User:DerekHolliday/sandbox

Hydraulic fracturing in South Africa is an energy creation strategy currently in early stages of development. After initially imposing a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (also known as “fracking”) in April 2011, the South African government lifted the moratorium in September 2012. Several energy companies were subsequently granted exploration licenses. Fracking in South Africa is a current topic of debate, with proponents pointing to substantial economic and energy benefits and opponents voicing concerns about potentially adverse environmental impacts.

Shale in the Karoo
The Karoo is the geographic area that is the focus of future hydraulic fracturing in South Africa. Previously a lake 275 million years ago, shale gas began to form in the low-oxygen Karoo as organic mud accumulated. As pressure increased over time, the organic material within the mud gradually turned into oil and gas trapped in shale rock. Estimates on how much gas is in the Karoo vary, with the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimating reserves of 485 trillion cubic feet, which would make it the fifth largest reserve in the world. In the present day, the Karoo is a semi-desert stretching over 400,000 square kilometers and home to a population of around 300,000 people.

Government involvement
The first application for energy exploration in the Karoo came in 2008 from Bandu Oil and Gas, but was not approved. The next application from Royal Dutch Shell came in 2011, requesting 95,000 square kilometers of license rights. Vocal opposition from farmers and landowners in the Karoo lead to a government-placed moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in April 2011. After assembling a task team to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of hydraulic fracking in South Africa, minister in the president’s office Collins Chabane announced an end to the moratorium in September 2012.

Amid much debate, draft regulations for hydraulic fracturing in South Africa were published in October 2013 by South Africa’s cabinet. Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu proposed a two-year extension of the moratorium in February 2014 and has also banned fracking until the release of final regulations before governmental elections on May 7, 2014.

Economic impacts
One of the major arguments in favor of hydraulic fracturing in South Africa is that it would bring much needed economic benefits to the country. A national unemployment rate of around 25%, with the Karoo representing many of those unemployed, offers a large incentive for allowing hydraulic fracturing in the region. 90% of electricity in South Africa is generated using coal, which many see as unsustainable, and even coal-generated electricity is unable to reach over 10% of the population. South Africa is largely dependent on foreign imports for crude-oil needs, with 70% being imported.

The economic benefits of fracking are potentially immense. If pursued, South Africa could be provided with around 400 years’ worth of energy via shale gas, promising a large degree of energy independence. Shale gas sales could generate over one trillion rand within three decades, tapping into only a fraction of the estimated shale reserves. In a study commissioned by Shell, developing one tenth of the estimated Karoo for fracking could generate 200 billion rand per year and create 700,000 jobs. Some characterize fracking as a more sustainable energy solution, avoiding the costs of emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Economic impacts
Some opponents of fracking in South Africa are skeptical of the economic benefits it may have. Some analysts have argued that the complicated process of pumping, purifying, and finding necessary materials (such as sand and water) needed for fracking activity imposes too many costs to make the venture profitable. Others are skeptical of the estimates of reserve quantities, economic benefits, and job creation. While estimates by the EIA originally had the Karoo holding 485 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, new estimates from the Petroleum Agency of South Africa now state the number to be closer to 40 trillion cubic feet. A Shell-commissioned study still contends that such a number would yield returns of 9.6% of South Africa’s GDP. Lastly, farmers in the Karoo are concerned that development in the area could damage the viability of agricultural work.

Environmental impacts
The main concern raised against fracking is of the environment. In order to extract the gas, water and chemicals must be blasted into the shale at high pressures. This process concerns opponents of fracking because of the potentially chemical leaks into sub-surface aquifers, which could affect thousands of hectares of land for many years. Proponents of the process argue that a well-maintained regulatory environment, with emergency event control protocols, would prevent environmental catastrophes from occurring. In the United States, leakage has been reported in less than 1% of wells.

Multiple concerns about water needed for hydraulic fracturing have arisen. For the first 24 exploratory wells alone, it is estimated that 57 million gallons of water will be needed. However, low rainfall levels and high evaporation make South Africa the 30th driest country in the world, which is especially concerning to many opponents of fracking given the semi-desert environment of the Karoo. Local villages are especially vulnerable to water shortages, often depending on a small number of wells for drinking, washing, and irrigating. Proponents propose transporting water from areas with a surplus, avoiding the depletion of local supplies.

Skeptics of the alleged sustainability of hydraulic fracturing have also voiced concerns. While natural gas may burn cleaner than energy sources such as coal, there is still a concerning potential for the extraction process to release methane into the atmosphere, which is more potent than carbon dioxide. Opponents also contend that there is not enough infrastructure for natural gas extraction in South Africa to replace coal, meaning that natural gas will be exported and coal will remain the source of energy of choice domestically. Proponents are more optimistic that hydraulic fracturing will act as a bridge towards the development of other sources of renewable energy, decreasing the need for coal and oil consumption. Opponents counter that while this strategy would decrease natural gas prices and therefore carbon dioxide emissions, the lowered prices of natural gas would deter further investment into the renewable energy sector.