So they've started setting up operations in Wales and other parts of the UK , should we be concerned?

https://www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-onshore-exploration-and-production
http://frack-off.org.uk/fracking-hell/frontline/
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/frack-go

Here's a interesting report from an Australian pressure group NTN ,National Toxics Network April 2013
Toxic Chemicals in the Exploration and Production of Gas from Unconventional Sources
http://www.ntn.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UCgas_report-April-2013.pdf

http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/bumps/secure/POTW/Selley_2012.pdf

CWatters I think you are incorrectly interpreting the map or possibly drawing the wrong conclusions. When an exploration license has been granted it doesn't mean it is for shale gas, it could quite easily be for a conventional onshore oil or gas prospect. The exploration areas on the map you linked too actually coincide with several conventional onshore gas prospect such as wytchfarm, Kirby Misperton, Pickering along with several others in the same area. These Fields are all well know proven onshore gas field within the oil and gas industry.

Test drilling in Somerset now too.

http://www.frackfreesomerset.org/what-is-fracking/the-situation-in-somerset

My biggest concern is possible contamination of our water supply. For me this is enough reason not to do it.

The report jon posted above is an interesting read. Mentions natural oil and gas seeps where shale gas may already be in surface water...

Surface indications of natural gas Previous research had identified some 200 surface macro seepages of petroleum across the British Isles (Selley, 1992). Most of these are of live or dead oil, but several are of natural gas. Recent research has identified about a dozen gas seeps and curious subsurface shale gas occurrences. Some of the gas seeps from conventional petroleum reservoirs, but some gas appears to seep directly from shale.

In Upper Palaeozoic rocks gas seeps in Carboniferous coal mines are too numerous and commonplace to mention. There are though two noteworthy surface gas seeps.

One, near Wigan in Lancashire, is colloquially referred to as ‘Camden’s cooker’ after the celebrated author who wrote: ‘Within a mile and a half of Wigan is a well or spring.from which breaks sulphurous vapour, which make the water bubble up as if boyl’d. When a candle is put to it, it presently takes fire, and burns like brandy. The flame, in a calm season, will continue sometimes a whole day, by the heat whereof they can boyl eggs, meat, etc.. tho’ the water itself be cold.’ (Camden, 1586). In view of the immediate subsurface geology it is unclear whether that Camden’s cooker results from gas seeping from underlying beds of Carboniferous coal and/or shale. The proximity of this seep to Cuadrilla’s shale gas well is noteworthy.

A second seep has been reported not far away at Storeton on the Wirral peninsula (Harriman and Miles, 1995). In the 1920s quarrying in Triassic sandstone liberated quantities of gas. In view of the date and occurrence it is not feasible that this was ‘garbage gas’ from a landfill. It is more probable that it was derived from Carboniferous Coal Measures or deeper Lower Carboniferous shales.

A third intriguing gas seep is the ‘Holsworthy ghost’ of North Devon. In 1879 a railway cutting was excavated through the carbonaceous sands and shales of the Crackington Formation. Several years later there were reports of ‘a strong light’ being seen in the cutting. In the intervening years three absent-minded local inhabitants were killed by trains while crossing the line at this point. The strange lights were attributed to their ghosts, naturally
(Oliver, 2001).

;

Posted By: Graeme Berryit seems to me uncomfortably similar to digging under the foundations of you house

Not really as it is very deep horizontal drilling.
I live in an area that has had mining going on for 4000 years, not often something goes wrong, and when it does it is usually because of some corner cutting in the distant past.

I would think that onshore is preferable to offshore as it is easier and quicker to deal with problems.

oops - missed Triassics earlier post

Don't worry unless you live in the desolate North East!

<<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10212455/Tory-peer-condemned-after-he-describes-the-North-East-as-desolate.html>>

unless you live in the desolate North East!

Desperate North East, bloody cheek of it; Oops, desolate, aah! that's all right then.

Mike (NE)

Posted By: SteamyTeaI think that fracking is probably one of the least worse fossil fuel option for overall environmental, social and economic reasons. Not the complete answer, nor should it be at the cost of abandoning energy reduction, renewable development, new nuclear and some tidal.
There is no silver bullet to this problem, there has to be a many difference approaches and solutions.
(I will admit that I have not read up much about the technicalities of fracking yet)

That's exactly my current view.

The Severn Barrier would only have been for base load and the last government set the scene for more nuclear. So that was alright, still waiting for those green electrons since the decision was made in 2005.
Gas is really convenient for variable loads and emergency supply/backup. Beats any type of storage at the moment.

This makes me look like a pro gas, business as usual advocate, not really, just take the pragmatic view that we are going to be burning something and we are better off burning gas than oil, coal and biomass.
Given the choice I would be going for about 60% nuclear, 20% solar and 10% hydro and wind for electrical generation. This would be against a backdrop of a 30% reduction on today's usage.
If that was achievable, then the thermal (space heating) side would have to be tackled.
That would not be so easy, solar could supply 30 to 50% of DHW for about a quarter of properties, space heating is the real issue. That would probably have to be heat pumps which would increase the amount of electrical generation that needs to be done in the UK. That could possibly be done with off shore wind. None of the routes are cheap though.

Is it another 'hydrogen' solution, long way off.
Remember this:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4664

Posted By: Graeme Berryi like this particular project a lot, i remember seeing a presentation from these guys a while ago (2005/6 maybe) about scaling this idea up long term and using shetlands existing oil infrastructure to distribute hydrogen instead, the electrolysis being wind/wave powered as shetland has a healthy supply of both, was a little far fetched in the short term maybe, but surely a fair proportion of fossil oil/gas hardware is capable of being reused in this way?

AIUI, you need different pipes and pumps etc for hydrogen, because it reacts with ordinary piping. So no, you can't reuse existing infrastructure. That's one of the reasons that 'artificial' methane is preferred as a replacement for natural gas, since you can reuse kit.

Conventional electrolysis as a source is also not very efficient. There's a lot of work being done to find better catalysts and so on but I haven't noticed anything that's in production yet.

In short, it's not ready for prime time.

Posted By: SteamyTeaSlightly off topic, but this weeks comic had a bit about ammonia as a transport fuel. Still energy intensive to produce, but zero carbon emissions at point of combustion. Not sure if NOX is an issue though.

But just as methane seems a more natural alternative to hydrogen, methanol seems superior to ammonia as a fuel. CO2 at point of combustion is irrelevant if the fuel is made from CO2 in the first place.

Posted By: SteamyTeaMost of these alternatives do rely on vast amounts of renewable or nuclear energy.

If we put in enough renewables for them to satisfy our demands most of the time we will often have an large excess.