It is a fact that there is at least five times the amount of proven oil and gas reserves already owned by global corporations and governments, than the amount that the planet can burn before 2050. The combined emissions value (measured in millions of tons of CO₂ – gigatons) is 2795. If more than 20% of this volume (560 gigatons) is burned and released into the air before 2050, it is a scientific certainty that the temperature on earth will increase past the two degree limit.

Disturbingly, this is a fact that international oil and gas companies (O&G) appear to ignore. Instead, it would seem that those same companies are very determined to push the frontiers of exploration for more fossil fuels. This is manifesting in more difficult, dangerous and extreme exploration and production. The examples of the BP blowout off the US Gulf coast and Shell’s exploration problems in the extreme Arctic environment are examples of this. Shale gas mining, more commonly known by its colloquial label of fracking, slots into this category.

The depths and pressures at which fracking take place, the large volume of water and toxic chemicals, the risk of pollution of water sources and the reality of above-ground damage are some of the risks that O&G appears to be prepared to take. Perhaps the reason that they are prepared to take these risks is that although they may have to pay a fine, they do not have to live in the destroyed environment. Their shareholders and employees will escape the devastating effects of pollution and other environmental damage, for the time being at least.

Economics

O&G shrewdly market their plans to desperate governments under the banner of energy, revenue, job-creation and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The reality of the situation may however be different. At Treasure Karoo Action Group we are reliably informed by scientists and economists that there are problematic issues with these claims.

The energy return on investment (EROI) of shale gas is not as lucrative as made out by O&G. Essentially this means that the energy expended in fracking exploration and production doesn’t provide a satisfactory return when compared to some alternatives.

Empirical data studies in the US are showing that an averaging of all the major shale gas areas confirms a 69% drop in yield from a gas well in the first year. Thereafter the curve flattens out until it reaches sub-economic and almost zero levels within five years. This is in contrast to the 10-15 year figures used by O&G, and as such, it goes to the heart of sustainability, which will affect jobs, revenue and energy capacity.

State revenue may be boosted by production activity – if and when production happens, but there is no budget for the costs of pipeline infrastructure, road development and repair, community health costs, pollution remediation, additional law enforcement, environmental monitoring, prosecutors, scientists and many other costs to be borne by the state. There has also, in South Africa, been no attempt to quantify the costs of loss of income from sustainable activities that do produce food, revenue, products and tourism – activities which would be interrupted, damaged or displaced by shale gas mining.

Jobs during the 8-10 year exploration phase would be reserved for technical staff from abroad. Thereafter, local workers may benefit from knock-on jobs in satellite industries, but possibly no more than the jobs developed by a renewable industry venture, and most certainly not as sustainably.

Emissions associated with shale gas mining must be measured over the entire process of exploration, preparation, drilling, fracking, extracting, flaring, separating, condensing, transporting and containing the final product. There is simply too much dissention amongst the world’s top scientists as to the volume of fugitive and uncounted emissions for shale gas to be scientifically classified as between 50% and 70% lower in emissions than other fossil fuels. Until O&G can conclusively prove their claims here, the onus remains on them, and the status quo should remain.

In our experience, O&G deliberately make their marketing overly technical or simply downplay the risks with general benefit statements such as ‘We care for the community’. A review of O&G reputation around the globe reveals that this is not so. In Africa, we have the very current example and history of Nigeria.

We believe that there are viable and sustainable alternatives to fracking and that fracking should be banned in Africa.

By Jonathan Deal

FAX / EMAIL
TO: Department of Mineral Resources
December 2012

Dear Sir

REPRESENTATIONS AND COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO PROPOSED RESTRICTION
UNDER SECTION 49(1) OF THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
ACT, 2002

We act for the Treasure Karoo Action Group ("our client").

We refer to the invitation for representations issued under section 49(1) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 ("MPRDA"), Notice No. 932 in the Government Gazette of 16 November 2012 (the "Notice"). The Notice relays the Honourable Minister's intention to restrict the granting of any petroleum permits in the Karoo area received after 1 February 2011.

It appears that written representations in respect of the Notice are to reach the Department of Mineral Resources ("DMR") by no later than 14 days from the date of publication. We submit that a 14 day time period is insufficient for the formulation of such representations. This is in stark contrast to the general practice of allowing at least 30 days for proper representations. The Honourable Minister provides no reason for this contracted period.

Any decision made without affording our client an opportunity to object meaningfully is contrary to the section 2 principles of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998, ("NEMA"). The requirement that comments or objections be provided on such short notice does not amount to equitable and effective participation. This is a violation of our client's or its members' rights to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action, as any objections or comments would be rushed and inadequately considered. The vague nature of the Notice further prejudices our client's opportunity for adequate comment.

The Minister makes no attempt to specify the nature of the restrictions to be imposed on applications for petroleum related licences submitted post 1 February 2011. It is impossible to provide meaningful comment and objections absent any information as to the true meaning of the intended restrictions. We submit that the 14 days provided in the Notice be understood as 14 working days from the date of publication of the Notice, thereby allowing the DMR to consider representations made up to and including Thursday, 6 December 2012. Such an understanding of the time period for comment affords no prejudice to the DMR.

In addition to the above, our client objects to the Notice on the following grounds:

1. As the proposed restriction (in whatever form it may take) does not apply to applications for exploration licences received and accepted prior to 1 February 2011, it effectively allows for the granting of shale gas related exploration licences to Falcon Oil and Gas Limited, Shell Exploration Company BV and Bundu Oil and Gas (Pty) Ltd (collectively the "applicants") in response to the exploration applications submitted by the applicants prior to 1 February 2011. No justification is given for distinguishing between those applications received before and after 1 February 2011.

2. The ultimate purpose of an exploration licence is the achievement of a production licence following the confirmation of shale gas reserves during the exploration process.
Consequently, failure to restrict the exploration applications of the applicants clearly allows for the production of shale gas in the Karoo. This is even more so because prior
representations to the Petroleum Agency SA ("PASA"), as the designated agency, have yielded no clarity as to whether the granting of exploration licences implies a legal obligation to grant production licences. The production of shale gas is internationally challenged because of its serious environmental effects. It is even more startling that such a process may be allowed to proceed unimpeded in the Karoo region with its characteristic scarce water resources, high water table and sensitive geology.

3. The ability to investigate, assess and evaluate the impact of a proposed gas exploration project is contingent on providing sufficient details about the nature of the proposed activity. Our client submits that the applicant's environmental management programmes ("EMPs") are entirely lacking in the details necessary for proper evaluation. The impact of the proposed explorations is site-specific, particularly in light of environmentally sensitive components of the Karoo region, the need for approximate and viable water sources within this dry area, and the possibility of new access roads and sumps for storage and disposal of waste water.

However, the applicants' EMPs provide little indication of the sites of the proposed exploration or of the number of wells entailed. Any perception that the exploration projects will entail only a single well is inconsistent with the description of these projects within the applicant's EMPs. Numerous wells spread over a large area are necessary to determine and map the geometrical dimensions of oil and gas reservoirs and to demarcate stratigraphy and reservoir continuity.

In light of the applicants' vague EMPs, our client submits that it will be necessary for the applicants to submit revised and significantly more detailed programmes before the
Honourable Minister is able to make an appropriate decision on the basis of such applications. Inevitably these revised EMPs will need to be submitted after the 1 February 2011 deadline suggested in the Notice.

4. The Notice makes pre-existing applications conditional on the authorisation of "actual hydraulic fracturing" only following "appropriate amendments" to the MPRDA regulations. The Notice considers neither the practical feasibility of such a condition nor the precise meaning of "actual hydraulic fracturing". Exploration for a shale gas is, by definition, exploration for an unconventional gas resource in rocks of low permeability. The geological formation of this gas bearing rock needs to be altered using artificial stimulation such as hydraulic fracturing to allow for gas extraction. Our client submits that an assessment of the shale gas reserves within rock of such low permeability is not feasible absent the use of vertical and/or horizontal drilling to penetrate the shale rock. The serious environmental effects related to the hydraulic fracturing process apply to both vertical and horizontal drilling. In light of the risk of such extensive environmental degradation it is essential that the Honourable Minister clarifies whether "actual hydraulic fracturing" is understood to encompass both vertical and horizontal drilling.

5. The Honourable Minister further fails to specify those "appropriate amendments" to be made to the regulations under the MPRDA. Nor does it indicate whether the Honourable Minister is finally to effect the Minerals and Petroleum Resource Development Amendment Act 49 of 2008, promulgated on 19 April 2009, regarding the transfer of the environmental authorisations function in respect of mining and petroleum activities from the DMR to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Provincial Environmental Departments under NEMA. It is incongruous that the award of environmental authorisations in respect of mining and petroleum activities remains under the auspices of the DMR with its mandate to promote minerals and petroleum investment, particularly in light of the Minerals and Petroleum Resource Development Amendment Act, 2008.

6. The Notice provides no clarification as to why the amorphous restriction is to apply only in respect of the designated areas depicted in annexure A to the Notice. The concerns related to hydraulic fracturing should apply to South Africa as a whole and not only to those areas in which the most opposition has been raised thus far.

In view of the above objections our client calls for the Honourable Minister to amend the Notice so that:

(a) the nature of the proposed restrictions is adequately detailed so as to provide for a
meaningful notice and comment procedure; and

(b) the restrictions are extended temporaneously to apply to those applications received prior to 1 February 2011 and geographically to apply to the country as a whole and not only to the Karoo region.

The extensive environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing, a subject of escalating international concern, cannot apply only to those applications received in the Karoo post 1 February 2011. The Honourable Minister has provided no details of the nature of the precautionary approach suggested in the Notice nor any reasoning at why this precautionary approach should not also apply to those applications received prior to 1 February 2011.

Yours faithfully
ALISON MCKENZIE

THERE is always a pile of books in our house waiting to be read. I usually have three or four books on the go at the same time – I love books, I love reading, I love the feel of a book in my hands.

I’m currently drawing up a short list of books to take with me to Zambia next Saturday. This time I’m flying in to Livingstone, so I have to limit myself to just a few books. So I began sorting through the pile next to my chair. One title caught my eye: Extreme Environment by Ivo Vegter. The name rang a vague bell, I remembered that I had read one or two of his columns in the online Daily Maverick. A columnist who liked being provocative. The back cover asked: The most controversial book of 2012?

So I began reading. And rapidly came to the conclusion that far from being the most controversial book of 2012, it was simply the biggest load of crap of 2012.

Absolute crap. Junk science, being provocative for the sake of being provocative, blatant manipulation of facts, and displaying an intellectual arrogance that isn’t matched by intellectual depth.

Take page 11, where he starts constructing the case for fracking. He writes “Enter Lewis Gordon Pugh, OIG. The mainstream media in South Africa had been blithely ignoring what appeared to be just another dull mining venture until Pugh, a well-known environmental campaigner and an ambassador for the World Wide Fund for Nature gave a rousing anti-fracking speech on 25 March, 2011.”

Really? Here are some headlines from the Cape Times prior to March 25: “‘Shell’s natural gas plan a threat to the Karoo’,” (January 24, 2011); “Shell and Golder dodge gas-drilling questions,” (January 28); “Shell ‘plays Russian roulette with Karoo – Rupert,” January 31); “Karoo mobilises against fracking,” (February 22) and about 10 or 11 more, including my own Man Friday column the day Pugh gave his speech, headlined “The Karoo is too beguiling to frack up.”

And on February 20, a full month before Pugh’s speech, M-Net’s Carte Blanche, which has a viewership of over half a million, aired “Fracking up the Karoo,” a devastating look at the consequences of fracking. That insert went on to win its producer, Liz Fish, (yes, I’m married to her) the David Suzuki Green Producer Award at the Banff World Media Festival in Canada and contributed to her winning the Siemens Pan-African Science Journalist of the Year award.

But that’s the least of Vegter’s sins, errors, omissions and stretchy bendy use of facts: I simply don’t have space to go into them all here, so let’s just look at his big lie, on which all the other lies are based.

Of the fracking fluid, he says “This stuff poses no risks. Once it’s down there, it stays there. The idea that cracks from hydraulic fracturing might somehow reach up through several kilometres of rock, including layers containing brine aquifers, is preposterous... water like everything else on the planet is subject to gravity. Surface spills might pollute groundwater, but water doesn’t flow uphill through miles of rock strata, even if they are permeable or full of cracks, to reach aquifers near the surface.”

Hmmm. I had an e-mail just yesterday from South Africa’s leading Karoo groundwater specialist, Prof Gerrit van Tonder of the Institute for Groundwater Studies at the University of the Free State. He attached a recent presentation based on research he conducted with Fanie de Lange, Prof Gideon Steyl (UOFS) and Dr Luc Chevallier of the Council for Geoscience, and which was presented to the Water Research Commission, and to Shell.

A few quotes will suffice: “Water in parts of the Karoo Basin wants to flow upward and at places where preferential flow paths exists, the flow velocity can be very high (eg 1km/day)”; “Pollution of water due to the migration of fracking fluid and methane is our main concern followed by backflow water (produced water) after fracking has taken place. Backflow water will be an immediate problem after fracking while the pollution of fresh water from the upward migration of fracking fluid and methane will mainly be a problem after shutdown of each well pad in ten to twenty years’ time”; and “The polluted water will be under pressure that wants to move upward. If in preferential pathways (like dykes, faults and cracked cement annuli of boreholes), the pollutants will reach the fresh aquifer above very quickly (even in days).”

Preposterous!

Oh, and did I mention that Vegter is also a climate change denialist? Enough said. Tony Weaver

After a request from TKAG,  Ivo Vegter, has responded as below. TKAG welcomes his response and considers the matter settled.

PRO-FRACKING JOURNALIST ‘PUT TO TERMS OF PROOF’

Treasure Karoo Action Group has read with interest that it has apparently sponsored a trip for a journalist(s) to visit the United States to investigate shale gas mining (fracking).

This statement was made by Mr. Ivo Vegter on the social media networking site, ‘Twitter’, at around 19h00 on September 8.

Responding to this statement, Jonathan Deal, chairman of TKAG denied that TKAG had ever sponsored a trip to the United States. “We will make use of the same forum (of Twitter) to demand either proof of this statement in connection with TKAG, or a written apology on the same forum from Mr. Vegter,” said Deal.

“It is very important that the facts are correct in this debate, and we expect journalists to be in a position to prove what they write.”

 



 

This morning, the announcement was made that the moratorium on fracking has been lifted in South Africa. http://af.reuters.com/article/investingNews/idAFJOE88601L20120907

TKAG is hosting a press confrence in Cape Town on Monday morning, 10 September 2012 and all journalists are welcome to attend and to contact us for more information.

A protest march has been organised for the 22nd of Spetember 2012 by a number of individuals and organizations to coincide in South Africa with the "Global Frackdown" international anti-fracking day, as organized by Food and Water Watch.

Every single person in South Africa opposed to or concerned about fracking needs to be there. It will be hosted in Cape Town. People are welcome to organize their own events in theri cities. Details available here : https://www.facebook.com/events/188429077955901/

TKAG will continue to oppose fracking by all legal means at our disposal. Donations are needed to contribute to  legal costs.

Cabinet Spokesman Jimmy Manyi has confirmed that the long awaited task team report on shale gas mining has been presented to cabinet by Minister Shabangu and that a decision by the government could be expected within two weeks – i.e. around September 5^th 2012. Having regard for the media statements attributed to Ministers Peters and Manuel regarding shale gas, and the fact that the task team convened by Minister Shabangu has completed its work in secrecy, we realistically expect cabinet to authorise the lifting of the moratorium on shale gas mining, thereby clearing the way for the DMR to issue exploration licences.

The flaws in the Environmental Management Plans (EMP’s) of all three applicants, as well as procedural and substantive flaws in the process surrounding the moratorium and the consideration of licence applications and related defects will surface in the opposing legal process, which will certainly follow the issue of exploration licences in any form under the current circumstances. Read more about TKAG’s legal campaign: http://treasurethekaroo.co.za/news/press-statements

Moreover, Minister Shabangu, in August at the Cape Town Press Club, gave her assurance that the public of South Africa would be provided with the opportunity to examine and comment on the task team report – before any decision would be made with regard to fracking in SA. TKAG chairman, Jonathan Deal, confirmed that TKAG intended to hold the Minister to her public assurance - made in front of a room full of journalists. Deal added that the legal opposition to fracking is based on a carefully prepared appeal – the result of months of work by researchers, legal professionals and scientists and that based on the secretive behaviour of the Department of Minerals since January 2011, TKAG had every reason to expect that the organisation would be compelled to engage in legal action to suspend exploration rights issued to Shell, Bundu and Falcon.
 
If the opposition to fracking in SA fails to halt the exploration process under the current circumstances, it will create a considerably more complicated, expensive and difficult process to oppose the commencement of full scale fracking, across South Africa, by Shell and other companies to follow. Members of the public, who want to see this process halted can make a financial commitment to support the legal costs of the TKAG campaign. 

Fracking is banned, under moratorium or restriction in at least 155 jurisdictions globally. This includes countries like France, Bulgaria, Romania and many other regions.

Cape Town - An announcement on whether or not exploratory hydraulic fracturing for Karoo shale gas will be allowed could be made in a fortnight, after the next Cabinet meeting, government spokesperson Jimmy Manyi said on Wednesday.

Briefing journalists in Pretoria following Cabinet's latest meeting, he said the matter of hydraulic fracturing was now before it "and receiving full attention".

Once this was completed, all interested parties, including the media, would be informed.

Pushed to put a date on this, he responded: "A more accurate picture will emerge at the next Cabinet briefing... (which) will provide a bit more detail."
Sapa

http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Fracking-decision-imminent-20120822

The Treasure karoo Action Group (TKAG) has won the category for Non-Profit Organisation at the Mail & Guardian Greening the Future Awards in Johannesburg on 28 June 2012.
Read more:
http://mg.co.za/article/2012-06-29-a-watchdog-with-strong-bite

Movement of methane through the matrix and the faults/dykes/annuli will of course be much quicker than that of fracking fluid.

It is expected that the results of the numerical model obtained will be in the correct order of magnitude. The most important conclusion from this paper is that fracking fluid will definitely reach the fresh water aquifer, given enough time. At some locations like wells or dykes, the travel time is expected to be less than 20 years while travel times will be much longer in the bulk of the rock formation.

Impacts and the risks associated with the fact of fracking fluid reaching the fresh water aquifers are unknown at this stage and will depend on the following:

• Number of well pads: One oil company indicated one well pad every 260 ha with as many as 10 boreholes per pad. If only half the area of 9 million ha as per their license applications are developed, the number of well pads could be in the order of 17 300 resulting in 173 000 boreholes if only 10 boreholes are drilled per pad. The integrity of just one borehole failing can have extreme detrimental consequences for surrounding groundwater users and environment within a year;
• Chemicals added to the fracking fluid cocktail: Is it carcinogenic? Is it hazardous?
• Chemicals present in flow back water: A mixture of the initial cocktail chemistry and that of new chemical products formed between cocktail and formation chemistry during the fracking process.

It is strongly recommended that before any fracking is allowed in SA; all license applicants must disclose the following:

• Number of well pads and time frame of exploration and production phases; and
• Constituents and mass/volume thereof included in the fracking fluid cocktail.

The exact role that dolerite dykes and sills will play on the upward movement of fracking chemicals is uncertain at this stage. Currently, the primary concern is failed fracking boreholes, with specific reference to the cemented annulus between the casing and the surrounding rock formation. A possible 17 300 well pads, implies at least 173 000 boreholes and each of these boreholes must be considered a potential preferred pathway for fracking chemicals, diluted formation elements and methane. An increased risk is evident if the number of well pads increase.

In conclusion it is recommended that under no circumstances must the companies be allowed to include any Hazardous Chemicals into the fracking fluid cocktail. There are other more green options available, even if fracking is considered.

The model must be viewed as a very rough first attempt based on sparse information which cannot be validated or verified.

The numerical model will be updated and based upon the conceptual model (figure below) put forward by SRK within the immediate future.

A simple, ‘You’re being emotional, we’re scientific’, was often sufficient to render the argument of environmentalists powerless in the face of economic forecasts and industry spin.

The advent of the ‘cost-benefit’ analysis was particularly daunting for the environmental lobby, as for the first time, industry was able to place an arbitrary value on the environment to support its case for development. Anyone opposed to the development of a natural resource was shrewdly positioned by industry as being opposed to the growth of the economy, and a stumbling block in the path of the unemployed.

And so, environmentalists shied away from an area that they perceived to be the strong ground of their opponents. Today in South Africa, and around the world, there’s a new breed of environmentalist, and the oil-&-gas industry appear to be unsure on how to deal with them. In South Africa, we’re not simply advocating a thorough cost-benefit analysis – we’re insisting on it.

In the book ‘Retaking Rationality’, Richard L. Revesz and Michael A. Livermore, professors at New York University make a strong case for environmentalists to apply cost-benefit analysis as a tool. “It is time for progressive groups and ordinary citizens to retake the high ground by embracing cost-benefit analysis”, they say.

Referring in their text, to the ‘emotional’ label used by industry, they offer their view on the distinction between ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’: “The difference between unthinking – failing to use the best tools to analyse policy – and unfeeling – making decisions without compassion is important – both lead to bad policy. Calamities can result from the failure to use either emotion or reason. Our emotions provide us with the grounding for our principles, our innate interconnectedness and our sense of obligation to build on that emotional foundation, and act effectively to bring about a better world.”

Now, in South Africa, the ‘emotional’ label has, in the last 15 months, been applied so often by the applicants to frack – and the government departments whose brief it is to exploit our mineral resources, that the anti-fracking lobby has of necessity eschewed any connection with that state-of-mind. This is not to say that we reject the role of emotion in reviewing information and making decisions, but rather that – at this stage – the language must be so science-and-fact based that it consequentially ignores emotion.

There will be time enough for value-based considerations if this debate reaches the Constitutional Court, where the anticipated results of the actions of the shale gas industry and their proponents would be tested against our Bill of Rights.

And so, to the fact-based argument against fracking in South Africa; there are at least seven fundamental reasons why the applications to mine shale gas should not succeed. Some of these reasons present, in my view, insurmountable obstacles on a global scale. Others are germane to the South African context and the current applications.

1. Still banned in many countries: As at 22nd April 2012, shale gas mining is banned or under some form of moratorium or restriction in no less than 141 places globally. The list spans a spectrum that embraces villages and whole countries, such as France and Bulgaria.

Essentially, this means that there are millions of people, represented by their governments, who choose not to licence fracking where they live, get their drinking water, grow their crops, produce meat and raise their children.

There has been no answer from the applicants or the government in South Africa to this conundrum – this undeniable fact that presents a remarkably divergent view of fracking from the one enrobed in corporate marketing campaigns. And my contention, is that until, an intelligent and conclusive answer is provided, the moratorium on fracking in this country ought to stay in place.

2. No consensus: There is a dearth of consensus surrounding the technology and its costs and benefits. Scientists and economists on both sides of the debate have weighed in on aspects ranging through carbon emissions, job creation, pollution, the life span of wells and many other hotly debated issues.

Papers and viewpoints, many of them peer-reviewed are analysed and dissected by pro-and-anti groups, who alternately greet new reports with glee or dismay. The simple point is that although even the best science cannot be expected to be infallible, there is at this time, a gap in the opposing positions of the scientific and academic community that is too large to be ignored.

The onus of proving the alleged bounty of shale gas mining is accordingly placed on those who seek to alter the status quo.

3. Lack of monitoring and enforcement: On 27th March 2012, Minister Edna Molewa admitted to the national media in South Africa that there were 53 mines in South Africa operating without water licences.

This fact highlights a larger problem related to mining operations in SA; the ability of state agencies to monitor and enforce environmental, safety and financial standards is dramatically inadequate.

Not only in respect of existing mining operations but perhaps more especially in the policing of an industry that is challenging these standards even in much better funded and controlled environments such as the US.

4. No legal framework: South Africa does not possess any fracking-specific laws, guidelines or even policies. Perhaps the prime example of the relevant legislative developments in the USA is that which was produced by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in its environmental impact statement (“the revised draft SGEIS”) released in September 2011.

The South African situation is similar to the current situation in New York State in that, not only is there a lack of fracking-specific legislation, fracking operations can not, due to what is now an extended moratorium, be authorised.

There is, however, a crucial difference between those jurisdictions where the lawmakers are currently fashioning fracking-specific legislation, such as New York State, and the current South African approach to fracking.

The difference is that fracking has already been undertaken in the USA and it is only now, as a result of a massive public outcry and perhaps the staggering number of fracking-related lawsuits, that legislation is being drafted to address the public’s concerns. In other words, the horse has already bolted, so to speak, and the legislator is now trying to close the stable door.

5. A flawed investigation into fracking: The Department of Minerals (DMR) is on record as stating that ‘the task team report will be completed and presented to Cabinet by the end of March 2012’.

The Americans, in the second investigation into fracking, are taking no less than four years to deliver a final report in 2014. Data contained in the DMR affidavit indicates that the task team was unclear as to its mandate and composition as late as the end of August 2011.

On this basis, it is both reasonable and logical, to ask if SA should be making an irreversible decision to permit shale gas mining, on the basis of an inadequate report – a report compiled in around one tenth of the time to be taken in the US, and from across the Atlantic. A report which excludes input from key ministries such as Transport, Tourism, Agriculture and Rural Development.

6. A lack of credibility of the oil-&-gas industry: Promises in national media to ‘make an ecological example of the Karoo’, and to ‘leave the Karoo better than we found it’ when juxtaposed with a litany of shale gas environmental violations in the US in 2011, by the very companies who have made these promises in SA, do nothing to advance their case here.

Industry funded economic forecasts insularly underpinned by the popular oil-&-gas view ignore quantified knock-on costs to the fiscus, whilst lauding estimated knock-on benefits.

Sight of the questionnaires applied in a ‘public opinion survey’ is refused by the company who conducted the industry funded survey which, alleges that more than 75% of South Africans are in favour of exploration of SA shale gas reserves. Why is it that the questions on which this result is alleged are concealed?

7. The precautionary principle: Under South African law, the environmental cause is championed by the National Environmental Management Act (“NEMA”) which dictates that development, which would include the development of a shale gas mining industry, “must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.” Significantly, in relation to this principle of sustainable development, NEMA dictates “that a risk averse and cautious approach is [to be] applied, which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions.”

In other words, in line with the precautionary principle, South Africa’s premier environmental statute dictates that when considering the possible advent of fracking in South Africa, “a risk averse and cautious approach” must be adopted.

And so, to return to where we commenced, this debate has become fact-based and scientific. Pro-fracking industry should be compelled to answer reasonable questions and satisfy their obligation to prove that fracking is a benign technology. Government, before giving fracking the nod, even for exploration, ought to be convinced that shale gas mining is the best, and most sustainable mechanism for South Africa to create employment, generate energy and solve our greenhouse gas emissions challenges.

My contention is that this could logically be achieved on the back of a process which should include thorough scientific investigation – in line with the recommendation of Shell’s own consultants, who advised that “SA should not decide before the US EPA results are released”. The science alone may not make a case for shale gas mining, and this is where the cost-benefit analysis will serve SA.

A comprehensive and properly structured analysis would take into account not only the industry claimed benefits of shale gas, but would of necessity also scientifically and economically consider the value of South Africa’s natural capital – eco-system services, provided unfailingly by the delicate balance of nature.

These include the ability of the environment to provide water, grow crops, produce meat, regulate the weather and earn money from tourism. It may be worthwhile too, to consider the ability of alternative technologies to generate energy and jobs whilst reducing SA’s carbon footprint, and also to take into account the existence of substantial natural gas reserves offshore, where many of the contentious issues related to fracking may be less so.

Whether one chooses to call this a cost-benefit analysis or a strategic environmental assessment, I believe that to proceed further down the road in SA in the absence of such a process is to impetuously count chickens before they’re hatched and place carts before horses.

Published in Critical Thought, 25 April 2012
http://criticalthought.co.za/chickens-and-horses/

The one molecule scientists hope to find on any planet to check for life may very well save much of our water in South Africa.

The announcement which will hopefully be made next month (March or April 2012) to build the SKA (Square Kilometre Array) Telescope will have so many direct benefits to the whole of South Africa. These will include a capital investment of 15 billion in capital expenditure and an annual but escalating budget of 1.5 billion per annum in perpetuity.

This is the most exciting project the Karoo has ever seen. The excitement in anticipation is yet heightened, by the thought that a spin off advantage will benefit the available water and quality thereof in the Karoo basin.

We know that Shell has bought the allocated concession rights to some 90 thousand square kilometres of Karoo land area for the purpose of fracking for shale gas, but has not as yet succeeded in gaining permission to drill even a few pilot holes to ascertain whether there is viable gas down there. This fracking process involves drilling 4500 metres into the earth (three and a half kilometres below sea level). Soon into a single drilling process these massive drill bits (as big as a coffee table) bore into and through the aquifer presently used by farmers to feed their livestock. This aquifer is mostly some 80 m to 200 metres below the surface which used to be considered deep before the frackers came along. If fracking goes ahead the number of holes to be drilled is estimated at 7500 in total in a checkerboard pattern every four kilometres apart in each direction. South Africa has no police to watch the frackers do their nefarious activities, so we could speculate on the likelihood that one in a hundred drill holes there will provide a leak of lethal drilling and fracking cocktail of fluids into the aquifer, and all of the drilled linings will eventually break down. Karoo water will be useless forever, forcing South Africans to import most if not all of our mutton needs. South Africa is already a net importer of food.

Once the abandoned mines in the Mid Rand as well as the start decanting AMD (Acid Mine Drainage) into the Vaal River sometime next year, this will render the Vaal River downstream to the Bloemhof and Vaal Harts areas useless. The abandoned mines on the East and West Rand areas already send their AMD decant into the Vaal and Limpopo rivers. Finally seeing as how 98% of all river water in South Africa extracted, we need to admit that as far as water is concerned we are damned to extinction. Damage to the aquifer in the Karoo will be the last straw on this proverbial camel’s back.

We must all hope and pray that the announcement to build the SKA telescope goes to South Africa. Hope that it goes our way for all the advantages that are obvious but the hidden benefit is that there will be no fracking within the exclusion zone of a 300 km radius of Sutherland. Sutherland is within the area designated to Shell, but it has been written into law that among other activities that may cause disturbance to the new telescope, there will not be a single frack within that zone. If the decision to allow Shell to frack is given, more than one third of the whole of their concession will be removed from their grasp. Look on SKA ye mighty Shell and tremble. QED

Written by Jeremy Taylor

At around the time that the US Deputy Energy secretary, Daniel Poneman, was engaged in his second US-South Africa Energy Dialogue, (perhaps a euphemistic label for a process where American interests are expanded in South Africa), Bulgaria joined France and other countries in imposing a ban on hydraulic fracturing.

In making his gracious offer to ‘share with South Africa, lessons arising from a recent study into ways of reducing the environmental impact and improving the safety of America’s fast-growing shale gas industry’ Mr. Poneman appears to be relying on a flawed proposition.

In the first place, he assumes that South Africa has the gas reserves that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) says we have. He then assumes that the gas can be economically and safely extracted in South Africa, by the very companies who have such a dreadful reputation for polluting around the world, and especially in Africa. The fact that Sasol has withdrawn from shale gas exploration in SA, labeling shale gas in SA as ‘20 years too early’, appears to have escaped Mr. Poneman. He makes the assumption too, that South Africa has sufficient water reserves to gamble with what we have – not only in using our water, but also in the very real risk of polluting precious aquifers.

Mr. Poneman’s kind offer of advice to South Africa from America, is carefully framed in a genteel disclaimer that ‘the US would not seek to influence the outcome of South Africa’s ongoing investigation into shale gas’. Cleverly, of course, this is exactly what he is doing. And so, we must ask ourselves how it is that a country; in which the shale gas debate is raging more fiercely every day, in which there are over a thousand court cases registered in connection with fracking pollution, where large states, governors and other administrators have placed fracking under moratoria, bans and restrictions, and where the country’s own Environmental Protection Agency has linked fracking to groundwater pollution can presume to offer anyone advice on how to manage fracking?

The last assumption that is evident from Mr. Poneman’s offer is that South Africa exists in a vacuum of information, that our government and citizens are unaware of the growing international chorus against the use of this technology to extract yet another fossil fuel. Thank you Mr. Poneman, we don’t want your advice or your technology in this country before it has been established by us in a thorough evaluation of South African conditions – law, environment, energy, employment, and pollution – to name a few, that shale gas is in the best sustainable interests of this country.

 

Jonathan Deal

Chairman

Treasure Karoo Action Group

South Africa

 

Marcellus Drilling News, January 9, 2012

New Cases of Methane Water Well Contamination by Cabot in PA

Three private water wells in Lenox Township (Susquehanna County), PA have been contaminated with methane from nearby Marcellus Shale drilling done by Cabot Oil & Gas according to the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Cabot has installed methane detection alarms in the three homes and has vented the affected wells.

An investigation by the Department of Environmental Protection determined that the gas migrated from at least one of three Marcellus Shale wells drilled on the Stalter well pad about half a mile west of Interstate 81 in Susquehanna County.

The gas was found seeping into three water supplies beginning in August 2011. A fourth water well for a hunting cabin is still being evaluated, DEP spokesman Daniel Spadoni said.

Video taken from inside one of Cabot’s gas wells showed that a string of steel casing meant to seal off the aquifer from gas and other contaminants was improperly constructed, according to a notice of violation sent to the company by DEP in September.

Methane was also found between the cemented strings of casing in all three gas wells on the Stalter pad, a sign state regulators view as evidence of flaws in a well’s construction.

The dissolved methane in one nearby water supply jumped from 0.3 milligrams per liter before drilling began to 49 milligrams per liter on Aug. 16 and 57 milligrams per liter on Aug. 18, according to the violation notice.*

Cabot is also in the epicenter of the ongoing situation in nearby Dimock Township, PA for methane contamination of 19 water wells there—a claim they dispute. See MDN’s related stories on Cabot and Dimock.

*Wilkes-Barre The Citizens’ Voice (Jan 9, 2012) – DEP: Cabot drilling caused methane in Lenox water wells

ABC News, December 31, 2011

4.0 Earthquake Strikes in Northeast Ohio

 

McDONALD, Ohio December 31, 2011 (AP)

Officials said Saturday they believe the latest earthquake activity in northeast Ohio is related to the injection of wastewater into the ground near a fault line, creating enough pressure to cause seismic activity.

The brine wastewater comes from drilling operations that use the so-called fracking process to extract gas from underground shale. But Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Jim Zehringer said during a news teleconference that fracking is not causing the quakes.

"The seismic events are not a direct result of fracking," he said.

Environmentalists and property owners who live near gas drilling wells have questioned the safety of fracking to the environment and public health. Federal regulators have declared the technology safe, however.

Zehringer said four injection wells within a five-mile radius of an already shuttered well in Youngstown will remain inactive while further scientific research is conducted.

A 4.0 magnitude quake Saturday afternoon in McDonald, outside of Youngstown, was the 11th in a series of minor earthquakes in area, many of which have struck near the Youngstown injection well. The quake caused no serious injuries or property damage, Zehringer said.

Thousands of gallons of brine were injected into the well daily until its owner, Northstar Disposal Services LLC, agreed Friday to stop injecting brine into the earth as a precaution while authorities assess any potential links to the quakes.

Michael Hansen of the Ohio Seismic Network said Saturday that more quakes are possible, most likely small ones, until the pressure at the fault line has been completely relieved.

The temblor Saturday appeared to be stronger than others, which generally had a magnitude of 2.7 or lower. Some residents reported feeling trembling farther south into Columbiana County and east into western Pennsylvania.

Area residents said a loud boom accompanied the shaking. It sent some stunned residents running for cover as bookshelves shook and pictures and lamps fell from tables.

A few miles from the epicenter, Charles Kihm said he was preparing food in his kitchen when he heard a noise and thought a vehicle had hit his Austintown home.

"It really shook, and it rumbled, like there was a sound," said Kihm, 82. "It was loud. It didn't last long. But it really scared me."

There are 177 similar injection wells around the state, and the Youngstown-area well has been the only site with seismic activity, the department said. Zehringer said that to shut down all of the wells because of seismic activity near one would be an overreaction.

Patti Gorcheff, who lives about 15 miles from the epicenter, said her dogs started barking inexplicably Saturday and the ornaments on her Christmas tree began to shake. Her husband thought he heard the sound of some sort of blast.

"This is the biggest one we've had so far," said Gorcheff, a North Lima resident who has raised concerns about quakes and drilling-related activity in the region. "I hope this is a wake-up call."

 

WSOCTV.com, December 9, 2011

EPA Sounds Alarm On Fracking In Wyoming

Government Validates Concern Of Activists

James O'Toole

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Environmental Protection Agency said this week that chemicals from "fracking," a controversial method of extracting natural gas from the ground, have polluted groundwater in Wyoming.

The findings represent the first time in the heated debate over fracking that the agency has drawn such a connection, which has long been claimed by environmental activists.

In a statement released on Thursday, the EPA said a study had found that groundwater in an aquifer around Pavillion, Wyoming, contained "compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing."

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process in which water, sand and chemicals are injected deep into the ground to crack the shale rock and unleash natural gas. The process has sparked concern in part due to worries about its effect on drinking water.

The EPA constructed a pair of wells to test water quality in the Wyoming aquifer, near where natural gas firm Encana has drilled. Within these wells, researchers found synthetic chemicals associated with the fracking process as well as high methane levels and benzene concentrations "well above" Safe Drinking Water Act standards.

As a precautionary step, the Department of Health and Human Services has advised local residents to use alternative sources of water for drinking and cooking and to use ventilation when showering, in order to air out potentially dangerous chemicals.

Doug Hock a spokesman for Encana, said concerns about the pollution of drinking water "are not borne out by the facts." The EPA's test wells, he noted, were far below the depth of drinking water wells.

"At a depth where you would expect to find hydrocarbons, they found hydrocarbons. In drinking wells, they found no impacts due to oil and gas," he said.

"We've done extensive testing, the state has done extensive testing, and never have we found the effects of oil and gas in these drinking water wells," Hock said.

The EPA, however, is worried that this may change.

"Given the area's complex geology and the proximity of drinking water wells to ground water contamination, EPA is concerned about the movement of contaminants within the aquifer and the safety of drinking water wells over time," the agency said. Samples of drinking wells showed small amounts of compounds "consistent with migration from areas of gas production," it added.

The EPA was careful to note that its findings "are specific to Pavillion" and are not applicable to fracking projects all over the country. Natural gas, the agency added, "plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future."

In addition, the study is still preliminary at this point, subject to public comment and a peer-review process.

The shale gas phenomenon has spread over the past decade from Texas, to the Southeast to, most recently, the Northeast via the giant Marcellus Shale. All the while, it has been dogged by environmental concerns.

Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA's report "validates things Americans all over the country have been saying for years."

 

Pipe Dream News, December 5, 2011

Fracking investigation finds toxic emissions at drill sites

By Susan Lamb

There is new evidence that hydraulic fracturing poses a threat to air quality.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the Chesapeake Bay, conducted an infrared video investigation this spring of air pollution emitting from 15 hydraulic fracturing sites in Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia. The organization said it found emissions at 11 of the sites.

CBF said last week that it had sent the videos along with a letter, dated Nov. 29, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The letter laid out general and specific objections to how the EPA currently handles gas emissions and air pollution.

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, releases natural gas from subsurface rock formations by drilling into the ground and pumping water and chemicals down to fracture the bedrock and release the gas. The Southern Tier sits on top of the Marcellus Shale, a formation of rock that stretches beneath several other nearby states that contains one of the country's largest deposits of natural gas.

Tom Pelton, senior writer and investigative reporter for CBF, said his organization undertook the study to attempt to find answers to ongoing debates about air pollution caused by fracking.

"We decided to do our own examination and decided it seemed quite common," Pelton said. "Methane emissions is quite a problem. We picked sites after we had become aware [that fracking causes air pollution] after a period of a couple years."

CBF looked at 15 fracking sites and compressor stations, which pressurize gas during transport from one location to another. 13 of the sites are located in Pennsylvania, one is in Maryland and one is in West Virginia.

The sites CBF surveyed are operated by EOG Resources, Inc., Williams Production Appalachia LLC Hollenbeck, Cabot Oil & Gas, Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC and Texas Eastern Transmission LP, among others.

The companies were not aware that their sites were being filmed, Pelton said.

"We picked sites that were accessible to public roads," Pelton said. "[We] didn't want to notify them in advance [because the companies might have] shut off emissions."

George Stark, director of external affairs of Cabot Oil & Gas, confirmed that the company was not aware that their sites were being filmed from public roads.

"No, I was not aware of the video," Stark said. "The [Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection] has done studies and determined there was no negative impact from methane emissions."

Pelton, accompanied by David Sawyer of Sawyer Infrared Inspection Services, Optical Gas Imaging, shot footage of the sites in May and June. They used both a standard video camera and a Flir GasFindIR infrared camera, designed to detect methane leaks and hydrocarbon gases.

CBF claims that the infrared equipment detected otherwise invisible gas emissions from 11 of the 15 sites.

Pelton said he believes that EPA needs to conduct another in-depth study into fracking's environmental impacts.

"[A] comprehensive study should be conducted and should be taken in account for EPA air regulations," Pelton said. "When written, those should be strong enough to stop leaks of methane from these sites."

Jon Mueller, vice president for litigation of CBF, called in the letter for tougher federal regulation of air pollution caused by fracking.

"A federal rule governing air pollution associated with natural gas hydraulic fracturing is greatly needed," Mueller wrote in the letter. "EPA has also failed to fully consider the impact of methane released from drilling and process equipment on human health and the environment."

When contacted for comment, the EPA released a statement via email.

"EPA is working to ensure that America's shale gas resources are developed responsibly so that public health and the environment are protected as the nation gains important economic and energy security benefits," the email stated.

The EPA declined to comment on the CBF letter or video footage.

Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, said he believes the CBF footage is important.

"During gas development, storage and transport to market, some of the gas is purposefully vented to atmosphere and some accidentally leaks," Howarth wrote in an email. "The footage from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation does a great job of illustrating some of this venting and leakage, using a special ‘FLIR' video camera to ‘see' the methane in the natural gas, which is not visible to the naked eye."

Howarth said he believes the footage could be instrumental to stopping methane leaks at drilling sites.

"Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, so this leakage is important," Howarth stated. "Our research indicates that methane makes up more than 40 percent of the entire greenhouse gas inventory for the U.S. … We really need to get this methane leakage under control, if we are to seriously address global warming."

New York State does not currently allow fracking while the state's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) completes a review process of the environmental impacts of fracking and proposed regulations. Fracking may get underway in New York as early as next year, however.

Brendan Woodruff, campaign organizer for the BU chapter of New York Public Interest Research Group, said he believes the CBF video provides evidence that proposed regulations for fracking in New York State are insufficient.

"This [CBF] video clearly demonstrates that hydrofracking creates significant amounts of air pollution and underscores how woefully inadequate DEC's review of this activity is since they do not feel the need to analyze how these emissions would impact public health," Woodruff wrote in an email.

The CBF video footage is available on the organization's YouTube channel, ChesapeakeBayFound, under the title "Drilling Air Pollution."

IPS, December 5, 2011

"Fracking" for Shale Gas: Neither Clean nor Green
By Stephen Leahy *


DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 5, 2011 (Tierramérica) - Hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" is being used to tap the last remaining natural gas deposits across large areas of the United States and western Canada, fueling continued dependence on hydrocarbons instead of a shift to genuinely clean energy sources to cool the planet.

Called shale gas, these deposits represent a new and enormous source of fossil fuel.

"Fracking is driving exploration and drilling all over the United States," said Gwen Lachelt of the non-governmental organisation Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project.

"The oil and gas industry is marching across America from Texas to North Dakota and from the east coast to California," Lachelt told Tierramérica.

There may be as much as 23,427 billion cubic metres (bcm) in recoverable gas from U.S. shale formations, according to the Annual Energy Outlook 2011, released in April by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The United States will consume 650 bcm of natural gas this year, the EIA projected. Globally, it estimates reserves of "unconventional gas" - the oil and gas industry term for shale gas and coal bed methane - at 915,000 bcm, with 100,000 bcm in Latin America.

However, that estimate is already out of date due to developments in fracking technology and exploration. The EIA estimate of shale gas in the United States in 2009 was less than half the 2011 estimate.

Fracking uses horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing with high pressure water and chemicals to fracture gas-bearing shale rock.

Holes are drilled vertically as little as 100 metres and as much as 3,000 metres into the shale, and then horizontally 1,000 metres along the shale formation. Chemicals and large amounts of water are pumped underground at high enough pressure to fracture the shale, releasing the gas into the pipeline.

The "dash for gas" as the industry pundits like to say is being driven by potential exports to Asia and the mistaken belief that natural gas is the "transition fuel" from coal to a low-carbon economy.

It is true that natural gas is "cleaner" in that it releases about 40 to 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal does to produce the same amount of energy.

However, gas from fracking has a higher carbon footprint because more energy is needed to get the gas and because methane leaks out. Methane has 25 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide.

Switching from coal to gas as an energy source could result in increased global warming, not less, according to the study "Coal to Gas: The Influence of Methane Leakage", released in September by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

This is mainly due to the methane leakage problem, which is common but unregulated.

Natural gas is mainly methane, so even if leaks are limited to one to two percent, it would only be slightly better than continuing to burn coal.

"Relying more on natural gas would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, but it would do little to help solve the climate problem," said study author Tom Wigley, a researcher at NCAR, in a press release.

In a report published Nov. 18, the U.S. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee on Shale Gas Production urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finally regulate fracking emissions of methane and other air pollutants.

While industry began fracking for gas in the late 1990s, there was a dramatic increase in 2005, after the George W. Bush administration (2001-2009) exempted fracking from regulations under the U.S. Clean Water Act. In recent years shale gas production has grown 48 percent annually, according to the EIA.

"Fracking has never been regulated. There is no real oversight of what they are doing," said Lachelt, who is from the central U.S. state of Colorado, one of the fracking hotspots.

People living near wells have long complained about contamination of their drinking water with chemicals and shown pictures of flames coming from their taps. But contamination is hard to prove because the fracking companies are not required to disclose the contents of the "fracking fluids" they use to keep the gas flowing, said Lachelt.

Fracking fluids are a mix of water, sand and a wide range of chemicals, some toxic like diesel fuel, she said.

With the public outcry growing, the oil and gas industry continues to claim fracking has never contaminated an underground aquifer. However, the industry has settled a number of claims with landowners over the years, but all of these have been sealed from the public and government officials.

Surprisingly, after more than 20 years of fracking, the EPA is conducting its first in-depth study of the risks to drinking water.

The results won't be known until the end of next year. However, preliminary results have shown that drinking water in some communities is contaminated by benzene, a known carcinogen, and that fracking was responsible, said Lachelt.

Meanwhile, some of Canada's most pristine wilderness in northeastern British Columbia is the home to a new shale gas industry that sends its gas across the Rocky Mountains to the Alberta tar sands to boil oil out the sands.

Almost all of the gas produced in British Columbia is for export to Alberta or the United States. Now there is a massive expansion underway with the recent approval to build a liquefied natural gas plant on the West coast to ship gas to lucrative Asian markets, said Tria Donaldson of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, an environmental NGO based in Vancouver.

"Fracking is using huge amounts of fresh water in a region that suffers water shortages," Donaldson told Tierramérica. Millions of liters of water are needed for each well and the industry has obtained rights to take 275 million liters from local rivers, lakes and streams every day.

Sixteen companies were fined in October for failing to account for how much water they were taking. According to media reports the fines were less than 1,000 dollars.

"Northeastern British Columbia is a key habitat for grizzly bears, caribou and others. Fracking operations are moving into untouched areas, building roads, drill pads and wastewater ponds," said Donaldson

"There is nothing clean or green about shale gas as an energy source."

*The writer is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank. (END)