Ian Urbina
New York Times News Service

KAROO, South Africa – Covering much of the roughly 1,300 kilometres between Johannesburg and Cape Town, this arid expanse – its name means “thirsty land” – sees less rain in some parts than the Mojave Desert.

Even so, Shell and several other large energy companies hope to drill thousands of natural gas wells in the region, using a new drilling technology that can require 3.7 million litres of water or more for each well. Companies will also have to find a way to dispose of all the toxic wastewater or sludge that each well produces, since the closest landfill or industrial-waste facility that can handle the waste is hundreds of kilometres away.

“Around here, the rain comes on legs,” said Chris Hayward, 51, a brawny, dust-covered farmer in Beaufort West, quoting a Karoo saying about how rare and fleeting precipitation is in the area.

With his three skinny border collies crouching dutifully at his side, Hayward explained that he had to slaughter more than 600 of his 2,000 sheep in 2011 because there was not enough water to go around.

“If our government lets these companies touch even a drop of our water,” he said, “we’re ruined.”

South Africa is among the growing number of countries that want to unlock previously inaccessible natural gas reserves trapped in shale deep underground. The drilling technology – hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” for short – holds the promise of generating new revenue through taxes on the gas, creating thousands of jobs for one of the country’s poorest regions, and fuelling power plants to provide electricity to roughly 10 million South Africans who live without it.

But many of the sites here and on other continents that are being considered for drilling by oil and gas companies and by governments short of cash are in fragile areas where local officials have limited resources, political leverage or experience to ensure that the drilling is done safely.

A SURGE IN INTEREST

The interest from big energy companies in South Africa and elsewhere means that shale gas may redraw the global energy map, according to many energy experts.

Michael Klare, a professor of world security studies at Hampshire College, said that the new sources of natural gas from shale may lessen the geopolitical importance of countries that historically have been the biggest producers of natural gas, including Iran, Qatar and Russia.

The new drilling, which draws strong support from the United States government, represents a boon for US companies like Halliburton, Chesapeake Energy and ExxonMobil that have greater experience with shale gas, and therefore are likely to win many lucrative contracts abroad. More than 30 countries, including China, India and Pakistan, are now considering fracking for natural gas or oil, and the surge in gas production has spurred interest in building pipelines and terminals that liquefy the fuel so it can be shipped to far-flung markets.

But the enthusiasm abroad, especially in less-developed regions, does carry risks, according to many energy experts.

“The big problem is that all the excitement around shale gas, most of it fostered by the US, has also led some countries, especially in the developing world, to take a drill-first, figure-out-regulations-later attitude,” said Klare, who has written extensively about the way that energy policies affect global security.

A US INITIATIVE

In the United States, where the water-intensive drilling technique of fracking was invented, the government is taking a lead role in supporting the dissemination of the technology abroad.

Over the last three years, President Barack Obama has promoted shale gas during visits to China, India and Poland.

“We believe that there is the capacity technologically to extract that gas in a way that is entirely safe,” Obama said in a speech in May in Warsaw, where the US Embassy co-hosted an international shale gas conference.

The US Geological Survey has offered training and technology to geologists exploring shale gas in Europe.

The State Department’s Global Shale Gas Initiative, begun in 2010, has been advising many foreign countries on fracking.

CONCERN ABOUT EFFECTS

Some economists and environmentalists say that while the governments of poorer countries may benefit from the new tax revenues and jobs, they may not be paying enough attention to the environmental risks of drilling. They also note that local residents – who bear the brunt of the air pollution, potential water contamination from spills or underground seepage, and truck traffic that come with drilling – may see few benefits.

“These projects have already started causing steep inflation in costs of local housing and services, and except for the lucky few who get temporary construction jobs, the economic conditions for local communities can actually get worse,” said Doug Norlen, policy director of Pacific Environment, an advocacy and research organisation that tracks federal and corporate financing of energy projects abroad.

But Jan Willem Eggink, general manager for Shell in South Africa, said that the Karoo project could eventually produce millions of dollars in direct investment and thousands of jobs for South Africans, which would help lower the nation’s unemployment rate of about 25 per cent.

“There is a huge energy problem looming for South Africa,” he added, explaining that energy demand is growing rapidly and that shale gas coupled with renewable energy resources could help meet that new demand while also lowering the nation’s dependence on Mozambique for gas.

But in this sun-flooded hinterland, where sheep outnumber humans and rusty windmills pumping water dot the horizon, many residents say they would prefer to see the government bring in large wind or solar farms, not new drilling.

THE FUTURE

Some legal experts say that the US needs to be more concerned about environmental and other impacts as it promotes energy technology abroad.

David Hunter, director of the Program on International and Comparative Environmental Law at American University, said, “Especially with energy projects, the US and its funding institutions have a habit of promoting policies that foster a stable climate for foreign investors but that are not in the best interests of local populations.”