viernes, 2 de febrero de 2018

Enero 2018

El 'fracking' sigue “dando vueltas” en España

La extinción del 'fracking' en Cantabria pendiente de la decisión de los políticos autonómicos

El 'fracking', a la cola entre los medios de producir electricidad sostenible

Estudio encuentra alta persistencia de radiactividad en corrientes de agua con sedimentos del fracking

Nuevo estudio relaciona los terremotos del ‘fracking’ con el volumen de los fluidos inyectados

Nueva York demanda a las grandes petroleras por su contribución al cambio climático

viernes, 6 de octubre de 2017

Ineos warns fracking ban could lead to mass exodus of workers

The Falkirk Herald
05 October 2017

Petrochemical giant Ineos was licking its wounds after its plans for fracking in Scotland suffered a major – perhaps fatal – setback this week.

On Tuesday, Scottish energy minister Paul Wheelhouse made the Scottish Government’s stance on the practice of hydraulic fracturing – or fracking – crystal clear as he announced it would be supporting an outright ban.

Still smarting from the announcement, Ineos, which operates in Grangemouth, stated the decision could lead to experienced workers leaving the site in their droves for pastures new as North Sea supplies start to dwindle.

At Holyrood on Tuesday, Mr Wheelhouse stated: “We will not support the development of unconventional extraction of oil and gas in Scotland. The decision I’m making today means fracking cannot and will not take place in Scotland.

“It is clear people across Scotland remain firmly opposed to fracking – this government has listened and taken decisive action. The people have spoken, the time has come to move on.”

A parliamentary vote to finalise the issue will take place in the near future – probably after the upcoming parliamentary recess…

To access the COMPLETE news,

Nicola Sturgeon: El fracking será prohibido en Escocia, fin de la historia.

Energy Voice
05 de octubre de 2017

Nicola Sturgeon ha insistido en que fracking será prohibido en Escocia y supondrá el "final de la historia", ya que hizo una oposición personal clara a la práctica.

La Primera Ministra había dicho anteriormente que era "muy escéptica" sobre el proceso.

Después de que el ministro escocés de Energía, Paul Wheelhouse, anunciara el martes que el Gobierno escocés extendería su moratoria a una prohibición permanente, la líder del SNP dijo que ella no creía que debiera permitirse.

La Sra. Sturgeon dejó claro su punto de vista después de que el parlamentario del Partido Verde Escocés,  Mark Ruskell,  desafiara a los ministros de Holyrood a ir más allá y "conseguir una prohibición consolidada" legislando para prohibir la fractura hidráulica.

El controvertido procedimiento consiste en inyectar agua a alta presión en formaciones de esquisto, fracturando la roca y permitiendo que el gas natural fluya hacia fuera, con los opositores que explican preocupaciones ambientales y sobre la salud.

Los partidarios del fracking, entre ellos los conservadores escoceses, destacan las oportunidades económicas que el fracking podría traer a Escocia, donde el sector de petróleo y gas del Mar del Norte está en declive.

Ruskell dijo que mientras el anuncio de la prohibición "se ha cumplido correctamente con alguna celebración en Escocia", agregó que había "preocupaciones de las comunidades y en muchos miembros del SNP de que la prohibición aún no es legalmente definitiva, ya que simplemente se extiende una interrupción temporal en la planificación de decisiones "….

Para acceder a la noticia COMPLETA,

domingo, 24 de septiembre de 2017

UK Fracking: Protest update: 18-24 September 2017

Protest outside Third Energy’s Kirby Misperton site, 19 September 2017. Photo: Kirby Misperton Protection Camp

Drill or Drop?
SEPTEMBER 23, 2017

In this week’s update on protests about fracking and the onshore oil and gas industry:

MPs and party leaders visit Preston New Road protests;

Arrests and charges at Kirby Misperton;

Pop-up protests at Third Energy suppliers.

This post will be updated throughout the week. Please let us know about news you think DrillorDrop should be reporting on this post.

22 September 2017

Protests at suppliers to Third Energy’s Kirby Misperton site

Opponents of fracking plans at Kirby Misperton in North Yorkshire carried out small protests outside suppliers to Third Energy....

Protest at Sky Scaffolding, in Whitby, 22 September 2017. Photo: Eddie Thornton

Protest at Moorhouse Drilling, Briddlington, 22 September 2017. Photo: Natalie Morris

To access the COMPLETE news,

Real Media: UK Drilling Down with Dodgy Fracking Data

The Real News
September 23, 2017

A report commissioned by 'Talk Fracking' analyzes the latest peer-reviewed fracking science and questions a 4-year-old report that UK conservatives rely on to push through their fracking agenda

SPEAKER:    The Mackay-Stone Report, which is the government's cornerstone report into selling fracking to the nation has now been exposed as fake science, dodgy data, and a dodgy dossier.

TINA-LOUISE ROTHERY:           The Mackay-Stone Report was a report that came out after a study that was done that was called the Howarth Study. Now the Howarth Study came out in 2011, and that was Ingraffea and two other gentlemen who did the study. It was a really thorough but very damning study of the shale gas industry.

PAUL MOBBS:        That was just as the government were launching the shale oil and gas strategy in Britain, and it looked rather bad that this report came out saying that shale gas is worse than coal. So they commissioned the DECC, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, scientific advisor and an economist to look at the issue and produce a report for the government saying what the state actually was.

TINA-LOUISE ROTHERY:           The processes looked reasonable, but where were they getting those figures?

PAUL MOBBS:        So we have the industry figures, which use a system called inventory analysis. The inventory method is called bottom-up, because you break the system down into its component parts at the bottom. So they recreated bits of equipment in laboratories, work out what each piece is creating, that is the inventory, and by adding all the bottom bits together, you work upwards to produce a top-level figure.

The inventory analysis approach, it's been known since the 1990s that it always underestimates. So now they can take the equipment out into the field. What the instrumental method finds is that the real emissions can be anything from a factor of two to nine times higher. That's why these two figures are different; one is an estimate, which is what the governments and the international organizations base their figures on, which is mostly estimates, and one is a measure of the actual level of pollution.

Since then, we've had 40 or 50 new studies, most of which either criticize inventory analysis by showing that the figures aren't very representative of what's really happening, or they're showing much higher levels because they're monitoring the actual pollution that was in the environment.

SPEAKER:    We know from the International Panel on Climate Change that the next 20 to 30 years are the most important in terms of reducing our emissions so that we don't pass the two-degree tipping point where we cannot stop the runaway climate change.

PAUL MOBBS:        When you emit carbon dioxide, it's quite long-lived, and so by measuring it at 100 years, you're measuring how much persists in the environment.

Methane has a higher warming effect but most of that effect happens in the first 20 years, because it traps heat almost immediately and then slowly over time turns into carbon dioxide, and so you wouldn't look at the effect of methane over 100 years because most of it wouldn't exist. You have to look over 20 years.

JOE CORRE:            The Mackay-Stone Report, of course, used a 20 times figure after the 100-year period, which to say the least is disingenuous, particularly if their report was supposed to be looking specifically at the effect fracking would have on climate change.

PAUL MOBBS:        If you're looking at the 20-year global warming potential, if it leaks more than two percent, it's worse than coal. We're talking leakage rates which are acknowledged by the government of a half to one percent. If that's an underestimate of three or four times then you're up into that range which makes shale gas as bad as coal.

TINA-LOUISE ROTHERY:           There is a duty of care in government, a duty of care to our children, and they are not fulfilling that. Worse than not fulfilling it, they are positively putting them at risk by sending out false signals, false reports, and lies.

JOE CORRE:            It's critical that people understand the ramifications of the Conservative Party Manifesto as we head into this election. It affects our future, our children's future, and the environment and habitat that we have to live in and survive on. The Infrastructure Act in 2015 created a new definition for fracking, and they defined it as using less than 10,000 cubic meters of toxic fracking fluid, the equivalent to four Olympic-sized swimming pools. Anything that uses a bucketful less than four Olympic-sized swimming pools will be allowed to be pushed through under permitted development. What you will find is that any drilling for petroleum and such is exempt from any objections from the council and therefore local people. Permitted development also means that the council do not have to give notice of any planning applications from the fracking companies to local people. The first time you're going to know about it is when they turn up on your doorstep, and it will be too late and there's nothing you can do about it.

VIVIENNE WESTWOOD: If you put that into perspective, in the last 10 years 90% of the fracked oil wells in America and 45% of the fracked gas wells would be non-fracking….

To access the COMPLETE news,