Questions that should be answered by Shell in the forthcoming EMPs & EIA.
Many of the questions relate to activities which may be undertaken by Shell’s contractors.
In that case, would Shell respond on behalf of those contractors.
1.
Water Resources
The Government of the Republic of South Africa's National Climate Change
Response Green Paper tells us that “even under emission scenarios that are more
conservative than current international emission trends, it has been predicted that by
mid-century the South African coast will warm by around 1-2°C, and the interior by
around 2-3°C. After 2050, warming is projected to reach around 3-4°C along the
coast, and 6-7°C in the interior. With these kinds of temperature increases, life as
we know it will change completely – parts of the country will be much drier.” Do Shell
agree with that statement?
If so, why should Shell be allowed to add water stress to a part of the country that is
likely to suffer badly from this effect, when energy can be generated without such
vast use of water?
If not, then what scenario does Shell predict for these time-scales? And in that case
will Shell recompense South Africa and her people should their advice be later
proven to be an under-estimate?
Will Shell undertake measurement and modelling of the aquifers in the locations
wherever they plan to drill and to make that information public before permission to
drill is sought? What measurements will they take and what kind of modelling will
they use?
If water treatment is required prior to drilling, will Shell provide a full specification of
the treatment method and materials to be used?
Does Shell agree that each fracking of a well will require, on average, at least 15
million litres of water? And that wells will be fracked on multiple occasions? And
that, if exploration is successful, there are likely to be tens of thousands of wells?
Has Shell considered alternatives to hydraulic fracturing (e.g. using LPG)? If not,
why not?
2.
Water Pollution
Will Shell insist that their contractors reveal all the constituents of the fracking
compounds and the quantities of each?
Will Shell leave waste-water in open pits where pollutants will evaporate along with
that water? If so, how will the sludge be disposed of.? If not, where will the water
be treated?
Are new treatment plants required for the water treatment?
Where will any treated water end up?
How will its quality be monitored in terms of pollutants and their levels?
Will there be a list of approved water quality testing stations?
Will Shell pay for baseline water testing before drilling commences?
3.
Air Pollution
Will Shell monitor BTEX, NOx and ground-level ozone in the air?
What levels of these pollutants does Shell consider acceptable?
Will Shell publish its monitoring data?
Will Shell pay for baseline monitoring of these gases and for how long before
fracking does Shell consider it is required?
What are the current rates of asthma amongst children in the areas Shell is seeking
to drill?
4.
Soil Pollution
Will Shell monitor soil pollution, both on their hub and in the surrounding soil?
Will Shell monitor for all the fracking substances that will be used?
Will Shell pay for baseline monitoring of those pollutants before the hub is prepared?
Will Shell restore the ground after the well is capped and monitor again for those
substances?
Will all these monitoring data be available to the public?
5.
Local Worker Participation & Health
What training programmes will Shell introduce to ensure that as many local jobs as
possible are created, not just go to workers shipped in?
When will that training start?
What exposure to pollutants will be allowed at the well-head?
What information will be provided about the contents of fracking fluids, so that the
workforce and their unions have a chance of understanding what they will be
exposed to?
What measures will Shell put in place to compensate workers if the employment
becomes short-term.?
6.
Other Employment.
Canadian economists claim that their currency has become stronger because of the
production of oil and its export. They claim that 25-30% of manufacturing jobs have
been lost. Do Shell agree with that analysis? What similar loss of jobs do they
anticipate here?
What loss jobs will occur in tourism in the Karoo?
7.
Infrastructure
What improvements must be made in advance to roads and bridges?
Will Shell be funding that?
What training will be provided for the police and emergency services so that they
know what they are up against when spills occur and are equipped and trained to
deal with them?
How will these emergency services know what is contained in the vehicle, should it
be carrying toxic chemicals?
Will Shell deposit funds in escrow to cover damage to roads and property? If not,
will they be required to repair the roads and bridges to national standards, when
drilling ceases?
9.
Nuisance
How much noise and light pollution will be permissible?
10.
Plant and pipelines
What procedures must be followed before pipelines, compressor stations, refining
plant or power stations are permitted? Will there be local participation in the
planning process?
11.
Sheep farming.
Farmers rotate the grazing of their sheep around 'camps' on their estate. A hub will
cause the loss of one hub. But the farmer will also lose the use of surrounding
camps because of the noise and light pollution. Will Shell compensate farmers for
that loss?
Heavy vehicles will spread dust from dirt roads. The dust will discourage sheep
from grazing up to 1km each side of the road. Will Shell compensate farmers for the
loss of grazing?
Will Shell monitor sheep fecundity and compensate farmers for any decrease?
12
USA
The US Environmental Protection Agency are beginning a 2 year study into the
effects of fracking. They did that in 2004, during the Bush administration. If there are
no problems caused by the technique, why is there now another investigation?
Pittsburgh has banned fracking by local ordinance. So have 160 other civic bodies
(equivalent to our municipalities). Why would they do that?
The New York state legislature voted overwhelmingly for a moratorium on drilling,
whilst its safety is investigated. State Governor Patterson watered down that
decision, but he left in place the moratorium on fracking. Should we not do the
same?
Doesn't the US experience tell us all that PASA must not rush into any decision at
least until the EPA has reported and any subsequent legislation is considered?
Then suitable monitoring staff must be then trained with the equipment they will use
to check that the regulations are upheld. Will Shell agree to wait until those
activities have taken place before commencing drilling?