Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

LANDMARK REPORT FILED – The much-watched select committee on fracking was chaired by Yukon Party MLA Patti McLeod (above), who was unavailable for comment today.

‘So it does look like a de facto moratorium’

The select committee on hydraulic fracturing could not reach consensus on whether it should be allowed here, says the committee’s final report delivered this morning.

By Chuck Tobin on January 19, 2015

The select committee on hydraulic fracturing could not reach consensus on whether it should be allowed here, says the committee’s final report delivered this morning.

Nor could the committee reach consensus on whether fracking could be done safely, whether social licence is required before permitting fracking and whether to proceed with the development of a regulatory regime around hydraulic fracturing.

The committee also recommended hydraulic fracturing not be allowed without the approval of the First Nation whose traditional territory is being affected.

The report documents unanimous opposition to fracking by the Yukon First Nations who participated in the public hearing process and who supported an anti-fracking resolution passed unanimously by the Council of Yukon First Nations.

One of the 21 recommendations reads: “THAT the Government of Yukon should respect First Nation final agreements and its ongoing obligations towards non-settled First Nations in addressing any issue related to hydraulic fracturing.”

The Yukon has seen a huge anti-fracking movement over the last couple of years.

In its 25-page report, the committee summarizes gaps in knowledge and scientific understanding of hydraulic fracturing, as it heard over the last year during public hearings, community meetings and individual submissions.

“Impacts on groundwater quality are generally not predictable using established scientific analyses because such impacts would likely be gradual, over decades or longer,” says the final report.

“The baseline hydrogeological and hydro geochemical conditions of groundwater flow systems in areas of Canada where there is, or may be, shale gas development are poorly understood.”

It says the impact of chemicals used in the fracking process is also poorly understood, as is the time it would take for ground water and surface water to clean themselves if contaminated by those chemicals.

There is major gap in the knowledge regarding the release of methane gas into the atmosphere and the impact on climate change resulting from the fracking process.

The committee is recommending an extensive library of baseline information on ground water, air quality, wildlife, earthquake activity and human health be established before fracking is permitted in the Yukon.

Energy analyst Sebastian Jones of the Yukon Conservation Society said today while the report does not say fracking should be banned, it does lay down some serious ground work required before it’s ever allowed.

It would be a monumental task to fulfill the recommendations outlined in the report before fracking proceeds in the Yukon, he said.

“The Yukon Conservation Society is disappointed the committee did not recommend a ban on fracking in the future,” he said. “But we are encouraged by the scope of the recommendations that would have to be met before it is allowed.

“So it does look like a de facto moratorium,” Jones said of the committee’s report.

Premier Darrell Pasloski was not available this morning for an interview.

Nor was committee chair Patti McLeod, the Yukon Party’s Watson Lake MLA.

NDP committee members Lois Moorcroft and Jim Tredger, as well as Liberal Leader Sandy Silver, were also unavailable for comment this morning.

The committee’s 21 recommendations fall under the the sub-headings of Public Dialogue, Water, Greenhouse Gases and Other Air Emissions, Land and Seismic Impact and Human and Health and Social Impacts.

In a statement issued just before press time, Pasloski said his government will carefully review the report’s findings and recommendations before determining how best to proceed.

“On behalf of the Yukon Party government, I’d like to thank the select committee members for their dedication and hard work, as well as the Yukoners who attended the public meetings and provided their input,” said Pasloski.

“We will take some time to review the report. As I’ve said many times, this Yukon government is strongly committed to the responsible development of Yukon’s oil and gas resources.”

The select committee was established by Order of the Yukon Legislative Assembly on May 6, 2013. Members included McLeod, Moorcroft (vice-chair), cabinet minister Currie Dixon, Vuntut Gwitchin MLA Darius Elias of the Yukon Party, Silver and Tredger.

“I’m pleased with what the select committee was able to achieve as an all-party body,” Elias said in the press release issued by the premier.

“We have fulfilled our mandate by holding 13 public meetings, 42 meetings of the select committee, receiving and reviewing 435 written submissions, and creating this report for the legislative assembly.

“While the committee members’ fundamental differences of opinion on some items did not allow us to reach consensus on every matter, we were able to find common ground on 21 recommendations, which speaks to the commitment of the members,” said Elias.

A statement by NDP spokesman Mike Fancie said: “We’re confident that anyone who reads the Select Committee’s final report will see that there’s a lot at stake in deciding whether fracking has a future here in Yukon

“The final report makes it clear what Yukoners want and what the scientific community knows – or doesn’t know – about fracking.

“We certainly hope that the government takes this report and the hundreds of public submissions the committee received into consideration.”

Comments (18)

Up 0 Down 0

B. Foster on Jan 25, 2015 at 8:35 pm

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30955291

Curious minds want to know.....

Up 3 Down 0

Wilf Carter Other sources of energy on Jan 24, 2015 at 3:46 pm

Wind and solar are not reliable. Geothermal can affect under ground water in a negative way and will cool the water and mix surface water and contaminate the underground pools where our wells get their water from. Tide water hydro is very interesting point, Nova Scotia has and is looking at this potential. I have worked wind and geothermal studies. I worked energy from old coal mines, small hydro projects 1 to 5 MW. Solar and wind is very hard to do in the Yukon because of weather.
What is needed I think is production and distribution of energy with Alberta, BC, Alaska, Yukon and NWT together. Alberta can produce the most wind and solar of all these regions. Yukon NWT, Alaska and BC can develop lots of hydro. If we work there too we can move our energy needs to just about all green energy.
I don't think there is anyone today that does not want to burn fuels to develop energy but the new burners are taking down the effects on the environment. So we have to develop a change over plan that will take 10 years to put in place and another 25 to build. I believe in fracking because I have seen it up close and have friends that have done it. Put your feet in their shoes and you might see the issue of fracking or any development differently.

Up 0 Down 1

B. Foster on Jan 24, 2015 at 1:03 pm

@june
Nice post.

@north
I am willing to admit that I may well be wrong where fracking is concerned as I am not a fracking expert. Are you an authority in this field? Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong in this debate?

Nothing personal you understand....a simple yes or no would suffice.

Up 5 Down 1

Wilf Carter 80 year history oil and gas development in Canada on Jan 24, 2015 at 9:22 am

Show me the evidence of where oil and gas development has harmed anyone's health in Canada. One persons opinion does not represent everyone elses opinion..
Have any of you worked in the southern US states because I have on real estate projects. Southerns are very progressive people and want development.

Up 1 Down 2

Sourdough on Jan 23, 2015 at 10:29 pm

Anonymous, you are so wrong it is just not funny. What they did in the late 1940's was something completely different. So different as the sailing ship Columbus used and a nuclear powered air carrier these days. Fracking as we know it by now is only about 10 years old.
But the main reason we should not do it is WE all have to reduce in using fossil fuels and start implementing modern technologies like solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, tidewater hydro. Build smarter houses with passive heating and cooling and go back where it started; electric driven vehicles. They were on the streets before combustion engines.
Why do we have to destroy the land, pollute the water and the air?
But all this seems to be very difficult to comprehend for conservative minds, who can only fathom short term gain and subsidizng the big companies. The little taxpayer can pay for the cleanup.
This is for Tater: go and look at the healthcare statistics about cancer rates and allergies going up in Alberta and BC.
Bobby Bitman; it doesn't help how much spin you try to put onto this, more than half of the products you listed are known cancer causing products. It's over we don't need it and we don't want it, not here in the Yukon and nowhere.
And to North of 60; is your capacity to think before you write really that limited, don't you see the big picture, where all these wonderful things you are so fond of have brought us. Total destruction of the environment on many places on this earth, global warming and climate change. Water shortage in places that had plenty. The gap between poverty and the rich is getting bigger and bigger and soon you may join the people at the corner and hold your hand out because your great job is scrapped.
Before you answer, go and educate your self a bit, Goggle is a great tool to start and from there you can go deeper and don't go to the propaganda from the industry, go to the information that is a bit harder to find. (There are plenty of links in other comments on this article and other ones).
All of you should go there and you may find out that alternative energy projects provide 5 to 15 times the jobs for the dollar invested than the fossil fuel industries and these jobs are healthy jobs and long term.
Think and learn before you answer.

Up 17 Down 7

north_of_60 on Jan 21, 2015 at 9:02 pm

These anti-frackers are the same few thousand 'anti-everything' folks who will sign any petition that their Facebook friends say they should.

Anti-fracking=anti-development, anti-fossil fuel, anti-nuclear, anti-big business.....
They also believe humans cause 'global warming' whenever it's hot, and humans cause 'climate change' when it's cold and stormy. However that doesn't stop them from consuming fossil fuels, and enjoying all the 'free' government benefits in a petro-funded society.

They know how they feel about the issues and they don't want their preconceived notions confused by inconvenient facts and science.

Up 16 Down 10

BnR on Jan 21, 2015 at 5:39 pm

“Sandy Silver and the NDP are once again siding together to stifle yet another industry in Yukon,” said Premier Darrell Pasloski
From a YP news release on the committees findings. There it is folks, done deal.
And Tater, really, what kind of question is that? Ok, you go live in Fort St. John then.
And the very first comment. "Fracking is moving away from using water and is being done safely." Oh? Really? Says who? Why says the poster, so it must be true. There is one truth that can be linked to fracking, it has not affected groundwater, yet. And that's the important point. Yet. So what if it's been in use since the late 40s. Groundwater cycles move on a much slower cycle than human terms, it moves on geological time scales. Many aquifers are thousands of years old, and to think that fracking will not affect them is incredibly short sighted and simplistic. We have to look forward more than just a year or two, or 20 or 50.
We don't have to just jump into this to satisfy Eflo Energy and their ilk. We don't have an oil and gas energy industry, yet, despite what our premier says in the above quoted new release. We can take our time and ensure we get it right. But that's not the YP way. Git er dun. NOW!

Up 21 Down 18

JuneJackson on Jan 21, 2015 at 3:09 pm

Mr. Bitman: Thank you for posting the chemical list. Puts a face to the "and they use lots of chemicals". Your comments make it real.

Up 11 Down 10

Bobby Bitman on Jan 21, 2015 at 12:50 pm

Why in the world would I get two thumbs down for simply exposing the long list of chemicals that are used in fracking, complete with what their purpose in the process is?
I know why. Because pro-frackers just can't stand to have people know the truth.

Those 'thumbs down' are votes for secrecy. For people not knowing the truth. And they are coming from pro-frackers. This is why we need to say no to fracking. The people supporting it do not even want the facts on the table.

Up 10 Down 13

Bobby Bitman on Jan 20, 2015 at 5:24 pm

I found myself nodding along with 'Anonymous', for the most part. By the end I noticed that he/she had glossed over the 'chemicals' that are used to 'turn the water to gel' as he put it. This intrigued me so I did a google.
Guess what?! All sorts of chemicals are used for many different reasons in fracking. Here is a list of chemicals used in hydrolic fracturing, and what they are used for. The reference is, "FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry". Think about how comfortable you are with this concoction being forced into the ground to split the earth apart:

Hydrochloric Acid helps dissolve minerals and initiate cracks in the rock
Glutaraldehyde Eliminates bacteria in the water that produces corrosive by-products Biocide
Quaternary Ammonium Chloride Eliminates bacteria in the water that produces corrosive by-products Biocide
Tetrakis Hydroxymethyl-Phosphonium Sulfate Eliminates bacteria in the water that produces corrosive by-products Biocide
Ammonium Persulfate Allows a delayed break down of the gel Breaker
Sodium Chloride Product Stabilizer Breaker
Magnesium Peroxide Allows a delayed break down the gel Breaker
Magnesium Oxide Allows a delayed break down the gel
Calcium Chloride Product Stabilizer
Choline Chloride Prevents clays from swelling or shifting Clay Stabilizer
Tetramethyl ammonium chloride Prevents clays from swelling or shifting
Sodium Chloride Prevents clays from swelling or shifting
Isopropanol Product stabilizer and / or winterizing agent Corrosion Inhibitor
Methanol Product stabilizer and / or winterizing agent Corrosion Inhibitor
Formic Acid Prevents the corrosion of the pipe Corrosion Inhibitor
Acetaldehyde Prevents the corrosion of the pipe
Petroleum Distillate Carrier fluid for borate or zirconate crosslinker
Hydrotreated Light Petroleum Distillate Carrier fluid for borate or zirconate
Crosslinker
Potassium Metaborate Maintains fluid viscosity as temperature increases
Triethanolamine Zirconate Maintains fluid viscosity as temperature increases
Sodium Tetraborate Maintains fluid viscosity as temperature increases
Boric Acid
Zirconium Complex Maintains fluid viscosity as temperature increases
Borate Salts Maintains fluid viscosity as temperature increases
Ethylene Glycol Product stabilizer and / or winterizing agent.
Methanol Product stabilizer and / or winterizing agent.
Polyacrylamide “Slicks” the water to minimize friction Friction Reducer
Petroleum Distillate Carrier fluid for polyacrylamide friction reducer
Hydrotreated Light Petroleum Distillate Carrier fluid for polyacrylamide friction reducer
Ethylene Glycol Product stabilizer and / or winterizing agent.
Guar Gum Thickens the water in order to suspend the sand
Polysaccharide Blend Thickens the water in order to suspend the sand
Citric Acid Prevents precipitation of metal oxides
Acetic Acid
Sodium Erythorbate
Lauryl Sulfate Used to prevent the formation of emulsions in the fracture fluid
Non-Emulsifier
Isopropanol Product stabilizer and / or winterizing agent.
Non-Emulsifier
Sodium Hydroxide Adjusts the pH of fluid to maintains the effectiveness of other components, such as crosslinkers pH Adjusting Agent
Potassium Hydroxide Adjusts the pH of fluid to maintains the effectiveness of other components, such as crosslinkers
Acetic Acid
Copolymer of Acrylamide and Sodium Acrylate Prevents scale deposits in the pipe
Sodium Polycarboxylate Prevents scale deposits in the pipe
Phosphonic Acid Salt Prevents scale deposits in the pipe
Naphthalene Carrier fluid for the active surfactant ingredients
Isopropyl Alcohol
2-Butoxyethanol

Up 12 Down 9

June Jackson on Jan 20, 2015 at 5:07 pm

Attention: Anonymous: Certainly, I respect your opinion. No matter how hard you or anyone else tries to put a good "spin" on fracking, the truth is all over the internet and god knows over the last year, I have posted hundreds of URLs written by scientists and fracking experts for people to research so they can make informed opinions.

Fracking/oil/gas/ is ALL about money. Oil companies do not care about you, your child, Grandma or the environment. Business is about money and big business is about a LOT of money. There is a LOT more to this issue than just fracking. Do you think the 47 people that died in Lac-Megantic, Quebec when a train carrying fracking waste exploded care about a few dollars?

How the kings of fracking double crossed their way to riches.. interesting read.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/how-chesapeake-energy-the-kings-of-fracking-double-crossed-their-way-to-riches.html

This URL http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/why-i-joined-fracking-protest-burnabys-chevron-refinery - doesn't really talk about fracking.. but he does say "And yet, most of us will militantly defend this miserable way of life when confronted. No one wants to admit to themselves that at the end of the day they may, if they are lucky, spend 10 or 20 years in impoverished retirement and that, in many cases," "one wants to consider that the sacrifices they've made do not even come with the promise of a better future for our children. Our children are going to ask us why we stood idly by, why we chose Game of Thrones and crappy leased cars over basic human decency and over a cleaner future. "

I want to say to my children I did my best.

Up 30 Down 25

Tater on Jan 20, 2015 at 4:19 pm

Just a couple of comments on the issue. If fracking is so bad and so devastating, how come Alberta and BC have anyone living there anymore..... And I hope there is never a committee struck on air or highway travel as we'll all be riding horses again....

Up 23 Down 7

Wilf Carter Economic Development on Jan 20, 2015 at 2:48 pm

Why is Economic Development stepping it up because it is their mandate to make sure from a social economic point of view the proper information on fracking was collected and put out there. They should have employed a creditable firm to make a presentation at the open houses for fracking. When I was an Executive Director of economic development authority and stable Island pipeline was being developed we employed an expert from the oil industry to assist Nova Scotia. This is an example of good economic development.

Up 29 Down 27

Anonymous on Jan 20, 2015 at 1:46 pm

A view from the other side: As someone who made a living in the oil and gas sector during the last 16 years, I feel that a disservice has been done to the people of the Yukon as a result of today’s decision or lack thereof regarding the fracking committee. The committee pushed some relevant facts and research is necessary, I agree. But the movement to have a no frac Yukon, I believe, is a double standard unfounded by anyone naïve enough to think that fracking is evil. Fracking isn't new - it dates back to 1949!!! I believe that a lot of misinformed people jumped on the band-wagon, believing stories that produced fluid on the ground, fumes, and loud noises were the normality, due to fracking. Also, let’s remember that this big ball we live on is made of different layers, like pages in a book. Energy Company X is going for pages 99-100. Energy Company Y is going for pages 101 thru 108.
First, let’s define fracking. Fracking is a synonym for fracturing, or breaking - like to fracture your leg. Hydraulic fracturing implies using fluid. The reason for fracking is to open the zone to create pathways for the gas/oil to get to the wellbore, because the zone is not permeable and cannot flow on its own. Sand is pumped with the fluid to act as a proppant to keep the formation from settling back on itself. Some zones don't need to be fracked, but yes, others do. There are other systems used to frack - I have used just nitrogen (on Coal Bed Methane fracks), Carbon Dioxide can be used, a mixture of fluid and gasses (energized), propane, oil and even acid can be used. If pump rates can carry sand, usually just water is used. If the zone is not thick enough to handle the rates, the water is turned to gel to carry the sand, and then pumped (with breaker - a chemical to turn the gel back to water once placed). Please don't forget that the energy company is breaking rock 1-3 kilometers deep when they do this - not like when we build a road and blast through rock on surface, where dynamite is used to break rock so it can be removed. Also, water wells can be fracked. After time, water wells can lose their efficiency and will need to be stimulated - same as fracking.
Next, groundwater. The base of groundwater usually went to above 200m where I have worked (pages 1-5). No fracking was allowed above this. Energy companies are usually after zones deeper than 1200m There are 2 layers of steel casing and 2 layers of cement protecting the groundwater. Setting a mandate to have this checked would be a good stipulation to allow fracking.
Chemicals used in fracking are there to ensure that the frack is successful - all the sand is placed. These chemicals follow the flowpath to the interval open, which the energy company plans to produce. They expect water, oil and/or gas to flow from the zone. Oil and gas is made of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Methane is one of them - the most pure!! Why would this be a bad thing? Flaring this gas is sometimes necessary, but it can also be used to help with production. It depends on how advanced the field is.
Earthquakes are also mentioned. The Yukon is subject to earthquakes now. Earthquakes happen because of stresses beneath the earth crust. What if fracking alleviated these stresses and stopped the earthquakes??
I respect Mr. Paslowski's view for "Reasonable development of Yukon oil and gas" but in order to develop, we have to move forward. Energy companies are paying for the rights for these zones they want to produce, and we are not letting them access what they have paid for.
Please don't drive your cars/trucks to the anti-frack campaigns. Do you enjoy the comfort of heating fuel? Who uses gasoline in their chainsaw for prepping trees for their woodstove?? Please, the Yukon is fully supported by the federal government, and where do you think they get a good chunk of that money?? The oil sands. And while they are not fracking right there, around Fort McMurray, the natural gas that fires the plants that helps recover the oil definitely comes from fracked wells.

Up 34 Down 11

YukonM on Jan 20, 2015 at 10:36 am

And...It wouldn't be fair for the Yukon Party to take a position on the issue before the elections as they must seek clarity...Lol!

Up 34 Down 29

Frank de Jong on Jan 19, 2015 at 9:46 pm

Clearly the "Precautionary Principle" should be followed -- which means fracking should be banned. There are far too many risks to the water table. Yukon should instead move toward a low-energy society: photo voltaic and wind energy, passive housing design, wood fuel co-generation, walkable communities linked by clean-fuel transit...

Up 33 Down 22

June Jackson on Jan 19, 2015 at 7:02 pm

I was hoping for a recommendation to ban fracking completely. The newest information on fracking is devastating.

There is just so much money involved that governments, (ours) who have mismanaged public money to the point that Canada and thus the Yukon is nearly broke. (Note that for 2015, middle income seniors are losing the age deduction and families are losing the child tax credit. They will get approximately $60. a month more on the child benefit, but now its taxed and no deduction credits.) The government is so desperate for money, yet is afraid of a taxpayer revolt if they increase taxes, so they are taking away the benefits they have given children and seniors over the years. And, it's an election year. A bad year of politicians as Canadians struggle to get from pay check to pay check.

So.. along comes a big-ass oil and gas company..Hey.. we'll pour 25 billion (or more) dollars into the gov purse.. just let us ruin the land, destroy the ground water, and Harper will have all the money he wants to send overseas.. (he likes to look like a big shot on the international stage). So does the Yukon government..

http://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/ this is a list of states/countries that have banned fracking now. As someone else said.. You can't drink money.

Up 29 Down 19

Why western provinces, NWT and Alaska approved fracking. on Jan 19, 2015 at 3:33 pm

Why has the the western regions of Canada and the US approved fracking? Fracking is moving away from using water and is being done safely.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.