Zac’s Tall Shale Tales
By Paul Homewood
Over the last couple of years, there has been much talk of disinformation and misinformation, and much thought lent to the knotty question of who you can trust to relay the facts in unbiased fashion. These are all issues that we have to consider when looking at Zac Goldsmith’s latest utterances.
The noble lord took to Twitter yesterday to try to counter a group of Conservative MPs who are demanding that the UK start exploiting its abundant shale gas resources so as to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis. In the process, he ended up sounding more like something from the murkier corners of the green movement, which of course is what he was before becoming a minister of the crown.
Take, for example, his claim about how many wells we’d need:
…to replace half the gas we import, we’d likely need around 6,000 new wells
Hmm. The first thing to notice is that he’s talking “wells” when you really want to understand how many pads would be required. In Pennsylvania, 25 wells per pad is common, and pads with 40 wells are not far away. So even if Goldsmith is right (he isn’t), we might only be talking about 150 pads, occupying 1000 acres. Compare this to the minister’s enthusiasm for taking 150,000 acres out of agricultural production to cover it in solar panels.
When Cuadrilla announced the results of their test fracking, they said they were expecting initial flow rates of up to 200,000 cubic metres per day. Over a year, a 25-well pad would produce 1.8 billion cubic metres (bcm). Our net imports of gas are under 40 bcm, so to replace half, we’d only need around 11 pads, occupying around 80 acres. Now of course, the initial flow rates decline rapidly, but even if we needed 11 new pads every year, it would still take nearly two millennia to use as much land as Lord Goldsmith wants to industrialise in the first phase of the expansion of solar power. Moreover, that industrialisation will be permanent.
Next consider Lord Goldsmith’s take on the impact of fracking on communities
…all the associated industrial equipment & endless movements of trucks ferrying toxic chemicals & wastewater to & from sites.”
This is a remarkable thing for a minister in Defra to say, because Defra is reponsible for the Environment Agency, which licenses fracking chemicals. Lord Goldsmith is, in essence saying that staff in his department have been allowing people to poison the land. Fortunately, he is not telling the truth. As Tim Worstall points out in his new NZW paper on UK shale gas, the chemicals licensed are all extraordinarily innocuous. It is simple disinformation to suggest otherwise.
Moreover, as well as not actually carrying “toxic chemicals”, the trucks don’t move endlessly either. Once a well is drilled and fracked it just sits there, absolutely silently, while the gas seeps out. You might need to refrack occasionally, but in essence the industrial operations are time-limited. Unlike those solar panels, which will permanently desecrate this (formerly) green and pleasant land.
Lord Goldsmith is famously wealthy, and enjoys an almost complete disconnect with the concerns of ordinary people. He will lose no sleep worrying if there is enough money in the kitty to pay the energy bill. And being in the Lords, the fact that these issues are of very great concern to voters will not bother him either. But Conservative MPs will know that the pain being felt is real and will soon be much worse. They will certainly be wondering if it is wise for the Prime Minister to latch onto Lord Goldsmith’s every dubiously sourced claim, as he apparently does.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/zacs-tall-stories/?mc_cid=3d6f8123e4&mc_eid=4961da7cb1
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Poor old BJ stuck in the Goldsmith, Symonds and Aspinall trap, WWF and others all part of the conspiracy. There’s truth and then there’s their truth and neither shall meet.
And let’s remember this guy was not elected in the last election. He was rejected by the voters in the constituency he stood. So Johnson waved two fingers at the electorate and gave this man a Lords seat, so he could give his buddy a Ministiarial position he in fact had no right to hold. But then this guy has some expensive villas so of course our PM wasn’t influenced that he could get some free holidays was he?
According to OED – I figure this is defined as ‘corruption’. Seems not to be a word in the language taught at Eton. So sad.
Both Goldsmith and NZW are wrong ^.^
Quoting flow rates in Pennsylvania is a nonsense for a start, thare are no shale deposits in Penn that get anywhere near 13,000 feet thick (and there is no certainty that our shale deposits are not even thicker). For a single well in the Bowland shale the limiting factor will be the throughput capacity of the well pipe and nothing else.
When Cuadrilla did their first frack I do not think they predicted a flow rate (they simply did not have that information back then) however what they did say was that when drilling was halted, they were still drilling through shale and had no idea how much deeper the deposit went!
I studied the seismic data for the Carboniferous sequence in Quadrant 109 between the Isle of Man and Anglesey. The seabed to outcrop offshore was proven Upper Carboniferous and the seismic data showed a syncline with more than 6 seconds (two-way-time) of sediments. A truly astonishing 12 km thickness of Carboniferous rocks, so 13,000 feet of shale in Lancashire is not only credible but likely to be an underestimate.
I think we may have worked on that Irish Sea data together back on the old Ikoda days!
Dung: you know that I don’t agree with anything you post. Everything I have read says that permeabiliyty is the critical factor. Please provide a reference to your claim that it is well pipe friction that limits. Concerning flow rates (per well) 7 MMCFD is beyond anything I have ever seen reported but, as some are saying, we are now in such a world of mis-information that I doubt every thing that is not supported by reliable published data. Goldsmith’s six thousand wells is also nonsense – if the flow rates were so low the wells would not be economically viable. Firm data on the web identifies 600 MCFD as the minimum viable. Paul and other pro-fracking-at-any-pricers, do you really believe that drilling and fracking in shale should be un-regulated. If not, the question that has to be answered is what is the limiting frack magnitude?
Vernon, its not really permeability that’s the factor. The porous matrix in many shales has very low permeability and that is unaffected by the fracking. Fracking induces fractures and it is exposure over the large surface area into the fracture porosity that allows flow at commercial rates
So for shale gas companies a lot of the analysis is based on good old fashioned estimation of rock physics properties of lambda and mu moduli, to better estimate zones susceptible to fracturing.
You seem to be labouring under the misconception that shales are just shales and they don’t vary. They vary a lot, and in some areas will be much sandier (less shaley) than others. Obviously these would be areas to target for fracturing and may even have sufficient porosity and permeability to produce anyway.
The main point about shale gas is that the hydraulic fracturing facilitates production directly from a source rock. That gives access to very large gas volumes, the trade off being that it is at very low recovery rates. But a small percent of a very large volume is still a large number.
You also seem to be fixated on prescribed formulae for dissing the potential commercial viability of shale gas from the Bowland shale. The way to find out if its commercially viable is for Cuadrilla (and other companies) to invest, drill and develop technologies and strategies to achieve commerciality. Its called a free market. Government and loony greens need to get out of the way and let them get on with it, with their own investors money. If it works, their investors will make a lot of money, if it doesn’t, they knew the risks.
The only thing needed from government is a proportionate and reasonable regulatory framework.
Thinking scientist: Thank you for your explanation of the blindingly obvious The sting is in the tail ” “needed from the government is…. regulatory framework”. So, you do not support unregulated fracking (which many seem to) but you don’t offer an answer to the key question – what should the fracking magnitude be?
Vernon, if my comment was “blindingly obvious” why are you so obsessed with permeability (or lack thereof in shales) in your posts? Have you ever actually worked on a fractured reservoir system, or worked with fracture network modelling and fracture characterisation?
Regarding “fracking magnitude” you are going to have to explain and define specifically what you mean by that phrase. I don’t think you really understand what you are trying to say.
Jesus-H-Christ!! This is a man who will NEVER, EVER know the problems of the common man of the effect of his NZC religion.
If he wants to figure this out, let him think on this: If Lundy Island, which most probably is ‘carbon-fee’, so why doesn’t this effect global bloody warming? Put it this way, you privileged fool, if that makes no difference, what would making the UK NZC make any difference?
Why not make the IoW carbon-free and see what effect that has on AGW.
The very definition of ‘waste of space’ is this man.
Of all the egregious lies associated with fracking (and there are many) the idea of groundwater contamination is the most absurd. The hydrocarbon source rocks that generate the methane gas are marine shales and as such their pore water is just as old as the shale itself. For Carboniferous age rocks this water consists of fossil ocean water hundreds of millions of years old. For the gas to still be in situ within the shale there is also the requirement for an overlying Permian evaporate seal below the modern pluvial ground water. The idea that this deeply buried ancient marine salt water could ever be a source of potable groundwater water in Lancashire is bizarre.
The problem is that this incompetant, venal, mendacious virtue-signalling “Lord” will never, ever, be held to account. Future generations will no doubt sneer at his stupidity and wonder how on earth anyone gave him the benefit of any tenuous doubt. But here and now, little old ladies in tenement buildings are wondering how they’ll get through the rest of this Winter, never mind (if they are spared) the next.
Meanwhile, contemptible, eggregious Zac and his chums will be toasty if they have to keep their fashionable woodburners going with bundles of £20 notes. And, naturally, if even that gets monotonous, there’s always the private jet and Mustique.
Unfortunately I have no faith. But I would be heartened if I had and also felt sure there was a particularly nasty niche in Hell waiting for him.
I just realised, as it was from Goldsmith – ‘shale’ was a mis-spell of shi*t.
Goldsmith is reported to have said “People do not want large-scale industrialisation of the British countryside.” Only a handful of green zealots are the people he is talking about with regard to fracking. In reality there are millions of country folk who are utterly opposed to the much bigger-scale industrialisation of the countryside with hundreds of thousands of acres of solar farms for 40years.
And windturbines visible for miles, having demolished all factory chimney stacks and power station cooling towers we’ve now scattered windturbines across the country in such quantities that there’s barely a square inch of the country where you cannot see at least one
Lorraine Allanson, of Yorkshire farm
Ing background, posted here about her support for fracking and for jobs for ordinary folk.
She self published a book on what it was like dealing with the lies and outright threats from environmental activists, none of whom were local. I bought her book, it’s short but very eye opening and a disturbing account of what illegal lengths green protestors are prepared to go to.
Don’t forget the seabird carnage that will result from thousands of square km of offshore wind.
It would be interesting to find out what his carbon footprint is, and how he satisfies it.
EVs, ASHPumps, woodburners, solar panels on his roofs, electric cookers or electric AGAs, private jet etc?
I hope he has disconnected any gas supply to his home(s). His actions mean that it would soon be redundant anyway.
Nothing wrong with woodburners and electric AGA’s! 🙂
But not ever going to change my gas boiler for central heating and hot water.
In Lancashire, the plan to deal with the fracking waste water was not very desirable.
They bought a fleet of monstrous tankers, diesels of course, that would truck the water from the small country roads of the Fylde onto the M6 and M61 and hence to a treatment works at Salford.
The M61/M60 junction at Eccles is already one of the biggest sources of congestion in the country (simply improving this would “level up” the North by several per cent, but of course it never gets mentioned). Then we were going to have an additional constant stream of water tankers using it from the fracking. I certainly was not impressed by that.
You should probably define what “constant stream” means. I worked on a frakking exploration well north of Lublin, one of the least developed parts of Poland. Even with a 60m high drilling rig, walk a hundred meters from the site, it was pretty bucolic, much more so than rural Aberdeenshire. I also worked on a coal bed methane site near Stirling, so impactful that it was almost impossible to find the place
Colin: Interesting. Poland is the most relevant comparison in this matter. What results did your efforts result in? What flow rates were achieved? I quoted a seemingly legitimate paper that reported in 2021 that ALL shale gas activites in Poland were abandoned by 2016, despite Poland having the largest estimated reseves of shale gas in Europe. What is the truth?
Colin, you don’t mention how many water tankers would’ve been used in Poland. It was the transport of this waste water through already terribly congested UK roads that was my big problem with it.
KB, Your tankers are short lived. No more significant than tractors, grain lorries and combine harvesters during a few weeks every the summer. They are a temporary inconvenience whilst people go about their normal and essential business, to the benefit of all.
KB said “They bought a fleet of monstrous tankers, diesels of course”
Tankers are, by definition, large lorries for carrying fluids. Hardly monstrous, just practical and suitable to get the job done. I doubt they actually bought them though.
As for diesel, is there some other kind of tanker available? Please tell.
The Times article this morning attracted the following comment:
“There was a photo (where I saw it I have, regrettably, forgotten!) showing wind turbines stretching to the horizon. For contrast, barely visible in the bottom left-hand corner, was a gas well-head.”
I vaguely remember this photograph, or maybe a similar one, but likewise I can’t recall where. It may well have been on WUWT. I seem to recall also that the caption quoted the amount of electricity that the two would be capable of producing. It could do with another airing if anyone can find it.
Probably the one on Bishop Hill. I still have a copy.
Thanks. Do you have a link?
Try this, Mike. This is the blown-up pic. The article follows.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=/storage/natural%20gas%20production%20-%20windmills.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1374396078042
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/21/energy-impact.html
Goldsmith rightfully got ratioed by Twitter commentators.
Franking fluids are highly regulated in the UK. None of the ingredients are toxic. Water, sand, polyacrylamide. Guar gum is also used – also found in diet foods for bulking them up.
So is Zac lying, stupid or just ignorant when he claims “toxic chemicals “? None of those choices is very flattering.
ThinkingScientist: I read that fracking chemicals are commercial secrets. The public are not entitled to know what they are using. I also heard that aromatics like xylene are added.
KB, you are writing total crock, certainly for the UK. But I suspect you know that already, just more misinformation and muddying the waters with misdirection.
From the Environment Agency:
Click to access 2017-ea-environmental-controls-factsheet-2.pdf
It is becoming quite evident to me, and I suspect others posting here, that you are pretending to be “one of us” but slowly slipping in misinformation. Your recent claim from “the press” about fracking under Oxfordshire was a link to a Green Party falsehood. This one you just posted is also misinformation. Where did you read it? Greenpeace? FoE? It took me 30 seconds to type in “uk fracking fluid regulations” to Google and the first hit back at the top of the page was the linked document above. A clear, factual statement of the legal framework in the UK, prepared by the regulatory authority and all written for a lay audience. What could be clearer?
So KB are you just too lazy to fact check before posting and easily led by nonsense, lies and untruths? Or do you fit better in one of the categories I proposed for Zac Goldsmith? Whichever, your posts clearly are not trustworthy or reliable.
So these are commercial secrets that we cannot know yet you then tell us we do know and it’s bad?
Which are you going to plump for?
Nobody on here is falling for your BS. You are just becoming a silly irritant Save your typing for somewhere else.
I’m only repeating what I recall reading. Just possibly the EA changed policy later on re the confidentiality of the chemicals?
As I’ve said many times I am a humble seeker of the truth. I am trying to get some of you to raise your game. That is a positive not a negative.
Sorry, but you cannot get away with drivel like that – “What you recall reading”!
If you have any evidence, provide it. Don’t expect us to disprove a rumour.
KB says:
“I’m only repeating what I recall reading”
Ah, the old “I don’t recall” defense”
“I am trying to get some of you to raise your game”
Pull the other one! The only one who needs to raise their game is you. Coming from someone who spouts nonsense which is so easily proven wrong in seconds is pretty precious. I already knew that the regulatory regime in the UK (a) banned nasty chemicals and (b) compelled public disclosure, but I googled it and gave you a link to prove to YOU KB that you don’t know what you are talking about and that you didn’t need to take my word for it which is why I gave a solid reference.
The problem with lightweight enviro-idiots is that they think everyone is as gullible, shallow and stupid as they are. We are not. We are sceptics because we actually engage our brains, filter the bullshit and think.
Raise your game KB or go somewhere else. If not you will be ridiculed and outsmarted here. If you can actually construct a sound argument people will engage because we actually listen to other people’s opinions and debate even if we don’t agree with them. Its sometimes referred to as being adults.
Hi TS, it is becoming totally apparent the poster KB is only on here to cause “Fear, Uncertainty and Disruption” FUD is woke parlance. I suggest the rest of us send him further down the M6 onto the M69 and……..Coventry
Agreed. I find it extraordinary that there are people who are so obsessed they simply cannot be honest on an open forum where facts can be easily checked.
I mean, does KB believe what s/he wrote, or is it they think we are just thick or gullible? They can’t win on argument, so they just lie or make it up instead?
It does show the weakness and desperateness of the enviro position if they have to resort to lies and misrepresentation to try and win. Truth will always out.
I live in south Texas, near the Eagle Ford shale formation. On a regular basis I have driven through much of the Eagle Ford area. Most people driving through it would not know they were driving through a vast oil field that has over 20,000 wells. And you are worried about how many wells??????? Not developing your shale-oil assets is doing enormous harm to the U.K. and is not saving any measurable amount of “global warming”.
We live in a strange world where the truth is a matter of opinion and belief.
That’s how it’s always been, and anyone who dares to point out the limitations of the current belief is putting themselves at risk of scorn or worse.
Net zero policies will fail but they will be publicised as a success, this quite comfortably sits alongside the current belief in the success of covid vaccines that actually self evidently don’t meet minimum WHO efficacy criteria ie a vaccine should prevent infection and transmission of the disease.
Backgrounder on the Zac Pack here:
More importantly, none of these considerations were given as reasons for stopping fracking. Goldsmith is now claiming people don’t want fracking based on years of disinformation and outright lies. But an honest description would clearly show that wells are much less “harmful” to the countryside than either wind or solar, both of which require “industrial” levels of construction.
Looks like the greenies are starting to get rather worried. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/14/uk-urged-not-to-abandon-climate-goals-amid-net-zero-row
Rather good that the Graun is having to run these sort of bullshit articles as it will backfire on them highlighting that it is only a few paid zealots who actually want to control us all.
Cuadrilla’s well tests only flowed stabilised gas rates of up to 100,000 scf/day They fractured 13% of the wellbore, so initial flow rates if they had been allowed to fully complete the well are probably only around 1 million scf/day. That is around 1/7 of what they said they “hope” to achieve (200,000 cum/day). A very disappointing flow test, and with initial rates like this and then rapid natural decline it’s hard to see how to make a business out of fracking the Borland Shales, but I certainly wouldn’t object to them being given another try if they want.
*Bowland Shales
wooblog: I totally agree with your post. I was not aware of the significance of the incompleteness of the tests – their published test reports make no mention of this. Their “business plan” referred to 2 MMCFD and you make no mention that they grossly exceeded their permitted magnitude. I agrree again that there has to be another try to settle not just the argument but the country’s future. Do you agree with the implication (on this site) to de-regulate fracking and give them a free hand? And what is the likelihood of large investment by Cuadrilla or others at this stage of the game?
Yes Vernon, I agree with you that the best course of action is allow Cuadrilla to try again. If the ban is maintained we will never really know what the true potential of shale is, meaning decisions can only be made with poor data. Actually it would be a good use of government money to see if there is any commercial potential, and far cheaper than some of the brainless schemes they have invested in.
wooblog: I have for years posted that the next attempt should be done properly i.e with government support politically and financially. That stated position has drawn down wrath and insults on me like you wouldn’t believe. But there still remains the all encompassing question of what the magnitude is to be set at. If there is approval to give a free hand to frack without limit there will be civil war. On the other hand if the government allows a minor concession (say 1, double the previous) nothing useful will be proved. What is the number?
With the Chinese seen to be buying up fossil fuel sources around the world, I wonder why they bought Cuadrilla, maybe Vernon, KB and Wooblog should stop advising idiots on here and go advise the Chinese. Oh wait!
Cuadrilla are 96% owned by AJ Lucas, an Australian mining services company and 4% by employees. There is no Chinese ownership unless Colin R Brooks AKA Dung knows better?
Dear woobblog I do indeed know better.
A J Lucas was bought by a Hong Kong investment group called Kerogen (before Cuadrilla was taken over) and Kerogen was set up and funded by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company. The CNOOC is state owned and controlled by China, if you need more information you nered only ask ^.^
Further down you say “. Actually it would be a good use of government money to see if there is any commercial potential, and far cheaper than some of the brainless schemes they have invested in.” Why on Earth should any government money be used and who is even suggesting that?
As to your other point, my experience of other shale plays is that most of them fail commercially. In the successful plays there are sweet spots, and the rest of the area is usually not worth exploiting. In the US and Canada there are thousands of pre existing non-fracking wells that constrain the geology. In the North of England perhaps only 50 relevant wells. So investment will be risky and very slowly staged until economics are proven.
You should be pleased to have views challenged.
If you are correct then you should have no problem proving why you are correct without getting upset.
The last thing you should want is to be in an echo chamber where you all reinforce each others’ errors. You are just setting yourselves up to be laughed at by the other side.
The only one being sniggered at is you KB. You have failed to produce anything that cannot be trivially dismissed. You are simply a timewaster dropping in unsubstantiated fearmongering comments. As Ray Sanders neatly summarised it upthread “Fear, Uncertainty and Disruption” is the modus operandi of the environmental movement and you illustrate that sentiment in spades.
The difference on a forum like this (and WUWT) is that there is no censorship. You are free to make a fool of yourself and your comments, and our responses, are available for all to see. RealClimate, by comparison, set itself up to be the last word in climate expertise and propaganda and singlehandedly probably converted more people to be sceptics than WUWT because of their censorship, arrogance and condescending attitude. Intelligent people notice these things.
The famous quote from Charles Mackay is very apt:
People have gone mad with climate alarmism. But I think they are slowly recovering their rational thought processes, one by one. And this site along with others helps them to see their way through the FUD.
To find out what fracking chemicals were used near Blackpool, they had to put in a FoI request to the Environment Agency.
The chemicals were not voluntarily listed on the EA website. They had to forced to do so.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/content_of_chemicals_in_cuadrill
Saying they “had to be forced to do so” is a bit of a stretch from what the link shows.
It’s just as likely that they were asked not to publicise the info unless requested if the company felt that its particular mix of materials had some commercial sensitivity.
The document I linked to upthread from the Environment Agency was published in 2017 and contained the sentences “Companies are required by law to publicly declare the chemicals they propose to use, as well as the maximum concentrations.
“Only chemicals assessed by the Environment Agency as non-hazardous to groundwater can be used in fracking fluid. The approved chemicals will be listed in the company’s environmental permit and documents which are available on the Environment Agency’s public register.”
Here’s the register entry on the public EA website:
https://environment.data.gov.uk/public-register/waste-operations/registration/AB3101MW-S007?__pageState=result-all
The Cuadrilla environmental permits date back to 2015 and can be simply requested by clicking “Request Documents” link which will fire up an email with the request. No FOI required. It is, after all, a public register.
It seems that on your link showing an FOI request by Lynne Peacock 3 November 2018 suggests she didn’t do her homework and check the public register.
The fact that someone on a website put in an FOI request does not confirm your claim “they HAD to put in a FoI request” to find out what fracking chemicals were used. Anyone can manufacture a drama by making that claim, when the truth is much more mundane. But then its normal operations for enviro-activists. And who’s “they” in your post?
And the polite answer from the Environment Agency is:
And here’s one of the field reports from the EA:
Click to access preston-new-road-compliance-with-permit-assessment-report—29.08.19—a5—groundwater-audit.pdf
And here’s the listing from Cuadrilla for Preese Hall-1 well from the Wayback Machine
Amazing how you can find the information publicly without an FOI and how ordinary and unsensational it is, eh?
Cuadrilla started operations in the Cameron/Osborne years.
I clicked on that first link and it tells me nothing about the chemicals.
It’s only when we get to that Wayback Machine link that we find out what the friction reducer actually consists of -polyacrylamide in hydrocarbon oil. Presumably that is still down there.
The EA document mentions that glutaraldehyde was not used, so from that can we assume that they could have used this toxic chemical if they thought it justified?
The information post-dates the start of operations and may not have been available to the public at the time.
It most certainly does not give the impression of an open and transparent operation, engaging with all stakeholders. On the contrary it comes across as secretive, with something to hide, even if there wasn’t. Perhaps that is the big lesson to learn.
KB: Here’s what wiki says about that “toxic chemical”:
“Glutaraldehyde came into medical use in the 1960s.[9] It is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system.[10] ”
If you really want to offer alternative views to save us from being an echo chamber, you need to up your game.
The Wayback machine is a 2012 document from Cuadrilla’s own website! Hardly needed an FOI as you claimed. Polyacrylamide is harmless and has no known toxicity – its used for water treatment and soil improvement. As for hydrocarbon oil – hmmm, the stuff is natural, made from plants and found in nature. Its also biodegradable. Is it still down there? Of course some is. So what? Injected at 2 km below the water table in a lined horizontal well, you think its going to poison Blackpool or something? And let’s not forget this stuff is being injected into a shale sequence with obviously low permeability – otherwise it wouldn’t be subject to hydraulic fracturing.
As for gluteraldehyde, you really should be better informed and your true colours are starting to show through your fake “one of us” persona. The following explains what the ingredients are:
Click to access PHE-CRCE-002_for_website_protected.pdf
gluteraldehyde is used as a disinfectant to prevent algae/bacterial breakdown. Its also used on medical and dental equipment. Hardly life threatening, unless you are algae or bacteria.
BTW, did you click the button to request the documents? Or are you going to continue with your false claim that’s its all secret hush-hush and is nothing but toxic ingredients?
You should read the linked document, its probably where your false claim about (a) secret ingredients and (b) xylene probably comes from. The document was published 2013. It notes that “these chemicals may not be used in the UK”. But I guess enviro-activists have a reading comprehension problem and only see the words “xylene” and “commercial confidentiality” and don’t check the dates and immediately infer a conspiracy to poison the world.
I just checked out the BGS earthquake monitoring page. In this year 2022 so far there have been 24 UK natural events recorded of which 12 are onshore earthquakes (I think I counted them correctly). The onshore quakes vary in magnitude up to a maximum of 2.1. 75% of those natural events in the last 50 days are equal to or exceed the government imposed limit of 0.5 magnitude on fracking. The largest at 2.1 is 40x the intensity allowed in fracking.
https://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html
Meanwhile, the BGS recorded one induced seismicity (ie anthropogenic) event in the last 50 days. It was on 23 January 2022 and registered magnitude 1.1. That’s 4x larger intensity than was permitted for fracking and got Cuadrilla shut down.
And the source of that induced seismic event? The geothermal borehole at the Eden Project, Cornwall. That’s obviously good seismicity, whereas fracking is bad seismicity.
https://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/induced/recent_uk_events.html
At least you are beginning to catch up.
Vernon, you are sounding like Steve Mosher with non-sequitor lukewarm ad homs. Write what you mean in properly constructed sentences so we don’t jump to the conclusion that you are trying to imply you have some amazing insight that none of us have spotted yet, that you will only slowly reveal to the chosen few.
If you have a point, make it. Clearly. In properly constructed sentences. We’re intelligent and educated here but not telepathic.
Down in my neck of the woods (East Kent) we seem to get hefty tremors quite regularly.. I vividly remember the 2007 event centred near Folkestone was 4.3 and it felt like something had hit the house I was in near Canterbury. Nobody was the slightest concerned (though they did obviously check) at either the Channel Tunnel or where I was then working at Dungeness. None of these tremors had anything to do with the nearby Kent coalfield.
coincidentally the Kent coalfield was at one time scheduled for Coal Bed Methane extraction – the local view was “bring it on please” but I am sure rent-a-mob would have tried to make an issue of it had it gone ahead.
Goldsmith is Antoinette’s best friend
She got him the peerage and the job