From here:
Is France doing the right thing? Should other countries follow their lead? Are there reasons why it might make sense to ban fracking in France but not other places?
Is fracking acceptable or unacceptable? If the answer is ‘it depends’, on what does it depend?
Beats me. Don’t they get their energy from elsewhere? 
How can anyone criticize the pressure injection of poisonous liquids into the earth to break up the earth making it easier to extract gas?
Which is itself poisonous.
Regards,
Shodan
Disclaimer: I was due to be involved in French Fracking until it got cancelled.
The reason for the ban is nothing to do environmental concerns, it’s all down to French politics. The UMP (the party in power) is very unpopular and is looking for votes. Being seen to be Green is popular with voters, so they get out the ban stick. The consensus in France is that the ban will be overturned in September or so.
As to the process itself, it’s safe as long as it’s done right. Like virtually everything we do, there’s the danger of a screw up, but as long as the well has good integrity and the shale is a long way from the water table the risks are pretty minimal.
IOW it is about environmental concerns.
Nonsense. We French invented fracking. We designed fracking. We perfected fracking. We turned fracking your wife into an art form.
More seriously:
In the context of France, I wouldn’t think it really matters either way - 80+% of our power is nuclear by now. As far as we’re concerned, natural gas has been a dead end for decades. This is just another nail in its coffin - even if, as Tapioca notes, it’s much more of a politically opportunist decision than a well thought out policy.
With Humanity reduced to a mere 50,000 souls, I’d say fracking isn’t only acceptable, it should be encouraged as strongly as possible.
If you think that Mr. Sarkozy give a frac about the environment, you don’t know much about French politics. If you think he’s a slime ball who’d do anything for cheap votes, then you might be a bit closer.
It depends on what is being injected (usually a secret proprietary substance) and the liability involved. In some states the mineral rights are separate from homeowner land and it becomes a battle if water sources are fouled.
“Cheap votes” come from voters. Presumably ones who desire a fraking ban. And presumably they want such a ban due to environmental concerns, even if Sarkozy himself doesn’t have such concerns.
So no one in France cares about the environment, they simply are rubbing their hands with glee at the opportunity to destroy business. Gotcha.
You said that it was not about environmental concerns. Full stop. The only way that could be true is if those that Sarkozy is supposedly pandering to don’t really believe that fracking is dangerous but simply want to stop it for some nefarious reason. So it is about environmental concerns for a portion of France’s population. Whether those concerns are correct or not I do not know.
ETA: and before I get accused of being pedantic and silly let me note that there are people who hold such views of environmentalists – that they don’t really believe in global warming, for instance, but just want an excuse to destroy capitalism. I don’t think that this is the case, here, and you probably don’t either, but I am clarifying.
Hi Tap
Do you have any experience with green fracking fluids. I see their are companies that are selling this technology. T.I.A.
I mean this honestly when I say who cares? The energy future of the U.S. closely tied to tapping into these massive natural gas deposits hidden 10,000 feet underground or more that were inaccessible until the drilling technology became feasible on a large scale just a few years ago. Many estimates say there is enough natural gas in those reserves to last the U.S. for at least 100 years.
It is a non-renewable resource and there are some environmental problems associated with drilling thousands of giant wells deep into the earth to extract it. On the other hand natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels in use and environmental damage during extraction. There is no better alternative at the moment. Solar and wind can’t fill the need and nuclear energy is both scary to many people and slow to ramp up demand. Oil shales provide the best alternative there is. If someone doesn’t like that fact, they should right a letter to god or start a revolution to go back to the neolithic age.
France can ban fracking all they want but it doesn’t mean anything because they don’t have the giant reserves that countries like the U.S. do to compete successfully in that market on a giant scale in the first place.
It matters if the state sells the mineral rights under your house and your well goes south without recourse. I’m all for drilling often and everywhere but I also don’t want to get hosed on my water quality (pun apologies).
Ok. I’ve seen some statements claiming that actual recoverable reserves of shale gas in the US are greatly exaggerated and only amount to 7 years’ worth. I’m not an expert, I don’t know.
I know the Chamber of Commerce and a lot of wealthy business interests are putting a lot of energy into fracking, including (what I see as) attempts to control the perception of the practice.
France- why, they are a whole 'nuther country. Maybe they are more clear-eyed about a practice that provides short-term profit to a few individuals/groups but which, if looked at with a, um, comprehensive perspective, really isn’t worth it in the long run.
Personally I am on the fence for lack of knowledge. It is interesting that France would ban this, especially in the context of:
New Jersey Bill Proposes To Ban Fracking - Would Be First State To Do So
Maryland lawmakers vote to ban fracking
Buffalo first in state to ban fracking
New York could be first state to ban controversial drilling practice
It’s Time to Ban Fracking
My point is merely that there is a lot of activity on the ‘ban fracking’ side of the debate, and not from the lunatic fringe either (unless you think New York, Maryland and France are ‘fringe’). When you say ‘there is no better alternative at the moment’, can you back that up? How sure are you that ‘not fracking’ isn’t a better alternative, say if it is going to cause some kind of unacceptable environmental crisis?
This is really underselling the France potential. The EIA just in April estimated the France shale gas potential at 180 tcf, which puts it second in Europe only to Poland. You will also note in the report that France currently consumes 1.73 TCF of gas per year and produces only .03 TCF, meaning they import 98% of their gas.
France of course does generate 80% of their power from nuclear, but it’s never a bad idea to diversify especially with a home grown source. Additionally, they could help Europe rid itself of its dependency on Russian gas.
Finally, there are probably pretty big oil reserves in the Paris basin, which some compare to the Bakken in potential.
It is absolutely absurd to say that U.S. shale gas is only a 7 year supply. Look, these estimates aren’t coming from some “evil” corporation. They are coming from the U.S. government (EIA) and an international coalition based, coincidentially, in France (IEA). There is literally not a single reputable person on the planet that would state the U.S. only has a 7 year supply of gas or shale gas. In fact, every time anyone does an estimate on U.S. reserves, the number gets bigger.
And you know who has the biggest financial incentive to oppose the process: the coal industry. That same coal industry that was going to see significant benefits from that great environmental piece of legislation known as the Waxman Markey Climate Change bill. That same coal industry that produces the hands down dirtiest fuel in widespread use.
Or is it possible that this really was nothing but political pandering. There was already a suspension on frac’ing until an environmental impact study comes out assessing the risks. That study is due out in June. If they are really going to take a comprehensive perspective, wouldn’t it make just the slightest bit of sense to wait until the actual report comes out?
When it comes to oil and natural gas exploration, New York and Maryland actually are on the “don’t matter” fringe and the “don’t have any experience” fringe. They are about as inconsequential as it gets for U.S. production of oil and gas. For oil, Maryland doesn’t produce any and New York is fifth from the bottom in production rankings. For natural gas, New York is eleventh from the bottom and Maryland is second from the bottom. Obviously New York probably has some gas potential (Marcellus, Utica shales amongst other plays); however, it is still poorly understood what they really have given the lack of data.
It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that much of the opposition to this in France comes from Russia. If they were smart they would pursue fracking as a political tool to protect Europe from undue Russian leverage.
AFAIK you can literally drill in my back yard as long as there is a guarantee that my water supply isn’t affected.
here is what i think they should do. Like in the case of new york we have the marcellus shale, i was told by a man who used to work for our farm who now works for the dec in charge of mine saftey/permits … well one of the guys in charge, he does the busy work for the guy whos in under the guy whos under the guy who quomo appointed anywho… he says its both bad and good, and he offerd examples of both. In western new york we have a salt mine, and he used to work in this area anywho a portion of the mine collapsed due to greed and bad mine practices and the enitre mine ws flooded by underground resivors well… people in the area complained that they no longer had water. In one perticular area in the town of Avon it was generally known these people never had good wells… infact so bad that during the summer they often had trouble showring etc. well after the mine collapsed what do you think was blammed? Now these people have town water and the mine had to pay for all of it even tho the mine had nothing to do with it. Now, the guy that used to work for us told us, that as a fact the marcellus shale has more energy then texas ever had or has… It to me is idiotic that we wont touch it… One it would be a huge boom, in penn were they drill everyone in that town drives new pickups/cars… other business cant hire people b/c they cant compete with the mine wage…these small broke ass towns are benifiting greatly. Now there is a right way and a wrong way too mine. And if a water source is hurt to contminated… the soultion is simple you force the mine to pay for someone to put water lines in which is better then having water from a well anyone (cleaner/safer) to come in from lakes… the marcellus area of new york has alot of places to take water from… the finger lakes (many towns citys get water form them)…also im sorry but… even on the farm… if they scrwed our water up… id sue for the value of the land… sell the cows… and crop farm in brand new tractors…or sue and quit… its simple 2 me… However if i sold my mineral rights knowing that could happen then that is a risk i take… so shame on me. People in the country will vote or not vote for people in elected office based on the price of fuel… but when ther are solutions we are not willing to accept them… even with wind towers and solar farms… people dont want them in there back yard… and then the neighbor gets them… and gets the money they get jealouse and complain about the “noise” or that its “ugly” I am all for safe drilling… if the company fucks up then they pay for the fixes… and they can afford it b/c of the money they would make… Also… like the people who live in the area… there usualy small poor ass broke down people… they would be much better off with a whole bunch of money 2 move… or fresh clean non well drinking water