When one opens a newspaper, switches on the television or simply drives down the road, more often than not that person is bombarded with mass media messages, to a slogan on a T-shirt and everything in between which remind us of all the environmental concerns that organisations as well as individuals find important. Some are more publicised such as Global Warming and others, like the hundreds of amphibians on the verge of extinction due to a fungal diseased called Chytridiomycosis, which is caused by a mixture of climate change and polluted water, sadly are often over looked by most.
I spent days searching for a cause that was relevant as well as interesting to me, until eventually without even knowing it I stumbled upon “Fracking”. Fracking is the more commonly used term for Hydraulic Fracturing, a process used to recover oil and natural gas from deep underground. This was a term I had never heard of and frankly thought was a play on a similar sounding, less socially acceptable word when I first came across it.
While researching depleting water supplies a statement one of my friends posted on Facebook, a social media website, which read “Dear Shell, stop fracking the Karoo” caught my attention. This triggered my curiosity so I asked my friend what she was referring to. After she briefly educated me on the matter, I started noticing the term “fracking” almost everywhere and suddenly I became aware of a major issue going on in my own figurative back yard, an environmental issue the whole country seemed to be fighting against. Drawing from my friends passion, I felt this was a subject worth researching further, through which I discovered that in actual fact fracking was potentially one of the leading future causes of the depleting natural water supply, which is an issue I carry close to heart.
Having grown up in South Africa I have been lucky enough to have access to amazing drinkable water. In many countries, such as my homeland of Ukraine it is impossible to drink the tap water. The water isn’t even recommended for cooking purposes. My hair and skin immediately becomes dry after the first shower. The natural water sources in and around the urban areas of Ukraine are heavily polluted and recycled many times through harsh chemical processes. But this isn’t a problem that only Ukraine faces, this is a problem most European countries must deal with. Having just returned from Germany, where kettles need to be replaced every three months due to the residue the water leaves behind after being boiled and people drinking only bottled water not out of cool chic, but out of necessity, my appreciation for clean, drinkable water has been renewed. With counties such as Spain experimenting with incredibly expensive, new water filtration plants where sea water is converted into drinking water, one would wonder why a country that is lucky enough not to have to go to such extremes, would allow multinational corporations to waste and pollute tons of drinkable water daily?
Of course the waste I am referring to is that of the Hydraulic Fracturing process of which I recently became aware of. The way in which fracking works is simple. A well is drilled, straight down and then curving, often parallel to the earths surface. Millions of liters of water, mixed with sand and an undisclosed assortment of chemicals is then pumped under high pressure into these wells. Through this process the underground shale (soft rock that formed from mud or clay) is fractured, through which the natural gas and oil seeps out and is forced to the surface of the well where it is collected.
Now there are many problems with this process, however there are two main ones. Firstly the wells are generally drilled between 1,500m – 6,100m deep (Hydraulic Fracturing, 2011), the average well being 2,500m deep. Drinking water however runs approximately 300m bellow the earth’s surface. During the fracking process, when the shale is fractured not all of the natural gas automatically goes into the well, but a lot of it also escapes upwards and ends up in the natural drinking water that runs above it. Not only does the oil and gas escape into this water, but many of the powerful chemicals used also travel up through the fractures into the fresh drinking water. It is important to note that this water does not just affect farmers in the area who drink the water, give it to their cattle and water their crops with it, but also this polluted water can sometimes travel hundreds of kilometers, destroying the mineral rich soil above it and its vegetation.
The second main concern regards the water used in the actual process. The millions of liters of water is mixed with on average an assortment of 596 different chemicals (Gasland, 2010). This of course destroys the waters further use as well as then requires proper disposal. Only about half of this waste water ever comes back up to the surface, so where does the other half go? About half of the water that is pumped back up however, is disposed off on site by either being left in a pit and naturally evaporating or seeping back into the ground. Often a large percentage of this water is also disposed of with the help of waste water vaporizers which are machines that spray the water into the air forming a light mist that is quickly evaporated by the sun. These chemicals which are still in the water at time of evaporation not only cause dangerous air pollution which can be carried hundreds of kilometers with the wind, the evaporation process can also eventually lead to acid rain. Acid rain is harmful to plant life as well as erodes stone and over all harmful to all living organisms. The acid rain clouds can also travel a considerable distance before releasing the acid rain. This in turn can pollute areas that were initially not affected by the fracking process, further stretching the effects of fracking on the environment.
To add to that, a lot of the fracking wells are often drilled in water starved areas, hence competing with local communities for their limited resources and in result also destroying what resources they do have. Water is needed for survival and in taking away a large portion of the water in the area (which is needed for the fracking process, through which the remainder of the water is then generally heavily polluted), what is the land and the people of the land then left with?
This problem stems even further if you choose to take into account for example the animals that graze on the grass which grew in contaminated soil, their meat which can be transported to other communities, the milk, eggs, crops, all contaminated, all consumed.
Fracking however is not a new process, it was first discovered and used in the USA in 1947. Even though it is not a new process, only recently was so much emphasis placed on fracking with the pending world energy chrysies. During the Bush administration in the USA, recovering this natural gas was made a top priority (What the Frack? 2010).
Currently Royal Dutch Shell, a global corporation, has submitted an application to explore the Karoo for shale gas (Blaine, 2011). This would include 24 wells in an exploration area of 90000km2 (Nlongwane, 2011). On average each well would cost approximately $15 million (USD).
Currently in the USA due to the environmental concerns about fracking and the outcry about the development thus far, some states even went as far as a precautionary banning of the fracking process (Nlangwane, 2011). Many people have reported illnesses as well as blamed some deaths (caused by cancer) on exposure to contaminated water and air. Currently in the USA there is a loophole in the system, which exempts natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act (Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs, 2010) referred to as the Halliburton Loophole. This means that the companies doing the fracking are not legally obligated to disclose what chemicals are used during the fracking process. The chemical use can therefore not be regulated as the chemicals requiring regulation are unknown. Only recently have independent studies been done which show how toxic the whole process and its waste really is. Over the past year politicians have experienced pressure from communities to pass a bill that would protect them, as the bill that should protect their health and right to safe drinking water in this case in null and void. For months some politicians have been lobbying for the FRAC (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemical) Act bill to be passed, but there is strong opposition. It is implied and assumed that this opposition is due to the financial gains to be made through the fracking process (Gasland, 2010).
Several communities and individuals decided to act, through protests, approaching the media with their stories and through publicised law suits. A film maker, Josh Fox, was also one of the many approached by one of these large gas and oil companies to sell the mineral rights to his land. This event is what kick started the making of the critically acclaimed 2010 documentary film Gasland.
Gasland won many award as well as the Special Jury Prize at the Sundance film festival. More notably however it has highlighted an issue that was vastly unknown outside the United States of America. After the film was released many communities stood up against what was happening on their land. Although it may be too late for some, a great deal of debating over the now controversial fracking process is going on. These events are what helped educate and inspire South Africans to stand up for their land when Shell came in with their application to mine in the Karoo.
Unfortunately however it is still up to the government to make the final decision on fracking, but at least this will not be a decision taken lightly as the whole of South Africa will be closely watching this scene unfold.
Now if there is so much overwhelming proof that fracking is harmful not to just the environment, but people as well, then why is it still allowed to continue? Is profit and financial grain really a stronger driver than our children’s future?
In Documentary film Gasland, a farmer affected by fracking talks about how he was assured that there were no health risks to the process and that his lands would also remain unharmed. Now that he see’s otherwise it is already too late and he cannot find a way to back out of his contract. He also highlights that “what took Mother Nature thousands of years to build, is destroyed by humans in hours”. This statement can be compared to theories of Nature vs Humans.
Peter Newell in the journal Global Environmental Politics, talks about social class in relation to environment. He makes a point that the poorer classes are abused in the environmental sense (Newell, 2005; 71). This is clearly depicted with what happened in the USA with the fracturing industry. Huge companies went directly to ordinary, minimally educated farmers who owned large plots of land that has been passed down from generation to generation. These corporate representatives came with their confusing contracts and offers of large sums of money. These simple people were taken advantage of for naivety and trust. In the Documentary film Gasland a farmer explains how he does not understand “grown men” that will look him in the eyes and lie to him. He and a friend, a neighboring farmer continue to say that if a man doesn’t have his word than that man has nothing (Gasland, 2010). This is the exact kind of attitude that these corporations rely on. Poorer communities that often live from hand to mouth cannot later on fight these large corporations due to facts like making them sign unreasonable contracts, nondisclosure agreements and what are the chances of winning when fighting against companies who have millions of dollars to fight these cases, with the country’s best representation to make sure they win?
A land owner, Lisa Bracken, said “The corporate business model is to come into an area, develop it as fast as you can and if you trash anything, you make the people prove it, you make them argue it in a court of law and the last person standing gets bought off and you move on” (Gasland, 2010). Bracken’s opinion is in perfect synergy with what Newell sets out to prove. How even land has class and the higher, richer classes are the ones that are in the power positions to push around those considered lower and less valuable. The same applies to land in Newells argument. Land which is not for example considered conventionally beautiful is less respected. To Shell for example, the Karoo is just a desert with millions of dollars worth of oil and gas buried underneath it. To many South Africans not just the people of the Karoo need to be protected, but the Karoo itself needs to be preserved. However despite this, the government is still considering granting exploration rights to Shell. If these gas and oil deposits were sitting under Table Mountain the answer would be an immediate no, without even consideration because of the value we place on Table Mountain. It is not only a popular tourist destination but also a world heritage site and an iconic symbol of Cape Town and South Africa. This land holds too much value for us, even if the financial gain would be far great by extracting the natural gas. These are the environmental classes that Newell talks about in his theory of Environmental Inequality. Newell argues that what is equally as important to note here are social groups that make these key decisions. As explored above, the opinions, wants and needs of the lower social groups residing on and owning the land abused for its natural resources are not taken into consideration and are merely swept aside. If this land was perceived as valuable to higher social classes, which through either respect or financial ability, have a voice and opinion that is heard and defended, would this land be used like it has been to date? Would the environment be destroyed as easily if it was closer to a richer community?
Newell talks about the “benefit from environmental destruction” (Newell, 2005; 72), defining the benefit according to the social groups living there. Clearly capital gain sees no difference between the class of the people living on the land verses preserving the land itself. Like in Africa where some of the most diverse natural habitats were destroyed over the choice of capital gain.
Nature originally was seen as designed for human purpose. Even in the bible it is stated that god had given the earth to humanity to manage and “that its fruits were to be appropriated by man” (Hannigan, 2007; 2). This kind of selfish mentality is almost in our nature as humans. Humans live by reason and logic and not by instinct as nature does so it is not surprising that humans have always seen it “logical” to exploit the earth for personal gain.
Due to the current proceedings in South Africa, with Shell’s application to conduct explorative fracking in the Karoo, many people have acted to prevent this. One such person is David Kramer, a famous South African musician and TV personality, perhaps most famously known for the “Volksiebus” Volkswagen television campaign from the 1980’s.
David Kramer, a Karoo local, made a video, in which he sings a song about the Karoo, while walking through it, from where it goes to him briefly explaining what is currently going on in South Africa with regards to fracking in the Karoo. He voices his opinion against the matter and urges people to stand up with him and together put a stop to fracking in the Karoo. This is the first video in a series of a five video media campaign aimed to encourage people to act now and stop fracking in the Karoo. This is a call to action campaign that uses famous as well as ordinary people to promote this environmental emergency.
With all the attention that Shell’s fracking in the Karoo has gained, even local advertisers took the opportunity to play on the matter, as illustrated in a radio advert by Agrimark, which features a husband drilling in his garden and a play on “drilling for oil”, when his wife mentions the Karoo is a place for oil, not their garden.
One factor that hasn’t been considered is the fact that it is not only the communities and environment affect by fracking, but also the workers at these locations. They too are constantly exposed to the polluted air as well as the toxic water and harmful chemicals. However because these people are paid to do this job, often their health is not taken into consideration and the negative effects they may experience are ignored.
Some may argue that employees are aware of potential health risks and accept the job regardless. Some may even go as far as proclaiming that these employees are compensated justly for their efforts and exposure to potential harm, however sadly this is more often than not, not the case. In the case of fracking because the companies are not obligated to disclose the information on the chemicals used, often the employees are also unaware of the harmful effects that working on such sites may cause. In the documentary film Gasland, workers at one of these fracking sites are asked about the chemicals being used as well as the dangers there of. These workers were apparently unaware that chemicals were even being used and a manager was quoted as saying “Even if there are chemicals being used, they’re defiantly safe”(Gasland, 2010). This clearly demonstrates the unethical approach these companies are taking and the risk under which they put not just the environment or the surrounding communities but also their own employees. It is true however that these companies are indeed creating thousands of jobs ever year, but at what cost?
This was one of the arguments that Shell used in defense of their proposed facking in South Africa, that this was an opportunity that would lead to a large amount of job creation (Nlongwane, 2011), something that the country is in desperate need of.
In John Hannigan’s theory of Enlightenment and Romanticism, he talks about a romanticised view of nature and the philosophy of enlightenment which came about in the eighteenth centaury where the idea that nature should “be appreciated for its own qualities and not for its value as a material resource or a commodity for humanity” (Hannigan, 2007; 5) came about. Humans were to be in “awe” of nature. However Hannigan argues that Romanticism often intertwined with “opposing modes of thought” (Hannigan, 2007; 5) and became a combination of the two. An example of such an opposing mode of thought was a Karl Marx theory which “insisted on the possibilities for human beings to realize their full potential while conquering and using the powers of nature” (Hannigan, 2007; 5). This combination of two completely different ideas of what the earth and its resources are here for is in my opinion a perfect example of how most people feel in this day and age. This combination of views perfectly depicts the turmoil that the world is currently in. Most people love nature to some extent. They believe that in watching and learning from nature and the environment surrounding them, they can in turn learn more about themselves. They value nature for its beauty and wish to preserve it for future generations, however at the same time these same people strive to have the fastest cars, the biggest houses and the most advanced computers. This is a complete internal contradiction. In fact Hannigan even talks about how nature was often constructed (Hannigan, 2007; 4) to what we thought it should be. This is exactly what often happens today and has been happening throughout history, especially highlighted in the Romanic theories of the eighteenth century. For example people destroy plants that they don’t consider to be beautiful and plant foreign plants which they prefer in their place. They spray pesticides so that insects don’t destroy the beauty that they try and create and kill plants which grow where they deem inappropriate. We do all of this to have a piece of nature around us, yet what we are doing is constructing an idealistic place. In turn we are not saving a little bit of the environment but instead use and manipulate the environment to make it what we wish it to be. This in my opinion is true Romanticism. This is where I see the combination of using and preserving nature come in. We use nature and preserve it all for our personal gain.
My argument is that even for environmentalists who fight daily to save the planet or various things on it, or for the average person who wants to help in some way or cares about nature, we fight and care still for our personal gain. What we gain from preserving the planet is satisfaction. Satisfaction of any kind, such as the fact that we are preserving the environment so future generations can enjoy its beauty and offerings as we have. We save animals because we feel connections to them, when they die or are abused it hurts us. So does it not make sense that at the end of the day we are still doing everything for ourselves and not for the planet. In this case my theory would explain why the environment is so easily abused, because all that people do is at the end of the day for personal gain. This leads me to a statement made previously, that humans act upon logic and not instinct. That in my opinion is what really differentiates humans from animals, the fact that we don’t feel what must be done, but instead think and make the choice ourselves, in accordance to our own experiences and beliefs.
Currently it is still unclear what the future holds for the Karoo and the possibility of future fracking is still on the table. In late April a decision was made by Cabinet to put a temporary hold on any kind of fracking licensing. In Cabinets press release it was said that Cabinet had “endorsed the decision by the department of mineral [resources] to invoke a moratorium on licenses in the Karoo where fracking is proposed" (No 'fracking confusion' in SA, 2011). This is a temporary prohibition of activity, so while battle has been won, the war on Hydraulic Fracturing still continues.
