Vi  har spurgt den engelske ekspert Charles Miller om hvad vi skal se efter på borepladsen, for at afgøre om Total er parat til at test fracke eller ej og her er hans første svar. Jeg har skrevet flere spørgsmål, som jeg deler hans svar på, så snart jeg har modtaget dem. Oliebranche ekspert Charles Miller er ikke vendt tilbage, men her i hans første svar til mig, siger han, at vi skal holde øje med, hvor mange tankbiler, der kommer til pladsen. Dog vil jeg sige, at den sprængning, der forårsagede førnævnte ulykke, var 1 kg!! Husk, at Totals afbrænding af svovl i borehullet for at teste, om der var gas, ikke er udspecificeret i det materiale, vi har haft tilgængeligt (den gule sky), det var Nullfoam heller ikke. Total vil gøre, hvad der skal til og som det ser ud nu, er det kun os, der stopper dem.

 

--- første svar fra Charles Miller

 

The drilling of a fracking well is exactly the same as for conventional wells, including the use of horizontal (contour) drilling, so the rig will not look diferent. However, tell-tale signs are provision for water, lots of it, and provision of well-head services that will be left on site after drilling has been completed, and these may give an indication of wether the fluids are expected to be oil , gas, or oil and gas.

 

Schlumberger, who's vehicles are in your pictures, are a well-services contractor who are capable of fracking, but they drill conventional wells too. Shale beds are highly sedimentary layers and this compression of natural radioactivity raises the radioactivity of the shale seam and the provisional of a separate 'radioactive pit' for radioactive material would be a clue as fracking involves drilling a higher-than-background-radiation seam. I suggest that enquiries are made to find out what provision is planned for taking production (oil or gas) from the site and where it will go to as that could reveal the process as being conventional or fracked. Also, asking a point-blank question as to how chemical-laden fracking flow-back water is going to be decontaminated and returned to the environment will force a reply which should reveal their technology - if fracking does subsequently go ahead, it will be revealed that they had lied, and huge compensation and sacking of responsible individuals should be demanded - even in advance of any drilling!

 

Let's clear up one point, wells are expensive to drill and all costs have to be paid: nobody drills a well unless there is a very good, usually overwhelming, reason to expect a profit - there are loss-making 'dry' wells that fail to find a worthwhile payzone, but there is no 'test frack' or 'curiosity' drilling, EVERY WELL is drilled with a serious intent of being productive. If there are residential dwelling around the site, residents should ask about the location and extent of Evacuation and Hazard zones, and provision for emergency-vehicle access and emergency capability, and road use and compulsory accessfor pipelines etc., and show that they have concerns for their safety and their neighbourhood that MUST be addressed.

 

The more the correspondence with the operators, owners, financial backers, infrastructure and local planners, councils, etc the better as this is where you may get clues ahead of actual drilling, and residents putting roadside or signs on their property stating boundaries of evacuation and hazard zones which will add extra pressure! With renewables now definitely cost-competitive with oil and gas, and getting cheaper, and gaining ground rapidly all around the world, there has been more than a little amazement that some countries, notably USA, UK and Russia, are still actively - ruthlessly - pursueing undeniably-harmful fossil fuels, and one significant explanation is that fossil fuels are the fuels of war - you can't run a battle tank or fighter jet on electricity - so there could to be a covert preparation for war in progress!

 

Anyway, keep up the good work!

Best regards, Charles Miller