Fracking ban or enabling?

lostexpectation

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
14,021
Website
dublinstreams.blogspot.com
Bill to ban fracking or enable it?

the government agreed to let the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 a private members bill Sponsored by Fine Gael Deputy Tony McLoughlin go to committee stage, and lots of people started wrongly proclaiming that Ireland had agreed to ban fracking when what they had done was placate FG backbench TDs.

Now Brid Smith and Eamon Scanlon are complaining that the Environment and Cimate Action Committee has merged scrutiny of that Bill, to ban fracking, with scrutiny of the EPA report on fracking suspecting the gov is trying to turn it into a bill that does not ban fracking outright and may even enable it.

Fracking Free Ireland has published parts of the minutes of private Oireachtas Committee from December 6th to highlight this. http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Minutes-of-JOC-meeting-on-Dec-60001.pdf

Brid Smith TD and others expected the bill to go to select committee and discuss constitution, legal and trade aspects of banning fracking, not the nitty gritty of fracking in a joint committee.

Minutes of Joint Committee meeting -not on Oireachtas website | Fracking Free Ireland

The government have essentially got what they wanted in the Dail, on October 27th, now in the committee http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/communicationsclimatechangenaturalresources/fracking/m251016a-Amdt-to-2nd-Stage-Motion.pdf

Public consultation page Hydraulic Fracturing, Houses of the Oireachtas
 
Last edited:


Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
For the first time ever, the USGS is admitting the potential role of fracking in 'human-induced earthquakes'.

https://www.usgs.gov/news/new-usgs-maps-identify-potential-ground-shaking-hazards-2017
As usual, Statman hasn't got a clue about the topic at hand. Two possibilities.

You either read the link, understood what it said and then just brought it here as a piece of disingenuous misdirection;

Or, you didn't read it and hence have no idea it doesn't support the claim you are making;

Or, you did read it and you are just stupid.



Frankly, I can't choose which is more likely:

Dishonest
Ignorant
Stupid


But it hardly matters.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
As usual, Statman hasn't got a clue about the topic at hand. Two possibilities.

You either read the link, understood what it said and then just brought it here as a piece of disingenuous misdirection;

Or, you didn't read it and hence have no idea it doesn't support the claim you are making;

Or, you did read it and you are just stupid.



Frankly, I can't choose which is more likely:

Dishonest
Ignorant
Stupid


But it hardly matters.
As usual, Trainwreck is a trainwreck. So, let's look at the common questions linked from my link.
Oklahoma now has more earthquakes on a regular basis than California. Are they due to fracking?

In a few cases, yes, but in most cases no.
So, what part of 'yes' doesn't mean yes?
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,313
For the first time ever, the USGS is admitting the potential role of fracking in 'human-induced earthquakes'.

https://www.usgs.gov/news/new-usgs-maps-identify-potential-ground-shaking-hazards-2017
Quoting

"What are Induced Earthquakes?
Induced earthquakes are triggered by human activities, with wastewater disposal being the primary cause in many areas of the CEUS. Wastewater from oil and gas operations can be disposed of by injecting it into deep underground wells. Injected fluids cause pressure changes that can weaken a fault and therefore bring it closer to failure. Most injection wells do not trigger felt earthquakes, suggesting that a combination of many factors contribute to such events.!"

The main use of injection wells in the US is to dispose of treated waste water mainly from municipal facilities such as Maui county Hawaii (I refer to this one as the case is easily accessible). This injection is not the fluid used to frac/stimulate a well. Flowback fluid can be disposed of by injection and this seems to be the main issue here in the study cited. Fracking companies generally pay flowback to be disposed of by third parties. This is what I consider to be faily crass but in line with US environmental regulations.

As far as this concerns Ireland and the rest of the EU, well it does not. Wastewater injection from chemical processes are banned under EU wastewater directives (and even under UK law which is where the directive came from).

Ireland does not use this injection and if it is proposed to dispose of flowback via this method, it must be rejected. Conventional treatment facilities can deal with flowback.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top