The following report and links were sent to TREPA by Geoffrey May, Box 47, Margaree Harbour, B0E 2B0. It is quite comprehensive and the many links provide additional information to back up his statements. Minor changes for clarification purposes have been made. Also note that all links may not still be connected as organizations that put them up may also take them down after a period of time.
The Council of Scientific Society Presidents, which represents 1.4 million scientists from more than 150 scientific disciplines, reported to the Obama administration in May 2010, “some energy bridges that are currently encouraged in the transition from GHG-emitting fossil energy systems have received inadequate scientific analysis before implementation, and these may have greater GHG emissions and environmental costs than often appreciated.” The development of unconventional gas from shale deposits, the Council warns, is an “example where policy has preceded adequate scientific study.”
This warning, delivered over a year ago to the US President, should have attracted some attention in Nova Scotia as it demolishes the baseless assumptions contained in the Provincial Energy Plan, that natural gas is a “transitional” fuel to a low carbon future. This assumption was never based on science, but rather, only a PR pitch from the fossil fuel industry. It is truly appalling that the absurd ideas forwarded by T. Boone Pickens and a morally bankrupt fossil fuel industry would have been accepted as gospel with the government departments charged with preventing the exact sorts of damage that is part and parcel of unconventional natural gas development.
The entire shale gas industry has been based on simplistic, obviously flawed assumptions, which North American regulators should have recognized. Sadly it is not the only false assumption of this industry; it is, however, the key to the industries’ success in turning governments into co-conspirators against the interests of their citizens and our environment. What was clear to science in May of 2010 received empirical support with the publication of the Robert Howarth Study published in the peer review journal Climatic Change Letters.
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al%20%202011.pdf
The Howarth study comes shortly after the US EPA doubled its estimates for escaping methane from hydraulic fracturing operations and shows that, cradle to grave, unconventional sources of natural gas have 20 percent greater impact on climate than burning coal. The lie that it is a bridge fuel is now clear as day; unconventional gas is a bridge to nowhere.
Another peer reviewed science journal, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published a study by Stephen Osborn et al atDuke University.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8067
Beyond showing a direct correlation between hydraulic fracturing and methane contamination of nearby (within 1 km) water wells, the fact that it occurs so routinely, shows that industry assumptions that leaks only happen from poor well construction are cast into disrepute. The study showed that the wells tested were contaminated with methane, and that the methane was NOT organic in nature, as industry shills bleat. The Duke study supports the experience of the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources, which found 19 out of 31 gas wells were leaking.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/01/05/shale-quebec-bape.html
One of the study’s authors was quoted in propublica, “We certainly didn’t expect to see such a strong relationship between the concentration of methane in water and the nearest gas wells. That was a real surprise,” said Robert Jackson, a biology professor at Duke and one of the report’s authors.
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking/single#republish
In the spring of 2011, we now have what was missing when the province issued gas and oil leases — peer reviewed science demonstrating that when it comes down to it, the gas industry has been oblivious to the damage they do, largely because they did bother to question their own rosy assumptions, and neither did the staff at the Nova Scotia Department of Energy, or the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment, whos approach to gas development has been typified by intentional ignorance. This “See No Evil ” approach resulted in completely false statements and patronizing tone of the “Fact Sheet” accompanying the announcement of the review. The alleged “fact sheet” is nothing of the kind; it is a political document with nothing but misleading assumptions stating “We will continue to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions, like British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they have successfully managed the regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Close to half a million wells have been hydraulically fractured in these three provinces without any incidents noted”. That statement is truly appalling, as any attempt to fact check with Google would have shown numerous reports of fracking disasters, dating back to December 2005 when the Edmonton Journal reported on damage to water supplies around Rosebud, Alberta. The disinterest in the consequences of fracking are well demonstrated since the CBC aired the documentary Burning Water, chronicling the destruction of Fiona and Peter Lauridson’s ranching dreams from hydraulic fracturing
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/burningwater/in October 2010
Jessica Ernst of Rosebud Alberta who has Hexavalentchromium (Chromium-6 ) in her water, has launched a $30 million dollar law suit against EnCana, the regulator, and the Alberta government. We can see the pattern of promoter/regulator, industry/ government at work in Nova Scotia as well, where citizen concerns are ignored, and the Nova Scotia Department of Energy bends over backwards to assist the gas industry in keeping their leases, and acts as a propaganda arm of the oil and gas industry against the interests of Nova Scotian’s. Regarding Chromium –6, this is the same chemical that was the subject of the law suit which was popularized in the movie “Erin Brockovich”. Ms. Brockovich is currently assisting 40 landowners in Midland Texas dealing with a Chromium-6 plume contaminating their water from a fracking operation there.
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/
British Columbia has also had reported incidents. Eighteen cases of fracking communication incidents were reported to the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission. A communication incident is where fracking materials injected in one gas well “pop up” in other gas wells. What is especially significant about the incidents, is that the frackers did not anticipate, or even think it possible, for the successful communication to occur, or else they would not have done it! The decade of fracking has shown time after time, that industries assumptions, down the line, are all wrong.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/10/15/FrackingDisaster/
One of the horrors of hydraulic fracturing which government review has not included, is the air quality issues. This is link to a video of a compressor station, shot in infrared, showing escaping gases. From a Huffington Press report on air quality issues from fracking in Wyoming — “Preliminary data show ozone levels last Wednesday got as high as 124 parts per billion. That’s two-thirds higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum healthy limit of 75 parts per billion and above the worst day in Los Angeles all last year, 114 parts per billion, according to EPA records. Ozone levels in the basin reached 116 on March 1 and 104 on Saturday”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/wyoming-ait-pollution-gas-drilling_n_833027.html
The Howarth study, also demonstrates that the smog generated from gas development can drift 200 miles. “Natural Gas Operations From a Public Health Perspective” will be published this fall in the International Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment by Theo Colburn et al, examines the effects on air quality from not only fracking but other drilling activities. http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/files/Oct2011HERA10-48forweb3-3-11.pdf . The study also provides a list of chemicals used and produced in drilling and fracking.
If our government is serious about reviewing the impacts of fracking, it should interview Dr. Anthony Ingraffea; he holds a PhD in Rock Fracture Mechanics. Dr. Ingraffea points out that fracking is really re-fracturing existing fractures and that when the pressurized friction reducers reach a joint system, the joints open in unpredictable ways. Dr. Ingraffea also points out that despite industry’s claim that fracking is a sixty year old practice, that its use in recovering unconventional gas is dependent on a series of technologies only developed in the past decade. Dr. Ingraffea also points out that there is no stable state of fracking technology, in other words, the industry is constantly tweaking their methods and materials in response to the situations they encounter. This is the reason that there are so many different formulations of fracking fluids. “Slickwater” fracking was first used in 1996, and since then formulations have been worked and reworked, with no regard for anything but production of gas. Workers performing maintenance on abandoned wells will have no idea what products were used in the frack.
Reading from page 12 of the Colburn study “For many years, drillers have insisted that they do not use toxic chemicals to drill for gas, only guar gum, mud, and sand. While much attention is being given to chemicals used during fracking, our findings indicate that drilling chemicals can be equally, if not more dangerous. What we have learned about the chemicals used in the Crosby well blowout provides insight into why citizens living nearby suffered severe respiratory distress, nausea, and vomiting and had to be evacuated from their homes for several days. It might also shed light on why other individuals living near gas operations have experienced similar symptoms during the gas drilling phase (prior tofracking). From the first day the drill bit is inserted into the ground until the well is completed, toxic materials are introduced into the borehole and returned to the surface along with produced water and other extraction liquids.” So the threat to public health exists even in the absence of “fracking”.
Those “other extracted fluids “ include an array of very toxic naturally occurring materials, which are unnaturally released into the environment by the fracking process. Chris Gobbel of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources —”The fluid chemistry and toxicity is really driven by the naturally occurring chemicals that are coming up at toxic levels in the return flow, it brings up dissolved hydrocarbons, Benzene Thylene Ethylbenzene and Xylene isomers being then four typically focussed on. It brings up heavy metals, it can bring up radionucleutides including Radium 226 and other naturally occurring materials that are at toxic levels at the surface, and of course you have the additives.” Grobbels also mentions the air quality issues, “That means greenhouse gases,acid rain causing gases, asthma causing particulates are all associated with fracking”.
http://www.waterlink-international.com/news/id1297 Fracking_Water_Quality_Concerns.html
Newsweek Magazine, August 20, 2008, carried a report on the effect of fracking fluids on emergency room nurse Cathy Behr. Behr was treating an injured gas worker, whos clothing had been splashed with fracking fluids while other hospital staff initiated quarantine protocol. Two days later, Behr was admitted to Mercy Regional Medical Center ICU, with erratic blood counts, swollen liver and lungs filling with fluid. Her doctors described her condition was ”entirely consistent with exposure to all the information we were able to gather” (MDS Sheet for Zetaflow).
http://www.newsweek.com/tag/cathy-behr.html
Another incident that attracted attention was in Avella Pennsylvania. Reported in Vanity Fair’s Colossal Fracking Mess, a report of a wastewater impoundment that caught fire, and exploded, sending a 200 foot conflagration into the sky which burned for six hours. An EPA accredited laboratory found arsenic at 6,430 times acceptable levels, and Tetrachlorothene at 1,417 permissible levels .
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006
I would also recommend reading Ben Parfitt’s report for the Munk School, Fracture Lines. As you will see, Mr. Parfitt makes numerous recommendations for actions aimed at monitoring the environmental consequences of fracking. Monitoring is not protecting, and what is increasingly clear, there is no protection from fracking’s negative consequences.
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00942/Fractured_Lines_942842a.pdf
I am greatly concerned by the behaviour of the company that the Nova Scotia Department of Energy has granted the Ainslie Bloc Lease. I have attended two presentations by company president Neal Mednick, and drilling supervisor Ed Ferco, regarding their plans for drilling on Lake Ainslie’s western shore. Not only were they unaware of the legacy of fracking across North America, they were incredulous at the idea that gas and oil drilling could cause any problems at all. Mednick equated the risk of damaging Lake Ainslie as equal to the risk of a plane crashing in the Lake, a “one in a billion” chance. And, on both occasions, both gentlemen made numerous statements that were known to be untrue, demonstrating a dangerous combination of dishonesty and disinterest.
The government attitude isn’t reassuring. The lease’s name is that of Nova Scotia’s largest freshwater lake, part of Nova Scotia’s longest river system, recognized for its special environmental and cultural values as a Canadian Heritage River. Lake Ainslie supports an important local freshwater commercial fishery, and provincially important sport fishery, and feeds into the Margaree River with it’s international significant Salmon sports fishery. The area’s economy is based on forestry, fishing, agriculture and tourism, all of which are incompatible with shale gas industry. Thousands of livelihoods are placed at risk from imposing heavy industry on this bucolic landscape.
Beyond the issuance of the lease, Department of Energy staff have acted as spokesmen for this industry, in the press and at public meetings, demonstrating a great lack of intellectual curiosity about the industry they ostensibly regulate. Requests for information are refused, with a referral to Petroworth. Even the announcement of this review gave the department further opportunity to propagandize with their unfact sheet, and absurdly claimed that there were no plans to frack, years after they issued the gas leases!
It is my great hope, that some honest, intelligent person may follow the links I have included. My great hope that someone somewhere in the system will act responsibly. Who ever you are, thank you for doing the right thing.
