News24

Fracking demos take to streets

2011-08-09 15:49

Cape Town - Demonstrators wearing gas masks, lab coats to emulate scientists from oil company Shell protested in Cape Town on Tuesday against hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for shale gas.

Shell SA is punting shale gas as an affordable alternative to coal, nuclear and renewable energy industries and wants to explore 90 000km² of the Karoo.

The protesters included a man dressed up as a cane wielding silent film actor Charlie Chaplin, claim that fracking is causing massive contamination of water supplies and is mostly affecting women and children who live in the areas where it occurs.

"Fracking will not affect just the Karoo. It may affect about half of South Africa's landmass including areas in the Drakensberg," said Marina Louw, an organiser from Climate Justice Campaign which took part in the demonstration with environmental organisation Earthlife Africa.

"A lot of the waste water from fracking may be discharged into rivers and the chemicals may leach up radioactivity under ground.

"Water becomes your blood plasma and spinal fluid.

"The most vulnerable people are rural women and children because they live in these areas and many get their water from where fracking water is dumped."

The protesters who had gathered outside the Natural History Museum in the Company's Gardens in the Cape Town city centre held up banners reading, "Stop fracking with our water", "Frack off" and "Fracking poisons".

"I'm a musician and I'm going to write a song about this," one of the older male protesters said.

"You know they have the slogan 'go well go Shell', well my lyrics will be 'go well go to hell'."

The protester impersonating Chaplin did not answer when asked about the significance of his costume, but instead raised his cane and mimed a choking motion.

He then pulled a gas mask over his face and coughed before joining the protesters who marched into Cape Town shouting repeatedly: "Fracking no... Clean energy now and forever".

Comments
  • Andrew - 2011-08-09 16:08

    GO TO HELL SHELL!!!! It's time to seriously invest in renewable clean fuel!!! Fossil fuel is not a sustainable answer!!! Fracking is madness..it will deplete and pollute our most vital resource...WATER

      THE.SRG - 2011-08-09 16:52

      The need by today's society for instant gratification is at the cost of all natural things on earth. Humankind can only survive if it learns to apply the gifts of it's species to the sustenance of earth's natural resources. Unless mankind can contain it's insatiable greed,it is destined for catastrophe.

      darkwing - 2011-08-09 17:24

      Might I add, SRG, population control.

      THE.SRG - 2011-08-09 17:38

      @Darkwing...population control is a very serious problem we have in the world at this point,I agree fully with you on that,we as the human race have become a plague on this planet and the issue of controlling the population of humankind has always been ignored.It seems the world today doesn't care about the world of tomorrow and that will be the downfall of the entire human race.When the human race 'culls' the ever reducing wild life of our planet without bothering to reduce the human factor and the impact it is doing to the world then we as the supposed top species of this planet are not living up to our responsibilities as the care takers of this world.

      Nico - 2011-08-09 17:49

      Have you done your duty yet? Sold your car(s) and cut your electricity? Stripped of that synthetic clothes and shoes? Have you stopped eating; those polluting tractors and trucks used in farming.

      Cire - 2011-08-09 17:58

      @SRG. Apocalypse now? It isn't going to happen. Have a cup of tea and relax.

      THE.SRG - 2011-08-09 18:06

      @nico...read Andrew's post,it is not about giving up your car's and your entire life,it is about finding clean and renewable sources of energy that have actually been out there for years,if we had stood up against this kind of thing along time ago the world would be a better and cleaner place.The problem is the oil and fuel industries would always stop this from happening!

      THE.SRG - 2011-08-09 18:31

      @cire....I never said it would,and tea is not my cup thanks but the fact is the most damaging thing on the face of this planet is irrefutably the human race,all I am saying is we could do with a control system on the population of the ever expanding human race before all the rest of the earths inhabitants are completely wiped off the face of the planet.

      Lauren - 2011-08-09 23:17

      THE.SRG, you say: we could do with a control system on the population of the ever expanding human race So, who, in your mind, is worthy of being born into this world. You? Yeah, certain people have more babies than the rest of us, but are you aware of the circumstances? Should your mother perhaps not have conceived you? There would have been one less of us. Do you have brothers and sisters? Should your mum have aborted them? Get real, guy, you are not in a science lab, you live in the WORLD. Roll with it.

      DirtyDog - 2011-08-10 08:35

      I don't know why everyone is targetting Shell! Yes, they are very active, but what people seem to miss is that SASOL has the biggest area assigned to themselves for fracking purposes. Why doesn't anyone protest against SASOL?

      Dayat Atime - 2011-08-10 10:53

      I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. - Agent Smith (1999)

  • SAFCan - 2011-08-09 16:16

    Our government won't listen to a few protesters! Too much money to be had by our government backed Tenderpreneurs. Why should our politicians bother that our children will inherit a waste land once gas resources have been depleted! This all about mans greed, money and politicians that don't give a hoot about South Africa. Prove us wrong government and send these oil companies packing!

      Cire - 2011-08-09 17:57

      And you will be perfectly happy giving the government even more power and eating a cold meal, I suppose? Cold water is also good for eco-warriors, I hear anyway.

      SAFCan - 2011-08-10 03:27

      Cire, topic of discussion is Fracking and its impact on the sensitive Karoo ecosystem. What does this have anything to do with giving the government more power? If you need me to explain my post in simpler English, you only have to ask.....

  • john2011 - 2011-08-09 16:46

    boycott the b@stards

      Neil - 2011-08-09 16:51

      Damn... I am already boycotting SA fuel companies due to BEE.

      Cire - 2011-08-09 17:54

      @john. Short answer? No.

      Neil - 2011-08-09 18:35

      Wow. I get 3 thumbs down. If my skin color is not good enough why should my money be? Supporting a cause that is oppressing me? To hell with that. I boycott all proudly South African products even if it means I need to pay more.. I will gladly pay more then. Fine Shell wants to Frack, I support Total.

      rammstein.f4n - 2011-08-09 19:09

      You can't really boycott Shell. You can buy your petrol from Engen and it might come from the shell refinery. Depending on the area you live, Shell, Engen, Total, Caltex, all get their petrol from whoever has a refinery in the area. That's why you can say to people in their faces they're talking rubbish when they say they get better performance with Shell (or whoever else's) fuel.

      Neil - 2011-08-09 19:20

      @rammstein.f4n: If that is so, why the adverts? Why advertise that Ferrari uses shell if it in fact is from another refinery. Why the drive behind V Power then if they do not even supply their own fuel to their own stations? I am not saying you are not correct, because in SA anything is possible. But I doubt they will do such an intensive marketing campaign and then not even use their own fuel at stations.

      rammstein.f4n - 2011-08-09 20:03

      Their additives are a bunch of bollocks. Sure, they add them at their refineries; so yes, Shell fuel does have an additive or two (with almost no effect on your engine), but the question remains: Do you get Shell fuel when you fill up at a shell station?

      Komasa - 2011-08-09 21:16

      @Neil there are only 2 refineries in the country and Sasol, so where are you filling up, the UK.

      Lauren - 2011-08-10 00:11

      Neil, how did this develop into a skin colour argument? Are you a self sufficient farmer who buys nothing from a store? If not, then you get a thumbs down, because you are being silly.

      Lauren - 2011-08-10 00:16

      Neil, calm down, please. You are making a fool of yourself. Please tell us which fuel stations you frequent to avoid supporting BBBEE? You are being silly and way off point.

      Lauren - 2011-08-10 00:20

      Neil, I can't believe I am responding to you for a third time, but here goes. So, you would, by your own logic, rather stick it to the man than spend money in your own country to benefit yourself and your family. Talk about cutting off your own nose to spite your own bigotted face. That having been said, your insight into the machinations and ownership of power generation companies appears to be sketchy. News flash! You are paying those you hate whether you like it or not. Choke on the fumes!!

      Neil - 2011-08-10 05:43

      Lauren: http://www.sapref.com/ Go read up and stop assuming before you attack me with your silly statements. Google oil refinery and Crude with regard to the SA Market and you will note that most of the profit does not stay in SA. I understand your point with the company's supporting local (they dont really have a choice thanks to the government) but it's about principal. I do not hate them as you suggested in your statement, but willingly supporting a cause that discriminates against you is actually cutting your nose to spite your face. Hence I stand by what I say: Although unavoidable to buy Proudly South African, I do avoid it where possible even if it means paying more. This is a catch 22 situation with local having their pro's and cons as well as in this case with shell having their pro's and cons.

      DW - 2011-08-10 09:04

      I am open to correction, but I think all fuel is basically the same, besides the additives. They may be refined in the same refinery, but certain additives are added by each fuel company before being delivered to the individual fuel stations. And the fuel companies make a lot of money from the franchises, so boycotting Shell may not mean that you are not buying their fuel, but they are at least not making money out of their franchise fees.

  • waine - 2011-08-09 16:51

    Why don't we as ordinary South Africans stand together on this and refuse to buy Shell petrol until this is stopped. We should buy bumper stickers that say "I wont but Shell until fracking in SA is banned!" The proceeds of the sticker sales should go towards research. It is only a few wealthy fat cats who ultimately benefit from this.

      rammstein.f4n - 2011-08-09 19:11

      Sorry for the double post, but I'd like to get the point across: You can't really boycott Shell. You can buy your petrol from Engen and it might come from the shell refinery. Depending on the area you live, Shell, Engen, Total, Caltex, all get their petrol from whoever has a refinery in the area. That's why you can say to people in their faces they're talking rubbish when they say they get better performance with Shell (or whoever else's) fuel.

  • Horst - 2011-08-09 16:53

    I suppose a demonstration is usually against something. There is thus little hope to see a pro-fracking demo that I could join in with.

      Neil - 2011-08-09 17:16

      I dare you to organise one.

      Kristi10 - 2011-08-09 17:58

      @Horst - Why?

      Horst - 2011-08-09 18:45

      Why? Because I am a rational person and I agree that we should go renewable, but that will take time. In the mean time we need something better than coal. Coal is dirty, leaves big holes, affects the water table, gives off sulfur dioxide and, of course, loads of CO2 (more than from an energy equivalent amount of methane), damages our infrastructure (roads), creates dust, do I need to say more. Let's frack.

      Komasa - 2011-08-09 21:25

      @Horst The one pollutes above the earths surface and the other below, there is nothing renewable about fraking.

      Jerry - 2011-08-10 09:29

      Horst please re-think your logic. "Coal is dirty, leaves big holes, affects the water table" This might have been true many many moons ago. The mining-industry spent a lot of time and money into R&D and this is CLEARLY NOT the case anymore. I visited a coal-mine in Middelburg in December and believe me except for some coal that are taken out, the state of the earth is better afterwards. In this case not even Shell knows exactly what can happen. In THAT uncertainty lies the anty-fracking argument.

  • Stephan - 2011-08-09 17:20

    lyrics with 'NO WELL, GO TO HELL'...we need a GLOBAL FRACKING BAN, but we'll start local first...

  • Marina Louw - 2011-08-09 17:21

    I am seriously misquoted!!! Fracking is NOT YET taking place in South Africa, but oil and gas companies have applied for licences to frack a very large part of South Africa, including the Karoo and Drakensberg. We were marching today to highlight concerns about how that might affect the most vulnerable people in society if it should go ahead - women, children and poor communities. The reference to possible contamination through wastewater refers to what has happened in the States, and the chemicals don't leach radioactivity from underground, the fracking process does.

      Kristi10 - 2011-08-09 18:00

      Fracking is criminal. Shell wants to do it for money. They have no concern about how it would affect the immediate communities.

      Yetypu - 2011-08-10 00:56

      Marina, 'might', 'could' & 'possible' are weasel words. You know enough to know that there is no proven link & that shale gas production by a well-regulated & well observed major is one of the cleaner sources of energy. If r/a is leached in shale gas production, it is also mined out & blown up chimneys & distributed downwind in coal generation - more so, since coal mining does not leave in situ residue..

      Phillip - 2011-08-10 11:14

      @Yetypu - " 'might', 'could' & 'possible' are weasel words" to those who insist on being allowed to do whatever they want, without accepting the consequences of their actions. Any sensible person is concerned about the 'possible' results of their actions, and indeed, if you are not, then you put yourself in line to be sued. So don't be silly! On the other hand, you are quite correct about the dangers of coal. But, at the end of the day, which would you rather be able to do? Cook, or Eat? Because if we carry on with this gas business, we probably won't be able to do both.

  • Collitjies - 2011-08-09 17:26

    Make no mistake it will go ahead as the government needs millions to keep their "cookie jar" filled to the brim, so you caring protesters just don't waste your valuable time.

      Kristi10 - 2011-08-09 18:01

      Sadly your statement might just be proofed to be correct.

  • christoffdt - 2011-08-09 17:33

    Dont frack our beautiful country!! I am in the US at the moment and people have flammable water coming out of their taps(see youtube) in areas that they are fracking!!!

  • motsokwane - 2011-08-09 17:43

    These are the issues Malema needs to be vocal about,where is he?

      Kristi10 - 2011-08-09 18:02

      Probably already counting the money he could make from the BEE deal to allow this...

      sadikari - 2011-08-09 19:03

      interestingly, shell was not happy at all with mr malema's nationalisation comments

      Lauren - 2011-08-10 00:48

      Oh, please, Motso, that is just so ridiculous. Give it a break. already!!

  • Cire - 2011-08-09 17:52

    All right for Cape Town - they already have a nuclear reactor! What about the rest of the country?

      Howzitekse - 2011-08-09 18:52

      The reactor in Cape Town was forced on us by an arrogant scummy rightwing government. It serves the whole of SA, not only Cape Town. This thing will go a long way to show whether the current government is as devoid of morals and human decency as the government of that time.

  • gatvol4corru - 2011-08-09 17:57

    So where is Jacob & buddy JUJU? Or let's wait on another task team that is not qualified to make recommendation's on this issue. AHA! There must be money-to-grab comrades! Another "Petrol-gate" to finance the ANC! An wait,there is more!Another make-a-cadre-a-millionaire-program needs to be implemented!When will the ANC's greed end?

      Howzitekse - 2011-08-09 18:56

      Let's not jump to conclusions. Fracking has been suspended in Canada and banned in France.

  • werner.smidt - 2011-08-09 18:08

    Can't wait for Hayibo to twist this into an article about potholes.

  • umlaut - 2011-08-09 18:50

    The ozone level above the fields is also increased dramatically--it is definitely a health hazard. ----BUT if the bribe money has been paid already there isn't much we can do about it but to watch the gravy train getting longer and longer.

      Neil - 2011-08-09 22:59

      ever heard of non violent direct action?

  • SEANEL - 2011-08-09 19:25

    Awesome stuff, didn't know about this protest. Must do better advertising(facebook!) and more will attend im sure! I know I would've.

      Andrew - 2011-08-09 19:36

      SEANEL, search "gaswalk" on facebook.

      sadikari - 2011-08-09 22:16

      and you can join STOP FRACKING SAVE THE KAROO on FACEBOOK

  • JimbOb - 2011-08-09 20:26

    where is the EVIDENCE that it is bad?? Seriously - if it is done under strict control, with safety standards in place, then it will be very beneficial for SA. The world didn't just develop on a whim, it took fossil fuels - even toilet paper takes fuel to produce!

      Andrew - 2011-08-09 20:59

      JimbOb did you even google Fracking!! There are thousands of websites and blogs that will tell you of the negative effect of this destructive and thoughtless money grabbing method!!....and that is only in the USA that has better controls than you will ever hope to have in SA. If you think it is a good idea for SA to sacrifice our water for fuel then you are shortsighted and more gullible than my 12 year old child. Shell Oil has the worst track record for destroying the environment and has no respect or regard for communities and the eco-systems where they ruthlessly exploit the environment (take Nigeria for example). So. I have no faith in Shell or any oil company being as responsible as you make out. Now, the most important fact is that we are heating up the planet by using nonrenewable fossil fuels. Our call for clean renewable solutions is no whim!! The alternatives are available. So instead of our country invest 10's of billions of dollars in coal burning power plants and fracking for gas to create power, rather use the investments on real long-term sustainable and clean solutions so that our children will have a glass of water to drink that is pure and Karoo lamb on our braai will be edible.

      sadikari - 2011-08-09 22:21

      the French government has considered all the evidence and banned the technique in July 2011. when Detroit in michigan banned it a few weeks ago,they became the 65th muicipality in the US to place moratorium/ ban it. doing things under strict control often lowers the profits. sadly the Japanese government were informed by their nuclear specialists that tsunami waves would never damage the walls protecting their reactors. we cannot predict/control nature.

      sadikari - 2011-08-09 22:24

      and anybody ok with benzene/methane/increased radio-activity in their drinking water - you can google the places in the US where that is the horrible reality that people face.

      Horst - 2011-08-09 22:31

      Sorry JimbOb, it looks like we are fighting windmills. The voice of reason just gets drowned here.

      Lauren - 2011-08-10 00:54

      I am wondering if those who oppose the new technology turn on lights and use gas and electricity to cook? I am not speaking for fracking, I am just wondering how "clean" your lives are? Care to share?

      Yetypu - 2011-08-10 00:55

      JimbOb, you hit the nail on the head, Andrew - People who call it 'fracking' {with a 'k'}, generally know very little about it, think it is a recent process & are against it. Accordingly, if you Google 'Fracking', you are going to hit a disproportionate amount of ignorant, alarmist, bunny-hugger, fossil-fuels-must-be-stopped-now posts. There are no clean or renewable energy sources on the scale required, nor do I believe there will be. As regards 'Shell' & Nigeria, it isn't/ wasn't 'the' Shell to blame, not entirely, by a large margin. Sadikari, how many municipalities do you think there are in the USA? 65 is a fraction. Remember that in France there is a very large nuclear generating energy, which probably doesn't want a clean, cheap rival. Deep frac'ing has never caused methane in tap water. Benzene & r/a are trace production products in all hydrocarbon production {including coal mining]. Horst, please hang in there for reason.

      Andrew - 2011-08-10 10:42

      @Yetypu...I know what I'm talk about!!! I spent 20 years in the marine and offshore oil and marine diamond mining industries in engineering related work.

      Andrew - 2011-08-10 10:59

      EVIDENCE....A study by the U.S. Forest Service concluded that fracking wastewater, left over from hydraulic fracturing natural gas mining, is deadly when dumped on forestlands. A quarter acre section of forest was covered with 75,000 gallons of wastewater over a two-day application period. Two days after it was applied, all the ground plants were dead. Within 10 days, all the leaves on the trees started turning brown. After two years, more than half of the trees on the plot were dead.

      Yetypu - 2011-08-10 22:13

      Andrew, there is no fraccing in offshore diamond extraction. There has also not been much fraccing in SA's offshore oil & gas extraction. In the North Sea there has been 20,000 or so jobs - if you had experience there, you'd know that there has never been a pollution outcome. As to deluging a forest with 75,000 gallons of water in 2 days - you'd probably get the same negative results with distilled water. But to be serious, wastewater should never be 'dumped' without a prior safety case.

      Phillip - 2011-08-11 14:28

      @Yetypu The term 'Fracking', as commonly used at present in the media, refers to the process of exploiting what is known as 'shale-gas'. This may well be a misnomer in technical terms, but the usage and meaning in any of hundreds of recent articles is perfectly clear, in spite of its poor etymological pedigree. It should not be confused with the what you call "frac'ing", and what you and the oil and gas industry seem to insist is a process that has been used for 60 years. It is indeed a new producure in that it is applied to a new resource, namely gas bearing shale, which has only been commercially exploited in the last decade or so. Secondly, 75 000 gallons spread over a quarter of an acre in 48 hours amounts to about 7 litres per square metre per hour. Enough to cause a little flood damage perhaps, but nowhere near enough to kill plants.

      Yetypu - 2011-08-12 15:12

      Phillip, One of Violet Bonham Carter’s last memorable quotes was that while it was the duty of the enlightened to confront prejudice, there was no similar obligation to argue against ignorance. When some ‘anti-Fracker’, when shown that fraccing is not proven to be harmful responds by saying that “oh, I didn’t mean non-harmful hydraulic fracturing, when I attacked it, but something else entirely, some meaning I have ascribed, not the meaning known within the fracturing industry itself” - then what is being exhibited is nothing but gross ignorance, against which reason has no argument.

      Phillip - 2011-08-13 03:08

      @Yetypu - The meaning of words in any language depends on the use to which they are commonly put. You can stick with your industry jargon if you like, but the fact is that when ordinary people talk about 'fracking', they are talking about shale-gas exploitation and everything that goes with it. All the pedantic sophistries in the world, masquerading as 'enlightenment' will not change that. Until just over ten years ago, shale plays were not commercially exploited. Except for a few experimental cases, drilling and hydraulic fracturing were confined to those, relatively few, places where 'conventional' gas and oil was found, and were already industrially developed, with all the associated pollution. A little hydraulic fracturing would not have had any noticeable effect. What you have failed to notice, from your, no doubt, 'enlightened' position is that the scale has changed dramatically. It is said that mice and elephants are related. I don't know if that is true, but you don't seem to be able to tell the difference. Is that due to 'ignorance' or 'prejudice' or something else?

  • Peter - 2011-08-10 04:36

    On YouTube there was a video clip of a guy (a scientist) who ran his car on water. He used a specialised spark plug to do that. Shortly after releasing his video clip he was murdered...I wonder why?

      andre_j_coetzee - 2011-08-10 08:28

      what was the video name? would to like and check it out...

  • In_Odin_We_Trust - 2011-08-10 04:40

    sustainable energy is the only way forward. this land has enough trouble as is. you start your fracking, your gas stations will start to burn one by one. be warned

  • andre_j_coetzee - 2011-08-10 08:26

    This is just madness, the amount of chemicals pumped into the earth is mind boggling and the pollution to our already scares water source can only get worse, why destroy such a wonderful area by mining it, shell should not be allowed to go ahead with this utterly insane idea of "fracking" the should rather think of putting up a solar plant or wind terrines in the area if they want to extract energy from the area, the shell company has already devastated some parts of the American land mass and the photos of that is just horrifying... NO! NO! SHELL MUST GO! NO! NO! SHELL MUST GO! NO! NO! SHELL MUST GO!

      Phillip - 2011-08-11 18:31

      Quite so! If they really want to drill holes all over the place, why not go down just a bit further, and use geothermal energy? It may be a bit more expensive in the short term, but it doesn't run out after ten years. Also, we know it is there if you go deep enough. Half the gas wells may produce nothing.

      Yetypu - 2011-08-12 14:56

      Phillip, Geothermal energy also requires hydraulic fracturing, & has the same waste-water problems as shale gas exploitation.

      Phillip - 2011-08-12 23:09

      @Yetypu - No it doesn't. Hydraulic fracturing may be used in the constuction phase, where the rock is suitable, for twin or multi well installations in order to open a path between the wells. But that would not be on anything like the scale required for shale gas. As with your early techniques of HF, it involves only small quantities of water (and effluent) compared to shale-gas. Also it need only be done once to provide an almost indefinite supply of energy, whereas shale-gas wells have a useful life expectancy of about ten years. That is why they have to keep drilling and 'fracking' all over the place. A simpler method is a single well installation with a co-axial feed and return, which does not necessarily require hydraulic fracturing. It can be a closed-loop system like a cooling system in a car. See : http://www.bassfeld.ch/assets/Geothermal_Power.pdf and : http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/research/geoth/publications/techreports/SGP-TR-190.pdf

  • letsee - 2011-08-10 09:52

    Before you know the ANC government will have granted licenses and Shell will be Fracking.

  • AntiRacist - 2011-08-10 10:39

    Down with Shell, No one should even use Shell fuel, i havnt supported them in over 4 months!

  • Faerie - 2011-08-10 10:53

    I say .. Stop the fuel & oil Cartel ! STOP SHELL !! Onthe one side of this "coin" we watch 50/50 Preserve our Wild Life and fresh water. Then there is the video footage of "A Country Imagined" by Johnny Clegg. The other side of this coin is "Fracking in the Karoo" How absurd will this decission of FRACKING IN THE KAROO BE ???? PROTEST - STOP IT!!! Save the Koroo with it's natural lovliness, it's people and it's history of by-gone years.

  • Gray - 2011-08-10 12:03

    And around and around and a do-si-do. Somewhere in between all the back and forth there is a critical point that is being forgotten. The protesters were not justing walking along saying no to fracking. They were saying "renewable energy, now and forever". In their opposition to fracking they are encouraging renewable alternatives that are the inevitable fuels of the future. Surely it's not hard to see how you don't need to leave in a cave and eat fynbos to want to preserve a little of our life support system (ie; the Earth)? Fossil fuels are on their way out, lets not take out our life support system along with them.

  • Fikile - 2011-08-10 13:41

    time to buy a solar geyser and some solar panels from solartech

  • Ben - 2011-08-10 14:31

    I'm totally against Fracking. But there is no way in (s)HELL the government is going to say no to this. It's to much money. These are companies with a larger revenue stream than our country's GDP. You have to be pretty bad-ass to say no to that kind of money and our current government....well....let's just say it doesn't take much..

      Yetypu - 2011-08-10 22:08

      Ben, why are you totally against fraccing? I mean, what do you know about it, that gives such strength to a reason based decision.

  • pages:
  • 1