Major Project copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).


9

Systems Diagram

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

Human!Health!

Loss!of!Tourism!and!Recreational!Activities!

Jobs!Economy!

Environment!!

Socio<political!

Natural!Gas!Revenues!

Water!Quality!and!Quantity!

Habitat!Loss!

Site!Construction!

Aesthetic!Qualities!of!Natural!

Environment!

Wastewater!Holding!Ponds!

Increase!in!Property!Values!

!

Air!Quality!

Surface!Water!Contamination!

Ground!Water!Contamination!

Community!Wellbeing!

Governance!

Drilling!Activities!

Boom!Bust!Economy!

Increase!in!Community!Goods!and!Services!

Community!Services!and!Infrastructure!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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

•

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

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

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

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

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/Hydraulic-‐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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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

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

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)


41

Major Project copy

Documents

Transcript of Major Project copy