The results of a new study linking hydraulic fracturing or fracking to induced earthquakes in B.C. and Alberta is reason to immediately halt the controversial extraction technique from being used in gas fields in B.C. according to Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.   “I am calling on both the government and the official opposition to join me in supporting a moratorium on horizontal fracking in British Columbia,” Weaver said in a statement released Tuesday. “Other jurisdictions, like Quebec, New York, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, have already suspended the practice and B.C. should follow suit.”   The study found a direct link between fracking and earthquakes in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin over the last 25 years. The group studied more than 12,000 wells and seismic events larger than magnitude 3.0.   The new research, published in Seismological Research Letters on Tuesday by a group of Canadian researchers, concludes that 90 per cent of seismic activity in the region was the direct result of fracking operations.

Due to the massive amount of fracking sites in operation, this amounts to under one per cent of wells triggering earthquakes. 

While researchers acknowledge the figure is small, “it is important for us to realize that indeed hydraulic fracturing can induce earthquakes," Honn Kao, a research scientist with the Geological Survey of Canada and one of 13 co-authors of a study, told the CBC.   "But the evidence so far indicates there are other factors that may be important in this process as well, so that we cannot blame all the hydraulic fracturing operations for inducing big earthquakes," he said.   Previous research has determined a relationship between earthquakes and wastewater injection sites used to dispose of the sometimes millions of gallons of contaminated water produced at frack sites. But this is the first study to identify a definitive link between the process of fracking itself and induced seismic activity.   An earthquake measuring between 4.2 and 4.8 on the Richter scale rocked the town of Fox Creek, Alberta, in January of this year, raising concerns that increased seismic activity in the region is due to local fracking operations. The quake resulted in the closure of a fracking operation.   "It's critical that we get to a complete scientific understanding of the issue," David Eaton, a University of Calgary geophysicist and a co-author of the study, told the CBC.   Fracking, a high-pressure drilling process, poses a significant threat to underground sources of drinking water, which are inadequately mapped in Canada.   In a high-profile case currently before the Supreme Court of Canada, Alberta landowner Jessia Ernst is arguing fracking contaminated her water supply eight years ago and that poor regulation surrounding the process left her without adequate protection.     According to Weaver, these kinds of situations should not be occurring.   “I am calling for a moratorium on horizontal fracturing in B.C. until we establish scientific certainty on the risks it poses,” he said.   “Earthquakes, groundwater contamination, fresh water use, sour gas leaks, environmental degradation and terrain modification, are all concerning side effects of fracking and they warrant comprehensive and cumulative scientific review.”    There are significant fracking operations in northeastern B.C. and a recent study by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission found that between August 2013 and October 2014 fracking operations triggered 231 earthquakes.   The report noted 38 earthquakes were caused by wastewater injection and 193 seismic events were the result of fracking operations in the area.   The B.C. government, which is intent on building an liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry in B.C., has thrown its support behind the province’s growing gas industry.   There are hundreds of new wells drilled every year in B.C., Weaver cautioned.

“Now we have the scientific evidence showing a clear link between fracking and earthquakes, but we really have no idea what the risks of this increased seismic activity amount to. We are flying blind,” Weaver said.   “The BC Green Party has consistently called for a moratorium on fracking in our province,” he said. “To continue to allow horizontal fracking in B.C. is irresponsible in light of mounting evidence.”

Image: Province of B.C. via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A moratorium on oil and gas development on a large piece of the continental shelf between Southwest Nova Scotia and Cape Cod called Georges Bank will be extended for seven years, protecting the ecologically diverse waters beloved by fishermen and environmental groups in the region.

The shallow waters of Georges Bank, located about 100 kilometres off the Nova Scotia coast is abundant in haddock, halibut and scallops and is a refuge for endangered turtles and whales that migrate through the nutrient-rich corridor.

The shelf is also thought to be home to large quantities of natural gas.

Nova Scotia recently announced it will renew legislation, Bill C-64, this fall that maintains the moratorium, following a similar decision announced by the federal government before parliament broke for summer.

According to Mark Butler, policy director at the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax, the provincial decision to extend the moratorium “passed at the very last minute.”

“It’s quite amazing, really, but nonetheless it passed.”

Many were holding their breath as the end of the current sitting of Parliament neared. “There was a fair amount of pessimism, so I think everybody was surprised at what happened in the final hours of the House of Commons,” said Butler about Bill C-64. “It passed first, second and third readings in one vote, which is unusual I understand.”

Spill in Georges Bay Would Have “Devastating Effect”

Throughout the history of the moratorium, fishers and groups representing the industry have been outspoken about the importance of the various fisheries on Georges Bank to the regional economy.

“It would be really tough if you had a spill there because of the currents,” said veteran fisher Dale Richardson on his way from his home in Little Harbour on the southern tip of Nova Scotia to Georges Bank to fish for swordfish. “It’s a mixing ground for that Bay of Fundy, northeast seaboard area. The dissipation of an oil slick would be unreal there. It could affect the whole Bay of Fundy and southwest coast of the province.”

Georges Bank has a diverse ecosystem with more than 100 fish species and many more of birds and marine mammals because the nutrient-rich Labrador Current washes over the shallow waters and meets the warmer Gulf Stream. Phytoplankton grows much faster there than on other continental shelves, setting up a feeding cycle for a complex eco-system.

A map of the Gulf of Maine shows the Canada/U.S. border cutting through Georges Bank. Credit: NOAA

While Richardson is a swordfisher in summer, his main occupation is as an inshore lobster fisher. He and the other 10,000 licensed lobster harvesters working off Canada’s East Coast rely on Georges Bank and other breeding grounds to grow a significant proportion of the nearly 75,000 tons of lobster landed in 2013 worth $680.5 million.

“It would have a devastating effect,” said Richardson of any accident involving petroleum on Georges Bank. “It would certainly affect anything that spawns and stays on the surface like lobster larvae, herring and things on or near the surface all the time.”

Lobster, herring, swordfish, bluefin tuna, scallops, cod and haddock — the list of commercial species that rely on Georges Bank as a breeding and feeding ground is significant. Many other important species also live there at certain times of the year including whales such as the endangered North Atlantic right whale, sea turtles, sharks and many species of seabirds.

The Battle for Georges Bank

Georges Bank is a sub-sea plateau of 28,800 square kilometers — about the size of Belgium — that was an island before the last ice age just 12,000 years ago. For the last 400 years, it’s been one of the world’s most productive fishing grounds.

In 1984, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled on a dispute between the U.S. and Canada, dividing Georges Bank between the two countries with the U.S. getting about four fifths.

About 40 years ago, oil companies drilled exploratory wells on Georges, but found nothing. The activity led to calls from fishers and environmental groups on both sides of the border to place a moratorium on oil and gas activity. Both countries did so in 1988, banning drilling until the year 2000.

On the Canadian side, the legislation also called for the creation of a joint federal provincial Public Review Panel, which later recommended extending the moratorium through 2012. The U.S. extended their moratorium a third time, setting an expiration date of 2017. The Canadian and provincial governments only extended theirs through 2015.

This fourth and latest moratorium will protect Georges Bank until 2022 from petroleum related activity by the oil companies that continue to hold exclusive exploratory rights on the Canadian portion of Georges.

Fisheries regulators in the U.S., however, are currently considering opening nearly 13,000 square kilometres of Georges Bank to commercial fisheries. The Fishery Management Council in New England state voted to reopen the area in June although the final decision rests with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A phytoplankton bloom illuminates Georges Bank. Credit: NASA via Stuart Rankin on Flickr.

Calls for More Research, Regulation Before Moratorium Lifted

The rich marine ecosystem of Georges Bank is at risk from more than a well blow out or oil spill, according to a massive 529-page study by the Maritime Region of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Seismic testing and a wide array of impacts from toxic drilling wastes or produced water can negatively impact the mortality of eggs and larvae and have sub-lethal effects up through the food chain.

Others worry drilling for oil or gas could crowd out the centuries-old fishing industry.

“The area around the rig would close down even if there were no impacts from seismic or produced water or drill muds,” Mark Butler said. “Just the simple loss of access would be enough to hurt the fishing industry.”

Still, not all fishers are against the opening of Georges to the oil industry.

Dale Richardson said he’s not “100 per cent against drilling.”

“I just think we need to have more research. We have a tendency here in Nova Scotia and Canada to come in with the most lax regulations compared to the North Sea or other places. I’m not real comfortable with them going there yet.”

Looking into the future, Butler would rather see the moratorium become permanent than risk further last minute extensions.

“We obviously need to drastically change what types of energy we use and how we use it,” he said.

“Maybe by 2022 we’ll all come to realize we shouldn’t risk important areas like Georges Bank for nonrenewable resources. Maybe we’ll be over the hump by then.”

Image Credit: James Brooks 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Stephen Harper’s participation in the G7 leader’s declaration to decarbonize the global economy by 2100 was a massive headline generator in Canada, and not surprisingly so.

For a Prime Minister who has openly mocked the idea of carbon pricing, mercilessly driven an expensive (both financially and politically) energy superpower agenda and earned a reputation for pulling out of or stalling climate negotiations, the very idea of an ‘end’ to fossil fuels would seem … counterintuitive.

Although the shock of seeing Harper even touch something called ‘decarbonization’ is still reverberating, experts were quick to point out a long-term goal that shoves off concrete climate policy is likely just what Canada was hoping for.

Long-term Goals Are Easy

Michael Levi, senior energy and environment fellow writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, said the G7 agreement merely rearticulates what diplomats and policymakers have basically agreed to for several years now: dramatic emission cuts are required by mid century if we are to avoid surpassing the two-degree target.

“If the-two degree target didn’t motivate deep enough emissions cuts to actually meet it, recasting it in terms of global emissions won’t change that,” Levi wrote. “And the idea that an 85-year goal will have much impact on present policy or investment is a bit ridiculous. (Had you told a physicist in 1905 that a fifth of U.S. electricity would be generated by nuclear fission within 85 years, they would have said, ‘What’s a nucleus or fission?’)”

Levi said the bottom line is this: “Fiddling with distant targets is a great way to generate headlines, but doesn’t do much to affect policy and emissions themselves; at best it’s marginally irrelevant, at worst it lets people feel good without doing anything.”

Mark Jaccard, energy and climate economist from Simon Fraser University, agreed, saying the goal to end fossil fuels by 2100 makes it easy for politicians like Harper to detract from the short-term.

“Harper has gotten good at shifting timeframes, helped by a forgetful opposition, media and public,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada. “His 2006 promise for reduced emissions in 2020 slides into a 2015 promise for reduced emissions in 2030. His 2007 promise for reduced emissions in 2050 slides into a 2015 promise for reduced emissions in 2100.

“It would be funny — like Lucy lying to Charlie Brown that she would hold the football — if it weren’t so tragic." 

Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, said the G7 agreement does have the upside of legitimizing discussions around decarbonizing.

"The important thing here is that for the first time we have world leaders acknowledging that we have to ditch fossil fuels; not just reduce emissions at the margins, but go cold turkey on our fossil fuel addiction,” he said.

“Of course we'd be crazy to wait 85 years to do it. But it's now a question of when, not if, we go to a 100 per cent renewable energy system."

David Keith, professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University, who lives in Calgary, said the agreement does nothing more than score cheap political points.

“It’s not groundbreaking,” he told the CBC. “It is politically cheap to pledge a non-binding commitment that falls way behind someone’s time in office.”

“What we really need is specifics in the next few years or decades.”

Keith was one of more than 100 natural and social scientists who recently called for a moratorium on new projects in the Alberta oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada’s Climate Target Weakest in G7

Environmental Defence recently gave Stephen Harper’s conservative party a ‘C’ on a climate scorecard, saying Canada currently has the weakest post-2020 climate target of all G7 nations (although Japan has yet to submit its plan).

Canada’s target to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 was recently assessed as “inadequate” by the Climate Action Tracker, a coalition of four research institutions including Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institue. The groups determined Canada’s reductions targets will not be sufficient for Canada to do its fair share for the world to avoid dangerous climate change. 

In its report, Environmental Defence said Canada has shifted its climate targets over time as a way of appearing to do more than it actually is:

“The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997) both used 1990 as the reference or base year. Most countries still use 1990 as the base year but some have started using more recent base years. Since the Copenhagen summit in 2009, Canada has been using 2005 as a base year. This makes comparison between targets more difficult. It also makes targets look stronger than they are since Canada’s carbon pollution increased significantly between 1990 and 2005. For example, the Canadian government’s pledge to reduce emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 by 2030 is actually less than half as strong (-14.4 per cent) when expressed using 1990 as the base year.”

Environmental Defence adds Canada has consistently refused to address the Alberta oilsands when discussing climate targets, a subject of some controversy during last year’s UN climate talks in Lima, Peru.

Canada has pledged to regulate emissions from four sectors: natural gas-fired electricity, the chemical industry, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and sources of hydrofluorocarbons.

For years the federal government has failed to deliver on its promise to regulate carbon from the oil and gas industry. Last year Harper said it would be “crazy economic policy” to regulate the oil and gas sector and indicated (incorrectly) that no other country was doing so.

Last year, Canada's environment commissioner Julie Gelfand said the country has "no overall vision" when it comes to oil and gas regulations and as a result will not even meet its 2020 international greenhouse gas reductions targets agreed to in Copenhagen.

Ed Whittingham from the Pembina Institute said he thinks industry will begin to pick up the slack, now that definitive dates for decarbonization are being discussed.

"We are all clear, we are still going to need fossil fuels for some time to come. Now we have, at the global level, the latest day for when we need to be off fossil fuels," he told the CBC. "CEOs in Calgary are smart; they will do the planning that needs to be done." 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.