Public engagement in Ontario's energy policy 2009 2016
Major Project copy
1. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
1
1
Hydraulic
Fracturing
in
Nova
Scotia
Current
Issues
in
Sustainability
Cindy
Quigley
ENVS
3991:
SUSTAINABILITY
Student Number: T00043681
Thompson Rivers University
2014-09-02
2. 2
Table of Contents
Introduction
.................................................................................................................
3
Stakeholders
and
Their
Concerns
.................................................................................
5
Industry
..........................................................................................................................................................................
5
Government
.................................................................................................................................................................
6
Public
...............................................................................................................................................................................
6
Systems
Diagram
.........................................................................................................
9
Impacts:
(Appendix
D)
................................................................................................
10
Environmental Impacts
......................................................................................................................................
10
Social Impacts
.........................................................................................................................................................
13
Political Impacts
.....................................................................................................................................................
14
Economic Impacts
................................................................................................................................................
15
Decision
Makers
........................................................................................................
16
Solutions
....................................................................................................................
19
Allow Hydraulic Fracturing
...............................................................................................................................
19
Ban Hydraulic Fracturing
..................................................................................................................................
19
Continue with the moratorium until more information is gathered
............................................
20
Resolutions
................................................................................................................
21
Trade-‐offs
..................................................................................................................
23
Lessons
Learned
.........................................................................................................
25
Outcomes
..................................................................................................................
27
Conclusion
.................................................................................................................
28
References
.................................................................................................................
30
Appendices:
...............................................................................................................
32
Appendix
A:
Background
......................................................................................................................................
32
Appendix
B:
List
of
Stakeholders
......................................................................................................................
33
Appendix
C:
NOFRAC’s
position
on
Hydraulic
Fracturing
in
Nova
Scotia
.....................................
36
Appendix
D:
List
of
Potential
Impacts
............................................................................................................
37
Appendix E: Technical Advisory Group
...................................................................................................
39
Appendix F: The Expert Panel
......................................................................................................................
40
3. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
3
3
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) is currently being considered as a method to explore
and extract unconventional gas reserves, also know as shale gas, in Nova
Scotia. Amounts are unknown, however, there is the potential for a significant
find given the geology of Nova Scotia as well as significant finds in adjacent
areas, such as Pennsylvania and New Brunswick. (Appendix A).
Currently in Nova Scotia, there is a moratorium on HF in oil and gas operations
until a joint review by the departments of Energy and Environment is completed,
which will examine the potential impacts. This moratorium is the result of Nova
Scotia’s experience with HF in 2007 and 2008 and the negative consequences
from the drilling of five exploration wells by Triangle Petroleum in the counties of
East Hants and West Hants. (NOFRAC, 2013). Although Triangle Petroleum
received permits to drill from Nova Scotia Environment, many things went wrong
that could have been prevented by using more exhaustive preliminary and
baseline studies, more vigorous monitoring and compliance programs, and
embracing adaptive management during the process.
After this experience, the public and stakeholders demanded answers to these
problems. The government listened and issued a moratorium until those answers
could be investigated and adequately addressed. The Nova Scotia Department of
Energy commissioned the Verschuren Centre for Sustainability in Energy and the
Environment at Cape Breton University to conduct an independent review and
4. 4
public engagement process to explore the social, economic, environmental, and
health implications of hydraulic fracturing practices and their associated
wastewater streams. Dr. David Wheeler, President and Vice-Chancellor, Cape
Breton University, will convene and Chair a Nova Scotia Expert Panel on
Hydraulic Fracturing to oversee the process. (CBU, 2012).
The review process was completed in August 2014 and the Expert Panel
submitted their conclusions and recommendations to the government for
consideration. There are only three possible outcomes; continue the moratorium
until further review, allow it, or ban it.
Hydraulic fracturing in Nova Scotia is a sustainability issue because it has the
potential to provide short-term positive socio-economic benefits but also has the
potential for long-term negative environmental impacts. Nova Scotia considers
shale gas a transition fuel, providing a valuable energy source for the short-term
while it explores and develops other options like renewables, for the long-term.
5. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
5
5
Stakeholders
and
Their
Concerns
There are three main categories of stakeholders, industry, government, and the
public, each having their own concerns and viewpoints.
(Hydraulic Fracturing in
the Lehigh Valley).
Figure 1: Stakeholders. (Hydraulic Fracturing in the Lehigh Valley).
Industry
Stakeholders from the industry sector include oil and gas exploration companies,
technical experts, consultants, and lobbyists. (Figure 1). The goal of this sector,
6. 6
like most companies, is to be profitable. This often becomes more important than
being sustainable, so it is up to the public to put pressure on the government to
ensure there is significant legislation in place to protect their health and the
environment. Lobbyists pressure governments into making decisions that are in
favour of industry and do not represent the public’s best interest. In Nova Scotia,
Triangle Petroleum has been a main player and advocate for HF exploration and
extraction. (Appendix B).
Government
The role of the government is to find a balance between the needs of the public
and the needs of the economy. Protecting the public involves creating and
enforcing policies and legislation that are in the public’s best interest. Adequate
resources must be set aside for health care, environmental monitoring and
regulation, and public services. At the same time, government has the
responsibility for economic growth and needs investments from industry.
Public
The public includes concerned citizens, non-governmental organizations, the
Mi’kmaq people of Nova Scotia, and community groups. Their main objective is
to protect their needs and the needs of their families, including future
generations. In Nova Scotia, the public has placed enormous pressure on the
government to ban HF activities due to the environmental damage caused by oil
and gas companies in other parts of North America. Much of this criticism lacks
7. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
7
7
scientific integrity and is based on outdated practices. Much propaganda and fear
mongering has occurred with little open dialogue.
The Nova Scotia Fracking Resource and Action Coalition (NOFRAC) have been
very vocal during the review process. Their position as an NGO has been to ban
fracking for at least 10 years to allow the science to catch up with the technology.
They feel that fracking is unproven to be safe and acting without the
precautionary approach is detrimental to the needs of society. If fracking goes
ahead prematurely, they feel the science will later prove how detrimental it was to
the environment. (Appendix C).
There are hundreds of concerned citizens who submitted their concerns on the
Cape Breton University HF study website. Most are against fracking and would
like to see the moratorium continue. Their main concerns are contamination of
water supplies, air quality, toxic wastewater, and environmental degradation.
Many expressed interest in the economic stimulation that the industry would
provide but are unwilling to sacrifice the environment.
The public are also concerned with the integrity and accuracy of the information
being released by the Expert Review Panel. There is a general distrust between
the public and government from years of inadequate public consultation and
misinformation by officials who are in a direct conflict of interest or are promoting
their own agendas. Recent spending scandals in Nova Scotia continue to
8. 8
propagate this distrust. Many view the Expert Review Panel as a puppet of the
government to promote its own agenda.
There is also distrust for the industry that has been fueled by documentary films
such as Gasland, (Fox, 2010) and the industry itself by its lack of disclosure of
fracking chemicals and fracking related upsets.
Another very vocal group have been the Mi’kmaq people of Nova Scotia. They
have concerns on the health effects, the lack of science in reports and the
unknown environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. The Mi’kmaq of Nova
Scotia stand firm against all types of fracturing activity in their traditional territory.
(Mi'kmaq Rights Initiative, 2014).
10. 10
Impacts:
(Appendix
D)
Environmental Impacts
Water quantity impacts would have a short-term negative impact in the localized
area of the aquifer. Excessive drawdown, saltwater-intrusion near the coastline,
or the introduction of non-potable water from hydraulically connected aquifers are
potential issues. (Expert Panel, 2014). Although water quantity is a potential
concern, there appears to be sufficient capacity for Nova Scotia to maintain its
current water use. There are specific areas of the province that may face demand
issues due to extensive agricultural operations and limited surface water sources.
Water use for hydraulic fracturing would likely not lead to issues of water demand
for the majority of the province. (Expert Panel, 2014).
The majority of the environmental impacts involve water quality. There is the
potential for long term negative impacts to groundwater and surface water that
will affect current and future generations in the localized area of the affected
aquifer. The greatest impacts will be felt in mostly rural communities because
they rely mostly on groundwater sources.
Methane can contaminate aquifers by physical displacement of gas from the
target formation, by leaky gas-well casings hundreds of meters underground
through fracture systems, and through new fractures or the enlargement of
existing fractures above the target shale formation, increasing the connectivity of
the fracture system. The reduced pressure following the fracturing activities could
11. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
1
1
11
release methane in solution allowing methane gas to potentially migrate upward
through the fracture system. (S. G. Osborn, 2011). There is insufficient evidence
to link aquifer contamination with hydraulic fracturing at depths greater than 300m.
(Expert Panel, 2014). However, shallow hydraulic fracturing operations do present
a significant risk to drinking water aquifers (S. G. Osborn, 2011).
Another source of contamination are the HF additives in the fracking fluid. During
the fracking process, millions of liters of fracking fluid are pumped into the aquifer
to build up pressure and break the formation. Fracking fluid is mostly water and
sand but may also contain hundreds of toxic chemicals. (United States House of
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff, 2011). In
Canada, HF additives are not currently required to be reported to the NPRI
(National Pollutant Release Inventory) because facilities used exclusively for oil
and gas exploration or the drilling of oil or gas wells are exempt from NPRI
reporting requirements. (Environment Canada, 2014). In addition, facilities that
conduct well drilling and completion activities (including hydraulic fracturing) do
not generally meet the NPRI employee threshold. Environment Canada has
considered the removal of the exemption for drilling, and the employee threshold
for hydraulic fracturing activities, in order to capture facilities that do hydraulic
fracturing. (Environment Canada, 2014). As a result, these chemicals are not
reported and are found in groundwater and surface water sources after the fact.
This has long-term negative impacts for those affected making their water supply
unsuitable for drinking and requiring expensive treatment techniques to make
potable. Rural areas may be affected since they rely on groundwater sources and
12. 12
usually have their own wells.
The handling and treatment of flowback (wastewater) water has the potential to be
a long-term negative impact. The flowback water includes water, sand, and
injected chemicals,natural gas and a small quantity of reservoir waters. The latter
may contain salty brines, metals, nutrients, naturally occurring radioactive
materials (NORMs), and other organic compounds. (Expert Panel, 2014).
Disposal of this wastewater is of great concern. It may be treated, which is very
expensive, injected back into the formation, recycled in another fracking
operation, or most commonly, stored in exposed lagoons. When stored in
lagoons, there is the possibility for spillage due to heavy precipitation and lagoon
integrity. The health of the localized ecosystem is compromised.
Air quality is a major concern. Stray gases, such as methane, ethane, hydrogen
sulfide, and propane can be highly toxic to those exposed. Excess truck traffic
during the construction and operational phases will increase the levels of fine
particulate matter, dust, emissions, carbon monoxide, and other respiratory
irritants in the air. Children and those with respiratory illnesses are at greatest
risk near and downwind from the fracking operation.
The negative impacts of environmental degradation caused by well-site
development, increased truck traffic, wastewater holding ponds, chemical storage
and disposal, and associated well-site activities could be long-term, especially
when dealing with radioactive wastewater, tree removal, and chemical spills into
13. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
1
3
13
rivers, lakes, and streams.
Noise and light pollution are short-term negative impacts affecting those in the
near vicinity of the well during its operation.
Social Impacts
Social impacts related to human health can be both positive and negative. The
increases in tax revenues for the province may result in lower prices for home
heating fuel, having a significant positive short-term impact to lower income
families and First Nations communities. This enables them to use those financial
resources for other necessities, such as food, clothing, and health care,
improving their wellbeing and the community as a whole.
Inequities in health experiences caused by the unequal distribution of risks and
benefits of hydraulic fracturing would be a long-term negative impact. Most
vulnerable members of communities are often poor, elderly, sickly, or a
combination of these and are disproportionately likely to bear the costs of
industrial development and accrue minimal, if any, benefits. (Department of
Energy). Communities such as First Nations and rural lower income communities
may lack the financial resources to oppose fracking and may assume a
disproportionate amount of risk. This greatly increases the chances that some of
the environmental impacts will occur in their community, affecting their health,
well-being, and the local economy.
14. 14
Population growth from an influx of workers can have both positive and negative
impacts on the local community. Revenues contributing to the provincial and
municipal tax base can be used to build needed community services, such as
hospitals, schools, fire stations, libraries, and other public services. This can have
long-term positive impacts on the local community especially lower income
families.
However, the influx of workers from outside the community will disrupt social
harmony, especially in rural areas. These workers will have differing viewpoints
and opinions than the local community and may not be welcome.
Political Impacts
The provincial government has placed a moratorium on HF to allow for further
investigation of its impacts.
The Department of Nova Scotia Environment is not adequately regulating and
monitoring HF operations due to lack of funding
Ensuring that insurance and finances are in place to cover any and all future
environmental remediation, restoration, and cleanup as well as decommissioning
operations long after the company is gone.
15. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
1
5
15
Economic Impacts
There are many short-term positive economic impacts. The construction and
operational phases would create jobs for the local economy as well as jobs for
specialists from outside the community. Tax revenue generated from fracking
operations would provide economic stability to the community and the province.
The increase in population would create the need for additional housing,
businesses, and community services, creating growth for the local economy and
the province. This would have the greatest benefit in areas of low income and
high unemployment.
There are several negative economic impacts including losses in the tourism,
agriculture, fishing, and forestry industries due to environmental damage caused
by fracking operations on competing land. Tree removal, contamination of lakes,
rivers, and streams, and the destruction of habitat would have negative affects on
both local and provincial economies. These effects could be short to medium
term, depending on the degree of environmental degradation.
Lack of housing in the initial stages could cause housing prices to rise, increasing
taxes for local residents and possibly forcing them out of their homes. The
creation of a boom bust economy could also cause housing prices to plummet
once the operation is ceased. Also, housing prices would drop in adjacent areas
due to the air, noise, and light pollution issues faced when living next to a
fracking operation.
16. 16
Decision
Makers
In Nova Scotia, the main decision maker for hydraulic fracturing is the
Government of Nova Scotia who owns all underground resources including
shale gas and has authority to pass laws regarding the management, control,
and exploitation of natural resources within the provincial jurisdiction. (Expert
Review Panel, 2014). Provincial jurisdiction does not include national parks,
bird sanctuaries, or other federal lands. Aboriginal governments have significant
roles in the decision-making process if there is a reasonable chance that their
rights could be infringed upon, if shale gas is located under lands over which
they do or may hold Aboriginal title, or if there is shale gas under reserve land.
(Expert Review Panel, 2014).
The central authority in the provincial government is the Department of Energy,
which administers the Petroleum Resources Act. This act determines whether
petroleum rights may be granted and also gives the Minister of Energy the
authority to enact regulations.
On August 28, 2013, the Department of Energy signed an agreement with the
Verschuren Centre for Sustainability in Energy and the Environment at Cape
Breton University as an external consultant to conduct a review on the
environmental, socio-economic, and health impacts of hydraulic fracturing under
the leadership of Dr. David Wheeler, who has extensive local and international
environmental and energy policy experience and is the university president. Dr.
17. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
1
7
17
Wheeler appointed a technical advisory group (Appendix E) to help in the
selection of an Expert Review Panel. In consultation with the public and the
technical advisory group, Dr. Wheeler selected panel members based on their
expertise in their field. (Appendix F).
The Expert Review Panel released a number of discussion papers for public
scrutiny and encouraged public feedback. They addressed public concerns at
meetings around the province. The meeting I attended in Halifax on August 28,
2014 addressed many of the concerns in the discussion papers. All stakeholders
were able to voice their opinions, the public, the industry, and the government.
NGO’s were well represented as well as the Mi’kmaq People of Nova Scotia.
Although the federal government is not the main decision maker in this case, it
does play a significant role because it still has jurisdiction over fish habitat, air
quality and toxic chemicals and has authority to prohibit or restrict activities that
are harmful to fisheries, human health, and the environment. (Expert Review
Panel, 2014).
The municipal government also has some decision-making authority because it
can restrict or prohibit activities by passing by-laws. An example of this occurred
in Inverness County where the municipality passed a by law prohibiting hydraulic
fracturing within the municipality. (Expert Review Panel, 2014).
18. 18
Throughout the decision making process, government and technical experts were
well represented. Public participation was encouraged. Anyone who was
interested or concerned had a voice. This is an excellent example of government
engaging the public’s help in the decision making process.
19. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
1
9
19
Solutions
There are three possible solutions to this problem:
• Allow hydraulic fracturing
• Ban hydraulic fracturing
• Continue with the moratorium until more information is gathered
Allow Hydraulic Fracturing
The Environmental Goals and Sustainability Prosperity Act of Nova Scotia clearly
adopts a sustainability approach to environmental, economic, and social issues.
In the Act, “the environment and the economy of the Province are a shared
responsibility of all levels of government, the private sector and all people of the
Province”. (Nova Scotia House of Assembly, 2007). If the government were to
allow hydraulic fracturing without public support, it would be contravening this Act
and would not be in the best interest for sustainability in Nova Scotia. The
economy would flourish without effective environmental regulation or public
support.
Ban Hydraulic Fracturing
Banning hydraulic fracturing may be premature at this time without more
knowledge of its affects to Nova Scotians. This would restrict economic
opportunities and increase Nova Scotia’s dependence on oil imports. Although it
would have public support in the short-term, once the public sees the economic
benefits in other jurisdictions, they will want to re-open the argument. Once
20. 20
again, this solution is not sustainable because it neglects the needs of the
economy in favour of public support.
Continue with the moratorium until more information is gathered
Continuing the moratorium will allow time for fact finding, research, public
learning and engagement, and most importantly, it will allow government policy to
catch up with the technology. This solution is the only sustainable solution
because it encompasses the needs of all three sectors; the environment, the
economy, and the society.
21. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
2
1
21
Resolutions
There are several resolutions to this problem that would enable dialogue and
public support in the future. Public support is the primary blockade.
First, the public engagement process needs to be totally independent from
government, such as an NGO. This would enable all parties to be represented,
free of conflicts of interest. Transparency from credible, independent sources will
gain public trust and bridge the communication gaps to allow for constructive
dialogue.
Second, Government needs to slow down and allow regulation to catch up and
surpass industry. It must evaluate its regulation, legislation, and monitoring of the
environment, and it must provide adequate resources to carry out these functions
in a meaningful way.
Third, the government needs to take a precautionary approach if it is going to
abide by the Environmental Goals and Sustainability Act (EGSPA) that is already
part of legislation in Nova Scotia. The spirit of this act encompasses the
Precautionary Approach, which states “where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
(UNESCO, 2005). With this legislation, government has a duty to protect public
22. 22
health and the environment when there is no scientific evidence and there is a
potential for significant risk. This puts the burden on government and industry to
prove that an activity is safe before they can proceed.
Third, those that have lived and owned land in areas where hydraulic fracturing
has occurred should be included in the discussions. First hand experience would
be invaluable and would address many public fears and misconceptions.
Representatives from Pennsylvania and New Brunswick should be included since
these areas are nearby and currently have fracturing operations.
23. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
2
3
23
Trade-‐offs
Economically, the solution proposed will have a net minimal impact on the
economy. Although the revenues from shale gas potentially could be significant,
the trade off is that other sectors that must compete for land and resources can
continue to grow and flourish. This will have a positive affect on the tourism,
agriculture, and fishing sectors of the economy.
Environmentally, new rules for the protection of the environment and human
health will need to be created. The greatest positive affects will occur with the
elderly, poor, and sick in rural, lower-income areas where most of the associated
risks are usually assumed. The tradeoff is that it will take time for government to
develop effective and meaningful environmental policy, regulation, and
monitoring programs, thus delaying short-term positive economic growth from
hydraulic fracturing.
Politically, the decision to continue with the moratorium until new research and
policy is in place is a win-win for the government. This decision addresses public
concerns and is a first step to gaining public trust. Also, it gives hope to industry
that fracking may occur in the future once government gains public support.
24. 24
Socially, new economic resources for community services would be delayed in
favour of social harmony, negatively affecting areas of high unemployment and
lower incomes in favour of public support.
25. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
2
5
25
Lessons
Learned
The town of Dimock in northeastern Pennsylvania has experienced the economic
benefits of fracking with increased wealth to landowners, lower unemployment
rates, and a vibrant economy that has brought them out of a recession. (CBC,
2013). In Rexton, New Brunswick the experience has been quite negative
because the government decided to go ahead with hydraulic fracturing despite
lack of public support resulting in violent protests from mostly First Nations
communities. These protesters want their questions answered before the
government goes proceeds. (CBC, 2013).
Nova Scotia can learn from these examples and from their own experience that
occurred in Hants County in 2007 when Triangle Petroleum drilled five
exploratory wells, uncovering inadequacies in environmental protection and
baseline data, and causing great concern for those affected. (NOFRAC, 2013).
Some of the fracking wastewater containing radioactive material was brought to
the local wastewater treatment plant for disposal, putting workers and the
environment at risk. To date, reservoirs containing radioactive wastewater are
still exposed and there are no plans in place for their removal or treatment. The
site has not been restored and the company has left the country with no plans for
restoration.
From the examples in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we have learned that:
• The public does not support hydraulic fracturing
26. 26
• There is a lack of long-term scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing is
safe.
• There is a lack of government environmental policy, regulation, and
monitoring and funding for these activities.
• Government cannot solely base its decision on industry experts. It must
listen to independent, unbiased information.
• Taking a precautionary approach will reduce future negative impacts.
Mitigation should not be the only recourse. Prevention is a more effective
and efficient way to avoid environmental impacts.
• There is no proven environmentally safe method to dispose of fracking
wastewater.
• Insurance should be in place in the event that the company leaves without
restoring the site. This would provide adequate funding for clean up and
site restoration at the expense of the company, not the taxpayer.
27. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
2
7
27
•
Outcomes
The final report from the Expert Review Panel recommends that hydraulic
fracturing should not proceed in Nova Scotia at this time to allow for a significant
period of learning and dialogue to occur at both provincial and community levels.
(Department of Energy). The review process has uncovered many inadequacies
in the current scientific literature as well as a general lack of knowledge among
the public.
Many scenarios brought forward by the public were based solely on
documentaries and lack scientific integrity. They need time to learn and
understand the science behind hydraulic fracturing before they can make
informed decisions. Currently, this lack of knowledge has created a sense of fear
and urgency against hydraulic fracturing. Also, because this particular technology
is relatively new, there is a lack of scientific literature on the long-term
environmental impacts, particularly water quality. More research needs to be
done to fully understand the impacts.
28. 28
Conclusion
Nova Scotia’s experience with hydraulic fracturing has uncovered inadequacies
in government policy, regulation, and scientific literature. Long-term
environmental impacts are unknown and the risks are high. Public pressure
convinced government to analyze the situation in greater detail before giving
approval to industry, resulting in a two year moratorium and the creation of the
Expert Review Panel to investigate and report on their findings.
The potential for enormous short to medium term economic benefits are at the
regional and local levels with the majority of the risk at the local level. However,
the potential for long–term negative environmental impacts is high. The
precautionary principle and the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity
Act will help government develop best management practices, policies, and
regulations to minimize and mitigate negative impacts. Well-targeted science is
required to ensure a better understanding of the environmental impacts of shale
gas development. Currently, data about environmental impacts are neither
sufficient nor conclusive. (Canadian Council of Academies, 2014).
The only sustainable solution is to continue with the moratorium until the science
and government policy catches up with the technology. Better information will
lead to better decision-making. Stakeholders, especially the public, want
29. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
2
9
29
government transparency and independent information from unbiased sources.
Industry will have to be patient until the government gains public support.
Proceeding too fast without fully knowing and understanding the long-term
environmental impacts would be irresponsible of government.
30. 30
References
Canadian
Association
of
Petroleum
Producers.
(2014).
Retrieved
07
06,
2014,
from
http://www.capp.ca/canadaIndustry/naturalGas/Conventional-‐
Unconventional/Pages/default.aspx
CBC.
(2013,
11
07).
(CBC
news)
Retrieved
09
07,
2014,
from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-‐brunswick/pennsylvania-‐s-‐shale-‐gas-‐
experience-‐1.2418259
CBC.
(2013,
10
17).
Retrieved
09
07,
2014,
from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-‐brunswick/rcmp-‐protesters-‐withdra-‐after-‐
shale-‐gas-‐in-‐rexton-‐1.2100703
CBU.
(2012).
Hydraulic
Fracturing
Review.
Retrieved
09
02,
2014,
from
http://cbu.ca/hfstudy
CBU.
(2013).
Panel
Selection.
Retrieved
09
06,
2014,
from
http://www.cbu.ca/hfstudy/resources/expert-‐panel
CBU.
(2014).
Stakeholder
Submissions.
Retrieved
09
02,
2014,
from
http://www.cbu.ca/hfstudy/resources/correspondence
CBU.
(2013).
Technical
Advisory
Group.
Retrieved
09
06,
2014,
from
http://www.cbu.ca/hfstudy/independent-‐review-‐public-‐consultation
Environment
Canada.
(2014,
July
16).
(G.
o.
Canada,
Ed.)
Retrieved
August
15,
2014,
from
http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-‐npri/default.asp?lang=En&n=0755DD78-‐1
Expert
Panel.
(2014,
June
03).
Retrieved
August
15,
2014,
from
http://www.cbu.ca/hfstudy/resources/project-‐documents
Expert
Panel.
(2014).
Primer
on
the
Process
of
Hydraulic
Fracturing.
Retrieved
09
09,
2014,
from
http://www.cbu.ca/sites/cbu.ca/files/docs/hfstudy/Primer%20on%20Hydraulic%
20Fracturing%20Process%2010th%20March%202014%20-‐
%20For%20Public%20Consultation.pdf
Expert
Review
Panel.
(2014,
07
11).
Understanding
the
General
Regulatory
Issues.
Retrieved
08
24,
2014,
from
http://www.cbu.ca/sites/cbu.ca/files/docs/hfstudy/Discussion%20Paper%20-‐
%20General%20Regulatory%20Regime.pdf
31. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
3
1
31
Fox,
J.
(2010).
Gasland.
Retrieved
09
05,
2014,
from
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/home
Mi'kmaq
Rights
Initiative.
(2014,
08
12).
Retrieved
09
03,
2014,
from
http://mikmaqrights.com/chiefs-‐continue-‐fight-‐against-‐fracking-‐in-‐ns
NOFRAC.
(2011,
10).
Retrieved
09
03,
2014,
from
http://nofrac.wordpress.com/about/our-‐position/
NOFRAC.
(2013).
Out
of
Control:
Nova
Scotia's
Experience
with
Fracking
for
Shale
Gas.
Nova
Scotia
Fracking
Resource
and
Action
Coalition.
Nova
Scotia
House
of
Assembly.
(2007,
04
18).
Environmental
Goals
and
Sustainability
Act.
Retrieved
08
31,
2014,
from
http:/nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/60th_1st/3rd_read/b146.htm
S.
G.
Osborn,
A.
V.
(2011).
Methane
contamination
of
drinking
water
accompanying
gas-‐well
drilling
and
hydraulic
fracturing.
Proceedings
of
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences,
108,
pp.
8172-‐8176.
UNESCO.
(2005).
Retrieved
08
26,
2014,
from
http://unescdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf
United
States
House
of
Representatives
Committee
on
Energy
and
Commerce
Minority
Staff.
(2011,
April).
Retrieved
August
15,
2014,
from
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydr
aulic-‐Fracturing-‐Chemicals-‐2011-‐4-‐18.pdf
Wheeler,
D.
D.
(2014,
07
23).
Retrieved
08
26,
2014,
from
http://www.cbu.ca/hfstudy/resources/project-‐documents.
32. 32
Appendices:
Appendix
A:
Background
Hydraulic fracturing (HF) has been used for conventional oil and gas exploration
in Canada for decades however, its use in unconventional oil and gas exploration
is relatively new. In Canada, the first commercial use of conventional HF was in
1953 during the development of the Pembina oil and gas field in Alberta.
(Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, 2014). Unconventional gas, also
called shale gas, is being actively pursued because conventional reserves are
depleting rapidly and the technology has greatly improved. Currently, HF
technology used in combination with horizontal drilling technology is allowing
exploration of formations that previously were inaccessible or unprofitable.
“Exploration for conventional gas has been almost the sole focus of the oil and
gas industry since it began nearly 100 years ago. Conventional gas is typically
“free gas” trapped in multiple, relatively small, porous zones in various naturally
occurring rock formations such as carbonates, sandstones, and siltstones.
However, most of the growth in supply from today’s recoverable gas resources is
found in unconventional formations. Unconventional gas reservoirs include tight
gas, coal bed methane, gas hydrates, and shale gas. The technological
breakthroughs in horizontal drilling and fracturing that have made shale and
other unconventional gas supplies commercially viable have revolutionized
Canada’s natural gas supply picture.” (Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers, 2014).
Currently in Nova Scotia, there is a moratorium on HF in oil and gas operations
until a joint review by the departments of Energy and Environment is completed,
which will examine the potential impacts. This moratorium is the result of Nova
Scotia’s experience with HF in 2007 and 2008 and the negative consequences
from the drilling of five exploration wells by Triangle Petroleum in the counties of
East Hants and West Hants. Although Triangle Petroleum received permits to
drill from Nova Scotia Environment, many things went wrong that could have
been prevented by using more exhaustive preliminary and baseline studies, more
vigorous monitoring and compliance programs, and embracing adaptive
management during the process.
33. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
3
3
33
Appendix
B:
List
of
Stakeholders
The following list of stakeholders was retrieved from the Cape Breton University
HF review website at http://www.cbu.ca/content/email-attachments and include
documents that were attached to emails from stakeholder's for consideration by
the Hydraulic Fracturing Expert Panel. This list does not represent all
stakeholders, just those with email attachments.
1. Maritimes Energy Association - Barbara Pike
2. Comments and Input for the Hydraulic Fracturing Panel - Peter Hicklenton
3. Ethics and Hydraulic Fracturing - Shawn Harris
4. Friends of Redtail Statement on Onshore Oil & Gas Development in Nova
Scotia
5. Sarah Brinkhurst and Robert Bird
6. St. Brendan's Letter of Supprt for Oil and Gas Exploration - Edwin
MacDonald
7. Charlie Kennedy
8. Connie Clement
9. James Clarke
10.Joanne Light
11.John Sollows
12.KAIROS Halifax Group - Mary Rigby
13.Leah Jackson
14.Leslie Wade
15.Marilyn Cameron
16.Merissa Campbell
17.Only a Matter of Time - Barrie Clarke
18.Sue Adams
19.Super-Arching Questions NOFRAC - Barbara Harris
20.The Prospect for Industrial Sprawl in Rural NS - Don Rushton
21.Toxic Effect of Chemicals used in Hydraulic Fracturing - Lorna Williamson
22.Toxic Effect of Chemicals used in Hydraulic Fracturing Spreedsheet -
Lorna Williamson
23.What will fracking do to our roads and infrastructure - Wilf Bean
24.Alyson McCready
25.Angela Giles
26.Better alternatives to shale gas development - Ian Guppy
27.Brad Walters
28.By-Law 45 Inverness County - Ian Sherman
29.Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers - Jennifer Matthews
30.Caroline Greenland
31.Citizen Action to Protect the Environment (CAPE) - Barbara Gallagher
32.Comments regarding Triangle Submission - Ken Summers
33.Congregation of Notre Dame - Mary Corbett
34.Coralie Cameron
34. 34
35.Dalhousie SRES Masters Student Final Project - Jillanna, Sarah, Jamie
and Alexandra
36.Dalhousie Student Union Sustainability Office - Alia Karim
37.David Greenberg
38.Ecology Action Centre - Jennifer West
39.Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia - Barbara Harris
40.Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia ADDENDEUM - Barbara
Harris
41.Envisioning a fracked Nova Scotia 2018, 2020, 2024 - Michael Jensen
42.Five Community Health Boards - Lorinda Brinkhurt
43.Fracking and Financial Costs - Matthew Starnes
44.Fracking, Greenhouse gases and Climate Change - Jay Ross
45.Ian Guppy
46.Is hydraulic fracturing the natural setp for Nova Scotia - William
Zimmerman
47.Jennifer Greenberg
48.Joel Rogers
49.Jonathan Langdon
50.Liz Brennan p1
51.Liz Brennan p2
52.Lorna Williamson
53.Margot Roach
54.Maritimes Energy Association - Barbara Pike
55.Marke Slipp
56.Marshall Zuern
57.Natural gas - a bridge or a gangplank - Yuill Hebert
58.Nova Scotia Salmon Association - Rene Aucoin
59.Nova Scotia's regulatory capacity and capability for hydraulic fracturing -
Ken Summers
60.Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners and Operators Association - Will Martin
61.Politics and Social License in New Brunswick Shale Gas Sector - Peter
Clancy
62.Radioactivity and Unconventional Gas - Brian Gaulke
63.Releases of toxins and earth quakes in the life cycle of hydraulic fracturing
- Mark Tipperman
64.Responsible Energy Action - Janette Fecteau
65.Rod Bantjes
66.Ron Mills
67.Safety and acceptability from the social perspective and ethical
considerations - Mary Lou Harley
68.School of Nursing St. FX - Colleen Cameron
69.Simon Greenland-Smith
70.Sun Root Farm - Steve Law
71.Tatamagouche Centre - Michelle Ferris
72.The Council of Canadians - Angela Giles
73.The Earth Charter - Joanne O'Regan
35. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
3
5
35
74.The Hants Couny Federation of Agriculture - Dawn Allen
75.The Hydra in Hydraulic Fracturing - Stephen Lowe
76.The North Shore Trasition Initiative - Wendy Johnson
77.The Risks of Fracking in Nova Scotia - Lyn Sutherland
Source: http://www.cbu.ca/hfstudy/resources/correspondence. (CBU, 2014).
36. 36
Appendix
C:
NOFRAC’s
position
on
Hydraulic
Fracturing
in
Nova
Scotia
Nova Scotia Fracking Resource and Action Coalition (NOFRAC) believes that
Nova Scotia should ban the development of shale gas and hydraulic fracturing,
or, at the very least, enact a moratorium on shale gas development and hydraulic
fracturing for hydrocarbons for a minimum of 10 years.The extraction of shale
gas and other hydrocarbons held in dense rock formations currently requires
modern hydraulic fracturing techniques, including the combination of toxic
chemical slickwater, high pressure fracturing and horizontal drilling, as well as
other hazardous production procedures. The development of shale gas, including
but not limited to hydraulic fracturing, has demonstrated risks of serious harm to
our environment, to our health and to our rural quality of life and should not be
carried out in Nova Scotia. These risks, most of which are serious, long term and
irreversible, include:
• Risks to drinking water, including the use and contamination of huge
volumes of water with toxic chemicals, and risk of well contamination from
methane and other substances.
• Risks of contamination of streams and rivers and soil from fracking fluids
and fracking waste through accidents, extreme weather, or poor practices.
• Risks to human health from exposure to airborne toxins at multiple stages
of production, exposure to toxic waste, and exposure to toxins through
drinking water or soil.
• Risks from the generation of toxic waste in immense quantities for which
there is no known safe method of disposal.
• Risks from the industrialization of rural areas, including the destruction of
landscapes and ecosystems, decline of tourism, decline of property
values, stresses on existing infrastructure from massive equipment, even
risks of small earthquakes, as well as an overall decline in quality of life.
• Shale gas is not a climate change solution, and will not help Nova Scotia
achieve its praiseworthy climate goals for 2020.
• Given the overall risk of serious, long-term, irreversible damage to the
environment and to human health, and
• Given the lack of extensive peer-reviewed, independent scientific research
analyzing the immediate and potential long-term and cumulative impacts
and risks of shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing, and
• Given that, of the existing peer-reviewed papers, most indicate cause for
grave concern.
(NOFRAC, 2011)
37. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
3
7
37
Appendix
D:
List
of
Potential
Impacts
Environmental
• Groundwater contamination from injection fluids
• Surface water contamination from spills associated with industrial activities
• Surface water contamination from chemical spills and improper storage of
chemicals at the well pad
• Surface water contamination from spillage and runoff of HF waste storage
ponds
• Contaminants in flow back water may contain HF fluids, salts, naturally
occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) and heavy metals
• Water quantity issues especially in rural areas
• Air contamination by the release stray gases such as methane, ethane,
and propane
• Soil contamination from HF additives, waste from HF operations, and
improper storage and handling of petroleum products
• Disclosure of HF additives
• Treatment and disposal of HF wastewater surface ponds
• Site restoration
Social
• Inequities in health experiences caused by the unequal distribution of risks
and benefits of hydraulic fracturing (more impoverished areas will assume
more of the risk)
• Creation of more community services and infrastructure such as schools,
hospitals, and public services
• Influx of workers from outside the community will disrupt social harmony,
especially in rural areas. These workers will have differing viewpoints and
opinions than the local community which may have negative
consequences
• Human health issues related to increased truck traffic causing noise
pollution, air pollution, and loss of peace and well being
Political
• The provincial government has placed a moratorium on HF to allow for
further investigation of its impacts.
• The Department of Nova Scotia Environment is not adequately regulating
and monitoring HF operations due to lack of funding
• The majority of citizens are against it and are actively protesting
Economic
• Increased job growth causing an influx of workers, housing, and tax
revenues for the community
• Increases in property values may push lower income people out of their
homes.
38. 38
• Increase in the growth of goods and services in the community
• Impacts from a potential boom-bust economy can have huge negative
impacts on the local economy
• Loss of revenue from fishing, tourism, and agriculture due to oil and gas
development on competing land
• Property values may decline adjacent to oil and gas operations
• Ensuring that insurance and finances are in place to cover any and all
future environmental remediation, restoration, and cleanup as well as
decommissioning operations long after the company is gone
39. HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
IN
NOVA
SCOTIA
3
9
39
Appendix E: Technical Advisory Group
Dr. David Wheeler, Chair of the Hydraulic Fracturing Independent Review and
Public Consultation in Nova Scotia has appointed a Technical Advisory Group
comprising three experts with complementary skills and knowledge and nationally
recognized expertise. (CBU, 2013).
Primary Technical Advisor
Fred Baechler is currently the Chief Hydrogeologist and a senior hydrologist with
EXP Services inc., He is based in Sydney, and is also an adjunct professor with
Cape Breton University. His experience and expertise with
hydrogeological issues associated with hydraulic fracturing relate to his
understanding of deep crustal scale groundwater conditions as well as the
shallow groundwater systems and streams. Mr. Baechler will be responsible for
providing ongoing advice to the Chair and members of the Expert Panel and he
will lead the writing of summary papers based on evidence received.
Senior Advisor
Keith MacLeod, CEO and Chairman, Sproule is a director and partner of Sproule,
a worldwide petroleum consulting firm based in Calgary. Mr. MacLeod is trained
as a petroleum engineer and his experience at Sproule has been primarily in the
areas of property and corporate reserves/resource evaluations, acquisitions and
divestitures, securities commission reports, and investment advice. Mr. MacLeod
will be acting as senior advisor to the team, thru his involvement with the
Verschuren Centre board of directors, with a particular emphasis on shale gas
resources/reserves assessment and development strategies.
Special Advisor
Michael Gardner is President of Gardner Pinfold based in Halifax, whose mission
is to provide comprehensive professional services covering all aspects of
economic consultancy. Mr. Gardner is trained in law and economics and has
advised various Royal Commissions, federal and provincial Task Forces and the
Government of Canada in international arbitrations. Mr. Gardner also has
extensive international experience, with assignments in some 35 countries for
such agencies as CIDA and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Mr.
Gardner will provide an economic analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing risks and
benefits in Nova Scotia.
40. 40
Appendix F: The Expert Panel
Members of the Expert Panel are were selected from a highly qualified group of
over 70 nominees and collectively represent the skill-sets that were identified in
the original brief and expanded with feedback from stakeholders. (CBU, 2013).
The nine panelists are listed below:
• Dr. Shawn Dalton – Principal & Senior Consultant, Thrive Consulting,
Fredericton NB
• Dr. Graham Gagnon - Director, Centre for Water Resource Studies,
Dalhousie University, Halifax NS
• Mr. Kevin Christmas – Special Contract Services, Membertou Band
Council, Dartmouth NS
• Dr. Ian Mauro – Associate Professor, Department of Geography,
University of Winnipeg, MB
• Dr. Frank Atherton2 - Deputy Chief Medical Officer of Health, Department
of Health & Wellness, Halifax NS
• Mr. Ray Ritcey - President, Lighthouse Energy Inc., Halifax NS
• Dr. Michael Bradfield - Professor, Retired, Dalhousie University, Halifax
NS
• Dr. Brad Hayes - President, Petrel Robertson Consulting, Calgary AB
• Dr. Maurice Dusseault - Professor, Department of Earth and
Environmental Services, University of Waterloo, ON.
Legal Expert
Following feedback from stakeholders and subsequent discussion by the Expert
Panel, it has been agreed that a legal expert will join the Panel. Constance
MacIntosh of Dalhousie University, Director of Dalhousie's Health Law Institute,
and an Associate Professor with the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie has
been appointed to the panel. Constance’s background in health law and policy,
with an emphasis on regulatory regimes, water quality and Aboriginal law made
her the ideal candidate for this role. We are also establishing a small panel of
legal experts with specific knowledge of oil and gas and environmental
regulations to advise Constance as required. (CBU, 2013)
Aboriginal Outreach Officer
Following advice from Aboriginal member of the Expert Panel, Kevin Christmas,
in February 2014 it was announced that more funding would be provided for an
additional process on Aboriginal Outreach in order to supplement our broader
stakeholder engagement process. Deborah Ginnish has been hired as our
Aboriginal Outreach Officer. She will be working in collaboration with the
Assembly of Nova Scotia Chiefs and a technical working group they have
established to help determine best practices for community engagement. She will
also be working in collaboration directly with Chiefs, Elders, women and youth
groups during her outreach. (CBU, 2013)
