Evidence of dangers now mounting fast globally {writer: Leon Alberts}

On the eve of the February expiry date of the South African moratorium on prospecting for shale gas in the Karoo via the controversial drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), the gas-exploring industry’s claims that the process is safe were delivered devastating blows on two fronts: in terms of pollution and geological safety.

The moratorium was originally introduced in April last year by Minister of Mineral Resources Susan Shabangu, and extended for a further six months in August to allow time for public consultation on the matter.

The moratorium came after a furore broke out over plans to explore for shale gas over an area of more than 200 000 square kilometres in the Karoo.

Originally, in December 2010, the Petroleum Agency South Africa (Pasa) accepted an application for exploration rights by Shell of an area of 95 000km2.

Other companies that have shown an interest in fracking include Falcon Oil & Gas Ltd, which has sought exploration rights for an area of 100 000km2 in the Karoo; and Bundu Oil and Gas Exploration, with interest in an area of 35 000km2.

Minister Shabangu said at the time of the original introduction of the moratorium that it was done to give her department an opportunity to carry out a study of the potential environmental impact and economic potential of fracking.

It is not known at this time how far the department has progressed with its own study, but the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in mid-December announced that it had found at Pavillion in Fremont County, Wyoming chemicals used in fracking in the drinking water.

The EPA study, over a period of three years, reported finding a host of chemicals in the groundwater around shale gas wells in Wyoming state. These include petroleum hydrocarbons such as benzene, and tert-butyl alcohol – a fuel additive that is among the more than 500 chemicals typically mixed with sand and water and blasted into shale to fracture the rock to release the gas.

To deliver absolute proof is extremely difficult, but the EPA study states: “When considered together with other lines of evidence, the data indicates likely impact to groundwater that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing.”

Only days after this report, practically the same list of fracking chemical ingredients were found in water from Dimock, Pennsylvania that was tested for fracking contamination of groundwater.

Reporting on the Pavillion incident, The Guardian in the United Kingdom wrote: ”What is also clear is that the aquifer in Pavillion will never be cleaned. The contamination there, for the foreseeable future, is permanent. And considering that the permanent contamination of huge areas of groundwater in the US is now a scientifically proven risk, the Pavillion investigation, as extensive as it was, must become the new standard for investigating fracking complaints worldwide.”

The newspaper refers to the fact that proof is not easy to obtain and that “it is hard to prove something that is happening thousands of feet below the ground. It’s very difficult and costly, both in time and money.

“To prove that fracking has contaminated water, even as obvious as it can be to residents who can see the apparent cause and effect, takes extensive and expensive hydrogeological study. Hundreds of chemicals need to be tested over a period of years in a large sample area. In Pavillion, nearly 50 water wells were sampled, two deep monitoring wells were drilled, and years of working with the immense pool of data was required.

“After viewing the EPA draft study, no one can ever again say that robust science has not been brought to bear on fracking.”

The Guardian goes on to point out that “beyond the US, Europe, South Africa, China and Australia are right now contemplating embarking on the ‘shale gas revolution’; they should take note of the EPA’s findings.

“As the story unfolds, the real answer bubbles inexorably to the surface: fracking is deeply flawed; it is inherently contaminating in its present form and must be halted immediately. The empty excuses of the gas industry and the pro-fracking politicians who defend them just don’t hold water.”

Geological dangers

The UK’s sole operational fracking site near Blackpool was suspended in June last year following complaints from local residents about two earthquakes in April and May. The subsequent report into the seismic activity and fracking concluded in November that it is highly probable there was a connection.

The report further concluded that the fracking activity by Cuadrilla Resources was responsible for another 48 earthquakes.

In early January this year, Bloomberg reported that the mayor of Youngstown, Ohio has bought quake insurance in the wake of reports that fracking is the likely source of some 11 recent earthquakes in the northeastern part of the state.

The earthquakes started about nine months ago in an area where it has not happened before.

John Armbruster, a seismologist from Columbia University, was reported by CBS News as saying he believes the trigger for the quakes was a Youngstown well that disposes of contaminated water trucked in from elsewhere in Pennsylvania and beyond. The contaminated water is a byproduct of oils and natural gas extraction by fracking.

“These earthquakes were sitting there waiting to happen. We have triggered these earthquakes,” he added.

In December, The New York Times, reporting on the fracking plans for among others the Karoo, hinted that the US Department of State – in promoting American exploration companies abroad – seems to attempt to extend its sweetheart status when it comes to policing contamination dangers. In 2005, exploration companies have been exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, allowing them to inject toxic chemicals underground without disclosing it.

The report states, “Officials from the State Department’s shale gas initiative have said that developing countries interested in fracking will need to create stronger protections for intellectual property rights so energy companies will think that they can safely maintain certain patents over their drilling techniques. Some environmentalists say that strengthening these intellectual property protections will only help energy companies argue that they do not have to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking abroad.”

According to the same report, David Hunter, director of the Program on International and Comparative Environmental Law at American University Washington College of Law, said: “Especially with energy projects, the US and its funding institutions have a habit of promoting policies that foster a stable climate for foreign investors, but that are not in the best interests of local populations.”

In Peru, for example, the Export-Import Bank of the United States provided more than $400 million in loan guarantees in 2008 for a liquefied natural gas terminal to export gas from the Camisea gas fields, which are in the Amazon Rainforest. The project for drilling and pipelines in the Camisea, which received separate financing from the Inter-American Development Bank, has been dogged by spills, accusations that company officials bribed lawmakers, and criticisms about exporting the gas rather than using more of it to lower prices for domestic consumers.

In July last year, South Africa’s Advertising Standards Authority ruled that several of Shell’s advertised claims – including one that said fracking had never led to groundwater contamination – were misleading or unsubstantiated, and should be withdrawn. Shell said the advertisements were an accurate reflection of its opinion.

“The government is under a great deal of pressure to hurry up,” said Hein Rust, director of disaster management for the central Karoo region. “But I don’t think these decisions should be made on faith or until all the costs are known,” he told The New York Times.