WASHINGTON – The House approved a bill Wednesday aimed at speeding up drilling for oil and natural gas.
The measure was one of three energy measures the House was considering this week as Republicans controlling the chamber push to expand an oil and gas boom that’s lowered prices and led the U.S. to produce more oil last month than it imported from abroad.
Another bill expected to win approval later Wednesday would restrict the Interior Department from enforcing proposed rules to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on public lands. A third bill would streamline permitting for natural gas pipelines.
Supporters say the bills are needed to ensure that a drilling boom taking place on state and private lands extends to millions of acres, mostly in the West, under federal control.
Obama to veto bills
President Barack Obama has promised to veto the bills, saying they are unnecessary and run counter to protections put in place for oil and gas drilling.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., who sponsored the bill to speed up permitting, said the current energy boom has mainly occurred on state and private lands, including the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana and the Marcellus Shale region centred in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Said Lamborn:
[quote]The only reason we haven’t seen that same dynamic growth on federal lands is because of excess regulations.[/quote]
Automatic approval, $5,000 bill for protestors
Lamborn’s bill would deem a drilling application approved if no decision is made within 60 days, set a minimum threshold for lands leased by the Bureau of Land Management and charge a $5,000 fee to groups that protest lease permits. The House approved the measure, 228-192.
Lamborn said the bill would reduce federal “red tape” and cut down on “frivolous lawsuits that act as stumbling blocks to job creation and energy development.”
Democrats and environmental groups called the bill a handout to the big oil companies and said it would gut important environmental protections and stifle efforts by the public to intervene in drilling decisions.
Democrat: Bills a “waste of time”
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, called the bills a waste of time, since they were unlikely to be taken up in the Democratic-controlled Senate and faced veto threats from Obama.
The drilling bill and others being considered in the House “distract and delay this body’s critical attention to the issues of critical concern to all Americans,” including adoption of a federal budget and passage of a farm bill and immigration overhaul, Hoyer said.
The House was debating another bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would block the Interior Department from enforcing a proposed rule on hydraulic fracturing on federal lands in states where drilling regulations are already in place.
All about fracking
Hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking, involves pumping huge volumes of water, sand and chemicals underground to split open rocks to allow oil and gas to flow. Improved technology has allowed energy companies to gain access to huge stores of natural gas underneath states from Wyoming to New York but has raised widespread concerns that it might lead to groundwater contamination and even earthquakes.
A draft rule issued this spring would require companies that drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands to publicly disclose the chemicals used in fracking operations. A final rule is expected next year.
Flores called his bill an important step to reaffirm states’ rights to determine energy production, as well as a way to create jobs.
Because of fracking and other techniques, the U.S. could be “energy secure” by 2020, Flores said.
[quote]This is a goal we should pursue, just as we did in the 1960s to put a man on the moon.[/quote]
Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., said state rules on fracking vary widely.
“That’s why it’s important that the Interior Department put in place a regulatory floor of safety measures to assure that there are at least minimal protections in place on all public lands in all states,” he said.
Frackwater pits in Talisman’s Farrell Creek operations in northeast BC – photo taken in March. Pond A, on the far right, suffered a rupture, leaking contaminants into the soil and groundwater (Two Island Films)
by Damien Gillis and Will Koop
A pit storing contaminated fracking water in northeast BC was leaking into the surrounding soil and groundwater for up to six months before owner Talisman formally notified the Oil and Gas Commission and undertook clean-up efforts, The Common Sense Canadian has learned.
One of five lined pits connected to Talisman’s Farrell Creek operations north of Hudson’s Hope, referred to as Pond A, suffered a puncture through both of its protective layers, causing toxic fluids to begin escaping into the environment. The pits are used to store “produced water” from previous fracks to be reused later as part of a program to cut back on freshwater use. Ironically, this practice has now threatened local groundwater due to the ruptured liners.
It has proven difficult to obtain straight answers from the regulator or company, but through a series of recent communications, we have been able to piece together a rough timeline of the incident.
Holes in Talisman’s liner, story
Pond A in Sept 2010. Both protective liners would later fail (Will Koop)
Talisman’s storage pits consist of two liners with a a layer of interstitial webbing in between. As Talisman Community Engagement Advisor Dan Glover explained this past Friday over the phone, that webbing contains sensors which detected a leak in the inside membrane during a routine inspection in “late January” of this year.
“What we didn’t pick up at that time was that there was also an issue with the second liner,” added Glover.
“From what I understand, we started draining the pond in late January when the leak was detected, but it didn’t happen quickly,” he acknowledged.
[quote]That’s a lot of water to truck away.
[/quote]
Indeed, Pond A holds approximately 30,000 cubic metres (30 million litres) of fluids at capacity. With the three neighbouring pits full, the company had to pump out Pond A by tanker truck, removing the toxic liquid waste to the Silverberry industrial waste transfer site, some 70 km away. Each truck can carry just 30-36 cubic metres, meaning almost 1,000 truck loads to empty the pit (and about 120,000-140,000 total km of travel).
That said, the above aerial image of the pits, taken on March 28, conflicts with Mr. Glover’s statement that the company began emptying the pond back in January after the sensors detected a leak in the inner membrane. At least two months later, there is no visible sign that the company has even begun pumping out Pond A.
Getting to the bottom of Pond A leak
It is unclear when Talisman did begin emptying the pit, but Mr. Glover claims it was fully drained by the beginning of June, after which the company removed the liners and discovered the outer layer had failed too, meaning the pit had been leaking for close to 5 months into the soil and groundwater at that point.
In a November 8 email to Hudson’s Hope Mayor Gwen Johansson, responding to questions from a concerned community member, Glover said, “…in June we informed the OGC that we were taking the pond out of service.” Yet, in an advisory emailed to media last week, the regulator stated, “The BC Oil and Gas Commission is investigating a leak in a Talisman frackwater storage pond that was reported by the company on July 22, 2013.”
We asked Mr. Glover to account for the discrepancy between to two conflicting dates when the spill was reported to the OGC. He explained that the first notification, in June, was an informal “heads-up” from Talisman’s regulatory compliance officer. The July date constitutes the company’s “official self-disclosure” to the regulator.
It would take another two and a half months for the OGC to issue a formal order to Talisman “to delineate the extent of soil and groundwater impact in and around Pond A and provide the results to the OGC,” according to Glover. The OGC has declined repeated requests to furnish us with a copy of the order, but has acknowledged the date was October 4 – with a deadline of November 29 for more detailed reporting of remediation and test results on the soil and groundwater.
The above sequence illustrates some serious gaps in the regulatory framework for the industry, with companies left to self-report such incidents, and an apparent lack of urgency on the part of the OGC for mandating and monitoring emergency clean-up measures.
First Nations upset at lack of disclosure
Chief Roland Wilson of West Moberly First Nations, on whose shared territory the leak occurred, is upset at the lack of disclosure by Talisman and the OGC. He says that dialogue with both entities only began once the Nation initiated it, after hearing about learning of the leak through other sources. “They didn’t come forward with anything. That’s a big concern,” says Wilson.
[quote]We have people on the ground – hunters, people practicing their treaty rights. Is this getting into the creeks where they’re camping? Who knows what’s happening? The OGC has the duty to consult. When there is a possible threat to the safety of our members, it’s their duty to inform us.[/quote]
Talisman also neglected to inform West Moberly of the incident, in spite of a memorandum of understanding between the Nation and company which mandates open dialogue. Mr. Glover doesn’t dispute this point. However, when asked why the company didn’t inform First Nations of the leak in January when it was first detected, he suggests it didn’t yet have enough information to share without further investigation.
[quote]We didn’t want to go to them and say, ‘hey guys, we have an issue with one of our ponds,’ then they would ask, ‘what’s the issue?’ and we would have told them we have no idea.[/quote]
That said, there remains the apparent contradiction between the company’s timeline for draining the pit and the above photographic evidence, which suggests Talisman’s response was far less prompt than it has portrayed.
Mr. Glover says that once First Nations contacted Talisman with concerns about the leaking pit, they were invited for a site inspection. He also maintains the company will share its reports on the clean-up with First Nations throughout the region going forward.
Liners punctured by shale
The 12 metre-deep Pond A in Sept. 2010 (Will Koop)
Talisman believes the pit’s liners were punctured by a chunk of shale protruding from the surrounding soil, in the bottom third of the 12 metre-deep cavity.
Following the draining of the pit, Talisman hired Highmark Environmental Services to remove contaminated soil and Matrix Solutions for groundwater monitoring. Results from preliminary testing were supplied to the OGC on September 16, along with an initial remediation plan, which Highmark began to implement. As of last week, an estimated 4,600 cubic metres of soil had been removed and trucked to the Silverberry facility – with approximately 300 cubic metres of contaminated soil remaining to be removed.
The work is ongoing, with follow up meetings being planned in the coming weeks between Talisman and the regulator to review the company’s progress and further testing results.
Chemicals, contamination largely unknown
The company has been unclear about the nature of contaminants in the frackwater, only acknowledging the presence of chlorides, sodium and dissolved solids. In his email to the Hudson’s Hope mayor, Mr. Glover pointed to the province’s “FracFocus” tool, a database where companies operating in BC are now mandated to file chemicals used in their fracks. However, companies are allowed to keep trade secrets and use other tricks to avoid full disclosure.
For instance, we examined the FracFocus list of ingredients used in Well 93-i of the Altares field,directly across the road from the frack fluid storage pits, as an example of the toxics potentially contained in Pond A. While contractor Schlumberger lists most of the chemicals it used in the well, it leaves out some critical details and product information (known as CAS Registry Numbers). And since the FracFocus tool has only been in place since November 2011 in BC, there is data missing for a number of older wells.
For example, Talisman only reports chemicals used in 73 out of 111 of its wells in the Altares field. The company’s total data for the 73 Altares wells indicates it used 993,832 cubic metres (almost a billion litres) of water for fracking purposes – and about 10,000 cubic metres (10 million litres) of toxic additives.
Moreover, the FracFocus tool does not include drilling additives, which, as revealed in a recent peer-reviewed, published paper, can be just as dangerous as fracking fluids.
In any event, here are just a few of the chemicals disclosed by contractor Schlumberger at Talisman’s well (view the full list here):
Hydrochloric Acid
Distillates (petroleum)
Sodium hydroxide (impurity)
2-Methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one
Trisodium nitrilotriacetate (impurity)
We asked Calgary-based Talisman spokesperson Berta Gomez specifically if the water contained the known carcinogen benzene, to which she replied via email, “Yes the produced water does contain low level concentrations of Benzene. Our sampling has shown an average concentration of 0.465 mg/L with a range of 0.211 – 0.824 mg/L,” though she maintains that’s well below the allowable concentration under BC’s Contaminated Sites Regulations.
Finally, neither the OGC nor Talisman have yet to reveal to the public the naturally occurring toxics released within the fracked flow back water – such as mercury, arsenic, barium, strontium, chromium, BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes), radium, uranium, and whatever other dangerous underground substances are being dredged up by fracking (read our recent story about dead cows and radiation connected to fracking near a farm in Alberta).
Volume of leaked frackwater unknown
According to the OGC, “The volume of fluid leaked [from Pond A] at this point has not been determined.”
For his part, Mr. Glover stated by email:
[quote]At this time we don’t know the extent of the groundwater impact; however, initial results indicate the impact is quite localized (immediate vicinity of our pond) and that the groundwater chloride concentrations do not pose a significant risk to freshwater species. We continue to check our groundwater monitoring wells on an ongoing basis and we have drilled additional wells to enhance our understanding of the groundwater conditions.[/quote]
Of particular concern is the indication on a provincial mapping service, iMap BC, that a stream runs near the four waste pits (shown on the graphic below) – which are perched at the top of a hill. Pond A rests at the eastern edge nearest the downhill slope. The company maintains the penetration of fluids into the soil has been limited to .75 metres in depth and Mr. Glover says there is no visible stream in that location. That said, government data suggests otherwise and the location of the pond at the top of a hill is cause for concern.
Government claims zero water contamination from fracking
BC Minister for Natural Gas Rich Coleman penned an op-ed in The Georgia Straightone week after the story of Talisman’s leak was broken by The Globe and Mail, boldlydeclaring:
[quote]The net result of both our strong regulatory framework and our geology is that B.C.’s water supply is protected and safe. It has never been contaminated as a result of hydraulic fracturing.[/quote]
OGC spokesperson Hardy Friedrich echoed these comments to the media as late as last week, on November 13, stating “Water has never been contaminated as a result of hydraulic fracturing in B.C.”
And yet, both the OGC and Talisman acknowledge there has been groundwater contamination here from the leaking Pond A. The regulator was also quick to defend the industry’s record in its media lines surrounding the leak, stating, “There have been no similar incidents in 2013. There is only one similar instance in the past five years. It occurred in 2011. In that incident the leak was immediately detected, the storage pond drained and the area remediated.”
It is nevertheless incorrect to state that water has never been contaminated from fracking in BC. Moreover, as this incident demonstrates, the regulatory system in place isn’t designed to detect contamination, so we have no real sense of how many other incidents have gone undetected or unreported. As of 2012, the OGC had all of ONE hydrologist on staff.
Talisman’s shale for sale
A Talisman frack pad near Pond A – March 28 (Two Island Films)
This incident also comes amidst the planned sale of most of Talisman’s Montney shale gas assets to Progress Energy – a subsidiary of Malaysian energy giant and would-be BC LNG player Petronas – for $1.5 Billion. The deal involving Talisman’s Farrell Creek and Cypress operations was announced on November 8 and is expected to conclude sometime in the new year.
It would appear the Pond A incident is alreading weighing on prospective owner Progress/Petronas’ mind. Following initial conversations last week about the leaking pond, Talisman spokesperson Berta Gomez told us via email, “Since the Progress/Talisman deal was announced, we need to get approval from them for any media response we provide on any issue that involves them. Can I ask you please to hold the publication of the interview you did to me until I get responses approved by Progress?”
Chief Wilson is worried about the pending handover from Talisman to Progress/Petronas and how that will impact the remediation of Pond A and relations with his community around economic and environmental issues:
[quote]This poses a concern for us because we don’t have any kind of a working relationship with Progress. We don’t know if they’re going to honour our Memorandum of Understanding with Talisman, or the employment opportunities we’ve been working on with them for our members. What’s going to happen now?[/quote]
Mr. Glover says Talisman is aiming to have clean-up completed by year-end, but that doesn’t include any final decision about what to do with the pond beyond that.
Clearly, the Talisman leak has revealed holes in more than just the company’s storage pit liners. These gaps in BC’s regulatory framework need to be addressed with the new Water Sustainability Act. The incident also poses somes tough questions for a government that wants to dramatically ramp up fracking to feed proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants on BC’s coast, yet doesn’t seem prepared to acknowledge the risks the controversial practice poses on the ground.
[quote]The current global trend of coal use is consistent with an emissions pathway above the IEA’s [International Energy Agency] 6°C scenario. That risks an outcome that can only be described as catastrophic, beyond anything that mankind has experienced during its entire existence on earth.[/quote]
There will likely be little talk at the coal summit of just how ridiculous the idea of commercially deployed CCS is becoming.
Carbon capture and storage technology has been a “future” solution for many years now, with governments abandoning experimental projects due to cost overruns and lack of progress. Governments like the United States, at the behest of the coal lobby, have pumped billions into CCS technology experiments, yet it continues to fail as a commercially viable option.
A recent study by the Global CCS Institute found that the number of large scale CCS projects has dropped to 65 from 75 over the last year. If this was the grand solution to the urgent issue of climate change, you would think we would be seeing more projects coming on line, not fewer.
Even if we saw a breakthrough in CCS, huge issues remain. The first hurdle is finance.
As renewable energy technology prices continue to drop and reach parity with fossil fuels like coal (something we are already seeing), CCS begins to make less and less sense from a financial point of view. Coal prices will inevitably go up to cover the costs of CCS development making it uncompetitive with renewable energy.
A second big hurdle is regulation of carbon storage. CCS can only work as a solution to climate change if the captured carbon stays safely in the ground forever. So who is in charge of ensuring that all that carbon stays underground? Coal companies? If a coal company takes on that responsibility, what happens when that company goes under? Who then is responsible? Taxpayers?
What if there’s an earthquake near a carbon storage facility? A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science concludes that even a small earthquake event in the US has the potential to release stored carbon back into the atmosphere, making “large-scale CCS a risky, and likely unsuccessful, strategy for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
In the United States, the coal industry argues that the government (read: taxpayers) should take on the responsibility and the liability for stored carbon – a convenient stance for the coal industry.
Finally there are the logistics of capturing carbon and moving it either by pipeline, train or truck to a designated storage facility.
[quote]Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, Canada, argued recently in Nature that ‘carbon sequestration is irresponsibly portrayed as an imminently useful option for solving the challenge [of global warming].’ Smil pointed out that to sequester just 25% of the CO2 emitted by stationary sources (mostly coal plants), we would have to create a system whose annual volume of fluid would be slightly more than twice that of the world’s crude-oil industry.[/quote]
Smil’s own words, to sequester just a fifth of current CO2 emissions:
[quote]… we would have to create an entirely new worldwide absorption-gathering-compression-transportation- storage industry whose annual throughput would have to be about 70 percent larger than the annual volume now handled by the global crude oil industry whose immense infrastructure of wells, pipelines, compressor stations and storages took generations to build.[/quote]
Any practical thinker should by now be asking themselves: Wouldn’t it just be easier to put up a bunch of solar panels and wind turbines?
Unfortunately, the mythical distraction of ‘clean coal’ and still unrealized CCS commercialization remain a shiny penny for the technocentric crowd.
Valhalla Wilderness Society is reporting that a pair of proposed natural gas pipelines connected to liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals planned for Prince Rupert will no longer pass through two important grizzly bear sanctuaries. The changes come following public pressure from Valhalla and other conservation groups.
The two pipelines – one to be built by Spectra, the other by TransCanada Corp on behalf of Malaysian energy giant Petronas – were due to pass through the the Kwinimass and Khutzeymateen conservancies, created in 2006 to protect important bear habitat. Illegal survey work in the area by a TransCanada subcontractor drew repeated warnings from BC Parks this summer and provoked criticism in the media.
According to a Thursday newsletter from Valhalla:
[quote]The withdrawal of the proposed pipeline routes was apparently due to prompt action undertaken by VWS coastal campaigner, Wayne McCrory along with the protests of many others. Although we do not have 100% confirmation from the companies, themselves, our information comes from very reliable sources in government, and from our legal representative.[/quote]
The Petronas-owned Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project would be the largest pipeline in Canadian history at 4 feet in diameter, carrying 2-3.6 billion cubic feet per day of gas to a large LNG terminal north of Prince Rupert. The project would require the logging of pristine rainforest for a right-of-way of up to 200 metres wide – plus access roads and compressor stations.
McCrory referred to the plan in the media in September as “a shocking and unconscionable betrayal of the bears, the Park Act, and the Great Bear Rainforest decision of 2006.”
TransCanada had also applied for permits to do geotechnical studies that would involve drilling. According to Valhalla, “The park use permit application has now been withdrawn, as well.”
The other pipeline proposed for the area, belonging to Spectra, would be the same diameter and carry even more gas – up to 4.2 billion cubic feet per day. “Spectra has told people that it will not be going through the protected areas,” says Valahalla. “However, the company’s PR person has stated that the Khutzeymateen routing is not yet fully off the table.”
These two mammoth pipelines represent only a portion of those currently proposed to criss-cross the wilderness of northern BC, as this new map illustrates. There are five serious gas pipeline proposals, six more that have been floated, plus the Enbridge Northern Gateway twin bitumen and condensate lines – all part of the “gold rush mentality surrounding the BC government’s LNG promotion efforts in Asia,” says Valhalla.
First Nations and supporters protest fracking in Vancouver last month (Damien Gillis)
Canada’s largest private sector union, Unifor, has joined the growing chorus of concern over controversial shale gas development. The labour organization representing over 300,000 members in a wide range of economic sectors, including energy, is calling for a national fracking moratorium.
Unifor issued a statement from its 25-member National Executive Board Thursday raising concerns about the impacts of shale gas development on the environment and on First Nations’ rights.
“Unconventional gas fracking has the potential to have catastrophic effects on our environment and economy. The safety risks are also a major concern for our union,” said Unifor National President Jerry Dias.
[quote]Just because we can carry out this activity does not mean we should. We must enact a national moratorium on fracking activity.[/quote]
That last point was a key factor in Unifor’s decision to come out against fracking – as the union noted in its statement:
[quote]Any resource extraction industry in Canada must confront the problem of unresolved aboriginal land claims, and the inadequate economic benefits (including employment opportunities) which have been offered to First Nations communities from resource developments. [/quote]
Despite the potential job benefits to its, members, Unifor remains highly critical of the shale gas industry, concluding:
[quote]Instead of being guided by short-term swings in prices and profits for private energy producers, Canada’s federal and provincial governments must develop and implement (in cooperation with other stakeholders) a national plan for a stable, sustainable energy industry that respects our social and environmental commitments, and generates lasting wealth for all who live here.[/quote]
Council of Canadians calls for national fracking moratorium
Unifor’s call for a national moratorium echoes recent statements by public interest group The Council of Canadians.
Canada’s big energy workers’ unions are increasingly taking a critical look at the job promises from fossil fuel development. Watch this speech by president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Dave Coles, at last year’s Defend Our Coast rally in Victoria, explaining why his members are “diametrically opposed” to Tar Sands pipelines to BC’s coast:
Controversial natural gas fracking operations in BC (Damien Gillis)
CALGARY – With the Northwest Territories preparing to take control of its resource development next spring, its industry minister has been busy looking at the best way to regulate its nascent shale oil industry.
A devolution agreement kicks in on April 1, at which point oversight of most oil, natural gas and mining activities will move from the federal to the territorial government.
That means David Ramsay — who manages the industry, tourism, investment, public utilities and justice cabinet portfolios — has a busy five months ahead of him.
The minister is in Calgary this week to speak to energy companies active in the north about what changes may be in store and get their feedback. He’s also been meeting with regulatory and Alberta government officials.
“We really just to let them know that it’s going to be as seamless a transition as possible,” he told reporters Wednesday.
Ramsay is looking at which regulatory model would best serve the territory, and a decision is expected to be made soon. Says Ramsay:
[quote]We need to be ready. We can’t afford not to be.
[/quote]
Ramsay said he likes how the Alberta Energy Regulator works. The recently created AER combines the functions of its predecessor, the Energy Resources Conservation Board, with those of other government departments, leading to less duplication.
He said the Northwest Territories has a “tremendous” opportunity in the Central Mackenzie Valley, where companies such as Husky Energy Inc. (TSX:HSE), ConocoPhillips and others are in the early stages of exploring for oil in the Canol shale.
Getting oil out of the Canol requires hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — a method that entails breaking the rock with a high-pressure mixture of water, chemicals and sand.
While fracking has been controversial and many jurisdictions have declared moratoriums on the practice, Ramsay said he’s convinced that extraction method is safe.
One of the biggest challenges ahead will be staffing the new regulator to ensure it has the right expertise to oversee the type of energy development that’s new to the territory.
The devolution agreement does not cover the offshore and the National Energy Board will continue to oversee drilling in the Beaufort Sea.
However, Ramsay said the Northwest Territories government is in talks with Ottawa about sharing some of that responsibility — perhaps under a model similar to offshore petroleum boards in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia.
Most of the Northwest Territory’s royalty take will be used for much-needed infrastructure projects such as roads. But a yet-to-be determined portion will be set aside in a savings fund, he said.
A new map (scroll down to view) reveals the full scope of oil and gas pipelines proposed to criss-cross BC. Compiled by Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition and Skeena Wild, the graphic depicts the planned routes for a staggering six new pipelines – five designed to carry natural gas to proposed liquefaction (LNG) plants in Kitimat and Prince Rupert, plus the twin bitumen and condensate Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge.
Plans for an additional six gas pipelines have yet to be formalized.
These pipelines have sparked a variety of concerns for local residents and conservationists – including impacts on an important grizzly sanctuary from the proposed line to supply Malaysian energy giant Petronas’ LNG terminal near Prince Rupert. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project, which TransCanada Corp has been hired to build, is slated to run through the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy. Preliminary work has already drawn multiple warnings from BC Parks over unpermitted helicopters and work crews in the area.
In other communities like Hazelton and the Kispiox Valley, residents are concerned about a flurry of invasive industrial activity by Spectra – looking to build its own pipeline to Prince Rupert – and TransCanada, long before permits have been obtained. “They are all over the place here,” resident and founder of the citizen information website NoMorePipelines.ca, Graeme Pole told the Globe and Mail in September.
[quote]There are literally armadas of trucks going up these roads with ATVs in the back. And they are flying helicopters overhead, going to places we can’t reach.[/quote]
The Northwest Institue’s Pat Moss echoed these concerns, exclaiming, “At this point, it’s a free for all…it’s a gold rush mentality.”
The companies have defended their practices, but it’s easy to see how concerns on the ground are mounting. Given the scope and potential impact of all these different pipelines across BC’s northern wilderness and related LNG plants, a key criticism of the review process has been the lack of any consideration of the cumulative impacts or big-picture planning and public engagement. More details on the individual pipelines and LNG plants below.
Executive Summary from the World Energy Outlook 2013
The International Energy Agency’s authoritative World Energy Outlook provides an analysis of global energy markets highlighting the world’s energy and environmental challenges.
Orientation for a fast-changing energy world
[quote]Many of the long-held tenets of the energy sector are being rewritten.[/quote] Major importers are becoming exporters, while countries long-defined as major energy exporters are also becoming leading centres of global demand growth. The right combination of policies and technologies is proving that the links between economic growth, energy demand and energy-related CO2 emissions can be weakened. The rise of unconventional oil and gas and of renewables is transforming our understanding of the distribution of the world’s energy resources. Awareness of the dynamics underpinning energy markets is essential for decisionmakers attempting to reconcile economic, energy and environmental objectives. Those that anticipate global energy developments successfully can derive an advantage, while those that fail to do so risk making poor policy and investment decisions. This edition of the World Energy Outlook (WEO-2013) examines the implications of different sets of choices for energy and climate trends to 2035, providing insights along the way that can help policymakers, industry and other stakeholders find their way in a fast-changing energy world.
[quote]The centre of gravity of energy demand is switching decisively to the emerging economies, particularly China, India and the Middle East, which drive global energy use one-third higher. [/quote]In the New Policies Scenario, the central scenario of WEO-2013, China dominates the picture within Asia, before India takes over from 2020 as the principal engine of growth. Southeast Asia likewise emerges as an expanding demand centre (a development covered in detail in the WEO Special Report: Southeast Asia Energy Outlook, published in October 2013). China is about to become the largest oil-importing country and India becomes the largest importer of coal by the early 2020s. The United States moves steadily towards meeting all of its energy needs from domestic resources by 2035. Together, these changes represent a re-orientation of energy trade from the Atlantic basin to the Asia-Pacific region. High oil prices, persistent differences in gas and electricity prices between regions and rising energy import bills in many countries focus attention on the relationship between energy and the broader economy. The links between energy and development are illustrated clearly in Africa, where, despite a wealth of resources, energy use per capita is less than one-third of the global average in 2035. Africa today is home to nearly half of the 1.3 billion people in the world without access to electricity and one-quarter of the 2.6 billion people relying on the traditional use of biomass for cooking. Globally, fossil fuels continue to meet a dominant share of global energy demand, with implications for the links between energy, the environment and climate change.
[quote]As the source of two-thirds of global greenhouse-gas emissions, the energy sector will be pivotal in determining whether or not climate change goals are achieved.[/quote] Although some carbon abatement schemes have come under pressure, initiatives such as the President’s Climate Action Plan in the United States, the Chinese plan to limit the share of coal in the domestic energy mix, the European debate on 2030 energy and climate targets and Japan’s discussions on a new energy plan all have the potential to limit the growth in energy-related CO2 emissions. In our central scenario, taking into account the impact of measures already announced by governments to improve energy efficiency, support renewables, reduce fossil-fuel subsidies and, in some cases, to put a price on carbon, energy-related CO2 emissions still rise by 20% to 2035. This leaves the world on a trajectory consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of 3.6 °C, far above the internationally agreed 2 °C target.
Who has the energy to compete?
[quote]Large differences in regional energy prices have sparked a debate about the role of energy in unleashing or frustrating economic growth.[/quote] Brent crude oil has averaged $110 per barrel in real terms since 2011, a sustained period of high oil prices that is without parallel in oil market history. But unlike crude oil prices, which are relatively uniform worldwide, prices of other fuels have been subject to significant regional variations. Although gas price differentials have come down from the extraordinary levels seen in mid-2012, natural gas in the United States still trades at one-third of import prices to Europe and one-fifth of those to Japan. Electricity prices also vary, with average Japanese or European industrial consumers paying more than twice as much for power as their counterparts in the United States, and even Chinese industry paying almost double the US level. In most sectors, in most countries, energy is a relatively minor part of the calculation of competitiveness. But energy costs can be of crucial importance to energy-intensive industries, such as chemicals, aluminium, cement, iron and steel, paper, glass and oil refining, particularly where the resulting goods are traded internationally. Energy-intensive sectors worldwide account for around one-fifth of industrial value added, one-quarter of industrial employment and 70% of industrial energy use.
[quote]Energy price variations are set to affect industrial competitiveness, influencing investment decisions and company strategies.[/quote] While regional differences in natural gas prices narrow in our central scenario, they nonetheless remain large through to 2035 and, in most cases, electricity price differentials persist. In many emerging economies, particularly in Asia, strong growth in domestic demand for energy-intensive goods supports a swift rise in their production (accompanied by export expansion). But relative energy costs play a more decisive role in shaping developments elsewhere. The United States sees a slight increase in its share of global exports of energy-intensive goods, providing the clearest indication of the link between relatively low energy prices and the industrial outlook. By contrast, the European Union and Japan both see a strong decline in their export shares – a combined loss of around one-third of their current share.
Searching for an energy boost to the economy
[quote]Countries can reduce the impact of high prices by promoting more efficient, competitive and interconnected energy markets.[/quote] Cost differentials between regional gas markets could be narrowed further by more rapid movement towards a global gas market. As we examine in a Gas Price Convergence Case, this would require a loosening of the current rigidity of liquefied natural gas (LNG) contracting structures and oil-indexed pricing mechanisms, spurred by accelerated gas market reforms in the Asia-Pacific region and LNG exports from North America (and an easing of costs for LNG liquefaction and shipping). There is also potential in some regions, notably China, parts of Latin America and even parts of Europe, to replicate at smaller scale the US success in developing its unconventional gas resources, though uncertainty remains over the quality of the resources, the costs of their production and, in some countries, public acceptance for their development.
[quote]A renewed focus on energy efficiency is taking hold and is set to deliver benefits that extend well beyond improvements in competitiveness.[/quote] Notable policies introduced over the past year include measures targeting efficiency improvements in buildings in Europe and Japan, in motor vehicles in North America and in air conditioners in parts of the Middle East, and energy pricing reforms in China and India. As well as bringing down costs for industry, efficiency measures mitigate the impact of energy prices on household budgets (the share of energy in household spending has reached very high levels in the European Union) and on import bills (the share of energy imports in Japan’s GDP has risen sharply). But the potential for energy efficiency is still far from exhausted: two-thirds of the economic potential of energy efficiency is set to remain untapped in our central scenario.
[quote]Action is needed to break down the various barriers to investment in energy efficiency.[/quote] This includes phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies, which we estimate rose to $544 billion worldwide in 2012. Enhancing energy competitiveness does not mean diminishing efforts to tackle climate change. The WEO Special Report: Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map, published in June 2013 identified four pragmatic measures – improving efficiency, limiting the construction and use of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants, minimising methane emissions in upstream oil and gas, and reforming fossil-fuel subsidies – that could halt the increase in emissions by 2020 without harming economic growth. This package of measures would complement the developments already envisaged in our central scenario, notably the rise in deployment of renewable energy technologies. Governments need, though, to be attentive to the design of their subsidies to renewables, which surpassed $100 billion in 2012 and expand to $220 billion in 2035. As renewables become increasingly competitive on their own merits, it is important that subsidy schemes allow for the multiple benefits of low-carbon energy sources without placing excessive burdens on those that cover the additional costs. A carefully conceived international climate change agreement can help to ensure that the energy-intensive industries in countries that act decisively to limit emissions do not face unequal competition from countries that do not.
Light tight oil shakes the next ten years, but leaves the longer term unstirred
[quote]The capacity of technologies to unlock new types of resources, such as light tight oil (LTO) and ultra-deepwater fields, and to improve recovery rates in existing fields is pushing up estimates of the amount of oil that remains to be produced. But this does not mean that the world is on the cusp of a new era of oil abundance.[/quote] An oil price that rises steadily to $128 per barrel (in year-2012 dollars) in 2035 supports the development of these new resources, though no country replicates the level of success with LTO that is making the United States the largest global oil producer. The rise of unconventional oil (including LTO) and natural gas liquids meets the growing gap between global oil demand, which rises by 14 mb/d to reach 101 mb/d in 2035, and production of conventional crude oil, which falls back slightly to 65 mb/d.
[quote]The Middle East, the only large source of low-cost oil, remains at the centre of the longer-term oil outlook.[/quote] The role of OPEC countries in quenching the world’s thirst for oil is reduced temporarily over the next ten years by rising output from the United States, from oil sands in Canada, from deepwater production in Brazil and from natural gas liquids from all over the world. But, by the mid-2020s, non-OPEC production starts to fall back and countries in the Middle East provide most of the increase in global supply. Overall, national oil companies and their host governments control some 80% of the world’s proven-plus-probable oil reserves.
[quote]The need to compensate for declining output from existing oil fields is the major driver for upstream oil investment to 2035.[/quote] Our analysis of more than 1 600 fields confirms that, once production has peaked, an average conventional field can expect to see annual declines in output of around 6% per year. While this figure varies according to the type of field, the implication is that conventional crude output from existing fields is set to fall by more than 40 mb/d by 2035. Among the other sources of oil, most unconventional plays are heavily dependent on continuous drilling to prevent rapid field-level declines. Of the 790 billion barrels of total production required to meet our projections for demand to 2035, more than half is needed just to offset declining production.
[quote]Demand for mobility and for petrochemicals keeps oil use on an upward trend to 2035, although the pace of growth slows.[/quote] The decline in oil use in OECD countries accelerates. China overtakes the United States as the largest oil-consuming country and Middle East oil consumption overtakes that of the European Union, both around 2030. The shifting geography of demand is further underlined by India becoming the largest single source of global oil demand growth after 2020. Oil consumption is concentrated in just two sectors by 2035: transport and petrochemicals. Transport oil demand rises by 25% to reach 59 mb/d, with one-third of the increase going to fuel road freight in Asia. In petrochemicals, the Middle East, China and North America help push up global oil use for feedstocks to 14 mb/d. High prices encourage efficiency improvements and undercut the position of oil wherever alternatives are readily available, with biofuels and natural gas gaining some ground as transport fuels.
The great migration in oil refining and trade
[quote]Major changes in the composition of oil supply and demand confront the world’s refiners with an ever-more complex set of challenges, and not all of them are well-equipped to survive.[/quote] Rising output of natural gas liquids, biofuels and coal- or gas-to-liquids technologies means that a larger share of liquid fuels reaches consumers without having to pass through the refinery system. Refiners nonetheless need to invest to meet a surge of more than 5 mb/d in demand for diesel that is almost triple the increase in gasoline use. The shift in the balance of oil consumption towards Asia and the Middle East sees a continued build-up of refining capacity in these regions; but, in many OECD countries, declining demand and competition in product export markets intensify pressure to shut capacity. Over the period to 2035, we estimate that nearly 10 mb/d of global refinery capacity is at risk, with refineries in OECD countries, and Europe in particular, among the most vulnerable. The new geography of demand and supply means a re-ordering of global oil trade flows towards Asian markets, with implications for co-operative efforts to ensure oil security. The net North American requirement for crude imports all but disappears by 2035 and the region becomes a larger exporter of oil products. Asia becomes the unrivalled centre of global oil trade as the region draws in – via a limited number of strategic transport routes – a rising share of the available crude oil. Deliveries to Asia come not only from the Middle East (where total crude exports start to fall short of Asian import requirements) but also from Russia, the Caspian, Africa, Latin America and Canada. New export-oriented refinery capacity in the Middle East raises the possibility that oil products, rather than crude, take a larger share of global trade, but much of this new capacity eventually serves to cater to increasing demand from within the region itself.
The power sector adjusts to a new life with wind and solar
[quote]Renewables account for nearly half of the increase in global power generation to 2035, with variable sources – wind and solar photovoltaics – making up 45% of the expansion in renewables. [/quote]China sees the biggest absolute increase in generation from renewable sources, more than the increase in the European Union, the United States and Japan combined. In some markets, the rising share of variable renewables creates challenges in the power sector, raising fundamental questions about current market design and its ability to ensure adequate investment and long-term reliability of supply. The increase in generation from renewables takes its share in the global power mix above 30%, drawing ahead of natural gas in the next few years and all but reaching coal as the leading fuel for power generation in 2035. The current rate of construction of nuclear power plants has been slowed by reviews of safety regulations, but output from nuclear eventually increases by two-thirds, led by China, Korea, India and Russia. Widespread deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology would be a way to accelerate the anticipated decline in the CO2 emissions intensity of the power sector, but in our projections only around 1% of global fossil fuel-fired power plants are equipped with CCS by 2035.
Economics and policies, in different doses, are key to the outlook for coal and gas
[quote]Coal remains a cheaper option than gas for generating electricity in many regions, but policy interventions to improve efficiency, curtail local air pollution and mitigate climate change will be critical in determining its longer-term prospects.[/quote] Policy choices in China, which has outlined plans to cap the share of coal in total energy use, will be particularly important as China now uses as much coal as the rest of the world combined. In our central scenario, global coal demand increases by 17% to 2035, with two-thirds of the increase occurring by 2020. Coal use declines in OECD countries. By contrast, coal demand expands by one-third in non-OECD countries – predominantly in India, China and Southeast Asia – despite China reaching a plateau around 2025. India, Indonesia and China account for 90% of the growth in coal production. Export demand makes Australia the only OECD country to register substantial growth in output.
[quote]Market conditions vary strikingly in different regions of the world, but the flexibility and environmental benefits of natural gas compared with other fossil fuels put it in a position to prosper over the longer term.[/quote] Growth is strongest in emerging markets, notably China, where gas use quadruples by 2035, and in the Middle East. But in the European Union, gas remains squeezed between a growing share of renewables and a weak competitive position versus coal in power generation, and consumption struggles to return to 2010 levels. North America continues to benefit from ample production of unconventional gas, with a small but significant share of this gas finding its way to other markets as LNG, contributing – alongside other conventional and unconventional developments in East Africa, China, Australia and elsewhere – to more diversity in global gas supply. New connections between markets act as a catalyst for changes in the way that gas is priced, including more widespread adoption of hub-based pricing.
Brazil is at the leading edge of deepwater and low-carbon development
[quote]Brazil, the special focus country in this year’s Outlook, is set to become a major exporter of oil and a leading global energy producer.[/quote] Based mainly on a series of recent offshore discoveries, Brazil’s oil production triples to reach 6 mb/d in 2035, accounting for one-third of the net growth in global oil production and making Brazil the world’s sixth-largest producer. Natural gas production grows more than five-fold, enough to cover all of the country’s domestic needs by 2030, even as these expand significantly. The increase in oil and gas production is dependent on highly complex and capital-intensive deepwater developments, requiring levels of upstream investment beyond those of either the Middle East or Russia. A large share of this will need to come from Petrobras, the national oil company, whose mandated role in developing strategic fields places heavy weight on its ability to deploy resources effectively across a huge and varied investment programme. Commitments made to source goods and services locally within Brazil add tension to a tightly stretched supply chain.
[quote]Brazil’s abundant and diverse energy resources underpin an 80% increase in its energy use, including the achievement of universal access to electricity.[/quote] Rising consumption is driven by the energy needs of an expanding middle class, resulting in strong growth in demand for transport fuels and a doubling of electricity consumption. Meeting this demand requires substantial and timely investment throughout the energy system – $90 billion per year on average. The system of auctions for new electricity generation and transmission capacity will be vital in bringing new capital to the power sector and in reducing pressure on end-user prices. The development of a well-functioning gas market, attractive to new entrants, can likewise help spur investment and improve the competitive position of Brazilian industry. A stronger policy focus on energy efficiency would ease potential strains on a rapidly growing energy system. Brazil’s energy sector remains one of the least carbon-intensive in the world, despite greater availability and use of fossil fuels. Brazil is already a world-leader in renewable energy and is set to almost double its output from renewables by 2035, maintaining their 43% share of the domestic energy mix. Hydropower remains the backbone of the power sector. Yet reliance on hydropower declines, in part because of the remoteness and environmental sensitivity of a large part of the remaining resource, much of which is in the Amazon region. Among the fuels with a rising share in the power mix, onshore wind power, which is already proving to be competitive, natural gas and electricity generated from bioenergy take the lead. In the transport sector, Brazil is already the world’s secondlargest producer of biofuels and its production, mainly as sugarcane ethanol, more than triples. Suitable cultivation areas are more than sufficient to accommodate this increase without encroaching on environmentally sensitive areas. By 2035, Brazilian biofuels meet almost one-third of domestic demand for road-transport fuel and its net exports account for about 40% of world biofuels trade.
If there is a definitive plan in place, the government isn’t laying it out yet: Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman says the Liberals’ LNG economic plan, which includes a tax structure developed with industry consultation, should be complete within thee next 30 days. It won’t be introduced to the legislature until next year.
Environment Minister Mary Polak says similar LNG environmental negotiations are underway, of which she indicates the options are limited and is refusing to fully elaborate.
But a process of elimination indicates B.C. will rely heavily on carbon offsets to meet its environmental goals.
Offsets in the offing for BC LNG emissions?
That means even if the actual pollution dumped into the atmosphere increases, rather than declines, B.C. will still be able to say the targets have been met because of the discounts offered by requiring industry to financially support environmentally-friendly initiatives to fight global warming.
Still, even if the offsets enable B.C. to claim it has met its pollution targets — targets trumpeted at the time as being among the most stringent in North America — the emissions levels Canada must report to the United Nations will tell a different story.
“There are only two ways to reduce emissions, you either actually reduce them or you find means of mitigation and many times that’s through offsets,” said Polak.
“We know many B.C. companies are carbon neutral — Harbour Air for example — but it’s not because they have no emissions. It’s because they purchase offsets.”
Full steam ahead with LNG: 5-7 plants targeted
Besides offsets, the government could reach the targets by taking its foot off the pedal on its ambitious LNG development goals.
That’s clearly not going to happen: Clark’s Liberal government says it wants to build the cleanest LNG industry in the world and continues to repeat election-campaign statements that B.C.’s natural gas will scrub clean China’s coal-darkened skies.
The government could back away from the targets committing it to cut greenhouse gas emissions 33 per cent by 2020 — targets created under a different Liberal government, before Clark’s aggressive push towards a liquefied natural gas industry and all the extra emissions it is bound to create.
The government has refused to say it will do that, but it has left the door open.
A government official, on background, says the targets are just that: targets. If they aren’t met, government will simply try harder to meet them next time. Much like balanced budget legislation, the official says, there are no penalties for not meeting the goal.
Environmentalists and noted climate scientists, including Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver and Simon Fraser University’s Mark Jaccard, who both consulted for the Liberals on the climate targets law in 2007, have already repeatedly said the province isn’t going to meet its pollution reduction targets.
”It’s certainly our goal,” says Coleman without committing to actually doing it.
“There may be some challenges around that,” he says in an interview shortly after returning from Asia where he toured an LNG plant in Malaysia and met with executives from Petronas, the Malaysian energy company planning a $36 billion LNG investment near Prince Rupert.
[quote]We’re going to have the highest environmental standards that there are and we’re going to have the cleanest industry that there is in the world as well.[/quote]
Carbon capture in its infancy
A third option to require the industry to explore other emission reduction techniques that could involve storing carbon emissions underground is appealing, but the technology is in its infancy and no one expects B.C. can rely on it in the short-term.
“You could potentially require certain technologies be employed,” says Polak. “You could require certain purchase of offsets, but all of that is subject to negotiations, discussions, in much the same way as having the discussions now with taxation policy.”
So that leaves offsets as the most likely way to allow British Columbia to meet or at least reach for its emission goals.
The challenge is not small.
Report: BC LNG would emit 3x more carbon than plants in other countries
A recent report by Clean Energy Canada, an affiliate of Tides Canada, warned that without B.C. government policy leadership, LNG produced in B.C. could emit more than three-times the carbon produced at other plants around the world.
The B.C. government has not stated publicly what it expects its greenhouse gas emissions to be from the proposed LNG plants. But Clean Energy Canada examined a similar LNG plant under construction in Australia and concluded that B.C. LNG facilities can expect to emit about one tonne of carbon pollution for every tonne of LNG produced.
Clean Energy Canada estimates that will work out to 36 million tonnes of carbon pollution for the initially-proposed three LNG plants in the Kitimat area.
Gas still cleaner than coal?
Prof. James Tansey is a business professor at the University of B.C. who is also the chief executive officer and founder of Vancouver-based Offsetters, a global carbon-management company that helps organizations and individuals understand, reduce and offset their climate impact.
Tansey says the carbon pollution debate in B.C. is focused on legitimate concerns about increased provincial emissions.
But like the government, he notes a global move towards natural gas ultimately reduces GHG emissions worldwide.
Tansey says natural gas is a cleaner energy than oil and coal and has the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 27 per cent (read a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report which argues the contrary).
He says he expects the government to introduce regulations that will require the natural gas companies to purchase the offsets as a cost of doing business in B.C.
Offsets can’t erase real pollution figures
“The companies will have to do it,” said Tansey. “People don’t like offsets in general, but it’s really the only way to say those millions of tonnes of extra emissions from running the LNG facilities can be addressed. If you don’t do that, then they’re going to appear as a black mark on the carbon accounts of the province.”
Offsets may allow B.C. to meet its targets or at least approach them while still reaping the economic benefits of LNG development.
But the actual pollution numbers — without adjustments due to offsets — must be reported to provincial, federal and international climate-change monitoring agencies.
Without LNG, BC making climate progress
Environment Canada’s national inventory submission last April to the United Nations Framework convention on climate change measured a decline of almost six per cent in B.C.’s GHG emissions since 2007, when the province passed its targets law.
The inventory measured B.C.’s carbon dioxide emissions at 59.1 million tonnes in 2011 — the most recent numbers — down from 62.6 million tonnes in 2007. The target for 2020 is about 20.6 million tonnes.
The Environment Canada report stated Canada’s total GHG emissions for 2011 were measured at 702 million tonnes, while Alberta’s GHG emissions were 242 million tonnes.
LNG would ramp up BC’s carbon emissions
Matt Horne, a climate change expert with the Pembina Institute, said he’s certain B.C.’s LNG dreams will increase the province’s GHG emissions well beyond Environment Canada’s most current totals.
“I don’t know where they are going to go with the targets,” he said.
“I haven’t seen any credible projections of how the province is going to meet those targets in particular around the idea of three to five LNG plants being developed. You can’t square that circle.”
Alberta cattle rancher Howard Hawkwood (photo courtesy of Green Planet Monitor)
Alberta cattle rancher Howard Hawkwood has a beef with the local fracking industry. He’s convinced the controversial technique for gas extraction is responsible for killing off 18 of his cows and large swaths of his property near Airdrie, Alberta.
An online radio program released today contains some shocking allegations of impacts of fracking on the ranch Hawkwood runs with his wife Nielle, a half hour drive northwest of Calgary. Nielle has recently lost some of her hair and the Hawkwoods have seen 10 percent of their cattle herd die from a mysterious illness they believe is connected to fracking and related radiation.
Howard describes their experience to program host David Kattenberg of the Green Planet Monitor – including1-2 acres of dead patches on their farm, which tests reveal contain alarming levels of radioactivity. (Listen to the full program here – Howard’s interview begins at the 19 min mark)
“Towards calving season, we noticed some cows weren’t doing that great…Then all the sudden these cows started to crash – they would go down and they wouldn’t get up,” Hawkwood explains. “We did blood testing on these cows and we found out the sodium and the chlorides were out of balance, so I asked the veterinarian, ‘So, what do we do?’. And the vet did some research and we don’t know. We don’t know how to handle this.”
Hawkwood goes on to describe the series of dead patches that have sprung up after fracking activities began near his ranch.
[quote]These are the dead spots in the field, where my cows have urinated. This all showed up last spring…We’ve actually taken soil samples of the dead spot and a sample from a foot and a half away and we’ve got high levels of radon, barium, uranium, strontium, and magnesium is extremely high.[/quote]
“This spot here has never changed,” Hawkwood explains. “It’s been here since June. It’s dead. And I estimate that on my entire ranch I’ve maybe lost 1-2 acres of land due to this. Really, nothing grows…Nothing will germinate in that soil.”
“And you think this has got to do with the fracking?” asks the show’s host.
“Oh, I think so. Definitely. Because the cows have been drinking out of my well water, and the chemicals or whatever’s in there – we don’t know what’s in there, they won’t tell us – and it’s killed this.”
Radioactive fracking in Pennsylvania
This is not the first time hydraulic fracturing has been tied to radiation. Just last month, a study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found radioactive water connected fracking operations in Pennsylvania. According to a Bloomberg story on the subject:
[quote]Naturally occurring radiation brought to the surface by gas drillers has been detected in a Pennsylvania creek that flows into the Allegheny River, illustrating the risks of wastewater disposal from the boom in hydraulic fracturing.[/quote]
Speak no evil
Mr. Hawkwood believes many other ranchers are experiencing similar issues, but are afraid to speak out – some because of non-disclosure agreements they’ve signed with the industry.
[quote]The other ranchers are experiencing the same thing but they don’t want to come forward, because they don’t want to create a problem. Or they have oil and gas on their property and they’ve had to sign non-disclosure agreements. One fellow told me that if he does a cow problem, he phones them and he’s got a cheque in the mail – as long as he doesn’t speak up.[/quote]
Hawkwood appears to be the exception to the rule. He’s reached his boiling point of late and has some strong words for government regulators he feels are letting down families like his.
Something has got to change
After showing host Kattenberg a 4-year-old cow who died the previous night, Hawkwood declares, “I am totally – maybe I shouldn’t say this – pissed off with our government.” Hawkwood continues:
[quote]Governments are supposed to protect us…and when this cow dies, and the number of cows I’ve lost and hear about other farmers and ranchers who’ve had the same experience and the same problem…now, if this keeps up and it’s going to create more problems, we’re not even going to have a cattle herd. It is a real nightmare in this province and in this country…and something has to change.[/quote]
