A BIG FRACKING PROBLEM

PART 1

It’s not looking good for hydraulic fracturing on the PR front. Also known as the unfortunate-sounding sobriquet “fracking,” it’s the practice of sending superpressurized water down wellbores to fracture deep-bed rock formations and release natural gas.

A recent report in the journal Ground Water concludes that benzene and other toxic chemicals injected into the ground during fracking operations could migrate toward the aquifer level much faster than previously predicted. Experts had assumed that impermeable layers of rock would keep the chemicals trapped deep underground. Not so, according to the report’s author, Tom Myers, an independent hydrogeologist who used computer modelling to examine the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, where more than 5,000 wells have been drilled between 2009 and 2010. According to his modelling, the toxic chemicals could reach the surface in “just a few years.”

Whatever the predictive powers of Myer’s study—the map is not the territory, and computer models are not ancient deposits of rock—it follows on the heels of a report from U.S. Geological Survey that a “remarkable” increase of quakes in the U.S. mid-continent since 2001 is “almost certainly manmade,” perhaps linked to the deep underground injection of drilling waste from fracking operations. However, the study’s lead author later told reporters that there is no evidence that fracking had any direct connection to the increased seismicity.

So what does that have to do with us in B.C.? Plenty. The northeast corner of our province is home to immense hydraulic fracturing operations, notes Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. At a public meeting two weeks ago at the Vancouver Public Library, Parfitt and other speakers painted a sobering scenario for B.C.’s wilderness, energy independence, and corporate accountability.

B.C.’s shale gas production is comparable to Alberta’s tar sands project. Both require immense amounts of water and energy in their operations; hence their tag as “unconventional” fossil fuel extraction. In a November 2011 report for the CCPA, “Fracking Up Our Water, Hydro Power and Climate,” Parfitt notes a recent B.C. Hydro assessment that the projected power needs of the province’s shale gas sector would require to three times the power produced at the proposed Site C dam on the Peace River.

“Currently, much of the gas produced in B.C. moves by pipeline to Alberta, where the biggest industrial user of natural gas is the tar sands industry. We are literally exporting the world’s most energy-intensive natural gas to help produce some of our planet’s most energy-intensive oil,” writes Parfitt.

In other words, the natural gas extracted in B.C. is going in one pipeline direction to Alberta, to heat water for separating bitumen from sand. In the other direction, synthetic oil created by this process will (Harper willing) soon be flowing in the opposite direction toward the projected supertanker port in Kitimat, which will also have liquid natural gas facilities for the export of gas to China. That nation’s explosive growth, now cooling, has been fuelling this megaproject mania in Canada.

The Ensbridge pipes will also require natural gas “condensate” to smooth the transfer of the heavy oil from Alberta. This energy extraction back and forth reminds me of the Jazz Age cartoons by Rube Goldberg, where a profusion of gears and pulleys perform a straightforward task, like cooking a piece of toast or patting a cat. I asked Parfitt if there’s been a reliable study of the sum energy inputs and outputs of the fracking/tar sands dynamic, without even factoring in environmental impact and water use. Is this the royal road to energy independence, or are we talking about the Tweedledum and Tweedledumber of fossil fuelishness? Or a necessary response to “peak oil?”

Parfitt knows of no reputable study on the net gains and losses, but suggested there are reasons for doubt (a June 2011 report in the New York Times points to Wall Street speculation as a prime mover in shale gas exploration and drilling, comparing the latter to previous financial bubbles). Yet surely technocrats would conduct a proper risk/benefit analysis of such megaprojects, including thorough environmental assessments, well before a reflexive gold rush toward unconventional energy sources, no? It’s not as if the U.S. and Canada are ruled by beancounting boneheads, Ponzi-minded greedheads, and political opportunists, right?

More on this next week.

PART 2

During a recent public meeting on “fracking” at the Vancouver Public Library, a brief moment of irony broke the sober mood in the room. Ben Parfitt, resource policy analyst for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, was discussing B.C.’s abundant fresh water and hydroelectric power-and the shale gas industry’s immense thirst for both-when a cellphone went off in the audience. The ringtone: the theme from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Sergio Leone’s 1966 spaghetti western filmed in the arid region of southern Spain.

Hydraulic fracturing goes through water the way Simon Cowell goes through auditioning singers. Last year at B.C.’s Horn River Basin, “600 worth of Olympic pools of water were pressure pumped at just one multiwell site. There will be thousands such well sites developed if the industry is able to develop out the way it wants to,” Parfitt told the audience.

The shale gas industry has a budget-busting thirst for energy, too. The one liquid natural gas facility approved for Kitimat involves a partnership between Encana, Apache Canada and EOG Resources. It will take eight per cent of all the power that is currently produced on our hydroelectric grid, says Parfitt.

“The premier and the energy minister have stated it as a goal having three such facilities in the province by 2020, and that translates into a quarter of all the hydroelectric power in our province by an industry that will be consuming more and more water_” Much of the natural gas will be directed to Alberta for the production of the energy-and-water-intensive Tar Sands.

Parfitt insists there’s nothing carbon-neutral about shale gas operations. They’re certainly not consumer-neutral. The demand for increased hydroelectricity production is coming from industry, yet residential rates are already much higher than industrial rates. In effect, British Columbians are subsidizing the oil and gas companies’ hydro consumption.

The consumer may be getting the drill shaft in more ways than one. A front page New York Times report from last June, “Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush,” cites hundreds of industry emails and internal documents to warn of another economic bubble in the making. The size of North American gas reserves have reportedly been exaggerated, and some experts see the spectre of Enron-like accounting methods in the industry’s inflated projections.

In a March investigative report in Rolling Stone magazine, journalist Jeff Goodell concludes that fracking “is about producing cheap energy the same way the mortgage crisis was about helping realize the dreams of middle-class homeowners.” The primary profits for one of the biggest shale gas companies, Chesapeake Energy, come not from selling the gas itself, but from buying and flipping land. The company “is now the largest leaseholder in the United States, owning the drilling rights to some 15 million acres-an area more than twice the size of Maryland,” writes Goodell.

A more immediate concern is the cocktail of toxic chemicals injected deep underground during fracking operations, and the cavalier approach of some companies to the environment. In 2010, the New York Times documented how shale gas drillers were emptying millions of gallons of toxic, chemical-laden wastewater into Pennsylvania’s rivers and streams. Prior to this, in the controversial 2010 film GasLand, inhabitants of the area complained about their foul-tasting, health-disrupting tap water, and indicated the mysterious deaths of wild animals and fish near their properties, which they had leased to fracking operations.

An April report in the LA Times profiles a physician, Dr. Amy Pare, who found inorganic compounds-hippuric acid, phenol, and mandelic acid-in the urine of a dozen people living a half mile from a gas well near Avella, Pennsylvania. Yet incredibly, a new state law forbids health care professionals “from warning the community of water and air pollution that may be caused by fracking, but which also forbids them from telling their own patients what the physician believes may have led to their health problems,” observes author Walter Brasch. The Pennsylvania law requires fracking companies to supply information about chemicals and procedures to a state-maintained registry, but it also requires that health professionals must first sign non-disclosure agreements in requesting specific information from shale gas operators, supposedly to protect any corporate trade secrets.

It sounds to me like The Gas, the Bad and the Ugly.

The Vancouver Courier, May 11 and May 18
 
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s