Fracking – hydraulic fracturing

[jondwhite]

As Total Oil announce today a big investment in UK shale gas extraction

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25695813

The BBC reports on desperation of the faustian pact on offer to cash-strapped councils

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25705550

Quote:

Councils that back "fracking" will get to keep more money in tax revenue as part of an "all-out" drive to promote drilling, Prime Minister David Cameron has said. …

Greenpeace are quoted in the article as saying

Quote:

"Having had their claims that fracking will bring down energy bills and create jobs thoroughly discredited, the government is now resorting to straight up bribery to sell their deeply unpopular fracking policy."

The website of the film Gasland observes

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/faq/technology-safety

Quote:

Don't we have the technology to make fracking safe?

Nope, no technology currently exists to make fracking safe. …

Some recent modifications to cementing regulations misguidedly include requirements on cement strength. But it is not a question of stronger cement or better technology. Industry's own documents say that:

"strength is not the major issue in oil well cementing under any circumstances … cement clearly cannot resist the shear that is the most common reason for oil well distortion and rupture during active production."

In other words, the high stresses and rock movements deep underground will cause a significant proportion of wells to fail no matter what.

[alanjjohnstone]

 I read this comment on a website reporting on one of the media's energy experts views"councils would be IRRESPONSIBLE not to encourage fracking" as it's a 'gift horse' that can lift us out of our economic droop. France rejected it, that's true, but that's because they have kept up their development of nuclear plants; we let that slip but are getting back on track now." …….Anything that reaps huge profits for the 0.0001% is 'good for the economy, good for Britain, and we'd be irresponsible not to pursue': nuclear, fracking, arms, nhs privatisation, gambling … – it's all 'good'. 

[ALB]

Obviously capitalist firms are not going to engage in fracking unless it returns a profit for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is harmful. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in principle with fracking any more than there is with mining in general. In fact, all the arguments against fracking on environmental grounds could also be levelled against mining, but we're not going to take up an anti-mining stance are we? I think we should be wary of jumping on the anti-fracking bandwagon along with the nimbys and those who opposed any new technological advances.(e.g. GM crops too) and continue to argue that scientific and technological advances strengthen the case for socialism and will be properly applied in a socialist society to produce what people need instead of for profit.

[alanjjohnstone]

I am not sure opposing fracking under capitalism is jumping on the band-wagon. And accusations of NIMBYism can be equally levelled at hose who will support fracking for a cash payment – IMBYism. Under capitalism to make those profits health and safety rules are bent and i see that the UK is already busy re-working the rules. “Cameron wrote to the president of the EC, José Manuel Barroso, stating: “It is essential the EU minimise the regulatory burdens and costs on industry and domestic bill payers by not creating uncertainty or introducing new legislation.” He added: “The [shale gas] industry in the UK has told us that new EU legislation would delay imminent investment.”http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/uk-defeats-european-bid-fracking-regulationsNote the comment i emphasised…just who is calling the shots?One of our objections to capitalism is the shortcuts it takes to save money and disregard of the well-being of people. GMO and nuclear are unnecessary technologies in socialism and are not required threfore why have unnecessary risk. Likewise, fracking is the use of immense natural resources for the reward of the few. Again, existing alternative energy technology makes this form of mining superfluous and acceptable only in a profit system. There will certainly be no windfall drop in domestic bills. I also note that Cameron also plays on the emotive line,  that to be against fracking is “irrational” “religiously opposed”, an easy way to dismiss opponents…A position not far off climate change deniers who think global warming is all a conspiracy by lefty greens. CO2 emissions from shale gas may be less and may be a subsitute for the more damaging coal power stations but it still contributes to global warming, so any attempt to encourage more is certainly not in the interests of humanity so a principled stand is justified.  Jason Bourdoff, director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy – When gas and oil prices are high, “people are pretty good at figuring out new technologies, But when those prices are low, introduction of new technologies becomes more difficult, he added. Without policy guiding fuel choice, he said, technology built by markets today will “lock in” energy choices for 30-40 years.http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/articles/2013/10/fracking-tech-%E2%80%98-carbon-bridge-too-far%E2%80%99-%E2%80%93-expert As you said on another thread, what happened to peak oil. William Reilly, former head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “It seems not implausible to me that we will have both a gas glut and also an oil glut,” Just where will that leave wind tide and solar power development and all the rest of renewable sustainable sources

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

GMO and nuclear are unnecessary technologies in socialism and are not required threfore why have unnecessary risk.

This is open to challenge. In one sense they are not required for socialism, but since socialism could have been established anytime in the last hundred or so years in that sense neither are radio, plastics, electronics, antibiotics, TV and all the other technologies developed since 1900. But they make the case for socialism all the more practical and plausible as they re-inforce our argument that society has the capacity to produce plenty for all.Genetically engineered crops (most of the crops we eat have already been "genetically modified", through artificial selection) can surely play an important part in increasing food production (a key objective of socialism in the early days). As to nuclear power, nuclear fission could still be used as a transitional source of energy (that does contribute to global warming) while viable renewable sources of energy are developed while nuclear fusion, when it's properly developed, could become an important source of energy. And we could still use coal and oil, if not to burn for energy, as raw materials for plastics.Socialists always used to be technological optimists not back-to-nature technophobes.

[jondwhite]

It's not harmful because its profitable, or because die-hard greens say so, or even because Nimbys say so. Just as its not harmless because it is claimed to be a new technology, in fact this is the principal bandwagon getting pushed to the tune of millions of industry pounds and now government bribes to local councils. Please ask yourselves why this public relations exercise is necessary?Its harmful for the same reasons radioactive waste is polluting, because no technology exists to stop oil well shearing which contaminates the water table. This deprives residents of clean water for those who can't afford it. Many critics make this point, and it doesn't mean they're against the principle of extracting energy from the earth for human benefit in a modern efficient way.As even pro-fracking Cameron stated last August, if fracking was proposed for his constituency in Oxfordshire, residents would be consulted. You can read between the lines on that one but it doesn't sound like an unequivocal green light you might expect from a fracking supporter to me.

[alanjjohnstone]

Our argument for socialism is not one based on new potential technological developments as you say, as helpful as they may be, but on the rational production and planning of existing technologies. We have no need of Star Trek replicators. Food production already can produce abundance for all to eat and satisfy an even a bigger population  at current production levels. The purpose of GM is not to increase production but to make agriculture more profitable (and even then it is a short term fix) for business. GMO is an irrelevancy to food supply just as Spanish tasteless strawberries naturally selectively bred for longer shelf life hopefully does not  reflect food choice in socialism. GMO is a distraction from worthwhile research into new methods of produucing our food because it offers certain large corporations large profits.A similar argument is made against the pharmaeutical industry. R and D is devoted to the money making medicines not the orphan drugs or to the even more basic life-safer prevention though public health. Existing nuclear power may serve as a temporary stop-gap, after all i think the French is almost totally reliant on it and it is one reason they have a total ban on fracking.  But saying that and accepting that socialism would gradually dismantle the nuclear power stations just as a number of capitalist countries have chosen to do, is in no way endorsing it as a viable desirable energy source and suggesting more.  I do know some environmentalists like Monbiot present the case for more nuclear energy in preference to the dirtier co2 producing ones, so i guess there is reason to debate it. But as i indicated in my previous post, as long as the old energy systems remain the most profitable, there will be little development in renewals and clean alternatives. It is not our job to advise the capitalist class on their best long term interests but nor is it our job to give them a sympathetic hearing for their short term predatory practices. The more we demonstrate that the energy and farming  policies of the ruling class will always be based foremost on profit, perhaps we can get the message across that the future choice of workers is indeed going to be socialism or barbarism.  

[alanjjohnstone]

As a PS…there exists plenty of scope in alternative energy for technological innovation, in agriuculture for scientists to investigate new ways and methods of farming , for a whole host of illnesses that chemists and molecular biologists can begin experimenting with once the demand for anti-depressants disappears. Capitalism keeps technology in a straight-jacket, socialism will set the scientists and the technicians and the inventors free. But under the direction of society and for its needs, not a stock-holder's interest

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The purpose of GM is not to increase production but to make agriculture more profitable (and even then it is a short term fix) for business. GMO is an irrelevancy to food supply just as Spanish tasteless strawberries naturally selectively bred for longer shelf life hopefully does not  reflect food choice in socialism. GMO is a distraction from worthwhile research into new methods of produucing our food because it offers certain large corporations large profits

But you are talking about this under capitalism. Of course the aim is not to increase food production to feed more people. It's to make profits. Of course the agro-corporations (and the frackers) want minimal regulation as stringent regulation would increase their costs and reduce their profirs.But I was talking about the completely different situation that will apply in socialism. Then, the aim really will be to grow better food in places where it can't be grown easily today. It really will be to feed the world. And research into genetically engineering crops to allow them to grow faster or over a wider area will be useful. In fact I would have thought that agronomists would be keen to carry out such research, to improve the lot of humanity instead of, as today, to open up profit prospects for some capitalist corporation.As to fracking, the motive for introducing it today is to make a profit. I agree, though, that given other possible sources of energy, it might not be necessary in socialism, but I don't see why it should be ruled out on principle. I don't see why there couldn't be safe (stringently regulated) fracking for use not profit in socialism if need be.

[jondwhite]

There couldn't be safe fracking for use not profit no matter how regulated because the technology does not exist to make fracking safe. No technology exists to stop oil well shearing which contaminates the water table. Socialists criticise the technology-fix perspective and do not rule in energy sources on principle, as made clear in previous SPGB pamphlets including Ecology and Socialism.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

There couldn't be safe fracking for use not profit no matter how regulated because the technology does not exist to make fracking safe. No technology exists to stop oil well shearing which contaminates the water table.

This is the claim made on the Grasland site but they are not neutral in this matter, if only because they want to sell their film. Their FAQ answers:

Quote:

Nope, no technology currently exists to make fracking safe. Here are some of the numbers released by drilling giants Schlumberger, Archer Oil & Gas, Southwestern Energy, and the Society of Petroleum Engineers:- Around 5% of oil and gas wells leak immediately and up to 60% of them fail over a 30-year time period.- According to multiple studies, about 35% of all oil and gas wells are leaking now.

In other words, not all oil and gas wells leak and contaminate the water table. Why don't those that don't? I concede that this will probably be due to geology rather than technology, but it shows that not all fracking is harmful in this sense.Note also that this applies to oil as well as gas and would be an argument against drilling for oil too. Maybe it is, but why single out fracking for shale gas for attack in emotive terms? Why not call also for a ban on oil wells? Under capitalism the nuclear industry would love that.To tell the truth I'm not convinced that the technology does not exist to stop leaks. It will exist, but is not being applied because it is too expensive. If fracking were to be needed in socialism, then cost would not be a consideration and it could only be done in suitable geological conditions.I'm not defending fracking under capitalism, just making the point that there is nothing wrong with the technique in itself. It could be useable in socialism if need be as long the proper precautions were taken. We shouldn't attack the technologies themselves, only their likely misuse under the profit system, i.e. not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[steve colborn]

Adam, as you are no doubt aware, in Socialism, the amount of R&D that could and would be afforded research into the likes of Solar, Tidal, Hydrothermal technology etc, would leave the need, in my personal opinion, for the use of hydrocarbons, irrelevant. The firms dependent upon these in Capitalism, for their "profits", who use the "necessity" argument,  would be shown the middle finger.

[ALB]

steve colborn wrote:

would leave the need, in my personal opinion, for the use of hydrocarbons, irrelevant.

Ah, but plastics are hydrocarbons and oil is their raw material. So we won't be able to do without oil altogether. Otherwise there'd be nothing to put into the 3-D printers some say are going to come into widespread use, quite apart from all the other things that are made from plastics. Using oil to make plastics is a much more intelligent than burning it to generate energy.

[steve colborn]

Using oil to make plastics is not only much more intelligent than burning it to generate energy, it is also an insignificant usage in terms of volume, as opposed to oil used in trains, plains, automobiles, shipping, power generation et al.

[alanjjohnstone]

The US Department of Defense electricity consumption is slightly less than Denmark.The DoD  average daily oil use is just ahead of Sweden.

---

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military 

---

 This is not including all the energy used in the armament manufacturing industry in the US. Nor the rest of the worlds military forces and arms industries.

---

 But if  nuclear power still operates in socialism, we have all that nuclear warhead high grade uranium available for energy …Highly-enriched uranium in US and Russian weapons and other military stockpiles amounts to about 1500 tonnes, equivalent to about seven times annual world mine production. World stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium are reported to be some 260 tonnes, which if used in mixed oxide fuel in conventional reactors would be equivalent to a little over one year’s world uranium production. 

[Author]

Posts