts. Since fractfacts are not based on real facts, a fractfact can contradict itself or another fractfact.
For example:
Fractfact — Solar and Wind can easily and cheaply replace our energy needs.
Fractfact — Cheap energy will kill cute cuddly polar bears and poor, starving, and helpless people in 3rd world countries.
Fractfact — Fossil fuel energy companies only want to make money whatever the consequences.
Fractfact — Removing natural gas from the ground causes earthquakes and ground water pollution.
Fractfact — Birds deaths because of wind turbines aren’t really that bad because automobiles and airplanes kill birds too.
Fractfact — Environmental groups do not make a lot of money are being suppressed by Big Oil.
Fractfact — Telling the truth about environmentalist is propaganda.
[Should that phrased not become FrackturedFact? Mod]
I drove along I-20 last week where literally thousands of wind mill power generators are located. None of the mills on the north side of the interstate were not turning while about 85 or 90% of the ones on the south side were turning. I asked a friend about this that night and he said that 85 or 90% was a high percentage of mills in operation, that it was usually closer to 80% when the wind was blowing. He said that it took a very tall special built, very expensive mobile crane with a long stinger to remove the blades then lift the generators off of the mills and let them down to the ground where they could be worked on. My friend said that a wrong lubricant had been used on the mills on the north side of I-20 and junked the gear boxes. The operator was waiting on one of the special mobile cranes to replace the gear boxes.
I was amazed at my reaction to the large number of mills. I normally look at energy producing sites at being necessary for the life that we live in the USA. But I thought the mills were ugly as can be. There were simply too many of them.
There are three electric transmission governing bodies in the US, one in the east, one in the west and one in Texas called ERCOT. ERCOT has nothing to do with the federal government (FERC) like the other two. ERCOT has hit a record of a short time peak of 22% of power being generated by wind mills while the other two governing systems wind mill peak has been less that half of that. Regulating and controlling electric grids is a complex operation. Lots of base load, lots of load following and lots of load peaking backup is required for wind mill power generators.
Means of storing electricity is desperately needed to effectively utilize part time electricity production such as wind and solar. Research and Development has failed to come up with feasible storage facilities to date. I studied air compressors and pressure storage vessels one time but could not find insulation good enough to hold the heat in the compressed air vessels. Simply expanding the air back to atmosphere was not even close to being cost effective.
@Kit Carruthers, aside from giving people a completely misguided warm and fuzzy feeling that they in some way will save the earth from climate doom, what else are windmills good for? The energy supplied by them is certainly far costlier, and they certainly despoil vast areas of land, and kill many birds and bats. Help us out here. What good are they?
Sorry to be pedantic but they are drilling for oil?
Great Cartoon.
Ok, Kit–let’s go “realistic and pragmatic” as you suggest (because I didn’t see any “sunshine and daffodils” in the Shale Well frame as you assert):
The biggest reason FOR fossil fuels is that CO2 is GOOD for the environment.
Wind farms produce no such benefit, hence isn’t a long-term solution, unless you’re willing to ignore the cost/benefit analysis that’s definitely in favor of fossil fuels with respect to development and production costs of wind.
Do you understand the definition of “base load” as opposed to an ephemeral source such as wind?
Do you understand that when wind is needed most–during regional high pressure systems during the winter and the summer for heat and air conditioning, respectively–there is zero wind for days at a time? And the energy hole is so big no amount of cross-regional grid support is economically feasible?
So the electric grid needed is the same as if the wind component didn’t even exist–wind is the extra “fluff” you alluded to, and by definition, rightly so.
There’s nothing worse than having backup redundancy to support wind, the least reliable component, because base load is reliable and more cost effective considering the physical reality of the system we’re analyzing.
Now, if YOU want to pay extra for the luxury of being Green, go right ahead–add it to your electric bill. Just leave me out of it, by all means.
Stop the subsidies of wind—it isn’t like we’re running out of fossil fuels now, is it?
But that’s not all.
Do you live near a wind farm? I do–and they’re definitely an eyesore. And they kill birds, generate lots of noise, and aren’t even required to have a reclamation plan once their lifespan has ended (which is already a “hot potato” being battled in the courts, by the way).
This leads me to the calculated conclusion that wind farms are BAD and shale gas is GOOD.
And after Peak Oil has passed, we can develop wind IF it’s cost effective at that point, but by then I believe LENR/LANR and other nuclear options will be far more cost effective. We can save the rest of our petroleum at that point for plastics and the like.
In the meantime, let’s not mess up the environment with expensive, wasteful, inefficient wind farms. They don’t contribute anything to the energy pool; indeed, they impair it.
Andrew – I really am confused:-
Your posting begins “In the U.K. there is a big ridiculous row over this well concealed gas well in Balcombe,”
The Beeb reports “Energy company Cuadrilla has begun drilling for oil at a site in West Sussex …..”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23547861
Yet Cuadrilla, which is actually doing the work states:- “The existing Balcombe oil well was drilled by Conoco in Autumn 1986 and was plugged and abandoned after the evaluation.
Cuadrilla was granted planning permission by West Sussex County Council to undertake further exploration work at the Balcombe well location in 2010.
In May 2013, we held a public information event at Bramble Hall to inform local residents about the planned work during summer 2013 will involve.
For more information on the water well that we are currently drilling ….. ”
http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/balcombe/
Kit,
You have some good points. But the biggest reason people here are against wind energy is that is not economically viable. It requires large subsidies to survive and does not produce much power and that it does produce is unreliable. You are correct that “In fact, there are both strengths and weaknesses with both, which I’m happy to acknowledge by the way.” But NG is much better than coal in terms of being “green” which is what it is replacing.
While I agree that the dangers of fracking are greatly exaggerated, It seems that the inhabitants of Balcombe have good reason to complain. Apparently the application for planning permission for Cuadrilla’s drilling operation was not even discussed by Balcombe Parish Council, so local residents were presented with a fait accompli when the frackers turned up. Having said that, most of the complainers seem to be the usual Rent-a-Mob crowd.
Steve Dove says:
August 9, 2013 at 9:51 am
But would you mind if that fracking took place two miles away from you, Steve?
Ok, I agree–that would be fine.
Because in the Williston Basin in N. Dakota, much of the fracking is two miles DEEP.
In other words, in your well “next door” the fracking would be two miles away from you–just down, towards China.
No problem, I say. And I say you’d have to agree.
For purists frac-ing is good but I have seen it mostly as fracking so I use that now. Usage and grammar tend to blend eventually.
They don’t call these shale formations “tight” for nothing (thus the need for fracking) and in west Texas most of these formations are at about 10,000 ft beneath the surface. It is absolutely required to put robust casing from the surface to below the water table. In many cases there is very little ground water anyway. Generally the contamination concerns occur during the brief fracking process. Risks are extremely low if proper procedures are closely followed.
Bernie
I like the birds. Oh, I like the doorsteps too – great touch, Josh!
Hydraulic fracturing has been around for a long time with literally hundreds of thousands of oil or gas wells have been fractured. I have yet to see a single incident where hydraulic fracturing has caused environmental damage. We seem to have some anti-fractures in this thread. Would you please post some reliable damage information.
Kit Carruthers:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at August 9, 2013 at 9:13 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/09/friday-funny-fracktional-thinking/#comment-1385507
Before answering each of your points in turn, I make an overall observation; i.e.
It would have been better for you to have looked a fool instead of proving the matter by making the points I am answering.
You say to me
Do NOT put words in my mouth!
I did not say, suggest or imply any such thing.
You have constructed a ‘straw man’ by claiming I said other than I did.
I talked about the well-head and you are making the false assertion that the well-head will be as large as the temporary development site. I wrote
That is true.
Typically, drilling a well takes around 2-3 days and after that the well produces gas for anything from 5 – 40 years. As you admit, many wells can be drilled from one site. Assume 40 wells and a maximum of 120 days fracking is needed. After that there is only the well-head.
And you exaggerate the infrastructure needed during that initial drilling/fracking phase.
United Utilities have said they would expect to supply the water required for a frack site in Lancashire using a temporary main. It seems they could also handle the waste water which is mildly contaminated in comparison to some other sources of industrial waste water. So, there would be no “storage of water”. The sand and chemicals could be provided on a demand basis so would be ‘stored’ in the delivery vehicles.
At present it is only intended to drill for oil at Balcombe (where the protest is planned) so these issues do not arise there.
I wrote
And you have replied
That is fanciful and wishful thinking which is on a par with claiming the country could be powered by unicorn farts. I do not have time or space here to fully explain all that is wrong with that so I merely point out that the grid – be it “smart” or not – merely distributes electricity and does not generate it.
Hence, the grid cannot “counter intermittency” because it has no possibility of distributing electricity from windfarms when the windfarms are not producing electricity.
And if you have adequate nuclear for when there is no power from windfarms then there is no rational reason for the windfarms.
For a more detailed explanation of why your suggestion is nonsense see
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
I wrote
That is true.
The US has tens of thousandfs of fracked wells for shale gas and has not experienced problems of “fugitive methane releases” and “potentially polluted groundwater”.
But you have replied
There is NO irony (intended or otherwise) in what I wrote. I merely wrote the truth.
And you conclude saying to RockyRoad in response to his post at August 9, 2013 at 9:03 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/09/friday-funny-fracktional-thinking/#comment-1385500
That is pure bollocks!
Windfarms are expensive, polluting, environmentally damaging, bird swatters which only produce electricity when the wind is strong enough but not too strong, and they produce no electricity of use to an electricity grid at any time. This is explained in the article I link to above in this post.
Any “realistic and pragmatic approach to the issues” shows
1.
Windfarms are less “favourable” than a boot up the backside.
2.
Fracking provides useful and economic energy supply.
Richard
Wind power creates a problem for electric systems operators. As one who is responsible to keep the lights on for an electrical distribution system of approximately 1 million people I am aware of this first hand. We are part of a electrical transmission grid that has about a 10,000 megawatt peak load and there are around 900 megawatts of installed wind generation.
There are many protocols and procedures in place to deal with power shortages. In July we experienced some very hot weather and we were directed by the transmission operator to shed (turn off) 45 megawatts of firm load as we had insufficient generation to meet demand. I looked at the generation of all of the hydro, coal, gas, and wind. Some of the generators were offline for maintenance or repairs and of the 900 megawatts of installed wind we were generating only 110 megawatts.
As a distribution system operator it doesn’t really matter to me where the electrons come from, I just want to keep the lights on for my customers. Wind does not give me a reliable source of energy and it is rarely available during the times when it is needed most as the wind is usually calm when its very hot or very cold. Thus we have to turn off the power to some of our customers to protect the integrity of the grid at times of extreme demand. I have seen our wind generators output as low 3% of installed capacity. The most I have seen it is 79%.
When there is a way to have reliable, consistent output from renewable generation Ill be all for it. In the meantime I would prefer keep my customers happy by keeping their lights on.
I kinda like solar power myself. Why not solar power?