The only sane course of action is a fracking ban Yukoners Concerned about Oil and Gas Development/Exploration in Yukon appreciates the seriousness with which the all-party select committee on hydraulic fracturing approached the task of assessing the risks and benefits of fracking. By Whitehorse Star on January 21, 2015 Yukoners Concerned about Oil and Gas Development/Exploration in Yukon appreciates the seriousness with which the all-party select committee on hydraulic fracturing approached the task of assessing the risks and benefits of fracking. This is reflected in 21 recommendations upon which all committee members agreed and which point to shortcomings and gaps in knowledge and data, information and analysis and the absence of support from First Nations and other Yukoners. To their credit, the committee did urge the government to “respect First Nation final agreements and (government’s) ongoing obligations towards non-settled First Nations in addressing any issue related to hydraulic fracturing.” We are encouraged that the committee seemed to be hearing both the very cautionary notes sounded by the scientific and medical experts and the overwhelming opposition to fracking from Yukoners (over 97 per cent of Yukoners who wrote or appeared before the committee). We are extremely disappointed, however, that the committee could not reach consensus in these key four areas: • whether or not hydraulic fracturing can be done safely; • whether or not hydraulic fracturing should be allowed in Yukon; • whether or not social licence from the Yukon public is necessary; and • whether or not to proceed with specific regulatory development of hydraulic fracturing. The fact that the committee could not agree whether or not social licence is required before proceeding with hydraulic fracturing is indeed alarming. A clear majority of the scientists and experts who appeared before this committee, as well as regulators from other jurisdictions, emphasized the importance of having social licence; that is, the approval of Yukoners. The fact that the voices of the overwhelming majority of Yukoners and First Nations opposed to hydraulic fracturing are deemed by some on the committee as perhaps not “necessary” is reprehensible. How or why the committee could not give a clear recommendation not to allow fracking is a mystery, particularly in view of all they admit that we/they don’t know. The committee freely admits: • that we do not have baseline ground water and surface data; • that we don’t understand “the impacts and interactions of (fracking) fluids on groundwater”; • that we don’t know whether watersheds can endure water withdrawals to the degree that fracking requires; • “whether well integrity can prevent migration of liquids or gases”; • that we lack studies on the impacts of “fugitive emissions of GHGs (greenhouse gases) throughout the complete life cycle of natural gas”; • that “air quality baseline data” is lacking; and • that “research (must) be conducted regarding fluid and gas leakage specific to the unique permafrost conditions in Yukon.” With regard to land and seismic impacts, the committee states that baseline data “on wildlife and wildlife habitat (needs to) be collected, as well as data on seismic activity, in order “to evaluate the seismic risks caused by hydraulic fracturing and to avoid the flow paths to fresh water.” We also need to research “the interaction between groundwater and surface water.” When it comes to human health and social impacts, the committee discloses that “additional research is needed to gain a better understanding of the health and social impacts of hydraulic fracturing and the related costs.” There was no consideration as to how oil and gas development in Yukon would affect Canada’s obligations and responsibilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the fight against climate change. Notwithstanding the absence of baseline data, Yukoners Concerned believes that the urgent need to address climate change and the necessity to wean ourselves off fossil fuels means there is no case for fracking in Yukon. Finally, throughout the recommendations, the committee makes repeated use of the phrase “appropriate period of time”. That means compiling all of the data and doing all the research required to determine the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing require an indeterminate amount of time. Why not come out and state clearly that there should be a ban on fracking? This is what Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and New York State have done. Given all that the committee admits it does not know, why was there a reluctance to state that which is immediately obvious from its recommendations? We know the Yukon Party is in favour of an oil and gas industry. We also know that due to Yukon’s geology, future development of oil and gas here requires hydraulic fracturing. We also know, thanks to the select committee report, that there is an incontrovertible absence of knowledge both here and elsewhere about the impacts of fracking. Why would any jurisdiction even consider permitting a practice when the outcomes are unknown? We commend those members of the committee who had the courage to stand up for their convictions, supported by science and public opinion, to ensure that the report makes clear that huge gaps remain in our understanding and knowledge about hydraulic fracturing. Yukoners Concerned is convinced that hydraulic fracturing is not safe – not for our water, air, land, wildlife or human health – and that the only sane course of action remains what it has always been – a ban on fracking in Yukon. For Yukoners Concerned, Rick Griffiths Sandy Johnston Whitehorse
Posted on: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:02:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015