Heather Dugmore
Graaff-Reinet: Shell has "completely failed" in its obligation to submit a thorough, legal environmental management plan (EMP), according to Karoo communities that are opposing Shell’s application to frack for shale gas over 90 000km2 in the Karoo.
"Both Shell and Golder Associates – the environmental consultancy commissioned by Shell to compile its EMP – have risked losing their professional integrity by presenting a fatally flawed document as an environmental management plan," says Fritz Bekker, the environmental consultant commissioned by Graaff-Reinet attorney Derek Light to formally respond to Shell’s draft EMP on behalf of hundreds of farmers, landowners, community members, businesses and organisations in the Karoo.
Referred to as Interested & Affected Parties (I&APs), the people of the Karoo’s response to the EMP must, by law, be lodged by tomorrow, to the Petroleum Agency of South Africa (Pasa), which administers mining applications as a designated agent of the minister of energy.
I&APs never got to see the final EMP as Shell and Golder did not present it to them in time.
"In my opinion Shell and Golder have not complied with the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) or with any of regulations of the MPRDA that are required for an exploration right, and which specify what the contents of the EMP should be," adds Bekker. "In so doing they have attempted to bypass legislation that exists to protect the people of South Africa, as enshrined in Chapter 2 of our constitution."
The starting point of their non-compliance with the MPRDA is that the definition of "petroleum" in the act does not include shale gas as it refers to "any liquid, solid, hydrocarbon or combustible gas existing in a natural condition in the Earth’s crust".
"The definition does not include unconventional shale gas that has to be subjected to an artificial fracturing process before becoming a liquid, solid, hydrocarbon or combustible gas," says Light. "Shale gas fracking therefore does not legally qualify as the subject matter for an exploration right in terms of Section 79 of the MPRDA."
Other key non-compliance claims include:
l Shell/Golder failed to include financial compensation in their draft EMP for any landowner who suffered loss of income or damage as a result of their exploration activity.
l "Shell/Golder is required by law to consult with affected landowners and to reach agreement as to the impact of the proposed exploration activities, and submit the result of the consultation to Pasa," continues Light. Shell/Golder failed to comply.
l Shell/Golder also failed to include in their EMP the list of chemical compounds they intended using for fracking. Many of the chemicals used in fracking were known to be toxic and cancer-causing.
l Shell/Golder fail to detail where they would source the 1 million to 6 million litres of water required per frack in the fracking process.
Asked to specify what fieldwork Shell/Golder had undertaken in the Karoo to assess the water systems in order to justify their impact as "low", Golder’s head of environmental services, Brent Baxter, said that time had not permitted water-specific fieldwork.
The volumes of potentially toxic waste generated in the fracking process, and stored in wastewater treatment dams, is another pressing concern that was not addressed, according to the group.
The impact on roads and the need for the creation of new roads is also understated in their draft EMP, as is the associated carbon footprint and pollution of a process that will require heavy-duty machinery and thousands of trucks.
"The most significant adverse environmental impacts of shale gas fracking may already occur during the exploration phase, yet Shell/Golder clearly attempts to downplay the importance of the granting of an exploration right," says Light.
"It is also significant that a moratorium has been placed on the use of fracking in Quebec, Canada, as well as in the United Kingdom, France and Germany."
