[Opinion] Gunning for Eskom? Fracking could solve your problem

jansdejager said:
What possible benefit? This debate just goes around and around in circles. The truth is that as citizens of this country we are better off with a poorer ANC, or hopefully no ANC. Bridging the gap between rich and poor is not something government can solve.

The government can provide quality education, and let its subjects attain gainful employment by merit alone. Promising handouts at the expense of existing industries and taking fat bonuses in every industrial endeavour is going to land us in Zimbabwe. But that's fine, you say. I agree. Because I will be living in Switzerland and let's see if let Jacob and his 20 wives in there.
Click to expand...

I hate to break this to you, but the ANC is not going anywhere in a hurry, and they are not going to be held accountable any time soon.
And even if by some miracle they are gone, they will most likely be replaced by something a lot worse.
This is Africa and we are outnumbered by dumb voters by 10 to 1.
Fracking is already reaping benefits in the form of jobs and economic activity in other places in the world.
I don't see why we should shut that door.
 
jansdejager said:
another ninkapoop who starts new threads every which way without paying heed to previous ones. Shell SA is owned by the ANC. Do you think they're going to let them do this properly?
Click to expand...

Actually, by and large, environmental laws governing extraction of minerals are tougher under the ANC. In the past, companies got away with long term impacts, liabilities which we now must pay for.

Goldfields is owned by ANC in a same sense Shell SA is. AngloAmerican, Sasol, Lonmin have ANC shareholders. That does not exempt them from Safety, Health and Environmental responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
Garyvdh said:
I hate to break this to you, but the ANC is not going anywhere in a hurry, and they are not going to be held accountable any time soon.
And even if by some miracle they are gone, they will most likely be replaced by something a lot worse.
This is Africa and we are outnumbered by dumb voters by 10 to 1.
Fracking is already reaping benefits in the form of jobs and economic activity in other places in the world.
I don't see why we should shut that door.
Click to expand...

The anc shut the door in 2011, and reopened it in 2012. A curious turn of events. The door is by no means closed Gary, perhaps you will get your wish and they will start cracking at light speed by time for dinner. In the meanwhile you can channel your negativity at the ANC, like I do, and not at me for channeling my negativity at the ANC, if you get my drift.

dlk001 said:
Actually, by and large, environmental laws governing extraction of minerals are tougher under the ANC. In the past, companies got away with long term impacts, liabilities which we now must pay for.
Click to expand...

That is only because they want to copy legislation in every other modernized country to compensate for their white envy. I applaud their efforts. They should concentrate on keeping the lights on, given every opportunity thus far.
 
jansdejager said:
The anc shut the door in 2011, and reopened it in 2012. A curious turn of events. The door is by no means closed Gary, perhaps you will get your wish and they will start cracking at light speed by time for dinner. In the meanwhile you can channel your negativity at the ANC, like I do, and not at me for channeling my negativity at the ANC, if you get my drift.
Click to expand...

No, I don't get your drift. South Africa should start fracking and reaping the benefits from it.
 
jansdejager said:
That is only because they want to copy legislation in every other modernized country to compensate for their white envy. I applaud their efforts. They should concentrate on keeping the lights on, givn every opportunity thus far.
Click to expand...

Not really. Legislation does not change behavior. Its good implementation of legislation that makes a difference. SA legislation governing extraction of resources is not copied from modernized countries because SA mining is unique. In fact, South Africa contributes to a lot of mining research which benefits modernized countries and vice versa.
 
dlk001 said:
Not really. Legislation does not change behavior. Its good implementation of legislation that makes a difference. Mining legislation is not copied from modernized countries because SA mining is unique.
Click to expand...

Okay, so how does this heavenly legislation stop the looming water scarcity crisis in the northern belt? How does it stop the entire Kruger National Park's water network from getting contaminated right in time for high season? Or stop acid mine drainage (no they still exascerbating this problem)? I think you are referring to labour laws which have improved and not environmental ones. Mining companies are still responsible for their own impact studies, and I don't really see the legislative incentive to create legitimate impact studies, socially, environmentally, economically or otherwise.
 
jansdejager said:
Okay, so how does this heavenly legislation stop the looming water scarcity crisis in the northern belt? How does it stop the entire Kruger National Park's water network from getting contaminated right in time for high season? Or stop acid mine drainage (no they still exascerbating this problem)? I think you are referring to labour laws which have improved and not environmental ones.
Click to expand...

Legislation cannot prevent Acid Mine Drainage because that started decades ago. Environmental laws now make current mining companies accountable for mine closure costs unlike the past. They also make sure impacted parties are included unlike the past.

Mining companies are still responsible for their own impact studies, and I don't really see the legislative incentive to create legitimate impact studies, socially, environmentally, economically or otherwise
Click to expand...

Mining companies pay for the impact studies which must be verified by consultants. Mining companies must pay for water monitoring systems installed at impacted, high risk areas to measure base line and continually measure, report deviations from base line. Government cannot pay for this. They simply force mining companies to conduct independent studies that will be accepted by affected parties e.g. farmers, local communities. I never said all mining companies comply to environmental laws, I'm simply saying the laws are stricter than before to ensure long term liability is a responsibility of the companies unlike in the past where they were non existent.

As I write this, I'm doing a mine closure costing. The cost of rehabilitation has increased because of studies from consultants we pay.
 
Last edited:
daveza said:
http://www.un-earthed.com/fracking-fears-run-deep-karoo/

From a non-hippie source.
Click to expand...
Glad you raise the Van Tonder isuue. It's a story within a story, but no time now on the phone.

The Van Tonder "paper" is questionable to say the least. Only one journalist has ever seen it, or even asked for it. It is unpublished and unreviewed. The press reports appeared before he could could finish a half-baked tentative version.

The more you dig, the less there is.

Now I know you have a mind strong enough to read things that don't always agree with you. Here's one story that raises questions:

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opin...the-u-turn-paper-nobody-has-read#.VNpqEtgaK9s
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking
Click to expand...

Reading the article, it is not clear that fracking caused the elevated methane levels. There is a strong correlation, but that does not imply causation. Looking at their data you can even see there is data point where there is a dangerous amount of methane in a body of water that is ±1700m away from a non active gas well. So if it can occure naturally like that, how did the researchers account for that? Far more research needs to be done to get to the conclusion that fracking is at fault.

Heck, their data points included areas which had already been reported as contaminated due to other factors. The area it was done in also included old and even undocumented wells, so how is that a good study at all? Their sample set wasn't even random.
 
Garyvdh said:
I hate to break this to you, but the ANC is not going anywhere in a hurry, and they are not going to be held accountable any time soon.
And even if by some miracle they are gone, they will most likely be replaced by something a lot worse.
This is Africa and we are outnumbered by dumb voters by 10 to 1.
Fracking is already reaping benefits in the form of jobs and economic activity in other places in the world.
I don't see why we should shut that door.
Click to expand...

We should absolutely not shut the door. Environmental concerns are the luxury of an educated and well fed society. Until we get there it's absurd to expect people to shrug off potential huge job and economic growth because it tingles your feel goody bits.

The James lovelock wannabes can go have a trippy wikkan moon dance ritual for mother Gaia. That will balance things out.
 
Archer said:
Reading the article, it is not clear that fracking caused the elevated methane levels. There is a strong correlation, but that does not imply causation. Looking at their data you can even see there is data point where there is a dangerous amount of methane in a body of water that is ±1700m away from a non active gas well. So if it can occure naturally like that, how did the researchers account for that? Far more research needs to be done to get to the conclusion that fracking is at fault.

Heck, their data points included areas which had already been reported as contaminated due to other factors. The area it was done in also included old and even undocumented wells, so how is that a good study at all? Their sample set wasn't even random.
Click to expand...

Great, then I expect to see your peer review of their study. Will make you famous with your amazing insight. If you have the hard data to show them that they are wrong, I hope to see it. That would be a great way to tell if you are not understanding their research or if you actually know what you are talking about :)

You said, you "read the article", did you read the study?
 
Last edited:
Midnight_choir_drunk said:
We should absolutely not shut the door. Environmental concerns are the luxury of an educated and well fed society. Until we get there it's absurd to expect people to shrug off potential huge job and economic growth because it tingles your feel goody bits.

The James lovelock wannabes can go have a trippy wikkan moon dance ritual for mother Gaia. That will balance things out.
Click to expand...

Huge "job" (sic)? http://www.nationaljournal.com/new-...any-jobs-does-fracking-really-create-20140414 Frackers appear to get their job creation numbers from the same place RIAA get their figures about piracy from. Or as they say when asked why they are producing nowhere near the amount of jobs they promised

And agency officials openly admit that the figure—when used to estimate jobs supported by shale—amounts to little more than a guess.
Click to expand...

One brazillion jobs!
 
ghoti said:
Great, then I expect to see your peer review of their study. Will make you famous with your amazing insight. If you have the hard data to show them that they are wrong, I hope to see it. That would be a great way to tell if you are not understanding their research or if you actually know what you are talking about :)

You said, you "read the article", did you read the study?
Click to expand...

I'll concede one point, yes they accounted for natural vs non to a degree (I see only one data point fell into the biological category, yet several wells are in non active areas, so it's very confusing to me). Now tell me how they accounted for the 180,000 undocumented wells in the area of their survey. Heck, there are 8,000 known wells that are yet to be plugged in the same area. Or why they chose water that had already been reported to be contaminated from casing leaks?

The study itself also notes there are at least 3 reasons why the water got contaminated, 2 of which seem equally plausible. I say "seems" because that part of the text is filled with words such as "may", "we believe" etc so it is difficult to get an indication of what they think is the real cause.

I don't see the need for the sarcasm in your reply however, poor form. It is this typical emotive response that makes this such an infuriating subject.
 
Archer said:
I'll concede one point, yes they accounted for natural vs non to a degree (I see only one data point fell into the biological category, yet several wells are in non active areas, so it's very confusing to me). Now tell me how they accounted for the 180,000 undocumented wells in the area of their survey. Heck, there are 8,000 known wells that are yet to be plugged in the same area. Or why they chose water that had already been reported to be contaminated from casing leaks?

The study itself also notes there are at least 3 reasons why the water got contaminated, 2 of which seem equally plausible. I say "seems" because that part of the text is filled with words such as "may", "we believe" etc so it is difficult to get an indication of what they think is the real cause.
Click to expand...
Have you read the study yet? You seem to be able to discredit it based on an article written by it, so I am sure you have read the study and understand its methodologies right? Seriously, disprove their research and there are literally hundreds of publications that will print your research. You will become the darling of the the pro-fracking lobby. Though the first step to understanding their work to discredit it, is to read it.

I don't see the need for the sarcasm in your reply however, poor form. It is this typical emotive response that makes this such an infuriating subject.
Click to expand...

Shame man, you need to toughen up. We are talking about fracking here, not your religion. I hope you can see it from my side. Random forum person claims to be able to discret scientific study done by a team of researchers at a university that has undergone peer review by reading a news article on said study. I mean, if thats not the dunning-kruger effect nothing is.

However, I could be totally wrong. You could be some type of scientific savant that can see more than actual scientists who have done the study, so I really hope to see your research disproving them. Dont hold back, you can actually become wealthy from disproving their research. As mentioned earlier, everyone will want to republish your data.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X