Article: No fracking for now

[DJ...]

Nigeria -

Oil spill. Not a fracking issue...

Ecuador

50 years ago...

Ivory Coast

A charge still denied to this day, but probably cost them far less to settle than to engage in a protracted, mass litigation process.

Look, there are risks. Fewer risks than mining, mind you. And this is what I really don't understand about those calling for its banning. I don't see anyone protesting the issuing of new exploratory licences and mineral rights, when the same risks and more exist in the mining sector. What do you guys think companies like Sink Shafters do? They do this each and every day, using explosives, toxic chemicals, drilling and excavation on behalf of the mining companies, so there are even more risk components to what they do than what fracking involves, forgetting for a second the human risk factor too.

The Karoo is desolate, with from what I've heard, isolated water tables. What is needed here isn't an uneducated call for ourtight banning! Where would we be to this day if we simply banned everything that involved an element of risk? We need careful monitoring of the process and to demand conditional agreements with the oil companies involved. We need independent risk management and assessment, and carefully planned CSR programmes adopted.

Those claiming that this will only enrich the politicians clearly have no idea how economics works. Even if kickbacks are paid (which I'm sure they will, and I disagree with but is the reality we live in), it still doesn't detract from the flow of money into the country, the steady employment increases this massive project entails and the subsequent impact on our economy. The simple fact of the matter is that in any country, risk is assessed within both an operational and financial scope, and if the economic benefit outweighs operational risks, it will go ahead on condition that existing inhabitants of the area are safeguarded. This is the way big business works and the safeguards will need to be contractually agreed upon. If it requires Shell to fund and manage new water distribution systems isolated from their process, then what you have is a public/private participation process involved in not only enriching the area and the economy, but further building of infrastructure in the area without tax payers' money being used. This is a good thing and is inevitable if proper CSR programmes are adopted in accordance with the King Code of corporate governance.

So remind me again, in such an isolated area, whose existing frail and inept water supply systems do not feed other areas, and where investment is needed but not forthcoming from government, how is fracking in this area in any way a bad thing? Even if the risk of contamination is high, this can be dealt with by ensuring alternative supply, filtration and distribution systems are in place, which inevitably is what happens when high impact risks are found. The same thing already happens in the mining industry. There is no need to start re-inventing the wheel here...

 

[Archer]

Seems nobody is open to discussion if their opinion differs to yours.

What a hypocrite
My opinion is open, I know the process could be beneficial, I also know it can be harmful. I allow myself to look at both sides. This is highly evident in my posts, I've probably said in every post there is a potential for disaster.
The problem is that you have so far only offered fallacies in your argument, and refuse to budge on any one of them. That, is the behavior of someone with a closed mind, of someone who thinks only their opinion matters.

 

[DJ...]

Oh, and what's with the green-hippie thing still ?

Just because some of us care about the planet and would like it not to be f'ed up please, doesn't mean we are all lentil eating pot heads.

But for the record I would rather be a green-hippie than a grey-suit drone.

Most people are calling for its banning based on the lies perpetuated and exposed by a few hippies with a video camera on a mission. But exposing the lies makes little difference now that they've infiltrated the minds of usually sane individuals with their message. When I make reference to green hippies, I'm usually referring to those pot-headed, tie-dyed, anti-capitalism, tree-hugging liars...

 

[Vegeta]

As a private company would you:
A) Do a poor job and fark up the Karoo, which is one heck of a cool place, and then lose money by protesting customers boycotting you and/or fines. And note this has been in worldwide news...
B) Do a proper job and make lots of money

Personally I would (A) calculate what my cost will be to do a proper job and make lots of money
(B)Now can i make billions more if i neglect to do a good job and fark up the Karoo? If its substantial I will take the risk and try and manage it as best I can. Then I'll leave and go fark up somewhere else and make a lot more than i could if I did a good job.

If the difference between a good job and a goodish(something might, might not happen) job is hundreds or thousands of billions I think I'd opt for the billions but that's just me

 

[DJ...]

DJ you can't deny that there are more than enough examples where "fiscal considerations" have far outweighed the impact of public perception and environmental issues. And they aren't myths perpetuated by green-hippies, they are actual cases where corporates knew there were problems with what they were doing but chose to ignore the risks because they thought they would get away with it.
There just seems to be way too little transparency from government and the companies they want to get into bed with when it comes to fracking in the Karoo.

This happens each and every day in every single sector of the economy, in every company around the world. It is even worse with pharmaceutical companies and chemical manufacturers and distributors than the mining sector. To state that because companies in the past operated in unscrupulous fashions, we are to ban them from investing in a potentially lucrative opportunity for our country is short-sighted. All I've asked for so far from those calling for its banning is a little common sense and less conjecture. Let's look at the real risks to the Karoo. Let's allow the experts to analyse the situation and revert back with an actual risk assessment before calling for its outright banning. If the risks are indeed high and no CSR programmes are initiated to safeguard the situation, then I'll gladly hop on board with those calling for its banning, or at least a re-evaluation of the contracts.

Until then, I look at it as a risk, with potential economic and social benefit. I also appreciate that risks are inherent in nearly every business venture and we therefore need to be working with facts when we make bold calls like banning it. That sort of call cannot be made based on conjecture...

 

[DJ...]

Yet by your own admission you do not know what the likelihood of fluid and gas leakage into groundwater is ... but you are willing to put your faith in what big business and government assure you is true

Nor do you. But you call for its outright banning. I haven't seen Archer claim that this is 100% safe. In fact he's been pretty rational about it and admitted the risks exist. When the argument boils down to rational conclusions, those calling for its banning will always come out second best in this regard...

 

[daveza]

The problem is that you have so far only offered fallacies in your argument, and refuse to budge on any one of them. That, is the behavior of someone with a closed mind, of someone who thinks only their opinion matters.

Oh come on - my opinion is just that - nobody said you had to give up yours.

Fallacies - I gave factual examples of safe practices that weren't.

When I make reference to green hippies, I'm usually referring to those pot-headed, tie-dyed, anti-capitalism, tree-hugging liars.

Unlike the grey-suit, Johhny Walker swilling, Cuban cigar-smoking, anti-ecology, forest destroying, lobbyist patrons of the Truth.

Hell, lets all take thalidomiode, after all it was researched, tested and found safe wasn't it.

 

[DJ...]

Seems nobody is open to discussion if their opinion differs to yours.

I suspect Archer's frustration stems from you and McSack appearing to have made your minds up already, which is, let's face it, a position not usually open to discussion.

In my opinion it makes far more sense to discuss the ways in which to ensure that this project goes ahead in as safe a fashion as possible. We should want this sort of investment in our country. We should want to encourage companies to invest in SA. We should want to uplift the lives of fellow South Africans. And we should absolutely demand that this be done in as safe a manner as humanly possible...

 

[Archer]

Fallacies - I gave factual examples of safe practices that weren't.

Thats the fallacy right there. You dont even realise it apparently.

 

[DJ...]

Personally I would (A) calculate what my cost will be to do a proper job and make lots of money
(B)Now can i make billions more if i neglect to do a good job and fark up the Karoo? If its substantial I will take the risk and try and manage it as best I can. Then I'll leave and go fark up somewhere else and make a lot more than i could if I did a good job.

If the difference between a good job and a goodish(something might, might not happen) job is hundreds or thousands of billions I think I'd opt for the billions but that's just me

Forgetting for a second that this argument is based on assumption and conjecture, that is not the reality of the situation. Contamination increases extraction cost. It is in their best interests not to contaminate anything. And even if they do, but have provided safeguards for this event (which they will have to), what's the problem. A few unused water-wells, untouchable without deep rock drilling equipment in the middle of nowhere have a little benzene in them? What impact does that have on anyone?

 

[Archer]

I suspect Archer's frustration stems from you and McSack appearing to have made your minds up already, which is, let's face it, a position not usually open to discussion.

In my opinion it makes far more sense to discuss the ways in which to ensure that this project goes ahead in as safe a fashion as possible. We should want this sort of investment in our country. We should want to encourage companies to invest in SA. We should want to uplift the lives of fellow South Africans. And we should absolutely demand that this be done in as safe a manner as humanly possible...

Exactly. But my blood pressure is rising now p) so I'll check back again tomorrow to see if there are any other questions about how this whole fracking things works. I can live with people not liking fracking if its based on facts, but not if its based on sickeningly incorrect propoganda

 

[DJ...]

Unlike the grey-suit, Johhny Walker swilling, Cuban cigar-smoking, anti-ecology, forest destroying, lobbyist patrons of the Truth.

Hell, lets all take thalidomiode, after all it was researched, tested and found safe wasn't it.

You're better than a strawman argument, Dave. And yes, both sides have ill-spent pasts. Do we find ourselves now at a stalemate where we forget it all? No, we look at the specific evidence based on risk assessments of the Karoo. Big oil has been involved in thousands of projects around the world, so rationally, it makes no sense to state that past actions are an indicator of future actions in this case...

 

[daveza]

Well shoo-wow and groovy.

If this was about affecting the lesser spotted karoo frog or a rare species of flora then it would be easier to be less anxious.

But it's not - it's about clean fresh water. Very limited clean fresh water.

In a vast area which overnight cannot be provided with clean fresh water should the 0.0001% risk of contamination come to pass.

So one more question -

If the very unthinkable worst happens and the water is contaminated... what's the plan ?

 

[Vegeta]

Forgetting for a second that this argument is based on assumption and conjecture, that is not the reality of the situation. Contamination increases extraction cost. It is in their best interests not to contaminate anything. And even if they do, but have provided safeguards for this event (which they will have to), what's the problem. A few unused water-wells, untouchable without deep rock drilling equipment in the middle of nowhere have a little benzene in them? What impact does that have on anyone?

My response was never an argument for or against. It was what I as a greedy person would do. I'm not saying the corporations are greedy.

A few water wells have benzene in them... Okay cool i'm cool with that, I really am as I said I'm a typical capitalist so I don't care to be honest. But that will kinda send the message that we allow that sort of thing here in SA wouldn't it?

 

[McSack]

Nor do you. But you call for its outright banning. I haven't seen Archer claim that this is 100% safe. In fact he's been pretty rational about it and admitted the risks exist. When the argument boils down to rational conclusions, those calling for its banning will always come out second best in this regard...

I most definitely don't call for it's outright banning, sorry if I created that impression

My opinion is that we just don't know enough from either side (environmental or real economic impact) , and my natural tendency is to mistrust the motives of big business and government considering their track record, especially when they appear to be hiding schidt(from my humble perspective of course)
Sure, let's look at fracking in the Karoo, but in the meantime can we at least get some transparency please. Let's have a proper , independent environmental impact study ... show us how risks will be mitigated and how accountability will be enforced... what will happen to all those 700,000 new jobs when the resource runs out in 30years or so.
To me the process is being handled worse than our fsk-up of a gauteng tolling project

 

[DJ...]

If the very unthinkable worst happens and the water is contaminated... what's the plan ?

That's for the experts to safeguard against. If it means building a pipeline to the nearest water station, then so be it. I'm not an expert in that field and I'm happy to admit that. In this case the what-ifs are important questions to ask, but should form a part of the ultimate CSR programme, not a reason to ban it outright. What if there's a tornado and it destroys the pipes? The same risks are inherent in every single mining project, so once again, no point in trying to reinvent the wheel here. Again, mining poses even more risks, so there will exist a precedent for how to safeguard against this...

But that will kinda send the message that we allow that sort of thing here in SA wouldn't it?

That happens every week in the mining sector. Some areas cannot be built on; some cannot have infrastructure pipes laid through them; some wells are closed off entirely for certain periods of time; some become radioactive safety hazards etc. This happens every day, in every country around the world. It's not a message to the rest of the world that we don't care about anything - it is simply a matter of how we deal with the risks. Without you knowing, this has been happening for years already and is the reality of doing business. Luckily in this case, it behoves the oil companies NOT to contaminate. So at least they're on our side with this one in ensuring it is safe, even if their motivation is different. Theirs is profit, ours is safety, luckily the goals align...

 

[daveza]

A few water wells have benzene in them... Okay cool i'm cool with that

Benzene is a notorious cause of bone marrow failure. Substantial quantities of epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory data link benzene to aplastic anemia, acute leukemia, and bone marrow abnormalities.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) stated in 1948 that "it is generally considered that the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero."

Human exposure to benzene is a global health problem.[vague] Benzene targets liver, kidney, lung, heart and the brain and can cause DNA strand breaks, chromosomal damage, etc.

Benzene causes cancer in both animals and humans.

Some women who inhaled high levels of benzene for many months had irregular menstrual periods and a decrease in the size of their ovaries.

Benzene exposure has been linked directly to the neural birth defects spina bifida and anencephaly.

Not very cool at all.

 

[DJ...]

I most definitely don't call for it's outright banning, sorry if I created that impression

My opinion is that we just don't know enough from either side (environmental or real economic impact) , and my natural tendency is to mistrust the motives of big business and government considering their track record, especially when they appear to be hiding schidt(from my humble perspective of course)
Sure, let's look at fracking in the Karoo, but in the meantime can we at least get some transparency please. Let's have a proper , independent environmental impact study ... show us how risks will be mitigated and how accountability will be enforced... what will happen to all those 700,000 new jobs when the resource runs out in 30years or so.t

Well we are in agreement then. I disagree that the economic impact is unknown. It is from a dollar and cents perspective, but from an economic impact we know it is positive. Having studied economics I can assure you that is how private investment in a country works. But we are in complete agreement regarding analysing actual risks to the Karoo and making an informed decision. Your mistrust of big business irks me a little though. What exactly are you worried they're going to do?

To me the process is being handled worse than our fsk-up of a gauteng tolling project

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion without being privy to the behind-closed-doors meeting that have been taking place over the last few years. You're simply assuming government are going to cock it up. This is not a government project. This is a private project that, just like mining once again, requires government approval. You simply cannot claim it has been a cock-up without having sat in on all of the meetings and analysed the evidence. I do agree that it should require some element of transparency though...

 

[Tun@]

There's some interesting not so far back history here worth a read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing#Groundwater_contamination

 

[DJ...]

Not very cool at all.

If said water well couldn't be isolated and if said water well was exposed to the earth and was a part of the supply. Luckily there are ways to safeguard against these, considering the mining industry has been doing so for decades already. But this is once again conjecture. You're assuming there are no effective safety measures to prevent this; that Shell don't care about it if it happens; and that this is inevitable and there's nothing we can do about it if it does happen. In my opinion, that argument is not very cool...