[Draft]Repeal "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing"

[Byrdeland]

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that GAR 417 aims to better the world by imposing an environmental resolution, a praiseworthy act.

ACKNOWLEDGING that the practice of hydraulic fracturing does have a degree of impact of the environment.

STRESSING that hydraulic fracturing is one the main methods of extracting natural gas and petroleum resources oil wells and pumps could not.

ARGUING that the practice in question stimulates the international petroleum and natural gas economies greatly.

APPEALING to the environmentalist community by stating that hydraulic fracturing promotes the use of cleaner natural gas instead of coal, and that the easy access to petroleum means the use of hydraulic fracturing requires less time running than oil wells and pumps, reducing stress on the environment.

Hereby repeals GAR 417: Restrictions on Hydraulic Fractioning

[Kyundao]

The technological and economic aspects do look promising. If this proposal makes it to vote, this neoliberal one-party republic will vote in favor.

[The New Sicilian State]

"I believe that you should use 'Acknowledging' instead of 'knowing'. The current state is just an eyesore."

OOC: Absolutely not. Vigorously opposed, and I'm willing to spend my last unemployment check campaigning against it.

The notion that fracking is faster and that it allows for less time emitting harmful greenhouse gasses is true, but ludicrous.

Cornell University's Robert Howarth served as the primary source for a paper published by the The Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island (Yes, I know...), and he maintains that while fracking is faster, and while methane lingers in the atmosphere for a little more than a decade (as opposed to carbon dioxide, which lingers for about a millennium), methane is a hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide. In the short term, (which, in a world about twenty years away from irreversible environmental catastrophe, is all there is) methane is unequivocally more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and fracking releases more methane than coal mining releases carbon dioxide.

Finally, given the tendencies of fossil fuel companies, the legalization of fracking (and I cannot emphasize this enough) will not stop, or even slow down, the use of coal mining and oil drilling as a means of acquiring fuel. All you've accomplished (unless you plan on restricting oil well drilling and coal mining, which likely wouldn't pass) is the opening of another can of beans, except for these beans start the dieback of the largest rainforest on the planet much faster than it would if you had left it alone. (Mind you, this particular rainforest doesn't exist in NS, but you get the picture.)

[Separatist Peoples]

"I believe that you should use 'Acknowledging' instead of 'knowing'. The current state is just an eyesore."

OOC: Absolutely not. Vigorously opposed, and I'm willing to spend my last unemployment check campaigning against it.

The notion that fracking is faster and that it allows for less time emitting harmful greenhouse gasses is true, but ludicrous.

Cornell University's Robert Howarth served as the primary source for a paper published by the The Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island (Yes, I know...), and he maintains that while fracking is faster, and while methane lingers in the atmosphere for a little more than a decade (as opposed to carbon dioxide, which lingers for about a millennium), methane is a hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide. In the short term, (which, in a world about twenty years away from irreversible environmental catastrophe, is all there is) methane is unequivocally more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and fracking releases more methane than coal mining releases carbon dioxide.

Finally, given the tendencies of fossil fuel companies, the legalization of fracking (and I cannot emphasize this enough) will not stop, or even slow down, the use of coal mining and oil drilling as a means of acquiring fuel. All you've accomplished (unless you plan on restricting oil well drilling and coal mining, which likely wouldn't pass) is the opening of another can of beans, except for these beans start the dieback of the largest rainforest on the planet much faster than it would if you had left it alone. (Mind you, this particular rainforest doesn't exist in NS, but you get the picture.)

OOC: I'd call that bet. OP can resubmit after you spend your last.

[The New Nordic Union]

'GAR#417 only restricts fracturing in a special circumstances, those being posing a demonstrably signifanct threat of contamination to land inhabited by populations of sapient beings closeby, harming water resources demonstrably neccessary to ensure the health of local communities, or posing significant risk of other strongly detrimental health effects, according to the World Health Authority, to said populations of sapient beings.

While one can accept the stipulations made in this repeal, it is not clear to us why these restrictions, which are the only ones set by the target resolution, should be lifted.'

[The New Sicilian State]

OOC: I'd call that bet. OP can resubmit after you spend your last.

OOC: I may not be able to afford my books for school next year, but at least I stopped a fictional repeal from going through in a fictional game, right?

[Byrdeland]

"I believe that you should use 'Acknowledging' instead of 'knowing'. The current state is just an eyesore."

OOC: Absolutely not. Vigorously opposed, and I'm willing to spend my last unemployment check campaigning against it.

The notion that fracking is faster and that it allows for less time emitting harmful greenhouse gasses is true, but ludicrous.

Cornell University's Robert Howarth served as the primary source for a paper published by the The Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island (Yes, I know...), and he maintains that while fracking is faster, and while methane lingers in the atmosphere for a little more than a decade (as opposed to carbon dioxide, which lingers for about a millennium), methane is a hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide. In the short term, (which, in a world about twenty years away from irreversible environmental catastrophe, is all there is) methane is unequivocally more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and fracking releases more methane than coal mining releases carbon dioxide.

Finally, given the tendencies of fossil fuel companies, the legalization of fracking (and I cannot emphasize this enough) will not stop, or even slow down, the use of coal mining and oil drilling as a means of acquiring fuel. All you've accomplished (unless you plan on restricting oil well drilling and coal mining, which likely wouldn't pass) is the opening of another can of beans, except for these beans start the dieback of the largest rainforest on the planet much faster than it would if you had left it alone. (Mind you, this particular rainforest doesn't exist in NS, but you get the picture.)

OOC: I looked into this a little more, and I found a report by Yale University that states the following: "...A 2016 study based on an aerial survey of 8,000 fracking sites strongly suggests that oil-producing wellpads are more likely to leak than dry-gas pads... "

In the real world, if fracking was restricted as GAR 417 has stated, oil companies would most likely use the cheaper, less restricted option, oil pumps and wells, which as stated are more prone to leakage. If you already have 10% of the industry using fracking and 90% using wells and pumps than thats less emission into the air, even if methane is more deadly than carbon dioxise, the ratios of, let's say 90% Co2 and 10% methane isn't THAT much more deadly than 99-100% Co2. The environmental impact doesnt outweigh the economic gain and efficiency.

IC: "You're right, I'll change that term right away."

[The New Sicilian State]

In the real world, if fracking was restricted as GAR 417 has stated, oil companies would most likely use the cheaper, less restricted option, oil pumps and wells, which as stated are more prone to leakage. If you already have 10% of the industry using fracking and 90% using wells and pumps than thats less emission into the air, even if methane is more deadly than carbon dioxise, the ratios of, let's say 90% Co2 and 10% methane isn't THAT much more deadly than 99-100% Co2. The environmental impact doesnt outweigh the economic gain and efficiency.

OOC: Assuming that fracking wouldn't explode upon this repeal (considering that it's faster and more profitable) is dangerous logic. This repeal wouldn't lessen emissions into the atmosphere, fracking actually outputs more greenhouse gasses; it's just a different, much more potent gas. And mathematically, if methane is a hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide, the notion that a mix of 90% carbon dioxide and 10% methane isn't much more deadly than 100% carbon dioxide is simply incorrect.

[Byrdeland]

And mathematically, if methane is a hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide, the notion that a mix of 90% carbon dioxide and 10% methane isn't much more deadly than 100% carbon dioxide is simply incorrect.

OOC: That's not what I was saying, if it came that way it wasn't what I meant. I'm saying that that 10% is worth the economic gain for the international markets. Besides, my own figure was incorrect, use of fracking in RL is about 5%.

[Separatist Peoples]

And mathematically, if methane is a hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide, the notion that a mix of 90% carbon dioxide and 10% methane isn't much more deadly than 100% carbon dioxide is simply incorrect.

OOC: That's not what I was saying, if it came that way it wasn't what I meant. I'm saying that that 10% is worth the economic gain for the international markets. Besides, my own figure was incorrect, use of fracking in RL is about 5%.

OOC: This is an IC forum, so I'm gonna jump IC for this.

"Ambassador, even assuming that it is 5% and not 10%, why is a 5% increase in global emissions a worthwhile exchange for financial windfalls? Especially when, in most systems, that windfall will not benefit the common man?"

[Byrdeland]

"It is a repeal set to benefit oil-based economies, I will confess. But international petroleum and natural gas trade is one of the profitable trades in the world, and fracking can not only stimulate said trade, but also ease prices and encourage international trade of these goods overall. A measly 500% increase that was there before the original resolution was passed, which let's face it didn't really affect the "saving of the environment" too much, especially considering it wasn't even an outright ban, is worth the boom it will bring to these sorts of economies and the international scene. "

[The New Sicilian State]

"It is a repeal set to benefit oil-based economies, I will confess. But international petroleum and natural gas trade is one of the profitable trades in the world, and fracking can not only stimulate said trade, but also ease prices and encourage international trade of these goods overall. A measly 500% increase that was there before the original resolution was passed, which let's face it didn't really affect the "saving of the environment" too much, especially considering it wasn't even an outright ban, is worth the boom it will bring to these sorts of economies and the international scene. "

"I value the interplanetary ecosystem more than I value the price of gas, ambassador. I do find merit in your argument, economic stimulation is more than an excuse to open up fracking opportunities, but I am of the firm belief that the environmental implications greatly outweigh the economic ones. If the argument is on a manner of motives, I'm afraid we'll have to settle for mutual disagreement."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It is a repeal set to benefit oil-based economies, I will confess. But international petroleum and natural gas trade is one of the profitable trades in the world, and fracking can not only stimulate said trade, but also ease prices and encourage international trade of these goods overall. A measly 500% increase that was there before the original resolution was passed, which let's face it didn't really affect the "saving of the environment" too much, especially considering it wasn't even an outright ban, is worth the boom it will bring to these sorts of economies and the international scene. "

"You have yet to warrant why stimulating trade is better than environmental protection as a matter of policy."

[United Massachusetts]

We stand opposed to this attempt.

[Byrdeland]

"You have yet to warrant why stimulating trade is better than environmental protection as a matter of policy."

"I don't know about you, ambassador, but I stand for free economy. Don't you think World Assembly resources should be focused toward more fruitful environmental programs than this? Restricting a section of an industry that not only is a powerhouse in economy but also promotes usage of natural gas?"

[Morover]

"If the cost of free trade be environmental dissonance, then we refuse to implement free trade. Morover has had its own grapples with disturbances to the natural order of things, and we shall not continue to impose our will in order to change that order. Environmental catastrophe should be avoided at all costs. We will not support this repeal unless an adequate replacement is lined up, which does not appear to be your intention."

[Separatist Peoples]

"You have yet to warrant why stimulating trade is better than environmental protection as a matter of policy."

"I don't know about you, ambassador, but I stand for free economy. Don't you think World Assembly resources should be focused toward more fruitful environmental programs than this? Restricting a section of an industry that not only is a powerhouse in economy but also promotes usage of natural gas?"

"You warrant that a free economy is itself better than the environment, which corresponds directly to citizen health. Quantify for me just how much of the average person's health is the free market worth, ambassador?"

[Byrdeland]

"You warrant that a free economy is itself better than the environment, which corresponds directly to citizen health. Quantify for me just how much of the average person's health is the free market worth, ambassador?"

"You took one part of my spiel and ran with it, ambassador. I'm saying the WA has better ways to spend money to help the environment that enforce unnecessary laws. Fracking promotes usage of natural gases and all in all is more efficient than oil pumps and wells. I don't see the issue, the World Assembly can allocate attention and funds to more effective environmental measures and the economy can benefit as well."

[Separatist Peoples]

"You warrant that a free economy is itself better than the environment, which corresponds directly to citizen health. Quantify for me just how much of the average person's health is the free market worth, ambassador?"

"You took one part of my spiel and ran with it, ambassador.

"Because you made an indefensible warrant, ambassador."

I'm saying the WA has better ways to spend money to help the environment that enforce unnecessary laws. Fracking promotes usage of natural gases and all in all is more efficient than oil pumps and wells.

"Fracking also has other environmental issues that you have apparently rejected out of hand. Given that Restrictions on Hydraulic Fractioning permits fracking in areas without vulnerable populations, I am not sure that measuring efficiency solely by energy output and not also considering sequelae is appropriate."

I don't see the issue, the World Assembly can allocate attention and funds to more effective environmental measures and the economy can benefit as well."

"It can. That does not mean it cannot also address fracking."

[Maowi]

"Hang on a second, ambassador ... you want to remove a set of important environmental protections, and the compensation you offer is free trade? Forgive me if I decline on both counts ..."

[WayNeacTia]

"Can somebody please explain to me what hydraulic fractioning is?"

Wayne

[Imperium Anglorum]

I support repeal.

[Tinhampton]

I support repeal.

THIS. Restrictions on hydraulic fracturing (in lower case) are necessary; Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing (in upper case) needs to be dealt with like a twelve-gallon tub of chicken that is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant salmonella.

(If the author is trying to insinuate that all environmental resolutions are good by nature, I refer him to HR#122. See also the shitshows/discussion threads for 122 and its repeal... offtopic, lol, but the issue of unpraiseworthy environmental resolutions is there)

[WayNeacTia]

I support repeal.

As do I.

If done correctly and at sufficient well depths, fracking causes little harm to the environment. All you are doing is essentially injecting large amounts of water into a formation at high pressure to fracture the rock, and propping it open with sand. It is the fracking of shallow, open hole (as in non-cased) horizontal wells that stretch for miles that causes most of the environmental contamination and earthquake activity.

APPEALING to the environmentalist community by stating that hydraulic fractioning promotes the use of cleaner natural gas instead of coal, and that the easy access to petroleum means the use of hydraulic fractioning requires less time running than oil wells and pumps, reducing stress on the environment.

Yeah... You may want to do some research on this bullshit Chief. You don't frack coal formations, you frack shale formations. There is a large difference. Plus 80% of the wells that are fracked are oil wells, not gas wells. On top of that, you still need a down hole pump in gas wells. In the 2500 or so wells I fracked in my time, not many were free flowing.

OOC: Assuming that fracking wouldn't explode upon this repeal (considering that it's faster and more profitable) is dangerous logic. This repeal wouldn't lessen emissions into the atmosphere, fracking actually outputs more greenhouse gasses; it's just a different, much more potent gas. And mathematically, if methane is a hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide, the notion that a mix of 90% carbon dioxide and 10% methane isn't much more deadly than 100% carbon dioxide is simply incorrect.

The amount of wrong in this statement is beyond overwhelming. Unless you have a blowout, which doesn't happen all that often, you aren't venting natural gas into the atmosphere. There are these things called well heads and blow out preventers. On top of that, formations are totally contained and isolated by down hole packers. Any methane that is vented is flared off.

[Imperium Anglorum]

To the OP, I grant you authorisation to use any part of my defeated resolution here, viewtopic.php?f=10&t=429339&p=32966389&hilit=fracturing+hydraulic#p32966389, on the condition that you put me as a co-author. Secondarily, I would highly recommend that if you use the prose from the defeated resolution, you simplify it. The original repeal proposal was not the easiest thing to read.