Fracking – not a good idea.

 

Let’s Frack!

There has been much hype, misinformation, anti-fracking rallies, business bullshit and economic justification, desire for more fuels and pure greed – otherwise known as the gold rush mentality – surrounding the unconventional natural gas extraction technology that it is difficult to see the woods for the trees.
I have watched a PBS America documentary about ‘fracking’. I had started off anyway with a gut feeling that fracking was not a good idea – digging into the earth’s crust for any number of metres has never seemed like a good idea to me. This documentary has not changed my mind but has given me a greater understanding of why it is not a good idea. Sure, the doco is basically anti-fracking and has to do with the US and Canada but the US is the country that has had the gungho go ahead approach and, it would seem, without sufficient research in the environmental effects of thousands of wells in areas, some of which are residential and urban, suburban or small townships. The doco cited some women talking about the wells being completed and vented while they were pregnant. The effect on the kiddies who were subsequently born seems to possibly be correlated with fracking activity in their residential area. That needs a citation!

As I said, there is a lot of hype – fracking has not been regulated or monitored by government agencies but has been left to the industry itself to regulate – never a good idea where profits are to be made.

The first thing is air quality – no government agency monitors this. Apparently there is not enough available dosh to do this. Methane is a colourless, odourless gas, relatively non-toxic but is about 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. Phew! That helps to heat the environment. And the albedo effect merely exacerbates this. And the air quality is not monitored. This is irresponsible. Edit: This is from Wikipedia and talks of the exemptions in America with regard to various government and quasi-government agencies that regulate the oil and gas industries.

‘There are many exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal law: the oil and gas industries are exempt or excluded from several of the major federal environmental laws. These laws range from protecting clean water and air, to preventing the release of toxic substances and chemicals into the environment: the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund.’

What is most disturbing is the release of a mixture of organic compounds with the venting /flaming of methane. After 2015, new wells will be prevented from venting/flaming. The initial gas released will have to be collected and shipped where ?? Only 5 tonnes of organic compounds will be allowed to be wasted annually. It is a more expensive scenario (for the fracking company and its investors) than simply flaming the compounds into the atmosphere. But the restriction on new wells won’t extend to already existing wells. So they remain unmonitored and the public will have to rely on lobbying and demonstrating in an attempt to get companies to comply with emission standards. Edit: As time goes on and opposition to fracking starts to mount, there is bound to be regulatory bodies, not under the auspices of the oil and gas industries, that will develop better best practice codes including emissions and wastes. I should admit there are some regulations listed in Wikipedia here.

Cementing the pipes that are drilled down for about a couple of miles – maybe 10,000 feet – to try to halt any fracturing of those pipes has been partially successful in stopping leakage into the surrounding geological material. The stresses are caused by the weight of rock above and the disturbance of the fracturing process itself. According to the PBS doco, in Pennsylvania between 6.2% and 7% of wells are in violation of cementing standards and fracturing is apparent. This means leakage of the fracturing fluid, but more likely the methane and other components of the gases being collected are leaking through the shale into wherever – including water tables and natural water storage areas many metres above the horizontal pipeline. Once the well is completed, the injected fluids are withdrawn and the gas is allowed to travel up the pipes to the earth’s surface where it is initially vented and afterwards collected and compressed in pipelines for transport to distribution tanks. Well casing violations are dealt with in this article. Edit: There seems little reporting or monitoring is effected on wells. From another report:

‘For Pennsylvanians with natural gas wells on their land, chances are they won’t know if a safety violation occurs on their property. That’s because the state agency charged with regulating the wells — the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) — does not have to notify landowners if a violation is discovered. Even if landowners inquire about safety violations, DEP records are often too technical for the average person and incomplete.’

Now when I had a caesarean, it was because there was a 1.2% – 2% risk that my uterus would split under contractions and no doctor would allow me to have a natural birth. I would claim that 6.2% to 7% is far too high a risk to take with fracturing shale, potential earthquakes, subsidence, water and air pollution. The proper care of population is a lot more important than one woman being prevented from going into labour.

The other thing is that we know, or we should know, even though Scotland is rich in supplies of potable water, that this is a precious resource and we are fairly profligate in our usage. Fracking uses a massive amount of fresh water and its collection from water storage points is not regulated except by the fracking industry that needs it. This is not a good idea at all. Independent agencies ought to be monitoring water collection and usage. A fracking well, from beginning to completion, is going to use about 2 – 8 million litres of potable water. That potable water will be mixed with sand and chemicals including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. These compounds are not known as goodniks for humans and some are ‘known’ to be carcinogenic. Besides, wells can be fracked a number of times, thus increasing the water and chemical usage. The salient point is that none, repeat none, of the contaminated waste water can ever be re-introduced into the water cycle. So we will be using up a precious resource that we can’t replenish. Smart move, eh?

What to do with all that water once the fracturing has been achieved and the pressure is reduced? Well, it was originally pumped out into the sea and other water ways but it became environmentally untenable. So open evaporation ponds were employed and the sludge was left to the atmosphere and any being accessing the surface of the dried pond. It must have been obvious that as a secondary treatment plant that idea was insupportable. So now the contaminated waste water is carted away and injected back into the ground at a great depth in order to sequester it. Remember this is what ‘they’ were going to do with carbon dioxide waste from coal power plants?
The big problem with trying to machinate, ie fracture yet again, the earth’s crust to pump waste materials underground is that, by increasing the volume underground, you also increase the potential for earthquakes. And that is what has happened. See Pennsylvania.

When coal was being mined in Scotland, I am led to believe (I wasn’t here) that subsidence occurred around some underground pits, especially around Glasgow. Well – why wouldn’t that happen? Prop up the pits, box in the horizontal underground trenches and blast/dig away. It is bound to fail sometime – another analogy with gold mines.

I used to be involved in blasting and digging 60 feet vertical mines down to shale and then tunnelling along horizontally trying to locate seams through the shale that contained the chemical impurities embedded in the silica that made the opal. I have a working knowledge on a small scale of what subsidence is and what tunnel roof falls can be. Subsidence isn’t necessarily a problem, but if there are hundreds of fracking mines in any one area, burrowing down a kilometre or so and then horizontally tracking through shale; then pumping millions of chemically treated water under pressure to entice the fracturing of deep geological layers to release their trapped gas; that pressure exerting more pressure on the walls of the pipe – even though encased in cement – then there is a potential for massive problems. And we don’t need it. Wind power is far, far better and worthy of investment.

The argument that home owners will not have any recourse is a normal one. I do not know of a country that allows the property owner any rights to any minerals that may be discovered under the land he thinks he has bought. I believe the depth of the land to be about 6 feet depending on any particular country.

I think our best bet is to fund renewables to the max and forget the use and necessary extraction of fossil fuels. I agree with Lawrence Krauss that India should stomp on its proposed increase in coal mining and burning up to 1 billion tonnes and start funding renewable energy sources. It won’t be cheap but neither is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. That is likely to be fatal at a species level. And we are just another species relying on the 28% oxygen in our breathable air. Nitrogen in abundance will kill us and all other oxygen breathing species. Methane and Carbon dioxide in abundance will cook us and all other species. The choice is hard for me to work out. But I will be dead in a decade or so. My grandkiddies have to live in the future.

There is obviously more to this post – but I want to say what I want to say right now! I have problems trying to anticipate a future without us. But I am starting to accept that we have fucked it all up. And all other species will suffer and die because of our intransigence. That hurts. And it doesn’t endear me to my species. I could say ‘sorry’ but I think this planet is better off without us. We have not shown ourselves to be good and responsible caretakers of our environment. On the other hand we have shown ourselves to be greedy bastards and we deserve all we reap. No pity. I am sorry for other species. Vale.

Edit: I have probably not done enough research on this but it is an immense topic and becoming more contentious. Some bans are already in place. See this pdf.

‘Because of significant questions about health and pollution issues related to fracking, several countries have banned the use of fracking. Bulgaria [See: Photo I-16], France, Germany, and Ireland have banned all fracking operations. The Czech government is seriously considering a ban.’

There will be more.

Useful links – some are polemical.

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/faq/fracking-fluid

http://www.wtrf.com/story/27689835/only-on-7-gas-still-leaking-at-monroe-county-well-pad – This is current – ie. right now. Just how much was spewed into the atmosphere over the four days I don’t know. People have been allowed to return to their homes now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing   – This is an informative and reasonably comprehensive article for those of us who are not technically trained.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/06/3608591/77-earthquakes-linked-to-fracking/

This is new – reported from Ohio.

 

Wind Turbines and Renewable Electricity Generation

There are now three wind turbines to the south of where I live. They have been erected in the past few weeks. To the east there is a set of eight turbines, at Kinglassie there are four, at Mossmoran there are nine with an extension mooted.

At Mossmoran.

There are a few single, smaller and residential turbines I see when I drive around my local area. The south west of Scotland has a large number of turbines that I noticed when travelling down to Cumbria. Lewis has a lot of turbines as well. There are offshore turbines in Solway Firth. Wind power is here and doing well.

Sand banks are great for offshore wind farms – Robin Rigg in Solway Firth

http://spaceforvee.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/cumbria-here-we-come/

There is possibly as much resistance to wind turbines as there is in favour of them. At the outset, I should declare that renewable energy makes the only sense to me and wind turbine technology makes even more sense to me. The other declaration I should make is purely personal – I find these structures to be quite majestic, very elegant and extremely efficient in the generation of power.

·         In November 2014, CEO Niall Stuart of Scottish Renewables released this statement (bolding is mine):

Historic milestone as new figures show renewables now Scotland’s largest source of power.
Renewables overtake nuclear to become largest source of electricity.
Renewable energy has become Scotland’s main source of power, new independent figures have revealed.
Records from the first half of 2014, the most recent period for which data is available, show renewables generated 32% more electricity than any other single source of power in Scotland.
In total, the renewables sector generated a record 10.3TWh (terawatt-hours), compared to 7.8TWh from nuclear generation – previously Scotland’s main source of electricity. The figures also show that coal and gas-fired electricity generation produced 5.6TWh and 1.4TWh respectively over the same six-month period. (Figures supplied by the National Grid)
Niall Stuart, Chief Executive of Scottish Renewables, said: “The announcement that renewables have become Scotland’s main source of electricity is historic news for our country, and shows the investment made in the sector is helping to deliver more power than ever before to our homes and businesses.
“This important milestone is good news for anyone who cares about Scotland’s economy, our energy security and our efforts to tackle climate change.
“Every unit of power generated from renewables means less carbon emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, decreases our reliance on imported energy and supports jobs and investment in communities across Scotland.
“The renewables industry has come a long way in a short space of time, but there is still plenty of potential for further growth.
“Offshore wind and marine energy are still in the early stages of development but could make a big contribution to our future energy needs if they get the right support from government. That support includes the delivery of grid connections to the islands, home to the UK’s very best wind, wave and tidal sites.”

WWF Scotland’s response to the news release was:  “Renewables overtaking nuclear power to become the largest source of electricity is certainly historic, and represents a major step on the way to Scotland becoming a 100 per cent renewable nation.
“Last month, while nuclear reactors were forced to shut because of cracks, Scotland’s renewables were quietly and cleanly helping to keep the lights on in homes across the country. Wind turbines in Scotland alone generated enough electricity to supply three millions homes in the UK – equivalent to 126 per cent of the electricity needs of every home north of the border.
“Put simply, renewables work and are helping to cut climate change emissions and create jobs in Scotland.”

So here are the graphs based on data

Now I have to be impressed with the renewables energy sector here in Scotland. Who wouldn’t be? I have difficulty tackling the negative naysayers and their unsubstantiated quasi-arguments against wind turbines. Rather than my going through these quasi-arguments, I will cite the answers to the myths that purport, in the mouths of those who don’t like the turbines, to be truth with a capital T!
These are the common myths according to WWF:

Myth 1: Building a wind farm takes more energy than it ever makes

Myth 2: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time

Myth 3: Other countries are moving away from supporting wind power

Myth 4: Wind energy needs back-up to work, resulting in increased emissions

Myth 5: Wind farms are expensive ‘subsidy harvesters’

Myth 6: Renewables contribute to fuel poverty

Myth 7: Most people do not support wind farms

Myth 8: Wind farms have a negative impact on tourism A small point – Gran Canaria is full of wind farms and also full of tourists. In fact tourism and cochineal are important to the economy of that wee windy island. And most of their power comes from the wind turbines.

Myth 9: Wind power does not create jobs

What is interesting is that most of the anti-turbine lobby probably applauds the work of WWF and Greenpeace and charities of similar ilk. My only thought is that confirmation bias gets in the way of impartial and realistic enquiry on the part of naysayers.

These links that I have provided are worth while looking at. The information is available and substantiated.

Scotland is the windiest country in Europe with around 25% of the continent’s wind source, according to Scottish Renewables http://www.scotsrenewables.com/windinfo.html

The other arguments propounded against wind turbines are pure silliness and smack of self-serving – property values diminish, an unscientific concept called ‘ultra-hearing’ means that even if you can’t hear anything, the sound the turbines make as the blades whizz around at 12 revolutions per minute (!) is doing your head in. Birds (who have been using the medium of air for thousands of years) can’t recognise blade movement and get killed. Excuse me!! The arguments pulled out of the hats of those who don’t want turbines really have no currency that stands up to any serious scrutiny. As my husband is fond of saying – Belief is meaningless to all but the believer; knowledge is meaningful and available to all. I guess I would add – ‘None so blind as those that will not see’ (Matthew Henry) – look him up.

Birds? How many are killed by cars? Over 100,000 http://www.usatoday.com/story/ The figures reported for bird strikes against windows are astonishing. It is often said that between 100 million and a billion birds die in the US each year after striking windows.
Hundreds of thousands are killed bashing their heads and breaking their necks against the colourless panes in our houses and offices. http://www.bcnbirds.org/window.html Birds don’t understand glass and are vulnerable to windows. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22395664

These are real dead birds. From window strikes.

Bats?   Last week thousands of bats fell out of trees in Casino, New South Wales because the heat reached 44.1ºC (otherwise called an effect of climate change) and died. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/australian-horror-story-thousands-dying-bats-dropping-trees-amid-heatwave-1475419s

Thousands of them dead from excessive heat wave

A final point: what would the anti-turbiners suggest in place of renewable energy source(s) that is kind to the environment? Is there an alternative? I used to think that our energy requirements would need to be met by a combination of technologies – nuclear (fusion would be great but we haven’t been able to do that yet), wind, wave and geothermal. Whatever we end up with, fossil fuels have to be out of the mix. We have to decarbonise our electricity supply. That is what is non-negotiable. And that means no hydraulic fracturing for natural gas which is the next big thing in the central belt of Scotland.
And that’s another post that won’t be long in appearing.

 

 

Redefining Security – it is no longer a military term. It is food, water and resources

I must be one of thousands of bloggers who keep writing about us humans and our very poor and blindsided tenure of this planet.

Lester Brown

I have read about a new book written by Lester Brown about the travails of a rising population and diminishing resources. He calls his book ‘World on the Edge – How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse’. This link is to an interview with Brown who heads the Earth Policy Institute.

Jared Diamond talks about how societies choose to fail or survive in his book ‘Collapse’ published in 2005.

Jared Diamond

Diamond gave a TED Talk on why societies collapse in October 2008.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html

Diamond agrees with Arnold Toynbee that ‘civilizations die from suicide, not by murder’ when they fail to meet the challenges of their times.

Joseph Tainter wrote ‘The Collapse of Complex Societies’ in 1988. Ronald Wright wrote another called ‘A Short History of Progress’ in 2004.

There are talks and references all over the internet, published on websites, advertised in the print media. People talking their heads off about the actual reality of what is happening in and to our planet – as Sagan said – the only home we will ever know. And, of course, David Attenborough in his speech in 2011 to the RSA, is as passionate as the rest of us. He sees the impact we are having on nature in the direst way. It frightens me, not sure about you.

My Aussie mate Tim Flannery has been banging on as well. He has written many books ‘The Weathermakers’ and ‘The Future Eaters’ are both books that helped to focus me on reality. In fact there are so many knowledgeable and articulate people writing, talking and advising governments on the state of play; trying to cut through the power/wealth structure of government policy makers to ram the point home that there is not much time left before there will not be enough food, water or fuel – the commonly called ‘natural resources’ – to go round.

Tim Flannery

Think the Murray-Darling Basin with the Murrumbidgee River catchment that goes dry. Think the Nile trickle on reaching the Mediterranean. Or the Colarado’s low levels. Arable land becomes unusable when there is no irrigation water. Food production suffers, people die.

Brown makes four major points:

Firstly – cutting carbon emissions much more quickly than 2050. Failure to do so will destroy the ice sheet of Greenland or the Tibetan and Himalayan glaciers that feed the major rivers of Asia. No fresh water to drink, people die.

Secondly – stabilising population. Either we accelerate the shift to smaller families or spreading hunger will overtake countries and families, which is happening now and the mortality rate starts to rise again.

Thirdly – and allied to population stabilisation is the eradication of poverty which is possible now. These last two really reinforce each other and are imperative if we are to survive.

Fourthly – refurbish and replace the natural support systems; reforestation, soil conservation, water table stabilisation, protecting oceanic fisheries and grasslands.

Everyone who has thought about the imminent collapse of our societies could not help but agree with Green:

“This is important because we know that no civilization has ever survived the ongoing destruction of its natural support systems. Nor will ours.”

Related articles

• How societies grow old: Jared Diamond at TED2013 (ted.com)
• Ronald Wright: From the ‘myth of progress’, to the near-certainty of collapse (p2pfoundation.net)
• Can You Trust Jared Diamond? (3quarksdaily.com)

There are too many people

I came across a reposted article that originally appeared in News.com.au and was written by one Kristin Shorten. It concerns an essay that Bindi Irwin was asked to write for inclusion in Hillary Clinton’s eJournal Go Wild Coming Together for Conservation.

I am linking to the full article but thought I would make mention of a developing tussle.

Miss Irwin was asked to write between 800 and 1,000 words explaining why she had chosen to devote her life’s work to wildlife conservation. It was to be published in the eJournal last December.

This is what Bindi likes doing. Good for her!

Miss Irwin wrote her 1,000 words urging society to address over population and when the edited version was returned for final approval, the analogous example Miss Irwin had used to describe the plight of a finite world and too many people had been edited out. Not only that, but the editor had changed the decidedly straight up language she had used.

Now Miss Irwin is not her father’s daughter for nothing. She wrote to Clinton’s organisation wanting to know why her freedom to speak was being manipulated and curtailed.

Upshot – the edited version was not published because Miss Irwin would not sanction it. No article appeared talking about global overpopulation.

I applaud her stance and decry the actions of Clinton and her editors.

She didn’t need to hobble Bindi. She has retired after all.

One of things her mother said motivated her was watching Dick Smith’s video on his growing awareness of what was happening in Australia and its looming population problems.

So here is the link to Smith’s video. It was uploaded to YouTube in August 2010. I know that I now live in Scotland, but I had not heard of this from Dick Smith. I seriously recommend that you take the time – 67 mins – to watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W12MbEdKGM&feature=player_embedded&list=PLBtJoZSM9kmRjj9saTA_RAfZlSLN1NQMX

I know I have been banging on about population over growth for some years now but I thought other people were getting the message as well. It would appear not. Certainly Clinton and her crew are far too craven to let Miss Irwin speak for herself.

And I want to say to those ever-hopefuls that there is no way we will make it off this planet to another planet light years away to build protected colonies for us to foul in due course.

We haven’t the technology, we can’t do light years and we can’t build elsewhere.

We have to curb our rampant growth. Why don’t we do it? Firstly capitalism has us by the throat and governments (never very smart at the best of times) want to stay in power regardless of the damage they do, so they put blinkers on.

Secondly, we, the general populace refuse to see anything that will curb our addictive living standards and salve our consciences by giving a pittance to less fortunate countries. Unfortunately our foreign aid is conditional on no family planning, contraception or abortion on demand. Nice eh?

And all I can do is add my name to OPT and other organisations of people who can see what’s happening. All I can do is blog into the ether. Very frustrating.

Lots of us-far too many of us

One thing did make me feel a little optimistic today was this item – forget the hyper news headline 🙂

BOLIVIA PASSES THE LAW WHICH DECLARES MOTHER EARTH HAS RIGHTS

The law defines Mother Earth as “…the dynamic living system formed by the indivisible community of all life systems and living beings whom are interrelated, interdependent, and complementary, which share a common destiny; adding that “Mother Earth is considered sacred in the worldview of Indigenous peoples and nations. In this approach human beings and their communities are considered a part of mother earth, by being integrated in “Life systems” defined as complex and dynamic communities of plants, animals, micro-organisms and other beings in their environment, in which human communities and the rest of nature interact as a functional unit, under the influence of climatic, physiographic and geologic factors, as well as the productive practices and cultural diversity of Bolivians of both genders, and the cosmovisions of Indigenous nations and peoples, intercultural communities and the Afro-Bolivians.

This definition can be seen as a more inclusive definition of ecosystems because it explicitly includes the social, cultural and economic dimensions of human communities.
The law also establishes the juridical character of Mother Earth as “collective subject of public interest”, to ensure the exercise and protection of her rights. By giving Mother Earth a legal personality, it can, through its representatives (humans), bring an action to defend its rights.

Additionally, to say that Mother Earth is of public interest represents a major shift from a anthropocentric perspective to a more Earth community based perspective.

Bolivia passes an important law

Related articles

• Bindi Irwin Slams Hillary Clinton’s Edits on Population Control (ecorazzi.com)
• Bindi Irwin clash with Clinton over essay snub (australiantimes.co.uk)
• Bindi Irwin Upset at Clinton’s Staff (drudge.com)