July 8, 2015
Briefing Note to the NB commission to study the issue of hydraulic fracturing
Current Context
There are high expectations among the concerned public, organized in local
communities across the province, but especially in the south eastern portion of NB,
that the Commission will consult with them, and ultimately recommend against
pursing hydraulic fracturing for shale gas at this time given health, environmental
and economic risk factors.
The Conservation Council has spent extensive time in the last few years researching,
visiting shale gas plays (McCully NB, Horn River BC, Fayetteville Arkansas, and the
Marcellus New York and Pennsylvania) and understanding community concerns
about its development. Over the course of the Commissions’ review, we offer to
meet with the members, provide scientific information and provide connections and
contacts to N.B community organizations and to organizations and experts in other
jurisdictions, especially New York State, where we feel there is a common sense
model to follow.
Conservation Council Recommendations:
1. Build a strong partnership with New York State government, particularly by
connecting with the NY State Health Commissioner, Environmental Protection
Commissioner, and Governor Andrew Cuomo.
2. Set meetings with organized local community groups across the province,
especially in impacted areas, to hear their concerns about water, rural
industrialization, health and others.
3. Carefully review the recommendation 4.2 of the MOH report of 2012, where she
calls for a Strategic Health Impact Assessment. This type of comprehensive
assessment would be similar to the work of the NY State Health Department and
the US EPA.
4. Undertake an in-depth review of alternative job creation scenarios, including
ambitious energy efficiency programs and clean energy and technology
developments. This kind of assessment would be its first and help everyone
better understand the jobs vs. environment arguments.
Background
Environmental, health and climate impacts from hydraulic fracturing for shale gas
(HFSG) are felt regardless of where the industry operates. Therefore, there are
recent developments in other jurisdictions that must be considered in this
examination.
1. The Canadian federal government-commissioned a report by the Canadian
Council of Academies which included 14 expert scientists who identified that:
• Water contamination from leakage around improperly sealed well bores
and migration through geological fractures, poses the largest risk from the
industry
• Increased greenhouse gas emissions, seismic activity, socioeconomic
disruption and poor scientific monitoring pose a problem for shale gas
extraction;
• There is a lack of knowledge of health and social effects from
development; a Health Impact Assessment framework is required at the
provincial level to determine short and long term impacts;
• There has been no comprehensive investment in the research and
monitoring of environmental impacts;
• If shale investment moves capital away from renewable power, it could
make the climate change situation worse; and
• Places where development and population intersect (like New Brunswick),
special considerations must be made for the appropriateness of the
industry, especially if those populations are dependent on groundwater
wells.
2. Democratic Governor Cuomo of New York State announced in December 2014
his plans to ban HFSG based on the findings of the New York State Department of
Health and Health Commissioner Dr. Zucker’s Report released December 2014,
including:
• Air impacts that could affect respiratory health due to increased levels of
particulate matter, diesel exhaust, or volatile organic chemicals.
• Climate change impacts due to methane and other volatile organic chemical
releases to the atmosphere.
• Drinking water impacts from underground migration of methane and/or
fracking chemicals associated with well construction.
• Surface spills potentially resulting in soil and water contamination.
• Surface-water contamination resulting from inadequate wastewater treatment.
• Earthquakes induced during fracturing.
3. The Bureau des audiences publique sur l’environnement, BAPE, (Environmental
Assessment Review Board) determined there is little evidence to support the oil and
gas lobby’s claim that hydraulic fracturing would be advantageous for Quebec. The
BAPE found that shale gas development could increase Quebec’s greenhouse gas
emissions by three to 23.2 per cent and engender consequences for the quality of
the environment, particularly on the quality of surface and underground water;
4. The Geisinger Health System, the lead organization in the collaborative Marcellus
Shale Initiative, cares for many patients in areas where shale gas is being developed
in Pennsylvania. It began pilot studies in 2013 using well and infrastructure data to
estimate exposures to all aspects of Marcellus shale development in Pennsylvania.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) abstract, they will use these
exposure estimates to evaluate whether asthma control and pregnancy outcomes
are affected by Marcellus shale development by studying 30,000 asthma patients
and 22,000 pregnancies in the Geisinger Health System from 2006-13. Results from
this study are not expected to be available for several years;
5. Momentum is building for governments (national, provincial and local) to take
increased action on climate change in the lead up to December's Paris meeting on
climate change:
• Quebec’s Premier hosted a Premier’s conference on climate change and energy
in April where the premiers, including Premier Gallant, released a declaration
containing several commitments for greater cooperation and meaningful action
to curb climate change. The 12-point declaration included commitments from
premiers to transition to a lower-carbon economy, noting that could involve
carbon pricing, and putting policies in place to reduce climate change-causing
pollution, such as increasing energy efficiency and conservation and using clean
and renewable energy. In the declaration, the premiers said they recognize the
cost of inaction is greater than the cost of acting on climate protection, and that
the fight against climate change would create sustainable, long-term jobs,
especially in areas such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.
6. In April, Ontario and Quebec together announced that Ontario will implement a
cap and trade system that puts a price on carbon and intends to link it to Québec
and California's joint carbon market.
7. Democratic Governor Jerry Brown announced in January his intention to reduce
petroleum use in cars by as much as 50 percent within 15 years, make heating fuels
cleaner and increase to one-half from one-third the proportion of electricity
California derives from renewable sources; and,
8. Washington State Governor Jay Inslee announced his intention to bring in caps of
greenhouse gas pollution from large industry, by 2016, generating about $1 billion
in new state revenue for transportation, health care and education. Inslee’s plan also
includes tax breaks for electric and zero-emission cars and investments in clean
energy like solar and hydro power.
9. New York State just released their Final Supplemental Generic Environmental
Impact Statement on HFSG which began in 2009 and had over 260,000 public
comments on drafts. It said”
• Replacing coal with natural gas may suppress investment in solar and wind
power and energy efficiency measures because those clean energy sources
could become less cost-competitive with fossil fuels;
• There would be intolerable human health and environmental costs, including
degraded air quality from increased amounts of vehicle exhaust and
particulate matter in the air, and possible groundwater and surface water
contamination from poor well construction and chemical spills; and
• New York’s policies are directed towards achieving substantial reductions in
GHG emissions by reducing reliance on all fossil fuels, including natural gas.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation followed this report
with their Findings Statement that said: “there are no feasible or prudent
alternatives that would adequately avoid or minimize adverse
environmental impacts and that address the scientific uncertainties and
risks to public health from this activity. The Department’s chosen
alternative to prohibit high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the best
alternative based on the balance between protection of the environment
and public health and economic and social considerations.”
10. The US Environmental Protection Agency just released its long awaited review
of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water
Resources. The study began in 2011 and the scope of the research includes the full
lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing. The report highlights include:

The report clearly states that fracking activities have resulted in “impacts on
drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells,”
but the EPA researchers “did not find evidence that these mechanisms have
led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the
United States.”

The phrase ‘did not find evidence’ is important; it doesn’t mean pollution
isn’t happening, just that the EPA couldn’t find evidence in the data it was
able to obtain and study for this report. When data is not being adequately
collected, it is no surprise that evidence is not found.

The EPA points this out, saying the lack of widespread impacts could be due
to “other limiting factors” — such as gaps in the data it was able to study.

“Data limitations” it encountered meant it was impossible to know with
certainty just how often fracking activities polluted drinking water in the U.S.

“It was never a study designed to determine whether fracking is safe or not,”
Thomas Burke, the Science Advisor to the EPA, said in the June 11 interview
to CBC New Brunswick. “It was a study determined to look at the use of water
and the potential vulnerabilities of our drinking water resources.”
References
Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. 2014. Les enjeux liés à
l’exploration et l’exploitation du gaz de schiste dans le shale d’Utica des bassesterres du Saint-Laurent, Rapport d’enquête et d’audience publique.
http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/rapports/publications/bape307.pdf
Council of Canadian Academies, 2014. Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas
Extraction in Canada. Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and
Technology to Understand the environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction,
Council of Canadian Academies.
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications
%20and%20news%20releases/shale%20gas/shalegas_fullreporten.pdf
Gesner Health Research Foundation, 2013. Redefining boundaries: Marcellus shale
research initiative. http://www.geisinger.org/for-researchers/research-atgeisinger/includes/pdf/research-cnx-winter-010113.pdf and
http://www.geisinger.org/100/pdf/Marcellus_Shale_Research_Case_for_Support_2
013.pdf
New Brunswick Department of Health, Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health,
2012. Chief Medical Officer of Health’s Recommendations Concerning Shale Gas
Development in New Brunswick.
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/hs/pdf/en/HealthyEnvironments/Recommendations_ShaleGasDevelopment.pdf
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2015. Final
supplemental generic environmental impact statement on the oil, gas and solution
mining regulatory program: Regulatory Program for Horizontal Drilling and HighVolume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other LowPermeability Gas Reservoirs.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html
New York State department of environmental Conservation, 2015. Final
supplemental generic environmental impact statement on the oil, gas and solution
mining regulatory program: Findings Statement.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/findingstatehvhf62015.pdf
New York State Department of Health, 2014. A public health review of high volume
hydraulic fracturing for shale gas development.
http://www.health.ny.gov/press/reports/docs/high_volume_hydraulic_fracturing.p
df
United States Environmental Protection Agency, in progress. Study of Hydraulic
Fracturing for Oil and Gas and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources.
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy