Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IN HIS BUDGET for the next year, Britain’s Chancellor George Osborne has committed the country to exploring its shale gas future, and the controversial fracking method of extracting it, by offering tax incentives to companies and financial benefits to communities for exploring the potentially massive reserves in the country. With Britain and other European countries paying 300 per cent more for natural gas than the fracking-happy United States, he’s right to promote investment into exploring the potential of Britain’s shale gas basins.
Fracking is an emotively driven environmental issue. There are claims and counter claims about its safety, and the industry has met with considerable opposition in Europe. Many countries have either banned the practice of fracking or have kicked it to touch, awaiting studies – we have three in process – on its impacts. Other countries that have lifted bans, like Britain, are seeing slow progress as local government drags its heels and communities organise to protest the exploration wells being dropped.
Much of the bad image of the industry comes from the country that has most enthusiastically embraced shale gas, the US. The country isn’t best known for its quick and effective regulation of big businesses, and the emerging fracking industry seems to have gotten away with a lot in the US that one can’t see hard line European regulators turning a blind eye to. Improving regulation has been the key to improving safety and satisfaction of locals. A report presented to our own government before they kicked the issue to another three agencies to investigate concluded that with proper safety controls and regulation, fracking doesn’t pose a substantial danger.
Governments have been kicking the issue to touch because it’s politically unpalatable to be touching the issue. I think instead that they should allow the exploration of shale gas to move forward as they are in the UK, with financial incentives for communities sitting atop the fields and close regulation of the industry. The fact is that we need cleaner energy sources to replace the likes of King Coal, and natural gas is a key fuel to aid the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, producing 45 per cent less carbon dioxide than coal and 30 per cent less than oil.
The upsides of shale gas are massive. People living on top of shale gas reserves can win big with massive leases on land into which wells are sunk; ranging from $500 to $25,000 per acre per month and with royalty fees into the six figures for successful extraction. At a higher level shale gas has been nothing but a positive success story.
The US had practically no fracking industry a decade ago. Now shale gas accounts for a quarter of the gas in the country, and is pushing up towards half in the next decade. The US pays $3.40 per Million British Thermal Units (mBTU) of natural gas. In Europe we pay north of $12, with the spot price sitting at $13.50 during the past week. The supply is so plentiful and the price so low that wells are being turned off in the US to limit supply and drive the price up. There has been a boom in jobs, industry and lower prices for consumers.
There is a debate in the US about whether or not to liquefy and export their gas across the oceans, which would attract better prices for the industry but drive up prices at home. It would cost about $5 per mBTU to liquefy the gas and export it to Europe or – even more attractively – Asia, where they’re paying $20 per mBTU. As a side win, if the US were to export gas to Europe, we wouldn’t be as dependent on the nice people of Russia’s Kremlin-controlled Gazprom.
Industry in the US has been a major winner, with energy intensive manufacturing jobs that previously went to China being kept at home because they’re now competitive with the all the filthy but cheap coal that’s being burned out there.
That’s the other thing about shale gas: It’s a lot cleaner than King Coal, which is the dirtiest but cheapest form of producing large amounts of energy outside of the cheap gas rich US. Oft derided as the country that has refused to sign up to greenhouse gas emission targets, the International Energy Agency has released data to say that America’s carbon dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450 million tonnes, more than any country over the past five years. Indeed, the country has fallen back 20 years to the level of greenhouse gas emissions produced in 1992.
That has been driven by a rise in natural gas in energy production, rising from 21.6 per cent in 1998 to 29.4 per cent in 2012; where renewable energy has risen from 8.3 per cent to 12.1 per cent. Coal has fallen from nearly half to just 36.7 per cent.
The insatiable energy demands of emerging countries like China, India and Brazil have seen them firing up filthy coal plants left and right. There are currently 1,200 coal plants in planning worldwide, with about three quarters in India and China according to the World Resources Institute. Even cleaner-than-thou Germany – with one of the highest recycling rates in the world no less - is building new coal plants and ramping up production in existing ones to make up for the nuclear power they’re switching off in the wake of Fukushima.
The great energy conundrum of the 21st Century is that we need more energy; we need cleaner energy; and somebody seems to have a problem with every method of producing it. Community groups becoming exercised about fracking are joining the queue behind community groups concerned with the effects of wind farms, national groups opposed to nuclear energy, and nobody wants a big dirty coal, oil or probably even gas fired power plant being built in their back yard.
We couldn’t deploy enough solar panels on our roofs to power the country if we wanted to (though heaven knows if we proposed it then People Against Birds Being Confused by Roofs Full of Solar Arrays would swiftly emerge) and there aren’t enough rivers to dam besides the fact that water management is another big environmental issue.
We’re hurtling towards energy crisis after crisis in the next century. Shale gas could be an alleviating solution on the way to totally clean energy production – which I firmly believe is where the future lays eventually – by making it more economical to burn a cleaner fuel than coal in an increasingly energy hungry world. There’s also the economic benefits of having cheaper gas to burn in our homes and businesses in the short term.
Of course, we’re only discussing exploration at the moment. Maybe we don’t have massive reserves; maybe we do. We need to explore the reserves rather than kick everything to touch for years on end, because those years are becoming finite where energy is concerned. The US went from a standing start a decade ago to reducing its carbon footprint by more than any other country in the world largely thanks to shale gas and fracking. We’ll waste half that scratching our heads and launching reports to gather dust.
If it turns out that, regardless of safety precautions and regulation, fracking will turn our water into a heating solution then fine – we’ll leave it be. But I think if you want to make an educated bet on a good way to secure some cleaner energy for the next few decades, the government could do worse than follow the UK in opening up the market here for exploration.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
What an incredibly one-sided article. Shale has can hardly be considered clean. Life cycle emissions are higher than conventional has and often higher even than coal. It also uses massive quantities of fresh water that is difficult to collect and clean.
On top of all this, it’s hard to convey how infrastructurally intensive fracking is. You need hundreds of well pads in close density plus roads bringing in all the water & more infrastructure to take the gas out.
The economic benefits have been largely overhyped. The glut of gas on the US market means fracking for shale gas has largely stopped because gas prices are too low-everyone has moved onto shale oil already. This article is nothing but unfounded hype.
What a lazy answer Nuffsaid. How is anything achieved? Through investment and developing expertise. Have a look at this video http://myoilandgas.org/ and it might give you some perspective.
Sorry Tara that comment was meant for Nuffsaid below x x
No problem!
If we had just held on to the oil and gas we had off our coast instead of giving it away we wouldn’t have to go after the shale gas.
And how exactly would we as a nation have found the Oil / Gas off our coasts in the first place, let alone get it out of the ground!??
@Nuffsaid
Why not leave it there until we (or our children) do have the capability of extracting it ourselves. Who benefits most from it being given away for nothing?
It is not given away ; those licences are illegal and anti-constitutional and Ray Burks and Enda Kenny and Pat Rabbitte know that in my learned and researched opinion.
@Nuffsaid ; the correct term is “seabed”.
By investing in the Research and delivery of our natural resources. If it viable for oil companies to do it then surely it viable for the country to do it ourselves.
Mr. Bowe ; The most intelligent comment of the week, You will be Minister for natural resources in my next cabinet ; well done sir and congratulations! …l.o.l.
Ireland wouldn’t be able to fund the cost of extraction from the offshore resources and needed a company to help.
@Aileen , the reason the markets exist is so that we as a nation can get a loan and do it for ourselves ; We have 92 billion in savings in this country, I think our private peension funds stand at 80 billion ; what company has that kind of money ? It’s just elitist mismanagement of our nation for the benefit of bankers and their lackeys ;politicians ! That’s why many of our current and past politicians will probably end up in jail ; in my opinion; look at sarckozy, Strauss Kahn and LeGarde , IT IS HAPPENING ALREADY,!
How about the government think big for a change and actually set up a national exploration team. Is it too much work or something.
There has been nothing to stop ANY country having a national company for oil and gas exploration. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell, the fore-runner of Shell? Ditto several other countries who were far-sighted enough to see the necessity. Even now, long after the horse has bolted it is possible to lease even the most specialized machinery. Think outside the box ffs. When I wad a child I was taught that Ireland had NO Natural resources whatever. When I became an adult I learned that we have in fact got decent deposits of good quality anthracite, together with minor deposits of precious metals. Latterly there have been oil and gas finds. We are still stuck in the Christian Brothers School mentality that we have nothing, and if something were found (by foreigners of course) then we must rely on them to manage it. The poverty of ideas in this country has seriously held us back. There are Irishmen all over the world skilled in geology, engineering and all of those arts. Why not canvass their help?
….by not signing ridiculous contracts with big oil, and even with little oil. We never considered the potential of leaving it there, we were desperate and we’ve made nothing out of it, just look at how Norway did it.
It seems it needs to be explored, but without the evangelical hysteria from either the pro or con sides.
An approach unlikely to be taken here I fear.
It doesn’t need to be explored at all – there are billions of barrels off the Mayo, Cork and Dublin coasts that belong to the Irish people. Why go down the clearly dangerous route of fracking?
Ireland doesn’t explore. The government simply signs away our rights and let mega rich corporations explore.
Frack that.
Fracking bakstards
Brilliant
Unfortunately the usual rag taggle mob of anti this and anti that yet demand and expect everything under the sun will not allow even a discussion on fracking in this country….the leftie crustification continues!
@ Jimmy ; I’m not a Leftie so here’s a question ; why is it banned in France ?
Yeah those lefty whingers banging on about lefty issues like tap water that doesn’t catch fire, boohoo, oh and ‘there were never earthquakes here before they started fracking and now my house fell down’, yeah dry yer eyes ya commie.
How about an economic point: for tourism, food production etc Ireland’s image as a green island is worth more than almost any amount of gas, which our government would only give away for a pittance anyway.
Also, in Ireland anything inside the land like archaeological artefacts or mineral wealth is not owned by the property owner, so if you’re a farmer hoping to be sitting on some mineral wealth you’re unlikely to strike it rich Texas style, more likely your animals will be on the ballygowan and living indoors.
Ah dont mind the French! Sure they only legalised anti-perspirent in 98′
A proper debate and discussion needs to take place between individuals who are well informed and involved in the industry and those who have legitimate concerns who know what they’re talking about. That way there is balance. Then a decision can be made. That’s my point. Unfortunately there is a band of the usual “protesters” who scream blue murder at anything that maybe progressive…yet they want everything provided to them, usually for nothing!
Yeah a proper debate based on this copy and paste from the American fracking industry, which barely mentions Ireland except in the intro by the author before the paste.
indeed you are correct again Mr. flynn but in 2013 they have raided the head of the I.M.F.’s home and arrested Mr. sarckozy ; you mightn’t remember him but he’s the guy that came over here and backed Lisbon 2 !
A nice piece to sway your mind away from how dangerous fracking is.
Some good points all the same but anything that can poison drinking water is pretty bad. Imagine them doing it here in Ireland. A t*ts up is only bound to happen.
Fracking is incredibly dangerous and will have NO benifits to us in Ireland. It will put lives and the enviornment at risk. Please do not fooled by articles like this and do a bit of reading for yourselves…
How is it incredibly dangerous? If the proper measures are taken initially, and the water table is monitored, this is not an issue. I agree with do a bit of reading for yourself, but maybe read from both sides, like how we can safely use fracking
@ Aileen; would that be proper monitoring like in the meat industry ?
We’re bankrupt. We need to leave it there until the ecb is gone. They’d take anything we found.
The article above is not journalism; it is advocacy for a particular agenda.
There is no attempt made to do even a rudimentary cost benefit analysis, including an assessment of the real environmental cost.
This is analogous to advocating nuclear energy without addressing nuclear waste and risk.
Yeah another poorly written biased article from the journal.
Who or what is Aaron McKenna? It says ‘about author’, no info’ though. Be that as it may, I think we can look to the good ol’ U S of A, for good information on the downside of tracking. Methinks Mr. McKenna hasn’t even bothered to do that. Yet another lazy young buck who says ‘ the old fuddy duddys are scared of fracking (or nuclear power stations’ what a laugh. Always said from a position of supreme ignorance. Research the bleedin’ thing, then you might see why it might be ‘emotive’. BTW have you ever noticed that when a contentious matter comes up for discussion it is always described as “emotive” or “divisive”. Journalese/politician-speak for this is a subject on which there is no consensus – let’s avoid it.
Getting as bad as rte
Hear hear
Yeah. Trust the oil companies. They are wonderful. I hope they frack under this guys house…
Why would the oil companies want fracking to go ahead? Idiot
because they are one and the same Aileen , I don’t use the word Idiot because its anagram is “I do it “
This author never fails to stun me with his opinions.
Firstly, any industry that pumps chemicals that are so lethal to life into the ground, where it can permeate, to extract an energy and call this ‘clean’ energy is madness. Any person who states that such ‘energy’ is clean has a narrow viewpoint indeed.
We know that the EPA reports in the US re franking have been whitewashed with investigators being given their expected results before any investigation.
We should not allow franking in any form.
For anyone wanting a counterpoint to the above narrow viewpoint here is a good article on the matter.
Take it easy on Aaron, he probably is just trying to make a living! He does remind me of Sean Kelly M.E.P. though ; cut and paste and all that !
It impossible in lreland to get anything through the planning process.
Not if you have some brown envelopes. Even Sarkozy was at it. Everyone has their price.
Lowry is probably the cheapest. He’ll do anything for a tenner.
I’d argue its not half hard enough given the complete destruction we’ve wrought on the landscape through the Celtic tiger.
Wouldn’t be against the benefits of shale, but of much greater concern should be the creation of large scale hydro-wind energy projects that could actually provide us with a chance of energy independence.
No thanks.
Will they ever f–k off and stop with this persistent ‘we need shale’ propaganda.
Whatever PR, media companies (Distilled Media??!) and their staff are involved in this promoting this poison are morally corrupt and will hopefully die penniless in their own poisoned little world.
For a politician and child friendly explaination:
Shane that was abit heavy, but you are correct about the fracing and the propaganda in my possibly wrong opinion. With regards to them and their poisoned world , they already live in it ; the parable of the Golden Calf and all that !
It is not a clean fuel. Financial incentives for communities??? let Health Impact Assessments be allowed in the US before there is any consideration, as no amount of financial incentives is worth the health of our children who are more susceptible to the effects of the air pollution.There is no security of supply or price, measly amount of jobs…for what…5b over 50 years…we give bondholders 20b a year!! Are we so desperate that we sell out our country, our health and environment for pittance??? The only ones to benefit will be the gas companies. And for those who think it’s fine cause it’s not in their backyard/…well the government has only licensed 50% of what they intend to license. Why do tourists come to Ireland, why does our agriculture have such a good reputation…because it is a relatively clean and green country, I would advise all who think fracking is a good idea to spend some time doing some research and then decide..is it worth it, we have the second worst terms in the world after cameroon, we have no guarantee of supply or price, measly amount of jobs compared to destroying Irelands land and reputation for farming and tourism, the health of our people and yes the environment, one of the areas they want to frack is a UNESCO world site as the area is exceptional in the amount of rare and protected species that exist there. Yes we need, more jobs and revenue, but we would gain more if we invested more in the tourism in those area. The borderlands have practicly been forgottten about, but all that area, it is the highlands and lakelands of Ireland, stunningly beautiful and unspoilt, to turn over a 1/4 of the land of Ireland into an industrial zone to benefit the gas companies…… please think long and hard
Unconvinced.
On the upsides mentioned, I somehow cannot get excited about the upside of landowners getting big cash windfalls (Does that sound familiar? Did it end well?) just because they happen to have land over shale gas.
The argument that the issues in the USA are largely due to lack of regulation and could be avoided here by regulation both supports the idea that there is inherent potential for damage and presupposes that you trust regulation to work to prevent this damage – is that effective regulations like we have/had in the construction industry? The beef industry? Banking?.
‘Clean fuel’ is a debatable designation for shale gas. Sure, it produces less CO2 when you burn it, but it’s production results in substantial release of methane as a byproduct and the long term environmental impact of this type of extraction is far from clear.
The arbitrary grouping of people who oppose fracking as being people who oppose everything is simplistic and frankly patronising. It is also not true.
Personally, I’m not sure about this but the biggest argument against in my mind at the moment is the proviso that always seems to be inserted that it requires careful regulation if it’s not to cause harm. I’ve seen nothing in my lifetime that makes me believe regulation is effective in preventing abuses, plenty to show that those on the ground in an industry regard regulations as something to be fought against, circumvented or even ignored entirely if they can possibly get away with it. And they have, often.
Totally unconvinced by this copy and paste article too Katie. I’d say it has a very short bibliography and came mainly from some well funded (ie industry funded) ‘study’. It barely refers to Ireland, how our population distribution would affect environmental concerns or Irish law on mineral extraction and apart from not even bothering to give prices in local currency or metric units, there’s the bizarre claim of how many dollars landowners can get for their shale within their land. Mineral wealth is the property of the state not the landowner. The tiniest bit of research would have shown the ‘author’ this.
At what stage does money lose its importance? How many studies need to show how dangerous this is for people to say no? FFS we’re selling off the country’s forests for a song, the oil and gas are given away for free, what makes you think the fracking rights will be any different? And where will the money go? Not to Irish people but to corporates, politicians and bankers again!! My health is not a tradable commodity!! No to fracking!!
Shake gas is as a result of fracking. Fracking is some what possible in the states because the areas it is done in is very sparsely populated, there is no area in Western Europe which has such low population densities.
Fracking destroys the water table and can cause seismic activities as experienced in the UK recently.
Under no circumstances should it be explored in Ireland.
Unlike many here I have studied this subject so am making an informed opinion.
I have also studied this subject so can make an informed opinion. Using a little hydrogeology, monitoring the water table, and there is not a risk of destroying the watertable
Aileen; a bit of physics for you, basic physics ;
oNLY 2 Things can break rock ; heat or hydraulic pressure ;
The Boiling point of water is 100 degrees ; nowhere near hot enough to shatter rock ; pour a kettle of water on a rock and see if it breaks !
Oil is required for hydraulic pressure ; that is why there is oil in hydraulic rams not water ; the physics term is viscosity.
The only way to shatter rock and the method used will be by adding chemicals to the water which they will then inject in boreholes, This will in turn cause fissures (cracks) in the rocks thus allowing the gas to escape; because shale is a sedimentary rock it will have large fissures (these are be used to extract the majority of the gas) and smaller fissures though which the gas escapes into the water table along with a certain amount of the chemically treated water !
Aileen Bohan, I doubt it very much that you have studied the subject in any great depth because if you had then you would be aware of the numerous incidents of groundwater and surface water contamination in the States.
Here is just a sample of these incidents:
1. In December 2011, the US EPA concluded that hydraulic fracturing operations contaminated the groundwater aquifer in Pavillon, Wyoming.
2. A study by Rob Jackson, an environmental scientist at Duke University, showed evidence that backs up findings linking gas drilling and water problems in the town of Dimock.
Cabot Oil & Gas, who were responsible for the contamination, even paid out $4.1 million, under a settlement negotiated by the Department of Environmental Protection and the company.
3. If you look at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) website, industry has even self-reported incidences of groundwater and surfacewater contamination from spills.
Google “1.7 Million Gallons of Toxic Oil and Gas Liquids Unrecovered in Weld County Colorado” for an analysis of this data.
I have spent a good year researching this subject, from both sides, so if you wish to know, please don’t hesitate to get in touch!
Dermot you know of hydraulics. Water or any other liquid can be used for hydraulics. Water creates hydraulic pressure because it cant be compressed like all liquids.
Mjhint ; hydraulic pressure can not be used to shatter shale because of its sedimentary nature and the viscosity of water. The reason I made the point was because the original media report on R.T.E. had two fracing company representatives saying that they would only use water to frac the rock; it is physically impossible; it was a doozy from the start which is standard media release tactics ; put out the good word first and get the majority of the population feeling that is not a threat ! They defuse the bomb initially, needless to say both companies subsequently admitted in a more low key media coverage that chemicals would be used when most people had tuned into the next cartoon !
Furthermore Aileen say a little bit of hydrology ; that is probably from a website that hasn’t been “updated ” yet !
Something very similar happened on the oil industry website where their information led one to believe that there was little or no Gas or Oil; now that they have moved to “investment phase” the figures are coming out when they feel that they have the whole issue ringfenced !”; I.M.O.
The issue is not hydraulics and I’m not an expert but the point is if they are only going to use water then only hydraulics or heat can be used or a combination of both! The egyptians cut their obelisks using large fires and then applying cold water after a few days ! Heat followed by rapid cooling fractures rock; the heat can only be done in a borehole using chemicals!
Never say never. We’re not exactly in a position to ignore billions tied up under the ground.
Have you not heard of the Corrib gas fields or something?
even if it was explored and found it would go straight to a corporation, not in to paying any state debts
Say never..we wouldn’t get the money, just a ruined country and generations of health problems. Or is a lifetime of debt not enough to leave our kids?
How clever – destroy the water supply that we’ll soon be paying for. Not to mention the risk of seismic activity.
and one wonders why they are clearing the bogs ?
Following the UK’s example? Like that has worked out well for the Republic in the past NOT!!! Don’t be fooled by what the UK Tory government is doing, they are only serving the interests of big oil and gas companies and that has never worked out well for anywhere on this whole planet. France, Bulgaria, Romania have already banned it, many US cities and Quebec have banned it, one US state and one Australian State has banned it. Many counties, towns, and regional governments around the world have banned it. Don’t let Ireland come to a party that is already over. Ban it BEFORE it starts and the damage to the water, the land, tourism, agriculture and the economy is done.
Irish gov. will give it away for free. http://Www.myoilandgas.org check it out.
No fracking way!
I see the experts in the extraction of carbons are out in force this morning.
Hydro carbons
Not only experts are entitled to opinions, and experts are not always right.
We should listen always to those with greater knowledge of a subject, but there is a reason that it is not considered desirable for a society that experts in any area make decisions that have a societal impact. With expertise you can also get narrowness of view and disdain for opposing views based on criteria that don’t seem important to the expert.
Look at comments on “we sold our oil off”.in Ireland we don’t have the means to extract hydrocarbons.we need companies who know what there doing.
We have a 1/8 strike rate
Norway is 1/3 strike rate.in the case of two missed wells Norway compensate the drilling companies.
For us to do this would leave us broke.
To get the oil companies to operate in Ireland we have to give them a tax incentive.
What she said..
Ciaran. You are wasting your time trying to talk sense on this site. But good luck for trying.
I cannot believe how completely one-sided this article is! Has he been paid by gas exploration companies to write it? The technology is present for renewable energy sources, why begin to build up the shale gas industry which has not been proven safe?!
http://Www.ourgasandoil.org – hasn’t the lovely Bertie already given it away?
One of the many things Mr Mc Kenna has failed to mention in this poorly researched piece of ‘journalism’ is that many towns, cities and states in the US have banned or in the process of banning high volume slickwater horizontal hydraulic fracturing (HVHF).
Longmont in Colorado voted for a ban last November, Boulder and Colorado Springs are also considering a ban, as is Fort Collins in Texas, Vermont State banned it last year, New York State is looking at extending its moratorium, and Dryden in New York has recently joined the lengthy list of US towns & cities fighting hard to keep this filthy, destructive, land hungry and water hungry industry out! One mayor in Colorado – a state with over 30 years’ experience of the conventional oil & gas industry – recently even tore up a cheque from the gas industry!
If this unconventional gas brings so many purported benefits, one does have to wonder why so much opposition exists. Surely they can’t all be NIMBYs in the US!
Laura Farrell, what do you mean by ‘good returns’? For whom? The gas industry?
Have you read geologist David Hughes’ report ‘Drill baby Drill’? His report looks at several shale gas plays across the States and confirms the boom-and-bust nature of the industry.
Are you aware of the overestimates made by industry? Are you aware of the field decline rates and well decline rates? Are you aware of the spatially intense nature of the unconventional gas industry?
Many people mention the effects of fracking on water, but one of the more serious and commonplace impacts is degradation of air quality.
We have quite a few studies highlighting these risks.
Here are a few for starters:
1. A study by the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Health showed that people living within a half-mile of oil- and gas-well fracking operations were exposed to air pollutants five times above a federal hazard standard.
2. A study by researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) found Emissions from oil and natural gas operations account for more than half of the pollutants – such as propane and – that contribute to ozone formation in Erie, Colorado.
3. A study in the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment showed more than 50 NMHCs were found near gas wells in rural Colorado, including 35 that affect the brain and nervous system. Some were detected at levels high enough to potentially harm children who are exposed to them before birth.
Given that the industry has shown itself incapable of mitigating these risks in the US, what makes you think it will be any different here?
Oh, and the ex-Coloradan oil and gas regulator David Neslin, who I met this week, claims that Colorado has the best regulations in the US! If this is what best practice looks like, why our government would even contemplate granting licences to such an industry is beyond belief really.
IIRC, some company wanted to get into some serious fracking up in Leitrim. Not a good idea.
Better off trying in Longford. Nobody lives there, so they can turn the water flammable all they want. I jest about the water, but seriously, who lives in Longford?
My mother-in law, my brothers in law and my children’s cousins among others. To give you a short answer ;The Irish many of whom are the descendants of those who fought the English at the Battle of Ballinamuck (the scene of the death of one of the finest Irishman ;Gunner McGee! )
The entire western side of Ireland is at risk from fracking 12 counties in total there are countless peer reviewed studies showing it is dangerous to soil air water and human and animal health. 6.2% of all well casings fail initially 60% fail in the first 20 years they all fail in time. These figures come from the PA DEP in America. Why doesnt the industry fix this problem? Because it can’t! Leaking well casings mean contaminated groundwater. Given that a recent Irish geological survey confirmed the presence of uranium in the drilling areas of the northwest carboniferous basin this means the headwaters of the River Shannon may become radioactive to name just one of the contaminants that will effect our water. With plans to bring water from the Shannon to Dublin many many people of Ireland stand to be affected aDversely by these dangerous short term profit plans. and that is just the Water air contaminants can travel 100s of miles. Our clean agricultural reputation lost our tourism devestated.. IT IS MADNESS!
100% correct; I am not too worried about it happening here ; our youth are silently aware of the danger and will inform their parents in time !
I am however worried about Fermangh; the potential to poison the Erne waterway and subsequently the Shannon is huge !
Mr. Osbourne has come under my watchful eye !
You can watch Gasland here, for anyone that hasn’t seen it.
That’s crazy sh1t. The US is a big vast country can you just imagine doing this here in a small condenced country like ireland. If this is allowed there will be some mess ahead. I believe the owners of the land are the ones responsible for any mess left behind.
We Need Clean Water more than we need shale gas. I shall say no more.
McKenna is one ugly mother fracker. With a stupid fracking one sided article.. Frack sake…
Very badly researched article.
Shale gas fracking is nothing but another bubble, supposed to blast very shortly
=> Fracking – A Boom and Bust, https://sites.google.com/site/frackingireland/fracking—a-boom-and-bust
@Aaron ; the term comes from rock fracturing ; the correct spelling, according to the first discussion on this subject on R.T.E. is FRACING. It will not happen on here just as it’s banned in France it will be banned here. Your article does however teach me alot !
For anyone who is still unsure what fracking is, check out the excellent courses available here: http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/site/view/1052
Electricity Bills in Queensland, Australia are likely to jump 21% by July. The Queenslands Competition Authority is blaming the need to increase bills on “escalating network and other costs”.
The network costs are those associated with the erection of pylons, cables etc. to bring electricity to places where it didn’t exist before. Fair enough you say; families who live in the remoter areas are going to benefit.
But all is not as it seems. As an Australian friend of my sister’s has noted, the energy companies are building new electricity networks in the areas of Queensland where the CSG industry (unconventional gas/fracking) is ‘thriving’. These networks are purely to service the CSG industry as they move from well to well and need power to drive their heavy duty fracking equipment. They are not bringing light to the ordinary domestic consumer. The 21% increase, paid for out of the pockets of ordinary citizens, is purely to subsidise big Oil and Gas.
But back to Ireland. Tamboran are claiming, as part of their greening propaganda, that they will power their equipment using electricity. But where will this electricity come from? Is the infrastructure already in place in Fermanagh and Leitrim to service this need? It certainly is not.
Could it so happen that like Australia, we will end up paying for the infrastructure that Tamboran need to frack us?
Definatly a NWO rag. Anyone pushing issues like this like we have little choice is a smoke and mirrors magi. No one talking about Iceland. Time for revolution folks. Our ancestors waged wars to secure our independace, which was given away to the corporate system willingly. Definatly one way to make us totally dependant on the state. Destroy all the usefull resources so we can pay the bankers gambling debts and pay for bottled water with added flouride,lithium, whatever medication they think we need.
People must love paying all this property tax and extortionate vat.
People like living in clean safe environments. Fracking is not compatible with clean safe environment s
Says who. Oh yeah. Anti franking organisations.
The Irish EPA published a document outlining their proposed terms of reference for a “Research Programme” regarding hydraulic fracturing… while calling for submissions to a “public consultation” Members of the public were invited to forward their submissions, whereupon the EPA will SELECT a number of submissions which THEY deem valid.
They will then publish the selected submissions. Does this type of procedure really qualify as “public consultation”???
Surely any “public consultation” worthy of the title ought to have happened in – Public! …involving concerned citizens meeting with State Representatives while waiting for a clear consensus to emerge from the scientific community worldwide on the issue of the “safety” of fracking.
But the fact remains that this so-called “Public Consultation” process is nothing less than a smokescreen covering the government-charged EPA’s complicity with this reckless industry. It is a veneer of “community consultation” on a fundamentally Anti-Democratic process! The EPA’s own terms of reference for research is predominantly concerned with “monitoring and regulating” the fracking process. This obviously pre-supposes that fracking will indeed take place in Ireland. This type of language – “monitoring and regulating” – also propagates the MYTH that such as process can even be regulated: how can the migration of gases and radioactive materials exploded from shale rock at this depth be monitored and controlled? There is no way of knowing the vagaries of these lethal materials once they’ve been released.
It is a reckless and extreme form of energy.
We’re too emotional in this country. Too scared of something new. Fair play to the USA for leading the way and fair play for reducing their green house emissions more than any other country in the last 10 years.
give the documentary gas land a watch its on Netflix and your mind will be made up on fracking , or type flammable water into YouTube
A couple of basic points in this article are incorrect and misleading. In the USA, mineral right (oil, gas etc) belong to the owners of the land – so it’s true that American landowners can profit by selling their mineral rights to gas companies. In Europe, mineral rights belong to the State. Landowners might make a bit of money by allowing the companies onto their land (which is probably a bad idea), but that’s about it.
Gas does burn cleaner than coal, but Shale Gas is not “cleaner” than other fuels. Once one takes into account the amount of energy it takes to extract the gas (including all the trucking to and fro and running the fracking pumps), shale gas is more energy intensive than coal.
A couple of points in this piece are incorrect and misleading.
While it’s true that American landowners have been making money from fracking by selling out the mineral rights on their property, there’ s no likelihood of this happening in Europe. In the USA, mineral rights are owned by the landowner, but in Europe, mineral rights are generally owned by the State. So the only money any European landowners will make is a fee for allowing the gas companies onto their land.
Also, the idea that shale gas (natural gas) is cleaner than coal is misleading. The burning of natural gas is cleaner than burning of coal, but the extraction of gas through hydraulic fracturing is very energy intensive – using lots of fuel for trucking the equipment, trucking the fluid to and fro, running the pumps and so on – so in the big picture, shale gas is actually more polluting than coal.
The industry loves to tell us that hydraulic fracturing has been around since the 40s, this is not quite true. The development we are talking about today is known as high volume slickwater horizontal hydraulic fracturing and is not that old.
So HVHF is not a technique that was developed in the 40s. Some techniques of well stimulation were developed at that time but what is currently used to extract shale gas requires technical processes which have only been discovered very recently:
First horizontal shale gas well: 1991
First slick water fracture: 1996
First use of cluster drilling from one pad: 2007
When well stimulation requires on average a 206 bar water pressure, hydraulic fracturing requires to inject fracking fluids at pressures up to 4 times higher (725 bar on average)
The technologies have made it possible to extract shale gas economically. There’s a reason why it hasn’t been done earlier: First because gas price was too low to make these activities economical (it only really started in the US in 2008 when the gas price cost 13$ per unit) and secondly because the technologies necessary to extract this specific kind of gas didn’t exist.
Petrol cars can be converted to run on LPG at substantially lower costs and emissions. The irish government refuses to recognise anything other than the original manufacturers emissions for tax purposes. Surely converting existing vehicles to be more environmentally friendly would be better for the environment and economy than importing newly manufactured petrol/diesel/electric vehicles from abroad.
LPG isn’t really suitable as storage takes up so much room compared to that of diesel/ petrol
Jack Bowden. Do the research mate. Apart from the lamestream propoganda. The biggest carbon footprint is the American military. Who incidentally is wageing several wars, contaminating Iraq, libya god knows where else with DEPLETED URANIUM. Stopped myself short there was starting to rant,sorry. :) Just google FIAT currency and fractional reserve banking. Peace. ;)
Couple of things – there was comment on the story about the lack of comment on Neary. As I asked there what does it say about us that this – potential – problem has a lot more comment, talk is cheap. I have doubts about fracking and have protest walked it. BUT my doubts are about our ability to manage it, i.e to control the companies that are doing it. We have form in not biting the hand that feeds us, pharmaceutical pricing and policing pollution are examples. In Ireland the amount of land is small, so, if we had fracking the land required to extract it would be x6 the area where the gas is. We have MUCH more potential in growing food, as long as we stop paying guys to do nothing with their land…..
I can just imagine, given our experience with the CAP, what the reaction will be if you can get $$ for just leasing your land to frackers.
The industry loves to tell us that hydraulic fracturing has been around since the 40s, this is not quite true. The development we are talking about today is known as high volume slickwater hydraulic horizontal fracturing and is not that old.
So HVHF is not a technique that was developed in the 40s. Some techniques of well stimulation were developed at that time but what is currently used to extract shale gas requires technical processes which have only been discovered very recently:
First horizontal shale gas well: 1991
First slick water fracture: 1996
First use of cluster drilling from one pad: 2007
When well stimulation requires on average a 206 bar water pressure, hydraulic fracturing requires to inject fracking fluids at pressures up to 4 times higher (725 bar on average)
The technologies have made it possible to extract shale gas economically. There’s a reason why it hasn’t been done earlier: First because gas price was too low to make these activities economical (it only really started in the US in 2008 when the gas price cost 13$ per unit) and secondly because the technologies necessary to extract this specific kind of gas didn’t exist.
Good article. For all it’s risks, hydraulic fracturing is maturing fast and offers good returns. Our problem here though it’s high dependence on the water table than public water systems. This makes such use more complicated.
Laura Farrell, what do you mean by ‘good returns’? For whom? The gas industry?
Have you read geologist David Hughes’ report ‘Drill baby Drill’? His report looks at several shale gas plays across the States and confirms the boom-and-bust nature of the industry.
Are you aware of the overestimates made by industry? Are you aware of the field decline rates and well decline rates? Are you aware of the spatially intense nature of the unconventional gas industry?
Many people mention the effects of fracking on water, but one of the more serious and commonplace impacts is degradation of air quality.
We have quite a few studies highlighting these risks.
Here are a few for starters:
1. A study by the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Health showed that people living within a half-mile of oil- and gas-well fracking operations were exposed to air pollutants five times above a federal hazard standard.
Link to study: http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/setbackstakeholdergroup/Presentations/Health%20Risk%20Assessment%20of%20Air%20Emissions%20From%20Unconventional%20Natural%20Gas%20-%20HMcKenzie2012.pdf
Link to article about the study: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20210720/cu-denver-study-links-fracking-higher-concentration-air
2. A study by researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) found Emissions from oil and natural gas operations account for more than half of the pollutants – such as propane and – that contribute to ozone formation in Erie, Colorado.
Link to study: http://www.scribd.com/doc/120887130/Fracking-Ozone
Link to article about the study: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/01/14/oil-and-gas-wells-contribute-fuel-ozone-pollution-cires-researchers-find
3. A study in the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment showed more than 50 NMHCs were found near gas wells in rural Colorado, including 35 that affect the brain and nervous system. Some were detected at levels high enough to potentially harm children who are exposed to them before birth.
Link to study: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.air.php
Link to article about the study: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20121203/natural-gas-drilling-air-pollution-fracking-colorado-methane-benzene-endocrine-health-NMHC-epa-toxic-chemicals?page=show
Given that the industry has shown itself incapable of mitigating these risks in the US, what makes you think it will be any different here?
Oh, and the ex-Coloradan oil and gas regulator David Neslin, who I met this week, claims that Colorado has the best regulations in the US! If this is what best practice looks like, why our government would even contemplate granting licences to such an industry is beyond belief really.
Frack your arse mrs.
have your say