They both make good points, but this debate can be put on a more rational basis. The first step is to use the right terminology. When campaigners object to . The campaigners are objecting, not to the technique, but to the new industry to extract hydrocarbons from shale. This involves not only multi- stage fracking, but also horizontal drilling, with wells every 1. An expert speaking on Radio 4 recognised that . But this is not very specific. We propose that this new industry should be called . We argue that this is unlikely to be the case. Conditions are very different. Firstly, the US has 4. UK, and so they can afford to loose a few million acres. They have vast open spaces, relatively uninhabited, where the adverse consequences of this new industry (which the Government's chief scientific advisor recently warned could be on a par with thalidomide, asbestos, dioxins and many pesticides) will not affect many people. Furthermore, our population density is eight times theirs, so every square mile shracked affects eight times as many people. Secondly, we use 2. Thus to get the same economic impact as they have had, we would have to shrack proportionately 2. Furthermore, this would affect eight times as many people per square mile on average as them, and so the total number of people adversely affected by shracking, to get the same economic impact, would be 2. USA. Some people might find this acceptable if one could achieve significant economic benefits, but even this is unlikely in the UK. Supply and demand requires that one has to produce a surplus to get the prices to come down significantly, but in practice this is unlikely. For example, the recent British Geological Survey Report states that there are two billion to eight billion barrels of oil in the shale beneath the Sussex Weald, which sounds a lot. Create custom t-shirts and personalized shirts at CafePress. Use our easy online designer to add your artwork, photos, or text. Design your own t- shirt today! Job interview questions and sample answers list, tips, guide and advice. Helps you prepare job interviews and practice interview skills and techniques. To link to this poem, put the URL below into your page: <a href="http:// of Myself by Walt Whitman</a> Plain for. Breaking news, weather, analysis and information from the Omaha World-Herald about Omaha events, local weather, sports, schools, crime, government, health and. However, Professor Aplin of Durham University points out that shracking is notoriously inefficient at extracting oil and gas. The most one can expect, based on US experience, is to extract five per cent, which brings these figures down to 1. In practice Aplin says the extraction efficiency is likely to be less, maybe only one per cent, because Weald shale contains clay which makes it harder to fracture. So if the Weald was shracked from end- to- end, it would produce 2. UK (1. 00 to 4. 00 million barrels is only 1. This is unlikely to affect market prices. Furthermore many will ask, do we want to destroy the Weald for the sake of a few weeks supply of oil? It seems highly likely that this is a financial . Unlike shracking, tidal power does not produce CO2 or poison the earth. Furthermore, unlike shracking wells, which usually dry up after a year or two, tidal power will continue to be available as long as the moon goes round the earth, and so will produce clean energy for centuries to come.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
October 2017
Categories |