💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › moai-special-hydraulic-fracture.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:51:11. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Special Hydraulic Fracture Author: Moai Language: en Topics: Return Fire, fracking, natural gas, extractivism, anti-civilization, Spain, resistance, pollution Notes: Taken from Return Fire vol.4 chap.1, autumn 2016. PDFs of Return Fire and related publications can be read, downloaded and printed by visiting returnfire.noblogs.org or emailing returnfire@riseup.net
[ed. – Published by Moai, a Spanish-language newsletter on biological,
technological and social control. Lightly edited from the original
translation done by Theory Without Borders.]
Fracking or hydraulic fracture is an unconventional method of extraction
of natural gas, also known as “shale gas”. This gas, fundamentally
composed by methane, is found stored in small pores or impermeable rock
bubbles, normally of schist or slate, located thousands of metres below
the surface. “Unconventional gases” are denominated to those that for
their cost or difficulty of extraction are less profitable. However,
with the advance of extractivist technologies, these gases can be
catalogued as conventional in a short period of time.
The hydraulic fracture consists in “breaking” or “fracturing” the mother
rock that contains the gas for its extraction. For this a perforation
technique is used: firstly the surface is drilled for up to 5,000 metres
vertically and after that several horizontal kilometres are also
perforated (from 1.5 to 5 km). After this water with sand are injected
with great pressure (98%). It should be noted that this water and sand
also contain a series of chemical additives (2%). This provokes small
explosions that fracture the rocks and liberate the gas, which ascends
from the surface through a pit. The sand mixture is in charge of keeping
the fracture open in order to constantly keep obtaining gas. Part of the
injected mixture returns to the surface (between 15 to 85%[1]), whilst
the rest ends up in uncertain places.
The usual step in these types of exploitations is to build platforms
that contain between 6 and 12 pits of extraction, in order to allow the
surface of the terrain that occupies the platform to be composed by tens
of hectares. To this we must add that the pits have a very brief useful
life, which allows the occupied surface by the platforms to occupy a
huge area of a territory.
Currently, even though natural gas consumption is booming, electrical
energy (primarily generated thanks to petroleum and the consumption of
fossil fuels) represents around 80% of the global energy consumption. On
the other hand, the extraction of conventional natural gas possesses an
energy return on investment (EROI) of between 1 to 6 and unconventional
or “shale gas” between 0.7 and 13.3. These are ridiculous numbers
compared to the current energy return on investment of petroleum, which
can have rates of 100.
Then, why invest millions of euros in its extraction? This is easy to
explain if we analyse the current energy crisis.[2] There are many
studies, books and publications that have invested their efforts into
demonstrating and studying that we have reached the peak oil process and
that the new petroleum pits discovered possess less fuel of worse
quality, bigger cost of extraction and, therefore, less EROI. This
theory is easily predictable by simply analysing the spectacular
increase of the price of fossil fuel.
We survive in a system completely dependent on fossil fuel and
electrical energy generated by the same, which also base their system of
social domination on energy control. It would be stupid or ingenuous by
our part to think that the big defenders of this system of social
domination, which include huge petroleum companies, were not going to
reinvent theirselves so that the end of cheap petroleum doesn’t suppose
a threat to their businesses, privileges and power of social control. It
is here where fracking serves as a tool to delay the discovery of new
alternative energy sources. By improving extractivist technologies and
conducting explorations in many places of the planet, the gas reserves
will be able to be maintain their energy system for a short period of
time and prevent the explosion of a true energy catastrophe, which
doesn’t benefit in the slightest big petroleum multinationals.
There are many varied motives to oppose the extraction of unconventional
gas. It is obvious that such an aggressive extractivist method will
provoke a series of environmental problems.
On the one hand it is of vital importance to highlight the contamination
of aquifers and subterranean waters, created due to the filtration of
the mixture that is injected in the pits for the extraction of gas.
These 600 chemical substances injected into the surface, many of them
carcinogenic, end up in subterranean waters and will consequently be
consumed by all human beings and animals, thus generating a chemical
contamination of all the affected ecosystems. These human beings will be
affected by this consumption of contaminated water. This has already
been demonstrated through the analysis in cow livestock in several areas
of the United States, where many animals suddenly died after consuming
water close to the gas platforms. The effects towards the human race
will take longer to appear, but can go from stomach infections to
cancer, along with provoking death after constant consumption.
Another type of contamination that fracking provokes that isn’t well
known is the emission of radioactive substances to the atmosphere.
Substances that are found naturally in the depths of the ground and
contaminated water can also reach the atmosphere. One of these chemical
substances is radon-222, which is the second highest declared cause of
lung cancer.
The small explosions generated by the injection of pressured water are
also capable of causing seismic movements into the ground, as
demonstrated in places like England or the United States.[3] This could
explain, along with popular opposition and French colonialism in Mali
and Niger [ed. – i.e. also over access to uranium and other fuel
sources], the prohibition of this method in France, where the huge
quantity of nuclear plants combined with earthquake risks could cause
huge catastrophes.
Extractive platforms generate a series of environmental and pollutive
consequences that are hard to list. It is not only about the visual
impact of the platform, the waste from concrete, gas pipelines, etc. But
also the creation of roads, transportation of materials, the
canalisation of water into the platform, the large water waste, the
deforestation of the terrain, the erosion, the creation of residual
ponds and many more problems that would require a lot of paper to write
down.
These ecological and health consequences should ideally be the main
reason to face and stop these projects if we truly valued the health of
our surroundings. However, these are not even the most important reasons
to stop fracking: if companies were truly interested in investing into
improved extractivist technologies in order to guarantee that no health
dangers existed there would still be enough factors for us to oppose
these projects. Fracking opposition, from our part, should include the
fact that it is a new method of exploitation of natural resources that
only contributes perpetuating an anti-ecological, exploiting, unfair and
inhuman system. We don’t only express our opposition to fracking as an
aggressive method to extract gas, but also to the opposition of any type
of extraction of gas.
Currently there are over 30 permits of exploitation conceded in the
[Iberian] peninsula, concentrated around the north, primarily. These
numbers are ever-changing due to the approval of new permissions, as
there are already more than 50 solicitations; but also due to the
opposition and resistance from some communities to allow these projects
(albeit the latter is improbable and abstract).
These exploitations will be conducted, if we don’t stop them, by
businesses like SHESA (Society of Hydrocarbons of Euskadi); BNK
Petroleum, with its Spanish counterpart Trofagas, Heyco, R2 Energy and
San Leon Energy.
From the arrival of the plans of exploration of shale gas in the
[Spanish] State, there are many voices (from individuals and
collectives) that have risen up to try and prevent these exploitations
of gas. For this reason, it is important to analyse determined
strategies and alternative methods of fighting presented by numerous
ecologist groups which, in our opinion, aren’t effective or coherent and
are even capable of benefiting the enemy that they intend to destroy.
In regards to the methods of struggle: the first thing that we must
clarify is that fracking is a global problem originated by a global
energy scheme. It is not only about a project in a specific area. Due to
this it is important to conduct the fight against fracking on a global
level and not only focus it on a specific platform, valley, etc… (No
Fracking, not here or anywhere)
The town halls and Autonomous Communities[4] belong to a State that
encourages and support this global plan of energy development based on
the hydraulic fracture. Due to this it lacks sense, from a logical
perspective, to use or beg these institutions to stop fracking. On the
one hand, it is obvious that if we intend to stop fracking, any type of
dialogue with the State contributes towards an anticipated defeat. On a
moral level it is a lost battle. It is true that in some cases the
collection of signatures and pressure from political groups have managed
to stop some local projects. However, these are underwhelming victories,
as no global opposition is ever presented, only local. On the other
hand, if the governments indeed stop specific projects it is only
because these are not fundamental projects for their energy development.
In the case of fracking in the [Spanish] State, several specific
permissions can be obtained this way, because there are countries with
enormous levels of poverty that exist, with bigger gas reserves and less
popular pressure, allowing businesses to easily extract gas from those
places. Therefore, the only way to oppose these mega-projects
effectively and coherently is through a real fight, not
collaborationist, that at the same time develops a global criticism
towards capitalism.
In regards to alternatives: This is probably the most delicate and
controversial point. The only proposal by “eco” friendly parties, NGO’s
and ecologist collectives against fracking are renewable energies,
accompanied by a light decrease in the levels of consumption.
Renewable energies can pose, with a big economic investment in
investigation and development, an alternative to the extraction of gas
through hydraulic fracture, but they will never be an alternative to
capitalism. The ideal world that these groups offer needs more roads,
industries, trucks, primary resources, big factories, video surveillance
and electricity cables passing through the woods to fully function.
Renewable energy is also completely dependent on fossil fuels (plastics,
transportation through roads, vehicles, etc…) and continues forcing
human beings to work to produce cars, wind turbines, solar panels, etc;
which impedes the liberation of the individual, who is still tied up and
trapped in a sick, unhappy and monotonous job and lifestyle.
On the other hand, these groups don’t tend to propose any political
change accompanied by their “renewable revolution” in order to continue
a capitalist system where the only things that matter are money and
economy, thus ignoring values like friendship and nature. This approach
not only represents no real alternative to the system of domination, but
can also drastically benefit it. In a world where contamination reaches
extreme levels, cancers increase enormously and the disasters provoked
by petroleum and nuclear energy are part of our everyday lives, the best
alternative to maintain the system of domination is through renewable
energy. In fact, it’s what is slowly extending the system. Small steps
are being taken to improve the profitability of renewable energies,
creating electric vehicles, etc… This way the State and businesses clean
their image towards the people that they have to exploit, whilst they
also pretend to care about the planet’s health without changing the
system of domination.
We don’t want a world where the same contradictions continue to be
applied, where people's lives are completely domesticated, robotized and
alienated and where the relationship between human beings and nature is
inexistent. We don’t want cities painted a pretentious “eco” green or a
scenery full of wind turbines of more than 100 metres in height. We
fight for a free world where people can re-establish their relationship
to nature that prevailed during centuries past. We fight for a world
where capitalism and domination disappear, which is only possible by
renouncing the commodities that the energy and technological system
provide for us. A world without fracking, or petroleum, or renewable
barbarities: a free and wild world.
[1] The numbers of return of contaminated water are proportioned by the
own extractivist businesses, are not validated by any independent study.
Therefore it is probable that the percentage of water that isn’t
recovered is bigger than as indicated.
[2] One of the key concepts to understand the gravity of the energy
crisis is the EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Investment. The TRE is the
relationship between energy that a well provides us and the energy that
we have to spend to obtain it. Hence, conventional petroleum has an EROI
of 20, which means that for each unity of energy destined to the
production of petroleum (in the elaboration of materials used in wells,
its installation, perforation, operation, the maintenance, etc) 20
unities of energy are obtained. The critical value of the TRE is 1: when
the TRE arrives at an equivalent, lots of energy is renewed as the one
invested and the system stops having any sense as an energy source.
[3] ed. – Fracking near Blackpool in the north of England by the company
Cuadrilla was halted after causing two minor 2011 earthquakes, while the
U.S. state of Oklahoma for example has seen a sever spike in quakes of
3.0 magnitude or higher since 2008, when fracking ramped up in the area.
The number of 3.0 magnitude quakes rose from 2 in 2008 to 889 last year;
as of this November, there have been 572 so far in 2016.
[4] ed. – Autonomous Communities are the 17 separately-governed
semi-autonomous regions of Spain, i.e. Catalonia, the Basque Country,
Galicia, etc.