Those of you that didn’t make the Water for Gas Q & A session at Canterbury University last week, you can now see what went on by watching the recording here.
It was a really interesting evening and good to hear from some experts on the issue. Check it out.
Congratulations to the organisers of last night’s Fracking Q & A at Canterbury University. Despite the pouring rain over 200 people turned up to hear politicians and experts discuss fracking and answer some questions on the possible risks and benefits for Canterbury.
The evening kicked off with a short video presentation followed by the politician’s stating their parties’ line on fracking. Eugenie Sage (Green) said that the Greens wanted a moratorium on fracking until their had been a full assessment of the environmental risks. Brendon Burns (Labour) said that Labour also supported the call for an urgent indepent enquiry via the Parliamentary Commissioner or the EPA. The representative reading out National’s pre-written responses from Nick Smith said National feel fracking is ‘appropriately regulated in New Zealand’ and see no reason for a ban or moratorium of any kind.
For me the really interesing bit was hearing from the experts. Paul Siratovich, a geologist with experience in the energy industry and fracking in the US, was particularly candid. Asked if there was any chance of aquifers being effected by fracking he said ‘it is possible, lots of things can go wrong during drilling…but with very rigurous engineering and due diligence it’s very likely you can protect them’.
We also heard from a hydrologist who said that the ground water system in Canterbury is very dynamic and we’re talking about vast volumes of water. Because of this he said any contaminants that did make their way into the water would disperse quickly – ‘like smoke from a smoke-stack’ was his analogy. He was he said ‘pretty relaxed’ about fracking.
Next up was a recorded interview with Michael Hasting, a geophysicist who works in the energy industry studying the seismic effect of fracking operations. He said that in his experience there is no doubt that fracking does cause earthquakes but stressed these are generally extremely small. He went on to say however, that it can also trigger larger quakes – the fluid used in the frack process can lubricate existing faults causing them to slip. It would be ‘irresponsible’ he said to frack in a seismically active area like Canterbury, without first having done a very thorough study of the geology and existing fault lines.
If hearing from experts was the high point of the evening. Hearing Nick Smith’s pre-written answers was the low point. A dirge like repetition of the fracking is ‘appropriately regulated in New Zealand’ line seemed to be the standard response to just about every question. By the third time this line was trotted out it was greeted with laughter by the audience. Why didn’t National send a live person who could get involved in the debate? Sending in pre-written answers that can’t be challenged is a cop-out of the first degree.
But overall a great evening.
Fracking – vital economic opportunity or unacceptable environmental risk?
If you want to hear the pros and cons of the fracking debate head along to ‘Water for Gas’. This is a great Q and A event at Canterbury University. They’ve got Brendon Burns from Labour, Eugenie Sage from Green and a representative reading some pre-written answers sent on behalf of Nick Smith from National. There will also be a couple of fracking experts to answer questions.
It sounds like it’s going to be a hugely informative and interesting evening. Don’t miss it.
Monday 21st November: 7pm to 8.30pm at the C1 Lecture Theatre at Canterbury University.
If you haven’t seen the US doco ‘Gasland’ then you may have a chance next week if you’re in North Canterbury.
It takes a look at the effects of the unfettered expansion of the gas industry in the US and particularly considers the resulting problems for rural communities – from beef farmers to small town residents. It sounds dry but it’s a great piece of film-making. It highlights some issues we may need to consider in Canterbury and more than that gives a voice to people who have been completely ignored by an industry allowed to do as it likes.
You can check out the trailer here.
Screenings have been organised by the local Green Party on the following dates. All are welcome, gold coin donations are requested to help cover the cost of venue and screening licence:
Monday 14th November 7.30pm – Oxford
Oxford Club, High Street, Oxford
Thursday 17th November 7.30pm – Rangiora
John Knox Centre, Stewart Room, Corner High and King Street, Rangiora
Tuesday 22nd November 7.30pm – Kaiapoi
Kaiapoi Club, 113 Raven Quay, Old Restaurant, Kaiapoi
A few weeks ago I read an article in which Winifred Boeren of Todd Energy said that the idea that hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ could cause earthquakes was a ‘myth, implausible’. Previously another industry honcho – John Pfahlert of PEPANZ had said that to believe that fracking causes earthquakes demonstrated ‘breathtaking ignorance’. Okay, fair enough guys, you’re the experts, case closed.
So I was very confused when I read a press release, from UK frackers Cuadrilla, that said investigations had revealed it was ‘highly likely’ that one of their fracking operations had triggered a series of ‘seismic events’. They went on to say that the largest of these ‘seismic events’ had been only 2.3 on the Richter Scale and it had been due to ‘unusual geology’ at the frack site. They’re downplaying the facts, but here is a fracking company that is basically saying ‘yes, fracking does cause little earthquakes’.
But that’s little earthquakes in the UK, where earthquakes are virtually unheard of. What happens when you frack somewhere like Canterbury where earthquakes are all too familiar? Do we have some ‘unusual geology’ going on under the Plains too? If fracking can cause earthquakes why were Pfahlert and Boeren so dismissive of the possibility just a few weeks ago? I don’t know…I don’t have all the answers.
But it seems like nobody really does have good answers about so many aspects of fracking. And, as long as that’s the case, should we even be considering this risky practice on the Canterbury Plains? The industry says ‘prove it’s not safe’, but it should actually be up to them to prove it is safe before they start eyeing up the profits under our homes and our land.
I was reading the article about environmentalism in this month’s North and South magazine recently. It’s an interesting piece by Graham Adams and he makes some good points. In his final paragraph he talks about ‘fracking’ and makes reference to the report ‘The Shale Gas Shock’ by Matt Ridley which puts a pretty positive spin on shale gas. Adams then goes onto say fracking may be the devil or it maybe the answer to our energy problems, but we should let the science decide.
It’s a fair point. But the problem is – the science on natural gas, at this stage, doesn’t have all the answers either. There are question marks over methane migration, seismic activity, whether ‘natural gas’ really is a ‘clean’, alternative bridge fuel. There are concerns about water contamination and land contamination from the disposal of waste water. There are a lot of questions with no clear answers or conflicting answers depending on whose science you read.
‘The Shale Gas Shock’ report is a point in question. The author, Matt Ridley, is a well regarded science writer. But the report is entirely funded by the UK based ’Global Warming Policy Foundation’. They consider themselves an independent think tank that ”while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated”. So they’re concerned about government policy driven by a global warming agenda. They’re delighted by recent cuts to renewable energy subsidies in the UK. You have to ask yourself why? What sort of people would be worried about environmental policy and a trend towards renewables? Well, we can only guess because the GWPF have repeatedly refused to reveal where the majority of their funding comes from. If we don’t know who is paying for the science, how can we take it seriously?
Funding scientific research to produce favourable results or results that cloud the issue, is a well-recognised ploy of large, powerful industry. Just think of the tobacco industry. They spent years confusing and denying claims about the health risks of smoking. And whilst that was going on, it was business as usual for them.
So, science is key. But it needs to be truly independent science, open about its funding, transparent in its methods and with nothing to gain from the conclusion. So next time you read something about shale gas, or fracking that sounds at odds with everything else you’ve read. Stop, think and follow the money trail.
You can read a little more about the Global Warming Policy Foundation here.
Here in NZ we might just be starting out on the road to making the most of all that natural gas beneath our feet. But over the ditch they’ve been doing it for ages. So with a gas extraction industry that is fairly mature, it’s interesting to see how things are playing out in Australia.
The answer is, the government seem pretty happy and the energy companies seem pretty happy – “we’re doing good things for Queensland” is the strap line on Queensland Gas’ website.
But looking round the web at local community blogs and watching the documentary Gas Rush – there’s one group that doesn’t seem very happy at all. That’s the ordinary people where gas extraction is taking place. The Gas Rush documentary interviews a number of farmers and rural residents none of who say that Queensland Gas is “doing good things”. In fact, they’re saying the opposite. The gas companies are jeopardising their land, their way of life and their safety. Stories of unfettered well expansion, lack of disclosure, leaking wells and more – all making the farmers interviewed feel like they’ve lost control of their property.
For farmer Scott Llloyd the main concern is the accelerated drop in his water table since the gas companies arrived. His cattle are totally dependent on bore water drawn from the Great Artesian Basin. At one of his water bores the level has dropped by 10 metres since drilling commenced. He estimates at this rate there’s maybe two or three years worth of water left.
These aren’t environmental activists, or ‘zealots’ (as our very own John Pfalhert of PEPANZ likes to call anyone raising any queries about fracking). These are ordinary, down to earth, rural people who are being pushed to the limit. Watch the documentary and ask yourself, will it be different here?
Interestingly enough Queensland Gas declined to be interviewed for the Gas Rush documentary. But as seems to be the way with this industry, they gave a long, detailed written response to questions after the event. So much easier than getting involved in a conversation that might have difficult, unforeseen questions, eh?
You can watch Gas Rush online by clicking here.
