Sandra Smith: Canada’s fracking role in climate change is not set in stone

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Last year’s provincial election saw Premier Christy Clark advocating the increased use of fracking in B.C. Fracking is a method of obtaining natural gas from shale rock by injecting water, along with a mixture of potentially harmful chemicals, into the ground. Last month, the provincial government tabled new water legislation, allowing companies such as Encana, to repeatedly obtain short-term water permits and essentially sanctioning the use of massive amounts of fresh water every year to extract shale gas. It certainly seems that an increase in fracking is in B.C.’s future, but is this the right choice for a country that was once seen as a climate-change hero and is now being called a climate-change villain?

      Canadian Geographic reported that gas wells can use anywhere from 10 to 70 million litres of water over their operational lifetime, and the Watershed Sentinel says that there are thousands of active wells in B.C. In order to meet export promises, Canada will have to increase the number of wells by 50,000 in the next 25 or so years. That means billions of litres of Canada’s fresh water, arguably our most important resource, will be used in conjunction with a cocktail of chemicals to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG) and further increase our carbon footprint.

      The chemicals that are going into producing LNG include hydrochloric acid, antifreeze, and others that are listed as having the potential to cause serious health problems such as permanent eye damage, respiratory problems, mutagenicity, and cancer. These chemicals can seep up through shale into groundwater and end up in our drinking water through spills at well sites. In 2011, the EPA tested groundwater in Wyoming, near the sites of gas wells drilled by Encana, and discovered that the water was contaminated with high levels of these fracking chemicals. What happens to this polluted water that needs to be disposed of? It is injected back into the ground for permanent storage. This disposal method has been linked by the U.S. Geological Survey to an increase in earthquakes in the U.S.

      Clark says that LNG will be a multibillion dollar industry in Canada, but at what cost? Fracking has the potential to increase Canadians’ health expenses, water purification costs, and clean-up costs after spills or explosions. Cornell University researchers published a study in 2011 that claimed the carbon footprint of shale gas is higher than that of coal and diesel oil. Is increasing greenhouse gas emissions the right direction for Canada’s future? Why aren’t we investing resources into a carbon-neutral, renewable fuel source instead? From pulling out of the Kyoto Accord to our increasing greenhouse-gas emissions, Canada ranked last for environmental protection, according to a survey done by Washington’s Centre for Global Development. Canada’s future is not set in stone, and certainly not set in shale, so it is up to each individual to voice their opinion and let our politicians know what we hope to see for the future of energy use.

      Comments

      8 Comments

      Carly

      Apr 23, 2014 at 4:27pm

      Great article!

      Tony

      Apr 23, 2014 at 5:57pm

      Ms Smith. As a Science student surely your professors have taight you to cite ALL peer reviewed spapers on a subject and not just cherry pick. Be honest. The 2011 Cornell paper has been debunked and challenged by a myriad of much more recent publications from aces such as MIT and NEl - hasn't it? The EPA study in Wyoming was shown to be flawed sampling and therefore inconclusive. Further work continues but there are no conclusions - isn't that true? You claim chemicals seep through shale and into groundwater....where? Cite a proper souce please? I have no issues with your position. I have issues with the methods you use. Some scientist.

      Robert

      Apr 23, 2014 at 6:29pm

      What a well thought out article. Thanks!

      Janette

      Apr 23, 2014 at 7:13pm

      What an informative article! I had no idea
      Definately worth putting out there as this smal planet is our home and we need to step up and take care of her.

      Mark

      Apr 23, 2014 at 8:21pm

      As soon as Adrian Dix said he was against the pipeline, his election numbers went downhill.

      Let the NDP (Now Defunct Party) keep campaigning against pipelines and natural resource extraction, and they will never win another election again. And also, let's not forget, most of those workers are unionized.

      Kevin

      Apr 24, 2014 at 10:46am

      Amazing article!!! Couldn't agree more!! We need to think about our world before greed

      Kiskatinawkid

      Apr 24, 2014 at 6:42pm

      Good article. Most of it's just common sense tho. Well, except for Tony. Knows everything, except how to spell! Insert your head back in your ass and everything will be alright!

      Hazlit

      Apr 25, 2014 at 7:58am

      Where are Canada's anti-fracking politicians? David Suzuki for P.M.!