Fracking- Nick Smith Misses the Point - Perhaps Deliberately

By Celsias

10 comments

Posted on Aug. 20, 2012. Listed in:

Nick Smith in an opinion piece in today's Press has criticised local bodies for banning fracking and told us there are no risks

." There's more to fear from the vibration of your mobile phone than from the earth movements caused by fracking, former environment minister Nick Smith says."

nick smith Ummmmm......

The biggest concern around fracking has been about what happens to the water. Canterbury runs on underground aquifers and derives the largest percentage of its income from its natural environment. Wouldn't any Council , including the Christchurch City , Selwyn District and Kaikoura District want to be absolutely certain that its major asset, water, was protected in the process. Isn't this just good safe governance . Once your water is contaminated its gone , and it's how we make our living in Canterbury.

Those residual chemicals - we simply don't want them, and we have noticed how unwilling any fracking company is to disclose the impact of those chemicals. We have seen it in places overseas, and its terrifying. But if that's not what's used here, tell us exactly what is and the impact of combining all those chemicals and forcing them into the earth that we grow our incomes on ...

The fact that people have gone through almost 12,000 earthquakes and they would  never knowingly create  ground instability seems sensible to us. Small earthquakes have been linked to fracking in the UK , but the biggest concern by far is water. The pollution of the water and the massive wastage of water in obtaining the gas.

 

dont frack with nz Smith " accused the Christchurch City Council of "jumping on the Greens' ‘Don't Frack with New Zealand' bandwagon", saying fracking had been done in New Zealand for decades and was used in the building of the Clyde Dam.He likened the fracking debate to a modern-day version of the Chicken Licken story, in which a hen thinks the sky is falling in after an acorn hits her head."

Does this seem to be a recurring theme from the Government at present? Heard it before somewhere? Ah, yes, Phil Heatley accused those who expressed concern about oil spillages at sea , or being "extreme Greenies". Are we supposed to see being cautious about our major offshore asset, the sea , and one of our major assets at home, our water as "extreme green". In which case give us extreme green any time. And has the Government realised that their attempt to label cautious and sensible responses from the community is merely going to be labelling all of us as extreme green. The Selwyn Council ? I bet they were amused !
The Kaikoura Council ? Likewise , it will be the first time they have ever been labelled extreme green in their lives. But they are likely to wear that label much more as they seek to preserve their community income from whale watching agains the stupidity of risking deep sea oil drilling off their shore.

Even the Christchurch City Council would be surprised to hear itself called extreme greenies. Certainly its community would be surprised.

But wait ...it's worse than that , we actually expect Central Government  as local government to act to preserve the natural environment of this land. That includes our water and ensuring that its not polluted with chemicals and that its not wasted. Isn't that part of the responsibility of Government? On that basis , Nick Smith , its part of your job to protect both people and community income from the risks of polluting and wrecking the very things we depend upon. And actually , wasn't Nick Smith until recently Minister of Climate Change and Environment. How could a Minister with some knowledge and standing in that area genuinely promote fracking? Have we missed something here?

canty fracking if you look at the map for potential fracking in Canterbury  it is a huge part of the entire province.And so far our only say on it has been reflected through our Councils saying " No Way " A very fair reflection of public opinion here we're guessing. 

 

 

Dr Smith went on to say " hysteria was sweeping the country about the practice, and he called for some "science and commonsense" to be injected into the debate."

Absolutely agree...and perhaps he could as well . Perhaps he could actually tell that the major fear of fracking relates to the likely pollution of ground aquifers and massive wastage of water . Earthquakes have always been minor although it makes sense to the people of Canterbury to not destabilise an area that still records earthquakes every day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 comments

If you see any unhelpful comments, please let us know immediately.

willbie

You had me at the first sentence - I am sick and tired of this government !

Written in August 2012

jblack

Nick Smith's article was appalling. I could not believe how arrogant it was.

Written in August 2012

SteveR

It's a common tactic to denigrate your opposers as a way of diverting the debate, especially when you have no valid response to them.

Look to Big Oil for the training on this tactic as this is where it is most often used. Once you realise that Big Oil is at play here, then the tactics and arguments and behaviours make sense. Does this remind you of American politicians who deny climate change?
Let's remember that corporations are not democracies and are not responsible for externalities that get in the way of making profit, such as laying waste to groundwater.

Put the pressure on NZ because there is nothing more irritating to govt than democracy. Don't let yourselves be sold out to Big Oil and ruin your water for exported profits, products and marginal tax revenues.

Written in August 2012

malcolm

Please please please ----- Do your homework before you comment . Nick Smith has at last done a little homework and found that fraking would be a minor action to cause pollution . fraking has been practised for over 100 years , and it has only been when academics, with minimul practical knowledge or experience have expressed opinions , that those with less experience have agreed and extended the lie. You all agreed with Smith when he did a U Turn on carbon tax ; Maybe you should ask him how he changed his mind . Maybe , fact is better than fiction

Written in August 2012

Greg Hussey

The 'we have always done it and nothing bad has happened yet' is the psychological heuristic that all too often rides over logic in good risk management and with disastrous results. The science is inconclusive and politicians surely should err on a cautious approach. Academics said the world was flat until one said it wasnt... look how he got shot down. The most disturbing thing about the Hon. Nick Smiths comments though are the arrogance in which he delivers it - I see nothing sensible, reasonable or scientific in his comments. This Govt is starting to show the same 'flair' that the bad old days of ''Ruthless Richards' - Time to get with the Programme National.

Written in August 2012

Bernie Napp

Malcolm is right, by and large fracking presents manageable risks, and will become an important part globally of the path towards natural gas and away from coal.

Written in August 2012

Greg Hussey

Possibly - I would argue that the disclosure of the Risk Management assessment to date showing how the risks are being accepted - along with the 'proven' science to back up a probability / severity vs.manageable state ( that should be risk elimination as opposed to reduction?) have not been public and should be - councils clearly haven't been shared this information - has Nick Smith been given this? (Please share your homework Nick) To what degree is gambling around cost benefit over-riding caution here? To what degree is the science progressed enough to be positive here in terms of 'safe practice'? - Empirically I would argue it isn't - and that's the problem - there are simply too many unanswered questions. Is Canterbury to be the experiment that proves the case? Getting parochial for a moment ' not in my back yard!' Pulling in the 'Green Witch - Red under the Bed' manipulation does nothing to make me take Smith seriously - I for one wont be that easily manipulated and I celebrate the councils pragmatic stand here - this isn't just about Green Philosophy vs. Money politics - this is about the well being of generations of Cantabrians and the environment that is their home.

Written in August 2012

Robert Atack

This is Nick Smith saying "Peak oil is a load of crap"
&feature=plcp" rel="nofollow">&feature=plcp
And this is a sample of the information I gave him at Al Gore's Climate Change presentation in Auckland on 14th November 2006. http://oilcrash.com/articles/algore01.htm

Written in August 2012

Tuhi-Ao

Malcolm - that's the first time I've heard fracking has been done for 100 years. Oil drilling yes in NZ but fracking has only been done here for a few decades and already we are seeing the community it was done in just happens to have the highest cancer rates in this country (most likely reason: BTEX from documented deisel frack spill, in Kapuni).

Bernie - you really need to introduce yourself properly, PR man for oil and gas industry. Your pretty words don't hide the facts of repeated mismanagement in Taranaki nor climate change and the oil industry's calculated repression of renewable energy through price fixing and political lobbying...

Good article Celsias.

Written in August 2012

I can understand the sensibilities around tremors in Christchurch! The long term concern remains around water contamination and a major new contribution to climate warming.
New studies suggest that because of fugitive emissions of methane from wellheads and pipelines, natural gas may actually be no better than coal when it comes to global warming. "I was an early optimist about natural gas," says Robert Kennedy Jr., who sits on a panel that's advising Gov. Andrew Cuomo on whether to allow drillers like McClendon to expand into New York. "But after looking into it, I now believe that, without tighter regulations and stricter oversight, the shale-gas boom could turn out to be an economic and environmental disaster." Prof Bob Howarth at Cornell University finds that the best evidence indicates widespread contamination of drinking water wells within 1 kilometer of gas wells, and the rate of venting and leakage of methane to the atmosphere is sufficient to give shale gas a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fossil fuel.
Journal of Geophysical Research, suggest that methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is leaking at at least twice the rate reported by the industry.
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/151545578/frackings-methane-trail-a-detective-story
 And the recent UK Royal Society report identified the need for more research on the carbon footprint created by shale gas extraction.

Written in September 2012

Add a comment
  • to get your picture next to your comment (not a member yet?).
  • Featured project

    View now ›

    Sponsors

    Featured organisation

    View now ›