‘Radioactive water disposal plan would turn national park site into toxic dump’ – campaign group

Singleton 2 IGas

IGas Singleton oil site in West Sussex. Photo: IGas

IGas should not be allowed to dispose of radioactive wastewater in a well at its Singleton oil site in the South Downs, campaigners have argued.

The company has applied for an environmental permit to continue reinjecting fluid from sites across southern England. The waste contains naturally-occurring radioactive material, known as NORM.

The Weald Action Group has objected to IGas’s application, accusing the company of not providing enough information and underestimating risks.

In its response to the Environment Agency, the group said:

“Our National Parks should not be allowed to become a toxic dumping ground for radioactive waste.”

A member of the group, Emily Mott, said:

“The onshore oil and gas industry has been allowed to carry on its dirty business for far too long.

“IGas should not be permitted to continue to dump tonnes of toxic fracking wastewater down its wells in this vulnerable chalk aquifer. Our water is the best in England and is a precious commodity that should be protected.”

The application is part of an exercise to bring older oil and gas sites under environmental regulations first introduced in 2013.

IGas has been reinjecting wastewater at Singleton in West Sussex from the site itself and from other oil and gas operations across the region, including the Holybourne oil storage facility in Hampshire.

The company is seeking permission to reinject up to 17,000m3 of produced water a year, with a monthly limit of 2,500m3.

Weald Action Group said the proposal would:

  • Threaten the already vulnerable groundwater aquifer
  • Risk inducing earthquakes in a faulted and seismic-sensitive area

‘Underestimated risk to groundwater’

Weald Action Group described the local chalk aquifer as one of the most important groundwater reservoirs in the UK

The Singleton site is in a groundwater Source Protection Zone 3 for the Lavant public water supply – an area which the Environment Agency has said could be affected by deep drilling.

The site is also above the chalk formation, which is designated as a Principal Aquifer. These are rocks that store large amounts of water and support water supply and the base flow of larger rivers.

The group said:

“The risks to our aquifer are underestimated by IGas and that any risk, however small, should be avoided, given the significance of the aquifer under Singleton Forest.

“Our groundwater catchment is vulnerable and it is our duty to support, conserve and protect this fragile groundwater ecosystem and to promote catchment management approaches that will ensure its purity and longevity.”

The waste could include brine, salts of heavy metals and radioactive materials, the group said.

It called for a reassessment of the vulnerability and status of the aquifer.

It also urged the Environment Agency to apply guidance for hydraulic fracturing to Singleton. This would mean flowback fluid could not be disposed by reinjection into any geological formation.

The South Downs National Park Authority [SDNPA] has also commented on the site’s sensitivity for local groundwater:

“The SDNPA would like to draw to your [the Environment Agency’s] attention that this is a sensitive site.

“It is located within a National Park and within the groundwater Source Protection Zone 3 (SPZ3) for the Lavant public water supply and above the Chalk Formation which is designated as a Principal Aquifer.”

‘Earthquake threat’

The group said the Singleton site north of Chichester is in a seismic zone and is heavily faulted:

 “The fractured carbonate geology at Singleton is particularly ill suited to subsurface disposal of waste.”

Underground wastewater injection can raise pressure on fault lines, reducing the faults’ natural friction and triggering earthquakes, the group said. Seismic activity risks affecting well integrity and could result in groundwater pollution, it added.

IGas had not provided a detailed up-to-date seismic study mapping the faulting in the area of the area, the group said. It called for “a proper assessment of the local stress fields”.

Regulatory loopholes

Weald Action Group criticised the regulation of oil and gas sites in the region:

“There is a lack of a joined up approach to monitoring and regulation, permitting and guidance regarding contaminated flowback and produced fluids generated in conventional/unconventional oil sites in the Southeast of England.”

It blamed this on “erroneous and inconsistent definition of the terms used for conventional and unconventional operations. It also said there was “a lack of clarity in regulatory guidance” on advanced well stimulation technologies.

Regulators have “broad discretion” to determine when restrictions and additional requirements are imposed “without reference to clear parameters”, the group said.

“This in turn, creates loopholes, leaving our environment and communities at risk”.

A public consultation on the application ends tomorrow (6 February 2020)

Weald Action Group objection to Singleton permit application (pdf)

Link to permit application documents

Updated with quote from South Downs National Park Authority

69 replies »

  1. What a load of tosh!

    “Fracking wastewater”???!!!
    (DoD-is this now the sort of “excitement” you think is needed? Why not post something about the Kraken being woken from its slumber and energised with radioactivity, to rampage across the Weald? There must be someone who would put their name to that!
    Please, keep it real. Quite normal within comment, but to have such as part of your text is pretty poor.)

    This has become a site for the uneducated who seem to think others will be as uneducated as themselves, on subjects they campaign about but display no knowledge themselves.

    Just a new application because of regulation being updated, to continue what has been happening for many years, without any issue.

  2. Martin

    Emily is presumably ‘on message’ in describing produced water as toxic fracking wastewater. It may be WAG speak for produced water.

    However their submission is a bit more circumspect, just worrying that the water reinjected may include flowback (from an acid job, say ), and questioning whether the wellheads are monitored for Radon, as this is a recommendation for fracked wells ( being for HPHV shale wells ).

    I guess that, if you are against fossil fuel extraction where you can see it, then it is reasonable to throw as much mud as possible, hoping that this will stick.

    It seems to be working as I note that one comment against the application says that the preese hall well fractured due to seismic activity, allowing fluids to escape. Therefore this may happen again in the seismic hot spot that is the Weald.

    Readers of DoD ( and supporting documentation) know this not to be true, as the oft posted link to the report on that issue shows.

    • But I do have such knowledge, which you seem to lack. I have worked as an expert witness in more than 10 NORM cases in the USA and recently published a study showing significant excess deaths in infants in Pennsylvania after Fracking. Over to you.

      • Good for you, Christopher.

        But, you still seem to have missed the point that this situation is NOTHING to do with fracking-or ducks.

        Based upon your inability to see that basic connection, I am sorry but other linkages that you do “see” will not be scrutinised by myself.

        Perhaps some should look at more data regarding the huge health benefits of fossil fuels? They could make a start looking at the data for mortality levels from natural disasters over time, and the reasons why such have dropped so significantly. And then move on to pharmaceuticals/hospitals and other health sectors? Just for starters.

        But as you wish to discuss fracking:

        I think there have been studies indicating sexual activity increased around fracking sites in USA. Now, I am no expert, but my suspicion is that might be associated with increased alcohol consumption-it often is. Increased disposable income is not always utilised for the most sensible expenditure, although those who make that expenditure often think it is at the time.

      • But “Prof” Busby your theories are not particularly well regarded by the rest of the academic community are they? I see that you have had to self publicize your work – that’s not a good sign is it? Anyhow, keep up your good work for RT – I’m sure that Mr Putin loves it

  3. hewes62.

    Yes, the reasons for the content is quite evident. The reality is that part of the content is just false. Not the first time “fracking” has been falsely utilised as a means to motivate those it may across the Weald.

    It seems that may get others excited, although why it should when there is NO fracking anywhere in UK currently to produce any fluid! Might as well worry about Unicorn urine being pumped down the well.

    Perhaps it should be encouraged as the latest survey shows opposition to fracking is reducing! Maybe, as more fake news is produced it becomes more obvious to more people?

  4. Suppose you see a bird walking around in a farm yard. This bird has no label that says ‘duck’. But the bird certainly looks like a duck. Also, he goes to the pond and you notice that he swims like a duck. Then he opens his beak and quacks like a duck. Well, by this time you have probably reached the conclusion that the bird is a duck, whether he’s wearing a label or not.

    • Suppose the ADG see a bird walking around the farm yard. Those looking at it consider it to be a duck. They are anti duck ( the anti duck group …ADG ) As to a hammer everything looks like a nail, to the anti duck squad, everything looks like a duck.

      The bird walks off out of sight.

      The ADG are concerned that it may have been a duck and write a report to the council , laying out their concerns as to the possibility it may have been a duck, the risks to the community if it was a duck, the various connections between ducks and disease and the likelihood of a duck epidemic should they be allowed to procreate.

      They ask the council for further information. When was the farm last inspected, how many ducks does it have, what size ( weight and dimensions ), what type, how fed ( type and amount of feed per bird ), how fenced in, how cared for, and how various duck ailments are treated and reported.

      The group are also concerned that the ducks may be washed in bleach after slaughter and ask the council to measure the amount of bleach used by the farmer as ‘how does anyone know what goes on round the corner,?

      A resident is interviewed by a reporter from Duck and Die and says ‘we do not want our pristine village desecrated by gigantic factory duck farm spewing out duck diseases and chlorinated dead ducks just for profit.

      A group of angry residents protest at the farm. A bird walks round the corner and walks ( waddles ) off towards the pond. Driven insane by their fury, the group slaughter the bird.

      The farmer mourns the loss of his pet goose, but enjoys a fine meal. Down at the pub the ADG celebrate, as to the ADG, everything with a waddle, feathers and wings is a duck…of course.

    • So, J77, apart from knowing little about fracking you also know little about ducks!

      Male ducks-drakes-do not quack! So, the bird you see, wandering around “quacking” is not a duck at all, not even a drake, but a fake!

      Oh, how easy it is for the lazy antis who can’t be bothered to do any research, to demonstrate that. You could at least have a Giggle, then you would realise you don’t need to shake a Pekin to tell whether it is a male or female.

      You were somewhat unlucky in that I trained in Poultry Husbandry, so you just took the risk that no one else had the knowledge you didn’t, and slipped up. Tough one, but quite common on DoD. Interesting though that fake news posted initially is then compounded by more fake news. Looks as if Radio 4 had a valid point about the Weald. Almost evidence of a trend.

  5. DoD – “The company has applied for an environmental permit to CONTINUE reinjecting fluid from sites across southern England”

    The Weald Action Group – “Our National Parks should not be allowed to BECOME a toxic dumping ground”

    10 points for the first person who can spot the issue here.

    Otherwise, well done to DoD for maintaining consistency in the bias of their reporting.

  6. Now, here’s a better use for a National Park!

    “Thousands of wind turbine blades will be scrapped in the UK in the next five years and the industry admits that it is facing a growing waste problem because they are hard to recycle.” P13 The Times-today. Read the rest of it, is really enlightening!

    Land owners who made a profit of up to £150k/turbine/year whether the electricity was needed or not, and yet no proper plans made for disposal after use! You could not make it up.

    Makes the oil industry look pretty green and organised by comparison.

    • MARTIN ,

      Like many others, I have no intention of going out to buy, or subscribe online to the Times Newspaper, just to read something that you say, is on page 13 today . PLEASE cut and paste a LINK for the forum members to read..

      Ladies, Gentlemen and MARTIN here is a company with global recycling solutions for wind turbines.

      Why not give them a call MARTIN, I’m sure it will be educational.

      • No, we know you can not access the Times, little green jack. Neither can Big Green Jack, Big Blue Jack or little blue jack! Are they the many others, you refer to?

        All of you also know there is a pay wall on the Times.

        However, those of us in the UK who take an interest in UK matters can access such stuff, so I apologise, but I have no interest in helping you out. But nice of you to be so motivated to take an interest in us. (I am sure your employers you referred to in the past could get you some better access to UK information, otherwise it puts you at a bit of a disadvantage-or, you could find a crowd to help you!)

        Global recycling?? Like the thousands already dumped in giant landfill sites in USA, or some from UK that were sold to eastern Europe!!

        Really green.

        By the way, in case someone thinks I am being unkind, I remember when I did supply you with a Times link, as the article was supplied by a non Times writer so you could access it. Instead of being grateful you dismissed it because she had written an article about a totally different subject that didn’t agree with your opinions!

          • THANK YOU PAUL for the LINK .

            It would appear that MARTIN likes to inccur extra financial burden on UK citizens ….

            Rather than cut and paste a LINK so that we can all read the article he refers to , he would rather have us all pay…… I think you’ll find that one as popular as Fracking, 10% , maybe even less .

            MARTIN, I take note of your above oppion. It would appear that you’ve not yet been in touch with this company at the cutting edge of recycling .

            Along with WIND TURBINES, they also recycle rechargeable batteries , which is great for the automotive industry .

            Here’s the link again MARTIN , take a look


            • Good of you, Big Jack to help out little jack!!

              It would appear nothing of the sort. Don’t need to help out those in the UK (UK citizens a strange definition). Those unable to access what those in the UK have the ability to access, is a different matter. No problem previously regarding the National Trust or the James Dean series covering the Permian- for others.

              “Extra financial burden upon UK citizens”. Nope. That is your lot who wish the Weald oil to stay in the ground and therefore not contributing to UK taxation, whilst ships puff up the Solent each week with imported oil that attracts taxation for the countries it comes from. (You can easily verify that from Giggle.) But don’t worry Jacks, UK will remain Treasure Island for those wishing to export to us, and they can reap the financial reward from whatever taxation they apply, and reward their lobbyists generously.

              What I do find quite interesting though is the constant repetition of how oil/gas is not required and there are plenty of alternatives that are so much better, yet even now, with a relative small alternative sector, there is a totally disproportionate number of situations where such have either been shown to have serious problems and costs, or suffer from the same issues that the antis would direct at oil/gas. So, disposal of plastic is a game changer but disposal of wind turbine blades is not because it has been ignored, so is not an issue? How was planning allowed unless re-instatement/recycling was fully explored-BEFOREHAND?

              Meanwhile, Storm Ciara approaching the UK. Wonder how power cables will cope, wind turbines the same and solar farms? Wonder what will be required to power a clean up? Could it be fossil fuel? All those Teslas (LOL) left as motionless as a beached whale, and as useful as chocolate teapots!

              For those in the UK, take care this weekend, it could be a wild one. Signs of wild birds acting strangely today. Often happens before a major storm, so do watch out.

              • MARTIN,

                PLEASE stop talking in riddles …… We are ALL aware of your deep seated bitterness towards the National Trust because of its strong stance against the highly toxic, environmentally damaging, Fracking Ponzi scheme….. BUT MARTIN if there’s anything Jack can help you with regarding that issue, then please clearly specify .

                That also applies to the Permian Basin, that you bring up that in your above post , maybe you would like Jack to help you understand more about the sharp increase in health problems around the US Permian Basin.


                OR maybe you would like to talk more about how the highly productive , super sweet spot in the USA , the Permian Basin is in RAPID DECLINE , leaving nothing more than a toxic legacy for future generations .


                OR maybe you would like to talk about how the Permian Basin is releasing HUGE amounts of toxic , climate changing gases like Methane and Hydrogen Sulfide


                • Jack interesting link that also states – “However, some materials are not recyclable and therefore have to be disposed of by ROTH International, a certified waste management company”

              • MARTIN ,

                You mention TESLA in your above post.

                I know that you despise the electric car industry , which is why you are always trying to knock it, ONLY TESLA though ….. Maybe through fear , or lack of self confidence you never try and knock the big boys in the industry like VW , Nissan , Peugeot or Honda to name but a few, who are ALL now fully embracing the electric car industry. There’s even electric talk from Rolls Royce, now there’s a surprise.

                Although this may ruin your Sunday afternoon, I’m sorry MARTIN , I just have to lay it on the line and give it you straight.

                Take a look


                You should of listened to Jack’s sound advice a long time ago, when he said DUMP the Fracking stock and invest in the clean, green electric future. That’s where the plump share profits will be .

                • Ahh, little green needs rescuing again!

                  Sorry, Big Green but making false statements doesn’t help your argument.

                  If you bothered to research fully, you will not find I hate the electric car industry. I have commented about how the electric car industry does not have a product that is either desirable to the customer or cost effective. I have commented that Tesla is a stock that is completely over valued, and is still to make an annual profit. Both of which are facts.

                  If you wish to encourage people to invest in over valued stock, you join a certain club, but not one you should have any pride in.

                  (By the way, I noticed you missed Jaguar off your list. Might that be because they have just stopped production!)

                  My Sunday Afternoon?

                  I was catching up on some reading, which was more appropriate to the subject. It included the following:

                  “Global emissions have actually increased as a result of our (UKs) de-industrialisation….There are no plans in the net-zero carbon target which address that.”

                  Now, remind me. Who was it stating that the Permian was an environmental disaster zone? Yet, is the UK currently importing US oil and gas?

                  “VW has released the comparative numbers for its new electric Golf against the diesel version. The all-clean, all-climate-friendly version must do 120,000km to break even, given the emissions to make the thing.”

                  Now, remind me. Who was it supporting VW? (By the way, Tesla are “bigger” than VW, according to their current valuation, which maybe suggests some over valuation, and poor research by yourself!)

                  Now, there are obviously some who would like the UK to keep on the de-industrialisation path for their own ends JACKS, so much so, they employ groups to help promote such and create a larger Treasure Island for their products. Some are quite skilled about it, others are less skilled and very obvious. There will be some who are fooled, others will not be.

                  Meanwhile, in the UK the power cables are being repaired and the fossil fuelled chainsaws are working around the clock, whilst a few may be calling their work place to explain they are stuck at home as they can’t charge their cars.

                  Reality is the protection against being fooled.

                • The break-even figure you quote Martin can be seen here:

                  However, as Volkswagen point out, this figure depends on what is being used to generate the electricity. With wholly renewables, the break-even point is nearer 60,000 km, and Volkswagen believe significant steps can be taken to reduce emissions in the car-building phase for electrics.

                • MARTIN

                  You have NEVER had a good word towards the electric car industry , as your posts over several years have clearly shown.

                  Even now you twist and turn with selective memory as you try and justify the continued use of fossil fuel burning vehicles, even as the world burns and starts to see what is clearly the very early , MILD signs of climate change . ( Far, Far Worse Is Yet To Come )

                  SO much huff and bluster in your above post , but when we get down to the nitty gritty, you are WRONG as the FORUM MODERATOR has kindly taken the time to show .

                • MARTIN,

                  Why have you shown the very worst case scenario for the break even cost for an electric vehicle ??????

                  OH SORRY , you could of gone one step worse.

                  FRACKING…….. I think we could of added a couple more ” 00″ on that 120,000km break even figure.

                • This is the same VW that stated, and spent £millions advertising their diesel emissions were so low????


                  How many £ BILLIONS so far in compensation??? (And the health issue compensation has still to be addressed.)

                  “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!”

                  Paul-what may be possible in the future regarding electric vehicles may be possible-the alternative is-it may not. UKs demand for EVs (on its own) would require almost TWICE the WORLDS current yearly supply of cobalt. So, I am somewhat skeptical such improvements will come that easy, or more efficiently. I am also pretty skeptical that the German energy sector will clean up its act any time soon, or that the German car industry will cease its reliance upon Chinese suppliers.
                  Last time I looked there were not that many “wholly renewables” extracting cobalt in the DRC, or copper, or other required elements.

                  And, Jack, you may have missed my comments about having had TWO hybrids, but others will have not. So, if you want to make false statements please make them a little more believable. Interesting that you are so eager to demonstrate how you falsify as an attempt to win a debate-or, is it that the turnover of Jacks is rather large?

                  Plump share profits? Certainly not in Tesla over the last few days, Jack. Bit like oil discovery shares. Money to be made if you buy at the right time, a whole lot of money to be lost if you do not. “Jack’s sound advice”?? The only sound advice is that both have a great deal of in built volatility and do NOT take advice from anyone else but do your own research and win or lose based upon that. Jack’s advice is based upon only being able to view part of the data, by his own admission, so buyer beware!

                • MARTIN,

                  Dont be so hard on yourself , Jack doesn’t see you as a fool. A little misguided , but not a fool.

                  You mention the VW Diesal emissions scandal, yes it’s disgusting that some individual animals will cover up and defend highly polluting Fossil Fuel burning vehicles for the sake of MONEY……. Great news that a firm hand was taken against these individuals who sat at the top of the VW tree.

                  YOU also talk about TESLA ………… MARTIN it up 274% , yes 274% in 7 months . However you try and spin this one on its head , you will fail …….


                  If any readers want to look at what MARTIN works so hard to defend ….. I suggest you take a look at the steep downward share price curve of Igas, Angus Energy, UKOG and AJ Lucas … NO PROFITS THERE.

                • So, money is your motivation Jack!

                  Shame on you.

                  However, if you are so concerned about others driving habits, have a chat to reaction, with his 3 litre diesel BMW trundling around PNR.

                  Meanwhile, others will have made money from companies such as UKOG and AJL within the last 7 months and others will have lost money on Tesla in the last 7 months.

                  You didn’t learn from that same mistake in the past Jack. You may have a problem with how day traders make or lose their money but continuing to demonstrate that when you have been shown the reality just means you think others are easily fooled.

                • Just so others can see some reality, Jack:

                  Tesla peaked at 967.51 on 4th Feb, and was 771.28 am 11th Feb 2020!

                  Meanwhile, UKOG has risen by 13% TODAY.

                  So, if you followed Jack’s advice (more fool you) and replaced UKOG with Tesla stock you are now out of pocket. (I suspect not too many fooled, as most would see car plants closing due to lack of parts from China.)

                  Welcome to the DoD club Jack of speculating recklessly and being shown to be incorrect almost immediately! JP did pretty well when he declared “plenty of cheap oil and gas sloshing around the world” just before the Beast from the East struck and showed that was a load of guff. But, I think your effort deserves a “highly commended,” load of guff.

                  So, Jack, what now? Change of subject to try and deflect from your ability to show how you slip up continuously?

                  How about cricket? LOL.

                • MARTIN ,

                  OH dear, getting it all wrong again. It’s a good job Jack is an understanding and sympathetic type of chap.

                  At what point did I say ” money ” was my motivation ??????

                  Even if it was , investing money ethically in to a clean, greener future and making a profit on bought shares . What’s wrong with that ??????

                  As far as TESLA goes , now let me say it once again…. The share price is up 274% in the last 7 months….. What part of that is difficult to understand ??????

                  Now the company you quote, UKOG and the other companies like AJ Lucas , Angus Energy and Igas that you fight so hard to defend , may have a periodic, Dead Cat Bounce and yes a few investors may make a Bob or two investing at the right time and Good Luck to those brave enough to take the chance ….. BUT the facts are the facts, most will have lost the shirts of their backs investing in these companies . Just take a look at the share price of these companies and take note of how some have fallen 100s % and 1000s % , then take note how the share prices are now endlessly trailing along the floor. These are the real facts MARTIN.

                  [Word added at poster’s request]

            • Well i suppose some antis like to take their opposing opinions from a daily rag!, where most voters get their vile reporting from! Well it does need the reading age of a 5 year old to read the Sun!

  7. Have a word with big Green Jack, little green jack, and you will get some help you need!

    By the way-a falling in growth is not the same as a decline. Big Green may be able to explain that to you and the reasons around it. Something to do with the old supply/demand/price equation, compounded by the market saying, time for returning something to the investors??

    “Shale oilfields in USA hold about 190 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil altogether, of which 94% has yet to be produced”.

    No wonder Mr. Putin was so worried about that. (Reference already supplied. She was the most impressive witness, some of the others deserved sacking. Oh, they have been!)

    (Shame you couldn’t access that data!! But then, you were too busy concerned about high school drop outs earning $60k per year washing dishes!))

    I think some more training may be needed to elevate you to the Big Green club, or even the Big Blue club. No riddles, just observation that others can observe, and probably have. But ALL? Maybe not. (A little bit of help-“we ALL”, “all of us”, “everybody”-used on social media is obviously fake and is obviously a defensive mechanism when someone feels vulnerable. Maybe best to avoid?)

    However, must get busy securing against Ciara, so, see you next week. Perhaps we can have an interesting “chat” about cricket?! (No riddle-check your history.)

  8. Interesting howls of protest at the use of ‘fracking wastewater’ and biased reporting. Strange, only one quote using the f word, probably in error, but who knows what processes are being used deep underground and precisely how ‘fracking’ is being defined. And as ever, DoD just report exactly what is being said by those willing to actually respond to questions. I’m just relieved that I have a trusted source.
    There can be litte doubt that produced or waste water from any deep drilling operations, whether fracked or otherwise, is a huge and costly problem for the industry and potentially of significant risk to the environment – with consequent risks to humans and any other living organisms, whether bird, beast or plant based. Such water must be reinjected, with clearly known seismic and contamination risks, or transported and treated, with clearly known impacts and huge energy costs. Even then, the final product can be highly saline or radioactive and therefore difficult or dangerous to dispose of.
    I have little doubt that the usual suspects will both howl in protest and deny those risks and proven harm, but there is ample evidence despite many cover ups.

    • Mike – you seem woefully uninformed and the industry as does the person who wrote the rolling stones article. The volume of brine produced during shale fracking is not more than the volume of oil and gas produced. Most waste water is produced as a result of water flooding conventional reservoirs. There is also a reasonable amount produced in some tight gas sandstones where natural or induced fractures propagate into the underlying aquifers. The brine produced as a result of fracking U.K. shale is easy to deal with – just go an talk to the companies who deal with it – they find it quite amusing that people such as yourself spread untruths about the difficultly to deal with these fluids. One had to remember that the content of radiogenic elements in flow back fluid is no different to that produced during coal mining, which the U.K. had been dealing with very well for around 200 years. [Edited by moderator]

        • Jack TL

          Having reviewed the list provided by the law company, I see no mention of toxic metals, nor NORM. I think that lawyers, in their desperation to fleece the mug punters in order to make a quick buck, may have forgotten to mention NORM.

          They also ( I note ) say that an environmental group has found that petroleum distillate may contain benzine, rather than referring to basic chemistry ( the petrol you pop in their cars contain benzine ). No one with an O level in chemistry involved in writing their adverts I guess, or are they cynically using the E card to fleece the punter.

          Certainly flowback ( and frack fluid prior to injection which is what they describe ) needs to be handled with due care. Something that may crop up here on DoD as I suspect that is the matter in hand.

          Meanwhile I have popped some proppant on the lawn, wiped down with a biocide, rubbed some alcohol on my feet and have the oven soaking in caustic soda.

          • HEWES62,

            Ok, I’ll get straight to the point.

            FRACKING wastewater DOES contain a number of highly toxic, heavy metals ( YES or NO ? )

            YES is the answer, as well you know.

            Without offence to you HEWES62 , I only press home this important point so that any readers who are not fully up to spec on this topic, clearly understand .

              • SIMON MAYNARD

                Drinking water does NOT contain the dangerous high levals of toxic metals that Fracking wastewater does .

                Talking about Fracking wastewater SIMON, do you remember saying to MIKE POTTER on this page that the wastewater was easy to treat ???????

                Were you referring to the easy treatment process that Cuadrilla and United Utilities used , that is dumping it in to the Manchester Ship Canal


                • Jack, just to quote you “FRACKING wastewater DOES contain a number of highly toxic, heavy metals ( YES or NO ? )” – where in this statement does it mention dangerous levels? I know you’ll find this difficult to understand but the same processes that occur underground occur when water runs over shale in the moors. The difference is that the solutes derived from the shale in the moors get diluted to such an extent that one is safe drinking said water. Now, when one places flow back fluid into the Manchester ship canal it gets diluted in a similar way. It’s really quite simple Jack.

                • SIMON MAYNARD ,

                  You dont actually believe what you’ve put down do you ??????

                  What you have said is a dangerous load of TOSH , dangerous to human health and the enviournment .

                  You really either DON’T know anything about the process of Fracking , or you think that all other people are guilable and brand new.

                • Get this ladies and gentleman . We have someone here who believes that dumping toxic waste in canals is ok because it will get diluted .

                  I’ll bet a grand on it, that SIMON MAYNARD wouldn’t want toxic chemicals dumped in to his local stream, river or canal .

            • Jack TL

              Yes, frack returns have some interesting properties due to it’s constituents and the interaction with the host rock. Interested readers should be aware of the risks for sure.

              How this flowback is handled is the key issue in the latter comments of these posts. It would seem that it is handled in a variety of ways in the US that are not allowed in the UK ( popping it into ponds to evaporate and or spreading it on roads or re injection into strata other than where it came from etc ). In relation to the UK the difficulties of frack return treatment are well documented as are it’s constituents.

              Likewise the risks from NORM are well.documented in the UK, and so far well managed in the oil and gas industry.

              Hence my cynicism re the link to an ambulance chasing law firm in the US over frack water risks that does not touch on the issues of NORM.

              How the conversation has developed for this post is also of interest. It started with produced water re injection ( not frack returns ) and then touched on the management of frack returns in the US, and the management of NORM in the US ( via Mr Busby ).

              Unfortunately Mr Busby has yet to clarify which comments he referred to, tho i suspect it was Simon rather than Martin or myself.

              I have experience in UK Coal mining NORM issues and in the management of produced water disposal and NORM management onshore and offshore for the oil and gas industry in the UK, but have no experience of the disposal of frack water returns in the US or UK.

              • hewes62 – I totally agree that flow back will have lots of interesting chemicals. But let’s put it into some context, if one puts drinking water through a modern ICP-MS one will find pretty much every element in the periodic table with an atomic number below that of uranium.

                I have had experience of frack fluid returns in the UK and it’s boring. The companies disposing of the fluids love these jobs as they are amongst the easiest money they’ll ever make – far lower salinity and NORM levels than they generally have to deal with. The facts might contradict the poorly informed narratives that people like our eminently knowledgeable Jack from ladland might like to spin but there’s no getting away from facts.

          • SIMON MAYNARD,

            IF you want to debate fracking economics in the USA , I will be delighted to do so.

            I of course will back up all I say with evidence , not just my own words …..

            • What you mean Jack is that you’ll post loads of links to fake news dreamt up by antifrackers. Luckily after having 35 years in the industry I have something called knowledge – you may want to look the word up

              • SIMON MAYNARD,

                Now your sounding silly .

                Although I may not always agree , I acknowledge and respect the forum members who clearly show an in depth ” knowledge ” of the Oil and Gas business and yes on some occasions I have to admit, I’ve learnt a thing a two . Which in turn has helped me to see things from a different light and change my view on certain things .

                Unfortunately SIMON , you do not fall in to that catagory. You clearly show an absence of ” knowledge ” within certain categories of the Oil /Gas field and the economics of it.

                For all we know , your 35 years within the filed may of been as a chef on a rig.

                • Jack, and this is from someone who seems to not understand that the production profile from a shale resource play is not the equivalent to that from a conventional reservoir. Ignorance is bliss

                • SIMON MAYNARD,

                  There you go again , typing down words but saying nothing..

                  Ok then, I will start the debate ball rolling .

                  With many, huge, eye watering Billion Dollar bankruptcies already taken place and hundreds of BILLIONS of debt owing….USA Fracking is nothing more than a debt ridden Ponzi scheme .

                  No please let me add to that…….. It’s dangerous to human and animal health , dangerous to the enviournment, greatly fuels climate change and it leaves a toxic legacy that will cost future generations $ Billions in clean up and management costs .

                  All that I have said above , I will back up with evidance and LINKS from reputable sources ….. I ask that you do the same and not just give us YOUR oppinion , backed up with sweet nothing .

    • Not howls of protest, Mike.

      Just a desire to keep content accurate. Comment a different thing, but content should be accurate. Any journalist can find someone willing to quote fake information but is that really any different to fake news? I suggest not, and the reason why the Sports Pages are not full of “articles” about Lincoln City winning the Champions League.

  9. MARTIN,

    Dont you read the news on planet earth ????????

    Didn’t you know , Americas Oil and Gas super sweet spot is now in rapid decline

    Permian Basin is in RAPID DECLINE , leaving nothing more than a toxic legacy for future generations .

    Whatever is left in the USA and your above oppion of ” 190 BILLION BARRELS ” without showing any evidence has been duly noted …… Whatever the true figure is , it’s worth noting that NONE of this Oil and Gas will be as easy to access, or be in the super large quantaties that exist in the Permian Basin ……

    You could say that MARTIN has forgot to tell you, that with a lot of this so called ” recoverable ” Oil and Gas, it would be cheaper and easier to extract Oil and Gas from the MOON and have it shipped back to Earth on MARTINS mother ship.

    MARTIN, I hope you haven’t suffered any damage from storm Ciara ….. Remember this is only a MILD taste of what’s to come with growing climate change .

    • Thanks for your concern, Jack. Trust the rest of you Jacks/jacks are equally concerned.

      No problems with the storm for me here in the UK. They are expected in the UK in the winter. Some far away-physically, or mentally-find that a bit of a surprise but most do not. If you ever visit, Jack, have a nice trip to Cornwall-you will see they have been cementing their slates to their roofs for a very long time as they had found that necessary many years ago.
      There were quite a lot of power cables down and people without electricity, but the supply companies fired up their diesel trucks and trundled off to the sites with problems, and managed, with the help of their fossil fuelled chain saws, to restore most supply pretty quickly. But, I hear wind turbines which were not effectively closed down did suffer more serious damage. Wonder what will happen to the “bits”?

      Repetition Jack, re the Permian.
      A decline in growth is not the same as a decline. The evidence you seek has been seen by many of us Jack. You really must extend your sources of information and stop resorting to speculation. You have been sussed. But, to help you out further (please send your donation to Help the Heroes):

      “There are an estimated 75 billion barrels of RECOVERABLE shale oil in the Permian but fewer than 5 billion had been produced by the end of 2018, figures from S&P Global Platts, a research company, suggest.”

        • Jack – you really should stick to discussing things that you know about. The rate of oil and gas production in unconventional plays is strongly correlated with the number of wells that are completed (fracked). Due to the licensing in the USA there is a strong incentive to drill many wells when an operator first gets going. After the licenses have all been drilled, the companies tend to slow down their drilling campaigns and go for profit, which is not directly related to total production. Companies will also tend to complete wells at different rates depending on the oil/gas price. The evidence you have presented is worthless without including the circumstances behind the behavior.

          • SIMON MAYNARD,

            You’ve done a lot of talking in your above post, but said nothing . ( Smoke and Mirrors )

            Surely you dont expect me to buy what you’ve said . Are you having a laugh with Jack ????

            I think it’s you who needs to brush up on your US Fracking economics .

            • Jack – it’s nice that you’re admitting to not knowing anything about the shale licensing system in the USA. If you bothered to read about it you also might get an understanding as to why the gas price their plumitted

          • Simon-if all the Jacks(counted 4 to date, but probably an under estimate) between them stuck to discussing things they know about, they would not get paid! Quantity not quality seems to be the requirement.

            What we know-as they have supplied the evidence- is that they know little about fracking in the USA, very little about the UK as a whole, and much less about investing wisely.

            And probably nothing about cricket!

            A pretty clear picture, however they would like to try and obscure it.

            Revealing in its own way.

            • MARTIN,

              I suggest you contact Drill Or Drop directly …… Ask them how many Jackthelads are operating on this site .

              I’m sorry to disappoint you and shatter one of your wild of the cuff fantasies, but there is ONLY ONE Jackthelad operating on this site .

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.