Bishop Hill Crunch time for UK fracking
Dec 3, 2012 Energy: gas There was lots of action on the UK shale gas front over the weekend. The Telegraph carried an interview with the head of Cuadrilla who was keen to press ahead, but warned against delay:
We have proven that there is gas and that it will flow. In the three years we have been doing tests, they have drilled 60,000 wells in the US. We don't have infinite patience and our investors don't have infinite patience.
The suggestion that George Osborne is going to offer tax breaks to shale gas developments was also surprising. Given that oil and gas fields pay a supertax on top of corporation tax this probably makes sense.
Commenting favourably on the interview, shale gas expert Nick Grealy revealed that he has had early information about the results of the forthcoming estimates of the UK's shale gas resource.
Total UK resource estimate will be confirmed by DECC scientists, not Cuadrilla posturing. I've seen the logs: MONSTROUS
Reader Comments (114)
Les - what happened to your reply where you said "I guessed th number of wells per pad correctly, at least in the range, and I guessed the number of wells in total, based on low and middle scenarios. I also guessed the size of the pads correctly. The fact that I arrived at numbers close to Cuadrilla's plans, should indicate my level of expertise."
If a number within 400% deviation can be considered close then you deserve a medal!
Did you perhaps realise though that it demonstrated rather clearly that you have one rule of evidence in this forum for those you don't agree with, and another, totally different "wild guesses are OK" rule to apply to yourself?
Pot meet kettle :-)
I'm glad you admitted, albeitfleetingly before you deleted your post that there is no CBL regulation. Surprising as you said, but true.
bitbucket: there is no waiver. The industry is covered under different environmental legislation.
Drilling and completions do fall under OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Act) , CWA (Clean Water Act) and state legislation. Procurement of water for fracturing still falls under the CWA.
The fracture treatment itself falls under OSHA, Superfund and EPRCA (Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act) legislation. The first is about personal injury, the latter 2 are about environmental issues. Note that Superfund is responsible for cleaning up and protecting surafce water. (side note; Superfund sometimes uses fracturing technology to help clean up contaminated ground water sites)
After the fracture, the site goes back to CWA authority.
During production, the CWA again applies, as well as the SDWA (Safe Drinking Water Act).
In all cases, state legislation also applies, unless its on federal or native land.
There is no environmental waiver, at any point in the process. A different agency simply takes over.
refrac: your
Les - what happened to your reply where you said
A bug with the blog system, I guess. It will reappear shortly.
"I guessed th number of wells per pad correctly, at least in the range, and I guessed the number of wells in total, based on low and middle scenarios. I also guessed the size of the pads correctly. The fact that I arrived at numbers close to Cuadrilla's plans, should indicate my level of expertise."
If a number within 400% deviation can be considered close then you deserve a medal!
Its 400% on the high end of Cuadrilla's vs the low end of my estimate. Never study statistics? You compare mean to mean. You also seem to forget that I used the term "very rough estimate" to describe the number of wells.
Did you perhaps realize though that it demonstrated rather clearly that you have one rule of evidence in this forum for those you don't agree with, and another, totally different "wild guesses are OK" rule to apply to yourself?
I preface my "wild guesses" with a warning thats it is a guess. My guess is still remarkably close.
I'm glad you admitted, albeit fleetingly before you deleted your post that there is no CBL regulation. Surprising as you said, but true..
Tin foil hat much? I can't delete here. You will notice that bitbucket also complained of his posts disappearing, then multiples showing up. Its a blog software bug.
Yes, its true there is no formal legislation in the UK over bond logs. This is doubly surprising, as the North Sea is known for its regulatory environment. But, as I said, in practice, there needs to be proof given to the regulators that there is a bond, before operations can proceed. I would be much happier if it was defined in legislation, rather than by a bureaucrat in some cubicle.
I once saw a film in which the main character was being advised by a friend on adultery. His advice was that, even if caught red handed, trousers round ankles etc, just deny it. Pull up your trousers and carry on as if nothing had happened. Just deny.
LJ, you are like this character. There is clearly and exemption in Section 322 of the 2005 EPA and you just deny it.
Even if, as you imply, that exemption just transfers responsibility to others, why would this be necessary for a process that you maintain has been going on for 60 years and is as safe as houses?
bitbucket: your
Even if, as you imply, that exemption just transfers responsibility to others, why would this be necessary for a process that you maintain has been going on for 60 years and is as safe as houses?
You confuse exemption from one act, as an exemption from all acts. That would be jsut silly.
As I said before, it formalized the process. Fracturing is still under several different federal acts. Its not exempted because its safe or its dangerous. Its exempted from one particular act, because its already covered under several others, and always has been.
There is no waiver of environmental responsibility. The companies are still, and always have been, responsible under other acts.
It should also be noted that houses burn, blow up, collapse and flood....but they are better than caves.
So why would they go to the trouble of excluding "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities." from the Safe Drinking Water Act if it had always been that way? Was it broken? Or was it inconvenient?
And notice that they didn't exclude diesel fuels. Why is this? If they were just "formalizing the process", why not do so for the injection of diesel fuels too? Diesel injection must also be regulated by other agencies as you suggest for other fracking fluids.
bitbucket: your
So why would they go to the trouble of excluding "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities." from the Safe Drinking Water Act if it had always been that way? Was it broken? Or was it inconvenient?
It formalized the process that had been in place for 60 years. But, ask Obama why he felt they needed to change it.
And notice that they didn't exclude diesel fuels. Why is this? If they were just "formalizing the process", why not do so for the injection of diesel fuels too? Diesel injection must also be regulated by other agencies as you suggest for other fracking fluids.
You are asking me why politicians and bureaucrats designed policy. You are better off asking Obama.
I have no idea why they kept control of diesel, and didn't keep crude oil, acid, condensate, gasoline, propane, N2 or CO2. The latter 6 can be much more dangerous than diesel. (though gasoline is not used anymore. thankfully.)
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/index.cfm
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/Primacy.cfm
From the literature, the EPA is still in charge of fracturing, through other acts. Or they handover responsibility to states or tribes that demonstrate EPA equivalent controls.
As I keep saying, the oil industry gets no waiver on its environmental responsibility. One way or anothers, it's covered by regulations.
Refrac
All the guesses that Les made were based on my assertion that the Cuadrilla License was 28 sq miles which was incorrect, I gave that figure from memory but it was not a problem between Les and Myself. I have checked my facts and the Cuadrilla License area is roughly 25 miles by 18 miles; 450 sq miles and a massive error on my part. You have been hectoring Les over his guesswork when the errors were all mine.
BitBucket,
Your posts of Dec 5th 7.52pm, 10.39pm + Dec 6th 2.39am weren’t showing when I finished work in the early hours of this morning. Obviously there has been some problems with the blog.
I don’t attempt to fool myself or anyone else that I am “some grand Researcher” or by any stretch of the imagination, some kind of expert. I’m not an engineer. I left school with no qualifications whatsoever and used to be a builder, though these days that’s mixed in with other things. Nowadays I’m more of a driver cum dogsbody cum washer-upper cum rear-end enhanced floor-sweeper. So, to inform myself I use the internet, including google. So what? I also use my local reference library. So what? I also read books, newspapers and magazines. So what? The issue is not where I get my information from or how I get it, it’s whether or not that information is accurate. If you have evidence that I’m misinformed or that what I say is wrong, then lay it out. It’s very, very simple. The fact that you choose not to offer any evidence, but rather to attempt to belittle me because (like every other bugger on the net, including you) I use the net to find things out, shows everybody here a great deal more about you than it does about me. So you carry on waving your hands BitBucket, it just makes the smiles get wider.
Les Johnson Dec 6, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Superb :-)
Obama? You are wriggling even more if you need to bring Obama into the frame.
I've seen your links before - the middle one confirms the exemption. And how does primacy over enforcement of safe drinking water rules matter when fracking has been excluded from those rules?
Readers might look up the FRAC Act and wonder why the industry is so against it. Note that one of its provisions is to remove the exemptions discussed.
LC, your educational status should not matter in the course of the discussion. But strangely after reading your post (Dec 6, 2012 at 4:43 PM) I find myself troubled that I have been unfair to you; I'm not sure why. From the style of your writing, I had you down as an arts graduate (I have nothing against arts graduates per-se, but I always thought they had an easy time at university when compared to science/engineering). I may not agree with you but I bear no malice towards you.
The suggestion that George Osborne is going to offer tax breaks to shale gas developments was also surprising. Given that oil and gas fields pay a supertax on top of corporation tax this probably makes sense.
I suppose it would be asking too too much to just drop the supertax as well as the subsidy ? Yeah, all those extra government 'jobs' wouldn't get created.
bitbucket: your
I've seen your links before - the middle one confirms the exemption. And how does primacy over enforcement of safe drinking water rules matter when fracking has been excluded from those rules?
Because its included under other rules, such as ERPCA, OSHA and Superfund and state legislation.
Fracturing is still covered under some legislation. If a spill or leak occured, the operator would need to clean up under Superfund or ERPCA legislation.