Momentum builds for fracking inquiry

Email
Print

Momentum builds for fracking inquiry

3News NZ

Fracking is banned in several countries because of fears it can cause earthquakes (AAP)

Fracking is banned in several countries because of fears it can cause earthquakes (AAP)

By Tova O’Brien

Work is underway on a parliamentary inquiry into the dangers of hydraulic fracturing - or ‘fracking’.

The controversial method used to extract oil and gas has been banned in some countries because of fears it can cause earthquakes and contaminate water supplies.

When oil and gas industry executives look out over New Zealand's picturesque East Coast it is not the scenery they see - but the potential

Fracking or hydraulic fracturing is a method used to extract oil and gas from underground by forcing a mixture of chemicals, water and sand at high pressure into the earth.

Fracking has been used for two decades in Taranaki.

Residents who live near wells where fracking takes place told TV3’s 60 minutes they believe Fracking is responsible for hazards on their property.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has received so many letters and emails from people that it has prompted her to look into whether an inquiry needs to be held.

Green Party MP Gareth Hughes says the Parliamentary Commissioner needs to step and investigate the practice.

“This controversial process is risky, it’s been implicated with water contamination, air pollution, even increased risk of earthquakes overseas,” he says.

Mr Hughes says fracking has caused a substantial amount of earthquakes to occur in Blackpool in the UK and more research is needed.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

3/05/2012 11:53:13 a.m.

Trevor wrote:

Might wanna check out this blog quoting the NY times Atrout, by Bryan Walsh.. a senior writer on the environment for Time magazine.. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/04/20/more-problems-with-fracking%E2%80%94and-some-solutions/ about the fracking problems in the US. Not just confined to one region and not just one problem? Also an industrial solution is suggested but as the author points out...'all was well in the drilling industry' according to the Oil and Gas companies til the gulf disaster happened. Mechanical technologies aren't a guarantee that they're fail-safe. Bet the locals are just rapt with the frequent use of carcinogenic chemicals in the process. You tend to believe that corporations are all powerful and always right cos they dominate their market? ...(at the moment) Problems associated with fracking aren't just confined to the US. Similar attitude to the Oil industry, which is an ageing behemoth that needs to be put out of its misery instead of the public being informed that 'its all good and you guys leave it to us to self regulate ourselves'....sick and tired of hearing the one about environmentalists having hidden agendas and pedaling propaganda...'pot calling the kettle black' if ever there was a classic example of it....how many more communities will be endangered before things change guy?

3/05/2012 10:03:53 a.m.

Trevor McGreal wrote:

Why is it the fracking companies involved in the US don't have to disclose what gases are used in the process, protection provided under the Bush administration. Similar in nature to the fact Oil companies dont have to disclose what the chemicals are that make up their 'dispersants'. Dispersants that have caused some "gulf' residents to fall ill with multi organ failures since the spill was 'sunk' by those dispersants. Local residents who have struggled to get their cases heard. Surprise surprise, mainly due to the fact that the political right are continuously trying to discredit their stories and attack their chararcter....sound familiar Atrout. I agree with you on one thing, in scenarios where the environment and the local residents suffer following a corporation's industrial process has caused damage. YES!! I tend to go along with the protesters and not the condescending arguments of pro-corporate arrogance...just the way I'm wired....next thing you'll be saying that local residents should be ignored as well? Hey let's get more nuclear reactors happening cos they're financially sound too yeah???

25/03/2012 9:16:08 a.m.

atrout wrote:

@Ivar... sounds like a done deal... in turn, I'll offer the same fee for some basic instruction in the use of the English language. Might have to charge a bit more considering the base material I'd be dealing with!

24/03/2012 11:31:15 p.m.

Ivar wrote:

Atrout, I will be in New Zealand in one weeks time,I'll be available for psycological counseling for people that claim to know more than they actually do.....I charge A$150 per hour,if you don't mind a KIWI with a bit of an Australian accent feel free to contact the moderator of this website with your details, I'm certain I will be able to assist you...

24/03/2012 11:00:04 p.m.

Ivar wrote:

A quick learner do you think?....more like I would have forgoten more than you know!

24/03/2012 8:24:32 a.m.

atrout wrote:

@Ivar.. I'm impressed that you are such a quick learner. Go to the head of the class. We'll make sure that BP gives you a scholarship.

24/03/2012 1:01:37 a.m.

Ivar wrote:

Good on you atrout,with your seal of approval why would anyone dare to question why these people are doing what they are doing.....

23/03/2012 8:01:20 a.m.

atrout wrote:

@Ivar and Trevor... not only have I seen the video but I have lived in the region where the 'gas in your tap' occurs from place to place. The drilling of water wells in that area is problematic because if the well goes below the aquifer and into the base shale rock then you will get both home heating fuel and water from the same source. Not too difficult for anyone to understand. When the protest movement takes dodgy information from any unquestioned source and tries to apply it to a different context then the argument falls apart. That is what Ivar and Trev are doing. Sure, they will convince a few more waffly victims of misinformation. And John Key is quite right, from his perspective, to ignore the calls for an inquiry becuase he logically feels that the issues will be dealt with by local authorities through the RM process. Simple eh?

21/03/2012 8:14:17 p.m.

Ivar wrote:

Atrout, I wonder if you have even watched the documentary "Gaslands".I certainly wouldn't want any of that stuff in my backyard.Is your surname Shell, or is it BP?

21/03/2012 10:57:42 a.m.

atrout wrote:

@trevor McGreal you have swallowed the protestors' propaganda statement hook, line and sinker. The idea that if you say the same thing time and time again it becomes fact doesn't work in every case. You quote "Gasland" as award winning as if that makes any difference except that some sympathetic organization handed them an award. Wow, how marvelous!! What you have to look at is NZ conditions, the Resource Management Act and NZ industry experience in Taranaki, not third hand material selected to influence those who don't bother to assess information and it's sources. You may as well accept that the protest is not about up to date fracking but that fracking extends the life of petroleum sources, requires fewer wells to be drilled and allows everyone time to develop alternative energy sources. Fracking simply kicks the feet out for underneath much of the Greenie anti-petroleum argument. The problem isn't fracking. The problem is accepting that it takes huge investment to develop alternatives and the oil companies have the resources to develop alternatives. Eviro fundamentalists hate the fact that only big money can change consumer choices.. Roll on BP and Petrobras!!