The Karoo Fracking Debate: A Christian Contribution to the World Communities of Faith

The fracking debate is a product of the tension between the environmental degradation it may cause, on the one hand, and on the other the greater energy demands of a rapidly increasing South African population with expectations of an ever-increasing standard of living. Shale gas fracking in the Karoo of South Africa promises to make vast reserves of oil and gas available to help meet a significant percentage of the country’s energy needs for many years to come. This will aid development and contribute to raising the standard of living of many. This article seeks to apprise the South African faith communities of the technology and risks involved. Christian theological guidelines are presented by which its benefits and dangers may be interrogated so that the community may be able come to an informed decision as to whether or not to support fracking.


Introduction
Perry's Chemical Engineers handbook states, ''Among the most complex problems to be faced by industry in the 1990s is the proper control of the use of the natural environment'' (Theodore et al. 2008:22.4). Shale gas fracking in the Karoo of South Africa promises to make vast reserves of oil and gas available to help meet a significant percentage of the country's energy needs for many years. Yet the management of the liquid and gaseous waste products associated with the process is an area of serious environmental concern.
It is also highly emotive as King (2012:1) comments, The spectacular increase in North American natural gas reserves created by shale gas development makes shale gas a disruptive technology, threatening profitability and continued development of other energy sources. Introduction of such a disruptive force as shale gas will invariably draw resistance, both monetary and political, to attack the disruptive source, or its enabler; hydraulic fracturing. Some ''anti-frack'' charges in media articles and university studies are based in fact… other articles have demonstrated either a severe misunderstanding or an intentional misstatement of well development processes, apparently to attack the disruptive source.
The authors of this paper, one a doctor of Practical Theology (with a first degree in Geology) and the other a professor of Hydrology, have joined forces, from two very different disciplines, in order to inform those engineers, scientists and other interested parties with faith persuasions about the details of the fracking controversy. They suggest a theological framework by which those with a faith persuasion may be able to come to an unemotive, rational decision based upon the teachings of the source documents of their faith. Then they examine the hydrological, geological, geomorphological and technical details focusing on the problems with water usage, disposal and contamination, 1 within the context of this ''faith'' framework before proposing a tentative, partial conclusion for this complex problem, applicable to South Africa at this time.
A 3 year international conference, 1996-1999, at Harvard University, entitled, ''Religions of the World and Ecology'', examining Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto and Indigenous religions concluded that religious communities can and do effect social change with regard to the environment (Tucker andGrim 2005:2614). This may well be the case in South Africa concerning fracking. The result being that those motivated by faith persuasions may ultimately determine whether or not the fracking process will be allowed to proceed. Thus the participation of all faith communities, and the nonreligious, in the dialogue concerning fracking is to be welcomed. However this article is particularly aimed at the Christian faith community, for the reasons given below.

Why a Christian Contribution is Necessary
Religion is invading areas where it has up until now been considered irrelevant by many in the developed world, as evidenced by the Lee et al. (2013) article published in Science and Engineering Ethics entitled ''A Buddhist Perspective on Industrial Engineering and the Design of Work.'' It seems that there is an emerging recognition that it is not just helpful, but perhaps essential, that religion is allowed to pervade every area of our lives, including our attitude towards the environment.
''Only by accepting… transcendence as our criterion can we understand the real meaning of such concepts as… environmental protection'' (Ferguson 2011:287). ''Transcendence'' in this context refers to belief in a transcendent being or nonmaterial faith system.
It is remarkable that in China, a country where materialistic Marxist ideology has prevailed for the last 50 years, that Pang Yue, in 2003, the Director of the National Environment, called for the creation of an environmental culture based on the transcendental faith systems of Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism (Tucker andGrim 2005:2614). Even more so that, in 2008, Yuan Zhiming, an influential Chinese state-recognised film director, is reported as saying that, ''Christianity offers China a new common moral foundation capable of reducing corruption… promoting philanthropy and even preventing pollution'' (my italics) (quoted by Ferguson 2011:287).
Readers, who belong to other faith communities, are asked to recognize that the purpose of this article is to try to demonstrate that Christianity, as one transcendent faith system, has a relevant and important input to make to the global ethic on the environment in general. This is necessary since in recent years Christianity has been singled out for censure due to the allegation that it alone is responsible for propagating a philosophy, which when combined with the Industrial Revolution, has led to the wholesale destruction of the environment (see for instance White 1967). Yet as Veeraraj (2006:3) points out, ''in countries where Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Shintoism exist exploitation of the environment has been ruthless and continues unabated.'' Whatever faith system we believe in, there is a need for all world religions to examine their praxis and make the necessary changes to ensure creation's survival. Küng (1993:68-69), a professing Christian academic, comments, ''There is no survival without a world ethic.'' He is referring to the need for universal worldwide agreed upon norms and values that will optimize the social and ecological common good and which will allow us to continue to exist on this planet.
It is aimed at the Christian faith community in South Africa, in particular, because that faith comprises the major element of the religious population and plays a very significant and influential role. The 2001 South African national census provides the most reliable data concerning religious affiliation in South Africa and would lend weight to this observation. In this census virtually 80 % of the respondents professed to being Christians, 15 % being non-religious, 1.46 % to being Muslims, 1.23 % Hindu, 0.28 adhering to an African Traditional Religion, 0.17 % Jewish, and a negligible percentage belonging to any other religion (Census 2001(Census 2004. Because the Christian faith community is so numerous and well organized at the grassroots level they have in the past influenced decision makers and are still able to do so (Conradie 2011:15). Other faith communities and the non-religious in South Africa sometimes have a political or economic influence that far outweighs their numerical affiliation, yet their ability to engage with the majority of the population is diminished by their lack of adherents. Therefore, to conclude the introduction, it is re-iterated that this article's primary target group are Christian decision makers, engineers, scientists, and the Christian faith community as a whole, since it is about fracking in South Africa, where the most influential faith community is of the Christian persuasion. Yet in this process it also aims to make a Christian contribution to the discourse concerning the world's environmental ethic. First of all, however, in order to make an informed decision concerning fracking it is necessary for those who may be unfamiliar with the process to understand what it involves.

A Description of the Fracking Process
Hydraulic fracturing is a process, which enables the production of shale-gas from low-permeability 2 unconventional reservoirs, such as shale. 3 In strict engineering terms, hydraulic fracturing concerns a precise stimulation activity, limited only to the fluid action in initiating and extending cracks in the gas containing rock. This can create confusion since for many concerned citizens, bloggers and environmentalists, hydraulic fracturing, commonly called 'fracking', has come to represent nearly every phase of the well development cycle from drilling to production (King 2012:4). This article will follow commonly accepted usage and use the term 'fracking' to describe the whole process.
Fracking works because it creates fissures in low-permeability shale which then allows the shale gas in it to flow down a pressure gradient from the highly pressured shale (due to the weight of rock above it) into the lower pressure within the borehole. This is necessary for gas extraction since fluid or gas will not naturally escape from a rock with low permeability, such as the shales found in the Karoo, even when a conventional oil-drilling borehole pierces it.
The process begins with a vertical borehole, 4 which will become the gas extraction conduit, being drilled down to reach the shale layer containing oil or gas. In much of the Karoo this will be at 3,000 m. At this depth one or more horizontal boreholes are then drilled for up to 4,000 m. Fracking fluid containing a mixture of water, sand, steel, plastic ball bearings, and pieces of ceramic is pumped down into the boreholes. ''Perforation Guns'', inserted into the boreholes, are then fired which cause the hard substances in the fracking fluid to pierce holes in the horizontal borehole casing, and enter into the surrounding rock fracturing it for as much as 100 m. When the pressure is released gas, along with water, is able to flow out of the shale into the fissures then into the borehole and come up to the surface where it  is collected and stored. The first fluid coming out of the pipe is called, ''flowback'' and contains mostly the injected fracking fluid. Then after several days a gas and water mixture emerges which is known as ''produced fluid' ' (Department: Mineral Resources 2012:20ff.;Dobb 2013:49).
The Framework Used to Interrogate the Effects on the Environment ''Postmodern (Christian) theologians no longer cede the question of what the world is to science alone. … although scientific theory is carefully heeded… it is transformed… when it is read theologically'' (Clayton 2003:204, 205). In order to bring a Christian theological and ethical perspective into the debate on fracking we have chosen three ''earth-care'' metaphors found in scripture to accomplish this. They are called, ''fruitfulness'', ''earth-keeping'' and ''Sabbath renewal'', by which to guide our reflection and discernment, modifying and developing a framework propounded by DeWitt (2011:83ff).

Fruitfulness
In Genesis 1:28 God commands humankind to ''be fruitful…'' The fruitfulness metaphor indicates that God created the earth to give every human being the opportunity to realize the full potential for which God created him or her (Brueggemann 1997:528ff). It emphasizes that the interests of animals cannot be valued above those of humankind. ''There is a legitimate anthropocentrism'' contained within Genesis 1:28 (Welker 1999:70). In biblical terms this potential is primarily realized through the abundant life that Jesus came to give (John 10:10) and also through education, health care, adequate accommodation, technological development and scientific discovery, sport, economic provision, food security, productive labour, loving and fulfilling social relationships.
This means that those in the developed world must take care about advocating decisions that debar the unemployed poor of South Africa from enjoying a Godintended fruitfulness. These disadvantaged ones are also entitled to extended life spans, expanded consciousness due to education, information technology, modern comforts and books. What right do the people of the developed world, who have the opportunity to stand at the apex of fulfillment of Maslow's (1943:370ff) hierarchy of needs, to tell the people of the less developed world that they must always be condemned to the lowest rung of merely surviving? One the reasons the developed world is able to have this high level of fulfillment and fruitfulness is because they have already exploited parts of the environment to achieve a more abundant lifestyle.

Earth-Keeping
When the Creator blessed humankind and commended them to be fruitful he must have been aware that it would involve a destruction and exploitation of pristine habitat. Practically anything we do, be it good or bad, has always modified or destroyed something of creation. For example, there is the almost conclusively proven over-hunting of early Holocene mega faunas (Palmer 2005:67), the building of cities, farming, mono-culture grazing, construction of dams, creation of gardens and parks etc. There will always be a trade-off between the demands of men and women and the sustaining of earth's diversity, productivity and the well being of the creatures they were created to protect.
Yet the God who knew this appointed men and women to care for his creation not only to develop it appropriately but also to limit its degradation and protect it from irreversible destruction. To this end Genesis chapter 2, balances out the anthropocentrism of Genesis 1, by recording that human beings were physically created from the 'dust of the ground'. This echoes Genesis 1 which records that ''the earth produced'' all other living forms (i.e. they also came out of the ground). It is implied that humankind is not separate from other life-forms but shares with them in the physical experience of being alive. They are part of one holistic world system, which influences the existence of all, be they microbes, plants, animals and humans.
Yet humankind does have a special role. Genesis 2:15 reads, ''The Lord God… put him (mankind) in the Garden of Eden to … take care of it.'' The basic idea behind the word, ''care'' is, ''to keep by exercising great care over''. Humankind was created to keep the Garden of Eden healthy by caring for it as any caring gardener would. Eden is representative of the whole created world where our first ancestors were set the task of nurturing the global ecosystem over which God had given them authority. This is exemplified by the empirical observation that despite humankind's physical and genetic similarity to all other creatures men and women alone have the power to consciously change the environment.
So good earth-keeping seeks to make decisions, whenever possible, that keep, guard, protect, maintain and sustainably develop the world in the light of humankind's progress towards increasing fruitfulness. The earth-keeping metaphor forces us to ask, ''How then can we obey God's command to be fruitful whilst at the same time allowing the rest of His creation to be fruitful?''

Sabbath Renewal
God created the Universe and the earth so that it would naturally renew itself. This process of renewal has always involved death, destruction and recycling in God's Universe; super-nova producing the dust of stars forming new stars and planets, earthquake-producing tectonic processes renewing continents, consuming firestorms of igneous intrusions producing fertile soils, birth, extinction, death, decay allowing new life to develop, sometimes by the enrichment brought about by microbiological organisms and fungi. It might involve the fresh deposition of vitiated soil through erosion and deposition by seas, rivers, wind or glaciers.
Humankind was intended by God in its capacity as earth-keepers to also be agents of this renewal. This is celebrated by the metaphor of Sabbath observance. Exodus 20:8ff links Sabbath observance with the fact that God himself rested on the seventh day as (Genesis 2:1-3). In Exodus 23:12 the purpose of the resting is given as refreshing and the renewal that this brings. This Sabbath principle is later extended to looking after the land by giving it a chance to rest from usage (Leviticus 25:2-6) every 7 years. This is enshrined in the command to celebrate the ''Year of Jubilee'' every 49 or 50 years in Leviticus 25:10 ff. Jesus extended the Sabbatical principle into the New Testament through identifying the results of his mission with the Year of Jubilee (Luke 4:28) and by calling himself the ''Lord of the Sabbath'' (Luke 6:5).
As such the Sabbath renewal metaphor may be seen as a metaphor for God's desire for humankind to delight in His creation and to give it the rest that it needs to allow it to be refreshed and renewed both by His Spirit and its God-imparted, inbuilt renewing ability. All those who call Jesus ''Lord'' because they have entered into the ''Sabbath rest'' mentioned in Hebrews 4:9 have a responsibility to care for his creation by working for its renewal when it is damaged. So then the Sabbath renewal metaphor leads us to ask, ''How can we obey God's command to be fruitful whilst at the same ensuring that we do not permanently destroy the fruitfulness of God's creation but allow it to be renewed?'' How then might these metaphors and the insights they bring be used to interrogate the process and results of fracking?

Using the Fruitfulness Metaphor
The fruitfulness metaphor raises the question; ''Will fracking in the Karoo produce abundance, progress, and development that will holistically benefit and enrich all South Africans?'' Fracking promises to enable many more South Africans to enjoy a more fulfilled and fruitful life by providing employment and the opportunity to engage in more skilled, higher-paying jobs. The process will provide job opportunities through the labour required for the development of the necessary infrastructure, and the processing and distribution of the gas produced. This will have a multiplier effect throughout the economy which will contribute in some way to reducing the high level of unemployment in South Africa and also will motivate and resource skills training. Over and above potential employment opportunities, the state would benefit from taxes and royalties. State revenue may also be generated from taxes on direct and indirect supplies from the retail industry (although the majority of drilling and production equipment would inevitably be sourced from abroad), food services, hospitality and the housing industry (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:54). The overseas investment needed will also be beneficial in this regard. Even though this process would be spread over a period of 20-30 years it clearly has the potential to have a major impact on the national economy. Although Income Tax and Royalty accruing to the national fiscus (sic) depend on profitability it is expected that such amounts will run into tens or hundreds of millions of Rand, augmented by VAT (Department: Mineral Resources 2012:2).
How much it will contribute to reducing unemployment is uncertain since the extent of the shale gas resource is impossible to quantify accurately (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:1). The total potential gas reserve in the Karoo shales is currently estimated to be 485 trillion cubic feet, making it the fifth largest shale gas field in the world (Steyl and van Tonder 2013:214), of which 30 trillion cubic feet (tcf) may eventually be produced (Department: Mineral Resources 2012:3). An Econometrix study commissioned by Shell, found that if there were 20 tcf of economically viable shale gas, this would translate into R80 billion, or 3.3 % of GDP. If there were 40 tcf, this would translate into R200bn, or 9.6 % of GDP. The first estimate could result in 300,000 jobs and the second 700,000 (Gosling 2014:np.).
There may also be environmental benefits. South Africa has in the past been heavily dependent on its rich coal resources to supply much of its energy. Fracking promises to reduce, ''… our dependence on coal…. (and the) the 'carbon intensity' of our energy systems…'' (Department: Mineral Resources 2012:25). Coal is a very carbon intensive form of energy and produces much carbon dioxide however carefully it is used. Converting shale gas to energy will greatly reduce South Africa's carbon footprint and decrease health risks due to the pollution of its atmosphere. It may also mean that new nuclear energy plants will not need to be built, thus decreasing the risk of radioactive leakage, in a Chernobyl or Long Island type of meltdown and the danger accruing from the disposal of radioactive waste.
In addition fracking promises to augment South Africa's energy resources. In an ever increasing uncertain world the discovery of an unconventional terrestrial gas resource may enable South Africa to enter a new age of energy independence. This will mean that ''South Africa's 'security of supply' will be improved by developing indigenous resources; and… expand our national capacity to generate electricity'' (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:25).
Thus using the fruitfulness metaphor as a normative standard by which to judge fracking indicates that it will have many economic benefits, with positive spin-offs in many other areas, for South Africa.
These however must be weighed up against the possible harm that fracking may cause to the environment. There are no human endeavors without risk. ''Consequences run from slight and practically unavoidable to severe and avoidable at all costs'' (King 2012:1, 2). As has been said above, there will always be a trade-off between the legitimate demands of men and women and the sustaining of earth's diversity, productivity and the welfare of the creatures they were created to protect.

Using the ''Earth-Keeping'' and ''Sabbath Renewal'' Metaphors
The ''earth-keeping'' metaphor indicates that the appropriate question to ask is; ''Will fracking in the Karoo enable humankind to manage the Karoo so that its diversity, fecundity and beauty are not destroyed?'' Whilst the Sabbath renewal metaphor leads us to ask, ''Will the process of fracking in the Karoo allow it to recover from whatever damage may be caused?'' These are particularly pertinent questions as concerns fracking in the Karoo for two reasons that when combined make its environment unlike anywhere else where fracking has up until now been used for shale gas extraction. The first is to do with its climate and biome; the second to do with its geomorphology in combination with its geology. The Problems Associated with the Fracking Process in the Karoo The technical literature around fracking is extensive, addressing nearly every aspect of shale gas and oil development with over 550 papers in shale fracturing and 3,000 on all aspects of horizontal wells (King 2012:3). The engineering, scientific and technical experts concerned dispute many aspects, reports and research results. Thus, for want of space and because of the limitations of our expertise, our interrogative analysis will concentrate upon the areas in which we have some knowledge and experience.
In general the normal problems associated with fracking can be expected in the Karoo, similar to those in the USA and other areas, such as the global warming effect of escaped methane, the triggering of earthquakes, and the general disruption to the inhabitants and environment. The reasons for the high degree of extra concern about fracking in the Karoo, as compared with other areas where it is practiced, are: 1. The arid climate and fragility of the unique biome of the Karoo. 2. The effects on other current users of the provision of the large volumes of water required for fracking. 3. The devastating effects that any pollution of the aquifers will have on the fragile flora of the low-rainfall Karoo and, in addition, upon its agriculture, animal husbandry and human health since most water is sourced from the sub surface aquifers by pumping. 4. The possibility of such pollution, because of the unique nature of the geological regime of the Karoo. It contains 'swarms' of the igneous intrusions such dykes, sills and kimberlite pipes. There is already evidence that these may provide migration pathways from the depths to the surface layers. Fracking, which creates fractures and fissures in the shale gas layer, may possibly release previously contained and immobile gas from the rock into these migration pathways. 5. In addition the possibility, of upward fluid migration, is increased by, the probably deep, fault fracture systems found in the southwestern parts of the Karoo. 6. Then finally the probability that there will be migration from the depths to the surface is further intensified by the upward pressure exerted on all fluid contained in Karoo strata to rise to the surface as a result of its geomorphological structure being that of an artesian basin.
The above concerns are predicated upon known problems with fracking encountered in the United States. These problems include, (1) finding adequate water resources for the process, (2) surface spills of toxic flowback and produced fluid, (3) fracking fluid retention in and methane release out of the rocks fractured by the process leading to its migration to the surface aquifer(s), (4) the degradation of disused well site bore-hole casings allowing toxic fluid to escape into the rock strata, (5) and those problems involved in the permanent disposal of flowback fluid.
The above issues are integrated and dealt with in detail in the succeeding sections which present the geological, geographical, geomorphological, biological, hydrological, economic and technical evidence for concern.
The Problems of Pollution Particularly Associated with the Arid Climate and Fragile Biome of the Karoo The geographic region Karoo is a vast, semi-arid interior plateau covering 400,000 km 2 , (a little larger than Germany or Norway) which is 40 % (Nel andHill 2008:2264) of South Africa's landmass. It gives the superficial impression of being a marginalized, unproductive wasteland that can easily be used for fracking without pollution, if it were to occur, being a problem. Yet the Karoo is a very fragile and unique environment, which due to its mineral-rich soils and nutritious plants is home to just over one million people living on farms and in around 100 settlements.
It is fragile because water is scarce and most of its people are completely dependent upon using water from its artesian aquifer. It is unique because it contains more than 6,000 plant species of which 40 % are found nowhere else (du Toit 2013:np). It is naturally fruitful and productive and has been made more so by human activities such as irrigation, wind powered water pumps and careful, creative husbandry, supplying 30 % of South Africa's red meat, 30 % of its wool, and 100 % of its mohair (Nel andHill 2008:2275). But because of its fragility and uniqueness it must be protected and treated with greater care than many other areas, less its productivity be destroyed. One element of its uniqueness is its geology and geomorphology which are unlike those areas which have been successfully fracked elsewhere, as in the United States.

The Problems Presented Concerning Providing the Water Needed for Fracking in an Arid Environment
The provision of sufficient water for fracking is a key consideration, as the fracking process requires nearly 20,000 m 3 per borehole (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:18; Vermeulen 2012:151). Thus the volume of fluid required for the fracturing of fully developed shale gas production wells will be in the order of millions of litres. Yet water security is a concern that affects much of South Africa and is particularly acute in the drier western regions, such as the Karoo (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:40, 46).
There appears to be an unresolved debate on this issue. Steyl and van Tonder (2013:232) state, ''On the issue of water use, there is currently enough usable water available to proceed with hydraulic fracturing in the Karoo basin.'' However, they do add the proviso that this is only if there is sufficient planning and development of small-scale well fields to abstract adequate volumes. Vermeulen (2012:149) appears to be much more concerned writing, ''The biggest issue of concern, apart from environmental negatives, is the shortage of water resources.' ' Vermeulen (2012:152) puts the issue into the context of existing water usage. ''About 5,000 m 3 (of water) is required to irrigate 1 ha of crop in the Karoo, thus the volume of water needed to frack one well is equivalent to that used to irrigate 4 ha of land. The key difference in water demand is that the irrigated water is applied over 3-4 months while that used by fracking is used over a period of 5 days. The average daily water consumption of a Karoo town (e.g. Beaufort West) is 8,500 m 3 ; thus, the volume of water needed to frack one well is equivalent to that used over The Karoo Fracking Debate 641 2.5 days by the town. The rate of water required for fracking is thus about half of that of the daily usage of Beaufort West, and is required for a period of 5 days''. The main problem, he thus highlights, is that fracking uses the limited water resources much more quickly than normal agricultural usage and thus the recharge rate needs to be investigated. The recharge rate will determine whether there are sufficient naturally occurring water resources to support fracking. The concern is highlighted by a recent EPA (2011:25) report on water usage which suggests that in an arid climate, ''The removal of large volumes of water could stress drinking water supplies, especially in drier regions where aquifer or surface water recharge is limited. This could lead to lowering of water tables or dewatering of drinking water aquifers, decreased stream flows, and reduced volumes of water in surface water reservoirs. These activities could impact the availability of water for drinking in areas where hydraulic fracturing is occurring''.
If more water is needed Vermeulen (2012:151) suggests that water may be tapped from other sources, the viability of which is yet to be determined. These would include such possibilities as, (1) the development of local groundwater supplies, which involves exploiting the 4,000 breccia, plugs in the western Karoo, (2) transporting in water from elsewhere either by road, rail, pipeline or a combination thereof which will put an additional burden on the roads and infrastructure, (3) piping seawater or desalinated seawater from the coast which will only be feasible if the water is purified and piped across the mountainous escarp, between the coast and the interior, which will be very costly, (4) accessing water from the Orange River which is problematical because its excess water has already been allocated to previously disadvantaged farmers. Thus it must be concluded that the problem of limited water resources and the results of allocating them for fracking raise earth-keeping concerns about the consequences for this fragile environment which are as yet unresolved.

The Problems Associated with the the Geology of the Karoo
The geology of the Karoo suggests that the dangers of fracking in this area are potentially greater than in other areas of the world where the process has only had minor problems due to operational errors (see Golder Associates 2011;King 2012). The Karoo Supergroup, that underlies much of the Karoo, consists of thick layers of sedimentary rocks intruded by igneous rocks (Steyl and van Tonder 2013:7). The igneous rocks 5 comprise many dolerite sills, dykes and kimberlite pipes. Faults (fissures in the rock strata) are also common in the southern section of the western Karoo (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:2, 4, 42).
South Africa is the only known instance where shale gas deposits have been intruded by dolerite in an artesian basin and this is the major factor that poses greater potential risks for aquifer pollution than anywhere else, for reasons explained below. These intruded dolerites make the situation unique; and therefore the ready extrapolation of knowledge from elsewhere in the world to the South African situation should be done with caution (Vermeulen 2012:149-150).
The carbon-rich units of the carbonaceous shales of the Ecca Group of the Karoo Supergroup 6 are the target zones for shale gas exploration, principally the Whitehill and Collingham Formations. For fracking to be productive these units need to be encountered where pressure and temperature conditions are favorable for gas generation. The depth and thickness of the target zones is relatively well known, being informed by geophysical exploration and drilling of 24 deep wells by Soekor in the 1960s and 1970s (Vermeulen 2012:149).
The targeted shales in the Karoo are overlain by very thick and tight, less carbonaceous shale deposits, such as the Tierberg Formation, which are up to 800 m thick in places and are likely to minimise the vertical migration of natural gas (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:44). Moreover because the shale gas exploration will target geological formations between 3,000 and 5,000 m below ground, it is true that a significant distance exists as a barrier between the aquifers of the Karoo (which range down to 300 m below the surface) and the target zones for shale gas far below. In addition the low permeabilities of strata overlying the Ecca group would normally make it conceptually difficult to accept any fluid flow connection between the two bodies (Vermeulen 2012:152).
However, the situation is not as simple as that. The Department of Mineral Resources Report (2012:43, 44)  Moreover the Karoo sedimentary rocks are commonly fractured at the contact with the dolerites and water permeates into the fracture spaces. The transmissivity and permeability of these rocks are thus enhanced where fractures occur, certainly in the near-surface region. As a result, Karoo aquifers are generally classified as 'fractured rock' aquifers (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:52). The dolerite intrusions may also pierce the existing rock cap barriers that normally prevent the upward migration of fluid below them (ibid: 44, 45). Thus the intrusions may provide pathways for the upward migration of fluid released by fracking from the shale gas layer or of fluid released into the rock by bore hole casing leakage. Evidence for this contention is firstly that most of the thermal springs in the Karoo arise alongside dolerite dykes coming from depths of 600 to 1,300 m. Secondly hydrologists commonly target dykes for groundwater exploration for boreholes where multiple water-bearing fractures may be intersected. Similarly faults may also provide fluid migration pathways (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:44, 45).
Admittedly, little is known about the prevalence and orientation of dolerite at depths greater than that typically reached by boreholes (100-300 m). Yet the danger of dolerite intrusions providing fluid migration pathways, even at the depths reached by fracking boreholes, is supported by two pieces of evidence. The first piece of evidence is that the Karoo represents an erosion surface from which thousands of metres of sediment have been eroded and removed since the dolerites were intruded about 180 million years ago. When this igneous intrusion event finished the South African central plateau had become a high standing plateau, overlain by thousands of metres of lava on top of thousands of metres of Karoo Supergroup strata. This would suggest that the dolerite, now at depth, has a similar character and morphology to that currently seen at the surface, since that dolerite now at the surface was also once at great depth before erosion took place (Vermeulen 2012:149). The second piece of evidence is that it is known that igneous intrusions do indeed occur at depth because of those found associated with the Trompsburg Igneous Complex which extends from a depth of 1,800-3,000 m (Norman and Whitfield 2006:114). Another disturbing factor is that these igneous intrusions adopt very complex structures 7 (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:56). They not only provide vertical but also convoluted lateral pathways for water to migrate up from the depths. Thus polluted water may emerge at unpredictable locations which are far removed from the original fracking site. This lack of predictability about where polluted water may emerge will make damage control exceedingly difficult and mean that areas far removed from where fracking is being implemented may be affected.

The Problems Associated with the Artesian Basin 8 Structure of the Karoo Stata
The question now arises, ''why should any fluid trapped in the thick Karoo strata migrate upwards?'' The prime reason for this possibility is that the dominant subsurface geomorphological feature of the Karroo rocks is that of an artesian basin. In such a basin, where the rocks at the centre are at a much lower depth than those on the rim, pressure is exerted on any underground water, near the centre of the basin to come to the surface under the head of water at the rim, either as slow leaks, springs or even fountains.
Some proof for this is provided by the fact that sixteen naturally occurring thermal springs are found in the Karoo south of latitude 28 degrees. These are classified as warm springs (26-41°C) and are saline, containing biogenic methane. Indeed biogenic methane is one of the main gases commonly associated with these thermal springs and in some instances constitutes the only gas present (Steyl and Van Tonder 2013:221). Their waters originate at a maximum depth of between 450 and 1,150 m, as calculated from the geothermal gradient and the surface temperature of the waters. (ibid 2013:221;Vermeulen 2012:152). Although these thermal springs are of relatively shallow origin they illustrate the artesian upward pressure upon subsurface water in the Karoo and also that water found at depths [300 m is naturally more saline than that found at the surface.
Despite this the official government report is sanguine in dismissing the possibility of groundwater contamination. It concludes that, ''potable aquifers are expected to be far removed from shale gas target formations and safe from contamination from injected fracking fluids, as the latter are immobile under normal conditions with no 'drive' (sic) once the fracturing operation has been completed'' (Depart: Mineral Resources 2012:6).
This optimism is surprising in the light of the statement contained in the above report that that ''the effects of dolerite intrusions, kimberlite fissures and existing fracture systems are relatively unknown and further investigations and modelling are required' ' (ibid. 2012:6). This element of doubt must surely be one of the key considerations in delaying any decision concerning fracking! Especially as we have indicated there are good reasons and some evidence to conclude that there will possibly be contamination.

Conclusion Concerning Effects of Geology and Geomorphology of the Karoo
The geology and geomorphology of the Karoo makes it a real possibility that any fracking fluid that has leaked into the subterranean rocks, or from flowback that has been deeply injected, along with saline, slightly radioactive 9 water naturally occurring in the Ecca formation, will migrate upwards to the surface to pollute the aquifer and eventually contaminate the subsurface water (and may also contaminate the fracking production facilities). This contaminated water will then damage the fragile soils, thus in turn damaging the exuberant diversity of its plant life. The contaminated water will also pollute the irrigation water upon which its agriculture depends and poison the drinking water needed by its animal and human occupants.  Vermeulen (2012: 154, 155) states that little is known about groundwater quality beyond a depth of 300 m, and heavy metal and radioactive element concentrations at depth are unknown and with the implication that they may exist in water at this depth.

The Disposal of the Toxic Liquid Waste Products
It is in the context of the fragile biome, the geology and the geomorphology of the Karoo and that contaminated water released at depth might come to the surface to pollute the surface aquifer, that the normal problems met elsewhere, and are associated with fracking need to be considered. Seen in this perspective it is likely that the dangerous consequences of these regularly occurring problems will be greatly exacerbated.
Producers and governments regard the disposal of the liquid waste produced by fracking, as an issue that requires detailed regulations. The danger to the environment posed by the disposal of waste products is emphasized by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission's rule 901, concerning the fracking taking place in that State, which defines prohibited areas for the disposal of waste as, • Shallow ground water or pathways for communication with deeper ground water. • Proximity to surface water (lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, irrigation canals, wetlands etc.). • Ground water classified for domestic use by WQCC. 10 • Wellhead protection areas.
• Within 1 1 = 4 mile of public water supply well.
• Ground water basins designated by the Colorado Ground Water Commission.
• Surface water supply areas.
(COGCC 900 Series E&P Waste Management :10) This is very largely a result of the fact that the fracking fluid and thus all the fluid waste products produced by fracking are to some degree toxic 11 and thus could harm the environment, agriculture and public health (Hammer andVan Briesen 2012:1, Steyl andvan Tonder 2013:231, 232). Flowback fluid is very toxic. Not only does it contain high concentrations of fracking fluid but may also contain high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide, radioactive 12 materials along with various soil-sterilizing salts (Vermeulen (2012:152) which are abundant in most 10 Water Quality Control Commission. 11 A recent investigation by the House of Representatives in the USA found that 750 chemical compounds were used from 2005 to 2009 in fracking fluid. This included 29 chemicals that are known as or possible as human carcinogens. BTEX compounds appeared in 60 of the hydraulic fracturing products used in this period (Steyl and Van Tonder 2013:10). BTEX is an acronym that stands for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. These compounds are some of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in petroleum derivatives such as petrol. Toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes have harmful effects on the central nervous system and are notorious due to the contamination of soil and groundwater with these compounds. Contamination typically occurs near petroleum and natural gas production sites, petrol stations, and other areas with underground storage tanks (USTs) or above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), containing gasoline or other petroleum-related products (European Environment Agency, 2010, BTEX). 12 This possibility is illustrated by the uranium-enriched Karoo rocks found near Edenburg, Beaufort West and Victoria, which may be the result of the process called mineralization, where water seeping up from below has deposited radioactive elements in the host rocks (Norman and Whitfield 2006: 116ff). subterranean layers of rock. Eventually the amount of human-additives coming out of the borehole diminishes leaving produced water, which it must be noted, is still not free of pollutants being usually slightly radioactive, and containing salts, methane and hydrogen sulphide.
The first problem that arises is where to dispose of flowback and produced water. Recycling is a possibility provided that it is properly stored, handled, transported, and treated to protect the environment. In Colorado, the majority of fluids used in the fracturing process are recycled (US BLM 2011). This would certainly alleviate the water supply problem in the Karoo. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rule 907.a.(3:91) encourages operators to submit waste management plans for COGCC approval, and such plans may provide for the recycling and reuse of waste water for hydraulic fracturing. It is conceivable that this could be a solution for the South African situation but it may be difficult to implement appropriately in a developing nation with its lack of skills and the possibility that the process will be poorly monitored.
The second problem is in distinguishing between flowback and produced water since the disposal process depends upon the classification. Flowback is not used again and must be carefully disposed of, whereas produced water may be used again or disposed of with very little treatment. In comparison to flowback, ''Very little treatment is performed on produced water'' (United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory 2011, 2013:2). Yet the dividing line between flowback and produced water is not always clear. Thus the sooner water coming out of the borehole can be classified as produced water the less expensive it is to treat. This means that the decision as to when ''flowback'' is categorized as ''produced water'' will need to be supervised by a government agency in order to regulate the temptation to economize at the expense of safety.
Another method of dealing with wastewater is reusing it for another purpose. In Colorado produced water can also be sprayed on dirt roads to reduce dust, if authorized by the surface owner outside sensitive areas. This is with the proviso that it should not result in pooling or runoff and meets allowable concentrations of pollutants. It is prohibited to use flowback water for this purpose (COGCC 900 Series E&P Waste Management, rule 907.c.2.D: 98).
An equally serious problem involves the permanent disposal of flowback. The normal method, as practiced in Dakota, is to separate this ''dirty'' (sic) water from the oil or gas and then pump it for storage into three-story-high tanks from which it is regularly pumped into trucks using fire-hoses. These trucks then transport it to a sight where it is pumped deep below the surface to permanently and safely dispose of it (Dobb 2013:35, 36). In any environment, but especially an unregulated loosely monitored one, it may be dumped in the wrong location, or spills, leaks, and traffic accidents will occur (King 2012:32).
A similar process is operated in Colorado where the predominant method of permanent water disposal is injection into UIC (Underground Injection Controlled) wells. Colorado currently has 290 Class II UIC wells used for disposal, and the number of these wells is steadily increasing. They receive about 60 % of the water for permanent disposal that is currently produced by the oil and gas industry. The remainder of the water either evaporates or is discharged into surface waters pursuit to permits issued by the WQCD (Water Quality Control Department) (COGCC 2011, June 15:15).
Yet the question arises, particularly in the Karoo, whether such injected water will stay in the ''safe'' location and not migrate to the surface to contaminate the water used for irrigation and drinking. As has been stated above, the geology and geomorphology of the Karoo area poses the very real danger that any liquid that is pumped down into the surface rocks, no matter how deep, will return to the surface to pollute the water table and thus contaminate the aquifer and thus water used for irrigation.
Either way there could be contamination of the Karoo aquifer resulting in the sterilization of the surface soils and subsequent destruction of the Karoo's productivity and the pollution of potable water used for human consumption. Attention must be paid to the fact that such environmental damage has been reported to occur in parts of the USA where fracking is being practiced, even with its much safer geological regime than in the Karoo and its more highly supervised and regulated legal climate than that which is currently found in South Africa (Dobb 2013:37).

Permanent Leakage of Fluids from the Borehole into the Surrounding Rocks
Leakage of the fracking fluid into the subterranean rocks in the shale layer may also be a problem since, once again, it may migrate into the surface aquifer to cause damage. Leakage into the surrounding rocks of the wellbore fluids is supposedly prevented by means of the cement and steel borehole casing. Yet this does not mitigate the problem of what happens to the fluid that has already penetrated into the shale layer to create its initial fracturing.
The fractures in the host rock created by the fracking are only up to 100 m in length, occurring in every vertical and horizontal direction around the collecting duct (horizontal borehole) (Dobbs 2013:49). This means that it is very unlikely that they will extend out of the layer of rock containing the shale gas into other rock types, although it could conceivably occur in a few cases. Yet, although the fractures are not extensive, the problem is that it they may intersect existing fault systems, create new fracture systems, or intersect fluid migration pathways at fracture contact zones around dolerite or kimberlite dykes or sills (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:44). Thus there is the possibility that much of the often, over 50 % of irretrieved fracking fluid, that remains in the shale (King 2012:10), may be able to migrate upwards to the surface in the Karoo geological and geomorphological regime.
In addition to the violation to the ''Earth-keeping'' principal, the ''Sabbath renewal'' principle may also be endangered because of the deterioration of wellbore casing once the industrial fracking process is completed (Glass 2011:3). Over the years the cement comprising the casing shrinks and cracks, and the steel corrodes (Ingraffea 2009:np.). So this may mean that any fluid that remains in the borehole when production ceases may well leak into the surrounding rock at some time in the future, potentially contaminating the water table above with all the adverse implications for the environment mentioned above. This may make the renewal of damage caused by the waste products of fracking difficult, if not impossible, since it means that polluted water may continue to come to the surface at unpredictable locations for many years after fracking is finished, because of the geomorphology and geology of the Karoo.

Conclusion
Shale gas is an important part of energy production in the USA (and elsewhere), and could be the same in South Africa. Thus in considering fracking we are dealing with a decision upon which the welfare of many in South Africa may depend. The effects of a ban, moratorium or stringent regulation concerning fracking will reduce economic opportunity in the country. On the other hand the environmental hazards for the Karoo may be as equally damaging as the fruitfulness benefits (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:59). At this stage the solution to this conundrum is uncertain. One journal article cannot deal with the extensive ecotheological hermeneutic, let alone with the all the environmental problems, all the technical complexities, and all the numerous claims and counter-claims by experts.
To further add to the uncertainty the technology involved will undoubtedly improve and result in a safer environmental process in the years to come. Already techniques have been greatly enhanced in the interests of environmental security and former problems addressed. For instance sounder casings are beginning to be used for boreholes, along with more environmental friendly chemicals and modern treatment facilities are being built to remove the salts from the flow-back water (Vermeulen 2012:154, 155).
Yet one major conclusion is certain. Nobody really knows what the consequences of fracking in the Karoo will be! Our article's analysis may be expressed using the simplistic equation; {Benefits or damage} = {'Fruitfulness' benefits -('earth-care' damage ? 'Sabbath renewal' damage)}. It is still practically impossible to determine the outcome of this equation.
Perhaps, in the future, some of the items in the equation could conceivably be converted into more objective truly empirical concepts that are observable, measurable, scientifically acceptable and testable. The tool for this would probably be the risk assessment methodology that is being developed, among other places, in New Zealand and the USA (Gough 1997;Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:60). As an example of this approach applied to fracking is Rozell's and Reaven's (2012) article entitled, ''Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale,'' which concluded, ''Even in a best case scenario, an individual well would potentially release at least 200 m 3 of contaminated fluids''.
This penultimate conclusion should be sufficient to warrant our ultimate conclusion. This is predicated upon the premise that the degree of doubt must be the deciding factor in any decision. At this stage it would appear that the possible environmental dangers are so great that the ultimate deciding factor must be this element of uncertainty. No one is really certain or can prove that the benefits will outweigh the adverse results or that the damage will not be irreversible. Therefore we conclude that as long as credible doubt is expressed by recognized experts as to the damage fracking may cause, or to the extent of that damage, then it is in the best interests of all if fracking is delayed. This is important because a government report on fracking by experts in the field completed in July 2012, which was 2 years in preparation, had indeed advised, because of the uncertainties, that the decision to proceed be delayed until further investigations could be completed (Dept: Mineral Resources 2012:69). However, in October 2013 the government signaled that it was keen to start exploiting shale gas reserves in the Karoo using fracking. Mineral Resources Minister Shabangu is reported as stating that, ''By embarking on this process presented (sic) by hydraulic fracturing for the production of shale gas, we bring the country a step closer to the achievement of our objectives'' (Stoddard: 2013 np.). Many see this as the ''goahead'' by the government, maybe understandably because of pressure to perform in providing jobs, although none of the proposed investigations have been completed or even begun (CER 2013 np.)!
We would therefore recommend that all concerned, be they Christians, or of other faith communities, or non-religious, be they engineers, scientists, or those belonging to the concerned public, endeavour to make sense of the basic facts in order to exercise an informed influence on the decision making process. Yet most of all, the very influential Christian faith community in South Africa needs to make a strategic intervention at all levels of government and business to ensure that the final decision will only be made when there is far greater certainty that the outcome will result in fruitfulness, earth-keeping and Sabbath renewal for the South Africa and the holistic world system.