PSA: Online course on shale gas (free)

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

RegGuheert

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
6,419
Location
Northern VA
The University of Nottingham is currently conducting a course which looks at the debate surrounding shale gas extraction and usage. They claim that they are not advocating for or against shale gas, but rather are trying to expose all aspects of the debate. The course started this week and it is not too late to join:

University of Nottingham Shale Gas Course

There will apparently be a weekly debate each Thursday between 7PM and 9PM UK time. The first one is TODAY. I'm not sure I will be able to make these, so I am hopeful they will be recorded.
 
I completed the first week of material, which mainly covered information about shale, shale gas and fracking. One link that was provided in the course that others may find interesting is a JPG (?) of the chemicals used by a fracking company in UK. Unlike in the US, they are required to specify exactly what goes down the well over there:

Cuadrilla: Preese Hall Well 1 Fracking Chemical Composition Disclosure

The first weekly discussion (debate) begins in about an hour. I'm not exactly sure how to even access it, yet. I hope it is not simply the "comments" section I see at the bottom of that page. We'll see what they do.
 
shocking. UK requires disclosure of what is being pumped into the earth in fracking fluids; and the companies that do it actually survive the experience.
 
thankyouOB said:
...the companies that do it actually survive the experience.
Maybe. Unlike in the US where the EPA has given carte blanche to fracking companies, fracking in the UK has not yet taken off. That is why the debate is so active there right now.

Frankly, I cannot tell whether this course is just an effort by a corporate-funded university to indoctrinate the public on the joys of fracking, or not. I suspect it may be. We'll see. So far, much of the material is either from the US or UK geological surveys or from the petroleum industry in the UK. Next week's material is about worldwide energy needs. Discussion of the environmental impact is not until week 3.
 
thankyouOB said:
shocking. UK requires disclosure of what is being pumped into the earth in fracking fluids; and the companies that do it actually survive the experience.
From a quick scan of the page (Thanks reg), they don't use most of the chemicals in the UK that companies use in the US. Here they're pumping a cocktail that includes diesel fuel and plenty of known carcinogens.

Additionally, the EU is ruled by the precautionary principle; not so here.
 
AndyH said:
From a quick scan of the page (Thanks reg), they don't use most of the chemicals in the UK that companies use in the US. Here they're pumping a cocktail that includes diesel fuel and plenty of known carcinogens.
I think that is precisely the difference that occurs between requiring them to *publish* what they pump down there and allowing them to keep it as a "trade secret." Why the EPA feels it is a good idea to let frackers pump whatever they feel like into those wells, in secret, is beyond me.

But regardless of whether they pump petroleum products into the well or not, they still *release* petrochemicals when they frack the well. That is an inconvenient fact which is often avoided in this type of discussion.
 
RegGuheert said:
AndyH said:
From a quick scan of the page (Thanks reg), they don't use most of the chemicals in the UK that companies use in the US. Here they're pumping a cocktail that includes diesel fuel and plenty of known carcinogens.
I think that is precisely the difference that occurs between requiring them to *publish* what they pump down there and allowing them to keep it as a "trade secret." Why the EPA feels it is a good idea to let frackers pump whatever they feel like into those wells, in secret, is beyond me.

But regardless of whether they pump petroleum products into the well or not, they still *release* petrochemicals when they frack the well. That is an inconvenient fact which is often avoided in this type of discussion.
The EPA doesn't feel it's a good idea, Reg. The EPA is required to follow the law. Congress wrote and the president signed the law that allows US frackers immunity from the clean air and clean water acts, not the EPA.

On the contrary, that chemicals are released as a result of hydraulic fracturing actually is not avoided - it's a central part of the problem.

Scan the papers - peer reviewed all:
http://endocrinedisruption.org/chemicals-in-natural-gas-operations/peer-reviewed-articles
 
For reference, here are the titles of the four weeks in the course:

Week 1: Introducing Shale Gas & Fracking
Week 2: Economics and Energy Security of Shale Gas Development
Week 3: Environmental Considerations of Shale Gas
Week 4: Regulation, Communities and Public Engagement of Shale Gas

We are currently in Week 2 of a course which appeared to be heading more toward a shale gas sales pitch (particularly considering some of the answers I got to questions about environmental concerns during an interactive session last Thursday).

But then there were some interesting facts provided in a video this week regarding energy security: EU only has a potential maximum production rate of 4B m^3/year of shale gas. When compared with the 70B m^3/year of shale gas produced in the US today, it seems quite unlikely that shale gas will be economically viable there anytime in the near future. (That said, the US number seems quite low. I find 275B m^3/year of shale gas to be the actual current production rate. I wonder how accurate the EU estimation is...)

I had not realized there was such a stark difference in the availability of the resource in Europe when compared with the US (assuming it is real).
 
Back
Top