GarryP

A few key facts about fracking.

1. The reason you are doing it at all is that there is very poor permeability and porosity of the rocks - so provided the aquifer and the oil strata are separated by a decent distance there should be very low/no chance of the fracking allowing communication between the two.
2. When you drill down to reach the oil strata, you cement the hole that results so you nice valuable oil doesn't leak out, and pressures are contained. So unless you make a total balls-up of the concrete job, there should be no communication from the hole to the aquifer as it passes through.
3. However, the fracking fluid that you put down the hole tends to be used as a one shot job. Therefore you end up with tankers of used fracking fluid, containing not only hydrocarbons, but acids, sands, etc. - which needs to be properly disposed of. In common with most drilling activities, that gets subcontracted to the lowest bidder - and people being the short sighted, untrustworthy ****s they are - some of those tanker drivers/firms dump the fluid rather than paying the high costs of proper disposal, and rake in a nice profit.
4. So unless you watch them like hawks and have good government regulation, you can get contamination from the top down, not bottom up. You'll note that the US is private enterprise friendly and government oversight unfriendly - and has reports of contamination. Except Texas, where they have been doing fracking for ages, and also know you can't trust people, so start by putting nuts in the vice and will squeeze at the slightest hint of wrongdoing.

Overall, the risks aren't high, provided you regulate properly AND check to see they aren't cheating.

ozzieeagle

So you would be in favour of fracking given the right circumstances then ? I was of the misunderstanding that fracking automatically led to water table contamination. I now see this may well not be the case.

So I'm back to the "jury's out" on this one.

I think most of the general public that have taken a bit of interest in fracking believes it contaminates the water table as well.... so there's a massive PR sale to get through first.

GarryP

You know the media is talking bollocks because their lips are moving....

Fracking is a desperation play. It's expensive and the wells don't last long - its the original red queen race. Therefore don't be confused about the why and the importance - frack or the available oil supply goes down. In fact it's probably going to go down even with it. So I don't have any problem with it, but I don't have any misconceptions either - it's duct tape on a bust radiator hose.

Budawang

Has anyone stopped to think of the consequences on levels of atmospheric CO2 if the planet was to burn an extra $20 trillion worth of oil? Given the energy intensive nature of fracking, that's a $hitload of CO2.

Beaverstate

Its not oil , it is mostly natural gas... far different.

Budawang

Burning gas still releases CO2 - maybe a bit less than oil per joule, but still a lot. $20 trillion is more than the entire GDP of the U.S. in one year!

Beaverstate

Choose your poison, solar and wind are nice but a long way from the answer. Coal is and will continue to be cheap, in comparison natural gas is far cleaner. I prefer nuclear.

chris955

Just think of all that money, might be enough to buy another planet when we finish f***ing this one up.

Zen10

We're a very short-sighted bunch, humans. For a long time now there's been around one billion people using most of the oil, but now, with China and India really accelerating, this is 3.5 billion. People need to realise there simply are not enough resources to supply everyone at the old rate.

ozzieeagle

Then there's the other side of the coin... the one that lets us progress rather than stagnate

We're also very inventive. adaptable, and capable, Chinas fertility rate is already at 1.7 and it's whole population is expected to start to decline around 2030. Indias around 2050. In the meantime there's the Hydroponic and GM techniques and arid Arid land reclamation that will fill any gaps in food supply if needs be. We will slowly change over to renewable resources and life will get better for everyone. Mankinds decline definitely wont be through overpopulation. or lack of resources IMO. The Indians and Chinese have definitely responded to the writing on the wall....They've taken action it will take time for those actions to be effective, they are working. Just got to get the message through to the Africans now.

As for energy use... To me the answer is obvious... A decent way of storing electricity in a very light medium still needs to be Invented/Perfected That'll come when the need becomes absolutely vital. As the say Necessity is the Mother of invention.

GarryP

Problem is, a good part of the reason why the population of those countries is thought to peak is rising affluence meaning the women don't want to be baby factories, preferring a skinny latte instead. So the population peaks, but the energy use per capita leaps and keeps on rising.

So the overall energy use keeps on rising, way beyond what can be provided....

Water - you need more of it for the above, you can't GM that, and the amount available is decreasing as glaciers melt away.

Sounds like an MBA 'solution' - say we need more of something and expect it to appear. People have been researching better batteries for a LOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGGG time now, and although there are potential avenues for improvements, some basic physics gets in the way of revolutionary advances. You are more likely to find an honest politician than to see such a miracle in the next 40 years - so don't rely on it - ye cannae change the laws of physics.

ozzieeagle

Water... Melbourne just future proofed itself for the next 30/40 years, with it's desal plant... what I dont get is how anyone could have been against it They can also build another one. The easy fix would have been the dam in Tasmania and the pipeline under bass strait but hey ho another fix was found. I understand a Canal through the middle of Australia North to South would also alieviate a lot of the water shortage problems and green up the center.
70pct of Earths surface is water... even if it is mostly salt that should be doable.


Electricty and it's storage/transportation.... I know very little about this subject.... I do know they can move electrcity via microwave now though... maybe the extreme cost of transporting/delivering energy lies in that direction ? Then there will be more money to invest in renewables etc etc.

What I'm basically saying is I'm optimistic about the future and to me rather than doomsay try and find fixes, as mankind has always prevailed in the past.

From my own personal perspective that desal plant was a major factor in me staying here in my house and greening up my garden. I bought turf and have filled the place with European plants.... looks great. I never had the confidence to do that before.... and most importanly I dont mind paying for the privilege either.

Budawang

I don't think humans will starve to death en masse - I'm sure our ingenuity will come up with new ways of producing food and drinkable water. What concerns me is the gradual, or not so gradual, degradation of our environment. It seriously bothers me if we lose the Great Barrier Reef, many species become extinct, rainforests disappear, beaches are eroded away and we lose native species to exotic ones better adapted to the changed conditions.

I think we all have a duty to support efforts to deal with environmental degradation. This doesn't mean you need to become a leftie, tree-hugging greenie - just a responsible citizen with a respect for the natural world we live in and rely upon, ultimately, for our quality of life if not survival.

GarryP

Can I just point out, for all its simplicity and scenario-understanding basis, the Limits to Growth "Do Nothing" model run is matching up pretty well with reality since 1970.

Budawang

I'm reading an interesting book at the moment called "What's the economy for anyway? Why it's time to stop pursuing growth and start pursuing happiness" by David Bakter and John de Graaf. Basically, it's a critique of laissez faire American style capitalism in favour of pursuing more of a social interventionist northern European economic model - Denmark and the Netherlands are widely cited as being the most progressive countries. It paints rather a bleak picture of today's America which is at or near the bottom (amongst developed countries) on just about every social indicator from life expectancy to poverty. Although Australia is hardly mentioned, our model of economic and social development seems to be closer to Europe than America.