[GA - Passed] Repeal "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chipoli

Chipoli

Vice Delegate
-
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Chipoli
Discord
chipoli
ga.jpg

Repeal "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing"
Category: Repeal | GA 417
Proposed by: Simone Republic | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Borderzone mining and drilling​

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the Assembly’s efforts to protect member states’ environment, ensure a safe water supply (GAR#223, GAR#441, GAR#453), and regulate oil drilling activities (GAR#95, GAR#409 and GAR#510);

Concerned that the targeted resolution, GAR#417 "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing" fails to adequately regulate fracturing as a method of oil and gas extraction, and left open loopholes that impair effective regulations and impede proper governance, including the following key issues:

  1. The target only covers fracturing that uses "pressurized liquids" and thus allowing any producer to adopt new technologies in non-liquid fracturing such as using natural gas, nitrogen, propane stimulation and pneumatic fracturing;
  2. The target “[p]rohibits the practice of hydraulic fracturing… which are in or within close range of land inhabited” but with a significant qualifier on the said prohibition on its applicability "to the extent of that the practice" (i) “poses a demonstrably significant threat of contamination”, (ii) “harms the water resources demonstrably neccessary to ensure the health of local communities” and/or (iii) “poses significant risk of other strongly detrimental health effects”, without defining key terms such as "close range", “demonstrably significant threat” or water resources “demonstrably necessary” for health, and what constitutes “strongly detrimental health effects”;
  3. The said resolution prevents member states from negotiating transboundary solutions on fracturing that would be mutually beneficial to states tapping into fields on both sides of a boundary, and forces members bordering non-members to restrict their own operations while allowing those non-members to frack at will;

Thus believing that conditions imposed by the target impede the Assembly from considering enhanced rules on oil and gas drilling, allow producers to easily get around existing rules, calling the effectiveness of the resolution into serious questions;

Hereby repeals GA 417 "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing."
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
11000
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overview

The proposal seeks to repeal "Restrictions On Hydraulic Fracturing” (GAR#417), citing a number of loopholes that render the targeted resolution largely irrelevant. For instance, advances in fracturing mean that non-hydraulic fracturing has become more common, making the resolution's definition of "pressurized liquids" easy to get around by using natural gas, nitrogen, propane stimulation and pneumatic fracturing. There are also wide exemptions for hydraulic fracturing itself and for fracking activities near member states' borders.

Recommendation
We believe the arguments made in the repeal are reasonable, given the loopholes in the existing resolution, some of which would have been less apparent to the authors and voters back in 2017 when this resolution was passed, due to rapid advances in fracking technologies. For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Repeal "Restrictions On Hydraulic Fracturing”".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For
I do note the. Change in vote, however given simones response I see no reason why I shouldn't support the repeal.
 
Last edited:
Elfnotonashelf:
Present
I would like to see a replacement atleast in the making before we repeal this resolution.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really planning to reintroduce a replacement, but here's one (I wrote it just in case anyone really wants a replacement) - because the remaining issue is really minor:


This covers the only scenario which is not covered by any of the existing nine related resolutions: onshore (land based) mining and drilling near the borders of two (or more) member states. This assumes RNT so I am not writing anything about regulating the actual mining and drilling inside national boundaries - the member state doing the mining/drilling should be able to figure out how to protect its own environment.
 
Last edited:
Simone_Republic:
I wasn't really planning to reintroduce a replacement, but here's one (I wrote it just in case anyone really wants a replacement) - because the remaining issue is really minor:


This covers the only scenario which is not covered by any of the existing nine related resolutions: onshore (land based) mining and drilling near the borders of two (or more) member states. This assumes RNT so I am not writing anything about regulating the actual mining and drilling inside national boundaries - the member state doing the mining/drilling should be able to figure out how to protect its own environment.
Click to expand...
Given there is a potential replacement (Well written). I'll change my vote.
 
(Non-WA) I can see no reason not to vote for this. Those reasons are convincing. GA #417 clearly does not effectively achieve its legislative goal.
 
Present.
Simone_Republic:
This assumes RNT so I am not writing anything about regulating the actual mining and drilling inside national boundaries - the member state doing the mining/drilling should be able to figure out how to protect its own environment.
Click to expand...
I would strongly disagree with this -- RNT does not mean that member nations will be 100% dedicated to protecting their national environments. That said, I am not particularly concerned by this given that other resolutions cover the rest already.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Present.

I would strongly disagree with this -- RNT does not mean that member nations will be 100% dedicated to protecting their national environments. That said, I am not particularly concerned by this given that other resolutions cover the rest already.
Click to expand...

When I count RNT I count the roleplay scenarios where the asexual blobs unleased by whoever live on a barren planet in Alpha Centauri.

And yes there's nine other resolutions that cover this from virtually every angle, and I have a replacement to cover the 10th.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top