[DEFEATED] Convention on Fracking

[Frisbeeteria]

So this is my very first draft for the WA in a very, very long time. Please be gentle...

Convention on Fracking
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Proposal Category: EnvironmentalArea of Effect: Mining

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the necessity of fuel resources requires member-states to engage in the use of a variety of procurement mechanisms in order to sustain the quantitative supply of fuel resources necessary to preserve national commerce and utility infrastructures,

ACKNOWLEDGING that certain controversial drilling techniques, including but not limited to the practice of hydraulic fracturing, have made the accessibility of petroleum reserves more readily available for nations seeking their own energy independence,

RECOGNIZING that the technique of hydraulic fracturing has been found through independent scientific studies to pose a significant risk to both the environment and those living in the proximal range of drill sites, including the contamination of groundwater tables with pollutants, increased air pollutants from released gasses, irreparable damage to the ecology of woodlands and wetlands affected by chemical runoff, the possibility of seismic activity including induced-tectonic shifts or earthquakes and the resultant risk to human life and materiel property,

CONCERNED as to the potential danger to harming the regional environment and local population centers situated around the proximal range of the employed use of hydraulic fracturing to procure previously inaccessible reserves of petroleum,

HEREBY:

1.) Defines the practice of hydraulic fracturing as any associated technique that utilizes the injection of a liquid compound that contains proppants, which fracture subterranean layers of rock for the purposes of allowing brine, natural gas, petroleum and other recoverable energy sources to seep into artificial boreholes or naturally-occurring reservoirs and wells without the closure of the fissures, for removal and eventual commercial usage;

2.) Requires member-states of the World Assembly to update any and all existing state regulations on the processes involved with hydraulic fracturing to meet the standards levied by the recommendation of the Council on Petroleum Extraction, or to establish regulations presently;

3.) Restricts the utilization of hydraulic fracturing techniques in the procurement of previously-inaccessible energy reserves to those areas that exist no less than fifty miles away from incorporated cities, towns, or communities;

4.) Commissions the creation of the World Assembly Council on Petroleum Extraction (CPE), which shall be vested with the following authority:

• To research the development of hydraulic fracturing techniques currently employed by national governments and private energy corporations, and to provide information on safe drilling techniques to prospective energy developers;
  
  
• To monitor and observe the utilization of hydraulic fracturing techniques by member-states of the World Assembly, and to report any potential violation of sponsored regulations or prohibitions supported herein to the World Assembly and its associated institutes;
  
  
• To provide for a general consensus on the safety and feasibility of hydraulic fracturing as a method of acquiring previously-inaccessible energy reserves through independent scientific research and established safety principles;

5.) Requires that member-states of the World Assembly regulate organizations that utilize hydraulic fracturing techniques by requiring environmental cleanup of any chemical runoffs or groundwater contamination, and to monitor groundwater tables for possible contaminants under penalty of monetary fines or suspension of licensing to the offending corporations.

Edit I, 7.10.2014 - Changed the name of the proposal and the references of 'nation-states' to 'member-states' at the suggestion of Unibot, as well as made grammatical corrections and altered the order of the proposal.

Edit II, 7.11.2014 - Attempted to clarify technical concerns over the definition of hydraulic fracking.

[Aligned Planets]

I genuinely wouldn't touch this with a barge-pole.

See the defeated Fracking Protocol for why.

I still cry myself to sleep each night over that.

[Hakio]

I genuinely wouldn't touch this with a barge-pole.

See the defeated Fracking Protocol for why.

I still cry myself to sleep each night over that.

Sia Hedishi slaps the ambassador of Aligned Planets with a salmon.

"I for one happily support this attempted resolution against fracking in oil companies! We will continue to push this down WA's throat till they get the memo and agree!"

WA Ambassador
~Sia Hedishi

[Defwa]

A smallish view screen flies into the room held up by two caged rotors. It lands on the desk of Angela Landfree before the screen turns on and she appears on it. People are visible behind her going about their business.

"I am currently out of the office and unable to offer a full commentary, but I must offer my support. Fracking is a dangerous procedure with wide spread consequences. As such, I would prefer that contamination of the water table be not only grounds for requiring a company to clean up but also to cease activity in that area. The same goes for cases where their activity causes unusual geological instability. Companies should also be held financially accountable for any poisoning, earthquakes, or explosions that occur as a result of their work to victims of this incidents."
She turns away.
"No, sorry honey. Why don't you two go ahead. I don't really like that store anyway."
"Anyway, lessons definitely must be learned from the last attempt. I do not have my updated volume of WA committees, but does this petroleum group you mention already exist or is this proposal forming it. If its the latter, a lime stating the committee is being formed would help and what standards it would be creating. The 50 mile radius of also questionable. Is that really based on anything? While either form will likely create a difficult uphill battle for you, I would prefer to see the distance vary based on the risk. If a site runs a risk of contaminating the environment or endangering property it should not be allowed there. Thus, aquifers 51 miles from a city are safe while safer fracking is not restricted from taking advantage of all opportunities. It may also have to be clarified that nations can place more stringent regulations as needed."
She turns away again.
"Oh I love when he wears those. Tell him not to put his clothes back on until I get there," and then she turns back, "I must be going. Call me an optimist, but Defwa is always eager to see environmental sense being enforced upon those who don't have it."

The screen flashes the symbol of the Defwean diplomatic corps and goes black.

[Chester Pearson]

You do realize 90% of said fracking fluid is actually sand correct?

Once again, we have a resolution that fails to comprehend the technicalities behind hydraulic fracturing.

Opposed....

[Defwa]

You do realize 90% of said fracking fluid is actually sand correct?

Once again, we have a resolution that fails to comprehend the technicalities behind hydraulic fracturing.

Opposed....

I don't see where the present proposal denies that. So I suppose you have a point somewhere in there as to why sand is significant at this juncture?

Of course you're not completely right either. Its not always sand nor is it always 90% of the fluid

[Chester Pearson]

You do realize 90% of said fracking fluid is actually sand correct?

Once again, we have a resolution that fails to comprehend the technicalities behind hydraulic fracturing.

Opposed....

I don't see where the present resolution denies that. So I suppose you have a point somewhere in there as to why sand is significant at this juncture?

1.) Defines the practice of hydraulic fracturing as any associated technique that utilizes the injection of a liquid compound to fracture subterranean layers of rock for the purposes of allowing brine, natural gas, petroleum and other recoverable energy sources to seep into artificial boreholes or naturally-occurring reservoirs and wells for removal and eventual commercial usage;

It isn't the water or the liquid that fractures the formation. It is pressure, combined with the sand, which then bridges the formation open, to keep it from collapsing.

Like I said, fails to comprehend the technicalities.

[Defwa]

I don't see where the present resolution denies that. So I suppose you have a point somewhere in there as to why sand is significant at this juncture?

1.) Defines the practice of hydraulic fracturing as any associated technique that utilizes the injection of a liquid compound to fracture subterranean layers of rock for the purposes of allowing brine, natural gas, petroleum and other recoverable energy sources to seep into artificial boreholes or naturally-occurring reservoirs and wells for removal and eventual commercial usage;

It isn't the water or the liquid that fractures the formation. It is pressure, combined with the sand, which then bridges the formation open, to keep it from collapsing.

Like I said, fails to comprehend the technicalities.

A compound is a combination of more than one substance
A liquid compound is a compound that is generally liquid.
The liquid compound used in hydraulic fracking is generally referred to as fracking fluid. The terms are not contradictory or conflicting by any means.

I'm not seeing a lack of understanding here. If you feel the term is unclear, perhaps you should suggest methods of clarifying- unless of course your opposition stems less from the authors lack of understanding and more from you not wanting legislation on this topic. In the latter case, do confess so we may move on honestly from this point.

[New Azura]

I don't see where the present resolution denies that. So I suppose you have a point somewhere in there as to why sand is significant at this juncture?

1.) Defines the practice of hydraulic fracturing as any associated technique that utilizes the injection of a liquid compound to fracture subterranean layers of rock for the purposes of allowing brine, natural gas, petroleum and other recoverable energy sources to seep into artificial boreholes or naturally-occurring reservoirs and wells for removal and eventual commercial usage;

It isn't the water or the liquid that fractures the formation. It is pressure, combined with the sand, which then bridges the formation open, to keep it from collapsing.

Like I said, fails to comprehend the technicalities.

I made sure to include the proppants now in the definition, but to give a thorough technical discourse on the subject would take more space than a conventional draft usually employs. In other words, it's probably as close as I can get it to being technically accurate without writing a manual on the subject.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Absolutely, unequivocally opposed. Fracking is NOT nearly as dangerous as the environmental opponents would have you believe, especially if companies are required to confer with accredited geologists. It does not require this level of oversight by the World Assembly, considering how localized it's effects are. Natural gas is an efficient, clean fuel that the GA really ought to be encouraging, not restricting."

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see where the present resolution denies that. So I suppose you have a point somewhere in there as to why sand is significant at this juncture?

1.) Defines the practice of hydraulic fracturing as any associated technique that utilizes the injection of a liquid compound to fracture subterranean layers of rock for the purposes of allowing brine, natural gas, petroleum and other recoverable energy sources to seep into artificial boreholes or naturally-occurring reservoirs and wells for removal and eventual commercial usage;

It isn't the water or the liquid that fractures the formation. It is pressure, combined with the sand, which then bridges the formation open, to keep it from collapsing.

Like I said, fails to comprehend the technicalities.

Fluid pressure isn't the only method with which to stimulate oil and gas deposits

Being more on the topic, is there anything in the resolution at hand that's insurmountable in the application of knowledge? Why not lend a hand? All it (openly) seeks to do is regulate fracturing stimulation and hold it to a high account of contamination monitoring and safety.

[Bears Armed]

Being more on the topic, is there anything in the resolution at hand that's insurmountable in the application of knowledge? Why not lend a hand? All it (openly) seeks to do is regulate fracturing stimulation and hold it to a high account of contamination monitoring and safety.

If the extra rules really are a good idea for 'fracking', is there any good reason why ["conventional"] drilling for oil shouldn't be held to comparable standards?

[Imperializt Russia]

Being more on the topic, is there anything in the resolution at hand that's insurmountable in the application of knowledge? Why not lend a hand? All it (openly) seeks to do is regulate fracturing stimulation and hold it to a high account of contamination monitoring and safety.

If the extra rules really are a good idea for 'fracking', is there any good reason why ["conventional"] drilling for oil shouldn't be held to comparable standards?

I was under the impression it was, since that strikes me as something that the WA/UN might have settled a decade ago.

[New Azura]

Being more on the topic, is there anything in the resolution at hand that's insurmountable in the application of knowledge? Why not lend a hand? All it (openly) seeks to do is regulate fracturing stimulation and hold it to a high account of contamination monitoring and safety.

If the extra rules really are a good idea for 'fracking', is there any good reason why ["conventional"] drilling for oil shouldn't be held to comparable standards?

I think it would be something to explore, since there are obvious risks to conventional drilling. However, some of the ecological and humanitarian risks from fracking are unique to those dangers from, say, offshore drilling. Seismic activity seems to be the go-to whenever people want to address hydraulic fracturing's risks, but there's a far greater threat to the ecological system from chemical runoff. As has been mentioned already by others, water is not the only thing being used in the process; proppants and other chemicals also work their way into the compounds used, which can contaminate the watertable in a region and provide a health hazard to people. Hence it's really deserving of its own regulatory oversight, though again a convention on petroleum extraction would be important as well down the line.

[Separatist Peoples]

I think it would be something to explore, since there are obvious risks to conventional drilling. However, some of the ecological and humanitarian risks from fracking are unique to those dangers from, say, offshore drilling. Seismic activity seems to be the go-to whenever people want to address hydraulic fracturing's risks,

"That's the only legitimate risk from fracking, and even that isn't a strong one. Proper mitigation methods exist for seismic damage, which can be addressed by national entities."

but there's a far greater threat to the ecological system from chemical runoff.

"Not the case. "Frack outs", where the pressurized chemical erupts unintentionally because of the composition of the soils, are rare, and nearly always emerge as a mud. Mud, as people with hazardous waste response experience would know, is one of the easiest vectors to clean and isolate, as the fracking "fluid" doesn't tend to dissipate into toxic gas, and has little bioaccumulation to it, as you'd expect from petrol or mercury compounds.

As has been mentioned already by others, water is not the only thing being used in the process; proppants and other chemicals also work their way into the compounds used, which can contaminate the watertable in a region and provide a health hazard to people.

"A single staff geologist with an accredited undergraduate degree is capable of determining whether that is a risk or not. Why get the WA into it? Determining the location of significant aquifers is relatively simple, and significant groundwater resources have the benefit of all the inundated soil to act as a filter, again limiting impact."

Hence it's really deserving of its own regulatory oversight, though again a convention on petroleum extraction would be important as well down the line.

A regular mistake with this sort of issue is that those unfamiliar with the process assume that any impact is automatically negative and needs to be prevented, when there is a significant amount of activity that has no permanent impact on the quality of an aquatic or natural resource. This doesn't require any more oversight from the World Assembly then agricultural policy does, which is infinitely more damaging to water resources then fracking."

[New Azura]

I think it would be something to explore, since there are obvious risks to conventional drilling. However, some of the ecological and humanitarian risks from fracking are unique to those dangers from, say, offshore drilling. Seismic activity seems to be the go-to whenever people want to address hydraulic fracturing's risks,

"That's the only legitimate risk from fracking, and even that isn't a strong one. Proper mitigation methods exist for seismic damage, which can be addressed by national entities."

but there's a far greater threat to the ecological system from chemical runoff.

"Not the case. "Frack outs", where the pressurized chemical erupts unintentionally because of the composition of the soils, are rare, and nearly always emerge as a mud. Mud, as people with hazardous waste response experience would know, is one of the easiest vectors to clean and isolate, as the fracking "fluid" doesn't tend to dissipate into toxic gas, and has little bioaccumulation to it, as you'd expect from petrol or mercury compounds.

As has been mentioned already by others, water is not the only thing being used in the process; proppants and other chemicals also work their way into the compounds used, which can contaminate the watertable in a region and provide a health hazard to people.

"A single staff geologist with an accredited undergraduate degree is capable of determining whether that is a risk or not. Why get the WA into it? Determining the location of significant aquifers is relatively simple, and significant groundwater resources have the benefit of all the inundated soil to act as a filter, again limiting impact."

Hence it's really deserving of its own regulatory oversight, though again a convention on petroleum extraction would be important as well down the line.

A regular mistake with this sort of issue is that those unfamiliar with the process assume that any impact is automatically negative and needs to be prevented, when there is a significant amount of activity that has no permanent impact on the quality of an aquatic or natural resource. This doesn't require any more oversight from the World Assembly then agricultural policy does, which is infinitely more damaging to water resources then fracking."

Disagree one hundred percent on this; just because something can be avoided does not mean that corporations or states will inherently take the necessary steps to protect both the environment and the people in it. For relatively little effort, companies can still employ hydraulic fracturing techniques to procure energy resources, and the World Assembly can use its authority to make sure that they operate safely and efficiently in doing so. I consider that a win-win, and worth the effort to pursue.

[Separatist Peoples]

Disagree one hundred percent on this; just because something can be avoided does not mean that corporations or states will inherently take the necessary steps to protect both the environment and the people in it. For relatively little effort, companies can still employ hydraulic fracturing techniques to procure energy resources, and the World Assembly can use its authority to make sure that they operate safely and efficiently in doing so. I consider that a win-win, and worth the effort to pursue.

"Hah! International environmental regulation rarely causes only minimal effort. While I don't consider NatSov claims generally valid when it comes to environmental legislation in the GA, I firmly believe that fracking is just a political buzz-topic and is no worse then any other form of energy production, and ought to be regulated on a national level. There is already legislation on the protection of water resources, and that's about as close to an actual issue as there is in fracking."

[Defwa]

Disagree one hundred percent on this; just because something can be avoided does not mean that corporations or states will inherently take the necessary steps to protect both the environment and the people in it. For relatively little effort, companies can still employ hydraulic fracturing techniques to procure energy resources, and the World Assembly can use its authority to make sure that they operate safely and efficiently in doing so. I consider that a win-win, and worth the effort to pursue.

"Hah! International environmental regulation rarely causes only minimal effort. While I don't consider NatSov claims generally valid when it comes to environmental legislation in the GA, I firmly believe that fracking is just a political buzz-topic and is no worse then any other form of energy production, and ought to be regulated on a national level. There is already legislation on the protection of water resources, and that's about as close to an actual issue as there is in fracking."

Yes, fracking is relatively new and in the vogue and everyone is eager to legislate on it. Because there is not currently any international legislation on the topic, it can and does cause contamination in water supplies when not done properly and via its radical modification of local geology undeniably causes unusual seismic activity

We all know its easy to do it properly- to avoid negative environmental impacts. It simply makes sense not to poison local water supplies, it makes sense to not pump dangerous chemicals into the air, it makes sense to use double hull tankers, it makes sense not to nuke civilian populations, it makes sense not to use radiological weapons on a territory you plan to conquer, it makes sense to pay people a living wage.
But only on a macro scale. Only on the national or international level.

The little people- the individuals and the corporations just see it as another expense between them and maximized profit. Its cheaper to do it wrong and leave the consequences to other people as much as possible. Thats why we need environmental and business regulation to begin with and when nations don't do it or refuse to do it, the WA must be present to set sensible minimal standards.

[Imperializt Russia]

Fracking's been around since the seventies and the Russians were playing with... alternate methods in the early sixties.
It's not really "new".

[Defwa]

Fracking's been around since the seventies and the Russians were playing with... alternate methods in the early sixties.
It's not really "new".

Well thats nice for Russia, however the many other countries consider it a recent development. Especially considering its new found popularity and ever increasing reach and effect.

Regardless, that should not have been the only thing you got out of my statement.

[Separatist Peoples]

The little people- the individuals and the corporations just see it as another expense between them and maximized profit. Its cheaper to do it wrong and leave the consequences to other people as much as possible. Thats why we need environmental and business regulation to begin with and when nations don't do it or refuse to do it, the WA must be present to set sensible minimal standards.

"Which is not an international concern. What hypothetical Defwaen frackers do to screw up Defwaen water resources is not the C.D.S.P.'s problem. That is a Defwaen problem. This problem doesn't have a significant risk of affecting the international community, and doesn't involve outright oppression of human rights. International legislation isn't necessary."

[Aligned Planets]

OOC: To add my own thoughts, as the author of what I believe is the only previous fracking resolution to be discussed or make it to a vote, the contamination of water supplies is not relevant here. If it happens within national boundaries, then that is an issue for the relevant national agencies to regulate as they see fit and as directed by their governments.. I fail to see how it is an international issue worthy of WA discussion. Any international water issues that arise from fracking are already covered by the Transboundary Water Use Act.

The problem with attempts on fracking regulation is that it isn't a big international issue; I found this out myself back in January. The big regions, which hold a lot of sway with votes, were not persuaded that it was an international concern, by a fairly big margin. This may have worked as a resolution 3 or 4 years ago, when WA politics were slightly more nuanced, but the current climate is not conducive to micromanagement of small specific elements of national industries that do not have an international scope to them.

[Chester Pearson]

Fluid pressure isn't the only method with which to stimulate oil and gas deposits

True enough. You can you carbon dioxide, nitrogen, xylene, benzene, acid stimulation, the list goes on..... I was simply referring to the proposal at hand.

(I worked in the oil patch for 16 years, thus I have an intimate knowledge of oil and gas well stimulation methods)

On another note: Why in the hell did you even bother posting this? You took no feedback into account, and submitted it after a day.

For those reasons alone:

OPPOSED

[Aligned Planets]

IC:

Jaresh-Inyo looked up from the stack of papers on his desk to realise that the General Assembly annunciator was flashing, an indication that a new proposal had been submitted to the floor for quoracy review. Rubbing his old and tired eyes, the Ambassador did a mild double-take at what he saw. Another fracking attempt? So recently after Laura Roslin's own attempts on behalf of the United Federation, and so soon after the initial bill had been passed around for consideration? He hit the holo-memo button next to his desk, and began recording a short dictat to his fellow delegatorial colleagues.

"Friends, I must express grave concerns about the expediency with which this proposal has been despatched to be considered. As far as I am aware, preliminary discussions on the matter had lasted only a smattering of hours and without any substantive comments or suggestions to improve. If you will recall, our own attempts went through eight draft incarnations with input from many honourable members, before we submitted it for your august review. I beseech you, do not allow this travesty to leave the quoracy chamber. Recall this bill, and let us discuss it more fully and with a greater degree of consideration and critique. For all that is righteous and honourable."

He flicked a switch, mistaking the off button for another and, before he could prevent it, had included at the end of the transmission a short clip that President Roslin had sent to him earlier that day. There was a reason it was marked for his eyes only. He wondered if the delicate sensibilities of various delegates would recover in time to block the bill.

[Defwa]

Ambassador Landfree lets her head fall to the side and rolls her eyes recovering just in time to see the end of the message from the Aligned Planets.
She then has to remove her suit jacket and fan herself for a moment.