As Shell outlines for the first time what a ‘below 2C’ climate change scenario looks like, as a new report shows that fracking wells released over 5 billion pounds of methane in one year, as it’s revealed that Ineos is hiring new managers, now the latest ‘anti-science’ dogma rears its head. The fracking war is about to come home.

If you’re an enthusiast or an apologist for fracking, you need to watch this now …

Comments (33)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. John Page says:

    Thank you, Mike.

    “The report also put a number on the quantity of methane (a greenhouse gas that’s by some estimates 86 times more potent than carbon over a 20-year timeframe) that new fracking wells released into the atmosphere in 2014: 5.3 billion pounds. That, the researchers note, is equivalent to the emissions from 22 new coal-fired plants.”

    Ineos can promise anything it likes about how clean its operations will be via its corporate lobbyists or its hirelings in the Press who say it will make us independent of V Putin………but the fugitive methane emissions is the biggest threat to our climate.

    Fracking is not clean…… releases CH4 into the atmosphere to exacerbate the greenhouse gas problem we already have.

    We should all write to our Constituency and Regional MSPs to ask them to brief themselves on the fugitive methane emissions risk integral to the fracking process in the context of the debate on fracking
    John Page

    1. Thrawn says:

      Also reading the report the 5.3Mlbs methane released has nothing to do with the fracking itself as they include in “fracking” any activity linked to a well using hydraulic fracturing to produce gas. In other words if the wells were conventional gas wells producing gas without hydraulic fracturing they would release the same amount of methane as 90% of the activities that would lead to releases are common to all gas wells. Therefore if you are going to use this figure, to be intellectually honest, you have to say that this figure doesn’t justify ban fracking alone but all gas production….

      Send that letter to your MP/MSP and see how they react….

      1. John Page says:

        …..and the claims that fracking produces clean energy?

      2. John Page says:

        ………specific reference to this in report please?

      3. John Page says:

        To quote from report
        “In North Dakota, for example, satellite measurements detected a large increase in methane in 2009 to 2011 compared to 2006 to 2008, which researchers attribute to an increase in fracking.97 Emissions were 2.2 billion pounds per year higher by the 2009 to 2011 period than in the earlier period. That emissions rate is more than four times higher than our 2014 estimate for North Dakota.”
        This seems to be about fracking wells only……..
        Can you give reference in report that the methane release number includes conventional wells.
        And if it does what is your point ? Any sensible approach to the challenge to climate change would ban fracking as well as leaving 4/5 of distinguish fossil fuel reserves untouched (assuming we have passed on Carbon Capture and Sequestration)

        1. John Page says:

          ……..challenge of climate change

          ……….existing fossil fuel reserves

        2. Thrawn says:

          “This es mate is very conserva ve. It only counts emissions that occur as a well is brought into produc on” Page 25

          The method for bringing a gas well into production are exactly the same whether the well is hydraulically fractured or not…all the hydraulic fracturing does is give you access to gas you wouldn’t have ordinarily.

          Therefore to argue against “fracking” because of its methane emissions is to argue against any production of gas. If you want to argue that then fair enough…it is certainly a more intellectually honest position than singling out hydraulic fracturing for sensationalist and spurious reasons.

          1. John Page says:

            I take from that quote that the authors are being understated about the impact methane escape is having on the environment. They are not pointing to the risk that methane escapes as an integral part of the ongoing fracking process……..around which fracking companies have been reluctant to collaborate with academic studies.
            The key evidence is the satellite measurement over Dakota as mentioned above.
            You seem to be agreeing that methane emissions is a very serious contribution to man made climate change and that fracking causes methane emissions………but it’s alright to frack because cows fart and traditional gas wells also release methane…….and the concerns about local environments, water consumption, water pollution and earth tremors can be dismissed as whinging…….I am not clear why?

          2. Thrawn says:

            I didn’t put the whole quote but they state they are being conservative beacause they only deal with the methane leaks linked to each well (which would occur whether the well was hydraulically fractured or not) and not the methane leaks associated with general gas transport and stockage infrastructure. Also the Dakota study if true only shows that there are gas well below…gas wells that in this case happen to be hydraulically fractured but the same results would have been found if conventional gas wells were below.

            So again the use of the 5.3Mlbs methane as an argument against hydraulic fracturing is a false…it is an argument against all gas production. Feel free to argue that (and good luck explaining how you’d replace overnight a significant portion of the worlds energy supply) but be honest about it and leave hydraulic fracturing out of it.

            The other concerns about hydraulic fracturing you talk about are not linked to climate change. Water consumption…well Americans consume more water maintaining their lawns than hydraulic fracturing does and it produces something other than a nice place to to swill beer during your BBQ. Water pollution…actual surface pollution is very rare..certainly more rare than other industries…including farming again. Subsurface pollution is basically a myth…the gas bearing formations that are fractured are fractured because the are otherwise impermeable and don’t allow their gas to escape…therefore beyond the fracturation zone (+/- 100m around well) the frac fluid cannot go anywhere. As for environmental damage…yes during the drilling and fracturing (on average 3-4 weeks) of these wells the impact can be noticeable…lots of trucks…some noise. But once the well is in production and the site remediated all you will see is a very small collection of pipes and valves (2m * 1m) and thats it…compare that with a wind farm (which I am in favour of btw)

  2. Paul Carline says:

    Bella’s ‘creditworthiness’ as a provider of sound information and advice is compromised by its/its editors’ adherence to the now disproven ‘global warming’ scam. The real data (not the manipulated data we have been fed with for years) show that there has been no increase in average global temperatures for at least 17 years. We are in fact heading towards a much cooler period. Warmer temperatures in the Arctic are offset by colder temperatures and more snow and ice in the Antarctic.
    The claim that increased CO2 levels cause global warming has been shown to be false. The unfalsified data show that rises in CO2 levels come AFTER temperature rises, not before. More and more professionals – including British expert climatologist Piers Corbyn – are challenging the dogma, despite the tabu that has been protecting the lies.
    It is to the shame of Greenpeace and Green parties that they have swallowed the lie – for understandable reasons. Calling the bluff does NOT mean that we can continue to pollute the planet with an easy conscience. The moral argument for restricting our bad behaviour actually acquires greater force.

      1. Pogliaghi says:

        Ditto: lol

    1. John Page says:

      Bella readers will have mixed views on Jeremy Corbyn but I would assume that there will be an 98% agreement that his Heartland Institute linked brother Piers has no credibility……..similar to the 98% agreement of peer reviewed scientific papers that humanity is facing a profound challenge from green house gases……CO2 and CH4
      John Page

      1. Indeed. Climate deniers will be tolerated on these pages only for the comedy value.

    2. J Galt says:

      You’re wasting your time Paul.

      You won’t get any of your points answered – just the usual “98% of scientists/peer reviewed” shite which falls apart on examination.

      They go on and on about the hated MSM and yet here is the “MSM” shoving an agenda down their throats morning, noon and night with the non-stop help of some of the greatest conmen in the world such as Obama and Cameron and they swallow it hook, line and sinker!

      Who are the real jokers Paul?


  3. smellyolkddod says:

    2.4 million tonnes

  4. Helen Lomas says:

    Fracking is no answer….apart from the pollution, it takes millions of gallons of water. In California, they don’t know what to do with it after it has become toxic, so they’re pushing it into empty aquifers. In the future, people will be looking for water, indeed California is already in severe drought, but the aquifers will be tainted. There’s a brilliant documentary on Netflix about ancient Egypt….they had electricity using the Nile waters, channelled through waterbearing rock (limestone) to the pyramids, towards granite, which also has it’s own energy….up through the pyramids…and they had energy. Didn’t Tesla also discover this, backed by JP Morgan, but because Tesla wanted to give it to the world for free. At that point, JP Morgan withdrew his support. There is no sense in nuclear or tracking….both are dangerous and unnecessary

    1. Pogliaghi says:

      The ancient Egyptians had electricity? Did they really? You must get in touch with some academic historians of science, I’m sure they’d be intrigued to learn that Benjamin Franklin wasn’t the first to discover the phenomenon of electricity.

      Oh, and as for conflating “nuclear and fracking” that’s about as nonsensical as the above statement and clear evidence of *low carbon energy denial* (nuclear is low carbon) and ignorance of the fact that nuclear has the lowest associated mortality of any generation technology per KWh generated (ignoring the paranoia about “spectacular” accidents – just as cars are more dangerous than aircraft, although we all remember a few “celebrated” passenger airline catastrophes).

      1. Valerie says:

        Oh well, we can just let folks make up their own mind on nuclear, but I’m damn glad I’m nowhere near Hinckley, if it’s ever finished.

    2. John Mooney says:

      Eh’ Ha ha ha ha ha,don’t forget your tinfoil hat Helen. :o)

  5. Thrawn says:

    I hope you realise that 50-60% of the oil that the SNP is so angry is being stolen from Scotland is the product of hydraulic fracturing and has been for the last 30-40 years….I guess that would make them fracking apologists too…

    1. Valerie says:

      Here we go, having to point out the bleeding obvious to the fracking supporters.
      No one is living, drinking the water, or using the water out among the oil rigs.

      It’s very simple. You spent some time, possibly quite a lot of money choosing where to live. How about we retro fit a gas field around your neighbourhood, then you can live with the massively increased heavy lorries on local roads, run the risk of earthquakes due to substance or risking unforeseen emissions. You can watch the flare stacks at night. The emissions into the ground and air are anybody’s guess, you or your children may get sick.

      Thankfully a large body of the population have done some homework, and recognise how poisonous this industry is, and Scotland WILL join many other countries in due course in banning it.

      Nothing about fracking is consistent with loving the clean beauty of this country.

      1. John Page says:

        Every one of the points you make is entirely valid. Plus the damage fracking will do to Scotland’s “brand” for tourism, good food and pure water for our important whisky exports.
        But the well paid consultants for Ineos will try to lobby government to try to assuage these objections…….we are not like those cowboys out West in the USA…….we’ll be the cleanest frackers on the planet and these scientists and journalists we have bought all agree.
        But what they can’t lie about is the methane emissions…….
        I sometimes wonder if the trolls on Bella are journalists or paid lobbyists practising their arguments so they can run them in the MSM. A bit of a complement to Bella in a way
        John Page

      2. Thrawn says:

        Well we eat the fish swimming in the sea next to these oil rigs (and ask any NE fisherman and he’ll tell you the best fishing is as close to the big platforms as possible) so if fracking is as bad as you say it surely should have passed into the food chain…

        As for your other points:

        Trucking only occurs for the 3-4 weeks the well is being drilled…the other 10-20 years
        you’ll be left undisturbed

        Earthquakes…sigh…yes some studies show small earthquakes happening in fracking areas…but compared to what? Nobody was bothering to measure 3-4 Richter scale earthquakes (which are similar in effect to truck passing your house) before the anti-frackers hyped up the issue. Also if you talk to any geologist and I have they will tell you the only way fracking could induce earthquakes is if the fracking fluid entires into tectonic faults and thereby lubricates them allowing them to shift…this is something oil companies spend millions to avoid…not out of concern for your cutlery but more because if they frack over a fault they lose all their fluid to that fault and don’t create fractures and don’t produce gas and don’t make any money

        Methane emissions…the numbers seem big and scary but have you ever compared them with the methane produced by domesticated animals…I think you should worry more about the dairy farm next door than the gas well…especially as oil companies have a big monetary incentive to minimise those emissions whereas farmers dont

        But you know Valerie…keep believing the hype and sensationalist fear mongering…I’m sure it’s better living in your nice cozy bubble of indignation than dealing with reality

        1. John Page says:

          A rather surprising tone…….would you mind explaining what your involvement in this topic is?
          Are you a journalist? Involved in the lobbying industry?
          Would you mind explaining your view on climate change?
          Are you suggesting that even if there is man made climate change, there is nothing we can do about it as, to regulate capitalism would be a greater harm than the impacts of global warming?
          This is a very serious topic and your responses look like you are playing a game. It would be helpful to know your underlying thinking
          Thank you
          John Page

          1. Thrawn says:

            Unionist, pro-European, economically conservative, socially liberal…not a journalist or lobbyist and don’t know whether to take that as a compliment or insult.

            Actually do believe in anthropogenically caused climate change but don’t believe in beggaring humanity by removing for spurious and sensationalist reasons a source of cheap and comparatively clean energy….at least until Nuclear and renewables become more cost effective and reliable

          2. John Page says:

            On that I think we can conclude the discussion
            Thank you
            John Page

        2. Valerie says:

          Your problem, as you have identified, is your political type. As a conservative, you are reading defensive bullshit which lauds fracking as glorious, and of course that’s correct to Cameron & Co.

          Dirty, industrial, corporate, profit driven, exploitative and company profits and shares for the boys. Using the excuse and entry point of coal mines and seams, let’s rip into communities that have just about healed the environment of the mining scars. These communities are the densely populous, working class areas, because they are there to be walked on, and close to transport links.

          Almost every point you have made @Thrawn is bullshit, and that should be clear to readers from your first posting. I suspect you are one of the industry trolls that flits around the anti fracking forums.

          For anyone that would like to do some research, there is literally tons of stuff out there on the net.

          Meanwhile, just on one point, I’ve quickly pulled this link off. I could post all night.

          This story is already out of date, and there is even more up to date stuff out there.

      3. Clive Scott says:

        I have lived my entire life in Falkirk with a grand view over the petro chemical complex that is Grangemouth, flare stacks and all. Fracking operations will have minuscule impact on the environment compared to the Grangemouth plant. Much of the anti-fracking lobby comes down to Nimby’s. As others have pointed out the technology is not new and has been used offshore for decades. The environmental activists wildly overstate their case to the point where I distrust much of what they say. I suggest the environmental activists try living for a month without using hydrocarbons and they will find their lofty ideals are totally impractical.

        1. Valerie says:

          Thought that was a processing plant but they are fracking at Grangemouth?

        2. tartanfever says:

          Great, because ‘it’s already done, it doesn’t matter, we’re not as bad as them’ argument finally rears it’s moronic head. Well done.

          Simple solution to this entire debate. If fracking is safe as claimed by Ineos and others, put independently fitted and monitored gas emissions testing equipment on the first well. At the first cubic metre of emitted methane. Ineos hand their entire company over to the Scottish people to be placed in our hands.

          It’s called putting your money where your mouth is. Ineos are happy, they get to frack after claiming it’s 100% safe. Environmentalists are happy because at the first sign of emissions Ineos lose their entire company, it’s becomes the property of the Scottish people .

  6. john young says:

    Thrawn are you an eejit or just acting like one.

  7. Cloggins says:

    What a lot of air displacement over a purely hypothetical question. Fracking does not make economic sense and no one in the industry thinks so. Slamming the door on an empty room is just for making a hollow noise.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.