When I was growing up in the UK in the 50's and 60's there was a great
environmental awareness. The early years of the industrial revolution
had taken a heavy toll on our health and our surroundings - polluted
rivers flowing into the sea, thick smog enveloping cities causing
respiratory illnesses and often making driving perilous, buildings coated
with a black layer of soot concealing the colour of the brick and
stonework. The response, a very sensible one, was for our government to
implement strict environmental controls on industry, to instigate
massive clean up operations and to designate protected areas by way of
National Trust lands, parks and green belt. The general public
enthusiastically got behind these initiatives. Soon fish began
returning to rivers that had been for many years devoid of life and we
grew up learning to have a healthy respect for our natural
surroundings.

Over the past 3 to 4 decades, however, things have gradually
changed. Democracy has largely given way to plutocracy, where
important decision making is done by the rich and powerful. Britain,
more than any other European country, has been quick to emulate the
mistakes of that great super power across the Atlantic - the U. S. A.
where corporate interests override politics, where corporate profit
rules supreme and where there is a revolving door between positions in
government and those on Wall Street. Environmental standards have been
whittled away as big business lobbies the politicians through a process
of legalized bribery. No more so than in the fossil fuel industry,
where large oil and gas companies are given license to exploit fragile
eco systems and when accidents happen, which is not uncommon, causing
environmental catastrophe and contamination of human habitats, they are
barely, if at all, held accountable. Notable examples are: (1) the oil
contamination by Chevron/ Texaco of large tracts of Amazonian rain
forest in Ecuador, home to native Indian populations as well as the
richest diversity of life on the planet, and (2) the deep water horizon
oil spill by BP in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

Chevron
has been found guilty by the courts yet refuses to pay the $19Bn
compensation awarded to Ecuador, necessary for an attempted clean-up to
take place. This amount was later cut in half following a long drawn
out court appeal. From a well drilled at a depth of 1.5km in the Gulf
of
Mexico, approx 60,000 barrels (2.5m gallons) of oil escaped into the
ocean. Instead of cleaning up the floating oil, BP
then exacerbated the disaster many fold by spraying it with a toxic
detergent - Correxit, which caused the oil to both spread out and to
sink, suffocating life on the ocean bed not only now but for decades to
come.
This disaster was apparently avoidable according to Ian R Crane,
an ex oil industry engineer who has conducted exhaustive research. In a
presentation available online, he argues that the circumstances were
deliberately engineered as the U.S. fossil fuel industry sought to tame
British competitor, BP - . Operations
such as these should simply not be allowed, certainly not without first
conducting a thorough EIA (environmental impact assessment)
and permission declined if it is even remotely likely to put the environment at risk. Yet
in August 2015 Shell was granted license by the USA to drill in the
perilous Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. In October
2015 it was announced that in the two prime Arctic sectors no new
licenses will be issued and existing licenses will not be renewed. In
the final weeks of his presidency, however, Trump has reneged on this
commitment and is once again putting this fragile environment at the
mercy of the fossil fuel industry.
The latest chapter in this era of fossil fuel extraction is the
"dash for gas" which gained momentum around the turn of the century
when licenses to frack were granted willy nilly all over the USA by the
George W Bush Administration. The environmental impact was largely an
unknown quantity - due to geological variation, an EIA would be
necessary for each individual well drilled - this was deemed by the
regulatory authorities as unnecessary. To make matters worse the then
Vice President Dick Cheney in 2005 exempted the industry from
compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Drinking Water Act and the
Clean Air Act in a new Energy Bill signed into law by George W Bush.
This is known as the 'Haliburton Loophole'. On the 10th anniversary of
this bill many sought to reverse these exemptions but were overruled.

Conventional (vertical) drilling for gas has been carried
out for several decades. Around 2006 unconventional (horizontal)
drilling became the norm. From each vertical well shaft drilled,
several horizontal shafts then radiate out for distances of up to 3 km.
Residents of areas opened up to fracking have no say about what happens
below ground - i.e. below their homes and farms. Governments assured
the electorate that the industry would be subject to the strictest
safety and environmental regulation, but in retrospect we can see that
this has not been the case.
Heavily in debt following the 2008 financial crisis brought about by deregulation and the home grown sub-prime mortgage lending scandal (exported to the EU and other western nations via the derivatives market), the USA saw this as (a) a way to become energy independent, (b) a
way to improve the balance of payments deficit by becoming a net
exporter of natural gas and (c) a way of keeping the fiat currency debt
bubble afloat by pumping money created by QE (Quantitative Easing - i.e. legitimized counterfitting on a national scale) into an industry primed and ready to soak it up.

Once
drilled and fractured, each well requires the injection under pressure
of more than two million gallons of fresh water laced with a cocktail
of aggressive chemicals to fracture and penetrate the gas bearing
shale, along with either sand or ceramic beads to wedge the fissures
open, allowing the gas an escape route back to the well shaft. In
successfully drilled wells approximately 3% of the gas extracted
escapes and just half of the toxic water (often referred to as frack
fluid) is recovered and then has to be disposed of. The rest remains in
the ground and no one can accurately predict what further effects it
will have. Due to the aggressive nature of the mix, it is fair to
expect that it just keeps on going, contaminating anything in its
path - underground water in the vicinity, soil and underground life
forms, eventually reaching the ground surface, where the gasses escape
into the air. This might take weeks, years or even decades, and this is
in the best case scenario.

The past decade of drilling in the U.S. and Australia has revealed that
approx. 40% of wells drilled actually fail in some way or another, most
commonly related to the integrity of the concrete casing. Where this
passes through an aquifer it often leads to contamination of drinking
water sources. In the U.S. alone more than a thousand actions have been
brought for drinking water contamination by this industry.
In addition to the methane gas collected in the fracking process,
more methane is unlocked that is not harvested and this then finds its
way through the fractured geology, is absorbed by any water it encounters on the way, ultimately reaching the surface to be released
into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas approx. 28 times more
potent than carbon dioxide. We should not therefore be surprised by the
acceleration in global warming that we are now experiencing, exceeding
the worst forecasts of the scientific community. The methane released
into the atmosphere since the fracking process began must surely dwarf
that released by melting permafrost and the world's population of
flatulent cattle. Almost every month new records are set for being the
hottest on record.
An area of between 1 & 2 hectares (3 to 5 acres) is required
to be cleared and prepared for each well pad. Then much specialized
drilling equipment is required, brought to site along with the well
tower, water, chemicals, sand, compressors, explosives and ready
mix concrete in monster sized road vehicles, which have to navigate
their way not just along motorways, but narrow country lanes and
through picturesque villages. It doesn't just leave a blot on the landscape, but an entire landscape of blots. Gas
storage vessels are required along with vehicles or pipelines to
transport it from the site. Extracting gas in this way is in itself
very energy intensive. With the oil price at anything less than US$75
per barrel this process is not even financially viable.

Both Americans and Australians were caught napping by the speed
and stealth with which this industry invaded their countries, aided and
abetted by the politicians in the pockets of the large energy
corporations. Those affected have met a lack of transparency when
seeking to know how their local communities will be impacted and what
chemicals are being deployed in their areas. Often the fracking
companies refuse to disclose any information at all, claiming that the
frack fluid mix they use is a trade secret. Landowners have been made
cash offers to allow fracking on or close to their properties, but as a
condition are required to sign a non disclosure agreement, basically
gagging them from taking any legal action or speaking to the press. As
the dangers have become apparent, grass roots residents groups have
sprung up all over, demanding a halt to this industry. By the time they
are able to instigate effective change, however, in many cases the damage has already been done.
The public of Britain and Europe are, it seems, better informed
about the dangers of fracking. Their populations have been extremely
active in pressurizing their governments and local authorities to
resist the invasion of the countryside and their rural communities by this industry,
with some measure of success. In Europe France, Germany and Bulgaria
have banned fracking and many other EU countries have introduced bans
in selected areas or provinces and are under pressure from the public
to further restrict this industry. In the UK Wales has banned fracking
and Scotland has issued a flawed moratorium that somehow excludes
mining!?. In 2011 two exploratory wells were drilled in the Fylde area
of Lancashire. Both triggered earthquakes that rocked the seaside town
of Blackpool, causing property prices there to plummet.

Despite the flawed economics of this industry, the rising objections of
the general public and, of course, the potential damage it will cause,
the Cameron government seemed determined to forge ahead with the
fracking agenda in the UK. Everywhere, that is, except in his own back
yard, i.e. the small constituency of Witney, Oxfordshire, where he
imposed a fracking ban. As in America, the corporate owned mass media
constantly paints a rosy picture of this industry and gives minimal
coverage to the rapidly growing number of anti-fracking protests and
demonstrations taking place throughout the country, or of the
contamination and negative health consequences. To get a realistic
insight into this battle between the general public and the government
backed fracking industry, one has to seek out the alternative media to
be found on the web, conduct research from among the many websites
devoted to fracking and also watch some of the excellent
documentaries on the subject available on YouTube. Ian R Crane, a
former engineer with one of the largest fossil fuel industry
corporations, on recognizing the insidious nature of this industry, has
been instrumental in educating local communities up and down the
country about the dangers associated with fracking and has a website
devoted to this work called "Fracking Nightmare".
The reason, we are told, that we should embrace this industry is
that it is cleaner - that the burning of natural gas produces less CO2 than
the burning of other fossil fuels such as coal and oil. What they don't
tell us, however, is how energy intensive the fracking process is, how
much infrastructure is required, how much wastage occurs and how much
contamination it leaves behind. It endangers our health, flora and
fauna, scars our countryside and is, in fact, having an accelerating
effect on global warming.
Ian also warns us to
beware of a possible hidden agenda as he explains to us the ways in
which the UK's nuclear industry has been attempting to dispose of its
radioactive waste products over the years. There is a school of thought that disused frack wells might be
sold in the future to international energy corporations for nuclear
waste disposal.
REASONS WHY FRACKING SHOULD BE OUTLAWED EVERYWHERE
1. Earthquakes. Fracking is known to have triggered a great many seismic events 2. Contamination of drinking water. Fresh
water for drinking and agriculture is often in short supply. Despite
assurances from the industry, frack fluid has found its way into many
sources of fresh water, both above and below ground, poisoning wildlife
and contaminating our valuable supplies of potable water. Our knowledge
of the geology that lies below the earth's surface is far from
comprehensive. What we do know, however, is that underground water
sources can often be interlinked over vast areas. Contaminate it in one
location and there is a high probability of contamination
in others. Of all the water on the earth, only 3% is fresh and 2%
of that is frozen. We must treasure and protect the remaining 1%. 3. Air quality degradation. Wherever
fracking has occurred in close proximity to human habitation, residents
have complained about the toxic air making them sick, especially when
there is flaring at the well head. In wet weather these toxins fall as
acid rain, killing garden plants, pets, wildlife and degrading such
things as automobile paint and bodywork 4. Contribution to global warming. Methane
is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. Since the turn of this century
the fracking industry has contributed significantly to this phenomenon
as large quantities of methane trapped below the earth's surface
are unlocked but not harvested, ultimately surfacing to escape into the
atmosphere. This process will continue around frack sites long after
the industry has departed. 5. Frack fluid disposal and mis-use. Each
frack well requires in excess of 2 million gallons of frack fluid -
i.e. fresh water laced with a lethal cocktail of highly poisonous
chemicals. What is recovered then has to be disposed of and cannot be
effectively treated. In drought stricken California we read stories of
it being sold to farmers for the purpose of crop irrigation! 6. Accountability. The
environmental degradation and ill health effects will continue to
plague fracked localities long after the wells have become redundant.
It is unlikely that the drilling companies will still be around to sue
for compensation when the claims start mounting. Will our governments,
who misled us into believing this industry posed no threat to our
health, be willing to pick up the tab? 7. Negative effect on property prices. In
the areas of the USA and Australia contaminated by fracking, not only
have property prices plummeted, many simply cannot be sold at any price
as residents evacuate for the sake of their health. 8. Not required or economically viable. At
a time when the entire world should be transitioning to eco friendly
energy sources, what we see instead is an oversupply of fossil fuel,
hence the depressed oil price in the $40 to $50 per barrel range since
late 2014. Only with the oil price above $75 per barrel can fracking be
financially feasible. 9. Disfiguring the landscape. Each
well pad requires 3 to 5 acres of land to be cleared of vegetation and
leveled, along with access roads and pipeline routes. 10. Disruption to local communities. Each
well site is serviced by a fleet of super sized tanker lorries to bring
in the drilling equipment, sand, frack fluid storage vessels and
pipeline. These have to negotiate narrow winding country lanes and pass
through small, quiet, often historic villages, destroying the ambiance
and degrading our cherished countryside. 11. Lack of transparency. Large
corporations have corrupted and now seem to dominate the political
landscape. Consequently the public are presented with a biased
perspective of this industry and attempts by the public to voice
objection or obtain hard facts are often met with obstruction. 12. Intolerance of protest groups. Laws
have been introduced in recent years to restrict and punish those who
exercise their democratic right to speak out and demonstrate publicly
against this industry, by re branding protesters as eco "terrorists"!
13. Noise pollution. First
the graders, then the drilling process generates a lot of noise, as do
the heavy duty compressors and monster size vehicles servicing the well
sites. 14. Undemocratic. Referendums
and polls conducted in areas allocated for fracking demonstrate an
overwhelming public opposition to the practice. No one wants it in
their back yard. But hey, who's listening to them?
|
Over a relatively sort space of time - a little over a hundred
years - we have selfishly exploited most of the accessible fossil fuel
reserves that took hundreds of millions of years for the earth to
manufacture, leaving precious little for the benefit of future
generations. We are burning it at such a furious rate that the
consequence is a severe negative impact upon the very planet that
sustains us. We now have the technology to satisfy almost all our
energy needs from renewable and environmentally friendly sources, yet
we still allow the giant multinational energy corporations to dictate
how we live our lives. In Brazil 122,000 sq km of Amazonian rainforest
is up for grabs - being auctioned off to oil and gas companies to
frack, thus inviting the same kind of environmental catastrophe as
occurred in Ecuador. Even Ecuador, despite not having received a penny
from Chevron/ Texaco for the contamination it left behind, continues to
open up new areas of rainforest for further fossil fuel
exploitation. A human rights lawyer who acted for the indigenous
peoples of the Amazon rain forest in their successful court battle
against Chevron which resulted in a US$9.5billion (unpaid) settlement
is now being hounded by Chevron through the courts, having used their
wealth and power to "capture" the US judicial system. Below he tells
his story to Chris Hedges in September 2020
As the most populous and highly developed species to have evolved
on this planet, we must take responsibility for its continued
well-being, for to neglect our roll as custodians of the earth is
to condemn the human race to eventual extinction. It took around 4
billion years for the earth to reach the level of diversity and stability that has
made our existence possible and our lives so comfortable today, but all
we have done in return is to plunder its resources, destroy unique
habitats and eco systems, replace diversity with mono crops, wipe out
countless life forms and pollute the land, rivers, sea and air, all in
the name of development. We enhance our own existence at the expense of
all others.
We have destroyed vast tracts of oxygen
producing and life sustaining primordial rain forest and continue to do
so, oblivious to the damage we inflict. We contaminate the oceans with
industrial pollution and nuclear waste. We are causing our climate to
change through the excessive burning of fossil fuel, resulting in more
frequent extreme weather conditions that are often catastrophic in
magnitude. And now, just since the turn of the century, we have
embarked on the worst felony of all - the CRIME of FRACKING! Yes, I do
consider fracking to be a crime. It is an assault on the crust of our
one and only beloved planet, a crime against nature and against
humanity. This unfortunate trend is motivated only by the excessive
greed of giant corporations, whose owners have amassed such power and
wealth that they are able to corrupt the political process, override
democracy and dictate our future. They have to be tamed and this
industry has to be stopped, before the level of destruction reaches the
point of no return.
Our very survival as a species depends upon it!
|
2019 update.
I have for many years been of the opinion that accidental emissions of
gas into the atmosphere from the fracking assault on the earth's crust
since the turn of the century has contributed massively to the
acceleration of global warming, the effects of which are becoming more
widespread and more frequent. Most scientists concur that as a
greenhouse gas, methane is at least 28 times more potent than CO2 and
has a half life of 7 years as it gradually breaks down in the
atmosphere into a combination of water and CO2. My suspicions were
recently confirmed, as methane released by the fracking process carries
a different chemical signature from that of methane released by melting
permafrost or flatulent cattle.

This is explained by Max and Stacey in ep 1431 of the Keiser Report
|

|  |  |  | 
| 
| 
|  |

|
|
What is FRACKING?
Fracking
is a term used for hydraulic fracturing, a process which requires
drilling into the ground, encasing the well shaft with concrete, then
using explosives to fracture the concrete at convenient places before
injecting under pressure a mixture of sand and water laced with a cocktail of
chemicals designed to penetrate the surrounding shale rock, releasing
methane (natural gas) which then flows back up the well shaft for
collection at the surface. Conventional drilling (vertical) gave way
around 2006 to unconventional drilling (first vertical, then horizontal
in several directions from a single shaft). Each
well shaft requires above 2 million gallons of water mixed with a
cocktail of aggressive chemicals pumped in at high pressure to
penetrate the rock. This water also contains either sand or ceramic
beads which then keep the fissures wedged open, allowing the gas
passage back to the shaft. There are over 700 different chemicals which
are used in the fracking process. Below is a short list of some of the
most lethal and commonly used.
ascetic acid | acetone | ammonia | ammonium nitrate | benzine | boric acid | calcium chloride | carbon dioxide | chlorine dioxide | copper sulphate | diethylene glycol | dodecylbenzine | erythorbic acid | ethoxylated alcohols | ethanol | ethyl benzine | ferric chloride | ferrous sulphate | formaldehyde | fumaric acid | glycerin | hydrochloric acid | isopropylbenzin | kerosine | methanol | naphthalene | liquid nitrogen | polyethlene glycol | potassium chloride | propylene glycol | sodium benzoate | sodium bromide | sorbitol | sulfamic acid | terpene + terpenoids | toluene | triethylene glycol | trimethylbenzene | urea | xylene |
What could possibly go wrong?
Toxic
substances naturally occur at low levels in the geology. The fracking
process often unlocks these, enabling them to rise rapidly to the
surface in dangerous quantities, along with a great deal of methane.
Among these are arsenic, radio active radon gas and radium 226. These
have caused serious illness to the populations resident in areas
already fracked and will continue to afflict them long after the
frackers have departed.
Where has FRACKING been STOPPED?
As the general public become informed about the destructive
nature of the fracking industry, pressure on their governments has led
to some significant restrictions. By 2012 over 18 million frack wells had been drilled in the USA alone.
The states of New York and Vermont have now banned fracking and many
other states have banned it in some counties or sensitive areas. When a
Texas municipality introduced a fracking ban it was canceled out by a
ban on fracking bans!
Recognizing the environmental damage
and widespread ill health caused by 4 years of fracking in Queensland
Australia, the state of New South Wales has taken the decision to ban
fracking. France, Germany and Bulgaria have outlawed fracking and
many other European Nations have imposed restrictions on where it may
be allowed. In the UK so far, only Wales and Prime Minister David
Cameron's tiny constituency of Witney in Oxfordshire have banned
fracking. Scotland has issued a flawed moratorium which strangely
excludes "mining".
The UK has considerable areas of underground shale from which gas could be extracted.
New licenses for fracking exploration in the UK were announced in August 2015
The map below, shown to us in an episode of Fracking Nightmare in
October 2015, shows how the north of England has been carved up for the
purpose of fracking. Different colours represent different contractors
granted license to frack.
Tina Louise Rothery, one of the swelling number of anti-fracking activists in the UK, is interviewed here by Max Keiser on RT's Keiser Report.
The Fracking program in Lancashire was overwhelmingly rejected by
councillors in 2015, but democracy was crushed by government
intervention when Secretary of State Sajid Javid subsequently overruled
them. Fracking once again commenced in the summer of 2019 but almost
immediately triggerred seismic events in excess of safety levels, so a
moratorium has for the time being been imposed on this industry.
Dominica is a relatively young volcanic island, pushed upward from the
sea bed as the edge of the eastward drifting Caribbean tectonic plate
meets the expanding Atlantic plate. We therefore have no ancient
underground deposits of coal and shale, so have consequently been
spared interest from the large international energy corporations.
Electricity in Dominica is derived from a combination of costly and carbon
dioxide producing diesel generation and environmentally friendly hydro
power, which accounts for almost half of our electricity consumption.
We would like to produce all of our energy needs by way of eco friendly
renewable sources.
When, a few years ago, the idea of harnessing
geothermal energy emerged, it seemed at first like a feasible
proposition for Dominica. Why not make use of buried heat and the earth's natural
steam engine effect to generate power, as has been achieved in Iceland
and Kenya's Rift Valley? Closer examination, however, reveals a number
of risks plus the area designated for it conflicts with our blossoming
eco tourism industry.. The
first exploratory well, kicked off in late 2011, parked right on the
doorstep of the popular Titou Gorge and the Rainforest Aerial Tram, a prime area of natural beauty where the hiking trail to our world renowned Boiling Lake begins. The Aerial Tram ceased activity just a few months later.
What are the Dangers?
Firstly
we must consider that Dominica lies in a hurricane belt and is
also susceptible to earth tremors, not to mention the possibility of a
volcanic eruption.
The
area designated for this activity lies directly east of the island's
most populated area - the Roseau Valley and the capital itself, Roseau.
As with fracking, trial drilling has revealed some very nasty
substances down below. These include carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide,
ammonia, arsenic and mercury. Should large concentrations of any of
these toxins escape, the prevailing easterly winds would carry them in
the direction of the capital. They could also contaminate our drinking
water, which is collected in and piped from this locality to the
capital.
There is only one single road making this area
accessible. It is a steep, narrow and winding road that climbs from the
Roseau River valley floor to the village of Laudat at
an altitude of about 2,000 ft. Should a tropical storm or earth tremor
damage the operation, it may also trigger a landslide that could
isolate it.
The money already committed to this project could
have gone a long way towards making Dominica energy independent using
already tried and tested SAFE technology - a few wind turbines in the
mountain passes plus a few acres of solar panels located in the west
coast rain shadow area of Salisbury's Grand Savanne would do the trick. New
|