User:LutherBlissetts/sandbox

Test ping
Test ping

Khazars, Islam
Al-Mas‘udi, in his contemporaneous historiography Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems, described the Islamic citizens of the empire comprised of: Another Arabic historian writing contemporaneously with the existence of Khazar Empire, Ibn Fadlan, described "more than ten thousand" Muslims and "about thirty mosques"
 * Muslim migrants from the Khwarezm region, who arrived "shortly after the advent of Islam";
 * "the Vizier", who in the time of writing, was named "Ahmed ibn Kowaïh"; (a Turkic patronym 'son of Kowaïh'?)
 * 7,000 horse archers, Ursiyya, Ors, Lariçiyeh, al-Larsiyya;
 * "a certain number of Muslims, merchants or artisans, who emigrated recently";

=Territories=

Khazar
Oguric Turkic In the 10th century, Khazar territory reached "almost up to the walls of Derbend" According to Marquart, Varadjan is the same city as Balandjar. According to al-Masudi, Balandjar was the capital of the Khazars, situated, according to Marquart, "on one of the streams that form the Sulak". According to al-Tabari, Balandjar and its fortresses were captured by the Arab forces in 722/3.

Khwarezm
Ancient cities: Fil, Gurganj – ,

Magyar
Gardizi c.950?: Majghari territory is between two large rivers that discharge into the Rûm sea.

Pechenegs
The 10th century Persian chronicle, the Hudud al-'Alam, makes a distinction between Khazar Pechenegs and Turkic Pechenegs. It is the only source which mentions Khazar Pechenegs.The Hudud al-'Alam places the southern border of the Khazar Pechenegs territory with the Alans. Constantine Porphyrogenitus places the Pechenegs on the steppes either side of the Dnieper. Zhivkov regards Romashov as reviving "the old theory" of Iakobson 1973; of a violent invasion by Pechenegs into Khazar territories which brings about its downfall. This theory is "obsolete and not accepted". See and Aibaban 2003

=Khazar Timeline=

Preese Hall, Lancashire
In May 2011, the government suspended Cuadrilla's hydraulic fracturing operations in their Preese Hall 1 well in Lancashire, after  two small earthquakes were triggered, one of magnitude M 2.3. The largest coseismic slip caused minor deformation of the wellbore and was strong enough to be felt. Cuadrilla were requested to commission an investigation into the seismic activity, which concluded in November 2011 that the tremors were probably caused by the lubrication of an existing fault plane by the unintended spread of hydraulic fracturing fluid below ground.

The company's temporary halt was pending DECC guidance on the conclusions of a study being carried out by the British Geological Survey and Keele University,, which concluded in April 2012 that the process posed a seismic risk minimal enough to allow it to proceed with stricter monitoring.

In June 2012, a report on hydraulic fracturing produced jointly by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering noted that earthquakes of magnitude M 3.0, which are more intense than the larger of the two quakes caused by Cuadrilla are: "Felt by few people at rest or in the upper floors of buildings; similar to the passing of a truck." Cuadrilla pointed out that a number of such small-magnitude earthquakes occur naturally each month in Britain.

A British Geological Survey report

In December 2012, following the recommendations of independent experts, public consultation and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, new regulations were introduced to mitigate the seismic risks associated with hydraulic fracturing.

In February 2014, the DECC issued a report on earthquake risk, which noted that earthquakes of 2.3 ML and 1.5 ML "are normally not felt at the surface", and introduced a traffic light monitoring system for future hydraulic fracturing stimulation. The British Geological Survey a second DECC 2014 report concluded that while future seismic events induced by hydraulic fracturing "cannot be ruled out", "the risk from these earthquakes is low, and structural damage is extremely unlikely."The British Geological Survey

In 2015, the British Geological Survey has published information on seismic issues relating to hydraulic fracturing.

Environmental impacts
Environmental impact assessments cover a wide range of concerns, including habitat damage, effect on wildlife, traffic, noise, lighting, and air pollution. This reference shows one example. These are presented in less detail in a ' Non Technical Summary'.

A Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) by AMEC in 2013 identified the environmental impacts and risks relating to hydraulic fracturing used in the onshore exploration and production of conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons as: ground water contamination, surface water contamination, releases to air, water resource depletion, traffic, land take, noise, visual impact and seismicity.

In January 2014, the European Commission recommended the assessment of environmental impacts and risks of onshore hydrocarbon exploration and production as a minimum principle.

In October 2014, EASAC stated that: "Overall, in Europe more than 1000 horizontal wells and several thousand hydraulic fracturing jobs have been executed in recent decades. None of these operations are known to have resulted in safety or environmental problems".

In October 2016, Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure Ltd (AFWI) compared the environmental impacts and risks of unconventional high volume hydraulic fracturing with conventional low volume hydraulic fracturing. The study found that volume of fluid injected and flowback were the only significant differences between conventional low volume and unconventional high volume hydraulic fracturing and that the impacts and risks for high volume hydraulic fracturing scaled up for land take, traffic, surface water contamination and water resource depletion.

The British Geological Survey are involved with environmental monitoring.

According to Professor Mair of the Royal Society, the causation of earthquakes with any significant impact or fractures reaching and contaminating drinking water, were very low risk" if adequate regulations are in place.

Releases to air
In February 2016, a study by the ReFINE consortium funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Shell, Chevron, Ineos and Centrica, found "substantial increases over the baseline" during the short-duration high-traffic phase which includes the delivery of hydraulic fracturing equipment, proppant, water, as well as the removal of flowback from the site. According to ReFiNE, these short-duration but "substantial increases in local air quality pollutants" have the potential to breach local air quality standards. The industry group UKOOG criticised the ReFiNE study for failing to take into account that water for hydraulic fracturing fluid might be brought in by pipeline, instead of being transported by truck.

In October 2016, Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastrucure Ltd state that the environmental impacts from low volume hydraulic fracturing to local air quality and global warming are low. Local air quality is impacted by dust and SO2 and NOx emissions "from equipment and vehicles used to transport, pressurise and injection fracturing fluids, and process flowback", while "Emissions of CO2 from the equipment used to pressurise and injection fracturing fluids, and process flowback." contributes to global warming.

Water
The RAE report stated, "Many claims of contaminated water wells due to shale gas extraction have been made. None has shown evidence of chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluids". The Environment Agency definitions of groundwater and aquifer are here.

In January 2015, the British Geological Survey released national baseline methane levels, which showed a wide range of readings Poor surface well sealing, which allows methane to leak, methane was identified in the Royal Academy of Engineering report as a risk to groundwater. This was incorporated into the Infrastructure Act 2015 with a requirement that monitoring takes place 12 months before fracturing.

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) have been involved with evaluating the potential water impacts of hydraulic fracturing.

Groundwater contamination
The European wide Groundwater Directive is European legislation that states. In order to protect the environment as a whole, and human health in particular, detrimental concentrations of harmful pollutants in groundwater must be avoided, prevented or reduced.

Both low and high volume hydraulic fracturing "involve storing and injecting large quantities of chemicals". Any surface spill therefore has "the potential to penetrate groundwater". The likelihood of low volume and high volume hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater by surface spills of stored chemicals is rare, however the risk and consequences are moderate. To mitigate the risk, the Environment Agency requires chemical and fluid proof well pads.

The 2012 joint Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report indicated that the distances between potable water supplies and fractured formation in various US shale plays is large, meaning the risk of contamination is very small. No cases of pollution by this route have been identified.

A 2013 paper from ReFine indicated the potential for surface gas leaks from abandoned wells

UK and US water differences
Treated mains water is the norm in the UK, and standards are required by legislation to be high. As such any pollution would have to be removed by the water companies by law. Private water wells are rare, around 62,000 households, out of 23.4 million households or 2.6%. In rural areas of the US, private wells are common (15%), and small communities are served by investor-owned utilities, or community schemes. UK households would therefore be expected to be less at risk than those in the US.

In the US, baseline methane measurements were not made at the start of the shale gas boom, meaning that it became difficult to prove whether a gas problem was due to a leaking well, or was naturally occurring.

Water use
Water use is regulated by the EA (England), the SEPA (Scotland), the NIEA (Northern Ireland) and NRW (Wales) Water companies assess how much water is available, before providing it to operators. The amount of water abstracted nationally is at around 9.4 billion cubic metres. In 2015, the EA indicated that water usage at a peak level would be 0.1% of national use and hydraulic fracturing may use up to "30 million litres per well". Drier areas, such as south-east England, are concerned about the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies.

Seismicity
As of February 2017, there were at least ten known cases of fault reactivation by hydraulic fracturing that caused induced seismicity strong enough to be felt by humans at the surface: In Canada, there have been three in Alberta (M 4.8 and M 4.4 and M 4.4 ) and three in British Columbia (M 4.6, M 4.4 and M 3.8 ); In the United States there has been: one in Oklahoma (M 2.8 ) and one in Ohio (M 3.0, ), and; In the United Kingdom, there have been two in Lancashire (M 2.3 and M 1.5).

In December 2015, the Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems (CeREES) at Durham University published the first research of its kind, prior to "planned shale gas and oil exploitation", in order to establish a baseline for anthropogenic, induced seismic events in the UK.

Preese Hall, Lancashire
In May 2011, the government suspended Cuadrilla's hydraulic fracturing operations in their Preese Hall 1 well in Lancashire, after  two small earthquakes were triggered, one of magnitude M 2.3. The largest coseismic slip caused minor deformation of the wellbore and was strong enough to be felt.

The company's temporary halt was pending DECC guidance on the conclusions of a study being carried out by the British Geological Survey and Keele University, which concluded in April 2012 that the process posed a seismic risk minimal enough to allow it to proceed with stricter monitoring. Cuadrilla pointed out that a number of such small-magnitude earthquakes occur naturally each month in Britain.

Cuadrilla commissioned an investigation into the seismic activity, which concluded that the tremors were probably caused by the lubrication of an existing fault plane by the unintended spread of hydraulic fracturing fluid below ground.

In 2012, a report on hydraulic fracturing produced jointly by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering noted that earthquakes of magnitude M 3.0, which are more intense than the larger of the two quakes caused by Cuadrilla are: "Felt by few people at rest or in the upper floors of buildings; similar to the passing of a truck." The British Geological Survey has published information on seismic issues relating to hydraulic fracturing.

In February 2014, following the small seismic event in the Preese Hall 1 well, and much research, the DECC issued a statement on earthquake risk.

Subsidence
There is no documented evidence of hydraulic fracturing leading to subsidence. Operations are commonly monitored with tiltmeters, and no compaction issues have been documented. Given the mechanical properties of unconventional rocks (their densities, low porosities, low Biot coefficients, and high stiffness), compaction is very unlikely to occur during hydrocarbon extraction.

Insurance
In an answer to questions from the 'Lets talk about Shale' initiative from the industry body, UKOOG, they have stated "According to the Association of British Insurers there is, at present, little evidence of a link between shale gas and property damage, and they are not aware of any claims where seismic activity as a result of fracking has been cited as a cause of damage. Damage as a result of earthquakes, subsidence, heave and landslip are all covered, in general, under buildings insurance. Insurers will continue to monitor the situation for the potential for fracking, or similar explorations, to cause damage."

It was reported in early 2015 that farms would not be covered by issues that may arise due to hydraulic fracturing. A clarification by the insurer indicated that this would only apply to a farmer that permitted this on their land. Surrounding farms would be covered.

Public health
If the Minerals Planning Authority determine that public health will be significantly impacted, the Director of Public health is consulted so that a "health impact assessment" can be prepared. The Environment Agency then uses the health impact assessment when considering the "potential health effects" during their "permit determination"

In 2014, Public Health England reviewed the "available evidence on issues including air quality, radon gas, naturally occurring radioactive materials, water contamination and waste water. They concluded that the risks to public health from exposure to emissions from shale gas extraction are low if operations are properly run and regulated." Public Health England's Dr John Harrison, Director for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, stated that: "Where potential risks have been identified in other countries, the reported problems are typically due to operational failure. Good on-site management and appropriate regulation of all aspects of exploratory drilling, gas capture as well as the use and storage of hydraulic fracturing fluid is essential to minimise the risks to the environment and health."

In 2015 the health charity Medact published a paper written by two public health specialists called 'Health & Fracking - The impacts and opportunity costs', which reviewed health impacts of hydraulic fracturing and suggested a moratorium until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment could be completed. UKOOG criticised Medact's understanding of UK regulations and said they had not declared that one of its consultants, who was standing for parliament in the 2015 general election, had a conflict of interest. The Times journalist Ben Webster also criticised Medact for not declaring one of their consultant's conflict of interest and reported that the Medact director had not realised that this consultant was also an anti-fracking candidate. MedAct published a response to these criticisms.

The content of the Medact Report 2015 was referred to by many objectors in the June 2015 Public reports pack for the Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee. Lancashire County Council were uncertain how much weight to attach to the Medact report due to "questions from some quarters" about the objectivity of the report based on association of two its contributors with campaigns relating to shale gas.

In 2016, Medact released an updated public health report, citing health risks from shale gas development and calling upon the government to "abandon its shale gas plans".