Canadian Report Says Fracking Can Lead to Water Contamination

by S. Tom Bond on May 9, 2014

Fracking’s greatest risk is water contamination says Expert Panel

Limited Canadian Shale Gas Reserves

From an Article By James Munson, iPolitics Canada, April 30, 2014

A landmark report commissioned by Environment Canada has found water contamination to be the greatest threat posed by the shale gas extraction method known as fracking.

The “Expert Panel on Harnessing Science & Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction” report finds publicly-available science on shale gas extraction to be woefully inadequate while pointing to a long list of potential negative environmental effects — of which water contamination is the most worrisome.

“Most experts agree that impacts on water raise the greatest environmental concern by shale gas development,” says the report’s executive summary. Increased greenhouse gas emissions, seismic activity, socioeconomic disruption and poor scientific monitoring also pose a problem for shale gas extraction, an established industry in British Columbia and Alberta but with potential in eastern provinces, the report says.

Shale gas extraction, which is much more advanced in the United States than in Canada, has been proceeding without an adequate scientific understanding of its impacts, says the report’s conclusion. “Well-targeted science is required to ensure a better understanding of the environmental impacts of shale gas development,” it says. “Authoritative data about potential environmental impacts are neither sufficient nor conclusive.”

Shale deposits have been identified around the world, but North America is ground zero for the so-called ‘shale boom’. Adequate regulation of shale gas fracking has been a pressing question for the industry, which has been the target of documentaries and environmentalist campaigns in the U.S. over the past several years.

The anxiety over shale gas fracking eventually led former environment minister Peter Kent to commission the report in 2012. He asked the Council of Canadian Academies, an arm’s-length scientific body Ottawa occasionally turns to for advice, to provide an overview of the known scientific research on fracking.

The council encountered a scientific field riddled with unknowns. “While tens of thousands of shale gas wells have been drilled across North America over the last two decades, mostly in the United States, there has been no comprehensive investment in the research and monitoring of environmental impacts,” the report says. A lot of information isn’t known, and a lot that is isn’t public, says the report. “As a result, many pertinent questions are hard to answer objectively and scientifically.”

Despite the knowledge gaps, the consensus among the panelists is that water contamination is the greatest threat. The report says a gas leak into groundwater poses the highest risk, which could happen if the gas travelled around the well or if it leaked through an improperly installed casing. “The potential impacts of leaking wells are not being systemically monitored, and predictions (on the impacts of leakages) remain unreliable,” the report says.

There’s a second potential route for contamination, the report says. Fracking takes place inside rock about 1,000 meters below the surface and involves the breaking up of shale to release pockets of natural gas. The region where fracking occurs is much deeper than the groundwater level, but if there are pathways in the shale rock there’s a risk that natural gas — along with the fluids and chemicals used in fracking — could leak into groundwater, says the report. “The migration of gases and saline fluids through these pathways over the long term could result in potentially substantial cumulative impacts on water quality,” it says. But, “There is no known case of hydraulic fracturing fluid migration from deep shale gas zones to groundwater level directly through the rock.”

The climate change impacts of fracking could be positive if fracking leads to natural gas displacing more carbon-intensive fuels like coal, the report says. But if the shale boom takes investment away from renewable power, it could make things worse, it says.

Shale gas can have a dramatic effect on communities, increasing income inequality and pollution, the report says. A general lack of social acceptance and trust is also undermining the public’s understanding of shale gas, it says. “Psychosocial impacts have also been reported,” it says. “Lack of transparency and conflicting messages can lead to the perception that industry or authorities are not forthcoming, which can augment concern about individual quality of life and contribute to feelings of anxiety about the future.”

British Columbia is nurturing the exploration of its shale gas with the aim of becoming a hub for the export of liquified natural gas. Quebec and Nova Scotia currently have moratoriums on fracking while New Brunswick is updating regulations for the divisive shale gas operations happening there.

The Canadian federal government — which has some jurisdiction over the shale gas boom through its regulation of toxic chemicals, emissions and fish habitat — has been sponsoring research programs on fracking’s impact while waiting for the Council of Canadian Academies report, which has now been released.

More & More Cases of Water Pollution

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Don Alejandro May 10, 2014 at 7:35 am

‘But, “There is no known case of hydraulic fracturing fluid migration from deep shale gas zones to groundwater level directly through the rock.”’

Of course, there are also no known cases of oil leaks ‘directly through a pipe’ or chemical leaks ‘directly through the tank’ or leaks of any kind directly through an intact barrier.

But there are plenty of known leaks through cracks in pipes or holes in tanks. Fracking fluid, oil, and gas will leak through cracks in the rock and through the many holes drilled through the rock.

Isn’t the whole point of fracking to open up cracks? And wells are repeatedly fracked, so the chances of creating or widening cracks through what is *not* solid contiguous rock go up with each frack…

Reply

S. Thomas Bond May 10, 2014 at 3:03 pm

And notice how the industry carefully avoids the one thing that would quickly and easily prove migration of fracture fluid – the use of chemical tracers, compounds that can easily be identified as coming from a well, because they do not exist in nature. The shale drilling industry has so many fatal flaws in the nonsense they put out it has to be more carefully organized than a ballet. If you go to a talk given by one of them, you can almost see the wires from the speaker going back to the computer that has been programmed with the right words and intonation.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: