SA proposes rules for fracking shale gas

[killerbyte]

Gas Land and Frack Nation are two of the worst possible pieces of fiction to reference. Gasland for one is a complete fabrication and lie-fest, like where they light the water. That water well had nothing to do with fracking at all, but rather natural gas extraction. And they were made fully aware of this but chose not to disclose as such. Gasland has been thoroughly debunked.

But a decent post, that aside...

That is why I said Fox is a liar. The video of that couple being told that their water was safe is so funny, and the fact that methane can be found naturally in water is the one key fact that Fox tries to hide in his little film. Pity so many people buy into his BS.

 

[Indigogirl]

FRACKING FLUID IS SAFE TO DRINK[/URL] because it is a mixture of water and... wait for it... plant materials. Well that was anti-climactic.

Fracking fluid is methanol

 

[Indigogirl]

Ummmmmm - regarding how deep fracking is - versus groundwater depth... an excerpt...

During 2012 Professor Van Tonder interviewed Andre Els, who used to work with Soekor in the 1960s. Els recounted an incident where the drill bit and drilling fluid with a very particular chemical signature was lost during about 4000 metres underground in a blowout on the farm Skietfontein near Aberdeen.

Six weeks later the same fluid was found to have polluted a farm borehole near Klipplaat, travelling nearly four kilometres upwards and more than 30 km along, probably along a dolerite fault. Dolerite is a known preferential pathway for liquids – farmers seek it out when drilling boreholes.

The Karoo is dolerite dykeville...

 

[DJ...]

Fracking fluid is methanol

It is 99.2% water and 0.8% other ingredients.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

So I see Gasland Part 2 has also come in for some stick.

http://energyindepth.org/national/debunking-gasland-part-ii/
http://energyindepth.org/national/debunking-gasland-part-ii-in-one-infographic/

 

[alloytoo]

???

Storing nuclear waste...
Vaalputs...
versus
View attachment 79749

I would suggest you try and read a collection of essays by Jerry Pournelle entitled "A Step Further Out." - specifically the section "Survival with style".

Published in the 70's, it's a bit dated, but it helps put nuclear hysteria in perspective.

 

[Rosaudio]

Look at how sad Fraking made Afriforum

[video=youtube;s9Qs2qxr70k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Qs2qxr70k#t=40[/video]

Well made video, but it is the definition of propaganda.

 

[Indigogirl]

I would suggest you try and read a collection of essays by Jerry Pournelle entitled "A Step Further Out." - specifically the section "Survival with style".

Published in the 70's, it's a bit dated, but it helps put nuclear hysteria in perspective.

Thank you - I am not in the least bit hysterical about nuclear energy - I am well aware of all the pros and cons. It is one of the cleaner forms of mass energy generation. What I (and many other scientists) ARE concerned about, is about how to deal with spent nuclear waste. That is something that almost nobody wants. Here is a relatively well researched popular article by National Geographic - called "Half Life—The Lethal Legacy of America's Nuclear Waste". There is a situation developing at Hanford in the USA - which is not an isolated circumstance. No one would have known about this issue if it were not for a whistleblower. You can google him - "Walter Tamosaitis"

If pro-nuclear organisations - such as the World Nuclear Organisation - are to be believed - then:

1. "Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes";
2. "Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that this should be geological disposal."; and,
3. "The health hazards associated with any uranium are much the same as those for lead"

Sounds so extremely easy and clean doesn't it? Well then - maybe South Africa should go into the business of running a nuclear waste disposal site? Other countries pay top dollar for nuclear waste disposal facilities - why? Because nobody wants toxic waste which includes a variety of toxic chemicals with a half life ranging from around 4.5 billion years (Uranium 238) and hundreds of thousands of years (Plutonium 239) as well as an array of other, shorter lived but extremely toxic materials.

Oh, but hang on a bit - nuclear waste isn't particularly toxic... it comprises naturally occurring elements :erm: Why on earth would the issue of nuclear wastes being under the arctic then need to worry anyone? There are so very many examples of this sort of "nuclear waste management" - dumping at sea, inadequate storage, etc. - that it would take several books (maybe many thousands of books) to adequately document them all.

All that the past few generations, and this generation, of nuclear power users have done and are doing is to generate power - while leaving the toxic waste to future generations to deal with. The Hanford site is a case in point. If nuclear power is so extremely safe and clean - why the worry about Fukushima? Why is no one (other than a few old folks) allowed to live near Chernobyl. Would you want to live next to a nuclear waste facility if the geology near your home was deemed suitable for storage? Would you happily raise children and drink groundwater?

All of these issues are about money. Yes, it IS indeed possible (for a while at least) to store nuclear waste of all kinds completely safely - the problem comes in when the storage containers fail - because with half life of many thousands of years - there is quite simply nothing that really can last long enough to contain them - well nothing that any company or country is going to spend money on - because the existing and cumulative (and iterative) costs are just too darn high. In the meantime - let's just hope that at least part of Walter Tamosaitis' fears are unfounded and that the Hanford debacle will NOT "lead to a deadly hydrogen explosion, or worse -- a nuclear chain reaction." Right now - hoping is all we have.

 

[Indigogirl]

It is 99.2% water and 0.8% other ingredients.

Thank you for correcting me - agree that fracking fluid does not contain 100% methanol - wrote in haste and incorrectly.

Should have (I meant to have) written "Fracking fluid contains ethanol". - that will teach me to write when I do not have time. Fracking fluid often contains far more dangerous ingredients (such as benzene or toluene) than ethanol. Then there are other issues too - for example: The big threats to public health are in wastewater pits and storage and also during transportation when you are trucking around contaminated water,” says Deborah Swackhamer, an environmental chemist at the University of Minnesota in St Paul. “You can have spills or leaks or flooding.”

Several millions of gallons of fracking fluid are poured down these holes - which means that a high quantity (not by volume - but by sheer quantity of fluid - 1 % of 1 million gallons is 10,000 gallons) of all these delightfully innocuous-sounding chemicals are forced down at high pressure into the fracking holes to release gas.

Innocuous-sounding chemicals - but certainly not all innocuous. While I do not particularly enjoy Wikipedia - this article does have a reasonable summary (which is reasonably well referenced) of the Health risks. For example:

In a study done by Colborn and colleagues, they examined 353 out of 994 fracking chemicals identified by TEDX in hydraulic fracking operation. They found over 75% of the 353 chemicals affected the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs,52% affected the nervous system, 40% affected the immune system and kidney system, and 46% affected the cardiocascular system and blood.

There are a number of studies that have documented problems or potential concerns arising from fracking. Don't forget that funding is not readily available - since who is going to pay for studies that put big business out of action or even just force big business to spend money to clean up their act? Here is one - Gas drilling taints groundwater and here is another "Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas". There are many more... You just have to look for them.

The understanding of groundwater is actually one of the least clear of the the sciences. It is a fascinating field, but it is essentially "invisible", multifaceted and multi-layered (different kinds of groundwater, aquifers, faults, recharge zones, etc. etc.) - at various depths. So much so that it is a bit like a loosely woven (and not very predictable) cloth. The contamination of groundwater is not exclusively a result of fracking fluid - but also can result from methane gas contamination.

Blithely feeling happy that sea-water might be one of the ways of "saving" water is past ridiculous. Where this water intersects with groundwater, salination of groundwater is the same as contamination.

If I were a farmer/landowner in the Karoo and fracking was proposed anywhere within a 100km of my land - I would take the government to court. There is IMO sufficient evidence to show that fracking is a potentially highly problematic activity, that cannot guarantee environmental sustainability.

 

[Indigogirl]

If you want SA to be self-sufficient on renewable resources then you need to start picking the poor Chinese workers you want to kill because the rare earth magnets required in wind turbines and the materials used in solar panels mostly come from China and the amount of pollutants that are made during the production for both these "renewable resources" adds to the pollution in the air above China which KILLS people.

This is so similar to the type of arguments used by climate-change denialists - the kind of argument where they divert attention from the actual issues.

Ummmm.... you want to give up on wind energy because of the rare earth magnets which are 95% produced in China? Let's hope that you do not drive a car, do not use any pesticides, eat only organic food, do not use a computer (oh wait...). Tragically, there are indeed many unsustainable manufacturing industries - the hydrocarbon industry is also one. Wars are presently being fought over hydrocarbons... Let's move on.

Over their life time wind turbines kill more people and animals than nuclear power plants.

Would you like to rephrase that? Nuclear waste and nuclear "accidents" - let's not forget nuclear weapons that are "stored" - are simply ticking time bombs - they may not happen in our lifetime. People also "die" in manufacturing construction materials for nuclear power plants.

Bat and bird strikes by wind turbines are well-documented. It is why there are a number of moves afoot to improve this and reduce or prevent it happening - either through appropriate siting of the turbines or through alternative designs.

Finally - there are numerous sources of renewable energy - not the least of which is the biogas / digester route. - but I guess folks die making components for those too - so that is right out.

 

[w1z4rd]

 

[dlk001]

The understanding of groundwater is actually one of the least clear of the the sciences. It is a fascinating field, but it is essentially "invisible", multifaceted and multi-layered (different kinds of groundwater, aquifers, faults, recharge zones, etc. etc.) - at various depths. So much so that it is a bit like a loosely woven (and not very predictable) cloth. The contamination of groundwater is not exclusively a result of fracking fluid - but also can result from methane gas contamination.

The study of ground water and its relationship to geology is hard and there is no scientific method of developing an accurate geohydrological model. Without a geohydrological model, it is hard to predict the impacts of fracking on the groundwater. So, there is no method of defining the hazards, quantifying the risks and allowing affected parties to make an informed decision.

It is true that fracking happening kilometers beneath the groundwater aquifers may result in minimal impact. This cannot be proven with any level of confidence. But logic and deep mining experience is probably enough to qualitatively justify this assumption.

However, the issue here is the integrity of the wells when they are not properly sealed.

- Hazard = gas leaks from the wells due to lack of proper sealing

- Probability of occurrence = LOW, very few cases knows cases. Are all cases reported?

- Consequences = VERY HIGH, contamination of groundwater

Question is, are the hazards known?, risks quantified? and mitigation measures in place? Is there enough information to justify the risk-reward of fracking in the Karoo?

 

[Indigogirl]

The study of ground water and its relationship to geology is hard and there is no scientific method of developing an accurate geohydrological model. Without a geohydrological model, it is hard to predict the impacts of fracking on the groundwater. So, there is no method of defining the hazards, quantifying the risks and allowing affected parties to make an informed decision.

It is true that fracking happening kilometers beneath the groundwater aquifers may result in minimal impact. This cannot be proven with any level of confidence. But logic and deep mining experience is probably enough to qualitatively justify this assumption.

However, the issue here is the integrity of the wells when they are not properly sealed.

- Hazard = gas leaks from the wells due to lack of proper sealing

- Probability of occurrence = LOW, very few cases knows cases. Are all cases reported?

- Consequences = VERY HIGH, contamination of groundwater

Question is, are the hazards known?, risks quantified? and mitigation measures in place? Is there enough information to justify the risk-reward of fracking in the Karoo?

Using the EIA type framework method to assess impacts (probability, level of impact, duration, extent, mitigation, magnitude, etc.) is a good way to go. The problem comes in - as you quite correctly state - that given the difficulty of correctly assessing something as complex (and essentially as hidden - in this case kilometres underground) as geohydrology - it is often at best a guessing game aided by some sound but often theoretical (rather than practical or empirical) scientific pointers.

What is needed desperately - is a full strategic assessment of the value of the Karoo. The existing contributions (rangeland, tourism, biodiversity - e.g. the Succulent Karoo as a Biome is on the tentative list to become a World Heritage Site (WHS) - and the Richtersveld WHS, the potential contribution through sun and wind power generation - (extremely high potential - most of which is untapped), etc. etc.) - versus the business oriented (i.e. big business gains the primary economic benefit) finite resource (methane from fracking) through a process that - without incredibly stringent process, regulation and management can permanently damage large areas - or extensive water systems. There quite simply is no "going back" if there is an accident or a well fails.

I have not followed the bunny-hugger type arguments about fracking at all - primarily because they irritate me as much as the pro-fracking lobby's propagandist stance. What I have watched, however, is a steadily growing band of Scientists and Environmental Practitioners voicing deep concerns about fracking, based on experiences in the USA (primarily). The fracking industry is not a clean one and the long-term (i.e. permanent) risks are not good - certainly not good enough to justify the practice.

 

[alloytoo]

Thank you - I am not in the least bit hysterical about nuclear energy - I am well aware of all the pros and cons. It is one of the cleaner forms of mass energy generation. What I (and many other scientists) ARE concerned about, is about how to deal with spent nuclear waste. That is something that almost nobody wants. Here is a relatively well researched popular article by National Geographic - called "Half Life—The Lethal Legacy of America's Nuclear Waste". There is a situation developing at Hanford in the USA - which is not an isolated circumstance. No one would have known about this issue if it were not for a whistleblower. You can google him - "Walter Tamosaitis"

If pro-nuclear organisations - such as the World Nuclear Organisation - are to be believed - then:

1. "Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes";
2. "Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that this should be geological disposal."; and,
3. "The health hazards associated with any uranium are much the same as those for lead"

Sounds so extremely easy and clean doesn't it? Well then - maybe South Africa should go into the business of running a nuclear waste disposal site? Other countries pay top dollar for nuclear waste disposal facilities - why? Because nobody wants toxic waste which includes a variety of toxic chemicals with a half life ranging from around 4.5 billion years (Uranium 238) and hundreds of thousands of years (Plutonium 239) as well as an array of other, shorter lived but extremely toxic materials.

Oh, but hang on a bit - nuclear waste isn't particularly toxic... it comprises naturally occurring elements :erm: Why on earth would the issue of nuclear wastes being under the arctic then need to worry anyone? There are so very many examples of this sort of "nuclear waste management" - dumping at sea, inadequate storage, etc. - that it would take several books (maybe many thousands of books) to adequately document them all.

All that the past few generations, and this generation, of nuclear power users have done and are doing is to generate power - while leaving the toxic waste to future generations to deal with. The Hanford site is a case in point. If nuclear power is so extremely safe and clean - why the worry about Fukushima? Why is no one (other than a few old folks) allowed to live near Chernobyl. Would you want to live next to a nuclear waste facility if the geology near your home was deemed suitable for storage? Would you happily raise children and drink groundwater?

All of these issues are about money. Yes, it IS indeed possible (for a while at least) to store nuclear waste of all kinds completely safely - the problem comes in when the storage containers fail - because with half life of many thousands of years - there is quite simply nothing that really can last long enough to contain them - well nothing that any company or country is going to spend money on - because the existing and cumulative (and iterative) costs are just too darn high. In the meantime - let's just hope that at least part of Walter Tamosaitis' fears are unfounded and that the Hanford debacle will NOT "lead to a deadly hydrogen explosion, or worse -- a nuclear chain reaction." Right now - hoping is all we have.

Hysteria.

The volume of nuclear waste that requires long term storage is rather small, incomparable with the annual waste and Emissions from conventional (fossil fuel burning) power stations.

 

[alloytoo]

We should give up on wind energy because it is simply unreliable and demands 100% backup during peak times usually in the form of fossil burning generation.

 

[Indigogirl]

Hysteria.

If you say so...

Let's hope I am so VERY wrong and that TEPCO succeed in this latest attempt to deal with this particular small issue...

A little more information on the minor issue from Global Research

‘Decades-long problems being faced at Fukushima’

Robert Jacobs, a professor at Hiroshima Peace University, told RT the compounding problems at Fukushima Daiichi underscore one critical reality: no one really knows what to do.

“Nobody really knows how to solve the problems at Fukushima. There is nobody who has solutions. The problems at Fukushima are unprecedented, so even bringing in outside expertise, all that they can try to do is problem solve. There is no solution that other countries have that they can come in and fix the reactors, or rather, shut down the contamination, shut down the leaks.”

Experts believe that even a small earthquake could lead to more serious nuclear damage in the area.

“They have a thousand tanks that are held together with a plastic pipe, so if there is a moderate earthquake the plastic pipes will fail and all that material will run across the ground surface and into the ocean,” nuclear power expert Arnold Gundersen told RT.

“Facilities themselves, the four reactors that are the most damaged had a series of explosions internally, so it would not take an earthquake as big as the one they had two and a half years ago to potentially do a lot of serious damage there.”

He added that the health risks are great and continue to increase every year. “Somewhere between 100,000 to 1,000,000 [people] will over the next thirty years get cancer from this accident…1,000 additional cancers a year from eating fish from the Pacific.”

I REALLY would love to be VERY wrong...