Oil Drilling in Leith Hill petition

[pete75]

My dad worked there and I now live in Wath around a mile and half away from where it was. I still have things of my dads that smell of the place.

Have you read Richard Benson's book The Valley, the story of his family in the Dearne over the 92 years his grandmother lived there - mostly in the Highgate/Goldthorpe area. A brilliant book. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-valley-9780747591849/

[softlips]

My dad worked there and I now live in Wath around a mile and half away from where it was. I still have things of my dads that smell of the place.

Have you read Richard Benson's book The Valley, the story of his family in the Dearne over the 92 years his grandmother lived there - mostly in the Highgate/Goldthorpe area. A brilliant book. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-valley-9780747591849/

No, will have a look at that. Thanks.

[Tangled Metal]

Quick question, does it matter when the pollution caused to make your computer happened point the fact it did? It just seems a cop out to say this to me.

I appreciate that but my computer has caused the same such pollution if it sits in a cupboard doing nothing or it it is actively used (i.e. same levels of pollution caused in manufacturing/assembling the components).

My reason for thinking it's a cop out is because the pollution caused to make it has happened to enable you to post on here and no doubt meant other uses too. The damage has been done and is likely to be part of a long lasting damage to the environment. Perhaps longer than the life of the computer.

You state that chemicals used in fracking are toxic and harmful. You also express a lack of geological knowledge. Do you know or have you seen evidence that these chemicals will cause environmental harm? Mining and processing of the raw materials for your computer do create proven environmental harm that lasts a long time.

Of course it's potentially easier to stop fracking than turning back the clock and ending the extraction of the raw materials for modern devices. So perhaps you're right to pick that to try and stop. Harder to do without computers.

[Psamathe]

Quick question, does it matter when the pollution caused to make your computer happened point the fact it did? It just seems a cop out to say this to me.

I appreciate that but my computer has caused the same such pollution if it sits in a cupboard doing nothing or it it is actively used (i.e. same levels of pollution caused in manufacturing/assembling the components).

My reason for thinking it's a cop out is because the pollution caused to make it has happened to enable you to post on here and no doubt meant other uses too. The damage has been done and is likely to be part of a long lasting damage to the environment. Perhaps longer than the life of the computer.

You state that chemicals used in fracking are toxic and harmful. You also express a lack of geological knowledge. Do you know or have you seen evidence that these chemicals will cause environmental harm? Mining and processing of the raw materials for your computer do create proven environmental harm that lasts a long time.

Of course it's potentially easier to stop fracking than turning back the clock and ending the extraction of the raw materials for modern devices. So perhaps you're right to pick that to try and stop. Harder to do without computers.

I'm being a bit pedantic but I'd have a computer even without a CTC forum - hence the pollution would have happened even if I didn't post here.

The pollution used creating my computer is to a significant extent caused by commercial reasons (poverty, lack of regulation, pushing for higher profits). It could be contained but that would impact the western consumer society .....

There are two aspects to the dangers from the chemicals used in fracking, one the dangers from the chemicals if they get consumed by people (not a geological consideration) and the risks of those chemicals getting into the water supply (i.e. not staying where the frackers inject them into).

My comment about my not having geological knowledge is that I cannot personally look at the geology at intended fracking sites and assess the risks myself - so I'm dependent on others to do that and we seem to be getting conflicting assessments from the pro and anti side. The cynic in me considers that where money and profit are concerned I'm more sceptical about justifications and take more convincing. That is made harder by the Governments strongly pro stance and their entanglement with the carbon energy companies (party donations, lobbying, etc.).

Regarding the toxicity of the chemicals - again it gets difficult to be specific because the fracking companies have refused to reveal the exact concoctions they intend to use. But we do know the classes of some of the chemicals and they include things like endocrine disruptors, sex hormone disruptors (both male and female). They inject concoctions of over 600 chemicals!

To me the "precautionary principle" should apply. We are told that fracking is safe if carried out properly (I assume safe means low risk). But I don't trust companies motivated by profit to always do everything properly, particularly when the dangers might take several years to become apparent and be difficult to "prove". We do have alternative sources for gas and we can reduce our energy consumption.

Ian

[Vorpal]

In the USA, companies have been fracking since the 1940s. The numbers have gone up with new technology, such as horizontal drilling, making it easier to access gas supplies, but has never been a single documentated case of groundwater contamination until quite recently.

There was one in California, but the government was aware of it, and it was never used for drinking water. There was also one in Wyoming, documented by the Environmental Protection Agency.

There have been millions of fracking wells developed aorund the world (1.1. million on land in the USA). France, Tunisia, and some states in the US have banned it on the precautionary principle, but the 'green' think tank Concito determined that is possible to develop shale gas by hydraulic fracturing in Denmark without risk to drinking water, and without release of methane.
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

The original, in case the translate link doesn't work https://ing.dk/artikel/concito-danmark- ... igt-136102

[geocycle]

Methane emissions are the big risk. There are lots of background measurements being taken to provide a baseline. Of course this is also another fossil fuel being exploited and adding carbon to the atmosphere even if no leakage occurs.

[Tangled Metal]

Where are your sources of information on the chemicals being used coming from? Can you cite your sources as I really want to know about them? I am sure your sources are good and right but it does sound highly suspect that any operation requiring a permit to operate can get by with the kinds of chemicals mentioned.

I've worked for companies that have needed permits and the hoops they jumped through were certainly plentiful. Indeed we had to pay for the official body's designated consultants to carry out base level soil analysis plus followups. Plus ground water assessments. Plus... Well I wasn't involved in it all so don't know the full list of hoops just that it was always a nervous time for the bosses.

[Tangled Metal]

Going back to the computer pollution thing. It's not poverty causing the pollution in mining areas but the process of concentrating the ore. It's an issue with a lot of materials used without care or thought in the modern world.

Aluminium tailings for example. There's little to do but build a dam large enough to contain it safely. It's the same sorts of issues for other mining operations. This is happening in Africa, South America and Asia. But it's in Canada, USA and Australia. You might remember the Hungarian tailings dam failure about 8 years ago that poisoned a large part of the countryside. That war actually a well run operation too. Accidents happen I guess.

So brushing it off as saying I'd own the computer even if I didn't use it on ctc forum is missing the point. We're all part of the problem with pollution. Stopping fracking is a small part of the environmental scene. It's one thing only. Picking and choosing what you stop is inconsistent.

BTW what is worse? Chemicals that are endocrine disruptors or chemicals that will kill wildlife outright?

[Psamathe]

Where are your sources of information on the chemicals being used coming from? Can you cite your sources as I really want to know about them? I am sure your sources are good and right but it does sound highly suspect that any operation requiring a permit to operate can get by with the kinds of chemicals mentioned.

I've worked for companies that have needed permits and the hoops they jumped through were certainly plentiful. Indeed we had to pay for the official body's designated consultants to carry out base level soil analysis plus followups. Plus ground water assessments. Plus... Well I wasn't involved in it all so don't know the full list of hoops just that it was always a nervous time for the bosses.

I don't teach Google and I don't have time to Google for others. I also don't keep references to every bit of information I read.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Where are your sources of information on the chemicals being used coming from? Can you cite your sources as I really want to know about them?....

30 seconds on Google and

Hundreds of products containing more than 750 chemicals and components are potentially used throughout the extraction process, including more than 100 known or suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
...
Water samples were collected, solid-phase extracted, and measured for estrogen and androgen receptor activities using reporter gene assays in human cell lines. Of the 39 unique water samples, 89%, 41%, 12%, and 46% exhibited estrogenic, antiestrogenic, androgenic, and antiandrogenic activities, respectively.
...
The majority of water samples collected from sites in a drilling-dense region of Colorado exhibited more estrogenic, antiestrogenic, or antiandrogenic activities than reference sites with limited nearby drilling operations.

You might need a subscription (it's a peer reviewed scientific journal and quite a few require subscriptions).

Ian

[Psamathe]

Going back to the computer pollution thing. It's not poverty causing the pollution in mining areas but the process of concentrating the ore. It's an issue with a lot of materials used without care or thought in the modern world.....

Different areas suffer different issues that can lead to pollution. sometimes it's a corruption issue, sometimes commercial, sometimes poverty, sometimes "unavoidable" (maybe we should be recycling better?), etc.

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

Thanks for the article, it wasn't subscription only. Interesting read. I think if these chemicals are used in the UK fracking operations too then I think you've convinced me to be an anti too with that article.

I think a lot of fracking has been carried out in America. It would be interesting to find out about European activities. I'll try to Google it sometime.

As far as mining and mineral extraction goes there's often no clean way to concentrate the mineral concerned. Tailings dams are one issue but there's a lot more about it that's harmful and toxic. Without using those toxic chemicals, processes and waste storage got don't get some minerals and metals. It's not always exploitation of poverty or corruption. These processes happen in western style democracies. China, Russia and Canada are the top three Aluminium producing countries. I'm pretty sure Russia and Canada are less likely to be exploiting poverty. China interestingly is almost 10 times bigger in Al production than the second placed. Aluminium is not a cleanly produced material. It is widely used and possibly unavoidable in the modern world.

Australia is the largest mining nation for Aluminium ore at almost twice the size of second placed China. A lot of the worst waste material is to be found in the mining regions where they concentrate the ore IIRC (it's a long, long time since I studied it all at university).

I guess my point is in this modern world we're all living with things made from materials that uses toxic chemicals and processes on their way to the end user. Where do you draw the line? Stop one polluting process and you let hundreds through that may be worse. We're far from knowing where the worst pollution is. It's the latest thing hitting the news it seems sometimes.

For example glitter should be banned because it's a microplastic. It is but a very small source of it. Plastic bags, plastic packaging or indeed any plastic gets broken down in the world's oceans to form microplastic pollution. Why can't we go back to paper bags in supermarkets? It'll probably help because whilst bag use had dropped there's still too much plastic bags being used. Paper bags should be used IMHO.

[old_windbag]

We can do without incidents like this, but theres bound to be more:-

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/28/brazil-to-sue-mining-companies-bhp-and-vale-for-5bn-over-dam-disaster

Now we have lithium etc the next big element in demand.

[Tangled Metal]

This was one I was thinking about.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajka_alumina_plant_accident&ved=0ahUKEwies4PUivDXAhWhJ8AKHXDwCRoQFggqMAA&usg=AOvVaw3pOqdjfCJuFu5bxYc-qUn8

Interestingly that area has become a green centre with investment in waste to energy.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/08/devecser-hungary-eco-town&ved=0ahUKEwies4PUivDXAhWhJ8AKHXDwCRoQFghMMAM&usg=AOvVaw04jO3NABRK1nktt3Y_Y96o&ampcf=1

[Vorpal]

Where are your sources of information on the chemicals being used coming from? Can you cite your sources as I really want to know about them?....

30 seconds on Google and

Hundreds of products containing more than 750 chemicals and components are potentially used throughout the extraction process, including more than 100 known or suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
...
Water samples were collected, solid-phase extracted, and measured for estrogen and androgen receptor activities using reporter gene assays in human cell lines. Of the 39 unique water samples, 89%, 41%, 12%, and 46% exhibited estrogenic, antiestrogenic, androgenic, and antiandrogenic activities, respectively.
...
The majority of water samples collected from sites in a drilling-dense region of Colorado exhibited more estrogenic, antiestrogenic, or antiandrogenic activities than reference sites with limited nearby drilling operations.

You might need a subscription (it's a peer reviewed scientific journal and quite a few require subscriptions).

Ian

The region in question has been subjected to intense oil & gas recovery over a number of years, and Garfield county has experienced:
-The blowout of an improperly cemeted well
-a 2 million gallon spill of fracking chemicals
-a fracking wastewatter spill in which the company did not notify regulators until a month later
-a leak in a pipe that carried wasterwater from 36 oil & gas wells

And after data collection for the article stopped, additional spills have occurred. This paper is good evidence for getting the state of Colorado to implement proper controls on oil & gas operations. It's not necessarily an indication of what fracking produces.


I'm not arguing that fracking is good thing. I am opposed to it for two reasons:

-we don't have good control over the release of methane
-we need much stronger efforts (or at least the commitment) to get people to reduce their energy consumption before we develop new resources.

IMO, there should be a coherent plan with energy usage reductions, rationing, and strategy. It should include transport, heating, commercial usage, emissions of green house gases, development of alternative forms of energy, and the usage and development of natural resources, including oil & gas. Right now, all there is, is a lengthy paper that says (my summary)
-80% reductions in energy usage through efficiency improvement
-investment in technology to improve efficiency
-find more oil & gas
-develop more wind power