[PASSED] Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

OOC: You might get more traction with this, if you made the ban/strict restriction to only apply near places where people live, or culturally/agriculturally important sites. Since the issues seem to mostly be about groundwater contamination and earthquakes. Though how you'd prove that the earthquake was solely because of the fracking operation, is... err, difficult. (I know, I know, depth of epicenter, type of waves, etc., but to prove it with 100% surety is damn near impossible.)

Interesting. Hmm...We add that to the border issue, the labelling, etc. and we're starting to get somewhere

Minimal distances between fracking sites, proximity to wetlands, and/or extraction quotas (not sure how to word them to pass GenSec legal muster but I'm sure a more experienced member could help in those areas) just to throw up a couple areas to consider.

[Arkeyana]

WHile Arkeyana hasn't practiced this method in several centuries, we do see the importance of restricting use near fault lines and ecologically important areas, an outright ban, however, would severely lower economic output of nations who rely on it.

[Araraukar]

Better? At any rate, how do we define "close range"?

OOC: Since ground water contamination is one of the biggest issues in my understanding, maybe use that. It's used in Real Life (at least in Finland) to limit industry that might lead to groundwater contamination.

From my own career in the local environmental council, I remember 2 big cases where we had to keep telling a major domestic corporation that they couldn't build their gasoline/car service station where they wanted, because it was "upstream" in the direction groundwater flowed there, of a residential area where most houses had their own wells. There was a 3rd one where we lost the battle, but we were able to slap on requirement for them to continue monitoring water quality for as long as they kept the place operational. And there were several cases with smaller companies, at least one of which eventually received a major fine, lost the chance to buy the neighbouring lot they had wanted, and had to pay for clearing up the soil that had also gotten contaminated with the stuff they illegally processed on the lot (heavy metals leeching into the soil and from there to groundwater). That case dragged on for the better part of my 8 years in the council...

EDIT: Any kind of quotas are a bad idea, don't do that.

[Separatist Peoples]

Interesting. Hmm...We add that to the border issue, the labelling, etc. and we're starting to get somewhere

Minimal distances between fracking sites, proximity to wetlands, and/or extraction quotas (not sure how to word them to pass GenSec legal muster but I'm sure a more experienced member could help in those areas) just to throw up a couple areas to consider.

Ooc: wetlands are their own issue. Best steer clear of them.

[United Massachusetts]

Minimal distances between fracking sites, proximity to wetlands, and/or extraction quotas (not sure how to word them to pass GenSec legal muster but I'm sure a more experienced member could help in those areas) just to throw up a couple areas to consider.

Ooc: wetlands are their own issue. Best steer clear of them.

Agreed.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: wetlands are their own issue. Best steer clear of them.

OOC: Advice totally not based on you still having that wetland proposal-in-progress stashed away somewhere?

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: wetlands are their own issue. Best steer clear of them.

OOC: Advice totally not based on you still having that wetland proposal-in-progress stashed away somewhere?

Ooc: advice based on real life pre-law school experience with them.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: advice based on real life pre-law school experience with them.

OOC: You need to get back to that proposal of yours, btw.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: advice based on real life pre-law school experience with them.

OOC: You need to get back to that proposal of yours, btw.

Ooc: just as soon as the voting population isn't made up of whackjobs. Now, stop pimping my draft.

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

Ooc: just as soon as the voting population isn't made up of whackjobs. Now, stop pimping my draft.

So never

[Fauxia]

A quick question on the definition:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, hydraulic fracturing as a method of fossil-fuel extraction in which a mixture of water and other fluids is inserted into the crevices of rocks beneath the ground at high pressures, in order to release the natural gas or oil contained therein,

Would not a liquid or a liquid mixture that contains no water then be permissible for use to extract fossil fuel as it would not meet the proposed definition of hydraulic fracturing?

Correct, though I am not aware of such a mixture used in fracking. One would have to go to extensive lengths to dodge this one.

“Heck no. We will support regulation of fracking, but an outright ban is fracking stupid.”

How do you propose we start "regulating" then? I like Sciongrad's idea about banning it in border communities. What else?

“Force Nations to outlaw fracking in populated areas, and only allow it when the environmental impact will be less significant. Also ban it in international waters.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Don't underline it, use quotation marks. Also, it seems that legislation on this line would rather lead to forced population movements rather than something that guarantees water quality. If you want to guarantee groundwater quality, guarantee groundwater quality.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We're concerned that this draft seems to be concerned with the safest and least problematic part of the process of hydraulic fracturing, which is to say the fracturing itself. In the majority of cases, the unrecovered liquid in the well isn't the problem. We're more concerned with the disposal of the waste-water that is recovered from the well, its storage, and its transport, as well as the manufacturing, transportation, and storage of the liquid before it is used.

We also express some concern about the myriad of other uses to which one might put hydraulic fracturing that are entirely unaddressed. For example:

• stimulating groundwater wells
• preconditioning, or inducing rock cave-in (usually for mining)
• enhancing waste remediation of hydrocarbon spills
• Enhancing the disposal of non-hydrocarbon waste
• Electricity production in geothermal systems
• increasing injection rates for Carbon Dioxide sequestration (remediating global warming by causing, if the environmentalist lobby is to believed, a different ecological crisis)

Edit: The record has been updated to remove the ambassador's subjective musings about groundwater wells, which she does not, in fact know all that much about.

[Imperial Polk County]

stimulating groundwater wells (which sounds to us entirely inadvisable)

"Wait, stop right there. Why do you say this is entirely inadvisable? Hydrofracking on such a small scale is a very useful tool in well repair, improving the flow of well-water for homes that are not served by municipal water supplies. Such use of this technology does not produce the same types of pollutants that fracking for fossil fuel extraction does. Banning or restricting this type of fracking, as well as some others, has no discernible environmental benefit."

Drane turns to the author.

"Please, don't listen to such hogwash. As I said, as long as this proposal addresses only fossil fuel extraction, my nation will continue to support this endeavor."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

stimulating groundwater wells (which sounds to us entirely inadvisable)

"Wait, stop right there. Why do you say this is entirely inadvisable? Hydrofracking on such a small scale is a very useful tool in well repair, improving the flow of well-water for homes that are not served by municipal water supplies. Such use of this technology does not produce the same types of pollutants that fracking for fossil fuel extraction does. Banning or restricting this type of fracking, as well as some others, has no discernible environmental benefit."

Drane turns to the author.

"Please, don't listen to such hogwash. As I said, as long as this proposal addresses only fossil fuel extraction, my nation will continue to support this endeavor."

"Learn something new every day. I'm an ambassador not an engineer, of course," came the slightly bemused reply. "Although in this case, we meant merely to point out the additional uses of hydraulic fracturing not addressed by the proposal, at least some of which, if not all of which, would share some of the concerns listed by the author. We do not, however, mean to imply that such activities should be subject to the limitations of this proposal, seeing as we think the limitations of this proposal are doing little to address the actual dangers involved. Regardless, we shall have to record updated to remove our subjective musing on the subject."

[United Massachusetts]

"Wait, stop right there. Why do you say this is entirely inadvisable? Hydrofracking on such a small scale is a very useful tool in well repair, improving the flow of well-water for homes that are not served by municipal water supplies. Such use of this technology does not produce the same types of pollutants that fracking for fossil fuel extraction does. Banning or restricting this type of fracking, as well as some others, has no discernible environmental benefit."

Drane turns to the author.

"Please, don't listen to such hogwash. As I said, as long as this proposal addresses only fossil fuel extraction, my nation will continue to support this endeavor."

"Learn something new every day. I'm an ambassador not an engineer, of course," came the slightly bemused reply. "Although in this case, we meant merely to point out the additional uses of hydraulic fracturing not addressed by the proposal, at least some of which, if not all of which, would share some of the concerns listed by the author. We do not, however, mean to imply that such activities should be subject to the limitations of this proposal, seeing as we think the limitations of this proposal are doing little to address the actual dangers involved. Regardless, we shall have to record updated to remove our subjective musing on the subject."

While your suggestions sound noble, it would appear to me that they would sink the resolution to failure, as it's already hanging by a thread, and many people want this to be limited

[Imperial Polk County]

"Learn something new every day. I'm an ambassador not an engineer, of course," came the slightly bemused reply.

"Me neither," Drane admits a bit sheepishly. "I'm an educator by trade, a social studies teacher. So, when things come up that I don't quite understand" -- he holds up his cell phone -- "I call the experts, just to be sure."

While your suggestions sound noble, it would appear to me that they would sink the resolution to failure, as it's already hanging by a thread, and many people want this to be limited

"You don't want to go too far in the other direction, ambassador. I'm not a fan of wishy-washy resolutions that merely urge nations to take action. What you have so far looks good. Although, you may want to consider rewording clause 3. It disallows fracking near farmlands within member nations, but seems to allow fracking if the nearby farmland is across the border in an adjacent nation, one that is not a WA member. Just because our neighbors are not WA nations, does not mean we as a WA nation should be allowed to do something that could affect their groundwater or their crops."

[Imperium Anglorum]

You don't need the fourth clause. The other provisions, with their contamination standards, would seem to me somewhat pointless. As I said earlier, if you care about groundwater quality or some other metric, regulate groundwater quality or that metric. Similarly, would not a municipal centralised water distribution system with positive pressure pipes still not qualify? The main objection to hydraulic fracturing seems to be groundwater contamination (your preamble speaks about it). A municipal water system would meet the protective criteria, where those water sources are not themselves contaminated.

[United Massachusetts]

You don't need the fourth clause. The other provisions, with their contamination standards, would seem to me somewhat pointless. As I said earlier, if you care about groundwater quality or some other metric, regulate groundwater quality or that metric. Similarly, would not a municipal centralised water distribution system with positive pressure pipes still not qualify? The main objection to hydraulic fracturing seems to be groundwater contamination (your preamble speaks about it). A municipal water system would meet the protective criteria, where those water sources are not themselves contaminated.

Give me a day or two until a rewrite. I have to do a couple things IRL.

[United Massachusetts]

You don't need the fourth clause. The other provisions, with their contamination standards, would seem to me somewhat pointless. As I said earlier, if you care about groundwater quality or some other metric, regulate groundwater quality or that metric. Similarly, would not a municipal centralised water distribution system with positive pressure pipes still not qualify? The main objection to hydraulic fracturing seems to be groundwater contamination (your preamble speaks about it). A municipal water system would meet the protective criteria, where those water sources are not themselves contaminated.

This draft is still alive. Give me tonight to think of a way to reword this

[United Massachusetts]

You don't need the fourth clause. The other provisions, with their contamination standards, would seem to me somewhat pointless. As I said earlier, if you care about groundwater quality or some other metric, regulate groundwater quality or that metric. Similarly, would not a municipal centralised water distribution system with positive pressure pipes still not qualify? The main objection to hydraulic fracturing seems to be groundwater contamination (your preamble speaks about it). A municipal water system would meet the protective criteria, where those water sources are not themselves contaminated.

We care about many different metrics and threats. I realized that my initial wording did not quite account for that. If a significant threat of
increased seismic activity is posed, for instance, to an area, then that ought to be included in the ban. The issue is that fracking poses many problems, and if we tried to regulate each one to the metric, this would run to 10,000 words. Simply put, we ought to leave that metric to the authorities in member states, trusting that they will interpret it in good faith, per their obligation.

[Freederickia]

I MAY support it so long as these changes are made:

2.b, 3.d and 4 dropped completely
"significant threat" and "significant risk of other strongly detrimental health effects" are not left vague to be misinterpreted by overreaching politicians
restrictions on WA becoming involved at all if the effects of the specific fracking do not cross regional borders
restrictions on WA becoming involved when no complaint has been filed by those that may be negatively impacted
those that are potentially at harm bear the cost (burden of proof resides with the accuser) of the analysis on 2.c

I do not believe that the WA has any right to meddle in regional and local governments unless it is to protect one regions activities from harming another. If those restrictions are made then I understand it.
Perhaps the law should not be specific to fracking but any activity that is proved to cause deadly or costly harm across regional boundaries.

[Imperial Polk County]

I MAY support it so long as these changes are made:

2.b, 3.d and 4 dropped completely

Drane looks up 2.b and stops there. "Excuse me, but, am I hearing your first objection correctly? You object to the WA ensuring that communities aren't deprived of the necessary water resources if fracking could deplete such resources? So you're okay with citizens in WA nations being deprived of clean water? All in the name of national sovereignty?"

Drane turns to the author. "Ambassador, I will immediately withdraw my support if you kowtow to the Freederickian delegacy and their ridiculous demands."

[United Massachusetts]

I MAY support it so long as these changes are made:

2.b, 3.d and 4 dropped completely
"significant threat" and "significant risk of other strongly detrimental health effects" are not left vague to be misinterpreted by overreaching politicians
restrictions on WA becoming involved at all if the effects of the specific fracking do not cross regional borders
restrictions on WA becoming involved when no complaint has been filed by those that may be negatively impacted
those that are potentially at harm bear the cost (burden of proof resides with the accuser) of the analysis on 2.c

I do not believe that the WA has any right to meddle in regional and local governments unless it is to protect one regions activities from harming another. If those restrictions are made then I understand it.
Perhaps the law should not be specific to fracking but any activity that is proved to cause deadly or costly harm across regional boundaries.

The burden of proof always lies with the accuser. I fail to see your points, and I'm definitely not dropping the clauses you want me to--they're vital to the bill. However, I will add a clause preventing nations from fracking when fracking interferes with another nation

[Separatist Peoples]

Requires those practicing hydraulic fracturing to release any and all chemical contents to fluid used during the process of hydraulic fracturing,

"This is proprietary information, and requiring commercial entities release the composition of their fracking fluid will put them at risk of unfair competition."