cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Off topic but I'm pretty sure farmers only get compensated if govt. (CFIA) orders a cull.
Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
Sitkaspruce
Well-Known Member
1) Do you know how far down fracking occurs here in BC??? Ground water that can be used for drinking or other domestic use is not found much below 600', 99% of Fracking here in BC is at 1700-2500 m below ground, thats 5600'......5000' below ground water (thats almost a mile....) Most reports that are writen about fracking are from the shallow shale gas areas of the Eastern US, not here in BC.
2) Yup, they use water....lots of it. And that sucks. Did you know that the water act does not recognize fish as a user of water. It is an up hill battle and one that the new Water Sustainablity Act looks like it will not help. But some companies, like Shell, is using the grey water from Dawson Creeks sewer system. They pipe it a few dozen km's, store it in huge lined tanks and reuse it 4-6 times before it is no good. There is a few companies that are now using propane and other liquids to frac instead of water, but they are far and in between.
3) Check out this site as companies have to disclose what they used. http://fracfocus.ca/ And there is legislation around not reporting.
BC is a resource rich province, and we extract those resources to help off set our way of life. If we do it the right way, it can be done!!!! We have to make choices on whether we want grizz bear watching and other tax free tourist operations or resources to support this great province and keep it moving forward for our kids. Grizz are not going to do it alone.
Cheers
SS
Last edited by a moderator:
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/139/2/271.full.pdf+html
TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES 139(2), 271–283 2014
doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfu061
Advance Access publication April 4, 2014
FORUM
The Role of Toxicological Science in Meeting the Challenges and
Opportunities of Hydraulic Fracturing
Bernard D. Goldstein,*,1 Bryan W. Brooks,† Steven D. Cohen,‡ Alexander E. Gates,§ Michael E. Honeycutt,¶ John B. Morris,||
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta,||| Trevor M. Penning,|||| and John Snawder#
*University of Pittsburgh, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 U.S.A.; †Baylor University, Department of
Environmental Science, Waco, TX 76798 U.S.A.; ‡Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, School of Pharmacy Worcester-Manchester,
Worchester, MA 01608 U.S.A.; §Rutgers University, Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Newark, NJ 07102 U.S.A.; ¶Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Toxicology Division, Austin, TX 78711, U.S.A.; ||University of Connecticut, School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT 06269 U.S.A.;
|||Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 U.S.A.; ||||University of Pennsylvania, Department
of Pharmacology, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A.; and #Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Applied Research and Technology, Williamstown, KY 41097
1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, 130 DeSoto Street, A710 Crabtree Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15261. Fax: +412-383-2224.
E-mail: bdgold@pitt.edu.
Received December 30, 2013; accepted March 20, 2014
Abstract
We briefly describe how toxicology can inform the discussion and debate of the merits of hydraulic fracturing by providing information on the potential toxicity of the chemical and physical agents associated with this process, individually and in combination. We consider upstream activities related to bringing chemical and physical agents to the site, on-site activities including drilling of wells and containment of agents injected into or produced from the well, and downstream activities including the flow/removal of hydrocarbon products and of produced water from the site. A broad variety of chemical and physical agents are involved. As the industry expands this has raised concern about the potential for toxicological effects on ecosystems, workers, and the general public. Response to these concerns requires a concerted and collaborative toxicological assessment. This assessment should take into account the different geology in areas newly subjected to hydraulic fracturing as well as evolving industrial practices that can alter the chemical and physical agents of toxicological interest. The potential for ecosystem or human exposure to mixtures of these agents presents a particular toxicological and public health challenge. These data are essential for developing a reliable assessment of the potential risks to the environment and to human health of the rapidly increasing use of hydraulic fracturing and deep underground horizontal drilling techniques for tightly bound shale gas and other fossil fuels. Input from toxicologists will be most effective when employed early in the process, before there are unwanted consequences to the environment and human health, or economic losses due to the need to abandon or rework costly initiatives.
TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES 139(2), 271–283 2014
doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfu061
Advance Access publication April 4, 2014
FORUM
The Role of Toxicological Science in Meeting the Challenges and
Opportunities of Hydraulic Fracturing
Bernard D. Goldstein,*,1 Bryan W. Brooks,† Steven D. Cohen,‡ Alexander E. Gates,§ Michael E. Honeycutt,¶ John B. Morris,||
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta,||| Trevor M. Penning,|||| and John Snawder#
*University of Pittsburgh, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 U.S.A.; †Baylor University, Department of
Environmental Science, Waco, TX 76798 U.S.A.; ‡Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, School of Pharmacy Worcester-Manchester,
Worchester, MA 01608 U.S.A.; §Rutgers University, Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Newark, NJ 07102 U.S.A.; ¶Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Toxicology Division, Austin, TX 78711, U.S.A.; ||University of Connecticut, School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT 06269 U.S.A.;
|||Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 U.S.A.; ||||University of Pennsylvania, Department
of Pharmacology, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A.; and #Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Applied Research and Technology, Williamstown, KY 41097
1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, 130 DeSoto Street, A710 Crabtree Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15261. Fax: +412-383-2224.
E-mail: bdgold@pitt.edu.
Received December 30, 2013; accepted March 20, 2014
Abstract
We briefly describe how toxicology can inform the discussion and debate of the merits of hydraulic fracturing by providing information on the potential toxicity of the chemical and physical agents associated with this process, individually and in combination. We consider upstream activities related to bringing chemical and physical agents to the site, on-site activities including drilling of wells and containment of agents injected into or produced from the well, and downstream activities including the flow/removal of hydrocarbon products and of produced water from the site. A broad variety of chemical and physical agents are involved. As the industry expands this has raised concern about the potential for toxicological effects on ecosystems, workers, and the general public. Response to these concerns requires a concerted and collaborative toxicological assessment. This assessment should take into account the different geology in areas newly subjected to hydraulic fracturing as well as evolving industrial practices that can alter the chemical and physical agents of toxicological interest. The potential for ecosystem or human exposure to mixtures of these agents presents a particular toxicological and public health challenge. These data are essential for developing a reliable assessment of the potential risks to the environment and to human health of the rapidly increasing use of hydraulic fracturing and deep underground horizontal drilling techniques for tightly bound shale gas and other fossil fuels. Input from toxicologists will be most effective when employed early in the process, before there are unwanted consequences to the environment and human health, or economic losses due to the need to abandon or rework costly initiatives.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423102752.htm
The shale gas boom has transformed the energy landscape in the U.S., but in some drier locations, it could cause conflict among the energy industry, residents and agricultural interests over already-scarce water resources, say researchers. They add that degraded water quality is a potential risk unless there are adequate safeguards. The article appears in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Meagan S. Mauter and colleagues point out that a major criticism of extracting shale gas through hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," is that it requires tremendous amounts of water -- 2.5 to 5 million gallons -- to develop a single well. Water, along with chemicals and sand, is injected under high pressure into wells to create cracks, or fractures, in shale and release stored gas. In some water-rich places, such as Pennsylvania, this is not a significant problem.
But in other locations, including some rural counties in arid south Texas, this level of water use competes with residential and agricultural needs and depletes groundwater resources. These and other types of region-specific scenarios are similar to what other states and countries could encounter when or if they also develop shale gas reserves. Mauter's team looked at what practices could help maintain a balance between fracking and environmental and residential needs.
The researchers say that there are ways to minimize the industry's water footprint. One method is to use brackish water that is not fit for drinking or agricultural use but can be suitable for fracking. The other method is to recycle the waste water. "Leadership from both industry and the U.S. government may be needed to assure that economic benefits of shale gas development are realized without significant regional impairment of water resource quantity and quality," the authors conclude.
Study at:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es405432k
The shale gas boom has transformed the energy landscape in the U.S., but in some drier locations, it could cause conflict among the energy industry, residents and agricultural interests over already-scarce water resources, say researchers. They add that degraded water quality is a potential risk unless there are adequate safeguards. The article appears in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Meagan S. Mauter and colleagues point out that a major criticism of extracting shale gas through hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," is that it requires tremendous amounts of water -- 2.5 to 5 million gallons -- to develop a single well. Water, along with chemicals and sand, is injected under high pressure into wells to create cracks, or fractures, in shale and release stored gas. In some water-rich places, such as Pennsylvania, this is not a significant problem.
But in other locations, including some rural counties in arid south Texas, this level of water use competes with residential and agricultural needs and depletes groundwater resources. These and other types of region-specific scenarios are similar to what other states and countries could encounter when or if they also develop shale gas reserves. Mauter's team looked at what practices could help maintain a balance between fracking and environmental and residential needs.
The researchers say that there are ways to minimize the industry's water footprint. One method is to use brackish water that is not fit for drinking or agricultural use but can be suitable for fracking. The other method is to recycle the waste water. "Leadership from both industry and the U.S. government may be needed to assure that economic benefits of shale gas development are realized without significant regional impairment of water resource quantity and quality," the authors conclude.
Study at:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es405432k
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-pipeline-rules-don-t-reach-world-class-standard-1.2644610
New pipeline rules don't reach 'world class' standard
New regulations seen as big improvements, but don't go far enough, critics say
By Amber Hildebrandt, CBC News Posted: May 16, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: May 16, 2014 5:00 AM ET
The federal government's proposal for new measures comes ahead of a final decision next month on the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)
The federal government announced a handful of changes to how oil and gas pipelines are run earlier this week, but pipeline watchers, environmental groups and First Nations communities are greeting the proposed reforms with some skepticism.
The measures include a $1-billion absolute liability for oil spills, more consultation with First Nations and expanded powers for the federal regulator, the National Energy Board, which oversees 73,000 kilometres of pipeline.
The Tuesday announcement by Transport Minister Lisa Raitt and Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford came shortly after another proposed regulatory change that would put oil tankers on the hook for the cleanup costs of any spills.
Both are seen as an effort to shore up support ahead of the federal cabinet decision due by next month on Enbridge's controversial Northern Gateway pipeline project. The 1,200-kilometre line would transport Alberta's oil sands bitumen across B.C. to Kitimat for export to Asia.
These new rules seem "very closely timed to the upcoming cabinet decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline that everyone's waiting for," said Nathan Lemphers, former senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute and a specialist in pipeline safety.
Lemphers says some of the proposed rules are big improvements, but still don't go far enough, particularly the $1-billion absolute liability for oil pipelines involved in a spill, regardless of whether or not they are at fault.
That absolute liability means a pipeline operator is liable for any cleanup costs and compensation from an oil spill, up to $1 billion, regardless of whether it is at fault.
Under absolute liability there is no defence in court to being off the hook for a spill. Under what is called strict liability, if a company can show that it was not negligent, it can try to get others to pick up or help with the tab, a procedure that can often drag on for years.
In the territories, pipeline operators face a maximum $10-30 million in absolute liability, depending on location, says Ecojustice lawyer Pierre Sadik. Unlimited absolute liability applies to some spills that harm waters with fish present.
But there are essentially no liability rules for federally regulated pipelines, which include those that cross provincial borders.
The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association says the liability change only formalizes the polluter-pay principle that its members already adhere to.
"The only real difference is that the expectation is public and more formal," CEPA's vice-president of external relations, Philippe Reicher, wrote in an email.
'Why choose $1 billion?'
Environmental groups have advocated that the government institute an unlimited absolute liability, rather than capping the amount.
"Absolute liability means no ifs, ands or buts. You're on the hook for it, as much as it costs, assuming you have the money," said the Ottawa-based Sadik.
Having an unlimited absolute liability can also motivate companies to use best practices and manage their risks.
Ultimately, Sadik argues, it's best to have that deterrent because studies suggest that in most pipeline spills, only a small portion can ever be cleaned up. The rest of the spill tends to sink into the soil or dissipates.
"Why choose $1 billion over unlimited given that we've already seen that pipeline spills can exceed $1 billion?" asks Lemphers. "It certainly is in contrast to their aspirational goals of world-class standards."
In Tuesday's announcement, the government touted its efforts to enhance "Canada's world-class pipeline safety system."
But an Enbridge pipeline that ruptured and spilled 3.3 million litres of bitumen into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 has already cost more than $1 billion in cleanup and compensation.
"It's likely if the same spill happened on the Northern Gateway, given the terrain, it would be much more expensive than $1 billion," said Lemphers.
Sadik notes that Norway and Greenland have instituted unlimited absolute liability on their pipelines.
'Defeats the purpose'
Another measure proposed by the federal government aims to make sure that First Nations communities are not only informed of the planning stage for pipelines, but also about the operations and any response regarding something like a fire or spill.
Lemphers said First Nations involvement in the pipeline process at all stages should already be required. "They should already be reaching out to those communities under existing regulation."
Baptiste Metchooyeah, of the Dene Tha' First Nations in northern Alberta, knows from experience that's not always the case.
It took nearly five years for his First Nations community to hear details of a fiery pipeline explosion that happened on their hunting and trapping land and the cleanup that followed.
"I think it's good to have information that is transparent," said Metchooyeah, consultation manager with the Dene Tha' First Nation lands office.
But he fears that putting in new regulations doesn't mean they'll be enforced, especially in remote parts of the country.
"There's always something that defeats the purpose of certain guidelines and regulations that are written when the priority is given to the economic component of the decisions," he says.
The NEB says companies are already required to notify and liaise with First Nations communities if an emergency happens, and that it also liaises with aboriginal groups during the emergency and remediation phases.
'Nothing new or revolutionary'
Other measures are aimed at giving the federal regulator increased authority, including the ability to order reimbursement of any cleanup costs incurred by government, communities and individuals.
Sadik says that proposal adds very little power to the quasi-judicial tribunal. "You can always go to court if you've cleaned up someone else's mess," he notes.
The federal government also proposed that the NEB have the ability to give pipeline operators guidance on the best available technologies regarding materials usage, construction methods and emergency response techniques.
"That's nothing new or revolutionary," said Sadik.
The NEB can and does apply conditions to proposed pipelines. As an extreme example, the regulator required that Enbridge meet more than 200 conditions on its Northern Gateway project before proceeding.
However, Metchooyeah, at the Dene Tha' First Nation, says he'd welcome the ability to force pipeline operators, particularly those with decades-old lines in the ground, to install more innovative technologies and improve the safety of existing lines.
The fifth measure announced by the government was to provide the NEB with the authority and resources to assume control of the responses to spills or other incidents, in exceptional circumstances.
"Authority to direct response is one thing," said Ecojustice's Sadik. "Materials and infrastructure available for response in remote areas in an entirely different question."
New pipeline rules don't reach 'world class' standard
New regulations seen as big improvements, but don't go far enough, critics say
By Amber Hildebrandt, CBC News Posted: May 16, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: May 16, 2014 5:00 AM ET
The federal government's proposal for new measures comes ahead of a final decision next month on the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)
The federal government announced a handful of changes to how oil and gas pipelines are run earlier this week, but pipeline watchers, environmental groups and First Nations communities are greeting the proposed reforms with some skepticism.
The measures include a $1-billion absolute liability for oil spills, more consultation with First Nations and expanded powers for the federal regulator, the National Energy Board, which oversees 73,000 kilometres of pipeline.
The Tuesday announcement by Transport Minister Lisa Raitt and Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford came shortly after another proposed regulatory change that would put oil tankers on the hook for the cleanup costs of any spills.
Both are seen as an effort to shore up support ahead of the federal cabinet decision due by next month on Enbridge's controversial Northern Gateway pipeline project. The 1,200-kilometre line would transport Alberta's oil sands bitumen across B.C. to Kitimat for export to Asia.
These new rules seem "very closely timed to the upcoming cabinet decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline that everyone's waiting for," said Nathan Lemphers, former senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute and a specialist in pipeline safety.
Lemphers says some of the proposed rules are big improvements, but still don't go far enough, particularly the $1-billion absolute liability for oil pipelines involved in a spill, regardless of whether or not they are at fault.
That absolute liability means a pipeline operator is liable for any cleanup costs and compensation from an oil spill, up to $1 billion, regardless of whether it is at fault.
Under absolute liability there is no defence in court to being off the hook for a spill. Under what is called strict liability, if a company can show that it was not negligent, it can try to get others to pick up or help with the tab, a procedure that can often drag on for years.
In the territories, pipeline operators face a maximum $10-30 million in absolute liability, depending on location, says Ecojustice lawyer Pierre Sadik. Unlimited absolute liability applies to some spills that harm waters with fish present.
But there are essentially no liability rules for federally regulated pipelines, which include those that cross provincial borders.
The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association says the liability change only formalizes the polluter-pay principle that its members already adhere to.
"The only real difference is that the expectation is public and more formal," CEPA's vice-president of external relations, Philippe Reicher, wrote in an email.
'Why choose $1 billion?'
Environmental groups have advocated that the government institute an unlimited absolute liability, rather than capping the amount.
"Absolute liability means no ifs, ands or buts. You're on the hook for it, as much as it costs, assuming you have the money," said the Ottawa-based Sadik.
Having an unlimited absolute liability can also motivate companies to use best practices and manage their risks.
Ultimately, Sadik argues, it's best to have that deterrent because studies suggest that in most pipeline spills, only a small portion can ever be cleaned up. The rest of the spill tends to sink into the soil or dissipates.
"Why choose $1 billion over unlimited given that we've already seen that pipeline spills can exceed $1 billion?" asks Lemphers. "It certainly is in contrast to their aspirational goals of world-class standards."
In Tuesday's announcement, the government touted its efforts to enhance "Canada's world-class pipeline safety system."
But an Enbridge pipeline that ruptured and spilled 3.3 million litres of bitumen into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 has already cost more than $1 billion in cleanup and compensation.
"It's likely if the same spill happened on the Northern Gateway, given the terrain, it would be much more expensive than $1 billion," said Lemphers.
Sadik notes that Norway and Greenland have instituted unlimited absolute liability on their pipelines.
'Defeats the purpose'
Another measure proposed by the federal government aims to make sure that First Nations communities are not only informed of the planning stage for pipelines, but also about the operations and any response regarding something like a fire or spill.
Lemphers said First Nations involvement in the pipeline process at all stages should already be required. "They should already be reaching out to those communities under existing regulation."
Baptiste Metchooyeah, of the Dene Tha' First Nations in northern Alberta, knows from experience that's not always the case.
It took nearly five years for his First Nations community to hear details of a fiery pipeline explosion that happened on their hunting and trapping land and the cleanup that followed.
"I think it's good to have information that is transparent," said Metchooyeah, consultation manager with the Dene Tha' First Nation lands office.
But he fears that putting in new regulations doesn't mean they'll be enforced, especially in remote parts of the country.
"There's always something that defeats the purpose of certain guidelines and regulations that are written when the priority is given to the economic component of the decisions," he says.
The NEB says companies are already required to notify and liaise with First Nations communities if an emergency happens, and that it also liaises with aboriginal groups during the emergency and remediation phases.
'Nothing new or revolutionary'
Other measures are aimed at giving the federal regulator increased authority, including the ability to order reimbursement of any cleanup costs incurred by government, communities and individuals.
Sadik says that proposal adds very little power to the quasi-judicial tribunal. "You can always go to court if you've cleaned up someone else's mess," he notes.
The federal government also proposed that the NEB have the ability to give pipeline operators guidance on the best available technologies regarding materials usage, construction methods and emergency response techniques.
"That's nothing new or revolutionary," said Sadik.
The NEB can and does apply conditions to proposed pipelines. As an extreme example, the regulator required that Enbridge meet more than 200 conditions on its Northern Gateway project before proceeding.
However, Metchooyeah, at the Dene Tha' First Nation, says he'd welcome the ability to force pipeline operators, particularly those with decades-old lines in the ground, to install more innovative technologies and improve the safety of existing lines.
The fifth measure announced by the government was to provide the NEB with the authority and resources to assume control of the responses to spills or other incidents, in exceptional circumstances.
"Authority to direct response is one thing," said Ecojustice's Sadik. "Materials and infrastructure available for response in remote areas in an entirely different question."
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/05/1...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=190514
Stephen Harper's 'Strategic' Path to Ruin
From Enbridge to the Supreme Court, the PM's reckless side prevails.
The federal government, that is Stephen Harper, is expected to announce its long anticipated decision on Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline sometime in June. The decision could well determine whether or not the Conservatives can win the 2015 election.
The momentum of opposition to the pipeline -- and perhaps more importantly to the hundreds of supertankers that would move tarsands bitumen to Asia -- is clearly growing in both B.C. and the rest of Canada. This makes Harper's absolute dedication to the oil industry, and his dogged commitment to the pipeline in particular, tantamount to a suicide pact. This is a pipeline that will never be built. It is already dead. But don't assume Harper sees that. His decision, as many of them are, will be a war between his highly touted strategic genius and his narcissistic impulses -- revealed by a pattern of rejecting defeat until reality can no longer be denied.
Harper's advantage over his political opponents is also his disadvantage. He is far bolder than any opponent he has ever faced. He is a huge risk taker. But risk taking is not in itself a virtue. Indeed, some of the biggest risk takers are psychopaths, and you certainly wouldn't want one of those running your country. A recent study out of Vanderbilt University "shows that people with psychopathic tendencies (like aggression, lack of empathy, lack of fear) are more prone to take excessive risk without considering the consequences," reports Business Insider, "It's not just that they don't appreciate the potential threat, but that the anticipation or motivation for reward overwhelms those concerns."
What motivates Stephen Harper's risk taking? The rewards for some of Harper's most excessive actions would seem as much personal as political. Consider the long list of attacks on high profile, credible government and agency figures. As Susan Delacourt helpfully documents in the Toronto Star, these include "Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, vilified for getting in the way of Fair Elections Act and former auditor-general Sheila Fraser, for the same offence. Then there's the former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page; former chief statistician Munir Sheikh; former nuclear safety commissioner Linda Keen; former RCMP public complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy; former veterans' ombudsman Pat Stogran; as well as Marty Cheliak, ex-head of the gun registry; Rémy Beauregard, the late head of Rights and Democracy; Adrian Measner, former head of the Canadian Wheat Board; and Richard Colvin, the former Canadian diplomat who spoke out on Afghan detainees."
Many of these vicious attacks may have had some anticipated political reward but the biggest motivator would appear to be simple revenge -- the consequences be damned (or unimagined). And these were before Harper decided to take on two institutions even higher up the institutional and political ladder: war veterans and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. As Delacourt argues, Harper seems not even to be seeking advice anymore. He has concluded that he's not just the smartest guy in the room. He's the only guy in the room.
Poking the Barack
As for the oil industry and two pipelines critical to tarsands expansion, even here, where Harper has made a political life or death commitment, his actions have seemed oddly irrational if not totally reckless. Harper is so contemptuous of Barack Obama -- the man with his hand on the Keystone XL guillotine -- he cannot even bring himself to act in such a way as to make it easier for Obama to say yes. The mouse telling the elephant that a decision is a "no-brainer," then trumping himself with "we won't take no for an answer" calls into question whether Harper's assumed strategic genius is really hostage to his emotions. Meanwhile, Harper refuses to do anything at all about emissions from the tarsands, something the White House (and the EU) have been seeking in order get the dirty oil flowing.
On virtually every aspect of the pipeline file, specifically Northern Gateway, Harper seems to believe he can will the result he wants. Until very recently he has treated First Nations with disdain and slandered environmental groups -- his two most powerful and intractable opponents. Given the geographic distribution of votes in this country, B.C. voters will most likely determine the outcome of the next election. And where does Harper decide to have an unwinnable showdown? Well, B.C., of course. And if you think the pipeline and tanker issues are hot now this is just early spring on the issue. Once Harper gives the go ahead the very long and very hot summer will begin in earnest and will last until election day.
In a last desperate effort to imitate rational policy before he makes the inevitable decision, Harper has tossed out a couple of crumbs to those concerned about the environmental impact of the pipeline and resource development. But the efforts are so transparent and inadequate that they simply draw attention to his appalling record. Harper just announced a $252-million, five year plan to "strengthen the conservation and restoration of ecologically sensitive land and waters throughout Canada." This after unapologetically gutting environmental protection of over 95 per cent of Canadian waterways.
The government is also increasing the maximum liability oil tanker companies will face for oil spills from $161 million to $400 million -- ignoring the main recommendation of a tanker safety expert panel that "the oil cargo industry should be responsible for the full costs of spills... with no limit per incident."
Stephen Harper's 'Strategic' Path to Ruin
From Enbridge to the Supreme Court, the PM's reckless side prevails.
The federal government, that is Stephen Harper, is expected to announce its long anticipated decision on Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline sometime in June. The decision could well determine whether or not the Conservatives can win the 2015 election.
The momentum of opposition to the pipeline -- and perhaps more importantly to the hundreds of supertankers that would move tarsands bitumen to Asia -- is clearly growing in both B.C. and the rest of Canada. This makes Harper's absolute dedication to the oil industry, and his dogged commitment to the pipeline in particular, tantamount to a suicide pact. This is a pipeline that will never be built. It is already dead. But don't assume Harper sees that. His decision, as many of them are, will be a war between his highly touted strategic genius and his narcissistic impulses -- revealed by a pattern of rejecting defeat until reality can no longer be denied.
Harper's advantage over his political opponents is also his disadvantage. He is far bolder than any opponent he has ever faced. He is a huge risk taker. But risk taking is not in itself a virtue. Indeed, some of the biggest risk takers are psychopaths, and you certainly wouldn't want one of those running your country. A recent study out of Vanderbilt University "shows that people with psychopathic tendencies (like aggression, lack of empathy, lack of fear) are more prone to take excessive risk without considering the consequences," reports Business Insider, "It's not just that they don't appreciate the potential threat, but that the anticipation or motivation for reward overwhelms those concerns."
What motivates Stephen Harper's risk taking? The rewards for some of Harper's most excessive actions would seem as much personal as political. Consider the long list of attacks on high profile, credible government and agency figures. As Susan Delacourt helpfully documents in the Toronto Star, these include "Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, vilified for getting in the way of Fair Elections Act and former auditor-general Sheila Fraser, for the same offence. Then there's the former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page; former chief statistician Munir Sheikh; former nuclear safety commissioner Linda Keen; former RCMP public complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy; former veterans' ombudsman Pat Stogran; as well as Marty Cheliak, ex-head of the gun registry; Rémy Beauregard, the late head of Rights and Democracy; Adrian Measner, former head of the Canadian Wheat Board; and Richard Colvin, the former Canadian diplomat who spoke out on Afghan detainees."
Many of these vicious attacks may have had some anticipated political reward but the biggest motivator would appear to be simple revenge -- the consequences be damned (or unimagined). And these were before Harper decided to take on two institutions even higher up the institutional and political ladder: war veterans and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. As Delacourt argues, Harper seems not even to be seeking advice anymore. He has concluded that he's not just the smartest guy in the room. He's the only guy in the room.
Poking the Barack
As for the oil industry and two pipelines critical to tarsands expansion, even here, where Harper has made a political life or death commitment, his actions have seemed oddly irrational if not totally reckless. Harper is so contemptuous of Barack Obama -- the man with his hand on the Keystone XL guillotine -- he cannot even bring himself to act in such a way as to make it easier for Obama to say yes. The mouse telling the elephant that a decision is a "no-brainer," then trumping himself with "we won't take no for an answer" calls into question whether Harper's assumed strategic genius is really hostage to his emotions. Meanwhile, Harper refuses to do anything at all about emissions from the tarsands, something the White House (and the EU) have been seeking in order get the dirty oil flowing.
On virtually every aspect of the pipeline file, specifically Northern Gateway, Harper seems to believe he can will the result he wants. Until very recently he has treated First Nations with disdain and slandered environmental groups -- his two most powerful and intractable opponents. Given the geographic distribution of votes in this country, B.C. voters will most likely determine the outcome of the next election. And where does Harper decide to have an unwinnable showdown? Well, B.C., of course. And if you think the pipeline and tanker issues are hot now this is just early spring on the issue. Once Harper gives the go ahead the very long and very hot summer will begin in earnest and will last until election day.
In a last desperate effort to imitate rational policy before he makes the inevitable decision, Harper has tossed out a couple of crumbs to those concerned about the environmental impact of the pipeline and resource development. But the efforts are so transparent and inadequate that they simply draw attention to his appalling record. Harper just announced a $252-million, five year plan to "strengthen the conservation and restoration of ecologically sensitive land and waters throughout Canada." This after unapologetically gutting environmental protection of over 95 per cent of Canadian waterways.
The government is also increasing the maximum liability oil tanker companies will face for oil spills from $161 million to $400 million -- ignoring the main recommendation of a tanker safety expert panel that "the oil cargo industry should be responsible for the full costs of spills... with no limit per incident."
(continued from above)
Oily friends
There is also a plan to establish a $1.61 billion fund from levies imposed on tanker companies. The $400 million limit (and the $1.61 billion fund) are laughable when the you examine the Exxon Valdez disaster, the closest existing example of what a spill cleanup would cost. Exxon paid $3.8 billion in cleaning up the spill of 250,000 barrels of oil. And those were 1989 dollars. The VLCC class super tankers that would transport tarsands crude from Kitimat would be carrying 2,000,000 barrels in the most dangerous waters on the planet. A 2012 UBC study estimated the cost of a cleanup off B.C.'s northern coast at $9.6 billion.
Harper's dogged commitment to protecting some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world from liability for their own misdeeds is in itself irrational. He likes to describe Canada as an energy superpower but all the other energy superpowers are nation states that have long ago nationalized their oil. That's what gives them power. Canada is a superchump, given that the only energy superpower here is the oil and gas industry itself. Canada and its government have ceded all power to the industry. The cost to Canada and its economy is huge, and for Harper, whose only source of credibility is now the economy, that is dangerous.
As The Tyee's Mitch Anderson reported, a recent IMF report reveals that the after tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry in this country are a staggering $34 billion a year. Most of this is "the externalized cost of burning transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel -- about $19.4 billion in 2011. These externalized costs include impacts like traffic accidents, carbon emissions, air pollution and road congestion."
Many of these costs could be recovered by taxing the industry as is done in the EU, and by committing to mass transit.
According to Anderson, "Canada provides more subsidies to petroleum as a proportion of government revenue than any developed nation on Earth besides the United States and Luxembourg." It is not only individual citizens who pay those subsidies, it is all the other business sectors in the country -- the ones who depend on a viable infrastructure, high educational standards and healthy workers.
Recklessness and reckoning
As a result, Harper's claim to be the master of the economy is starting to fall apart. His obsession with the oilsands and his neglect of the rest of the economy is coming back to haunt him. The Bank of Canada just released a report revealing that Canada's job recovery has been seriously overstated by the government. Polls show that the interminable "Canada Action Plan" ads are now just annoying people.
The government's one rational economic effort, its $14 billion infrastructure program, is in such disarray that a whole construction season may well be lost due to confusion amongst municipalities regarding how to access it.
The Temporary Foreign Workers Program is a disaster for many reasons. One is that the promised (and politically critical) reforms to the program are being cited as a major stumbling block to trade deals with Europe and India. Both include generous provisions for European and Indian companies to import their own nationals to work in businesses they establish here. Cuts to the TFWP are generating complaints.
To add to the government's woes, the latest Statistics Canada jobs report for April showed a net loss of 29,000 jobs. And it was the composition of those losses that should have the Harperium sweating. All of the job losses were concentrated in full-time employment. An increase in low paying jobs actually made the situation look better than it was. Losses in the highest paid sectors were serious, with "finance, insurance and real estate (down 19,000), professional, scientific and technical services (down 10,000), natural resources (down 7,000) and utilities (down 5,000)... "
If Stephen Harper was really a strategic genius he would have either done a much better job of selling the Northern Gateway pipeline or he would have found an exit strategy. But his genius, as always, has a nasty little virus attacking it. Harper's outsized self-regard, contempt for his adversaries and his inability to appreciate the consequences of excessive risk are slowly creating a perfect election storm -- a failure to achieve tarsands expansion and a crumbling economic recovery.
Stephen Harper hates losing, maybe even more than he likes winning. If that's the case he may well resign rather than face the humiliation of defeat on his single most important commitment.
Oily friends
There is also a plan to establish a $1.61 billion fund from levies imposed on tanker companies. The $400 million limit (and the $1.61 billion fund) are laughable when the you examine the Exxon Valdez disaster, the closest existing example of what a spill cleanup would cost. Exxon paid $3.8 billion in cleaning up the spill of 250,000 barrels of oil. And those were 1989 dollars. The VLCC class super tankers that would transport tarsands crude from Kitimat would be carrying 2,000,000 barrels in the most dangerous waters on the planet. A 2012 UBC study estimated the cost of a cleanup off B.C.'s northern coast at $9.6 billion.
Harper's dogged commitment to protecting some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world from liability for their own misdeeds is in itself irrational. He likes to describe Canada as an energy superpower but all the other energy superpowers are nation states that have long ago nationalized their oil. That's what gives them power. Canada is a superchump, given that the only energy superpower here is the oil and gas industry itself. Canada and its government have ceded all power to the industry. The cost to Canada and its economy is huge, and for Harper, whose only source of credibility is now the economy, that is dangerous.
As The Tyee's Mitch Anderson reported, a recent IMF report reveals that the after tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry in this country are a staggering $34 billion a year. Most of this is "the externalized cost of burning transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel -- about $19.4 billion in 2011. These externalized costs include impacts like traffic accidents, carbon emissions, air pollution and road congestion."
Many of these costs could be recovered by taxing the industry as is done in the EU, and by committing to mass transit.
According to Anderson, "Canada provides more subsidies to petroleum as a proportion of government revenue than any developed nation on Earth besides the United States and Luxembourg." It is not only individual citizens who pay those subsidies, it is all the other business sectors in the country -- the ones who depend on a viable infrastructure, high educational standards and healthy workers.
Recklessness and reckoning
As a result, Harper's claim to be the master of the economy is starting to fall apart. His obsession with the oilsands and his neglect of the rest of the economy is coming back to haunt him. The Bank of Canada just released a report revealing that Canada's job recovery has been seriously overstated by the government. Polls show that the interminable "Canada Action Plan" ads are now just annoying people.
The government's one rational economic effort, its $14 billion infrastructure program, is in such disarray that a whole construction season may well be lost due to confusion amongst municipalities regarding how to access it.
The Temporary Foreign Workers Program is a disaster for many reasons. One is that the promised (and politically critical) reforms to the program are being cited as a major stumbling block to trade deals with Europe and India. Both include generous provisions for European and Indian companies to import their own nationals to work in businesses they establish here. Cuts to the TFWP are generating complaints.
To add to the government's woes, the latest Statistics Canada jobs report for April showed a net loss of 29,000 jobs. And it was the composition of those losses that should have the Harperium sweating. All of the job losses were concentrated in full-time employment. An increase in low paying jobs actually made the situation look better than it was. Losses in the highest paid sectors were serious, with "finance, insurance and real estate (down 19,000), professional, scientific and technical services (down 10,000), natural resources (down 7,000) and utilities (down 5,000)... "
If Stephen Harper was really a strategic genius he would have either done a much better job of selling the Northern Gateway pipeline or he would have found an exit strategy. But his genius, as always, has a nasty little virus attacking it. Harper's outsized self-regard, contempt for his adversaries and his inability to appreciate the consequences of excessive risk are slowly creating a perfect election storm -- a failure to achieve tarsands expansion and a crumbling economic recovery.
Stephen Harper hates losing, maybe even more than he likes winning. If that's the case he may well resign rather than face the humiliation of defeat on his single most important commitment.
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
Russo-China LPG--- $ 400 B deal---- so no doubt, Putin wasn't selling LPG to China so much as he was poking his finger in the eyes of both the USA and the EU by cutting that deal. And no doubt, China knowing Putin HAD to cut that deal to save face, ended up getting lots of LPG for significantly BELOW world market prices
That being said, how does this deal impact British Columbia and Alberta? How might this effect the Northern Gateway project or any other energy projects Harper and Christy Clark might be pushing? I'd be interested to hear comments from people who track these issues
That being said, how does this deal impact British Columbia and Alberta? How might this effect the Northern Gateway project or any other energy projects Harper and Christy Clark might be pushing? I'd be interested to hear comments from people who track these issues
Sister Crusty is screwed. I am sure Harper and her are just writhing especially after the sad small time muscle flexing in the Ukraine debacle. Poor leadership and way out of their league. Putin is smiling all the way to the bank. Now we will probably be helping Ukraine which will drive the price of gas up as we will be bailing them out. Thanks alot Harper.
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
The deals they are making are with Indonesia, Korea, and possibly India. China is still involved in a way that they will make money from this.
The exporting of our resources does not put money in our pockets, it just gives us temporary jobs to pay for the increases on these resources that we are using because the exporting increases the demand which will drive the price up.
Just look at what BC Power is doing, driving up the price of power so when it is exported the consumer will not profit from this but will pay more for it.
The same goes for Oil and Natural gas. The extra money made will be filling the billionaires pockets again.
Maybe confusing, but in the long run we are giving up our environment to make others rich.
The exporting of our resources does not put money in our pockets, it just gives us temporary jobs to pay for the increases on these resources that we are using because the exporting increases the demand which will drive the price up.
Just look at what BC Power is doing, driving up the price of power so when it is exported the consumer will not profit from this but will pay more for it.
The same goes for Oil and Natural gas. The extra money made will be filling the billionaires pockets again.
Maybe confusing, but in the long run we are giving up our environment to make others rich.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/05/23/N...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=230514
'Natural Gas Is a Bridge to Nowhere': Cornell Methane Expert
Much-hyped industry in BC plagued by leaks of potent warmer.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca
A new study by a Cornell University ecologist and expert on methane argues that "natural gas is a bridge to nowhere" in terms of arresting climate destabilization.
Robert W. Howarth, an Earth systems scientist and biogeochemist, also contends that replacing diesel engines with those running on liquefied natural gas, as proposed by the government of British Columbia, is a bad idea due to energy inefficiencies and methane leakage.
Moreover, his study finds the push to use more natural gas to heat homes and water may be wrongheaded because natural gas is "not a climate friendly fuel for these uses."
"The use of fossil fuels is the major cause of greenhouse gas emissions, and any genuine effort to reduce emissions must begin with fossil fuels," his study concludes.
The new study, an update on a controversial 2011 paper, contradicts the basis for the B.C. government's much-hyped liquefied natural gas strategy.
The B.C. government argues that natural gas is the "world's cleanest-burning fossil fuel," and that provincial exports of LNG "can significantly lower global greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal-fired power plants and oil-based transportation fuels with a much cleaner alternative."
But Howarth squarely challenges these claims by arguing that the greenhouse gas footprint of methane is so large in the short term, with leakage from natural gas extraction so significant, that ultimately "natural gas is a bridge to nowhere."
A potent atmospheric warmer
Citing a flurry of recent methane leakage studies, Howarth's report argues that natural gas found in shale formations, which requires hydraulic fracturing to extract, leaks and vents about 50 per cent more methane during production than conventional drilling. (In the Bakken oil fields alone, industry dumps into the atmosphere nearly $100-million worth of methane a month because it can't be bothered to conserve gas associated with oil production.)
In addition, methane is a much more potent atmospheric warmer than carbon dioxide in the short term.
Methane, which is 21 times more potent than CO2 and takes about 12 years to dissipate in the atmosphere, accounts for nearly 40 per cent of global atmospheric warming.
Even if society eliminated CO2 emissions tomorrow but ignored methane, Howarth argues the planet would still warm to the dangerous 1.5 to 2 degree Celsius threshold within 15 to 35 years.
"By reducing methane emissions, society buys some critical decades of lower temperatures," his study says.
To properly evaluate the role of methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of the shale gas industry, a government needs to measure four things, the ecologist says.
It must calculate the amount of CO2 emissions from energy burned to mine shale gas; accurately tally the real leakage methane rate from the natural gas system; estimate the global warming potential of methane in the short term, and figure out how efficiently methane is now burned for energy.
Little of this accounting has been yet done by the B.C. government, an advocate for the LNG industry.
Recent studies show that U.S. methane leakage from the natural gas industry is likely greater than the 1.8 per cent assumed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and could range anywhere between 3.6 and 7.1 per cent.
The B.C. government estimates that its natural gas fields leak about 0.3 per cent of production to atmosphere, but critics, including Howarth, argue that this number, among the lowest ever published by the industry, is not based on real measurements in the field.
A study partly funded by the BC Oil and Gas Commission and published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 found, for example, a startling discrepancy between estimated and real methane leaks reported by natural gas plants.
In addition, recent U.S. studies have found leakage rates of four per cent in an unconventional gas field in Colorado, and nine per cent in a Utah shale gas field. Most of BC's natural gas comes from unconventional fields requiring extensive hydraulic fracturing.
Diesel-to-natural gas transition makes no sense: Howarth
Natural gas only has a lower footprint than coal in energy systems where the methane leakage rate from wells, pipelines, gas plants and infrastructure is 3.2 per cent or less.
By Howarth's calculations, it makes no sense to use natural gas to replace "diesel fuel as a long-distance transportation fuel" because it would greatly increase greenhouse emissions.
The B.C. government, which heavily subsidizes the shale gas industry with free water, geoscience services and low royalties, has proposed to replace diesel in heavy and medium vehicle fleet trucks with natural gas as well as build three new coastal ferries fueled by LNG.
Not only is the energy of natural gas used less efficiently than diesel in truck engines, but methane emissions and leaks from transportation systems have not been well quantified.
Howarth warns that there could be significant emissions during refuelling operations for buses and trucks, as well as from the venting of on-vehicle natural gas tanks to keep gas pressures significantly safe during warm weather.
His study concludes that "using natural gas rather than coal to generate electricity might result in a very modest reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions," but only "if those emissions can be kept below a range of 2.4 to 3.2 per cent."
BC minister briefed on methane
Opinion varies on the significance of the methane leakage problem.
Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg recently argued in the New York Times that methane seepage issue was "essentially a data acquisition and management problem -- the kind that we know we can solve" with better monitoring and tougher regulations.
Others, such members of the shale gas industry, have accused Howarth of bogus science and "saying outrageously silly things like burning natural gas is worse for the environment than burning coal."
The scientist's new paper echoes warnings in briefing notes recently presented to B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak.
The notes, obtained by Canadian Press, warn that "methane emissions are a particular concern since they have a global warming impact 21 times higher than carbon dioxide."
"A small increase in the percentage of natural gas that escapes can have a significant impact on overall emissions," one note said.
In related news, a study by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies reported that companies such as Encana, Shell and Exxon, which banked heavily on making money from shale gas, have declared a total of $35 billion in write-offs due to low natural gas prices and high drilling costs.
The reasons from the write-offs include the constant need to need to drill and acquire leases due to rapid depletion rates, "infrastructure needs, transportation costs, increasing costs to manage environmental considerations as operations grow, and importantly, the fact that drilling and hydraulic fracturing costs respond to fluctuations in gas and oil prices as well as demand, leaving little excess profit for long."
'Natural Gas Is a Bridge to Nowhere': Cornell Methane Expert
Much-hyped industry in BC plagued by leaks of potent warmer.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca
A new study by a Cornell University ecologist and expert on methane argues that "natural gas is a bridge to nowhere" in terms of arresting climate destabilization.
Robert W. Howarth, an Earth systems scientist and biogeochemist, also contends that replacing diesel engines with those running on liquefied natural gas, as proposed by the government of British Columbia, is a bad idea due to energy inefficiencies and methane leakage.
Moreover, his study finds the push to use more natural gas to heat homes and water may be wrongheaded because natural gas is "not a climate friendly fuel for these uses."
"The use of fossil fuels is the major cause of greenhouse gas emissions, and any genuine effort to reduce emissions must begin with fossil fuels," his study concludes.
The new study, an update on a controversial 2011 paper, contradicts the basis for the B.C. government's much-hyped liquefied natural gas strategy.
The B.C. government argues that natural gas is the "world's cleanest-burning fossil fuel," and that provincial exports of LNG "can significantly lower global greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal-fired power plants and oil-based transportation fuels with a much cleaner alternative."
But Howarth squarely challenges these claims by arguing that the greenhouse gas footprint of methane is so large in the short term, with leakage from natural gas extraction so significant, that ultimately "natural gas is a bridge to nowhere."
A potent atmospheric warmer
Citing a flurry of recent methane leakage studies, Howarth's report argues that natural gas found in shale formations, which requires hydraulic fracturing to extract, leaks and vents about 50 per cent more methane during production than conventional drilling. (In the Bakken oil fields alone, industry dumps into the atmosphere nearly $100-million worth of methane a month because it can't be bothered to conserve gas associated with oil production.)
In addition, methane is a much more potent atmospheric warmer than carbon dioxide in the short term.
Methane, which is 21 times more potent than CO2 and takes about 12 years to dissipate in the atmosphere, accounts for nearly 40 per cent of global atmospheric warming.
Even if society eliminated CO2 emissions tomorrow but ignored methane, Howarth argues the planet would still warm to the dangerous 1.5 to 2 degree Celsius threshold within 15 to 35 years.
"By reducing methane emissions, society buys some critical decades of lower temperatures," his study says.
To properly evaluate the role of methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of the shale gas industry, a government needs to measure four things, the ecologist says.
It must calculate the amount of CO2 emissions from energy burned to mine shale gas; accurately tally the real leakage methane rate from the natural gas system; estimate the global warming potential of methane in the short term, and figure out how efficiently methane is now burned for energy.
Little of this accounting has been yet done by the B.C. government, an advocate for the LNG industry.
Recent studies show that U.S. methane leakage from the natural gas industry is likely greater than the 1.8 per cent assumed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and could range anywhere between 3.6 and 7.1 per cent.
The B.C. government estimates that its natural gas fields leak about 0.3 per cent of production to atmosphere, but critics, including Howarth, argue that this number, among the lowest ever published by the industry, is not based on real measurements in the field.
A study partly funded by the BC Oil and Gas Commission and published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 found, for example, a startling discrepancy between estimated and real methane leaks reported by natural gas plants.
In addition, recent U.S. studies have found leakage rates of four per cent in an unconventional gas field in Colorado, and nine per cent in a Utah shale gas field. Most of BC's natural gas comes from unconventional fields requiring extensive hydraulic fracturing.
Diesel-to-natural gas transition makes no sense: Howarth
Natural gas only has a lower footprint than coal in energy systems where the methane leakage rate from wells, pipelines, gas plants and infrastructure is 3.2 per cent or less.
By Howarth's calculations, it makes no sense to use natural gas to replace "diesel fuel as a long-distance transportation fuel" because it would greatly increase greenhouse emissions.
The B.C. government, which heavily subsidizes the shale gas industry with free water, geoscience services and low royalties, has proposed to replace diesel in heavy and medium vehicle fleet trucks with natural gas as well as build three new coastal ferries fueled by LNG.
Not only is the energy of natural gas used less efficiently than diesel in truck engines, but methane emissions and leaks from transportation systems have not been well quantified.
Howarth warns that there could be significant emissions during refuelling operations for buses and trucks, as well as from the venting of on-vehicle natural gas tanks to keep gas pressures significantly safe during warm weather.
His study concludes that "using natural gas rather than coal to generate electricity might result in a very modest reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions," but only "if those emissions can be kept below a range of 2.4 to 3.2 per cent."
BC minister briefed on methane
Opinion varies on the significance of the methane leakage problem.
Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg recently argued in the New York Times that methane seepage issue was "essentially a data acquisition and management problem -- the kind that we know we can solve" with better monitoring and tougher regulations.
Others, such members of the shale gas industry, have accused Howarth of bogus science and "saying outrageously silly things like burning natural gas is worse for the environment than burning coal."
The scientist's new paper echoes warnings in briefing notes recently presented to B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak.
The notes, obtained by Canadian Press, warn that "methane emissions are a particular concern since they have a global warming impact 21 times higher than carbon dioxide."
"A small increase in the percentage of natural gas that escapes can have a significant impact on overall emissions," one note said.
In related news, a study by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies reported that companies such as Encana, Shell and Exxon, which banked heavily on making money from shale gas, have declared a total of $35 billion in write-offs due to low natural gas prices and high drilling costs.
The reasons from the write-offs include the constant need to need to drill and acquire leases due to rapid depletion rates, "infrastructure needs, transportation costs, increasing costs to manage environmental considerations as operations grow, and importantly, the fact that drilling and hydraulic fracturing costs respond to fluctuations in gas and oil prices as well as demand, leaving little excess profit for long."
http://chanslab.ires.ubc.ca/files/2014/05/JRP-Letter-to-Federal-Govt_May28_all-signaturesKCASET.pdf
Open Letter on the Joint Review Panel report regarding the Northern Gateway Project
May 26, 2014
The Right Hon. Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Building
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Dear Prime Minister Harper:
Based on the evidence presented below, we, the undersigned scholars, have concluded that the Joint Review Panel’s (JRP) assessment of the Northern Gateway Project (the Project) represents a flawed analysis of the risks and benefits to British Columbia’s environment and society. Consequently, the JRP report should not serve as the basis for concluding that the Northern Gateway Project is in the best interests of Canadians. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this report.
The Canadian electorate expected the JRP ruling to present a balanced and appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits of the Project, drawing upon the best available evidence, and expressing a cogent rationale for the final ruling.
By our analysis, the Canadian electorate received a ruling that is not balanced or defensible due to five major flaws. The Panel’s review:
1. Failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings,
2. Considered only a narrow set of risks but a broad array of benefits, thereby omitting adequate consideration of key issues,
3. Relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation,
4. Contradicted scientific evidence contained in official government documents, and
5. Treated uncertain risks as unimportant risks, and assumed these would be negated by the proponent’s yet to be developed mitigation measures.
Below, we expand on these five fundamental flaws that invalidate the report as an appropriate basis for your Cabinet to approve the Project.
1. Failure to Articulate a Rationale
The panel failed to articulate a rationale for numerous findings, and failed to satisfy the criteria of “justification, transparency and intelligibility” expected of administrative tribunals. Such a rationale is fundamental to both scientific and legal judgment. The Panel’s charge was to determine whether the Project is in the public interest of British Columbians and Canadians, based on a critical analysis of the Project’s economic, environmental and social benefits, costs and risks over the long term. Instead of such a balanced consideration, the panel justified its recommendation of the project by summarizing the panel’s understanding of environmental burdens in five short paragraphs and judging that these adverse environmental outcomes were outweighed by the potential societal and economic benefits.
Without a rationale for why the expected benefits justify the risks (e.g.,why must an environmental effect be certain and/or permanently widespread to outweigh economic benefits that themselves are subject to some uncertainty?), any ruling of overall public interest is unsupportable.
2. Consideration of Narrow Risks but Broad Benefits, Omission of Key Issues
The panel included in its deliberation a broad view of the economic benefits, but an asymmetrically narrow view of the environmental risks and costs. The need for the Project as stipulated by Enbridge includes consideration of the enhanced revenues that would accrue from higher prices for oil sands products in Asian markets. These enhanced revenues are benefits to producers from production. The environmental risks, however, were only considered if they are associated with transport, not production or later burning/consumption. All negative effects associated with the enhanced production of oil sands bitumen, or the burning of such products in Asia, were excluded, as were greenhouse gas emissions generally. This exclusion of the project's contributions to increased atmospheric emissions undermines Canada’s formal international commitments and federal policies on greenhouse emissions.
Other key issues omitted include the difficulty of containing freshwater spills under ice, as has already been demonstrated on the Athabasca River from oil sands developments.
3. Reliance on Information from the Proponent, without External Evaluation
On critical issues, the panel relied on information from the proponent without external assessment. For example, on the pivotal matter of the risks of a diluted bitumen tanker spill, the panel concluded that a major spill was unlikely. Yet, a professional engineers’ report concluded that the quantitative risk assessment upon which the panel relied was so flawed as to provide no meaningful results. Regarding the consequences of such a spill, the panel relied on the proponent’s modeling to conclude that the adverse consequences of a spill would not be widespread or permanent, even as it acknowledged that there is much uncertainty about the behavior of diluted bitumen in the marine environment. That modeling discounted the prospect that diluted bitumen could be transported long distance by currents, when the product submerges, as it does under a wide range of conditions. Thus, the panel may have underestimated the scale of potential damages. Because the proponent is in a clear conflict of interest, an independent assessment of potential oil spill damage should have been commissioned.
4. Contradiction of Official Government Documents
A decision on the potential for significant adverse environmental effects on any species or habitat must be consistent with the government’s own official documents. The panel’s conclusions that marine mammals in general will not suffer significant adverse cumulative effects stands in direct contradiction to the government's own management and recovery plans. For example, the Recovery Plan for large whales (blue, fin, and sei whales—species at risk under the federal Species at RiskAct, SARA) lists “collisions with vessels, noise from industrial … activities, [and] pollution” as imminent threats —all three threats are associated with the NGP proposal. Contamination has also been identified as a threat for other marine mammals: the management plans for both the sea otter and the Steller sea lion identify a risk from marine contamination—in particular the acute effects of large oil spills, but also from the toxicity of smaller, chronic spills that are likely to increase proportionally with vessel traffic. The panel also failed to account for newly identified critical habitat of the humpback whale and failed to specify how the proponent’s mitigation plan would reduce the significant risks from increased shipping, a serious threat identified in the recently published Recovery Strategy for the species. A plan to manage the threats to the species and its habitat is a legal requirement given that the humpback whale is a species of Special Concern under SARA.
5. Inappropriate Treatment of Uncertain Risks, and Reliance on Yet To Be Developed Mitigation Measures
The panel effectively treated uncertain risks as unimportant. For instance, Northern Gateway omitted specified mitigation plans for numerous environmental damages or accidents. This omission produced fundamental uncertainties about the environmental impacts of Northern Gateway’s proposal (associated with the behaviour of bitumen in saltwater, adequate dispersion modeling, etc.). The panel recognized these fundamental uncertainties, but sought to remedy them by demanding the future submission of plans. However, the panel described no mechanism by which the evaluation of these plans could reverse their ruling. Since these uncertainties are primarily a product of omitted mitigation plans, such plans should have been required and evaluated before the JRP report was issued. To assume that such uncertainties would not influence the final decision of the panel, is to sanction the proponent’s strategic omissions, and effectively discount these potentially significant risks of the Project, to the detriment of the interests of the Canadian public.
Conclusion
The JRP report could have offered guidance, both to concerned Canadians in forming their opinions on the project and to the federal government in its official decision. However, given the major flaws detailed above, the report does not provide the needed guidance. Rather, the JRP's conclusion—that Canadians would be better off with than without the Northern Gateway Project given all “environmental, social, and economic considerations” - stands unsupported.
Given such flaws, the JRP report is indefensible as a basis to judge in favour of the Project.
Sincerely
Kai MA Chan,
Associate Professor,
University of British Columbia
Anne Salomon
Assistant Professor,
Simon Fraser University
Eric B. Taylor
Professor,
University of British Columbia
Open Letter on the Joint Review Panel report regarding the Northern Gateway Project
May 26, 2014
The Right Hon. Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Building
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Dear Prime Minister Harper:
Based on the evidence presented below, we, the undersigned scholars, have concluded that the Joint Review Panel’s (JRP) assessment of the Northern Gateway Project (the Project) represents a flawed analysis of the risks and benefits to British Columbia’s environment and society. Consequently, the JRP report should not serve as the basis for concluding that the Northern Gateway Project is in the best interests of Canadians. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this report.
The Canadian electorate expected the JRP ruling to present a balanced and appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits of the Project, drawing upon the best available evidence, and expressing a cogent rationale for the final ruling.
By our analysis, the Canadian electorate received a ruling that is not balanced or defensible due to five major flaws. The Panel’s review:
1. Failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings,
2. Considered only a narrow set of risks but a broad array of benefits, thereby omitting adequate consideration of key issues,
3. Relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation,
4. Contradicted scientific evidence contained in official government documents, and
5. Treated uncertain risks as unimportant risks, and assumed these would be negated by the proponent’s yet to be developed mitigation measures.
Below, we expand on these five fundamental flaws that invalidate the report as an appropriate basis for your Cabinet to approve the Project.
1. Failure to Articulate a Rationale
The panel failed to articulate a rationale for numerous findings, and failed to satisfy the criteria of “justification, transparency and intelligibility” expected of administrative tribunals. Such a rationale is fundamental to both scientific and legal judgment. The Panel’s charge was to determine whether the Project is in the public interest of British Columbians and Canadians, based on a critical analysis of the Project’s economic, environmental and social benefits, costs and risks over the long term. Instead of such a balanced consideration, the panel justified its recommendation of the project by summarizing the panel’s understanding of environmental burdens in five short paragraphs and judging that these adverse environmental outcomes were outweighed by the potential societal and economic benefits.
Without a rationale for why the expected benefits justify the risks (e.g.,why must an environmental effect be certain and/or permanently widespread to outweigh economic benefits that themselves are subject to some uncertainty?), any ruling of overall public interest is unsupportable.
2. Consideration of Narrow Risks but Broad Benefits, Omission of Key Issues
The panel included in its deliberation a broad view of the economic benefits, but an asymmetrically narrow view of the environmental risks and costs. The need for the Project as stipulated by Enbridge includes consideration of the enhanced revenues that would accrue from higher prices for oil sands products in Asian markets. These enhanced revenues are benefits to producers from production. The environmental risks, however, were only considered if they are associated with transport, not production or later burning/consumption. All negative effects associated with the enhanced production of oil sands bitumen, or the burning of such products in Asia, were excluded, as were greenhouse gas emissions generally. This exclusion of the project's contributions to increased atmospheric emissions undermines Canada’s formal international commitments and federal policies on greenhouse emissions.
Other key issues omitted include the difficulty of containing freshwater spills under ice, as has already been demonstrated on the Athabasca River from oil sands developments.
3. Reliance on Information from the Proponent, without External Evaluation
On critical issues, the panel relied on information from the proponent without external assessment. For example, on the pivotal matter of the risks of a diluted bitumen tanker spill, the panel concluded that a major spill was unlikely. Yet, a professional engineers’ report concluded that the quantitative risk assessment upon which the panel relied was so flawed as to provide no meaningful results. Regarding the consequences of such a spill, the panel relied on the proponent’s modeling to conclude that the adverse consequences of a spill would not be widespread or permanent, even as it acknowledged that there is much uncertainty about the behavior of diluted bitumen in the marine environment. That modeling discounted the prospect that diluted bitumen could be transported long distance by currents, when the product submerges, as it does under a wide range of conditions. Thus, the panel may have underestimated the scale of potential damages. Because the proponent is in a clear conflict of interest, an independent assessment of potential oil spill damage should have been commissioned.
4. Contradiction of Official Government Documents
A decision on the potential for significant adverse environmental effects on any species or habitat must be consistent with the government’s own official documents. The panel’s conclusions that marine mammals in general will not suffer significant adverse cumulative effects stands in direct contradiction to the government's own management and recovery plans. For example, the Recovery Plan for large whales (blue, fin, and sei whales—species at risk under the federal Species at RiskAct, SARA) lists “collisions with vessels, noise from industrial … activities, [and] pollution” as imminent threats —all three threats are associated with the NGP proposal. Contamination has also been identified as a threat for other marine mammals: the management plans for both the sea otter and the Steller sea lion identify a risk from marine contamination—in particular the acute effects of large oil spills, but also from the toxicity of smaller, chronic spills that are likely to increase proportionally with vessel traffic. The panel also failed to account for newly identified critical habitat of the humpback whale and failed to specify how the proponent’s mitigation plan would reduce the significant risks from increased shipping, a serious threat identified in the recently published Recovery Strategy for the species. A plan to manage the threats to the species and its habitat is a legal requirement given that the humpback whale is a species of Special Concern under SARA.
5. Inappropriate Treatment of Uncertain Risks, and Reliance on Yet To Be Developed Mitigation Measures
The panel effectively treated uncertain risks as unimportant. For instance, Northern Gateway omitted specified mitigation plans for numerous environmental damages or accidents. This omission produced fundamental uncertainties about the environmental impacts of Northern Gateway’s proposal (associated with the behaviour of bitumen in saltwater, adequate dispersion modeling, etc.). The panel recognized these fundamental uncertainties, but sought to remedy them by demanding the future submission of plans. However, the panel described no mechanism by which the evaluation of these plans could reverse their ruling. Since these uncertainties are primarily a product of omitted mitigation plans, such plans should have been required and evaluated before the JRP report was issued. To assume that such uncertainties would not influence the final decision of the panel, is to sanction the proponent’s strategic omissions, and effectively discount these potentially significant risks of the Project, to the detriment of the interests of the Canadian public.
Conclusion
The JRP report could have offered guidance, both to concerned Canadians in forming their opinions on the project and to the federal government in its official decision. However, given the major flaws detailed above, the report does not provide the needed guidance. Rather, the JRP's conclusion—that Canadians would be better off with than without the Northern Gateway Project given all “environmental, social, and economic considerations” - stands unsupported.
Given such flaws, the JRP report is indefensible as a basis to judge in favour of the Project.
Sincerely
Kai MA Chan,
Associate Professor,
University of British Columbia
Anne Salomon
Assistant Professor,
Simon Fraser University
Eric B. Taylor
Professor,
University of British Columbia
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion...per+kills+Northern+Gateway/9904178/story.html
Opinion: Don’t be shocked if Harper kills Northern Gateway
BY KAI NAGATA, SPECIAL TO THE VANCOUVER SUN JUNE 3, 2014
Is Prime Minister Stephen Harper about to toss Enbridge under the bus? With a federal cabinet decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline project due any day, many British Columbians believe federal approval is inevitable. Yet signs now point to the Tories turning away from Enbridge’s troubled oil export proposal, in the hope it dies quietly before the next federal election.
The Enbridge saga has been a long, costly lesson for the energy industry and the Conservative party. Sacrificing Northern Gateway would certainly annoy the state-owned Chinese oil companies that have bankrolled the proposal. However, the consequences of forcing it through could be worse, for the Canadian oilpatch, and for Conservative MPs seeking re-election in B.C.
If Alberta is built on oilsands, British Columbia is more like political quicksand: not impossible to traverse if you stay calm and swim carefully but thrash around and it will suck you down.
Enbridge found that out the hard way, antagonizing First Nations along the route with a hardball style of negotiation developed on the other side of the Rockies, in treaty country.
Then Joe Oliver stepped in, doing Gateway more harm than good. The former natural resources minister’s 2012 diatribe, painting British Columbians as unpatriotic eco-radicals, only served to galvanize opposition to the project. Within Tory circles it is now generally acknowledged the government’s communications style during those months was a mistake, from which the party’s brand is still recovering in B.C.
Oliver’s replacement on the pipeline file is part of an attempt at a reset. Greg Rickford is a former nurse who once served the Kitasoo-Xai’Xais community in Klemtu, on the B.C. coast. First Nations leaders say Rickford understands the political landscape here better than any of his cabinet colleagues. He believes his former patients, and their neighbours, when they say they will stop raw bitumen from leaving Kitimat.
If Rickford was simply trying to mollify concerns, you’d think he would include the North Coast in new tanker safety measures announced in May. He promised co-ordinated oil spill plans for Saint John (terminus for the proposed Energy East pipeline) and the Salish Sea (where Kinder Morgan’s tankers already sail). But on Kitimat, Rickford was silent. It seems his department doesn’t anticipate oil tanker traffic on the North Coast any time soon.
Rickford was back in B.C. last week announcing new ways to engage First Nations in energy infrastructure decisions. This time he chose to speak in Prince Rupert, a potential hotbed of liquefied natural gas development and the proposed terminus for Lax Kw’alaams businessman Calvin Helin’s pipeline for refined crude. Again, Lax Kw’alaams Mayor Garry Reece made it clear the community will not support heavy oil exports. Rickford’s response? “I heard him loud and clear.”
To put it bluntly, Rickford and his party have plenty to lose in mishandling the Gateway file. A few swing ridings in B.C. could make or break the Conservative majority in 2015. Harper needs his western base to hang together, and that means not stoking discord and alienation between Albertans and British Columbians.
Plowing ahead with Northern Gateway would do just that, provoking a serious, multi-year political crisis. First Nations would hit the Crown with lawsuits, then blockade the route. Busloads of retirees, energy workers, and opposition politicians promise to do the same. B.C. Premier Christy Clark would have a mandate to follow through on her threats and withhold provincial construction permits. If Ottawa tried to muscle in on her jurisdiction, other provinces would erupt in protest.
The whole exercise would be disruptive, expensive for taxpayers and entirely avoidable. Not only would voters have only the Conservatives to blame, the fracas would exacerbate hostility toward other resource companies, causing further delays.
The smartest political move would be to do the unexpected and reject it. That’s what voters in Kitimat did in a municipal plebiscite in April. But even if Harper’s pride will not permit a full about-face, there are plenty of ways to achieve the same end result.
For example, the government could approve federal permits, on the condition that Enbridge return to seek approval from affected First Nations, this time with no help from the Crown, or former ministers like Jim Prentice. That’s the scenario Enbridge CEO Al Monaco appears to be preparing for. He told investors recently not to expect shovels in the ground any time soon, “regardless of the federal government’s decision.”
“The regulatory process is one step,” said Monaco. “The focus now is on re-engaging some of the aboriginal groups and stakeholders along the right of way to better understand their views and address any remaining concerns.”
First Nations and British Columbians have made their views and concerns quite clear. If Rickford and Harper leave Enbridge to fend for itself, that’s just a slow, quiet way of killing the project. Don’t be shocked.
Kai Nagata is energy & democracy director for the Dogwood Initiative environmental group.
Opinion: Don’t be shocked if Harper kills Northern Gateway
BY KAI NAGATA, SPECIAL TO THE VANCOUVER SUN JUNE 3, 2014
Is Prime Minister Stephen Harper about to toss Enbridge under the bus? With a federal cabinet decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline project due any day, many British Columbians believe federal approval is inevitable. Yet signs now point to the Tories turning away from Enbridge’s troubled oil export proposal, in the hope it dies quietly before the next federal election.
The Enbridge saga has been a long, costly lesson for the energy industry and the Conservative party. Sacrificing Northern Gateway would certainly annoy the state-owned Chinese oil companies that have bankrolled the proposal. However, the consequences of forcing it through could be worse, for the Canadian oilpatch, and for Conservative MPs seeking re-election in B.C.
If Alberta is built on oilsands, British Columbia is more like political quicksand: not impossible to traverse if you stay calm and swim carefully but thrash around and it will suck you down.
Enbridge found that out the hard way, antagonizing First Nations along the route with a hardball style of negotiation developed on the other side of the Rockies, in treaty country.
Then Joe Oliver stepped in, doing Gateway more harm than good. The former natural resources minister’s 2012 diatribe, painting British Columbians as unpatriotic eco-radicals, only served to galvanize opposition to the project. Within Tory circles it is now generally acknowledged the government’s communications style during those months was a mistake, from which the party’s brand is still recovering in B.C.
Oliver’s replacement on the pipeline file is part of an attempt at a reset. Greg Rickford is a former nurse who once served the Kitasoo-Xai’Xais community in Klemtu, on the B.C. coast. First Nations leaders say Rickford understands the political landscape here better than any of his cabinet colleagues. He believes his former patients, and their neighbours, when they say they will stop raw bitumen from leaving Kitimat.
If Rickford was simply trying to mollify concerns, you’d think he would include the North Coast in new tanker safety measures announced in May. He promised co-ordinated oil spill plans for Saint John (terminus for the proposed Energy East pipeline) and the Salish Sea (where Kinder Morgan’s tankers already sail). But on Kitimat, Rickford was silent. It seems his department doesn’t anticipate oil tanker traffic on the North Coast any time soon.
Rickford was back in B.C. last week announcing new ways to engage First Nations in energy infrastructure decisions. This time he chose to speak in Prince Rupert, a potential hotbed of liquefied natural gas development and the proposed terminus for Lax Kw’alaams businessman Calvin Helin’s pipeline for refined crude. Again, Lax Kw’alaams Mayor Garry Reece made it clear the community will not support heavy oil exports. Rickford’s response? “I heard him loud and clear.”
To put it bluntly, Rickford and his party have plenty to lose in mishandling the Gateway file. A few swing ridings in B.C. could make or break the Conservative majority in 2015. Harper needs his western base to hang together, and that means not stoking discord and alienation between Albertans and British Columbians.
Plowing ahead with Northern Gateway would do just that, provoking a serious, multi-year political crisis. First Nations would hit the Crown with lawsuits, then blockade the route. Busloads of retirees, energy workers, and opposition politicians promise to do the same. B.C. Premier Christy Clark would have a mandate to follow through on her threats and withhold provincial construction permits. If Ottawa tried to muscle in on her jurisdiction, other provinces would erupt in protest.
The whole exercise would be disruptive, expensive for taxpayers and entirely avoidable. Not only would voters have only the Conservatives to blame, the fracas would exacerbate hostility toward other resource companies, causing further delays.
The smartest political move would be to do the unexpected and reject it. That’s what voters in Kitimat did in a municipal plebiscite in April. But even if Harper’s pride will not permit a full about-face, there are plenty of ways to achieve the same end result.
For example, the government could approve federal permits, on the condition that Enbridge return to seek approval from affected First Nations, this time with no help from the Crown, or former ministers like Jim Prentice. That’s the scenario Enbridge CEO Al Monaco appears to be preparing for. He told investors recently not to expect shovels in the ground any time soon, “regardless of the federal government’s decision.”
“The regulatory process is one step,” said Monaco. “The focus now is on re-engaging some of the aboriginal groups and stakeholders along the right of way to better understand their views and address any remaining concerns.”
First Nations and British Columbians have made their views and concerns quite clear. If Rickford and Harper leave Enbridge to fend for itself, that’s just a slow, quiet way of killing the project. Don’t be shocked.
Kai Nagata is energy & democracy director for the Dogwood Initiative environmental group.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/06/04/F...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050614
Canadian Fracking Lacks Credible Groundwater Monitoring: Expert
Without proper science on the technique, industry will lose the public's faith, contaminant scientist says.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca
Frack Fields in Northern BC
One of North America's leading experts on groundwater contamination has called the shale gas industry "a mess" and warned that no Canadian jurisdiction has set up proper monitoring to protect groundwater in areas of intense oil and gas activity.
John Cherry, a contaminant hydrologist who recently chaired an expert federal panel on the impact of fracking in Canada, also lamented the lack of science on the technology.
The 72-year-old professor emeritus at Waterloo University, who has studied industrial contamination of groundwater for decades and developed effective monitoring tools, also issued a blunt warning: if government fails to fund adequate science on the mining technique or address legitimate public fears, then the shale gas industry could follow nuclear power and lose its social license to operate.
"Both (forms of energy) are in trouble for similar reasons," Cherry said, including waste disposal liabilities, technical overconfidence and the public's loss of faith in regulatory agencies.
Cherry, who currently serves as the director of the University Consortium for Field-Focused Groundwater Contamination Research at Guelph University, also criticized both industry and government public relations campaigns on shale gas development at a high-profile Toronto conference on hydraulic fracturing last week, saying they have eroded public confidence in the industry.
Many research gaps to be filled
During a wide-ranging talk to industry investors at the Munk Centre's Program on Water Issues, the groundwater expert outlined a number of research gaps for the industry that now underpins British Columbia's multi-billion-dollar liquified natural gas plans.
The hydrologist described fracking as a process of shattering shale rock at great depths with an immense amount of energy that repeatedly punctures the earth.
Scientists have little understanding about possible connections between shallow freshwater zones and the deep zones where mining occurs, or how methane might take advantage of pathways between them, he said.
"Hydrologists understand the freshwater zone and petroleum engineers understand the deep zone, but nobody understands the intermediate zone," he said.
In other words, the scientific community knows little about how the repeated puncturing of the middle zone might allow methane to creep to surface or into groundwater.
FRACKING REPORT ALTERED: CHERRY
During his Toronto talk, John Cherry noted the conclusion of a recent federal panel report that found fracking's growth was outpacing scientific research on the industry in Canada had been significantly changed.
The final sentence read: "Whether or not shale gas development will turn out in the long term to have been a positive or negative influence on global well being will depend on how society understands this technology and how government manages it."
The Council of Canadian Academies, the federally-funded body that assembled a panel on the issue and published the report for Environment Canada, edited the final sentence. It took out the part emphasizing the critical importance of government management.
"That sentence was dear to my heart. There was no apology and no correction published on the website," said Cherry, who chaired the expert panel involved with the report.
He said the writing of the report, which calls for more rigorous science and a go-slow approach to fracking, was often a problematic exercise that will be the subject of a formal complaint that he is drafting to the CCA.
A spokesperson for the CCA said the last sentence was "tweaked" by staff in the interests of consistency. -- Andrew Nikiforuk
Cherry rated well integrity as one of the most important shale gas issues in terms of groundwater contamination and climate change.
Wellbore leakage has polluted groundwater, released methane into the atmosphere and created flammable hazards for households and buildings across western Canada.
A 2012 German study on hydraulic fracturing also identified the long-term stability of cement jobs on wellbores as a critical and unresolved issue for the oil and gas industry.
No cases of 'rigorous' monitoring found
Studies on the impacts of leaking methane from shale deposits or intermediate zones and its effects on groundwater quality are also lacking.
One study by Duke University in the U.S. found that methane contamination of domestic water wells increased dramatically one kilometre away from dense shale gas activity.
"The natural gas goes into groundwater and is eaten by bacteria, and that changes the quality of the groundwater for better or worse," said Cherry. "There isn't a single scientific paper on this topic related to shale gas development."
Cherry also rebutted claims by conservative political activist Ezra Levant that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has never found evidence of groundwater contamination from fracking (or "exactly zero," Levant said).
The EPA recorded its first fracking contamination case in West Virginia in 1987, and the U.S. Geological Survey has reported a variety of methane contamination cases beginning with the fracking of coal seams in New Mexico in the 1990s.
The Alberta Energy Regulator has also reported the contamination of a shallow aquifer by fracking fluids in Grand Prairie in 2012.
Industry, government and media "mantras" of fracking as problem-free industry stem from a near total absence of good science and proper groundwater monitoring across North America, Cherry said.
"I found no cases where rigorous groundwater monitoring has been done at any fracking pad. Exactly zero, not a single one. Anywhere, ever," Cherry said during his recent Toronto talk.
'International delinquents'
Cherry also said that dismissive comments by Rich Coleman, British Columbia's minister of Natural Gas Development, about water concerns and fracking weakened the industry's social licence.
Last year, Coleman called a Vancouver Province editorial on the water impacts of shale gas fracking by geologist David Hughes and journalist Ben Parfitt as "unfounded and inaccurate."
Cherry called such comments by a politician irresponsible. "As an expert, I know that British Columbia has invested very little money in the type of research and monitoring that it would need to make statements about shale gas being safe."
An effective groundwater monitoring system, as first set out by Vancouver engineer Frank Patton in 1998, places measuring devices into specifically-designed wells that sample and track the movement of water contaminants over time and at various depths from a variety of locations. Not even the oilsands has set up such a basic system, said Cherry.
Given that industry spends millions of dollars on the fracking of unconventional deposits and often billions in certain regions, it is imperative that government funds basic research to protect groundwater and the atmosphere, he said.
Asked why government was reluctant to monitor a public resource as valuable as groundwater, the hydrologist replied that it costs money to monitor past societal mistakes. "Groundwater pollution develops slowly over years and decades. If there is anything that government can shrug off to the future, it's groundwater."
Canadian Fracking Lacks Credible Groundwater Monitoring: Expert
Without proper science on the technique, industry will lose the public's faith, contaminant scientist says.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca
Frack Fields in Northern BC
One of North America's leading experts on groundwater contamination has called the shale gas industry "a mess" and warned that no Canadian jurisdiction has set up proper monitoring to protect groundwater in areas of intense oil and gas activity.
John Cherry, a contaminant hydrologist who recently chaired an expert federal panel on the impact of fracking in Canada, also lamented the lack of science on the technology.
The 72-year-old professor emeritus at Waterloo University, who has studied industrial contamination of groundwater for decades and developed effective monitoring tools, also issued a blunt warning: if government fails to fund adequate science on the mining technique or address legitimate public fears, then the shale gas industry could follow nuclear power and lose its social license to operate.
"Both (forms of energy) are in trouble for similar reasons," Cherry said, including waste disposal liabilities, technical overconfidence and the public's loss of faith in regulatory agencies.
Cherry, who currently serves as the director of the University Consortium for Field-Focused Groundwater Contamination Research at Guelph University, also criticized both industry and government public relations campaigns on shale gas development at a high-profile Toronto conference on hydraulic fracturing last week, saying they have eroded public confidence in the industry.
Many research gaps to be filled
During a wide-ranging talk to industry investors at the Munk Centre's Program on Water Issues, the groundwater expert outlined a number of research gaps for the industry that now underpins British Columbia's multi-billion-dollar liquified natural gas plans.
The hydrologist described fracking as a process of shattering shale rock at great depths with an immense amount of energy that repeatedly punctures the earth.
Scientists have little understanding about possible connections between shallow freshwater zones and the deep zones where mining occurs, or how methane might take advantage of pathways between them, he said.
"Hydrologists understand the freshwater zone and petroleum engineers understand the deep zone, but nobody understands the intermediate zone," he said.
In other words, the scientific community knows little about how the repeated puncturing of the middle zone might allow methane to creep to surface or into groundwater.
FRACKING REPORT ALTERED: CHERRY
During his Toronto talk, John Cherry noted the conclusion of a recent federal panel report that found fracking's growth was outpacing scientific research on the industry in Canada had been significantly changed.
The final sentence read: "Whether or not shale gas development will turn out in the long term to have been a positive or negative influence on global well being will depend on how society understands this technology and how government manages it."
The Council of Canadian Academies, the federally-funded body that assembled a panel on the issue and published the report for Environment Canada, edited the final sentence. It took out the part emphasizing the critical importance of government management.
"That sentence was dear to my heart. There was no apology and no correction published on the website," said Cherry, who chaired the expert panel involved with the report.
He said the writing of the report, which calls for more rigorous science and a go-slow approach to fracking, was often a problematic exercise that will be the subject of a formal complaint that he is drafting to the CCA.
A spokesperson for the CCA said the last sentence was "tweaked" by staff in the interests of consistency. -- Andrew Nikiforuk
Cherry rated well integrity as one of the most important shale gas issues in terms of groundwater contamination and climate change.
Wellbore leakage has polluted groundwater, released methane into the atmosphere and created flammable hazards for households and buildings across western Canada.
A 2012 German study on hydraulic fracturing also identified the long-term stability of cement jobs on wellbores as a critical and unresolved issue for the oil and gas industry.
No cases of 'rigorous' monitoring found
Studies on the impacts of leaking methane from shale deposits or intermediate zones and its effects on groundwater quality are also lacking.
One study by Duke University in the U.S. found that methane contamination of domestic water wells increased dramatically one kilometre away from dense shale gas activity.
"The natural gas goes into groundwater and is eaten by bacteria, and that changes the quality of the groundwater for better or worse," said Cherry. "There isn't a single scientific paper on this topic related to shale gas development."
Cherry also rebutted claims by conservative political activist Ezra Levant that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has never found evidence of groundwater contamination from fracking (or "exactly zero," Levant said).
The EPA recorded its first fracking contamination case in West Virginia in 1987, and the U.S. Geological Survey has reported a variety of methane contamination cases beginning with the fracking of coal seams in New Mexico in the 1990s.
The Alberta Energy Regulator has also reported the contamination of a shallow aquifer by fracking fluids in Grand Prairie in 2012.
Industry, government and media "mantras" of fracking as problem-free industry stem from a near total absence of good science and proper groundwater monitoring across North America, Cherry said.
"I found no cases where rigorous groundwater monitoring has been done at any fracking pad. Exactly zero, not a single one. Anywhere, ever," Cherry said during his recent Toronto talk.
'International delinquents'
Cherry also said that dismissive comments by Rich Coleman, British Columbia's minister of Natural Gas Development, about water concerns and fracking weakened the industry's social licence.
Last year, Coleman called a Vancouver Province editorial on the water impacts of shale gas fracking by geologist David Hughes and journalist Ben Parfitt as "unfounded and inaccurate."
Cherry called such comments by a politician irresponsible. "As an expert, I know that British Columbia has invested very little money in the type of research and monitoring that it would need to make statements about shale gas being safe."
An effective groundwater monitoring system, as first set out by Vancouver engineer Frank Patton in 1998, places measuring devices into specifically-designed wells that sample and track the movement of water contaminants over time and at various depths from a variety of locations. Not even the oilsands has set up such a basic system, said Cherry.
Given that industry spends millions of dollars on the fracking of unconventional deposits and often billions in certain regions, it is imperative that government funds basic research to protect groundwater and the atmosphere, he said.
Asked why government was reluctant to monitor a public resource as valuable as groundwater, the hydrologist replied that it costs money to monitor past societal mistakes. "Groundwater pollution develops slowly over years and decades. If there is anything that government can shrug off to the future, it's groundwater."
http://nicholas.duke.edu/cgc/pnas2011.pdf
Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Stephen G. Osborna, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1
a Center on Global Change, Nicholas School of the Environment,
b Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, and
c Biology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review January 13, 2011)
Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Stephen G. Osborna, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1
a Center on Global Change, Nicholas School of the Environment,
b Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, and
c Biology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review January 13, 2011)
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/201...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=060614
Activists say police drew guns during 'No Pipelines' graffiti raid
By DAVID P. BALL
Published June 5, 2014 12:00 pm | 17 Comments
Share article via email Print this article
Police confirmed they raided the East Vancouver home of four activists this week, but would not comment on residents' allegations that two of 16 officers pointed handguns at residents during a search related to "No Pipelines" graffiti.
The Vancouver Police Department said it executed a search warrant at the Parker Street house on Tuesday morning, taking four residents into custody. It did not confirm how many officers were involved.
According to a warrant left behind on the kitchen table, officers were searching for "graffiti vandalism paraphernalia" -- likely a reference to spray-painted slogans against bitumen and natural gas pipelines that have defaced walls and post boxes in the neighbourhood in recent years.
The raid came as the federal government is poised to announce its final decision on the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline. First Nations and environmental groups have vowed to block the project from reaching the B.C. coast. But the use of graffiti has divided anti-pipeline activists, many of whom draw the line at civil disobedience, others at lawful protest tactics.
"Safety is our priority and that includes the safety of officers who are involved in this aspect of police work," VPD spokesman Const. Brian Montague said in an email, when asked about the firearm allegations. "Officers are not required to unnecessarily risk their personal safety.
"Every search is different, every search has varying levels of risk and in every search we have various tools for entry and protection available to us. In potentially dangerous situations, such as entering premises where there are always many unknown factors, drawing of a sidearm and having it 'ready' is one of those options."
One of the residents detained but not charged Tuesday was Gord Hill, an outspoken Kwakwaka'wakw nation artist and activist.
"We heard yelling outside our house, we looked out window and we could see cops on the sidewalk," Hill said, using a friend's phone as his was confiscated.
"Me and my girlfriend came downstairs, as we entered our living room, there was a man in plainclothes with a pistol pointing towards us. It was a nine-millimetre pistol sidearm. He said, 'Get down on the ground'... They pointed it right at us, at our centre mass."
He said that the suspect named on the warrant left on the table faced six counts of mischief under $5,000, but was released mid-afternoon after being interrogated about the spray-painted "No Pipelines" slogans by members of the VPD's graffiti task force.
"No Pipelines" graffiti has vandalized landmarks in East Vancouver since at least 2009, drawing criticism from moderate activists concerned it may tarnish the image of pipeline opponents or spark a crackdown by authorities.
Among the critics is Ben West, tar sands campaigner with ForestEthics Advocacy, which supports civil disobedience and other forms of protest but not vandalism. He admitted he is "not the biggest fan" of the spray painted slogans, but sees them as a sign of angst and frustration over perceptions the government isn't listening.
"In many political and social movements over the years, there's been graffiti of all kinds. There is a legitimate space for street art, but it's a shame if people are doing more harm than good," he said.
"When people cover beautiful murals and people's vehicles with 'No Pipelines,' I'm not sure it gets more people on board. But that said, to see this kind of heavy-handed response to at most an act of vandalism seems pretty extreme."
Hill said that his blog Warrior Publications and the political organizing of the home's inhabitants would have made them "known to police, they know what elements are in our household."
"Considering they used graffiti charges to do an armed entry into our house, when there was no evidence of violence associated with the investigation... it's definitely politically motivated," he said.
Hill said that the raid did not surprise him, considering the federal government's launch of an Integrated National Security Enforcement Team to protect oilsands infrastructure in 2012, made up of RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and local police forces.
The VPD's Montague referred to Hill's account of the events as "colourful" and added that in the case of most home search warrants, "an attempt is first made to request all of the occupants exit the home and surrender themselves to officers outside before entering.
"Unfortunately this search is part of an ongoing investigation and we would be unable to provide further details at this time," he said.
David P. Ball is a staff reporter at The Tyee. Follow him on Twitter @davidpball.
- See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/201...mail&utm_campaign=060614#sthash.RTOVyhFc.dpuf
Activists say police drew guns during 'No Pipelines' graffiti raid
By DAVID P. BALL
Published June 5, 2014 12:00 pm | 17 Comments
Share article via email Print this article
Police confirmed they raided the East Vancouver home of four activists this week, but would not comment on residents' allegations that two of 16 officers pointed handguns at residents during a search related to "No Pipelines" graffiti.
The Vancouver Police Department said it executed a search warrant at the Parker Street house on Tuesday morning, taking four residents into custody. It did not confirm how many officers were involved.
According to a warrant left behind on the kitchen table, officers were searching for "graffiti vandalism paraphernalia" -- likely a reference to spray-painted slogans against bitumen and natural gas pipelines that have defaced walls and post boxes in the neighbourhood in recent years.
The raid came as the federal government is poised to announce its final decision on the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline. First Nations and environmental groups have vowed to block the project from reaching the B.C. coast. But the use of graffiti has divided anti-pipeline activists, many of whom draw the line at civil disobedience, others at lawful protest tactics.
"Safety is our priority and that includes the safety of officers who are involved in this aspect of police work," VPD spokesman Const. Brian Montague said in an email, when asked about the firearm allegations. "Officers are not required to unnecessarily risk their personal safety.
"Every search is different, every search has varying levels of risk and in every search we have various tools for entry and protection available to us. In potentially dangerous situations, such as entering premises where there are always many unknown factors, drawing of a sidearm and having it 'ready' is one of those options."
One of the residents detained but not charged Tuesday was Gord Hill, an outspoken Kwakwaka'wakw nation artist and activist.
"We heard yelling outside our house, we looked out window and we could see cops on the sidewalk," Hill said, using a friend's phone as his was confiscated.
"Me and my girlfriend came downstairs, as we entered our living room, there was a man in plainclothes with a pistol pointing towards us. It was a nine-millimetre pistol sidearm. He said, 'Get down on the ground'... They pointed it right at us, at our centre mass."
He said that the suspect named on the warrant left on the table faced six counts of mischief under $5,000, but was released mid-afternoon after being interrogated about the spray-painted "No Pipelines" slogans by members of the VPD's graffiti task force.
"No Pipelines" graffiti has vandalized landmarks in East Vancouver since at least 2009, drawing criticism from moderate activists concerned it may tarnish the image of pipeline opponents or spark a crackdown by authorities.
Among the critics is Ben West, tar sands campaigner with ForestEthics Advocacy, which supports civil disobedience and other forms of protest but not vandalism. He admitted he is "not the biggest fan" of the spray painted slogans, but sees them as a sign of angst and frustration over perceptions the government isn't listening.
"In many political and social movements over the years, there's been graffiti of all kinds. There is a legitimate space for street art, but it's a shame if people are doing more harm than good," he said.
"When people cover beautiful murals and people's vehicles with 'No Pipelines,' I'm not sure it gets more people on board. But that said, to see this kind of heavy-handed response to at most an act of vandalism seems pretty extreme."
Hill said that his blog Warrior Publications and the political organizing of the home's inhabitants would have made them "known to police, they know what elements are in our household."
"Considering they used graffiti charges to do an armed entry into our house, when there was no evidence of violence associated with the investigation... it's definitely politically motivated," he said.
Hill said that the raid did not surprise him, considering the federal government's launch of an Integrated National Security Enforcement Team to protect oilsands infrastructure in 2012, made up of RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and local police forces.
The VPD's Montague referred to Hill's account of the events as "colourful" and added that in the case of most home search warrants, "an attempt is first made to request all of the occupants exit the home and surrender themselves to officers outside before entering.
"Unfortunately this search is part of an ongoing investigation and we would be unable to provide further details at this time," he said.
David P. Ball is a staff reporter at The Tyee. Follow him on Twitter @davidpball.
- See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/201...mail&utm_campaign=060614#sthash.RTOVyhFc.dpuf
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ere-does-dirty-wastewater-go/article19176208/
Where does all the wastewater from this B.C. disposal well go?
MARK HUME
VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jun. 15 2014, 9:07 PM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Jun. 15 2014, 9:12 PM EDT
Disposal well #2240 is located in northeast B.C., near the small, booming resource town of Fort Nelson.
While it might look like any other old gas well on the surface, the lake of polluted wastewater that has formed underneath makes it worthy of note, and raises some troubling questions about whether provincial regulations are adequately protecting the environment.
MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
Go slow on fracking, scientists warn http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/go-slow-on-fracking-scientists-warn/article18355999/
Amid concerns, new technology aims to make fracking water-friendly http://www.theglobeandmail.com/part...make-fracking-water-friendly/article18482205/
Ohio links fracking with earthquakes, announces tougher rules http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...akes-announces-tougher-rules/article17939174/
In this Feb. 21, 2012, file photo, oil field workers drill into the Gypsum Hills near Medicine Lodge, Kan., using horizontal drilling and a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking, " to coax out oil and gas. Illinois legislation is advancing that would regulate decades-old but debated technology used to reach previously inaccessible natural gas reserves deep underground. The Illinois state Senate on Thursday, April 26, 2012, unanimously sent to the House a bill addressing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. That technology involves using mixtures of water, sand and chemicals to free below-ground energy reserves.
MULTIMEDIA
Explainer: Four big questions about fracking http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ok-at-fracking/article18356629/?from=19176208
VIDEO
Video: Are fracking concerns legitimate? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/are-fracking-concerns-legitimate/article15846352/
VIDEO
Video: Anti-fracking protesters erect longhouse in front of N.B. legislature http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-protesters-erect-longhouse/article15107381/
To fracture shale and release reserves of gas trapped in deep rock deposits, the gas industry can pump up to five million gallons of water underground into a fracking well, states a report to be released Monday by the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria.
The study states that a lot of the fracking fluid, which contains a mixture of chemicals and sand, remains underground after it has been injected. But as much as 50 per cent returns to the surface as “flowback.”
That returning water is more polluted than when it went down.
This is because it comes back laced with trace metals and hydrocarbons
It also has naturally occurring radioactive material picked up from the bedrock. It is often also highly saline because it is mixed with water that has long been trapped underground. That wastewater has to be disposed of – and disposal wells are the method used in B.C.
The report, written by law student Savannah Carr-Wilson and supervised by Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the UVic Environmental Law Centre, looks at regulations governing the disposal of that wastewater.
And it presents some troubling data – not the least of which concerns the amount of wastewater pumped into the ground at disposal well #2240.
“Approximately 16,693 OSP (Olympic swimming pools) – 41 billion litres – of water have been injected into this one well over the past 46 years,” states the report. “Because wastewater is not tracked after disposal, the fate of this massive quantity of wastewater is unknown. Yet the amount disposed of in this single well is equal in volume to 24 towers the size of the 9/11 World Trade Center Towers.”
That’s a lot of dirty water. And nobody knows where it went, except that it disappeared down the borehole.
Well #2240 was both the oldest disposal well looked at in the study. It also contained, by far, the greatest amount of wastewater. So you’d think the government would be keenly interested in studying the groundwater nearby to see if anything is leaking out.
Nope. That’s not done in B.C.
Not only that, but before starting to dispose of wastewater, industry isn’t required to test adjacent groundwater to establish baselines. Such data, of course, are vital if you want to track environmental change.
“Notably, there are no requirements for operators to conduct baseline testing of water systems surrounding the well, or conduct ongoing monitoring of these water systems. There are also no requirements to monitor or disclose the quality or characteristics of the fluid being disposed of in the well,” states the report.
There are currently 110 disposal wells in B.C. But we don’t know what impact they are having on the environment. And that’s troubling because there could soon be many more disposal wells being pumped full of wastewater, given the gas boom taking place in the province.
Here’s more disturbing news: Most wastewater is injected into old natural gas wells, some of which may be starting to crumble.
“Age is a factor in well integrity because the tube of cement casing surrounding disposal wells can degrade over time, creating a potential risk of leaks into surrounding layers of rock or aquifers,” the report states.
Operators are supposed to do tests every year to ensure that concrete seals on the wells are in good shape, but when the UVic researchers asked the Oil and Gas Commission if industry was in compliance, the data weren’t available.
The study recommends, among other things, that B.C. look to guidelines in the U.S. and European Union to make sure our wells are environmentally safe, to make baseline testing mandatory and to monitor wells throughout their lifetime.
If those regulatory changes aren’t made, it may only be a matter of time before those reservoirs of dirty water that have been created underground start to leak out. Indeed, that might already be happening. We just don’t know.
Follow Mark Hume on Twitter: @markhumeglobe
Where does all the wastewater from this B.C. disposal well go?
MARK HUME
VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jun. 15 2014, 9:07 PM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Jun. 15 2014, 9:12 PM EDT
Disposal well #2240 is located in northeast B.C., near the small, booming resource town of Fort Nelson.
While it might look like any other old gas well on the surface, the lake of polluted wastewater that has formed underneath makes it worthy of note, and raises some troubling questions about whether provincial regulations are adequately protecting the environment.
MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
Go slow on fracking, scientists warn http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/go-slow-on-fracking-scientists-warn/article18355999/
Amid concerns, new technology aims to make fracking water-friendly http://www.theglobeandmail.com/part...make-fracking-water-friendly/article18482205/
Ohio links fracking with earthquakes, announces tougher rules http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...akes-announces-tougher-rules/article17939174/
In this Feb. 21, 2012, file photo, oil field workers drill into the Gypsum Hills near Medicine Lodge, Kan., using horizontal drilling and a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking, " to coax out oil and gas. Illinois legislation is advancing that would regulate decades-old but debated technology used to reach previously inaccessible natural gas reserves deep underground. The Illinois state Senate on Thursday, April 26, 2012, unanimously sent to the House a bill addressing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. That technology involves using mixtures of water, sand and chemicals to free below-ground energy reserves.
MULTIMEDIA
Explainer: Four big questions about fracking http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ok-at-fracking/article18356629/?from=19176208
VIDEO
Video: Are fracking concerns legitimate? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/are-fracking-concerns-legitimate/article15846352/
VIDEO
Video: Anti-fracking protesters erect longhouse in front of N.B. legislature http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-protesters-erect-longhouse/article15107381/
To fracture shale and release reserves of gas trapped in deep rock deposits, the gas industry can pump up to five million gallons of water underground into a fracking well, states a report to be released Monday by the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria.
The study states that a lot of the fracking fluid, which contains a mixture of chemicals and sand, remains underground after it has been injected. But as much as 50 per cent returns to the surface as “flowback.”
That returning water is more polluted than when it went down.
This is because it comes back laced with trace metals and hydrocarbons
It also has naturally occurring radioactive material picked up from the bedrock. It is often also highly saline because it is mixed with water that has long been trapped underground. That wastewater has to be disposed of – and disposal wells are the method used in B.C.
The report, written by law student Savannah Carr-Wilson and supervised by Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the UVic Environmental Law Centre, looks at regulations governing the disposal of that wastewater.
And it presents some troubling data – not the least of which concerns the amount of wastewater pumped into the ground at disposal well #2240.
“Approximately 16,693 OSP (Olympic swimming pools) – 41 billion litres – of water have been injected into this one well over the past 46 years,” states the report. “Because wastewater is not tracked after disposal, the fate of this massive quantity of wastewater is unknown. Yet the amount disposed of in this single well is equal in volume to 24 towers the size of the 9/11 World Trade Center Towers.”
That’s a lot of dirty water. And nobody knows where it went, except that it disappeared down the borehole.
Well #2240 was both the oldest disposal well looked at in the study. It also contained, by far, the greatest amount of wastewater. So you’d think the government would be keenly interested in studying the groundwater nearby to see if anything is leaking out.
Nope. That’s not done in B.C.
Not only that, but before starting to dispose of wastewater, industry isn’t required to test adjacent groundwater to establish baselines. Such data, of course, are vital if you want to track environmental change.
“Notably, there are no requirements for operators to conduct baseline testing of water systems surrounding the well, or conduct ongoing monitoring of these water systems. There are also no requirements to monitor or disclose the quality or characteristics of the fluid being disposed of in the well,” states the report.
There are currently 110 disposal wells in B.C. But we don’t know what impact they are having on the environment. And that’s troubling because there could soon be many more disposal wells being pumped full of wastewater, given the gas boom taking place in the province.
Here’s more disturbing news: Most wastewater is injected into old natural gas wells, some of which may be starting to crumble.
“Age is a factor in well integrity because the tube of cement casing surrounding disposal wells can degrade over time, creating a potential risk of leaks into surrounding layers of rock or aquifers,” the report states.
Operators are supposed to do tests every year to ensure that concrete seals on the wells are in good shape, but when the UVic researchers asked the Oil and Gas Commission if industry was in compliance, the data weren’t available.
The study recommends, among other things, that B.C. look to guidelines in the U.S. and European Union to make sure our wells are environmentally safe, to make baseline testing mandatory and to monitor wells throughout their lifetime.
If those regulatory changes aren’t made, it may only be a matter of time before those reservoirs of dirty water that have been created underground start to leak out. Indeed, that might already be happening. We just don’t know.
Follow Mark Hume on Twitter: @markhumeglobe
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
