SA proposes rules for fracking shale gas

DJ... said:
Yes, from the pipes. The studies cannot conclude the origin, however all other studies show that where methane exists, it is not because of fracking itself, but from the pipe corrosion, poor seals, poor maintenance etc. This is known. This is a good thing now because it can be rectified. It's not the fracking...



Cool. So you're against mining as well then, right?



Cool, so you're against mining then as well, which is so much more dangerous in terms of extracting radioactive material I really don't even think it requires further explanation...



You couldn't possibly have picked a more biased source. Fracking by numbers and Environment America. Hilarious.



LOL. There is data extending back to 1927. I was wrong when I said 1947. There is no limit on data. Where there is a limit is on the data that supports their wild accusations that go contrary to actual geological studies.

But once again, I take it you're against mining as well then?
Click to expand...

Im not against mining, but I would like more oversight over fracking. And regulation so they dont impact our ground water.
 
DJ... said:
By this time, you imply that its a common occurrence. Its the exception.
Click to expand...

An event the scale of Deepwater Horizon is rare, but there is a very long list of willful and negligent environmental damage by industry.

DJ... said:
And yes, they are absolutely incentivised to not cock it up, in absolutely all departments.
Click to expand...

And yet witness the rampant negligence that caused Deepwater Horizon, despite those incentives.

DJ... said:
Faith in the government is another issue. I believe that using existing regulatory models, which they are, is the right thing to do...
Click to expand...

I believe lax regulation may lead to irreparable harm.

This a complex issue that both sides wish to reduce to a single soundbite. Personally I can't help but feel uneasy about the "Drill, baby, drill" attitude of some towards this issue.
 
The question remains whether or not we have the capacity of regulating such a process.
 
icyrus said:
Set aside by BP or actually paid out by BP? What was the total number attached to the environmental, health and economic damage caused?

Is it not true that BP is fighting every claim and fine that they can?
Click to expand...

Btw the figure is actually far higher than $47bn. The loss of profits is not taken into account in that scenario. It was substantial.

But at the end of the day, we cannot use the argument that we turn down investment because the government might cock it up. Might as well stop accepting fdi altogether then. What we have is a proposal that has significant economic benefits for the entire country. The upside cannot be more understated in that sentence. We have risks too - risks that are well documented and being addressed as the industry evolves. The risks are almost identical to mining, in fact lower in many aspects. Where hippies get their tits in a tangle is the contamination aspect, for which fracking is not the cause. Poor piping is. The same risks are inherent in deep shaft mining. And as for water usage, they do not delpete resources. Not a single study has shown them to.

What we do know is that there is a fervent movement to stop fracking, by groups who have been proven to lie to get their way. The lighting of water for example is a magic trick. The real deception is them getting you to believe that fracking is the cause. This has been proven as a lie by them. As have many of their so called studies that they cited, that turned out to be studies they paid for eusing their own dubious scientists.

Bottom line is that there are risks. Nobody disputes that. But when weighed against the pros it is a no brainer to go ahead with fracking. Now thats not me saying that I am prepared to risk the environment. Thats me saying that to date, since 1927, no fracking operation has destroyed any environment, and we're talking millions of wells fracked. There are isolated incidents of issues where safety and maintenance was not up to standard, and environmental issues arose. But those same risk factors exist in all industry. One cannot now blindly state that any risk is not worth it. Might as well shut down our economy. It was founded on, and still relies on industry and its inherent risks. Fracking poses dangers that can and are mitigated against. Hence why opponents claim that there is too little data to work with. There's not. They've performed countless meta studies for crying in a bucket. There's just insufficient evidence to back their claims. Fracking will be a great thing dor this country if done right, and I will continue to support it until such time as they prove me wrong. Comsidering the number of successful fracking operations underway and its history, I fear the opponents will be proven wrong, not me...
 
ghoti said:
Im not against mining, but I would like more oversight over fracking. And regulation so they dont impact our ground water.
Click to expand...

I agree. And the proposals on the cards involve direct oversight of operations by government agencies. I also agree that we don't want contamination of ground water. The risk there is incredibly low according to geologists because of the makeup of the earth and the viscosity of fracking liquid. We simply need to ensure that the piping systems are up to scratch. That's where the risk lies. And that is achievable.

Let's not discount something of such enormous potential benefit to SA on the basis that government will cock it up. The industry itself, as a collection of companies involved in fracking, have a massive vested interest to ensure they don't, irrespective of the oversight by government. You could think of it as redundancy to an extent.

If we're to move up in this world from an economic perspective, we need projects like this. We cannot allow fake documentaries like Gasland to fuel emotional decisions about the topic. I think its great that we understand the risks better. That's how the industry evolves. But we shouldn't dismiss it because of risks. They can and will be mitigated...
 
icyrus said:
An event the scale of Deepwater Horizon is rare, but there is a very long list of willful and negligent environmental damage by industry.



And yet witness the rampant negligence that caused Deepwater Horizon, despite those incentives.



I believe lax regulation may lead to irreparable harm.

This a complex issue that both sides wish to reduce to a single soundbite. Personally I can't help but feel uneasy about the "Drill, baby, drill" attitude of some towards this issue.
Click to expand...

I don't want to turn it into soundbites at all. I've comprehensively addressed this for years on the forum. I also don't believe that there is a lax "Drill, baby, drill" attitude. That's the very epitome of trying to turn a complex matter into a soundbite.

Regarding Deepwater, it still remains the exception. There was sheer incompetence on the oversight aspect for which the government are to blame; there was sheer incompetence on Haliburton's side for knowingly placing a faulty technology into the installation; there was greed on BP's part because I'm adamant that they were well aware of the issues and did nothing to address them.

But BP will not survive another Deepwater, that is for sure. They will be swallowed up as a company by other fish in that ocean if they were to let it happen again. And while there is a long list of ineptitude and poor attitudes towards the environment by these companies, preventable disasters are becoming more and more rare (will try dig out the article). As technology progresses we can do what we did yesterday, even safer. Deepwater was an eye-opener, and all eyes are now on fracking, by industry, governments, and the public at large. To fault in any environmental aspect would be akin to committing financial suicide. Especially in an area like the Karoo that is going to get significant international attention as well. Considering the lack of actual science to prove fracking bad; considering the wealth of science to prove it safe (in relative terms to, say, mining); and considering the economic benefit - I say bring it on...please!

And yes, I am well aware of the awful number of puns I've welled up in this post...
 
Last edited:
Whose land is this going to take place on ?

As far as I'm aware the govt owns the land beneath the ground, but they don't own access to it.
 
daveza said:
Whose land is this going to take place on ?

As far as I'm aware the govt owns the land beneath the ground, but they don't own access to it.
Click to expand...

There is private and government land within the 100 odd thousand sqm being considered for exploration. One of the issues at play is the zoning, but I think that Werksmans are making more of it than it really is. http://www.werksmans.com/virt_media/zoning-bombshell-could-scupper-karoo-fracking/

Rezoning of land happens all of the time and is barely as complicated as they're making it out to be. That is a PR statement more than anything else...
 
So some farmer is going to have his land taken over and there's nothing he can do about it - does he get compensation ?
 
daveza said:
So some farmer is going to have his land taken over and there's nothing he can do about it - does he get compensation ?
Click to expand...

It begins as a willing-buyer, willing-seller process to the best of my knowledge, between Shell and the other party. If there are major sticking points, the government does have the capacity to strongarm as a last resort - they have other alternatives as well.

That's my understanding of it...
 
DJ... said:
Water usage: from Popular Mechanics (referenced) - Of the 9.5 billion gallons of water used daily in Pennsylvania, natural gas development consumes 1.9 million gallons a day (mgd); livestock use 62 mgd; mining, 96 mgd; and industry, 770 mgd.
Click to expand...

In Pennsylvania, that may not be that much water. I'm not as much concerned about the contamination etc, but rather where the water will be coming from. They will be using a lot of water. Will they be utilizing Karoo water resources? The Karoo does not have much and redirecting and damming it for farming, has caused major damage to ecosystems. It can kill diversity. This will too...

Am I concerned about nothing?
 
Quantum Theory said:
In Pennsylvania, that may not be that much water. I'm not as much concerned about the contamination etc, but rather where the water will be coming from. They will be using a lot of water. Will they be utilizing Karoo water resources? The Karoo does not have much and redirecting and damming it for farming, has caused major damage to ecosystems. It can kill diversity. This will too...

Am I concerned about nothing?
Click to expand...

There is not a single case in history of fracking operations depleting water supplies, even remotely...
 
I wonder if its possible to frak without poisoning the ground water for many generations?
 
DJ... said:
There is not a single case in history of fracking operations depleting water supplies, even remotely...
Click to expand...

Has fracking ever been done in a Karoo type environment? I never said that it will deplete it anyway. I'm saying that redirecting and damming the little water that the Karoo has, even for small farming operations in the middle of nowhere, has caused irreparable damage in the past. Fracking will use a lot more water than these farms. Where will the water come from?
 
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-10-28-karoo-fracking-water-wealth-and-whites

In Nieu-Bethesda, a village of 1 500 people some 750km south of Johannesburg, the only permanent water supply since it was founded by frontiersmen in the mid-1800s has been a spring that wells up from deep within the surrounding mountains.

Any interruption to that spring's flow or quality and the town of Nieu-Bethesda risks dying out, making it an extreme example of the threat to water safety that has sparked concern at fracking sites around the world.
Click to expand...

Shell is also adamant it will not compete with people in the Karoo for water, but can avoid trucking it in – often several thousand trips are needed per well – by drilling down to brackish aquifers as much as 4km underground, sucking up the water, cleaning it, and then using it to frack.

However, all this pumping and purifying imposes significant costs, and the 10-year outlook for global gas prices is not in Shell's favour, analysts say.
Click to expand...

So there simply isn't surface water available. Well there is but Shell is not supposed to use it.

Should we just trust them ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X