The Big One

An essay I wrote on the hydraulic-fracturing debate in New Brunswick

It’s the thing that everyone seems to be talking about: hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as “hydro-fracking.”  It has been a topic that has risen to the forefront of many people’s minds, especially after the disastrous BP oil spill in April. But what is hydraulic fracturing?

                Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used to extract gas from shale rock formations underground. A mixture of water, sand, and various unnamed chemicals are injected into the ground at a high pressure in order to create fissures in the shale.

                What people may not know is that hydro-fracking is used in approximately 90% of the gas wells in the United States. It also uses up about 4 million gallons of water each time it is used. One of the largest gas deposits is the Marcellus Shale, which spans from West Virginia to New York. This deposit is what the oil and gas industry have their eyes on.

                While this technique seems to work well for loosening gas pockets in the ground, which will help the US and Canadian economies as the supply of fossil fuels slowly depletes, nobody seems to know what the side-effects of these new methods are. But there are government regulations to monitor such things, right?

                Recent controversial occurrences in Sackville, NB say otherwise. The subject has become so heated as of late that it has scaled to the top of the platforms of the political parties vying for New Brunswick’s vote on September 27^th. The regulations that the provincial government speak about when they mention the “framework” in place to assess the possibility of hydro-fracking are likely the Oil and Gas Act, the provincial Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Clean Environment Act that may only apply to some points of the hydro-fracking process. The truth is that none of these regulations have been updated to include hydro-fracking.

                Why doesn’t the government update them, then? Surely they would want to look into the hydraulic fracturing process with so many cases coming out of the US to counter the credibility of the industry’s assurance that there are no proven risks. Proven risks. Is it not proof enough that residents in Pavilion, WY have been advised to stop drinking local water, and to properly vent their homes while doing the laundry and showering because there is a chance of explosion? Or that Pennsylvania’s DEP decided to monitor the total dissolved solids in the state water, and found high levels of TDS along with sulphides and chlorides in wastewater left over from the drilling process?

                Government regulators in New Brunswick have proven unknowledgeable when it comes to the potential risks of drilling, even when there are so many occurrences cropping up in the US. They rely too heavily upon industry-sourced information, which adamantly maintains that hydro-fracking poses no risks. However, Sackville council was alarmed when told that water and well-testing is the responsibility of the industry, and the industry has not hinted that they are about to share the results.

                Will more studies into hydro-fracking really slow down the oil and gas industries? The problem with scientific studies about natural phenomena is that they are specific to the point in time at which the study is done, and can only speculate on what future effects can be. The studies can be manipulated to fit the bias of the company or organization that they are being done for; there are several factors. Therefore, while studies might help with immediate effects, we don’t know what will occur because of effects that may crop up even 10 years down the road.

                Ultimately, though, the government probably does not want to admit that there are risks, because of the economic benefit that hydro-fracking can bring the province. If the oil and gas industry finds enough gas pockets to make a profit, then the province will benefit.

                All of this worry might merely be the by-product of a population in a heightened sense of paranoia. As it is, hydro-fracking is worth looking into, to ensure the safety of the people who are near it. After all, when asked about deep-water drilling, BP said that there were no risks posed by the process either.

Author's Note

Give me your thoughts.