Although I am focusing on the statements made by Dr Danie Vermeulen, it is worrying to note that, more than a year after ‘fracking’ entered local discourse, most articles in the press continue to fail in providing new, researched information on the matter of unconventional gas drilling.

Firstly, let it be clear that worldwide concerns around shale gas production are far from limited to “environmental drawbacks.” While substantial air pollution, possible water contamination, impacts to human and animal health, vast surface invasion and social disruption are certainly pressing issues in their own right, the debate on ‘fracking’ in South Africa should develop from a mudslinging between environmentalists and economists.

It is here, in the middle ground of this polarised dispute, where many of the real troubling questions start to surface.

When considering the possible economic benefits of hydraulic fracturing, more attention should be paid to the significant externalities surrounding natural gas extraction.  For instance, to host the 4000 truck trips required for each well, the state of New York estimates that road maintenance alone will cost communities up to $375 million.

In 2000, the mayor of Rifle, Colorado, announced that, $68 million worth of infrastructure would be required within five years to host the increase in the city’s population with the arrival of the extractive industry and many out-of-state gas workers. 

Recently, owing to water contamination in a gas drilling area, the Environmental Protection Agency has had to step in and provide clean water to residents in Dimock, Pennsylvania, where up to 60 households may need regular provisions over an indefinite time period. Viability studies need to start recognising that the majority of these costs fall upon the taxpayer.

READ MORE:

WATCH VIDEO: