Sometimes it’s good to ask questions. Sometimes our elected representatives in government don’t always know what’s best for us. Sometimes industries aren’t as squeaky clean as they purport to be. This is the case with the natural gas boom and fracking that’s going on worldwide. And it’s about to hit New Zealand.
This blog is intended to pull together information about hydraulic fracturing so that people can read it and make up their own minds. It’s a process that’s already being used in Taranaki and there is much excitement in the oil and gas industry at the prospect of opening up further areas of New Zealand for exploration. There are currently five permits in application for exploration in the South Island, covering vast areas of land.
So what is it? Horizontal hydraulic fracturing is a controversial mining method developed to extract hard to get at gas reserves. It’s often referred to as ‘fracking’ or ‘fraccing’.
A drill bores deep underground and then turns sideways, creating the horizontal leg. Then a mixture of water, sand and chemicals (fracking fluid) is injected at high pressure fracturing the rock and creating fissures. These are propped open by the fracking fluid, allowing the gas to flow out up the well.
There are plenty of diagrams and demonstrations of how it works. But here are a couple to check out:
The first one is from Halliburton, the US company that first pioneered the process, obviously they’re big fans of it so the lovely greenery and trees in the final shot might show some bias. Nonetheless, it’s a good graphic and you can click through the whole process:
http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/fracturing_101.html#
The second one is from the other side of the fence and comes from the producers of the documentary film Gasland. It includes some FAQs that cover some areas of concern about the process.
Hello. I suggest you read http://www.straterra.co.nz/Fracking for a NZ industry explanation. We believe fracking can be done safely in New Zealand. Baker Hughes, the fracking company operating in New Zealand (and in some 80 other countries), says it has carried out more than one million fracking operations in the last 60 years, with no adverse effects on any aquifers.
Hi, thanks for stopping by and sharing the link. I see you mention that Baker Hughes have been fracking for 60 years. That old’fracking has been going on for ages’ line that the industry love to trot out always seems a little disingenuous. Yes, fracking may have been around for a while, but I suspect that it has developed somewhat over the years. After all most things do. I read recently that Baker Hughes are currently quite excited about what they call ‘super fracking’ so the process clearly continues to evolve.
I think most people that are concerned about the prospect of fracking in New Zealand believe there simply isn’t enough proof it’s safe or indeed that we really know the full picture. Take the EPA study that came out at the end of last year in the US that suggested fracking may well have caused water contamination in Wyoming.
There just seem to be so many question marks and the industry mostly seems to dodge them or give fuzzy answers. Take one of the FAQs from your site: “What would happen if water did get contaminated?” Your response goes into detail about why that probably wouldn’t happen and concludes that it’s not impossible but it’s unlikely. But that doesn’t answer the question: what would happen if water did get contaminated? I don’t know about others concerned about fracking but for me, it’s precisely that kind of woolly response that makes me think we can’t entirely trust the answers we’re getting from the industry.
In reply. Nothing in life is risk free. So we hv to manage risk. Even if the engineering is done to perfection you can never say something will not happen. So what is the contingency response? Take comfort from the fact that the East Coast is full of natural oil and gas seeps and the aquifers are not destroyed. Still. There is e debate to be had and yr questions are pertinent
Agreed – nothing in life is risk free. But the risk/reward needs to be balanced. If the answer to what would happen if an aquifer is contaminated is that it would be irreversible and domestic water supplies would be unusable and we would have to get water trucked in from other places, then I think a lot of communities would think that it’s probably not worth the risk.
Sure that’s a worst case scenario. But in the absence of any clear answers people tend to look overseas at what communities are saying over there in fracking areas, and generally what we’re seeing doesn’t look good.
You are right – there is a debate to be had and I think it would be great to see that debate take place openly and honestly. Whilst what we have at the moment is a lot of people going ‘we’re a bit worried about this for these reasons’ and what tends to come back from industry and parts of the government is along the lines of ‘don’t worry people, fracking has been going on for years, it’s quite safe and we won’t have any problems with it here in New Zealand’. People would have to be pretty naive to ask no further questions.
Along with the debate about the level of risk must be a discussion on who gets the benefits and who bears the costs. This is an industry where the people that stand to be most affected if it goes wrong stand to gain very little from the whole process. The level of risk that industry deem acceptable is higher because they don’t ultimately bear the cost if there is a problem. Once the gas or oil have been extracted the corporates will be gone, while the locals are left with the mess. That is why ordinary people like us keep saying “its not worth the risk”.
Bernie, haven’t we fallen such a long way from DOC.
Suggest you do a little research and take some honesty courses. Are we feeling a tad insecure as those not consulted take matters into their own hands. Key must be slapping yours for you to have to post here.
Karen chooses to be patronising, in the absence of any more constructive way of contributing to the debate. I have researched the fracking issue extensively, so believe that our web site material is an honest portrayal. It is being continually updated as new information is coming to hand.
In response to others’ comments, people’s concerns over risk management are legitimate, and justified. It is a difficult area. Nothing can be 100% guaranteed. An extreme view would be that we should ban all road and rail tunnels, bridges, motor vehicles, aeroplanes, alcohol, tobacco, junk food, forestry, commercial fishing, hydroelectricity generation, swimming, tramping, mountain climbing, horse riding, because all of these activities or things can kill people. Of course we are not going to do that as a society.
Yes, fracking has gone wrong overseas (but not in New Zealand). We don’t deny it. So has oil extraction, e.g. Deepwater Horizon. So has coal mining, overseas – and in New Zealand. Is the answer to ban fracking, or deep sea drilling, or coal mines? Well, if the New Zealand Government decided to do that, then so be it. But we do not think that is necessary for reasons stated on our web site and elsewhere. That is fortunate because currently we all rely on fossil fuels to enable almost every aspect of life, in New Zealand, and worldwide. (Of course, there are implications for the world’s climate, and I would be happy to debate that separately.)
We have drawn on experts in the fields of science, regulation, engineering, in forming our views, and urge others to do the same, in the interests of mature and informed debate.
I find it some what amusing that you try to bring into the discussion events that hurt others… but did any of these ‘events’ do MASS damage to people not involved in these ‘events’. Please don’t insult our intelligence with innapropriate examples.
Any chemical toxin that threatens any ecosystem with irreversible damage destroys life. This chemical age we live in has got to stop before we destroy ourselves, and the earth completely. We pollute the oceans with plastic, we drill in toxic chemicals into the ground for fuel, chemicals in our food, chemicals (prescriptions) to fix the chemical imbalances in our body that was originally caused by chemicals in our food etc the list goes on. We lost the balance to this a long time ago. We are all suffering from an addiction we don’t want to admit to! Until we admit we live in a chemical age, admit to our destructive choices, things are not going to change and sadly only get worse. We already live with the consequences of this in our society and we still believe putting more toxins into ourselves is the answer e.g cancer. We are beyond considering risk, because we have already risked too much. It’s commonsense not to keep risking adding fuel to the fire when you know the consequence of being burnt is inevitable! Enough is enough its got to stop. No to Fracking. No to toxic chemicals. We have to clean up our act before it’s too late.
Joanne. I can assure you there is no threat to ecosystems from chemicals used in fracking. In the same way, even though the active ingredient in 1080 poison occurs naturally in tea, there is no danger to humans in drinking tea. You would have to drink several swimming pools of tea very quickly to feel any effect. more info: http://www.straterra.co.nz/Fracking%20chemicals
Bernie Napp – you say “Take comfort from the fact that the East Coast is full of natural oil and gas seeps and the aquifers are not destroyed.” Please clarify exactly where on the East Coast and what extraction method you are referring to.
Reuben. There are prospecting or exploration permits over a lot of the East Coast, on land. You should be able to find the information on the New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals web site. The companies involved are a Canadian joint venture Apache/TAG Oil, and New Zealand Energy Corporation, a NZ-based company. Both are in the early stages of determining whether or not there is a viable resource. Fracking is a possible method but this has not been determined either. It depends on the geology. The gas-bearing rock has to be harder and more brittle than surrounding rock or fracking won’t work, and, doubtless, there are other considerations. The companies have engaged with land owners, local councils, and iwi, and there have been public meetings as well. You may find more information on their web sites. Who knows if these projects will ever proceed but if they do, New Zealand;s petroleum production could greatly increase.
Hi Bernie. So when you say “Take comfort from the fact that the East Coast is full of natural oil and gas seeps and the aquifers are not destroyed.”, what you actually mean is that during the pre-exploration phase (or the exploration phase) there aquifers have not been contaminated. That is not comforting to me at all. In Taranaki where fracking is most established, there have already been examples of contaminated water.
I am curious what exactly your job is (as it clearly relates to extraction). So perhaps you could clarify who pays your salary (or who commissions you) and post a copy of your Position Description or Charter? Reason being it would help to understand how impartial (or not) you are. Thanks
Straterra’s revenue is based on membership. You can find a list of company members at http://www.straterra.co.nz/Industry+Links You can read our goals here http://www.straterra.co.nz/Straterra+-+Home From that, you will see that we are not impartial. We are an advocate for the minerals sector. We promote environmentally-responsible exploration and mining, via policy analysis, engagement with government and others, and communications including via the media. We welcome debate, and encourage debate to be based on facts. Naturally, different interests will develop different views on the same set of facts. That’s the start of mature dialogue. But first we have to agree on the facts. If there is contamination of water in Taranaki occurring as a result of an activity, please contact Taranaki Regional Council, and please provide evidence to us for our information.
Bernie,
thank you for laying your cards on the table and confirming to me that you are not impartial at all, representing 84% (by value) of NZ’s mineral production. It means I cannot realistically take you seriously with such strong vested interests. Any passionate salesman will “sell” their product, often at any cost.
And if you were really concerned about Taranaki you only have to Google it and find the examples of fracking contamination yourself. So I don’t understand why you suggested I do that for you! Again this does not reassure me, because if you were genuinely concerned you would already have investigated.
Anyway on a different tack, what I find incredible is that NZ is looking into more fracking when we are already self sufficient in natural gas. So instead we are going to produce it for the tar sands in Canada where 34 cubic meters of gas is required to produce one barrel of bitumen! So let me try and understand this. You want to frack across 1/3 of New Zealand and risk polluting our drinking water and the air we breathe, as well as spoiling our environment and “PureNZ” image and also putting us at more risk of more earthquakes? And all to help the Canadian tar sands project which is an environmental disaster? Whilst all NZ will get out of it are some blue collar (mainly) jobs and a small amount of royalties whilst there is the gas. Then the global companies will withdraw and leave the mess behind having profited nicely at our expense. Sorry, it makes no sense to me and many, many others.
The problem with fracking is that it is short term gain with long term negative impacts. That is why it should be banned and it is reassuring to see another Canterbury Council asking for a moratorium now. Instead we need to look after the environment and keep our PureNZ image intact. Tourism can last forever with minimal environmental degradation. At the same time we need to focus on renewable energy because the wind, sun, thermal, tidal and wave sources of energy will outlast the tiny amount of gas energy (by comparison) that New Zealand can ever produce.
Thank you.