Letter to Dr. Wheeler re No Fracking in Nova Scotia
Dear Dr. Wheeler:
In 1998 I retired to Sand Point, a rural area outside Tatamagouche, on the ocean (Tatamagouche
Bay), and with clean air. I soon found there were unadvertised problems like erosion, difficulty
getting an adequate well (I’m on my third one!), and now the risk of fracking which will make
these worse and add many other problems with a) the land, b) the water, and c) the air.
I am a Professor Emeritus of Medial Biophysics and Medicine at the University of Western
Ontario with scientific expertise in how various physical factors such as pressure, vibration, and
flow cause localized disease in arteries such as ruptured aneurysms (bulges in arteries),
atherosclerosis (which causes heart attacks and strokes), and with dissecting aneurysms (which
split the wall before rupturing). The last is most analogous to fracking. I have over 170
scientific papers and 15 book chapters published in these fields, and taught Biomechanics as well
as other courses for over 30 years. While I took a course in Geology many years ago, I’ve long
since forgotten most of it. However, it was easy to find that shale, our predominant rock here, is
simply compressed sand and clay which is laid down in layers, and very fragile. Both that on the
beach and in the banks is easily crumpled with fingers or the motion of the waves. It appears to
have almost no resistance to even minor trauma. Even one snowmobile or ATV makes large
chunks break off. The tires or runners create shallow grooves which fill with water which freezes
and expands with enough force to initiate a crack which propagates readily down to beach level
(often for five or six feet in depth) and breaks off with no further stimulus. This, of course, is
why fracking works so readily. Water with unknown chemicals (at least to the general public) is
injected under high pressure to break the shale apart and let any gas within it go into a cavern so
it is easier to extract. My concern, having seen how fragile the land here is, will be that they will
be unable to control how far away the land breaks down so that huge caverns may form and
make the land all around break enough to make a large zone collapse (it is called “subsidence”
over old coal mines in England). Any houses within many kilometres could go into the created
sink holes, roads above it will develop sink holes with no warning and the whole region would
become useless for anything. It will also be disastrous for roads. The wealth of potholes in both
gravel and paved roads is very obvious throughout northern Nova Scotia (I have no experience
with other areas), and has the same mechanism. The heavy weight of the equipment for
seismographic testing (to look for the boundaries of the shale) and subsequent fracking will
cause even more damage. Around here, even construction traffic with gravel and cement trucks
greatly increases the number and depth of potholes. The government will be expected to do the
repairs which will be far more extensive and expensive than at present. Tourist traffic, which has
already decreased in regions with bad roads, will undoubtedly decrease further and so put further
strains on our economy. It seems to me that this is contrary to the suggestions in the Ivany
Report which the government is trying to implement. These are my major concern about the
land.
1
My second concern is about damage to the water – not just the water table which will be
depleted with the large volumes of water needed for fracking, but by contaminating both the
water table and the surrounding bodies of water. This concern arises from my experience with
wells in this area, and particularly my own. Our first well (120 feet deep) produced salt water.
The well driller said this was common here (and if fact two others of the eight houses in this
immediate area also got salt water in their drilled wells). We were told this was because there
were multiple small channels between the water table and Tatamagouche Bay (and I presume
other bodies of water). Flow in any channel will go down a pressure gradient so the fracking
fluid at high pressure will be very prone to go along these channels into both the water table
(which provides well water), and also into the channels to the surrounding bodies of water. Once
the channels are established the shale will continue to give way over long distances and so
contaminate the water not just with the fracking fluid, but also with the gas which will be in
concentrated form rather than between the layers of shale. Our second well (65 feet deep)
collapsed within ten months. Attempts to open it again failed and so a third well (95 feet deep
was drilled). The well driller said this was not uncommon in regions with shale. His criteria for
stopping was determined not just by getting water, but also when he no longer felt the shale
giving way as his machine pushed the well pipe down. The initial large pipe used to go deep into
the ground before the fracking pipes go down it will almost certainly do the same thing.
Pure water is essential for life, and so if the fracking not only decreases the water table (which
of course would be less if propane is used for the fracking) but will not get around the problems
of contamination not just with the propane, but also by the gas which will now be collected into a
large cavern and so will flow more freely into the tiny channels in the rock and so contaminate
both the water table and the salt and fresh water in the area. Living in a region with no water will
drive people away – both those living here, or considering coming, and also tourists. I have not
found any reports on the internet of sampling being done in adjacent bodies of water. I am also
concerned that Nova Scotia has allowed Debert and adjacent regions to accept fracking fluid
from New Brunswick and perhaps other regions. Unless those testing the fracking water know its
chemical composition (and apparently the companies are not willing to reveal what chemicals
are used) I do not believe it is possible to tell if all of them are removed, and the tests which say
it is clear presumably are just testing for the usual contaminants rather than the contaminants
from the fracking left-overs.
Even without my concerns for the land, my concerns for the water should encourage the
government to place a permanent moratorium on fracking of any sort.
My third concern is for the air pollution which will be created initially by the diesel fumes or
other fuel used to drive the equipment, and then from the gas fumes if gas is found. At present
2
the air here is very good, with problems rarely except for occasional fumes from the mill at
Pictou if there is an east wind.
The basic physical principle involved in fracking is the phenomenon of crack propagation. In
hard materials like glass, scoring the glass weakens it so a gentle tap causes it to break cleanly
along the score line. The same phenomenon means that a piece of cloth is hard to tear unless
there is a nick at the origin of the tear. The physical phenomenon is due to stress concentration
where stress is the force per unit area. For example with a thumb tack, the relatively trivial force
on the large top readily drives the sharp point into wood, while the same force on a carpet tack
with a small head will not let the tack be driven into the wood unless a hammer is used. This is
the rationale for fracking pipes driving fluid through a large pipe into the smaller fracking pipe
causing an enormous increase in pressure by having it exit through a number of very small holes.
Thus, a relatively small pressure, which might not propagate for any distance in a large pipe, can
go for much greater distances and with much higher pressure because of the stress concentration
produce by the holes. Any open channels such as those connecting to the ground water or to
adjacent bodies of water will produce further stress concentration and more damage.
My Biophysical/Bioengineering research involved similar principles. It showed how
applications of simple principles could explain how the structure of wall of arteries determined
how they were altered in response to pressure, vibration and flow. I believe the same principles
apply to how the composition of the land will respond to physical forces. The weakness of shale
makes if much more prone to damage than strong rocks like granite. The layered structure of
shale increase the chance that the pressure-driven damage from fracking will tend to travel for
long distances, but deviate if the layers are not continuous (e.g. if there are small channels in it
to provide weak points which help the “blast” to go along those channels for at least some
distance. Rupture of the channels makes any gas or fluid trapped between the layers flow into a
common catchment volume which makes it easier to extract.
For the reasons above, my research knowledge and expertise, would suggest strongly that the
Province of Nova Scotia should impose a permanent moratorium on fracking for gas
anywhere in Nova Scotia. I have no training in economics, but the low price of gas (at least at
present), and the relatively short life span of all gas wells, and so the financial returns from them
make it seem unlikely to warrant the damage and costs of infrastructure to say nothing of
permanent loss of inhabitants and tourists in the region. There is also the real risk to both the
water table and the surrounding fresh and salt water.
Margot R. Roach, B.Sc. (Honours Mathematics and Physics); M.D., C.M. (Medicine); Ph.D.
(Biophysics); F.R.C.P.C.(C) (Internal Medicine); D.Sc. (Honourary). 104 Sea Shore Drive,
RR1,Tatamagouche, N.S. B0K 1V0.
3