This 3-page document discusses the potential environmental and health impacts of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction in British Columbia. It outlines 3 options for managing BC's shale gas reserves: 1) rapid expansion, 2) maintaining current extraction rates, or 3) a temporary moratorium. The authors recommend option 2, allowing extraction to continue at current rates in less ecologically sensitive areas, while further monitoring and studying impacts. This balances economic benefits with environmental and health risks given current uncertainties.

1. Page 1 of 6
Managing Shale Gas Resources:PotentialImpacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
Prepared for: Honourable Terry Lake, BC Minister of Environment
Prepared by: George Kamiya, Maxi Kniewasser, & Danette Moulé
Energy & Materials Research Group, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
The Issue
The British Columbia government is supporting the rapid development of several large shale gas
deposits in northeast B.C. However, preliminary studies have found that the process to extract
shale gas, called hydraulic fracturing, may pose negative impacts to human health and the
environment. We provide an overview of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing to assist
the B.C. government in managing the province’s shale gas resource.
Background
Growing energy demand, peak oil, and climate change concerns about coal have spurred interest
in natural gas as a potential bridge fuel between traditional fossil fuels (e.g. coal, oil) and
renewable energy. Natural gas is a flexible fuel, with applications in transportation, electricity
generation and heating. It is cleaner burning than coal or oil, and recent technological advances
in fracking have opened vast new reserves, making natural gas cheaper than other fossil fuels.[1]
Shale gas refers to natural gas that is trapped within shale rock formations. It is extracted using a
process called hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), where a large volume of high-pressure slurry of
water, sand, and proprietary chemicals are drilled and injected into the shale formations,
fracturing the rock and releasing trapped deposits of natural gas (see Figure A1). However,
recent studies have indicated that shale gas may not be as environmentally beneficial as
previously thought.
Current Status
B.C. has vast shale resources, estimated at 1,200 trillion cubic feet.[2] Partnering with the fossil
fuel industry, the Government of British Columbia is pursuing a strategy of rapid expansion of
shale gas in north-eastern B.C. Key infrastructure development is planned that will support
significant increases in shale gas production to assure economical viability. The most significant
infrastructure expansion is the planned construction of up to four liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminals that will facilitate the export of shale gas to the higher price-fetching Asian market.
Such expansion will require billions of dollars in infrastructure investments, from building ports
and pipelines to power generation and grid expansion that will fuel the energy-intensive
liquefaction process.
Key Considerations
Global Environmental Impacts: Climate Change
Although the CO2 emissions from burning natural gas are lower than those of coal or oil,
potential fugitive methane (CH4) emissions from shale gas production and distribution could
mean that the overall climate change impact of natural gas is worse than that of coal or oil,

2. Page 2 of 6
particularly over the short-term. Several studies have estimated and compared the life cycle GHG
emissions of shale gas, conventional natural gas, oil, and coal. Estimates of GHG emissions of
shale gas vary widely: one study estimates that shale gas has less than half of the climate change
impacts of coal, while another study finds that shale gas has a climate change impact 20%
greater than coal (see Table A1 for a summary of results). In addition, new studies indicate that
the global warming potential of methane is significantly under-estimated.[3] Due to a lack of
reliable data and measurements related to methane leaks from shale gas production, there is
considerable uncertainty in estimating the GHG footprint of shale gas. Research has shown that
natural gas cannot be a bridge fuel to a clean energy future if climate change impacts are to be
limited.[4]
Local Environmental and Health Impacts: Water Use and Contamination
Hydraulic fracturing has local environmental impacts, specifically water use and contamination.
Fracking is an inherently water-intensive industrial practice, requiring up to 18,000 m3 of water
per well (roughly equivalent to seven Olympic-sized swimming pools).[5] Wetland habitat in
northeastern B.C. is particularly at risk due to water withdrawal and pollution.[6] Wastewater and
flowbacki are both by-products of fracking; flowback is high in dissolved solids and other
harmful substances, and has the potential to accidentally leak into the environment and
surrounding drinking water.[5] Wastewater, even after treatment, has adverse impacts on local
vegetation from highly saline soils and increased presence of invasive plant species.[7] Chemicals
used during fracturing have been found to have long-term health effects, including cancer and
endocrine disruption.[8] The health impacts of methane in drinking water are currently uncertain,
and need to be further investigated.
Economic Considerations
Shale gas development will have important economic implications for the residents of B.C.
Government royalties and tax revenues from shale gas operation and investment will help pay for
social services. Furthermore, jobs will be created through infrastructure development and
through shale gas and LNG terminal operations. However, these infrastructure investments
represent significant sunk costs that, coupled with volatile markets and environmental
uncertainty, pose major financial risks. Finally, LNG processes are very electricity-intensive,
which will require new, more costly electricity generation. Because the natural gas industry is
requesting current electricity rates rather than rates that reflect the higher, marginal cost of new
generation, shale gas development will likely initiate rate increases for B.C. residents.
Legal Considerations
By virtue of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, the Government of B.C. is legally obligated to
meet greenhouse gas reduction targets in 2020 and 2050 (33% and 80% below 2007 levels,
respectively).[9] A recent report published by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS)
found that shale gas exploration without carbon capture and storage (CCS) is incompatible with
B.C.’s greenhouse gas targets.[10]
i Flowback: water that resurfaces during operation of the well, which can exceed 1000 m3/day in the early stages of
well operation.

3. Page 3 of 6
Options
We outline three possible options to manage shale gas reserves in B.C.
Table 1 – Options to manage shale gas reserves
Option Advantages Disadvantages, Risks and Uncertainties
Option A
 Allow expansion of shale gas
extraction.
 Allow construction of up to
four LNG plants, to export
liquefied shale gas to Asia.
+ Increased government
revenue from taxes
and royalty.
+ Creates new jobs,
including temporary
jobs in construction.
- Potential local and global environmental impacts.
- Potential health impacts in surrounding communities.
- B.C. will fail to meet GHG reduction targets.
- LNG plants and associated infrastructure represent
large sunk costs and path dependence on natural gas.
- Infrastructure investments expose the province to
high financial risks given the volatility of energy
prices, competition with other LNG producers and
uncertainty of environmental impacts.
- High electricity demand will require new electricity
generation, resulting in environmental impacts.
Option B
 Development at current rate
of extraction (i.e. no growth).
 Delay construction of LNG
plants.
 Regulations to require control
technologies to capture/flare
methane from fracking
sites.[11]
 Government funding to
monitor / study the impacts
of fracking.
+ Maintains existing
jobs in remote
communities.
+ Maintains government
revenue from taxes
and royalties.
+ Reduces
environmental and
financial risks
compared to Option A.
- Potential risks to the environment and human health
from current operations.
- B.C. will likely fail to meet GHG reduction targets.
- Foregone jobs from construction and LNG plant
operations.
Option C
 Temporary moratorium on all
shale gas extraction until
2020 or until sufficient
scientific certainty regarding
the impacts indicates an
acceptable level of risk to the
environment and health.
+ Eliminates risks to
environment and
human health.
+ Employs a
precautionary
approach used by
France,New York,
and Quebec.
- Loss of royalties and tax revenue.
- Loss of long-term jobs in shale gas extraction and
LNG plants, as well as temporary jobs in
construction. Small, rural communities will be
economically affected.
Recommendations
Due to the uncertainties associated with fracking impacts, we recommend Option B. Placing a
temporary moratorium on fracking activities is likely to result in backlash from major energy
corporations, reduced government revenue, and could have political implications. Therefore, we
recommend a precautionary approach: allowing extraction to continue at current rates with a
preference for unpopulated areas that are least ecologically sensitive, while monitoring and
studying the potential environmental impacts. If, at any point, the risks to the environment and
human health from shale gas development are deemed unacceptable, fracking activity must stop.
This option balances economic benefits with environmental risks in the face of uncertainty.

4. Page 4 of 6
Notes
[1] PICS, 2011
[2] B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012
[3] Sarofim, 2011; Reisinger et al., 2010
[4] Myhrvold & Caldeira, 2012
[5] Gregory et al., 2011.
[6] Baccante, 2012.
[7] Stearns et al., 2005
[8] Colborn et al., 2011
[9] Government of British Columbia, 2007
[10] PICS, 2011
[11] Wang et al., 2011
References
Baccante, D. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing: A Fisheries Biologist's Perspective. Fisheries, 37(1),
40-41.
B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines. (2012). Summary of Shale Gas Activity in Northeast British
Columbia. Oil and Gas Reports, 2012-1.
Colborn, T., Kwiatkowski, C., Schultz, K. & Bachran, M. (2011). Natural Gas Operations from a
Public Health Perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International
Journal, 17(5), 1039-1056.
Government of British Columbia. (2007). Bill 44 – 2007 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act.
Retrieved from http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th3rd/3rd_read/gov44-3.htm
Gregory, K. B., Vidic, R.D., and Dzombak, D. A. (2011). Water Management Challenges
Associated with the Production of Shale Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing. Geo Science
Elements, 7(3), 181-186.
Howarth, R. W., Santoro, R., and Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse-gas
footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change, 106(4), 679-690.
Hultman, N., Rebois, D., Scholten, M., & Ramig, C. (2011). The greenhouse impact of
unconventional gas for electricity generation. Environmental Research Letters, 6(4),
049504.
Jiang, M., Griffin, M.W., Hendrickson, C., Jaramillo, P., VanBriesen, J., and Venkatesh, A.
(2011). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas. Environmental
Research Letters, 6(3), 034014.
Manuel, J. (2010). EPA Tackles Fracking. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(5), A199.

5. Page 5 of 6
Myhrvold, N.P. & Caldeira, K. (2012). Greenhouse gases, climate change and the transition from
coal to low-carbon electricity. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 014019.
Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), 2011, Briefing Note. Fracking in BC: Integrating
climate change issues.
Reisinger, A., Meinshausen, M., Manning, M., and Bodeker, G. (2010). Uncertainties of global
warming metrics: CO2 and CH4. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(14): 2-7.
Sarofim, Marcus C. 2011. The GTP of Methane: Modeling Analysis of Temperature Impacts of
Methane and Carbon Dioxide Reductions. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 1-9.
Stearns, M., Tindall, J. A., Cronin, G., Friedel, M. J., and Bergquist, E. (2005). Effects of coal-
bed methane discharge waters on the vegetation and soil ecosystem in Powder River Basin,
Wyoming. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 168(4), 33-57.
Stephenson, T., Valle, J. E., and Riera-Palou, X. (2011). Modeling the relative GHG emissions
of conventional and shale gas production. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(24),
10757-10764.
Wang, J., Ryan, D., & Anthony, E.J. (2011). Reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas.
Energy Policy, 39, 8196–8199.

6. Page 6 of 6
Appendix
Figure A1 – Overview of Hydraulic Fracturing (Manuel, 2010)
Table A1 – Relative GHG impacts of fossil fuels compared to shale gas
Study/Authors Application
and Timescale
GHG Emissions of Shale Gas Notes
vs. Conv.
Gas
vs. Oil vs. Coal
Howarth et al., 2011 Heat Energy
20 yr
+22-43% +50% +20% Assumes all lost gas lost to leaks and
100% methane and capture of fugitive
methane. Uses non-IPCC global
warming potential for methane.
Howarth et al., 2011 Heat Energy
100 yr
+14-19% ~equal ~equal
Jiang et al., 2011 Heat Energy
and Electricity
(vs. Coal)
100 yr
+3% N/A -20-50% Specific to Marcellus Shale (US).
Assumes long well lifetime of 25
years, which can underestimate
methane emissions per unit of gas.
Hultman et al., 2011 Electricity
100 yr
+11% N/A -44% Uses updated emissions factors from
US EPA.
Stephenson et al., 2011 Electricity
100 yr
+2% N/A -53-58% Uses fugitive emissions factor from
American Petroleum Institute.