From: MacDonald May [macdonald-may@ns.sympatico.ca] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 7:05 PM To: HFReview Cc: Stephen McNeil; Randy Delorey; Allan MacMaster Subject: What are the interactions between unconventional gas resources and water resources and blah blah blah Dear Dr. Wheeler, having reviewed the discussion paper “What are etc.” I decided not to highlight every statement that I found objectionable, examples of misdirection and bias and focus on the most glaring and significant. “ Due to the compressing pressure of the weight of the soil and rock (or lithostatic pressure) that exists at the depth of these geological formations (such as the Horton formation), the fractures generated by hydraulic fracturing typically extend approximately 100 m vertically and approximately 200 – 300 m laterally (King, La Vergne Bryan, & Clark, 2012).” I do appreciate the inclusion of source. “Typical” isn’t really relevant here , and the claim must be taken with at least grain of salt . No one has seen the fractures , no one really knows their extent . We have 18 reported cases of well communication in British Columbia , at a distances of up to 750 meters .Quoting Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, “As soon as pressurized fracking fluids gets through the cracks that they have created and reaches a joint system that has been there for many years, the joint opens in unpredictable ways”. Not all water wells are destroyed by fracing , but many are in every community that hosts a shale gas industry. “Therefore, the fractures could be hundreds of metres away from the underside of the aquifer.” Yes indeed they COULD , and then again they COULD destroy the aquifer, as happened in Pavillion Wyoming “Due to the distance between the targeted formation and the aquifer, it is anticipated that fractures would not extend from the shale to the aquifer, and thus direct contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids would appear unlikely.” It is that very lack of anticipation that creates the problem . It should be anticipated , because it has happened elsewhere . “Insufficient evidence exists that links hydraulic fracturing at depths greater than 300 m to aquifer contamination” .Insufficient for who ? There is absolutely no evidence for the converse. “In addition, improper well construction which allows hydraulic connection of the drilling aquifer and the shallower drinking water aquifer that drilling operations pass through is important consideration” . As noted several times in “EWI” we have no reasonable expectation of 100% non failure of wells, and an acknowledgement that a “small percentage” of wells leak . According to Dr. Ingraffea , 6 % of wells leak from day one, and eventually they all leak .Dr. Ingraffea highlights the places where lack of band can be lost leading to migration . It needs to be remembered , that shale development creates hundreds of wells, so even a small percentage of leaks creates significant negative impacts on an areas water resource “ If handled incorrectly, many of the chemicals utilized in the shale gas industry could contaminate water supplies. However this statement is consistent with many industrial processes that occur in Atlantic Canada. For example, sodium hydroxide (or caustic soda) is a chemical used in the shale gas industry (www.fracfocus.org) as an agent to adjust the pH of a fluid. Caustic soda is also used to process drinking water in some facilities in Nova Scotia as it is highly effective at adjusting pH and poses minimal health risks. In the case of the drinking water facilities, regulations and inspections are required by government to ensure that this chemical is safely applied and handled. Therefore, under the assumption of a strong regulatory framework, it would be anticipated that chemical agents could be safely managed and applied for hydraulic fracturing.” This is sort of misdirection in the documents is what damages the credibility of your panel . Shale gas industry would be imposed on rural communities, and comparing industrial settings to an area of mixed residential/agricultural/tourism is inappropriate . The inclusion of pro industry propaganda, as an act of commission by the authors, omission by the panel is deeply troubling “Risk management plans need to consider the safety of the industrial process itself and the development of water safety plans for the protection of neighbouring groundwater and surface water systems.” Risk Management plans do not protect anything. “Well infrastructure integrity was considered important across all jurisdictions, and as such surface casings and requirements for subsurface casings were compulsory in all locations”, and have failed to prevent contaminations of ground and surface waters in any location . “In conclusion, this regulatory overview, while not exhaustive, demonstrates the types of regulatory tools and instruments that have been adopted in other jurisdictions to protect water quality. Clearly, the need for a strong, transparent and balanced governance system is required for energy development and for the protection of both water quality and quantity” .The numerous references to Alberta Energy Regulator , a defendant in a law suit stemming from a fracing incident , and widely criticized for low inspection and even lower enforcement rates are concerning . What we can readily learn fro the Alberta experience, is that concern for environmental and human health declines where the gas and oil industry becomes established . Regulations do not protect the environment , but serve to mislead the public into thinking the environment is being protected . Like the Wheeler panel , regulations , are part of what the Brundtland Commission Report was referring to ,as the old methods of environmental protection and economic development that do not work ( Our Common Future, 1987). Al Appleton served as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and Director of the New York City Water and Sewer System .Mr. Appleton’s expert opinion is that shale gas can not be regulated, owing to the negative economics and shale gas industry culture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGTrRQAEPs4 . “ For municipal water, all municipal drinking supplies must have a source water protection area that is approved by NS Environment. In many cases the protection of groundwater aquifers is achieved through the establishment of wellhead protection areas (WHPAs). WHPAs outline the areas that contribute to the well or well field and are used to identify and manage potential sources of contamination.” Except , NS Environment did give permit to drill an exploratory well at MacIsaac’s Point on Lake Ainslie, Nova Scotia’s largest fresh water lake which is largely understood to be connected to the aquifer for the town of Inverness . “ Environmental protection is offered under the Environment Act section 67: “No person shall knowingly release or permit the release into the environment of a substance in an amount concentration or level or at a rate of release that causes or may cause an adverse effect, unless authorized by an approval or the regulations” and “No person shall release or merit the release into the environment of a substance in an amount concentration or level or at a rate of release that causes or may cause an adverse effect unless authorized by an approval or the regulations.” Notwithstanding , Fracing wastewater was released through the Windsor facility , and wastewater from the Triangle ponds went missing . “ Overall, very little research has been conducted regarding wastewater treatment for discharge into surface water; however” , however, technologies that do not exist should not be considered by the review. The reliance on the imaginary , combined with a reluctance to examine reality has been a theme in the discussion papers and primer . “Consistent with this EGSPA principle, Nova Scotia established the Clean Technology Fund, which was developed to support “the development, demonstration, commercialization, and implementation of innovative clean technologies”. The province has defined Clean Technology as “a diverse range of products, services and processes, all intended to provide superior performance at lower costs, while greatly reducing or eliminating negative ecological impact, at the same time as improving the productive and responsible use of natural resources” (Innovacorp 2014). Thus, the province of Nova Scotia has several regulatory instruments in relation to water resources that could support an onshore petroleum resource sector” . The Clean Technology fund , is about developing clean technologies , not to support the development of dirty industry .The authors bias is again obscuring the task at hand . “Many of the issues raised by concerned citizens can be managed in the province.” No evidence is offered in support of this statement, and indeed none exists “Other issues still require further research and modelling to determine the best course of action.” The best course of action for protecting Nova Scotia’s environmental , human and animal health, is not to issue any leases for hydrocarbon development. “Disposal of wastewater from unconventional gas operations is currently being investigated at institutions across North America.” Which ,means that regardless of wide scale development of shale resource, there is no known process that would allow produced waters to be returned to the environment and no known method for destroying produced waters. “Additionally, hydrogeologic modelling of the watershed needs to be conducted to determine the response to the withdrawals” . The planet is currently experiencing a climate crisis which is disrupting traditional weather patterns and the hydrologic cycle . The increase of deluge rain events in Nova Scotia , presents an additional risk to the use of holding ponds for fracing waste water . “ If hydraulic fracturing proceeds in the province, thorough baseline conditions of current water levels, flow, and quality must be established, before any withdrawals are approved. Additionally, hydrogeologic modelling of the watershed needs to be conducted to determine the response to the withdrawals. Baseline assessment would include taking samples at different times of the year and under variable weather conditions, as the concentrations of contaminants (including naturally occurring methane) vary throughout the year. Thorough monitoring using the performance, sentry, and receptor approach outlined in the Council of Canadian Academies report, should be adhered to and carried out by third parties (2014). Residents must also play a monitoring role by having their water regularly tested, beginning before any production activity, which should already be a best practice. It would be important for government to provide tools to ensure that this process is managed correctly. This will ensure that residents are aware of what is already present in their drinking water supply and also provide evidence of any contamination from industrial practices. In addition, industries and government should work with private well owners to establish water safety plans for wellhead protection areas and proactively protect groundwater wells. Water safety plans are broadly accepted procedures that have been originally developed by the World Health Organization and have been applied as regulatory documents in some jurisdictions (e.g., the province of Alberta). It is conceivable that a water safety plan approach could be used as a groundwater protection step.” Another huge cost that does nothing to protect water quality. “Both quality and quantity of water are of great public concern and the government has an obligation to ensure water safety is upheld, regardless of the decision made regarding hydraulic fracturing. In the case that development of hydraulic fracturing is pursued, the following items will need to be addressed through a robust, responsive and transparent regulatory environment, and must be consistent with the Nova Scotia Environment Act: * Transparency and understanding of operations and processing chemicals used, and identification of any potential adverse impacts on water quality (both ground and surface water) due to operations; * Detailed analysis of water demands prior to and during operations on a case-by-case basis; and * Transparency and upfront detailing of procedures and requirements for wastewater disposal and/or treatment.” I am unaware of anything in the history of the NS Department of the Environment , that could be described as “robust, responsive and transparent” . Please visit Boat Harbour for an example of what we can expect from the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment . Shale gas development begins with the deliberate contamination of clean drinking water . From the first day an exploratory well is drilled, water will be intentionally polluted, and the hope that a series of rules and “due diligence” will prevent the unintended pollution of additional waters. The fact is that every region to host shale gas industries has experienced unintended surface water pollution from produced waters. Shale wells produce water every day of their short lives , and the longer the water takes to return to the surface, the greater the concentration of radioactive materials and other naturally occurring heavy metals . We can only imagine the increased toxicity of the waters from capped wells, but when the steel casing rusts out , and it will, when the cement cracks, and it will, the produced water will rise to the surface over the next , 5, 10, 50, years. Even if every necessary regulation was created , and every regulation enforced , and every well never leaked in operation, and there were no accidents,(conditions which all admit don’t exist), the “state of the art” is that a shale gas industry will create large volumes of waste water which will have to be warehoused at the surface for unknown years and the inevitable arrival of unknown quantities of far more toxic waste water. The shear volume of produced water would require significant numbers of holding ponds . Developing shale gas industry in Nova Scotia would require significant wastewater handling infrastructure, to contain the toxic wastewater until a solution is discovered, which may never happen, and well monitoring for generations to come . If Nova Scotia chose to invest in developing regulations specific to a shale gas industry ,where would we get inspectors that weren’t more heavily dependant on the gas industry than the province of Nova Scotia ? As we see in your expert panel, the perceived need to include gas industry insiders for their expertise has resulted in pro-industry bias in your report . The need for an “independent” review stemmed from the pro-industry bias of the staff at the Nova Scotia Department of Energy . It isn’t independence from government that is needed , but an independence from industry . This is not an attack on the panel’s ethics , but the panels perspective , a very narrow focus with greater interest in highlighting benefits than defining the costs and risks, and producing documents that are at times technically thick, and at times oblivious to the obvious . The reports produced have been largely based on the same use of unfounded assumptions, wishful thinking and wilful ignorance that has damaged human, animal and environmental health in every community that has been occupied by shale gas development . Thank You for your attention Geoffrey May Margaree Harbour